Is John the Author of His Gospel?

Catholic Exchange ^ | April 8, 2008 | Mark Shea

[Boagenes]

Oops. multiple copies of O.T. books, that is. Not sure if they found multiple Isaiahs.

[kosta50]

John was quite a few years older when he wrote his Gospel. He could have actually studied it

Yes he could have. But you'd think he would be too busy spreading the Gospel then engaging in comfy study sessions.

[kosta50]

I'm utterly confused as to your point and your perspective. On the one hand you seem to be arguing an atheist viewpoint as to the reliability of scripture (at least Old Testament history, anyway). On the other hand you seem to be arguing for the Orthodox Church as the "true" Christian faith.

I am simply stating that Eastern Orthodoxy is pure Christianity, as in least changed. In other words, when we look at Eastern Orthodoxy we are looking at a fossilized Church of the 4th century.

Your comment, however,  is a perfect example of how people read into things. My tagline says "Eastern Orthodoxy is pure Christianity." It doesn't say true Christianity.

As to the "various" versions of Isaiah 53 (why you refer to it as Isaiah 57, I can only guess - the Orthodox version refers to it as 57, I would assume?),

In was in a rush. I made mistake. Apologies. I quoted Isa 57 LXX and Isa 53 NAB, identifying the latter as Isa 57.  I think all my references clearly show that I was thinking Isa 57 for some reason. But the LXX and the MT differ on more one occasion. And in some cases (such as Isa 9:6-8) they are theologically significant.

Nevertheless, Isa 53 in NAB, LXX and Tanakh are not identical. 

You mean nothing "self-evident", like, say the fulfillment of prophecies spelled out in the O.T.?

OT prophesies as relayed in the NT? After the fact? And made up form various unrelated verses?

Yes, I point to Isaiah 53

The Suffering Servant in Isaiah was not Christ. It is imputed by Christians that it was Christ. Just as the virgin/woman controversy. Or, as I mentioned earlier in Isa9:6-8.

I consider each of the prophecies (generally recognized as prophecies of the Messiah even by the Jews of old) to be "self-evident" for not only belief that Jesus was who he said he was, but also for the validity of the Bible

Give me examples. I mean, to you this is "proof." But why does a believer need a "proof?" You already believe, so what's the point unless your aim is to force your beliefs on others?

I'm sure you're aware of the statistical arguments of the likelihood that any one man could fulfill each of the prophecies so exactly

In in prospective manner, yes. But in retrospect, no. Most of the prophesies in the NT are fulfilled retrospectively.

Your assertion that the "Exodus never happened" is laughable

No, the only thing that's laughable is that there are still people who believe it happened.

the History Channel (ever an anti-Biblical media source) had a series in which they went into a cave in Sinai to find one of the earliest forms of written language, and it was made by Hebrews, and it was an appeal to God - El

Yeah, Naked Archaeologist discovered this. Who authenticated the writings in those caves as having been written thousands of years ago? They could have been scribbled by the Israeli zealots in 1967 for all you know. Just as many other fake biblical "artifacts" that crown Israeli archaeological stores. They are all fake ossuaries, vases, jewelry etc.

Besides, for your information, the Jews changed to their "square" alphabet during the Babylonian captivity, which is around 6th century BC. Those scribbling in the caves do absolutely nothing to prove Exodus. It's pure desperation to even bring it up since you will not find any other archaeological evidence backing the Exodus myth.

There are a number of excellent books, written by a number of excellent scholars (and their conservative view is just as valid as any liberal's view because they're both working with the same sources and "evidence") that present excellent cases for the reliability of the Old Testament (yes, based on *finds*, based on "real evidence").

Well, there are equally fine books that show otherwise.

As to the kingdom of David being "a couple of villages", that is simply a laughable claim

I know, when myths are debunked the reaction is usually laughter at first.

And yeah, in the end, it all comes down to faith - belief in God, belief in the book, belief in Christ, belief in the Resurrection. It's also a statement of faith that you believe Caesar crossed the Rubicon.

Belief in God doesn't necessarily lead to belief in Christ or any particular book or Incarnation or Resurrection. Even Christians don't agree what Christ died for, what saves us, how it saves us,  which Church is true, and so on. All this shows that all it is a belief, more like hope. Gandhi once said "I like your Christ. Christians are nothing like Him." Therein lies the rub. Everyone is a believer but no one really reflects Christ. We talk the talk but we don't walk the walk.

And no, it's not the same as believing that Caesar crossed the Rubicon. History is corroborated by outside sources. There is no outside source for anything in the New Testament or the Old Testament that is of theological value. It is all self-contained and presumed true and inerrant from the get-go, by faith alone, needing no proof or verification to those who believe. Yet they claim it as a matter of fact.