Osbert

I am not a Bible expert, I am arguing with a friend that the Pope cannot prove his assertion:

"Pope Benedict XVI takes aim at doubting scholars, declaring that St John's Gospel is unquestionably an 'eyewitness account'."

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/com...cle5461064.ece

Is there any proof for this or is it wishful thinking?

show_no_mercy

Wishful thinking.

Irenaeus is the first person to claim that this gospel was written by a "John", which he did circa 180 CE. Like all the other gospels, this gospel was originally written anonymously since Christians earlier than Irenaeus never quote from "John", but from "Memoirs of the Apostles" or the "Diatesseron"... ie they never say "according to John blablabla..." they just quote what we later find is a passage from gJohn.

According to the text itself, it was written by a person who knew the "disciple that Jesus loved" and got the information from this disciple. This person never names themselves. Nowhere does it say that the disciple actually wrote it (an "eyewitness account"), this disciple is never called "John" in the text, and at the end of the gospel it says "we know this to be true", which is a lot like me saying "everything I say is fully substantiated by my own opinion". It's circular.

This gospel, in its introduction, also steals Philo's concept of the "Logos" by saying that the "Logos" is Jesus... the "godstuff" that god uses to create the world. This Hellenistic tradition of the Logos goes all the way back to Plato and his "Forms" - the perfect idea giving birth to the material. John chapter 1 completely betrays its Hellenistic pedagogy - an illiterate Palestinian fisherman who spoke Aramaic is very unlikely to have learned to read and write near flawless Koine Greek and reinterpret Jesus as Philo's "Logos".

Considering that this gospel also claims that Christians were kicked out of the synagoges during the time of Jesus means that Christians had been kicked out of the synagoges during the writers lifetime. This doesn't *actually* happen until around 85 - 95 CE, meaning that this text was written after this time period. With that in mind, memorizing verbatim all of the speeches of Jesus in this gospel for almost 100 years is implausible; especially since these speeches are longer than any of the shorter, easier to memorize speeches found in the Synoptics.

It also talks about Jews and Jewish customs like a third party who is unfamiliar with Jewish customs. An eyewitness (who is supposedly a Jew) would not write like this. It also blames the entire race of Jews (instead of just the Pharisees like in the Synoptics) for the death of Jesus... which is weird, considering that the writer - and Jesus - are supposed to be Jews.

The writer also claims that Jesus went around claiming to be god. There's no way Jews from the first century would have tolerated this, he would have been arrested and stoned for blasphemy immediately. No subterfuge would have been necessary for his arrest. Jesus' actions in this gospel are also markedly different than the synoptics in this respect because he is displaying his superpowers wantonly, instead of like in the synoptics trying to hide his identity. The writer also claims that Jesus said that he's the only way to salvation; this would have made no sense to Jews in the 1st century, especially while the Temple was still standing. Jesus is also said to have raised Lazarus from the dead. If this actually happened, there would have been no questions about what resurrected bodies look like in Paul's letters. Paul could have just told his audience to go look at Lazarus.

Lastly, the writer of this gospel claims that the "beloved disciple" will stay alive until Jesus returns. Since ostensibly Jesus hasn't returned, either this disciple is still alive somewhere (lol) or the author is simply mistaken - this damages the credibility of the writer... like many of the other "mistakes" he pens.

storytime

I'm not a bible expert either but here's my analysis on "eyewitness" account.

"Eyewitness" was credited through what others said and the receiver heard and believed. For example: Fred the Barber tells his client that his shop was flooded by Katrina. The client believes Fred's story based on the truth of the Katrina storm. The client then tells his aunt in Oregon that Fred's Barber Shop was flooded beyond repair and Fred was forced to continue cutting hair on the sidewalk. The client's aunt in Oregon then tells the story to Bill in Alaska as an eyewitness account because she knew her nephew did not lie. The result was that everyone who heard the "eyeness account" believed it and also became eyewitness to the story - based on belief through heresay.

But was it true? The Pope is said to believe it because he believed heresay also, and did not doubt that Fred's Barber Shop had been flooded.

