• 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.

Kenny

Face to face with my Father
Premium Member
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.
To add to that point...

J. Warner Wallace, the renown cold-case detective who use to be an atheist, basically says the same thing. That when you interview witnesses, the narratives are not the same yet together they produce what actually happened.

It is when everyone is saying exactly the same thing, with no variation, that "collusion" becomes a possibility.

Personally, I don't think it eliminates "divine inspiration", it just manifests itself through flawed human beings differently.
 

oldbadger

Skanky Old Mongrel!
#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

A Christian who lived in the mid second century cannot be any kind of a witness to what Jesus and his disciples did, at all, at any point in the mission.

And the Church's canon is the Church's canon, not that of the real Jesus or the real mission.
 

oldbadger

Skanky Old Mongrel!
No... that is still opinion vs external evidence
Ken, do you really think that the Gospel of Mark was/is opinion?
And please tell us what 'external evidence' is....... There is Primary, Secondary, Direct, Indirect and Hearsay evidence. I have never heard of 'external evidence'. This must be more waffle.
 

Kenny

Face to face with my Father
Premium Member
A Christian who lived in the mid second century cannot be any kind of a witness to what Jesus and his disciples did, at all, at any point in the mission.

And the Church's canon is the Church's canon, not that of the real Jesus or the real mission.
Did you read the dates of their lives and how they intersected with John life? It can't be that late that they lived during the time of John and spoke to John.

Certainly, even second century would have more current information than 2 millenniums.
 

Kenny

Face to face with my Father
Premium Member
Ken, do you really think that the Gospel of Mark was/is opinion?
And please tell us what 'external evidence' is....... There is Primary, Secondary, Direct, Indirect and Hearsay evidence. I have never heard of 'external evidence'. This must be more waffle.

I didn't mean Mark's opinion but rather your viewpoint.

I sent you a link that had primary, secondary evidence. Of course, John is direct.
 

oldbadger

Skanky Old Mongrel!
The ones you have quoted. Matthew, Mark and Luke... unless you are saying that these three are no longer valid to establish any truth.
Ken........ what you don't seem to realise is that there is some truth in even G-John. Do you need an example? We know that Jesus's group was baptising folks just along the river from the Baptist's, or that Judas' formal name was Judas BarSimon (possibly BenSimon) or that...... these pieces of information and many more offer good detail, but the claims and the butchered timeline and the enhanced miracles........... Oh dear.

And please don't pretend that I've said this, or said that. Just print what I have written.
 

oldbadger

Skanky Old Mongrel!
Did you read the dates of their lives and how they intersected with John life? It can't be that late that they lived during the time of John and spoke to John.

Certainly, even second century would have more current information than 2 millenniums.

They were a hundred years too late to be any kind of direct witnesses!
Only Mark and Cephas offered some Primary (mostly) Secondary evidence in their writings.
If you can't see that G-Mark was written by author/s other than true apostles or disciples then you've lost the plot. They really did push the fibs, imo.
 

oldbadger

Skanky Old Mongrel!
I didn't mean Mark's opinion but rather your viewpoint.

I sent you a link that had primary, secondary evidence. Of course, John is direct.
You offered an opinion by J Walter Wallace! Leading in:-
I am confident the Gospels were written early and were not corrupted or altered over time. As a new investigator of the claims of Christianity, I examined the case for early dating and became convinced the Gospels were written within the generation of the eyewitnesses. But how do we know whether or not the early accounts were corrupted over the years?

I too am confident that (most of) G-Mark was the deposition of a partial witness who included the memoirs of Cephas. Luke and Mark copied accurately from Mark so they may have copied Jusus's speeches accurately.

But G-John........? I am confident that G-John was written by strangers to the whole mission. Hearsay writers who exaggerated for effect.
 

Kenny

Face to face with my Father
Premium Member
They were a hundred years too late to be any kind of direct witnesses!
Only Mark and Cephas offered some Primary (mostly) Secondary evidence in their writings.
If you can't see that G-Mark was written by author/s other than true apostles or disciples then you've lost the plot. They really did push the fibs, imo.
apparently, you didn't read the site... so let me quote:

Primary Ignatius (35-117AD) also called himself “Theophorus” (which means “God Bearer”). - In other words, lived during the time of John and the Apostles--.

Ignatius quoted or alluded to many New Testament books (including Matthew, John and Luke, and several, if not all, of Paul’s letters.


validating the books

Primary Papias (60-135AD) was described by Irenaeus as a “hearer of John". Same time period... Definitely knew John

Papias’ work (as quoted later by Eusebius), alludes to many Gospel passages and stories.

