Who is the Trinity to Christians & Muslims?
- Thread starter Redeemed
- Start date
- Replies 1K
- Views 108K
British Wholesales - Certified Wholesale Linen & Towels | Halal Food Gastronomy | vBulletin 4 php 8.0 patch
vpb
IB Expert
- Messages
- 1,943
- Reaction score
- 189
- Gender
- Male
- Religion
- Islam
about the salvation , it has already been discussed, so I'm going back to explain again. check the previous posts.
and as for the second part of your post,I think you are referring to the second part of Shahada,
La ilahe il-allah, Muhammed rasoolallah
the second part of shahada, is to declare the Muhammed is the messenger of Allah, what has this got to do with ascribing partnership to God???? it's just a statement, which is required so you believe that Muhammed saws is the messenger, bc if you don't say this part, then some people might just believe in Allah, but not in his messenger, and this goes against the teachings of Islam. I don't know on what basis just because you say Muhammed is Allah's messenger, you are ascribing partnership to God? the statement itself is saying that he is a messenger, so he cannot be a partner with God. And if you reject Muhammed as a propht, then you have to reject Qur'an, and if you reject Qur'an you have to reject Allah (astagfirullah), so part of shahada is that you must also declare that you must believe that Muhammed is his last messenger.but to clarify things,
Volume 1, Book 2, Number 47: Narrated Abu Huraira:
One day while the Prophet was sitting in the company of some people, (The angel) Gabriel came and asked, "What is faith?" Allah's Apostle replied, 'Faith is to believe in Allah, His angels, (the) meeting with Him, His Apostles, and to believe in Resurrection." Then he further asked, "What is Islam?" Allah's Apostle replied, "To worship Allah Alone and none else, to offer prayers perfectly to pay the compulsory charity (Zakat) and to observe fasts during the month of Ramadan." Then he further asked, "What is Ihsan (perfection)?" Allah's Apostle replied, "To worship Allah as if you see Him, and if you cannot achieve this state of devotion then you must consider that He is looking at you." Then he further asked, "When will the Hour be established?" Allah's Apostle replied, "The answerer has no better knowledge than the questioner. But I will inform you about its portents.
1. When a slave (lady) gives birth to her master.
2. When the shepherds of black camels start boasting and competing with others in the construction of higher buildings. And the Hour is one of five things which nobody knows except Allah.
The Prophet then recited: "Verily, with Allah (Alone) is the knowledge of the Hour--." (31. 34) Then that man (Gabriel) left and the Prophet asked his companions to call him back, but they could not see him. Then the Prophet said, "That was Gabriel who came to teach the people their religion." Abu 'Abdullah said: He (the Prophet) considered all that as a part of faith.
you see, on of the things of what is faith is to believe in his Apostles, so since other people believe in other Prophets, it is necessary to also believe in Muhammed as a messenger of Allah.
I hope you understood my point.
vpb
IB Expert
- Messages
- 1,943
- Reaction score
- 189
- Gender
- Male
- Religion
- Islam
who know nothing about him, how the hell are we supposed to think that what he wrote are authentic. as I said before, the bible was in perfect time to be corrupted since christians were treated with hostility. I don't know how do you believe someone's writings when you know nothing about the author.
BIG LIE, please read the bible again, you will see how pious the Bible describe these disciples of Jesus were. Jesus never said or agreed for them to worship him ,this is a big lie invented by people. and Allah swt will punish those people who changed Allah's words for a small profit. Never did Jesus claim to be God. He only claimed to be messenger of Allah swt.
vpb
IB Expert
- Messages
- 1,943
- Reaction score
- 189
- Gender
- Male
- Religion
- Islam
yes, bc if you deny that Muhammed was a messenger you deny that Allah swt sent his last messenger, if you deny Muhammed was a messenger, you deny the Qur'an and the Sunnah, and if you deny all these than what's left of Islam, so a person has also to declare the Muhammed is his last messenger, so he agrees that he will act upon the teachings of Qur'an and the Sunnah.
Greetings and peace be with you Phil;
The reason God said the commandments are greatest is because logically we should not be able to do anything greater. I believe that the power of these commandments can be tested when you use them to try and search for something greatest for God.
For the first commandment to apply then God must love all the things that he is and all that he does, and his intentions.
God loves all that he is with all his heart, soul mind and strength.
For the second commandment to apply to God.
God loves Christ and every one of his children as he loves himself.
Can God do anything greater? Can he love us more than he loves himself?
There is no proof for me to say these things, I have had no conscious revelations from God, but if you meditate on and challenge these words over the years, you will find nothing greater.
In the spirit of searching
Eric
The reason God said the commandments are greatest is because logically we should not be able to do anything greater. I believe that the power of these commandments can be tested when you use them to try and search for something greatest for God.
For the first commandment to apply then God must love all the things that he is and all that he does, and his intentions.
God loves all that he is with all his heart, soul mind and strength.
For the second commandment to apply to God.
God loves Christ and every one of his children as he loves himself.
Can God do anything greater? Can he love us more than he loves himself?
There is no proof for me to say these things, I have had no conscious revelations from God, but if you meditate on and challenge these words over the years, you will find nothing greater.
In the spirit of searching
Eric
vpb
IB Expert
- Messages
- 1,943
- Reaction score
- 189
- Gender
- Male
- Religion
- Islam
with all my respect to you, since you are a very good poster,
but not everything evolves around Love, you can't have faith in God just with love, 100% love, it doesn't work like that, it spoils it.
What would happen if we have only had Love between parents and kids?? would kids behave anymore? no, maybe 0.01% of them. The danger with christianity is this teaching of love, which people can do whatever the hell they want, and the end it's "Jesus loves us, he did pay for our sins", it's not like that. we as muslims we love Allah swt, and He loves us, but we also Fear him, bc Fear is a sign of humiliation, and we get humiliated in front of Allah swt, and we worship him , bc we love Allah swt, but we also worship him bc if we don't we recieve a punishment. If you break the balance between love and fear, than everything's lost. So you need to keep a balance between. If a person only fears Allah and not love him, then he will basically reject the fact that Allah is mercifull, that he forgives people, but if he only loves allah and not fear him, then he is rejecting the fact that Allah swt has power to punish us. So you need to keep a balance between.
Greetings and peace be with you vpb; and thank you for your thoughtful reply.
Sorry but I forgot to copy the name of the person who posted this on the forum some time ago.
I do take notice of how Muslims believe and Islam helps me to widen my understanding of Christianity. In order to love God I should strive to do the things that please God and not do the things that would please me if these things are in conflict to God’s commands. In many ways to love God and to submit to God are very closely related. In christianity we should also fear God.
In the spirit of searching
Eric
Sorry but I forgot to copy the name of the person who posted this on the forum some time ago.
I do take notice of how Muslims believe and Islam helps me to widen my understanding of Christianity. In order to love God I should strive to do the things that please God and not do the things that would please me if these things are in conflict to God’s commands. In many ways to love God and to submit to God are very closely related. In christianity we should also fear God.
In the spirit of searching
Eric
Sorry to have to rain on your parade but me thinks John the Apostle was one person while on the other hand John the author was 3 persons.
Woodrow
May Allah have mercy on him رحمة الله عليه
- Messages
- 17,217
- Reaction score
- 4,224
- Gender
- Male
- Religion
- Islam
I firmly believe you just gave an accurate description of what Paul did to Christianity. Prior to Paul the true Christians worshipped God(swt) after Paul it seems Christianity died and was replaced by the worship of Jesus(as). The influence of Paul can not be overstated.
