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?

[marco]

[Replying to post 28 by marco]

I would refer you to John 11:1-57

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

We can all read the story, Brian. Jesus allows the women to suffer, seeing their brother die, in order to demonstrate his prowess. He speaks confidently about his plan and yet he weeps, becoming a man again. The corpse rises up and we hear no more from it in history. Thus does one of history's most amazing events pass into nothingness. The Jews, of course, are painted as plotters, killers of a great man, condemned to be kicked through history by the words of the good evangelist. There is much to deplore in the text.

[tam]

Peace to you,

[Replying to post 28 by marco]

I would refer you to John 11:1-57

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

We can all read the story, Brian. Jesus allows the women to suffer, seeing their brother die, in order to demonstrate his prowess.

So that they might believe...

He speaks confidently about his plan and yet he weeps, becoming a man again.

He weeps with them, in their pain.

The corpse rises up and we hear no more from it in history. Thus does one of history's most amazing events pass into nothingness.

Since we are talking about Lazarus and him being resurrected almost two thousand years later, I cannot agree with your assessment that this amazing event passed into nothingness.

The Jews, of course, are painted as plotters, killers of a great man, condemned to be kicked through history by the words of the good evangelist. There is much to deplore in the text.

I'm not sure where this came from, but Lazarus is a Jew, Martha and Mary are Jews, the rest of the apostles and disciples (and all the earliest Christians) and Christ also, are Jews.


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

[marco]

We can all read the story, Brian. Jesus allows the women to suffer, seeing their brother die, in order to demonstrate his prowess.

So that they might believe...

You don't let people suffer to further your own ends. He caused their pain.

The corpse rises up and we hear no more from it in history. Thus does one of history's most amazing events pass into nothingness.

Since we are talking about Lazarus and him being resurrected almost two thousand years later, I cannot agree with your assessment that this amazing event passed into nothingness.

We have visible proof today of the Code of Hammurabi, from around 1700 BC. Discussing something does not prove it happened; we talk about Romulus founding Rome; we talk about Hercules and Mercury. We know more about Alexander's horse than about the resurrected Lazarus. It is a nice fiction.

The Jews, of course, are painted as plotters, killers of a great man, condemned to be kicked through history by the words of the good evangelist. There is much to deplore in the text.

I'm not sure where this came from, but Lazarus is a Jew, Martha and Mary are Jews, the rest of the apostles and disciples (and all the earliest Christians) and Christ also, are Jews.

That's all very well - we are dealing with the differentiation of (good) Jews who turned to Christ and (bad) Jews who continued to be Jews and killed God. Matthew is the worst culprit:

Matthew 27:25 (KJV)

"Then answered all the people, and said, His blood be on us, and on our children."


ALL THE PEOPLE indeed! And he would know that an entire race uttered this curse with one voice. We must remember that Jesus has good and bad points. He brought suffering to Jews, engineered the death of Judas and had his immediate followers suffer martyrdom for a promise that didn't come to pass. "I will be back soon."


And for those who erroneously think Jesus is the Prince of Peace, Matthew puts us right:


Matthew 10:34

"Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. "

He was right as South American natives discovered. Jesus is best promulgated in steel. He has many faces.

[JehovahsWitness]

Matthew 10:34

"Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. "

He was right as South American natives discovered. Jesus is best promulgated in steel. He has many faces.

I don't think we can blame Jesus for the Catholic churches "grave sins". Pope Francis has recognized the wrongs they are responsible for we must forgive and let God do the judging for the rest.

In Bolivia, Pope Francis Apologizes for Church’s ‘Grave Sins’
https://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/10/worl ... ology.html

[marco]

I don't think we can blame Jesus for the Catholic churches "grave sins". Pope Francis has recognized the wrongs they are responsible for we must forgive and let God do the judging for the rest.

Nor can we blame the Catholic Church for ambiguities in what Christ said. But I am impressed by Francis saying: "“I humbly ask forgiveness, not only for the offense of the church herself, but also for crimes committed against the native peoples during the so-called conquest of America.�

John Paul 11 said: " Love can ask more than fear can demand. " Occasionally, just occasionally, the Bishop of Rome says something truthful!


