Flax_vert comments on Catholic church canonises its first gamer saint, and one of his favourite games was Halo

[–] Flax_vert@feddit.uk 1 point 1 year ago (7 children)

I'm guessing you are claiming the John lives to be nearly a hundred years old?

If John was, let's say 16 at the time of Jesus' crucifixion in 33 AD, then he'd be 83 years old if it was written in 100 AD. A reasonable age. I'm not disputing the possibility of a scribe.

Even though there is no evidence to support this....

Evidence that John wrote John would be evidence to support this.

These contextual clues first put forth in 185ad

You've got no evidence to support this than an argument from silence. That is the earliest RECORDED evidence. And from that time frame, that's 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 there's 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 it.... He may have orally transferred the story to someone who later wrote it down after the time of his death. You're working off of assumptions that are highly disputable.

You're the one working off of assumptions

From his own cadra of followers...... That's like saying everything scientology claims about L Ron Hubbard is true because it was witnessed by 4 different scientologist.

So you're basically asking me to find you sources documenting the resurrection of Jesus Christ from people who didn't believe it happened? Don't you realise how silly of a proposition that is? That, and whenever someone were to propose someone like Josephus, you'll just cry "Christian interpolation", while most people are crying that using circular reasoning that he mustn't have written about it because "someone can't rise from the dead". We'd 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 contradictory.....? There haven't been any ancient scripts found about Christianity that the church hasn't adopted?

There have been. Are you talking about non Christian sources? stating that the Church was "adopting everything someone wrote about Jesus"

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 7 child comments

[–] TranscendentalEmpire@lemmy.today 1 point 1 year ago (6 children)

John was, let's say 16 at the time of Jesus' crucifixion in 33 AD, then he'd be 83 years old if it was written in 100 AD. A reasonable age. I'm not disputing the possibility of a scribe.

Ahh yes, let's make wild assumptions that fit my own narrative...

Evidence that John wrote John would be evidence to support this.

"I'm not disputing the possibility of a scribe."

You've got no evidence to support this than an argument from silence. That is the earliest RECORDED evidence. And from that time frame, that's pretty damn close.

Eusebius's argument was an ongoing debate between scholars in the early church. However it's 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 that's 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 there's 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 king's journal.

You're the one working off of assumptions

You're claiming the new testament that the new testament didn't first get passed down by oral tradition?

So you're basically asking me to find you sources documenting the resurrection of Jesus Christ from people who didn't believe it happened?

No, just saying that you can't use biased sources to make claims about his motivation.

That, and whenever someone were to propose someone like Josephus, you'll just cry "Christian interpolation", while most people are crying that using circular reasoning that he mustn't have written about it because "someone can't rise from the dead".

I have no idea what you are trying to accuse me of?

We'd 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 someone..... 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?

I'm saying that just saying that all religions pick and choose their own doctrine. It's not like the church adopted the gospel of Mary.

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 6 child comments

[–] Flax_vert@feddit.uk 1 point 1 year ago (5 children)

Ahh yes, let's make wild assumptions that fit my own narrative...

In your land, an 83 year old dude writing something is a "wild assumption". ok.

Evidence that John wrote John would be evidence to support this.

"I'm not disputing the possibility of a scribe."

You know what a scribe is... Right? Someone who sits with you as you dictate to them? You know a lot of news report articles about people aren't actually written by that person, but a journalist themselves.... And even then, a scribe is more reliable than a journalist 🤦

Eusebius's argument was an ongoing debate between scholars in the early church. However it's widely recognized as how the church canonized John the apostle as the author.

Eusebius was quoting Clement of Alexandria from AD 150...

Yes, but those were written from lost primary and contemporary sources from people like Ptolemy, Aristobulus, and in some cases the king's journal.

So like what Esebius wrote, and what was likely composed by Luke the Evangelist in his Gospel and the Acts of the Apostles.

You're claiming the new testament that the new testament didn't 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 isn't unreliable and it takes centuries for supernatural claims and legends to show up.

No, just saying that you can't use biased sources to make claims about his motivation.

In this case, anything arguing in favour or showing the resurrection of Christ is automatically "biased" by your definition. It's like arguing with someone about global warming who doesn't trust scientists or the scientific method - Any science you do show them they dismiss as "biased" because they don't trust scientists. In the same way, if anyone believed that Jesus rose again, they'd rationally be a Christian. You dismiss this as "biased" because they were a Christian. Or if someone who wasn't a Christian wrote something that did defend it, then it must be interpolated because of the "bias".

If the Gospels were biased, they wouldn't have had bad stories about their leaders at the time. Such as peter denying Jesus, Peter cutting off a dude's 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 "Josephus couldn't have written it, as Jesus didn't rise from the dead"

I'm saying that just saying that all religions pick and choose their own doctrine. It's 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?

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 5 child comments

[–] TranscendentalEmpire@lemmy.today 1 point 1 year ago (4 children)

In your land, an 83 year old dude writing something is a "wild assumption". ok.

What makes you assume he's 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 died.....

