Who Wrote the Gospel of John?
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 2 ธ.ค. 2024
- The Gospel of John provides no explicit internal evidence concerning its author. John, the disciple, is nowhere identified by name. But the Fourth Gospel might provide us with clues concealed in the enigmatic figure of the "Beloved Disciple."
In this video, Gary M. Burge gives some insight.
LEARN MORE: zondervanacade...
You say it is defensible. But I want to know how you defend it.
In the description of the video, click on the blog post. I think this video was very summarized as a preview of a course. From what I gathered, the strongest evidence is that the early church (2nd century) claims it was John (specifically John's disciple's disciple) and even the non-christian circles of the time claim it was John. The claims that it wasn't John start appearing in the 19th century.
The best alternative to the Apostle John is John the Elder, an eyewitness to Jesus's ministry who Papias wrote about. 2 John and 3 John each refer to themselves as "elder", and additionally the Muratorian Canon refers to John as a "disciple" but Andrew as an "Apostle." There's a lot more evidence showing that John the Elder wrote John's Gospel, and a lot of it can be found in Richard Baukham's Jesus and the Eyewitnesses.
I just want to know how John wrote the book of John if he died in like the beginning of the book
Those are two different guys with the same name
@@kidflersh7807 i thought John the Baptist wrote it
@@chasedollars1643 No. John the baptist was the cousin of Jesus who was a prophet. John the author was a disciple of Jesus.
@@neobogard wait John was Jesus Christ cousin? Where does it say that?
@@chasedollars1643 john the baptist was Jesus' cousin. Not John the disciple. John the Baptist's mother was Elisabeth the cousin of Mary. Gospel of Matthew and Luke.
Mockers in the comment sections are sad. Why do skeptics stay in Christian forums and videos? It’s pretty pathetic. Do an ounce of objective research and you might be surprised what you find. Until then, I guess you can just remain in the dark.
Your beliefs are based on circular reasoning.
And your beliefs are unsupported by proper or sufficient evidence. Wishful thinking doesn't cut it.
Ok, can you please tell us that, many believes that the Author John is the brother of Christ but you said it's Jephades the father of John so how can we know it , also is he the John is the same who wrote the Gospel, 1 to 3 John and Revelation? Can you explain the story of John in brief ? . Thanks
So was John ben Zebede also called John the Beloved and John of Old? And was John the Baptist a totally different man? I'm trying to understand because I sometimes watch videos of a man John Davis who believes he was John Zebede and he calls himself Jon of New. He has memories of that time.
There is another possible writer other than John, and that would be Lazarus. Lazarus is identified as “the one whom you loved”. When Lazarus is not mentioned anymore, the “beloved disciple” appears. Towards the end, there’s a list of disciples where John is mentioned along with his brother, but the beloved disciple is listed as well. John was a fisherman, but he had no connections with the “elite” and there was no way he could’ve entered the high priest’s home just like that. On the other hand, Lazarus was from a well positioned family that had connections with the priesthood and that is evident when the family is mourning his death. Anyway, there’s a lot more to the story but I hope this has sparked your interest in reading it again. God bless!
Synoptics say Disciples abandoned Jesus that Friday. But John was w Mary at the Cruxifixction?
The internal evidence against John being the author is overwhelming.
In the synoptics, we are told that John and James and Peter were the most prominent of the disciples. They show up again and again to witness major events:
1) They were called to follow Jesus while fishing (Matthew, Mark, Luke)
2) Present at the raising of the Daughter of Jairus (Mark/Luke)
3) Present at the Transfiguration
4) Present for the Olivet discourse (Mark)
5) Present for the Agony in the Garden prior to Jesus' arrest
All of these incidents disappear from the fourth gospel completely except for the first where the recruitment of Peter and Andrew is immediately followed not by the calling of James and John, but of Phillip and Nathanael.
The author of the fourth gospel seems determined to erase James and John from the Jesus story. If the author were John, you would expect him to talk about some of these things. Any of them.
