They will look upon Me whom they pierced...

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Well, not really ekim. The guy who wrote acts was referring to an apostle of Jesus. The guys who wrote John weren't even born when Jesus was doing his stuff!!

Neither were you but you are prepared to have a punt at what Jesus said and expect the rest of us to take it seriously even though they've got several centuries on you..

[jeremyp]

Let me give you an objection to this. Without making an argumentum ad populum nothing like Christianity has grown up around a fairy tale.

Christianity did.

[jeremyp]

Well, not really ekim. The guy who wrote acts was referring to an apostle of Jesus. The guys who wrote John weren't even born when Jesus was doing his stuff!!

I'm pretty sure that's exactly what he meant. I suggested that John didn't write the gospel and ekim provided evidence that this was the case in that he was illiterate.

[Ricky Spanish]

Neither were you but you are prepared to have a punt at what Jesus said and expect the rest of us to take it seriously even though they've got several centuries on you..

Nahhhhhh.. I'm prepared to have several educated punts that the cunts who wrote "John" weren't even born when jesus was executed.

I need to see your evidence that the writers of "John" were alive in the times of jesus first, so I can laugh at it, then point out where you are wrong..

[ekim]

I'm pretty sure that's exactly what he meant. I suggested that John didn't write the gospel and ekim provided evidence that this was the case in that he was illiterate.

I'm glad somebody understood.  I believe Acts is estimated as being written between 80-100 AD and John between 100-110 AD.  The writers could have been contemporaries, who really knows!?

[Ricky Spanish]

Which is my point exactly ekim.

Look at the dates.  There is no way on earth the writers of "John" were alive in the 30's..

[Spud]

We know that John (or rather, the beloved disciple) wrote his testimony down and that it was used by the authors of "John". See John 21:24

[jeremyp]

We know that John (or rather, the beloved disciple) wrote his testimony down and that it was used by the authors of "John". See John 21:24

And yet he is described elsewhere as illiterate.

[Ricky Spanish]

What?

Hilarious.

Was "Simon son of John" Peter?

"20Peter 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?")"

"23Because of this, the rumor spread among the believers 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?"

Was it Judas?

If it was "John", why did he die?

Judas is still alive and well to this day..

[Rosindubh]

...    The guys who wrote John weren't even born when Jesus was doing his stuff!!

Hi Ricky,

Thanks for your post, but the text of the 4th gospel is evidence against what you say..

It's Greek vocabulary, grammer and sentence structure is peculiar, unique and consistent throughout chapters 1-20 (excluding 8:1-11).   This points to a single author for writing and editing.

It has a disciplined and consistent forensic style throughout which again pointing to a single author - one with a life-time of experience investigating facts in Roman courts.

Dead sea scrolls, archeology, lunar calculations and historical records all confirm the writer's knowledge of culture, geography, politics and details of Jerusalem at the time of Pontus Pilate.

The difficulty with most commemtators, is that the 4th gospel contradicts many details in the other three gospels.  However, its forensic discipline points to a writer giving reliable personal eye witness evidence in chapters 19 and 20, and 3rd party eye witness evidence elsewhere.

God bless

[ad_orientem]

Ricky has a thing about St John, bless him.

[Rosindubh]

I'm glad somebody understood.  I believe Acts is estimated as being written between 80-100 AD and John between 100-110 AD.  The writers could have been contemporaries, who really knows!?

Hi ekim,

Thanks for your post.   Acts may have been written after 70 AD, but no valid argument can date John between 80-110 AD. 

The text indicates that Chapters 1-20 (excluding 8:1-11) was written before the death of Peter (64 AD) while chapter 21 appears to have been written after the death of Peter.   Chapters 1-20 comprises a forensic series of legal arguments and factual evidence regarding who and what Jesus was, while chapter 21 is an addendum focussing on the status of Peter, not the nature of Jesus.

Verses 5:1-14 describe the pool of Bethesda in the present tense, indicating that these verses were written before the pool was destroyed in 70 AD.   Note that 'scholars' believed this pool was fiction until archeology confirmed its detail existence in the 1960s.

Verses 2:18-22 date Jesus's words about the destruction of the Temple to the year 28 AD, with no attempt to capitalise on its actual destruction in 70 AD.

Verses 12:1, 13:1, 19:31 etc date the crucifixion to 14 Nisan (before passover meal), contary to the other three gospels which date it to 15 Nisan (after passover meal).  Note that 'scholars' believed the 4th gospel's date was fiction until modern scientific lunar calculations confirmed it was correct and the other three gospels wrong.