I beleive Paul truly thought he was inspired. It is a very dangerous combination when a very intelligent person has been misguided as they have the ability to influence many.
Well, of course, all the promises of Paradise in the Quran are only to “believers” again and again, but it’s not simply “believers” who will reap the benefit of those promises. It is only the believers whose good works outweigh their evil works. Even your prayers are judged, so that if your “obligatory” prayers fall short, they better be made up for with your “voluntary” prayers, or you’re in big trouble. So, don’t tell me you don’t rely on your good works to earn you salvation. That is EXACTLY what you do, whether you want to admit it or not. Your last sentence confirms it---Allah judges your faith and deeds to determine if they were sincere or hypocritical. Again, your deeds, your works, YOU.
Contrast that with the believer in Christ. It is Christ’s Work of redemption that purchases my salvation. No works or deeds of mine removes my sins; only HIS shed blood is able to wash away my sins. All my sins were judged at the cross. My future judgment is one of determining the quality of my works for purposes of rewards, not punishment.
1 Cor. 3:
11. For no other foundation can anyone lay than that which is laid, which is Jesus Christ.
12. Now if anyone builds on this foundation with gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, straw,
13. each one's work will become manifest; for the [Judgment] Day will declare it, because it will be revealed by fire; and the fire will test each one's work, of what sort it is.
14. If anyone's work which he has built on it endures, he will receive a reward.
15. If anyone's work is burned, he will suffer loss; but he himself will be saved, yet so as through fire.
The Christian whose works do not endure, i.e., are of no eternal value (has nothing but wood, hay, and straw for works), will suffer loss---of rewards---but he himself will be saved---because he had the right foundation (Jesus Christ). He need never rely on his works to save him. Christ has already saved him by His Work at the cross.
No, because it is based on the Word of God and confirmed in our hearts by the Holy Spirit.
That is exactly right. And if your house is not built on the solid rock of Jesus Christ---the ONLY firm foundation---you will suffer eternal loss. But if you wait till the Judgment Day to make Him your firm foundation, it will be too late. That is exactly what Satan is hoping you do---wait and see…too late.
Peace
Me thinks you think wrongly.
Your quote, source ungiven, concludes with this sentence:
I would agree with that. It says John the Apostle is the author of the Gospel of John. That is what I was saying in my post. The writer, John the Apostle, was perhaps the closest Apostle or disciple to Jesus, and it is HE who penned John 1:1 and John 20:28, indicating that the first disciples worshipped Jesus and accepted His Deity long before Paul came on the scene.
Peace
vpb
IB Expert
- Messages
- 1,943
- Reaction score
- 189
- Gender
- Male
- Religion
- Islam
this is even more dangrous than Atheism, bc with this you basically can do whatever the hell you want, and still JESUS ALLWAYS PAYS :thumbs_up .
you know why are you still living? if all your sins are paid what's the purpose of life then for you to live? whatever you do, it doesn't metter, still at the end of the day your sins are "paid by Jesus's blood". you are lying to yourself, nobody will pay for your sins, nobody will be held accountable for you, it will be you and only you, you were born by yourself, and you will go to the grave by yourself, and you will be judgded, and noboy will be able help you . as we know from hadiths, even Mary will forget about Jesus on the day of judgement due to the panic that will be among people. Jesus is going to be preoccupied about himself, so I don't know how are u expecting for him to pay for your sins. wake up. lolll
so distortion is the name of the game?
quote by anon does no such thing but says:
"Traditionally this was taken as a self reference by the author"
was the following line invisible?
"Some modern scholars distinguish at least three different authors."
wa salam
Keltoi
IB Legend
- Messages
- 5,061
- Reaction score
- 463
"Some modern authors distinguish at least three different authors"....is that sentence supposed to be profound? I can find some scholars who believe Allah is a moon god.
The more I read of this thread the more I'm beginning to think comparitive religion is a lost cause. It's like a group of four year olds arguing about who would win in a fight between Spider-Man and The Incredible Hulk.
So distortion and belittling is name of the game!
"Scholars" you are talking about re: Allah are anti-Islam evanglists perhaps not so unlike yourself.
The Scholars I am referring to are Christians (pro Saul and Trinity)
oh and does it really make you feel all grown up when you constantly refer to others as 4 year old?
vpb
IB Expert
- Messages
- 1,943
- Reaction score
- 189
- Gender
- Male
- Religion
- Islam
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]
[/FONT] [FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][SIZE=+1]1. Who wrote the Gospel of John? [/SIZE][/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Of all the gospels, the Gospel of John is the most disputed concerning authorship. The data to assess are greater in quantity than the data relevant to the authorship of the synoptic gospels. [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]1.1. Internal, Direct Evidence[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]1.1.1. There are two pieces of internal, direct evidence to consider. What is said about the author of the Gospel of John in the following passages?[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]A. John 21:20-24 [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][SIZE=-1]20 Peter, turning around, saw the disciple whom Jesus loved following them; the one who also had leaned back on his breast at the supper and said, "Lord, who is the one who betrays you?" 21 So Peter seeing him said to Jesus, "Lord, and what about this man?" 22 Jesus said to him, "If I want him to remain until I come, what is that to you? You follow me." 23 Therefore this saying went out among the brethren that that disciple would not die; yet Jesus did not say to him that he would not die, but only, "If I want him to remain until I come, what is that to you?" 24 This is the disciple who is testifying to these things and wrote these things, and we know that his testimony is true.[/SIZE][/FONT] [FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]In John 21, the Postscript of the gospel, "the disciple whom Jesus loved" is said to be the one who witnessed to these things and who wrote these things (21:24); he is, in other words, not only the author but the authority standing behind the gospel. The disciple whom Jesus loved is said to be the one who leaned back on Jesus' breast to talk to Jesus during the meal. Since he asks Jesus about this disciple, Peter is eliminated as a candidate for "the disciple whom Jesus loved."[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]B. John 19:25-35[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][SIZE=-1]25 Therefore the soldiers did these things. But standing by the cross of Jesus were his mother, and his mother's sister, Mary the wife of Clopas, and Mary Magdalene. 26 When Jesus then saw his mother, and the disciple whom he loved standing nearby, he said to his mother, "Woman, behold, your son." 27 Then he said to the disciple, "Behold, your mother." From that hour the disciple took her into his own household. 28 After this, Jesus, knowing that all things had already been accomplished, to fulfill the Scripture, said, "I am thirsty." 29 A jar full of sour wine was standing there; so they put a sponge full of the sour wine upon a branch of hyssop and brought it up to his mouth. 30 Therefore when Jesus had received the sour wine, He said, "It is finished." And he bowed his head and gave up his spirit. 31 Then the Jews, because it was the day of preparation, so that the bodies would not remain on the cross on the Sabbath (for that Sabbath was a high day), asked Pilate that their legs might be broken, and that they might be taken away. 32 So the soldiers came, and broke the legs of the first man and of the other who was crucified with him; 33 but coming to Jesus, when they saw that he was already dead, they did not break his legs. 34 But one of the soldiers pierced His side with a spear, and immediately blood and water came out. 35 And he who has seen has testified, and his testimony is true; and he knows that he is telling the truth, so that you also may believe.[/SIZE][/FONT] [FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]In John 19:25-27, the author identifies "the disciple whom he [Jesus] loved" as the one whose testimony is true and worthy of belief. When Jesus was dying on the cross, around him stood four women and one man, identified as the one whom Jesus loved. Later, the author affirms that the testimony of the man who witnessed Jesus' death is true (19:35); the testimony refers most likely to the traditions about Jesus that have been incorporated into the Gospel of John. This man most likely is "the disciple whom he [Jesus] loved" mentioned earlier, since he is the only man present at Jesus' crucifixion.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]1.1.2. The two individuals referred to in John 19:35; 21:24 are no doubt the same man, since they bear the same designation, "the disciple whom Jesus loved." If it is possible to put a name to this man, then the author of the gospel of John can be identified. Two other references to "the disciple whom Jesus loved" occur in the Gospel of John. What further information do these references give about the author?