L
Lypher
Guest
I am not debating you. James a Hickey, Archbishop of Washington is. (Imprimatur on the NAB)
He needs to…
- Status
I
ItIsWritten
Guest
It depends on who you believe is telling the truth. Along with Ps. 118:8 which explicitly states that “It is better to trust in the Lord than to put confidence in man”, there are numerous other passages that indicate that simply adopting the traditions of educated men is NOT a proper method for discerning biblical truth.
Certainly those who love the truth would not intentionally present an unbiblical idea as if it was biblical. But, one has to take off their own shoes before they can take a walk in someone else’s moccasins, and similarly, when it comes to a case of The Bible vs. Tradition, one has to be willing to let go of the traditions of men in order to see the truth that is hidden in plain sight in the text of scripture.
TheFourthGospel.com has a free eBook that compares scripture with scripture in order to highlight the facts in the plain text of scripture that are usually overlooked about the “other disciple, whom Jesus loved”. Since scripture is profitable for correction, you may want to weigh the testimony of scripture that it cites regarding the one whom “Jesus loved” and may find it to be helpful as it encourages bible students to heed the admonition, “prove all things”.
Two good rules of respect for the authority of God’s word: A) One should not be presenting an idea AS IF IT WERE BIBLICAL if they cannot cite a single verse that would justify teaching that idea – and – B) If the facts in the plain text of scripture prove that an idea is false, then those who love the truth will reject that false idea — no matter how many people believe it, no matter how loud some may shout it, no matter if a big-wig so-and-so believes it, no matter how long the false idea has been around, etc.
While non-Bible sources may say that John was “the disciple whom Jesus loved”, what happens when one subjects that claim to biblical scrutiny, will it hold up? No it will not because two things are true:
1: No one can cite a single verse of scripture that would justify promoting the idea that the unnamed “disciple whom Jesus loved” the Apostle John, nor any other John. Moreover, the reason that this cannot be done is that no such verse exists, which is the reason that no such verse is ever cited by those who put forth the unbiblical John tradition.
2: The facts in the plain text of scripture can prove that WHOEVER the unnamed “other disciple, whom Jesus loved” was he could not have been John — because that idea forces the Bible to contradict itself, which the Bible cannot do if it is true. (If you are interested, a presentation of the biblical evidence on this topic is provided in the free eBook noted above).
One can surely find a NON-Bible source to cite if they want to justify their belief in the idea that the unnamed “other disciple whom Jesus loved” was John. But what no one has ever done is cite a single verse that would justify teaching that the unnamed “disciple whom Jesus loved” was John — not those who originated the unbiblical John idea and not those who repeat their error to this day.
The fact is that the John tradition is simply a case of mistaken identity. This, for example, explains why Jesus’ transfiguration, his prayers in the Garden of Gethsemane, and his raising of the daughter of Jairus are NOT in the fourth gospel. Only three disciples were present at each of these events and John was one of them. Thus John was able to give eyewitness testimony when it came to these key incidents and yet there is no mention of these events in the fourth gospel, because the author, “the disciple whom Jesus loved”, was not John. And the missing ‘John testimony’ is just the tip of the iceberg.
Moreover, while it is certainly fair to ask the question, ‘If not John, then who?’, it is abundantly clear that one does not have to be able to answer that question before the unbiblical John idea is set aside. If there is a man in jail who has been convicted of a crime and we later uncover DNA evidence that proves we have identified the wrong man, then we let him go. We don’t keep him in jail until we find out who did do it. Likewise, if Bible evidence can prove that John was not the “other disciple, whom Jesus loved”, then we need to admit our mistake and let go of this erroneous tradition whether or not we can identify the actual author.
“Every word of God is pure: he is a shield unto them that put their trust in him. Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar.” (Pr. 30:5-6)
Of course, like the Sadducees, there will always be those who believe that it is permissible to teach that an idea IS BIBLICAL even when that idea contradicts the facts recorded in God’s word, and any who may read this who likewise feel they can include artistic license in their method of Bible interpretation can feel free to ignore the foregoing comments and the Bible facts that disprove the John tradition.
