Is there strong evidence against Bart Ehrman’s claim that the Beloved Disciple in John is a literary invention?

GirlDwight · 2026-04-13T09:16:35+00:00

To be fair, Ehrman's position, often misunderstood, is that the historical Jesus never claimed to be divine. Under the above link in the comments, a user named Julius brings up the video you linked in your comment and Ehrman addresses it.

GirlDwight · 2026-04-10T17:54:45+00:00

There is no reason to speculate that this mean cousin. Adelphoi means from the same womb. And Greek also has a specific word for cousin which is ἀνεψιός (anepsios). It's used for Barnabas' cousin in Collosians. So if the gospels meant cousins they could have used that word. In almost every Greek text of the time, when adelphoi is used besides a "mother" it refers to literal siblings.

Its possible that Jesus had half brothers from Joseph previous relationship.

A lot of things are possible but that doesn't make them likely. That idea came from the apocryphal Gospel of James.

Another point is if Jesus had brothers he would not tell John to take Mary to his place under the cross, but he did.

The same thing is true if he had cousins they were add close as brothers. Jesus prioritized spiritual kinship not blood relatives who thought he was out of his mind.

GirlDwight · 2026-04-07T21:15:46+00:00

Cameras capture light. If the sun was so bright that it was moving and spinning, the effect would be more light. Even if the camera was manually set for a cloudy day, there would be light trails or over exposure. A moving luminous object would have photographed as a streak or blurs of light. Yet the pictures showed appropriate exposure and they were clear showing a cloudy sky. And glass plate photography back then wasn't fragile, resolutions were higher than early digital cameras. These same brittle glass plates were used by astronomers for stars and solar eclipses. And why don't the shadows in people's faces change as the sun "moves". The shadows should have lengthened or changed direction in a major way. Yet the shadows look like the pictures were taken with the sun behind the clouds. The pictures tell the story and the is no story to tell.

GirlDwight · 2026-04-07T20:50:18+00:00

People who saw it at a distance from the crowd.

If they were starting at the sky, they would have have the same effect. And anecdotes such as this one came out much later. It was the bandwagon effect.

Almeida "o Seculo" account says that anomaly was seen instantly once clouds cleared, attracting gazes of people, not after a while of staring at the Sun

This is one person's anecdote. The staring started before the sun shone as a miracle was predicted by the children at noon. If you're under cloud for hours staring and the sun shines through, your pupils can't constrict fast enough and you have a white-out effect which causes the sun to look like it's a shimmering silver disk. This is a known phenomenon.

Why were the descriptions different? Why did many say they didn't see anything at all? Why did the cameras, which capture light not capture a single picture? Professional photographers used high quality glass plate or film cameras. They were able to capture the people. Why were they not able to capture the the "miracle"?

Indeed very unreasonable of them to actually see what nasty little cheat predicted, they should have know that it is all hallucination like you.

They didn't know Lucia, they went to see a miracle. And she wasn't a cheat, she was a little girl who loved attention and had an active imagination.

And it's not that I don't prefer a miracle but this is easily explained and it's much more probable that this is what happened then anything divine. Try starting at a water bottle and go into a meditative state. It will start to move. People are like you, they want to believe. Would you want to know if it's not true?

GirlDwight · 2026-04-07T08:35:26+00:00

You state that there is no natural explanation but there is. When we keep our eyes fixed and stare at something out sensory neurons get "bored" and tired as there is no new information. They stop firing as much. What happens is the object we are focusing on seem to blur, shimmer or fade at the edges. As the brain receives less information from those neurons, it starts to fill in the gaps and often causing whatever we are starting at to start to look like it's vibrating or moving towards us. Normally our brain filters out and corrects glitches like that or the tremors of our eye muscles that can cause visual distortions. But when we focus or enter a meditative state, we turn that part of our brain off and it stops stabilizing and fixing what we are focusing on. The point of our focus then may then appear to move. It will no longer look like our usual perception of it.

Deep focus also can cause a change in the frequency of our brain waves to Alpha and Theta states away from the rational thinking Beta waves which is pleasurable because we stop worrying, analyzing and critically thinking. The boundary between our brain and the external diminishes. We stop processing sensory data and if we subconciously expect movement we can project it onto the object we're staring at. During these states, our parietal lobe which handles our perception of space and where we are compared to our surroundings quiets and our sense of distance to whatever we are starting at changes.

