Gospel of John

[kejonn]

Quote (david @ Jan. 26 2008,10:19)

Quote (kejonn @ Jan. 27 2008,01:36) Nothing really. In any case, scholars date GoJ around 90-100 CE, John was likely long dead since then. Kejonn, So, this entire discrediting of John is based on “nothing really”?? The scholars think that is was most likely John, but you want us to believe it wasn't. The scholars correctly believe that the gospel of John was around 90-100 C.E., but you want us to believe they are wrong on that too. Are we to presume you are basing that on nothing more than the “nothing really” of this entire thread, on your unwavering desire to prove that the Bible is not God's word, and in error?

From http://earlychristianwritings.com/john.html

Robert Kysar writes the following on the authorship of the Gospel of John (The Anchor Bible Dictionary, v. 3, pp. 919-920):

The supposition that the author was one and the same with the beloved disciple is often advanced as a means of insuring that the evangelist did witness Jesus' ministry. Two other passages are advanced as evidence of the same – 19:35 and 21:24. But both falter under close scrutiny. 19:35 does not claim that the author was the one who witnessed the scene but only that the scene is related on the sound basis of eyewitness. 21:24 is part of the appendix of the gospel and should not be assumed to have come from the same hand as that responsible for the body of the gospel. Neither of these passages, therefore, persuades many Johannine scholars that the author claims eyewitness status.

Also from that same page

There is a case to be made that John, the son of Zebedee, had already died long before the Gospel of John came to be written. It is worth noting for its own sake, even though the “beloved disciple” need not be identified with John, the son of Zebedee.

Hamartolos proceeds to quote Papias to the effect that, “he [John] was killed by the Jews.” In the de Boor fragment of an epitome of the fifth century Chronicle of Philip of Side, the author quotes Papias: Papias in the second book says that John the divine and James his brother were killed by Jews. Morton Enslin observes (Christian Beginnings, pp. 369-370): “That PapiasÂ’ source of information is simply an inference from Mark 10:35-40 or its parallel, Matt. 20:20-23, is possible. None the less, this Marcan passage itself affords solid ground. No reasonable interpretation of these words can deny the high probability that by the time these words were written [ca. 70 CE] both brothers had 'drunk the cup' that Jesus had drunk and had been 'baptized with the baptism' with which he had been baptized.” Since the patristic tradition is unanimous in identifying the beloved disciple with John, at least this evidence discredits the patristic tradition concerning the authorship of the Gospel of John.

[kejonn]

Quote (Laurel @ Jan. 26 2008,10:05)

Kejonn your problem is that you rely on Greek text which does twist the Set-apart Word of Elohim, bringing it to nothing. If you had the Spirit of descernment in you, you would not be flopping around like a fish out of water, grasping for the air of truth.

And I suppose you do? Sorry, but you often come on here acting as if you alone of all Christians have the truth. If so, why not share some?

Quote

I Daniel's dream Greece is part of Babylon, that was taken over by Rome and her universal church. So scripture shows me not to rely on Greek translations, but the Set-apart Spirit, which is not in you as of yet.

And you are saying it is in you? You often come into these forums with a puffed-up attitude which certainly would not be reflective of the “set apart spirit”. Sorry to say Laurel but almost every post you make in this forum has you holier and more spiritual than all others. Are you like this one?

Luk 18:11 “The Pharisee stood and was praying this to himself: 'God, I thank You that I am not like other people: swindlers, unjust, adulterers, or even like this tax collector.
Luk 18:12 'I fast twice a week; I pay tithes of all that I get.'

Quote

If it was, your works would proove it.

And just what are your works Laurel? To come in here and act as if God has directly given only you the truth?

[kejonn]

Quote (david @ Jan. 26 2008,10:19)

Quote (kejonn @ Jan. 27 2008,01:36) Nothing really. In any case, scholars date GoJ around 90-100 CE, John was likely long dead since then. Kejonn, So, this entire discrediting of John is based on “nothing really”?? The scholars think that is was most likely John, but you want us to believe it wasn't. The scholars correctly believe that the gospel of John was around 90-100 C.E., but you want us to believe they are wrong on that too. Are we to presume you are basing that on nothing more than the “nothing really” of this entire thread, on your unwavering desire to prove that the Bible is not God's word, and in error?

