The "Gospel" Of John

quote:

---

"he" is, or used to be, the gender-neutral pronoun case in the english language.

---

No offense taken. Since we don't always know gender on this forum, I understood it as you intended.For the record though or inquiring minds, I am a She.

---

A gentle answer turns away wrath, But a harsh word stirs up anger.

The dpardo switch!Since you jumped to 1 Peter, does that mean you understand that the speech supposedly made by Peter in Acts is not in agreement with the message in the Book of John?The Book of 1 Peter is not considered to be written by the apostle Peter. It is considered to be written about 80-110CE. You'll have to research that yourself. If you read the Book of 1 Peter you will notice that the overall theme is not the same as Peter's speech in Acts. 1 Peter sounds more like Paul.Concerning repentance and the Book of John:You get points for trying.The story in John 7:53-8:11 is not in the earlier manuscripts, so it is a later addition. This also shows the book has been altered.Repentance and Sin
Literally repentance in the NT is a change in mind or heart.
Sin is to miss the mark or wander from the Laws of God.The focus of the story in John 5 is the Sabbath. Jesus healing on the Sabbath and the man carrying his mat on the Sabbath. Repentance is not the theme of the story.Read the stories.

---

A gentle answer turns away wrath, But a harsh word stirs up anger.

Interesting!I did some reading. This story apparently had also been placed in the Book of Luke at one time.It seems the Church Fathers or scribes had no problem excluding or including portions that suit their purpose. Pieces to a puzzle.I find the story itself interesting.The story states the woman was brought before Jesus to trap him.
As I understand it the Churches who used the story used it to show forgiveness.Could the story be an actual representation?The Law of Moses says to stone such women, but there is also the test of the bitter water (Numbers 5:20-31), which doesn't seem to end in death (unless the water got you). This was for suspicion of adultery.Even Jesus said in Matthew 19:9 not to divorce except for immorality. If the wife was to be stoned, then there would have been no need to divorce.Of course you would think that people committing adultery would be somewhat discrete so as not to have two witnesses. Since they were standing in the temple courts, the Pharisees would not have stoned the woman right there anyway, neither could Jesus. Have you read the rules for stoning?Excerpt from Babylonian TalmudLet's say the Pharisees did bring a woman who had not been charged yet to Jesus and claimed she was caught in the act of adultery. Now if Jesus answers that she should not be stoned, would he truly have broken any law?Now if the woman truly was caught in the act of adultery, the Pharisees should have brought her before the Sanhedrin for judgement no matter what Jesus said. They themselves let her go.Just throwing this out for discussion if you wish.

---

A gentle answer turns away wrath, But a harsh word stirs up anger.

quote:

---

The Book of Acts is sufficient to prove that the Gospel of John is consistent with the other gospels.

---

How are the words of Peter in the Book of Acts consistent with the Book of John?

quote:

---

I have shown you, however, that it is a reasonable claim given all of the animosity that the unbelieving Jews had toward Jesus.

---

By unbelieving, I assume you mean believing that Jesus was the Messiah or do you mean believing that the Kingdom of God is at hand? What were they not believing?According to the synoptics Jesus kept his messiahship a secret from the general public, therefore no one would be able to confess him publicly. At most he claimed to be a prophet. I'm not sure where you see hostility in the synoptics aside from the last day. Some of the Jewish leaders are portrayed as trying to find fault with Jesus, but they aren't portrayed as coming against the Jewish people. Hey, even the author of John agreed on this one!

quote:

---

Since there is no incident in the gospels of someone confessing Jesus as the Christ in a synagogue during his ministry, we can neither confirm nor deny the veracity of the verse.

---

You don't feel it is possible to extrapolate from the known factors in the synoptics?

quote:

---

Do you have the earliest manuscripts so that you can claim something like this?

---

Actually my Bible says it, not me.

---

A gentle answer turns away wrath, But a harsh word stirs up anger.

I'm still waiting for you to explalin to me how the comments made by Peter in the Book of Acts are consistent with the Book of John. In Acts Peter is speaking to a crowd of people.
In John, Jesus is speaking to Nicodemus.How do the two concepts presented agree?

---

A gentle answer turns away wrath, But a harsh word stirs up anger.