Is Christ Myth Theory Credible?

[Spartan]

Sadly, there are many misconceptions in the Bible. If only it was better written.

It's not the Bible that's the problem. It's the spiritually challenged.

"But the natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; nor can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned." - 1 Corinthians 2:14

 

[Spartan]

So maybe I decide Tacitus isn't a historian at all but just someone making stuff up.

One thing I've said before when skeptics keep shooting down those who have written about New Testament individuals and events: The list of people who would have to be liars, charlatans, etc., about Jesus and other New Testament figures and events is way too long (and often unsupported by any credible evidence on the part of skeptics) to be believable.

It reminds me of Slick Willie Clinton, and Hillary who, 100% of the time, shot down and defamed the women who reported sexual assaults and rape against Bill Clinton. Chris Wallace of Fox News asked Bill (paraphrasing), "Why are all these women lying about you"?

 

[lukethethird]

One thing I've said before when skeptics keep shooting down those who have written about New Testament individuals and events: The list of people who would have to be liars, charlatans, etc., about Jesus and other New Testament figures and events is way too long (and often unsupported by any credible evidence on the part of skeptics) to be believable.

It reminds me of Slick Willie Clinton, and Hillary who, 100% of the time, shot down and defamed the women who reported sexual assaults and rape against Bill Clinton. Chris Wallace of Fox News asked Bill (paraphrasing), "Why are all these women lying about you"?

In my opinion, I think everyone that ever wrote about Jesus was sincere, unless you can provide something to the contrary. Not everybody believes everything that was written in the NT, but that doesn't mean anyone was lying.

 

[Subduction Zone]

One thing I've said before when skeptics keep shooting down those who have written about New Testament individuals and events: The list of people who would have to be liars, charlatans, etc., about Jesus and other New Testament figures and events is way too long (and often unsupported by any credible evidence on the part of skeptics) to be believable.

It reminds me of Slick Willie Clinton, and Hillary who, 100% of the time, shot down and defamed the women who reported sexual assaults and rape against Bill Clinton. Chris Wallace of Fox News asked Bill (paraphrasing), "Why are all these women lying about you"?

Why are Christians so quick to assume that lying and cheating are the only alternate explanations. Myths tend to grow naturally over time. No need to lie. Look at the Elvis myths that arose after his death. Do you think that everyone that believed them was a liar or a cheat? The people that originated them did not even need to be liars or cheats. They may have merely been mistaken. When someone near and dear to you passes away one can see that person even when that person no longer is alive. And this in our supposedly more enlightened age. When one did not have the advantage of modern media and other tools why could one not truly believe that he saw Jesus after he died. Take the Gospels. The earliest was written well over a generation after Jesus died. That gives a long time for an oral tradition of myth to build up. The next two gospels largely copied the first. They were not independent. John did not copy as much but it had even more outrageous miracles and claims of Jesus. It was written about a generation after the first gospel giving the stories time to grow and become more outlandish. One thing that Christians are far too willing to forget is that none of the Gospels are eye witness accounts. Nor was Paul an eyewitness. The need for liars or charlatans to write the Bible is almost zero.

 

[Moz]

Why are Christians so quick to assume that lying and cheating are the only alternate explanations. Myths tend to grow naturally over time. No need to lie. Look at the Elvis myths that arose after his death. Do you think that everyone that believed them was a liar or a cheat? The people that originated them did not even need to be liars or cheats. They may have merely been mistaken. When someone near and dear to you passes away one can see that person even when that person no longer is alive. And this in our supposedly more enlightened age. When one did not have the advantage of modern media and other tools why could one not truly believe that he saw Jesus after he died. Take the Gospels. The earliest was written well over a generation after Jesus died. That gives a long time for an oral tradition of myth to build up. The next two gospels largely copied the first. They were not independent. John did not copy as much but it had even more outrageous miracles and claims of Jesus. It was written about a generation after the first gospel giving the stories time to grow and become more outlandish. One thing that Christians are far too willing to forget is that none of the Gospels are eye witness accounts. Nor was Paul an eyewitness. The need for liars or charlatans to write the Bible is almost zero.

