Who wrote the book of Hebrews?

[Neostarwcc]

Would it really make a difference if we 'knew?' Even Christians argue over who wrote the Gospels.

The thing about the gospels though, there is plenty of evidence that Matthew, Luke, Mark and John actually wrote them. It's because of that evidence that the mainstream church has believed them to be the authors since the gospels were written and it was copied throughout history. To dispute their authorship is to call history liars.

The book of Hebrews has always been a mystery. The early church believed it to be Paul but it was later found out and proven that it wasn't Paul but was in fact someone else. Exactly who it is will always be a mystery. It's one of those questions we have to ask God when we meet him face to face.

 

[Guojing]

The thing about the gospels though, there is plenty of evidence that Matthew, Luke, Mark and John actually wrote them. It's because of that evidence that the mainstream church has believed them to be the authors since the gospels were written and it was copied throughout history. To dispute their authorship is to call history liars.

Actually the person who wrote the gospel of John is more likely to be Lazarus.

 

[DragonFox91]

It seems like if it wasn't Paul, it was one of Paul's top associates.

 

[Neostarwcc]

Actually the person who wrote the gospel of John is more likely to be Lazarus.

Lol! That made my day! I apologize for laughing if you were serious.

 

[Neostarwcc]

It seems like if it wasn't Paul, it was one of Paul's top associates.

People have speculated that Luke or Apollos might be the father. I think Apollos is more likely. Or Paul had many scribes that actually wrote his letters for him. Perhaps it could be one of them.

 

[Guojing]

Lol! That made my day! I apologize for laughing if you were serious.

Don't be so quick to dismiss that

Did John really write “The Gospel of John?”

 

[Strong in Him]

Actually the person who wrote the gospel of John is more likely to be Lazarus.

Why, "more likely"?
The "one who wrote these things down" is also "the disciple whom Jesus love", John 21:24, John 21:20. He went fishing with the others after the resurrection, John 21: 7, and was also at the Last Supper, John 13:23.
There is no evidence that Lazarus was even a disciple.

 

[Guojing]

Why, "more likely"?
The "one who wrote these things down" is also "the disciple whom Jesus love", John 21:24, John 21:20. He went fishing with the others after the resurrection, John 21: 7, and was also at the Last Supper, John 13:23.
There is no evidence that Lazarus was even a disciple.

Think about it, we have zero scripture stating John was different from Peter and James, that Jesus loved him.

But in the gospel of "John", we have

John 11:5 Now Jesus loved Martha, and her sister, and Lazarus.
John 11:36 Then said the Jews, Behold how he loved him!

You may find this useful
Berean Bible Church: The Disciple Whom Jesus Loved: Who Wrote the Fourth Gospel? - John 21:24

 

[Strong in Him]

Think about it, we have zero scripture stating John was different from Peter and James, that Jesus loved him.

I have.
In John's Gospel, the author writes of the "disciples whom Jesus loved" who is the one who "wrote down these things".
The Gospel was accredited to John for a reason.

But in the gospel of "John", we have

John 11:5 Now Jesus loved Martha, and her sister, and Lazarus.
John 11:36 Then said the Jews, Behold how he loved him!

Very tenuous and not at all convincing.
Jesus loved many people - including Martha, Mary, the rich young ruler and, no doubt his own mother.

You may find this useful
Berean Bible Church: The Disciple Whom Jesus Loved: Who Wrote the Fourth Gospel? - John 21:24

Not useful really.
The author's whole case - and apparently yours - is based on the ONE verse which says that Jesus loved Lazarus.
"Who is the disciple whom Jesus loved? Well there's a verse somewhere that says Jesus loved Lazarus, so obviously it must be him - the only person, anywhere, whom Jesus loved."

Where is the evidence that Lazarus was a disciple? We know the names of the 12; Lazarus was not one of them. Jesus celebrated the last supper with the 12 - no evidence that Lazarus was there.

It's interesting that you have now linked to a different article. Is that because the first one that you linked to didn't agree with you?

 

[Neostarwcc]

This is like that gay youtuber trying to twist scripture because Jesus told Lazarus to "come out". He took that to apply to the LGBTGQ community and in support of homosexual behavior.

 

[Guojing]

I have.
In John's Gospel, the author writes of the "disciples whom Jesus loved" who is the one who "wrote down these things".
The Gospel was accredited to John for a reason.

Can you see your own circular reasoning here?

You start with the assumption that John is the author of the gospel of John.
Thus, when the author of John wrote that he is the disciple whom Jesus love, you reason that it was therefore John.

That is circular reasoning 101.

 

[Guojing]

Where is the evidence that Lazarus was a disciple? We know the names of the 12; Lazarus was not one of them. Jesus celebrated the last supper with the 12 - no evidence that Lazarus was there.

Another silly reasoning.

The 12 were apostles, but you do not need to be an apostle, to be considered a disciple. Luke 6

13 And when it was day, he called unto him his disciples: and of them he chose twelve, whom also he named apostles;

If you look at John 18

12 Then the band and the captain and officers of the Jews took Jesus, and bound him,

13 And led him away to Annas first; for he was father in law to Caiaphas, which was the high priest that same year.

14 Now Caiaphas was he, which gave counsel to the Jews, that it was expedient that one man should die for the people.

15 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.