I have often said and stand by my belief that the bible is man's way of viewing God. To suppose it is the infallible word of God would be to ignore the thousands of variations in existence. Do you think God would allow His true word to end up as this? If so, you think more of the writers than you do God.

[kejonn]

Quote (david @ Jan. 26 2008,10:27)

In any case, the “lazarus” idea, him being called “loved” by Jesus, along with Martha and Mary, does not make him the “disciple” whom Jesus loved and who was at the last supper with, and who wrote the book of John. According to Mathew, Mark and Luke's account, Lazarus was not there, and from Jesus' own words, he made a covenant with those ones who were there and these were the ones that had stuck with him in his trials. And they were his apostles (and disciples). Lazarus is called a “friend.” Indeed, to be a follower, you'd think he'd be following Jesus around like the other disciples (followers.) LUKE 22:28-30 ““However, YOU are the ones that have stuck with me in my trials; and I make a covenant with YOU, just as my Father has made a covenant with me, for a kingdom, that YOU may eat and drink at my table in my kingdom, and sit on thrones to judge the twelve tribes of Israel.” As you have said, the lazarus idea, is “really nothing” evidence wise.

I think you fail to see that the supper scene in GoJ and the synoptics is dramatically different. There is no eucharist. It is not said to be the Passover supper. Jesus washes his disciples feet, an act not found in the synoptics. So you are depending on using the synoptics to back what you are saying when the supper in the synoptics does not match the one on GoJ. Thus you have no proof that Lazarus was not there.

[kejonn]

David,

Why would Peter say this about one of the twelve apostles?

Joh 21:20 Peter, turning around, *saw the disciple whom Jesus loved following them; the one who also had leaned back on His bosom at the supper and said, “Lord, who is the one who betrays You?”
Joh 21:21 So Peter seeing him *said to Jesus, “Lord, and what about this man?”

[david]

John 20:21,24
THE DISCIPLE WHOM JESUS USED TO LOVE . . .THE ONE WHO AT THE EVENING MEAL . . .THIS IS THE DISCIPLE that bears witness about these things and THAT WROTE THESE THINGS

[/QUOTE]I have often said and stand by my belief that the bible is man's way of viewing God. To suppose it is the infallible word of God would be to ignore the thousands of variations in existence.

Quote

Right, so, of course, if the Bible were correct and true and the word of God, then I would be correct, because the Bible in Matthew, Mark, and Luke state that the apostles, the 12 were present at the Lord's supper and that it was with those ones that he made a covenant for a kingdom, these ones who have stuck with him. MATTHEW 26:20 “When, now, it had become evening, he was reclining at the table with the twelve disciples.” [and lazarus?] MARK 14:17 “After evening had fallen he came with the twelve.” [and lazarus?] LUKE 22:14 “At length when the hour came, he reclined at the table, and the apostles with him.” [and lazarus?] Just because their are variations in existence, does not mean that the Bible is the word of God. You could say that there are thousands of counterfeit dollars in existence. Yet, that does not make a genuine dollar any less real. If God wanted to communicate a message to us, to the world through words, it doesn't matter that others would try to add to that message, or subtract from it, or change it. That in itself doesn't make his message less true. The fact that your whole basis for this thread is based on, in your words “nothing really” only makes me think you are willing to use whatever is at your disposal (including your imaginition) to discredit the Bible. I come to you with what the Bible clearly says, or indicates. You come to me with “Robert Kysar writes…” If his arguments are sound, use them. But don't tell me what Robert whoever thinks and expect us to care what he thinks. Because his words make up part of the “nothing really” that you are using as evidence.

I think you fail to see that the supper scene in GoJ and the synoptics is dramatically different. There is no eucharist. It is not said to be the Passover supper. Jesus washes his disciples feet, an act not found in the synoptics. So you are depending on using the synoptics to back what you are saying when the supper in the synoptics does not match the one on GoJ. Thus you have no proof that Lazarus was not there.

