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?
In your land, an 83 year old dude writing something is a “wild assumption”. ok.
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 was quoting Clement of Alexandria from AD 150…
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 isn’t 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 “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.
Irrational thinking. The argument for Christian interpolation is basically “Josephus couldn’t have written it, as Jesus didn’t rise from the dead”
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?