/lit/ - Literature

my nigga John wrote it

>>17355177
God

>>17355181
>>17355182
These are both true

>>17355187
Based and Christpilled

>>17355187
But how cans God be other thing and also tinnidy?????? One thing cannot be other things 2 even omibbident.

>No, I don't subscribe to Marcan Priority
>Yes, I think the Q Source hypothesis is stupid
>No, I don't doubt the Pauline epistles authenticity
>Yes, I think Bart Ehrman is a fool
>Yes, I think heathen textual scholars should be executed for blasphemy

>>17355823
basado

>>17355177

Most likely some rich educated literate person in the church at the time, or maybe John himself but eh

>>17355177
I did.

>>17355177
master chief

>>17355177
Capitalism

>>17355177
The only writer in the New Testament that was not clinically retarded.

ΚΑΤΑ ΙΩΑΝΝΗΝ.

>>17355177


SAINT JOHN, THE BELOVED.

YOUR QUESTION MUST HAVE APPEARED SNIDER IN YOUR MIND —PATHETIC ATHEIST.

>>17356775

>>17356903
Capitalism

gnostic

>>17356775
>>17356903
>>17356934
Will you shut the fuck up

>>17355177
God (tm)

>>17355181
fpbp

>>17355177
Probably John himself. Why else would John be repeatedly described as the "disciple whom jesus loved most" and the "beloved of christ".

>>17355214
God is perfectly simple.

>>17356885

CONT. YOUR MIND IS BUT AN EFFETE PENIS. LET ME - YOUR MASTER - SUCK IT TO MAKE YOU FEEL GOOD.

MMM YES. COME TO ME NOW. I WILL MAKE YOU FEEL NO SHAME.

THE NIGGER FAGGOT WATCHES FROM THE BALCONY OF THE ADJACENT TOWNHOME.

I WILL KILL HIM THE NEXT TIME I SEE HIM - I SAID IN A HUSHED WHISPER.

HE IS A WISP OF TOW LOOKING ASS NIGGER.

>>17355823
Congratulations on being a mindless cretin. Truly Based.

>>17357131
Because that still doesn't substantiate him writing it in any way.

>>17355177
St john the apostle. Anyone who says otherwise is a double nigger and probably a heretic.

>>17358135
Too bad you fablers can't prove it.

>>17355177
Anonymous

John?
I mean am I wrong to assume the obvious?

>>17358185
Not in this case

>>17355181
>in da beginin was da word. and da word was with jah, and da word was jah. das how it be in da beginin wit jah. e'rything wuz made by him, and widout him, dere's nothin. in him was life, and dat life was the light of man and shiet. and da light was bright in da darkness, and the darkness dint know shiet. dere was a man sent from jah, he wuz ma nigga john. john came to witness da light so dat all y'all could believe. he wuz not dat light, he just told us bout it. dat light wuz true, and make all us know bout it. he wuz with us, he made us, and we killed his ass. well, it was da joos. he came to da joos, and dey killed his ass. but to the onez dat believe in him, he makes us da sons of jah. we born, not of humans, but of jah. and da word becomes da flesh, and came to us. and we saw his glory and shiet, and it was da truth. ma nigga john saw him, and said dis him. came after me, better den me, cause he jah and shiet. and we got his grace. da law was given by dat whiteboi moses, but truth came from ma nigga jesus. no one saw jah, cept for jesus. he told us bout 'im

>>17355823
Mark obviously came first. The other ones are clearly written way after and full of dumb and historically false embellishments. Mark is the basis the other ones are built on.

>>17359244
how do you explain the synoptic problem then? the idea of a q source is completely stupid. such a document would have had to have been circulated among early christians (otherwise, it couldn't have been able to influence matthew and luke), and yet it wasn't included in the biblical canon, and there's no historical evidence for its existence

>>17358844
Honestly, amen.

>>17358844
>he wuz with us, he made us, and we killed his ass
unironically profound

>>17358844
>da law was given by dat whiteboi moses, but truth came from ma nigga jesus.

>>17355177
According to Urantia, Nathan wrote it:

This is the so-called Gospel according to John the son of Zebedee, and though John did not write it, he did inspire it. Since its first writing it has several times been edited to make it appear to have been written by John himself. When this record was made, John had the other Gospels, and he saw that much had been omitted; accordingly, in the year A.D. 101 he encouraged his associate, Nathan, a Greek Jew from Caesarea, to begin the writing. John supplied his material from memory and by reference to the three records already in existence. He had no written records of his own. The Epistle known as "First John" was written by John himself as a covering letter for the work which Nathan executed under his direction.

>>17359319
The q hypothesis is supported by the existens of the gospel of thomas.

>>17360050
The Gnostics wrote a knock-off gospel, ergo the Q source must exist? lol, no.

>>17355177
There is no real evidence that John was the author.
On the contrary the fact that "john's" Gospel differs from the synoptic gospels, rules out the possibility of "John" being an eye witness.

>>17355177
John.
Read the Ignatius Catholic Study Bible. It is simply peerless when settling all kinds of scriptural questions.
>>17360050
The Gospel of Thomas is a second century forgery universally rejected in its time. How that can lend support for Q source is beyond me. It's a shame such a neat letter is associated with pants-on-head retarded reasoning like that and QAnon, too.
>>17360073
>On the contrary the fact that "john's" Gospel differs from the synoptic gospels, rules out the possibility of "John" being an eye witness.
I don't see how that rules out John as being an eye witness. Witnesses to the same event will recall or emphasize different aspects of the event, even if they're all remembering the same true things. It would be foolish to not expect the same of multiple witnesses to the life of Christ.
Additionally, when you make elementary objections like that, just what are you thinking? Is it your impression that 2,000 years of Christians hadn't ever realized that John differs from the other Gospels?

>>17360064
If a logia Source exist, it proves that logia's were used.
This makes a second logia possible.

Q is possible.
Togheter with the observed literary characteristics, the Mark hypothetisch gets more plausible.

Especially Sinne that model helps to explain more than the conservative Modells (like why do the supposed eye witness know nothing about the geography of Israel?

>>17360101
The difference betwenn the gospels are to big to be differently recalled events.
Jahres daughter is once near death the other time already dead?
Jesus was preaching one yyearor 3?
More in gallile or jerusalem?