John wrote his accounts much later. As you have admitted that scholars generally agree that he wrote around 90 or 100 C.E. John's entire account of Jesus is looked at differently than the others. If John was inspired by God to include when Jesus washed the apostles feet, then what does that have to do with anything? If the accounts were all precisely the same, why have more than one? Different people view different things as important. Maybe John didn't include certain details, because they were already recorded, much earlier, by the other 3 writers.

But if any of the other 3 are correct, and they all are, lazarus wasn't there. And therefore, lazarus wasn't the writer. (John 20:21,24)

[david]

Quote

David, Why would Peter say this about one of the twelve apostles? Joh 21:20 Peter, turning around, *saw the disciple whom Jesus loved following them; the one who also had leaned back on His bosom at the supper and said, “Lord, who is the one who betrays You?” Joh 21:21 So Peter seeing him *said to Jesus, “Lord, and what about this man?”

This is not referrring to lazarus. Obviously, lazarus did die again. I don't see him, do you? Plus, Jesus never said this person wouldn't die.

JOHN 21:23
“In consequence, this saying went out among the brothers, that that disciple would not die. However, JESUS DID NOT SAY TO HIM THAT HE WOULD NOT DIE, BUT: “If it is my will for him to remain until I come, of what concern is that to you?””

Since Jesus didn't say this, what does it even have to do with Lazarus?

These words of Jesus came to be understood by many of the disciples to mean that the apostle John (or whoever it was, it was John) would never die. However, as the apostle John later explained, Jesus did not say that he would not die, but Jesus simply said: “If it is my will for him to remain until I come, of what concern is that to you?”

So what does it mean?

In this verse Jesus may have referred to his coming in miniature A.D. 70 for the execution of divine vengeance upon the city of Jerusalem, resulting in its destruction. John is understood to have survived that event of A.D. 70 and to have lived down to close to the end of the first century, at which time he wrote his account of Jesus’ life and also the three epistles or letters and the book of Revelation.

Then again, Jesus may also have referred to the apostle John in a prophetic or pictorial sense and he may here have foreshadowed the remnant of the body of Christ that has remained until the second coming of the Lord Jesus Christ. It is this remnant, which has survived until the present time, that is witnessing the fulfillment of the book of Revelation. That is why it has been stated that this remnant was foreshadowed by the apostle John.—Rev. 1:10.

[NickHassan]

Quote (kejonn @ Jan. 27 2008,05:31)

Quote (david @ Jan. 26 2008,10:19) Quote (kejonn @ Jan. 27 2008,01:36) Nothing really. In any case, scholars date GoJ around 90-100 CE, John was likely long dead since then. Kejonn, So, this entire discrediting of John is based on “nothing really”?? The scholars think that is was most likely John, but you want us to believe it wasn't. The scholars correctly believe that the gospel of John was around 90-100 C.E., but you want us to believe they are wrong on that too.  Are we to presume you are basing that on nothing more than the “nothing really” of this entire thread, on your unwavering desire to prove that the Bible is not God's word, and in error? I have often said and stand by my belief that the bible is man's way of viewing God. To suppose it is the infallible word of God would be to ignore the thousands of variations in existence. Do you think God would allow His true word to end up as this? If so, you think more of the writers than you do God.

Hi KJ,
Theology is man's way of trying to view God.
The Word is God's revelation of Himself.
You should view scripture as Jesus did.

[Is 1:18]

Quote (kejonn @ Jan. 27 2008,01:36)

Nothing really. In any case, scholars date GoJ around 90-100 CE, John was likely long dead since then.

Oh really? All of them?…..