But could John be disguised as the "beloved disciple?" Consider that the first time the reader meets the "beloved disciple" is at the Last Supper! In the last gospel, the ministry of Jesus lasts 3 years but we first hear about the beloved disciple (AKA John) the day before Jesus is crucified? That's an amazingly low profile for an apostle. Then suddenly the beloved disciple is everywhere - he's told to look after the mother of Jesus, he races Peter to the empty tomb, and figures out that it was the Lord who helped the disciples catch 153 fish. None of the synoptic authors mention any of this stuff.
As a final bit of craziness, notice that the name "James" never appears in the fourth gospel. James, the brother of John, was supposedly the first of the apostles to be martyred and his brother decided not to include his name even once! How much did he hate his brother?
Please stop lying. The gospel of John was not written by John but anonymously.
It was written by Calpernius Piso. The Piso family wrote the entire thing. If you listen to the audiobook, you can tell it’s a bunch of bullshit. When you read it you won’t pick up on it because it’s a lot to read, but powering through an audiobook, you’ll start to understand that it wasn’t divinely inspired. Just read the last line. It’s a bunch of nonsense.
and he wrote it in Greek. Right
Hence why I became a Muslim. I would rather believe an entire faith that corrects this mystery and does so confidently and honestly through God himself, and his final revelation in the Qur'an than hold a belief in XYZ, and the paganistic and distorted view of our beloved Christ through anonymous figures.
I'm glad you're talking about paganism, because the beginnings of Islam were as pagan as they could be, first they worshiped more than 300 idols and then they switched to Satanism and worshiped the demon Baal, who is one of the dark trinity. Just as Muslims pray now, in Mecca they prayed and worshiped idols and Baal. Isn't it gorgeous? They just changed the name of "god". wow, do you know what is written in the best and most respected interpretation of the Qur'an from the 13th century, Tafsir al Qurtubi? That it was not Gabriel who spoke to Muhammad in the cave (by the way, he never saw him, only heard him), but a demon named Al-Abyad, who pretended to be the Archangel Gabriel. And he was sent by Saytān. That's really what it says there. Is it not by chance that it was written there in the old version of the Qur'an, but later it was removed from there? I think that is logical. By the way, Muhammad had s*x with a 9-year-old girl, raped women and killed people. Think about why God would choose him as his LAST prophet. All prophets previously walked with God and were therefore good people. :)) Didn't Jesus Christ talk about the coming of false prophets? You people are so ignorant... I have to say that it was a very wise move by Satan. Therefore, it fulfills its purpose on the whole level.
Yeah…Muhammed who came 600 years later knew more about Jesus.
Lol.
Through God Himself?
Muhammed didn’t even know the being he met in the cave who pressed him. It was Waraqah who later on told him that the being was angel Gabriel.
Ye men of WEAK faith!
@@edward1412 Muslims are literally brainwashed…. That is so sad bro
Child rapist, caravan robber? Really??
@@edward1412 why do you talk like an atheist when it come to Islam. We believe in God revelation to Muhammed(saw) and God is a more trustworthy that any other source.
Angel Gabriel didn’t say much or introduce himself at first meeting that why Muhammad(saw) didn’t know him but next visit, Gabriel told Muhammed(saw) who he was.
Waraqah was just the first to confirm it was Angel Gabriel he said it was similar to Gabriel visit with Moses(as). Even though Muhammad was loved by all at that time, was called the “truthful” and the peacemaker of tribe that hated each other, Waraqah told him that they will refute him like they did to other prophet in the past even though he brings the truth.
1 Corinthians 15:1-4
Moreover, brethren, I declare unto you the gospel which I preached unto you, which also ye have received, and wherein ye stand;
2 By which also ye are saved, if ye keep in memory what I preached unto you, unless ye have believed in vain.
3 For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures;
4 And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures:
And?
Paul said that and Paul never met Jesus, heresy and lies mostly
How is John a defaceable position? Other than the people back in the mid-second century believed it may have been John. What actual evidence is there that he was the author? There is evidence for Lazurus. Even the Jews were so amazed at how much Jesus loved him. In John 11:35, it is even said with an exclamation mark to show how much the Jews stressed this point. Jesus loved Lazarus a lot.
