Is the Gospel of John reliable?

Argue for and against Christianity

Moderator: Moderators

Elijah John
Savant
Posts: 12113
Joined: Mon Oct 28, 2013 8:23 pm
Location: New England

Is the Gospel of John reliable?

Post by Elijah John »

1) Is the Gospel of John a good, reliable account of the historical Jesus?
2) Did Jesus say everything in that Gospel that was attributed to him?
3) Without the Gospel of John, how can a person make a good case be made that Jesus claimed to be God?
My theological positions:

-God created us in His image, not the other way around.
-The Bible is redeemed by it's good parts.
-Pure monotheism, simple repentance.
-YHVH is LORD
-The real Jesus is not God, the real YHVH is not a monster.
-Eternal life is a gift from the Living God.
-Keep the Commandments, keep your salvation.
-I have accepted YHVH as my Heavenly Father, LORD and Savior.

I am inspired by Jesus to worship none but YHVH, and to serve only Him.

tam
Prodigy
Posts: 4185
Joined: Fri Jun 19, 2015 4:59 pm
Contact:

Re: Is the Gospel of John reliable?

Post by tam »

Peace to you,
Elijah John wrote: 1) Is the Gospel of John a good, reliable account of the historical Jesus?

I am not a fan of the term "historical Jesus', because he has become a patchwork of whatever some people want to make him.

But as to your question:

The Gospel of "John" was written by an apostle (the disciple Christ loved) and an eyewitness to Christ (Jaheshua), so yes, his testimony would be reliable. If his testimony is not reliable, how could the musings of people two thousand years later be reliable?
2) Did Jesus say everything in that Gospel that was attributed to him?
If you are referring to content, then yes, as far as I know.

Is every single word the exact word used by Him... no, that does not seem possible, considering that translation is not an exact science and even just comparing one translation to another will render some differences in wording:

Yet a time is coming and has now come when the true worshipers will worship the Father in the Spirit and in truth, for they are the kind of worshipers the Father seeks. John 4:23 NIV

but, there cometh an hour, and it now is, when the true worshippers will worship the Father in spirit and truth, for the Father also doth seek such to worship him; John 4:23 YLT


This would be true of any gospel though. Not just "John".
3) Without the Gospel of John, how can a person make a good case be made that Jesus claimed to be God?

A good case cannot be made WITH the gospel of "John". The gospel of "John" contains some clear verses that contradict the claim that "Jesus claimed to be God."

Now this is eternal life: that they know you, the only true God, and [Jesus] Christ, whom you have sent.

"Do not hold on to me, for I have not yet ascended to the Father. Go instead to my brothers and tell them, 'I am ascending to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God.'"




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

User avatar
Goose
Guru
Posts: 1526
Joined: Wed Oct 02, 2013 6:49 pm
Location: The Great White North

Re: Is the Gospel of John reliable?

Post by Goose »

Elijah John wrote: 1) Is the Gospel of John a good, reliable account of the historical Jesus?
I think in order to properly and objectively answer this question we have to know good and reliable in relation to what standard?
2) Did Jesus say everything in that Gospel that was attributed to him?
By and large I believe so. I have some good historical reasons to think that. But if Jesus did say every word attributed to him in that Gospel, I can't prove it.
3) Without the Gospel of John, how can a person make a good case be made that Jesus claimed to be God?
I think a case can be made the synoptic Gospels imply Jesus' divine status. Also, Paul's letters refer explicitly to Jesus' divine status (e.g. Philippians 2). So the idea that Jesus was divine predates the Gospels. That's not Jesus, himself, directly claiming to be God of course but it does dispose of the idea a high Christology emerged with the Gospel of John.
"And it is the case that torturing and killing babies for entertainment is immoral." - Goose, Christian

"Is it the case with child torture? Prove it." - Bust Nak, atheist.

http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 096#846096

User avatar
Willum
Under Probation
Posts: 8520
Joined: Sat Aug 02, 2014 2:14 pm
Location: The formerly Great US of A

Post by Willum »

Thank you for asking all of us.

So as outsiders to the religion, we can not distinguish between what parts of the Holy Book should be considered true or not.

Therefore we must consider anyone who avails themselves Christian believes all the Bible, and those who are Judaic avail themselves of at least the Torah, and whatever other addendums they or their sect feels comfortable with, or invents.

and of course the endless reinterpretations from them both.

Those of us outside the religions can only assume you believe everything from what you claim to believe, sans interpretation.
This is a test: Had this been an actual revolution, the virus would have been much stronger.

To continue to argue for the Hebrew invention of God is actually an insult to the very concept of a God. - Divine Insight

Who would be proud these tactics?

Elijah John
Savant
Posts: 12113
Joined: Mon Oct 28, 2013 8:23 pm
Location: New England

Re: Is the Gospel of John reliable?

Post by Elijah John »

[Replying to post 2 by tam]

Most scholars do not believe the Gospel of John was written by the rough, Gallilean fisherman who was and apostle. The Greek is too lofty and fluent for a native, uneducated Palestinian Jew.

Or did a kind of Deus ex Machina intervene and make "John" miraculously fluent? If so, this claim seems to fall under the fallacy known as "special pleading".
My theological positions:

-God created us in His image, not the other way around.
-The Bible is redeemed by it's good parts.
-Pure monotheism, simple repentance.
-YHVH is LORD
-The real Jesus is not God, the real YHVH is not a monster.
-Eternal life is a gift from the Living God.
-Keep the Commandments, keep your salvation.
-I have accepted YHVH as my Heavenly Father, LORD and Savior.

