outhouse

you wrote a lot better, what I was trying to say quickly.

I wish I could write that well, but my meaning was the same, I just didnt want to waist that much time on this blatant error.

kudos

Sheshbazzar

Wasn't trying to outdo you.

Obviously my composition took a bit longer, and as I did not 'refresh' the page before posting, your post did not appear on my screen until I hit 'enter'.


At least for once we were both clearly on the same track and were headed in the same direction, rather than our usual head butting



.

Diogenes the Cynic

Nothing in the Gospel of John identifies John as the author. Nothing in the body claims to be from an eyewitness or an apostle. The appendix attributes it to an unnamed disciple, but that's probably because somebody was trying to rehabilitate a formerly Gnostic text (the same reason the Thomas story was added).

There is no evidence that there was any early belief in writing being guided by the "Holy Spirit," that any Gospels were written by witnesses or apostles and we know for a fact that no one was afraid to alter, edit, emend, redact, or interpolate any text at all. No text was sacred.

Adam

Thank you, Diogenes,
For refuting the errors of Fundamentalist literalism flaunted by outhouse and Shesh. Why are such throwbacks on FRDB at all?
There ARE sources within gJohn. Using the Muratorian Canon to deny that fact is quite retrograde. To whom are we to attribute these sources? The Muratorian Canon would support my idea that many people were involved, naming specifically Andrew. It does not PROVE anything, but it certainly does not prove that ONE person (John) wrote it all by himself (except, as my theory holds, as Editor).

outhouse

christians 200 CE

No it doesnt

your ignoring that you were told the muratorian was not the first to attribute john as the author.

Gjohn is a piece that evolved over quite a while, from multiple authors or sources, but was written/compiled/redacted roughly 90 CE from a johannine community.
by the time this was finished the community that started under judaism had long progressed to gentiles and had some serious bones to pick with judaism.


jesus started a sect strickly within judaism, thus his apostles never would have taken the movement to romans like paul, Gmark, Gluke, acts, and talked down to jews like Gjohn

Adam

gJohn was composed in 90 CE from sources "christians 200 CE"?
Your reasoning is often as bad as your spelling.
The rest of your post I can largely agree with.
However, these last posts are going nowhere. We can't say from the Muratorian Canon that it says Andrew wrote a source or that it says he didn't. Coming a century later we can only wonder how much the author knew or did not know. We know from modern scholarship that he was right that the production involved more than person.

Meanwhile, in accordance with your suggestion on your post #28, what about the others of the seven authors I listed on my Post #31 to link to on my Post #450 as your preferred short posts? Here, let's go ahead and start with the next one in order from that post:

Sheshbazzar

Aww... come on Adam, you know that I really wanted you to actually take my above post #38 and savage it to pieces point by point,
but all I get is this little tiny wimpy and whiny response? and an attempt to get the 'hot potato' away from yourself as quickly as possible

Do I really need to repost it for your reading enjoyment?

Adam has been caught 'off base' and is presently in a 'pickle' if you understand the baseball terms.
Which way will Adam run? towards this base or that base? or will he just run from the game?




.

outhouse

no use going further, if you cant see that Andrew was not attributed to write anything.


that means, all your work will be dramatically skewed if you want to pull invalid history out of later 200 CE sources that dont even say what your trying to propose

Adam

Shesh,
Your #47 seems to imply that your #38 is an infallible papal pronouncement to which I must submit unless I can refute it. Or are you contending simply that the Muratorian Canon is inerrant Holy scripture? I think my posts #44 and 46 are all I need to say.

Sheshbazzar

There is use in going further however, in allowing Adam to publicly and blatantly betray his true character.