1. 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!

John was a Pharisee

Discussion in 'Biblical Debates' started by wizanda, Jan 30, 2007.

  1. wizanda

    wizanda One Accepts All Religious Texts
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2004
    Messages:
    7,209
    Ratings:
    +1,716
    Religion:
    Øneness
    (This Article is taken from our site as written)
    Now to many this may come as a shock, as this is what you have been taught as the backbone of the Christian belief. Yet what I have to say is the truth and can be proved by the bible that many of us have. The books of John have been written by a Pharisee and not by John Mark the disciple, as many now believe.
    So why do I say this, at first I believed that John was one of the disciples as generally believed within Christian circles. Yet after discovering that Paul is the Anti-Christ and that many of the principles are against God, as told by the rest of the prophets in the Bible, it still didn`t make much sense to me. So I re-read over all the books of Mathew, Mark, Luke and John. While reading, it became apparent to me how many times The author of John had known things that only a Pharisee would have known, and what`s more, a Pharisee who had been part of the council that sentenced Yeshua to death, as he knew about private conversations they had, amongst them selves.
    So let`s go through these and you will see why I say such things that the author of John was one of the Pharisees:
    How would John Mark the disciple, know where they were sent from? Only someone who was there, when they were sent, would know. Also no other disciple mentioned that they were Levites.
    Again knowing who was sent and where from, these are small points, yet all will become apparent as you read on and see the bigger picture.
    This is blatantly obvious that it is made up by the Jewish council, as we are told this in Mark who was one of Yeshua`s disciples that it was false.
    This by Mark makes it clear that the destroying of the temple is made up, by the Jewish council; this is also repeated in Matthew, yet not in as much detail. This is probably the most obvious point that the books of John can`t be trusted. If this is clearly made up to disgrace Yeshua and have it believed that he was killed for this, what else is made up?
    Now as you see in both Mathew and Mark (disciples) they tell us that it was false witness, to try and discredit him, so how then could John later say, "that then the disciples knew he meant the body"? If the disciples say it was false witness, meaning made up.
    This is the first mention of what is presumably, the second name of the author of John, as the disciples wouldn`t have known his name unless told. There are many points mentioned with in this book, which only someone of that rank within the Jewish council or Pharisee chief priest would have known.
    Again clear of who was saying things from a Pharisee perspective, not as an account of a disciple, that it simply, was a Pharisee. This whole account John 3:1-21, is the private conversation, Nicodemus is said to have had with Yeshua in the night. There are many points within this conversation, which are contrary to what Yeshua taught the disciples. If the disciples had been there during this conversation, they would have surely included these things, as they are important to salvation according to the book of John. Yet in the other three books, there is not a mention of any of these things, in fact the points that are contained, are contrary to the rest of the Bible and the gospel of Yeshua, according to Mathew, Mark and Luke.
    This is clear that it is only a Pharisee, who would have been present, when these thing where discussed and acted on by them.
    Here this is even saying that it was a private conversation between the Jews.
    There is no disciple present here and this is a discussion between the Pharisee, again with Nicodemus prominent in what is being said, almost defending him self after the event that he tried to help.
    This whole account here is by the Pharisee and again clear that it is written by someone who was present when this account happened.
    I pray by now, you can see that these accounts are starting too added up, as many of these are private conversations between the Jewish council and Pharisee. Meaning that the author of John is indeed one of them and the next bit shows in some ways they chooses for his death.
     
