Despute of Gospel of John The Elder

The Sword of Intellect
Book - 2
Despute of Gospel of John
By: Mohammed Fareeduddin Siddique

Book Number: 2 Document number: 2.08 Dated Updated: 19th March 2004.
DESPUTE OF GOSPEL OF JOHN

[John the elder or John the son of Zebedee?]
_____________________________________________________________________________________
During a chat with a learned Sheperd [Christian Priest], I was reminded of Gospel of John more than 10 times. When I tried to reason out John 1:1, he was repeatedly saying that this Gospel of John was by the one who was close to Jesus pbuh and was close to his chest. I remined him that I had read the Gospel of incarnation in my childhood umpteen times times page by page and word by word to ensure the claims of this sheperd. The empasis of this sheperd made me curious to re-read this Gospel from different versions of the Bible, like the Living Bible. Lot of quesions arose in my mind, why was this diciple not mentioned clearly by other 4 gospel writers. Then a contextual and comparative study revealed the truth. The truth was evident, this Gospel of incarnation [Gospel of John] was NOT written by the diciple of Jesus pbuh John the son of Zebedee, but was written by the diciple of Saul of Tarsus [Paul] his name was also John the Elder. I have circulated this paper to many of the sheperds, none was able to beat the reasons herein, nor were they able to refute it with any of the logical presentations. The questionable doctrine of incarnation, which appears in the beginning of the gospel of John as follows: "In the beginning was the word, and the word was with God, and the word was God." John (1:1) It further States: "And word became flesh and dwelt among us, full of grace and truth; we have beheld his glory as of the only son from the Father." The above words are or have been attributed to John the son of Zebedee in great manupulation and breach of trust. Because John the son-of-Zebedee was a disciple of Jesus pbuh, who makes it appear that the founder of this doctrine was not Paul and his diciple John-the-Elder, but John the Son-of-Zebedee [diciple of Jesus]. This claim may have been sound if the gospel of John was at least as similar and coherent as the first three gospels. However, gospel of John is questioned and doubted by many learned Christians themselves. A large number 2nd century Christians have denied that John-the-deciple of Jesus wrote the gospel. In current times, the authenticity of gospel has been a center of dispute amongst the churches. Irenaeus, Orogen, Clement, and Eusebius were the first [Pauleans] who made claims that this gospel was the work of John, the disciple. Nevertheless, at that time [254 AD], a group of Christians refused to accept that John the son-of-Zebedee wrote this gospel. According to Encyclopedia Britannica the position of this group is as follows: "A positive testimony for the critical conclusion is derived from the existence of a group of Asia Minor Christians who about 165 rejected the gospel as not by John but by Cerinthus. The attribution is doubtless mistaken; but could Christians who were sufficiently numerous to deserve a long discussion by St. Epiphanius in 374-377, and who upheld the Synoptic, stouts opposed the Gnostics and Montanists, and had escaped every special designation till the Bishop nick-named them the "Alogi" (irrational rejecters of the Logos-Gospel), dare in such a time and country, to hold such views had the apostolic origin been incontestable."
Page 2 of 8 ___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ DISCLAIMER: This document in not intended to hurt any sects religious, emotional feelings. Any thing that is written by a human being is susceptible to errors (like the present day Bible). If there is any truth in this paper, then it is from Allh s.w.t, the typo errors (if any) are from myself, Allh s.w.t forgive me for my human / typo errors. I can be contacted at mailto:author@fareedsiddique.com. I will be happy to clarify any doubts from my Christian friends in particular and all others in general.