Polycarp (69-155AD) - again... knew John:

wrote a letter to the Philippians that references fourteen to sixteen New Testament books (including Matthew, Luke, John, Acts, Romans, 1 Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, 1 Thessalonians, 2 Thessalonians, 1 Timothy, 1 Peter and 1 John, with some scholars observing additional references to 2 Timothy and 2 Corinthians).

Secondary Irenaeus (120-202AD)

he identified as many as twenty-four New Testament books as Scripture (including Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Acts, Romans, 1 Corinthians, 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, 1 Thessalonians, 2 Thessalonians, 1 Timothy, 2 Timothy, Titus, 1 Peter, 1 John, 2 John and Revelation).

Secondary Hippolytus (170-236AD)

Hippolytus identified as many as twenty-four New Testament books as Scripture (including Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Acts, Romans, 1 Corinthians, 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, 1 Thessalonians, 2 Thessalonians, 1 Timothy, 2 Timothy, Titus, Philemon, 1 Peter, 1 John, 2 John and Revelation)


the point is obvious. I have support for my position.

If there had been doubt to its authenticity, it would have been noted.
 

Kenny

Face to face with my Father
Premium Member
You offered an opinion by J Walter Wallace! Leading in:-
I am confident the Gospels were written early and were not corrupted or altered over time. As a new investigator of the claims of Christianity, I examined the case for early dating and became convinced the Gospels were written within the generation of the eyewitnesses. But how do we know whether or not the early accounts were corrupted over the years?

I too am confident that (most of) G-Mark was the deposition of a partial witness who included the memoirs of Cephas. Luke and Mark copied accurately from Mark so they may have copied Jusus's speeches accurately.

But G-John........? I am confident that G-John was written by strangers to the whole mission. Hearsay writers who exaggerated for effect.

Please read further (quotes above) - the support was after his opening statement (I think that is standard - make your statement and then support your statement - it is even the format you used on the OP)
 

oldbadger

Skanky Old Mongrel!
apparently, you didn't read the site... so let me quote:

Primary Ignatius (35-117AD) also called himself “Theophorus” (which means “God Bearer”). - In other words, lived during the time of John and the Apostles--.

Ignatius quoted or alluded to many New Testament books (including Matthew, John and Luke, and several, if not all, of Paul’s letters.


validating the books

Primary Papias (60-135AD) was described by Irenaeus as a “hearer of John". Same time period... Definitely knew John

Papias’ work (as quoted later by Eusebius), alludes to many Gospel passages and stories.

Polycarp (69-155AD) - again... knew John:

wrote a letter to the Philippians that references fourteen to sixteen New Testament books (including Matthew, Luke, John, Acts, Romans, 1 Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, 1 Thessalonians, 2 Thessalonians, 1 Timothy, 1 Peter and 1 John, with some scholars observing additional references to 2 Timothy and 2 Corinthians).

Secondary Irenaeus (120-202AD)

he identified as many as twenty-four New Testament books as Scripture (including Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Acts, Romans, 1 Corinthians, 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, 1 Thessalonians, 2 Thessalonians, 1 Timothy, 2 Timothy, Titus, 1 Peter, 1 John, 2 John and Revelation).

Secondary Hippolytus (170-236AD)

Hippolytus identified as many as twenty-four New Testament books as Scripture (including Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Acts, Romans, 1 Corinthians, 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, 1 Thessalonians, 2 Thessalonians, 1 Timothy, 2 Timothy, Titus, Philemon, 1 Peter, 1 John, 2 John and Revelation)


the point is obvious. I have support for my position.

If there had been doubt to its authenticity, it would have been noted.
The people named above help to prove that Jesus did exist because they knew (or knew about) people who had known Jesus. You could have included Celsus in that list a serious enemy of Christianity to show that Jesus existed.

But these people can't show that G-John was written by the disciple John. You're rushing around in your attempts to prove that Disciple John wrote that mish mashed timeline with exaggerated claims, and you can't.

The closest account to truth is G-Mark's which confound G-John's claims.

The Jews were NOT the enemy, like G-John suggests.
The experience at the Transfiguration clearly not known about.
The multiple journeys to and from the Temple were not true.
No knowledge about the extraordinary things that happened in the second and third days of that last week.
Claims about miracles that Cephas and Mark never corroborated.
A timeline of three years that just did not happen.