I am inspired by Jesus to worship none but YHVH, and to serve only Him.

tam
Prodigy
Posts: 4185
Joined: Fri Jun 19, 2015 4:59 pm
Contact:

Re: Is the Gospel of John reliable?

Post by tam »

Peace to you EJ,
Elijah John wrote: [Replying to post 2 by tam]

Most scholars do not believe the Gospel of John was written by the rough, Gallilean fisherman who was and apostle. The Greek is too lofty and fluent for a native, uneducated Palestinian Jew.

There are a lot of assumptions in the above, EJ.

A - that the disciple Christ loved was the apostle John

B - that "john" was a rough Gallilean fisherman

C - that "john" was uneducated


I do not see how these assumptions can a) be shown to be true; and b) override the claim of authorship.

Perhaps you might consider that it is more likely that these unproven assumptions are incorrect?

Or did a kind of Deus ex Machina intervene and make "John" miraculously fluent? If so, this claim seems to fall under the fallacy known as "special pleading".

I did not make this claim.



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

User avatar
Willum
Under Probation
Posts: 8520
Joined: Sat Aug 02, 2014 2:14 pm
Location: The formerly Great US of A

Re: Is the Gospel of John reliable?

Post by Willum »

[Replying to post 6 by tam]

What an odd response, so you believe the Bible in somethings, but not in the necessary things to support those things.

So long as you believe in a "flat Earth," without needing to believe in the underlying rules of gravity, you are golden.

Oh well.
This is a test: Had this been an actual revolution, the virus would have been much stronger.

To continue to argue for the Hebrew invention of God is actually an insult to the very concept of a God. - Divine Insight

Who would be proud these tactics?

Elijah John
Savant
Posts: 12113
Joined: Mon Oct 28, 2013 8:23 pm
Location: New England

Re: Is the Gospel of John reliable?

Post by Elijah John »

[Replying to post 6 by tam]

You said the Gospel was written by an apostle and eyewitness, I didn't. Not an assumption.

So, you are saying the author of the Gospel of John was an apostle and eyewitness? Or not. If so, most scholars dispute that assumption and attribution.
My theological positions:

-God created us in His image, not the other way around.
-The Bible is redeemed by it's good parts.
-Pure monotheism, simple repentance.
-YHVH is LORD
-The real Jesus is not God, the real YHVH is not a monster.
-Eternal life is a gift from the Living God.
-Keep the Commandments, keep your salvation.
-I have accepted YHVH as my Heavenly Father, LORD and Savior.

I am inspired by Jesus to worship none but YHVH, and to serve only Him.

User avatar
Mithrae
Prodigy
Posts: 3851
Joined: Mon Apr 05, 2010 7:33 am
Location: Australia

Re: Is the Gospel of John reliable?

Post by Mithrae »

Elijah John wrote: 3) Without the Gospel of John, how can a person make a good case be made that Jesus claimed to be God?
For the sake of clarity it's worth considering a few theological scenarios:
  • A > Jesus was just a man, perhaps holier and 'greater' than even the likes of Moses, Enoch, Elijah etc., but not exceptionally so
    B > Jesus was just a man, but because he passed some kind of test was greatly exalted as the supreme created being
    C > Jesus existed before and was the instrument for all creation, the alpha and omega, and unlike all prophets and angels doesn't actively protest when worshiped... but technically is distinct from and subordinate to God Himself
    D > Jesus is God the Son, co-equal with God the Father
As Tam has pointed out, even in John there are verses which could be taken to contradict scenario D (but also some which could be taken to support it). But really, I don't see any practical or even particularly comprehensible difference between D and C. The gospel of John and Paul's epistles tend to strongly support C, with some verses hinting both in favour and against D, while strongly rejecting A and B. The synoptic gospels strongly reject A, and I would say on balance lean more in favour of C than B; they contain a number of passages of Jesus speaking about himself in seemingly more-than-human terms (eg. Matt. 10:32-39, Mark 8:34ff, Luke 11:29-32), not to mention miracles and worship of him as an infant and, even in Mark, John the Baptist's abject self-abasement and God's singular recognition of Jesus' importance before he had even done anything of note.

According to Jesus' words in Matthew he possesses all authority on earth and in heaven (28:18) and will sit on a throne of his glory to judge the nations (25:31-32); but the various stories of his infancy, baptism and self-important teachings all suggest that these glories relate more to who Jesus is and always was, rather than being some kind of reward for getting himself killed. So even if one only takes the synoptic gospels seriously - without keeping a pair of scissors actively on hand - the distinction, such as it is, seems only to be whether Jesus is God eternally or was 'merely' created/begotten as a secondary god? The synoptics lean pretty heavily towards the latter, towards scenario C over D above, but it seems to me it's a distinction with no real difference.
Last edited by Mithrae on Mon Dec 02, 2019 3:35 pm, edited 1 time in total.

tam
Prodigy
Posts: 4185
Joined: Fri Jun 19, 2015 4:59 pm
Contact:

Re: Is the Gospel of John reliable?

Post by tam »

Peace to you,
Elijah John wrote: [Replying to post 6 by tam]

You said the Gospel was written by an apostle and eyewitness, I didn't. Not an assumption.

EJ, how is this a response to my post? How does this refute the assumptions from your post?

So, you are saying the author of the Gospel of John was an apostle and eyewitness?


The author of the gospel makes that claim.

Or not. If so, most scholars dispute that assumption and attribution.
Yes, but their dispute is based upon assumptions of their own, as stated in my previous post:

https://debatingchristianity.com/forum/ ... 837#989837


You sidestepped that point entirely.


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

Post Reply