Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
My question is what is the source that reveals the "actual text". Where did that come from?
IOW, how am I to know that ANYTHING was added unless you provide a source for the supposed "actual text".
Sorry for the confusion, the original text mentioned here:
1 Pet 2:11-20
Original Text
"Dear friends, I urge you, as aliens and strangers in the world, to abstain from sinful desires, which war against your soul. Live such good lives among the pagans that, though they accuse you of doing wrong, they may see your good deeds and glorify God on the day he visits us. For it is God's will that by doing good you should silence the ignorant talk of foolish men. Live as free men, but do not use your freedom as a cover-up for evil; live as servants of God. For it is commendable if a man bears up under the pain of unjust suffering because he is conscious of God. But how is it to your credit if you receive a beating for doing wrong and endure it? But if you suffer for doing good and you endure it, this is commendable before God."
(NIV)
Is gained not because of manuscripts per say, it is gained through filtering everything through Jesus Christ.
Here is what the manuscript says:
"Dear friends, I urge you, as aliens and strangers in the world, to abstain from sinful desires, which war against your soul. Live such good lives among the pagans that, though they accuse you of doing wrong, they may see your good deeds and glorify God on the day he visits us. Submit yourselves for the Lord's sake to every authority instituted among men: whether to the king, as the supreme authority, or to governors, who are sent by him to punish those who do wrong and to commend those who do right. For it is God's will that by doing good you should silence the ignorant talk of foolish men. Live as free men, but do not use your freedom as a cover-up for evil; live as servants of God. Show proper respect to everyone: Love the brotherhood of believers, fear God, honor the king. Slaves, submit yourselves to your masters with all respect, not only to those who are good and considerate, but also to those who are harsh. For it is commendable if a man bears up under the pain of unjust suffering because he is conscious of God. But how is it to your credit if you receive a beating for doing wrong and endure it? But if you suffer for doing good and you endure it, this is commendable before God.
Look at what is I highlighted in green. So what was Jesus view of those in authority, Especially the supreme authority among men? Who would be the supreme authority among men? ROME. Now do you really believe Jesus (remember I am filtering through Jesus even though it is supposedly Peter speaking here) would have us submit to ROME? Does not Jesus say the ruler of this world is the devil? Are we really suppose to submit ourselves to the devil? If so why did Peter and the boys refuse to submit to those in authority when they were told to shut up about Jesus. Why would Peter say here submit and then refuse to do so?
By these things we can see that which is highlighted in green are an interpolation that was probably but into place after the council of Niece so that Constantine, the supreme human ruler and the RCC could exert political and social control over the people.
Quote:
Like where the one quote: Conybeare then goes on and quotes the biblical scholar Dr. C.R. Gregory, and writes: "In the case just examined (Matthew 28:19).
It would be more beneficial if we saw the two versions of Matthew 28:19. THEN his commentary would be much more useful.
Conybeare then goes on and quotes the biblical scholar Dr. C.R. Gregory, and writes: "In the case just examined (Matthew 28:19), it is to be noticed that not a single manuscript or ancient version has preserved to us the true reading. But that is not surprising, for as Dr. C.R. Gregory, one of the greatest of our textual critics, reminds us, 'The Greek MSS of the Text of the New Testament were often altered by the scribes, who put into them the readings which were familiar to them, and which they held to be the right readings' (Canon and Text of the New Testament, 1907, p. 424)".
Kind of hard to do that when, read the green highlight.
I have addressed a specific claim of yours. Namely that the names Matthew, Mark, Luke and John were not added to the gospel accounts attributed to them until hundreds of years later. Manuscripts P66 and P75 provide physical proof that at least with regard to John your claim is false.
And Brent Nongbri is entitled to his opinion.
The Muratorian Canon by the way, which is dated to A.D. 170-200 mentions the names Luke and John which also refutes your claim that the names weren't added to the gospel accounts until hundreds of years later.
I. ...those things at which he was present he placed thus.23 The third book of the Gospel, that according to Luke, the well-known physician Luke wrote in his own name24 in order after the ascension of Christ, and when Paul had associated him with himself25 as one studious of right.26 Nor did he himself see the Lord in the flesh; and he, according as he was able to accomplish it, began27 his narrative with the nativity of John. The fourth Gospel is that of John, one of the disciples. Muratorian Canon (Roberts-Donaldson Translation)
The beginning of the fragment is missing but it can be seen that the missing part refers to the first two gospel accounts.