It was "another disciple", who was known to the High priest, who introduced Simon brought in Peter

If you read John 20:2, we know of the identity of this "another disciple"

2 Then she runneth, and cometh to Simon Peter, and to the other disciple, whom Jesus loved, and saith unto them, They have taken away the Lord out of the sepulchre, and we know not where they have laid him.

When you turn to John 20:8

8 Then went in also that other disciple, which came first to the sepulchre, and he saw, and believed.

So this other disciple believed when he was at the tomb with Peter.

But in Mark 16:14, we read

14 Afterward he appeared unto the eleven as they sat at meat, and upbraided them with their unbelief and hardness of heart, because they believed not them which had seen him after he was risen.

What I have established is the following from Scripture

1. The disciple whom Jesus loved is not among the 12 apostles. (Luke 6:13)
2. He was known to the High Priest (John 18:15-16)
3. He ran with Peter and believed when he saw the body not in the grave. (John 20:8)
4. In Mark, John was among the 11 apostles and Jesus had to upbraid them for their unbelief (Mark 16:14).

So if you combine 3 and 4 together, it is pretty obvious that the disciple whom Jesus loved, cannot be John.

There is another proof using my point 2 and Acts 4:13, but that will be another argument.

 

[Strong in Him]

Can you see your own circular reasoning here?

You start with the assumption that John is the author of the gospel of John.
Thus, when the author of John wrote that he is the disciple whom Jesus love, you reason that it was therefore John.

That is circular reasoning 101.

The writing of the 4th Gospel was accredited to John for a reason.
I doubt it was written anonymously. I doubt, even more, that someone said, "well Lazarus wrote this account, but he's not well known; we'd better claim that John wrote it."

 

[Strong in Him]

Another silly reasoning.

The 12 were apostles, but you do not need to be an apostle, to be considered a disciple. Luke 6

No, you don't.
But Jesus chose 12 to be especially close to him - "that they might be with him and that he might send them out to preach", Mark 3:14.
When people say, "Jesus and his disciples", they usually mean the 12, and not the dozens of others that followed him. Otherwise, that oft-repeated mantra "women can't be ordained because Jesus chose male disciples", would be nonsense.

If you look at John 18

12 Then the band and the captain and officers of the Jews took Jesus, and bound him,

13 And led him away to Annas first; for he was father in law to Caiaphas, which was the high priest that same year.

14 Now Caiaphas was he, which gave counsel to the Jews, that it was expedient that one man should die for the people.

15 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.

It was "another disciple", who was known to the High priest, who introduced Simon brought in Peter

Doesn't say it was Lazarus.
Lazarus is mentioned on only two occasions - when he was ill and then raised from the dead, and afterwards, when they wanted to kill him.
We know nothing of his faith or whether he followed Jesus. There are no reports of him seeing, and performing, miracles, conversing with the 12, or with Jesus. We know more about Lazarus' sisters than we do about him.
We know something about most of the rest of the 12. Peter is mentioned all the time, as are James and John; Andrew took the boy with the loaves and fishes to Jesus, Nathaniel was under the fig tree, Thomas doubted, Judas Iscariot betrayed him, the other Judas asked Jesus a question that puzzled him, John 14:22, there is an account of Matthew's (Levi's) calling, Greeks who wanted to see Jesus approached Philip, John 12:21.
Jesus' 12, chosen and closest, disciples are named - and the 11 in the upper room after the ascension are named; Lazarus was not one of them.

If you read John 20:2, we know of the identity of this "another disciple"

2 Then she runneth, and cometh to Simon Peter, and to the other disciple, whom Jesus loved, and saith unto them, They have taken away the Lord out of the sepulchre, and we know not where they have laid him.

You haven't shown his identity, only emphasised, in bold type, that he was the disciple Jesus loved.

When you turn to John 20:8

8 Then went in also that other disciple, which came first to the sepulchre, and he saw, and believed.

So this other disciple believed when he was at the tomb with Peter.

Yes.
Where does it say that it was Lazarus?

What I have established is the following from Scripture
The disciple whom Jesus loved is not among the 12 apostles. (Luke 6:13)

You haven't established that at all.
The disciple whom Jesus loved was at the Last Supper, the cross and the empty tomb - there is no suggestion at all that this was Lazarus.

He was known to the High Priest (John 18:15-16)

The chief priests wanted to kill Lazarus, John 12:10.
If Lazarus had gone into the court of the High Priest with Jesus, I doubt he would have come out again.

In Mark, John was among the 11 apostles and Jesus had to upbraid them for their unbelief (Mark 16:14).

Apart from the fact that the verses at the end of Mark's Gospel were not in original documents, what does that prove?
Again, "the disciple whom Jesus loved" is not named.

