Gospel of John

[Mithrae]

I'm interested in folk's views on the subject. A few points worth discussing:

1 - Many biblical scholars hold that the gospel was written in the late 1st century CE, some 60ish years after Jesus' death.
- - - the earliest manuscript fragments date from as early as 130CE, if memory serves; the work has strong anti-gnostic themes, and early Christian tradition holds that it was written in opposition to the teaching of Cerinthus (late 1st century)

2 - Many biblical scholars hold that the gospel had the same author as the first epistle of John
- - - the similarities in style, themes (love, anti-gnostic themes etc.) and specific phraseology are obvious even to the untrained reader

3 - 1 John 1:1-3, John 1:14 and John 19:35 are the only distinct eyewitness claims regarding Jesus' life in the bible (besides 2 Peter, widely held to be a 2nd century work)
- - - of particular interest, note the contrast between 19:35 and the appended section in 21:24, which uses third person

4 - While someone present during Jesus' ministry would be in his 80s by the time the gospel was written, there are numerous examples of such comparatively long lives in the ancient world (several notable Greek philosophers, for example)

5 - In addition to the specific eyewitness claims, some verses such as John 5:2 imply a sense of familiarity with Jerusalem which one wouldn't particularly expect from the author of Greek work, unless the author was in fact a Jew



Interested in everyone's thoughts

[S-word]

"He, the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, is the God of the living and not of the dead."

Benjamin, is the youngest son of Rachel, the beloved of Jacob whose name was changed to “Israel=Ruling with God.� Jacob was the son of Isaac, the son of Abraham, and the third living spirit to be gathered to the evolving living spirit of Enoch, the cornerstone to the Son of Man, who is the living spirit which is developing within the body of the Most High in the creation, which body is Lord of Creatures and the prototype of the Lord of Spirits.

It was the evolving spirit of the “Son of Man� of who Jacob=Israel was the high point of our indwelling Lord at that time, of who Moses said in regard to Benjamin, “This is the tribe the Lord loves and protects; He guards them all the day long, and He dwells in their midst.�

Benjamin was the tribe that was effectively lost, when the other 11 tribes which included Ephraim and Manasseh, slaughtered every, man, woman, and child, from the tribe of Benjamin: but not the tribe of Dan the sterile giant. See Judges 20: 48.

The tribe born of the sterile Dan, originated through his "young sister/adopted daughter," Hushim, who was born of Dan's mother “Bilhah� from the rape of Reuben the first born of Israel. She, ben-Dan, married Shaharaim from the tribe of Benjamin, to whom she bore “Abitub,� through who the line of Dan was counted, and Elpaal, her other son who is the ancestor of Saul the first king of Israel, who stood a head taller than any other Israelite.

Shaharaim had divorced Hushim and travelled to the land of Moab, before the family of Jacob had moved down to live in Egypt. Abitub and Elpaal, the two sons of Hushim are aslo called Muppim and Huppim in Genesis 46: 21; and Shuppim and Huppim in 1st chronicles 7: 12; as the descendands of Benjamin, in which same verse the adopted child of Dan, "Hushim," is also mentioned

The tribe of Dan, were the sons of Hushim the first born of Reuben, the Father of which tribe, was Shaharaim from the tribe of Benjamin. The tribe of Dan, who was counted as the seventh born son of Israel, received the seventh allotment of land in the Promised kingdom. But being unable to drive out the original inhabitants in the open country that was allocated to them, they were forced to live in the hill country among their brother tribe “Benjamin.�

The only inhabitants of the land of Benjamin who survived the slaughter of that tribe, were 600 fighting men from the tribe of Dan, (Who were actually descendants of Benjamin) who took refuge at the rock of Rimon in the open country, which had been allocated to Dan.

Those 600 survivors of the tribe that was lost, (which was the 12th tribe, as was Judas the 12 disciple, who was pre-destined to be lost) were given 400 virgins, who were the descendants of Dinah the twin sister of Zebulun, the sixth born son of Leah the only true wife of Israel, whose six sons receive the first six blessings of Israel, and Dinah, the seventh born of Israel, divides the six sons of Leah, from the six sons of the mothers of Israel’s other six sons.

Being 200 wives short, the six hundred survivors, were allowed to steal 200 virgins from the other 11 tribes, who had made a solemn vow before God, witnessed by Phinehas the grandson of Aaron, to never allow one of their daughters to marry a member of the tribe of Benjamin. These fathers and brothers, turned their backs while the sons of Shaharaim an Hushim, stole 200 of the virgins who were dancing at the festival at Shiloh.

