• 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.

metis

aged ecumenical anthropologist
I acknowledge your belief and opinion.
This thread is about the writer/s of G-John having no personal experience about what happened.
Yes, I have doubts on whether the Apostle John directly wrote that Gospel, but that certainly doesn't mean its trash [I know you're not saying nor implying that]. Who the original source was cannot be determined, but at the same time we have to remember that there were numerous others who did know Jesus at the personal level, and they no doubt passed what they had seen or at least heard from them.

However, with that being said, all scriptures are subjective, so the way I look at it is "It is what it is". As Joseph Campbell oft said "And the myth became the reality". [obviously, in this context "myth" does not mean falsehood]
 

pearl

Well-Known Member
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.


I find it most interesting and fruitful to read Jewish scholars' interpretation of Christian Scripture. This is one of my favorites, Pinchas Lapide
Hidden Hebrew in the Gospels | immanuEL (etrfi.info)
 

pearl

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

Its easy enough to follow from the synoptics who accuse only the Jewish establishment, the priests, the Sadducees etc., of threatening Jesus' life, to John where the enemies have now become 'the Jews', collectively.
The Gospel authors addressed the needs of their particular churches and the church of John's gospel was in a unique position concerning the Jewish establishment, being expelled from the Temple as a heretical cult. This places John's church at the mercy of the Romans, as they lost the protective umbrella the Jews enjoyed and were now open to persecution by the Romans. For the Christians of Johannine Jesus was God.
 

pearl

Well-Known Member
{18:40} Then cried they all again, saying, Not this man, but Barabbas. Now Barabbas was a robber.

Whatever he was he was a well known and popular figure among the Jews outside of Jerusalem a great number of whom had come for Passover from all over the Mediterranean and not familiar with Jesus. According to Josephus the regular Roman practice of stationing troops to maintain public order in the Temple precincts (Jewish Wars, 2.12.1). The inflamed mood of the Jewish populace at Passover probably explains why Pilate was in Jerusalem, instead of at his headquarters in Caesarea Maritima, when Jesus entered the city. If, as the synoptic Gospels relate, Jesus caused a disturbance in the Temple after his arrival, this would certainly alarm both Jewish and Roman authorities.
 

pearl

Well-Known Member
Ken......... we just need the simple truth. I have noticed how much of Christianity clings to G-John,

And its unfortunate that the 'popular' image of Jesus is from John's gospel.
Here were are introduced to one who is a God, his humanism not so evident as compared with the very human Jesus in Mark.
 

oldbadger

Skanky Old Mongrel!
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.
I believe that you trust the verses that fit for you.
You mention 'Lev' but I don't think the (average) Christian interpretation of Lev makes any sense at all.
And the tales described in the gospels differ so much that they clearly cannot support all accounts without the most careful scrutiny .....and scissors!


You just can't take one part, Eusebius or transfiguration, and make a determination on the whole of it.
Nor do I. But I treat each gospel as a statement of evidence, if not a witness statement, and Eusebius might have known people-who-knew-people but that does not give his opinions any more value than, say, Celsus. In fact Celsus offers more valuable indirect evidence in my opinion because he not only knew about the disciples he could offer previously unrecorded information about them........ but you don't mention him often, I suspect.

If you take the chronological side by side comparison, you find that there is a harmony of the gospels.
No Ken. That is absolute nonsense.

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 now you have just described your own position exactly, I think.
You keep returning to focus upon me....your opinion of me. What you need to do is to PRODUCE EVIDENCE AS WRITTEN.

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.
Ken......... to try and produce a useful analogy about what was meant by John 11.48 and adjusted to your pov is not helpful for you.
That was written in hindsight about 60 years after 'The Romans did all come'! That they didn't bring their next door neighbours doesn't help you very much.

Now you know how 'The Jews' suffered two thousand years of pogroms, injustices, and even genocides ........ please don't try to manipulate what John wrote with useless analogies.

