Apostle John was not the disciple, I think his gospels show this clearly.

[Subduction Zone]

But you haven't proven that John wasn't there. But you are free to believe he wasn't even when he wrote that he was.

Sorry, but in this case the burden of proof would be upon you. The evidence indicates that the disciple John would not have been there. The only "evidence" there is for your beliefs are church tradition. That is not every convincing.

 

[oldbadger]

LOL.. Unbiased in religions... for them there is no evidence of a God. I think I am in trouble now

??

I thought I have quoted over a dozen verses. And, unless you misunderstood what I wrote, all the gospels add to the truth of Jesus Christ.

Even as the prototype of sacrificing of the lamb in the Exodus or the two goats at the Temple with the laying on of hands, even so Jesus remains "the lamb of God that takes away the sins of the world". (At least in our understanding of Yeshua Hamashiach as believers)

Ken, copying out what prophets said or wrote hundreds of years before doesn't really prove that Author/s John were either true Disciple or Apostle. A quoting John's spirit-waffle can't actually defend the claims written here.

Several posts here have proposed that more than one author wrote G-John. When I first read G-John through, many decades ago, I noticed how the writing changes in character at places. I particularly disliked John's smug attitude in places, and especially disliked how he changed the enemies of Jesus from 'the Priesthood' to 'The Jews'. It was simply didhonest.

 

[oldbadger]

From my understanding an apostle was any early follower and preacher for Jesus. The disciples were a special group of apostles. For example Paul was an apostle. He never was one of the twelve. He was not a disciple.

True.
I have given the author/s of John the title of Apostle, even though I don't think any of them knew Apostle/disciple John or ever witnessed any of the events in the mission of Jesus.

G-John is imo a collection of very useful anecdotes, and information, but chucked together in to a mixed up and stretched timeline and with outrageous deceptions such as making 'the Jews' Jesus's enemies when in fact they were what he was struggling on behalf of. I don't think 'the Jews' clamoured for his downfall at any time, not even in front of Pilate, but that's another thread, I guess.

 

[oldbadger]

But you haven't proven that John wasn't there. But you are free to believe he wasn't even when he wrote that he was.

Oh, John was there alright! Just not any of the authors of G-John.

Remember......
No mention of the Transfiguartion.
No knowledge of what Jesus did in those first three days from and including Palm Sunday once in Jerusalem.
No idea of the timeline or placing of events on that timeline.
Ridiculous claims about being at the execution with Mother Mary.
Changing the real enemy from fat greedy priesthood to the people...the Jews.
....it goes on.

 

[oldbadger]

Actually... more. There are apostles today too. But of those who were with Jesus and personally taught by Jesus and approved, as mentioned in Acts, 12.

Don't forget Magdalene and possibly Salome. They were there to the end...... the only ones......

 

[oldbadger]

I'm not sure... and it seems a little contradictory in your statements.

1) You said that Mark wrote the biography according to Peter
2) Peter wasn't there

You really do need to quote what people really say.
I wrote that Mark's gospel holds the MEMOIRS of Cephas.
Cephas was there with Jesus through most of the mission, and certainly at Transfiguration, in the Temple, at the Arrest, etc.

How does he know for certain who was there and who wasn't?

Magdalene and Salome for sure.

John, the beloved disciple, was there. I think he knows best I believe he even mentions more women than the others... why? He was there

His descriptions of the execution tell any detached reader that he was not.
And his indirect claims of being the 'beloved disciple' really are very dishonest. I reckon that Magdalene was the beloved disciple, in fact I think that she either wrote or dictated that fact in a gospel which was discarded by the Church. The Church was always worried about her presence and eventually a Pope alleged that she was a prostitute, a claim later withdrawn.

Mine and those who were contemporary of the time when it was written.

Ever wonder why no one disputed what was written during that time in that Gospel? Obviously, no one had a problem with it.

People who disputed the Church's version of events died horribly......... over millenia.

 

[Kenny]

Ken, copying out what prophets said or wrote hundreds of years before doesn't really prove that Author/s John were either true Disciple or Apostle. A quoting John's spirit-waffle can't actually defend the claims written here.

Several posts here have proposed that more than one author wrote G-John. When I first read G-John through, many decades ago, I noticed how the writing changes in character at places. I particularly disliked John's smug attitude in places, and especially disliked how he changed the enemies of Jesus from 'the Priesthood' to 'The Jews'. It was simply didhonest.

Understood.... but what happens when external evidence is presented from his contemporaries? It was dismissed as if it didn't matter. At that point, IMV, it becomes a construct of ones desire and viewpoint versus solid evidence.

 

[Kenny]

Oh, John was there alright! Just not any of the authors of G-John.

Remember......

1. No mention of the Transfiguartion.
2. No knowledge of what Jesus did in those first three days from and including Palm Sunday once in Jerusalem.
3. No idea of the timeline or placing of events on that timeline.
4. Ridiculous claims about being at the execution with Mother Mary.
5. Changing the real enemy from fat greedy priesthood to the people...the Jews.

