To be more clear on this issue, check out
this Wikipedia article. In that article itself, is the following paragraph under the rubric "Works."
Quote:The authorship of some works attributed to the Evangelist has debated since the year 200 AD.[5][6] Some scholars do not even accept that the "Gospel of John" was written by an individual named "John" (Ἰωάννης or יוחנן). Nevertheless, the notion of "John the Evangelist" exists, and is usually thought of as the same as the Apostle John.
As i have pointed out many times over the last several years, all articles at Wikipedia which pertain to christianity are regularly edited. If you look at the bottom of the page, you'll see that that article was last edited on November 3rd of this year. Initially, edited articles were deleted altogether and replaced by the original text, until the vandals got smart, and carefully avoided unsubstantiated claims and contradictions within their own texts. It is always useful to look at the "Talk" tab which is found at the beginning of each article. The footnote number 5 in the quoted passage above simply refers to Eusebius of Caesarea. The footnote number 6 takes you to New Advent, the Catholic Encyclopedia, and this quotation from the Church History of Eusebius is given:
Quote:"But Cerinthus by means of revelations which he pretended were written by a great Apostle falsely pretended to wonderful things, asserting that after the resurrection there would be an earthly kingdom"
It is difficult to avoid the possibility that those who claim that the gospel of John was actually written by an apostle named John, or that the Apocalypse (often called "Revelations") was written by the same author--for any other reason than wishful thinking. In terms of historiography, the claim is dubious at best, which is troubling when people try to make claims about divinely inspired, inerrant scripture. On the talk page of the article i have linked, for example, one editorial comment calling for the three articles to be merged (i.e., the articles on John the Apostle, John the Evangelist and John of Patmos) states that it is "unholy" not to do so.
You are certainly entitled to your opinion, but not to your own facts. There is no factual basis for the claim that John the Apostle and John the Evangelist are one and the same, or that John of Patmos is just a third name for the same individual. I acknowledge that, effectively, you are saying "I believe," rather than "I know."
