How do you define “primary source”? The section I quoted was written by someone who knew Jesus personally
It’s a reinterpretation of oral accounts passed down decades after the deaths of the people it’s about, and was first attributed to John nearly 180 years later. The gospel of John was first authored anonymously around 90-100ad and attributed to John by Irenaeus in 185ad
That is definitely contemporary for accounts at this point in history.
Not really, contemporary sources are generally limited to people involved with the actual history.
A lot of what we know about other people were written down centuries after.
When combined with other contextual sources.
Okay then, do you have any evidence on the contrary? That those weren’t His motivations?
I’m not the one making the claim that other religions are wrong and Christianity is true. Do you have evidence that Joseph Smith, Muhammad, or Buddha had alternative motives?
What temple did He destroy? The temple was destroyed in 70AD
I meant the first time… Not literally destroyed, but trashed, fucked dudes up, flipped tables.
It’s a reinterpretation of oral accounts passed down decades after the deaths of the people it’s about, and was first attributed to John nearly 180 years later. The gospel of John was first authored anonymously around 90-100ad and attributed to John by Irenaeus in 185ad
90-100ad isn’t decades after the death of people it’s about.
And it wasn’t authored anonymously.
John 21:20-25 ESV
[20] Peter turned and saw the disciple whom Jesus loved following them, the one who also had leaned back against him during the supper and had said, “Lord, who is it that is going to betray you?” [21] When Peter saw him, he said to Jesus, “Lord, what about this man?” [22] Jesus said to him, “If it is my will that he remain until I come, what is that to you? You follow me!” [23] So the saying spread abroad among the brothers that this disciple was not to die; yet Jesus did not say to him that he was not to die, but, “If it is my will that he remain until I come, what is that to you?” [24] This is the disciple who is bearing witness about these things, and who has written these things, and we know that his testimony is true. [25] Now there are also many other things that Jesus did. Were every one of them to be written, I suppose that the world itself could not contain the books that would be written.
That this disciple reclined with Jesus and was at the crucifixion and resurrection.
John 13:23 ESV
One of his disciples, whom Jesus loved, was reclining at table at Jesus’ side,
John 19:25-26 ESV
but standing by the cross of Jesus were his mother and his mother’s sister, Mary the wife of Clopas, and Mary Magdalene. [26] When Jesus saw his mother and the disciple whom he loved standing nearby, he said to his mother, “Woman, behold, your son!”
John 20:2-5
[2] So she ran and went to Simon Peter and the other disciple, the one whom Jesus loved, and said to them, “They have taken the Lord out of the tomb, and we do not know where they have laid him.” [3] So Peter went out with the other disciple, and they were going toward the tomb. [4] Both of them were running together, but the other disciple outran Peter and reached the tomb first. [5] And stooping to look in, he saw the linen cloths lying there, but he did not go in.
It also makes sense that somebody would know who wrote the Gospel. The authorship of the Gospels were never disputed in the early Church despite geographic spread. So that doesn’t mean that Irenaeus (A student of Polycarp who was a disciple of John) made it up
Not really, contemporary sources are generally limited to people involved with the actual history.
Which the writer of John clearly was.
When combined with other contextual sources.
There are four detailed accounts of Jesus.
I’m not the one making the claim that other religions are wrong and Christianity is true. Do you have evidence that Joseph Smith, Muhammad, or Buddha had alternative motives?
Mormonism has been debunked by the finding of the “original” papyrus to one of their scriptures. The Qur’an claims to be in agreement with the Bible yet contradicts the hell out of it. Mohammed and JS had numerous wives because “god told me” and Mohammed was a warlord, JS tried to set up “deseret”
90-100ad isn’t decades after the death of people it’s about.
I’m guessing you are claiming the John lives to be nearly a hundred years old? Even though there is no evidence to support this…
And it wasn’t authored anonymously.
Yes… It was. He did not assign his name or identify himself as the author. Most people believe him to be the author through contextual clues as you suggested. These contextual clues first put forth in 185ad have shaped the ways people reintertpred and translated the Bible every since.
Which the writer of John clearly was.
John did not write it… He may have orally transferred the story to someone who later wrote it down after the time of his death. You’re working off of assumptions that are highly disputable.
There are four detailed accounts of Jesus.
From his own cadra of followers… That’s like saying everything scientology claims about L Ron Hubbard is true because it was witnessed by 4 different scientologist.
Mormonism has been debunked by the finding of the “original” papyrus to one of their scriptures. The Qur’an claims to be in agreement with the Bible yet contradicts the hell out of it. Mohammed and JS had numerous wives because “god told me” and Mohammed was a warlord, JS tried to set up “deseret”
And all Christian text are non contradictory…? There haven’t been any ancient scripts found about Christianity that the church hasn’t adopted?
I’m guessing you are claiming the John lives to be nearly a hundred years old?
If John was, let’s say 16 at the time of Jesus’ crucifixion in 33 AD, then he’d be 83 years old if it was written in 100 AD. A reasonable age. I’m not disputing the possibility of a scribe.