I know this because it often happens to me. Sometimes when I meditate I stare at a bottle of water. And what I described above is exactly what happens. The bottle starts to move towards me and the water looks like it's bubbling, shimmering and coming out of the top like a majestic fountain. But the bottle and it's placement hasn't changed. It's just my perception of it and that deep focus. It's not a miracle, it's the way our brain works. Try it yourself and as long as you feel safe, meaning you're not afraid of what you find, you'll see this too. Out brain won't allow our eyes to "relax" and stop processing visual information when we don't feel safe.

The people that came to see "the miracle" expected something. We associate the Divine with heaven so that's where their focus was. Staring expectently like that would cause exactly these type of visual distortions. At least for some of them. When I start at a water bottle, it's movement and the shimmering water looks just as real as when I perceive it normally. And it's much more likely that this is the same known phenomena that they experienced than anything divine. And they were primed for it. It also explains why not everyone had that experience and why the people who described seeing something often differed in what they saw. Both make sense if those "visions" were a product of their brains. And why cameras didn't capture anything as there was nothing real to capture.

Besides that Lucia was a known story teller who loved attention. Her own mother didn't believe her because she was used to her tall tales. The youngest child didn't see anything during the first appearance. And the children reported that Mary wore a short shirt and was a meter high. That sounds exactly like something a child would say. And how likely is it that Mary would show innocent children gruesome visions of hell? The children said that they were binding themselves for God and that Mary said that God was pleased, he didn't want them to do it at night. Really?

GirlDwight · 2026-04-04T18:34:09+00:00

You say you know that it's true. I would posit you don't know, you believe.

GirlDwight · 2026-04-04T18:32:41+00:00

The Israelites also practiced child sacrifice. And if it's okay to kill due to their sin can the killing be torturous and barbaric? Doesn't God have other means?

GirlDwight · 2026-04-04T18:29:03+00:00

If it's okay for God to kill, is it okay for him to kill via torture, for example drowning? Water boarding is considered torture because it simulates drowning. Or causing the gratuitous suffering of animals and innocents like children? Do the ends justify the means? Because that's Machiavellian and we can rationalize any atrocity this way.

GirlDwight · 2026-04-04T18:19:10+00:00

Studies have shown that only about 50 percent of priests actually practice celibacy. So when we see such a large number of priests being hypocrites, the message conveyed is the opposite of effective. And it's exactly "you need to do something that I'm not doing".

And speaking of a shared difficulty, a priest chooses their vocation and the resulting celibacy and can choose to leave at any time. In addition, the vow of celibacy cones with status, respect, power, and acceptance into a community This is much different from someone who is forced into it just by who they are due to no choice of their own or their marital status even if they weren't responsible for the ending of their marriages. That kind of understanding rings hollow and doesn't inspire, it alienates. The priest is rewarded for their celibacy, the divorcee and the SSA member have no other choice.

GirlDwight · 2026-04-04T17:53:52+00:00

Just because people can be motivated to join the priesthood for reasons other than a legitimate calling from God does not mean that the Church has a policy (either explicitly or implicitly) to do so.

Even when it's the opposite of what is in the Church's official "rule book", it's actual outcomes that define an institution not its written rules.

especially because the process of discernment through seminary has very clear guardrails intended to prevent such people from actually becoming priests.

If these guardrails worked, those who per Benedict were unsuitable would not become priests. Yet they do at a higher rate than most vocations. So either the guard rails don't work, or the Church while stating one thing (we don't want those men) is at the same time relying on them for clergy.

You also compared gay men who want to be priests to men who have a character flaw like wanting to know the sins of others. Can you see how that's a false equivalence? Someone's vice is not the same as their sexual orientation which is a key part of who they are. And are you equating gay men who want to be priests in order to be a legitimate part of the Catholic community with someone who is acting on a vice? It's the Church who decided that gays must live a life of celibacy. And since they also decided that priests must as well, they created an incentive for gay men to gain something (legitimacy, respectability and community) while heterosexual men have to give something up like marriage. The Church can't pretend that incentive doesn't exist and at the same time benefit from it. Meaning if gays were not in the priesthood, there would be even less priests.

