JMS announces that he's never done an in-depth study of the Gospel of John, and doesn't read Greek.
Seriously, there's nobody who doesn't like the Gospel of John's literary qualities. It's such good Greek that people diss other books by St. John as not really being by the same guy (because they can't imagine that one guy can write in different styles for different purposes).
Also, the consensus on Gospel dating (except John, who was always advertised to have been written last and decades after the others) has moved way up, because the only reason to date Mt, Mk, and Lk back was that "Jesus couldn't possibly have prophesied the fall of Jerusalem, because prophecies of the future don't exist and Jesus wasn't God." Without that Victorian assumption, there are lots of signs that the Gospels were written early. For example, St. Luke wrote his Gospel and Acts as one book, and Acts stops before St. Paul even goes on trial.
St Mark (The First Papal Secretary who was the world’s premier historian before he went to interview St Peter and then devoted his life to being his assistant) wrote his Gospel based on his dictated records of St Peter’s Homilies and had it published after St Peter’s execution.
St Luke did the same for St Paul right after. Also Acts and the Epistles,
St Matthew wrote to correct misconceptions at the time about 20 years later.
St John wrote his alongside Revelation to fill in blanks but also to specifically counter the marcion heresy by forming The Bible with St Polycarp in 90AD.
Yup, there's pretty solid evidence for all of that. Too many people are still stuck with the misconception that the gospels were all written well outside of, or at the very tale end of, living memory. The reality appears to be quite the opposite.
JMS announces that he's never done an in-depth study of the Gospel of John, and doesn't read Greek.
Seriously, there's nobody who doesn't like the Gospel of John's literary qualities. It's such good Greek that people diss other books by St. John as not really being by the same guy (because they can't imagine that one guy can write in different styles for different purposes).
Also, the consensus on Gospel dating (except John, who was always advertised to have been written last and decades after the others) has moved way up, because the only reason to date Mt, Mk, and Lk back was that "Jesus couldn't possibly have prophesied the fall of Jerusalem, because prophecies of the future don't exist and Jesus wasn't God." Without that Victorian assumption, there are lots of signs that the Gospels were written early. For example, St. Luke wrote his Gospel and Acts as one book, and Acts stops before St. Paul even goes on trial.
Chrsitians terrify me.
Spactics speeding out over an old man and a few silly words
The Gospel of Mark was most likely written in the 40s AD according to best (and recent) scholarship, so no, he recalls incorrectly.
St Mark (The First Papal Secretary who was the world’s premier historian before he went to interview St Peter and then devoted his life to being his assistant) wrote his Gospel based on his dictated records of St Peter’s Homilies and had it published after St Peter’s execution.
St Luke did the same for St Paul right after. Also Acts and the Epistles,
St Matthew wrote to correct misconceptions at the time about 20 years later.
St John wrote his alongside Revelation to fill in blanks but also to specifically counter the marcion heresy by forming The Bible with St Polycarp in 90AD.
Yup, there's pretty solid evidence for all of that. Too many people are still stuck with the misconception that the gospels were all written well outside of, or at the very tale end of, living memory. The reality appears to be quite the opposite.
Fools like JMS go to BlueCry because no one would dare call him out on that echo chamber.
I hope he finds his way; he has been such an inspiration to me and his book "Becoming Superman" really helped me out of a dark time. https://www.amazon.com/Becoming-Superman-Journey-Poverty-Hollywood/dp/0062857843