Why is James missing from the Gospel of John?

[Bob May]

Hi debz,

So, it's very interesting that King James VI of Scotland, famously also James I of England, was really 'King Jacob'.

Weren't his followers/supporters called Jacobites?

The Jacobite Risings were a series of uprisings, rebellions, and wars in Great Britain and Ireland occurring between 1688 and 1746. The uprisings were aimed at returning James VII of Scotland and II of England, and later his descendants of the House of Stuart, to the throne after he was deposed by Parliament during the Glorious Revolution. The series of conflicts takes its name from Jacobus, the Latin form of James.

I love it when things fit.

Bob

[gilgal]

Hi debz,

So, it's very interesting that King James VI of Scotland, famously also James I of England, was really 'King Jacob'. :)

This is a subject that had caught my attention in association to the 15th spoke:
http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/show...e-15th-century

First when the Scottish gained their independence from the British they enthroned a Templar. But a steward (Stuart bloodline) took over the throne and for the next century and more those who took over the throne were all named James until James VI which became James I of Great Britain. The Templars of course were known to have headquartered in France but after the execution of Jacques DeMolay fled to Scotland and helped the Scottish gain their independence from England. In honor to Jacques DeMolay many Scottish Kings were named after him.

But after King James II of Great Britain they fled to France again and this time instead of taking over thrones they founded the Jacobinism.

I think the Jacobins were responsible of supporting many revolutions starting with the French Revolution. Could this be the reason of the name James/sub-planter?

One of the famous Stuarts was Bonnie Prince (Edward) Charles whom as far as I know was offered to be King of America but declined because of the increasing popularity of the idea of forming a republic.

One common belief is that the Stuart bloodline was Catholic. I don't know. How could it be Catholic when James I of England authorized the King James Bible?

[Richard Amiel McGough]

I just started reading this thread...I love your insights, Bob! Just wanted to comment on James/Jacob -- I heard that the book of James was originally actually the book of Jacob, it was King James who insisted on the change when he commissioned his famous Bible.

That's not true. The Geneva Bible, published 60 years before the KJV used the name "Iames" which is just "James" because the I and J were interchanged a lot back then.

There's more unsubstantiated rumors about the Bible than anything else I can think of.

[Charisma]

Hi Bob,

Weren't his followers/supporters called Jacobites?

James VI and I had been king in Scotland from a very early age, and when he became the legitimate heir to the throne of England, he was welcomed partly because of the Presbyterian element in Parliament, who hoped he would bring Presbyterianism to England. From crossing the border while travelling south, he handed out titles and land like confetti, and thereby made himself quite popular. It was he who promoted the doctrine of the divine right of kings, which eventually got his son Charles I into much trouble because he took it too far, alienating Parliament.

James VII of Scotland and II of England was the Catholic brother of Charles II, (who had seen his father Charles I beheaded, and eventually found refuge in the French Court where his cousin on his (French Catholic) mother's side was reigning), until it was safe to come back after Oliver Cromwell's rule.

One common belief is that the Stuart bloodline was Catholic. I don't know. How could it be Catholic when James I of England authorized the King James Bible?

Hi gilgal,

It isn't simple to explain this. You could do a bit more reading around the subject.

The key to remember is that in England the concept of a national religion meant that whatever 'church' the king (or queen attended) was supposed to be everyone else's first choice, too. There was a vigourous system of fines for not attending church, and many things were affected by whether a man was known as a church-goer of good character, or not. Charles II 'Indulgence to Tender Consciences', began to allow freedom of worship under certain circumstances, and he himself attended the Church of England while secretly negotiating the Secret Treaty of Dover, always hoping to return England to Catholicism. But, there had been so much bloodshed over Catholicism for so long both in Scotland and England, that by his reign, no-one wanted to return to such a situation. Elizabeth I who followed her sister Mary, ruled for over forty-five years, I think, as a Protestant, and James VI and I followed her in succession. (The last Catholic on the throne of England had been Henry VIII's daughter (bloody) Mary.) As for the Jacobite Risings, I can't give as detailed an account of what was going on 'Bonnie Prince Charlie'.

Protestantism had arrived by a different route, in Scotland, than England, although there were sympathisers all over both countries.

[Bob May]

The four Gospels divide naturally into the three synoptics (Matthew, Mark, Luke) and the "standalone" Gospel of John. In my previous studies, I have looked at how the four Gospels form a quaternity of the form 3 + 1, which is a pattern seen in other Biblical quaternities such as the four cherubim and the four beasts in Daniel's vision. In this thread, I want to look at the very unique features of John's Gospel which I find deeply mysterious. An brief overview of many of the differences may be found on this page: Contrasts between John and the Synoptics (or see PDF attachment). Many of the most important events in the synoptics are completely missing from John. There is no story of the Transifiguration (Matt 17:1, Mark 9:2, Luke 9:28). There is no Olivet Discourse (Matt 24, Mark 13, Luke 21)! Indeed, no prediction of any "coming" of the Son of Man at all. The main story of Christ is radically different in John's gospel. So different, in fact, that I do not beleive it is possible to harmonize the four Gospels into a single narrative of the life of Christ.

