that's very interesting, you still say that because resurrection is important, it happened when this is not necessarily true. as i stated before it seems clear that the deciples believed christ rose, its not clear that he actually did it.
Interesting. So eyewitness accounts of Christ's physical life after His crucifixion aren't valid to you. What exactly can you take from history, then?
keep in mind that the bible was not written by eye witnesses it is all hearsay in regards to christ (some of the letters are verified to be written by paul). in fact, matt and luke used mark as a source.
Um, not the case. John? 1 John?
In point of fact Matthew and Luke both contain independent and variant accounts from Mark, as well as unique accounts among themselves, and common accounts between themselves that're not in Mark. It's generally accepted that Luke and Matthew
had Mark and another manuscript
among their sources. It is rejected that this was their only source, and it is only accepted among liberal scholars that Matthew and Luke were not recounting stories from eyewitnesses (which frankly, if Mark were recording eyewitness accounts, and Luke & Matthew copied them ... what's your point, again?).
Johns gospel was written between 90-110 CE.
Realize there are a number of really strong paleographers and New Testament linguists who would smile and say, "no, that's not really the case". The internal information in John makes that view implausible. John expects his readers to know about Jewish feasts, and doesn't describe them well (often not at all) for Gentiles. Bultmann's claim that John makes no attempt to saying it was written by an eyewitness, gets the stuffing kicked out of it by John 21:24 and 19:35.
The description of places & events is detailed; it doesn't indicate that their significance hadn't dimmed. Yet in 60 years, the significance of these minor details should've dimmed significantly. Jerusalem and its surroundings (pools, temples, areas just outside Jerusalem walls destroyed in the Jewish War) is described as pre-war locations, prior to its destruction in 70 AD.
If John were composed after 70 AD -- it would've required source material with a great deal of
written detail, detail that would not have been mentioned 50-60 years later by someone who was a firsthand eyewitness by that time (he'd have no reason to), and would not have been recorded by someone who realized the details were so pointless, and would not have been known at all by someone who was not an eyewitness. It's quite plausible, even
more plausible that John was one of the earlier compositions in the Christian community, written by an eyewitness and probably reviewed by multiple eyewitnesses to reach its current polished form.
it was written in what is now Turkey by early gnostic christians who were bitter about the jewish church kicking them out and calling them false prophets.
Huh? Gnostics? Who had never visited Jerusalem?
this is evidenced both by the strong anti-semitism in john as well as a very mystic jesus (as opposed to mark, the first gospel that was written).
So you're saying Jesus was not that kind of man, but Mark, who traditionally wrote "what he could remember from what Peter said", Mark knows Jesus better?
The "
strong anti-semitism", put in the context of
Jewish factions, comes out very differently. There're
Galileans (cited in John), as well as
Judeans and
Hellenists. There's a natural dislike on display for the Judeans, who seem to be supportive of the corrupt Sanhedrin and of Herod's rule -- a rule which ultimately condemned Jesus.
P52 was hidden by the Essenes around twenty-five years after the book is written. this was shortly before they were destroyed.
Um, yeah. You're saying they were destroyed 135 AD? I know of no evidence p52 was actually in the custody of the Essenes in the first place.
The letters may have been written by the author of John. or possibly a good psuedo-John (just as many of the books are psuedo-Paul). it is however clear, that they were not written by john the deciple, or john the baptist.
There's substantial common-lexical evidence the books (particularly and with other text-type support, 1 John) are all written by one common author. It's entirely
unclear and internal self-assertion leads to a flat out recognition: they were written by a disciple.