  2. wizanda

    wizanda One Accepts All Religious Texts
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2004
    Messages:
    7,209
    Ratings:
    +1,716
    Religion:
    Øneness
    This is the most important, as this was discussed when the author of John was present and this clearly shows that it was the Jewish councils idea to kill Yeshua. Does this sound like a follower of Yeshua, to not say something at this point, if he could see that he is and was the Christ? This indeed fulfils prophecy as spoke in Isaiah 53 and makes it apparent why he grieves, that they make his soul a sin offering, as this is a Pharisee version of the events.
    This is clear that the author of John was among the chief priests as who would have known that they wanted to put Lazarus to death. This definitely wouldn`t be made public knowledge as many people would be appalled, to hear such things. That a man brought back to life, is killed to cover up the fact, he was brought back to life. How can we trust someone, who has even the slightest part in this? Then in other books talks about love, is this someone who understands what love is?
    Again a private conversation between the Pharisee, so unless you were apart of them, it would not be known.
    The writer knows the feelings of many of the council, unless you were friends of them how could you know how they felt about Yeshua?
    The writer knows whose servant it was and even their name.
    Clearly showing that the writer not only knew who everybody was, yet the connections within there families as well.
    This makes it apparent that who ever wrote this, knew what happened to Yeshua in between him leaving the disciples. Where and who he was sent to with their names.
    This is a clear statement that only a Pharisee or someone within the Jews would know, that the servant was related to the person, who had their ear cut off.
    This again shows that Nicodemus was trying to help, after the event and clearly showing that this may have been written by him. Else why would you include detail such as these with measurements and ingredients?
    This when included with all the points shown, makes it clear that John, was indeed one of the names of the Pharisee high priests.
    There is alone within this, points that make the books of John not trust worthy. With this as a foundation though, we can begin to see that what is taught to today, is untrue when compared with the gospels of Mathew, Mark and Luke and what Yeshua actually said.
     
  3. wizanda

    wizanda One Accepts All Religious Texts
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2004
    Messages:
    7,209
    Ratings:
    +1,716
    Religion:
    Øneness
    Clearly on all these points he couldn[​IMG]t have said these things, as they contradicted both Yeshua from what he said in the other gospels, and the Old Testament.

    1. John said that Yeshua said he is the true vine, now Ezekiel said that the vine is used for burning. The vine within much of the Old Testament is the house of Israel; Yeshua referred to it the same when he said the parable of the vine dresser. In which he said the vine dressers are the teachers of the Jewish people; John said that God is the vine dresser; Yeshua said he is the owner of the vineyard.

    2. John said that Yeshua is the good shepherd, yet all the way through the Old Testament God is the shepherd. This is one reason many sheep have gone astray.

    3. John said that the Holy Spirit was sent by Yeshua, yet all the way through the Old Testament; the Holy Spirit is referred to and is sent by God.

    4. John says that Yeshua said unless you eat his blood and flesh you have no life in you. Yet the Old Testament says that if you eat blood or flesh, God will cut you off from him.

    5. John says that if you believe in the name of Yeshua then you will be saved. Yet Yeshua said to preach the gospel in his name, and repentance for the remission of sins; not sin is forgiven in his name. Also he said that those who will say, didn[​IMG]t we do things in your name; Yeshua says it is the ones of the father who will be saved.

    6. John says that all judgement is given to the son, yet Yeshua told his disciples that to sit on his right hand or left is not his to give. Yeshua said that he judges no one, yet leaves all judgement to the father.

    7. John says that those who hate Yeshua also hate God, yet many love God without knowing Yeshua.

    8. John says that Yeshua said, those who came before him were thieves and robbers, yet Yeshua said they spoke of him and referred to them as friends.

    9. John says that Yeshua told Philip that he is the father, yet on many occasions he says he learns from the father and the father is more then he.

    10. John says that all things were made through Yeshua, yet the Old Testament tells us all things were made by God.

    11. John says Yeshua said he is the light of the world, Yet the Old Testament tell us God is the light of the world.

    12. John said that Yeshua is the only begotten son, yet Yeshua said those who do the work of the father, are his brothers and sisters.

    13. John said that Yeshua came to bring judgement, yet Yeshua said he came to call the sinners to repentance.

    14. John said to believe in Yeshua to receive ever lasting life, Yeshua said to follow the commandments and give up wealth to receive ever lasting life.

    15. John said that God sent his only son to die; Yeshua said that he came to bring in the harvest. It was the Pharisees idea to kill him to steal the inheritance. Other wise this would mean that God committed murder which is not possible.

    16. John says that Yeshua said he is the way truth and the life and the only way to the father, yet Yeshua said those who are pure of heart and keep the commandments will see God.

    17. John tells the story of doubting Thomas, and says that Thomas calls Yeshua God, yet this is not recorded by anyone else who was there. Also Yeshua said that there is none good but God.

