Implications of Heresy

[achilles12604]

I have finally found a title which I think describes my religious views. I have created a usergroup to match. I accept many of the tenants of Christianity. I accept many of the core values and teachings. In fact let me just list them out.

I accept God exists.
I accept Jesus was his son and unique among men.
I accept that Jesus death atoned for sin.
I accept that Jesus performed miracles.
I accept that God inspired many of the writers of the bible.

Now begins my Heresy.

I accept that God inspired other great men of different faiths like Gandhi

I accept that salvation is a matter of the heart and faith is a byproduct or a symptom of the condition of this heart.

I accept that much of the bible can not be read literally

I accept that some of the stories of the bible are nothing more than stories, nor were they ever meant to be more than this.

I accept that people of other faiths have the potential for salvation just as any Christian would

I accept that the church has fallen far from where it originated.

I accept that the writings of Paul and the other disciples, while lead by God, are still personal interpretations and therefore subject to personal bias.

I do not accept the church taught concept of original sin.

I do not accept the sinlessness of Mary

I do not accept the concept of sainthoods

I do not accept that hell is a place for eternal torture in some fire lake

I accept (basically) some form of evolution/ID

I do not accept a young earth creation model.

I accept much of the current church as hypocritical and lazy

I accept that God reaches out to all men where ever they are through whatever beliefs they hold.

I accept that God knows just about everything, but can not know individual futures nor do I think this idea is supported well by scripture.









Now, I leave this WIDE open. I certainly will not take offense to anything written here. I want brutally honest opinions.

Who does not believe that my current beliefs allow for my own salvation (I am hell bound)?

Who believes that any of my current beliefs contradict another of my current beliefs?

Who here would not consider me a "true Christian"?

Which of my beliefs are directly contradicted by scripture?

What would Jesus say of my beliefs? What would you imagine him telling me?





Honesty people. Brutal, ugly, in my face, even to the point of suspending rule #1 for a moment, HONESTY

[Salt Agent]

First. Let's settle on a criteria for authority. Do you have a problem with mine? Here it is again.

To be considered authoritative the work must:

1. Have apostolic and first century authorship. (at least to a reasonable degree of certainty). We'll use the same methodology for establishing authorship and dating as classical scholars use for establishing the authorship and dating of secular works. If it's linked to a first century apostle or disciple it's good-to-go.

2. Have a consistent core message with the majority of other first century works in regards to faith and practice.

3. Have no obvious factual errors.

4. Have a sober and factual demeanor with out obviously bizarre, unnecessary and absurd embellishments to the supernatural.

I am just fine with this criteria, but I would like to add that if at all possible its events should be consistent with outside sources as well. We can count this as bonus points if you wish.

Agreed.

Good. Since I'll probably be the one affirming John's authority I'll present the positive case affirming it. You'll take the negative I presume.

Give me a day to put that together.

And a day for a response. We can reconvene tomorrow.

Greetings, friends.

I will jump in if you don't mind as well, to hopefully contribute something productive to the discussion. I will also be affirming the authority, and thus the equal validity of John. Here are a couple points that help support the authorship of John.
** Not sure if you mean "external sources" as in outside of the book of John, or outside the Gospels, or outside the Bible -extraBiblical support, - so feel free to clarify.
I will be using both, so i am counting on the extra credit. Since we can't get Oreo's in Szczecin, i will take a coupon for the points.

Nothing in the book attributed to John, says it was written by John, nor is any name given. It is precisely the external evidence of the other gospel writers, coupled with the testimony of extraBiblical writers that give us the high probability that it was he.
1. Multiple times and places the writer claims to be an eyewitness of the events he described. John 1:14, 19:35, 21:24,25
2. The writer of this Gospel, refers to himself/ identifies himself five times as the "disciple whom Jesus Loved". John 13:23, 19:26, 20:2, 21:7,20. The disciple "whom Jesus Loved" was part of the inner circle of disciples, and the synoptic Gospels --Matthew, Mark and Luke all name this group as James and John the Sons of Zebedee, and Peter.
3. His knowledge of Palestinian geography and Jewish customs makes it clear that he was a Palestinian Jew, and his meticulous attention to detail, numbers and names confirm that he was not only an eyewitness, but one of the twelve.
4. While many of the parbles are listed in the synoptic Gospels, but not John, the writer of this gospel was an eyewitness to the most significant miracles and key events of the life and ministry of Christ, which are also attested/ witnessed by the synoptic writers.
5. "The conclusion of internal evidence is consistent with the external evidence and testimony of the early church. Irenaeus (appr AD 185) was a disciple of Polycarp who was a disciple of John the apostle.In his Against Heresies, Irenaeus bore witness to John's authorship of this gospel and noted that John lived until the time of the emporer Trajen AD 98-117. Clement of Alexandra, Theophilus of Antioch, Origen, and others also ascribe this book to John."
6. James, the brother of John the apostle, and the son of Zebedee was martyred too early to be the author, ( Acts 12:1-3), and Judas hanged himself so this leaves ten possible disciples as the maximum widest possible group, and narrows it to Peter and John, based on the writers own identification/ reference as the disciple Jesus Loved, and the synoptic writers confirming this group. see #2 above.
6. Not only can we place the writer of this book in the first century, but the close proximity of the key events and miracles confirm he was an eyewitness. The writer witnessed the Baptism of Jesus, which was very significant, because James and John the sons of Zebedee were followers of John the Baptist. All four gospels writers outline the ministry of John the Baptist.
7. The first miracle Jesus ever performed, was witnessed by this writer, but amazingly not recorded by any of the synoptic writers. This proves he was an eyewitness through the entire ministry of Jesus, not some Johnny-come-lately. [couldn't help myself. ]
8. Perhaps the biggest clue, most solid evidence that we can say that is was one of the nine, (Judas is out, James was martyred too early, to have been able to be the writer, and Matthew wrote the Gospel of Matthew- leaving nine remaining disciples.) is that he is a witness in the upper room. Mark is the earliest Gospel, and he states, as does Jesus that the twelve were in the upper room, as does Luke.
9. NOT only is he, the writer of this Gospel, one of the twelve in the upper room, but he also celebrates the passover with Christ, and witnesses the prediction of Peter's denial, the prediction of Judas's betrayal, but he is in the garden of Gethsemenee when Jesus is arrested, all of which are witnessed and recorded by the other synoptic writers. John 18:1-11.
10. Matthew and Mark both list Peter, James and John as the three that went aside to pray with Jesus, in his last hours in the garden of Gethsemenee.
11. This writer, not only witnessed his death and burial, but also records Jesus appearance to the disciples, after the resurrection.
12. This writer was also an eyewitness to the feeding of the 5000, and Jesus walking on the water, which was another example of Jesus and the twelve disciples.
13. The book of John is not the only book to show that Christ proclaimed to be God, but that his enemies understood him to be making this claim. Mark and Colossians, and Hebrews and Philippians and Romans and other of Pauls books clearly affirm the deity of Christ.
14. The book of John contains no doctrine that denies or contradicts any other teaching of Christ, nor does it contradict any of the other accounts of Christ's life or ministry.
15. The book of John was accepted by the early church itself, church leaders, early Historians, and accepted as part of the cannon, and confirmed by extra-Biblical sources who knew John personally.
16. The most significant events of Christ's ministry, from his baptism, first miracle, miracles witnessed by 12, last supper, upper room, Passover, Jesus' Arrest, Trial before Pilate, Peter's denial, Jesus' death, burial and resurrection and appearances were all witnessed by this writer, which were confirmed by other synoptic writers as well as other miracles.

** The white chocolate dipped Oreo's are my favorite.

Grace and Peace.

[achilles12604]

Let me start of by saying that this is a very complete set of evidences regarding John's authorship. I am impressed. Let's see how well it stands up.

1. Multiple times and places the writer claims to be an eyewitness of the events he described. John 1:14, 19:35, 21:24,25

The book does claim eyewitness account, although I don't think that an atheist would see it this way. But I can see it.

2. The writer of this Gospel, refers to himself/ identifies himself five times as the "disciple whom Jesus Loved". John 13:23, 19:26, 20:2, 21:7,20. The disciple "whom Jesus Loved" was part of the inner circle of disciples, and the synoptic Gospels --Matthew, Mark and Luke all name this group as James and John the Sons of Zebedee, and Peter.

I don't agree that he identifies himself at all. He could very easily have been describing another disciple, more easily in my opinion than himself. If he was referring to himself, why not just come out and say it?

3. His knowledge of Palestinian geography and Jewish customs makes it clear that he was a Palestinian Jew, and his meticulous attention to detail, numbers and names confirm that he was not only an eyewitness, but one of the twelve.

It shows that he knew the area. It doesn't show that he was a Palestinian. Also, what customs does John mention that would not be known to anyone in the area, like a Roman Solider for example?