Even though there is no evidence to support this…
Evidence that John wrote John would be evidence to support this.
These contextual clues first put forth in 185ad
You’ve got no evidence to support this than an argument from silence. That is the earliest RECORDED evidence. And from that time frame, that’s pretty damn close. Historians accept Julius Caesar was born in Suburra, yet the earliest record of that was written by Suetonius, around 200 years after the fact.
Then there’s Alexander the great - born in 300 BC but the records of his biography we use were written in the second century AD, by Arrian and Plutarch.
John did not write it… He may have orally transferred the story to someone who later wrote it down after the time of his death. You’re working off of assumptions that are highly disputable.
You’re the one working off of assumptions
From his own cadra of followers… That’s like saying everything scientology claims about L Ron Hubbard is true because it was witnessed by 4 different scientologist.
So you’re basically asking me to find you sources documenting the resurrection of Jesus Christ from people who didn’t believe it happened? Don’t you realise how silly of a proposition that is? That, and whenever someone were to propose someone like Josephus, you’ll just cry “Christian interpolation”, while most people are crying that using circular reasoning that he mustn’t have written about it because “someone can’t rise from the dead”. We’d have to throw out almost everything we know about Julius Caesar with that logic as it was either written by him or someone in his country at the time.
And all Christian text are non contradictory…? There haven’t been any ancient scripts found about Christianity that the church hasn’t adopted?
There have been. Are you talking about non Christian sources? stating that the Church was “adopting everything someone wrote about Jesus”
It’s a reinterpretation of oral accounts passed down decades after the deaths of the people it’s about, and was first attributed to John nearly 180 years later. The gospel of John was first authored anonymously around 90-100ad and attributed to John by Irenaeus in 185ad
Not really, contemporary sources are generally limited to people involved with the actual history.
When combined with other contextual sources.
I’m not the one making the claim that other religions are wrong and Christianity is true. Do you have evidence that Joseph Smith, Muhammad, or Buddha had alternative motives?
I meant the first time… Not literally destroyed, but trashed, fucked dudes up, flipped tables.
90-100ad isn’t decades after the death of people it’s about.
And it wasn’t authored anonymously.
John 21:20-25 ESV
That this disciple reclined with Jesus and was at the crucifixion and resurrection.
John 13:23 ESV
John 19:25-26 ESV
John 20:2-5
So this is clearly a primary source.
More reasoning for narrowing it down to John can be found here.
It also makes sense that somebody would know who wrote the Gospel. The authorship of the Gospels were never disputed in the early Church despite geographic spread. So that doesn’t mean that Irenaeus (A student of Polycarp who was a disciple of John) made it up
Which the writer of John clearly was.
There are four detailed accounts of Jesus.
Mormonism has been debunked by the finding of the “original” papyrus to one of their scriptures. The Qur’an claims to be in agreement with the Bible yet contradicts the hell out of it. Mohammed and JS had numerous wives because “god told me” and Mohammed was a warlord, JS tried to set up “deseret”
I’m guessing you are claiming the John lives to be nearly a hundred years old? Even though there is no evidence to support this…
Yes… It was. He did not assign his name or identify himself as the author. Most people believe him to be the author through contextual clues as you suggested. These contextual clues first put forth in 185ad have shaped the ways people reintertpred and translated the Bible every since.
John did not write it… He may have orally transferred the story to someone who later wrote it down after the time of his death. You’re working off of assumptions that are highly disputable.
From his own cadra of followers… That’s like saying everything scientology claims about L Ron Hubbard is true because it was witnessed by 4 different scientologist.
And all Christian text are non contradictory…? There haven’t been any ancient scripts found about Christianity that the church hasn’t adopted?
If John was, let’s say 16 at the time of Jesus’ crucifixion in 33 AD, then he’d be 83 years old if it was written in 100 AD. A reasonable age. I’m not disputing the possibility of a scribe.
Evidence that John wrote John would be evidence to support this.
You’ve got no evidence to support this than an argument from silence. That is the earliest RECORDED evidence. And from that time frame, that’s pretty damn close. Historians accept Julius Caesar was born in Suburra, yet the earliest record of that was written by Suetonius, around 200 years after the fact.
Then there’s Alexander the great - born in 300 BC but the records of his biography we use were written in the second century AD, by Arrian and Plutarch.
You’re the one working off of assumptions
So you’re basically asking me to find you sources documenting the resurrection of Jesus Christ from people who didn’t believe it happened? Don’t you realise how silly of a proposition that is? That, and whenever someone were to propose someone like Josephus, you’ll just cry “Christian interpolation”, while most people are crying that using circular reasoning that he mustn’t have written about it because “someone can’t rise from the dead”. We’d have to throw out almost everything we know about Julius Caesar with that logic as it was either written by him or someone in his country at the time.
There have been. Are you talking about non Christian sources? stating that the Church was “adopting everything someone wrote about Jesus”