Who wrote the Gospel we call "John's"?

[polonius]

This seems like a question the answer to which is self-evident.

Not really. Was the gospel signed or does it state John wrote this gospel?

If not, how is it determined to have been written by John?

[polonius]

[Replying to post 18 by JehovahsWitness]

And why would Lazarus' sister, Martha, be serving the dinner at another man's house?

In should think that the women folk serving at a meal that amounted to a group feast would be completely normal at that time. I am not an expert on middle eastern custom but then I hazard a guess neither are you. The point is the picture is of the women attending to the men (including male relatives and non relatives) and it would maybe be an idea not to draw conclusions as to the bible narrative based solely on what would be socially acceptable or unacceptable in 21st century middle America.

There is nothing specifically explicit or even implicit in the text that points to Lazarus and Simon being more than two different disciples of Jesus living in the same town and attending the same event, save imposing western norms on a narrative written in a Middle Eastern context*





* Even today in many cultures when there is a special event with a number of guests non family members, especially the women join forces in cooking organizing and serving.

RESPONSE: There are four accounts of Jesus' anointing. Pick the one you like. One says just a woman, another a sinful woman , still another Lazarus' sister. Three have Jesus' head anointed, and one his feet.

Which three are fictional and which is historical, or are they all fictional?

(My friend who is writing another bible which he claims in "God breathed" resolved the problem by have the person doing the anointing be a secret prostitute, the sister
of Lazarus, and she anointed both Jesus' head and feet.

If you want to claim all scripture is inerrant, that's about the only explanation . Alternately, you can recognize that these are just stories.)

[polonius]

[Replying to post 18 by JehovahsWitness]

And why would Lazarus' sister, Martha, be serving the dinner at another man's house?

In should think that the women folk serving at a meal that amounted to a group feast would be completely normal at that time. I am not an expert on middle eastern custom but then I hazard a guess neither are you. The point is the picture is of the women attending to the men (including male relatives and non relatives) and it would maybe be an idea not to draw conclusions as to the bible narrative based solely on what would be socially acceptable or unacceptable in 21st century middle America.

There is nothing specifically explicit or even implicit in the text that points to Lazarus and Simon being more than two different disciples of Jesus living in the same town and attending the same event, save imposing western norms on a narrative written in a Middle Eastern context*





* Even today in many cultures when there is a special event with a number of guests non family members, especially the women join forces in cooking organizing and serving.

RESPONSE: There are four accounts of Jesus' anointing. Pick the one you like. One says just a woman, another a sinful woman , still another Lazarus' sister. Three have Jesus' head anointed, and one his feet.

Which three are fictional and which is historical, or are they all fictional?

(My friend who is writing another bible which he claims in "God breathed" too, resolved the problem by having the person doing the anointing be a secret prostitute, the sister of Lazarus, and Jesus' head and feet were anointed.

If you want to claim all scripture is inerrant, that's about the only explanation . Alternately, you can recognize that these are just stories.)

Here's a summary of the four versions of the story:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anointing_of_Jesus

[tam]

Peace to you,

[Replying to post 18 by JehovahsWitness]

And why would Lazarus' sister, Martha, be serving the dinner at another man's house?

In should think that the women folk serving at a meal that amounted to a group feast would be completely normal at that time. I am not an expert on middle eastern custom but then I hazard a guess neither are you. The point is the picture is of the women attending to the men (including male relatives and non relatives) and it would maybe be an idea not to draw conclusions as to the bible narrative based solely on what would be socially acceptable or unacceptable in 21st century middle America.

I drew no conclusions based solely upon that, as my previous posts attest, so no worries as to that. And I think you must agree that it would certainly be normal for a woman (or a man) - as the host or hostess of the house - to serve the guests in their own home. And of course there is the statement that Christ came to Bethany, where Lazarus lived. Christ came to where Lazarus lived (his home) in Bethany.


