klewis wrote: ↑Sun Feb 02, 2020 11:01 am
Just curious, what evidence do you have that I am:
- A Christian Apologist?
- A liar for Christ?
The evidence is that you deny, differently from Nasruddin, that Mark has a problem with John the Baptist and he attempts to give a naive solution for that problem. The problem was that someway John was a threat for the Jesus cult. A possibility is that the disciples of John claimed that John, and not Jesus, was the Messiah.
The second evidence is that you deny that Mark is strongly pauline and his corollary: the enemies and problems of Mark can only be inherited by enemies and problems of Paul, UNLESS they were enemies and problems entered on the scene after Paul and before Mark.
you have an apologetic agenda and you attack all who oppose it. Regardless of religious views, philosophical differences, or political views, that should not be the deciding factor as to discredit them.
the precise thing I think about you. Which makes you basically not the apt person, in this forum, to teach something to me.
The differences in the Synoptic Gospels and the Gospel of John is evident of that. You are taking a theology of one time and retrofitting it to the text in which it was written and using that as a hunch that it is because of your supposition.
you have absolutely no idea about how much Marcionite and anti-Jewish is proto-John. I don't waste my time to explain it to you. Only read this and learn a good time.
http://sgwau2cbeginnings.blogspot.com/p ... 5.html?m=0
The argument as to the Silence of Jesus in Paul about the historical Jesus does not validate your idea that the birth of Jesus narrative is really the birth of John narrative. In fact, it has nothing to do with it.
That is not my argument. My point is that if you despise the force of the Argument from Silence in Paul against Jesus,
even more so you are not able to like the force of the Argument from Silence in Paul against any knowledge about John "the Baptist". Basically, this is equivalent to say that in this thread I would like to have as interlocutors people who already agree with me about the not-historicity of Jesus. Otherwise the game doesn't count the candle.
Just because you see the birth narrative as a Gnostic text does not mean that it is true.
never said that the birth story was Gnostic. Really it was 100% Jewish insofar it is anti-marcionite (Marcion denied the birth for Jesus). My point is that I think that I have found traces of the original birth story as being a JEWISH birth story about John.
the Song on Anna as the Song of Hannah
I am not interested about Jewish fables.