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?

[tam]

Peace to you FWI,

[Replying to post 38 by tam]

It is quite obvious that a translation error has occurred concerning this topic. This Simeon was from the town called "Cana" in the Galilee region, not Bethany in the Judea region.

Tam: Why do you think that?

And replied:

Simon is not called the Canaanite because of where he lived, but rather because of his zeal (which is what the word means - zealous, which is also why he is also called the Zealot. For his zeal. Not for a geographical or political reason.) Calling him the Canaanite is the same as calling him the Zealot.

Canaanite = "zealous"
the surname of Apostle Simon, otherwise known as "Simon Zelotes"

Firstly, the purpose of my statement was to respond to "the claim" that Simeon, the Canaanite was also Lazarus. Thus, making Lazarus an apostle. When we review Matthew 10 and understand the author's original intent, it is clear that the geographic region of these men could be important and used to distinguish between those, which bore the same name.

Please note that you said geography 'could' be important.

But you must also admit that Caananite could be used as a description (zealot) rather than a geographical location, especially since Simon is also called the zealot. Not because he was a member of that political sect, but because of his zeal (and great love) for his Lord. Add that to the evidence that disciple Christ loved is one of the twelve, and Lazarus being identified as the disciple Christ loved.

Several Jewish names were commonly used to name children, because of the meaning of the Israelite name. So, the writers would use surnames related to either their father's name, regions or origin of birth and titles to distinguish between them.

Thus, following this theme, Judas "Iscariot" is referenced as a man of Kerioth, a Judean town or a collection of towns, were Judas (Thaddaeus) is referred to as the son of James. Simon Peter is referred to as: a rock or a stone (title) whereas, Simon the Canaanite is also referring to where he was born or lived when he was chosen by the Christ.

Or it is a description like Simon Peter.

So there is precedent for geography, surname, or description of a person.

It makes no sense to address Simon the Canaanite as a Zealot or Zelotes, thus labeling him as belonging to a group that was political and a violently anti-Roman wing of the Pharisees.

I already said that it had nothing to do with geography or politics. And there is nothing wrong with zeal or being zealous, depending upon whom one is zealous FOR.

There also is no evidence, in the fourth gospel, which states or implies the author is an apostle.

Tam: Of course there is.

It seems that you have taken the belief that there were only 13 people at the Christ's last meal. This just isn't true. There is no way that the Son of God would eliminate the owner of the house or Martha/Mary and Lazarus.

It was an upper room in the house, and there is no evidence that anyone else was present. Certainly there is no evidence that anyone else was there reclining at the table with Christ (Matthew and Mark both state that He was reclining at the table with the 12, and that they - the twelve - began to ask him who it was who would betray him; and then the fourth gospel makes it clear that the disciple Christ loved - who was reclining against Christ - asked who Christ meant)

Lazarus was there as one of the 12.

As well as, others from attending this special gathering. The Christ was not reclusive in that way.

It is not about being reclusive. It is about establishing the new covenant with the twelve apostles (representing a covenant with the 12 tribes of Israel). What is the point of their being 12 apostles chosen by Christ, if there was nothing important about that?

Christ also went off with 2 of the 12 at one point, showed them something that he told them not to tell the others until much later. So if he can do that among the twelve, there is nothing to suggest that He could or would not first establish the covenant with the twelve apostles, including washing their feet and having this dinner with them.

And the 12 were also the first to receive holy spirit.

Yet, for those who would believe that this meal was the Passover meal (I do not). There could be a group, as large as, about 20 people in attendance and maybe more…

I agree that this was not the actual Passover meal. That was the following day. Christ could not have celebrated that with His apostles though, because HE was HIMSELF the Passover lamb. Hence, He celebrated the night before with them.

[Tam: The earlier account (from Luke) is not the same occurrence, although it is the same woman and the same Simon (who is her brother; she did not just wander in uninvited off the street.)

