1. Graded two classes and parts of the other three. Finished some other work for beginning next term. Very pleased with my level of productivity. Awaiting the cookie that I should be given.
2. Television and Pogo badges.
3. Level Level 37 Night Elf priest. Stranglethorn. Dinged 38. Auction stuff.
4. Read several magazines but not much in my book today.
5. BigFishGame is a three-matchy. Played yesterday's, Babysitter Mania, for awhile. Not bad, but it's the same game as Nanny Mania. Again, that was fun, but I've already bought it once, and the newer game isn't different enough to warrant a cash outlay.
6. Had a well-thought-out, considered comment! I'm not sure how the person found my bizarre mix of Missions Accomplished and random musings for the day, but that's neat! (And a little scary; I sort of like talking to myself, but that's okay.)
For the record, I've read enough arguments on the identity of the Beloved Disciple to agree that there is certainly room to doubt the traditional knee-jerk identification with John. Tabor's book, on the other hand, doesn't go into any of these arguments, nor does it offer positive evidence that the Beloved Disciple is James; he simply states that this is so. Now to be fair, I think the chapters were written independently without regard for order and without an editor overseeing continuity, so it's possible that argument appears later in the book, but so far, no dice.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
You say: "I've read enough arguments on the identity of the Beloved Disciple to agree that there is certainly room to doubt the traditional knee-jerk identification with John."
"Knee-jerk" is certainly an apt description of those who cling to this tradition and it is good that you are open on this question. However the facts in the Biblical record offer more than mere "room for doubt" on this point. There is "postive evidence" that the unnamed beloved disciple (whoever he was) can't possibly have been John -- as was noted in the comment on your post of yesterday.
You are right to demand "positive evidence" because "he simply states that this is so" is certainly not a valid argument regardless of the issue.
Post a Comment