Hope that helped.
V
Voco_proTatiano
Guest
The author of the book referenced above makes detailed cogent arguments.
The postulation of Lazarus as the disciple that Jesus loved makes very good sense.
Being the brother of Mary Magdalen, this accounts for some of her recollections being presented as those of the author, or in great detail.
It also sets the ideal ‘safe house’ for Our Lady. Both Mary and the disciple Jesus loved had authority to move in high places, the former in the palace of Herod, and the latter in the palace of the high priest.
This also puts the tin hat on the theory that Mary Magdalen herself was that disciple that Jesus loved, a theory which has some mileage.
There is of course the possibility that Lazarus was also called John.
The postulation of Lazarus as the disciple that Jesus loved makes very good sense.
Being the brother of Mary Magdalen, this accounts for some of her recollections being presented as those of the author, or in great detail.
It also sets the ideal ‘safe house’ for Our Lady. Both Mary and the disciple Jesus loved had authority to move in high places, the former in the palace of Herod, and the latter in the palace of the high priest.
This also puts the tin hat on the theory that Mary Magdalen herself was that disciple that Jesus loved, a theory which has some mileage.
There is of course the possibility that Lazarus was also called John.
S
steve53
Guest
Interesting subject.
Just read “Year of the Passover” by John Hagan (?) who discusses it. Hagan also touches on it in parts of “Fires of Rome”.
Who wrote the Gospel of John goes to the question of who were the “secret” disciples of Jesus. There were many in Jerusalem at the Passover of Jesus’ crucifixion, probably more than a few were members of the Sanhedrin. Interesting, too, in John that a Sanhedrin trial of Jesus on the night before his crucifixion is not documented. Caiaphas had little to gain if the “secret” disciples in the Sanhedrin (Gamaliel?!) tried to block Jesus’ conviction.
That John was a young Priest of aristocratic lineage- perhaps of the family of Ananus- is indirectly suggested. That would explain why John wanted to be anonymous (disciple that “Jesus loved”) for fear of retribution against his family- even decades after the crucifixion. It could have been his house where the last supper was held. The upstairs apartment could hold over a hundred people!
John is the only book that mentions Nicodemus, a member of the Sanhedrin, and actually quotes John the Baptist. How hard is it to imagine that the young and wealthy Priest John, hears of John the Baptist and travels to see him and talk with him? Or that, when Jesus first arrives on the scene, the young priest goes with Nicodemus, also a seeker, to talk with him?
Lots of angles to this that Hagan goes into. Interesting stuff.
Just read “Year of the Passover” by John Hagan (?) who discusses it. Hagan also touches on it in parts of “Fires of Rome”.
Who wrote the Gospel of John goes to the question of who were the “secret” disciples of Jesus. There were many in Jerusalem at the Passover of Jesus’ crucifixion, probably more than a few were members of the Sanhedrin. Interesting, too, in John that a Sanhedrin trial of Jesus on the night before his crucifixion is not documented. Caiaphas had little to gain if the “secret” disciples in the Sanhedrin (Gamaliel?!) tried to block Jesus’ conviction.
That John was a young Priest of aristocratic lineage- perhaps of the family of Ananus- is indirectly suggested. That would explain why John wanted to be anonymous (disciple that “Jesus loved”) for fear of retribution against his family- even decades after the crucifixion. It could have been his house where the last supper was held. The upstairs apartment could hold over a hundred people!
John is the only book that mentions Nicodemus, a member of the Sanhedrin, and actually quotes John the Baptist. How hard is it to imagine that the young and wealthy Priest John, hears of John the Baptist and travels to see him and talk with him? Or that, when Jesus first arrives on the scene, the young priest goes with Nicodemus, also a seeker, to talk with him?
Lots of angles to this that Hagan goes into. Interesting stuff.
V
Voco_proTatiano
Guest
Ah Friends,
I have just read three disturbing books, well, more accurately, read one, picked at another, and read the third.
