[20] Then the mother of the sons of Zebedee came up to him with her sons, and kneeling before him she asked him for something. [21] And he said to her, “What do you want?” She said to him, “Say that these two sons of mine are to sit, one at your right hand and one at your left, in your kingdom.” [22] Jesus answered, “You do not know what you are asking. Are you able to drink the cup that I am to drink?” They said to him, “We are able.” [23] He said to them, “You will drink my cup, but to sit at my right hand and at my left is not mine to grant, but it is for those for whom it has been prepared by my Father.” [24] And when the ten heard it, they were indignant at the two brothers. [25] But Jesus called them to him and said, “You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their great ones exercise authority over them. [26] It shall not be so among you. But whoever would be great among you must be your servant, [27] and whoever would be first among you must be your slave, [28] even as the Son of Man came not to be served but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.”
John 6:14-15 ESV
[14] When the people saw the sign that he had done, they said, “This is indeed the Prophet who is to come into the world!” [15] Perceiving then that they were about to come and take him by force to make him king, Jesus withdrew again to the mountain by himself.
Jesus was not looking for political power.
Joseph Smith wasn’t merked for his faith. He was merked for burning down a printing press.
First of all… The Bible is not a primary source, it wasn’t even a contemporary source when first written down, which was at least a century after his death.
Secondly, demagogues and those who follow them don’t exactly announce their true motivations. So it doesn’t really make sense to use their own claims as evidence of their innocence.
Lastly, I could just as easily claim Jesus was not killed for his faith, but because he destroyed a temple…
You aren’t exactly making the most logical arguments here.
How do you define “primary source”? The section I quoted was written by someone who knew Jesus personally
it wasn’t even a contemporary source when first written down, which was at least a century after his death.
Not at least, the latest… If you’re charitable. According to secular scholars, the latest Gospel of John which I quoted was written 60-70 years after Jesus was crucified. That is definitely contemporary for accounts at this point in history. A lot of what we know about other people were written down centuries after.
Secondly, demagogues and those who follow them don’t exactly announce their true motivations. So it doesn’t really make sense to use their own claims as evidence of their innocence.
Okay then, do you have any evidence on the contrary? That those weren’t His motivations?
Lastly, I could just as easily claim Jesus was not killed for his faith, but because he destroyed a temple…
What temple did He destroy? The temple was destroyed in 70AD
How do you define “primary source”? The section I quoted was written by someone who knew Jesus personally
It’s a reinterpretation of oral accounts passed down decades after the deaths of the people it’s about, and was first attributed to John nearly 180 years later. The gospel of John was first authored anonymously around 90-100ad and attributed to John by Irenaeus in 185ad
That is definitely contemporary for accounts at this point in history.
Not really, contemporary sources are generally limited to people involved with the actual history.
A lot of what we know about other people were written down centuries after.
When combined with other contextual sources.
Okay then, do you have any evidence on the contrary? That those weren’t His motivations?
I’m not the one making the claim that other religions are wrong and Christianity is true. Do you have evidence that Joseph Smith, Muhammad, or Buddha had alternative motives?
What temple did He destroy? The temple was destroyed in 70AD
I meant the first time… Not literally destroyed, but trashed, fucked dudes up, flipped tables.
It’s a reinterpretation of oral accounts passed down decades after the deaths of the people it’s about, and was first attributed to John nearly 180 years later. The gospel of John was first authored anonymously around 90-100ad and attributed to John by Irenaeus in 185ad
90-100ad isn’t decades after the death of people it’s about.
And it wasn’t authored anonymously.
John 21:20-25 ESV
[20] Peter turned and saw the disciple whom Jesus loved following them, the one who also had leaned back against him during the supper and had said, “Lord, who is it that is going to betray you?” [21] When Peter saw him, he said to Jesus, “Lord, what about this man?” [22] Jesus said to him, “If it is my will that he remain until I come, what is that to you? You follow me!” [23] So the saying spread abroad among the brothers that this disciple was not to die; yet Jesus did not say to him that he was not to die, but, “If it is my will that he remain until I come, what is that to you?” [24] This is the disciple who is bearing witness about these things, and who has written these things, and we know that his testimony is true. [25] Now there are also many other things that Jesus did. Were every one of them to be written, I suppose that the world itself could not contain the books that would be written.