_____________________________________________________________________________________
Then there is internal evidence that shows that this gospel was not written by disciple John. However, the author of gospel of John was certainly a Jewish theologian who was very well familiar with Jewish thoughts and ideas. It is clear from the Acts 4:13, the disciple John son-of-Zebedee was uneducated. The gospel further reveals that its author was deeply learned and belonged to a rich and noble family. Contrary to that John [disciple] son of Zebedee has a lower status from social point of view. Beside this, contents and style of gospel of John radically differs from other three gospels. The first person to ascribe the fourth gospel as the work of John was "Irenaeus", who, according to Christian scholars is not reliable and not an expert in the filed of critical analysis. For similar reasons, a large group of Christian scholars in recent times view this gospel as a fabrication and opined that it should be included among the other books in Bible. Those Christian scholars, who regard the gospel as correct and who wish to save it from the allegation of fabrication, are virtually unanimous that the author of fourth gospel was not the John [son of Zebedee] but the John the Elder. James Mackinon writes: " It is likely enough that "Irenaeus, whose accuracy and critical discernment are not outstanding has confused him with another John [John the Elder] mentioned by Papias of Hierapolis in Asia, in the second quarter of second century, as well as with the Prophet John of the Book of Revelation." A well-known Christian scholar from Pakistan [Barakatullah] writes: "We have reached the conclusion that the narration of that gospel of John was written by John the son of Zebedee is incorrect." Barakatullah, furthers by saying that: "The truth is that the theologians are not willing to accept without debate that the fourth gospel was written by John son of Zebedee. And generally, theories to the contrary are seen." Barakatullah has endeavored in great details in his book to substantiate his claim that the author of the fourth gospel was not John the son of Zebedee. Why did Barakatullah, a Christian scholar believe to establish this fact? He explains in the following words: "Those theologians who believe that the fourth gospel was written by John son of Zebedee- they do not generally accept the historical significance of this gospel. Their theory is that the fourth gospel is free of historical events, and that its contents belong to author who puts it in the mouth of the word of God." In fact attribution of the fourth gospel as the work of John son of Zebedee, the disciple, places its authenticity in serious jeopardy, the reverend has attempted to show that it was written by John the Elder. His research indicates that John the Elder was also a student of Jesus, but he was not counted among disciples. Since John the Elder was a young person and was honored by Jesus in his last days to include John the Elder in his company. John the Elder was a cultured and learned in the Old Testament. He belonged

_____________________________________________________________________________________
to a noble family that he has expressed in his gospel. Many Christians generally accept this conclusion today. That has resulted in rejecting John son of Zebedee, the disciple as the author of fourth gospel. The above conclusion is without foundation. Apart from protecting the originality of the gospel of John, one cannot see any other reason for it. The question yet to be answered that if John the Elder, beside the twelve disciples was another student of Jesus. Why has he not mentioned by Mark, Luke, and Matthew in their gospels? The fourth gospel indicates that its author was in very close contact with Jesus; also he was loved deeply by Jesus as well. The author of fourth gospel has used the expression in many places "the disciple whom Jesus loved." At the end, the author says that the meaning of that expression is the author of the fourth gospel himself. [See e.g. " One of his disciple, whom Jesus loved was lying close to the breast of Jesus 13:23]. And "So lying thus, close to the breast of Jesus, he said to him, Lord, who is it?" 13:25] We don't see this closeness by and for twelve disciples, but this disciple was so loved that he was allowed to be that close and eat. So, if Jesus was so close to him [author], then the author was not included as thirteenth disciple? How is it rationally acceptable that Judas Iscariot who was regarded as thief (John 12:6) and who betrayed Jesus and caused his master [Jesus] to be arrested [Luke 22:3], be included among the twelve disciples, and not the student of Jesus [the author of fourth gospel], who ate close to [laying] the breast of Jesus? Which none other disciple did, and who was most concerned at Jesus ascension to heaven by reason of separation from him is / was not included among disciples of Jesus? Further, why Mark, Luke, and Matthew in their gospels, which according to Christians contains a complete description and details of Jesus' life, even mentioning ordinary persons who were connected with Jesus like Mary Magdalene, Martha in reference of Jesus's donkey, completely fail to make any reference to this alleged student of Jesus? IF there was a disciple named John the Elder, beside from John son of Zebedee, the disciple, then why the authors of all four gospels failed to explain the distinction between two Johns to avoid confusion? Among the twelve disciples we know that there were TWO [James] (1) James son of Zebedee (2) James son of Alphaeus. Similarly, there were TWO persons with the name of Judas (1) Judas son of James (2) Judas Iscariot. The authors of four gospels have distinguished between them by mentioning them separately in order to avoid confusion. [See e.g. Matthew 10:6, Luke 6:14, Acts 1:13] So, if there were two persons among the disciples of Jesus by the name of John, then why the authors of gospels did not dispel the confusion as the authors of four gospels did in the cases of James and Judas? Further, if there was a disciple of Jesus by the name of John the Elder, then where did he go after the ascension of Jesus? The efforts and activities of disciples of Jesus after his

