1. Welcome to Christian Forums, a friendly forum to discuss Christianity in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Question on other Disciple John 18:15

Discussion in 'General Theology' started by LittleLambofJesus, Sep 8, 2008.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. NewUser123

    NewUser123 New Member

    Messages:
    0
    Likes Received:
    0
    Does anyone have a view on who this "other disciple" is in John 18:15? Just curious. Thanks.

    John 18:15 Followed yet to the Jesus Simon Peter, and the other Disciple, the yet Disciple that was known to the chief-priest and together coming to the Jesus into the Court of the Chief-priest.
     
  2. Kristos

    Kristos Servant

    Messages:
    7,127
    Likes Received:
    1
    Faith:
    Eastern-Orthodox
    I always assumed it as John - 20:2 - the other disciple, whom Jesus loved
     
  3. NewUser123

    NewUser123 New Member

    Messages:
    0
    Likes Received:
    0
    The more I studied on that rich-man/lazarus Parable, the more I came to really study on Lazarus.
    One of the greatest Miracles performed by JESUS in the whole NT, and he is mentioned only in Chapt 16 of Luke and John 11 and 12.

    The Chief-priest claimed to know him and in fact, the Chief-priests conspired to kill Lazarus because of him being proof of Jesus actually resurrecting someone after that long period of time. I am thinking it could have been Lazarus.

    John 11:5 Loved/hgapa <25> (5707) yet the Jesus the Martha and the sister of her and the Lazarus. 11 These things he said and after this He is saying to them "Lazarus, the friend of us has fallen asleep but I am going that I should be awaking him. 14 Now this then said to them the Jesus to boldness Lazarus died. 43 And these things saying, to a voice great He cried out "Lazarus! hither thee! outside............

    John 12:10 Devising yet the Chief-priests that also the Lazarus they may be killing. 11 That many because of him were led away of the Judeans and believed into the Jesus.
     
  4. Yarddog

    Yarddog Senior Contributor

    Messages:
    9,898
    Likes Received:
    0
    Faith:
    Catholic
    Hello Lamb,

    It's John. He doesn't refer to himself by name in his Gospel. He dies it in John 19: 26-27, 20:2-4 & 8, 21:7, 21:20
     
  5. NewUser123

    NewUser123 New Member

    Messages:
    0
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ok thanks for your view. I am fairly open minded on this, as Jesus loved Lazarus also. :wave:

    John 19:27 Thereafter He is saying to the Disciple "Behold! the mother of thee" and from that the hour, her, the Disciple into the own.
     
    Nilloc likes this.
  6. Kristos

    Kristos Servant

    Messages:
    7,127
    Likes Received:
    1
    Faith:
    Eastern-Orthodox
    But is Lazarus ever referred to as a disciple?
     
  7. squint

    squint New Member

    Messages:
    16,183
    Likes Received:
    0
    Faith:
    Christian
    Mornin' LLoJ. Doncha think it rather strange that even when a certain one, Lazarus, was raised from the DEAD that they STILL couldn't/wouldn't believe Jesus, and in fact sought to KILL both HE and Lazarus?

    One MIGHT think that in the midst of such a MIRACLE they would ALL be in stunned awe and adoration.

    Jesus spoke well of the 'rich man' and his brothers saying they would NOT, no not even if one came back from the grave.

    31 And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead.

    enjoy!

    squint
     
  8. Korah

    Korah Junior Member

    Messages:
    1,046
    Likes Received:
    0
    Faith:
    Lutheran
    If John is the Beloved Disciple in all those verses, why isn't he in John 1:35 and 1:43? Answer: the Apostle John was not in John 1; it was Andrew who brought Peter to Jesus: 1:40-42.
    My initial studies of John taught me that John had no part in writing it, nor was he the Beloved Disciple. I tended to think it was Lazarus. But long ago I changed my mind--John did write the parts where he described himself as the Beloved Disciple (presumably in humility).
    But as for "the other disciple" of John 18:15-16, I have always known he was not John nor to be identified with the Beloved Disciple. He is obviously John Mark, who was wealthy. (Acts 12:12-17) It is usually thought that the Last Supper took place at his house. I even extend my personal opinion to include John Mark as the Rich Young Man who went away from Jesus sorrowfully. Gospel writers tended to leave in vignettes that reflected unfavorably upon themselves. (Many scholars recognize John Mark also as the young man who fled away naked: Mark 14:51-52.)
     