Numbers and details don't mean much unless that can be shown to be correct. I hate to quote atheists but they are right when they say that a fictional book can be written with lots of numbers and events set in a real life place. So unless another source can attest to the details, the fact that there are details isn't proof of eyewitness accounts. So what details are confirmed by sources outside of mainstream Christianity? Or even within mainstream Christianity? At least the Synoptic Gospels enjoy quite a bit of multiple attestation further supported by Josephus and the early fathers accounts of the disciples (Justin Martyr). Another way of asking this, why should I accept the details as true?

4. While many of the parbles are listed in the synoptic Gospels, but not John, the writer of this gospel was an eyewitness to the most significant miracles and key events of the life and ministry of Christ, which are also attested/ witnessed by the synoptic writers.

Unless I am mistaken, there are far more differences between the synoptics and John, than similarities. Doesn't this cause suspicion that the author may have simply been inventing these stories to promote his rendition of events?

http://catholic-resources.org/John/Syno ... rences.htm

5. "The conclusion of internal evidence is consistent with the external evidence and testimony of the early church. Irenaeus (appr AD 185) was a disciple of Polycarp who was a disciple of John the apostle.In his Against Heresies, Irenaeus bore witness to John's authorship of this gospel and noted that John lived until the time of the emporer Trajen AD 98-117. Clement of Alexandra, Theophilus of Antioch, Origen, and others also ascribe this book to John."

Clement of Alexandra wrote about 1 and 2 John. But not about the Gospel as far as I can tell. Do you have better sources than mine?

http://www.religionfacts.com/christiani ... andria.htm

If so feel free to show me where he mentions John as the author of the Gospel. I love being shown wrong.

However, Theophilus is a good source. He was the closets time wise. The date of John's death also matches up with the timeline of the Gospel.

This is by far your most solid point yet.

6. James, the brother of John the apostle, and the son of Zebedee was martyred too early to be the author, ( Acts 12:1-3), and Judas hanged himself so this leaves ten possible disciples as the maximum widest possible group, and narrows it to Peter and John, based on the writers own identification/ reference as the disciple Jesus Loved, and the synoptic writers confirming this group. see #2 above.

#2 was not overly convincing and neither is this. Just because it wasn't James doesn't mean by default it had to be John.

6(7 I think). Not only can we place the writer of this book in the first century, but the close proximity of the key events and miracles confirm he was an eyewitness. The writer witnessed the Baptism of Jesus, which was very significant, because James and John the sons of Zebedee were followers of John the Baptist. All four gospels writers outline the ministry of John the Baptist.

Well, we are not 100% sure of the writer yet so using this as evidence is placing it on shaky ground. And as I said earlier, events attested to by one person does not an eyewitness make. Dr. Suess writes about a lot of stuff that has taken place.

7. The first miracle Jesus ever performed, was witnessed by this writer, but amazingly not recorded by any of the synoptic writers. This proves he was an eyewitness through the entire ministry of Jesus, not some Johnny-come-lately. [couldn't help myself]. Laughing

Or that he invented it. But you do have a small point here. If some of his other eyewitness accounts can be verified, then yes, you would have a decent point.

8. Perhaps the biggest clue, most solid evidence that we can say that is was one of the nine, (Judas is out, James was martyred too early, to have been able to be the writer, and Matthew wrote the Gospel of Matthew- leaving nine remaining disciples.) is that he is a witness in the upper room. Mark is the earliest Gospel, and he states, as does Jesus that the twelve were in the upper room, as does Luke.

And he couldn't have simply copied this story from the already existing accounts because . . . . ?

9. NOT only is he, the writer of this Gospel, one of the twelve in the upper room, but he also celebrates the passover with Christ, and witnesses the prediction of Peter's denial, the prediction of Judas's betrayal, but he is in the garden of Gethsemenee when Jesus is arrested, all of which are witnessed and recorded by the other synoptic writers. John 18:1-11.

The synoptics write that Jesus and his followers were in the Garden. Just because John too mentions this doesn't mean he was there. Just like above, he could have copied it and inserted it to make his non-matching statements more "likely" to be true. The best works of fiction contain the most aspects from real life.

10. Matthew and Mark both list Peter, James and John as the three that went aside to pray with Jesus, in his last hours in the garden of Gethsemenee.

Then how do those writers know what happened with the three? If Matthew wasn't there how did he know what happened? Answer . . . .he was told about it. Now apply this to the author of John as well.

Or did I miss your point?

13. The book of John is not the only book to show that Christ proclaimed to be God, but that his enemies understood him to be making this claim. Mark and Colossians, and Hebrews and Philippians and Romans and other of Pauls books clearly affirm the deity of Christ.

Not here yet. Patience. The deity of Christ is another subject.

14. The book of John contains no doctrine that denies or contradicts any other teaching of Christ, nor does it contradict any of the other accounts of Christ's life or ministry.

Examine the Easter story between Luke and John. Luke 24 and John 20 I think.

Are you reading?

Ok Luke 24: 1-13 and John 20:1-18.


Now tell me the order of events. Did Peter run to the tomb before or after the angels appeared?

As for contradicting doctrine, we still have to examine this as I am not convinced that any of the other Gospels assign Jesus such a high Christology and claims to divinity.

15. The book of John was accepted by the early church itself, church leaders, early Historians, and accepted as part of the cannon, and confirmed by extra-Biblical sources who knew John personally.

What extra-biblical sources who knew John Personally? I think you exaggerated just a tad . . .

And being excepted by people 300 years later isn't good evidence.

Accepted by people at the time can count for something, but not much because the Nazarenes used a different copy of Matthew which pre-dates John by decades. They were basically destroyed by early "Christians" because they didn't accept some of the high Christology which was popular later on.

So why is John ok, but these earlier guys with their low Christology not?



Overall I must applaud you. You have put together some good strong points. You have included some very weak points as well. In my opinion, the best evidence you have for you is the attestation of the earliest sources as well as a timeframe for John's death.

Your weakest arguments are very circular. John says it and so it shows that he was an eyewitness is begging the question.

And you unintentionally included one point which goes against you in the early acceptance and high Christology because then the question of the Nazarenes comes into play and must be accounted for.

But over all, this was quite good.

[Salt Agent]

1. Multiple times and places the writer claims to be an eyewitness of the events he described. John 1:14, 19:35, 21:24,25

The book does claim eyewitness account, although I don't think that an atheist would see it this way. But I can see it. First of all, this forum is the Holy Huddle. Atheists can't even post here. For the sake of entertainment, even if it were in the Apologetics or Philosophy forum, it doesn't matter what they think - as far as our criteria for what books to accept. That is a moot point. If that were a criteria, or our standard, we wouldn't even have a Bible. Do you think they care what we think when they discuss Darwinian frog-to-professor evolution.

2. The writer of this Gospel, refers to himself/ identifies himself five times as the "disciple whom Jesus Loved". John 13:23, 19:26, 20:2, 21:7,20. The disciple "whom Jesus Loved" was part of the inner circle of disciples, and the synoptic Gospels --Matthew, Mark and Luke all name this group as James and John the Sons of Zebedee, and Peter.

I don't agree that he identifies himself at all. He could very easily have been describing another disciple, more easily in my opinion than himself. If he was referring to himself, why not just come out and say it?

I don't know, maybe it was to be modest. It makes far less sense that he was referring to someone else, when he directly quotes Jesus talking to the disciple Jesus Loved and Mary the Mother of Jesus. John 19:26-29. He also knew that "from that hour of the conversation, that the disciple took her into his own household." It would not have made sense if he had heard this from someone else, the next day.

3. His knowledge of Palestinian geography and Jewish customs makes it clear that he was a Palestinian Jew, and his meticulous attention to detail, numbers and names confirm that he was not only an eyewitness, but one of the twelve.

It shows that he knew the area. It doesn't show that he was a Palestinian. Also, what customs does John mention that would not be known to anyone in the area, like a Roman Solider for example?

First of all, he spoke Hebrew, John 20:16, John 19:13.
Secondly, he understood specific details about Jewish customs and ceremonies that Gentiles, and Romans probably would not have known. Specifically, there are regular Sabbaths, Saturday, and then there are special or High Sabbaths, or special Jewish Holy days. Plus, they used a lunar calendar, and so not the same one that Romans would have used.
He knew that that Sabbath was a High Sabbath. John 19. Most specifically, he was well aware of very specific Jewish prophecies that related to the Messiah, so he was keenly aware that they were fulfilled, and recorded this significance on multiple occasions. John 19:28, John 19: 36, 37. John 19:24,

So what details are confirmed by sources outside of mainstream Christianity? Or even within mainstream Christianity? At least the Synoptic Gospels enjoy quite a bit of multiple attestation further supported by Josephus and the early fathers accounts of the disciples (Justin Martyr). Another way of asking this, why should I accept the details as true?