A feature of the 4th gospel is its frequent reference to 'the Jews' in the way that an American officer in Afghanistan might refer to 'the Afghans'.   That type of reference is absurd for an ethnic Jew and points to the author being a Roman officer resident in Jerusalem before the Zealots drove out the Romans in 66 AD.

I hope you find these points interesting.
God bless

[ekim]

Hi Rosindubh,
Interesting points.  Thank you.

[jeremyp]

Hi ekim,

Thanks for your post.   Acts may have been written after 70 AD, but no valid argument can date John between 80-110 AD. 

Apart from the fact that it talks about the Christians being banned from synagogues, which didn't happen till around 90CE.

The text indicates that Chapters 1-20 (excluding 8:1-11) was written before the death of Peter (64 AD)

I think you'll have to explain that reasoning. You are pretty much in a minority with that view.

[Rosindubh]

Apart from the fact that it talks about the Christians being banned from synagogues, which didn't happen till around 90CE.

Hi jeremyp,

Thanks for the above post.    However, it is a popular but non-viable argument.   Historical facts contradict it.

References in 4th gospel to followers of Jesus being put out of synagogues conform with jewish reports about the basic beliefs of Pharisees and the strict discipline they imposed in their synagogues - "introduced at the same time as the rise of the Synagogue", (see jewishencyclopedia.com under Anathema, sub-heading A Measure of Synagogal Discipline).

Jewish encyclopedia estimates this as "contemporaneous with the Maccabean period" (164BC-63BC).   So, rules of expulsion from synagogues were well established BEFORE the events described in the 4th gospel.

The word Pharisee "denotes one who separates himself or keeps himself away from persons or things impure".   This included "strict observance of Levetical purity, to avoidance of close association with Am Ha-Arez (the ignorant and careless boor)".   See jewishencyclopedia.com under Pharisees, 2nd paragraph.

So, association of Jesus and his followers with unwashed multitude, publicans and sinners would have been incompatible with membership of any Pharisaic synagogues in Jerusalem.   The Synoptic's description of Jesus's views on the Sabbath and the Pharises' views on Beelzebub would have been even stronger grounds for expulsion.

Note that no gospel ever mentions Jesus or an apostle being inside any synagogue in Jerusalem.   The facts contradict J L Martyn's theories.

God bless

[Sassy]

Which is my point exactly ekim.

Look at the dates.  There is no way on earth the writers of "John" were alive in the 30's..

None of the NT existed when Christ walked the earth. The first followers and the good news spread by the telling and hearing of the word. And all the things which happened did so by the power of God through faith in Christ Jesus and the baptism of the Spirit in man.

What you argue about is useless because it isn't the written accounts but the actual reality of the truth and the changes it made in men and the power and miracles that came to pass.]

You miss the boat... You see it is all about Christ.

[Sassy]

What?

Hilarious.

Was "Simon son of John" Peter?

"20Peter 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?")"

"23Because of this, the rumor spread among the believers 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?"

Was it Judas?

If it was "John", why did he die?

Judas is still alive and well to this day..

Did Jesus refer to his return from the dead or the return after ascending to his Father?

[Rosindubh]

I think you'll have to explain that reasoning. You are pretty much in a minority with that view.

Hi jeremyp,
Thanks again for the above post.  OK, I will try to show my reasoning.   

Text of 4th gospel contains signs of being published in two stages, chapters 1-20 before 65 AD, chapter 21 after, because:-

1.   Chapters 1-20 show no knowledge of what happened in 66-70 AD, show no influence from Matthew and Luke and contradict Mark.

2.   Chapters 1-20 contains such details on numbers, dates, geography and culture in Jerusalem at the time of Pilate that its author appears to have talked to specific eye witnesses.  Scholars used to say such details were fiction but archeology, dead sea scrolls and lunar calculations have proved much is accurate history.

3.   Wording of verse 20:30-31:- "now Jesus did many other signs in the presence of his disciples, which are not written in this book but these are written so you may come to believe that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God ....".  This is a lawyer summing up his case in Court, claiming sufficient facts have been presented to the Court (his readers) for it to give the verdict he seeks - a final conclusion to the document.

4.   Chapter 21 uses similar but different vocabular and grammer to chapters 1-20, suggesting it was written by the same author but some years later.

5.   Chapters 1-20 focus on the status of Jesus, but chapter 21 focuses on the status of Peter, and appears to have been triggered by his death, see verse 21:19.

The above are evidence of a very early date for chapters 1-20 and a much later date for chapter 21.  I hope you find these points interesting.
God bless