  9. NewUser123

    NewUser123 New Member

    Messages:
    0
    Likes Received:
    0
    Thanks squint. The event at the tomb is intersting when they see a "young-man" sitting in a White Robe.
    While translating revelation and looking up where words are used, the word for Robes is used on 4 time in the Gospels and 2 of them for the Scribes.
    Could that messenger have been symbolizing and OC Scribe? Pretty interesting

    Mark 16:5 And entering into the tomb they saw a young-man sitting in the rights having been about-cast a robe/stolhn <4749>, white, and they were awed/alarmed.

    Mark 12:38 And He said to them in the teaching of Him "be heeding ye from the Scribes, the ones willing in robes/stolaiV <4749> to be walking about and greetings in the Markets

    Luke 20:46 Be ye heeding from the Scribes the ones willing to be walking about in robes/stolaiV <4749> and being fond of greetings in the markets and the first seats in the Synagogues and first reclining places in the suppers.

    Reve 6:11 And was given to them each a robe/stolai <4749>, white, and it was declared to them that they should be resting still a time, little, till may be being filled also the together-bond-servants of them and the brothers of them, the ones being about to be being killed as also they.

    4749. stole stol-ay' from 4724; equipment, i.e. (specially), a "stole" or long-fitting gown (as a mark of dignity):--long clothing (garment), (long) robe.
    9 times. Mark [2 times] Luke [2 times] Reve 6:11, 7:9,13, 14 Reve 22:14
     
  10. squint

    squint New Member

    Messages:
    16,183
    Likes Received:
    0
    Faith:
    Christian
    Uh, no. Jesus advised that we should heed THE WORD and not the actions of those 'handling' THE WORD because they were rabid hypocrites. So you and I always go back to the WHY...WHY is it that MOST could not BELIEVE.

    As to the white robed ones or the ones standing by, yes...interesting indeed. These would seem to me to be angelic messengers, meaning they could be mankind who have died and been returned, they could be holy angelic beings..One or the other. I'd say generally they were holy angelic attenders of Christ.

    As to the construct of their 'garments' I believe it is quite possible to be clothed in the 'righteousness' of Christ and that garment not be perceived by eyes of flesh. Those messengers may have had some type of visible raiment, but those same could have been arrayed in SPIRITUAL LIGHT as well. One seen. The other sometimes seen, as in the transfigurationS of Christ, on the water, with the disciples/Moses/Elijah, etc.

    Something needing understanding is that THE LAW invoked LAWLESSNESS that was IN the people of Israel. I would not be too harsh on THOSE men that you see with your eyes and wanting to find your understandings of these matters upon men you can see with your eyes. One must look DEEPER into these subjects to see what is really going on and THAT WORKING will not be viewed with EYES OF FLESH...

    and

    The same working that THE WORD worked on the 'judeans' or the 'scribes' or the 'pharisees' does WORK IN US ALL TO THIS DAY whosoever picks up GOD'S WORDS, particularly those WORDS of THE LAW.

    When Abraham chided the 'rich man' about the LAW and the PROPHETS being without HEED, he was SPOT ON. The 'rich man' and his brothers will NEVER listen to the LAW as the LAW was purposefully intended to AROUSE and PROVOKE them into RESISTANCE and REVEALING and that revealing is LAWLESSNESS in mankind, which same is OF THE DEVIL.

