outhouse

false this is nothing more then your ignorance of this topic speaking. There is a over abundance of evidence for the Johannine communities

You should really try and read a scholarship on the Johaninne communities so you dont embarrass yourself so much

Duvduv

Thank you for the "compliment." Now just tell us where these important Johanine communities existed, when they existed, when they ceased to exist, who some of their leaders were and how many people they were.

outhouse

you know I luv ya brother duv


try reading this if you want another view that does answer to some extent, your questions.



http://archive.hsscol.org.hk/Archive...ract/A012k.htm

Duvduv

Thanks, just read it. Not bad as a screenplay for a movie.
Alot of hypothesizing, nothing else.

Toto

"THE JOHANNINE COMMUNITY" by Herman Hendrickx, C. I. C. M.
Theology Annual vol. 12 1990-1991 p.167-180

Theology, hypothesizing - about the same.

CICM = Congregation of the Immaculate Heart of Mary (from the Latin "Congregatio Immaculati Cordis Mariae")

outhouse

so what?


its just a easier read of scholarships, of which most are pretty close to.




do you discount everyone who has done better work then you ?

Toto

So you are linking to religious propaganda and calling it scholarship. It iis very well written, but hardly a summary of secular scholarship.

This is theology, not history:

This reshaping of an originally independent stream of tradition is what gave the Fourth Gospel its peculiar character, advancing its portrayal of Jesus ever farther from the earlier tradition toward a deeper understanding, in a process perceived by the community as the work of the Spirit of Truth

How can anyone know that there were independent streams of tradition, as opposed to human inventiveness? What evidence is there of this community in the first century? There is none.

Most Biblical scholarship of this sort is religious propaganda.

But this doesn't even seem to incorporate all of the real scholarship on John. Are you aware of the controversy over Signs Gospel? The variety of opinions on this gospel?

From what I have read, there is no real consensus on the dating of this gospel, or the nature of whatever "community" used it.

Can you write anything without trying to insult or put down other posters?

outhouse

Thing is toto, I can admit im wrong if someone does enough decent work, or builds a decent case to make their point.

I will also fold, when I see good knowledge put forth, and give praise.


<edit>


Boloney


before youy can make a statement like that you need credibility, and you dont have it. I doubt you understand the context of it all, based upon the questions you have written in this post..

<edit>

your barking out from the bleechers, trying to tell the players what they dont know how to play, <edit>


yes, its not much of a controversy, as it is a search for the origination for the Johannine tradition, and what best explains it. My hats off to those still searching for a better understanding

understood

There's quite a few questions surrounding it, as other gospels, and much of history from this period.


<edit> they both work mutually together in this context.

its giving a description of the multiple authors theological understandings compared to the synoptic gospels and the communities perception of what hey were trying to convey

which is all important in understanding the context of the Johannine communities


there is nothing there that speaks of any bias aplied towards the findings proposed


because, this is like a magnifying glass on your failure as a myther, its obvious this wasnt thought up independantly and written as fiction. Upon careful study of this and other scripture's we see by the multiple authors and redactions, we see different ideas and viewpoints compiled into a single work.

not only that your question doesnt even make sense, who says the independant streams were not fiction? after all we know its mythology that grew.

I guess what im trying to say without hurting your feelings, is this, because your ignorant to the topic doesnt mean after study by trained proffessionals that know this inside out and upside down, that they dont understand this and the traditions well.


Honestly by your questions, I wonder if you have ever read the work surrounding this topic.



did you read the whole link on this? there is plenty of evidence, and it flat states it.



quit reading bogus works, and you will see, there is no real debate, after 90 and before 100 works quite well.

actually some information is present

started out jewish 40-50, kicked out of a synagogue, a little ticked off at the group of jews that did this over their belief in jesus, the community evolved away from judaism with their new found beliefs.


<edit>










and exactly why I posted it



it covers quite a bit of ground without getting stale, I pulled it for its short length, while not being to dry, and keeping a pretty decent overview for the intended target.

outhouse

most of it is based on Raymond Browns work, a highly respected scholar.

As well as David Rensberger

Toto

I don't see any fact, arguments, or links here, just more insults.


Theology is the study of god(s). Are you stating that god intervenes in history? How else would theology work with secular history?


Your source claims that there were "traditions."


There's no way you can hurt my feelings. Especially since I know a bit about those trained professionals.

Yes, I read your link, and I didn't see any evidence. I saw the usual weasel words "best efforts to reconstruct that history"



There is no evidence of this. It is a "reconstruction" based on the assumption that the gospel story is historical.