So what details are confirmed by sources outside of mainstream Christianity?
I don't recall that being in the agreed list of criteria. But as for details confirmed by other Bible writers, there are plenty. The most important details about his Baptism. He also witnessed some of Jesus most well-known miracles. The feeding of the 5000. Well besides the 12, there were 5000 witnesses for that one miracle. I don't think they were all lying. Then, he also witnessed Jesus walking on the water. This is particularly significant because it is witnessed and confirmed by two other Gospel writers, but the key thing is that it was the 12 disciples in the boat, not Mary Magdalene, or Lazarus, or Theophilus, or any other "prospective writers." He also witnessed Jesus predicting Peter's denial, and Judas' betrayal, and also was in the upper room with the other eleven apostles for the last supper and passover. He also describes the arrest in Garden, the trial of Jesus, the death, burial and resurrection.

4. While many of the parbles are listed in the synoptic Gospels, but not John, the writer of this gospel was an eyewitness to the most significant miracles and key events of the life and ministry of Christ, which are also attested/ witnessed by the synoptic writers.

Unless I am mistaken, there are far more differences between the synoptics and John, than similarities. Doesn't this cause suspicion that the author may have simply been inventing these stories to promote his rendition of events?

You make the point that there are more differences than similarities. Yes, true, but the issue is what is different, and what is similar. The synoptic Gospels contain the parables of Jesus, which are numerous. John doesn't record these, so there are many differences.
It is a huge stretch to go from saying that it was one of six apostles to whom Christ appeared after the resurrection.[Five of which were mentioned by name in John 21] but we are not sure which one, to saying he totally made up/lied stories that never happened. If that were the case, other Gospel writers would not have confirmed his stories. The problem with the absurd notion that he copied down their accounts later on, is that two of these writers say that the apostles were in the upper room, and Jesus himself specifically says "the twelve" --this rules out that John was out sick, and that Lazarus or Mary Magdalene, or Paul or Theophilus was there. This also totally annihilates Gotscripture's theory that it was Lazurus who wrote John.
Plus the fact that the fourth Gospel specifically quotes Jesus saying "Lazarus is dead." and also that he was in the tomb for four days while the whole story was taking place.



Clement of Alexandra wrote about 1 and 2 John. But not about the Gospel as far as I can tell. Do you have better sources than mine?

http://www.religionfacts.com/christiani ... andria.htm

If so feel free to show me where he mentions John as the author of the Gospel.
However, Theophilus is a good source. He was the closets time wise. The date of John's death also matches up with the timeline of the Gospel.

The problem with Theophilus is
-He wasn't one of the apostles. Therefore,
-He wasn't in the upper room. Mark says apostles** and Jesus specifically says "the twelve." [**often the term disciples means the twelve, but can and sometimes does mean all the followers of Christ, depending on the context. The apostles, however is very specific and means the twelve of the closest followers of Christ which are listed by name by all three of the synoptic writers. Matthew, Mark and Luke.]
-He wasn't in the boat when Jesus walked on the water. Jesus was tired and sent his followers away,[the masses] so he could get rest and pray alone. He sent the apostles off in the boat.
Most important of all. John 21 says that after the resurrection, Christ appears to seven disciples, five of whom are mentioned by name. Simon Peter, Thomas/Didymus, Nathanael of Cana, and James and John the Sons of Zebedee. and two others. He directly quotes Peter talking to Jesus, and Jesus talking to Peter. Peter is out. Now we have SIX. As stated earlier James was martyred much too early to have been the author, (Acts 12:1,2), so he is out. Now we have FIVE.
In the very previous chapter, he directly quotes Jesus talking to Thomas, and then Thomas talking to Jesus, and he says Thomas said..., and Jesus said... so this eliminates Thomas. In addition, he also records Jesus appearing to the Disciples when Thomas was absent, so Thomas could not have recorded the event.
NOW WE ARE DOWN TO FOUR.

6. James, the brother of John the apostle, and the son of Zebedee was martyred too early to be the author, ( Acts 12:1-3), and Judas hanged himself so this leaves ten possible disciples as the maximum widest possible group, and narrows it to Peter and John, based on the writers own identification/ reference as the disciple Jesus Loved, and the synoptic writers confirming this group. see #2 above.

Well, we are not 100% sure of the writer yet so using this as evidence is placing it on shaky ground. And as I said earlier, events attested to by one person does not an eyewitness make. Dr. Suess writes about a lot of stuff that has taken place.

7. The first miracle Jesus ever performed, was witnessed by this writer, but amazingly not recorded by any of the synoptic writers. This proves he was an eyewitness through the entire ministry of Jesus, not some Johnny-come-lately. [couldn't help myself]. Laughing

Or that he invented it. But you do have a small point here. If some of his other eyewitness accounts can be verified, then yes, you would have a decent point.

And he couldn't have simply copied this story from the already existing accounts because . . . . ?

That would make him a liar. He says he was an eyewitness, he says he witnessed the resurrection, and that Christ appeared to seven disciples.
If as you suggest, he lied, then the other Gospel writers would not confirm his stories.
Got any other possibilities. Maybe Nathaneal, but it still is one of the four, and the message is valid either way. You still haven't shown contradictions of doctrine.

Cordially,

Salt Agent.






But over all, this was quite good.

[achilles12604]

1. Multiple times and places the writer claims to be an eyewitness of the events he described. John 1:14, 19:35, 21:24,25

The book does claim eyewitness account, although I don't think that an atheist would see it this way. But I can see it. First of all, this forum is the Holy Huddle. Atheists can't even post here. For the sake of entertainment, even if it were in the Apologetics or Philosophy forum, it doesn't matter what they think - as far as our criteria for what books to accept. That is a moot point. If that were a criteria, or our standard, we wouldn't even have a Bible. Do you think they care what we think when they discuss Darwinian frog-to-professor evolution.

Oh I agree. I was simply pointing out that this evidence only works as far as WE are concerned. To take it to the forum as proof would be ineffective.

2. The writer of this Gospel, refers to himself/ identifies himself five times as the "disciple whom Jesus Loved". John 13:23, 19:26, 20:2, 21:7,20. The disciple "whom Jesus Loved" was part of the inner circle of disciples, and the synoptic Gospels --Matthew, Mark and Luke all name this group as James and John the Sons of Zebedee, and Peter.

I don't agree that he identifies himself at all. He could very easily have been describing another disciple, more easily in my opinion than himself. If he was referring to himself, why not just come out and say it?

I don't know, maybe it was to be modest. It makes far less sense that he was referring to someone else, when he directly quotes Jesus talking to the disciple Jesus Loved and Mary the Mother of Jesus. John 19:26-29. He also knew that "from that hour of the conversation, that the disciple took her into his own household." It would not have made sense if he had heard this from someone else, the next day.

No, but it would have made perfect sense if the book was written by someone standing there who witnessed it. OR - As you put so well at the end of this post, the author could have been flat out lying. He certainly doesn't have a lot of multiple attestation.

3. His knowledge of Palestinian geography and Jewish customs makes it clear that he was a Palestinian Jew, and his meticulous attention to detail, numbers and names confirm that he was not only an eyewitness, but one of the twelve.

It shows that he knew the area. It doesn't show that he was a Palestinian. Also, what customs does John mention that would not be known to anyone in the area, like a Roman Solider for example?

First of all, he spoke Hebrew, John 20:16, John 19:13.
Secondly, he understood specific details about Jewish customs and ceremonies that Gentiles, and Romans probably would not have known. Specifically, there are regular Sabbaths, Saturday, and then there are special or High Sabbaths, or special Jewish Holy days. Plus, they used a lunar calendar, and so not the same one that Romans would have used.
He knew that that Sabbath was a High Sabbath. John 19. Most specifically, he was well aware of very specific Jewish prophecies that related to the Messiah, so he was keenly aware that they were fulfilled, and recorded this significance on multiple occasions. John 19:28, John 19: 36, 37. John 19:24,

THERE. Good, you have cited specific examples. Good evidence. I too find it unlikely that a Roman Soldier or a later Gentile would have indepth knowledge of this sort. And incidentally you have also hit upon the one point which made me keep the Book of John around for even secular (non-faith oriented) reasons.

So what details are confirmed by sources outside of mainstream Christianity? Or even within mainstream Christianity? At least the Synoptic Gospels enjoy quite a bit of multiple attestation further supported by Josephus and the early fathers accounts of the disciples (Justin Martyr). Another way of asking this, why should I accept the details as true?

So what details are confirmed by sources outside of mainstream Christianity?
I don't recall that being in the agreed list of criteria. But as for details confirmed by other Bible writers, there are plenty. The most important details about his Baptism. He also witnessed some of Jesus most well-known miracles. The feeding of the 5000. Well besides the 12, there were 5000 witnesses for that one miracle. I don't think they were all lying. Then, he also witnessed Jesus walking on the water. This is particularly significant because it is witnessed and confirmed by two other Gospel writers, but the key thing is that it was the 12 disciples in the boat, not Mary Magdalene, or Lazarus, or Theophilus, or any other "prospective writers." He also witnessed Jesus predicting Peter's denial, and Judas' betrayal, and also was in the upper room with the other eleven apostles for the last supper and passover. He also describes the arrest in Garden, the trial of Jesus, the death, burial and resurrection.

