Should the Gospel of John be removed from the Bible?

[Big Boy Johnson]

Now, there are those who claim that the choice to include (or not include ) certain books in the canon was itself inspired by God.

Those claiming this is not true are making the claim that the Lord is derelict in His duty as the All Powerful God.

They apparently think the Lord is not powerful enough and not influential enough to control what goes in to His Canon.

They think this because they don't know the Lord.

 

[Wick Stick]

Now, there are those who claim that the choice to include (or not include ) certain books in the canon was itself inspired by God.

Now, Luther objected to the choice to include James. I hear Revelation was controversial. Marcion objected to anything not written by Paul. The Catholics at Trent included the apocrypha. And somebody here once made a pitch to include Spurgeon’s Evening and Morning devotional in the canon. It takes all kinds to make a world.

I guess I'm at a point where I don't care much about canon. I do care about inspiration.

They aren't the same thing, but the church acts like they are.

 

[Big Boy Johnson]

I guess I'm at a point where I don't care much about canon. I do care about inspiration.

If you actually cared about what God inspired, then you'd accept His Canon and would quit listening to the devil who seeks to lead people to be scripture twisting cherry pickers

The only place to find God's Inspired Word is in His Canon

 

[Lambano]

They apparently think the Lord is not powerful enough and not influential enough to control what goes in to His Canon.

Or maybe the Lord isn't as concerned about the Canon as some people are..

 

[Big Boy Johnson]

Or maybe the Lord isn't as concerned about the Canon as some people are..

Yeah, the devil always claims the Word of the Lord is meaningless as well

 

[Eternally Grateful]

How would it look if some wrote an article today, to the people in the US, and started off by saying “Now there is in New York City twin towers, which are part of the World Trade Center”?

It depends. are they talking about a time when the world trade centers were still there. Or today.

John was not talkin about today. He was writing a letter in 1st person. Writing it as he walked through the narrative.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with the way he wrote. Unless you do not like his words. and want to get rid of them for some reason (like Luther wanted to remove james)

 

[grafted branch]

John was not talkin about today. He was writing a letter in 1st person. Writing it as he walked through the narrative.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with the way he wrote. Unless you do not like his words. and want to get rid of them for some reason (like Luther wanted to remove james)

Ok, we have two different ways of looking at how John wrote. You are saying when he says “now” he means now at the time in the narrative timeline, not now when he was writing. I’m saying when he says “now” he means at the time he was writing not at the time in the narrative timeline.

Let’s compare those two styles of writing in another verse.

John 12:31 Now is the judgment of this world: now shall the prince of this world be cast out.

Based on the two writing styles either this happened at that moment in the narrative timeline or that statement was true at the time John wrote it.

If the “now” in John 12:31 takes place in the narrative timeline, prior to the cross, then moving forward in the narrative timeline in John 13:27 Satan enters Judas. Since Satan is still on earth at that time that puts the Revelation 12 casting out of Satan from heaven happening prior to the cross and Satan knowing he has a short time on earth in verse 12 also taking place prior to the cross.

If the “now” in John 12:31 was true when John wrote it, then that fits with the interpretation of the millennium happening at that time and the Revelation 20:4 judgement that was given them that sat upon the thrones happening at that time and also Satan being bound at that time.

Do you think Satan had only a short period of time just prior to the cross?

 

[Davy]

IT'S ALL A HOAX, THE ORIGINAL POST IS.

That bunch of garbage is brought to you by the same proponents of TEXTUAL CRITICISM that had many New Testament Scriptures removed or modified to destroy the Diety of Jesus Christ from modern English Bible translations, like the NIV for one.

And there are scholars that sit on the panels of TEXTUAL CRITICISM that ARE NOT EVEN CHRISTIAN BELIEVERS!


2 Cor 6:14-15
14 Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness?

15 And what concord hath Christ with Belial? or what part hath he that believeth with an infidel?
KJV

 

[Wick Stick]

Now, there are those who claim that the choice to include (or not include ) certain books in the canon was itself inspired by God.

If so, they probably haven't studied the history of it. Canonization has mostly been a political process over the centuries.

