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?
In your land, an 83 year old dude writing something is a “wild assumption”. ok.
What makes you assume he’s 83? The only thing informing your assumptions are your conclusions. He must be the author, so he must have lived to 100ad, which means he must have been 16 when Jesus died…
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 🤦
A scribe can also be some writing down an oral tradition…
Eusebius was quoting Clement of Alexandria from AD 150
Clement was born in 150ad… Eusebius utilized different sources to propose that there were at least two different johns. John the apostle who he supposed wrote the book of John and Presbyter John, who he believed wrote revelations.
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.
“is widely agreed amongst Biblical scholars that accounts of Jesus’s teachings and life were initially conserved by oral transmission, which was the source of the written gospels”
In this case, anything arguing in favour or showing the resurrection of Christ is automatically “biased” by your definition.
No, if we had records from the Romans claiming the guy they crusified a couple days ago is back…that would be a source from outside his fellowship.
It’s like arguing with someone about global warming who doesn’t trust scientists or the scientific method
Lol, you are comparing magic to 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 don’t have to trust science, science is repeatable, it’s self explanatory… If I saw someone who was publicly executed and then I saw them again three days later, I wouldn’t automatically think they’re the son of God. I would rationally think it’s a different dude posing as him, or that they didn’t actually kill him.
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.
If scientology was biased they wouldn’t have bad stories about their leaders at the time…
Josephus couldn’t have written it, as Jesus didn’t rise from the dead"
Still have no idea what you are babbeling about?
Because those gnostic texts were known forgeries.
How so? The earliest evidence of the gospel of Mary is from the 3rd century and was thought to be written in the 2nd.
reason would have they had to pick and choose the four Gospels over the gnostic texts anyway?
What makes you assume he’s 83? The only thing informing your assumptions are your conclusions. He must be the author, so he must have lived to 100ad, which means he must have been 16 when Jesus died…
This is a pretty reasonable assumption? No?
A scribe can also be some writing down an oral tradition…
That’s not what I was referring to at all. It would be silly to think I was in the context I was talking about John writing John.
Clement was born in 150ad… Eusebius utilized different sources to propose that there were at least two different johns. John the apostle who he supposed wrote the book of John and Presbyter John, who he believed wrote revelations.
The writer of John still identifies himself as being at the crucifixion and last supper anyway. That’s a different debate over who wrote revelation.
“is widely agreed amongst Biblical scholars that accounts of Jesus’s teachings and life were initially conserved by oral transmission, which was the source of the written gospels”
Did you just quote Wikipedia? The admins on there are neckbeards such as Tgeorgescu who basically had a “no Christian apologists” rule which is impossible, because any historian who argues something that is pro Christianity, they are automatically labelled a “Christian apologist”.
No, if we had records from the Romans claiming the guy they crusified a couple days ago is back…that would be a source from outside his fellowship.
(63) Now, there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man, for he was a doer of wonderful works-a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews, and many of the Gentiles. He was [the] Christ; (64) and when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him, for he appeared to them alive again the third day, as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him; and the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day.
The Antiquities of the Jews, Book 18, Chapter 3
From The Works of Josephus,
translated by William Whiston
If scientology was biased they wouldn’t have bad stories about their leaders at the time…
Are these in actual Scientology “scriptures”?
How so? The earliest evidence of the gospel of Mary is from the 3rd century and was thought to be written in the 2nd.
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?
What makes you assume he’s 83? The only thing informing your assumptions are your conclusions. He must be the author, so he must have lived to 100ad, which means he must have been 16 when Jesus died…
A scribe can also be some writing down an oral tradition…
Clement was born in 150ad… Eusebius utilized different sources to propose that there were at least two different johns. John the apostle who he supposed wrote the book of John and Presbyter John, who he believed wrote revelations.
“is widely agreed amongst Biblical scholars that accounts of Jesus’s teachings and life were initially conserved by oral transmission, which was the source of the written gospels”
No, if we had records from the Romans claiming the guy they crusified a couple days ago is back…that would be a source from outside his fellowship.
Lol, you are comparing magic to the scientific method?
You don’t have to trust science, science is repeatable, it’s self explanatory… If I saw someone who was publicly executed and then I saw them again three days later, I wouldn’t automatically think they’re the son of God. I would rationally think it’s a different dude posing as him, or that they didn’t actually kill him.
If scientology was biased they wouldn’t have bad stories about their leaders at the time…
Still have no idea what you are babbeling about?
How so? The earliest evidence of the gospel of Mary is from the 3rd century and was thought to be written in the 2nd.
Because it didn’t fit within church doctrine.
This is a pretty reasonable assumption? No?
That’s not what I was referring to at all. It would be silly to think I was in the context I was talking about John writing John.
The writer of John still identifies himself as being at the crucifixion and last supper anyway. That’s a different debate over who wrote revelation.
Did you just quote Wikipedia? The admins on there are neckbeards such as Tgeorgescu who basically had a “no Christian apologists” rule which is impossible, because any historian who argues something that is pro Christianity, they are automatically labelled a “Christian apologist”.
The Antiquities of the Jews, Book 18, Chapter 3 From The Works of Josephus, translated by William Whiston
Are these in actual Scientology “scriptures”?
So not the first…
And how did they establish doctrine?