No, but it is important to establish who wrote and what his credentials were. As I said . . . and you said, the author could very well have been lying. This is why multiple attestation, dating, authorship, etc is so important.

And citing the 5000 witnesses doesn't strengthen your case any really. It weakens it because not one of those people wrote a book about it. Now, there are good reasons WHY none of them wrote, but still it certainly doesn't strengthen the case any. You are right. None of them lied . . . because none of them spoke.

4. While many of the parbles are listed in the synoptic Gospels, but not John, the writer of this gospel was an eyewitness to the most significant miracles and key events of the life and ministry of Christ, which are also attested/ witnessed by the synoptic writers.

Unless I am mistaken, there are far more differences between the synoptics and John, than similarities. Doesn't this cause suspicion that the author may have simply been inventing these stories to promote his rendition of events?

You make the point that there are more differences than similarities. Yes, true, but the issue is what is different, and what is similar. The synoptic Gospels contain the parables of Jesus, which are numerous. John doesn't record these, so there are many differences.

Ok, I am with you so far but . . .

It is a huge stretch to go from saying that it was one of six apostles to whom Christ appeared after the resurrection.[Five of which were mentioned by name in John 21] but we are not sure which one, to saying he totally made up/lied stories that never happened. If that were the case, other Gospel writers would not have confirmed his stories. The problem with the absurd notion that he copied down their accounts later on, is that two of these writers say that the apostles were in the upper room, and Jesus himself specifically says "the twelve" --this rules out that John was out sick, and that Lazarus or Mary Magdalene, or Paul or Theophilus was there. This also totally annihilates Gotscripture's theory that it was Lazurus who wrote John.
Plus the fact that the fourth Gospel specifically quotes Jesus saying "Lazarus is dead." and also that he was in the tomb for four days while the whole story was taking place.

Where did this come from? Did I cite the 6 apostles? Have we even narrowed it down this far yet?

Clement of Alexandra wrote about 1 and 2 John. But not about the Gospel as far as I can tell. Do you have better sources than mine?

http://www.religionfacts.com/christiani ... andria.htm

If so feel free to show me where he mentions John as the author of the Gospel.
However, Theophilus is a good source. He was the closets time wise. The date of John's death also matches up with the timeline of the Gospel.

The problem with Theophilus is
-He wasn't one of the apostles. Therefore,
-He wasn't in the upper room. Mark says apostles** and Jesus specifically says "the twelve." [**often the term disciples means the twelve, but can and sometimes does mean all the followers of Christ, depending on the context. The apostles, however is very specific and means the twelve of the closest followers of Christ which are listed by name by all three of the synoptic writers. Matthew, Mark and Luke.]
-He wasn't in the boat when Jesus walked on the water. Jesus was tired and sent his followers away,[the masses] so he could get rest and pray alone. He sent the apostles off in the boat.

WHOA WHOA WHOA! Where did I suggest that Theophilus wrote John?

Most important of all. John 21 says that after the resurrection, Christ appears to seven disciples, five of whom are mentioned by name. Simon Peter, Thomas/Didymus, Nathanael of Cana, and James and John the Sons of Zebedee. and two others. He directly quotes Peter talking to Jesus, and Jesus talking to Peter. Peter is out. Now we have SIX. As stated earlier James was martyred much too early to have been the author, (Acts 12:1,2), so he is out. Now we have FIVE.
In the very previous chapter, he directly quotes Jesus talking to Thomas, and then Thomas talking to Jesus, and he says Thomas said..., and Jesus said... so this eliminates Thomas. In addition, he also records Jesus appearing to the Disciples when Thomas was absent, so Thomas could not have recorded the event.
NOW WE ARE DOWN TO FOUR.

Citing the Book of John as evidence for the book of John isn't the most convincing approach. This is on par with the old joke . . .

Person 1) "The Bible is the word of God"
Person 2) "How do you know that?"
Person 1) "Because it says so"
Person 2) "And why should I believe what it says?"
Person 1) "Because it is the word of God."

The only exception to this is to use it as evidence in comparison to other sources. For example showing me where John agrees with Luke is ok. But telling me that John says something and that proves John's validity doesn't work. Make sense?

Now citing Acts was a good step. You are correct that it could not have been James. I agree 100% with this. Other than this, you are simply citing John to prove John.





Let me summarize what I FEEL we have so far.

1) John's author was probably a Jew and he was probably in Palistine for a good amount of time.

2) John's author MIGHT have been a witness, but he might also have been a flat out liar.

3) John does not agree with the synoptics on several points.

4) We have sources within 50-100 years which attest to John's authorship.



Now, what SOLID points have I missed and why should they be accepted?

[Salt Agent]

Greetings,


Just a little clarification. I think we have made some inroads.

1.)In the last post, you said "Theophilus" was a good source." and reading it at the time, I thought you meant he was a good source to be the author of John.

I am sorry for the mistake on my part. I have no reason to put words in your mouth. I think by now you know that. I either misunderstand, or else i will ask for clarification.

2.) As far as John copying from the other writers- I don't believe he did. Maybe I implied it, but I don't think so. I was bringing it up to refute it as an option.

And he couldn't have simply copied this story from the already existing accounts because . . . . ?

That would make him a liar. He says he was an eyewitness, he says he witnessed the resurrection, and that Christ appeared to seven disciples.
If as you suggest, he lied, then the other Gospel writers would not confirm his stories.

Also, he could not have copied for two very important reasons.
1.) The other synoptic writers confirm him as eyewitness to miracles, as well as key events in which only the apostles were present. This is confirmed as well by Jesus. If he were not actually there, and just copied their account, then it would necessarily mean that all three of the other synoptic Gospel writers were liars.
2.) It is not possible to copy if the account does not already exist in the other gospels. The story of Jesus' first miracle is very significant because it not only tells us he was an eyewitness, but that he was there for the entire ministry of Christ. Other gospel writers do not record it, but there is nothing to say they weren't all there.

I think we are all OK with saying that he didn't copy. yeah?

I also mean to say that he was not lying. He claims to be an eyewitness four or five times. I gave the specific references a few posts ago. I think 2 or 3.
He wasn't copying other writers accounts. If he were copying later, or if he just lied, all three other Gospel writers would not have listed him as being in the upper room --12 apostles. Jesus specifically says "the twelve". Nor would they have listed him as being in the boat with the 12 apostles when Jesus walked on the water. Again, this was a unique miracle not witnessed by anyone besides the 12.

The other Gospel writers say that Jesus went to the Garden of Gethsemane to pray with the disciples, where he was in a habit of doing with them [the apostles, not all of his followers]
The other Gospel writers specifically say Jesus took Peter, James and John aside to pray separately. The writer of the fourth Gospel, was there in the Garden, part of the 12, when Jesus was arrested, and it was clear again, that he was one of the 12, because he knew this habit of Jesus coming here to pray with his disciples.

It is a huge stretch to go from saying that it was one of six apostles to whom Christ appeared after the resurrection.[Five of which were mentioned by name in John 21] but we are not sure which one, to saying he totally made up/lied stories that never happened. If that were the case, other Gospel writers would not have confirmed his stories. The problem with the absurd notion that he copied down their accounts later on, is that two of these writers say that the apostles were in the upper room, and Jesus himself specifically says "the twelve" --this rules out that John was out sick, and that Lazarus or Mary Magdalene, or Paul or Theophilus was there.

I think we, [everyone who has posted so far on this thread] all agree it was not Lazarus, as some suggest, or Theophilus, Peter, or Judas. My point about the stretch, (above) is that it is one thing for people to say, "OK, we don't know with 100% certainty if it was John the apostle, but it was one of 10 apostles." --still fits the criteria you laid out. First Century apostle, or eyewitness.

To say that the writer lied, [he wasn't an eyewitness like he claims, or he lied and totally pulled the story of Christ's first miracle out of his ear.] is completely a different matter altogether, and if you believe this, I still respect your opinion, but by your own standard, using the other Gospel writers, they would all be liars. Besides this, it means that Paul's testimony in Timothy about "all scripture" is also a lie, and therefore, nothing could be trusted.

It is the difference between saying "There are several mysterious questions that cannot be answered about 911" and saying that "911 was masterminded by the Illuninati in order to justify going to war, with Iraq, and drive up the price of oil."

Let me summarize what I FEEL we have so far.

1) John's author was probably a Jew and he was probably in Palistine for a good amount of time.
Check. I think based on the reasons we have discussed, we can say that with a very high level of certainty, he was a Palestinian Jew.

2) John's author MIGHT have been a witness, but he might also have been a flat out liar.
NO! Who ever he was, he clearly claimed to be an eyewitness, and the other Gospel writers also affirmed this. He wasn't a Liar. See above. If you hold this view, then the other Gospel writers are all liars, and also Paul.