And somebody here once made a pitch to include Spurgeon’s Evening and Morning devotional in the canon.

Now who would do such a thing?

 

[Rockerduck]

The Clown never came back. Its a hoax.

 

[Ronald Nolette]

Introduction: The Problem of the Fourth Gospel

While traditionally viewed as the work of John the Apostle, modern critical scholarship has raised serious questions about its authorship, dating, and theological motivations. My examination will try to analyze ten major areas of concern that collectively undermine the Gospel's claims to historical reliability and divine inspiration..

1. The Insurmountable Dating Problem

Conservative estimates place its composition between 90-110 CE, while more critical scholars often argue for an even later date.

This means that at least 60 to 80 years had passed between Jesus’ ministry (c. 27–30 CE) and the composition of the Gospel of John. Given that the average life expectancy in first-century Palestine was around 35 to 40 years, an author claiming to be an eyewitness would need to be over 70 years old at the time of writing—making such a scenario seem highly unlikely."

The advanced Christology present in John (e.g., the pre-existent Logos in 1:1) reflects theological developments that took decades to emerge. As noted by theologian James Dunn, this represents a clear evolution beyond the more primitive Christology found in Mark and other Gospels.

Gospel of John was first mentioned by the time of Irenaeus (c. 180 CE). The author of the Gospel of John claims to have known Jesus personally, referring to 'The Disciple whom Jesus loved' as a source. However, the Gospel’s late composition, advanced theological development, and signs of later editing suggest it couldn't have been written by an intimate eyewitness.

2. The "Beloved Disciple" Enigma

The mysterious figure described in Gospel of John: the "Disciple whom Jesus loved" presents numerous historical and literary problems:

• Complete Absence in Synoptic Tradition: This privileged disciple, who reclines next to Jesus at the Last Supper (John 13:23) and receives special revelation, never appears in Matthew, Mark, or Luke. This absence is particularly striking given that:

• The Synoptics name multiple disciples
• They record Jesus' inner circle (Peter, James, John)
• They do not mention any secret "teachings" or knowledge that was given to apostle John exclusively

• Competition with Peter: The Gospel consistently elevates the Beloved Disciple above Peter in key moments:

• At the empty tomb (20:2-8), the Beloved Disciple outruns Peter
• At the crucifixion (19:26-27), Jesus entrusts his mother to this disciple
• The appendix (chapter 21) seems to defend this disciple's authority against Petrine claims

• Secret Teaching Claims: Passages like John 13:23-26 and 21:20-24 suggest this disciple received special revelation unavailable to others. This resembles later Gnostic claims of secret knowledge, raising questions about authenticity.

As scholar Raymond Brown concluded in his landmark study, this figure likely represents the idealized founder of the Johannine community rather than a historical individual.

3. Dionysian Worship and Hellenistic Influence
The symbolic structure of John's Gospel shows striking parallels with Dionysian religion that go beyond superficial similarities:

• *The Cana Miracle (2:1-11)*: This first "sign" transforms water into wine, which:

• Mirrors Dionysus's central miracle
• Occurs at a wedding feast (Dionysus was patron of weddings)
• Produces an excessive amount (about 120 gallons) of superior wine

• Vine Imagery: The extended "I am the true vine" discourse (15:1-17) appropriates Dionysian symbolism while asserting Christian superiority. In Greek religion, the vine represented:

• Divine ecstasy
• Spiritual intoxication
• Union with the god

• Blood/Wine Symbolism: John 6:53-56's shocking language about drinking blood (absolutely forbidden in Judaism, Leviticus 17:10-14) makes more sense in a Hellenistic context where wine represented the god's blood in mystery religions.

Gospel of John tries to present Jesus as better than Dionysus throughout the Gospel.
Many modern scholars, such as Robert M. Price note that these parallels are too extensive to be coincidental, suggesting conscious adaptation of pagan motifs for Christian evangelism.

4. Christological Differences across Gospels
John's portrait of Jesus differs radically from Synoptic tradition in key areas:

• Dualism: John's light/darkness framework (1:5, 3:19-21, 8:12, etc.) reflects:

• Jewish Apocalypticism
• Qumran community theology
• Zoroastrian influence

This represents a significant development beyond Hebrew Bible thought.

