how come Christians can't see that their book of John most likely was a much later add?
They like to quote John for this or that, but the Book of John, at least thought by atheists, was only created to make Jesus look like a god. For if you have tried to find the quotes in John in the other gospels, you couldn't.
Anyway, why don't Christians see that John is a later add, because those quotes aren't found in the other three Gospels?
quotes match up in Luke, Matthew, and Mark.
John has like no quotes that are in the others, and the earliest recorded quotes from John were quoted by the Gnostics, this is fact according to Wiki.
As Wiki say, only a minority of scholars now think that John wrote that Gospel.
So even most scholars know that John didn't write that gospel.
"Representing a minority view, certain prominent scholars, such as J.A.T. Robinson, F. F. Bruce, and Leon Morris, held that the apostle did write the gospel and that it is equally historical."
Wiki can't just say something like "most scholars don't think this is true", without most scholars really not thinking it's true.
Meaning that you now have a choice, to believe that John was written by John, which is the miniority view amongst the scholars, or believe that someone else other than john wrote it, the majority view.
And as Wiki says, the Bible quoted john as being illiterate. :D
- Uncle GuidoLv 69 years agoBest Answer
People who knew John passed his Gospel down through tradition. Different material =/= different time.Source(s): Catholic (who has not been corrected :) )
- 9 years ago
"and the earliest recorded quotes from John were quoted by the Gnostics, this is fact according to Wiki. "
Firstly, Wiki can't be trusted (You would learn that if you wen't to school). Secondly, the Early Church quoted John's Gospel to prove Jesus' Divinity. Where do you think they got the idea that Jesus is the "Logos" and the "Begotten Son of God".
John specifically wrote the Gospel to show Jesus' Divinity, thats why it may not have the same quotes. But it does have the same events and same meaning.
All Gospels agree on Jesus' Life, Death, and Resurrection.
"As Wiki say" Wiki CAN not be trusted at all with its information.
You debunked yourself by using a unreliable website.
"Wiki can't just say something like "most scholars don't think this is true","
Actually they can.
Anyone can rewrite things on Wiki. I can, you can, etc.
So again, you fail, and debunked yourself.
Teachers don't let students use Wikipedia because of the false information. And even if John wasn't written by John, so what? Doesn't destroy the fact that the Early Church quoted it.
"And as Wiki says, the Bible quoted john as being illiterate. :D" Funny that it doesn't lol.
- 9 years ago
That might have been argued in trendy theological colleges in the past.
However, I think some of those people are not so sure now.
John mentions in particular Jesus' trips to Jerusalem, the other gospels focus on his Galilee ministry, except for his last week at the passover festival.
A lot of the material is not very understandable to "the natural man". So I think the earlier gospels setting out to explain Jesus' life to the world excluded these events, since maybe their own spiritual insight hadn't yet developed, as St John's had in his long life, so they were still somewhat baffled by some of those thigns, so excluded them from their accounts. After all there were very many events and conversations from which to choose in drawing up an account.
There is a lot more conflict in Jerusalem, perhaps avoided by the earlier gospellers.There's a lot of conflict there, inevitable I suppose, but perhaps the earlier accounts want to concentrate more on the glorious miracles in the Galilee, where people were a lot more receptive.
It is more accurate with regard to geography of Jerusalem.
- 9 years ago
New Testament critics propose some of the most contradictory criticisms against the historical accuracies of the Gospels. They complain, “The Gospel writers were too similar in their reporting to qualify themselves as eyewitnesses. No, wait. They’re too different, and therefore the Gospel of John is unreliable!” Well, which one is it? Are they too similar or too different? There seems to be an anti-supernatural bias here and that’s what clouds you from accepting the New Testament documents as credible, but you accept secular works of antiquity blindly. One explanation as to why John’s Gospel is so different from the first three Gospels is because the author, who wrote his account later than the others, observed that the first three already had similar materials. Thus, he had no reason to repeat some of the events recorded elsewhere. John apparently felt the need to write something more useful instead of reporting something that has already been reported in the first three Gospels. This is a much better naturalistic explanation for why John’s Gospel is so different than proposing that his account is entirely embellished.
The Gospel of John was written in the late first century and is therefore too early to be corrupted by legendary material. Hostile eyewitnesses who were present at the events would have objected if any material had been falsely reported. Historians agree that an event must be circulated orally for two centuries before legendary material creeps in to destroy the original meaning of the event taken place. Whether or not John was the author of the Gospel commonly attribute to him is subject to debate, but it is false reasoning to conclude that since we cannot verify the name of the author, it most therefore be false in its reports. This Gospel is strongly favored in archeological findings. The following is an excerpt from Lee Strobel’s book ‘The Case for Christ’:
“There have been several discoveries that have shown John to be very accurate. For example, John 5:1-15 records how Jesus healed invalid by the Pool of Bethesda. John provides the detail that the pool had five porticoes. For a long time people cited this as an example of John being inaccurate, because no such place had been found. But more recently the Pool of Bethesda has been excavated, it lies maybe forty feet below ground, and sure enough, there were five porticoes, which means colonnaded porches or walkways, exactly as John described. And you have other discoveries, the Pool of Siloam from John 9:7, Jacob's Well from 4:12, the probable location of the Stone Pavement near the Jaffa Gate where Jesus appeared before Pilate in John 19:13, even Pilate's own identity, all of which have lent historical credibility of John's Gospel. Archaeologists have found a fragment of a copy of John 18 that leading papyrologist have dated to about AD 125. By demonstrating that copies of John existed this early and as far away as Egypt, archaeology has effectively dismantled speculation that John had been composed well into the second century, too long after Jesus' life to be reliable.”Source(s): Strobel, Lee. The Case for Christ: A Journalist's Personal Investigation of the Evidence for Jesus. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1998. 99-100. Print.