The most stunning of all ommissions in John is this. There is no mention anyone named James anywhere in the fourth Gospel! How is that possible? What does it mean?[/LIST]So what is going on here? Is it possible to believe that the Gospel of John is consistent with the synoptic Gospels?

Hi Richard and all,
So back to the original question. Why is James missing???
I see a pattern here that whenever Jacob has an experience his name changes to Israel.
Then in the NT James (of which a connection with Jacob is established, I believe) seems to have been replaced by Nathanael (God has Given).

You mentioned the 3+1 pattern.
1jo 5:7 For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.
1jo 5:8 And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one.
1jo 5:9 If we receive the witness of men, the witness of God is greater: for this is the witness of God which he hath testified of his Son.
1jo 5:10 He that believeth on the Son of God hath the witness in himself: he that believeth not God hath made him a liar; because he believeth not the record that God gave of his Son.

I am looking at this as the three (First three Gospels) are bearing witness to the fourth, the book of John.
These three "agree in one." These three lead to a "Threshold experience." A different way of recieving from God. John's viewpoint was obviously different from the Synoptic Gospels in many ways. One of which you pointed out, Richard. No prediction of the coming of the Son of Man. Yet Jesus tells Nathanael that he will see angels ascending and descending upon the Son of Man.
So could that be directed at Nathanael being that son of man??
I think it is.

We can pursue this line of thought or not. But I think the answer lies in the differences between Jacob and Israel.

Here are a few examples.

1ch 16:15 Be ye mindful always of his covenant; the word which he commanded to a thousand generations;
1ch 16:16 Even of the covenant which he made with Abraham, and of his oath unto Isaac;
1ch 16:17 And hath confirmed the same to Jacob for a law, and to Israel for an everlasting covenant,
1ch 16:18 Saying, Unto thee will I give the land of Canaan, the lot of your inheritance;

Ps 135:4 For the LORD hath chosen Jacob unto himself, and Israel for his peculiar treasure.

Isa 44:1 Yet now hear, O Jacob my servant; and Israel, whom I have chosen:

Isa 41:8 But thou, Israel, art my servant, Jacob whom I have chosen, the seed of Abraham my friend.

It seems to me to be the way in which we deal with God or God deals with us that which is being pointed out here.
The last verse, Isa 41:8 seems to be speaking as if the two are the same person, and they are/it is. And I believe it is us. But it is two aspects of us.

But it also mentions "Abraham my friend". Jesus called the disciples "friends" in a very specific context.

Joh 15:15 Henceforth I call you not servants; for the servant knoweth not what his lord doeth: but I have called you friends; for all things that I have heard of my Father I have made known unto you.

Like I said, maybe I am off base here. It may be distracting to the original question and posted as another thread. But I think there is a lot of material here for consideration.
Or we can drop it.

Bob

[kathryn]

Hi Richard and all,
So back to the original question. Why is James missing???
I see a pattern here that whenever Jacob has an experience his name changes to Israel.
Then in the NT James (of which a connection with Jacob is established, I believe) seems to have been replaced by Nathanael (God has Given).

You mentioned the 3+1 pattern.
1jo 5:7 For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.
1jo 5:8 And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one.
1jo 5:9 If we receive the witness of men, the witness of God is greater: for this is the witness of God which he hath testified of his Son.
1jo 5:10 He that believeth on the Son of God hath the witness in himself: he that believeth not God hath made him a liar; because he believeth not the record that God gave of his Son.

I am looking at this as the three (First three Gospels) are bearing witness to the fourth, the book of John.
These three "agree in one." These three lead to a "Threshold experience." A different way of recieving from God. John's viewpoint was obviously different from the Synoptic Gospels in many ways. One of which you pointed out, Richard. No prediction of the coming of the Son of Man. Yet Jesus tells Nathanael that he will see angels ascending and descending upon the Son of Man.
So could that be directed at Nathanael being that son of man??
I think it is.

We can pursue this line of thought or not. But I think the answer lies in the differences between Jacob and Israel.

Here are a few examples.

1ch 16:15 Be ye mindful always of his covenant; the word which he commanded to a thousand generations;
1ch 16:16 Even of the covenant which he made with Abraham, and of his oath unto Isaac;
1ch 16:17 And hath confirmed the same to Jacob for a law, and to Israel for an everlasting covenant,
1ch 16:18 Saying, Unto thee will I give the land of Canaan, the lot of your inheritance;

Ps 135:4 For the LORD hath chosen Jacob unto himself, and Israel for his peculiar treasure.

Isa 44:1 Yet now hear, O Jacob my servant; and Israel, whom I have chosen:

Isa 41:8 But thou, Israel, art my servant, Jacob whom I have chosen, the seed of Abraham my friend.