[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]A. John 13:23, 25[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][SIZE=-1]23 There was reclining on Jesus' breast, one of his disciples, whom Jesus loved. 24 So Simon Peter gestured to him, and said to him, "Tell us who it is of whom He is speaking." 25 He, leaning back thus on Jesus' breast, said to him, "Lord, who is it?"[/SIZE][/FONT] [FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]The "one whom Jesus loved" reclined at the breast of Jesus and leaned back to speak to him. He could not have been Peter, since he spoke to him.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Incidentally, the description of the disciple whom Jesus loved as reclining "on Jesus' breast" (13:23) and who leaned back on Jesus' breast at the supper to talk to him (13:25) refers to the fact that this disciple was sharing a triclinium (couch on which two or three people reclined to eat) with Jesus and was positioned in front of Jesus on the triclinium; thus he was reclining "on Jesus' breast." In order to to talk to Jesus discreetly, this disciple would be forced to lean backwards "on Jesus' breast." There may have been another disciple behind Jesus on the same triclinium, but this one is not identified.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]B. John 21:2-7[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][SIZE=-1]2 Simon Peter, and Thomas called Didymus, and Nathanael of Cana in Galilee, and the sons of Zebedee, and two others of his disciples were together. 3 Simon Peter said to them, "I am going fishing." They said to him, "We will also come with you." They went out and got into the boat; and that night they caught nothing. 4 But when the day was now breaking, Jesus stood on the beach; yet the disciples did not know that it was Jesus. 5 So Jesus said to them, "Children, you do not have any fish, do you?" They answered him, "No." 6 And he said to them, "Cast the net on the right-hand side of the boat and you will find a catch." So they cast, and then they were not able to haul it in because of the great number of fish. 7 Therefore that disciple whom Jesus loved said to Peter, "It is the Lord." So when Simon Peter heard that it was the Lord, he put his outer garment on (for he was stripped for work), and threw himself into the sea.[/SIZE][/FONT] [FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]The "one whom Jesus loved" was one of the disciples who went fishing with Peter. He was one of the disciples named or one of the two unnamed disciples, but he was not Peter.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]1.1.3. It should be added that, since in 20:2 the designation "the one whom Jesus loved" is set in apposition with "the other disciple," it is possible that the reference to "another disciple" in 18:15-16 could be a self-designation of the author. If so, then the author was known to the high priest.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]1.1.4. In summary, one can speculate that the following took place: The author wrote the gospel designating himself as "the disciple whom Jesus loved," but refrained from identifying this disciple by name in any of the narratives in which he appeared. His original readership presumably knew his identity, but an editor, concerned that there might be some future readers who would not know the connection between the author and "the disciple whom Jesus loved," added 21:24 and 19:35 to ensure that this connection was made explicit in the text. It seems that the editor did this in order that the readers might know that the author was an eyewitness to the events described, thereby rendering the accounts credible.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]1.2. Internal, Indirect Evidence[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]There is some internal, indirect evidence to consider with respect to the authorship of the Gospel of John.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]1.2.1. The author is familiar with the geographical features of Palestine.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]A. He is familiar with Galilee, Samaria and Judea (see 1:28 [11:1]; 2:1, 12; 3:23; 4:20; 11:54; 12:21).[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]B. He is also familiar with the city of Jerusalem (see 5:2; 9:7; 11:18; 18:1, 28; 19:17) and the Temple (2:14, 20; 8:2, 20; 10:23).[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]What does this familiarity with the geographical features of Palestine imply about the author?[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]The fact that the author possessed such detailed geographical knowledge about Palestine implies he was a resident of Palestine, who had frequented these places.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]1.2.2. The author is acquainted with the social and religious conditions of Palestine (see 4:9; 7:35; 11:49; 18:13, 28, 31, 39). Likewise, he is also familiar with Jewish and Samaritan religious beliefs (see 1:41, 46; 4:9, 25; 6:15), and he is well acquainted with how Jewish festivals were celebrated at the Temple and with purification rites: Passover (2:13, 23; 6:4; 13:1; 18:28); Tabernacles (7:2, 37); Dedication (10:22); Purification rites (2:6; 3:25; 11:55; 18:28; 19:31). What does the fact that the author has such knowledge imply about him?[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]To have such detailed knowledge of the social and religious conditions of Palestine and Jewish and Samaritan religious beliefs implies that the author had first-hand experience of Jews and Samaritans, which suggests that he is from Palestine. His good knowledge of the Temple and Jewish festivals implies that he was a participant in the various Jewish festivals, which suggests that he was a Palestinian Jew. His knowledge of Jewish purification rites is consistent with first-hand experience. [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]1.2.3. The author seems to have been an eyewitness to the events that he is describing; this is debatable, but the general impression is that the accounts derive from an eyewitness (see 1:29, 35, 39; 7:14; 11:6; 12:1; 13:1-2; 19:14, 31; 20:1, 19, 26). Similarly, the author has a good knowledge of the apostolic group (see 2:11, 17; 4:27, 33; 6:19, 60-61; 16:17; 20:25; 21:3, 7). What does the fact that the author has such knowledge imply about his identity?[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]To be an eyewitness and to have a good knowledge of the apostolic group implies either that the author himself was one of the twelve or that at least he was a follower of Jesus who had much contact with the twelve.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]1.2.4. The author seems to have written his gospel in Aramaic or a very Semitic type of Greek. Concerning the details relating to the Aramaic/Semitic features of the gospel there is much dispute; the following is a list of those grammatical features of John that most scholars agree suggest that the text is translated Aramaic or bears the influence of an author who thought in Aramaic but wrote in Greek.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]A. Transliterated Aramaic words (1:38, 41, 42; 4:25; 9:7; 11:16; 19:13, 17; 20:16; 21:2)[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]B. Parataxis: the joining together of main clauses with "and" (kai), corresponding to the waw-consecutive construction in Aramaic/Hebrew (e.g., 9:6-7)[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]C. Asundeton construction: the lack of coordinating conjunctions between clauses (e.g., 4:6, 7)[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]D. Beginning sentences with verbs (not seen in English translation) (It is standard feature of Hebrew/Aramaic to begin a sentence with a verb.) [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]E. Excessive use of the Greek conjunctions hoti and hina, which corresponds to the frequent use of the Aramaic de, i.e., as a conjunction[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]F. The exceptional simplicity of the Greek and the limitations of its vocabulary[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]What do these linguistic data suggest about the author's identity?[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]These linguistic data suggest that the author's mother tongue was not Greek, but Aramaic. Such an author would have the tendency to cite Aramaic words and be influenced by Aramaic syntax when writing in Greek (parataxis, asundeton, beginning sentences with verbs and the use of the Greek equivalents of the much used conjunction de in Aramaic). Also, an author whose first language was Aramaic may have a limited Greek vocabulary and be unable to write Greek except with a simplicity of style.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]1.3. External Evidence[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]The external evidence identifies John the son of Zebedee as the author of the Gospel of John. In fact, when one leaves out of considerastion the heretics mentioned by Irenaeus (Adv. haer. 3.11.9) and Epiphanius (Haer. 51.3), no one in the church seriously questioned the authenticity of the Gospel of John until the rise of biblical criticism in the eighteenth century.