Why are Christians so quick to assume that lying and cheating are the only alternate explanations. Myths tend to grow naturally over time. No need to lie. Look at the Elvis myths that arose after his death. Do you think that everyone that believed them was a liar or a cheat?The people that originated them did not even need to be liars or cheats. They may have merely been mistaken.

Whatever your opinion on the inspiration behind the Biblical writings they are in NO WAY unsophisticated works without deep insights into the human condition. To think that the people who spent their lives wrestling with the deeper issues of life and were versed in the Hebrew scriptures would be "mistaken" and imagine a ghost is just CRAZY. The LAST thing a 1st century Hebrew would do is imagine that a dead man was alive. It was just not in the worldview, which is why the Jews persecuted them so much btw. The resurrection and ascension of Jesus was actually a BAD marketing idea to try and entice a Jewish audience. Nope. Either they were liars who used the story as a "hook" to get pagan people into the group or they wrote what they saw.
...........................................
When someone near and dear to you passes away one can see that person even when that person no longer is alive. And this in our supposedly more enlightened age. When one did not have the advantage of modern media and other tools why could one not truly believe that he saw Jesus after he died. Take the Gospels. The earliest was written well over a generation after Jesus died. That gives a long time for an oral tradition of myth to build up.

This is also faulty reasoning. The Christian congregation was geographically diversified very quickly. There was NO central mechanism for an oral myth to be established that would have held true over such a wide dispersal in such a short time. Whatever message the ORIGINAL disciples delivered across at least 2 Empires, The Persian and Roman and up into the Celtic lands was CONSISTENT with the later writing that codified it for later generations.
If significant differences between the 33ce message taken by the original disciples and the written versions of the 60's and later existed we would know about it.
...................................
The next two gospels largely copied the first. They were not independent.
Or were recording the same events from a different perspective. That the story is consistent in the overall details lends to truth rather than distortion.
...............................................
John did not copy as much but it had even more outrageous miracles and claims of Jesus. It was written about a generation after the first gospel giving the stories time to grow and become more outlandish.

The stories grew did they. John made up events that no one had ever heard of and inserted them into Christianity and they were just accepted by everyone. The Christians spread through out the World by this time all just accepted this sort of manipulation? Yet there is NO record amongst the church fathers of the 100's of any controversy about New Ideas creeping in, anything that John wrote was accepted across the whole of the Christian world as an expansion of already held beliefs.
...........................................
One thing that Christians are far too willing to forget is that none of the Gospels are eye witness accounts. Nor was Paul an eyewitness. The need for liars or charlatans to write the Bible is almost zero
One thing that Atheists are far too willing to forget is that by the Mid 40's ce the basic Christian message had spread across Asia minor and into Europe. The need for the foundational lies to have been agreed on before 36ce is 100%. Any fundamental changes to the claim of the Death and Resurrection of Jesus for instance would not have been possible.
That the Gospels were accepted by Christians across the world shows that they were consistent with the original oral teachings that they originally received.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Why are Christians so quick to assume that lying and cheating are the only alternate explanations. Myths tend to grow naturally over time. No need to lie. Look at the Elvis myths that arose after his death. Do you think that everyone that believed them was a liar or a cheat?The people that originated them did not even need to be liars or cheats. They may have merely been mistaken.

Whatever your opinion on the inspiration behind the Biblical writings they are in NO WAY unsophisticated works without deep insights into the human condition. To think that the people who spent their lives wrestling with the deeper issues of life and were versed in the Hebrew scriptures would be "mistaken" and imagine a ghost is just CRAZY. The LAST thing a 1st century Hebrew would do is imagine that a dead man was alive. It was just not in the worldview, which is why the Jews persecuted them so much btw. The resurrection and ascension of Jesus was actually a BAD marketing idea to try and entice a Jewish audience. Nope. Either they were liars who used the story as a "hook" to get pagan people into the group or they wrote what they saw.
...........................................
When someone near and dear to you passes away one can see that person even when that person no longer is alive. And this in our supposedly more enlightened age. When one did not have the advantage of modern media and other tools why could one not truly believe that he saw Jesus after he died. Take the Gospels. The earliest was written well over a generation after Jesus died. That gives a long time for an oral tradition of myth to build up.