It seems to me to be the way in which we deal with God or God deals with us that which is being pointed out here.
The last verse, Isa 41:8 seems to be speaking as if the two are the same person, and they are/it is. And I believe it is us. But it is two aspects of us.

But it also mentions "Abraham my friend". Jesus called the disciples "friends" in a very specific context.

Joh 15:15 Henceforth I call you not servants; for the servant knoweth not what his lord doeth: but I have called you friends; for all things that I have heard of my Father I have made known unto you.

Like I said, maybe I am off base here. It may be distracting to the original question and posted as another thread. But I think there is a lot of material here for consideration.
Or we can drop it.

Bob

Hi Bob....I think you're spot on. James was the son of "my gift" (Zebedee)...so the name change to Nathanael (God has given) flows nicely. I really love the Jacob/Israel connections you have brought up.

[debz]

I am looking at this as the three (First three Gospels) are bearing witness to the fourth, the book of John.
These three "agree in one." These three lead to a "Threshold experience." A different way of recieving from God. John's viewpoint was obviously different from the Synoptic Gospels in many ways. One of which you pointed out, Richard. No prediction of the coming of the Son of Man. Yet Jesus tells Nathanael that he will see angels ascending and descending upon the Son of Man.
So could that be directed at Nathanael being that son of man??
I think it is.

We can pursue this line of thought or not. But I think the answer lies in the differences between Jacob and Israel.

Here are a few examples.

1ch 16:15 Be ye mindful always of his covenant; the word which he commanded to a thousand generations;
1ch 16:16 Even of the covenant which he made with Abraham, and of his oath unto Isaac;
1ch 16:17 And hath confirmed the same to Jacob for a law, and to Israel for an everlasting covenant,
1ch 16:18 Saying, Unto thee will I give the land of Canaan, the lot of your inheritance;

Ps 135:4 For the LORD hath chosen Jacob unto himself, and Israel for his peculiar treasure.

Isa 44:1 Yet now hear, O Jacob my servant; and Israel, whom I have chosen:

Isa 41:8 But thou, Israel, art my servant, Jacob whom I have chosen, the seed of Abraham my friend.

It seems to me to be the way in which we deal with God or God deals with us that which is being pointed out here.
The last verse, Isa 41:8 seems to be speaking as if the two are the same person, and they are/it is. And I believe it is us. But it is two aspects of us.

But it also mentions "Abraham my friend". Jesus called the disciples "friends" in a very specific context.

Joh 15:15 Henceforth I call you not servants; for the servant knoweth not what his lord doeth: but I have called you friends; for all things that I have heard of my Father I have made known unto you.

Like I said, maybe I am off base here. It may be distracting to the original question and posted as another thread. But I think there is a lot of material here for consideration.
Or we can drop it.

Bob

Bob, I could see how this could point to a "threshold" experience -- I see a similar pattern in the tabernacle blueprint, with the 3 bearing witness (I Jn 5:8 -- because 1 Jn 5:7 is actually not in early manuscripts) as the blood, water and spirit -- in tabernacle blood/altar, water/laver, spirit/priests had to be anointed with oil before entering "the Holy Place." The Holy Place is a new realm, new way of knowing the Lord. Same with Jesus saying I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life...in the Temple the gate was known as "the way," the entrance to Holy Place as "the truth," and the entrance to the Most Holy Place as "the life" -- three different realms or deeper ways of knowing the Lord. And yes, it takes time to develop a relationship with the Lord that results in being "his friend," but it is also worth pursuing, because He shares His secrets with His friends (Amos 3:7).

However, I think when Jesus spoke to Nathanael about seeing the angels ascending and descending on the Son of Man, He was actually claiming Himself to "be" that ladder from Jacob's vision. Jacob said "Surely God is in this place - this is none other than the house of God." This was a place of accessing heaven - Jesus made the way for us to access heaven...

[RC Christian]

Hi Bob....I think you're spot on. James was the son of "my gift" (Zebedee)...so the name change to Nathanael (God has given) flows nicely. I really love the Jacob/Israel connections you have brought up.

Hi Kathyrn,

When this thread was started, I posted a reference to The Gospel of St. John, chapter 21:2, "There were together Simon Peter, and Thomas called Didymus, and Nathanael of Cana in Galilee, and the sons of Zebedee, and two other of his disciples."

It would seem like the writer of The Gospel of St. John separates "Nathanael of Cana in Galilee" distinctly from "the sons of Zebedee".

I haven't followed this thread, but it seems like it has went in a circle. Also, "the Apostle Paul" references "James" by name several times in the Epistles, without indicating a name change, although "Peter" is interchanged with "Cephas" several times, which was a given name change, or "extra" name.

[Charisma]

I'm not sure if anyone has mentioned this yet, but wasn't James the brother of John killed very early in the narrative of the Church?

The James who is mentioned - the book by James - is by the elder at Jerusalem who was a younger brother of Jesus the Christ.

I don't know about James the son of Alpheus.


Richard, which James were you asking about?

[gilgal]

Wasn't Nathanael the second name of Bartholomew?