90-100ad isnāt decades after the death of people itās about.
Iām guessing you are claiming the John lives to be nearly a hundred years old? Even though there is no evidence to support thisā¦
And it wasnāt authored anonymously.
Yesā¦ It was. He did not assign his name or identify himself as the author. Most people believe him to be the author through contextual clues as you suggested. These contextual clues first put forth in 185ad have shaped the ways people reintertpred and translated the Bible every since.
Which the writer of John clearly was.
John did not write itā¦ He may have orally transferred the story to someone who later wrote it down after the time of his death. Youāre working off of assumptions that are highly disputable.
There are four detailed accounts of Jesus.
From his own cadra of followersā¦ Thatās like saying everything scientology claims about L Ron Hubbard is true because it was witnessed by 4 different scientologist.
Mormonism has been debunked by the finding of the āoriginalā papyrus to one of their scriptures. The Qurāan claims to be in agreement with the Bible yet contradicts the hell out of it. Mohammed and JS had numerous wives because āgod told meā and Mohammed was a warlord, JS tried to set up ādeseretā
And all Christian text are non contradictoryā¦? There havenāt been any ancient scripts found about Christianity that the church hasnāt adopted?
Iām guessing you are claiming the John lives to be nearly a hundred years old?
If John was, letās say 16 at the time of Jesusā crucifixion in 33 AD, then heād be 83 years old if it was written in 100 AD. A reasonable age. Iām not disputing the possibility of a scribe.
Even though there is no evidence to support thisā¦
Evidence that John wrote John would be evidence to support this.
These contextual clues first put forth in 185ad
Youāve got no evidence to support this than an argument from silence. That is the earliest RECORDED evidence. And from that time frame, thatās pretty damn close. Historians accept Julius Caesar was born in Suburra, yet the earliest record of that was written by Suetonius, around 200 years after the fact.
Then thereās Alexander the great - born in 300 BC but the records of his biography we use were written in the second century AD, by Arrian and Plutarch.
John did not write itā¦ He may have orally transferred the story to someone who later wrote it down after the time of his death. Youāre working off of assumptions that are highly disputable.
Youāre the one working off of assumptions
From his own cadra of followersā¦ Thatās like saying everything scientology claims about L Ron Hubbard is true because it was witnessed by 4 different scientologist.
So youāre basically asking me to find you sources documenting the resurrection of Jesus Christ from people who didnāt believe it happened? Donāt you realise how silly of a proposition that is? That, and whenever someone were to propose someone like Josephus, youāll just cry āChristian interpolationā, while most people are crying that using circular reasoning that he mustnāt have written about it because āsomeone canāt rise from the deadā. Weād have to throw out almost everything we know about Julius Caesar with that logic as it was either written by him or someone in his country at the time.
And all Christian text are non contradictoryā¦? There havenāt been any ancient scripts found about Christianity that the church hasnāt adopted?
There have been. Are you talking about non Christian sources? stating that the Church was āadopting everything someone wrote about Jesusā
John was, letās say 16 at the time of Jesusā crucifixion in 33 AD, then heād be 83 years old if it was written in 100 AD. A reasonable age. Iām not disputing the possibility of a scribe.
Ahh yes, letās make wild assumptions that fit my own narrativeā¦
Evidence that John wrote John would be evidence to support this.
āIām not disputing the possibility of a scribe.ā
Youāve got no evidence to support this than an argument from silence. That is the earliest RECORDED evidence. And from that time frame, thatās pretty damn close.
Eusebiusās argument was an ongoing debate between scholars in the early church. However itās widely recognized as how the church canonized John the apostle as the author.
Historians accept Julius Caesar was born in Suburra, yet the earliest record of that was written by Suetonius, around 200 years after the fact.
No they largely do not. In most histories they say he was born in Rome, some go as far as saying likely in Suburra, but thatās more of an inference as his family was known to be impoverished.
