• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

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

Samantha Rinne

Resident Genderfluid Writer/Artist
I mentioned this point to a member yesterday who had been quoting from John's gospel, and there it was, another thread for your consideration.

That Apostle John was not Disciple John could be argued because of where he is reported to have lived... on a kind of prison island called Patmos, off the Ephesian coast. There's also the approximate dating of this gospel compared with the approximate age of the youthful disciple in AD/CE 28-30... how old would he have been when this gospel was written and comparisons with the projected average ages of Galilean peasants in early first century Northern Palestine. But not here on this thread! :)

This thread is dedicated to comparing the accounts as reported in the synoptic gospels with John's account, just that. I'll offer evidence, a single exhibit in a single post, and will offer one post each day. I'll try to answer all questions and challenges as best I can.

The first exhibit will be offered after this OP.

There's a book called The Disciple Whom Jesus Loved, that actually asserts that the Gospel of John is not written by John. Ir compares the somewhat arrogant stiyle of one of the "sons of thunder" to the rather meek literary voice of this writing. The conclusion was that two different people wrote these.

So who? Well thet also noticed that talk of this disciple didn't start until Lazarus was raised. Also, the disciple believed after seeing the burial wrappings set aside. He also was someone who was a sort of celebrity (rising from the dead would do this), because they let him in to where Jesus was at one point, while the others had trouble entering.
 

metis

aged ecumenical anthropologist
You are a lecturer in theology right? Thd I assume Thus, why do you think the synoptics are called just that if John is an embellishment of them?
Because the synoptics are generally similar in what they cover even though they're not identical, but John's embellishments go beyond that.
 

metis

aged ecumenical anthropologist
Because of it's late writing, considering the average age of a North Palestinian peasant was back then, this might need to be taken in to account when considering if Apostle John was Disciple John.

G-John is not an embellishment of the synoptics because it tells a differing story on a differing timescale with mangled accounts about what really happened. :) Jesus rampaging through Anna's Bazaar at the beginning of his ministry instead of during the last week does show this, amongst many other examples.
Even though when we do theology we try to be as objective as possible, the one thing we always have to remember is that the scriptures were written subjectively. Who wrote what is always a turkey-shoot since it was "kosher" for a disciple of an apostle to write on his behalf and give the credit to the apostle. We don't know how many of the apostles could even read or write. Then there's the issue of late writing and going from one language to another.

IOW, there's very few "gimmes" here.
 

Brian2

Veteran Member
No it wasn't.

Someone mentioning they knew someone called John does not have or make any provenance to the Gospel of John which is anonymous. This is general, scholarly consensus. And prior to immediately expected genetic fallacy of "liberal scholars are B.S", I can tell you that even conservative scholars have the same consensus.

Cheers.

If Apostolic Fathers knew John and used the Johanine gospel as scripture, quoting from it, then the tradition of who wrote it would probably be true.
All the gospels are anonymous, what does that mean, has it any bearing on the truth of the tradition about who wrote them?
https://zondervanacademic.com/blog/who-wrote-gospels

>>From the above link I get at the end of the section on John:
Despite alternative theories about the disciple whom Jesus loved, most evidence still points to the apostle John. The early church father Irenaeus wrote, “afterwards, John, the disciple of the Lord, who also had leaned upon His breast, did himself publish a gospel during his residence at Ephesus in Asia.” Irenaeus lived in the second century, and claimed to receive this information from John’s disciple, Polycarp.
The text seems to point to John, too. The disciple whom Jesus loved was clearly close to Peter:

  • Peter asks him to ask Jesus a question (John 13:24)
  • Peter and this disciple race to the tomb together (John 20:2-10)
  • Peter is fishing with this disciple when Jesus appears to them on the shore (John 21:2)
  • Peter swims to Jesus after this disciple identifies him (John 21:7)
  • After Jesus hints at Peter’s death, Peter asks about this disciple (John 21:20-24)
This close relationship supports the likelihood that this disciple was part of Jesus’ “inner circle” (Peter, James, or John). Since James is martyred early (Acts 12:1-5), and John is never mentioned by name in the whole book (which for anyone else would be a mistake), John is believed to be the most likely author.<<

It seems more than speculation on the part of the Apostolic Fathers.
 

pearl

Well-Known Member
Because the synoptics are generally similar in what they cover even though they're not identical, but John's embellishments go beyond that.

I don't think it possible to 'get' John without considering the christology employed in his gospel. He does not begin with a human Jesus, but the pre-existing Word that was God. I don't think that can be explained away by the use of embellishments alone. Plus his historical situation so different from that of the synoptics.
 

firedragon

Veteran Member
Because the synoptics are generally similar in what they cover even though they're not identical, but John's embellishments go beyond that.

How do you address the synoptic problem with what you say here? Or what is your source critical data on your thesis?
 

firedragon

Veteran Member
If Apostolic Fathers knew John and used the Johanine gospel as scripture, quoting from it,

Which apostolic father names John and quotes from the Gospel of John, in which writing? Please give the direct reference of the primary source.
 

Brian2

Veteran Member
Excellent! So Apostle John may not even have written G-John. OK

At the end of the gospel it says:
John 21:24 This is the disciple who testifies to these things and who wrote them down. We know that his testimony is true.
Whether this means that he wrote the whole thing or that it was put together from what John wrote is debatable. I think he wrote the whole thing.

What?!! The most exciting experience ever for Disciple John, not needed?
But they thought the last supper was repeatable? And a few other events?