1/ The Dead Sea Scrolls Deception, made a cogent case that the majority of the DSS material had been kept deliberately under wraps, and false witness borne of the dating of some of the scrolls, for if the dating was based on content, rather than the archaic script they are written with, they throw a disturbing light on the history of the Jesus Movement.
2/ The New Testament Code, a monstrous tome, and a somewhat turgid read, explains how, from a Jewish aspect, a system of Peshers, the use of veiled epithets, was used in the DSS to identify people and events, and how this system seems to have been built into many books of the New Testament. This book seems to conclude that Paul, essentially hijacked the Jesus Movement, inventing a Greek Mystery mythology to replace the truth about Our Lord. He would leave us thinking that what Paul leaves us is little better than Grimm’s fairy tales, and possibly worse.
3/ The Book that Jesus Wrote, uses The New Testament Code from a Christian point of view, to show that the ‘resurrection’ was very real in terms of the science of the day, and indeed with the folk beliefs of many today. That is, when he was taken down from the cross, he had no detectable life signs, so was certified as dead. In the tomb, he was placed horizontal, in a cool place, and his body was dressed, and large quantities of bitter aloes were used, possibly as a purge. As a result, any toxic effects of the ‘vinegar’ tainted with myrrh were ameliorated, and life signs returned, followed by a nearly complete recovery.
Let there be no doubt, people who witness ‘Near Death Experience’ are convinced of the reality thereof, and do report strange things, which science struggle to explain. The rending of the veil of the temple is just such an experience, if seen as a figurative, or Pesher reference. Likewise, many of these people, after the experience, see a very different world, and change their lives accordingly.
It would therefore have been very wise to keep the recovery secret, though allowing rumours of a miracle to circulate, and to hide real encounters as ‘visions’.
So, Paul’s claim, that without the resurrection, Christianity is nothing, is nothing less than the plain truth.
Likewise, the teaching of a new message is exactly what would be expected of a witness of Near Death Experience.
Yes this blows much out of the water, but in its place, it leaves a cogent account, which has a ring of truth.
Would it not be beautiful to be able to believe that at least the Gospels, most of the Epistles, and the Revelation had been signed off personally by Our Lord?
Oh, and yes, that of course includes the Gospel of John!
I have just read three disturbing books, well, more accurately, read one, picked at another, and read the third.
1/ The Dead Sea Scrolls Deception, made a cogent case that the majority of the DSS material had been kept deliberately under wraps, and false witness borne of the dating of some of the scrolls, for if the dating was based on content, rather than the archaic script they are written with, they throw a disturbing light on the history of the Jesus Movement.
2/ The New Testament Code, a monstrous tome, and a somewhat turgid read, explains how, from a Jewish aspect, a system of Peshers, the use of veiled epithets, was used in the DSS to identify people and events, and how this system seems to have been built into many books of the New Testament. This book seems to conclude that Paul, essentially hijacked the Jesus Movement, inventing a Greek Mystery mythology to replace the truth about Our Lord. He would leave us thinking that what Paul leaves us is little better than Grimm’s fairy tales, and possibly worse.
3/ The Book that Jesus Wrote, uses The New Testament Code from a Christian point of view, to show that the ‘resurrection’ was very real in terms of the science of the day, and indeed with the folk beliefs of many today. That is, when he was taken down from the cross, he had no detectable life signs, so was certified as dead. In the tomb, he was placed horizontal, in a cool place, and his body was dressed, and large quantities of bitter aloes were used, possibly as a purge. As a result, any toxic effects of the ‘vinegar’ tainted with myrrh were ameliorated, and life signs returned, followed by a nearly complete recovery.
Let there be no doubt, people who witness ‘Near Death Experience’ are convinced of the reality thereof, and do report strange things, which science struggle to explain. The rending of the veil of the temple is just such an experience, if seen as a figurative, or Pesher reference. Likewise, many of these people, after the experience, see a very different world, and change their lives accordingly.