• Eschatology: While the Synoptics emphasize future judgment, John promotes "realized eschatology" where:

• Eternal life is a present possession (5:24)
• Judgment is already occurring (3:18-19)
• Resurrection is spiritualized (11:25-26)

5. Chronological and Topographical Problems

John's narrative contains numerous inconsistencies with Synoptic accounts:
• Ministry Duration: John's three-year framework (implied by multiple Passovers) contradicts the Synoptic single-year ministry.

• Temple Incident: Placing the Temple cleansing at the beginning of Jesus' ministry (2:13-22) rather than the end creates logical problems:

• Why no mention in Synoptics of an early incident?
• How could Jesus continue teaching there if he caused such disruption early on?

• Geographical Issues: John's Jesus:

• Makes multiple trips to Jerusalem unlike the Synoptics' single journey
• Conducts a Judean ministry before Galilean work (contrary to Synoptic sequence)
• Places the calling of disciples after the Baptist's imprisonment (1:35-42), unlike Mark 1:14-20

6. Conflicts with Old Testament
Several Johannine doctrines directly oppose Torah teaching:
• Incarnation: The claim that "the Word became flesh" (1:14) violates:

• Deuteronomy's strict monotheism (6:4)
• Prophetic warnings against divine embodiment (Isaiah 42:8)
• "God cannot dwell inside us in flesh'' - Exodus 25–40; Leviticus 16

• Replacement Theology: John systematically replaces Jewish institutions:

• Temple replaced by Jesus' body (2:21)
• Jesus as the new Moses (John 6:32–35)

• Predestination Language: Passages like John 6:44 ("No one can come to me unless drawn by the Father") seemingly contradict Deuteronomy's emphasis on free will (30:19).

7. Controversial and Troubling Passages
Several Johannine texts have proven historically problematic:

• Anti-Jewish Polemic: John 8:44's "your father is the devil" charge has fueled centuries of antisemitism.

• Exclusivism: John 14:6's claim that Jesus is the only way to God represents:

• A departure from Jewish universalism
• A late theological development
• A potential political statement against competing Christian groups

• Sacramentalism: The extreme realism of John 6:53-56 ("eat my flesh... drink my blood"):

8. The Johannine Community Context
The Gospel's distinctive features likely reflect its community's historical situation:

• Synagogue Expulsion: References to being "put out of the synagogue" (9:22, 12:42, 16:2) match what we know of the Birkat haMinim (c. 85 CE), a curse against heretics added to synagogue prayers.

• Sectarian Mentality: The community's:

• Dualistic worldview
• Claim to special revelation
• Resembles sectarian groups like the Qumran community.

9. The Prologue is inspired by Philo of Alexandria
John 1:1-18's Logos theology shows clear dependence on Greek thought:
• Philo of Alexandria: The Jewish philosopher's concept of the Logos as:

• Divine intermediary
• Cosmic principle
• God's rational expression

= Provides exact parallels to John's prologue.

The prologue is clearly dependent Stoic Influences; therefore, it is not original to author himself and definitely not the word of God.
The Stoic Logos as:

• Universal reason
• Ordering principle
• Divine spark in humanity

Conclusion:
The cumulative weight of evidence suggests the Fourth Gospel is:

• A late theological composition (and its further development)
• Shaped by community conflicts and cultural adaptation
• Highly Influenced by Hellenistic religion
• At considerable remove from historical events

It cannot be considered either:

• An eyewitness account
• Divinely inspired in any unique sense
• Theologically aligned with other Gospels or Old Testament
• Written by actual apostle of John

Well all your philosophizing is 20 centuries removed and all these scholares are making their egghead guesses.

Johns gospel is an excellent apologetic against Gnosticism which is what John wrote it for.

So you are saying at least 17 centuries of faithful believers have been deceived and you along with a few others have the true light as to the canoniicty of the gospel? Sorry- cannot buy it.

 

[Lambano]

If so, they probably haven't studied the history of it. Canonization has mostly been a political process over the centuries.