The people (above) help to prove that Jesus existed, not that the authors of G-John wrote a true account. You're casting from left to right in some frantic attempt to prove G-John correct over the deposition of G-Mark (copied by Matthew and Luke) and it's just sad.
 

oldbadger

Skanky Old Mongrel!
Please read further (quotes above) - the support was after his opening statement (I think that is standard - make your statement and then support your statement - it is even the format you used on the OP)
Just read his very first sentence, Ken. It's rubbish!

Walter writes:-
I am confident the Gospels were written early and were not corrupted or altered over time.

The Gospels were written from about CE 55-60 which is about thirty years after the events. Not early!
They were ALL interfered with, which makes investigation much more difficult!

You clutch at straws.
All the Gospels were interferred with. Here is the first verse of G-Mark:
1 1 The beginning of the good news about Jesus the Messiah,[1] the Son of God,[2] .....
The words 'The Son of God' were inserted later, because the earliest copies of this gospel did not have those words.

That's Walter first sentence.
Time to stop relying on poor detective work,. Ken.
 

Kenny

Face to face with my Father
Premium Member
You're casting from left to right in some frantic attempt to prove G-John correct over the deposition of G-Mark (copied by Matthew and Luke) and it's just sad.
You are better than this.

The people named above help to prove that Jesus did exist because they knew (or knew about) people who had known Jesus. You could have included Celsus in that list a serious enemy of Christianity to show that Jesus existed.
.

. But, last of all, John, perceiving that the external facts had been made plain in the Gospel, being urged by his friends, and inspired by the Spirit, composed a spiritual Gospel.” This is the account of Clement.4

  • Cited in Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History, 6.14.5-7.

No... not only do we have proof that those who knew John used his scriptures to refute gnosticism but we also have historical statements that say John wrote it.

The Jews were NOT the enemy, like G-John suggests.

???

I have read "John" countless times and Jews are not the enemies. I think you need to laser this down to "Jesus had some Jewish enemies and some Roman enemies"... but Jews were never the problem, it was our iniquities and transgressions that were the problem (Isaiah 53)

The experience at the Transfiguration clearly not known about.

No.. that is a real stretch. The only certainty and the most you can state is that he didn't mention it. It wasn't his focus.

The multiple journeys to and from the Temple were not true.

No. But you can have your viewpoint if you so desire. Jesus had a traveling ministry.

No knowledge about the extraordinary things that happened in the second and third days of that last week.

No... that is a stretch. The only certainty and the most you can state is that he didn't mention all the things in those two specific days.

Claims about miracles that Cephas and Mark never corroborated.

OK... True. As John said " 25 Jesus did many other things as well. If every one of them were written down, I suppose that even the whole world would not have room for the books that would be written."

At least we can agree that miracles did happen.

A timeline of three years that just did not happen.

Opinion. Of course you can say that of me too. In that in the synoptic timeline, historians can place it without a problem, I wouldn't agree.

Gospel Parallels in Chronological Order, The Life of Christ - Table
 

Kenny

Face to face with my Father
Premium Member
Just read his very first sentence, Ken. It's rubbish!

Walter writes:-
I am confident the Gospels were written early and were not corrupted or altered over time.

The Gospels were written from about CE 55-60 which is about thirty years after the events. Not early!
They were ALL interfered with, which makes investigation much more difficult!

You clutch at straws.
All the Gospels were interferred with. Here is the first verse of G-Mark:
1 1 The beginning of the good news about Jesus the Messiah,[1] the Son of God,[2] .....
The words 'The Son of God' were inserted later, because the earliest copies of this gospel did not have those words.

That's Walter first sentence.
Time to stop relying on poor detective work,. Ken.

Moving goal posts?

I was talking about the statements of history... not his statements.

If you want to open another thread on this issue, feel free.
 

metis

aged ecumenical anthropologist
Debating such matters on this is all fine & dandy, imo, but I do believe Jesus' main message was and is loud & clear: love of God and love of neighbor. All the rest are possible applications and/or clarifications, and since they were written by people, we should not assume nor expect perfection.
 

oldbadger

Skanky Old Mongrel!
. But, last of all, John, perceiving that the external facts had been made plain in the Gospel, being urged by his friends, and inspired by the Spirit, composed a spiritual Gospel.” This is the account of Clement.4
  • Cited in Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History, 6.14.5-7.
No... not only do we have proof that those who knew John used his scriptures to refute gnosticism but we also have historical statements that say John wrote it.

Eusebius lived in the third century.
'Inspired by the Spirit! .................. 'urged by his friends!'

Ken......... we just need the simple truth. I have noticed how much of Christianity clings to G-John, which this is probably why no Christian has ever answered my 'what did they do in Jerusalem on Palm Sunday' question ever..... ever.... they want to focus on John's stuff.
Sad.