It would therefore have been very wise to keep the recovery secret, though allowing rumours of a miracle to circulate, and to hide real encounters as ‘visions’.
So, Paul’s claim, that without the resurrection, Christianity is nothing, is nothing less than the plain truth.
Likewise, the teaching of a new message is exactly what would be expected of a witness of Near Death Experience.
Yes this blows much out of the water, but in its place, it leaves a cogent account, which has a ring of truth.
Would it not be beautiful to be able to believe that at least the Gospels, most of the Epistles, and the Revelation had been signed off personally by Our Lord?
Oh, and yes, that of course includes the Gospel of John!
B
buffalo
Guest
What is the Church’s response to these claims?
A
abucs
Guest
It seems at least the first two letters of John are written with the same Theology and style as the Gospel of John. The two letters seem to be addressed to Churches. Is there any historical information on the citing of or origin of these two letters ?
B
buffalo
Guest
Gospel of St. John
If we except the heretics mentioned by Irenaeus ( III.11.9Against Heresies) and Epiphanius (Haer., li, 3), the authenticity of the Fourth Gospel was scarcely ever seriously questioned until the end of the eighteenth century. Evanson (1792) and Bretschneider (1820) were the first to run counter to tradition in the question of the authorship, and, since David Friedrich Strauss (1834-40) adopted Bretschneider’s views and the members of the Tübingen School, in the wake of Ferdinand Christian Baur, denied the authenticity of this Gospel, the majority of the critics outside the Catholic Church have denied that the Fourth Gospel was authentic. On the admission of many critics, their chief reason lies in the fact that John has too clearly and emphatically made the true Divinity of the Redeemer, in the strict metaphysical sense, the centre of his narrative. However, even Harnack has had to admit that, though denying the authenticity of the Fourth Gospel, he has sought in vain for any satisfactory solution of the Johannine problem: “Again and again have I attempted to solve the problem with various possible theories, but they led me into still greater difficulties, and even developed into contradictions.” (“Gesch. der altchristl. Lit.”, I, pt. ii, Leipzig, 1897, p. 678.)
A short examination of the arguments bearing on the solution of the problem of the authorship of the Fourth Gospel will enable the reader to form an independent judgment.
Direct historical proof
If, as is demanded by the character of the historical question, we first consult the historical testimony of the past, we discover the universally admitted fact that, from the eighteenth century back to at least the third, the Apostle John was accepted without question as the author of the Fourth Gospel. In the examination of evidence therefore, we may begin with the third century, and thence proceed back to the time of the Apostles.
The ancient manuscripts and translations of the Gospel constitute the first group of evidence. In the titles, tables of contents, signatures, which are usually added to the text of the separate Gospels, John is in every case and without the faintest indication of doubt named as the author of this Gospel. The earliest of the extant manuscripts, it is true, do not date back beyond the middle of the fourth century, but the perfect unanimity of all the codices proves to every critic that the prototypes of these manuscripts, at a much earlier date, must have contained the same indications of authorship. Similar is the testimony of the Gospel translations, of which the Syrian, Coptic, and Old Latin extend back in their earliest forms to the second century.more…
A
abucs
Guest
So are you saying that if the Churches and other early Christians knew who wrote the letters of John, there would have been at least some reported disagreement in the early Church if the writer of the letters had been known to have not been John?
Thanks, that makes some sense.
In the third letter of John to Gauis, I wonder if this Gaius is the same one that was close to Paul?
The time line would fit as John would be about 80 and Gaius about 60 so that John can call himself an elder and call Gauis a dear friend and at the same time one of his spiritual “children” whose good health he prays for as he receives Christian missionaries spreading the word.
Thanks, that makes some sense.
In the third letter of John to Gauis, I wonder if this Gaius is the same one that was close to Paul?
The time line would fit as John would be about 80 and Gaius about 60 so that John can call himself an elder and call Gauis a dear friend and at the same time one of his spiritual “children” whose good health he prays for as he receives Christian missionaries spreading the word.
