The Gospel of John

[simspt]

No. Read my post again. Josephus is a very meticulous historian, even writing about many obscure events. The reference to Jesus is a clear insertion into his works. The likely culprit is known “liar for God”, Eusebius of Caesarea.

What does this tell you? Why would a church bishop forge a passage into the works of someone else? Answer. They were embarrassed that Josephus didn’t mention Jesus as the Son of God, yet wrote about many obscure people and events.

That’s because “Jesus” was likely an obscure run of the mill apocalyptic preacher, of which there were a dime a dozen at that time.

The fact is we have very few writings from the 1st century period! Pliny and Josephus and thankfully more recently the Dead sea manuscripts. To my understanding only parts of Josephus’s Jesus statements (Son of God)are thought to be redactions, not all. The DSS give interesting parallels with the NT writings (structure of this community and structure of NT churches). Hopefully we will find more 1st century documents that will shed even more light and give more background information on the 1st century churches. What is amazing to me is this run of the mill preacher had so many followers willing to die for him. I dont know about you but I sure as hell wouldnt be willing to die for some dime a dozen run of the mill preacher who was shamed and put to death.

 

[Clcwmt]

You are either ignorant or a liar. There were many, many historians during that era, of which Josephus was one of the most famous. He was a Jew employed by the Romans.

Josephus remained a Jew. Isn’t that strange for someone who proclaimed the glory of “Jesus”? Isn’t that strange for someone who said that “Jesus was the Christ”. Jesus was a common name back then (Yeshua) so the line calling him “the Christ” was added by Christian forgers for sure. This second reference doesn’t refer to Jesus Christ.

You wouldn’t die for a lie? I know many who did. Jonestown comes to mind among many others. Most recently Waco, Texas.

Try again.

 

[simspt]

You are either ignorant or a liar. There were many, many historians during that era, of which Josephus was one of the most famous. He was a Jew employed by the Romans.

Josephus remained a Jew. Isn’t that strange for someone who proclaimed the glory of “Jesus”? Isn’t that strange for someone who said that “Jesus was the Christ”. Jesus was a common name back then (Yeshua) so the line calling him “the Christ” was added by Christian forgers for sure. This second reference doesn’t refer to Jesus Christ.

You wouldn’t die for a lie? I know many who did. Jonestown comes to mind among many others. Most recently Waco, Texas.

Try again.

Ive lied a few times in my life and been ignorant more than once i was referring to writings in relation to Jesus (i wasnt very clear mentioning the DSS)
ps i thought i watched a documentary that Jonestown was more a murder vs suicide event?? but your point is taken. you must of missed the point in my previous post about acknowledging the redactions made to Josephus.
BTW,
Whats your thoughts on the OP?
Why do u think the current anonymity of authorship is a better option than the traditional view?

 

[Nathan_Wagar]

You are either ignorant or a liar. There were many, many historians during that era, of which Josephus was one of the most famous. He was a Jew employed by the Romans.

Josephus remained a Jew. Isn’t that strange for someone who proclaimed the glory of “Jesus”? Isn’t that strange for someone who said that “Jesus was the Christ”. Jesus was a common name back then (Yeshua) so the line calling him “the Christ” was added by Christian forgers for sure. This second reference doesn’t refer to Jesus Christ.

You wouldn’t die for a lie? I know many who did. Jonestown comes to mind among many others. Most recently Waco, Texas.

Try again.

You’re missing the point, which doesn’t surprise me given your off-the cuff, curiously angry style of argumentation. The entire faith of the disciples hinges on whether or not Jesus rose from the dead. If he did not, the apostles would know about it, and they would know it was a lie. Sure, lots of people are willing to die for a lie; not many are willing to die for something that they in fact know is a lie. Particularly given the fact that 12 separate apostles died, the majority of them (I believe 11, could be wrong on that) under torture/martyrdom, and yet curiously the whole “resurrection fraud” cat was never let out of the bag. If the disciples knew, then it was a conspiracy, and probability dictates with nearly 100% certainty that someone would have cracked.

Nobody here has an issue with you dealing with an argument that we may present. Just make sure that if you’re going to slam someone for being ignorant, you aren’t guilty of the same crime, as you steadily beat that straw man…Meanwhile, if you have time (you obviously do, since you have nothing better to do than be rude on a Catholic forum) you should read the book “The Resurrection of the Son of God” by N.T. Wright. He makes a convincing case for the Resurrection over the course of 738 pages.

 

[NotWorthy]

You wouldn’t die for a lie? I know many who did. Jonestown comes to mind among many others. Most recently Waco, Texas.

