Re: Holy Blood, Holy Grail

Thor Cameron (my_colours@hotmail.com)
Wed, 28 Jul 1999 16:19:20 -0700 (PDT)

I'm on my way to the bookstore, Jim.  Thanks.
Thor


>Ok, I'll get it and read it -- it's not THAT expensive anyhow :).  But
>what put me off was reading the chapter about areas I had studied.  The
>authors said emphatically that "there's no reason to believe John (the
>apostle) wrote the Gospel of John."  This kinda ignores a wealth of data,
>and while some scholarly opinion would be in agreement, even those who
>date the Gospel of John far later than John could have lived would not
>say "there is no reason to believe John wrote that Gospel."
>
>Here, let me pull some REAL Biblical scholarship on you.
>
>Word Biblical Commentary says that Irenaeus cites that the fourth Gospel
>was written by John the Apostle (Adv Haer, 3.1,2), and that his source
>was Polycarp, who died in 155 AD and knew John personally (this is widely
>accepted).  Church historian Eusebius, writing in the fourth century,
>cites Eusebius, Polycrates, and Clement of Alexandria as testifying that
>the fourth Gospel was written by the apostle John.
>
>Add to this that even the authors of HB, HG say that the material from
>John comes from very early sources, even eyewitness sources.  Add to this
>the inclusion of seeming irrelvant detail into the narrative -- like,
>which column in the temple Jesus was standing by when he addressed the
>Pharisees -- and it all points to a person writing from memory, and from
>within the context of one specific point of view of the events.
>
>Word Bib Comm goes on to state the problems with Johannie authorship too
>(the Greek of the book of Revelation is pretty smooth, but the Greek of
>John's Gospel is of a very low level -- so it is difficult for many
>scholars to believe the same person wrote both books), but it should be
>obvious that a case can be made for asserting the traditional authorship
>of the fourth Gospel.  So when the authors of HB, HG say "there's no
>reason to believe that the apostle John wrote the fourth Gospel" (esp.
>when they themselves inadvertently gave me some ;) ), I tend to think
>their approach to the issue is a bit shallow.
>
>Jim
>
>On Wed, 28 Jul 1999 11:25:03 -0700 (PDT) Thor Cameron
><my_colours@hotmail.com> writes:
> >
> >I humbly, respectfully disagree.  I've not been to a bookstore to get
> >the
> >Lewis book yet, but I implore you, read this book.  It is meticulously
> >
> >researched & makes a lot of sense.  It is the clearest picture of the
> >truth
> >of what happened than I have ever seen.  There are many other books
> >which
> >touch onit, Jesus the Magician, for example, but this puts it all in
> >one
> >package.  How it got so convoluted in the first place is told in the
> >sequal,
> >The Messianic Legacy.
> >Thor
> >
> >
> >_______________________________________________________________
> >Get Free Email and Do More On The Web. Visit http://www.msn.com
>
>___________________________________________________________________
>Get the Internet just the way you want it.
>Free software, free e-mail, and free Internet access for a month!
>Try Juno Web: http://dl.www.juno.com/dynoget/tagj.


_______________________________________________________________
Get Free Email and Do More On The Web. Visit http://www.msn.com