Why Do People Like To Talk About Their Spiritual Beliefs?

RJM

God Feeds the Ravens
Admin
Messages
9,283
Reaction score
2,194
Points
108
In 1934, a fragment of John 18 was found, dated at 125AD.
Is this now in doubt?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authorship_of_the_Johannine_works#Book_of_Revelation

"For some time it was common practice to assert that the Rylands Library Papyrus P52, which contains a small portion of chapter 18 of John's gospel, demonstrated that the text of the Gospel of John spread rapidly through Egypt in the second century. However, more recent scholarship has shown the fragment may date from as late as the third or fourth century, rather than the second century, as was previously supposed"[16]

Wiki Ref: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authorship_of_the_Johannine_works#cite_note-16
  1. Don Barker, "The Dating of New Testament Papyri," New Testament Studies 57 (2011), 571-582.

Hi- I’ll say this then exit as type of discussion isn’t my cup of tea.

I understand John to be the spiritual gospel.

God has a four fold nature- physical, moral or ethical, mental and spiritual. The four fold theme is seen through all spiritual systems of training.

Anyhoo, John is the spiritual, where there is identification as I AM.

I am the light of the world

I am the vine

I and my father are one, etc.

So it is us that must identify as I AM. (We don’t want to identify as the branch.)

If a man abide not in me, he is cast forth as a branch, and is withered, and men gather them, and cast them into the fire and they are burned.

Not to poo poo scholars, but I don’t believe anyone knows who wrote what and when.
To me the fact that your take is just as valid as any other, demonstrates the universality of Christ. It works for everybody?
 
Last edited:

Thomas

Administrator
Admin
Messages
12,639
Reaction score
2,761
Points
108
I understand John to be the spiritual gospel.
A tradition that goes back at least to Origen, 2nd century.

So it is us that must identify as I AM. (We don’t want to identify as the branch.)
Indeed.

The parable of the vine contains one of those 'mystery' teachings that contemporary exegesis often overlooks, and is precisely the point that you make. Christ is the vine, we are the vine ... there is only one vine.

So often, too St Paul's teaching of Christ as the head of the church is prioritised to establish a hierarchy which is then used to validate the institution, which in itself is true, but elsewhere St Paul makes it abundantly clear that we are the 'one bread, one body' in Christ ... in short pastoral necessity sometimes obscures spiritual luminosity.
 
  • Like
Reactions: RJM

RJM

God Feeds the Ravens
Admin
Messages
9,283
Reaction score
2,194
Points
108
Good point. There's a spread of possible dates, it seems – more detail here.
Thank you. I will have a look.

But this may be a good time to demonstrate the dodgy practice of relying just on wikipedia for information?
"However, more recent scholarship has shown the fragment may date from as late as the third or fourth century, rather than the second century, as was previously supposed"

Although given equal prominence, the finding is credited to only just one writer: Note[16]
Don Barker, "The Dating of New Testament Papyri," New Testament Studies 57 (2011), 571-582.

And then it becomes necessary to check the credentials, and read what he said, and find out if peers have supported him? Of course not denying that he may be legit. But still, the need to check it out, before sharing it on?
 
Last edited:

Thomas

Administrator
Admin
Messages
12,639
Reaction score
2,761
Points
108
But this may be a good time to demonstrate the dodgy practice of relying just on wikipedia for information?
Quite. Wiki is not an acceptable source in colleges (at least when I attended). It's often too general, and sometimes a tad partisan, although the editors do try and highlight that with their '(citation needed)' comments. Generally I read wiki, doubt anything that doesn't cite a source, and where possible check the source.

My go-to reference is jstor: "JSTOR provides access to more than 12 million academic journal articles, books, and primary sources in 75 disciplines."

You can register as a private individual.
 
  • Like
Reactions: RJM

RJM

God Feeds the Ravens
Admin
Messages
9,283
Reaction score
2,194
Points
108
Quite. Wiki is not an acceptable source in colleges (at least when I attended). It's often too general, and sometimes a tad partisan, although the editors do try and highlight that with their '(citation needed)' comments. Generally I read wiki, doubt anything that doesn't cite a source, and where possible check the source.

My go-to reference is jstor: "JSTOR provides access to more than 12 million academic journal articles, books, and primary sources in 75 disciplines."

You can register as a private individual.
Thank you!

And so, comparing the two wikipedia articles:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rylands_Library_Papyrus_P52

“ …in the 70 years since Roberts's essay the estimated date of this primary comparator hand has been confirmed as being around 100 CE,[11] but other dated comparator hands have also since been suggested, with dates ranging into the second half of the 2nd century, and even into the 3rd century.[12]

So into (early) 3rd Century, and not 4th Century, as stated here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authorship_of_the_Johannine_works#Book_of_Revelation

"For some time it was common practice to assert that the Rylands Library Papyrus P52, which contains a small portion of chapter 18 of John's gospel, demonstrated that the text of the Gospel of John spread rapidly through Egypt in the second century. However, more recent scholarship has shown the fragment may date from as late as the third or fourth century, rather than the second century, as was previously supposed"[16]

Wiki Ref: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authorship_of_the_Johannine_works#cite_note-16
  1. Don Barker, "The Dating of New Testament Papyri," New Testament Studies 57 (2011), 571-582.
That is: two closely linked wiki articles contradicting each other on the same specialist subject?