3) John does not agree with the synoptics on several points.
Check. The fourth Gospel is very different in the focus of their writings. The synpotic Gospels record the Parables of Jesus. They all however contain, and confirm key miracles and the most critical events of Christ's ministry, his baptism, his miracles, his death, burial and resurrection. There is not doctrinal issue that is brought up in John, that is not supported in other books, or that contradicts doctrine, nor does John deny/contradict other doctrine by any other writer. (You mention high Christology -- we will get there--is there any specific doctrine that you can cite besides this issue???

4) We have sources within 50-100 years which attest to John's authorship.
Check.

5) Whoever it was, the writer of the fourth Gospel was one of the 12 apostles, there for his entire ministry, witnessed his miracles, and was confirmed as being present for events witnessed by the 12 exclusively.
We can rule out Judas, for obvious reasons, and according to Acts,
James was martyred too early. Matthew could have written two eyewitness accounts, just like Paul wrote multiple letters to the same groups, I and II Timothy, etc, but this is highly unlikely, why the redundancy.
We can elimate Peter as well, as the writer quotes Jesus talking to Peter, and Peter answering Jesus.
We can elimate Thomas as well, even more definitively, because the author records Jesus appearing to all the ten disciples at once, but states that Thomas was absent. Then in the next chapter, he quotes Thomas explicity, and quotes Jesus talking to Thomas.
When we eliminate five from the twelve, Judas, Matthew, Peter, James and Thomas, this narrows the range of possibilities to seven, who would have been in the upper room with Jesus, witnessed Jesus predict Peter's denial, and witnessed Jesus predict Judas' betrayal, on the boat on the sea of Galilee when Jesus walked on the water, and was one of the ten Jesus appeared to after the resurrection.
6) No other candidate has even been offered, and even from among the seven, no other apostle has more evidence, or things that make them a better prospect.


** If you don't agree with 5. then would you please list your best possible candidate other than John. If you agree it is narrowed down to those seven, then no need to provide a name.

Cordially,

Salt Agent

[Goose]

Sorry I've been very busy for the last few days. Besides, you guys have been having a great debate on John. Lot's of good posts by both achilles and Salt Agent.

I think Salt Agent presented, for the most part, the same evidence for authorship and authenticity I would have presented. So, rather than circumvent SA's work or repeat, let's use his info as there's been lot's of time put into it.


Regarding John.

Let me summarize what I FEEL we have so far.

1) John's author was probably a Jew and he was probably in Palistine for a good amount of time.

2) John's author MIGHT have been a witness, but he might also have been a flat out liar.

3) John does not agree with the synoptics on several points.

4) We have sources within 50-100 years which attest to John's authorship.

If we take what achilles feels we have found so far with John and use Matthew, Mark and Luke as a baseline here is what we discover.

1)Agreed
2)Matthew might have been a witness too or he might have been a liar as well. So now what?
3)Matthew, Mark and Luke do not appear to agree on several points such as genealogies either.
4)We have no better sources for Matthew, Mark and Luke. In fact, they are basically the same sources.

So, there is no reason based on the above to reject John if one accepts Luke, Matthew, and Mark.




More to the point - the agreed criteria.

First. Let's settle on a criteria for authority. Do you have a problem with mine? Here it is again.

To be considered authoritative the work must:

1. Have apostolic and first century authorship. (at least to a reasonable degree of certainty). We'll use the same methodology for establishing authorship and dating as classical scholars use for establishing the authorship and dating of secular works. If it's linked to a first century apostle or disciple it's good-to-go.

2. Have a consistent core message with the majority of other first century works in regards to faith and practice.

3. Have no obvious factual errors.

4. Have a sober and factual demeanor with out obviously bizarre, unnecessary and absurd embellishments to the supernatural.

I am just fine with this criteria, but I would like to add that if at all possible its events should be consistent with outside sources as well. We can count this as bonus points if you wish.

1. Salt Agent has presented external/internal evidence for John. When compared to that of the Synoptic Gospels, it is no better or worse for John. The external evidence for John is essentially the same and from the same sources as that for the synoptics. Indeed, they were considered a package like the "four winds." The internal evidence for John, though not directly making a claim to authorship like Paul, would not lead us to think that the author could not possibly be a disciple. It is much the same for the synoptics. The internal evidence for Matthew, Mark, Luke and John supports the external evidence. It does not prove it conclusively. Therefore, we can not fairly reject John if we accept the internal evidence that supports the traditional authorship of Matthew, Mark, and Luke. It would seem that John has an equal claim to apostolic authorship as Matthew, Mark, and Luke.

2. I don't think anything has been presented to show the core message of John is not consistent with other writings. Maybe I missed something?

3. Again, I don't think any obvious factual errors in John have been presented. If it is objected that John's account with Peter at the tomb is an awkward discrepancy with Luke's account then we must reject Matthew and Luke because of an equally awkward and not easily answered discrepancy between the genealogies.

4. There is no obvious or bizarre embellishment to the supernatural in John such as talking crosses. In fact, there is some dumbing-down. The account of the initial discovery of the empty tomb in John contains no earthquakes, no lightening, no men in shining garments and no angels rolling back the stone. The number of angels at the tomb in John's account is two, the same number as Luke. If John had an agenda to promote his idea of a divine Jesus and sell a "higher" Christology by embellishing, that would have been an excellent opportunity to do so. John squandered the chance. It has been shown and agreed that a Christology is present in the Synoptics. So one can not object to a "higher" Christology in John.

So far, I haven't seen any reason to reject John without also having to reject Matthew Luke and Mark. When a consistent methodology is employed and weighed against a baseline such as the synoptics, to reject John here one must maintain a subjective position based more upon personal feelings, world views and a priori conclusions, not based on evidence.

[achilles12604]

2.) As far as John copying from the other writers- I don't believe he did. Maybe I implied it, but I don't think so. I was bringing it up to refute it as an option.

And he couldn't have simply copied this story from the already existing accounts because . . . . ?

That would make him a liar. He says he was an eyewitness, he says he witnessed the resurrection, and that Christ appeared to seven disciples.
If as you suggest, he lied, then the other Gospel writers would not confirm his stories.

Also, he could not have copied for two very important reasons.
1.) The other synoptic writers confirm him as eyewitness to miracles, as well as key events in which only the apostles were present. This is confirmed as well by Jesus. If he were not actually there, and just copied their account, then it would necessarily mean that all three of the other synoptic Gospel writers were liars.

\

Not really. If Mark was there, and Matthew and Luke and John all just copied what Mark said, then Mark (copying for Peter) wouldn't be a liar would he. Now what if Matthew was also there and John copied from him . . .

You get my point.

But there is another issue. Matthew records events that he was not present for by his own admission. So we know for SURE that some copying had to have been done by the Gospel writers. So why not John?

2.) It is not possible to copy if the account does not already exist in the other gospels. The story of Jesus' first miracle is very significant because it not only tells us he was an eyewitness, but that he was there for the entire ministry of Christ. Other gospel writers do not record it, but there is nothing to say they weren't all there.

I think we are all OK with saying that he didn't copy.

This does work as evidence against him copying. But not against him inventing. Just thought I would point this out.

I also mean to say that he was not lying. He claims to be an eyewitness four or five times. I gave the specific references a few posts ago. I think 2 or 3.
He wasn't copying other writers accounts. If he were copying later, or if he just lied, all three other Gospel writers would not have listed him as being in the upper room --12 apostles.

Why? I have no problem with John being in the upper room. However the Gospel was written by Jose' the Hispanic bar tender. So Matt, Mark and Luke all were right that John was in the room and the author of the gospel of John still invented stories.

Show me I am wrong.

Jesus specifically says "the twelve". Nor would they have listed him as being in the boat with the 12 apostles when Jesus walked on the water. Again, this was a unique miracle not witnessed by anyone besides the 12.

It also lacks any other Gospel writer mentioning it which places it into the category of invented. Moving on . . .

The other Gospel writers say that Jesus went to the Garden of Gethsemane to pray with the disciples, where he was in a habit of doing with them [the apostles, not all of his followers]
The other Gospel writers specifically say Jesus took Peter, James and John aside to pray separately. The writer of the fourth Gospel, was there in the Garden, part of the 12, when Jesus was arrested, and it was clear again, that he was one of the 12, because he knew this habit of Jesus coming here to pray with his disciples.

This does indirectly imply that the author of John was aware of the "secret place" Jesus went with his 12. So it could be one of the 12 or it could be someone who was a close observer of the 12.



Here you say two things in my opinion. One incorrect and one possibly half correct.

First, like I pointed out before Matthew was not one of the inner three yet he has an account of what those 3 encountered. So some copying MUST have been done.

Second, you may be half right about being aware of the habits of Jesus.

1When he had finished praying, Jesus left with his disciples and crossed the Kidron Valley. On the other side there was an olive grove, and he and his disciples went into it.

2Now Judas, who betrayed him, knew the place, because Jesus had often met there with his disciples. 3So Judas came to the grove, guiding a detachment of soldiers and some officials from the chief priests and Pharisees. They were carrying torches, lanterns and weapons.