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?
How will you adjust '{5:18} Therefore the Jews sought the more to kill him,' ???
Why don't you just read Mark's deposition..... he was actually there for some of the incidents, you know.
John wrote 'the Jews'! Ken. Historians recognise his antisemiticism. You don't seem to want to.

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.
Please........... don't try to tell me what Nicodemus really meant when all you've got is what was written about him.
I could mangle his reported words by saying that Nicodemus did not recognise Galileans as proper Jews, mere recent converts not worthy of his inclusion. In fact that suggestion might carry more truth....... !!

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.
The sheep....! G-John was written for gentiles. :facepalm:

Maybe if we are looking for it, we can actually find it?
That's exactly what I think you do do, Ken.
You have been shown evidence and so you cannot answer it, preferring to write rhetoric like the above.
 

oldbadger

Skanky Old Mongrel!
LOL... Who really knows?

What evidence do you have that he wasn't?

...... because I read the gospels....... :facepalm:

Gospel of Mark:
{15:7} And there was [one] named Barabbas, [which lay] bound with them that had made insurrection with him, who had committed murder in the insurrection.

Now, how will; you twist that description to produce 'robber'?

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.
And so...... you see? Barabbas was. like Jesus, an insurrectionist. It could even be suggested that
{15:7} And there was [one] named Barabbas, [which lay] bound with them that had made insurrection with JESUS, who had committed murder in the insurrection.......
but I don't expect you would see that.

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.

Even Elwell writes that it was 'the throng shouted for Barabbas to be released and for Jesus to be crucified'.......... that rather does mangle all your previous work in trying to explain how John didn't really mean 'The Jews'.
 

oldbadger

Skanky Old Mongrel!
Yes, I have doubts on whether the Apostle John directly wrote that Gospel, but that certainly doesn't mean its trash [I know you're not saying nor implying that]. Who the original source was cannot be determined, but at the same time we have to remember that there were numerous others who did know Jesus at the personal level, and they no doubt passed what they had seen or at least heard from them.
Yes..... G-John included bits of information which are most valuable.
One thing I have learned from this thread is that (although they were apostles all) I should not refer to the writer/s of G-John as 'Apostle John' because the boatman and disciple John automatically became an apostle even though we don't hear much (or anything) from him.

However, with that being said, all scriptures are subjective, so the way I look at it is "It is what it is". As Joseph Campbell oft said "And the myth became the reality". [obviously, in this context "myth" does not mean falsehood]
I think that Joseph Campbell meant what he wrote. There is much myth in Christianity in my opinion.
 

oldbadger

Skanky Old Mongrel!
Its easy enough to follow from the synoptics who accuse only the Jewish establishment, the priests, the Sadducees etc., of threatening Jesus' life, to John where the enemies have now become 'the Jews', collectively.
The Gospel authors addressed the needs of their particular churches and the church of John's gospel was in a unique position concerning the Jewish establishment, being expelled from the Temple as a heretical cult. This places John's church at the mercy of the Romans, as they lost the protective umbrella the Jews enjoyed and were now open to persecution by the Romans. For the Christians of Johannine Jesus was God.
Yes, I think that G-John changed the whole 'picture' to suit the position of the early church.

Both Jesus and the Baptist were absolutely set against the corruption, greed and hypocrisy of the ruling Priesthood.
The fact that they were progressives (socialists) in today's language won't suit all Christians, I expect.

Wow! That's another Thread!
 

oldbadger

Skanky Old Mongrel!
Whatever he was he was a well known and popular figure among the Jews outside of Jerusalem a great number of whom had come for Passover from all over the Mediterranean and not familiar with Jesus. According to Josephus the regular Roman practice of stationing troops to maintain public order in the Temple precincts (Jewish Wars, 2.12.1). The inflamed mood of the Jewish populace at Passover probably explains why Pilate was in Jerusalem, instead of at his headquarters in Caesarea Maritima, when Jesus entered the city. If, as the synoptic Gospels relate, Jesus caused a disturbance in the Temple after his arrival, this would certainly alarm both Jewish and Roman authorities.
Yes, Jesus Barabbas (that's what early bibles named him) was indeed an insurrectionist much loved by the people. His name translates to 'Jesus Son of the Father', and I wonder if the people scattered palm leaves before him, and if he caused mayhem in the Temple, wrecking Ana's (money changing) Bazaar and picketing the Temple Courts. I've often wondered about Barabbas.
 

oldbadger

Skanky Old Mongrel!
And its unfortunate that the 'popular' image of Jesus is from John's gospel.
Here were are introduced to one who is a God, his humanism not so evident as compared with the very human Jesus in Mark.
Agreed!
Yes.
You write like an Unitarian, Pearl. Are you?

