How can we know that God is?

[tabibito]

I have Brown's The Anchor Bible's The Gospel According to John by him. 2 volumes 1208 pages. While I don't always agree with his analysis he is thorough.

I see that he favours the idea that John was written by multiple (not a huge number of) authors, with some indication of later minor redaction. The idea seems to fit with the text well enough.

Also, he seems to be not quite the fan of Bultmann.

I wonder what his opinion of Moltmann is ...

[rogue06]

One final observation with regard to that comment. As we do not have the original source documents for any of these texts we cannot cross reference those later copies with the original document[s]. And we know from the extant MSS that variations exist.

Just how many complete extant manuscripts exist from that time? Once again you throw all of History under the bus whenever it suits your agenda.

From the fourth century Christian MSS were being produced in increasing numbers although we know from Sinaiticus and Vaticanus that some verses of the canonical gospels that appear in later MSS were not included.

As is so often your habit you somehow managed to not address a simple question, so let's try again: Just how many complete extant manuscripts exist from that time?

Once again you throw all of History under the bus whenever it suits your agenda.

What time?

You wouldn't have to ask that question if you had bothered to address it the first time rather than doing your usual nonsense.

[rogue06]

I see that he favours the idea that John was written by multiple (not a huge number of) authors, with some indication of later minor redaction. The idea seems to fit with the text well enough.

Also, he seems to be not quite the fan of Bultmann.

I wonder what his opinion of Moltmann is ...

At least in this work Moltmann is not among the Bibliographical Index of Authors so I don't rightly know.

[tabibito]

At least in this work Moltmann is not among the Bibliographical Index of Authors so I don't rightly know.

Not in his Introduction to the New Testament either.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

Thank you for demonstrating that you never specified a specific period in history. So I ask again, to "what time" were you referring?

[tabibito]

You need to spell these things out when context is meaningless to the addressee.

[Tassman]

That the methodology and findings of the historical critical method are valid is a claim. One does not simply accept claims without investigation.

The Historical Critical Method is valid as a methodology in and of itself, as is the Scientific Method valid as a methodology in and of itself.

another claim that needs to be verified for veracity, and on a case by case basis.

It can be reasonably assumed that legitimate historians practice their discipline objectively – as do scientists. It’s in their own professional interest to do so.

IMO Ehrman is a very good historian but he is no theologian,

Theology is the study of the nature of God and has no legitimate place in the objective study of history

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

The Historical Critical Method is valid as a methodology in and of itself, as is the Scientific Method valid as a methodology in and of itself.



It can be reasonably assumed that legitimate historians practice their discipline objectively – as do scientists. It’s in their own professional interest to do so.



Theology is the study of the nature of God and has no legitimate place in the objective study of history

With reference to your last remark it should also be remembered that while theology consists of attempts to extract from texts deemed to be sacred the nature and import of divine revelation, that this can vary considerably between the advocates of particular religious persuasions.

[rogue06]

Thank you for demonstrating that you never specified a specific period in history. So I ask again, to "what time" were you referring?

My God you are dense. Thick as a brick as the saying goes.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

My God you are dense. Thick as a brick as the saying goes.

Why is it that when some of you are unable to present a reasoned and cogent answer you adopt the behaviour of ten year olds in the play-yard?

[seer]

My God you are dense. Thick as a brick as the saying goes.

[little_monkey]

The empty tomb exemplifies the Resurrection so I'm not sure what your point is.

Wow, like maybe someone removed the body would be the logical assumption even in a fictional account like the bible...

Paul's focus was on post-Resurrection so I'm not sure what your point is.

Paul was all about resurrection, so pointing out any evidence to support his claim would be logical... oh wait, Paul was anything BUT rational. more like a raving lunatic...

Funny how that seems too much for you to grasp.

Stop bragging about yourself and your IQ of 20....

[KingsGambit]

Wow, like maybe someone removed the body would be the logical assumption even in a fictional account like the bible...



Paul was all about resurrection, so pointing out any evidence to support his claim would be logical... oh wait, Paul was anything BUT rational. more like a raving lunatic...



Stop bragging about yourself and your IQ of 20....

This isn't Reddit. We generally have higher expectations of argumentation around here.

[rogue06]

Wow, like maybe someone removed the body would be the logical assumption even in a fictional account like the bible...

For the sarcastically impaired the following is said in jest

Wow, like nobody ever thought of that possibility in the past 2000 years! You are so amazing LM to come up with such a unique approach.

Get back to me when you can suggest something that hasn't been beaten into a fine pink mist.

Paul was all about resurrection, so pointing out any evidence to support his claim would be logical... oh wait, Paul was anything BUT rational. more like a raving lunatic...

You mean like the opening to I Corinthians 15? And when we look at Acts, we can see that this message was one that Paul taught wherever he went.

During his first missionary journey, Paul preached Jesus’s resurrection and used the appearances to the disciples to substantiate that resurrection (Acts 13:26-31). Jesus’ resurrection featured prominently in Paul’s preaching in Thessalonica (Acts 17:3), Athens (17:31), and Corinth (note how I Corinthians 15:1 makes it clear Paul is repeating what he taught when he was there a couple of years earlier).

Whatever you say Peewee.

[rogue06]

Why is it that when some of you are unable to present a reasoned and cogent answer you adopt the behaviour of ten year olds in the play-yard?

The answer is plain for all to see in the post where I showed the course of the conversation. Look at the first post in the chain (yours) and the part I underlined.