Quote:

Quote:1)  Mark’s Gospel dates from around AD 65. The authors of the other three Gospels used Mark as one of their primary sources, but embellished the details, thereby making their Gospels lengthier than Mark’s. Also, the other authors, writing later than Mark, had access to additional material.

2)  This being said, one should not under estimate John’s scholarly abilities. He had the unique ability to blend historical fact with theological purpose in dramatic narrative. He takes the historical facts of the other three Gospels and blends them with the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, making this Gospel the unique blending of the practical and the mystical. Although written from a Jewish perspective, he uses the vocabulary of the contemporary Hellenistic mind.

This actually sums up my interpretation of John pretty neatly.

What historical facts is john blending..and what is a less kind description of "theological purpose" which "john" purportedly blends them with?

The above immediately makes me wonder wither people would accept believing in Abraham Lincoln, Vampire Hunter. Surely not? But is there actually an Abraham Lincoln in the biblical story..or is it even worse? It;s hard to ignore the indications that the character of jesus was explicitly designed -as- a vehicle for the "theological purpose". Every mundane detail serves. Scrub all the miracles (supernatural and natural) and we;re still left with a character tailor made to fit a retconned sequel.

Heres an interesting Q. How many people who truck with the christian faith could accept or continue on if the character of jesus was fiction? Does he have to be real...real like you or I? If so...why?

Quote:1)  Mark’s Gospel dates from around AD 65.

Lots of HJ types use the Little Apocalypse of Mark 13 as an excuse for dating it to 70 at the earliest.  To refresh your memory:

Quote:13 As Jesus was leaving the temple, one of his disciples said to him, “Look, Teacher! What massive stones! What magnificent buildings!”

2 “Do you see all these great buildings?” replied Jesus. “Not one stone here will be left on another; every one will be thrown down.”

Since rational people dismiss prophecy as horseshit this becomes the terminus a quo for mark.... the earliest possible date.  The problem is that it requires a stretch.  Josephus who was present at the siege gives a rather grandiose version of the battle and the subsequent fire which left the city a burned out ruin.  Parts were cleared and served as a permanent base for the X Legion which was moved from its base in Syria to Judaea.  The 10th was tasked with cleaning up the few remaining jewish enclaves such as Masada.  Now markie claims that the godboy said "not one stone here will be left on another."  Normally this could be dismissed as hyperbole but in this particular case it did eventually happen.  Emperor Hadrian ordered the ruins of the city to be leveled and a new Roman city, Aelia Capitolina, built on top of it.  So leveling the rubble to form a foundation for the new city would have meant that "not one stone will be left on another" DID happen.  Only it happened closer to 130 AD as opposed to 70.

Shortly thereafter the resentment of the jews boiled over into the Third Jewish War which was brutally suppressed and the (remaining) jews were then kicked out of Judaea.  We also see the spectacle of the ensuing gospel accounts becoming more and more anti-semitic which, after 3 revolts probably had the Romans pretty pissed off.

Not only the increasing antisemitism of gospel...but the contortions to rehabilitate rome.   Proto-christianity was being romanized. Made more useful to empire.

(July 5, 2018 at 1:37 pm)Minimalist Wrote:

(July 5, 2018 at 10:29 am)mh.brewer Wrote: Help me out here guys. If jesus was not a god (son of god) then why does it really matter if there was a poser(s) or not?

This feels like a bunch of mental masturbation.

Actually, it doesn't.  It is merely an academic argument where on the one hand you have people pointing out that there is no direct contemporary evidence for the allegedly wondrous things the poser did and others who swear their bullshit is true.

Most of those scholars they are so quick to embrace utterly reject the miracle nonsense which brings us to what H. L. Mencken noted.

Quote:Either Jesus arose from the dead or He didn't. If he did, then Christianity becomes plausible; if He did not, then it is sheer nonsense.

Mark me down as a vote for "sheer nonsense."

See your bold

Actually it does, I asked if jesus was god or not (which seems to include rose from the dead), got crickets. This is a battle over someone named jesus existing supporting the religion. It's sheer nonsense even if jesus did exist but not as a god. 

You can fight your battles all you want. gods don't exist and all religions are bullshit.

I know.  It's just an intellectual exercise against opponents who think fairy tales are factual. *

*  Of course, that only applies to their fairy tales.  I've yet to find one xhristard who accepts that mohammed rode up to heaven on a horse!

---

(July 5, 2018 at 2:55 pm)Khemikal Wrote: Not only the increasing antisemitism of gospel...but the contortions to rehabilitate rome.   Proto-christianity was being romanized.  Made more useful to empire.