The disciple Christ loved is one of the twelve apostles; the disciple Christ loved is Lazarus; Lazarus one of the twelve apostles.



Peace again to you,
your servant and a slave of Christ,
tammy

[Tcg]

[Replying to post 23 by tam]


Isn't everyone who is arguing about who would serve at a host's house, off-topic? That was not among the two question(s) in the OP, and it seems to be a distraction from the questions polonius.advice did ask.

Why not just answer the questions asked?

[tam]

[Replying to post 23 by tam]


Isn't everyone who is arguing about who would serve at a host's house, off-topic? That was not among the two question(s) in the OP, and it seems to be a distraction from the questions polonius.advice did ask.

Why not just answer the questions asked?

I did answer the questions asked (did you?)... and no it is not off-topic because it has to do with the identity of the person who wrote the book of "John" (the very question asked even in the title of this thread).


Peace to you!

[Tcg]

[Replying to post 23 by tam]


Isn't everyone who is arguing about who would serve at a host's house, off-topic? That was not among the two question(s) in the OP, and it seems to be a distraction from the questions polonius.advice did ask.

Why not just answer the questions asked?

I did answer the questions asked (did you?)... and no it is not off-topic because it has to do with the identity of the person who wrote the book of "John" (the very question asked even in the title of this thread).


Peace to you!

How does discussing whether or not a host would serve at their own house address the OP?

You also claimed Lazarus was one of the twelve apostles. What does that have to do with the OP?

[tam]

[Replying to post 23 by tam]


Isn't everyone who is arguing about who would serve at a host's house, off-topic? That was not among the two question(s) in the OP, and it seems to be a distraction from the questions polonius.advice did ask.

Why not just answer the questions asked?

I did answer the questions asked (did you?)... and no it is not off-topic because it has to do with the identity of the person who wrote the book of "John" (the very question asked even in the title of this thread).


Peace to you!

How does discussing whether or not a host would serve at their own house address the OP?

Because it has to do with the author of the gospel of John. Like I said. Perhaps you did not read the entire conversation?

You also claimed Lazarus was one of the twelve apostles. What does that have to do with the OP?

Because the author of the gospel is one of the twelve apostles, identified also as the disciple Christ loved (Lazarus).


How exactly is any of that off-topic on a thread which asks who the gospel of "john" is?


Peace again to you.

[marco]

Peace to you,

There is indeed ample evidence from what is written that Lazarus is the "disciple Christ loved"...


Lazarus is also named Simon. Lazarus and Simon the Leper are the same person. This is clear from what is written (and leprosy is the cause of Lazarus' death).

One cannot extract certainty from a few phrases, Tam. Presumably Jesus loved other people, so he may have been reduced to tears over the death of others. If Jesus loved Lazarus to such a degree one would have thought that he could have cured the man's leprosy before it reached alarming proportions. Yes, he was absent, but leprosy is hardly a heart attack.

When we lay down one supposition we stir up other problems. Safer to say: we don't know.

[tam]

[Replying to post 28 by marco]

Peace to you Marco!

Some people said similar things to what you just said:

But some of them said, “Could not he who opened the eyes of the blind man have kept this man from dying?�


People even said that about Him being on the cross, didn't they? But my Lord did something else with Lazarus - to help the people believe and to glorify His Father as well. He raised Lazarus from the dead.


**

But to be clear, I am not certain that Lazarus is the disciple Christ loved from just a few phrases (although I find the evidence from what is written to be convincing). I am certain because my Lord confirmed to me that Lazarus is the disciple He loved.

No one has to take my word for that, I am just sharing what I have received, and showing some of what supports it.




Peace again to you,
your servant and a slave of Christ,
tammy

[brianbbs67]

[Replying to post 28 by marco]

I would refer you to John 11:1-57

Christ knew and was sorrowed but, he also knew God would raise him again through him. Why else the delay? It was all that the power of God was shown and shown true in the son of man.