• 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.

Brickjectivity

Turned to Stone. Now I stretch daily.
Staff member
Premium Member
How does your post (above) help to show that Apostle John was Disciple John?
By the way, Judah BarSimon (or possibly BenSimon) ...his nickname could possibly have been Judah Siccario. If you say it quickly twenty times you will come to Judas Iscariot. :)
I don't know, but all I am saying is he is at least not 'The disciple Jesus loved' which takes away one reason to think he writes the letters titled John (which write about love). That said one assumes Jesus loves all the disciples. As for the author of the gospel John I can provide no hints.
 

oldbadger

Skanky Old Mongrel!
A very very missionary types who call themselves scholars might have some extreme view that opposes most of the Christian scholars, but that does not mean all of them can just be cancelled. Its a fallacious argument.
Individual investigation is more worthy than Institutional Indoctrination. Try it

Yep. Gospels are there for anyone to read, and nowhere in it does it say that it was written by John, and who this John was.
So read them. Only them. The content of G-John (and the others) is the only evidence for this thread.

So you won't have any other evidence since you have not claimed the book as authority, and nothing else. No scholar, nothing. The book has no claims so if you bring external sources, you will be going behind your own standard.

Anonymous.

Just read the gospels to draw upon what evidence you can.
 

oldbadger

Skanky Old Mongrel!
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.
Yes, agreed. The characters of John, as described in G-John and the synoptics, are quite different.
I'll borrow that point for Exhibit 3, today's post. :)

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.
Ah..... Lazarus. That claim.
Magdalene and her friends (Salome?) were the first in to the empty tomb, I think. :)
 

oldbadger

Skanky Old Mongrel!
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.

Agreed. I think that G-Luke was (mostly) the work of one person who copied the oral traditions and writings that he knew about, and G-Mark the (actual) deposition of one together with memoirs of another (Cephas) plus Christian 'fiddlings'....... and so it goes on. Yes. BUt there's evidence within these gospels, it just needs to be discovered. :)
 

oldbadger

Skanky Old Mongrel!
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.
I think that no disciple wrote G-John, although there are anecdotes and stories within it which are no doubt correct. But much of it is 'fashioned' to fit the needs of the new church..... I'm being kind here. :)

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.
Have you ever been a juror in a trial? How would you have judged witnesses who testimony was completely different to each others?

John's description of the Last Supper is just like the rest of his gospel, highly suspicious.
 

oldbadger

Skanky Old Mongrel!
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.
Yes, Oral Tradition can be most accurate.
But G-John does not align with other accounts, and is ignorant of so many amzing situations that disciple John got involved in.

Christians seem to cling to G-John mostly, I think.
Let me ask you: What did Jesus and the disciples do during the first day of that last week before passover, in Jerusalem and the Temple? Do you know? Have you ever noticed?

They went sightseeing in the Temple, Brian. This will be the basis of my exhibit 4, tomorrow. :)
 

oldbadger

Skanky Old Mongrel!
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?
No problem for me, IC! :)
My very point in this thread is that whoever wrote G-John was definitely not disciple John, which mashes all it's claims about that disciple hugging Jesus and laying across his breast at meals and being at the foot of the cross (the Roman soldiers would definitely have kicked his backside away. )
 

oldbadger

Skanky Old Mongrel!
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.
That's like a witness at a murder trial prefering to write about the gettaway car than the actual shooting! :D
This was the Transfiguation of the Lord Jesus Christ, the Prophets coming down to stand beside him and the Lord on high calling down........ a subject that G-John didn't really think worth of inclusion? He was supposed to have been there.

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.
No so......both Matthew and Luke leaned heavily on G-Mark, copying whole tracts of it nearly word for word. So those two were not witnesses either.
Mark was a witness..... I think that's obvious.

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.
Peter's letters are not the subject matter of this thread. Another thread, Ken. :)

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.
I think I know why..........

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.
Are you telling me that the prophets and Jesus joined you, and God was calling down from on high? If you had been there at that time, and later you had written about being with Jesus, you would have written about that incident.
Apostle John didn't.
 

oldbadger

Skanky Old Mongrel!
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

View attachment 56537

Apparently John was there as he "filled in the blank" where other Gospels did not. :) (If I use your standard of veracity)_
You didn't answer the question, Ken, so I don't think that you know what Jesus and disciples did that first day of the week before passover in the Temple and Jerusalem. You folks just don't seem to know and it's the subject matter for tomorrow's exhibit. :)
 

oldbadger

Skanky Old Mongrel!
I don't know, but all I am saying is he is at least not 'The disciple Jesus loved' which takes away one reason to think he writes the letters titled John (which write about love). That said one assumes Jesus loves all the disciples. As for the author of the gospel John I can provide no hints.
OK.
I have a very strong feeling that the disciple who Jesus loved was Magdalene. She just gets written out of most of it, and the Church would later denounce her. A Pope apologised for this deception in recent centuries, didn't he?
 

Kenny

Face to face with my Father
Premium Member
That's like a witness at a murder trial prefering to write about the gettaway car than the actual shooting! :D
This was the Transfiguation of the Lord Jesus Christ, the Prophets coming down to stand beside him and the Lord on high calling down........ a subject that G-John didn't really think worth of inclusion? He was supposed to have been there.

:) OK.. Let's look at this another way. (since no car was stolen) :)

In Jewish thought it is said that everything should be established with a witness of 2 or 3 (If I am not mistaken)

The book of John was the last to be written of the Gospels. The "witness" has already be established. The jury has already made a verdict and the verdict is "Jesus has died for mankind and has risen from the dead ... and the transfiguration ".