    The same LAW AND PROPHETS of Israel will INVOKE these same 'rich men' today and these 'rich men' will NOT be seen with fleshly eyes.

    enjoy!

    squint
     
  11. NewUser123

    NewUser123 New Member

    Messages:
    0
    Likes Received:
    0
    Greetings Squint. Someone brought up Lazarus on another thread and I tend to try and harmonize events in the Gospels to the book of Revelation.
    Notice the same words used in John 11:42 is also used in Reve 11:12 concerning the Resurrection of the 2 witnesses!!! Coincidentally they are also the same Chapter numbers.

    http://christianforums.com/showthread.php?t=7282853

    John 11:43 And these saying, to a Voice, great, He cries-out "Lazarus, hither out!"

    Reve 11:12 And they hear a Voice, great, out of the Heaven saying to them "Ascend ye"! here. And they ascended into the heaven in the cloud and observed them, the enemies of them.

    Those enemies shown could be symbolize the same ones that conspired to kill Lazarus, the Chief-Priests. Goes together like "white on rice " :idea:

    John 12:10 Counsel yet the Chief-Priests that also the Lazarus they may be killing
     
  12. Yarddog

    Yarddog Senior Contributor

    Messages:
    9,898
    Likes Received:
    0
    Faith:
    Catholic
    Hello Korah,

    I suppose that you are referring to one of the two mentioned.35 The next day John was there again with two of his disciples, [/B]

    I agree that one of them was Andrew. The other is never named but has been "assumed" to be John. If we look at the other 3 Gospels, John and James, the sons of Zebedee are among the 1st four called. What does John intend these to be? I don't know, it could be either John or James, but they are not mentioned until 21:2.
    So, I assume the you now understand that the apostle John wrote the Gospel that bears his name.
    The wording "other disciple" only appears 5 times in the NT, all in John.


    Joh 18:16 while Peter stood outside at the door. So the other disciple, who was known to the high priest, went out and spoke to the maid who kept the door, and brought Peter in.
    Joh 20:2 So she ran, and went to Simon Peter and the other disciple, the one whom Jesus loved, and said to them, "They have taken the Lord out of the tomb, and we do not know where they have laid him."
    Joh 20:3Peter then came out with the other disciple, and they went toward the tomb.
    Joh 20:4 They both ran, but the other disciple outran Peter and reached the tomb first;
    Joh 20:8Then the other disciple, who reached the tomb first, also went in, and he saw and believed;
    We know that all of the ones used in chapter 20 refer to the one that Jesus loved. We also know that is the one that wrote the Gospel of John.
    John 21:
    20 Peter turned and saw the disciple following whom Jesus loved, the one who had also reclined upon his chest during the supper and had said, "Master, who is the one who will betray you?"
    21 When Peter saw him, he said to Jesus, "Lord, what about him?"
    22 Jesus said to him, "What if I want him to remain until I come? What concern is it of yours? You follow me." 23 So the word spread among the brothers that that disciple would not die. But Jesus had not told him that he would not die, just "What if I want him to remain until I come? (What concern is it of yours?)"
    24 It is this disciple who testifies to these things and has written them, and we know that his testimony is true.
    25 There are also many other things that Jesus did, but if these were to be described individually, I do not think the whole world would contain the books that would be written.

    We know from Mark and Luke that there were only the 12 apostles present at the Last Supper.

    It seems to appear that the apostle John is the one mentioned in all of the accounts.
    What makes it obvious?
    This verse says:
    Ac 12:12
    When he realized this, he went to the house of Mary, the mother of John whose other name was Mark, where many were gathered together and were praying.
    This denotes that Mary was the owner of the house and not her son, John Mark, whom we might assume to be a young man.

    If we look at the owner of the house where the LS takes place it is a man.
    Matthew 26:
    18 He said, "Go into the city to a certain man and tell him, 'The teacher says, "My appointed time draws near; in your house I shall celebrate the Passover with my disciples."