However, John lacks the entire section about Jesus taking those three men with him. If John was a witness to these events why on earth didn't he both write about them and then maybe expound upon them? He skips this section entirely.

Honestly if John had written Matthew and visa versa, this would make more sense to me.

It is a huge stretch to go from saying that it was one of six apostles to whom Christ appeared after the resurrection.[Five of which were mentioned by name in John 21] but we are not sure which one, to saying he totally made up/lied stories that never happened. If that were the case, other Gospel writers would not have confirmed his stories. The problem with the absurd notion that he copied down their accounts later on, is that two of these writers say that the apostles were in the upper room, and Jesus himself specifically says "the twelve" --this rules out that John was out sick, and that Lazarus or Mary Magdalene, or Paul or Theophilus was there.

I think we, [everyone who has posted so far on this thread] all agree it was not Lazarus, as some suggest, or Theophilus, Peter, or Judas. My point about the stretch, (above) is that it is one thing for people to say, "OK, we don't know with 100% certainty if it was John the apostle, but it was one of 10 apostles." --still fits the criteria you laid out. First Century apostle, or eyewitness.

To say that the writer lied, [he wasn't an eyewitness like he claims, or he lied and totally pulled the story of Christ's first miracle out of his ear.] is completely a different matter altogether, and if you believe this, I still respect your opinion, but by your own standard, using the other Gospel writers, they would all be liars. Besides this, it means that Paul's testimony in Timothy about "all scripture" is also a lie, and therefore, nothing could be trusted.

Paul aside (we can deal with him next), I explained above why the others could be right on and the author of John could have still copied and then invented at his leisure.

It is the difference between saying "There are several mysterious questions that cannot be answered about 911" and saying that "911 was masterminded by the Illuninati in order to justify going to war, with Iraq, and drive up the price of oil."

Now that is a conspiracy theory I can get into.

Let me summarize what I FEEL we have so far.

1) John's author was probably a Jew and he was probably in Palistine for a good amount of time.
Check. I think based on the reasons we have discussed, we can say that with a very high level of certainty, he was a Palestinian Jew.

Good. Done.

2) John's author MIGHT have been a witness, but he might also have been a flat out liar.
NO! Who ever he was, he clearly claimed to be an eyewitness, and the other Gospel writers also affirmed this. He wasn't a Liar. See above. If you hold this view, then the other Gospel writers are all liars, and also Paul.

Again Paul aside, I still don't think you understand what I am saying. You keep repeating that the other writers say John was there. I AGREE John was there. 100%.

However the author of the book of John, Jose the Hispanic bar tender, was not. And therefore John was in the room and Jose is still a liar.

3) John does not agree with the synoptics on several points.
Check. The fourth Gospel is very different in the focus of their writings. The synpotic Gospels record the Parables of Jesus. They all however contain, and confirm key miracles and the most critical events of Christ's ministry, his baptism, his miracles, his death, burial and resurrection. There is not doctrinal issue that is brought up in John, that is not supported in other books, or that contradicts doctrine, nor does John deny/contradict other doctrine by any other writer. (You mention high Christology -- we will get there--is there any specific doctrine that you can cite besides this issue???

Let's finish with determining if John should be given status or not.

4) We have sources within 50-100 years which attest to John's authorship.
Check.

Good. Done.

5) Whoever it was, the writer of the fourth Gospel was one of the 12 apostles, there for his entire ministry, witnessed his miracles, and was confirmed as being present for events witnessed by the 12 exclusively.

Once again, it doesn't have to be so because the author could have invented the water into wine story. He could have invented the early stories to make himself seem more credible.

We can rule out Judas, for obvious reasons, and according to Acts,
James was martyred too early. Matthew could have written two eyewitness accounts, just like Paul wrote multiple letters to the same groups, I and II Timothy, etc, but this is highly unlikely, why the redundancy.
We can elimate Peter as well, as the writer quotes Jesus talking to Peter, and Peter answering Jesus.
We can elimate Thomas as well, even more definitively, because the author records Jesus appearing to all the ten disciples at once, but states that Thomas was absent. Then in the next chapter, he quotes Thomas explicity, and quotes Jesus talking to Thomas.
When we eliminate five from the twelve, Judas, Matthew, Peter, James and Thomas, this narrows the range of possibilities to seven, who would have been in the upper room with Jesus, witnessed Jesus predict Peter's denial, and witnessed Jesus predict Judas' betrayal, on the boat on the sea of Galilee when Jesus walked on the water, and was one of the ten Jesus appeared to after the resurrection.

I agree with all but the last part. We could still have coping going on. HOWEVER, when you cite the specific details mentioned by John and the others in the upper room, it does give your idea at least a little credibility. The walking on water was not attested to by anyone else was it? Then how do you know it wasn't another invention?

6) No other candidate has even been offered, and even from among the seven, no other apostle has more evidence, or things that make them a better prospect.

This isn't quite true. John the elder is another possibility given serious credibility by the church.

However I am intrgued by the idea of Cerinthus.

The Gospel of John does seem to have been re-written or at least edited. I think that a decent explaination can be found here.

Helms adduces evidence that there were divisions over the interpretation of John at an early period, as early as the writing of the epistles 1 John and 2 John. Consider the passages 1 John 2:18-19 and 2 John 7. Helms writes (Who Wrote the Gospels?, p. 163):

Some members of the Johannine community departed, became a rival sect, over the question of the 'flesh' of Jesus Christ, an event that leads the author of I John to the certainty that 'this is the last hour.' We do not know for sure who these secessionists were, but as Raymond Brown notes, they were 'not detectably outsiders to the Johannine community but the offspring of Johannine thought itself, justifying their position by the Johannine Gospel and its implications' (1979, 107). This seems likely, until we reflect on the oddity of people who purportedly deny that 'Jesus Christ came in the flesh' citing a gospel that declares 'the Word became flesh,' and 'whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood possesses eternal life.' Brown's argument founders on his insistence that 'John exactly as we have it' (108, his italics) was the text used by those who left the Johannine community. Brown refuses to 'exclude certain passages from the Fourth Gospel on the grounds that they were probably not in the tradition known to the secessionists but were added by the redactor (either later or as anti-secessionist revision)' (1979, 109). He admits that many accept that John 1:14 - 'The Word became flesh' - was 'added by the redactor as an attack on the opponents of I John' (1979, 109) but continues to write as if there were no revision of the Fourth Gospel.

Helms states, "we need to note that part of the purpose of Irenaeus was to attack the teachings of Cerinthus, a gnostic Christian teacher who lived in Ephesus at the end of the first century" (op. cit., p. 162). Cerinthus was "educated in the wisdom of the Egyptians, taught that the world was not made by a primary God, but by a certain Power far separated from him...Moreover, after [Jesus'] baptism, Christ descended upon him in the form of a dove from the Supreme Ruler, and that then he proclaimed the unknown Father, and performed miracles. But at last Christ departed from Jesus, and that then Jesus suffered and rose again, while Christ remained impassible, inasmuch as he was a spiritual being" (1.26.1). Irenaeus stated that the purpose of John at Ephesus was as follows:

by the proclamation of the Gospel, to remove that error which by Cerinthus had been disseminated among men, and a long time previously by those termed Nicolaitans, who are an offset of that 'knowledge' [gnosis] falsely so called, that he might confound them, and persuade them that there is but one God, who made all things by His Word; and not, as they allege, that the Creator was one, but the Father and the Lord another; and that the Son of the Creator was, forsooth, one, but the Christ from above another (3.11.1)

Helms argues: "So the gospel attributed, late in the second century, to John at Ephesus was viewed as an anti-gnostic, anti-Cerinthean work. But, very strangely, Epiphanius, in his book against the heretics, argues against those who actually believed that it was Cerinthus himself who wrote the Gospel of John! (Adv. Haer. 51.3.6). How could it be that the Fourth Gospel was at one time in its history regarded as the product of an Egyptian-trained gnostic, and at another time in its history regarded as composed for the very purpose of attacking this same gnostic? I think the answer is plausible that in an early, now-lost version, the Fourth Gospel could well have been read in a Cerinthean, gnostic fashion, but that at Ephesus a revision of it was produced (we now call it the Gospel of John) that put this gospel back into the Christian mainstream."

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/john.html


There is also this to consider. . .

Robert Kysar writes the following on the authorship of the Gospel of John (The Anchor Bible Dictionary, v. 3, pp. 919-920):

The supposition that the author was one and the same with the beloved disciple is often advanced as a means of insuring that the evangelist did witness Jesus' ministry. Two other passages are advanced as evidence of the same - 19:35 and 21:24. But both falter under close scrutiny. 19:35 does not claim that the author was the one who witnessed the scene but only that the scene is related on the sound basis of eyewitness. 21:24 is part of the appendix of the gospel and should not be assumed to have come from the same hand as that responsible for the body of the gospel. Neither of these passages, therefore, persuades many Johannine scholars that the author claims eyewitness status.