[Is 1:18]

Quote (kejonn @ Jan. 27 2008,05:42)

Quote (david @ Jan. 26 2008,10:27) In any case, the “lazarus” idea, him being called “loved” by Jesus, along with Martha and Mary, does not make him the “disciple” whom Jesus loved and who was at the last supper with, and who wrote the book of John.  According to Mathew, Mark and Luke's account, Lazarus was not there, and from Jesus' own words, he made a covenant with those ones who were there and these were the ones that had stuck with him in his trials. And they were his apostles (and disciples).  Lazarus is called a “friend.”   Indeed, to be a follower, you'd think he'd be following Jesus around like the other disciples (followers.) LUKE 22:28-30 ““However, YOU are the ones that have stuck with me in my trials; and I make a covenant with YOU, just as my Father has made a covenant with me, for a kingdom, that YOU may eat and drink at my table in my kingdom, and sit on thrones to judge the twelve tribes of Israel.” As you have said, the lazarus idea, is “really nothing” evidence wise. I think you fail to see that the supper scene in GoJ and the synoptics is dramatically different. There is no eucharist. It is not said to be the Passover supper. Jesus washes his disciples feet, an act not found in the synoptics. So you are depending on using the synoptics to back what you are saying when the supper in the synoptics does not match the one on GoJ. Thus you have no proof that Lazarus was not there.

You have not one contradiction here Kejonn, some books report particular details, others don't…..

[kejonn]

Quote (Nick Hassan @ Jan. 26 2008,13:17)

Hi KJ, Theology is man's way of trying to view God. The Word is God's revelation of Himself. You should view scripture as Jesus did.

Show me how Jesus viewed scripture Nick.

[kejonn]

Quote (Is 1:18 @ Jan. 26 2008,13:43)

Quote (kejonn @ Jan. 27 2008,01:36) Nothing really. In any case, scholars date GoJ around 90-100 CE, John was likely long dead since then. Oh really? All of them?…..

No, but as more powerful methods of studying these things comes forth, more and more scholars are climbing on board with this.

[kejonn]

Quote (Is 1:18 @ Jan. 26 2008,13:48)

Quote (kejonn @ Jan. 27 2008,05:42) Quote (david @ Jan. 26 2008,10:27) In any case, the “lazarus” idea, him being called “loved” by Jesus, along with Martha and Mary, does not make him the “disciple” whom Jesus loved and who was at the last supper with, and who wrote the book of John. According to Mathew, Mark and Luke's account, Lazarus was not there, and from Jesus' own words, he made a covenant with those ones who were there and these were the ones that had stuck with him in his trials. And they were his apostles (and disciples). Lazarus is called a “friend.” Indeed, to be a follower, you'd think he'd be following Jesus around like the other disciples (followers.) LUKE 22:28-30 ““However, YOU are the ones that have stuck with me in my trials; and I make a covenant with YOU, just as my Father has made a covenant with me, for a kingdom, that YOU may eat and drink at my table in my kingdom, and sit on thrones to judge the twelve tribes of Israel.” As you have said, the lazarus idea, is “really nothing” evidence wise. I think you fail to see that the supper scene in GoJ and the synoptics is dramatically different. There is no eucharist. It is not said to be the Passover supper. Jesus washes his disciples feet, an act not found in the synoptics. So you are depending on using the synoptics to back what you are saying when the supper in the synoptics does not match the one on GoJ. Thus you have no proof that Lazarus was not there. You have not one contradiction here Kejonn, some books report particular details, others don't…..

Did I say “contradiction”? No I said different events. You can't line them both up if they are two different events.

[kejonn]

Quote (david @ Jan. 26 2008,13:15)

Quote David, Why would Peter say this about one of the twelve apostles? Joh 21:20 Peter, turning around, *saw the disciple whom Jesus loved following them; the one who also had leaned back on His bosom at the supper and said, “Lord, who is the one who betrays You?” Joh 21:21 So Peter seeing him *said to Jesus, “Lord, and what about this man?” This is not referrring to lazarus. Obviously, lazarus did die again. I don't see him, do you? Plus, Jesus never said this person wouldn't die. JOHN 21:23 “In consequence, this saying went out among the brothers, that that disciple would not die. However, JESUS DID NOT SAY TO HIM THAT HE WOULD NOT DIE, BUT: “If it is my will for him to remain until I come, of what concern is that to you?”” Since Jesus didn't say this, what does it even have to do with Lazarus? These words of Jesus came to be understood by many of the disciples to mean that the apostle John (or whoever it was, it was John) would never die. However, as the apostle John later explained, Jesus did not say that he would not die, but Jesus simply said: “If it is my will for him to remain until I come, of what concern is that to you?” So what does it mean? In this verse Jesus may have referred to his coming in miniature A.D. 70 for the execution of divine vengeance upon the city of Jerusalem, resulting in its destruction. John is understood to have survived that event of A.D. 70 and to have lived down to close to the end of the first century, at which time he wrote his account of Jesus’ life and also the three epistles or letters and the book of Revelation. Then again, Jesus may also have referred to the apostle John in a prophetic or pictorial sense and he may here have foreshadowed the remnant of the body of Christ that has remained until the second coming of the Lord Jesus Christ. It is this remnant, which has survived until the present time, that is witnessing the fulfillment of the book of Revelation. That is why it has been stated that this remnant was foreshadowed by the apostle John.—Rev. 1:10.