Suetonius is historically valuable, but known as a bit of a gossip, and prone to hearsay.
Then thereās Alexander the great - born in 300 BC but the records of his biography we use were written in the second century AD, by Arrian and Plutarch.
Yes, but those were written from lost primary and contemporary sources from people like Ptolemy, Aristobulus, and in some cases the kingās journal.
Youāre the one working off of assumptions
Youāre claiming the new testament that the new testament didnāt first get passed down by oral tradition?
So youāre basically asking me to find you sources documenting the resurrection of Jesus Christ from people who didnāt believe it happened?
No, just saying that you canāt use biased sources to make claims about his motivation.
That, and whenever someone were to propose someone like Josephus, youāll just cry āChristian interpolationā, while most people are crying that using circular reasoning that he mustnāt have written about it because āsomeone canāt rise from the deadā.
I have no idea what you are trying to accuse me of?
Weād have to throw out almost everything we know about Julius Caesar with that logic as it was either written by him or someone in his country at the time.
Being in the same country as someone is not the same as being in the same cult as someoneā¦ Also, plenty of people doubt the accuracy of Caesars commentary on the Gaelic wars. Especially like with most ancient commentaries about the size of opposing armies.
There have been. Are you talking about non Christian sources?
Iām saying that just saying that all religions pick and choose their own doctrine. Itās not like the church adopted the gospel of Mary.
Ahh yes, letās make wild assumptions that fit my own narrativeā¦
In your land, an 83 year old dude writing something is a āwild assumptionā. ok.
Evidence that John wrote John would be evidence to support this.
āIām not disputing the possibility of a scribe.ā
You know what a scribe isā¦ Right? Someone who sits with you as you dictate to them? You know a lot of news report articles about people arenāt actually written by that person, but a journalist themselvesā¦ And even then, a scribe is more reliable than a journalist š¤¦
Eusebiusās argument was an ongoing debate between scholars in the early church. However itās widely recognized as how the church canonized John the apostle as the author.
Eusebius was quoting Clement of Alexandria from AD 150ā¦
Yes, but those were written from lost primary and contemporary sources from people like Ptolemy, Aristobulus, and in some cases the kingās journal.
So like what Esebius wrote, and what was likely composed by Luke the Evangelist in his Gospel and the Acts of the Apostles.
Youāre claiming the new testament that the new testament didnāt first get passed down by oral tradition?
Yes, because within the timeframe it was written in. The likes of Mark and Luke would have had those aspects, possibly some in Matthew, but even then, oral tradition isnāt unreliable and it takes centuries for supernatural claims and legends to show up.
No, just saying that you canāt use biased sources to make claims about his motivation.
In this case, anything arguing in favour or showing the resurrection of Christ is automatically ābiasedā by your definition. Itās like arguing with someone about global warming who doesnāt trust scientists or the scientific method - Any science you do show them they dismiss as ābiasedā because they donāt trust scientists. In the same way, if anyone believed that Jesus rose again, theyād rationally be a Christian. You dismiss this as ābiasedā because they were a Christian. Or if someone who wasnāt a Christian wrote something that did defend it, then it must be interpolated because of the ābiasā.
If the Gospels were biased, they wouldnāt have had bad stories about their leaders at the time. Such as peter denying Jesus, Peter cutting off a dudeās ear and Jesus rebuking him, or James and John trying to get priority status in Glory.
I have no idea what you are trying to accuse me of?
Irrational thinking. The argument for Christian interpolation is basically āJosephus couldnāt have written it, as Jesus didnāt rise from the deadā
Iām saying that just saying that all religions pick and choose their own doctrine. Itās not like the church adopted the gospel of Mary.
Because those gnostic texts were known forgeries.
What reason would have they had to pick and choose the four Gospels over the gnostic texts anyway?
In your land, an 83 year old dude writing something is a āwild assumptionā. ok.