    This could be the same house but the man would have died and the wife had the house. Acts 12 was supposed to have occurred about 14 years after the resurrection according to many bible historians meaning John Mark would have been quite young and most likely not the disciple mentioned in John.

    John Mark is supposed to be the writer of Mark according to the tradition of the early Church. He is with Barnabus and Paul in Acts and later accompanied Peter to Rome and then went to Alexandria to found the Church there.

    Yarddog
     
  13. squint

    squint New Member

    Messages:
    16,183
    Likes Received:
    0
    Faith:
    Christian
    Brilliant!

    Remember the men we look upon with our eyes who were used in the actions of killing Jesus (and Stephen and all the prophets) were FORGIVEN by Jesus.

    Yet in Revelation 1 we DO FIND that those who PIERCED HIM will look upon Him when He returns, MEANING that those ones are STILL HERE my friend. And probably STILL killing. They are here IN MAN but 'they' are not the SAME AS the men they are IN.


    enjoy!

    squint
     
  14. NewUser123

    NewUser123 New Member

    Messages:
    0
    Likes Received:
    0
    Greetings Squint. I am beginning to view the "lazarus" as a type-shadow of the Lost Sheep of Israel whiich was being led astray by the corrupt Shepherds of the Law in "Judea/Jerusalem".

    When I looked more closely at John 11:43 and Luke 16:22, again there is a similarity.
    Then look at Ezekiel 39:12 which is the event of "gog-magog" in Revelation. I actually view the "armegeddong/gog-magog" as the same event. The parable of the "rich-man/lazarus" is one of my largest studies.

    I just now saw this today and my "jigsaw puzzle" is becoming more complete :D

    http://christianforums.com/showthread.php?t=4437955&page=43
    Lazarus and the rich man

    John 11:43 And these saying, to a sound great He cries-out "Lazarus, hither out!"

    Luke 16:22 Became yet to be dying/apoqanein <599> (5629) , the poor-one, and him to be carried away by the messengers into the Bosom of Abraham.
    Died/ape-qanen <599> (5627) yet also the rich-one and was buried.

    Ezekiel 39:12 And house of Israel entomb them so that to cleanse/purify the Land Seven Months. And all of people of the Land entomb them, and He becomes to them for a Name, Day of to be glorified Me, declaration of Adonai YHWH. [Revelation 19 and 20]
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Sep 10, 2008
  15. Korah

    Korah Junior Member

    Messages:
    1,046
    Likes Received:
    0
    Faith:
    Lutheran

    The rest of your post is likewise well argued, but again I just disagree. You are quite correct that I cannot prove that John Mark is the disciple known to the high priest, the young man who ran away naked, the rich young man who went away sorrowful, etc., but I stand by it.
    Korah
     
  16. Yarddog

    Yarddog Senior Contributor

    Messages:
    9,898
    Likes Received:
    0
    Faith:
    Catholic
    Hello Korah,

    You said:
    The second disciple that Jesus found in 1:43 is simply Phillip. End of story.

    How do you come uo with that?
    John 1:37 Says that two of John disciples went with Jesus. One of these was Andrew but we don't see who the 2nd one was. Andrew then goes and gets Simon. Jesus names him Cephas. This makes three disciples.

    1:43 says that Jesus goes to Galilee and finds Phillip. This makes him #4.

    You then say, with absolutely no proof to back up your theory.
    John wrote part of it, the parts where the Beloved Disciple is listed.

    May I ask how you plan on proving this?

    You then say:
    I agree that John was the last writer or editor of the gospel before the last redactor added these verses.
    However, the "another disciple" of John 18:15-16 is stylistically very different, hidden by your "other disciple" as if the form is the same in John 20. Do you read Greek? It would seem not.


    No, I don't read Greek but I have access to the Greek with translations.
    Maybe you can give me a credible authority that supports your claim. All credible scholars that I have read all agree that John was the writer.


    I am not one that has a problem with someone disagreeing with me but it would be nice to see some form of evidence at least.

