Siteadmin, Check users, oversight, Administrators
350,824
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 152:
Line 152: + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
Talk:Mystery: Was John a Samaritan (view source)
Revision as of 09:27, October 12, 2025
, 09:27, October 12, 2025→The essay engages in the logical fallacy called the fallacy of exclusion
Also, Ancient Near East culture was not super precise when making statements (It was a pre-science culture). Like if a small percentage of Jews accepted Jesus at the time John wrote his gospel, but most of the early followers were Jewish, that would still be a case of his own people rejecting him. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 17:35, December 30, 2024 (EST)
Also, Ancient Near East culture was not super precise when making statements (It was a pre-science culture). Like if a small percentage of Jews accepted Jesus at the time John wrote his gospel, but most of the early followers were Jewish, that would still be a case of his own people rejecting him. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 17:35, December 30, 2024 (EST)
:I'll reword it better, even though I think the point is obvious. It's not circular. "Jesus came for group A, but group A rejected Him while different groups B, C, and D accepted him. John accepted Him. Therefore John is not in group A, but in groups B, C, or D."--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] ([[User talk:Aschlafly|talk]]) 20:15, December 30, 2024 (EST)
::OK. Reword it. Your version above is better.
::Next time we have a theological discussion, lets talk about Ancient Near East (ANE) culture and their degree of precision. And lets talk about Romans 11: 25-27. I recently spoke with User: NishantXavier and a fellow friend via a 3-way call (and previous calls) about what the Bible says about the Jewish people and we had very productive conversations. We all learned something about this matter given our various pieces of knowledge about this matter. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 21:31, December 30, 2024 (EST)
:::P.S. As far as ANE culture and precision, please see the articles [https://www.icr.org/article/524/2/ Value of pi] and [https://www.tektonics.org/lp/piwrong.php Value of the number pi] and [https://answersingenesis.org/bible-questions/are-mustard-seeds-the-smallest-or-was-jesus-wrong/ Are Mustard Seeds the Smallest or Was Jesus Wrong?]. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 21:44, December 30, 2024 (EST)
::::Paul never mentioned "Samaritans", not even once. Perhaps he was unfamiliar with them, or simply considered them to be Gentiles. Did Paul know of John? {{bibleref|Romans|11|25-27}} is interesting in implying that Gentiles would help save [[Israel]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] ([[User talk:Aschlafly|talk]]) 23:21, December 30, 2024 (EST)
== Luke 9:51-56: John and James ask Jesus to rain down fire on the Samaritans. 2,000 years of Christians failing to say John was a Samaritan was obviously right-minded. Behold, even a soulless machine knows John was most certainly not a Samaritan! ==
[https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=luke%209%3A51-56&version=NRSVA Luke 9:51-56]: John and James ask Jesus to rain down fire on the Samaritans.
2,000 years of Christians failing to say John was a Samaritan was obviously right-minded.
Behold, even a soulless machine knows John was most certainly not a Samaritan!
"No, Apostle John was not a Samaritan. He was a Galilean fisherman who became one of Jesus's twelve apostles. While John and his brother James are depicted as reacting with fiery zeal when Samaritans rejected Jesus, this was corrected by Jesus himself. Apostle John's actions later in his life, particularly regarding the early church and the conversion of St. Paul, demonstrate a shift towards more compassionate and loving leadership." - Google AI Overview.[https://www.google.com/search?q=apostle+john+was+a+samaritan&oq=apostle+john+was+a+samaritan&gs_lcrp=EgZjaHJvbWUyBggAEEUYOTIGCAEQLhhA0gEJMTcyMjNqMGoxqAIAsAIA&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8] [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 22:20, April 17, 2025 (EDT)
== The weight of evidence strongly favors the view that the Apostle John was Jewish. Also, why the position that John was a Samaritan is an exceedingly weak position ==
Arguments that the Apostle John was Jewish:
*[https://grok.com/share/c2hhcmQtNA%3D%3D_7093ed62-0eb9-480a-9474-1f518aa9b7de Give me as many legitimate arguments that you can the Apostle John was Jewish and rate their strength on a scale from 1 to 100 where 100 is the most strong that it could be. What is the probability that the Apostle John was Jewish? Are there any legitimate arguments that he was not Jewish.]
