|
I guess the difference is that it seems to me that the later tradition is invaluable for interpreting the original texts. Why do you think that we, thousands of years later, have better access to the texts than the people who were living shortly after it was written? Modern scholarship? It's somewhat overrated. I don't want to dismiss it entirely, but it's been wrong often enough before that, at the very least, it should be taken with a grain of salt.
Incidentally, where does John make mistakes of geography and fact? I haven't heard that before.
I'll leave the trinity alone. I don't understand it, and I think it's impossible to understand it without falling into a heresy or three. I'll leave it to the experts.
I want to note, not so much for your sake Chavos, but for others who might be reading this thread, that I don't mean to claim that any one of these things, or even their totality, proves that Jesus claimed to be God, only that if you take these things in their entirely, the preponderance of evidence is that Jesus claimed to be God.
Sorry this is so short -- I have to get ready for class pretty quick. I'll try and write something more detailed over the weekend.
__________________
"Die Deutschen meinen, daß die Kraft sich in Härte und Grausamkeit offenbaren müsse, sie unterwerfen sich dann gerne und mit Bewunderung:[...]. Daß es Kraft giebt in der Milde und Stille, das glauben sie nicht leicht."
"The Germans believe that power must reveal itself in hardness and cruelty and then submit themselves gladly and with admiration[...]. They do not believe readily that there is power in meekness and calm."
-- Friedrich Nietzsche
|