A critical take on Inspiring Phiosophy's evidence for the Resurrection

[eider]

John's no good because I know about Mark

........wrong.
John's Gospel is not much good if viewed in connection with historical research.
It's probably brilliant for Religious zeal and Theological angles.

But for objective historical research it only has one outstanding win over the synoptics, but honestly, you just don't deserve to hear what hat is from me.

You've jumped on my name, proposed fundamentalist mindsets, proposed Mormon Faith and insulted me as ignorant and silly. I'm neither an atheist seeking to stamp on Christianity, nor a Christian with any kind of agenda........ just an objective student with no angles. Just now I need to follow the real reason for coming here which is to gain some ideas from a renowned specialist on this forum.

All the Best to you.

Eider

[Truthseeker]

Metacrock said sometime ago that he is dyslexic. So, quite possible that he mistook the "i" for "l" (lower case "L") in "eider."

[metacrock]

........wrong.
John's Gospel is not much good if viewed in connection with historical research.
It's probably brilliant for Religious zeal and Theological angles.

But for objective historical research it only has one outstanding win over the synoptics, but honestly, you just don't deserve to hear what hat is from me.

You've jumped on my name, proposed fundamentalist mindsets, proposed Mormon Faith and insulted me as ignorant and silly. I'm neither an atheist seeking to stamp on Christianity, nor a Christian with any kind of agenda........ just an objective student with no angles. Just now I need to follow the real reason for coming here which is to gain some ideas from a renowned specialist on this forum.

All the Best to you.

Eider

John is full of eye witnesses and it's clearly historical. It tells us as much as any gospel you just to look for what's good at telling. they have different strengths. probably why we have four.

[psstein]

those are more accepted than Tomothy and Titus

Yes, competent critical scholars will argue for the traditional authorship of 2 Thessalonians, Ephesians, and Colossians. With the sole exception of fundamentalist Christians, nobody argues for 1 and 2 Timothy and Titus.

[psstein]

G-Mark is the most accurate account about Jesus and his mission, as passed along by oral tradition until written circa 65-75ad. Although edited later by evangelists it is a statement about what happened and includes negative as well as positive reports of what happened.
No other record is as trustworthy.

By all means criticise G-Mark...... Are you wishing to trash it?

Mark is likely our best historical source. John may (emphasis on may) be more accurate in terms of chronology and geography. John is not more accurate in terms of events.

[seanD]

Mark is likely our best historical source. John may (emphasis on may) be more accurate in terms of chronology and geography. John is not more accurate in terms of events.

What indicates this to you? To me, it's the opposite. John is much more detailed in a lot of similar areas than the others.

[psstein]

What indicates this to you? To me, it's the opposite. John is much more detailed in a lot of similar areas than the others.

Well, the most important factor is that Mark is chronologically earliest and has a large amount of oral tradition behind it that I think linked to eyewitnesses (likely Peter). John has one major issue: everyone in John sounds the same in Greek, which suggests that the evangelist is modifying the material to suit his purposes.

In this case, I don't think detail is necessarily helpful. As I said, John seems to actually be acquainted with the layout of Jerusalem pre-70 and seems better with chronology. Beyond that, I don't think John is particularly useful. There are (perhaps) some independent traditions in John, but those have to be drawn out of the text through critical methods.

[seanD]

Well, the most important factor is that Mark is chronologically earliest and has a large amount of oral tradition behind it that I think linked to eyewitnesses (likely Peter). John has one major issue: everyone in John sounds the same in Greek, which suggests that the evangelist is modifying the material to suit his purposes.

In this case, I don't think detail is necessarily helpful. As I said, John seems to actually be acquainted with the layout of Jerusalem pre-70 and seems better with chronology. Beyond that, I don't think John is particularly useful. There are (perhaps) some independent traditions in John, but those have to be drawn out of the text through critical methods.

Neither one of us would argue that the four evangelists weren't modifying to suit their purposes. I guess it comes down to how you interpret "modifying" in this case. That can have quite a few meanings.

[One Bad Pig]

Yes, competent critical scholars will argue for the traditional authorship of 2 Thessalonians, Ephesians, and Colossians. With the sole exception of fundamentalist Christians, nobody argues for 1 and 2 Timothy and Titus.

N. T. Wright is a fundamentalist, now? Luke Timothy Johnson is a fundamentalist, now? JP Holding? I find their arguments persuasive. I admittedly grew up a fundamentalist, but my views have changed quite radically in some areas since then based on what I've read.

[metacrock]

Yes, competent critical scholars will argue for the traditional authorship of 2 Thessalonians, Ephesians, and Colossians. With the sole exception of fundamentalist Christians, nobody argues for 1 and 2 Timothy and Titus.

I know that I said that.,so what?

[metacrock]

Mark is likely our best historical source. John may (emphasis on may) be more accurate in terms of chronology and geography. John is not more accurate in terms of events.

I tend to agree with that. I did try intimate something along those lines but I thin it got overlooked.

[metacrock]

Well, the most important factor is that Mark is chronologically earliest and has a large amount of oral tradition behind it that I think linked to eyewitnesses (likely Peter). John has one major issue: everyone in John sounds the same in Greek, which suggests that the evangelist is modifying the material to suit his purposes.

I've read John in Greek. I think that could be said of all of them in a sense. but it's not true sense there is vast evidence of redaction. There is no "evangelist" Gospel are produced by communities. no one author.

Mark is only first among canonical gospels here were other sources before Mark (such as Q).

In this case, I don't think detail is necessarily helpful. As I said, John seems to actually be acquainted with the layout of Jerusalem pre-70 and seems better with chronology. Beyond that, I don't think John is particularly useful. There are (perhaps) some independent traditions in John, but those have to be drawn out of the text through critical methods.

how can we know what better with chronology when we have outside source to compare to?

[metacrock]

........wrong.
John's Gospel is not much good if viewed in connection with historical research.
It's probably brilliant for Religious zeal and Theological angles.

But for objective historical research it only has one outstanding win over the synoptics, but honestly, you just don't deserve to hear what hat is from me.

You've jumped on my name, proposed fundamentalist mindsets, proposed Mormon Faith and insulted me as ignorant and silly. I'm neither an atheist seeking to stamp on Christianity, nor a Christian with any kind of agenda........ just an objective student with no angles. Just now I need to follow the real reason for coming here which is to gain some ideas from a renowned specialist on this forum.

All the Best to you.

Eider

yes I've forgotten myself and been rude. I tend to get that why when my work is being unfairly attacked (in the threads on my God arguments).l am sorry. I'll try be more fair minded to your arguments.

[seanD]

N. T. Wright is a fundamentalist, now? Luke Timothy Johnson is a fundamentalist, now? JP Holding? I find their arguments persuasive.

According to psstein, they're too evangelical, thus discredited.

[metacrock]

According to psstein, they're too evangelical, thus discredited.

that's nonsense. Write is respected by liberals and Johnson is not that conservative and certainly not a fundi. he's basically liberal.