Critiques of the weaknesses of the essay "Mystery: Was John a Samaritan?". Also, a ranking of its arguments by strength:
*[https://grok.com/share/c2hhcmQtNA%3D%3D_66bfba38-9564-4ebe-9869-d1a889cf6e8f What are the strengths and weaknesses of this essay: https://www.conservapedia.com/Mystery:_Was_John_a_Samaritan]
*[https://grok.com/share/c2hhcmQtNA%3D%3D_75c45e2b-bd9c-4937-aa7e-066798efb0df What is the probability that the essay at https://www.conservapedia.com/Mystery:_Was_John_a_Samaritan engages in the argumentation type commonly known as elephant hurling? If it does engage in elephant hurling, why is that? How much weaker is the essay due to it not tackling the strongest arguments that John was not a Samaritan and please explain why if this is the case?] [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 18:39, October 11, 2025 (EDT)
*[https://grok.com/share/c2hhcmQtNA%3D%3D_4512579b-6e87-4d02-881c-61dca6636b19 Is this a fair analogy: The essay https://www.conservapedia.com/Mystery:_Was_John_a_Samaritan has a humber of Lilliputian arguments or invalid arguments that endeavor to overcome the Gulliver amount of evidence that the Apostle John was Jewish? In other words, does it engage in "elephant hurling" and a lack of attempt to falsify its main thesis that the Apostle John was a Samaritan? So it lacks attempts at falsification rigour which is sound basis to make judgments. Furthermore, does the essay commit the fallacy of exclusion logical fallacy?]
**About Jesus as asuppsed "Samaritan".'''1'''. The Samaritans who are a mixed, and claimed to be Jews and never accepted Jerusalem and its Temple. But chose mount Gerizim. While Jesus only visited Jerusalem. '''2'''. Joseph and Mary were not in Samaria. But in Judea. No one doubts Joseph or James (Jacob/Yakov) being ordinary Jews. '''3'''. He regularly worshipped in Jewish communal worship. '''4'''In general, one should go to the original conversion: Y into J [Jacob, Jesus, John, etc ] in English pronunciation while in original Germanic it is still pronounced as in Y in English. There is no "J" in the original Bible, of course. - Telling [[User talk:Telling|talk]]) 20:16, October 11, 2025 (EDT)
:::Good points, but the primary hypothesis is that John (not Jesus) was a Samaritan.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] ([[User talk:Aschlafly|talk]]) 20:35, October 11, 2025 (EDT)
::::Thank you Andy. Then my humble point#4... - Telling.
:::::"The traditional scholarly and biblical consensus—drawn from the Synoptic Gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke), the Book of Acts, and early Church Fathers like Irenaeus and Eusebius—overwhelmingly identifies John as a Jewish Galilean fisherman from Bethsaida or near Capernaum, son of Zebedee and Salome (possibly a relative of Mary, Jesus' mother), and brother of James. This view is supported by details such as his family's involvement in Jewish fishing trade on the Sea of Galilee, his attendance at synagogues, his participation in Jewish festivals like Passover, and his role in key Jewish messianic events (e.g., the Transfiguration, Agony in the Garden). Galilee was predominantly Jewish territory during Jesus' time, distinct from Samaria, and John's actions in the Gospels—such as wanting to call down fire on a Samaritan village (Luke 9:51–56)—reflect typical Jewish-Samaritan tensions rather than insider sympathy."[https://grok.com/share/c2hhcmQtNA%3D%3D_4512579b-6e87-4d02-881c-61dca6636b19]
:::::"Biblical Evidence Against: John’s Galilean origin (Mark 1:19-20), Jewish name, and participation in Jewish practices (Acts 3:1) strongly suggest he was Jewish. No text identifies him as Samaritan, unlike other Samaritan figures (John 4:9).
:::::Historical Context: Samaritans were a distinct group, worshipping at Mount Gerizim (John 4:20) and rejecting Jerusalem’s temple. John’s association with Jerusalem (Acts 3–4) contradicts Samaritan identity. The essay’s claim of 1 million Samaritans (Point 0) is unsupported, as estimates suggest a much smaller population (Gary N. Knoppers, Jews and Samaritans, 2013)."[https://grok.com/share/c2hhcmQtNA%3D%3D_66bfba38-9564-4ebe-9869-d1a889cf6e8f]
:::::"'''Biblical Context: Named as a Disciple of Jesus (Strength: 95/100)'''
:::::"'''Argument:''' The New Testament identifies John as one of Jesus’ twelve apostles (e.g., Matthew 10:2, Mark 3:17, Luke 6:14). Jesus, a Jew, primarily chose Jewish disciples to align with his mission to the "lost sheep of the house of Israel" (Matthew 15:24). John’s inclusion in this group strongly suggests he was Jewish.
:::::'''Evidence:''' The Gospels consistently present Jesus’ inner circle as Jewish, with John explicitly named as a son of Zebedee and a fisherman from Galilee (Mark 1:19–20), a region predominantly Jewish in the 1st century.
:::::'''Strength Reasoning:''' The consistency of the Gospel accounts and the cultural context make this a near-certain indicator of John’s Jewish identity. The slight reduction from 100 accounts for the lack of an explicit statement like “John was a Jew.”