What makes you assume heās 83? The only thing informing your assumptions are your conclusions. He must be the author, so he must have lived to 100ad, which means he must have been 16 when Jesus diedā¦
You know what a scribe isā¦ Right? Someone who sits with you as you dictate to them? You know a lot of news report articles about people arenāt actually written by that person, but a journalist themselvesā¦ And even then, a scribe is more reliable than a journalist š¤¦
A scribe can also be some writing down an oral traditionā¦
Eusebius was quoting Clement of Alexandria from AD 150
Clement was born in 150adā¦ Eusebius utilized different sources to propose that there were at least two different johns. John the apostle who he supposed wrote the book of John and Presbyter John, who he believed wrote revelations.
Yes, because within the timeframe it was written in. The likes of Mark and Luke would have had those aspects, possibly some in Matthew, but even then, oral tradition isnāt unreliable and it takes centuries for supernatural claims and legends to show up.
āis widely agreed amongst Biblical scholars that accounts of Jesusās teachings and life were initially conserved by oral transmission, which was the source of the written gospelsā
In this case, anything arguing in favour or showing the resurrection of Christ is automatically ābiasedā by your definition.
No, if we had records from the Romans claiming the guy they crusified a couple days ago is backā¦that would be a source from outside his fellowship.
Itās like arguing with someone about global warming who doesnāt trust scientists or the scientific method
Lol, you are comparing magic to the scientific method?
Any science you do show them they dismiss as ābiasedā because they donāt trust scientists. In the same way, if anyone believed that Jesus rose again, theyād rationally be a Christian.
You donāt have to trust science, science is repeatable, itās self explanatoryā¦ If I saw someone who was publicly executed and then I saw them again three days later, I wouldnāt automatically think theyāre the son of God. I would rationally think itās a different dude posing as him, or that they didnāt actually kill him.
the Gospels were biased, they wouldnāt have had bad stories about their leaders at the time. Such as peter denying Jesus, Peter cutting off a dudeās ear and Jesus rebuking him, or James and John trying to get priority status in Glory.
If scientology was biased they wouldnāt have bad stories about their leaders at the timeā¦
Josephus couldnāt have written it, as Jesus didnāt rise from the dead"
Still have no idea what you are babbeling about?
Because those gnostic texts were known forgeries.
How so? The earliest evidence of the gospel of Mary is from the 3rd century and was thought to be written in the 2nd.
reason would have they had to pick and choose the four Gospels over the gnostic texts anyway?
What makes you assume heās 83? The only thing informing your assumptions are your conclusions. He must be the author, so he must have lived to 100ad, which means he must have been 16 when Jesus diedā¦
This is a pretty reasonable assumption? No?
A scribe can also be some writing down an oral traditionā¦
Thatās not what I was referring to at all. It would be silly to think I was in the context I was talking about John writing John.
Clement was born in 150adā¦ Eusebius utilized different sources to propose that there were at least two different johns. John the apostle who he supposed wrote the book of John and Presbyter John, who he believed wrote revelations.
The writer of John still identifies himself as being at the crucifixion and last supper anyway. Thatās a different debate over who wrote revelation.
āis widely agreed amongst Biblical scholars that accounts of Jesusās teachings and life were initially conserved by oral transmission, which was the source of the written gospelsā
Did you just quote Wikipedia? The admins on there are neckbeards such as Tgeorgescu who basically had a āno Christian apologistsā rule which is impossible, because any historian who argues something that is pro Christianity, they are automatically labelled a āChristian apologistā.
No, if we had records from the Romans claiming the guy they crusified a couple days ago is backā¦that would be a source from outside his fellowship.
(63) Now, there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man, for he was a doer of wonderful works-a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews, and many of the Gentiles. He was [the] Christ; (64) and when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him, for he appeared to them alive again the third day, as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him; and the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day.