Please don't tell me it's defensible without telling me how it is defensible!
It is Lazarus it says Jesus loved him, Lazarus was the one reclining next to Jesus at the supper they had for Lord. The 2000th anniversary from that event is just a few years away. Behold the bridegroom cometh be ready be watching be waiting it will be good for that servant who's Master finds them watching when he comes like a thief in the night at the last trump in the twinkling an eye for His Church that He built laying the foundation in the year 27 and purchased with his own blood in 30. See you faithful at the banquet of the Lord. The sons of Zeb did ask to call fire down upon a city that was not granted to them, but for one later the Lord allowed to call fire down upon the whole world and wrote it down the Revelation of Jesus Christ. But the Gospel which is attributed to John in error is not that disciple Jesus loved spoken of. We are all disciples that Jesus loves for he loved us to the end those that will remain in him.
The only man in all the words that Jesus spoke who was identified as the one that Jesus loved was the young disciple Lazarus. He was also relaxing on Jesus' bosom at the table with the twelve. He's the naked young man dressed in grave clothes in the garden in Mark's account. For it was a costume that identified a living man dressed in grave clothes. It was Lazarus that wrote that 4th gospel. I believe the evidence for this position far exceeds any scriptural evidence for the authorship to be the Apostle John.
Naa , it’s Lazarus. Read the book and note the 16 times the name Lazarus is written and stopes only to be replaced by the word disciple 29 times and at the end of the book finished in the third person in chapter 21:24 …and we know that his testimony is true . Read this gospel again without your tradition getting in the way . Check out the extra Passovers like John 6:4 while the Messiah is heading north to Galilee and feeding the multitude with 5 barley loves . After Passover is the Feast Of Unleavened Bread which is the spring harvest , the wave offering . This less desirable flour would not have made it through the year plus to the summer. This is to change the calendar to a three and a half ministry so the Messiah would die on a pagan holiday and rise on a pagan holiday , the worship of the sun god Mithras. Use your fingers and count 3 days and 3 nights between late Friday and early Sun day . Remember what the Messiah said , As Noah I shall be in the earth 3 days and 3 nights. Why would the God who created everything rise on a pagan day instead of His own Sabbath ? The Messiah also read a partial passage to the Synagogue in Luke 4:19 “ to preach the acceptable year of the Lord “. Even the ancient church elders said His ministry was about 1 year
﴿لَقَد كَفَرَ الَّذينَ قالوا إِنَّ اللَّهَ هُوَ المَسيحُ ابنُ مَريَمَ وَقالَ المَسيحُ يا بَني إِسرائيلَ اعبُدُوا اللَّهَ رَبّي وَرَبَّكُم إِنَّهُ مَن يُشرِك بِاللَّهِ فَقَد حَرَّمَ اللَّهُ عَلَيهِ الجَنَّةَ وَمَأواهُ النّارُ وَما لِلظّالِمينَ مِن أَنصارٍ﴾ [المائدة: ٧٢]
(72) They have certainly disbelieved who say, "Allāh is the Messiah, the son of Mary" while the Messiah has said, "O Children of Israel, worship Allāh, my Lord and your Lord." Indeed, he who associates others with Allāh - Allāh has forbidden him Paradise, and his refuge is the Fire. And there are not for the wrongdoers any helpers.
Holy Quran [5:72].
❤❤❤❤❤
Gospel of John just like another ancient history book is written by someone who was heard of John's story (most likely had never seen John). What is certain, not the John himself to write it, if John did, It is no sense why Jesus not did it, why Muhammad not did it.
Problem is Mark is the oldest Gospel. Mathew and luke copy from Mark. Luke was trained by Paul. Paul and luke never met Jesus only had vision of him. John is the later gospel and has stuff Mark, Marhew, Luke never mentioned important stuff like 'I and the father are one" or No one get to the father except through me", among other important verse. So here is the problem if the verse were so important why the other earlier gospel forgot to even mention it. As far as vision goes Joseph smith also had a vision "Mormon". Question is who is John for sure??? Gospel says according to John. So John didn't even write John. This becomes a hugest issue at least for me. This is called building trust. If someone say trust me i am a doctor, i need to see them certificates with his name on it. Butcher also wears white coat with some blood on it. What is John last name? Was he good, trust worthy, reliable?????.