But was it an INSPIRED political process?

How would we know?

 

[Big Boy Johnson]

But was it an INSPIRED political process?

How would we know?

Too bad fewer and fewer people trust the Lord to be the One Who decided what went in to His Canon

These people have been confused and befuddled by the devil

Like this guy:

 

[Lambano]

Too bad fewer and fewer people trust the Lord to be the One Who decided what went in to His Canon

Too bad too many people put their trust in the Canon instead of the Christ to whom it points.

 

[Big Boy Johnson]

Too bad too many people put their trust in the Canon instead of the Christ to whom it points.

As though the Lord did not control what went in to His Canon which is His Word in written form.

These people continue to be confused and befuddled by the devil

 

[Scott Downey]

Many of the disputed points in that list are found in the scriptural writings of Paul, are they now going to attack Paul's church letters too?

You know it! They do.

 

[LoveYeshua]

Introduction: The Problem of the Fourth Gospel

While traditionally viewed as the work of John the Apostle, modern critical scholarship has raised serious questions about its authorship, dating, and theological motivations. My examination will try to analyze ten major areas of concern that collectively undermine the Gospel's claims to historical reliability and divine inspiration..

1. The Insurmountable Dating Problem

Conservative estimates place its composition between 90-110 CE, while more critical scholars often argue for an even later date.

This means that at least 60 to 80 years had passed between Jesus’ ministry (c. 27–30 CE) and the composition of the Gospel of John. Given that the average life expectancy in first-century Palestine was around 35 to 40 years, an author claiming to be an eyewitness would need to be over 70 years old at the time of writing—making such a scenario seem highly unlikely."

The advanced Christology present in John (e.g., the pre-existent Logos in 1:1) reflects theological developments that took decades to emerge. As noted by theologian James Dunn, this represents a clear evolution beyond the more primitive Christology found in Mark and other Gospels.

Gospel of John was first mentioned by the time of Irenaeus (c. 180 CE). The author of the Gospel of John claims to have known Jesus personally, referring to 'The Disciple whom Jesus loved' as a source. However, the Gospel’s late composition, advanced theological development, and signs of later editing suggest it couldn't have been written by an intimate eyewitness.

2. The "Beloved Disciple" Enigma

The mysterious figure described in Gospel of John: the "Disciple whom Jesus loved" presents numerous historical and literary problems:

• Complete Absence in Synoptic Tradition: This privileged disciple, who reclines next to Jesus at the Last Supper (John 13:23) and receives special revelation, never appears in Matthew, Mark, or Luke. This absence is particularly striking given that:

• The Synoptics name multiple disciples
• They record Jesus' inner circle (Peter, James, John)
• They do not mention any secret "teachings" or knowledge that was given to apostle John exclusively

• Competition with Peter: The Gospel consistently elevates the Beloved Disciple above Peter in key moments:

• At the empty tomb (20:2-8), the Beloved Disciple outruns Peter
• At the crucifixion (19:26-27), Jesus entrusts his mother to this disciple
• The appendix (chapter 21) seems to defend this disciple's authority against Petrine claims

• Secret Teaching Claims: Passages like John 13:23-26 and 21:20-24 suggest this disciple received special revelation unavailable to others. This resembles later Gnostic claims of secret knowledge, raising questions about authenticity.

As scholar Raymond Brown concluded in his landmark study, this figure likely represents the idealized founder of the Johannine community rather than a historical individual.

3. Dionysian Worship and Hellenistic Influence
The symbolic structure of John's Gospel shows striking parallels with Dionysian religion that go beyond superficial similarities:

• *The Cana Miracle (2:1-11)*: This first "sign" transforms water into wine, which:

• Mirrors Dionysus's central miracle
• Occurs at a wedding feast (Dionysus was patron of weddings)
• Produces an excessive amount (about 120 gallons) of superior wine

• Vine Imagery: The extended "I am the true vine" discourse (15:1-17) appropriates Dionysian symbolism while asserting Christian superiority. In Greek religion, the vine represented:

• Divine ecstasy
• Spiritual intoxication
• Union with the god

• Blood/Wine Symbolism: John 6:53-56's shocking language about drinking blood (absolutely forbidden in Judaism, Leviticus 17:10-14) makes more sense in a Hellenistic context where wine represented the god's blood in mystery religions.