....it goes on.

But I disagree...

1. The subject matter had already been established by the witness of three. Your desire for him to mention it doesn't translate into "he had to mention it because if he doesn't, he wasn't there and I wouldn't be able to believe that he wrote it)
2. There were things presented during the three days, including Palm Sunday, that others didn't mention (adding to established history).
3. Timeline has been established by historians -- there is no contemporary of his time that said "I disagree with what was written). On the contrary, the contemporaries validated what was written
4. The reality that John, not only was only one at the trial and and close to Mary., but he is the only eye-witness with the women.. no reason to believe that he wasn't with her at the time of the crucifixion.
5. I must have missed that one...

.... and it goes on

 

[Kenny]

Don't forget Magdalene and possibly Salome. They were there to the end...... the only ones......

not as I read it... they weren't there to report it as John was.

 

[Kenny]

His descriptions of the execution tell any detached reader that he was not.
And his indirect claims of being the 'beloved disciple' really are very dishonest. I reckon that Magdalene was the beloved disciple, in fact I think that she either wrote or dictated that fact in a gospel which was discarded by the Church. The Church was always worried about her presence and eventually a Pope alleged that she was a prostitute, a claim later withdrawn.

This is only personal viewpoints vs hard evidence.

 

[Kenny]

Sorry, but in this case the burden of proof would be upon you. The evidence indicates that the disciple John would not have been there. The only "evidence" there is for your beliefs are church tradition. That is not every convincing.

illogical... if you actually read everything that has been posted.

 

[oldbadger]

Understood.... but what happens when external evidence is presented from his contemporaries? It was dismissed as if it didn't matter. At that point, IMV, it becomes a construct of ones desire and viewpoint versus solid evidence.

Contempories?
Come on Ken.
Let's see some contemporary evidence supporting his version of the mission of Jesus.
Make sure this is not a construct of your desire.

 

[oldbadger]

But I disagree...

1. The subject matter had already been established by the witness of three.

1. 
   
2. Stop you right there, Ken. I want to know which three witnesses you have in mind.

 

[oldbadger]

not as I read it... they weren't there to report it as John was.

You've seen the evidence so far. But offered none to support your claims other than copied prophesies from earlier times and spirit waffle.
Are you denying the synoptic accounts?

 

[oldbadger]

This is only personal viewpoints vs hard evidence.

Absolutely!
The hard evidence of the synoptics versus the imaginings of G-John.

 

[oldbadger]

illogical... if you actually read everything that has been posted.

Well at least you do know that Peter wrote about the Transfiguration, and that Jesus and his went sightseeing on Palm Sunday, so you've learned something....... from OB!!!

 

[Kenny]

Contempories?
Come on Ken.
Let's see some contemporary evidence supporting his version of the mission of Jesus.
Make sure this is not a construct of your desire.

#6

“Irenaeus used John’s gospel to refute Gnostic teaching in the second half of the second century AD, [which] cemented the gospels place in the church’s canon once and for all.”[8]

Perhaps this will help too:

Testing the Gospels From John to Hippolytus | Cold Case Christianity

 

[Kenny]

1. 
   
2. Stop you right there, Ken. I want to know which three witnesses you have in mind.

The ones you have quoted. Matthew, Mark and Luke... unless you are saying that these three are no longer valid to establish any truth.

 

[Kenny]

Absolutely!
The hard evidence of the synoptics versus the imaginings of G-John.

No... that is still opinion vs external evidence

 

[metis]

What I do find interesting, but in a positive way, is that the Gospel writers did not always agree on what happened with any particular narrative. An example is when the women visited Jesus' tomb, saw and heard the angel(s), and then returned to tell the men. "Problem" is that no two Gospel accounts match.

When still in high school back in the early 60's [that's the 1960's btw], my mother bought me a book through our Lutheran church entitled "The Harmony of the Gospels", which I did read. But what I quickly noticed is that these narratives all so often didn't exactly match. OK, if they're supposedly "Divinely inspired", then why don't they match? So, I saw this as a weakness-- at first.

But over some time I began to realize that this actually was more a strength than a weakness for the vadity of the scriptures. Here's why:
What it showed me is that there was no attempt by the authors and by the early Church to change their wording to match a single source, of which "Aramaic Matthew" hypothetically might have been [if you have a copy of it, please let me know, OK?]. It's sorta like "I heard it a little differently than Apostle X did, so I'm gonna tell you what I heard". IOW, there wasn't a conspiracy of sorts to make it all uniform. To me, that's a strength.

So, back to the visitation at the tomb: Even though the details differ from Gospel to Gospel, the general narratives are the same: some of the women went to Jesus' tomb, saw that he wasn't there, was told by an angel or angels that he had risen, and then went to tell the men.