Toto

From Wikipedia:

The Reverend Raymond Edward Brown, S.S. (May 22, 1928 - August 8, 1998), was an American Roman Catholic priest, a member of the Sulpician Fathers and a prominent Biblical scholar of his era.

David Rensberger "is Professor of New Testament at the Interdenominational Theological Center in Atlanta, Georgia and author of several publications on the New Testament, including Johannine Faith and Liberating Community."

This is not secular history. This is Christian studies. These authors are very intelligent, but their aim is not the description of the past - it is telling a story that is useful for the Christian religion. That's fine - but you can't just turn their work into dispassionate research that can't be challenged.

Duvduv

The bottom line is that there isn't a shred of actual evidence that there were ever any communities adhering to only one or another canonical gospel. No locations, no documents, no relics and no actual descriptions of their existence.

Huon

Another quote concerning the Gospel according to Adam :

Cesc

I mean the dualism that most likely came from Persian religion and which crept into the religion of the Jews and ultimately resulted in the figure of the arch demon, Satan. The Book of Jubilees is an example where this development is visible. The phenomenon of apocalypticism is for the most part dualistic in nature, and from the dualistic Jewish apocalypticism came Enochic traditions as well as gnosticism and Christianity and the dualistic writings of the Dead Sea scrolls. The Dead Sea scroll's dualism of light/dark is reminiscent of the light/dark dualism of the Johannine writings.

Yes, in gJohn you have the direct statement of John 20:28 implying that Jesus is infact God, but the relationship between Jesus and "his Father" in gJohn is theologically quite complicated, and I would argue that this christology doesn't portray Jesus much more divine than does gMark. In Mark Jesus not only like the prophets before him such as Elijah exercises the power of God (heals, controls the storm and the sea, feeds people in the wilderness, etc.) but he indeed claims "I am" (Mark 6:50; 14:62) to identify himself as God (LXX Ex 3:14). Although gMark is not advanced koine Greek on a high level like Luke, the theology and christology of gMark is not simple or primitive at all. To call it a demotion of 'the principle character' is a wrong place to start, imo, if we're talking about gJohn in comparison to gJohn. For example, what are the genres of these two writings? Are they merely dramas where Jesus is the 'principle character' as such? Isn't the christology in the gospels driven by other mechanisms than those of a drama, ie. plot, setting, narrator, etc? It's driven by things such as religious conviction.


In Homer's poem Achilles is a huge, awesome warrior, and in the movie it's Brad Pitt!

tanya

:thumbs: :notworthy: :applause:

Nope.

In John 20:28, we find an explicit declaration, not an implication, that Jesus is God. I don't find Jesus referred to as Theos, in Mark.

Not quite.

The Johannine writings are reminiscent of the Dead Sea Scrolls, (perhaps, but, then, DSS are huge, so, someone else could write that John's gospel fails to demonstrate the light/dark dualism of DSS, and also be correct.)

Perhaps you are referring to a specific scroll?

I disagree. sorry to be so argumentative. Must be dinner time!

Mark 14:61
και λεγει αυτω συ ει ο χριστος ο υιος του ευλογητου
Mark 14:62
ο δε ιησους ειπεν εγω ειμι και οψεσθε τον υιον του ανθρωπου

Duvduv

Does the Greek phrase imply what the English translation implies, i.e. that he is saying that Jesus is God?
"Ho kurios mou, kai ho theos mou
I understand that when addressing someone there is a vocative case used in Greek and that this is not contained in this phrase. In either case which rule is followed in the Greek in the GJohn?

I assume this ties in with the opening passage of GJohn identifying the Word as God and then being made flesh (regardless of whether the opening passage was a later interpolation since the whole idea of Jesus as the Word is never discussed again)......

Indeed, it should be asked why the idea of the word becoming flesh is never referred to again after that opening passage, and whether this indicates once more the possibility of a composite and interpolation. Presumably if the ideology included the importance of the Word becoming Flesh, it should not be ignored throughout the story....

Iskander

Additions to some first ever text (FT), interpolations in FT and modifications of the FT are all a legitimate development in the understanding of religion.

outhouse

the methodology being used here, reminds me of creationist discounting evolution.

I just dont see any credibility in your statement.

both scholars are respected by most all modern scholars for the work they have contributed, what have you contributed?


they will make mistakes as it is quite a bit of ground to cover. And they are a bit dated.


but throwing blanket statements without refuting a particular point they have made is weak

Sheshbazzar

Shoulda quoted from the Perfessors Reverend Jim Bakker and Benny Hinn .

outhouse

I think its a cop out to place all scholarships into a catagory of christian apologetics


there is a obvious difference between the two