Gospel of John tries to present Jesus as better than Dionysus throughout the Gospel.
Many modern scholars, such as Robert M. Price note that these parallels are too extensive to be coincidental, suggesting conscious adaptation of pagan motifs for Christian evangelism.

4. Christological Differences across Gospels
John's portrait of Jesus differs radically from Synoptic tradition in key areas:

• Dualism: John's light/darkness framework (1:5, 3:19-21, 8:12, etc.) reflects:

• Jewish Apocalypticism
• Qumran community theology
• Zoroastrian influence

This represents a significant development beyond Hebrew Bible thought.

• Eschatology: While the Synoptics emphasize future judgment, John promotes "realized eschatology" where:

• Eternal life is a present possession (5:24)
• Judgment is already occurring (3:18-19)
• Resurrection is spiritualized (11:25-26)

5. Chronological and Topographical Problems

John's narrative contains numerous inconsistencies with Synoptic accounts:
• Ministry Duration: John's three-year framework (implied by multiple Passovers) contradicts the Synoptic single-year ministry.

• Temple Incident: Placing the Temple cleansing at the beginning of Jesus' ministry (2:13-22) rather than the end creates logical problems:

• Why no mention in Synoptics of an early incident?
• How could Jesus continue teaching there if he caused such disruption early on?

• Geographical Issues: John's Jesus:

• Makes multiple trips to Jerusalem unlike the Synoptics' single journey
• Conducts a Judean ministry before Galilean work (contrary to Synoptic sequence)
• Places the calling of disciples after the Baptist's imprisonment (1:35-42), unlike Mark 1:14-20

6. Conflicts with Old Testament
Several Johannine doctrines directly oppose Torah teaching:
• Incarnation: The claim that "the Word became flesh" (1:14) violates:

• Deuteronomy's strict monotheism (6:4)
• Prophetic warnings against divine embodiment (Isaiah 42:8)
• "God cannot dwell inside us in flesh'' - Exodus 25–40; Leviticus 16

• Replacement Theology: John systematically replaces Jewish institutions:

• Temple replaced by Jesus' body (2:21)
• Jesus as the new Moses (John 6:32–35)

• Predestination Language: Passages like John 6:44 ("No one can come to me unless drawn by the Father") seemingly contradict Deuteronomy's emphasis on free will (30:19).

7. Controversial and Troubling Passages
Several Johannine texts have proven historically problematic:

• Anti-Jewish Polemic: John 8:44's "your father is the devil" charge has fueled centuries of antisemitism.

• Exclusivism: John 14:6's claim that Jesus is the only way to God represents:

• A departure from Jewish universalism
• A late theological development
• A potential political statement against competing Christian groups

• Sacramentalism: The extreme realism of John 6:53-56 ("eat my flesh... drink my blood"):

8. The Johannine Community Context
The Gospel's distinctive features likely reflect its community's historical situation:

• Synagogue Expulsion: References to being "put out of the synagogue" (9:22, 12:42, 16:2) match what we know of the Birkat haMinim (c. 85 CE), a curse against heretics added to synagogue prayers.

• Sectarian Mentality: The community's:

• Dualistic worldview
• Claim to special revelation
• Resembles sectarian groups like the Qumran community.

9. The Prologue is inspired by Philo of Alexandria
John 1:1-18's Logos theology shows clear dependence on Greek thought:
• Philo of Alexandria: The Jewish philosopher's concept of the Logos as:

• Divine intermediary
• Cosmic principle
• God's rational expression

= Provides exact parallels to John's prologue.