Yes---a SINGLE opinion that John dates to 170-200 AD but even that proves that there is little to no evidence John wrote the gospel. The best you can do is try to insert A gospel with no known author containing some of the John text back to 170-200 AD. To go any further back, certainly to 95 AD is just a tradition scholars follow for the sake of expediency because the very earliest fragment they can find, Rylands Library Papyrus P52, can be dated no earlier than between 117 CE and 138 CE, and based on that guess you're going to fudge 30-40 years and say, "Well, if the fragment can be dated to 117 then the gospel had to have been around for at least 20-30 years before that". Pure guesswork. Although the general consensus of most worthy scholars, certainly not one biased Christian historian, is more like
And, incidentally, while you say Brent Nongbri says 170-200 AD note #4 to the Wiki quote above carries to early 3rd century or roughly 225 AD according to Nongbri, so that's about 125 years from when John supposedly wrote it. To add fuel to the fire we're supposed to believe that John wrote his gospel AND his Revelation all at the same time, which is quite a feat. To go any earlier than 225 AD trying to tag John's name to the gospel is pure speculation. It's all a guessing game before 225 AD or so, so you lose just on the simple fact scholars don't try to get the date any earlier.
In sum, if you want to believe John wrote his gospel around 95 AD that's fine. You're entitled to believe he wrote it right after Jesus' crucifixion if you want, but nobody is going to take anything earlier than 225 AD seriously without asking for proof because we just don't have an extant copy of the gospel until much later.
Matthew 5:21
“You have heard that it was said to the people long ago, ‘You shall not murder,[a] and anyone who murders will be subject to judgment.’
Matthew 5:27
“You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall not commit adultery.’[e] 28 But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart.
Chad this has to do with the documentary hypothesis, the laws according to the J source differ from those of the P and D sources. The J source being the oldest does not have those laws. The text (ex.20:2-17) here does not appear to belong to any major source. It is most likely to be an independent document, which was inserted here by the redactor. (Richard Elliot Friedman.)
So for now all I will say is that if Friedman is correct those laws may very well be an interpolation also. However that Jesus did not correct these laws but actually added to them I would have to do more study on them before saying anything further.
To go into detail concerning the Documentary Hypothesis would lead us into a whole different topic and as I want to finish this one first lets leave this for the time being. If you want to go into this later I would be happy to speak further on this issue.
So the issue is why did Jesus contradict the laws I mentioned if they were Gods laws?
This nonsense about what constitutes a historical account (whether fanciful or not) is just anti-religious bias. The mere fact that a religion compiled some ancient writings into their Bible is irrelevant. There were far more of such writings that were not incorporated into the Bible. If none had beein consoilidated into the bible they would ALL have been separate historical ancient writings. Being part of the Bible does not in any way make the writings any less historical. Demanding that the search for Jesus find non-Biblical sources stacks the deck against Jesus. They do it JUST BECAUSE He is the principle character in a religion that has artificially gathered many of the ancient writings about Him that supported their preferred beliefs and ignored or destroyed the rest. Had they not gathered them into the Bible they would ALL have been separate writings evidencing His existence . . . and the distinction of Biblical and non-Biblical would not even exist.
Ya that is what I tried to tell thrill in post 278
Originally Posted by thrillobyte Historians have to be cold and impassionate and look at what is before them with an unbiased attitude.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pneuma
why is it then you do not believe these historians and what they said?
Tacitus
Suetonius
Pliny the Younger
By disbelieving what they reported of Jesus your saying these historians did not do their jobs as historian very good. that they lived so closely after the time of Jesus do you not think they would have had documents concerning Jesus that no longer exist today? Do you honestly believe they would state hearsay as a fact? You seem to be picking and choosing which historians are good and which are bad historians. that is being very bias thrill.
Also if you think about it the nay sayers never questioned the historical Jesus the gospels put forth, surely if Jesus never existed some nay sayer would have said something about it when Paul or the apostle brought Jesus up.
And one more thing to think about is that if Jesus was only a myth do you really believe that the apostles and Christians of that day would have died the horrible deaths they died for a myth.