Matthew is the oldest gospel; Luke used it then Mark combined Matthew and Luke. Check out the Griesbach hypothesis. Others later added to the original gospel of Matthew, for instance the section on the suicide of Judas.
So the Synoptic gospels are based on eye witness sources.
How is it defendable to say the Apostle John wrote the book? What scripture defends that idea?
The Ante-Nicene Fathers and Eusebius are the primary historical records establishing the authorship of John.
@@franciscoscaramanga9396 Yes, but these are the opinions of men, and not in the text itself. The text eludes to Lazarus as its author.
Again 'tradition' trumps everything else.
Why trust it when we don’t know who wrote it ?
﴿لَقَد كَفَرَ الَّذينَ قالوا إِنَّ اللَّهَ هُوَ المَسيحُ ابنُ مَريَمَ وَقالَ المَسيحُ يا بَني إِسرائيلَ اعبُدُوا اللَّهَ رَبّي وَرَبَّكُم إِنَّهُ مَن يُشرِك بِاللَّهِ فَقَد حَرَّمَ اللَّهُ عَلَيهِ الجَنَّةَ وَمَأواهُ النّارُ وَما لِلظّالِمينَ مِن أَنصارٍ﴾ [المائدة: ٧٢]
(72) They have certainly disbelieved who say, "Allāh is the Messiah, the son of Mary" while the Messiah has said, "O Children of Israel, worship Allāh, my Lord and your Lord." Indeed, he who associates others with Allāh - Allāh has forbidden him Paradise, and his refuge is the Fire. And there are not for the wrongdoers any helpers.
Holy Quran.
@@THANA_III Shut your mouth, Go support your pagan religion elsewhere.
So . . . John Who? Who were his parents? What were his childhood influences? Was he married? What were his educational credentials? What was his last name? And this anonymous person(s) wrote the most influential book of all time?! It's the very definition of insanity. The bedrock of Christianity is established in John 3:16, although any CRITICAL reading of it makes it crumble like a house of cards, especially when you couple it with the Doubting Thomas bit (I think in Chapter 20). The gist of those two passages is that the all-knowing and all-merciful God could think of no better way to "save" mankind than to have a son, turn him over to the authorities for brutally torturing and murdering him . . . and that it's better to "believe" that WITHOUT evidence than it is to believe it WITH evidence, as Thomas demanded. Not only that, but Jesus was born to a virgin. What does THAT say about women, and how is that concept of women different that an adherent of Islam believing he's going to have 72 virgins for his martyrdom (whether or not he's a virgin)? Clear patriarchy. So we can eliminate half of the population of earth as having any authorship claims in the Bible. Plus, it would be kind of funny to have a woman author named John. Hey, but George Sand did it. Hmmmmm. 🤔
So it's John the Baptist then???
😂
@@Eliyah-My_God_is_YHWH well is it? Don't just laugh there's like 3 question marks lol wasn't a rhetorical one lol
@@DJdeliverance im impressed
@@Eliyah-My_God_is_YHWH by what? Asking real questions what's wrong with that? I'm seeking the truth and gospel
@@DJdeliveranceJohn the Baptist was dead before the book was even written
cerinthus wrote the proto gospel of john...
😅added on by later redactors like the prologue
Judas did.
Right from the onset one can see what the author of the gospel of John was trying to do. Firstly he had correct the obvious mistakes made in the first gospel written by Mark. Mark had stated that the second coming of Jesus would happen while he ( Mark ) was still alive. This of course did not happen, so John had to come with some reason as to why this was so. Further, Jesus is depicted as being very human in Mark’s gospel, complete with human frailties like fear and doubt. John transformed Jesus into a God, man and supreme spirit, all rolled into one. The author or authors of the gospel of John had plenty of time to address and provide solutions to the obvious omissions of Jesus’ life as portrayed in Mark’s gospel. It is generally thought that the gospel of John was written around AD 90-95, so the author or authors of this gospel to fill in the mistakes of the earlier gospels as well as add new material which nailed once and for all the supreme nature of Jesus. The whole gospel of John should therefore be regarded as hogwash,and rejected from the bible. Basing on all the comical and fantastic claims made of Jesus in this gospel, one should take the gospel of John with a bit of salt.