Francis is a nice person, perhaps feeling rather out of place.

[tam]

Peace again to you Marco,

We can all read the story, Brian. Jesus allows the women to suffer, seeing their brother die, in order to demonstrate his prowess.

So that they might believe...

You don't let people suffer to further your own ends. He caused their pain.

He did not cause their pain. He did not give Lazarus leprosy. He did not cause Lazarus to die. He is not the one who subjected this world to sin and death.


He ended their pain and called Lazarus back from the dead.


This was for theirs (and others') benefit, that they might believe.

If anyone was going to have a problem with it, it could only be Lazarus and Martha and Mary... and yet all three loved Christ just as He loved them.

The corpse rises up and we hear no more from it in history. Thus does one of history's most amazing events pass into nothingness.

Since we are talking about Lazarus and him being resurrected almost two thousand years later, I cannot agree with your assessment that this amazing event passed into nothingness.

We have visible proof today of the Code of Hammurabi, from around 1700 BC. Discussing something does not prove it happened; we talk about Romulus founding Rome; we talk about Hercules and Mercury. We know more about Alexander's horse than about the resurrected Lazarus. It is a nice fiction.

Were we speaking about proof that it happened? Because I was referring to your words that this amazing event "passed into nothingness".

The Jews, of course, are painted as plotters, killers of a great man, condemned to be kicked through history by the words of the good evangelist. There is much to deplore in the text.

I'm not sure where this came from, but Lazarus is a Jew, Martha and Mary are Jews, the rest of the apostles and disciples (and all the earliest Christians) and Christ also, are Jews.

That's all very well - we are dealing with the differentiation of (good) Jews who turned to Christ and (bad) Jews who continued to be Jews and killed God.

No one can kill God. The Son of God is the one who was handed over to be crucified.

Regardless, the Jews who turned to Christ also continued to be Jews. They were persecuted by their fellow Jews for following the Messiah (whom these other Jews rejected as the Messiah).

Matthew is the worst culprit:

Matthew 27:25 (KJV)

"Then answered all the people, and said, His blood be on us, and on our children."


ALL THE PEOPLE indeed! And he would know that an entire race uttered this curse with one voice.

I am fairly certain that the entire race was not present at the trial.

And have you never read how people say and do things in a mob that they might not have done or said on their own? And if one person started shouting something like that out, how easily might others have followed suit?

And these are people who had come to call for a man's execution, a man who had committed no crime worth such a sentence. What was in their heart already that they would be doing that? Does not seem like too much of a stretch that they could have called such a thing out that some of them might have later regretted and denied.

We must remember that Jesus has good and bad points. He brought suffering to Jews, engineered the death of Judas

You are blaming Judas' suicide on Christ?

Judas chose to betray Christ. His remorse came as a result of his own actions and he then killed himself. How can you blame the person who was betrayed for the remorse of the person who did the betraying?

and had his immediate followers suffer martyrdom for a promise that didn't come to pass. "I will be back soon."

Marco, is there any possibility that the wrong was being committed by those actually doing the murdering?


(as for the promise that you say did not pass, that is a whole other topic)

And for those who erroneously think Jesus is the Prince of Peace, Matthew puts us right:

Matthew 10:34

"Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. "

Truth is the sword. Some people hate and fight against the truth and He knew that would happen. (A person can also fight truth in or about themselves and so not know peace in themselves.)

Still, our peace is in and from Christ. He gives us (who are part of Him, as well as anyone who can accept it) His peace (true peace). Then also in His Kingdom is peace. But that Kingdom has not yet been established upon the earth.

He was right as South American natives discovered. Jesus is best promulgated in steel. He has many faces.

You mean something the RCC did?

One might not want to confuse the RCC (or any other religion) for Christ.




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

[FWI]

[Replying to post 17 by tam]

And also that Lazarus is one of the twelve apostles (considering that the gospel itself identifies the author as BEING one of the twelve).

