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

[polonius]

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

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

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

[polonius]

Tam posted:

You have made some good points about Lazarus being the author and the disciple Christ loved. I know Lazarus to be the disciple Christ loved because my Lord confirmed this to me. So I love it when people bring out points (give additional witness) that support this.

Lazarus is also one of the twelve apostles.

RESPONSE: Nope. Lazarus was never an apostle. He was the disciple that Jesus loved.
From the Wikipedia:
• Simon: called Simon (Grk. petros, petra; Aram. kēf; Engl. rock) by Jesus of Nazareth, also known as Simon bar Jonah and Simon bar Jochanan (Aram.) and earlier (Pauline Epistles were written first) Cephas (Aram.), and Simon Peter, a fisherman from Bethsaida "of Galilee" (John 1:44; cf. 12:21) Simon/Peter - Andrew's brother (Matthew 10:2; Mark 3:16; Luke 6:14), Mary's husband, Mark's father (1 Peter 5:13; Acts 12:12) and Barnabas' brother-in-law (Acts 15:39; Colossians 4:10
• Andrew: brother of Peter, a Bethsaida fisherman and disciple of John the Baptist, and also the First-Called Apostle. (Matthew 10:2; Mark 3:18; Luke 6:14) and Mark's uncle (Matthew 4:18)
• James - John's brother, son of Zebedee, Boanerges, son of Thunder (Matthew 10:2; Mark 3:17; Luke 6:14)
• John son of Zebedee, called by Jesus Boanerges (an Aramaic name explained in Mk 3:17 as "Sons of Thunder") - James' brother (Matthew 10:2; Mark 3:17; Luke 6:14)
• Philip: from Bethsaida "of Galilee" (John 1:44, 12:21) (Matthew 10:3; Mark 3:18; Luke 6:14)
• Thaddeus: "Judas, son of James", (Matthew 10:3, Acts 1:13, Luke 6:16, John 14:22). Lebbaeus/Judas/Juda - , Simon's brother (Matthew 10:3; 13:55; Mark 3:18; 6:3; Luke 6:16; Jude 1:1)
• Bartholomew: in Aramaic "bar-Talemai?", "son of Talemai" or from Ptolemais, some identify with Nathanael. (Matthew 10:3; Mark 3:18; Luke 6:14)
• Thomas: also known as Judas Tomas Didymus - Aramaic T'oma' = twin, and Greek Didymous = twin (Matthew 10:3; Mark 3:18; Luke 6:15)
• James: commonly identified with James the Less [1] - Matthew's/Levi's brother, son of Alphaeus (Matthew 10:3; 27:56; Mark 2:14; 3:16, 18; 6:3; 15:40, 47; Luke 5:27; 6:14-15; 24:18; Acts 1:13; 4:36).
• Matthew: the tax collector, some identify with Levi son of Alphaeus - Levi - James' brother (James the less) (Matthew 10:3; 27:56; Mark 2:14; 3:16, 18; 6:3; 15:40, 47; Luke 5:27; 6:14-15; 24:18; Acts 1:13; 4:36) and author of the Book of Matthew
• Simon the Canaanite: called in Luke and Acts "Simon the Zealot", some identify with Simeon of Jerusalem[2] -, Thaddeus' brother (Matthew 10:4; 13:55; Mark 3:18; 6:3; Luke 6:15)
• Judas Iscariot: the name Iscariot may refer to the Judaean towns of Kerioth or to the sicarii (Jewish nationalist insurrectionists), or to Issachar; (Matthew 10:4; Mark 3:19; Luke 6:16)
• He was replaced as an apostle in Acts by Saint Matthias

The next time you are speaking to the Lord and “my Lord confirmed this to me..� tell him that those were the 12 Apostles, never Lazarus. The Lord misinformed you!

And tell the Lord that, according to Jesus, I am suppose to get everything I pray for in his name. I’m still waiting for the winning lottery ticket!!!

[tam]

[Replying to post 71 by polonius]

Peace to you Polonius,

I responded previously to these things (including the name of Lazarus) in posts 17, 38 and 41. I have nothing new to add.

[polonius]

[Replying to post 71 by polonius]

Peace to you Polonius,

I responded previously to these things (including the name of Lazarus) in posts 17, 38 and 41. I have nothing new to add.

RESPONSE:

Previously tam posted that :

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

RESPONSE: No. Not at all. You certainly seem confused.

Peter was also known as Simon Peter not to be confused with Simon the Leper. Lazarus was not Simon the Leper.

We don;'t know the cause of Lazarus' death, but if 2 Timothy is correct, a man can die but once (which Lazarus already had).

[tam]

Peace to you,

[Replying to post 71 by polonius]

Peace to you Polonius,

I responded previously to these things (including the name of Lazarus) in posts 17, 38 and 41. I have nothing new to add.

