Sheshbazzar

His version of the popular tale, his were the choices as what to include or what to omit.

Which version of 'Ghost Town' are you familiar with? Or 'The Parent Trap'?
Do you demand that every writer employ all the same scenes, or maintain all of the plot details, scenes, or characters, or to exactingly match dialog with previous versions?

These religious works were a series of written productions that reflect needs and wishes of their regional, and their then contemporary audiences.
By the time GJohn came around GMark was outdated old-hat that no longer adequately reflected the evolving contemporary Christian thought
(And as your following post indicates, provided 'John' a perfect opportunity to shift attention away from the more glaring discrepancies of the earlier works by omission, or by a 'rewriting' of that section)

John did not need to include those old tropes that were already common knowledge to his audience. His interest and goal would be in the providing of new material that would please, reinforce, and pander to the opinions of his contemporary audience.

Duvduv

aa5874, could you be a little more specific showing specific examples? And what is so "problematic" for GJohn about the Last Supper scene that he had to make it more cannibalistic in his comparison to Manna? And what was so "problematic" about the parables and miracles that GJohn left out from the other gospels? Or the Sermon on the Mount? UNLESS it could be argued that he did not trust these "traditions" in comparison with others he trusted more.....

aa5874

Please NAME the "traditions" that the author of gJohn trusted?? I have NO interest in imagination.

Duvduv

I am INFERRING that he LEFT OUT elements from other gospels because other sources did not have these elements. And was is so "problematic" (as YOU put it) about those elements I mentioned.

aa5874

That is Speculation not inferences because you have UTTERLY failed to provide any sources.

People Speculate when they have NO evidence and make inferences when they have SUPPORTING evidence or sources.

Please name the sources that LEFT out elements from the other gospels. If you can't then you are Speculating.

I have NO interest in Speculation just Sources, Sources, Sources.........Evidence, Evidence, Evidence from antiquity.

Duvduv

Come on....."sources" for what? An affidavit stating that the Epistle to Galatians came before or after the Gospel of Mark or Luke? A sworn statement that the epistles didn't know of a historical Jesus?

Your sources are the same church party hack or hacks from the Byzantine Empire with their questionable unproven statements that you reject. Did Eusebius ever SEE Jesus? Did he ever see Paul? Did he ever see Irenaeus? And you want to take these writings as the "gospel truth" instead of reading between the lines and making logical inferences?

aa5874

So why are YOU using the same Pauline writings that you are calling church party hacks from the Byzantine Empire?

Where did you think the NT CANON is from?

You want to use gMark and gJohn and then ridicule others for using the very same books that you refer to.

This is BC&H and we have WRITTEN statements, Evidence in the Canon and Apologetic sources from which LOGICAL deductions can be made.

Duvduv

No, quite untrue. I don't KNOW where the epistles actually come from. I find it difficult that some team of conspiratorial scribes sat down in Rome with the assignment of writing a bunch of different, contrasting and contradictory letters in the name specifically of "Paul" as opposed to Jeff, Bob or Sam.

They didn't just pop out of thin air, and I also do not believe they were written in the first, second or even third century either as we have them. And who and why were the IGNATIAN epistles written, and why were they not included in the Canon with a little bit of creative writing?

This thread focused on GMark and GJohn, and I suppose some could argue that they too were the products of the Rome or Byzantine Publishing House. I find it hard to believe, but on the other hand, I don't believe they were produced in the first or second centuries either. It makes absolutely no logical sense that Justin Martyr couldn't name a single apostle and barely 30 years later, all the complicated and different gospels were taken totally for granted as a given by the unknown Irenaeus in a book against heretics at a time before there was a central church to decide who was a heretic. Perhaps there was a guy named Irenaeus to whom the book was attributed when written in the 4th or 5th century. On the other hand, Justin's Apology is a very poor Christian job and yet we see that he doesn't include what one would expect a Christian to include in his arguments, not the least of which was the story of the Old Man, and it would be expected for the Church to make Justin's Apology more Churchy, meaning that the Apology was earlier than others.

aa5874

So, what are you arguing about? You don't know where the Epistles come from and you don't have any evidence to support your Beliefs.

I am arguing that the Pauline letters were AFTER the mid 2nd century and AFTER gLuke because I have evidence from antiquity.


The Fact that Justin Martyr's Apology does NOT include what one would expect a Christian to include suggests that Justin Martyr's writings were NOT manipulated.

It is clear to me that Justin BELIEVED the Memoirs of the Apostles was written in the 1st century by the Apostles but had NO evidence of any activities of the apostles outside the Memoirs.

The Only Christian that Justin knew was an OLD nameless Man which signifies that the Jesus cult of Christians was in its INFANCY stage c 150 CE.

Duvduv

You infer that the writings were not manipulated, but that doesn't exclude the possibility that they were not written in the 2nd century at all. However, the fact that the Apology is so poorly written suggests it is not what it is presented to be. Your evidence from antiquity is not evidence. It is claims and statements from biased church writers.