This is also faulty reasoning. The Christian congregation was geographically diversified very quickly. There was NO central mechanism for an oral myth to be established that would have held true over such a wide dispersal in such a short time. Whatever message the ORIGINAL disciples delivered across at least 2 Empires, The Persian and Roman and up into the Celtic lands was CONSISTENT with the later writing that codified it for later generations.
If significant differences between the 33ce message taken by the original disciples and the written versions of the 60's and later existed we would know about it.
...................................
The next two gospels largely copied the first. They were not independent.
Or were recording the same events from a different perspective. That the story is consistent in the overall details lends to truth rather than distortion.
...............................................
John did not copy as much but it had even more outrageous miracles and claims of Jesus. It was written about a generation after the first gospel giving the stories time to grow and become more outlandish.

The stories grew did they. John made up events that no one had ever heard of and inserted them into Christianity and they were just accepted by everyone. The Christians spread through out the World by this time all just accepted this sort of manipulation? Yet there is NO record amongst the church fathers of the 100's of any controversy about New Ideas creeping in, anything that John wrote was accepted across the whole of the Christian world as an expansion of already held beliefs.
...........................................
One thing that Christians are far too willing to forget is that none of the Gospels are eye witness accounts. Nor was Paul an eyewitness. The need for liars or charlatans to write the Bible is almost zero
One thing that Atheists are far too willing to forget is that by the Mid 40's ce the basic Christian message had spread across Asia minor and into Europe. The need for the foundational lies to have been agreed on before 36ce is 100%. Any fundamental changes to the claim of the Death and Resurrection of Jesus for instance would not have been possible.
That the Gospels were accepted by Christians across the world shows that they were consistent with the original oral teachings that they originally received.

Quite a bit of nonsense here. Do you want to go over this point by point?

 

[Moz]

Quite a bit of nonsense here. Do you want to go over this point by point?

Go over anything you want.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Go over anything you want.

Okay. It might be a while. I am using a tablet right now and I find that a bit limiting.

 

[Spartan]

The stories grew did they. John made up events that no one had ever heard of and inserted them into Christianity and they were just accepted by everyone.

Not sure if you wrote / believe the following about John or not, but I'm citing it:

"(The Apostle) John made up events"????

Whoever believes that, prove it. Cite your best two examples from the Gospel of John and cite the pertinent scriptures as well as your evidence that he made them up, as opposed to reporting them?

 

[Moz]

Not sure if you wrote / believe the following about John or not, but I'm citing it:

"(The Apostle) John made up events"????

Whoever believes that, prove it. Cite your best two examples from the Gospel of John and cite the pertinent scriptures as well as your evidence that he made them up, as opposed to reporting them?

You misunderstood what i was getting at is all. I am 100% in agreement with you on this subject. John is an absolutely reliable source and a firsthand account from someone who knew Jesus.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You misunderstood what i was getting at is all. I am 100% in agreement with you on this subject. John is an absolutely reliable source and a firsthand account from someone who knew Jesus.

But John almost certainly did not write John. What makes you think that he did?

 

[Moz]

But John almost certainly did not write John. What makes you think that he did?