RESPONSE:

Previously tam posted that :

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

RESPONSE: No. Not at all. You certainly seem confused.

I am not confused about this issue, though I am a little confused about your following comparison:

Peter was also known as Simon Peter not to be confused with Simon the Leper.

I never said Simon Peter was to be confused with Simon the Leper.

There is Simon Peter among the apostles.

There is also Simon the Zealot/Caananite. This second Simon is the Simon I was referring to.

We don;'t know the cause of Lazarus' death, but if 2 Timothy is correct, a man can die but once (which Lazarus already had).

I'm not sure what this has to do with Lazarus identity (or which verse you are referring to in 2 Timothy). But in Hebrews, there is a statement that man is appointed to die once and then face judgment, but this is an analogous statement being made in comparison to what Christ did. (Hebrews 9:27, 28)

The author cannot be referring to those instances such as with Lazarus. Lazarus - as well as the little girl that Christ raised, as well as the widow's son that Elijah had previously raised - were not changed into the new body, and did not face judgment; they were simply 'awoken' then and there into their same bodies. Paul is also written about in acts as having raised someone who fell from a window and died, is he not? These examples are not what the author is speaking about in Hebrews.


Not only that, but some will not die at all. Anyone who belongs to Christ and who is still alive when He returns will be caught up to Him in the sky. We (who belong to Him and who are alive when He returns) will be changed, as Paul explained. We will not die.

By the word of the Lord, we declare to you that we who are alive and remain until the coming of the Lord will by no means precede those who have fallen asleep. For the Lord Himself will descend from heaven with a loud command, with the voice of an archangel, and with the trumpet of God, and the dead in Christ will be the first to rise. After that, we who are alive and remain will be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air. 1 Thess 4:15-17



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

[otseng]

How does that become a 'most likely' occurrence? Matthew (considered to be an apostle) does not mention the feet washing. Would that mean he was not present for it or did he simply not mention it?

Perhaps "likely" than "most likely"?

Also, all the synoptic gospels mention the preparation of the last supper, whereas the fourth gospel does not. So, this is an additional point that indicates the author did not participate in the beginning part of the evening.

No mention of anyone other than the twelve at the table and eating with Christ. From the start all the way through to the end of the meal (including to the point where Judas is revealed and leaves).

Yes. And Lazarus is conspicuously absent from any book outside the fourth gospel. This name is not found elsewhere except in the parable of the rich man and Lazarus. The reason Lazarus is not mentioned at the table (except in the fourth gospel) is the same reason he's not mentioned at all in the synoptic gospels - he was considered inconsequential by everyone else.

If a different disciple (not one of the twelve) had just entered the room to take the seat next to Christ, would that not indicate that one of the apostles had given up their seat next to Him?

Jesus didn't necessarily have to return to the same place after he washed their feet.

Also, if Lazarus = Simon the Leper = Simon the Zealot, then it would mean Jesus picked a leper as an apostle. This would be unlikely since lepers were considered outcasts. Also, why didn't Jesus heal him of his leprosy? Jesus had healed several of leprosy, but he would not heal his own apostle?

[otseng]

Passages that didn't make any sense before starts to make sense when one realizes TDWJL (the disciple whom Jesus loved) is Lazarus, not John the apostle.

Jhn 18:15-17 And Simon Peter followed Jesus, and [so did] another disciple: that disciple was known unto the high priest, and went in with Jesus into the palace of the high priest. 16 But Peter stood at the door without. Then went out that other disciple, which was known unto the high priest, and spake unto her that kept the door, and brought in Peter. 17 Then saith the damsel that kept the door unto Peter, Art not thou also [one] of this man's disciples? He saith, I am not.

If the disciple was John, how did the high priest know about John? But, if it was Lazarus, the high priest would've known him because they earlier were trying to kill him.

Jhn 12:10 But the chief priests consulted that they might put Lazarus also to death;

Passages mention that all the disciples fled and forsook Jesus when he was arrested.

Mat 26:56 But all this was done, that the scriptures of the prophets might be fulfilled. Then all the disciples forsook him, and fled.

The only exception mentioned is Peter. All the synoptic gospels record Peter secretly following Jesus and then denying him.

Mat 26:58 But Peter followed him afar off unto the high priest's palace, and went in, and sat with the servants, to see the end.

Mar 14:53-54 And they led Jesus away to the high priest: and with him were assembled all the chief priests and the elders and the scribes. 54 And Peter followed him afar off, even into the palace of the high priest: and he sat with the servants, and warmed himself at the fire.

Luk 22:54 Then took they him, and led [him], and brought him into the high priest's house. And Peter followed afar off.