I have read "John" countless times and Jews are not the enemies.
And with this claim ...I cannot believe you've ever 'read' and understood G-John in your lifetime.

{2:20} Then said the Jews, Forty and six years was this temple in building, and wilt thou rear it up in three days?

{5:10} The Jews therefore said unto him that was cured, It is the sabbath day: it is not lawful for thee to carry [thy] bed.

{5:16} And therefore did the Jews persecute Jesus, and sought to slay him,

{5:18} Therefore the Jews sought the more to kill him,

{6:41} The Jews then murmured at him, because he said, I am the bread which came down from heaven

{7:1} After these things Jesus walked in Galilee: for he would not walk in Jewry, because the Jews sought to kill him.

{7:11} Then the Jews sought him at the feast, and said, Where is he? {7:12} And there was much murmuring

{8:48} Then answered the Jews, and said unto him, Say we not well that thou art a Samaritan, and hast a devil?

{8:52} Then said the Jews unto him, Now we know that thou hast a devil.

{9:18} But the Jews did not believe concerning him, that he had been blind, and received his sight

{9:22} These [words] spake his parents, because they feared the Jews

{10:33} The Jews answered him, saying, For a good work we stone thee not; but for blasphemy;

{11:8} [His] disciples say unto him, Master, the Jews of late sought to stone thee;

{11:54} Jesus therefore walked no more openly among the Jews;

? {18:12} Then the band and the captain and officers of the Jews took Jesus, and bound him,
 

oldbadger

Skanky Old Mongrel!
Moving goal posts?

I was talking about the statements of history... not his statements.

If you want to open another thread on this issue, feel free.
Let's just stick to the thread title here, eh?

Every time I read G-John I see evidence that the writer/s didn't know (or care) about what really happened.

Look at this example:-
{18:40} Then cried they all again, saying, Not this man, but Barabbas. Now Barabbas was a robber.

No...... he wasn't. :D
 

oldbadger

Skanky Old Mongrel!
Debating such matters on this is all fine & dandy, imo, but I do believe Jesus' main message was and is loud & clear: love of God and love of neighbor. All the rest are possible applications and/or clarifications, and since they were written by people, we should not assume nor expect perfection.

I acknowledge your belief and opinion.
This thread is about the writer/s of G-John having no personal experience about what happened.
 

Kenny

Face to face with my Father
Premium Member
Eusebius lived in the third century.
'Inspired by the Spirit! .................. 'urged by his friends!'

Ken......... we just need the simple truth. I have noticed how much of Christianity clings to G-John, which this is probably why no Christian has ever answered my 'what did they do in Jerusalem on Palm Sunday' question ever..... ever.... they want to focus on John's stuff.
Sad.

Badger... let me be frank :) (not that I haven't been frank) :)

It isn't that we "cling" to G-John. If you were to be speaking about G-Luke - we would be having the same discussion or, for that matter, Gen, Ex, Lev. et al. We simply trust the scriptures. I have studied them for almost 40 years now.

You just can't take one part, Eusebius or transfiguration, and make a determination on the whole of it. I gave a systematic support that included Eusebius. When the people, who were John's contemporary, companions and students, quote John as from John, there really isn't a discussion to be made.

If you take the chronological side by side comparison, you find that there is a harmony of the gospels.

As I view your position, it seems more like what many people do with scripture. They take their position as a colander, pour the information in the colander, take what comes out of the colander to support their position and then throw out what doesn't

And with this claim ...I cannot believe you've ever 'read' and understood G-John in your lifetime.

{2:20} Then said the Jews, Forty and six years was this temple in building, and wilt thou rear it up in three days?

{5:10} The Jews therefore said unto him that was cured, It is the sabbath day: it is not lawful for thee to carry [thy] bed.

{5:16} And therefore did the Jews persecute Jesus, and sought to slay him,

{5:18} Therefore the Jews sought the more to kill him,

{6:41} The Jews then murmured at him, because he said, I am the bread which came down from heaven

{7:1} After these things Jesus walked in Galilee: for he would not walk in Jewry, because the Jews sought to kill him.

{7:11} Then the Jews sought him at the feast, and said, Where is he? {7:12} And there was much murmuring

{8:48} Then answered the Jews, and said unto him, Say we not well that thou art a Samaritan, and hast a devil?

{8:52} Then said the Jews unto him, Now we know that thou hast a devil.