Almost certainly is a appreciated admission. Now why am i certain. Well to tackle Revelation first, i don't think it had a chance in hell of being accepted unless it had Apostolic authority. It is to far from what they would have expected. Even for those fully versed in the Hebrew tradition it takes some deep digging to make sense of and i think that without Johns authority it would not have survived. It is its Apostolic authority that has always saved it, At Nicaea those that wanted to exclude Revelations could not overcome the overwhelming tradition of the authority of Johns writings.
Also I have read Polycarp and his pedigree as a disciple of the elderly John and he seems a very credible person so we know John was around at the appropriate time for him to have authored letters to the congregations in His old age. As for the Gospel. That John exposes a much more spiritual side to the person of Jesus fits with it having been written after Johns visions of the Glorified Jesus Christ he received at Patmos. The three letters well they are all about Love at its core and the admonishion to be separate from the world fits with the feel of the Gospel of John so i see nothing that excludes it being the elderly Apostle.
So basically there are few if any reasons in my estimation to doubt John's authorship. His writing seems to show a person obsessed with telling his people to Love each other and be peaceful and honest. He does not come across as some devious manipulator adding stories by lying about who he is and claiming Apostolic authority. If the first century counterparts of Polycarp believed John was the author that is corroboration enough for me anyway.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Almost certainly is a appreciated admission. Now why am i certain. Well to tackle Revelation first, i don't think it had a chance in hell of being accepted unless it had Apostolic authority. It is to far from what they would have expected. Even for those fully versed in the Hebrew tradition it takes some deep digging to make sense of and i think that without Johns authority it would not have survived. It is its Apostolic authority that has always saved it, At Nicaea those that wanted to exclude Revelations could not overcome the overwhelming tradition of the authority of Johns writings.
Also I have read Polycarp and his pedigree as a disciple of the elderly John and he seems a very credible person so we know John was around at the appropriate time for him to have authored letters to the congregations in His old age. As for the Gospel. That John exposes a much more spiritual side to the person of Jesus fits with it having been written after Johns visions of the Glorified Jesus Christ he received at Patmos. The three letters well they are all about Love at its core and the admonishion to be separate from the world fits with the feel of the Gospel of John so i see nothing that excludes it being the elderly Apostle.
So basically there are few if any reasons in my estimation to doubt John's authorship. His writing seems to show a person obsessed with telling his people to Love each other and be peaceful and honest. He does not come across as some devious manipulator adding stories by lying about who he is and claiming Apostolic authority. If the first century counterparts of Polycarp believed John was the author that is corroboration enough for me anyway.

You should not be certain since all you have is belief. You in effect just admitted to thinking irrationally. Not a good start to a debate. And those that accepted Revelation had no way of testing to see if John actually wrote it either so your conclusion is not merited. You appear to be a huge fan of circular reasoning. Now the fact is that modern scholars who study the works much more thoroughly than you or I do have concluded by the different writing styles that Revelation was not written by the same author as John, and none of them think that John was written by the apostle John.

And there are some very good reasons to doubt that John wrote it. First it was written at the earliest about 90 CE and possibly after 100 CE. John the apostle would most likely have been dead at that time. Second it was written by a well educated man and none of the apostles were thought to qualify for that.


Do you have anything besides "it mush have been" claims? Real scholars, not apologists who tend to be liars for the Bible, are not reliable resources. Those that know the history of the Bible know that the names were given much later and at that time famous names were often attached to works to give them a sense of veracity.

EDIT: Though not the definitive source Wikipedia is often a very good place to start, they not only have good articles, they have links to their sources:

Gospel of John - Wikipedia


But here are a few more:

The Story Of The Storytellers - An Introduction To The Gospels | From Jesus To Christ | FRONTLINE | PBS



This article points out the signs that it was written by several people:

Gospel According to John | Description, Authorship, & Facts

 

[Moz]

But John almost certainly did not write John. What makes you think that he did?

Apart from the overtly religious statements about Jesus origins and miracles what is it about the things John wrote that would make you think he was manipulating people by exaggerating or making things more outlandish. I don't want to accuse you of saying he made stuff up but it seems you do not take him as reliable.

My reading of Johns letters and Gospels leave me with the impression of a deeply Loving man with a great concern for the well being of the people that look to him. Theman that would tell his followers that

You should not be certain since all you have is belief. You in effect just admitted to thinking irrationally. Not a good start to a debate. And those that accepted Revelation had no way of testing to see if John actually wrote it either so your conclusion is not merited. You appear to be a huge fan of circular reasoning. Now the fact is that modern scholars who study the works much more thoroughly than you or I do have concluded by the different writing styles that Revelation was not written by the same author as John, and none of them think that John was written by the apostle John.

And there are some very good reasons to doubt that John wrote it. First it was written at the earliest about 90 CE and possibly after 100 CE. John the apostle would most likely have been dead at that time. Second it was written by a well educated man and none of the apostles were thought to qualify for that.


Do you have anything besides "it mush have been" claims? Real scholars, not apologists who tend to be liars for the Bible, are not reliable resources. Those that know the history of the Bible know that the names were given much later and at that time famous names were often attached to works to give them a sense of veracity.