G-John wrote up Jesus as 'God' and that is why some Christians insist that it was he who brought the Israelites out of Egypt, or brought down Jericho's walls, etc. etc. Amazing.
 

Kenny

Face to face with my Father
Premium Member
I believe that you trust the verses that fit for you.
You mention 'Lev' but I don't think the (average) Christian interpretation of Lev makes any sense at all.
And the tales described in the gospels differ so much that they clearly cannot support all accounts without the most careful scrutiny .....and scissors!

We are talking about John... whether a Christian interprets Lev or not, wasn't the issue. :) (Not to mention that I said "I" and not the average Christian)

Nor do I. But I treat each gospel as a statement of evidence, if not a witness statement, and Eusebius might have known people-who-knew-people but that does not give his opinions any more value than, say, Celsus. In fact Celsus offers more valuable indirect evidence in my opinion because he not only knew about the disciples he could offer previously unrecorded information about them........ but you don't mention him often, I suspect.

you mean the one who blames Moses for the corruption of religion?

And now you have just described your own position exactly, I think.
You keep returning to focus upon me....your opinion of me. What you need to do is to PRODUCE EVIDENCE AS WRITTEN.

Just to make sure... it isn't an "opinion of you" but rather how you are approaching the subject. I think you are a great person and I have enjoyed this time. (You help me learn)

But I don't understand... I gave you evidence starting with those who lived with john... why is that not evidence?

en......... to try and produce a useful analogy about what was meant by John 11.48 and adjusted to your pov is not helpful for you.
That was written in hindsight about 60 years after 'The Romans did all come'! That they didn't bring their next door neighbours doesn't help you very much.

Now you know how 'The Jews' suffered two thousand years of pogroms, injustices, and even genocides ........ please don't try to manipulate what John wrote with useless analogies.

Yes, that is a very dark history of Christianity that violated every fiber of who Jesus Christ was and taught. No excuses. And certainly people do manipulate scriptures to fit agendas.

It even violated "For God so loved the world..." as they twisted the very words into "For God so hated the Jewish populace".

Wish I could change history. But I do try to change present and future. We bless Israel, we support Israel (prayerfully and financially) and we love those who were guardians of our TaNaKh - the word of life.

I suppose even the Jews have a dark history in their past too... but I don't see the relevance about the Gospel of John, other than perhaps, some used it to twist the message against the God's Chosen.

How will you adjust '{5:18} Therefore the Jews sought the more to kill him,' ???
Why don't you just read Mark's deposition..... he was actually there for some of the incidents, you know.
John wrote 'the Jews'! Ken. Historians recognise his antisemiticism. You don't seem to want to.

As I said above, yes, people twisted scriptures at the detriment of the message of love. It was wrong. But it wasn't "the Jews" that had the capacity to kill Jesus but simply certain people who had the authority to do so.

Nicodemus even tried to stop it.

Please........... don't try to tell me what Nicodemus really meant when all you've got is what was written about him.
I could mangle his reported words by saying that Nicodemus did not recognise Galileans as proper Jews, mere recent converts not worthy of his inclusion. In fact that suggestion might carry more truth....... !!

If that is what you want to believe... Can't stop that. But I don't cut out scriptures just to validate a position. And I just don't read John to get the full meaning of the life and message of Jesus. I read the whole of the 4 Gospels to get the full impact that Jesus was "the Lamb of God that takes away the sins of the world" which includes Jews and Gentiles. And that "He did not come to condemn the world but to save"... (thus condemning Jews is a violation of the message).

