After losing interest in discussing the previous thread, which was closed, I was accused of stating the I claimed the Author to the Gospel of John was without a doubt the Apostle John.
Apparently the individual who wrote this cannot read simple english, your attention is invited to my answer in reply #26 of that thread at url;
http://forums.christiansunite.com/index.php?board=3;action=display;threadid=2004;start=15Having said this, I will now share, what may interest anyone whois interested in this matter.
Facts;
The Author of the Gospel of John is unknowen.
It was presumed from the 2d century onwards because of traditional view to be the Apostle in the early church writings by some of the church fathers.
Scholars taught this based on the similarity of content and key words and the language used in the other letters. However there always has existed doubt .
In recent years (within the last 50 years) some have openly and strongly criticized the trditional view and the ID of authorship has been challenged.
And this is all perfectly fine, since this view is not and has never been set in stone.
It certainly is not something any Christians faith would be changed if he knew with certainty, who was the authentic author of the gospel writer, in fact it would not change anything at all.
Christians should simply understand the Holy Spirit who inspired the writing and preservation of Gods Words, simply chose to not reveal with certainty who wrote the letter, and just simply accept it, or spend there time following rabbit trails thru the scriptures and try to ascertain who the author is, I can share with certainty that excellent scholars have failed to determine who this author is after years of study.
Now the question does remain why was the Gosple given the name of John?
Simply because of the traditional view point given above, it was connected to the 2 & 3 letters of John, written by the Elder of 2 Jhn 1:1, 3 Jhn 1:1.
Nothing is knowen about John the elder, except what Polycarp, Papais, Irenaous have penned about this man.
Clement 2rd Bishop at Rome, would have been living at the time the letter was written.
He was referred to as a "Disciples of the Apostles" by Bishop Irenaous, he goes on to say "this Disciple of the Lord lived until the time of Trajan and was known to other Elders in Asia", He thought this Elder was the Apostle John.
Bishop Paipas "John the Elder", and also speaks of "the Elder as a Disciple of the Lord"
But here is a scripture to ponder, which I have often wondered about, it is interesting the the names of two Elder who examined Peter and John are given to us by the Holy Spirit, at the passage of Acts 4, we read;
4:1 And as they spake unto the people, the priests, and the captain of the temple, and the Sadducees, came upon them,
2 Being grieved that they taught the people, and preached through Jesus the resurrection from the dead.
3 And they laid hands on them, and put them in hold unto the next day: for it was now eventide.
4 Howbeit many of them which heard the word believed; and the number of the men was about five thousand.
5 And it came to pass on the morrow, that their rulers, and
elders, and scribes,
6 And Annas the high priest, and Caiaphas, and
John, and Alexander, and as many as were of the kindred of the high priest, were gathered together at Jerusalem.
7 And when they had set them in the midst, they asked, By what power, or by what name, have ye done this?
8 Then Peter, filled with the Holy Ghost, said unto them, Ye rulers of the people, and
elders of Israel,
9 If we this day be examined of the good deed done to the impotent man, by what means he is made whole;
10 Be it known unto you all, and to all the people of Israel, that by the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom ye crucified, whom God raised from the dead, even by him doth this man stand here before you whole.
11 This is the stone which was set at nought of you builders, which is become the head of the corner.
12 Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved.
13 Now when they saw the boldness of Peter and John, and perceived that they were unlearned and ignorant men, they marvelled; and they took knowledge of them, that they had been with Jesus.
The John spoken of at vs 6, above, was an elder who sat to hear the charges concerning Peter and John. in this passage
There were other disciples of Jesus, who were either rulers or elders, such as Joseph of Arimathaea (Note what it says about this man, who sat at the councel who condemned Jesus , and Nicodemus a ruler of the Jews, we know He was a member of the Sanhedrin or Great Council;
Lk 23
51 (
The same had not consented to the counsel and deed of them;) he was of Arimathaea, a city of the Jews: who also himself waited for the kingdom of God.
52 This man went unto Pilate, and begged the body of Jesus.
That he was a disciple of Jesus is not to be questioned;(Jhn 19:38)
Also, Nicodemus was according, to Jesus, a master of Israel, no doubt a great teacher of the Law (Jhn 3:10) came and "brought a mixture of myrrh and aloes, about an hundred pound weight" to prepare the body.
How many times have people asked, where did Mary get the myrrh and spices to prepare the body of Jesus??,
Since it was
early on the first day of the week when she went to the tomb the first day of the week (Lk 24:1),
So, by asking these questions (because they do not know the scriptures) they conclude erroneously that it she purchased them during the days Jesus lay in the tomb before the Sabaath, and try and to change the Day of the Crucifixation to some other day, rlike thursday rather than friday the sixth day??
To make the resurrection on the day of the Sabaath. Which is really the reason why they raise the question, to change the teaching to their perception of what day, ought to be observed ,as the Lords Day.
Anyhow, Perhaps this John mentioned at Acts 4:6 was also a disciple of Jesus, we simply don't know, there isn't enough written about him to make the case, we would be speculating to simply come out and say so, just because he was known to the high priest and spoke to the damsel who allowed Peter to enter the palace of the high priest in according to the Gospel of Jhn 18:15.
If we taught doctrine this way, we would have a mess of tangled scriptural teaching based on speculation.
There is no concrete evidence
this John an Elder of Israel is the writer of the Gospel or the 2 & 3 letters, just like there is no concrete evidence the it NOT was The Apostle John.
I didn't post this continue arguing about this but just to clarify, and give information which will explain, what was not explained before.
No one really offered who the author might be, anyhow, so it was futile to discuss it further.
Blessings
Petro
Author