aa5874

It is clear that that authors who used gMark thought gMark's Jesus was Fathered by Holy Ghost.

In gMatthew and gLuke, the Jesus that was claimed to be the Son of a Ghost was essentially gMark's Jesus from Baptism to the Empty tomb.

gMark's version of the Jesus story had a MASSIVE influence on writers of antiquity.

Duvduv

For what it's worth, it's interesting that according to the chart on this page: http://gwydir.demon.co.uk/jo/gospels/index.htm GJohn and GMark only share one item not shared by GMatt and GLuke, the curing of the blind man.

The other cases where GJohn shares items with all the synoptics are only regarding JtB, Jesus coming to Jerusalem and at the Temple, Jesus in Nazareth, the feeding of the 5000 and the items relating to the end of his career, crucifixion and resurrection, suggesting that GJohn was written from a different set of sources.

aa5874

There are TWO fundamental ways that gJohn was compiled. The author either used sources or his inventions whether wholly or in part.

Differences in gJohn and gMark cannot be assumed to be from other unknown sources when we know stories in gJohn Must have been invented.

Duvduv

Ultimately everything there was invented. My point was simply to show that although there was a basic outline floating around of some legends concerning the Jesus figure (i.e oral stories preceding the written GMark story), GJohn may have obtained different ones from other sources. Apparently the most common stories floating around concerned the events leading up to the crucifixion which are shared by all four gospels. I am intrigued that the story of feeding the 5000 was the only one GJohn shared with the others. It would appear that the overall outline of the Jesus story preceded GMark and found its way with different events into GJohn but became more standardized in the synoptics.

aa5874

Again, you IMAGINE your own story that preceded gMark. Why do you develop theories based on IMAGINARY evidence??? It is completely unnecessary.

You should use the AVAILABLE evidence and modify your theories as more evidence is found.

We can deduce that the Canonised short-ending gMark was composed before the Canonised long-ending gMark based on the 12 additional interpolated verses.

We can deduce that the Canonised gMatthew was composed AFTER the Canonised short-ending gMark because of the Additional "details" not found in the short-ending gMark.

We can deduced that the Canonised gLuke was composed AFTER gMatthew because it contains even more "details" and did not include certain problematic events in gMatthew.

The Canonised gJohn was was composed AFTER the earlier Synoptics because it contains "details" about the Origin of Jesus not found in the Canonised Synoptics and also removed ALL the so-called Failed Prophecies found in the Synoptics.

Imaginary evidence is NEVER used to construct the past or to develop theories.

DATA FIRST---THEORY LAST.

We have DATA--THEORIES can be developed from the THOUSANDS of NT manuscripts and non-canonical sources.

Duvduv

But you know that the synoptics are not identical and that changes were made in GMatt and GLuke, where sometimes GLuke relies on GMark and sometimes on GMatt. Obviously GMatt had other legends to integrate. So it doesn't take a brain surgeon to figure out that GJohn did not rely on the synoptics and had access to other sources that the synoptics did not use. Probably oral traditions/legends that did not make their way to the synoptics.

In the case of the curing of the blind man which is only in GMark and GJohn one would assume that GMark and GJohn obtained that story from a common source.

aa5874

Please PRESENT the sources gJohn used. Why do you ALWAYS have some imaginary sources. What chapter and what verse of your imaginary source did the author of gJohn copy??

Why could NOT the author of gJohn INVENT the raising of Lazarus from the dead???

Unless you can present your imaginary sources then I will maintain that the author of gJohn INVENTED the Lazarus story.

As soon as you PRESENT your sources I MAY REVIEW my position if your sources are Credible.

DATA FIRST---THEORY LAST.

Duvduv

Just like you, AA, i use deductive reasoning, inferences, based on observation and analysis, which is practiced in areas of historical research and non-statistical social sciences.

aa5874

You are using imagination not deductive reasoning. I asked you for the sources that gJohn used for the Lazarus story and you have failed to present them.

Again, please show that the author of gJohn did NOT invent the stories that are NOT found in the Synoptics.

I cannot ASSUME that the author of gJohn used sources that have NEVER been found.

Duvduv

AA, if there is no evidence we use inference and deduction, don't we?? I don't have Julius Cesaer's birth certificate and neither does anyone else, but we infer and deduce he was born based on many sources referring to him, although it is impossible to empirically prove his existence.