    God Bless,
    Yarddog
     
  17. Korah

    Korah Junior Member

    Messages:
    1,046
    Likes Received:
    0
    Faith:
    Lutheran
    You're right, I shouldn't be so abrupt. I have studied the provenance of the Gospel of John with intensity for 45 years, and some of my early findings I never found any reason to question. One is that the second disciple is simply Phillip.
    In John 1:43 the Greek word is "euriskei", Jesus did not just meet Phillip (as most translations wrongly say), but He found Phillip, was already looking for someone He knew from personal experience. (The author seems to have no preconception that Jesus routinely used His powers of omniscience, His Incarnation seemed to include usually seeing and remembering as we all do.) Note also that Andrew and Phillip remain paired as joint disciples regularly throughout John. (As we know from the Synoptics, Jesus sent His apostles around Palestine on missions, but always with his buddy.)
    The rest of my findings that you so dislike take a lot of explanation no one hear would want to deal with. In 1979 I wrote a book called John in Reverse, but quickly gave up trying to publish it after some initial hostile reactions from scholars who weren't even willing to consider listening. I did write a long article that I did get published (privately), "The Three Sources and Five Editions of John". I doubt you would even consider either worth your study.
    You claim that most scholars placidly accept that John wrote John. What century are you living in? Between 1796 and 1835 the scholarly opinion turned wholly against the Gospel of John, with dates of composition in the last half of the Second Century, a century after the last Apostle died. Only in the 1960's did the tide of scholarly opinion radically change towards a very early date of John, even into the 60's. In between the conservatives pleaded that the Apostle John lived very, very long and thus maybe he could have written John in the 90's. Oddly enough, conservatives are still dating John in the 90's, even though the evidence now is that it was written in the 60's. (John A. T. Robinson, Redating the New Testament, came out in 1974, saying the whole NT was before 70 A.D.) Archaelogy and calendar studies have proven that John really knew First Century Judea.
    So yes, the Gospel was written very early, John could have written it, and he did--the main edition of John, in my opinion.
    Apparently for you, "credible authorities" mean very conservative Christians, probably in your own denomination. To me, both the very conservative and the very radical are not credible.
    Korah
    Edited to add: Well, as most Roman Catholic top scholars do not hold that John the Apostle himself wrote John (at most they'll admit to a Johannine School), I take it your authorities are arch-conservatives among your denomination like one hears on EWTN, Ave Maria, or Catholic Answers. But these men are not scholars specializing on the authorship of the gospels. You'll find many of your guys touting Matthew as the first gospel written, even though it's quite obviously not.
    Strange how the guy who gave us the OP doesn't seem at all interested in what you and I say about his question.
     
    Last edited: Sep 10, 2008
  18. Yarddog

    Yarddog Senior Contributor

    Messages:
    9,898
    Likes Received:
    0
    Faith:
    Catholic
    Hello Korah,

    I, personally, am not sure if you're over thinking this or under thinking it. I have seen people do both but it takes time and a lot of correspondance to know for sure.
    How many times is this verb found (euriskei :thumbsup:) in these verses?
    Let's examine them. First let's remember that Jesus has taken the two disciples of John the Baptist and told them to come with him.
    1:39
    He said to them, "Come and see." They came and saw where he was staying; and they stayed with him that day, for it was about the tenth hour.

    1:41
    He found first his own brother Simon and said to him, "We have found the Messiah" . (Different tenses of the verb)

    In the above, the first thing that Andrew does is find Peter and tell him. Now let's also remember that this occurred in Bethany, v. 28, which was not far from the Dead Sea.
    1:43
    The next day He purposed to go into Galilee, and He found Philip. And Jesus said to him, "Follow Me."