There is a case to be made that John, the son of Zebedee, had already died long before the Gospel of John came to be written. It is worth noting for its own sake, even though the "beloved disciple" need not be identified with John, the son of Zebedee. In his ninth century Chronicle in the codex Coislinianus, George Hartolos says, "[John] was worth of martyrdom." Hamartolos proceeds to quote Papias to the effect that, "he [John] was killed by the Jews." In the de Boor fragment of an epitome of the fifth century Chronicle of Philip of Side, the author quotes Papias: Papias in the second book says that John the divine and James his brother were killed by Jews. Morton Enslin observes (Christian Beginnings, pp. 369-370): "That PapiasÂ’ source of information is simply an inference from Mark 10:35-40 or its parallel, Matt. 20:20-23, is possible. None the less, this Marcan passage itself affords solid ground. No reasonable interpretation of these words can deny the high probability that by the time these words were written [ca. 70 CE] both brothers had 'drunk the cup' that Jesus had drunk and had been 'baptized with the baptism' with which he had been baptized." Since the patristic tradition is unanimous in identifying the beloved disciple with John, at least this evidence discredits the patristic tradition concerning the authorship of the Gospel of John.

To summarize:

John the Apostle could have written the book a bit earlier than most people think. He was then killed by the Jews, an event attested to in Mark. Then his Gospel was taken and edited. Parts were added by Cerinthus to match with his own views. Then this edited version was entered in around 90ish and presto, we have the Gospel of John that we see today.

What do you say?

[Salt Agent]

Greetings, friends,

We are making headway. We have agreed on two of the four points. After reading and then re-reading your post, I think it boils down to three hiccups. In Blue, for brevity.

1.) Jose' the Hispanic bar tender. ** I understand you to mean some-other-Palestinian-Jewish-dude-who-hanged-out-with-the-apostles I personally like the fishing-net-maker-friend-of-apostles-also-named-John, but let's call him Jose.

2.) Jesus Walking on the Water. It also lacks any other Gospel writer mentioning it which places it into the category of invented. Moving on . . .

3.) Copy/Invent flip-flop. OK, the dual conflicting theory. That he copied, and lied/invented.


Why? I have no problem with John being in the upper room. However the Gospel was written by Jose' the Hispanic bar tender. So Matt, Mark and Luke all were right that John was in the room and the author of the gospel of John still invented stories.

Show me I am wrong.

The reason it could not have been Jose, or Theophilus, or as Gotscripture suggests, Lazarus, was because the other three Gospel writers say it was the 12 there. Matthew was not simply recording after the fact. He was one of the twelve apostles, and he says specifically that 12 disciples were in the upper room. Not 15, or 27, or 40.... 12. Jose had the night off.
Then, Mark, the earliest Gospel, says 12 disciples were in the upper room for the passover and last supper. In Marks Gospel, Jesus explicitly is quoted saying, "The twelve." Lazarus was hanging out with Theophilus and Cerinthus that night. Jose was somewhere else, but not in the upper room. It was a private dinner party.
In case there is any doubt whatsoever, Luke uses a more specific word, "the apostles", which means very specifically those 12 disciples who are mentioned by name in all three synoptic Gospels.

This is the biggest reason why Gotscripture is clearly wrong, but there are other problems too.

Nor would they have listed him as being in the boat with the 12 apostles when Jesus walked on the water. Again, this was a unique miracle not witnessed by anyone besides the 12.

It also lacks any other Gospel writer mentioning it which places it into the category of invented. Moving on . . .

Sorry, dude, you are mistaken. Check it out. This is very significant as to why the writer of the fourth Gospel has to be one of the 12. [Later, we can certainly narrow it to six] Matthew 14:22-23, Mark 6:45-52, and John 6:15-21 all three list this miracle. Again, same reason as listed above. This was another miracle witnessed not by the masses, but by the 12 apostles.

Lazarus, Cerinthus, Theophilus, and Jose, were all in a Frizbee golf tournament that afternoon, so they couldn't make it. Mary and Martha were having a tea party with Mary Magdalene and Luke was delivering a baby, so that's why its not recorded there.
You get my point. The upper room, last supper, Passover and Jesus Walking on the Water, were miracles/events only witnessed by the apostles, not his other followers. This rules out Jose being the writer. The writer of the fourth Gospel was one of six apostles who witnessed these private events/miracles.


Quote:
The other Gospel writers say that Jesus went to the Garden of Gethsemane to pray with the disciples, where he was in a habit of doing with them [the apostles, not all of his followers]
The other Gospel writers specifically say Jesus took Peter, James and John aside to pray separately. The writer of the fourth Gospel, was there in the Garden, part of the 12, when Jesus was arrested, and it was clear again, that he was one of the 12, because he knew this habit of Jesus coming here to pray with his disciples.

This does indirectly imply that the author of John was aware of the "secret place" Jesus went with his 12. So it could be one of the 12 or it could be someone who was a close observer of the 12.

Here you say two things in my opinion. One incorrect and one possibly half correct.

First, like I pointed out before Matthew was not one of the inner three yet he has an account of what those 3 encountered. So some copying MUST have been done.

Second, you may be half right about being aware of the habits of Jesus. Quote:
1When he had finished praying, Jesus left with his disciples and crossed the Kidron Valley. On the other side there was an olive grove, and he and his disciples went into it.

2Now Judas, who betrayed him, knew the place, because Jesus had often met there with his disciples. 3So Judas came to the grove, guiding a detachment of soldiers and some officials from the chief priests and Pharisees. They were carrying torches, lanterns and weapons.


However, John lacks the entire section about Jesus taking those three men with him. If John was a witness to these events why on earth didn't he both write about them and then maybe expound upon them? He skips this section entirely.

No, he does describe Jesus going to the garden where he was in the habit of taking the 12, [Jose was not here, again] he doesn't give as much detail. It seems totally reasonable that he wouldn't have said "Jesus picked me and two others especially close." Maybe he was being modest.

Let me summarize what I FEEL we have so far.

Quote:
2) John's author MIGHT have been a witness, but he might also have been a flat out liar.

NO! Who ever he was, he clearly claimed to be an eyewitness, and the other Gospel writers also affirmed this. He wasn't a Liar. See above. If you hold this view, then the other Gospel writers are all liars.

I still don't think you understand what I am saying. You keep repeating that the other writers say John was there. I AGREE John was there. 100%.

However the author of the book of John, Jose the Hispanic bar tender, was not. And therefore John was in the room and Jose is still a liar.

You keep changing back and forth between Jose copied, when it seems to work, like the feeding of the 5000, he certainly could have been there that day, serving fish and chips, but when it is clearly impossible that he copied --Water into wine--He lied about that..

It really is desperate to say that the writer of John invented half and copied the rest. Where is the proof. Jose wasn't in the boat, or in the upper room, and likely not in the Garden either. The author of the fourth gospel was one of six apostles who witnessed all these events, but Lazarus, Jose, and Theophilus didn't. No other candidate fits more of the criteria.

It could have been Nathaneal of Cana, listed in John 21, but he still fits all the four criteria you mentioned, so nothing changes.


Salt Agent,

Jose says Hello,

[twobitsmedia]

I accept that some of the stories of the bible are nothing more than stories, nor were they ever meant to be more than this.

How do you decide which is which?

I accept that the church has fallen far from where it originated.

How do you rate this?

I accept that the writings of Paul and the other disciples, while lead by God, are still personal interpretations and therefore subject to personal bias.

So the verse that says "all scripture is inspired" is a lie or bias?

I accept (basically) some form of evolution/ID

some form?

I accept much of the current church as hypocritical and lazy

Could an argument be made for the current church vs the current psedo church?

I accept that God knows just about everything, but can not know individual futures nor do I think this idea is supported well by scripture.

can not?

Which of my beliefs are directly contradicted by scripture?

Maybe some of the previoulsy noted, or it is semantics.

[achilles12604]

Greetings, friends,

We are making headway. We have agreed on two of the four points. After reading and then re-reading your post, I think it boils down to three hiccups. In Blue, for brevity.

1.) Jose' the Hispanic bar tender. ** I understand you to mean some-other-Palestinian-Jewish-dude-who-hanged-out-with-the-apostles I personally like the fishing-net-maker-friend-of-apostles-also-named-John, but let's call him Jose.

2.) Jesus Walking on the Water. It also lacks any other Gospel writer mentioning it which places it into the category of invented. Moving on . . .

3.) Copy/Invent flip-flop. OK, the dual conflicting theory. That he copied, and lied/invented.


Why? I have no problem with John being in the upper room. However the Gospel was written by Jose' the Hispanic bar tender. So Matt, Mark and Luke all were right that John was in the room and the author of the gospel of John still invented stories.

Show me I am wrong.