St. Luke believed what he had heard from others and told the heresay to Theophilus. (Luke 1:1-4)

" Forasmuch as many have taken in hand to set forth in order a declaration of those things which are most surely believed among us,

Even as they delivered them unto us, [from heresay], who from the beginning were eyewitnesses, and ministers of the words;

It seemed good to me also, having had perfect understanding of all things from the very first, to write unto thee in order, most excellent Theophilus.."

Osbert

Thank you both, your replies are clear and make good sense.

show_no_mercy

The Pope himself probably knows all of this... it's just that he's trying to save souls, not to be objective. "When has rationality ever come to the aid of spiritual things?"

Roland

If the writer was an eyewitness to Jesus' life, why does he put the cleansing of the temple scene at the beginning of Jesus' ministry rather than at the end as the Synoptics do? Wasn't Matthew also supposed to have been an eyewitness, let alone Mark's alleged source Peter?

Or was overturning the tables in the temple an annual schtick performed by Jesus every Passover?

Chili

You must be careful how you read that and always remember that the duty of the Church is to tell the truth but conceal the mystery of faith. It is either that or say or say nothing so you already know that his Angelus address is loaded.

When he calls it a 'passionate testimony of an eyewitness account' he is trying to tell you that it happened to him, John here, who in the end was "mother there is your son" in that Gospel. He might have added that 'we look with our eyes but see with our mind' to say that it matters little what we look at if it is our mind that reports what we see.

We can now say that he described his own journey as Jesuit-by-nature and so a disciple of Jesus doing his time in purgatory wherein he saw himself live that very Gospel.

Just look at this line:
"From this experience, which he meditated in his heart, John drew an intimate certainty - that Jesus was the Knowledge of God incarnate" the Pope said during a recent Angelus address."

So now Jesus is 'knowledge of God incarnate' which equals 'know thyself and be God.'

Interesting to note is that 3 years is about the time it takes to get through purgatory (most clear in Rev.12 and 13).

I like his 'race to the grave' allusion to say that Jesus was not real like Aristotle because he beat faith (in the image of Peter) to the grave so that reason will prevail without faith being any part thereof.

He said no-one doubted the existence of figures such as Alexander the Great or Aristotle even though the first accounts of them appeared long after their deaths. By contrast the first known papyruses referring to Jesus dated to the end of the first century. St John described himself arriving at Jesus' tomb before St Peter because he was younger and could run faster (20:1-6), and included other vivid details which could only have come from his own experience.

It is crucial that faith comes to an end in the story to do away with the physical Jesus and here again he calls it John's 'own experience.'

This pope is not stupid and is telling the truth while sending all those theologians on a 'wild goose chase.'

I think it is funny.

Chili

He was known as Christ and moved to Rome where we have "Christ Among Us" and Jesus was just 'the way' to get there and has been coming back time and time again to show each Christian the high road to Rome.

To get there they must beat Peter, no doubt, so all faith will be left behind when arriving in Rome for the second time.

Had Peter beat John to the grave he'd become a Jesus worshiper (but not in Rome), still looking for some evidence to justify his faith.

Chili

Catholics are not worried about saving souls, nor is the Pope. To understand how it is done is all you need to know to do away with all worries wherein not souls but ego's are saved.

ETA, since the soul is eternal and cannot die it is the ego (persona) that can be saved. To do this it must vacate the lower house and move into the upper room where the soul is at. In Genesis 3 this would simply mean a move from the TOK to the TOL.

. . . and don't forget here that no Catholic nor the pope will ever say that you must be saved because it is not nice to enter the race if you can't finish it and so be torn between heaven and earth constantly having to burn bible passages to remain afloat in midheaven (Rev.14:6-12).

This here then is why "Catholics are basically good" and redeemable.

Chili

The temple ruckuss is the first thing that happens in response to religious hypocracy in leading the believer but misleading him until 'awakening' happens. So here now it is evidence of realization that foreshadows the end of religion by way of comprehension of the full assembly that is present in the offertory (Luke 1:9).

ETA, this is about when Luther nailed his 'thesis statement' to the wall (poor guy), and blamed the Church for having him wallow in their mire with his eyes closed. Little did he know that he was really standing on gold and walked away from it all with his eyes half open but still half shut.