S
Slowlearner
Guest
Anthony or David, if you don’t mind revisiting this thread, I have a question below, but first by way of background, I have read this thread as I last night I was watching a DVD of presentation by Fr. Bill Burton (I commented in a sacred scripture thread about him, which you can find here). Several times watching Burton, my faith was challenged and threatened, in a manner that Anthony describes (“Even Catholic scholars who otherwise accept the teachings of the Church sometimes end up undermining scripture and doctrine and tradition when they write about scripture.”). Certain of the posts on this thread have got me back on track.
Now the question: Are there any scientifically validated interpretive methods or tools that have been applied to biblical interpretation? I have come across many articles that, for instance, compare the writing style various NT books attributed to common authors and make arguments as to authorship based on perceived differences in style. Such analysis could be reduced to a method if a repeatable format for such analysis was developed and then the method was tested by application on writings where authorship was known. Perhaps even a scoring system for similarity of style could be developed. Has this been done?
A
anthony022071
Guest
I’m not sure that any interpretive method could be scientifically validated in the sense that a repeatable experiment can validate a hypotheses. A “method” or “tool” of interpretation is more properly called an approach or view or perspective. Science is naturalistic in its view of reality,and so any manner of interpretation that is called scientific will ignore or downplay the supernatural realities of scripture as it prefers to focus instead upon anthropological matters or the form and style of scripture. Scripture should be interpreted in light of the teachings of the Church. It was members of the Church that wrote the New Testament books,and the Spirit that guided them also guides the Church.
S
steve53
Guest
Right.
It’s like in math.
What is 3.1 divided by 9.3?
Someone might answer .3333333333333333333
But they would be wrong.
The answer is .3
The answer can only be as accurate as the numbers used in the operation.
It’s like in math.
What is 3.1 divided by 9.3?
Someone might answer .3333333333333333333
But they would be wrong.
The answer is .3
The answer can only be as accurate as the numbers used in the operation.
N
Nate13
Guest
Get a copy of the Ignatius Study Bible and before each book you can read a good breakdown of all the different theories about the who, when, and why of each book of the Bible. There is nothing within the text itself that demands the book be dated after the destruction of the temple in 70A.D and if you read John 5:2 “Now there is in Jerusalem near the Sheep Gate a pool, which in Aramaic is called Bethesda and which is surrounded by five covered colonnades.” it describes a scene in Jerusalem in the present tense as though this is still there. It would be somewhat weird for John to be describing this place which would have been buried under a heap of rubble if the book was written after 70A.D. This would lend support to the idea that it was written by the Apostle John by which we can also attribute the book of Revelation to him as well, and both books were written before 70A.D.
Q
Quarles47
Guest
Who wrote the Gospel of St. John? Why St. John did, naturally. And he did it under the guidence of the Holy Spirit. 
Let the so call “learned” make utter fools of themselves
Let the so call “learned” make utter fools of themselves
J
Julia_Mae
Guest
I imagine there is, but can’t provide any source. However, I’m not sure we need to get that “sciency” about it. You might know that author Stephen King, when he became popular, also had books out under a different name, Richard Bachman, I believe. His fans figured it out because of his writing style.
As to Scripture, I read that Revelations could* not *be written by the same person who wrote John’s Gospel, because the language was so much less sophisticated and there were things like grammar errors you just don’t find in John’s Gospel. It was just a literary convention of the time with certain types of writing to identify oneself as a famous person.
I was taught the same thing in Biblical School about John not writing John and for the same illogical reason: uneducated peasant guy. Jewish boys weren’t that uneducated, men can still learn as adults, and artistic geniuses often are found amongst the peasantry. Besides, I think fishermen were more middle class business people types. The Scripture in use by the Jews at that time was the Septuagint, how could any of them not understand, speak and read Greek? Writing may not have been a skill that many had, but someone in the family had to keep records.