You know what a scribe is... Right? Someone who sits with you as you dictate to them? You know a lot of news report articles about people aren't actually written by that person, but a journalist themselves.... And even then, a scribe is more reliable than a journalist 🤦

A scribe can also be some writing down an oral tradition.....

Eusebius was quoting Clement of Alexandria from AD 150

Clement was born in 150ad..... 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 isn't unreliable and it takes centuries for supernatural claims and legends to show up.

"is widely agreed amongst Biblical scholars that accounts of Jesus's teachings and life were initially conserved by oral transmission, which was the source of the written gospels"

In this case, anything arguing in favour or showing the resurrection of Christ is automatically "biased" by your definition.

No, if we had records from the Romans claiming the guy they crusified a couple days ago is back....that would be a source from outside his fellowship.

It's like arguing with someone about global warming who doesn't trust scientists or the scientific method

Lol, you are comparing magic to the scientific method?

Any science you do show them they dismiss as "biased" because they don't trust scientists. In the same way, if anyone believed that Jesus rose again, they'd rationally be a Christian.

You don't have to trust science, science is repeatable, it's self explanatory.... If I saw someone who was publicly executed and then I saw them again three days later, I wouldn't automatically think they're the son of God. I would rationally think it's a different dude posing as him, or that they didn't actually kill him.

the Gospels were biased, they wouldn't have had bad stories about their leaders at the time. Such as peter denying Jesus, Peter cutting off a dude's ear and Jesus rebuking him, or James and John trying to get priority status in Glory.

If scientology was biased they wouldn't have bad stories about their leaders at the time.......

Josephus couldn't have written it, as Jesus didn't 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?

Because it didn't fit within church doctrine.

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 4 child comments

[–] Flax_vert@feddit.uk 1 point 1 year ago (3 children)

What makes you assume he's 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 died.....

This is a pretty reasonable assumption? No?

A scribe can also be some writing down an oral tradition.....

That's 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 150ad..... 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. That's a different debate over who wrote revelation.

"is widely agreed amongst Biblical scholars that accounts of Jesus's teachings and life were initially conserved by oral transmission, which was the source of the written gospels"

Did you just quote Wikipedia? The admins on there are neckbeards such as Tgeorgescu who basically had a "no Christian apologists" rule which is impossible, because any historian who argues something that is pro Christianity, they are automatically labelled a "Christian apologist".

No, if we had records from the Romans claiming the guy they crusified a couple days ago is back....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 wouldn't have bad stories about their leaders at the time.......

Are these in actual Scientology "scriptures"?

How so? The earliest evidence of the gospel of Mary is from the 3rd century and was thought to be written in the 2nd.

So not the first....

Because it didn't fit within church doctrine.

And how did they establish doctrine?

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 3 child comments

[–] TranscendentalEmpire@lemmy.today 1 point 1 year ago (2 children)

This is a pretty reasonable assumption? No?

Nah, just circular reasoning.

you just quote Wikipedia? The admins on there are neckbeards such as Tgeorgescu who basically had a "no Christian apologists"

"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

"While 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 God's people is called oral tradition." 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 forgeries....

Again, nothing you have talked about is actual evidence of Christianity being factual. And again, I don't really care about your personal beliefs. I just don't think it's okay that you think your make believe time allows you to harsh other people's make believe times. If society grants you the right to play make believe, you should have the decency to do unto others.

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 2 child comments

[–] Flax_vert@feddit.uk 1 point 1 year ago* (1 child)

Nah, just circular reasoning.

You were claiming John couldn't 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

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.

They're 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. That's not the same as the New Testament being an account of Jesus. He's just making a statement against sola scriptura by saying "Well, Jesus didn't literally write this".

The second quote doesn't even contradict anything I said. Just because stories were exchanged orally first, doesn't 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 doesn't 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 forgeries....

The main reason people say it is a forgery because Josephus was a practicing Jew and a Jew wouldn't say that (circular reasoning) and that the earliest copy of that is quoted by Eusebius, so it mustn't be reliable. They aren't 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 isn't a forgery. If it isn't, then you cannot dismiss the new testament and Church Fathers, lest you be irrational

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 1 child comment

[–] TranscendentalEmpire@lemmy.today 1 point 1 year ago

You were claiming John couldn't 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

I'm 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 doesn't even contradict anything I said. Just because stories were exchanged orally first, doesn't mean the written accounts are firsthand.

Lol, it contradicts the claims you made about the first quote? It's silly how often your position changes.

The main reason people say it is a forgery because Josephus was a practicing Jew and a Jew wouldn't say that (circular reasoning)

That's not circulatory reasoning..... That's just reasoning. Why would a Jew believe in the resurrection of Christ? Plus, the reason historians almost unanimously agree it's 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 Christianity......yes, but they wouldn't believe in the holy resurrection of Christ, as that would make them a Christian.

If it isn't, then you cannot dismiss the new testament and Church Fathers, lest you be irrational

That's a false dichotomy...... Even though I and most historian believe it to be a forgery, if I didn't I could still make a claim that Jesus was simply a historical figure and that there still is no evidence miracles or evidence that's 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 sources... We use these sources to validate his existence as a historical figure, but does that also mean he was really a diety?

I don't 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.

permalink

fedilink

source

parent