John does not the Last Supper the way the others have it, with Jesus speaking about the wine and bread as the blood of the covenant and His body which He will sacrifice.
The gospels say different things and John fills in some gaps that the others miss and visa versa.
John has a washing the feet act by Jesus at the last supper and the others do not. John has a big speech of Jesus at the last supper and the others do not.
 

metis

aged ecumenical anthropologist
How do you address the synoptic problem with what you say here? Or what is your source critical data on your thesis?
What do you mean by "synoptic problem"? Nor am I sure what you're looking for with your last sentence.

BTW, it may take until Monday, so please be patient.
 

Brian2

Veteran Member
That very idea immediately reduces the deposition of this gospel from Primary Evidence to secondary/tertiary ... hear-say evidence.

Disciple John? No.

Tradition is more than what someone made up years later, it is something that is passed down, and in the case of John the tradition and other evidence is strong.
 

firedragon

Veteran Member
What do you mean by "synoptic problem"? Nor am I sure what you're looking for with your last sentence.

BTW, it may take until Monday, so please be patient.

Metis. You said you lecture theology. I assumed this must be like less than sophomore stuff for you. Thats why asked you questions this way.

Synoptic problem. You can take it for granted that if you understand the synoptic problem, and how people work through the maze, and the source criticism of John, you will understand why you could not be further from truth in your thesis that John is the "embellishment" of the synoptics gospels.

Cheers.
 

IndigoChild5559

Loving God and my neighbor as myself.
But if you read John 6, after reading Mark 3, you would see that 12 were appointed, and that Judas was one of the 12. Judas of Simon Iscariot, verbatim mentioned there in.
It's very simple logic. Jesus chose 12 disciples that stood out from among all his disciples. After pentecost, these men were referred to as Apostles. But there is one exception, and that is Judas, because he was dead.
 

IndigoChild5559

Loving God and my neighbor as myself.
A review of the OP might help you. I wrote:-
This thread is dedicated to comparing the accounts as reported in the synoptic gospels with John's account, just that.

.......... and no disciple is referred to as an apostle in any of them, nor did Jesus give any such title to any of them. Apostles were titled after Jesus.......
But Apostle John could not have been disciple John. He didn't know anything about disciple John as reported in any of the synoptics.

:)
Well, if you are limiting the text to the gospels, then the word apostle is never used at all, and cannot be part of the discussion. See the problem here?
 

firedragon

Veteran Member
It's very simple logic. Jesus chose 12 disciples that stood out from among all his disciples. After pentecost, these men were referred to as Apostles. But there is one exception, and that is Judas, because he was dead.

You should read the references I gave you. Read the Bible.
 

IndigoChild5559

Loving God and my neighbor as myself.
Did you really read the references I gave you?
You did not give references. You gave whole chapters. It's not my obligation to try to read your mind and know what verses you are talking about. If you want me to consider certain verses, the proper form is to first quote them, then cite the chapter AND verses.
 

firedragon

Veteran Member
You did not give references. You gave whole chapters.

Okay. I thought you have read the bible so well and you would immediately know. Also I was on the phone so I could not look for the exact verses. Since this is a very well known matter, it is pretty easy to know.

Read John 6:70 or 67 upwards. And read Mark 3:14. You will realise that Judas, as I had already told you which of course you ignored and repeated your same argument without blinking, was named apostle. One of the 12. And in Mark 3:14 Jesus himself appoints "The 12" as apostles.

1`. Mark does not have the pentecost. He named them apostles before that. Even if you go with the long ending of Mark which is a known fallacious variant, still you won't see it. If you force yourself to see the pentecost in mark, still Jesus was alive when he named the 12. So your statement that they were named apostles at pentecost only is wrong. The pentecost appears in the acts of the apostles. The appointment of the apostles happens in Mark. Prior to the pentecost.

2. John 6:70 (up from 67) proves Judas was one of the 12.

Both your claims are false.

Cheers.
 
Last edited:

Kenny

Face to face with my Father
Premium Member
Ken.... Are you telling me that the Transfiguration of Jesus was not worth mentioning in G-John?
He wasn't there, Ken.
Not than it isn't important but rather what I am saying is that it wasn't the subject matter that he wanted to discuss.

Look at it this way, in the synoptics, there are things that one talked about that the other two didn't. Not that what they omitted wasn't important but rather it wasn't the direction they wanted to discuss.

John wanted to discuss the transformation of mankind (John Chapter 3). Peter was at the transfiguration but it wasn't the subject matter of 1 Peter or the other epistles written by him.

John also wanted the importance of Holy Spirit to be understood so it was a major topic not covered so much by the other three.

My being transfigured when I was born again is an extremely important part of my life but I don't mention it every Sunday. But to say my messages aren't spoken by me because I didn't mention my transfiguration doesn't translate into it no be messaged by me.
 

Kenny

Face to face with my Father
Premium Member
......the author of which doesn't know what Jesus and disciples did.
I've asked you before, I guess, but let me ask you again. What did Jesus and his disciples do in Jerusalem and Temple on the first day of that last week, the week before Passover? Apostle John didn't know.
Interesting that you would select the one day of the last week and none of the other days... can you be a little more specific to make sure I'm talking about the same day? Palm Sunday?

I also noticed that none of the 4 gospels mention anything about the Wednesday before the Lord's Supper was instituted. Do I assume that none of the 4 were there because none of them mention it?

Was John suppose to write about every single day for Ol' Badger?

As a note, please review in order Matthew, Mark, Luke and John

Screen Shot 2021-10-15 at 5.49.40 PM.png


Apparently John was there as he "filled in the blank" where other Gospels did not. :) (If I use your standard of veracity)_
 
Top