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]1.3.1. In his rebuttal of Autolycus, Theophilos of Antioch c. 181 attributed the Gospel of John to John, by whom he no doubt meant the apostle John, the son of Zebedee (Autol. 2.22).[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][SIZE=-1]You will say, then, to me: "You said that God ought not to be contained in a place, and how do you now say that He walked in Paradise? "Hear what I say. The God and Father, indeed, of all cannot be contained, and is not found in a place, for there is no place of His rest; but His Word, through whom He made all things, being His power and His wisdom, assuming the person of the Father and Lord of all, went to the garden in the person of God, and conversed with Adam. For the divine writing itself teaches us that Adam said that he had heard the voice. But what else is this voice but the Word of God, who is also His Son? Not as the poets and writers of myths talk of the sons of gods begotten from intercourse [with women], but as truth expounds, the Word, that always exists, residing within the heart of God. For before anything came into being He had Him as a counsellor, being His own mind and thought. But when God wished to make all that He determined on, He begot this Word, uttered, the first-born of all creation, not Himself being emptied of the Word [Reason], but having begotten Reason, and always conversing with His Reason. And hence the holy writings teach us, and all the spirit-bearing [inspired] men, one of whom, John, says, "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God," showing that at first God was alone, and the Word in Him. Then he says, "The Word was God; all things came into existence through Him; and apart from Him not one thing came into existence." The Word, then, being God, and being naturally produced from God, whenever the Father of the universe wills, He sends Him to any place; and He, coming, is both heard and seen, being sent by Him, and is found in a place.[/SIZE][/FONT] [FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]1.3.2. Irenaeus (130-c. 200) identifies John the apostle, the son of Zebedee, as the author of the Gospel of John.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]A. Eusebius quotes two passages from Irenaeus’s Against Heresies to prove that John, the disciple of the Lord, resided in Ephesus after Paul's death. Ireneaus says that John was a "true witness" of the apostolic tradition there; Eusebius identifies the John to whom Irenaeus refers as John the apostle and evangelist, the disciple whom Jesus loved (H.E. 3. 23. 3).[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][SIZE=-1]Adv. Haer. 2.22.5. They, however, that they may establish their false opinion regarding that which is written, "to proclaim the acceptable year of the Lord," maintain that He preached for one year only, and then suffered in the twelfth month. [In speaking thus], they are forgetful to their own disadvantage, destroying His whole work, and robbing Him of that age which is both more necessary and more honorable than any other; that more advanced age, I mean, during which also as a teacher He excelled all others. For how could He have had disciples, if He did not teach? And how could He have taught, unless He had reached the age of a Master? For when He came to be baptized, He had not yet completed His thirtieth year, but was beginning to be about thirty years of age (for thus Luke, who has mentioned His years, has expressed it: "Now Jesus was, as it were, beginning to be thirty years old," when He came to receive baptism); and, [according to these men, ] He preached only one year reckoning from His baptism. On completing His thirtieth year He suffered, being in fact still a young man, and who had by no means attained to advanced age. Now, that the first stage of early life embraces thirty years, and that this extends onwards to the fortieth year, every one will admit; but from the fortieth and fiftieth year a man begins to decline towards old age, which our Lord possessed while He still fulfilled the office of a Teacher, even as the Gospel and all the elders testify; those who were conversant in Asia with John, the disciple of the Lord, [affirming] that John conveyed to them that information. And he remained among them up to the times of Trajan. Some of them, moreover, saw not only John, but the other apostles also, and heard the very same account from them, and bear testimony as to the [validity of] the statement. Whom then should we rather believe? Whether such men as these, or Ptolemaeus, who never saw the apostles, and who never even in his dreams attained to the slightest trace of an apostle?[/SIZE][/FONT] [FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif] [/FONT] [FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][SIZE=-1]Adv. Haer. 3.3.4. But Polycarp also was not only instructed by apostles, and conversed with many who had seen Christ, but was also, by apostles in Asia, appointed bishop of the Church in Smyrna, whom I also saw in my early youth, for he remained [on earth] a very long time, and, when a very old man, gloriously and most nobly suffering martyrdom, departed this life, having always taught the things which he had learned from the apostles, and which the Church has handed down, and which alone are true. To these things all the Asiatic Churches testify, as do also those men who have succeeded Polycarp down to the present time—a man who was of much greater weight, and a more steadfast witness of truth, than Valentinus, and Marcion, and the rest of the heretics. He it was who, coming to Rome in the time of Anicetus caused many to turn away from the aforesaid heretics to the Church of God, proclaiming that he had received this one and sole truth from the apostles,-that, namely, which is handed down by the Church. There are also those who heard from him that John, the disciple of the Lord, going to bathe at Ephesus, and perceiving Cerinthus within, rushed out of the bath-house without bathing, exclaiming, "Let us fly, lest even the bath-house fall down, because Cerinthus, the enemy of the truth, is within." And Polycarp himself replied to Marcion, who met him on one occasion, and said, "Do you know me? ""I do know you, the first-born of Satan." Such was the horror which the apostles and their disciples had against holding even verbal communication with any corrupters of the truth; as Paul also says, "A man that is an heretic, after the first and second admonition, reject; knowing that he that is such is subverted, and sins, being condemned of himself." There is also a very powerful Epistle of Polycarp written to the Philippians, from which those who choose to do so, and are anxious about their salvation, can learn the character of his faith, and the preaching of the truth. Then, again, the Church in Ephesus, founded by Paul, and having John remaining among them permanently until the times of Trajan, is a true witness of the tradition of the apostles.[/SIZE][/FONT] [FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]B. In another place, Irenaeus, as Eusebius points out (H.E. 5. 8. 4), states that John, the disciple of the Lord, the one who rested on Jesus' breast (ho kai epi to stêthos autou anapesôn), produced his gospel while living in Ephesus (H.E. 5.8.4; Adv. Haer. 3. 3. 4). Since he is identified in the Gospel of John as the one who reclined at Jesus' breast, "the disciple whom Jesus loved" must be John the disciple, the author of the Gospel of John.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][SIZE=-1]Adv. Haer. 3.1.1. We have learned from none others the plan of our salvation, than from those through whom the Gospel has come down to us, which they did at one time proclaim in public, and, at a later period, by the will of God, handed down to us in the Scriptures, to be the ground and pillar of our faith. 2 For it is unlawful to assert that they preached before they possessed "perfect knowledge," as some do even venture to say, boasting themselves as improvers of the apostles. For, after our Lord rose from the dead, [the apostles] were invested with power from on high when the Holy Spirit came down [upon them], were filled from all [His gifts], and had perfect knowledge: they departed to the ends of the earth, preaching the glad tidings of the good things [sent] from God to us, and proclaiming the peace of heaven to men, who indeed do all equally and individually possess the Gospel of God. Matthew also issued a written Gospel among the Hebrews3 in their own dialect, while Peter and Paul were preaching at Rome, and laying the foundations of the Church. After their departure, Mark, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, did also hand down to us in writing what had been preached by Peter. Luke also, the companion of Paul, recorded in a book the Gospel preached by him. Afterwards, John, the disciple of the Lord, who also had leaned upon His breast, did himself publish a Gospel during his residence at Ephesus in Asia.[/SIZE][/FONT] [FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]C. The source for Irenaeus's knowledge of the origins of the Gospel of John seems to be Polycarp (69-155), whom Irenaeus knew in his youth and who knew the apostles, including John. Polycarp is a bridge between the generation of the apostles and that of Irenaeus:[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]1. Eusebius quotes from a letter that Irenaeus wrote to Florinus; in which he states that he used to listen to Polycarp speak about what the apostles did and said, including John (H.E.5. 20. 4-8)[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]2. As Eusebius points out (H.E. 4. 14. 