Sorry, but I disagree with your assertion that Lazarus was one of the twelve apostles, thus he could not have been the apostle Simeon, the Canaanite or Zealot. When your examples are thoroughly reviewed, they must be questioned as support for your claims. 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. There also is no evidence in the fourth gospel, which states or implies the author is an apostle.

So, Matthew 26 and Mark 14 surely is referring to an event where several of the Christ's disciples were gathered at the home of Simeon the Leper for a meal. This would not be unusual. But, what would be unusual and not a Jewish custom is: anointing someone with oil for their perceived death…This would be done "after" the death of the person and is illustrated in Mark 16:1 and Luke 24:1. However, there was a custom (during the first century A.D) where a "special guest" would be anointed or feet washed with oil as a mark of hospitality, respect and honor. This is probably what was happening. Yet, for reference, this meeting was 2-days before the Jewish Passover. There was also a similar meeting, but one 6-days before the Passover (John 12:1-3) and an earlier one while John the Baptist was still alive (Luke 7:20-23 and 36-38). Therefore, these three events cannot be the same occurrence.

As far as, who was Simeon the Leper, the bible gives us two apparent and multiple other possibilities. The first would be in Matthew 8:2-3, but this example must be rejected, because this event occurred in the region near the Lake of Gennesaret in Galilee. The second is more plausible. In Luke 17:11-19, the Son of God is traveling to Jerusalem and passing through Galilee and Samaria. He then comes to an unnamed village and meets 10 lepers who stood afar off (for obvious reasons). They ask for mercy and the Christ tells them to show themselves to the priests and as they went, they were healed. But, one of them returned glorifying God and giving thanks to the Son of God for healing him. He was a Samaritan. This fact could disqualify the man, but maybe not…Yet, the point is that the Christ and his apostles healed many lepers and anyone of them could have been so overjoyed at being cured that they wanted to be near the Son of God, just like his apostles and other disciples and one of them could have been from Bethany.

In Scripture, leprosy is always symbolic of sin and evil. It was a terrible plague in those days. Lepers were totally cut off from all society, families, and loved ones; nor could they go to the tabernacle to worship God. Lepers were cast outside of the city in camps, and a leper could not return to his family until he was cured, which only the priest could pronounce.

Hence, because it seems that Lazarus died in his home and was prepared for burial by his sisters, his death could not have come from leprosy. Therefore, he was not also named: Simon the leper…

[tam]

Peace to you FWI!

[Replying to post 17 by tam]

And also that Lazarus is one of the twelve apostles (considering that the gospel itself identifies the author as BEING one of the twelve).

Sorry, but I disagree with your assertion that Lazarus was one of the twelve apostles, thus he could not have been the apostle Simeon, the Canaanite or Zealot. When your examples are thoroughly reviewed, they must be questioned as support for your claims.

I have no problem with anyone questioning anything. I would do (and have done) the same.

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.

Why do you think that?

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.

https://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/le ... 2581&t=KJV

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

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

Of course there is. The disciple Christ loved is named as the author and he is specifically stated to have been at the last supper (that Christ shared with his twelve apostles).


Peter turned and saw that the disciple whom [Jesus] loved was following them. (this is the one who had leaned back against [Jesus] at the supper and said, "Lord, who is going to betray you?") John 21:20

His disciples stared at one another at a loss to know which one of them he meant. One of them, the disciple whom [Jesus] loved, was reclining next to him. Simon Peter motioned to this disciple and said, "Ask him which one he means." Leaning back against [Jesus], he asked him, "Lord who is it?" John 13:23-25

When evening came, [Jesus] was reclining at the table with the Twelve. And while they were eating, he said, “Truly I tell you, one of you will betray me.� Matthew 26:20,21

This is the disciple who testifies to these things and who wrote them down. John 21:24

So, Matthew 26 and Mark 14 surely is referring to an event where several of the Christ's disciples were gathered at the home of Simeon the Leper for a meal. This would not be unusual. But, what would be unusual and not a Jewish custom is: anointing someone with oil for their perceived death…This would be done "after" the death of the person and is illustrated in Mark 16:1 and Luke 24:1. However, there was a custom (during the first century A.D) where a "special guest" would be anointed or feet washed with oil as a mark of hospitality, respect and honor.