Quote:
Originally Posted by thrillobyte
Jeez, how many times do I have to answer this! It's because they were writing about a hundred years after Jesus' death so how could they get their information any other way except from 100th-hand sources. The legends and myths about jesus had been passing around in thousands of permutations for a century. No judge in the world would accept as valid testimony the words of an uninterested party who circulated a rumor about Abraham Lincoln in 1877. But gospel writers trying to push a particular belief would certainly collect a bunch of tales and twist them around any way they wanted to suit their agenda. Read Bart Ehrman's "Misquoting Jesus" or watch YouTube videos of him talking about it if you really are interested in knowing about all this.
You'd make a lousy historian, pneuma.
PS the stories circulating about the apostles deaths are themselves myths. There not one shred of evidence to support the wild tales circulating about how they died. For example Thomas supposed rose out of the burning oil he was thrown into and into the air with arms outstretched to his persecutors. That's the kind of rubbish that was being spun over the centuries.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pneuma
in that case todays historians have even less info then those who live close to the time of Jesus, I guess we just throw out all historical info. Thrill a historian would NOT PUT HERESAY OR WILD TALES IN THEIR HISTORY , yet that is what YOU want us all to believe. Sorry my friend but I will believe what the historians tell me, especially when all 3 of those historians back up what each other has said.
Like I said thrill you are showing a bias, you just cannot see it. Me I am believing the ROMAN historians, thus I am not showing bias towards Christianity as they are ROMAN historians, NOT Christian historians.
Quote:
Originally Posted by thrillobyte
pneuma, read the sentence in bold and see how nonsensical it is. Now which historians are you speaking of specifically? I never said a bonafide secular historian of any dignity would put wild tales into their account. I said Peter, John and the gospel writers would put wild fanciful tales into their gospel accounts, but they were not recognized historians. We don’t even know who wrote the gospels. The names matthew, Mark, Luke and John were added to the manuscripts hundreds of years after they were written.
So if you never said a bonafide historian would put hearsay or wild tales into their account, then you must not believe those 3 Roman historians are not bonafide historians, because that is what we have been speaking about.
So are those 3 Roman historians bonified historians or not, and if they are bonafide historians why is it you do not believe them?
So if you never said a bonafide historian would put hearsay or wild tales into their account, then you must not believe those 3 Roman historians are not bonafide historians, because that is what we have been speaking about.
So are those 3 Roman historians bonified historians or not, and if they are bonafide historians why is it you do not believe them?
Notice I said no bonafide historian WITH ANY DIGNITY. Are you insinuating these three historians put wild hearsay and wild tales into their historical accounts? That's what I'm getting from what you write. Or are you saying they did NOT use hearsay? I have no quarrel with whether they were good historians, I'm merely saying they were not eyewitnesses to the events recorded in the gospels and so the best they had to go on would have been hearsay. It would have been the same for any historian writing circa 100-200 AD. All they'd have to go on is hearsay and hearsay is not accepted as historical fact. It's guesswork. That's all I'm saying.
I see your tactic: you try to drive your opponent so nuts they end up writing gibberish and you declare victory. "SEE? I told you Thrillobyte was nuts!"
Location: In Thy presence is fulness of joy... Psa 16:11
299 posts, read 263,576 times
Reputation: 380
Quote:
Originally Posted by jghorton
After posting on the CD Christianity forum for several years, I've pretty much moved on and only check back occasionally to see if anything has changed. Things have even gotten worse as it appears that more and more Bible-believing Christians are abandoning the CD Christianity 'free-for-all.' Every time sound doctrine appears, the Bible detractors and false teachers pile on...The Bible does not contradict itself, nor do God, Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit contradict one another ... except, of course, in the minds and words of those presenting a different doctrine. This is not about people having different views of what scripture says, but, rather, about those who have abandoned scripture altogether --- except for giving it lip-service. Yes, 'Sound Doctrine' has all, but, left the CD Christianity forum 'building.'
JGHorton, I regret to say I agree with you fully. Some claim this thread is "about" Christianity, but it is not the Bible nor the Christ of Scriptures that seems to interest them. Too many seem to hang out here to rant and blast His lovely Name and truth. If we did that on other threads we would be banned. And of course, true believers in Jesus will contend for the faith, but not practice being obnoxious. Those who claim Christ but rant, blast etc. either are new believers who need instruction, or should be reproved for an ungodly attitude. Like Jesus said in Luke 10, sometimes followers of Jesus have to just move on if the message of Good News is rejected in one place. Until Christ comes, we have lots of area to cover. Maranatha! Let us be found faithful 'till He comes.