EDIT: Though not the definitive source Wikipedia is often a very good place to start, they not only have good articles, they have links to their sources:

Gospel of John - Wikipedia


But here are a few more:

The Story Of The Storytellers - An Introduction To The Gospels | From Jesus To Christ | FRONTLINE | PBS



This article points out the signs that it was written by several people:

Gospel According to John | Description, Authorship, & Facts

And those that accepted Revelation had no way of testing to see if John actually wrote it either so your conclusion is not merited

The very first congregation that received it must have asked "Who wrote it" don't you think. It seems that those congregations accepted it and passed the letter along to people who passed it along. Each time with the description of it being apostolic so that 300 years later the unassailable tradition had built up.
.............................................
Do you really think that the first century Christians would have accepted Revelation without being convinced that it came from an indisputable source?
Also Polycarp who was born in 69 ce , John's disciple, did not dispute writings attributed to John.
..........................................
First it was written at the earliest about 90 CE and possibly after 100 CE. John the apostle would most likely have been dead at that time. Second it was written by a well educated man and none of the apostles were thought to qualify for that.

The tradition of Johns imprisonment on Patmos by Domitian in the mid 90's ce was from Polycarp and i believe it. That puts an elderly John in the perfect position to dictate the letters and send them off. To think that John in the 60 years since his days with Jesus did not learn a thing or two is a pretty lame appeal.
.................................................
Those that know the history of the Bible know that the names were given much later
You continually fail to recognize geographic dispersal of these writings in the first and second century. The letters of John were recognised as having Apostolic authority across the whole empire. People were not told that they had the wrong author and we have now agreed to call it this.... the names have been the identifiers from the start.
That a person on the fringes of the Empire in the early 150's ce who was reading the gospel of Mark had no idea that Mark was the writer, that seems strange to me. Who did they think they were reading if not Apostles and Disciples of Christ? The reason the apocrypha was rejected was because an overwhelming tradition of Apostolic oversight was the only qualifier.
.....................................
Btw.... What makes you think that the first century dudes lied about John being on Patmos?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Apart from the overtly religious statements about Jesus origins and miracles what is it about the things John wrote that would make you think he was manipulating people by exaggerating or making things more outlandish. I don't want to accuse you of saying he made stuff up but it seems you do not take him as reliable.

My reading of Johns letters and Gospels leave me with the impression of a deeply Loving man with a great concern for the well being of the people that look to him. Theman that would tell his followers that

Let's back up a bit since I did not make those claims. No strawman arguments please, they are not exactly honest. And you have yet to show a valid reason why John was the author.

And those that accepted Revelation had no way of testing to see if John actually wrote it either so your conclusion is not merited

The very first congregation that received it must have asked "Who wrote it" don't you think. It seems that those congregations accepted it and passed the letter along to people who passed it along. Each time with the description of it being apostolic so that 300 years later the unassailable tradition had built up.
.............................................
Do you really think that the first century Christians would have accepted Revelation without being convinced that it came from an indisputable source?
Also Polycarp who was born in 69 ce , John's disciple, did not dispute writings attributed to John.

Now it appears that you are speculating. You are running by emotion and a need to believe rather than by logic and reason. Revelation was almost not accepted. There were quite a few that thought that it was the second century equivalent of Cuckoo for Cocoa Puffs and they appeared to be right.

..........................................
First it was written at the earliest about 90 CE and possibly after 100 CE. John the apostle would most likely have been dead at that time. Second it was written by a well educated man and none of the apostles were thought to qualify for that.

The tradition of Johns imprisonment on Patmos by Domitian in the mid 90's ce was from Polycarp and i believe it. That puts an elderly John in the perfect position to dictate the letters and send them off. To think that John in the 60 years since his days with Jesus did not learn a thing or two is a pretty lame appeal.

Tradition is not history. Besides there is no reason to think that John of Patmos and John the apostle were one and the same person. Even if the book of John was written by John the apostle there is no reason to assume that was John of Patmos. John was a very common name back then. And as I pointed out the differences of writing styles tell us that they are probably not the same people.

