tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post2345251698305449936..comments2024-03-27T17:15:37.606-04:00Comments on Triablogue: Johannine asidesRyanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17809283662428917799noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-27005544329062740822013-05-28T23:17:59.014-04:002013-05-28T23:17:59.014-04:00I've listened to some of McGrew's lectures...I've listened to some of McGrew's lectures on undesigned coincidences (I suspect one or two of them aren't linked above) and I think he makes more of some of them than he should because they can be accounted for by Markan priority. In fact, sometimes he <b>specifically states</b> that in his argument for gospel coincidences he's not assuming any position on the synoptic problem (whether Markan or Matthean or Lukan priority). I don't know why he doesn't only pick examples that would be less susceptible to explanation by appeal to Markan priority.ANNOYED PINOYhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00714774340084597206noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-53860366359795080192013-05-28T22:29:14.379-04:002013-05-28T22:29:14.379-04:00yeah, I guess I should have pointed that out too. ...yeah, I guess I should have pointed that out too. :)<br /><br />Here's some links to his lectures on it that I've found.<br /><br /><br />http://apologetics315.blogspot.com/2011/04/undesigned-coincidences-in-gospels-by.html<br /><br />http://www.evidence4faith.com/shows/e4f-042411.mp3<br /><br />http://youtu.be/9wUcrwYocgM<br />ANNOYED PINOYhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00714774340084597206noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-63625461117820625682013-05-28T21:55:48.128-04:002013-05-28T21:55:48.128-04:00Tim McGrew has further elaborated the argument fro...Tim McGrew has further elaborated the argument from undesigned coincidences. stevehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16547070544928321788noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-18331646027518630752013-05-28T21:48:17.869-04:002013-05-28T21:48:17.869-04:00I also find many of the arguments J.J. Blunt makes...I also find many of the arguments J.J. Blunt makes in his book <i>Undesigned Coincidences</i> intriguing. <br /><br />I have to say that some of the force of the arguments that Blunt makes are weakened if one takes into consideration how tradition in the early Christian community (during the times when the Gospels were being written) could account for some of the coincidences. Along with the theory of Markan Priority.<br /><br />Nevertheless some of the arguments make a good case that the best explanation is that the events really happened. For example when Blunt wrote:<br /><br />We read in St. John, that when Jesus had reached this desert place, He “lifted up his eyes and saw a great multitude come unto him, and he said unto <i>Philip</i>, Whence shall we buy bread that these may eat?” (6:5.) Why should this question have been directed to Philip in particular? If we had the Gospel of St. John and not the other Gospels, we should see no peculiar propriety in this choice, and should probably assign it to accident. If we had the other Gospels, and not that of St. John, we should not be put upon the inquiry, for they make no mention of the question having been addressed expressly to <i>Philip</i>. But, by comparing St. Luke with St. John, we discover the reason at once. By St. Luke, and by him alone, we are informed, that the desert place where the miracle was wrought <i>“was belonging to Bethsaida.”</i> (9:10.) By St. John we are informed, (though not in the passage where he relates the miracle, which is worthy of remark, but in another chapter altogether independent of it, ch. 1:44,) that <i>“Philip was of Bethsaida.”</i> To whom, then, could the question have been directed so properly as to him, who, being of the immediate neighbourhood, was the most likely to know where bread was to be bought? Here again, then, I maintain, we have strong indications of veracity in the case of a miracle itself; and I leave it to others, who may have ingenuity and inclination for the task, to weed out the falsehood of the miracle from the manifest reality of the circumstances which attend it, and to separate fiction from fact, which is in the very closest combination with it. -<br /><a href="http://biblecourses.com.au/blunt/04/0418.html" rel="nofollow">quotation from here.</a><br /><br />The entire book can be accessed <a href="http://biblecourses.com.au/blunt/index.html" rel="nofollow">HERE</a><br /><br />Unfortunately, I think website hosting the book is the Christadelphian cult. But I have no reason to think tampered with the text of the book.<br /><br />One can also download it at Archive.org <a href="http://archive.org/details/undesignedcoinci1851blun" rel="nofollow">HERE</a><br /><br />ANNOYED PINOYhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00714774340084597206noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-35001051474521142782013-05-28T21:31:32.195-04:002013-05-28T21:31:32.195-04:00John’s practice reminds me of a family reunion whe...<i>John’s practice reminds me of a family reunion where the oldest relative sets the record straight. A younger relative begins to relate a bit of family lore, then the older relative jumps in to correct him. </i><br /><br />How true. And yet, it's not like the older brother is hitting the younger brothers over the head with his alleged further/deeper knowledge like a forger would do. <br /><br />This particular blog is about "Johannine asides" and I find it interesting how the book mentions many of the apostles in a passing manner. Not in a way a forgery might do it by trying to impress the readers with all the things the lesser known apostles did and said.<br /><br />1. Peter: (numerous times)<br /><br />2. Andrew: (Peter's brother) John 1:40; 6:8; 12:22<br /><br />3. James: John 21:2<br /><br />4. John: John 21:2<br /><br />5. Philip: John 1:43-48; 6:5-7; 12:21-22; 14:8-9<br /><br />6. Nathanael/Bartholomew: John 1:45-49; 21:2<br /><br />7. Thomas: John 11:16; 14:5; 20:24-29; 21:2<br /><br />8. Matthew: Not mentioned specifically, but might be one of those whom the author refers to when he says "two other of his disciples" in John 21:2.<br /><br />9. James son of Alphaeus: Not mentioned specifically, but might be one of those whom the author refers to when he says "two other of his disciples" in John 21:2.<br /><br />10. Thaddaeus/Judas/Lebbaeus son of James: John 14:22<br /><br />11. Simon the Zealot/Cananaean: Not mentioned specifically, but might be one of those whom the author refers to when he says "two other of his disciples" in John 21:2. <br /><br />12. Judas Iscariot: John 6:71; 12:4; 13:2, 26; 18:2-5ANNOYED PINOYhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00714774340084597206noreply@blogger.com