'As with the other gospels, no MSS which contain John’s Gospel1 affirm authorship by anyone other than John.2 Once again, as with the others, this is short of proof of Johannine authorship, but the unbroken stream suggests recognition (or at least acknowledgment) of Johannine authorship as early as the first quarter of the second century. Indeed, John’s Gospel is unique among the evangelists for two early papyri (P66 and P75, dated c. 200) attest to Johannine authorship. Since these two MSS were not closely related to each other, this common tradition must precede them by at least three or four generations of copying.' [Bolding mine]
The gospel of John is thought to have been written around A.D. 90-95. As mentioned above, two extant manuscripts, P66 and P75 are dated to c. A.D. 200 and attest to Johannine authorship. The fact that the two manuscripts are not related closely suggests that manuscript as well as church tradition regarding Johannine authorship goes back considerably earlier. Therefore your statement at least regarding the gospel of John that John's name was added hundreds of years after the gospel attributed to him is inaccurate. Despite the tendency of modern critical scholars to ignore the early church fathers, there really is no reason to doubt the early church tradition regarding Matthew, Mark, Luke and John as the writers of the gospel accounts to which their names have been attached.
Quote:
Originally Posted by thrillobyte
The gospels were not intended to be historical accounts of the life of Christ. Their intended target was their Christianized audience to be used to affirm their faith, as stated above, and the writers were not above inventing and fabricating outright stories, events and details in order to bolster their claim Jesus was divine. For example, Jesus' sweat becoming as drops of blood in Gethsemane. How could any author know that intimate detail, Holy Spirit or no Holy Spirit!
Even the John gospel is anonymous.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike555
Your reply in no way addresses what I said. The fact that two extant manuscripts - P66 and P75, dated to c. A.D. 200, and both of which have John's name attached to them, and which suggest earlier manuscript attestation to Johannine authorship refutes your claim in post #293 that John's name wasn't added until hundreds of years later.
Quote:
Originally Posted by thrillobyte
So if the vast majority of scholarship attest that John's gospel is anonymous, as I have demonstrated, then how does your claim refute that?
By the way, here's the entire story of P66: (from Wikipedia)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike555
I have addressed a specific claim of yours. Namely that the names Matthew, Mark, Luke and John were not added to the gospel accounts attributed to them until hundreds of years later. Manuscripts P66 and P75 provide physical proof that at least with regard to John your claim is false.
And Brent Nongbri is entitled to his opinion.
The Muratorian Canon by the way, which is dated to A.D. 170-200 mentions the names Luke and John which also refutes your claim that the names weren't added to the gospel accounts until hundreds of years later.
I. ...those things at which he was present he placed thus.23 The third book of the Gospel, that according to Luke, the well-known physician Luke wrote in his own name24 in order after the ascension of Christ, and when Paul had associated him with himself25 as one studious of right.26 Nor did he himself see the Lord in the flesh; and he, according as he was able to accomplish it, began27 his narrative with the nativity of John. The fourth Gospel is that of John, one of the disciples. Muratorian Canon (Roberts-Donaldson Translation)
The beginning of the fragment is missing but it can be seen that the missing part refers to the first two gospel accounts.
Quote:
Originally Posted by thrillobyte
Yes---a SINGLE opinion that John dates to 170-200 AD but even that proves that there is little to no evidence John wrote the gospel. The best you can do is try to insert A gospel with no known author containing some of the John text back to 170-200 AD. To go any further back, certainly to 95 AD is just a tradition scholars follow for the sake of expediency because the very earliest fragment they can find, Rylands Library Papyrus P52, can be dated no earlier than between 117 CE and 138 CE, and based on that guess you're going to fudge 30-40 years and say, "Well, if the fragment can be dated to 117 then the gospel had to have been around for at least 20-30 years before that". Pure guesswork. Although the general consensus of most worthy scholars, certainly not one biased Christian historian, is more like
And, incidentally, while you say Brent Nongbri says 170-200 AD note #4 to the Wiki quote above carries to early 3rd century or roughly 225 AD according to Nongbri, so that's about 125 years from when John supposedly wrote it. To add fuel to the fire we're supposed to believe that John wrote his gospel AND his Revelation all at the same time, which is quite a feat. To go any earlier than 225 AD trying to tag John's name to the gospel is pure speculation. It's all a guessing game before 225 AD or so, so you lose just on the simple fact scholars don't try to get the date any earlier.