The Antiquities of the Jews, Book 18, Chapter 3
From The Works of Josephus,
translated by William Whiston
If scientology was biased they wouldnāt have bad stories about their leaders at the timeā¦
Are these in actual Scientology āscripturesā?
How so? The earliest evidence of the gospel of Mary is from the 3rd century and was thought to be written in the 2nd.
you just quote Wikipedia? The admins on there are neckbeards such as Tgeorgescu who basically had a āno Christian apologistsā
"In one sense the entire Christian message is based on oral tradition and is only augmented by using the written revelation of the Old Testament. From this perspective, perhaps 90 percent of the New Testament is based on authoritative oral tradition " catholic.com
āWhile it might be comforting to imagine that the Scripture was dictated directly from the mouth of God to the hands of the writers, that is just not the way it happened historically. The stories that are collected in our Bible were shared by word of mouth for years, decades, or even centuries before they were written down. This process of telling and retelling these passages from the religious life of Godās people is called oral tradition.ā Ministrymatters.com
The Antiquities of the Jews, Book 18, Chapter 3
From The Works of Josephus,
Lol, and you have the gall to talk about forgeriesā¦
Again, nothing you have talked about is actual evidence of Christianity being factual. And again, I donāt really care about your personal beliefs. I just donāt think itās okay that you think your make believe time allows you to harsh other peopleās make believe times. If society grants you the right to play make believe, you should have the decency to do unto others.
You were claiming John couldnāt have been written by John because it was written in AD100. I did the maths and shown how it definitely could have been written in AD100
Convenient of you to not actually link the articles, and cut out the important parts of the quote. Here it is in full.
Another difficulty is that the doctrine of the apostles came to them in oral form from Jesus. In one sense the entire Christian message is based on oral tradition and is only augmented by using the written revelation of the Old Testament. From this perspective, perhaps 90 percent of the New Testament is based on authoritative oral tradition (from Jesus), and the remain ten percent is from written sources.
Theyāre claiming the apostles wrote down what Jesus wrote. And this is an argument surrounding Sola Scriptura, not Gospel authorship. The rest of the article is then talking about an old testament oral tradition existing, which I do not dispute. Thatās not the same as the New Testament being an account of Jesus. Heās just making a statement against sola scriptura by saying āWell, Jesus didnāt literally write thisā.
The second quote doesnāt even contradict anything I said. Just because stories were exchanged orally first, doesnāt mean the written accounts are firsthand. If I witnessed a car crash, and went and told my colleagues at work, then family about it at dinner, then the next day the police ask for a written statement, and I submit it in the evening after more talking about it in work, it doesnāt devalue my original testimony. As yes, stories of that car crash were told orally before being written down.
Lol, and you have the gall to talk about forgeriesā¦
The main reason people say it is a forgery because Josephus was a practicing Jew and a Jew wouldnāt say that (circular reasoning) and that the earliest copy of that is quoted by Eusebius, so it mustnāt be reliable. They arenāt really good arguments.
So pick a side here. Is it possible for a non Christian to write something in defence of Christianity, or not? If it is possible, then Josephus isnāt a forgery. If it isnāt, then you cannot dismiss the new testament and Church Fathers, lest you be irrational
You were claiming John couldnāt have been written by John because it was written in AD100. I did the maths and shown how it definitely could have been written in AD100
Iām not making a claim, I am rebutting one. I am merely stating there is no evidence to support that John the apostle actually wrote John. There are inferences that lead people to believe that John wrote it, but again, these are oral traditions and are prone to embellishment or errors over time.
The second quote doesnāt even contradict anything I said. Just because stories were exchanged orally first, doesnāt mean the written accounts are firsthand.
Lol, it contradicts the claims you made about the first quote? Itās silly how often your position changes.
The main reason people say it is a forgery because Josephus was a practicing Jew and a Jew wouldnāt say that (circular reasoning)
Thatās not circulatory reasoningā¦ Thatās just reasoning. Why would a Jew believe in the resurrection of Christ? Plus, the reason historians almost unanimously agree itās been edited is because how out of place the claims and passages about Jesus are in the original text. We also know that the translators we receive the text from are not reliable narrators.
