aa5874

Well, you have ERRED.

You therefore do not know anything about ALL EXTANT writings. You cannot tell me who wrote a single word in any extant document of antiquity or about the REVISION, INTERPOLATION, REDACTION history of ALL EXTANT TEXTS of antiquity.


Well, you have ERRED again.

You really DON'T know ALL what I know or have seen.

I deserve the right to EXPRESS MY sentiment BASED on what I have found in EXTANT writings.

Based on what I have seen so far, "Paul" is a LATE writer. The Pauline writings as PRESENTED in the NT Canon are DELIBERATE Mis-representation of historical facts with respect to the Jesus story.

Based on what I seen so far, the Jesus story was started sometime AFTER the Fall of the Temple c70 CE.

The Pauline Epistles are NOT from the 1st century nor before the Fall of the Jewish Temple c70 CE.

"Paul" was really the LAST author in the NT Canon BASED on the EVIDENCE from antiquity that I have seen so far.

You have blatantly ERRED. I did NOT make ABSOLUTE statements. I make statements BASED on the PRESENTED EXTANT EVIDENCE.

My findings do NOT allow me to argue for other possibilities OTHER than what the EVIDENCE shows. I have been INVESTIGATING these matters for OVER 5 years now.

I NEED SOURCES of ANTIQUITY to make an argument. I don't know or have not seen any SOURCES of ANTIQUITY that show gJohn was BEFORE the Synoptic type Gospels so I can't argue for such a possibility.

I don't tell people what possibilities to argue.

My argument is that gJohn is AFTER the Synoptic type Gospels BASED on the PRESENTED EXTANT gJohn, gMark, gMatthew, gLuke, the Pauline writings, Revelation, Philo, Josephus, Tacitus, Suetonius, Theophilus of Antioch, Athenagoras, Municius Felix, Aristides, Origen and Eusebius.

Other people can argue whatever they think is possible.

aa5874

Acts of the Apostles and the Pauline writings cannot be shown or CORROBORATED to have been written in the 1st century or were known to Jews.

Based on Josephus, Tacitus and Suetonius, it was KNOWN and CIRCULATED among Jews that Messianic rulers would come at around 70 CE.

The NT Canon is historically BOGUS. The TIMELINE is ALL WRONG and MULTIPLE-ATTESTED by Josephus, Tacitus and Suetonius.

See Wars of the Jews 6.5.4, Tacitus' "Histories" 5 and Suetonius' "Life of Vespasian".

There was NO Messiah known as Jesus, RESURRECTED on the THIRD day, during the governorship of Pilate in the reign of Tiberius.

JonA

Why?

I don't think the matter really has anything to do with whether the historical Jesus was an actual individual or not.

It would be helpful if you'd actually run us all through the critical examination that you find undermines the points you've listed.

Theology, mostly.

Jon

TedM

aa, nothing you replied addresses my point, which all goes back to what Paul thought about a resurrected man. Do you do this deliberately? It's very annoying. Again you are wasting time by continuing this off-topic issue..Your theories about Pauline epistles being later are so far off the charts in terms of 'wacko ideas' that I'm not interested in discussing them with you. Let us now let the thread continue to discuss GJohn. I will not reply any more on this OT issue.

J-D

You cannot tell who wrote a single word in any extant document of antiquity.

J-D

No, we can't. The rules of the board don't allow it.

PhilosopherJay

Hi JonA


All Godlike portrayals of Jesus are early
The Pauline Epistles have a Godlike portray of Jesus
Therefore the Pauline Epistles are considered early.

All Godlike portrayals of Jesus are early
The Gospel of John has a Godlike portrayal of Jesus
Therefore the Gospel of John is not early.

If you are going to use the first syllogism, you can't logically use the second.

The three points I made were:

1. Irenaeus and the other Church Fathers say that John wrote it last.
2. John does not have Jesus baptized by John the Baptist.
3. John is more anti-Jewish than the other gospels.

1. Reconstructing Irenaeus and other Church Fathers' sources are problematical. They relate mainly mythological fantasies. Irenaeus said that Jesus died around 50 years old in the time of the emperor Claudius and "Lord descended into the regions beneath the earth, preaching His advent there also, and [declaring] the remission of sins received by those who believe in Him." Tertullian tells us that John around the age of 100 was boiled in oil and lived. Eusebius tells us that Jesus corresponded with kings who sought his aid with their health problems. The Church Fathers all seem to have had a problem distinguishing fairy tales from reality.

2. It is imagined that the writer of John did not have Jesus baptized by John the Baptist because he was embarrassed by the fact. This assumes it was a fact and the writer of the Gospel of Mark was honestly reporting it. There is no evidence that the writer of Mark was embarrassed by this. Rather, one might just as well suppose that Mark invented it to associate Jesus with the popular John and to explain that his powers came from his bapitism.

3. It is supposed that John is the most anti-Jewish gospel and therefore must come from a time long after the break from Judaism. Passages in John contain raging anti-semitism for sure, but it is hard to measure which of the four gospels is the most anti-semitic. They all are centered on promoting anti-semitism/Judaism. [/I]

Warmly,

Jay Raskin

aa5874

Or alternatively, gJohn is considered late with Jesus as God therefore the Pauline writings can be considered late too.

Or alternatively, if you use the second, then you can't logically use the first.

In the Pauline writings it is claimed Jesus was God's OWN Son and Paul claimed he was NOT the apostle of a MAN. See Galatians 1.1, 2.20 and 4.4.

The idea of a Godlike and heavenly Jewish Messiah is a LATE invention AFTER the Fall of the Temple and destruction of Jerusalem.

The expectation of an earthly Jewish Messianic was a disaster for the Jews, tens of thousands of Jews were killed and the Temple destroyed so it appears that the invented HEAVENLY Jewish Messiah was offered to the Jews for SALVATION.

Of the three Canonized Synoptics, gLuke is considered the LATEST is most compatible with gJohn.

In ONLY in gLuke of the Synoptics, the resurrected Jesus PROMISED the Holy Ghost and in also gJohn.

There is hardly any dispute that gJohn is LATE once all the Gospel stories are EXAMINED and properly analyzed.

maryhelena

Hi, Philosopher Jay

Paul N. Anderson had a series of articles on the Bible and Interpretation site dealing with the gospel of John. This one might be of interest for you:

PhilosopherJay

Hi maryhelena,

Thank you. Excellent material. It helps to demonstrate that the dating and ordering of the gospels is quite a complex problematical.

Warmly,

Jay Raskin