There is no mention of John in these passages. So, John 18:15-17 makes the most sense if the other disciple was not John, but Lazarus.

[otseng]

In the last chapter of the fourth gospel, Jesus asked Peter three times, "Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou me?" Jesus continued:

Jhn 21:18-19 Verily, verily, I say unto thee, When thou wast young, thou girdedst thyself, and walkedst whither thou wouldest: but when thou shalt be old, thou shalt stretch forth thy hands, and another shall gird thee, and carry [thee] whither thou wouldest not. This spake he, signifying by what death he should glorify God. And when he had spoken this, he saith unto him, Follow me.

TDWJL was following them during this conversation. Then Peter asked, "Lord, and what this man?" Why would Peter ask that if he was John the apostle? However, if he was Lazarus, it would make sense.

The context of the conversation between Peter and Jesus was dying. What Peter was asking about was Lazarus dying.

Jhn 21:22-23 Jesus saith unto him, If I will that he tarry till I come, what [is that] to thee? follow thou me. 23 Then went this saying abroad among the brethren, that that disciple should not die: yet Jesus said not unto him, He shall not die; but, If I will that he tarry till I come, what [is that] to thee?

Why would they think that Lazarus would not die?

Most likely they interpreted what Jesus said earlier that Lazarus would not die again after he was resurrected.

Jhn 11:25-26 Jesus said unto her, I am the resurrection, and the life: he that believeth in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live: 26 And whosoever liveth and believeth in me shall never die. Believest thou this?

I had previously thought Peter was just shifting the topic and diverting the attention to John by asking "Lord, and what this man?" But, if it was Lazarus, the context of the conversation then makes sense.

[JehovahsWitness]

[Replying to post 77 by otseng]

It seems to me one just ends up with a confused mess if one choose to ignore the author's explicit statements identifying individuals in favor of obscure guesses . The gospel writers are for the most part, very careful to identify characters and provide additional information when there could be confusion, I suppose the approach that they didn't mean who they said they meant, is one way to go, but it rarely in my opinion, leads to coherent conclusions.

The writer of John is quite consistent in referring to the beloved Apostle so to conclude he chose to also identifiy the same individual clearly as Lazarus of Bethany, and then switched back to leaving him nameless (after having earlier named him) is imposing a lack of logic that is not in my opinion justified by the narrative.


JW

[otseng]

The writer of John is quite consistent in referring to the beloved Apostle so to conclude he chose to also identifiy the same individual clearly as Lazarus of Bethany, and then switched back to leaving him nameless (after having earlier named him) is imposing a lack of logic that is not in my opinion justified by the narrative.

Can you give a specific example where the author explicitly says TDWJL is John the apostle?

[polonius]

Tam posted:

The author cannot be referring to those instances such as with Lazarus. Lazarus - as well as the little girl that Christ raised, as well as the widow's son that Elijah had previously raised - were not changed into the new body, and did not face judgment; they were simply 'awoken' then and there into their same bodies. Paul is also written about in acts as having raised someone who fell from a window and died, is he not? These examples are not what the author is speaking about in Hebrews.

Matthew 27 NRSV 50 Then Jesus cried again with a loud voice and breathed his last.[l] 51 At that moment the curtain of the temple was torn in two, from top to bottom. The earth shook, and the rocks were split. 52 The tombs also were opened, and many bodies of the saints who had fallen asleep were raised. 53 After his resurrection they came out of the tombs and entered the holy city and appeared to many.

QUESTION: Do you really believe this is a historical fact? If so, since they could only die once, where are they now?

Similarly,

Then the Lord said to Abram, “Know for certain that your offspring will be sojourners in a land that is not theirs and will be servants there, and they will be afflicted for 400 years.� (Genesis 15:13)

The time that the people of Israel lived in Egypt was 430 years. At the end of 430 years, on that very day, all the hosts of the Lord went out from the land of Egypt. (Exodus 12:40–41)

And God spoke to this effect—that his offspring would be sojourners in a land belonging to others, who would enslave them and afflict them 400 years. (Acts 7:6)
Acts 7:6-7 New American Bible (Revised Edition) (NABRE)

6 And God spoke thus, ‘His descendants shall be aliens in a land not their own, where they shall be enslaved and oppressed for four hundred years; 7 but I will bring judgment on the nation they serve,’ God said, ‘and after that they will come out and worship me in this place.’

Somebody asked this question.

Did the Hebrew population in Egypt starting with Joseph and his brothers really reproduce 600,000 soldiers at the time of the Exodus 400 years later?

Or can we recognize the Torah as being fictional? Similarly, can we recognize passages in the New Testament as being fictional?

If not, are all those people raised from the dead at the time of the Crucifixion still living now since a man can only die but once according to II Timothy?