This “miniture coming” is not supported by anything except JW belief. If he came again in 70 AD, then there will be a third coming? Or fourth, because didn't the JWs say he came again another time?

[Is 1:18]

Quote (kejonn @ Jan. 27 2008,07:16)

Quote (Is 1:18 @ Jan. 26 2008,13:48) Quote (kejonn @ Jan. 27 2008,05:42) Quote (david @ Jan. 26 2008,10:27) In any case, the “lazarus” idea, him being called “loved” by Jesus, along with Martha and Mary, does not make him the “disciple” whom Jesus loved and who was at the last supper with, and who wrote the book of John.  According to Mathew, Mark and Luke's account, Lazarus was not there, and from Jesus' own words, he made a covenant with those ones who were there and these were the ones that had stuck with him in his trials. And they were his apostles (and disciples).  Lazarus is called a “friend.”   Indeed, to be a follower, you'd think he'd be following Jesus around like the other disciples (followers.) LUKE 22:28-30 ““However, YOU are the ones that have stuck with me in my trials; and I make a covenant with YOU, just as my Father has made a covenant with me, for a kingdom, that YOU may eat and drink at my table in my kingdom, and sit on thrones to judge the twelve tribes of Israel.” As you have said, the lazarus idea, is “really nothing” evidence wise. I think you fail to see that the supper scene in GoJ and the synoptics is dramatically different. There is no eucharist. It is not said to be the Passover supper. Jesus washes his disciples feet, an act not found in the synoptics. So you are depending on using the synoptics to back what you are saying when the supper in the synoptics does not match the one on GoJ. Thus you have no proof that Lazarus was not there. You have not one contradiction here Kejonn, some books report particular details, others don't….. Did I say “contradiction”? No I said different events. You can't line them both up if they are two different events.

Alright, discounting what you have written what evidence do you have that they are different events?

[NickHassan]

Quote (kejonn @ Jan. 27 2008,07:14)

Quote (Is 1:18 @ Jan. 26 2008,13:43) Quote (kejonn @ Jan. 27 2008,01:36) Nothing really. In any case, scholars date GoJ around 90-100 CE, John was likely long dead since then. Oh really? All of them?…..   No, but as more powerful methods of studying these things comes forth, more and more scholars are climbing on board with this.

Hi KJ,
Scholars have a habit of getting it wrong.

[david]

Yes, scholars can be wrong. But that vast majority of scholars from John, down to today have accepted that John is the writer of that book.
There are always the conspiracy lovers, but as Kejonn himself admitted, this idea of lazarus being the writer is based on “nothing really.”

John 20:21,24
THE DISCIPLE WHOM JESUS USED TO LOVE . . .THE ONE WHO AT THE EVENING MEAL . . .THIS IS THE DISCIPLE that bears witness about these things and THAT WROTE THESE THINGS

Matthew, Mark and Luke have only the 12 apostles at the evening meal, until Judas left. They also have Jesus making a covenant with these ones that had stuck with him in his trials. While lazarus and Martha and Mary were loved and Lazarus “our friend” brought tears to Jesus, when he died, this does not make him the “disciple” whom Jesus loved, for we are explicitly told by the other 3 writers that Lazarus wasn't there (the 12 apostles were), and that the one who was there, at the evening meal, wrote the book of John.
So unless we dismiss Matthew, Mark and Luke, then John was written by John.

david

[Author]

Posts