Keep in mind these are the same people of the “historical/critical” school, who want to convince us that “God doesn’t reach into reality and change natural law” and that Jesus didn’t feed 5000 with a few fish and a loaf of bread, He just inspired everyone to share.
This is the Hans Kung effect. Never let them make you doubt the true power and mystery and Love of God in Time and His action in our lives.
S
Slowlearner
Guest
I think it would be a pretty easy experiment to test the ability of these scholars who compare writing styles of various books of the Bible and make postulations about authorship. One could take pieces by various writers, maybe not too famous so they wouldn’t be recognized, and show a piece they wrote in high school and then something in mid-life and then something near end life. You could also create writings, have college students instructed to write about a specific subject as freshmen and then write something as seniors. If you took one student’s freshman and senior paper, then added a senior paper from another (but writing on the freshman topic), put the three before one of the scholars, how would they do? Read a pre-written paper to someone, have them write it down from memory (maybe paragraph by paragraph), then do the same thing thirty years later, then give the papers to a bible scholar and ask them if it is by same author. Lots of ways to do it and at a minimal cost compared to any other kind of scientific study.
One thing I’ll bet: the bible scholars will only participate in such a study if they can do so on an anonymous basis so no one knows how they score. forums.catholic-questions.org/images/smilies/smile.gif
K
kelvinf
Guest
Well, you are wrong! The better answer ∈ [0.33333, 0.33334] (5 places)
M
melbanglican
Guest
Perhaps consulting educated Catholic opinion on the matter might be helpful. For instance, what does Francis Moloney, SDB, have to say in his commentary ‘The Gospel of John (Sacra Pagina Series, Volume 4)’?
Scholars such as Moloney, Raymond Brown, Daniel Harrington and others dedicate their lives to the study of the Scriptures. It would seem to be a shame not to consult the published fruits of their labours.
J
Jerry-Jet
Guest
John wrote John’s gospel.
Anyone who doesn’t believe this went to the Lucifer School of Theology.
Ask yourself this question–do you think that maybe just maybe that the people in the 1st century who BELIEVED in the resurrection of Jesus from the dead as TRUTH–who BELIEVED in His miracles as TRUTH would want to know–and DID know the truth of who wrote the gospels!!!
Just because you believe in truth doesn’t make you an unsophisiticated literalist fundamentalist.
Jesus was real–John was real–the gospels were witnesses to what was real–there really was a disciple called John who was real–he wasn’t a rural ignorant idiot–he was inspired by the Holy Spirit and wrote his real gospel which is in the real bible.
Anyone who doesn’t believe this went to the Lucifer School of Theology.
Ask yourself this question–do you think that maybe just maybe that the people in the 1st century who BELIEVED in the resurrection of Jesus from the dead as TRUTH–who BELIEVED in His miracles as TRUTH would want to know–and DID know the truth of who wrote the gospels!!!
Just because you believe in truth doesn’t make you an unsophisiticated literalist fundamentalist.
Jesus was real–John was real–the gospels were witnesses to what was real–there really was a disciple called John who was real–he wasn’t a rural ignorant idiot–he was inspired by the Holy Spirit and wrote his real gospel which is in the real bible.
C
Contarini
Guest
A statement that is by no means substantiated by any argument you or anyone else has presented.
Rhetoric is fine as far as it goes, but you’re getting in your own way when you use it as a substitute for solid argument.
But we don’t have any first-century evidence, obviously. We have second-century evidence. And I don’t dismiss it. But it’s also not conclusive.
Are you a [non-dispensational] premillennialist? Do you believe that there will be a literal reign of Christ on earth in which grape vines will be very fruitful and will call to the saints to pluck them?
If you don’t, then you are disregarding the same kind of evidence that we have for the authorship of the Gospels.
Edwin
Just because you believe in truth doesn’t make you an unsophisiticated literalist fundamentalist.
Jesus was real–John was real–the gospels were witnesses to what was real–there really was a disciple called John who was real–he wasn’t a rural ignorant idiot–he was inspired by the Holy Spirit and wrote his real gospel which is in the real bible.
- Status