1-8), Irenaeus claimed that Polycarp knew the apostles, was appointed bishop of Smyrna by the apostles and communicated what he had learned from the apostles to the younger generation. Irenaeus said that he saw (and presumably heard) Polycarp in his early youth (Adv. Haer. 3. 3. 4).[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]D. Some have disputed the accuracy of Irenaeus' claim that John the apostle, the son of Zebedee, wrote the fourth gospel, arguing that the gospel was written by another John who also resided in Ephesus. In H.E. 3.39.1-6, Eusebius rejects Irenaeus' assertion that Papias was "a hearer of John," meaning John the apostle, since Eusebius claims that he knows for a fact that Papias had no contact with the apostles. Immediately following, Eusebius quotes a passage from Papias wherein he makes mention of two Johns; Eusebius interprets this to mean that there were two John associated with Ephesus: John the apostle and a John referred to as the elder. (In Eusebius' view, the fact that there are two tombs in Ephesus bearing the name of John confirms his theory.) Combining these two data, some scholars have suggested that Irenaeus confused these two Johns, wrongly assuming that the John to whom Polycarp referred was John the apostle, when he was really John the elder. But, even assuming that Irenaeus was mistaken when he affirmed that Papias was a hearer of John the apostle, this argument is too conjectural to be convincing.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]1.3.3. Other second-century sources confirm the Irenaeus' testimony to the Johannine authorship of the fourth gospel.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]A. As quoted by Eusebius, Clement of Alexandria (150-c.215) wrote in his Hypotyposeis, "But that John last of all, conscious of the outward (lit. "bodily") facts that had been set forth in the gospels was urged on by his disciples, and, divinely moved by the Spirit, composed a spiritual gospel" (H.E. 6.14.7).[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]B. The Muratorian canon also attributes the gospel to John the apostle: "The fourth gospel is that of John, one of the disciples....When his fellow-disciples and bishops exhorted him, he said, 'Fast with me for three days from today, and then let us relate to one another whatever may be revealed to each of us.' On the same night it was revealed to Andrew one of the apostles that John should narrate all things in his own name as they remembered them..."[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]1.3.4. Is the external evidence consistent with the internal evidence?[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]The external evidence is fully consistent, since John was one of the disciples, and could easily have been "the beloved disciple."[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]1.4. What do you conclude about the authorship of the Gospel of John? Is the dispute about the authorship of the gospel justified?[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]The author of the Gospel of John was John the son of Zebedee, the apostle. There are no grounds for doubting this.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]1.5. In spite of the internal and external evidence, many scholars believe that John the son of Zebedee could not have written the fourth gospel because, as an account of the life of Jesus, it is unhistorical and as such is incompatible with having an eyewitness origin. While it is sometimes conceded that some events described in the gospel have an historical basis, many scholars hold that the Johannine discourses are historical fabrications, reflecting the theological views of the anonymous community that produced it. The main reason for rejecting the historicity of the discourses is that the Johannine Jesus says things about himself that the historical Jesus allegedly would never have said. He makes statements that presuppose his pre-existence with God (3:11-13; 6:32-33,41-42, 46; 7:33-34; 8:23, 26, 29, 38, 42, 56-58; see 1:15). In addition, he understands himself as the unique son of God, having a relationship with the Father that no human being can have (5:17-47; 8:19, 28; 10:31-39). His opponents even interpret his claim to have God as his Father as making himself equal to God (5:18). This line of argumentation, however, begs the question because it presupposes what the historical Jesus could have believed and said about himself. It would seem that the evidence best supports the position that John the son of Zebedee, as a supplement to the synoptic gospels, chose to include in his gospel accurate summaries translated into his distinctive Greek of what Jesus said in some of his more extended and private conversations with other people. Besides, Jesus twice refers to himself as "son" in the synoptic gospels, so that the Gospel of John is not exclusive in this regard (Mark 13:32; Luke 10:22 = Matt 11:27).[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]
[/FONT][FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]
[/FONT] [FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][SIZE=+1]2. For whom was the Gospel of John written? [/SIZE][/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]As already indicated, early tradition places John the son of Zebedee in Ephesus when he composed his gospel. What do you conclude from this about the intended readership?[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]John probably wrote for the Ephesians or maybe the churches in Asia Minor in general.[/FONT] [FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]
[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]
[/FONT] [FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][SIZE=+1]3. When was the Gospel of John written? [/SIZE][/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Dating the Gospel of John is difficult, if not impossible; some place it before 70 and others as late as the 90's. The evidence is insufficient to draw a firm conclusion. [/FONT][FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]The Monarchian Prologue to the Gospel of John Fourth Gospel states that John wrote the gospel sometime after his exile of the island of Patmos (He is considered to be the author of the Book of Revelation): "He [the Apostle John] wrote this Gospel in the Province of Asia, after he had composed Revelation on the Island of Patmos." Whether this is true is difficult to know. It should also be noted that it was once thought that the Gospel of John was written well into the second century, but the discovery of a fragment of a copy of the Gospel of John, known as Rylands Papyrus 457, which is dated to no later than 150, suggests that the gospel was written earlier than the second century, since it would take some time for the gospel to have a wide circulation.[/FONT] [FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif] [/FONT][FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]
[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]
[/FONT] [FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][SIZE=+1]4. Where was the Gospel of John written? [/SIZE][/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]From what has been concluded so far, where was the Gospel of John written?[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]The Gospel of John was written in or near Ephesus.[/FONT]
For the full article check : http://www.abu.nb.ca/courses/NTIntro/John.htm
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Of all the gospels, the Gospel of John is the most disputed concerning authorship. The data to assess are greater in quantity than the data relevant to the authorship of the synoptic gospels. [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]1.1. Internal, Direct Evidence[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]1.1.1. There are two pieces of internal, direct evidence to consider. What is said about the author of the Gospel of John in the following passages?[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]A. John 21:20-24 [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][SIZE=-1]20 Peter, turning around, saw the disciple whom Jesus loved following them; the one who also had leaned back on his breast at the supper and said, "Lord, who is the one who betrays you?" 21 So Peter seeing him said to Jesus, "Lord, and what about this man?" 22 Jesus said to him, "If I want him to remain until I come, what is that to you? You follow me." 23 Therefore this saying went out among the brethren that that disciple would not die; yet Jesus did not say to him that he would not die, but only, "If I want him to remain until I come, what is that to you?" 24 This is the disciple who is testifying to these things and wrote these things, and we know that his testimony is true.[/SIZE][/FONT] [FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]In John 21, the Postscript of the gospel, "the disciple whom Jesus loved" is said to be the one who witnessed to these things and who wrote these things (21:24); he is, in other words, not only the author but the authority standing behind the gospel. The disciple whom Jesus loved is said to be the one who leaned back on Jesus' breast to talk to Jesus during the meal. Since he asks Jesus about this disciple, Peter is eliminated as a candidate for "the disciple whom Jesus loved."[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]B. John 19:25-35[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][SIZE=-1]25 Therefore the soldiers did these things. But standing by the cross of Jesus were his mother, and his mother's sister, Mary the wife of Clopas, and Mary Magdalene. 