Is it possible for a non Christian to write something in defence of Christianity, or not?
In defense of Christianityā¦yes, but they wouldnāt believe in the holy resurrection of Christ, as that would make them a Christian.
If it isnāt, then you cannot dismiss the new testament and Church Fathers, lest you be irrational
Thatās a false dichotomyā¦ Even though I and most historian believe it to be a forgery, if I didnāt I could still make a claim that Jesus was simply a historical figure and that there still is no evidence miracles or evidence thatās supports him as a diety.
There are plenty of historical records we utilize as important works of history, but understand the authors may not be reliable narrators. Naram-Sin declared himself a diety, and these claims are backed by other contemporary sourcesā¦ We use these sources to validate his existence as a historical figure, but does that also mean he was really a diety?
I donāt really think you understand rationality, you are only using a narrow scope of logic instead of the broader understanding of rationality. Pure logic can lead to logical fallacies like your uses of false dicotomy and circular reasoning.
Iām guessing you are claiming the John lives to be nearly a hundred years old? Even though there is no evidence to support thisā¦
Yesā¦ It was. He did not assign his name or identify himself as the author. Most people believe him to be the author through contextual clues as you suggested. These contextual clues first put forth in 185ad have shaped the ways people reintertpred and translated the Bible every since.
John did not write itā¦ He may have orally transferred the story to someone who later wrote it down after the time of his death. Youāre working off of assumptions that are highly disputable.
From his own cadra of followersā¦ Thatās like saying everything scientology claims about L Ron Hubbard is true because it was witnessed by 4 different scientologist.
And all Christian text are non contradictoryā¦? There havenāt been any ancient scripts found about Christianity that the church hasnāt adopted?
If John was, letās say 16 at the time of Jesusā crucifixion in 33 AD, then heād be 83 years old if it was written in 100 AD. A reasonable age. Iām not disputing the possibility of a scribe.
Evidence that John wrote John would be evidence to support this.
Youāve got no evidence to support this than an argument from silence. That is the earliest RECORDED evidence. And from that time frame, thatās pretty damn close. Historians accept Julius Caesar was born in Suburra, yet the earliest record of that was written by Suetonius, around 200 years after the fact.
Then thereās Alexander the great - born in 300 BC but the records of his biography we use were written in the second century AD, by Arrian and Plutarch.
Youāre the one working off of assumptions
So youāre basically asking me to find you sources documenting the resurrection of Jesus Christ from people who didnāt believe it happened? Donāt you realise how silly of a proposition that is? That, and whenever someone were to propose someone like Josephus, youāll just cry āChristian interpolationā, while most people are crying that using circular reasoning that he mustnāt have written about it because āsomeone canāt rise from the deadā. Weād have to throw out almost everything we know about Julius Caesar with that logic as it was either written by him or someone in his country at the time.
There have been. Are you talking about non Christian sources? stating that the Church was āadopting everything someone wrote about Jesusā
Ahh yes, letās make wild assumptions that fit my own narrativeā¦
āIām not disputing the possibility of a scribe.ā
Eusebiusās argument was an ongoing debate between scholars in the early church. However itās widely recognized as how the church canonized John the apostle as the author.
No they largely do not. In most histories they say he was born in Rome, some go as far as saying likely in Suburra, but thatās more of an inference as his family was known to be impoverished.
Suetonius is historically valuable, but known as a bit of a gossip, and prone to hearsay.
Yes, but those were written from lost primary and contemporary sources from people like Ptolemy, Aristobulus, and in some cases the kingās journal.
Youāre claiming the new testament that the new testament didnāt first get passed down by oral tradition?
No, just saying that you canāt use biased sources to make claims about his motivation.