Try again.

Please don’t equate the two events with the death of the Apostles or any of the early martyrs.

Jonestown and Waco both had highly charismatic leaders who ruled with an iron thumb.

The Apostles died years after the Charismatic Jesus Ascended into heaven. Many of them were offered freedom, and often money and wealth, if they would refrain from martyrdom and rescind their allegiance to Jesus. Not many charismatic leaders can rule someone’s mind through 20-50 years of absence.

 

[Pythons]

The following is not difficult reading at all & the author makes what appears to be a VERY strong case…
…That the author of the 4th Gospel was generated by Lazarus ( as in the one Christ raised from the dead ).

I had never heard this before but after reading it I’m wondering if anyone else has ever heard of this…
…If anyone has the time I would really appreicate it if somone with more smarts than me.
…Would either Yes, No - OR “maybe” that the following is possible or not.

disciplewhomjesusloved.com/beloved-disciple-fourth-gospel-author/

 

[steve53]

Wrong! It was Judas!

 

[Pythons]

Wrong! It was Judas!

I was being serious…
…While you were not.

 

[abucs]

Hi Faith 1960.

It almost goes without saying now that when you read scholars opinions you have to factor in the the historical change in biblical scholarship starting from the blatant anti-Catholic Bismark days through the silly 1960’s Catholic ‘liberal revisionists’ take up of those ideas on the subject til today.

The double ending in John’s Gospel with the additional last chapter (added by a likely follower) seems to be a strong reason for me that John the apostle wrote the preceeding gospel as addresses in that chapter the idea that Jesus would return before John died. This would make the most sense if it was added just after John died and would have had much less reason to be added well after his death.

The liberal scholar A.T. Robinson argued for an early dating of John and put the Gospels before 64 A.D.

stonge.intheway.org/documents/The%20Priority%20of%20John.pdf

biblicalstudies.org.uk/pdf/john_robinson.pdf

Regards.

 

[stevekehl]

Faith,

it’s what the Scriptures say, not what some one says about it.

Gospel according to John: 21:
18: 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.
19: This spake he, signifying by what death he should glorify God. And when he had spoken this, he saith unto him, Follow me.
20: Then Peter, turning about, seeth the disciple whom Jesus loved following; which also leaned on his breast at supper, and said, Lord, which is he that betrayeth thee?
21: Peter seeing him saith to Jesus, Lord, and what shall this man do?
22: 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?
24: **This is the disciple which testifieth of these things, and wrote these things: **and we know that his testimony is true.

In case you are not aware: Apostle John is a Beloved of God just as Daniel was called Beloved of the Lord. Ain’t no better thing then to be called by God Himself, one of His Beloved.

I’m glad I read all the posts, I was going to post exactly this.

 

[Zenas]

The liberal scholar A.T. Robinson argued for an early dating of John and put the Gospels before 64 A.D.

I agree with Robinson on this point and the reason is found in John 5:2:

Now there is in Jerusalem by the sheep gate a pool, which is called in Hebrew Bethesda, having five porticoes.

Note the present tense in this verse. If John had been written after 70, it would have read something like this:

Now there was in Jerusalem by the sheep gate a pool, which is called in Hebrew Bethesda, which had five porticoes.

 

[steve53]

I was being serious…
…While you were not.

beg to differ.

a famous theory that Judas helped Jesus fake his own death and resurrection. That is why a disciple questioned Jesus on the “mystery” disciple’s presence, as he deverved death for his betrayal.

John is the most veracious of the Gospels, written by an eyewitness, and probably part of the Temple high priesthood who was loath to reveal his name, even after the Temple’s destruction.

 

[NotWorthy]

John is the most veracious of the Gospels, written by an eyewitness, and probably part of the Temple high priesthood who was loath to reveal his name, even after the Temple’s destruction.

Why is this? Why can’t it be the very author that the Church has credited it to?

 

[steve53]

Eusebius ascribes the authorship to John the Evangelist, who is as likely as any. And he was, according to some, a young Temple priest who got caught up in the John the Baptist-Jesus phenomenon, and died during the reign of Trajan after writing the Gospel and Revelations.

 

[NotWorthy]

Eusebius ascribes the authorship to John the Evangelist, who is as likely as any. And he was, according to some, a young Temple priest who got caught up in the John the Baptist-Jesus phenomenon, and died during the reign of Trajan after writing the Gospel and Revelations.

St. Irenaeus ascribes it to John the Apostle. I tend to hold Irenaeus over Eusebius some 200 years later (if you are talking about Eusebius the 4th century historian).