26 When Jesus then saw his mother, and the disciple whom he loved standing nearby, he said to his mother, "Woman, behold, your son." 27 Then he said to the disciple, "Behold, your mother." From that hour the disciple took her into his own household. 28 After this, Jesus, knowing that all things had already been accomplished, to fulfill the Scripture, said, "I am thirsty." 29 A jar full of sour wine was standing there; so they put a sponge full of the sour wine upon a branch of hyssop and brought it up to his mouth. 30 Therefore when Jesus had received the sour wine, He said, "It is finished." And he bowed his head and gave up his spirit. 31 Then the Jews, because it was the day of preparation, so that the bodies would not remain on the cross on the Sabbath (for that Sabbath was a high day), asked Pilate that their legs might be broken, and that they might be taken away. 32 So the soldiers came, and broke the legs of the first man and of the other who was crucified with him; 33 but coming to Jesus, when they saw that he was already dead, they did not break his legs. 34 But one of the soldiers pierced His side with a spear, and immediately blood and water came out. 35 And he who has seen has testified, and his testimony is true; and he knows that he is telling the truth, so that you also may believe.[/SIZE][/FONT] [FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]In John 19:25-27, the author identifies "the disciple whom he [Jesus] loved" as the one whose testimony is true and worthy of belief. When Jesus was dying on the cross, around him stood four women and one man, identified as the one whom Jesus loved. Later, the author affirms that the testimony of the man who witnessed Jesus' death is true (19:35); the testimony refers most likely to the traditions about Jesus that have been incorporated into the Gospel of John. This man most likely is "the disciple whom he [Jesus] loved" mentioned earlier, since he is the only man present at Jesus' crucifixion.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]1.1.2. The two individuals referred to in John 19:35; 21:24 are no doubt the same man, since they bear the same designation, "the disciple whom Jesus loved." If it is possible to put a name to this man, then the author of the gospel of John can be identified. Two other references to "the disciple whom Jesus loved" occur in the Gospel of John. What further information do these references give about the author?[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]A. John 13:23, 25[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][SIZE=-1]23 There was reclining on Jesus' breast, one of his disciples, whom Jesus loved. 24 So Simon Peter gestured to him, and said to him, "Tell us who it is of whom He is speaking." 25 He, leaning back thus on Jesus' breast, said to him, "Lord, who is it?"[/SIZE][/FONT] [FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]The "one whom Jesus loved" reclined at the breast of Jesus and leaned back to speak to him. He could not have been Peter, since he spoke to him.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Incidentally, the description of the disciple whom Jesus loved as reclining "on Jesus' breast" (13:23) and who leaned back on Jesus' breast at the supper to talk to him (13:25) refers to the fact that this disciple was sharing a triclinium (couch on which two or three people reclined to eat) with Jesus and was positioned in front of Jesus on the triclinium; thus he was reclining "on Jesus' breast." In order to to talk to Jesus discreetly, this disciple would be forced to lean backwards "on Jesus' breast." There may have been another disciple behind Jesus on the same triclinium, but this one is not identified.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]B. John 21:2-7[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][SIZE=-1]2 Simon Peter, and Thomas called Didymus, and Nathanael of Cana in Galilee, and the sons of Zebedee, and two others of his disciples were together. 3 Simon Peter said to them, "I am going fishing." They said to him, "We will also come with you." They went out and got into the boat; and that night they caught nothing. 4 But when the day was now breaking, Jesus stood on the beach; yet the disciples did not know that it was Jesus. 5 So Jesus said to them, "Children, you do not have any fish, do you?" They answered him, "No." 6 And he said to them, "Cast the net on the right-hand side of the boat and you will find a catch." So they cast, and then they were not able to haul it in because of the great number of fish. 7 Therefore that disciple whom Jesus loved said to Peter, "It is the Lord." So when Simon Peter heard that it was the Lord, he put his outer garment on (for he was stripped for work), and threw himself into the sea.[/SIZE][/FONT] [FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]The "one whom Jesus loved" was one of the disciples who went fishing with Peter. He was one of the disciples named or one of the two unnamed disciples, but he was not Peter.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]1.1.3. It should be added that, since in 20:2 the designation "the one whom Jesus loved" is set in apposition with "the other disciple," it is possible that the reference to "another disciple" in 18:15-16 could be a self-designation of the author. If so, then the author was known to the high priest.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]1.1.4. In summary, one can speculate that the following took place: The author wrote the gospel designating himself as "the disciple whom Jesus loved," but refrained from identifying this disciple by name in any of the narratives in which he appeared. His original readership presumably knew his identity, but an editor, concerned that there might be some future readers who would not know the connection between the author and "the disciple whom Jesus loved," added 21:24 and 19:35 to ensure that this connection was made explicit in the text. It seems that the editor did this in order that the readers might know that the author was an eyewitness to the events described, thereby rendering the accounts credible.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]1.2. Internal, Indirect Evidence[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]There is some internal, indirect evidence to consider with respect to the authorship of the Gospel of John.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]1.2.1. The author is familiar with the geographical features of Palestine.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]A. He is familiar with Galilee, Samaria and Judea (see 1:28 [11:1]; 2:1, 12; 3:23; 4:20; 11:54; 12:21).[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]B. He is also familiar with the city of Jerusalem (see 5:2; 9:7; 11:18; 18:1, 28; 19:17) and the Temple (2:14, 20; 8:2, 20; 10:23).[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]What does this familiarity with the geographical features of Palestine imply about the author?[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]The fact that the author possessed such detailed geographical knowledge about Palestine implies he was a resident of Palestine, who had frequented these places.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]1.2.2. The author is acquainted with the social and religious conditions of Palestine (see 4:9; 7:35; 11:49; 18:13, 28, 31, 39). Likewise, he is also familiar with Jewish and Samaritan religious beliefs (see 1:41, 46; 4:9, 25; 6:15), and he is well acquainted with how Jewish festivals were celebrated at the Temple and with purification rites: Passover (2:13, 23; 6:4; 13:1; 18:28); Tabernacles (7:2, 37); Dedication (10:22); Purification rites (2:6; 3:25; 11:55; 18:28; 19:31). What does the fact that the author has such knowledge imply about him?[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]To have such detailed knowledge of the social and religious conditions of Palestine and Jewish and Samaritan religious beliefs implies that the author had first-hand experience of Jews and Samaritans, which suggests that he is from Palestine. His good knowledge of the Temple and Jewish festivals implies that he was a participant in the various Jewish festivals, which suggests that he was a Palestinian Jew. His knowledge of Jewish purification rites is consistent with first-hand experience. [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]1.2.3. The author seems to have been an eyewitness to the events that he is describing; this is debatable, but the general impression is that the accounts derive from an eyewitness (see 1:29, 35, 39; 7:14; 11:6; 12:1; 13:1-2; 19:14, 31; 20:1, 19, 26). Similarly, the author has a good knowledge of the apostolic group (see 2:11, 17; 4:27, 33; 6:19, 60-61; 16:17; 20:25; 21:3, 7). What does the fact that the author has such knowledge imply about his identity?[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]To be an eyewitness and to have a good knowledge of the apostolic group implies either that the author himself was one of the twelve or that at least he was a follower of Jesus who had much contact with the twelve.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]1.2.4. The author seems to have written his gospel in Aramaic or a very Semitic type of Greek. Concerning the details relating to the Aramaic/Semitic features of the gospel there is much dispute; the following is a list of those grammatical features of John that most scholars agree suggest that the text is translated Aramaic or bears the influence of an author who thought in Aramaic but wrote in Greek.