Biblical Criticism & History Forum - earlywritings.com

outhouse wrote:
in John - We see outright contradictions, as this theological piece came from communities who had a long history of tradition in their community, that were vastly different from the few who shared gospel traditions.

The traditions in John existed before the gospels were even written.

Yes, gnostic or pagan traditions.

The Discourses were written (or notes taken) during Jesus's lifetime. The Passion Narrative (best seen in the source underlying John) was written down immediately as a diary entry by John Mark. The Signs Source was written in Greek shortly after 44 A. D. These were edited and added to by the Apostle John while most apostles were still alive. Before 70 Apollo finished redacting John.

MrMacSon wrote:

outhouse wrote:
in John - We see outright contradictions, as this theological piece came from communities who had a long history of tradition in their community, that were vastly different from the few who shared gospel traditions.

The traditions in John existed before the gospels were even written.

Yes, gnostic or pagan traditions.

Yes, but not even close to being limited to such.

Traditions regarding jesus regardless of historicity, contradict each other.

Adam wrote:The Discourses were written (or notes taken) during Jesus's lifetime. The Passion Narrative (best seen in the source underlying John) was written down immediately as a diary entry by John Mark. The Signs Source was written in Greek shortly after 44 A. D. These were edited and added to by the Apostle John while most apostles were still alive. Before 70 Apollo finished redacting John.

Adam no one listens to your apologetic rhetoric.

The passion narrative may have existed in text, but by falsely attributing an author, you lose all credibility.

outhouse wrote: Traditions regarding jesus, regardless of historicity, contradict each other.

Yes, b/c those traditions were developed over a long period of time in a soup of many different and competing traditions

Adam wrote:The Passion Narrative (best seen in the source underlying John) was written down immediately as a diary entry by John Mark.

What information do you use to substantiate this assertion?

Adam wrote: The Signs Source was written in Greek shortly after 44 A. D. These were edited and added to by the Apostle John while most apostles were still alive. Before 70 Apollo finished redacting John.

What information do you use to substantiate this assertion?

MrMacSon wrote:

outhouse wrote: Traditions regarding jesus, regardless of historicity, contradict each other.

Yes, b/c those traditions were developed over a long period of time in a soup of many different and competing traditions

Does not fit all of them. Some could be early traditions.

Example would be, How many trips did he make to the temple? Just because we cannot answer it, does not mean it was a later mythological statement

MrMacSon wrote:

Adam wrote:The Passion Narrative (best seen in the source underlying John) was written down immediately as a diary entry by John Mark.

What information do you use to substantiate this assertion?

Adam wrote: The Signs Source was written in Greek shortly after 44 A. D. These were edited and added to by the Apostle John while most apostles were still alive. Before 70 Apollo finished redacting John.

What information do you use to substantiate this assertion?

For my Thesis of seven written eyewitness accounts about Jesus, see

http://www.earlywritings.com/forum/view ... p=756#p756
And go down to Oct. 10, 2013 to where Peter Kirby edits my work under the caveat
THESE ARE OBVIOUSLY NOT MY IDEAS.
(Note that Apelles redacting John is a later idea (I got from you or SA or someone else here in BCH) not included. He was not an eyewitness),
Note also that I was already reconsidering whether the verbatim-almost-the-same John-the-Baptist-stuff was from one of the seven eyewitnesses or not. In any case I regard it as later than my first seven written accounts.

Adam wrote: viewtopic.php?f=3&t=14&p=756#p756

.

That is not a credible source.

We are not reading all your garbage, so get to the point and provide a credible source in a paragraph or two.

outhouse wrote:Example would be, How many trips did he make to the temple? Just because we cannot answer it, does not mean it was a later mythological statement

From the fact that "Jesus Stories" were written from Sources, it does not follow that the Sources were about "Jesus".

OK. *IF* we assume that "Jesus" was a Priest (He taught daily in the Temple and they did not arrest him), then we know that this Priest rotated into the Temple every 168 days for one week and also for the Commanded Holy Days. That is what is so *Stark* about "John Baptising" and the like. You may assert that John and Jesus were NOT Priests but then you would have to explain how Jesus got into the Temple to "Cleanse it", ETC. NOTE: You cannot assert that the Corrupt High Priests (Appointed High Priests...) simply allowed these people to run the Temple Service and clear the area and that the Mishmarot Priesthood would allow this. Didn't happen that way.

We do know when "Jesus" made trips to the Temple. If "Jesus" was not a Priest, would Jairus fall down at his feet and ask him to lay hands on his daughter? NO!

Do the math. We do know how many days Jesus was in Temple.

Here's where you come in, outhouse. What would the Hellenized version of such a Story tell us? The Shift would be from a "Retrograde Priestly Cult" to a Platonic Division of "Heavenly" and "Earthly". Which is what we got.

Best,

CW