    18. John says that Yeshua said you are not of the world, yet we were made of soil from the world.

    19. John says Yeshua said he is the living water, yet the Old Testament tells us God is the living water.

    If while reading this you think, maybe Yeshua is God, you will be breaking the second commandment in doing so. Most of the Gospel of John is hearsay of what people believed he might have said, and a lot is made up, to cover the backs of the Pharisees for killing him.
    In all of this it is not grasping at straw, yet the facts. This is all provable with scripture. Which you will read in other articles, this is just a quick guide and there is still more to be add to this.
     
  4. Ronald

    Ronald Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 9, 2004
    Messages:
    1,392
    Ratings:
    +50
  5. angellous_evangellous

    Ratings:
    +0
    Three posts too late.:cover:
     
  6. wizanda

    wizanda One Accepts All Religious Texts
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2004
    Messages:
    7,209
    Ratings:
    +1,716
    Religion:
    Øneness
    Ok if not a Pharisee, a Member of the high coucil, yet who was he then?
     
  7. angellous_evangellous

    Ratings:
    +0
    An early Christian bishop.
     
  8. Booko

    Booko Deviled Hen

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2006
    Messages:
    18,523
    Ratings:
    +1,380
    Hm...all those long posts, and you said it in 4 words.

    Brevity is the soul of wit. ;)
     
  9. angellous_evangellous

    Ratings:
    +0
    Wit is the soul of Daddy.:yes:
     
  10. angellous_evangellous

    Ratings:
    +0
    Yes.

    They say to walk softly and carry a big stick.

    [​IMG]
     
  11. doppelganger

    doppelganger Through the Looking Glass

    Joined:
    Aug 18, 2006
    Messages:
    15,857
    Ratings:
    +2,344
    Who was?
     
  12. angellous_evangellous

    Ratings:
    +0
    Probably a male.
     
  13. angellous_evangellous

    Ratings:
    +0
    Traditionally, John was the bishop of Ephesus, succeeded by Polycarp.

    The entry in the New Advent Encyclopedia has some primary sources for this tradition from the earliest Christian writings.

    http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12219b.htm (just use your browser to search for John)
     
  14. doppelganger

    doppelganger Through the Looking Glass

    Joined:
    Aug 18, 2006
    Messages:
    15,857
    Ratings:
    +2,344
    With the addition of "traditionally," I agree.
     
  15. angellous_evangellous

    Ratings:
    +0
    The name "John" itself being attached to this document is part of that tradition.

    It's of little meaning, therefore, to devise a half-baked redaction theory and then use the traditional name and assign it non-traditional properties.
     
  16. angellous_evangellous

    Ratings:
    +0
    Personally, I think that the book of John is the most redacted book in the New Testament, undergoing drafts still in the fourth century. But the authoritative draft was redacted by a Johannine school located in Asia Minor.
     
  17. doppelganger

    doppelganger Through the Looking Glass

    Joined:
    Aug 18, 2006
    Messages:
    15,857
    Ratings:
    +2,344
    Unless you're starting a new tradition. It could all just be made up anyway, so what difference does it make?
     
  18. angellous_evangellous

    Ratings:
    +0
    It makes a pretty big difference in interpreting the document and locating its place in Christian tradition. If the Christian communities tolerated re-publication of a sacred text, that would be helpful to know. Some communities didn't - obviously - and became Marcionite, Gnostic, proto-Orthodox, or whatever based on the texts that they produced, edited, and like communities accepted.

    For example, I have found a connection between John 6 and 13. My interpretation only makes sense in a culture that has first century Roman houses and bath-houses and city structure - and Greco-Roman values.
     
  19. doppelganger

    doppelganger Through the Looking Glass

    Joined:
    Aug 18, 2006
    Messages:
    15,857
    Ratings:
    +2,344
    For the sake of knowing what the tradition is and the historical background and context of the tradition, sure. But it's still just tradition. Someone has to start one. In this case it could simply have been Ireneaus or Polycarp.
     
  20. angellous_evangellous

    Ratings:
    +0
    The text itself is a tradition, too. It's all one big pretzel, and it's quite an ancient document.
     
Loading...