Adam

We all agree, then, that I have a lot to say. Per you and spin, I have too much to say. At least I give specifics, fully open to attacks, but I don't receive specifics in return. spin is careful enough never to deny anything. Can any of my assertions be denied or disproven? All I get is assertions that I say assertions. I never expected that I could present so much unchallenged, particularly here. I never say things of the order of "this is a mathematical or logical certainty." I merely give propositions that may or may not be true, depending on whether people can provide more evidence against that I have for it. No one here is knowledgeable enough to give evidence against? Or even cite or link to evidence against?

spin refuses to deal with substance, that's nothing new, but I am surprised that someone who can quash everyone here with knowledge of all things regarding early Christianity, who brings all the apparatus of scholarship to bear almost instantly, yet dodges dealing with me about the very origin of Christianity. You're refusing to deal even with the larger part of the selection I prepared at your specific request? Even when I've given you a link to my own thread in which Greek grammar study fails to support my delineation?

So yes, if we subtract my P-Strand Hypothesis from my Significance of John paper, I don't have new scholarly source-criticism to add, other than rearranging Teeple somewhat. If we disregard my ascriptions of authorship, what we have is pretty standard source-criticism of John that holds up today. What then is wrong with what I have to say? What is wrong with using virtually Consensus scholarship about sources of the gospels to ask whether anyone can show that no eyewitness wrote any of them? Somebody wrote them. No question about that. Were they eyewitnesses? I say yes, but if you know better, show whether any of (my) seven were not eyewitnesses? If any were eyewitnesses, we tend to obtain insight into who they might have been. Oh, and if the only people who could reasonably be thought to be eyewitnesses can be shown not to be, then we can scratch out that eyewitness. This is straightforward. Anyone here dare to step in? No one has yet, except that Shesh has maintained that Nicodemus could not have written the Discourses the way I say because Nicodemus was such a great guy that he would never have stooped to the level of a lawyer writing up a legal brief against Jesus.

arnoldo

Paul Anderson writes that the account of the transfiguration in the gLuke includes a Johannine detail ( John 1:14 & Luke 9:32). However, even if the gJohn specifically mentioned the transfiguration what difference would it make? 2 Peter 1:16-18 mentions the transfiguration but that doesn't vouchsafe it's authenticity.

Jeffrey Gibson

We all agree that all of what you say is bogus and that you keep piling it on.

I refuse to deal with nonsense and with someone who hasn't a clue about just how nonsensical his nonsense is.

Jeffrey

stephan huller

Arnoldo

Come on. It makes it difficult to believe that the author of John is John the witness to the Transfiguration and John of Mark 10.35 - 45 etc etc. There is no reasonable explanation possible other than massive corruption of the original MS

JoeWallack

JW:
So I'm going to have to try and lead you into giving a useful answer:

What is your witness that provides direct evidence that John Mark is the author of John 20:11-16?

This whole thing is starting to remind me of The Cheese Shop



Joseph

ErrancyWiki

spin

It doesn't matter. When I showed you that chiasms and Latinisms cross your layers, you disregarded the evidence. This is because evidence is not part of your needs.

All you needed to do was to demonstrate the evidence and the argumentation, but you could not do that. Your inability to do your job is the clearest thing that comes out of these discussions and I think the only reason you seem to be persisting is that you have spent 30 years with this nonsense.

You need to learn something about the field you are working in in order to see what you don't know.

And you never say this is the evidence and logic that got me here.

Who cares when you don't provide any evidence of your own? You can say whatever drivel you want. Your "propositions that may or may not be true" are inconsequential. Your "this is the evidence that points to my conclusion" is all that matters.

Evidence against what? You haven't said anything.

30 years.

Adam

Excellent, Stephan.
If John the Apostle is the Beloved Disciple of John 13 and also the author of I, II, and III John, he is quite different in nature there than he is in the Transfiguration and in Mark 10:35-45. I need to be more open-minded about who wrote John 13 and the Johannine epistles and whether he and the Beloved Disciple are not identical, giving more consideration to various men named John or other possibilities like Lazarus. And if I start to favor John Mark as one or both, I would have to rethink who is the "other disciple" of the Johannine Passion Narrative (although the orthodox think this person equals the Beloved Disciple, my source theory does not easily allow the S writer to also be the E writer).

JoeWallack

JW:
So you (Adam) have no witness that provides direct evidence that John Mark is the author of John 20:11-16. In professional Source Criticism claiming a demonstrated known author without any direct evidence would be unknown. Even in unprofessional Source Criticism it would be strange/bizarre/macabre.