:::::'''Jewish Cultural Practices in John’s Family''' (Strength: 90/100)
:::::'''Argument:''' John’s family, including his father Zebedee and brother James, operated a fishing business in Galilee (Mark 1:19–20, Luke 5:10). This occupation was common among Jews in the region, and their adherence to Jewish customs, such as observing the Sabbath, is implied by their context.
:::::'''Evidence:''' The family’s location in Galilee, a Jewish stronghold, and their interactions with Jesus, who taught in synagogues (Luke 4:15), suggest adherence to Jewish practices. The name “John” (Hebrew: Yochanan) was common among Jews.
:::::'''Strength Reasoning:''' The cultural and occupational context strongly supports Jewish identity, but the absence of direct references to John’s family observing specific Jewish rituals slightly lowers the score."[https://grok.com/share/c2hhcmQtNA%3D%3D_7093ed62-0eb9-480a-9474-1f518aa9b7de]
== The essay assembles a bunch of Lilliputian-size poor arguments and some invalid arguments while ignoring the Gulliver-sized scale of established evidence that the Apostle John was Jewish ==
"The essay's 34 points are largely Lilliputian in nature: speculative, circumstantial, or based on misinterpretations that strain to fit the thesis without rigorous evidence. For instance:
Claims like Zebedee's name not appearing in the Old Testament ignore that it's the Greek form of the Hebrew "Zabdi" or "Zebediah," which does appear (e.g., 1 Chronicles 27:27).
References to "the Jews" as outsiders or sympathy for Samaritans are better explained by the Gospel of John's theological style and intended audience (likely mixed Jewish-Gentile communities in Ephesus), not ethnicity.
Omissions (e.g., no parables, fewer Old Testament quotes) align with John's unique narrative focus, not Samaritan Pentateuch-only views.
These arguments often rely on absence of evidence or cherry-picked details, lacking empirical support from archaeology, textual criticism, or patristic sources, making them collectively weak against the "Gulliver" scale of established evidence for John's Jewish identity."[https://grok.com/share/c2hhcmQtNA%3D%3D_4512579b-6e87-4d02-881c-61dca6636b19] [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 04:52, October 12, 2025 (EDT)
:Now Andy may claim that he addressed the arguments that I provided via Grok, but did he? He did not truly engage the arguments. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 05:22, October 12, 2025 (EDT)
== The essay "Mystery: Was John a Samaritan" engages in the poor argumentation tactic of "elephant hurling" ==
"Regarding "elephant hurling" (a tactic of overwhelming with a barrage of claims to obscure weak substantiation), the essay fits this by amassing 34 points without critically evaluating their validity, interconnections, or alternative explanations. It presents them as a cumulative "mystery" but avoids addressing how they might be refuted, such as by noting Galilee's Jewish demographics or John's integration into the Jerusalem-based early church leadership (Acts 3–4, Galatians 2)."[https://grok.com/share/c2hhcmQtNA%3D%3D_4512579b-6e87-4d02-881c-61dca6636b19]
== The essay "Mystery: Was John a Samaritan" shows a clear lack of falsification rigor, a key principle in sound inquiry (e.g., as emphasized by Karl Popper) ==
"The essay also shows a clear lack of falsification rigor, a key principle in sound inquiry (e.g., as emphasized by [[Karl Popper]]). It builds a one-sided case without testing the thesis against counter-evidence, such as:
John's Galilean roots in Jewish communities.
His family's observance of Jewish customs (e.g., fishing laws, temple visits).
No ancient sources (e.g., Josephus on Samaritans) linking apostles to Samaria ethnically.
Direct contradictions, like John's hostility toward Samaritans in Luke.
This absence of self-challenge undermines its credibility as a basis for judgment."[https://grok.com/share/c2hhcmQtNA%3D%3D_4512579b-6e87-4d02-881c-61dca6636b19] [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 05:00, October 12, 2025 (EDT)
== The essay engages in the logical fallacy called the fallacy of exclusion ==
The [[fallacy of exclusion]] is a logical fallacy where "Important evidence which would undermine an inductive argument is excluded from consideration. The requirement that all relevant information be included is called '''the 'principle of total evidence'''.'"
"Finally, it commits the fallacy of exclusion by selectively highlighting details that could vaguely support the Samaritan thesis while ignoring or downplaying contradictory evidence (e.g., no mention of John's Jewish upbringing or the apostles' overall Jewish composition). This creates a distorted picture, excluding the broader context that reinforces the consensus view."[https://grok.com/share/c2hhcmQtNA%3D%3D_4512579b-6e87-4d02-881c-61dca6636b19] [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 05:08, October 12, 2025 (EDT)