John wrote John in his lifetime

[mindlight]

Basically the theme of this thread is to do with who wrote Johns gospel and when.

The traditional view is that John the Evangelist (the Disciple whom Jesus loved) wrote this around 85 AD as the only surviving apostle by that time. But more recently people have suggested an earlier date between 50-70AD (so before the fall of Jerusalem).

A number of liberal scholars have congregated around various alternative views:

1) John the Elder wrote it later

2) Lazarus

3) Some kind of Johannine school composed it much later drawing from earlier sources as well as redacting the material.

Who and when?

https://www.theopedia.com/gospel-of-john

EDIT: Removed word modern from phrase liberal scholars. As the most uptodate research tends towards affirming John as author rather than disputing that.

 

[bling]

It seems to be a letter for Christians after the destruction of Jerusalem and very different than the other Gospels.

 

[Petros2015]

To me, it sounds like it was written by someone that he taught either directly or indirectly. Referencing himself only as 'the disciple that Jesus loved' makes no sense to me, but if second generation disciple was writing down what he received from his master, that makes sense. To me. Just my 2 cents.

 

[ananda]

Nobody today can really know for sure.

 

[mindlight]

It seems to be a letter for Christians after the destruction of Jerusalem and very different than the other Gospels.

Yes it is different from the other gospels. Why do you think that it came after the destruction of Jerusalem?

 

[mindlight]

To me, it sounds like it was written by someone that he taught either directly or indirectly. Referencing himself only as 'the disciple that Jesus loved' makes no sense to me, but if second generation disciple was writing down what he received from his master, that makes sense. To me. Just my 2 cents.

This was the style of testimony of an honest man of the day. He identifies himself in terms of the one he bears witness to and whose honour he seeks.

John 8:13
13 The Pharisees challenged him, "Here you are, appearing as your own witness; your testimony is not valid"

John 7:18
18 Whoever speaks on their own does so to gain personal glory, but he who seeks the glory of the one who sent him is a man of truth; there is nothing false about him.

He also says he was a direct witness which narrows the options considerably and rules out any dating outside of the lifetime of a direct witness to Jesus. Given that the universal affirmation of the early church was for John the apostle as author it seems improbable that it was anyone else.

Indeed John 21 makes this absolutely clear:

1) The people who met with Jesus on that day were the disciples.

John 21:1
"Afterward Jesus appeared again to his disciples, by the Sea of Galilee"

2) The disciples present are named in the account and include John as a son of Zebedee:

It happened this way: 2 Simon Peter, (also known as Didymus), Nathanael from Cana in Galilee, the sons of Zebedee, and two other disciples were together.

3) The disciple was active and present as a direct witness as the account of Jesus makes clear. He was the source of the conversation with Peter for instance. It is also clear that he attended the Last Supper where only apostles were present.

John 21: 20-23
20 Peter turned and saw that the disciple whom Jesus loved was following them. (This was the one who had leaned back against Jesus at the supper and had said, “Lord, who is going to betray you?”) 21 When Peter saw him, he asked, “Lord, what about him?”

22 Jesus answered, “If I want him to remain alive until I return, what is that to you? You must follow me. 23 Because of this, the rumor spread among the that this disciple would not die. But Jesus did not say that he would not die; he only said, “If I want him to remain alive until I return, what is that to you?”

24 This is the disciple who testifies to these things and who wrote them down. We know that his testimony is true.

 

[mindlight]

Nobody today can really know for sure.

There is a considerable difference here between the inferences of scientists theorising on the basis of limited facts and attempting to explain our distant origins and the testimony of the church to Jesus.

1) The number of facts close to the events described e.g. fragments of early scriptures, circumstantial confirmations from third party sources, archaeological confirmation of context, quotations of the testimony in alternate sources, the number of manuscripts from multiple different locations which cohere...

2) The trustworthiness of the witnesses. The witnesses character is described in the texts as someone who it is possible to trust. We know historically and often from third party sources that many of them died testifying to these truthes.

3) Conflicts in the church never extended to this gospels veracity. People from diverse geographical and cultural and political nodal points all agree on the substantial text here and all shared the view that John wrote the gospel.

4) As described in the previous post. The text identifies the author as an apostle and by process of elimination as John.

 

[ananda]

There is a considerable difference here between the inferences of scientists theorising on the basis of limited facts and attempting to explain our distant origins and the testimony of the church to Jesus.

1) The number of facts close to the events described e.g. fragments of early scriptures, circumstantial confirmations from third party sources, archaeological confirmation of context, quotations of the testimony in alternate sources, the number of manuscripts from multiple different locations which cohere...

2) The trustworthiness of the witnesses. The witnesses character is described in the texts as someone who it is possible to trust. We know historically and often from third party sources that many of them died testifying to these truthes.