_____________________________________________________________________________________
departure are described in detail in the book of Acts. But there is no mention of any John the Elder. It cannot be assumed or said that he [John the Elder] died immediately after the ascension of Jesus. Because the gospel of John was written very much after Jesus. It is stated therein that " and this is famous amongst the disciples-author of fourth gospel will live till the day of judgment (21:23). Therefore, all Christian theologians, who regard John the Elder as separate from the John the son of Zebedee, the disciple are of the view that John the Elder remained alive for a considerable period after Jesus to the extent that Polycrap became his student. The evidence is indisputable that John the Elder was not a disciple of Jesus. The verse at the end of gospel of John states that:
" This is the disciple who is bearing witness to these things, and who has written these things, and we know that this testimony is true (21:24)." The self witness, John the Elder bearing witness for self...! and self [John the elders] testimony on behalf of rest of the humanity...! Bear in mind the his lie in the first verse John 1:1 and this last verse, a self testimony on behalf of the rest. Also see my paper Lie of the word. Let us keep this fact in mind that the majority of Christian scholars believes that above verse is a later insertion and is not by the author of gospel of John. The well known commentator of the Bible Westcott, who is very cautious and careful to criticize the Bible, says in this regards [quoted by Streeter, p 430]: " The two verses appear to be separate notes attached to the gospel before its publication. The form of verse 24 contrasted with that of XIX 35 shows conclusively that it is not the witness of the evangelist. The words were probably added by Epaesian Elders, to whom the preceding narrative had been given both orally and in writing." This view is supported by the well-known writer of modern times Bishop Gore, and this is the reason why these two verses are not found in the codex sineticus. Therefore, one cannot say that the author of these verses was a disciple of Jesus. It establishes beyond any doubt that the author of the fourth gospel is neither John son of Zebedee, the disciple nor John the Elder or any other disciple of Jesus. In view of the above facts the author of fourth gospel was a person who lived very much later than the disciples of Jesus and who acquired his knowledge under Paul and his students. According to "Westcott", in order to ascribe gospel of John, son of Zebedee, the disciple, certain sentences were added which includes the personal experience of the writer, with a view to refuting the arguments of some Gnostic sects of that times who rejected the socalled divinity of Jesus. It is undisputed in the academic world that alterations in Bible were common and continue in order to fight opposing sects of the time. Professor Streeter, the well-known Christian scholar of modern time writes in his book [The Four Gospels p 4] in the clearest terms possible and I quote: " Then, in the fourth gospel we find an addition to the text, admittedly nor by the original author which makes a definite statement as to authorship, is it not more probable that it

_____________________________________________________________________________________
was made at some later date perhaps also in some other locality, and was intended to assert a view as to the authorship of the book from which certain person at that time or place dissented? And that such dissent did exist in the second century we shall see shortly. That being so, the addition of the words "this is the disciple which.wrote these things" is to be interpreted as an attempt to settle a debated question, and is, therefore, additional evidence of the existence of doubts in regard to the authorship of the Gospel." Hence, it is not without wonder, that under such circumstances the fourth gospel and the letters of John were written by a student of Paul, and people later made certain alterations to establish that the author of fourth gospel has met personally with Jesus and has been in his company, which by the way is not true. Keeping the general approach on these times in mind, this conclusion appears to be correct. In Christian view the fourth gospel may have been written by John the Elder, but he was not a disciple of Jesus. By adopting the views of professor Streeter, the author of fourth gospel was John the Elder, but that: [Streeter "The Four Gospels p 443] "John the Elder is described by Papias as disciple of the Lord "by Polycrap as one" who has seen the Lord. "We need not suppose that he had done much more when 'see' Him, brought perhaps as a boy of twelve years old to Jerusalem by his father on pilgrimage to the Passover. And he may have been among the crowd that looked on at the crucifixion, people in those days were not careful to keep such sights from children. In that case by AD 95 he would have reached the age of seventy-seven. The First Epistle of John was obviously written by a man of advance years, who can pass quite naturally from "brethren" to my little children" in the same paragraph (IJN III 13 and 18). This last phase would hardly have been written by a man under seventy." There is, then no difficulty in supposing that John the Elder wrote the fourth gospel AD 90-95 at the age of seventy of above.
Conclusion of this paper

Christian missionary and evangelists desperately attempt to save the fourth gospel from being declared as created. But if one can avoid fruitless attempts of justification and accept the theory as it is, the following conclusion is inevitable. 1. The author of fourth gospel was NOT John son of Zebedee, the disciple, but John the Elder. 2. John the Elder is NOT among the disciples of Jesus. 3. John the Elder, saw Jesus once at the age of twelve [12], but did NOT get any opportunity of serving Jesus or hearing his teachings. 4. John the Elder saw the Jesus in the last stage of crucifixion.

