Ben C Smith

I am not absolutely sure.

Not sure.

He is a John that Theophilus believes wrote John 1.1 (at least).

Of course. Refer to my John page, where I write:

Are they the same John? Or two different Johns? I myself, like Eusebius, favor the latter.

Now, having answered your questions, I repeat my own: Were you aware of To Autolycus 2.22.2 when you wrote that Theophilus does not refer to John?

Ben.

aa5874

Theophilus made no such statement or implied such a belief in his three books "To Autolycus". John 1.1 may have been written after Theophilus and the of the author of John 1.1 may have been Beelzebub.

You have no knowledge of Theophilus' beliefs with respect to the author of John 1.1. You do not know who wrote John 1.1 or when it was written.

Ben C Smith

You may not like my answers, but I did answer your questions. Now, please answer mine: Were you aware of To Autolycus 2.22.2 when you wrote that Theophilus does not refer to John?

Ben.

aa5874

Deal with your statement. You claimed that the John in "To Autolycus" is a reference to John 1.1. Was Theophilus aware of the author of John 1.1?

Ben C Smith

Yes, that is my claim. It is based on the uncanny resemblance of John 1.1 to what Theophilus quotes. I have boldfaced the identical words for you:

John says: In the beginning was the word, and the word was with God, showing that at first God was alone and the word was in him. Then he says: And the word was God....

In the beginning was the word, and the word was with God, and the word was God.

Aware enough of him to believe that his name was John.

Now, please deal with your statement: Were you aware of To Autolycus 2.22.2 when you wrote that Theophilus does not refer to John?

Ben.

aa5874

Again, Ben, you do not know if gJohn 1.1 was copied from "To Autolycus" or from some other source. You do not know if Theophilus refered to John 1.1, yet you repeat ad nauseum the same highly unsupported speculation.

You do not know what Theophilus believed concerning the author of gJohn 1.1, the author may have been Beelzebub writing sometime after Theophilus.

Ben C Smith

I will not repeat my highly unsupported speculation again. What I will do again is ask you: Were you aware of To Autolycus 2.22.2 when you wrote that Theophilus does not refer to John?

Let us agree for the sake of argument that the author was Beelzebub, who was writing sometime after Theophilus. Now, were you aware of To Autolycus 2.22.2 when you wrote that Theophilus does not refer to John?

Thanks in advance for your forthcoming answer to this simple question.

Ben.

aa5874

Just read my posts again and you'll see what I am aware of.

Amaleq13

Not only did your post fail to contradict anything I wrote, it completely ignored the point. Apparently, neither of you have any credible reason for your expectation of "hard archaeological evidence", let alone a large amount of it. It is an entirely specious argument from silence.

There is apparently no good reason to expect pre-Constantine Christianity to have left behind archaeological evidence so no conclusion can be derived from its absence.

Found that citation for the evidence in China yet?

Amaleq13

Sounds like the closest you will get to a "No", Ben.

You are wasting valuable beer time, amigo. Some horses just won't drink.