The prologue is clearly dependent Stoic Influences; therefore, it is not original to author himself and definitely not the word of God.
The Stoic Logos as:

• Universal reason
• Ordering principle
• Divine spark in humanity

Conclusion:
The cumulative weight of evidence suggests the Fourth Gospel is:

• A late theological composition (and its further development)
• Shaped by community conflicts and cultural adaptation
• Highly Influenced by Hellenistic religion
• At considerable remove from historical events

It cannot be considered either:

• An eyewitness account
• Divinely inspired in any unique sense
• Theologically aligned with other Gospels or Old Testament
• Written by actual apostle of John

John IS one of the most beautiful and obviously a FULLY GOD inspired through the Holy Spirit Book of the Bible. To say otherwise if absurd, Clown, If you believe this you understand nothing.

 

[Wick Stick]

But was it an INSPIRED political process?

Lol but was it CLEAN dirt?

 

[shepherdsword]

Introduction: The Problem of the Fourth Gospel

While traditionally viewed as the work of John the Apostle, modern critical scholarship has raised serious questions about its authorship, dating, and theological motivations. My examination will try to analyze ten major areas of concern that collectively undermine the Gospel's claims to historical reliability and divine inspiration..

1. The Insurmountable Dating Problem

Conservative estimates place its composition between 90-110 CE, while more critical scholars often argue for an even later date.

This means that at least 60 to 80 years had passed between Jesus’ ministry (c. 27–30 CE) and the composition of the Gospel of John. Given that the average life expectancy in first-century Palestine was around 35 to 40 years, an author claiming to be an eyewitness would need to be over 70 years old at the time of writing—making such a scenario seem highly unlikely."

The advanced Christology present in John (e.g., the pre-existent Logos in 1:1) reflects theological developments that took decades to emerge. As noted by theologian James Dunn, this represents a clear evolution beyond the more primitive Christology found in Mark and other Gospels.

Gospel of John was first mentioned by the time of Irenaeus (c. 180 CE). The author of the Gospel of John claims to have known Jesus personally, referring to 'The Disciple whom Jesus loved' as a source. However, the Gospel’s late composition, advanced theological development, and signs of later editing suggest it couldn't have been written by an intimate eyewitness.

2. The "Beloved Disciple" Enigma

The mysterious figure described in Gospel of John: the "Disciple whom Jesus loved" presents numerous historical and literary problems:

• Complete Absence in Synoptic Tradition: This privileged disciple, who reclines next to Jesus at the Last Supper (John 13:23) and receives special revelation, never appears in Matthew, Mark, or Luke. This absence is particularly striking given that:

• The Synoptics name multiple disciples
• They record Jesus' inner circle (Peter, James, John)
• They do not mention any secret "teachings" or knowledge that was given to apostle John exclusively

• Competition with Peter: The Gospel consistently elevates the Beloved Disciple above Peter in key moments:

• At the empty tomb (20:2-8), the Beloved Disciple outruns Peter
• At the crucifixion (19:26-27), Jesus entrusts his mother to this disciple
• The appendix (chapter 21) seems to defend this disciple's authority against Petrine claims

• Secret Teaching Claims: Passages like John 13:23-26 and 21:20-24 suggest this disciple received special revelation unavailable to others. This resembles later Gnostic claims of secret knowledge, raising questions about authenticity.

As scholar Raymond Brown concluded in his landmark study, this figure likely represents the idealized founder of the Johannine community rather than a historical individual.

3. Dionysian Worship and Hellenistic Influence
The symbolic structure of John's Gospel shows striking parallels with Dionysian religion that go beyond superficial similarities:

• *The Cana Miracle (2:1-11)*: This first "sign" transforms water into wine, which:

• Mirrors Dionysus's central miracle
• Occurs at a wedding feast (Dionysus was patron of weddings)
• Produces an excessive amount (about 120 gallons) of superior wine

• Vine Imagery: The extended "I am the true vine" discourse (15:1-17) appropriates Dionysian symbolism while asserting Christian superiority. In Greek religion, the vine represented:

• Divine ecstasy
• Spiritual intoxication
• Union with the god

• Blood/Wine Symbolism: John 6:53-56's shocking language about drinking blood (absolutely forbidden in Judaism, Leviticus 17:10-14) makes more sense in a Hellenistic context where wine represented the god's blood in mystery religions.