.................................................
Those that know the history of the Bible know that the names were given much later
You continually fail to recognize geographic dispersal of these writings in the first and second century. The letters of John were recognised as having Apostolic authority across the whole empire. People were not told that they had the wrong author and we have now agreed to call it this.... the names have been the identifiers from the start.
That a person on the fringes of the Empire in the early 150's ce who was reading the gospel of Mark had no idea that Mark was the writer, that seems strange to me. Who did they think they were reading if not Apostles and Disciples of Christ? The reason the apocrypha was rejected was because an overwhelming tradition of Apostolic oversight was the only qualifier.

Please, don't give me this nonsense if you want to be taken seriously. The names were not even given until the second century. Dispersal of the Gospels will not save you.

.....................................
Btw.... What makes you think that the first century dudes lied about John being on Patmos?

And there you go with the claim of lies again. Did you forget the example of Elvis so quickly? There very well may have been a man name "John" on Patmos. There was nothing to indicate that he was John the apostle:

John of Patmos - Wikipedia

 

[Spartan]

First it was written at the earliest about 90 CE and possibly after 100 CE. John the apostle would most likely have been dead at that time.

According to this John died in the 7th year of the reign of Trajan, which would put John's death at 105 CE.

The holy Bible, authorized version, with comm. and a revision of the tr. by bishops and other clergy of the Anglican Church, ed. by F.C. Cook. New Testament

 

[Moz]

Let's back up a bit since I did not make those claims. No strawman arguments please, they are not exactly honest. And you have yet to show a valid reason why John was the author.



Now it appears that you are speculating. You are running by emotion and a need to believe rather than by logic and reason. Revelation was almost not accepted. There were quite a few that thought that it was the second century equivalent of Cuckoo for Cocoa Puffs and they appeared to be right.



Tradition is not history. Besides there is no reason to think that John of Patmos and John the apostle were one and the same person. Even if the book of John was written by John the apostle there is no reason to assume that was John of Patmos. John was a very common name back then. And as I pointed out the differences of writing styles tell us that they are probably not the same people.



Please, don't give me this nonsense if you want to be taken seriously. The names were not even given until the second century. Dispersal of the Gospels will not save you.



And there you go with the claim of lies again. Did you forget the example of Elvis so quickly? There very well may have been a man name "John" on Patmos. There was nothing to indicate that he was John the apostle:

John of Patmos - Wikipedia

Let's back up a bit since I did not make those claims. No strawman arguments please, they are not exactly honest

Okey Dokey we will back up to what my response was in response too......... you said......John did not copy as much but it had even more outrageous miracles and claims of Jesus.
It seemed to me that you are saying that John added outrageous claims to the story so my response stands................ Apart from the overtly religious statements about Jesus origins and miracles what is it about the things John wrote that would make you think he was manipulating people by exaggerating or making things more outlandish. I don't want to accuse you of saying he made stuff up but it seems you do not take him as reliable.

If you don't think that there was a sinister motive for the embellishments i guess that is an answer but then i would wonder why he bothered adding all that stuff, in the long run it is Johns spiritual stuff that has caused the most problems.
.....................................................................
Now it appears that you are speculating. You are running by emotion and a need to believe rather than by logic and reason. Revelation was almost not accepted. There were quite a few that thought that it was the second century equivalent of Cuckoo for Cocoa Puffs and they appeared to be right.

You make my point while missing the point, that's a hard act to follow. It was i who brought up the rough path that Revelations has had so your response is baffling. The ONLY reason that Revelation was kept was because it was Apostolic.
....................................................................
Tradition is not history. Besides there is no reason to think that John of Patmos and John the apostle were one and the same person. Even if the book of John was written by John the apostle there is no reason to assume that was John of Patmos. John was a very common name back then.

The reason is Terrtulian who knew Polycarp. Now they could have been lying and trying to big Up the Gospel i guess, anything is possible, but i believe them.

And you are wrong about History not being tradition. In the middle eastern world they are very much entwined. I can trace my Paternal line back over 1000 years through tribal traditions handed down Father to son. That the Great grand children of the Apostles and the first christians would not know their own familial history intimately shows no consideration for the types of people and cultures we are dealing with. These are NOT stupid people who are easily duped by new things, they are deeply conservative people who guard tradition and family knowledge.
......................................................
Please, don't give me this nonsense if you want to be taken seriously. The names were not even given until the second century. Dispersal of the Gospels will not save you.

