John wrote John in his lifetime

[mark kennedy]

John did not die a violent death like the other apostles and lived to an old age. So he had time to write later on. The strongest tradition dates the gospel to 85AD so you really need something concrete to overthrow that.

I think that is pretty strong when you consider John was in his 60s in the AD 60s, he would have been pushing 90. Why would he wait 55 years? What's more why do I need something stronger when the large date appears to be nothing but the opinion of a couple of second century scholars who mention it it passing.

The messages to the 7 churches were probably to definite churches but could be taken as types of churches through history also.

They were clearly, not only living thriving churches and left an enormous footprint. Philidelphia had a ministry that spanned 800 years and Smyrna longer then that. If the historical churches its because these are our primary parent churches.

Revelation is primarily a witness to the glorified Christ rather than the more earthy worship of Ceasar or indeed general dictators.

Revelations is clearly the last book in the Bible written, it does not mention the destruction of the Temple but speaks of it in the future tense. Jesus fouls have sent the message to Rome, Greece, Macidonia, Galatia or Antioch of Syria. He sends it to the hub of the mission to the gentile churches, Ephesus, and her 7 satalite churches. There is a reason for that, these were the churches that would sow this message and much of the canon of Scripture forward.

The style used suggest some parts were fulfilled, some are being fufilled and some have yet to be fulfilled much like the Kingdom of God itself is here and yet still to come.

The style of Revelations is distinctly Levitical but written in a Greek literary style. This suggests the Jewish and Gentile cultures were merging during a time of tremendous promise and challenges.

So yes there is a predictive element to the much of the book but that is not the exclusive purpose here. The symbols John uses to describe the nearly incomprehensible realities of the heavenly realm are pregnant with meanings that are not entirely to do with future prophecy. That people, including Preterists , have taken allegorisation too far does not overrule the multiple layers of meaning and fulfilment in the symbols and prophecies contained in the book.

Those prophecies couldn't be clearer, now Ezekiel, there's a tricky puzzlebook of prophetic Oracle's. Jewish leadership was still prominate, which is how early Christians learned to preserve their sacred texts. A hundred years later Jewish and Gentile Christians fellowshipping like this was probably far less common.

In Johns and Matthews case and indeed Lukes case that affirmation by the primary witnesses seems to be true. But not sure if Mark was finally written up following Peters death.

I haven't seen a single sound argument raised concerning Matthew and Mark. The ones leveled against Luke are laughable and John was never questioned as author of Johns Gospel until modern times.

For me there are two crucial elements, the Apostolic witness and the cohesive consensus of the living witness of the church at large. Some random scroll emerging decades after most of the Apostles had died when John was getting very old sounds, quite frankly, incompatible with a living witness. Let's give our spiritual ancestors some credit for knowing their own Scriptures. They didn't squirrel them away in hidden libraries, they were commonly read in the churches. For me the strongest line of evidence is the living witness of the Christian community.

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[mindlight]

I think that is pretty strong when you consider John was in his 60s in the AD 60s, he would have been pushing 90. Why would he wait 55 years?

Traditionally John is the youngest of the apostles and was born in 6 AD. In 85 AD he would have been 79. He is reputed to have died in 100 AD 15 years after his gospel was written. As I said there was an expectation that John would live to see Jesus return which was rejected on reflection. It seems John wrote late partly to fill a gap in the gospel accounts and partly because he expected to die before Christs return.

What's more why do I need something stronger when the large date appears to be nothing but the opinion of a couple of second century scholars who mention it it passing.

You need something stronger because the tradition has been universally accepted by the church since then until the last century. Also because you have no witnesses supporting your case.

Revelations is clearly the last book in the Bible written, it does not mention the destruction of the Temple but speaks of it in the future tense.

Yes but it does so inside a timeline that does not correspond with the events of the sack of Jerusalem so this must be a future event.

Jesus fouls have sent the message to Rome, Greece, Macidonia, Galatia or Antioch of Syria. He sends it to the hub of the mission to the gentile churches, Ephesus, and her 7 satalite churches. There is a reason for that, these were the churches that would sow this message and much of the canon of Scripture forward.

Yes the first 1000 years of the church was dominated by the churches centered in these locations.

The style of Revelations is distinctly Levitical but written in a Greek literary style. This suggests the Jewish and Gentile cultures were merging during a time of tremendous promise and challenges.

Or that John a Jew who had been living for decades in A Grecian culture was fully conversant with both Jew and Gentile elements.

Those prophecies couldn't be clearer, now Ezekiel, there's a tricky puzzlebook of prophetic Oracle's. Jewish leadership was still prominate, which is how early Christians learned to preserve their sacred texts. A hundred years later Jewish and Gentile Christians fellowshipping like this was probably far less common.

Jewish influence waned as time passed. But that was hardly an issuewhile John, the last living apostle, was alive.

I haven't seen a single sound argument raised concerning Matthew and Mark. The ones leveled against Luke are laughable and John was never questioned as author of Johns Gospel until modern times.

Agreed. But the point I was making was not about authorship but rather that in the case of Mark, Peter might have been martyred shortly after completion.

For me there are two crucial elements, the Apostolic witness and the cohesive consensus of the living witness of the church at large. Some random scroll emerging decades after most of the Apostles had died when John was getting very old sounds, quite frankly, incompatible with a living witness. Let's give our spiritual ancestors some credit for knowing their own Scriptures. They didn't squirrel them away in hidden libraries, they were commonly read in the churches. For me the strongest line of evidence is the living witness of the Christian community.

Grace and peace,
Mark

John was the living witness, with a strong expectation that he would live to see Christs return. He trained much of the leadership of a Grecian church that would dominate the living witness of the Christian world for the next millennia. When it became clear that he would die before the Return he wrote his gospel down.

 

[HTacianas]

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.

I've always felt that John dictated his gospel, perhaps to some "Johannine school" just before his death. John communicates a sadness in his gospel that verges on pleading. Reading parts, especially John 8, rather than in first person, but in third person as if John is narrating, you can almost feel his tears.

I don't know if someone else could have captured that emotion.