aa5874

Please explain what you use to support your claim the Apology is Poorly written??

Is it NOT the very Apology that you are presenting as EVIDENCE?

You seem to have NO idea what Evidence is or is totally confused.

Justin's Apology is EVIDENCE the same as any written statement and ANY CLAIM is evidence.

ALL written statements and claims of antiquity can be used as evidence whether or not you think they are true

Duvduv

What evidence is Justin's Apology? Evidence about WHAT? At best that some relatively earlier "Christians" didn't know about the canonical gospels or Paul?

aa5874

If you don't know what evidence is then why are you posting here on BC&H? What do you hope to gain by NOT understanding the meaning of evidence?

What evidence do you have for anything at all? How can you PROVE anyone wrote anything in antiquity? How can you prove anything about your In Dwelling Christ?

You appear to be totally confused.

Duvduv

The issue of evidence is accompanied by the issue of research, analysis, observation and interpretation. Is a discussion of the validity of something taboo on this Board, aa5874?
Besides, the best that could be hoped for is approximation of what was going on based on the above, and that can be a subject of debate.

aa5874

So please explain why Justin Martyr's works are NOT evidence? Why are you comparing gJohn and gMark? Are they evidence?

Evidence is NOT subjective.

Any statement, written or oral, can be used as EVIDENCE in the resolution of any matter.

Your claim is NOT at all logical if you have NO idea of the truth and truthful evidence. Speculation and imagination resolves NOTHING.

Speculation and imagination are the very worse way to determine history.

You MUST use the written statements, the written evidence, the sources of antiquity to RESOLVE and determine the past.

Duvduv

But SPECULATION is a large part of the entire endeavor. You engage in it all the time. You cannot PROVE that the epistles came after the gospels. You can only INFER it based on certain presumptions you have. That is speculation.

aa5874

Well, you have finally ADMITTED your own problem. You do not seem to understand the difference between "inferences" and "speculation".

You Speculate so do NOT have need of any written evidence from antiquity.

I reject and detest Speculation.

I deal with the EXISTING written statements, the EXISTING written evidence from antiquity and have ZERO time to waste on speculation.

Duvduv

I already wrote about it. I don't remember which posting number it is in the archives under the thread in Justin Martyr.

Bernard Muller

Hello, I come a bit late on that thread, but I wrote a mini website (4 webpages) on the issue. My conclusions:
a) The original gJohn gospel was written with full knowledge of gMark, but not of other gospels. It was ending then at 20:10.
b) After gLuke got known, many additions were made, plus some reshuffling. The ending was extended to include 20:23.
c) After Acts was known, a few insertions were made. The ending was further extended to 20:31.

For anyone interested, please contact me because I am not authorized to provide the link.
Bernard

Duvduv

Bernard, how do you account for the missing Last Supper then in john before the crucifixion? He obviously believed the event did not occur despite appearing in 3 gospels.