So someone reading a portion of Matthew in Babylon of 120ce and a person reading the same thing in Rome would have no idea that they were reading the same author and if they were to converse and one referred to the letter of Matthew the other would have no idea what the reference was to. That is not how the letters between the church fathers read. The designation of a letter by authorship is the way that they ALL refer to the scriptures before the codification of it all at Nicaea.

If you think about it properly for two seconds you should realize that these letters being passed around the congregations must have had common descriptors from the very start. Their tradition, going back 2000 years was to identify writings by the Authors name..... it was actually pretty sop. Whoever the letters were originally attributed to became the names that stuck whether you like it or not. No one in the second century was calling the Gospel of Matthew the gospel of fred and had to change it to conform.... if you had a piece of matthew that is what it was called from the start.

Here is a source where you can read Tertulian quoting passages of John in the 150's ce . Tertullian and the appendix of the gospel of John.
I am pretty sure that Tertulian who was a friend and disciple of Polycarp would have asked this particular eyewitness to the elderly John if these scriptures were indeed from the old man don't you think?
........................................

 

[Subduction Zone]

Let's back up a bit since I did not make those claims. No strawman arguments please, they are not exactly honest

Okey Dokey we will back up to what my response was in response too......... you said......John did not copy as much but it had even more outrageous miracles and claims of Jesus.
It seemed to me that you are saying that John added outrageous claims to the story so my response stands................ Apart from the overtly religious statements about Jesus origins and miracles what is it about the things John wrote that would make you think he was manipulating people by exaggerating or making things more outlandish. I don't want to accuse you of saying he made stuff up but it seems you do not take him as reliable.

If you don't think that there was a sinister motive for the embellishments i guess that is an answer but then i would wonder why he bothered adding all that stuff, in the long run it is Johns spiritual stuff that has caused the most problems.
.....................................................................
Now it appears that you are speculating. You are running by emotion and a need to believe rather than by logic and reason. Revelation was almost not accepted. There were quite a few that thought that it was the second century equivalent of Cuckoo for Cocoa Puffs and they appeared to be right.

You make my point while missing the point, that's a hard act to follow. It was i who brought up the rough path that Revelations has had so your response is baffling. The ONLY reason that Revelation was kept was because it was Apostolic.
....................................................................
Tradition is not history. Besides there is no reason to think that John of Patmos and John the apostle were one and the same person. Even if the book of John was written by John the apostle there is no reason to assume that was John of Patmos. John was a very common name back then.

The reason is Terrtulian who knew Polycarp. Now they could have been lying and trying to big Up the Gospel i guess, anything is possible, but i believe them.

And you are wrong about History not being tradition. In the middle eastern world they are very much entwined. I can trace my Paternal line back over 1000 years through tribal traditions handed down Father to son. That the Great grand children of the Apostles and the first christians would not know their own familial history intimately shows no consideration for the types of people and cultures we are dealing with. These are NOT stupid people who are easily duped by new things, they are deeply conservative people who guard tradition and family knowledge.
......................................................
Please, don't give me this nonsense if you want to be taken seriously. The names were not even given until the second century. Dispersal of the Gospels will not save you.

So someone reading a portion of Matthew in Babylon of 120ce and a person reading the same thing in Rome would have no idea that they were reading the same author and if they were to converse and one referred to the letter of Matthew the other would have no idea what the reference was to. That is not how the letters between the church fathers read. The designation of a letter by authorship is the way that they ALL refer to the scriptures before the codification of it all at Nicaea.

If you think about it properly for two seconds you should realize that these letters being passed around the congregations must have had common descriptors from the very start. Their tradition, going back 2000 years was to identify writings by the Authors name..... it was actually pretty sop. Whoever the letters were originally attributed to became the names that stuck whether you like it or not. No one in the second century was calling the Gospel of Matthew the gospel of fred and had to change it to conform.... if you had a piece of matthew that is what it was called from the start.

Here is a source where you can read Tertulian quoting passages of John in the 150's ce . Tertullian and the appendix of the gospel of John.
I am pretty sure that Tertulian who was a friend and disciple of Polycarp would have asked this particular eyewitness to the elderly John if these scriptures were indeed from the old man don't you think?
........................................