{9:18} But the Jews did not believe concerning him, that he had been blind, and received his sight

{9:22} These [words] spake his parents, because they feared the Jews

{10:33} The Jews answered him, saying, For a good work we stone thee not; but for blasphemy;

{11:8} [His] disciples say unto him, Master, the Jews of late sought to stone thee;

{11:54} Jesus therefore walked no more openly among the Jews;

? {18:12} Then the band and the captain and officers of the Jews took Jesus, and bound him,

I can understand why you may have that viewpoint. Can I offer another perspective?

Let me give you an example:

John 11:48 If we let him thus alone, all men will believe on him: and the Romans shall come and take away both our place and nation.

He didn't mean "all of the Romans" but generalized the fact that the Roman army would come.

If that would be a possibility, lets look at some of the scriptures you gave:

Obviously I would immediately eliminate those that mention "officers"... as it specifically is talking about "certain" Jews.

So, taking John 2:17 And his disciples remembered that it was written, The zeal of thine house hath eaten me up. 18 Then answered the Jews and said unto him, What sign shewest thou unto us, seeing that thou doest these things?

the context is the Jesus making the Temple what it was supposed to be. So, who were those "Jews" that he was talking about? Not Jews in general, but those in charge of the Temple that were profiting from making a place of worship into a place of merchandise. Very specific.

I will only take two examples as it would be redundant

John 5: 10 The Jews therefore said unto him that was cured, It is the sabbath day: it is not lawful for thee to carry thy bed. 11 He answered them, He that made me whole, the same said unto me, Take up thy bed, and walk. 12 Then asked they him, What man is that which said unto thee, Take up thy bed, and walk?

The people that were questioning him were not all "the Jews" but, it would be understood, that it was the same Jewish leaders that didn't like him messing with their income. 18 Therefore the Jews sought the more to kill him, because he not only had broken the sabbath, So now "the more" the same people wanted to kill him.

How do we know that it wasn't "all the Jews"?

Because "Nicodemus" was part of the same Jews and he didn't want to kill him. If you look carefully, "the Jews" really were simply those Jews who didn't like him.

And there is certainly enough in John that speak of his love for the Jews. after all he said, "10:15 As the Father knoweth me, even so know I the Father: and I lay down my life for the sheep.16 And other sheep I have, which are not of this fold: them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice; and there shall be one fold, and one shepherd. 17 Therefore doth my Father love me, because I lay down my life, that I might take it again.

And, as a side note,

14 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth. Didn't they see "his glory" at the transfiguration? Could it be that he was talking about it? It could be... I'm not saying the proves it but certainly fits into the narrative.

Maybe if we are looking for it, we can actually find it?
 

Kenny

Face to face with my Father
Premium Member
Let's just stick to the thread title here, eh?

Every time I read G-John I see evidence that the writer/s didn't know (or care) about what really happened.

Look at this example:-
{18:40} Then cried they all again, saying, Not this man, but Barabbas. Now Barabbas was a robber.

No...... he wasn't. :D

LOL... Who really knows?

What evidence do you have that he wasn't?

Barabbas. Criminal who was released instead of Jesus. All four Gospel writers took note of that event (Mt 27:15–26; Mk 15:6–15; Lk 23:18–25; Jn 18:39, 40), as did the apostle Peter in his temple sermon (Acts 3:14).

Barabbas was a robber (Jn 18:40) who had been imprisoned for committing murder during an insurrection (Mk 15:7; Lk 23:19). He was regarded as a “notorious prisoner” (Mt 27:16). His “insurrection” may have been an unusually violent act of robbery or an internal struggle among the Jews, but many scholars view it as a political insurrection against the Roman forces in Jerusalem. It is not unlikely that Barabbas was a member of the Zealots, a Jewish political group which sought to throw off the yoke of Rome by violence. The word translated “robber” can denote either a bandit or revolutionary.

After examining Jesus, the vacillating Roman procurator, Pilate, recognized that Jesus was innocent and wanted to free him. Yet Pilate also had an interest in pleasing the Jewish leaders in order to protect his own political position. In the face of his dilemma he offered to release a prisoner to the Jews at their Passover feast (Jn 18:39). Given the option of Jesus or Barabbas, Pilate thought that the Jewish crowd would choose to have Jesus set free. Pilate underestimated either the mood of the mob or the influence of the Jewish leaders, or both. Whatever the reason, the throng shouted for Barabbas to be released and for Jesus to be crucified (Mt 27:21, 22). Consequently, Jesus was crucified and Barabbas, after being released, disappeared from biblical and secular history.

Elwell, W. A., & Beitzel, B. J. (1988). Barabbas. In Baker encyclopedia of the Bible (Vol. 1, p. 263). Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House.
 
Top