I have no idea what you are trying to accuse me of?
Being in the same country as someone is not the same as being in the same cult as someoneā¦ Also, plenty of people doubt the accuracy of Caesars commentary on the Gaelic wars. Especially like with most ancient commentaries about the size of opposing armies.
Iām saying that just saying that all religions pick and choose their own doctrine. Itās not like the church adopted the gospel of Mary.
In your land, an 83 year old dude writing something is a āwild assumptionā. ok.
You know what a scribe isā¦ Right? Someone who sits with you as you dictate to them? You know a lot of news report articles about people arenāt actually written by that person, but a journalist themselvesā¦ And even then, a scribe is more reliable than a journalist š¤¦
Eusebius was quoting Clement of Alexandria from AD 150ā¦
So like what Esebius wrote, and what was likely composed by Luke the Evangelist in his Gospel and the Acts of the Apostles.
Yes, because within the timeframe it was written in. The likes of Mark and Luke would have had those aspects, possibly some in Matthew, but even then, oral tradition isnāt unreliable and it takes centuries for supernatural claims and legends to show up.
In this case, anything arguing in favour or showing the resurrection of Christ is automatically ābiasedā by your definition. Itās like arguing with someone about global warming who doesnāt trust scientists or the scientific method - Any science you do show them they dismiss as ābiasedā because they donāt trust scientists. In the same way, if anyone believed that Jesus rose again, theyād rationally be a Christian. You dismiss this as ābiasedā because they were a Christian. Or if someone who wasnāt a Christian wrote something that did defend it, then it must be interpolated because of the ābiasā.
If the Gospels were biased, they wouldnāt have had bad stories about their leaders at the time. Such as peter denying Jesus, Peter cutting off a dudeās ear and Jesus rebuking him, or James and John trying to get priority status in Glory.
Irrational thinking. The argument for Christian interpolation is basically āJosephus couldnāt have written it, as Jesus didnāt rise from the deadā
Because those gnostic texts were known forgeries.
What reason would have they had to pick and choose the four Gospels over the gnostic texts anyway?
What makes you assume heās 83? The only thing informing your assumptions are your conclusions. He must be the author, so he must have lived to 100ad, which means he must have been 16 when Jesus diedā¦
A scribe can also be some writing down an oral traditionā¦
Clement was born in 150adā¦ Eusebius utilized different sources to propose that there were at least two different johns. John the apostle who he supposed wrote the book of John and Presbyter John, who he believed wrote revelations.
āis widely agreed amongst Biblical scholars that accounts of Jesusās teachings and life were initially conserved by oral transmission, which was the source of the written gospelsā
No, if we had records from the Romans claiming the guy they crusified a couple days ago is backā¦that would be a source from outside his fellowship.
Lol, you are comparing magic to the scientific method?
You donāt have to trust science, science is repeatable, itās self explanatoryā¦ If I saw someone who was publicly executed and then I saw them again three days later, I wouldnāt automatically think theyāre the son of God. I would rationally think itās a different dude posing as him, or that they didnāt actually kill him.
If scientology was biased they wouldnāt have bad stories about their leaders at the timeā¦
Still have no idea what you are babbeling about?
How so? The earliest evidence of the gospel of Mary is from the 3rd century and was thought to be written in the 2nd.
Because it didnāt fit within church doctrine.
This is a pretty reasonable assumption? No?
Thatās not what I was referring to at all. It would be silly to think I was in the context I was talking about John writing John.
The writer of John still identifies himself as being at the crucifixion and last supper anyway. Thatās a different debate over who wrote revelation.
Did you just quote Wikipedia? The admins on there are neckbeards such as Tgeorgescu who basically had a āno Christian apologistsā rule which is impossible, because any historian who argues something that is pro Christianity, they are automatically labelled a āChristian apologistā.
The Antiquities of the Jews, Book 18, Chapter 3 From The Works of Josephus, translated by William Whiston
Are these in actual Scientology āscripturesā?