Exactly
you make a decent point but what about the epistles that were written years before any of the Gospels? The epistles from saint Paul clearly state Jesus is God and is in line with some of the theology of the Gospel Of John
Trinitarian have no choice but to accept it! Lol
matthew 28
verse 18 - Then Jesus came to them and said, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me.
verse 19 -Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit..
verse 20 - and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age.”
@@2Sage-7Poets Mathew didn't write Mathew. He certainly didn't write it in Aramaic the language he spoke.
Obey the First Commandment
@@abdullahk8691 How do you know Matthew did not know Greek or Hebrew?
@@abdullahk8691 For example Paul was also Jew from Turkey but he knew Greek like many subjects of Rome
@@vasiliantonov7484 did he meet Jesus?
Gospel of John was written in part by the Scribes and Pharisees. Beware the Yeast (false corrupt teaching) of the Scribes and Pharisees. 450 changes have been made to Papyrus 66, our earliest manuscript of the Gospel of John. Mary Magdalene has been changed into 2 sisters: Mary and Martha, to dilute the Magdalen's importance. Chapter 3 verses 19-21 are tares/weeds sown with the wheat (verses 14-18). Lazarus is the Son of Zebedee i.e. John. James Bar-Zebedee is a fictional character like Martha of Bethany. These were added to dilute John (alias Lazarus) Bar-Zebedee and Mary Magdalene's importance. Mary is the wife of Jesus. Lazarus (John) is the brother-in-law of Jesus. And, Mary and Lazarus (JOhn) are also the step sister and brother of Jesus. Yes, the Arimathean is also Joseph the Carpenter and Joseph Justus. This is per the secrets of wisdom JOB 11:6
Since the author of the gospel of John didn't tell us who he was, it is likely a secret he wanted to keep to himself. I'm not wasting my time speculating as to who he was. These gospels are a laugh!!!
The only other alternative is to become a Catholic and believe the 'Church fathers' unconvincing testimony regarding the authorship of these gospels.
Ignorance is bliss..
Gospels aren't a laugh, laugh is your ignorance to bliss upon (as Joe says👆)
Saying that the Gospel of John was written by a disciple because it claims to be written by a disciple is like saying that an anonymous email claiming to be from the Prince of Nigeria is from the Prince of Nigeria because it says so.
The authorship of the 4th Gospel is based on 100% circular reasoning.
Circular reasoning ???? Uh I don't think so. How about INSPIRATION from God. Every WORD , every scripture , God Breathed , every jot and every tittle . Then get a KJV 1611 AV and READ it and then STUDY it (II Tim 2: 15 kjv) and start RIGHTLY dividing the Word of TRUTH . Which will refute and chew up poor heretick Gary Burge , the baby sprinkler and the MD20/20 wine bibber which makes JESUS BLOOD ACCEPTABLE TO SERVE THE SACRAMENT TO BE ABLE TO ENTER HEAVEN. I have never seen so many mockers , scoffers and scorners FALSE PROPHETS AND FALSE TEACHERS WHO HAVE NO IDEA HOW TO OBTAIN ETERNAL SALVATION. AND who have NO IDEA what the Holy Bible says ABOUT Bible Doctrines , that so many here including old poor Gary Bruge resent. Oh, but wait a minute this poor ol Gary uses his CORRUPTED NIV , a Wescott and Hort masterpiece perversion from the two perverted Greek text of Sinaiticus and Vaticanus , the two Cambridge UNBELIEVERS fought so hard to produce their ASV from those corrupted Greek text , who went to find a way to replace the Holy Bible and change it to what they BELIEVED. Forget that God had already finished His own . Poor old Gary Burge and some of you others , It would take more than God or Spurgeon to keep them from their own wicked work from Alexandria . It won't take long to research both B . F. Wescott and F. Anthony Hort to find out they were UNBELIEVERS, and they BOTH were NEVER SAVED under the Gospel of Grace. But then again neither were their Alexandrian heros of the faith, Origen and Euseubius . Good old Episcopalians and their Baptismal Regenerationist, sprinkling of babies who were too young to SPEAK with their little mouths to