Definitely room for debate, and necessary to check references? And this just the on-hand sample, out of the hat.

Is everybody listening?
 

muhammad_isa

Save Our Souls
Messages
3,303
Reaction score
703
Points
108
Location
Worcester UK
Definitely room for debate, and necessary to check references? And this just the on-hand sample, out of the hat.

Is everybody listening?

What is there to debate exactly?
Is it the content of the papyrus? The date of the papyrus?

There are all sorts of writings of early Christians, as you know. You are in charge of the apocrypha on this site.

The question is, whether it was a major writing used by the majority of early Christians.
You say yes .. I say no :)

One may quote the sayings of cherry-picked Christian scholars of the 2nd - 4th century .. but we've been through all that.
 

RJM

God Feeds the Ravens
Admin
Messages
9,283
Reaction score
2,194
Points
108
Actually it's about relying on Wikipedia as a source without checking the links and references before sharing, as with any other internet source?

Or at least providing links for others to check? It's no good just posting a passage and writing -wiki- at the bottom,?
 
Last edited:

Cino

Big Love! (Atheist mystic)
Admin
Messages
3,785
Reaction score
2,031
Points
108
Location
Germany
Do you think that it's right to continue to ignore this hypocrisy?
..but then you probably don't see it that way. You probably agree with "scholarship" and the economic "experts"

Not at all, I'm very much interested in and involved in solidarity economy.
 

muhammad_isa

Save Our Souls
Messages
3,303
Reaction score
703
Points
108
Location
Worcester UK
Actually it's about relying on Wikipedia as a source without checking the links and references before sharing, as with any other internet source?

Yes .. it's necessary to check sources if there is some sort of dispute..

Also I have no idea what you are implying here?

I'm not implying anything.
I'm just saying that you know how many early Christian writings there are.
The Bible canon was establshed as it is, by Nicene Christians :)

while there was a good measure of debate in the Early Church over the New Testament canon, the major writings are claimed to have been accepted by almost all Christians by the middle of the 3rd century.
- wiki -

Of course. If that wasn't the case, the Bible wouldn't be reliable. How could one claim anything else? :D
 

RJM

God Feeds the Ravens
Admin
Messages
9,283
Reaction score
2,194
Points
108
it's necessary to check sources if there is some sort of dispute..
I believe it's necessary to check sources before posting anything on the internet, that may be taken up and shared onwards, no matter how false or inaccurate?
 

Thomas

Administrator
Admin
Messages
12,639
Reaction score
2,761
Points
108
Yes .. it's necessary to check sources if there is some sort of dispute..
Nah, it's necessary to check sources, period.

The Bible canon was establshed as it is, by Nicene Christians :)
Wrong.

the major writings are claimed to have been accepted by almost all Christians by the middle of the 3rd century.
Quite. Nicene Christians are 4th century.

A defined set of four gospels (the Tetramorph) was asserted by Irenaeus, c180, who refers to it directly.

Which covers John, the book under discussion.

By the early 3rd century, Origen may have been using the same twenty-seven books as in the present New Testament canon, though there were still disputes over the acceptance of the Letter to the Hebrews, James, II Peter, II John, III John, Jude and Revelation,

But there were no disputes over John's Gospel and 1 John.

- same wiki -
 

muhammad_isa

Save Our Souls
Messages
3,303
Reaction score
703
Points
108
Location
Worcester UK
Of course you would! :D Have you any evidence that it wasn't?

I think we've been here before.
The Roman Empire was not a few square miles, it was vast :)
We know that there was a lot of turmoil and oppression,
and various mixtures of pagan and Jewish belief going on.

It wasn't all written in Jerusalem.

The Gospel of John stands out on its own, from the whole NT, as being unique in its style and content.
We don't even know why it's called "John". It was certainly believed to be by St. John the Evangelist
up until more recently. Maybe that's why ;)
 

muhammad_isa

Save Our Souls
Messages
3,303
Reaction score
703
Points
108
Location
Worcester UK
A defined set of four gospels (the Tetramorph) was asserted by Irenaeus, c180, who refers to it directly.
Which covers John, the book under discussion.

By the early 3rd century, Origen may have been using the same twenty-seven books as in the present New Testament canon, though there were still disputes over the acceptance of the Letter to the Hebrews, James, II Peter, II John, III John, Jude and Revelation,

But there were no disputes over John's Gospel and 1 John.

- same wiki -

It doesn't make any difference :)
You have already condemned the "Jewish Christians" as "those crazy dudes" ;)

Oh .. and by the way .. the disciples were "Those crazy dudes".
 
Top