In sum, if you want to believe John wrote his gospel around 95 AD that's fine. You're entitled to believe he wrote it right after Jesus' crucifixion if you want, but nobody is going to take anything earlier than 225 AD seriously without asking for proof because we just don't have an extant copy of the gospel until much later.
I didn't say that Brent Nongbri said that P66 dated to A.D. 170-200. I said that he is entitled to his opinion. That was with regard to you citing his opinion that P66 could be dated "in the early or middle part of the fourth century." His is a minority opinion. The commonly accepted dating of P66, as well as P75 is c. A.D.200 and is so cited in the Nestle-Aland Novum Testamentum Gracece (28th edition). Nongbri's reasons for opting for a later date are given here. - https://larryhurtado.wordpress.com/2...-new-argument/
As Dan Wallace stated;
''As with the other gospels, no MSS which contain John’s Gospel1 affirm authorship by anyone other than John.2 Once again, as with the others, this is short of proof of Johannine authorship, but the unbroken stream suggests recognition (or at least acknowledgment) of Johannine authorship as early as the first quarter of the second century. Indeed, John’s Gospel is unique among the evangelists for two early papyri (P66 and P75, dated c. 200) attest to Johannine authorship. Since these two MSS were not closely related to each other, this common tradition must precede them by at least three or four generations of copying. Further, although B and P75 are closely related, textual studies have demonstrated that P75 is not the ancestor of B—in fact, B’s ancestor was, in many respects, more primitive than P75.3 Hence, the combined testimony of B and P75 on Johannine authorship points to a textual tradition which must be at least two generations earlier than P75. All of this is to say that from the beginning of the second century, the fourth gospel was strongly attached to the apostle John.'' [Bolding mine.]
I do expect people to actually read the above study by Dan Wallace for all that he has to day on both sides of the issue concerning the authorship.
And as previously stated, while modern critical scholars tend to ignore the early church fathers, early church tradition is strong that John wrote the gospel to which his name is attached.
Also as mentioned previously, the Muratorian Canon which is dated to c. A.D 170-200 mentions the gospels of John and Luke which means that as early as C. A.D 170-200 John's name was attached to manuscripts of John's gospel.
Your claim is that hundreds of years passed before the names of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John were attached to the gospel accounts. I have specifically addressed your claim and have shown that with regard to the gospel of John your claim is false and that John's name is attached to both P66 and P75 which are commonly dated to c. A.D 200. and is not just the opinion of 'one biased Christian historian' as you claim. Further attestation is provided by the Muratorian Canon which as stated above is dated to c. A.D 170-200.
Lastly, to quote Dan Wallace again;
''Attestation of Johannine authorship is found as early as Irenaeus. Eusebius reports that Irenaeus received his information from Polycarp, who in turn received it from the apostles directly. Although Irenaeus’ testimony has been assailed on critical grounds (since he received the information as a child, and may have been mistaken as to which John wrote the gospel), since all patristic writers after Irenaeus do not question apostolic authorship, criticism must give way to historical probability''. https://bible.org/seriespage/4-gospe...gument-outline
Now if you choose to disregard the testimony of the early church fathers as well as the attestation of manuscripts P66 and P75, and the Muratorian Canon, that is your affair. But the evidence does not agree with your claim that John's name was not attached to the gospel of John until hundreds of years later. And that is all the time I am going to take on this.
I didn't say that Brent Nongbri said that P66 dated to A.D. 170-200. I said that he is entitled to his opinion. That was with regard to you citing his opinion that P66 could be dated "in the early or middle part of the fourth century." His is a minority opinion. The commonly accepted dating of P66, as well as P75 is c. A.D.200 and is so cited in the Nestle-Aland Novum Testamentum Gracece (28th edition). Nongbri's reasons for opting for a later date are given here. - https://larryhurtado.wordpress.com/2...-new-argument/
As Dan Wallace stated;
''As with the other gospels, no MSS which contain John’s Gospel1 affirm authorship by anyone other than John.2 Once again, as with the others, this is short of proof of Johannine authorship, but the unbroken stream suggests recognition (or at least acknowledgment) of Johannine authorship as early as the first quarter of the second century. Indeed, John’s Gospel is unique among the evangelists for two early papyri (P66 and P75, dated c. 200) attest to Johannine authorship. Since these two MSS were not closely related to each other, this common tradition must precede them by at least three or four generations of copying. Further, although B and P75 are closely related, textual studies have demonstrated that P75 is not the ancestor of B—in fact, B’s ancestor was, in many respects, more primitive than P75.3 Hence, the combined testimony of B and P75 on Johannine authorship points to a textual tradition which must be at least two generations earlier than P75. All of this is to say that from the beginning of the second century, the fourth gospel was strongly attached to the apostle John.'' [Bolding mine.]