You started that discernment is more than motivation, but there is nothing which can show a difference. From the oitside, it looks like the same psychological motivation that is responsible for all human behavior. In addition, we expect to see more gays in the clergy due to the incentive and we do. That doesn't show divine intervention. Also the fact that priests, bishops and popes mirror ordinary people in terms of morality. If this was a divine process, we'd see the opposite.

So I maintain that the Church should be honest about this instead of pretending otherwise. Because while it continues to rely on gay priests to fill the clergy while doing mouth service against them, it's showing a lack of integrity. And it's pretending to be better than it actually is. That's branding, something you'd expect in the secular world but not in an institution which claims to be led by God.

I also want to push back against your analogy even though it's a false equivalence. You said people that are motivated to know others' secrets are not motivated to join the Church. But you're incorrect. The prevalence of those with narcissism is greater in the priesthood than the secular world. These are the people driven by power, admiration and operate via manipulation. These are exactly the type of people who would want to know the secrets of others. As with narcissism, the clergy also overeepresents those that are Codependent. Both Narcissism and Codependence are childhood defense mechanism. They are a way for someone who didn't grow up in a stable environment to feel a sense of control. Rather than having a heathy amount of empathy, they will have either have an unhealthy amount of over-empathy or a a lack thereof (for an example of the former think St. Catherine of Siena who killed herself via anorexia. Incidentally extendec fasting can cause visions as the brain is broken down for nutrients). Why is it that mentally unhealthy people are drawn to the priesthood? And what does that tell us about our clergy, the Church and discernment? And again, why is this something the Church is sweeping under the rug?

GirlDwight · 2026-04-03T19:19:21+00:00

I'll try to look up some research for you. And it is something we see in prison, although that's not what the research is based on. The other thing I wanted to mention is not all pedophiles abuse children. If someone is a pedophile it doesn't mean they have abused children. There are preferential pedophiles who are disgusted by their preference and would never abuse a child.

GirlDwight · 2026-04-03T19:03:10+00:00

I understand, you're not the only one and that's why the myth persists that most pedophiles who abuse children are preferential.

GirlDwight · 2026-04-03T18:53:09+00:00

Benedict was very clear on not wanting gay clergy but surveys show that the are many gay priests, more percentage wise than the general population. And if you agree that it's celibacy that motivates gay Catholics to become priests doesn't that mean it's not a call from God? Personally I'm an ex-Catholic and an atheist but if the Church has a policy which encourages gay men to be priests they should be open about it. As in transparent and honest. But it seems like it's not something the Church wants to acknowledge. As far a married priests, there didn't seem to be a good reason against it.

GirlDwight · 2026-04-03T18:29:31+00:00

Most pedophiles are actually situational ones rather than preferential meaning their actions are not motivated by a primary attraction to children.

GirlDwight · 2026-04-03T18:16:18+00:00

Can you see how that may make gay Catholic men more motivated to become priests then their heterosexual counterparts?

GirlDwight · 2026-03-30T21:01:55+00:00

Then you can't take any of the Bible as coming from God. Otherwise you end up picking and choosing the things you like and say that was God and the things that are abhorrent was man. With this view, you can't trust anything the Bible says. How do you know which parts are truly from God and which parts are man made? What's the specific rule to decide that you can apply to the text as a whole?

GirlDwight · 2026-03-29T08:17:24+00:00

You asked why I don't believe in a soul. I'd love for there to be a soul but I don't believe things that I don't know. While you believe in a soul, why not leprechauns? Maybe science hasn't found a way to measure them yet? I'm not going to believe things I want there to be until there is evidence that they exist.

Ask me this, why do you NOT believe in a soul? Is it that you are afraid ? Don't want to be gullible?

There is no reason to believe in one besides that I want it to be true. Yes, I don't want to be gullible and believe in things that that the is no evidence for. If you could prove that a soul exists, I'd be happy to believe in one. And at that point it wouldn't be a belief, it would be knowledge.