confess the Lord Jesus and for these infants and to believe in their little hearts that God hath raised him , Jesus , from the dead. Romans 10 :9-11 kjv. Deniers of the Diety of Christ , Deniers of the Gospel of Grace , Deniers of the GIFT of God , Eternal Life and without any works at all (Eph 2:8-9 kjv) But quite the opposite, we find both of these so called Episcopal Priest ( Bishops) of Cambridge , as being expounders of the GOOD WORKS necessary for advancement to heaven and that pergatory was there to help those get out should enough money be placed for the dear dead relative who were departed to that place and families were approached with the "church bales bondsman program from the priest" who would pray for them that the departed loved ones family to send in the coffures and plates to lay those expensive coins for their dear departed souls and their hopeful freedom from that place of temporary "cleansing " . But instead both Wescott and Hort were strictly a WORKS salvationist Baby Sprinklers who made sure their Corrupted Perversive ASV bible of 1881 would even show that Old Baptist preacher Spurgeon how wrong he was and that " their new and improved bible: would totally replace the Old , Tired , KJV 1611 AV bible and sweep Spurgeon and his narrowminded Bible believers to the ditch. And of course the followers of this new and improved Bible included the authors themselves Wescott and Hort would be the talk of the town and of the Religious Groups now jockeying for positions for the SOUL and the Hearts of sinful man . They hated the Gospel of Grace and openly said so in their many critiques of Pastor Spurgeon and the KJV Bible crowd ( 5000-6000 members ) and his Metropolitan Tabernacle church in 1850-1890 or so . Which was just down the street from their Cambridge Church haunts at the university . They hated their local Bible Baptist expert and Pastor Spurgeon of the Metropolitan Tabernacle and were constantly at war with him on his stands and his doctrines . But Spurgeon shrugged them off as simply the little crowd who like their seances and their " 2 Sacraments " which they( Wecott and Hort) wrongly believed would get a person to heaven ,,,,,,eventually. But do not take my word of it , GO see for yourself and STUDY who these men were. One of them is in Heaven and the other two.......well lets just say they did not even get to Purgatory . They just went straight to hell, just like Balaam did .
No. When I greet a stranger at fellowship and she tells me her name is Sarah, that is good evidence that her name is Sarah. Is 100% unquestionable proof? No, unless there is some counter-evidence which outweighs it, we should go with her being Sarah. That is standard historical practice.
Besides, we have several external sources on this particular matter, so your "100% circular reasoning", is certainly false, even if we accepted your base premise.
The book of John does not claim to be written by anyone named John, by a disciple, or by anyone.
It is entirely anonymous. It is written in the 3rd person. The author does not claim to be a witness of anything. It was written more than 60 years after the date attributed to Jesus' death. It was written by a highly educated Greek scholar, not by a Palestinian peasant who spoke Aramaic.
Despite the churches pressuring its scholars to claim the apostle John was the author, the scholarly consensus is that he didn't.
The NT gospels are not remembered history. The Jesus story is a myth placed back into an historical setting.
So exactly who is this 'beloved disciple' mentioned so often int the gospel of John?
Because I don't think it's Charlie or Irving...
Dont quit your day job.
The only single man in all the words that Jesus spoke was identified as the young disciple Lazarus. He was also relaxing on Jesus' bosom at the table with the twelve. He's the naked young man dressed in grave clothes in the garden in Mark's account. For it was a costume that identified a living man dressed in grave clothes. It was Lazarus that wrote that 4th gospel. I believe the evidence for this position far exceeds any scriptural evidence for the authorship to be the Apostle John.