So, are you suggesting that Mary was a prostitute and/or that her brother (Lazarus) was implying this to the Christ? This is what the verses in Luke are suggesting.

I'm not sure how you come to that about Simon implying something to the Lord. This is what the account states:

When the Pharisee who had invited him saw this, he said to himself, “If this man were a prophet, he would know who is touching him and what kind of woman she is—that she is a sinner.�

No, I don't think so…This woman was not Mary, the sister of Lazarus, nor was this Pharisee, Lazarus. But, is does seem that this Pharisee knew this woman and probably in way, which would permit her to just walk into his house.

In fact, she was already IN the house when Christ arrived.

You did not give me a kiss, but this woman, from the time I entered, has not stopped kissing my feet.

The town of this occurrence was Nain, in the Galilee region.

No, Nain is simply the place previously mentioned in the chapter where Christ healed the widows son. That does not mean that Simon the Pharisee lived in Nain. Christ traveled around a lot.

Tam: But the other three are the same account as far as I know (same things happened, same problem, same wording and discipline and reason given, etc). I am not sure about the timing, but the account in John states that Christ came to Bethany six days before the Passover, but does not explicitly state that this is the same day that he was anointed by the woman.

With all due respect, this is just not correct. The bible is clear that the remaining (2) accounts are separate occurrences. Yet, it does seem that the translators took certain liberties with the writings and probably believed the same way you do.

Then I am not sure how you can say that the bible is clear that the remaining 2 accounts are separate occurrences?

There are also differences in details among the gospel accounts regarding the resurrection of Christ, but that does not make them two or three separate occurrences.

Hence, the stories just don't match-up and shows that there are 3 separate events, at separate houses and in one case, a different town: 1) Matthew 26/Mark 14 (Simon the leper) in Bethany. 2) Luke 7 in Nain of the Galilee region (a Pharisee). 3) in the fourth gospel (the house of Martha) in Bethany.

Nain is not stated to be the home of Simon (the Pharisee); the place where Christ ate dinner at the home of Simon (the Pharisee).

Tam: People think that they know how everything worked in every situation from two thousand years ago, but I am not so sure. And there are always exceptions to what is considered to be the general accepted practice.

I tend to agree with you on this one and realize that we all should be looking into the mirror. But, this statement also suggests that we can't trust or worship a book.

I agree with you that it is not a book that we should trust or worship.

We can only worship the "Heavenly Father," who is the giver of all that is good and is the only True God…

Yes.

But, this also can create a new set of problems. Especially, as related to how individuals suggest that they get their pronounced (written) information.

I am sorry, but I do not quite understand what you mean. Could you clarify?



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

[FWI]

[Replying to post 41 by tam]

I'm sorry, but I'm moving on. This interaction is a waste of your time and mine. It is clear that we disagree. So, it's best to end this: meeting of the minds.

[FWI]

[Replying to marco]

I am in awe of your iron certainty. With your reasoning one would have supposed Christ's family would be there too, if it was a big friendly come-one-and-all, and yet we have passages that suggest this would not be the case.

Iron certainty is valid until it is disproven, not by opinions, but by solid proof. Since, we do not have the original manuscripts to check the validly of the texts we read today (which suggest a cover-up), we can only use what seems to be similar examples. It was common practice (in first century CE Israel) for individuals to open their homes to fellow Israelites, especially during the Feast of the Passover. So for a person who had a large home, hosting a dinner for 20-30 people is not unrealistic. There also was a practice where individuals would host a come-one-come-most event. These gatherings were set-up where people would come and give their respects, stay awhile, then move on. These type of events could last for up to a week and were called banquets. So, since the Christ knew that this was his last meal before his death, it is not, beyond reason to believe he would allow all those who wanted to see him to do so. And, give special attention to those whom he loved, even family members. They were all in the area, because of the Feast of the Passover.

The apostles, as you say, were specially chosen disciples who, no doubt, were to be given special instructions in accord with their special status. That being so it is absolutely reasonable for Tam and anybody else to regard the gathering as being Christ with his apostles.

