Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [John_Lit] Question & Answer

Expand Messages
  • kymhsm <khs@picknowl.com.au>
    Dear James, You said:
    Message 1 of 4 , Feb 25, 2003
      Dear James,

      You said:

      <<< it is fairly standard for those who are studying the Bible as
      historians to dismiss as unproven and unprovable those events
      and details that do not have independent attestation. This is
      based on a good Biblical principle - it takes two or three
      witnesses for testimony to hold weight in court! Obviously, we
      cannot say for certain that, just because only one person
      mentions something, we have proved that it DID NOT happen,
      but neither can we claim to be able to be certain that it did. >>>

      Yopu may consider my approach too simple, but I would have
      thought that John 21:24 might represent 'two or three witnesses'
      at least who were able to confirm the truth of John's account.

      "This is the disciple who is bearing witness to these things, and
      who has written these things; and we know that his testimony is

      How do they know 'his testimony is true'? Because they trust him
      as an honest person? I suspect that that would not be sufficient.
      I think that they knew that his testimony was true because they,
      also, were witnesses of those things or, at the very least, had
      had those things confirmed to them by multiple winesses.


      Kym Smith
      South Australia
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.