Siteadmin, Check users, oversight, Administrators
350,824
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 181:
Line 181: + + +
Talk:Mystery: Was John a Samaritan (view source)
Revision as of 01:37, October 12, 2025
, 01:37, October 12, 2025→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
*[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_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)
**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)
:::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.
::::Thank you Andy. Then my humble point#4... - Telling.