I do expect people to actually read the above study by Dan Wallace for all that he has to day on both sides of the issue concerning the authorship.
And as previously stated, while modern critical scholars tend to ignore the early church fathers, early church tradition is strong that John wrote the gospel to which his name is attached.
Also as mentioned previously, the Muratorian Canon which is dated to c. A.D 170-200 mentions the gospels of John and Luke which means that as early as C. A.D 170-200 John's name was attached to manuscripts of John's gospel.
Your claim is that hundreds of years passed before the names of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John were attached to the gospel accounts. I have specifically addressed your claim and have shown that with regard to the gospel of John your claim is false and that John's name is attached to both P66 and P75 which are commonly dated to c. A.D 200. and is not just the opinion of 'one biased Christian historian' as you claim. Further attestation is provided by the Muratorian Canon which as stated above is dated to c. A.D 170-200.
Lastly, to quote Dan Wallace again;
''Attestation of Johannine authorship is found as early as Irenaeus. Eusebius reports that Irenaeus received his information from Polycarp, who in turn received it from the apostles directly. Although Irenaeus’ testimony has been assailed on critical grounds (since he received the information as a child, and may have been mistaken as to which John wrote the gospel), since all patristic writers after Irenaeus do not question apostolic authorship, criticism must give way to historical probability''. https://bible.org/seriespage/4-gospe...gument-outline
Now if you choose to disregard the testimony of the early church fathers as well as the attestation of manuscripts P66 and P75, and the Muratorian Canon, that is your affair. But the evidence does not agree with your claim that John's name was not attached to the gospel of John until hundreds of years later. And that is all the time I am going to take on this.
I naturally choose to go with consensus of modern scholars, not one lone wolf like Dan Wallace. The consensus among the vast majority of scholars is that the apostle John COULD NOT HAVE WRITTEN that gospel. It's impossible.
As I originally stated, which you obviously ignored, Wiki concludes that
Quote:
The Gospel of John was written in Greek by an anonymous author
and the article cites nine sources for this conclusion:
Quote:
E P Sanders, The Historical Figure of Jesus, (Penguin, 1995) page 63 - 64.
Bart D. Ehrman (2000:43) The New Testament: a historical introduction to early Christian writings. Oxford University Press.
Geoffrey W. Bromiley (1995:287) International Standard Bible Encyclopedia: K-P MATTHEW, GOSPEL ACCORDING TO. Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing. Quote: „Matthew, like the other three Gospels is an anonymous document.”
Donald Senior, Paul J. Achtemeier, Robert J. Karris (2002:328) Invitation to the Gospels Paulist Press.
Of significant note is the fact that John steadfastly refuses to name himself as the author, which puts certainty of the authorship in no-man's land. Scholars cannot make comparison in the writing style with the epistles of John because they are known forgeries and the writing style is totally different from the gospel.
From the Biblical Archeology Society:
Quote:
We may never know for certain who wrote the Gospel of John, any more than we can know who wrote the books of Matthew, Mark and Luke. John was written last, by someone who knew about the other three Gospels, but who wished to write a spiritual gospel instead of an historical one. This would mean that the person who wrote the Gospel of John would not have been a contemporary of Jesus, and therefore would not have been an eyewitness as the author claims.
I could go on and on, but at the end of the day I would have more citations for the gospel being an anonymous gospel than you would have for it being written by John. It goes without saying that John didn't even speak or write Greek. None of the apostles did. They were uneducated ignorant backwater hicks who fished for a living. Maybe you believe that the Holy Spirit infused John with a crash course in Greek right before he died but in all likelihood that never happened.
So the issue is why did Jesus contradict the laws I mentioned if they were Gods laws?
Jesus did not contradict the laws, He demonstrated that laws by themselves were not enough to deal with interpersonal relations in society; that what was needed was a commitment to a real concern for what was right and good for everyone in any situation.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