They were to later steal also, “Jonathan the grandson of Moses� as their priest, and the idol of Micah which I believe was a silver Eagle as they were prominant in the mountainous country of Epharaim, where Jonathan the second cousin of Phinehas, lived and from where Jonathan left in his journey to Bethlehem of Judaea, in order to return his concubine who had run away from him, which woman was raped and sodomised to death by some men from the tribe of Benjamin in Gibeah.

None from the tribe of Dan, the brother tribe to Benjamin, were among the 11 tribes, who slaughtered every man, woman, and child in the country of Benjamin See Judges 20: 47; nor are any from the tribe of Dan counted among the 144000, who are chosen from the 12 tribes of Israel in Revelation 7: 4.

The land of Benjamin was divided among the tribe of Judah and the 10 northern tribes of Israel (Levi not counted among them) in which two lands of Judah and Israel, were scattered the pseudo tribe of Benjamin, which pseudo tribe was counted from the women of Benjamin, who had married into the other tribes before the slaughter of the tribe of Benjamin.

Ps 68: verses 24 and 27; (24) “O God your march of triumph is seen by all, the procession of God, my king, into his Sanctuary� (within His New Temple, that replaces his old tabernacle) ------ (27) “First comes Benjamin, the smallest tribe, etc�

After the 600 descendants of Shaharaim, who belonged to the tribe of Dan, had lost the land that they had lived in, they, with their wives, children and all their possessions, moved up into the land of Sidon the first born of Canaan, where, in the ships of Dan they became seafaring merchants, and that tribe, who had taken as their priest, Jonathan the grand son of Moses, can be found in the Greaco-Roman Empire, which according to Legend was founded by the two brothers Romulus (Benjamin who was killed when he leaped the wall) and Remus (Dan who founded Rome) the rape of the Sabine women found in the forcible rape of the 600 virgins.

From the Testament of Dan, the seventh son of Jacob and Bilhah who was raped by Reuben near Eprathah, while Jacob was away visiting his father “Isaac.�
“Nevertheless, Dan prophesied to them (The members of the tribe founded by Hushim the daughter of Bilhah and Reuben the first born.) That they should forget their God, (The God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.) and should be alienated from the land of their inheritance, (Canaan=Palestine=Israel) and from the race of Israel, and from the family of their seed (Reuben the first born).

From the Testament of Benjamin 1: 3; “As Isaac was born to Abraham in his old age, so was I to Jacob, And since Rachel my mother died in giving me birth, I had no milk: therefore I was suckled by Bilhah her hand maid. (Who had been raped by Reuben.)

From the Testament of Benjamin 9: 1-4; to his descendants; "And I believe that there shall be also evil doings among you, from the word’s of Enoch the righteous: that ye shall commit fornication with the fornication of Sodom, and shall perish all save a few, (The descendants of Hushim and Shaharaim) and shall renew wanton deeds with women; and the kingdom of the Lord shall not be among you, for straightway He shall take it away.

Nevertheless the Temple of God (The new bodies of glorious light) shall be in your portion, and the (Second or last) Temple shall be more glorious than the first. And the twelve tribes will be gathered there, (At the second Temple ,�Elijah�) and all the Gentiles, until the Most High shall send forth His salvation in the visitation of an only begotten prophet (Enoch who had been anointed by the most high) And He shall (Descend through time) and enter into the first Temple, (The physical body) and there shall the Lord be treated with outrage, and He shall be lifted up upon a tree. And the veil of that temple shall be rent, and the spirit of God shall pass onto the Gentiles as fire poured forth.�

The great simulacrum dies in the process of involution, releasing from the least to the greatest, the spirits on which he evolved. Enoch reborn as Jesus, being the first and the least in the kingdom of God, who was greater tha John the Baptist, the greatest man ever to have been born of woman, who was "Elijah" in evolution.

The great simulacrum/blueprint (The sacrificial Lamb of God) which is in the highest heaven, has not yet descended through time to pour out his immortal body of fire onto the heads of those who believed his words as spoken By Enoch the cornerstone to "The Great simulacrum, that is the Son of Man" who (Enoch the cornerstone the first to be released) was reborn on earth in his chosen host body Jesus.

The Testament of Reuben the first born of Jacob/Israel 3: 11; “Had I not seen Bilhah bathing in a covered place, I had not fallen into this great iniquity. For my mind taking in the thought of the woman’s nakedness, suffered me not ‘to sleep’ until I had wrought the abominable thing. For while Jacob our father had gone to Isaac his father when we were in Eder, near to Ephrath in Bethlehem, (Where Rachel died giving birth to Benjamin who was suckled by the mother’s milk of her handmaid Bilhah) Bilhah became drunk (During the harvest festival) and was asleep uncovered in her chamber. Having therefore gone in and beheld her nakedness, I wrought the impiety without her perceiving it, and leaving her sleeping I departed.