We are not going to get anywhere if you keep making the mistake of thinking that people have to be lying if they are wrong. Now that may be true for creationists and believers of the other early myths of the Bible, but that is another topic.

 

[Moz]

According to this John died in the 7th year of the reign of Trajan, which would put John's death at 105 CE.

The holy Bible, authorized version, with comm. and a revision of the tr. by bishops and other clergy of the Anglican Church, ed. by F.C. Cook. New Testament

According to this John died in the 7th year of the reign of Trajan, which would put John's death at 105 CE.

The holy Bible, authorized version, with comm. and a revision of the tr. by bishops and other clergy of the Anglican Church, ed. by F.C. Cook. New Testament

Hi. The red stuff is actually the person i am responding to, i like doing it that way and i've never tried the quote function. So the quote was actually from subduction zone but i appreciate the link anyway.

Let's back up a bit since I did not make those claims. No strawman arguments please, they are not exactly honest. And you have yet to show a valid reason why John was the author.



Now it appears that you are speculating. You are running by emotion and a need to believe rather than by logic and reason. Revelation was almost not accepted. There were quite a few that thought that it was the second century equivalent of Cuckoo for Cocoa Puffs and they appeared to be right.



Tradition is not history. Besides there is no reason to think that John of Patmos and John the apostle were one and the same person. Even if the book of John was written by John the apostle there is no reason to assume that was John of Patmos. John was a very common name back then. And as I pointed out the differences of writing styles tell us that they are probably not the same people.



Please, don't give me this nonsense if you want to be taken seriously. The names were not even given until the second century. Dispersal of the Gospels will not save you.



And there you go with the claim of lies again. Did you forget the example of Elvis so quickly? There very well may have been a man name "John" on Patmos. There was nothing to indicate that he was John the apostle:

John of Patmos - Wikipedia

And there you go with the claim of lies again. Did you forget the example of Elvis so quickly? There very well may have been a man name "John" on Patmos. There was nothing to indicate that he was John the apostle:

Sorry i missed this and i do want to be thorough.

The Elvis example is only valid if you think that Polycarp was being untruthful when he identifies himself as a disciple of the Apostle John. Also the people who claimed to have seen Elvis are hardly an appeal to authority are they? The identification of John as the author is not derived from the nutjob section of the examiner but from the central core of a Christianity undergoing persecution and harassment from the state.
But you are right sort of.... there is No proof other than believing what the earliest recorded Christians believed as to the sources. I believe them because i see no motive for them to have lied.

 

[Marcion]

I don't believe the so-called Pauline letters were written before the original teachings of Jesus and that they were written by a first century Paul.

I disagree with the whole idea that a Paul from the first century was citing an earliest christology. Paul speaking through his "letters" was a mythical invention of the gnostic sect that eventually inspired the Marcionite Church. He may have been based on their founder Simon (called Simon Magus by the orthodox part of the Church based in Rome).
The gnostics took no interest in a corporeal Jesus but the Marcionite Church accepted a compromise.

The gnostic church wrote most parts of the so-called letters of Paul. They do not reflect the earliest movement.

Just because the mythical Christian ideas are not historical does not mean there wasn't a real Jesus. The first halves of the Christian gospel stories show no interest in the crucifixion-resurrection part of the gospel.

The first half of Mark contains a lot of material that has nothing to do with the crucifixion-resurrection myth. This material is largely compatible with the earliest (perhaps historical) teachings of Jesus. Because the author of Mark takes no serious interest in those original teachings (Luke and Matthew decided to make better use of them), it is hard to explain why those two are so well compatible if you accept that they were not based on a historical Jesus.

So I think that there was a historical Jesus who spoke the words as recorded in the sayings collection Q (Q-lite). He did perform some of the actions as described in the first part of Mark. The myth about the crucifixion-resurrection was added somewhat later, there may have been a crucifixion event but we don't know how it ended.

The historical existence of Jesus is by no means proven, but there is no other way to explain the strong compatability between Q-lite and the type of Jesus found in the first half of Mark. I don't believe in the priority of the Pauline pseudo-letters first used by the Marcionite Church, which forms the main basis of the Christ Myth Theory.