Your claimed indirect evidence that John Mark wrote John 20:11-16 seems to come from "John". But as pointed out, "John" explicitly says its source is "The Beloved Disciple" and you claim a source for 20:11-16 of Mary Magdalene. So not only do you have no direct evidence, your indirect evidence is directly contradicted by "John" itself.

In addition to these fatal flaws, as pointed out, your Methodology is proof-texting. Therefore, you have ignored looking for evidence that John 20:11-16 is fiction (and it would than be impossible to have an eyewitness as a source). Here are criteria to evaluate fiction from my Legendary Was The Baptism of Jesus by John Likely Historical?

in order of strength in the detection of fiction. We've already seen that there is no quality Source Criticism evidence that John 20:11-16 was authored by John Mark. Let's apply these criteria to the offending verses and see how good the evidence is that they are fiction:

John 20



Joseph

ErrancyWiki

Sheshbazzar

What is implausible in this paragraph? Perhaps this will help illustrate the problem.

First exactly what is an 'angel'? How does one identify an 'angel' on sight?
And how would the writer, who was not present at the scene, have any way of knowing whether the two beings Mary allegedly saw
were actually 'angels' rather than leprechauns? or satyrs?

(I could supply several mythical beings drawn from contemporary mythology, but most here are more familiar with leprechauns)

But the point being, if I or anyone else, were to compose a sentence beginning;

'And she saw two Leprechauns dressed in green, sitting...'

Because it contains mythological beings, it would be immediately identified as being part of a fictional tale.


One HAS to believe in the existence of mythological 'angels' to give any credence to the writing as being a factual account,
rather than simply imaginative religious fiction.

So the question becomes, Just how does one identify an 'angel' as being an angel on sight?

The Gospel story does not have these beings identifying themselves as being 'angels'.
So how would Mary know on sight that these were 'angels' and not leprechauns?

Or pertinent to this thread, has Adam ever seen an 'angel' with his own eyes?
How did he know it was an 'angel' rather than some ordinary human person?

How would Mary have known? Did these 'angels' have wings and feathers? or 'halo's'? or glow in the dark?
Why would Mary think 'angels' have wings and feathers? or halo's? or glow in the dark? Why would Adam?
__The Bible nowhere says that 'angels' have feathers, wings, or halo's, or glow in the dark.

The gospel writer composed a fictional religious tale replete with implausible mythological beings.
We know it is a fictional tale because it contains mythological beings.




.

Adam

So you still refuse. That's not just a spin characteristic, but aa's as well.
My bolding.
It seemed to me this hyperbole might classify as grand-standing to play to the audience. It might result from what I have suggested with spin, jealousy, from inability to come up with such creative ideas of his own or even being able to analyze them. However, on reflection I think that Jeffrey does seriously think he is giving us sober truth. To him what I write grates on him like fingernails on a blackboard. We all know he is a top scholar, so he may be in a ivory-tower world in which nothing may be written which does not match the highest standards of scholarship. He surely does not mean that only deductive logic can be accepted, but maybe at least inductive reasoning is required. That meaning, I suppose, that a hypothesis is explicitly stated, a means of testing is prescribed, the testing is done, the results are analyzed, and the hypothesis is verified or falsified.

In the real world, however, mere belief is king. We act upon what we think we know, meaning that we weight probabilities. If we have opportunity we weigh the evidence for and against. Well, in the context of FRDB "evidence" won't work for this purpose, so substitute--well, what is a good word here? We consider the pros and cons, then. Almost everything even here in FRDB is merely pros and cons, I suggest. Perhaps the problem is the short-cut word I use, "thesis", talking about seven written eyewitness records to Jesus. If I just say my "view" or my "position", then can we discuss the pros and cons without quibbling about what "is" is, that is how we define evidence, reasoning, or argumentation? Take what it is and argue (presumably) against it. What I have said still exists, whatever you call it, and the case for it only increases if you don't deal with the substance of it. Of course you can argue that the substance (the "ends") is flimsy because of poor methods of deriving or stating the substance, but that in itself requires specific analysis of the means of getting there. If you're not going to argue against the end-position, you need to attack how I got there. You cannot properly without reason denounce the conclusion and denounce the path there. You're like Edith Stein, proclaiming (about Oakland) "there is no there there". I've got the creativity and the synthesis, where is your analysis?