As Benjamin the 12th tribe of Israel was lost, so too was Judas Iscariot, the 12th disciple, destined to be lost. “Iscariot� means, “Man of Kerioth,� and it was in the district of Kerioth-Hazor that the pseudo tribe of Benjamin settled on their return from the captivity in Babylon.

After Judas, a member of the pseudo tribe of Benjamin the 12th disciple who was pre-destined to be lost, had been hung upon a tree, the other 11, chose a replacement for him, but they did not have that authority.

It was Jesus of Nazareth in his glorious body of brilliant and blinding light, who chose the replacement to Judas: "Paul," the son of a Roman mother and a father who belonged to the pseudo tribe of Benjamin, to gather the Roman Gentiles as the 12000 chosen from the tribe of Benjamin who had been lost.

Paul was an apostle of Jesus Christ our HOPE.

1st Timothy 1: 1; From Paul, an APOSTLE of Christ Jesus ny order of "GOD OUR SAVIOUR" and Christ Jesus "OUR HOPE."

Moderator Clarification
Most people get reported for one liners. Your post however got reported for random ramblings that were long and questionably intentionally leading the thread off topic. Please keep your responses relevant to the OP only.
Rules
C&A Guidelines


______________

Moderator clarifications do not count as a strike against any posters. They serve as an acknowledgment that a post report has been received and/or are given at the discretion of a moderator when he or she feels a clarification of the rules is required.

There are those on this forum, who would attempt to trap you into an endless useless debate, by questioning every single point that you make, and even then, break that single point into a multitude of meaningless questions.

while on the topic of the Gospel of John, it was said that Paul was not one of the 12 disciples chosen by Jesus. In order to prove the point that he was the 12th disciple that Jesus himself chose, to replace the 12th disciple "Judas Iscariot" who had been destined to be lost, I felt it necessary to anticipate all the stumbling blocks that my fellow debater would attempt to place in my pathway toward the truth, which is, that Paul was indeed the 12th disciple chosen by Jesus, which I did.

If anyone else has read the post in question, then please reveal where, in my response to the statement that Paul was not the 12th disciple chosen by Jesus, which was in line with the topic, "gospel of John," is intentionally leading the thread off topic?

[Mithrae]

while on the topic of the Gospel of John, it was said that Paul was not one of the 12 disciples chosen by Jesus. In order to prove the point that he was the 12th disciple that Jesus himself chose, to replace the 12th disciple "Judas Iscariot" who had been destined to be lost, I felt it necessary to anticipate all the stumbling blocks that my fellow debater would attempt to place in my pathway toward the truth, which is, that Paul was indeed the 12th disciple chosen by Jesus, which I did.

If anyone else has read the post in question, then please reveal where, in my response to the statement that Paul was not the 12th disciple chosen by Jesus, which was in line with the topic, "gospel of John," is intentionally leading the thread off topic?

We were discussing whether Jesus' brother James was one of the Twelve. Paul said James was an apostle; I pointed out that he also said the same of himself, and Andronicus, Junia, Silas and Timothy. Saying that Paul was meant to be one of the Twelve wouldn't answer the argument; and a 1700-word exposition of your views on Israelite history is very much off-topic. Best to leave it at that

[Oast]

[Replying to Slopeshoulder]


The gospel of John is generally considered to be the latest of the gospels. Many argue it is not an eye witness account. Others argue John was written by three or even five authors who each altered, embellished and added to the original.

However this does not mean the original work was not written by an eye witness.

In my opinion there are at leat two works which have been interwoven to create the gospel of John. The first work was a detailed factual work which tells the story of Jesus. This I believe was an eyewitness account. Interwoven, grafted onto this work is a second work by another author which is in effect a 'Jesus said' collection. Subsequent redactors revised added to and merged the two original works.

If the original author of the John 'Jesus story' was not an eyewitness, surely this would have been exposed as soon as the gospel was written. There were certainly church elders who would have known people who were eye witnesses, or would have heard eye witnesses speak. Children and grandchildren of eyewitnesses would still be alive. Many people who knew people who saw and heard Jesus would still be alive. Wouldn't these people have exposed the gospel as not being written by an eye witness when it first appeared? But the gospel of John has been accepted since earliest times despite its difficulties.

John contains no nativity. It contains nothing about bread being the body of Christ and wine being the blood of Christ. But it has an account of Jesus washing his disciples feet. This rings true. At least as true as the versions of events in the synoptic gospels. The fact John talks about events which do not appear in the synoptic gospels does not mean they didn't happen. He wrote about what he felt was important and what he felt illustrated the points he wished to make.

If John was a later work written by an author pretending to be an eye witness wouldn't he have gone out of his way to not appear a maverick? Why would the author make the gospel so difficult, so out of step? Why set the last supper on a different day? Why ignore so many well known miracles and teachings? Surely he would have complied with the earlier gospels and the writings of Paul if he were writing decades later and pretending he was writing an eye witness account.