Gospel of John tries to present Jesus as better than Dionysus throughout the Gospel.
Many modern scholars, such as Robert M. Price note that these parallels are too extensive to be coincidental, suggesting conscious adaptation of pagan motifs for Christian evangelism.

4. Christological Differences across Gospels
John's portrait of Jesus differs radically from Synoptic tradition in key areas:

• Dualism: John's light/darkness framework (1:5, 3:19-21, 8:12, etc.) reflects:

• Jewish Apocalypticism
• Qumran community theology
• Zoroastrian influence

This represents a significant development beyond Hebrew Bible thought.

• Eschatology: While the Synoptics emphasize future judgment, John promotes "realized eschatology" where:

• Eternal life is a present possession (5:24)
• Judgment is already occurring (3:18-19)
• Resurrection is spiritualized (11:25-26)

5. Chronological and Topographical Problems

John's narrative contains numerous inconsistencies with Synoptic accounts:
• Ministry Duration: John's three-year framework (implied by multiple Passovers) contradicts the Synoptic single-year ministry.

• Temple Incident: Placing the Temple cleansing at the beginning of Jesus' ministry (2:13-22) rather than the end creates logical problems:

• Why no mention in Synoptics of an early incident?
• How could Jesus continue teaching there if he caused such disruption early on?

• Geographical Issues: John's Jesus:

• Makes multiple trips to Jerusalem unlike the Synoptics' single journey
• Conducts a Judean ministry before Galilean work (contrary to Synoptic sequence)
• Places the calling of disciples after the Baptist's imprisonment (1:35-42), unlike Mark 1:14-20

6. Conflicts with Old Testament
Several Johannine doctrines directly oppose Torah teaching:
• Incarnation: The claim that "the Word became flesh" (1:14) violates:

• Deuteronomy's strict monotheism (6:4)
• Prophetic warnings against divine embodiment (Isaiah 42:8)
• "God cannot dwell inside us in flesh'' - Exodus 25–40; Leviticus 16

• Replacement Theology: John systematically replaces Jewish institutions:

• Temple replaced by Jesus' body (2:21)
• Jesus as the new Moses (John 6:32–35)

• Predestination Language: Passages like John 6:44 ("No one can come to me unless drawn by the Father") seemingly contradict Deuteronomy's emphasis on free will (30:19).

7. Controversial and Troubling Passages
Several Johannine texts have proven historically problematic:

• Anti-Jewish Polemic: John 8:44's "your father is the devil" charge has fueled centuries of antisemitism.

• Exclusivism: John 14:6's claim that Jesus is the only way to God represents:

• A departure from Jewish universalism
• A late theological development
• A potential political statement against competing Christian groups

• Sacramentalism: The extreme realism of John 6:53-56 ("eat my flesh... drink my blood"):

8. The Johannine Community Context
The Gospel's distinctive features likely reflect its community's historical situation:

• Synagogue Expulsion: References to being "put out of the synagogue" (9:22, 12:42, 16:2) match what we know of the Birkat haMinim (c. 85 CE), a curse against heretics added to synagogue prayers.

• Sectarian Mentality: The community's:

• Dualistic worldview
• Claim to special revelation
• Resembles sectarian groups like the Qumran community.

9. The Prologue is inspired by Philo of Alexandria
John 1:1-18's Logos theology shows clear dependence on Greek thought:
• Philo of Alexandria: The Jewish philosopher's concept of the Logos as:

• Divine intermediary
• Cosmic principle
• God's rational expression

= Provides exact parallels to John's prologue.

The prologue is clearly dependent Stoic Influences; therefore, it is not original to author himself and definitely not the word of God.
The Stoic Logos as:

• Universal reason
• Ordering principle
• Divine spark in humanity

Conclusion:
The cumulative weight of evidence suggests the Fourth Gospel is:

• A late theological composition (and its further development)
• Shaped by community conflicts and cultural adaptation
• Highly Influenced by Hellenistic religion
• At considerable remove from historical events

It cannot be considered either:

• An eyewitness account
• Divinely inspired in any unique sense
• Theologically aligned with other Gospels or Old Testament
• Written by actual apostle of John

You sure live up to your username.