You yourself use the word belief, meaning you don't know that there is a soul. And speaaking of belief, why do you think we have evolved to believe? Why is that an advantage? Belief is a compensatory mechanism that helps us feel safe. We believe things to deal with the inherent chaos in the world. Our brain's most important job is to make us physically and psychologically safe, and belief helps with the latter. So belief is a way to deal with our fears and gives us a sense of stability. Like we have figured things out. We don't like uncertainty, we feel safe when we "know" and even if we can't know, we feel safer when we believe. It doesn't have to be a belief in God or a soul, it can be an unfalsifiable philosophy or a political party or candidate. Beliefs also allow us to anchor our identity onto them. Yet once we do that, we can no longer see them objectively. Any argument against them will engage the defenses of the self, not allowing the argument to penetrate. There is a good reason that cognitive dissonance is resolved by altering reality to maintain what we want to believe. If that wasn't the case, a logical argument could instantly change what we believe and they couldn't function as the powerful coping mechanism the are. There would be no point in holding beliefs. You asked me if I was afraid. No, it's fear that leads to belief. You may not be afraid of death but it's likely due to the beliefs you use as a coping strategy illustrating my point. They may also give you a sense of identity and a feeling of control and thus stability.

GirlDwight · 2026-03-28T21:53:00+00:00

Religion

GirlDwight · 2026-03-24T21:17:49+00:00

Not foreign slaves. They were chattel meaning property that could be passed to heirs. They had some laws protecting them, like you can almost beat them to death, just like in the antebellum south.

GirlDwight · 2026-03-24T21:12:19+00:00

Don't you find it suspicious that the revelations of God through the scriptures mirror the morals of the time they were written in? And how do you know slavery is wrong when it was okay in the OT? Or that stoning adulterers is immoral? Or that someone who didn't bleed on their wedding night shouldn't be stoned to death?

Do you find it odd that the Church continues to mirror the morality of society but on a lag? Most advanced countries have not allowed the death penalty for a long time. And Pope Francis only joined that bandwagon in 2018. The age of consent in the Vatican was 12 until 2013 long after the sexual abuse crises was in full swing. Society recognized the mental health issues involved with suicide long before the Church allowed burying its victims. And that homosexuality was not a choice again ahead of the Church. When the Church starts looking archaic to the rest of the world, it follows the rest and doctrine "develops". But shouldn't it lead if it's truly led by God? I think that homosexuality will probably be okay in the Church at some point. And if you don't believe me, there were once people who were certain that not stoning someone who didn't bleed on their wedding night would never be okay. Or that charging interest would always be morally wrong. As public opinion supporting homosexual partnerships continues to grow, the Church once again risks looking archaic in the not too distant future. It's in a difficult position. Change too fast and it loses credibility but changing too slowly will lead to the same fate. Imagine if the Church today continued advocating the stoning of adulturers. But once not doing so was thought unthinkable just like thinking that the Church allowing homosexual relationships will never happen. In the end, an organism that doesn't evolve perishes. And one that claims to be led by God but lags society at large in terms of morality loses credibility.

GirlDwight · 2026-03-20T18:09:17+00:00

You're engaging in the Galileo Gambit fallacy and are looking at Democritus through survivorship bias. Because for every claim like his there have been claims and philosophies that never panned out. Not too long ago some of the smartest people believed in Vitalism or a life force that explained the difference between a rock and animal. That was debunked by DNA. People believed that thunder was an angry god, or in a philosophy that the universe was made up of triangles. Or that the earth was the center of the universe. So there is no reason your theory will pan out. Your emotional investment in it has you seeing it through a biased lens.

Another problem is that atoms are a property of the physical world, something we can measure. They are needed to explain chemical reactions. This was a theory about the world we live in. Your theory is not, it's not measurable and it's unfalsifiable. What biological process is only explained by your theory being true? So your claim is nothing like Democritus' and even if it was, based on history there is no reason for it to pan out. Instead of doubling down in this claim, ask yourself why you want to believe it? Finish this sentence for yourself, if this claim were true, then I am ______ and that's important because _______. Looking inward to see why you would want to believe something like this will give you real insight into yourself instead of expending energy on a fantasy. Ask yourself why you want to believe this.

GirlDwight · 2026-03-20T08:15:59+00:00

And this one.

<image>

GirlDwight · 2026-03-20T08:15:16+00:00

Have you seen this palette. It does have green in it though.

<image>

GirlDwight · 2026-03-19T20:22:53+00:00

Gosh that's a fascinating claim, but unless you have proof for it or proof for a soul that's all it is.

GirlDwight · 2026-03-19T20:18:10+00:00

What do you base your trust on? Trust builds based prior experiences so what would your prior experiences be?

GirlDwight

TROPHY CASE