In my opinion the Jesus story told in the gospel of John would not have been accepted and survived if it was not believed at the time to be what it claims to be - an eyewitness account.

The 'Jesus said' parts of the gospel of John I believe were originally a separate and later work. Much of the 'Jesus said' parts of the gospel of John would appear to have been inserted into the story clumsily. The man speaking the words does not sound like the man in the story.
The above is my opinion based on reading John. I have no training so am open to any critisism.

[Korah]

[Replying to post 161 by Oast]
Is DC&R one of those websites in which outsiders see first the OLDEST (and best?) threads and posts first? If not, I commend he who, uh, the person who resurrected at #161 this thread. Great scholarly stuff indeed. It's really deep into external criticism and textual criticism of the Gospel of John. Not my own specialty I'll admit, I'm lost deep into internal criticism thereof. Possibly Z's recent thread on '"Eyewitnesses" that are not eyewitnesses'
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... hp?t=28031 stimulated search for related old threads, and this is a great one indeed. Much fine scholarship, mostly by well-respected current and active members!

Hidden therein at Post #156 On Oct. 29, 2011 find Mithrae launching as a side issue the thread, "The Family of Jesus (and other NT characters)", debating "What can we learn or infer with reasonable accuracy about the relationship between Jesus and other NT characters?"
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 793#414793
Quite unusually for DC&R, I take it, UNANIMITY was achieved rejecting the doctrine of the perpetual virginity of Mary--probably because there were only a total of nine posts from only three posters. One of them, 83 years old now if he is still alive (he's been banned), at Post #2 entered this howler as the total post,

"Of course, the doctrine of the virgin birth did not come along until medieval times, when edicts of the church insisted on it."

I doubt that very inaccurate post in itself got him banned (he had 2273 posts), and he probably meant the doctrine of the Perpetual Virginity of Mary--as the name he used would seem to indicate he was (once) a Roman Catholic (and everyone knows that Roman Catholics don't know the Bible very well). Yet even the founder of my denomination, Martin Luther, adamantly accepted its truth, as do I. I must be wrong, however, as one of the nay-sayers tells us at Post #8:

"Here are some of the hidden truths in scripture, revealed to me by the spirit of my Lord Jesus Christ, the living spirit that dwells within me and the spirit who guides me through the word’s of our Father, who is our Lord God and saviour."

That same poster carries on at length there and elsewhere about the spirit of antichrist having taken over the churches. One would think that one who so zealously preaches about the antichrist would give some consideration to whether that "spirit" was at work within himself in so assuring us that he speaks for God?
Apologies for labeling this "antichrist" poster at #8 as "he" because I can present an argument that "he" is the correct pronoun. Somewhere on one of these two threads (and just among the last posts of the "The Gospel of John--Genuine Eyewitnesses?", if I remember correctly) someone spoke of that same poster as "Slopeshoulder", seeming to have recognized his fellow member as identical to a poster named "Slopeshoulder" who has been banned (after 3407 posts). (I happened to notice this banned Slopeshoulder fellow over in the Catholicism sub-forum in which he and I had entered much autobiographical information in the thread on "Rejecting Catholicism".
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... c&start=30
Therein he claimed to have been a grad student at seminary. Assuming that the seminary was Roman Catholic, that would make him male, if his aim at seminary was to become a priest. On the other hand, maybe females attend RC seminaries in hopes the Pope is going to change his mind?. I don't know. And I have not checked whether this Slopeshoulder was already banned at the time in 2011 of this thread.)
However, at Post #39 in the "Rejecting Catholicism" thread both Slopeshoulder and and the second above-quoted member post on the very same thread as different people (not that stunts like THAT have never been done--I would think that posting in one "identity" as a prophet would be best left singular so as not to compete with "himself" posting under a different name, and probably as secular besides!).

This post is not going at all in the direction I intended. Perhaps the mods will prefer to send it where they sent my only (this is another ADHD day for me, I have not started any other threads, have I?) thread, Random Ramblings.
EDITED TO ADD:
Almost forgot (actually did forget, no actually never intended to, but to avoid any appearance of having put someone else up to reviving this thread, plus also to dissociate myself from anything contained therein, and in addition not to be made to look the fool as if I had not spotted it to be a trap that I was expected to fall into and then be exposed afterwards):
I do not buy the arguments in the foregoing post at all.

[Oast]

[Replying to post 162 by Korah]

I forgot,


Whoever feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day.

[Oast]

[Replying to Oast]


Just read a book by John Shelby Spong, in which he argues none of John should be taken literally, that Nathanial and other characters were literary inventions and never existed.