[QUOTE="Guojing, post: 76662150, member: 418695]
So if you combine 3 and 4 together, it is pretty obvious that the disciple whom Jesus loved, cannot be John.
[/QUOTE]

It's not "pretty obvious" at all.
It is certainly not "obvious" that this was Lazarus.

The disciple whom Jesus loved was clearly very close to Jesus - not only was he at the last supper and the cross but Jesus entrusted the care of his mother to him. There is no suggestion that this was Lazarus.
The 4th Gospel was called "the Gospel according to JOHN for a reason. In the final verses, the author says that the disciple whom Jesus loved was the one who wrote these things down. That fits.
How often do we say "yours truly", or something similar in a conversation when talking about ourselves? If John had really wanted to be identified he would have clearly spelt out "I am the disciple whom Jesus loved". But his focus was on Jesus; not himself.

 

[Guojing]

No, you don't.
But Jesus chose 12 to be especially close to him - "that they might be with him and that he might send them out to preach", Mark 3:14.
When people say, "Jesus and his disciples", they usually mean the 12, and not the dozens of others that followed him. Otherwise, that oft-repeated mantra "women can't be ordained because Jesus chose male disciples", would be nonsense.



Doesn't say it was Lazarus.
Lazarus is mentioned on only two occasions - when he was ill and then raised from the dead, and afterwards, when they wanted to kill him.
We know nothing of his faith or whether he followed Jesus. There are no reports of him seeing, and performing, miracles, conversing with the 12, or with Jesus. We know more about Lazarus' sisters than we do about him.
We know something about most of the rest of the 12. Peter is mentioned all the time, as are James and John; Andrew took the boy with the loaves and fishes to Jesus, Nathaniel was under the fig tree, Thomas doubted, Judas Iscariot betrayed him, the other Judas asked Jesus a question that puzzled him, John 14:22, there is an account of Matthew's (Levi's) calling, Greeks who wanted to see Jesus approached Philip, John 12:21.
Jesus' 12, chosen and closest, disciples are named - and the 11 in the upper room after the ascension are named; Lazarus was not one of them.



You haven't shown his identity, only emphasised, in bold type, that he was the disciple Jesus loved.



Yes.
Where does it say that it was Lazarus?


You haven't established that at all.
The disciple whom Jesus loved was at the Last Supper, the cross and the empty tomb - there is no suggestion at all that this was Lazarus.



The chief priests wanted to kill Lazarus, John 12:10.
If Lazarus had gone into the court of the High Priest with Jesus, I doubt he would have come out again.



Apart from the fact that the verses at the end of Mark's Gospel were not in original documents, what does that prove?
Again, "the disciple whom Jesus loved" is not named.

[QUOTE="Guojing, post: 76662150, member: 418695]
So if you combine 3 and 4 together, it is pretty obvious that the disciple whom Jesus loved, cannot be John.

Alright, I can see you are determined to reject it.

Anyway this is a non-salvific issue. We can agree to disagree.

 

[Guojing]

The writing of the 4th Gospel was accredited to John for a reason.
I doubt it was written anonymously. I doubt, even more, that someone said, "well Lazarus wrote this account, but he's not well known; we'd better claim that John wrote it."

You fail to recognize your own circular reasoning in the previous post of yours?

 

[Strong in Him]

Alright, I can see you are determined to reject it.

I'm not determined to reject it - but you have shown me nothing to make me consider it.
The disciple whom Jesus loved is not specifically named. Tradition has it that he, and the author of the Gospel, was John. Just because something's tradition doesn't mean it's right - but the tradition came about for a reason; someone, at some time, knew who the author was.

Anyway this is a non-salvific issue. We can agree to disagree.

Yes, we can.

 

[Strong in Him]

You fail to recognize your own circular reasoning in the previous post of yours?

It wasn't circular reasoning.
We are told at the outset that this is the Gospel according to John, so it is not unreasonable to believe John is the author.
Which John, is debateable - but I have seen nothing that says to me "for John, read Lazarus".

 

[Guojing]

It wasn't circular reasoning.
We are told at the outset that this is the Gospel according to John, so it is not unreasonable to believe John is the author.
Which John, is debateable - but I have seen nothing that says to me "for John, read Lazarus".

But you were answering my point here

Think about it, we have zero scripture stating John was different from Peter and James, that Jesus loved him.

You cannot use the gospel of John itself as evidence of scripture stating Jesus loved John, when we are debating who the actual author of that 4th gospel was.

That would be circular reasoning.

 

[Strong in Him]

You cannot use the gospel of John itself as evidence of scripture stating Jesus loved John, when we are debating who the actual author of that 4th gospel was.

Yes we can.
The verses "the disciple whom Jesus loved" appear in John's Gospel - i.e the Gospel according to John.
My point was that it was "called the Gospel according to John" for a reason; that, traditionally, he was the author. You even said, "well personally I think Lazarus was the real author of the Gospel of John".

It doesn't make sense to say "we'll discount anything in the Gospel of John because we can't agree on the author - any personally testimony in the Gospel is not valid because John might not have been John.
You might as well say - just to get the thread back on track - that we don't know who wrote Hebrews so we had better not read it.