The two go hand in hand.  The more the jews were made to seem like blood-thirsty jesus killers the more Pilate was made to seem like a wimp.  That even ignores the later nonsensical "Acts of Pilate" where the fucker becomes a goddamned xtian himself!

The xtian forgery mill truly was shameless.  Sort of the FOX News of their day.

(July 5, 2018 at 2:39 pm)Minimalist Wrote:

Quote:1)  Mark’s Gospel dates from around AD 65.

Lots of HJ types use the Little Apocalypse of Mark 13 as an excuse for dating it to 70 at the earliest.  To refresh your memory:

Quote:13 As Jesus was leaving the temple, one of his disciples said to him, “Look, Teacher! What massive stones! What magnificent buildings!”

2 “Do you see all these great buildings?” replied Jesus. “Not one stone here will be left on another; every one will be thrown down.”

Since rational people dismiss prophecy as horseshit this becomes the terminus a quo for mark.... the earliest possible date.  The problem is that it requires a stretch.  Josephus who was present at the siege gives a rather grandiose version of the battle and the subsequent fire which left the city a burned out ruin.  Parts were cleared and served as a permanent base for the X Legion which was moved from its base in Syria to Judaea.  The 10th was tasked with cleaning up the few remaining jewish enclaves such as Masada.  Now markie claims that the godboy said "not one stone here will be left on another."  Normally this could be dismissed as hyperbole but in this particular case it did eventually happen.  Emperor Hadrian ordered the ruins of the city to be leveled and a new Roman city, Aelia Capitolina, built on top of it.  So leveling the rubble to form a foundation for the new city would have meant that "not one stone will be left on another" DID happen.  Only it happened closer to 130 AD as opposed to 70.

Shortly thereafter the resentment of the jews boiled over into the Third Jewish War which was brutally suppressed and the (remaining) jews were then kicked out of Judaea.  We also see the spectacle of the ensuing gospel accounts becoming more and more anti-semitic which, after 3 revolts probably had the Romans pretty pissed off.

One issue with dating Mark as late as 130 A.D.
is that we have a fragment of John from c. 125-175 A.D. which could cause some overlap in the dating.

There are such things as professional paleographers, you know.

https://vridar.org/2013/03/08/new-date-f...pyrus-p52/

Quote:In conclusion, Orsine and Clarysse chastise biblical scholars for embracing unsupportably early dates for their manuscripts:

There are no first century New Testament papyri and only very few can be attributed to the second century (P52, P90, P104, probably all the second half of the century) or somewhere between the late second and early third centuries (P30, P64+67+4, 0171, 0212).

The one you are referring to is P-52. And for the record, Justin in his First Apology written around 160 AD never heard of any of these so-called named gospels.  Then again, he didn't know anything about anyone named "Paul" either which is odd considering that he is supposed to have been very important to early xtians in Rome but he did know about Marcion.

---

And speaking of professional paleographers I note the passing of renowned scholar Ada Yardeni a week or so ago.

(July 5, 2018 at 6:21 pm)Minimalist Wrote: There are such things as professional paleographers, you know.

https://vridar.org/2013/03/08/new-date-f...pyrus-p52/

Quote:In conclusion, Orsine and Clarysse chastise biblical scholars for embracing unsupportably early dates for their manuscripts:

There are no first century New Testament papyri and only very few can be attributed to the second century (P52, P90, P104, probably all the second half of the century) or somewhere between the late second and early third centuries (P30, P64+67+4, 0171, 0212).

The one you are referring to is P-52. And for the record, Justin in his First Apology written around 160 AD never heard of any of these so-called named gospels.  Then again, he didn't know anything about anyone named "Paul" either which is odd considering that he is supposed to have been very important to early xtians in Rome but he did know about Marcion.

---

And speaking of professional paleographers I note the passing of renowned scholar Ada Yardeni a week or so ago.

Correct. There have been no discoveries of 1st century manuscripts. In fact P-52 is, iirc, the oldest known manuscript we have. I know its 2nd century. The earliest date people initially gave it was 100 AD but that's been re-evaluated recently to 125-175 AD, which could put it closer to the 3rd century. I'm not contesting that point.

However; this does not mean that P-52 is the original of John.

Quote:I still don’t understand what methodolgies or principles that you are saying I’m being inconsistent on? Are you making assumptions, or is this on something or her than the context of the discussion?

Je's been clear as day quite stalling