That this disciple reclined with Jesus and was at the crucifixion and resurrection.
John 13:23 ESV
One of his disciples, whom Jesus loved, was reclining at table at Jesus’ side,
John 19:25-26 ESV
but standing by the cross of Jesus were his mother and his mother’s sister, Mary the wife of Clopas, and Mary Magdalene. [26] When Jesus saw his mother and the disciple whom he loved standing nearby, he said to his mother, “Woman, behold, your son!”
John 20:2-5
[2] So she ran and went to Simon Peter and the other disciple, the one whom Jesus loved, and said to them, “They have taken the Lord out of the tomb, and we do not know where they have laid him.” [3] So Peter went out with the other disciple, and they were going toward the tomb. [4] Both of them were running together, but the other disciple outran Peter and reached the tomb first. [5] And stooping to look in, he saw the linen cloths lying there, but he did not go in.
It also makes sense that somebody would know who wrote the Gospel. The authorship of the Gospels were never disputed in the early Church despite geographic spread. So that doesn’t mean that Irenaeus (A student of Polycarp who was a disciple of John) made it up
Not really, contemporary sources are generally limited to people involved with the actual history.
Which the writer of John clearly was.
When combined with other contextual sources.
There are four detailed accounts of Jesus.
I’m not the one making the claim that other religions are wrong and Christianity is true. Do you have evidence that Joseph Smith, Muhammad, or Buddha had alternative motives?
Mormonism has been debunked by the finding of the “original” papyrus to one of their scriptures. The Qur’an claims to be in agreement with the Bible yet contradicts the hell out of it. Mohammed and JS had numerous wives because “god told me” and Mohammed was a warlord, JS tried to set up “deseret”
Matthew 20:20-28 ESV
John 6:14-15 ESV
Jesus was not looking for political power.
Joseph Smith wasn’t merked for his faith. He was merked for burning down a printing press.
First of all… The Bible is not a primary source, it wasn’t even a contemporary source when first written down, which was at least a century after his death.
Secondly, demagogues and those who follow them don’t exactly announce their true motivations. So it doesn’t really make sense to use their own claims as evidence of their innocence.
Lastly, I could just as easily claim Jesus was not killed for his faith, but because he destroyed a temple…
You aren’t exactly making the most logical arguments here.
How do you define “primary source”? The section I quoted was written by someone who knew Jesus personally
Not at least, the latest… If you’re charitable. According to secular scholars, the latest Gospel of John which I quoted was written 60-70 years after Jesus was crucified. That is definitely contemporary for accounts at this point in history. A lot of what we know about other people were written down centuries after.
Okay then, do you have any evidence on the contrary? That those weren’t His motivations?
What temple did He destroy? The temple was destroyed in 70AD
It’s a reinterpretation of oral accounts passed down decades after the deaths of the people it’s about, and was first attributed to John nearly 180 years later. The gospel of John was first authored anonymously around 90-100ad and attributed to John by Irenaeus in 185ad
Not really, contemporary sources are generally limited to people involved with the actual history.
When combined with other contextual sources.
I’m not the one making the claim that other religions are wrong and Christianity is true. Do you have evidence that Joseph Smith, Muhammad, or Buddha had alternative motives?
I meant the first time… Not literally destroyed, but trashed, fucked dudes up, flipped tables.
90-100ad isn’t decades after the death of people it’s about.
And it wasn’t authored anonymously.
John 21:20-25 ESV
That this disciple reclined with Jesus and was at the crucifixion and resurrection.
John 13:23 ESV
John 19:25-26 ESV
John 20:2-5
So this is clearly a primary source.
More reasoning for narrowing it down to John can be found here.
It also makes sense that somebody would know who wrote the Gospel. The authorship of the Gospels were never disputed in the early Church despite geographic spread. So that doesn’t mean that Irenaeus (A student of Polycarp who was a disciple of John) made it up
Which the writer of John clearly was.
There are four detailed accounts of Jesus.
Mormonism has been debunked by the finding of the “original” papyrus to one of their scriptures. The Qur’an claims to be in agreement with the Bible yet contradicts the hell out of it. Mohammed and JS had numerous wives because “god told me” and Mohammed was a warlord, JS tried to set up “deseret”