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]A. Transliterated Aramaic words (1:38, 41, 42; 4:25; 9:7; 11:16; 19:13, 17; 20:16; 21:2)[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]B. Parataxis: the joining together of main clauses with "and" (kai), corresponding to the waw-consecutive construction in Aramaic/Hebrew (e.g., 9:6-7)[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]C. Asundeton construction: the lack of coordinating conjunctions between clauses (e.g., 4:6, 7)[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]D. Beginning sentences with verbs (not seen in English translation) (It is standard feature of Hebrew/Aramaic to begin a sentence with a verb.) [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]E. Excessive use of the Greek conjunctions hoti and hina, which corresponds to the frequent use of the Aramaic de, i.e., as a conjunction[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]F. The exceptional simplicity of the Greek and the limitations of its vocabulary[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]What do these linguistic data suggest about the author's identity?[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]These linguistic data suggest that the author's mother tongue was not Greek, but Aramaic. Such an author would have the tendency to cite Aramaic words and be influenced by Aramaic syntax when writing in Greek (parataxis, asundeton, beginning sentences with verbs and the use of the Greek equivalents of the much used conjunction de in Aramaic). Also, an author whose first language was Aramaic may have a limited Greek vocabulary and be unable to write Greek except with a simplicity of style.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]1.3. External Evidence[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]The external evidence identifies John the son of Zebedee as the author of the Gospel of John. In fact, when one leaves out of considerastion the heretics mentioned by Irenaeus (Adv. haer. 3.11.9) and Epiphanius (Haer. 51.3), no one in the church seriously questioned the authenticity of the Gospel of John until the rise of biblical criticism in the eighteenth century.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]1.3.1. In his rebuttal of Autolycus, Theophilos of Antioch c. 181 attributed the Gospel of John to John, by whom he no doubt meant the apostle John, the son of Zebedee (Autol. 2.22).[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][SIZE=-1]You will say, then, to me: "You said that God ought not to be contained in a place, and how do you now say that He walked in Paradise? "Hear what I say. The God and Father, indeed, of all cannot be contained, and is not found in a place, for there is no place of His rest; but His Word, through whom He made all things, being His power and His wisdom, assuming the person of the Father and Lord of all, went to the garden in the person of God, and conversed with Adam. For the divine writing itself teaches us that Adam said that he had heard the voice. But what else is this voice but the Word of God, who is also His Son? Not as the poets and writers of myths talk of the sons of gods begotten from intercourse [with women], but as truth expounds, the Word, that always exists, residing within the heart of God. For before anything came into being He had Him as a counsellor, being His own mind and thought. But when God wished to make all that He determined on, He begot this Word, uttered, the first-born of all creation, not Himself being emptied of the Word [Reason], but having begotten Reason, and always conversing with His Reason. And hence the holy writings teach us, and all the spirit-bearing [inspired] men, one of whom, John, says, "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God," showing that at first God was alone, and the Word in Him. Then he says, "The Word was God; all things came into existence through Him; and apart from Him not one thing came into existence." The Word, then, being God, and being naturally produced from God, whenever the Father of the universe wills, He sends Him to any place; and He, coming, is both heard and seen, being sent by Him, and is found in a place.[/SIZE][/FONT] [FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]1.3.2. Irenaeus (130-c. 200) identifies John the apostle, the son of Zebedee, as the author of the Gospel of John.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]A. Eusebius quotes two passages from Irenaeus’s Against Heresies to prove that John, the disciple of the Lord, resided in Ephesus after Paul's death. Ireneaus says that John was a "true witness" of the apostolic tradition there; Eusebius identifies the John to whom Irenaeus refers as John the apostle and evangelist, the disciple whom Jesus loved (H.E. 3. 23. 3).[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][SIZE=-1]Adv. Haer. 2.22.5. They, however, that they may establish their false opinion regarding that which is written, "to proclaim the acceptable year of the Lord," maintain that He preached for one year only, and then suffered in the twelfth month. [In speaking thus], they are forgetful to their own disadvantage, destroying His whole work, and robbing Him of that age which is both more necessary and more honorable than any other; that more advanced age, I mean, during which also as a teacher He excelled all others. For how could He have had disciples, if He did not teach? And how could He have taught, unless He had reached the age of a Master? For when He came to be baptized, He had not yet completed His thirtieth year, but was beginning to be about thirty years of age (for thus Luke, who has mentioned His years, has expressed it: "Now Jesus was, as it were, beginning to be thirty years old," when He came to receive baptism); and, [according to these men, ] He preached only one year reckoning from His baptism. On completing His thirtieth year He suffered, being in fact still a young man, and who had by no means attained to advanced age. Now, that the first stage of early life embraces thirty years, and that this extends onwards to the fortieth year, every one will admit; but from the fortieth and fiftieth year a man begins to decline towards old age, which our Lord possessed while He still fulfilled the office of a Teacher, even as the Gospel and all the elders testify; those who were conversant in Asia with John, the disciple of the Lord, [affirming] that John conveyed to them that information. And he remained among them up to the times of Trajan. Some of them, moreover, saw not only John, but the other apostles also, and heard the very same account from them, and bear testimony as to the [validity of] the statement. Whom then should we rather believe? Whether such men as these, or Ptolemaeus, who never saw the apostles, and who never even in his dreams attained to the slightest trace of an apostle?[/SIZE][/FONT] [FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif] [/FONT] [FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][SIZE=-1]Adv. Haer. 3.3.4. But Polycarp also was not only instructed by apostles, and conversed with many who had seen Christ, but was also, by apostles in Asia, appointed bishop of the Church in Smyrna, whom I also saw in my early youth, for he remained [on earth] a very long time, and, when a very old man, gloriously and most nobly suffering martyrdom, departed this life, having always taught the things which he had learned from the apostles, and which the Church has handed down, and which alone are true. To these things all the Asiatic Churches testify, as do also those men who have succeeded Polycarp down to the present time—a man who was of much greater weight, and a more steadfast witness of truth, than Valentinus, and Marcion, and the rest of the heretics. He it was who, coming to Rome in the time of Anicetus caused many to turn away from the aforesaid heretics to the Church of God, proclaiming that he had received this one and sole truth from the apostles,-that, namely, which is handed down by the Church. There are also those who heard from him that John, the disciple of the Lord, going to bathe at Ephesus, and perceiving Cerinthus within, rushed out of the bath-house without bathing, exclaiming, "Let us fly, lest even the bath-house fall down, because Cerinthus, the enemy of the truth, is within." And Polycarp himself replied to Marcion, who met him on one occasion, and said, "Do you know me? ""I do know you, the first-born of Satan." Such was the horror which the apostles and their disciples had against holding even verbal communication with any corrupters of the truth; as Paul also says, "A man that is an heretic, after the first and second admonition, reject; knowing that he that is such is subverted, and sins, being condemned of himself." There is also a very powerful Epistle of Polycarp written to the Philippians, from which those who choose to do so, and are anxious about their salvation, can learn the character of his faith, and the preaching of the truth. Then, again, the Church in Ephesus, founded by Paul, and having John remaining among them permanently until the times of Trajan, is a true witness of the tradition of the apostles.[/SIZE][/FONT] [FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]B. In another place, Irenaeus, as Eusebius points out (H.E. 5. 8. 4), states that John, the disciple of the Lord, the one who rested on Jesus' breast (ho kai epi to stêthos autou anapesôn), produced his gospel while living in Ephesus (H.E. 5.8.4; Adv. Haer. 3. 3. 4). Since he is identified in the Gospel of John as the one who reclined at Jesus' breast, "the disciple whom Jesus loved" must be John the disciple, the author of the Gospel of John.