_____________________________________________________________________________________
5. He was NOT a citizen of Jerusalem, but he was a resident of Southern regions of Canaan. 6. After Jesus and until AD 95, there is NO record or any account where he lived? And from whom he acquired knowledge? Whose company he was often in/with? And what relationship he had with the disciples of Jesus? 7. On or about 95 AD, at the age of 70+ he wrote the gospel of John in which he mentions for the first time the doctrine of incarnation. 8. Later, an addition was made at the end of the gospel that indicated that its author was the disciple John the son of Zebedee or some beloved disciple of Jesus. The conclusions set forth above are hardly a result of any Muslims' reasoning, but are rather the views of Christian theologians in order to save the fourth gospel from being declared as created. The above conclusions will lead to undeniable facts cited below. (a) The doctrine of incarnation cannot be ascribed to Jesus or any of his disciples. (b) A person who at the age of twelve only saw Jesus but did not acquire any knowledge from him first wrote this doctrine after the ascension of Jesus. (c) The person who presents this doctrine is unknown, apart from his writing, his condition and situation is unknown. (d) What type of person he was? What were his beliefs? How did he come up with this doctrine? What was his relationship with the disciples? (e) This doctrine of incarnation came into being and/or inserted in the Bible around 95 AD when his age was 70 and 28 years had passed since the death of Paul. (f) Because Paul had died before him, and Paul had clearly expounded the doctrine of incarnation in his letters, which proves that the first person to expound the doctrine of incarnation was not John the Elder, but Paul. (g) Let us not forget this fact that any statement of Jesus neither supports the doctrine of incarnation, nor was it espoused by any of his disciples. The Noble Quran, 2:77-78 Know they not Allah Knoweth what they conceal and what they reveal? And there are among them illiterates, who know not the Book (i.e., the Bible), but (see therein their own) desires, and they do nothing but conjecture. Then woe to those who write the Book with their own hands, and then say: 'This is from Allah,' To traffic with it for a miserable price! Woe to them for what their hands do write, and for the gain they make thereby.

_____________________________________________________________________________________
O my Christian reader! Respond to your Lord before a Day comes from Allah [S.W.T], which cannot be turned back. On that Day you will have no hiding-place and no means of denial. (Noble Quran, Surat ash-Shura: 47) Except for those who are steadfast and do right actions. They will receive forgiveness and a large reward. (Surah Hud, 11) So far, I have described the Qur'anic understanding of patience and have highlighted how it differs from the understanding held by those who are far from religion of Islam by comparing their behavior and the disbelief of the followers of St. Paul. I invite you now, O my Christian reader, to use your intellect and be a true believer, a truthful submitter to your and my God Allah [ .] May Allah [ ] bestow upon you his mercy and help you understand the fallacies of the Christian Pauline religion of Saul of Tarus...Ameen, ya Rabbal Izzah. Color codes: Red italics are the words of the present day bible. Blue italics are the Holy verses of Quran Al-Kareem, Translations by Yousuf Ali / M. Pickthal. Normal blacks are my words.

Despute of Gospel of John The Elder

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originaltitel

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Despute of Gospel of John The Elder

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

The Sword of Intellect

Despute of Gospel of John

By: Mohammed Fareeduddin Siddique

DESPUTE OF GOSPEL OF JOHN

DESPUTE OF GOSPEL OF JOHN

DESPUTE OF GOSPEL OF JOHN

DESPUTE OF GOSPEL OF JOHN

DESPUTE OF GOSPEL OF JOHN

Conclusion of this paper

DESPUTE OF GOSPEL OF JOHN

DESPUTE OF GOSPEL OF JOHN

Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen