Comments by "" (@neutronalchemist3241) on "ReligionForBreakfast" channel.

We know that Pharaons tended to embellish their achievements. Already Ramses II turned the battle of Kadesh, at best a draw and more likely a defeat, into a great victory in his account. Based on the fact that Egypt abandoned its belongings in Asia Minor and retreated beyond the Sinai after the battle, again, it's unlikely it had been more than a hard fought draw. The Sherden having settled Sardinia only after the battle is higly improbable. The Nuragic civilization doesn't show any significative break in 12th century BC, nor in pottery, burials, art, etc. The supposed invaders should have brought to the island nothing but their name.
485
John is the heresy-killer. The three synoptics don't care that much about theology. They don't solve the problem of the nature of Jesus. God? An emanation of God? a particularly important prophet? John does it form the start. Jesus is God. He's eternal. He existed since the start of times. He's of the same nature of his Father, that's also God. John is the source of almost all the Nicene Creed. So it was written to solve some problem that started to arise in the Christian communities. Probably when the number of those that were direct witnesses of the predication of Jesus started to dwindle.
9
@DTavona Those are pretty late dating for both Mark and John. Also Luke before Mattew seems not that likely.
3
More a snowballing migration, similar to that of the Cimbrians and Teutones.
3
The Muratorian Fragment, that's roughly contemporary to the Sheperd (it states the Sheperd had been written by the brother of Pope Pius I, and so it could not be considered canonical, as it was too recent) already estabilished a canon that's practically the modern one. The deciding factor was the age of the texts that had to be included. Not first century material=not canon (roughly obviously, since modern dating had yet to be invented).
3
@ikengaspirit3063 For early Christians "gnostic" was mainly related to the intention of the teacher, that, in case of gnostics, was mainly that to sell "very special revelations, not destined to common people" to rich widows (a common occurrence in Rome, since old rich men often married young girls) in exchange of money. Several Church fathers made jokes about it.
3
@Robespierre-II Christians started to quarrel about those things well before the council of Nicea. The therm "heresy" had been used by Paul already, and Justin (100-165) used it systematically to indicate deviations to the orthodoxy. At the time of the council of Nicea the concept was not only already present, but quite old.
1
7:34. Because Jesus' birth stories are very different in Mattew and Luke and, not wanting to give priority to a version instead of the other, Mark's author decided to write only events that were reported identical in the other two. 7:50 Because the apparitions of resurrected Jesus are very different in Mattew and Luke and, not wanting to give priority to a version instead of the other, Mark's author decided to write only events that were reported identical in the other two. If an author that had access to Mattew and Luke wanted to compile a "manual" of actions SURELY made by Jesus, he would have made Mark. So it can be Mattew (traces of "aramaicisms" in the writing. Likely written by a Medioriental Jew that used Greek as a second language); then Luke (poetic expansion of Mattew written in a very good literary Greek, probably by someone that used Greek as first language) that heavily used Mattew, but had access to other sources as well, and sometimes decided to give priority to them (that's what he said in the first passage after all); then Mark (latinized Greek, likely written in Rome) that decided to write a syntetic collection of "real" stories on the life of Christ having access to the first two. As for the "fatigue" I can only talk of the only example given. Luke didn't place that event IN Bethsaida. He only said Jesus was directed towards the city of Bethsaida. He kept on expanding just after having talked of the deserted place (he's the only one reporting of the people being divided in groups of 50), so it doesn't seem he was fatigued at all.
1
The Muratorian Fragment, that's roughly contemporary to the text, clearly states it had been written by the brother of Pope Pius I (and so it could not be considered canonical, as it was too recent). It could have been at least mentioned. Also the Sheperd is not included in the Codex Vaticanus, that's roughly contemporary to the Codex Sinaiticus. The fortune of the Sheperd seems to have been mainly in the periferal areas of the Empire, while in Rome, where it had been written, it had always been considered suspect, exactly because people could remember it was not first century material.
1