So not the firstā¦
And how did they establish doctrine?
Nah, just circular reasoning.
"In one sense the entire Christian message is based on oral tradition and is only augmented by using the written revelation of the Old Testament. From this perspective, perhaps 90 percent of the New Testament is based on authoritative oral tradition " catholic.com
āWhile it might be comforting to imagine that the Scripture was dictated directly from the mouth of God to the hands of the writers, that is just not the way it happened historically. The stories that are collected in our Bible were shared by word of mouth for years, decades, or even centuries before they were written down. This process of telling and retelling these passages from the religious life of Godās people is called oral tradition.ā Ministrymatters.com
Lol, and you have the gall to talk about forgeriesā¦
Again, nothing you have talked about is actual evidence of Christianity being factual. And again, I donāt really care about your personal beliefs. I just donāt think itās okay that you think your make believe time allows you to harsh other peopleās make believe times. If society grants you the right to play make believe, you should have the decency to do unto others.
You were claiming John couldnāt have been written by John because it was written in AD100. I did the maths and shown how it definitely could have been written in AD100
Convenient of you to not actually link the articles, and cut out the important parts of the quote. Here it is in full.
https://www.catholic.com/magazine/print-edition/oral-tradition-in-the-new-testament
Theyāre claiming the apostles wrote down what Jesus wrote. And this is an argument surrounding Sola Scriptura, not Gospel authorship. The rest of the article is then talking about an old testament oral tradition existing, which I do not dispute. Thatās not the same as the New Testament being an account of Jesus. Heās just making a statement against sola scriptura by saying āWell, Jesus didnāt literally write thisā.
The second quote doesnāt even contradict anything I said. Just because stories were exchanged orally first, doesnāt mean the written accounts are firsthand. If I witnessed a car crash, and went and told my colleagues at work, then family about it at dinner, then the next day the police ask for a written statement, and I submit it in the evening after more talking about it in work, it doesnāt devalue my original testimony. As yes, stories of that car crash were told orally before being written down.
The main reason people say it is a forgery because Josephus was a practicing Jew and a Jew wouldnāt say that (circular reasoning) and that the earliest copy of that is quoted by Eusebius, so it mustnāt be reliable. They arenāt really good arguments.
So pick a side here. Is it possible for a non Christian to write something in defence of Christianity, or not? If it is possible, then Josephus isnāt a forgery. If it isnāt, then you cannot dismiss the new testament and Church Fathers, lest you be irrational
Iām not making a claim, I am rebutting one. I am merely stating there is no evidence to support that John the apostle actually wrote John. There are inferences that lead people to believe that John wrote it, but again, these are oral traditions and are prone to embellishment or errors over time.
Lol, it contradicts the claims you made about the first quote? Itās silly how often your position changes.
Thatās not circulatory reasoningā¦ Thatās just reasoning. Why would a Jew believe in the resurrection of Christ? Plus, the reason historians almost unanimously agree itās been edited is because how out of place the claims and passages about Jesus are in the original text. We also know that the translators we receive the text from are not reliable narrators.
In defense of Christianityā¦yes, but they wouldnāt believe in the holy resurrection of Christ, as that would make them a Christian.
Thatās a false dichotomyā¦ Even though I and most historian believe it to be a forgery, if I didnāt I could still make a claim that Jesus was simply a historical figure and that there still is no evidence miracles or evidence thatās supports him as a diety.
There are plenty of historical records we utilize as important works of history, but understand the authors may not be reliable narrators. Naram-Sin declared himself a diety, and these claims are backed by other contemporary sourcesā¦ We use these sources to validate his existence as a historical figure, but does that also mean he was really a diety?
I donāt really think you understand rationality, you are only using a narrow scope of logic instead of the broader understanding of rationality. Pure logic can lead to logical fallacies like your uses of false dicotomy and circular reasoning.