- How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
- Anonymous9 years ago
John read the tree preceding Gospels, which were Synoptics, and near the end of his life he filled in some of the things they left out that he experienced. He tried not to overlap on purpose. And he was battling the Gnostics when he wrote the book, which made him place a special emphasis on the duality of Christ.
- kazabiLv 43 years ago
The Whore of Babylon is a sturdy occasion, yet it relatively is the place the assessment leads to my humble opinion. To John's on the spot objective audience, she represented Rome, which had the blood of many Christian martyrs on its palms. yet in the bigger scheme of the prophecy, she stands for ungodly earthly potential of all types. In John's resourceful and prescient, she would be slain by potential of different powers of the earth, like her triggered by potential of greed and vice. John prophesied the autumn of the Whore of Babylon and warned all believers to resign the greed an lust she symbolized lest they, too, get caught up in the judgement. My understanding of Nero is that he become incredibly touched in the top in case you will want to call it civil engineering-------religious extremity may be the Egyptian prophesy. that is my suggestions on the subject.
- 9 years ago
Matthew was written around 60AD.
Mark was written between 55 and 65AD.
Luke was written around 70AD.
John was written around 85-90AD.
All four gospels were written fairly close in time to each other so they were added aroumd the same too.
- oldguy63Lv 79 years ago
WOW! And you guys claim to use logic and reason? Wouldn't logic indicate that if John was written later it would have quotes from earlier books? If it was written earlier how could it have quotes from books that weren't yet written.
- ?Lv 49 years ago
The writing of the book of John was probably completed c. 98 C.E.
Christians of the early second century accepted John as the writer of this account and also treated this writing as an unquestioned part of the canon of the inspired Scriptures. Clement of Alexandria, Irenaeus, Tertullian, and Origen, all of whom were of the late second and early third centuries, testify to John’s writership. Moreover, much internal evidence that John was the writer is to be found in the book itself. Obviously the writer was a Jew and was well acquainted with the Jews’ customs and their land. (2:6; 4:5; 5:2; 10:22, 23) The very intimacy of the account indicates that he was not only an apostle but one of the inner circle of three—Peter, James, and John—who accompanied Jesus on special occasions. (Matt. 17:1; Mark 5:37; 14:33) Of these, James (the son of Zebedee) is eliminated because he was martyred by Herod Agrippa I about 44 C.E., long before this book was written. (Acts 12:2) Peter is eliminated because he is mentioned along with the writer at John 21:20-24.
In these closing verses, the writer is referred to as the disciple “Jesus used to love,” this and similar expressions being used several times in the record, though the name of the apostle John is never mentioned. Jesus is here quoted as saying about him: “If it is my will for him to remain until I come, of what concern is that to you?” (John 21:20, 22) This suggests that the disciple referred to would long survive Peter and the other apostles. All of this fits the apostle John. It is of interest that John, after being given the Revelation vision of Jesus’ coming, concludes that remarkable prophecy with the words: “Amen! Come, Lord Jesus.”—Rev. 22:20.
Although John’s writings themselves give no definite information on the matter, it is generally believed that John wrote his Gospel after his return from exile on the island of Patmos. (Rev. 1:9) The Roman emperor Nerva, 96-98 C.E., recalled many who had been exiled at the close of the reign of his predecessor, Domitian. After writing his Gospel, about 98 C.E., John is believed to have died peacefully at Ephesus in the third year of Emperor Trajan, 100 C.E.
As to Ephesus or its vicinity as the place of writing, the historian Eusebius (c. 260-342 C.E.) quotes Irenaeus as saying: “John, the disciple of the Lord, who had even rested on his breast, himself also gave forth the gospel, while he was living at Ephesus in Asia.” That the book was written outside Palestine is supported by its many references to Jesus’ opponents by the general term, “the Jews,” rather than “Pharisees,” “chief priests,” and so forth. (John 1:19; 12:9) Also, the Sea of Galilee is explained by its Roman name, Sea of Tiberias. (6:1; 21:1) For the sake of the non-Jews, John gives helpful explanations of the Jewish festivals. (6:4; 7:2; 11:55) The place of his exile, Patmos, was near Ephesus, and his acquaintance with Ephesus, as well as with the other congregations of Asia Minor, is indicated by Revelation chapters 2 and 3.
Bearing on the authenticity of John’s Gospel are important manuscript finds of the 20th century. One of these is a fragment of John’s Gospel found in Egypt, now known as the Papyrus Rylands 457 (P52), containing John 18:31-33, 37, 38, and preserved at the John Rylands Library, Manchester, England. As to its bearing on the tradition of John’s writership at the end of the first century, the late Sir Frederic Kenyon said in his book The Bible and Modern Scholarship, 1949, page 21: “Small therefore as it is, it suffices to prove that a manuscript of this Gospel was circulating, presumably in provincial Egypt where it was found, about the period A.D. 130-150. Allowing even a minimum time for the circulation of the work from its place of origin, this would throw back the date of composition so near to the traditional date in the last decade of the first century that there is no longer any reason to question the validity of the tradition.”
The good news “according to John” is largely supplementary; 92 percent is new material not covered in the other three Gospels. Even so, John concludes with the words: “There are, in fact, many other things also which Jesus did, which, if ever they were written in full detail, I suppose, the world itself could not contain the scrolls written.”—21:25.
- DonatelloLv 49 years ago
Because they are told not to question and are not encouraged to think outside of the box. A person who does so is considered to be a "poor lost soul." It is the culture which prevents it and lack of impartial critical thinking.