Then, years after, they come to John and the ask him, "Is there anything that you want to add to the account"? Revelation has come, confirmations have come, the baptism of the Holy Spirit has come and John said, "Absolutely!" and added to it what was already known.

Not to mention the fact that "The Gospels" isn't about the transfiguration as the main theme but rather the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus Christ. That is the them of which even John talked about.

N'est-ce pas?

In that he added so much more that the other three didn't mention (even about the week before the crucifixion) so we know he was there. :)

No so......both Matthew and Luke leaned heavily on G-Mark, copying whole tracts of it nearly word for word. So those two were not witnesses either.
Mark was a witness..... I think that's obvious.

It was common tradition, since these aren't western historians" -- to add to the story that was given. There wasn't a "plagiarism" issue here. In oral tradition, one would speak and others would add.

Peter's letters are not the subject matter of this thread. Another thread, Ken. :)

:) If you can add Matthew, Mark, Luke (who wasn't at the crucifixion or with Jesus even) - I think I can add Peter who was there and didn't mention the transfiguration. I guess it wasn't that important to Peter?

Are you telling me that the prophets and Jesus joined you, and God was calling down from on high? If you had been there at that time, and later you had written about being with Jesus, you would have written about that incident.
Apostle John didn't.

Hmmm... if Matthew, Mark and Luke already spoke about it -- I wouldn't have repeated what was said. Overkill. I would have added what John said . :)
 
Last edited:

Kenny

Face to face with my Father
Premium Member
You didn't answer the question, Ken, so I don't think that you know what Jesus and disciples did that first day of the week before passover in the Temple and Jerusalem. You folks just don't seem to know and it's the subject matter for tomorrow's exhibit. :)
Again... I asked for clarification... which Sunday are you talking about? Palm Sunday or the day of resurrection? I did ask, you know.
 

metis

aged ecumenical anthropologist
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.
Again, I do not know which "synoptic problem" you're referring to even after me asking for a clarification, so this is a dead end. As far as your reference to John and my "embellishment" statement is concerned, John's gospel clearly reads differently and it's quite obvious why it does, thus another dead end.
 

firedragon

Veteran Member
Again, I do not know which "synoptic problem" you're referring to even after me asking for a clarification, so this is a dead end.

No problem. I can explain what I mean by the term "synoptic problem".

Do you though say that in your education curriculum they didnt teach the synoptic problem? Its probably the only thing commonly taught in any theological seminary or academy or university. Im just asking to confirm.
 

metis

aged ecumenical anthropologist
No problem. I can explain what I mean by the term "synoptic problem".

Do you though say that in your education curriculum they didnt teach the synoptic problem? Its probably the only thing commonly taught in any theological seminary or academy or university. Im just asking to confirm.
There are numerous "synoptic problems", but maybe the one you're referring to is the fact that even though they largely cover the same narratives, nevertheless there are some glaring differences? To the literalist, that's a problem, but generally not so with serious theologians. Is this what you're referring to?

BTW, there's more than just that "synoptic problem", let me tell ya.
 

firedragon

Veteran Member
There are numerous "synoptic problems", but maybe the one you're referring to is the fact that even though they largely cover the same narratives, nevertheless there are some glaring differences? To the literalist, that's a problem, but generally not so with serious theologians. Is this what you're referring to?

BTW, there's more than just that "synoptic problem", let me tell ya.

I withdraw from this conversation metis. Thanks for engaging.
 

oldbadger

Skanky Old Mongrel!
Day three. Exhibit 3.
On this thread a member posted to me thus:-
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.

....... and this is exactly what I intended to offer for exhibit 3 as well.

The disciple John of the synoptics was the young son of a very smart fisherman and businessman Zebedee. Fishing taxes, boat taxes, back handers, landing fees and just surviving in fishing was a very difficult occupation and I can show more detailed info on this if asked. Zebedee was not only smart but tough to keep boat/s on Genesaret Lake. John's mother Salome was certainly a 'pushy' type as shown from the way that she went to Jesus, seeking assurances that her sons would be suitably rewarded for any risks that they might take. And she had the guts to be there, with Magdalene, when Jesus was executed.
And John himself was tough, direct, confrontational, and most probably a fighter. His nickname 'Boanerge' does not just mean 'Son of Thunder'... as an Alaskan member once wrote ,'It could mean 'Son of Violence'.

Now compare that tough young man with the Apostle John, a meek one who lay on Jesus's breast. Nah! Not Disciple John!

Here are some gospel verses to tell about John the disciple, the Galilean fisherman:
Mark {3:17} And James the [son] of Zebedee, and John the brother of James; and he surnamed them Boanerges, which is, The sons of thunder:

Mark {5:37} And he suffered no man to follow him, save Peter, and James, and John the brother
of James. {5:38} And he cometh to the house ...................................{5:40} And they laughed him to
scorn. But when he had put them all out........................

Mark {9:2} And after six days Jesus taketh [with him] Peter, and James, and John, and leadeth them up into an high mountain apart by themselves: and he was transfigured before them.

Mark {9:38} And John answered him, saying, Master, we saw one casting out devils in thy name, and he followeth not us: and we forbad him, because he followeth not us.

Mark {10:35} And James and John, the sons of Zebedee, come unto him, saying, Master, we would that thou shouldest do for us whatsoever we shall desire. {10:36} And he said unto them, What would ye that I should do for you? {10:37} They said unto him, Grant unto us that we may sit, one on thy right hand, and the other on thy left hand, in thy glory.

Luke {9:52} And sent messengers before his face: and they went, and entered into a village of the Samaritans........ {9:53} And they did not receive him, ..........{9:54} And when his disciples James and John saw [this,] they said, Lord, wilt thou that we command fire to come down from heaven, and consume them, ......?
 
Top