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][SIZE=-1]Adv. Haer. 3.1.1. We have learned from none others the plan of our salvation, than from those through whom the Gospel has come down to us, which they did at one time proclaim in public, and, at a later period, by the will of God, handed down to us in the Scriptures, to be the ground and pillar of our faith. 2 For it is unlawful to assert that they preached before they possessed "perfect knowledge," as some do even venture to say, boasting themselves as improvers of the apostles. For, after our Lord rose from the dead, [the apostles] were invested with power from on high when the Holy Spirit came down [upon them], were filled from all [His gifts], and had perfect knowledge: they departed to the ends of the earth, preaching the glad tidings of the good things [sent] from God to us, and proclaiming the peace of heaven to men, who indeed do all equally and individually possess the Gospel of God. Matthew also issued a written Gospel among the Hebrews3 in their own dialect, while Peter and Paul were preaching at Rome, and laying the foundations of the Church. After their departure, Mark, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, did also hand down to us in writing what had been preached by Peter. Luke also, the companion of Paul, recorded in a book the Gospel preached by him. Afterwards, John, the disciple of the Lord, who also had leaned upon His breast, did himself publish a Gospel during his residence at Ephesus in Asia.[/SIZE][/FONT] [FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]C. The source for Irenaeus's knowledge of the origins of the Gospel of John seems to be Polycarp (69-155), whom Irenaeus knew in his youth and who knew the apostles, including John. Polycarp is a bridge between the generation of the apostles and that of Irenaeus:[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]1. Eusebius quotes from a letter that Irenaeus wrote to Florinus; in which he states that he used to listen to Polycarp speak about what the apostles did and said, including John (H.E.5. 20. 4-8)[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]2. As Eusebius points out (H.E. 4. 14. 1-8), Irenaeus claimed that Polycarp knew the apostles, was appointed bishop of Smyrna by the apostles and communicated what he had learned from the apostles to the younger generation. Irenaeus said that he saw (and presumably heard) Polycarp in his early youth (Adv. Haer. 3. 3. 4).[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]D. Some have disputed the accuracy of Irenaeus' claim that John the apostle, the son of Zebedee, wrote the fourth gospel, arguing that the gospel was written by another John who also resided in Ephesus. In H.E. 3.39.1-6, Eusebius rejects Irenaeus' assertion that Papias was "a hearer of John," meaning John the apostle, since Eusebius claims that he knows for a fact that Papias had no contact with the apostles. Immediately following, Eusebius quotes a passage from Papias wherein he makes mention of two Johns; Eusebius interprets this to mean that there were two John associated with Ephesus: John the apostle and a John referred to as the elder. (In Eusebius' view, the fact that there are two tombs in Ephesus bearing the name of John confirms his theory.) Combining these two data, some scholars have suggested that Irenaeus confused these two Johns, wrongly assuming that the John to whom Polycarp referred was John the apostle, when he was really John the elder. But, even assuming that Irenaeus was mistaken when he affirmed that Papias was a hearer of John the apostle, this argument is too conjectural to be convincing.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]1.3.3. Other second-century sources confirm the Irenaeus' testimony to the Johannine authorship of the fourth gospel.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]A. As quoted by Eusebius, Clement of Alexandria (150-c.215) wrote in his Hypotyposeis, "But that John last of all, conscious of the outward (lit. "bodily") facts that had been set forth in the gospels was urged on by his disciples, and, divinely moved by the Spirit, composed a spiritual gospel" (H.E. 6.14.7).[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]B. The Muratorian canon also attributes the gospel to John the apostle: "The fourth gospel is that of John, one of the disciples....When his fellow-disciples and bishops exhorted him, he said, 'Fast with me for three days from today, and then let us relate to one another whatever may be revealed to each of us.' On the same night it was revealed to Andrew one of the apostles that John should narrate all things in his own name as they remembered them..."[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]1.3.4. Is the external evidence consistent with the internal evidence?[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]The external evidence is fully consistent, since John was one of the disciples, and could easily have been "the beloved disciple."[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]1.4. What do you conclude about the authorship of the Gospel of John? Is the dispute about the authorship of the gospel justified?[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]The author of the Gospel of John was John the son of Zebedee, the apostle. There are no grounds for doubting this.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]1.5. In spite of the internal and external evidence, many scholars believe that John the son of Zebedee could not have written the fourth gospel because, as an account of the life of Jesus, it is unhistorical and as such is incompatible with having an eyewitness origin. While it is sometimes conceded that some events described in the gospel have an historical basis, many scholars hold that the Johannine discourses are historical fabrications, reflecting the theological views of the anonymous community that produced it. The main reason for rejecting the historicity of the discourses is that the Johannine Jesus says things about himself that the historical Jesus allegedly would never have said. He makes statements that presuppose his pre-existence with God (3:11-13; 6:32-33,41-42, 46; 7:33-34; 8:23, 26, 29, 38, 42, 56-58; see 1:15). In addition, he understands himself as the unique son of God, having a relationship with the Father that no human being can have (5:17-47; 8:19, 28; 10:31-39). His opponents even interpret his claim to have God as his Father as making himself equal to God (5:18). This line of argumentation, however, begs the question because it presupposes what the historical Jesus could have believed and said about himself. It would seem that the evidence best supports the position that John the son of Zebedee, as a supplement to the synoptic gospels, chose to include in his gospel accurate summaries translated into his distinctive Greek of what Jesus said in some of his more extended and private conversations with other people. Besides, Jesus twice refers to himself as "son" in the synoptic gospels, so that the Gospel of John is not exclusive in this regard (Mark 13:32; Luke 10:22 = Matt 11:27).[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]
[/FONT][FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]As already indicated, early tradition places John the son of Zebedee in Ephesus when he composed his gospel. What do you conclude from this about the intended readership?[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]John probably wrote for the Ephesians or maybe the churches in Asia Minor in general.[/FONT] [FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]
[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Dating the Gospel of John is difficult, if not impossible; some place it before 70 and others as late as the 90's. The evidence is insufficient to draw a firm conclusion. [/FONT][FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]The Monarchian Prologue to the Gospel of John Fourth Gospel states that John wrote the gospel sometime after his exile of the island of Patmos (He is considered to be the author of the Book of Revelation): "He [the Apostle John] wrote this Gospel in the Province of Asia, after he had composed Revelation on the Island of Patmos." Whether this is true is difficult to know. It should also be noted that it was once thought that the Gospel of John was written well into the second century, but the discovery of a fragment of a copy of the Gospel of John, known as Rylands Papyrus 457, which is dated to no later than 150, suggests that the gospel was written earlier than the second century, since it would take some time for the gospel to have a wide circulation.[/FONT] [FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif] [/FONT][FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]
[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]From what has been concluded so far, where was the Gospel of John written?[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]The Gospel of John was written in or near Ephesus.[/FONT]
For the full article check : http://www.abu.nb.ca/courses/NTIntro/John.htm
Keltoi
IB Legend
- Messages
- 5,061
- Reaction score
- 463
I type the words "some scholars think Allah is a moon god" and I'm an anti-Islam? If that is the criteria we are now using then every Muslim who has posted on this thread is anti-Christian, since they have stated much worse about my faith. I didn't say I believed Allah was a moon god, I was pointing out how unhelpful it is to cite "scholars" who say one thing or another. As for being a 4 year old, I included myself in the mix. I'm just as guilty of this pointless back and forth.