Yes, and probably by the host or hostess of the special guest.

This is probably what was happening. Yet, for reference, this meeting was 2-days before the Jewish Passover. There was also a similar meeting, but one 6-days before the Passover (John 12:1-3) and an earlier one while John the Baptist was still alive (Luke 7:20-23 and 36-38). Therefore, these three events cannot be the same occurrence.

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.)

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.

As far as, who was Simeon the Leper, the bible gives us two apparent and multiple other possibilities. The first would be in Matthew 8:2-3, but this example must be rejected, because this event occurred in the region near the Lake of Gennesaret in Galilee.

Also Christ healed many lepers so it does not necessarily follow that a leper who is healed must be Simon the Leper.

The second is more plausible. In Luke 17:11-19, the Son of God is traveling to Jerusalem and passing through Galilee and Samaria. He then comes to an unnamed village and meets 10 lepers who stood afar off (for obvious reasons). They ask for mercy and the Christ tells them to show themselves to the priests and as they went, they were healed. But, one of them returned glorifying God and giving thanks to the Son of God for healing him. He was a Samaritan. This fact could disqualify the man, but maybe not…Yet, the point is that the Christ and his apostles healed many lepers and anyone of them could have been so overjoyed at being cured that they wanted to be near the Son of God, just like his apostles and other disciples and one of them could have been from Bethany.

Yes, that is true. But I am not sure how that rules out Lazarus as being Simon the Leper.

In Scripture, leprosy is always symbolic of sin and evil. It was a terrible plague in those days. Lepers were totally cut off from all society, families, and loved ones; nor could they go to the tabernacle to worship God. Lepers were cast outside of the city in camps, and a leper could not return to his family until he was cured, which only the priest could pronounce. Hence, because it seems that Lazarus died in his home and was prepared for burial by his sisters, his death could not have come from leprosy. Therefore, he was not also named: Simon the leper…

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.

https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/leprosy



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

[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.

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. The most common was: "son of" which, was used for James (son of Zebedee and son of Alphaeus).

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. 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. Hence, because Judas Iscariot and Simon, the Canaanite were teamed together (when sent out by the Christ), certain undesired labels were attached to them by late fourth century CE translators, either by bias or error. The logical approach, to the idea of Simon being zealous, would be using the Greek word for "zealous" (G2207), not invent a new understanding of the word Canaanite. It makes no sense to imply that this Simon was the only one who was "zealous" for the work that the Christ was sent out to do, especially among the other 11 apostles…This brings to light the reality that there are many false claims in the bibles we have today. However, even if we accept the tradition of Simon the Canaanite as being labeled a Zelotes (Zealot), the same traditions claim he was from the town of Cana in Galilee. Thus, supporting my position.

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

So, it is true that Lazarus was a disciple and he attended the Christ's last meal. But, he was not an apostle. An apostle was a disciple, but not all disciples were apostles, especially the one whom the Christ loved.

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

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.

So, in Matthew's account the event was at the house of a cured leper and the woman poured the perfume "onto the head" of the Christ. In Mark, the same story is told. Except, Mark adds the information that the time period was "two days" before the Passover. But, in both, the name of the woman (who would be memorialized) is not given. Why not?

But, this isn't the case in the fourth gospel. Six days before the Passover, the Christ enters the home of Martha (Luke 10:38) and her sister Mary "washes his feet" with oil, but there is no mention of a memorialization of Mary for doing this. However, Mary is given some credit for this act of respect and honor towards the Christ. As I stated earlier (previous post), there seems to be a misunderstanding of an anointing and a showing of respect.

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.

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. We can only worship the "Heavenly Father," who is the giver of all that is good and is the only True God…But, this also can create a new set of problems. Especially, as related to how individuals suggest that they get their pronounced (written) information.

[marco]

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. As well as, others from attending this special gathering. The Christ was not reclusive in that way. 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 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. You must remember the text is not a novel or a play in which, for completeness, all those whom we have met earlier come along to dine. 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.

But we have moved a little from the identity of John, a question about which I would think it pretty tough to be definite.