The reason it could not have been Jose, or Theophilus, or as Gotscripture suggests, Lazarus, was because the other three Gospel writers say it was the 12 there. Matthew was not simply recording after the fact. He was one of the twelve apostles, and he says specifically that 12 disciples were in the upper room. Not 15, or 27, or 40.... 12. Jose had the night off.
Then, Mark, the earliest Gospel, says 12 disciples were in the upper room for the passover and last supper. In Marks Gospel, Jesus explicitly is quoted saying, "The twelve." Lazarus was hanging out with Theophilus and Cerinthus that night. Jose was somewhere else, but not in the upper room. It was a private dinner party.
In case there is any doubt whatsoever, Luke uses a more specific word, "the apostles", which means very specifically those 12 disciples who are mentioned by name in all three synoptic Gospels.

This is the biggest reason why Gotscripture is clearly wrong, but there are other problems too.

Nor would they have listed him as being in the boat with the 12 apostles when Jesus walked on the water. Again, this was a unique miracle not witnessed by anyone besides the 12.

It also lacks any other Gospel writer mentioning it which places it into the category of invented. Moving on . . .

Sorry, dude, you are mistaken. Check it out. This is very significant as to why the writer of the fourth Gospel has to be one of the 12. [Later, we can certainly narrow it to six] Matthew 14:22-23, Mark 6:45-52, and John 6:15-21 all three list this miracle. Again, same reason as listed above. This was another miracle witnessed not by the masses, but by the 12 apostles.

Lazarus, Cerinthus, Theophilus, and Jose, were all in a Frizbee golf tournament that afternoon, so they couldn't make it. Mary and Martha were having a tea party with Mary Magdalene and Luke was delivering a baby, so that's why its not recorded there.
You get my point. The upper room, last supper, Passover and Jesus Walking on the Water, were miracles/events only witnessed by the apostles, not his other followers. This rules out Jose being the writer. The writer of the fourth Gospel was one of six apostles who witnessed these private events/miracles.


Quote:
The other Gospel writers say that Jesus went to the Garden of Gethsemane to pray with the disciples, where he was in a habit of doing with them [the apostles, not all of his followers]
The other Gospel writers specifically say Jesus took Peter, James and John aside to pray separately. The writer of the fourth Gospel, was there in the Garden, part of the 12, when Jesus was arrested, and it was clear again, that he was one of the 12, because he knew this habit of Jesus coming here to pray with his disciples.

This does indirectly imply that the author of John was aware of the "secret place" Jesus went with his 12. So it could be one of the 12 or it could be someone who was a close observer of the 12.

Here you say two things in my opinion. One incorrect and one possibly half correct.

First, like I pointed out before Matthew was not one of the inner three yet he has an account of what those 3 encountered. So some copying MUST have been done.

Second, you may be half right about being aware of the habits of Jesus. Quote:
1When he had finished praying, Jesus left with his disciples and crossed the Kidron Valley. On the other side there was an olive grove, and he and his disciples went into it.

2Now Judas, who betrayed him, knew the place, because Jesus had often met there with his disciples. 3So Judas came to the grove, guiding a detachment of soldiers and some officials from the chief priests and Pharisees. They were carrying torches, lanterns and weapons.


However, John lacks the entire section about Jesus taking those three men with him. If John was a witness to these events why on earth didn't he both write about them and then maybe expound upon them? He skips this section entirely.

No, he does describe Jesus going to the garden where he was in the habit of taking the 12, [Jose was not here, again] he doesn't give as much detail. It seems totally reasonable that he wouldn't have said "Jesus picked me and two others especially close." Maybe he was being modest.

Let me summarize what I FEEL we have so far.

Quote:
2) John's author MIGHT have been a witness, but he might also have been a flat out liar.

NO! Who ever he was, he clearly claimed to be an eyewitness, and the other Gospel writers also affirmed this. He wasn't a Liar. See above. If you hold this view, then the other Gospel writers are all liars.

I still don't think you understand what I am saying. You keep repeating that the other writers say John was there. I AGREE John was there. 100%.

However the author of the book of John, Jose the Hispanic bar tender, was not. And therefore John was in the room and Jose is still a liar.

You keep changing back and forth between Jose copied, when it seems to work, like the feeding of the 5000, he certainly could have been there that day, serving fish and chips, but when it is clearly impossible that he copied --Water into wine--He lied about that..

It really is desperate to say that the writer of John invented half and copied the rest. Where is the proof. Jose wasn't in the boat, or in the upper room, and likely not in the Garden either. The author of the fourth gospel was one of six apostles who witnessed all these events, but Lazarus, Jose, and Theophilus didn't. No other candidate fits more of the criteria.

It could have been Nathaneal of Cana, listed in John 21, but he still fits all the four criteria you mentioned, so nothing changes.


Salt Agent,

Jose says Hello,

My position has been correctly analyzed in the last part of this post. It is a non-falsifiable position without evidence to support it. And is therefore JUNK.

So we need to stop assuming either way, that the writings of John prove John was the author (circular reasoning) or that the author must have been a copy cat liar (non-falsifiable).

Bottom line, in order to establish authorship, most of the evidence must be external to the piece. But we have already found one piece of evidence suggesting John's authorship.

I inadvertently found another in my attempt to solidify my position against.

It has long been noticed that John carries with it a very high Christology. It also has been noticed that John has been edited by unknown persons. I stumbled upon a plausible explanation inadvertently above.

Helms adduces evidence that there were divisions over the interpretation of John at an early period, as early as the writing of the epistles 1 John and 2 John. Consider the passages 1 John 2:18-19 and 2 John 7. Helms writes (Who Wrote the Gospels?, p. 163):

Some members of the Johannine community departed, became a rival sect, over the question of the 'flesh' of Jesus Christ, an event that leads the author of I John to the certainty that 'this is the last hour.' We do not know for sure who these secessionists were, but as Raymond Brown notes, they were 'not detectably outsiders to the Johannine community but the offspring of Johannine thought itself, justifying their position by the Johannine Gospel and its implications' (1979, 107). This seems likely, until we reflect on the oddity of people who purportedly deny that 'Jesus Christ came in the flesh' citing a gospel that declares 'the Word became flesh,' and 'whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood possesses eternal life.' Brown's argument founders on his insistence that 'John exactly as we have it' (108, his italics) was the text used by those who left the Johannine community. Brown refuses to 'exclude certain passages from the Fourth Gospel on the grounds that they were probably not in the tradition known to the secessionists but were added by the redactor (either later or as anti-secessionist revision)' (1979, 109). He admits that many accept that John 1:14 - 'The Word became flesh' - was 'added by the redactor as an attack on the opponents of I John' (1979, 109) but continues to write as if there were no revision of the Fourth Gospel.

Helms states, "we need to note that part of the purpose of Irenaeus was to attack the teachings of Cerinthus, a gnostic Christian teacher who lived in Ephesus at the end of the first century" (op. cit., p. 162). Cerinthus was "educated in the wisdom of the Egyptians, taught that the world was not made by a primary God, but by a certain Power far separated from him...Moreover, after [Jesus'] baptism, Christ descended upon him in the form of a dove from the Supreme Ruler, and that then he proclaimed the unknown Father, and performed miracles. But at last Christ departed from Jesus, and that then Jesus suffered and rose again, while Christ remained impassible, inasmuch as he was a spiritual being" (1.26.1). Irenaeus stated that the purpose of John at Ephesus was as follows:

by the proclamation of the Gospel, to remove that error which by Cerinthus had been disseminated among men, and a long time previously by those termed Nicolaitans, who are an offset of that 'knowledge' [gnosis] falsely so called, that he might confound them, and persuade them that there is but one God, who made all things by His Word; and not, as they allege, that the Creator was one, but the Father and the Lord another; and that the Son of the Creator was, forsooth, one, but the Christ from above another (3.11.1)

Helms argues: "So the gospel attributed, late in the second century, to John at Ephesus was viewed as an anti-gnostic, anti-Cerinthean work. But, very strangely, Epiphanius, in his book against the heretics, argues against those who actually believed that it was Cerinthus himself who wrote the Gospel of John! (Adv. Haer. 51.3.6). How could it be that the Fourth Gospel was at one time in its history regarded as the product of an Egyptian-trained gnostic, and at another time in its history regarded as composed for the very purpose of attacking this same gnostic? I think the answer is plausible that in an early, now-lost version, the Fourth Gospel could well have been read in a Cerinthean, gnostic fashion, but that at Ephesus a revision of it was produced (we now call it the Gospel of John) that put this gospel back into the Christian mainstream."

I find this theory to be quite plausible. John does appear to have been altered and if it was written as an answer to someone proclaiming low Christology, then it makes sense that it has high Christology to combat this notion.

So what say you to the idea that John was the writer and his piece was written not necessarily with pure intent to pass along what occurred like Luke or Mark, but rather to pass along what occurred with an anti-gnostic slant written in? Would this account for all the variables?

I think this accounts for the observed alterations and additions, as well as the unique view of Christology, and the fact that this Gospel focuses on the part of Jesus ministry associated with high Christology. I think that this rendition answers the questions of history fairly well with no loose ends to tie up.