3) Conflicts in the church never extended to this gospels veracity. People from diverse geographical and cultural and political nodal points all agree on the substantial text here and all shared the view that John wrote the gospel.

4) As described in the previous post. The text identifies the author as an apostle and by process of elimination as John.

Would an omniscient, omnipotent deity who desires to propagate its message make things so murky and opaque?

 

[mindlight]

Would an omniscient, omnipotent deity who desires to propagate its message make things so murky and opaque?

Mark 4:10-12

When he was alone, the Twelve and the others around him asked him about the parables. 11 He told them, “The secret of the kingdom of God has been given to you. But to those on the outside everything is said in parables 12 so that,

“‘they may be ever seeing but never perceiving,
and ever hearing but never understanding;
otherwise they might turn and be forgiven."

 

[ananda]

Mark 4:10-12

When he was alone, the Twelve and the others around him asked him about the parables. 11 He told them, “The secret of the kingdom of God has been given to you. But to those on the outside everything is said in parables 12 so that,

“‘they may be ever seeing but never perceiving,
and ever hearing but never understanding;
otherwise they might turn and be forgiven."

Ah ... so your deity does not desire to universally propagate its message.

 

[mindlight]

Ah ... so your deity does not desire to universally propagate its message.

Gods desire is that all people be saved but He knows that not all will be. He does not give understanding to all of those who will treat it with contempt. A parable is an invitation to encounter Christ. Unless you engage with that you will not understand its meanings.

 

[ananda]

He does not give understanding to all of those who will treat it with contempt.

How do you know that's true?

 

[JackRT]

Gods desire is that all people be saved but He knows that not all will be. He does not give understanding to all of those who will treat it with contempt.

God withholds understanding --- this means that those from whom it is withheld are blameless of disbelief.

 

[mindlight]

God withholds understanding --- this means that those from whom it is withheld are blameless of disbelief.

John 9:41
Jesus said unto them, If ye were blind, ye would have no sin: but now ye say, We see: your sin remaineth.

v

Do not give dogs what is sacred; do not throw your pearls to pigs. If you do, they may trample them under their feet, and turn and tear you to pieces.
Math 7:6

 

[ananda]

John 9:41
Jesus said unto them, If ye were blind, ye would have no sin: but now ye say, We see: your sin remaineth.

v

Do not give dogs what is sacred; do not throw your pearls to pigs. If you do, they may trample them under their feet, and turn and tear you to pieces.
Math 7:6

"Don't go by reports, by legends, by traditions, by scripture, by logical conjecture, by inference, by analogies, by agreement through pondering views, by probability, or by the thought, 'This contemplative is our teacher.' When you know for yourselves that, 'These mental qualities are skillful; these mental qualities are blameless; these mental qualities are praised by the wise; these mental qualities, when adopted & carried out, lead to welfare and to happiness' — then you should enter & remain in them." AN 3.65

 

[mindlight]

"Don't go by reports, by legends, by traditions, by scripture, by logical conjecture, by inference, by analogies, by agreement through pondering views, by probability, or by the thought, 'This contemplative is our teacher.' When you know for yourselves that, 'These mental qualities are skillful; these mental qualities are blameless; these mental qualities are praised by the wise; these mental qualities, when adopted & carried out, lead to welfare and to happiness' — then you should enter & remain in them." AN 3.65

Sorry but this made me laugh. You quote from the Kalama Sutta which goes on about testing truth claims and not taking anything by faith or tradition. But this book has virtually zero historical credibility and connection to the Buddha himself. So it is a matter of faith or tradition whether you blindly quote it or not.

 

[ananda]

Sorry but this made me laugh. You quote from the Kalama Sutta which goes on about testing truth claims and not taking anything by faith or tradition. But this book has virtually zero historical credibility and connection to the Buddha himself.

That's true - my trust in those words I quoted is not based on any shred of historical credibility or on any alleged connection with any alleged Buddha.

So it is a matter of faith or tradition whether you blindly quote it or not.

This part isn't true. I believe those words I quoted because I directly know them to be true for myself, in my own mind. It just makes sense to me, and in such a way, they become (and are) my own words.

 

[mindlight]

That's true - my trust in those words I quoted is not based on any shred of historical credibility or on any alleged connection with any alleged Buddha.

This part isn't true. I believe those words I quoted because I directly know them to be true for myself, in my own mind. It just makes sense to me, and in such a way, they become (and are) my own words.

That is solipsism and a recipe for moral relativism.

 

[ananda]

That is solipsism and a recipe for moral relativism.

Does that pose a problem?

 

[mindlight]

Does that pose a problem?

It means that whatever you say is just your opinion and therefore you cannot recognise the supremacy of one claim over another.