Most of the instructions were given to the apostles before this meal, with the exception of the meaning of the bread and the fruit of the vine. But, this wasn't only for them, but for all. However, if there was any unfinished business that remained (with his apostles), the Christ was with them for about 50 days after his resurrection. There would be no reason to disregard the event at hand.

That being so it is absolutely reasonable for Tam and anybody else to regard the gathering as being Christ with his apostles.

I agree, but that doesn't mean that there isn't "reasonable doubt" to their position. This is what I have presented. Thus, are you suggesting that I be silenced, because I disagree with Tam and the others?

[marco]

So, since the Christ knew that this was his last meal before his death, it is not, beyond reason to believe he would allow all those who wanted to see him to do so.

Unlikely, but not beyond reason. It is unlikely because of what was reported and how. Jesus wanted to spend his final hours with his apostles. In John's account he prepares himself to wash the feet of his apostles. No mention is made of spectators; it would seem inappropriate to have had them. The suggestion is that Jesus had chosen these special people and this final meal was his "sending them out." It is more likely, I think, that he would have visited special friends privately, if at all. You seem to regard the situation as if it's a young man going off, and having to say farewell to all and sundry. If he was on a divine mission, then it is perfectly understandable that he would have eaten with those he had chosen - else why choose them if in the end he's simply eating and saying goodbye? The event has far more significance if it is with his twelve. When he is washing Peter's feet he tells him he will understand this fully later on. It's not the occasion for people other than his chosen apostles.


Your view is possible but improbable I think, in view of what is written.

[brianbbs67]

I have had another thought about this discussion of the diciple Jesus loved. If this disciple is there with the twelve, would not he be 13th? I am here with my 2 children. I and 2 make 3?

[tam]

[Replying to post 45 by brianbbs67]

Peace to you brian! May I ask what verse or description you are referring to, where the disciple Christ loved was there with the twelve?

[brianbbs67]

[Replying to post 46 by tam]

Peace to you also. I am looking back to find it. I thought it was in a reply. I have searched all 4 gospels and can not find phrased that way. So, maybe I am wrong here.

[tam]

No worries, brian (peace to you)!

[Replying to post 47 by brianbbs67]

It was probably in post 38, the verse that I quoted in blue. I put the name [Jesus] in brackets, so you might have overlooked it. When I went looking for what you were referring to, that's the verse that caught my eye.



Peace again to you and to your household!

[polonius]

I have had another thought about this discussion of the diciple Jesus loved. If this disciple is there with the twelve, would not he be 13th? I am here with my 2 children. I and 2 make 3?

RESPONSE: There is a major difference between "apostle" and "disciple."

Luke 10 (New International Version, ©2011)

Jesus Sends Out the Seventy-Two

1 After this the Lord appointed seventy-two others and sent them two by two ahead of him to every town and place where he was about to go. 2 He told them, “The harvest is plentiful, but the workers are few. Ask the Lord of the harvest, therefore, to send out workers into his harvest field. 3 Go! I am sending you out like lambs among wolves. 4 Do not take a purse or bag or sandals; and do not greet anyone on the road.

[brianbbs67]

I have had another thought about this discussion of the diciple Jesus loved. If this disciple is there with the twelve, would not he be 13th? I am here with my 2 children. I and 2 make 3?

RESPONSE: There is a major difference between "apostle" and "disciple."

Luke 10 (New International Version, ©2011)

Jesus Sends Out the Seventy-Two

1 After this the Lord appointed seventy-two others and sent them two by two ahead of him to every town and place where he was about to go. 2 He told them, “The harvest is plentiful, but the workers are few. Ask the Lord of the harvest, therefore, to send out workers into his harvest field. 3 Go! I am sending you out like lambs among wolves. 4 Do not take a purse or bag or sandals; and do not greet anyone on the road.

Yes , i agree. There was the 12, the 70 or 72, and the multitude that followed.