As the hands of the High Priest place his hands on a goat that was led into the wilderness to be seen no more and another goat was sacrificed for the sins of the Jews... even so, our sins were placed on Jesus who "nasa" our sins to be found no more as the blood was laid on Heavenly altar.

The sheep....! G-John was written for gentiles. :facepalm:

:D nope - for the world

That's exactly what I think you do do, Ken.
You have been shown evidence and so you cannot answer it, preferring to write rhetoric like the above.

Forgive me if I came across as "rhetoric". Wan't my desire or intent. It is hard to express heart over the written word.

My sincerest apologies if it came across that way... you are esteemed.
 
Last edited:

metis

aged ecumenical anthropologist
I think that Joseph Campbell meant what he wrote. There is much myth in Christianity in my opinion.
Again, Campbell does not use "myth" as a reference to falsehood but as a reference to stories with morals that cannot be objectively verified.

An application of this, for example, is Moses giving the 613 Comandments as found in Torah, and yet we cannot verify that Moshe even existed. Campbell's point is that whatever may have happened way back then, the Jewish people came to believe it and have acted on it for many centuries now.

Ever read "The Power of Myth" by him and Bill Moyers? It also was a PBS series many years ago, and I wish they'd repeat it. I've been reading Campbell since the mod-60's as he showed up numeerous times in my anthropological studies as the reigning expert on world religions.
 

oldbadger

Skanky Old Mongrel!
We are talking about John... whether a Christian interprets Lev or not, wasn't the issue. :) (Not to mention that I said "I" and not the average Christian)
No Ken. No, you didn't. You wrote 'we', and you offered Lev as an example.

See for yourself :- 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 mean the one who blames Moses for the corruption of religion?
I mean the one who absolutely supports the past existence of Jesus and disciples, and gives new evidence in connection with them. I can't help it if he junked the virgin birth story, Ken.

But I don't understand... I gave you evidence starting with those who lived with john... why is that not evidence?
Please name any folks who lived on a Penal settlement island with the author/s of John, or anywhere.

Yes, that is a very dark history of Christianity that violated every fiber of who Jesus Christ was and taught. No excuses. And certainly people do manipulate scriptures to fit agendas.

It even violated "For God so loved the world..." as they twisted the very words into "For God so hated the Jewish populace".

Wish I could change history. But I do try to change present and future. We bless Israel, we support Israel (prayerfully and financially) and we love those who were guardians of our TaNaKh - the word of life.

I suppose even the Jews have a dark history in their past too... but I don't see the relevance about the Gospel of John, other than perhaps, some used it to twist the message against the God's Chosen.
Well, the Gospel of John added much fuel to the flames of anti-Semitism.....

As I said above, yes, people twisted scriptures at the detriment of the message of love. It was wrong. But it wasn't "the Jews" that had the capacity to kill Jesus but simply certain people who had the authority to do so.
Which is why G-John was so dishonest about all that.

Nicodemus even tried to stop it.
Please quote your source for saying that Nicodemus tried to stop the execution of Jesus.


If that is what you want to believe... Can't stop that. But I don't cut out scriptures just to validate a position. And I just don't read John to get the full meaning of the life and message of Jesus. I read the whole of the 4 Gospels to get the full impact that Jesus was "the Lamb of God that takes away the sins of the world" which includes Jews and Gentiles. And that "He did not come to condemn the world but to save"... (thus condemning Jews is a violation of the message).
But I don't think that Jesus intended to 'take away the sins of the World'. I think that both the Baptist and Jesus intended to take away the sins, corruption, greed and hypocrisy of the Jewish Priesthood. That's why they offered cleansing and redemption of sins to the people..... for nothing, thus reducing Temple takings so drastically that Antipas was ordered to go out and fetch them in. (They were not within Pilate's remit).

Forgive me if I came across as "rhetoric". Wan't my desire or intent. It is hard to express heart over the written word.

My sincerest apologies if it came across that way... you are esteemed.
Esteemed? :p
 
Top