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”
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.
Ahh yes, let’s make wild assumptions that fit my own narrative…
Evidence that John wrote John would be evidence to support this.
“I’m not disputing the possibility of a scribe.”
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.
Eusebius’s argument was an ongoing debate between scholars in the early church. However it’s widely recognized as how the church canonized John the apostle as the author.
Historians accept Julius Caesar was born in Suburra, yet the earliest record of that was written by Suetonius, around 200 years after the fact.
No they largely do not. In most histories they say he was born in Rome, some go as far as saying likely in Suburra, but that’s more of an inference as his family was known to be impoverished.
Suetonius is historically valuable, but known as a bit of a gossip, and prone to hearsay.
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.
Yes, but those were written from lost primary and contemporary sources from people like Ptolemy, Aristobulus, and in some cases the king’s journal.
You’re the one working off of assumptions
You’re claiming the new testament that the new testament didn’t first get passed down by oral tradition?
So you’re basically asking me to find you sources documenting the resurrection of Jesus Christ from people who didn’t believe it happened?
No, just saying that you can’t use biased sources to make claims about his motivation.
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”.
I have no idea what you are trying to accuse me of?
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.
Being in the same country as someone is not the same as being in the same cult as someone… Also, plenty of people doubt the accuracy of Caesars commentary on the Gaelic wars. Especially like with most ancient commentaries about the size of opposing armies.
There have been. Are you talking about non Christian sources?
I’m saying that just saying that all religions pick and choose their own doctrine. It’s not like the church adopted the gospel of Mary.
Ahh yes, let’s make wild assumptions that fit my own narrative…
In your land, an 83 year old dude writing something is a “wild assumption”. ok.
Evidence that John wrote John would be evidence to support this.
“I’m not disputing the possibility of a scribe.”
You know what a scribe is… Right? Someone who sits with you as you dictate to them? You know a lot of news report articles about people aren’t actually written by that person, but a journalist themselves… And even then, a scribe is more reliable than a journalist 🤦
Eusebius’s argument was an ongoing debate between scholars in the early church. However it’s widely recognized as how the church canonized John the apostle as the author.
Eusebius was quoting Clement of Alexandria from AD 150…
Yes, but those were written from lost primary and contemporary sources from people like Ptolemy, Aristobulus, and in some cases the king’s journal.
So like what Esebius wrote, and what was likely composed by Luke the Evangelist in his Gospel and the Acts of the Apostles.
You’re claiming the new testament that the new testament didn’t first get passed down by oral tradition?
Yes, because within the timeframe it was written in. The likes of Mark and Luke would have had those aspects, possibly some in Matthew, but even then, oral tradition isn’t unreliable and it takes centuries for supernatural claims and legends to show up.
No, just saying that you can’t use biased sources to make claims about his motivation.
In this case, anything arguing in favour or showing the resurrection of Christ is automatically “biased” by your definition. It’s like arguing with someone about global warming who doesn’t trust scientists or the scientific method - Any science you do show them they dismiss as “biased” because they don’t trust scientists. In the same way, if anyone believed that Jesus rose again, they’d rationally be a Christian. You dismiss this as “biased” because they were a Christian. Or if someone who wasn’t a Christian wrote something that did defend it, then it must be interpolated because of the “bias”.
If the Gospels were biased, they wouldn’t have had bad stories about their leaders at the time. Such as peter denying Jesus, Peter cutting off a dude’s ear and Jesus rebuking him, or James and John trying to get priority status in Glory.
I have no idea what you are trying to accuse me of?
Irrational thinking. The argument for Christian interpolation is basically “Josephus couldn’t have written it, as Jesus didn’t rise from the dead”
I’m saying that just saying that all religions pick and choose their own doctrine. It’s not like the church adopted the gospel of Mary.
Because those gnostic texts were known forgeries.
What reason would have they had to pick and choose the four Gospels over the gnostic texts anyway?
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”
Ahh yes, let’s make wild assumptions that fit my own narrative…
“I’m not disputing the possibility of a scribe.”
Eusebius’s argument was an ongoing debate between scholars in the early church. However it’s widely recognized as how the church canonized John the apostle as the author.
No they largely do not. In most histories they say he was born in Rome, some go as far as saying likely in Suburra, but that’s more of an inference as his family was known to be impoverished.
Suetonius is historically valuable, but known as a bit of a gossip, and prone to hearsay.
Yes, but those were written from lost primary and contemporary sources from people like Ptolemy, Aristobulus, and in some cases the king’s journal.
You’re claiming the new testament that the new testament didn’t first get passed down by oral tradition?
No, just saying that you can’t use biased sources to make claims about his motivation.
I have no idea what you are trying to accuse me of?
Being in the same country as someone is not the same as being in the same cult as someone… Also, plenty of people doubt the accuracy of Caesars commentary on the Gaelic wars. Especially like with most ancient commentaries about the size of opposing armies.
I’m saying that just saying that all religions pick and choose their own doctrine. It’s not like the church adopted the gospel of Mary.
In your land, an 83 year old dude writing something is a “wild assumption”. ok.
You know what a scribe is… Right? Someone who sits with you as you dictate to them? You know a lot of news report articles about people aren’t actually written by that person, but a journalist themselves… And even then, a scribe is more reliable than a journalist 🤦
Eusebius was quoting Clement of Alexandria from AD 150…
So like what Esebius wrote, and what was likely composed by Luke the Evangelist in his Gospel and the Acts of the Apostles.
Yes, because within the timeframe it was written in. The likes of Mark and Luke would have had those aspects, possibly some in Matthew, but even then, oral tradition isn’t unreliable and it takes centuries for supernatural claims and legends to show up.
In this case, anything arguing in favour or showing the resurrection of Christ is automatically “biased” by your definition. It’s like arguing with someone about global warming who doesn’t trust scientists or the scientific method - Any science you do show them they dismiss as “biased” because they don’t trust scientists. In the same way, if anyone believed that Jesus rose again, they’d rationally be a Christian. You dismiss this as “biased” because they were a Christian. Or if someone who wasn’t a Christian wrote something that did defend it, then it must be interpolated because of the “bias”.
If the Gospels were biased, they wouldn’t have had bad stories about their leaders at the time. Such as peter denying Jesus, Peter cutting off a dude’s ear and Jesus rebuking him, or James and John trying to get priority status in Glory.
Irrational thinking. The argument for Christian interpolation is basically “Josephus couldn’t have written it, as Jesus didn’t rise from the dead”
Because those gnostic texts were known forgeries.
What reason would have they had to pick and choose the four Gospels over the gnostic texts anyway?