    In this one, why does Jesus and the others travel from Bethany to Galilee and then have Jesus finding Philip and again telling him to follow him. These verses have been about Jesus' first disciples. This makes no sense if Philip was already a follower.
    1:45
    Philip found Nathanael and said to him, "We have found Him of whom Moses in the Law and also the Prophets wrote --Jesus of Nazareth, the son of Joseph ." (Again, different tenses)

    They have come to Bethsaida and find Philip and Philip then finds Nathanael who is from the same town.

    In the verses from 35 to 51, we see Jesus gathering the first of his disciples. The 2 from John (Andrew and an unnamed), Simon. Philip, and Nathanael. A total of 5 disciples.

    You theory does not hold water when the context is examined.

    When I checked most of the translations that I have use of, including older Bibles, they all say found or findeth. So they are correct.
    He very well could have known Philip. They were both from Galilee but didn't live that close together, so it is doubtful. Philip appears to have known Nathanael well but he has no idea who Jesus is. Andrew and Simon also had no idea of who Jesus was before he was revealed.
    Do what? Thjis makes no sense , since this Book was written well after the life of Jesus. What do you think the writers reason for writing it was?

    He starts the book out by telling us that Jesus was eternal. It is also the most spiritual of the Gospels.
    In the first chapter, Philip is mentioned with Nathanael and only two other times in John, 6:8 and 12:22. How you can get that they are "joint disciples" out of these shows that you read into things that are not there.
    Don't just make statement and provide no proof. Cite each of the verses to prove your point.
    Are we to assume that they had never investigated your claims? I doubt that. They most likely had explored all of the theories. That's what makes them scholars.
    If I had seen some credible information to back up what you say, then I would be interested. But, all of your arguements seem to be very weak.
    Where did I say placidly?
    Hopefully, you are living in the same time period that I am.
    I am not living in the 18th or 19th century. That is in the past and as you point out in the next paragraph, scholars don't accept what Evanson and Bretschneider said. There is a greater understanding in the use of ancient Greek today, as compared with those times.
    No, I don't care what faith they have, just scholars who are not trying to add their own theology and base their findings on weak or entirely made up data. Give me a scholar whose only propose is historical in motive.
    I personally don't watch EWTN but I do believe that the Vatican has many many very good scholars.
    I have not heard a single Catholic scholar say that John is not the writer of John and again, if you have proof give that proof. All you have done is make statements of your own theories and provide nothing to back it up.

    God Bless,
    Yarddog
     
  19. Korah

    Korah Junior Member

    Messages:
    1,046
    Likes Received:
    0
    Faith:
    Lutheran
    I'm impressed, Yarddog,
    You knew of Evanson who challenged Johannine authorship in 1796. And I myself have never heard of Bretschneider. (I was thinking of Frederich Christian Baur as the 1835 guy.) But secular scholars even today almost uniformly reject the Apostle John as the author of John. As for Roman Catholic scholars, you apparently are aware of only a few conservative voices. My own two RC Bibles (from my interlude 1969 to 1992 as a RC adult convert) basically give up trying to defend sole authorship by the Apostle John.. From the introductions to the gospel in the Bibles themselves: New American Bible, 1986, the one used for reading at Mass: "Critical analysis makes it difficult to accept the idea that the gospel as it now stands was written by one person." The New Jerusalem Bible, 1990: "It is today freely accepted that the fourth Gospel underwant a complex development before it reached its final form."
    I would be happy to explain for you the reasons for my analysis, but you seem unlikely to reconsider your firmly set views. Yes, you present some good arguments that I find myself intrigued by, but they are in the nature of just marshalling one-sided evidence for your beliefs. And you ask me to prove something as obviously well-known as that Jesus sent out his disciples two-by-two! (Mark 6:7, Luke 10:1) OK, I take that back, you're probably one who reads primarily Matthew, which loses that detail in copying from Mark.
    And no, no scholars gave any consideration to my newly created source-criticism of John, because scholars don't like to deal with new and creative ideas when they can waste their time refuting the same old ideas. It's so much easier! No, I only have a master's degree in history and a master's degree in accounting (and a CPA license), so I don't qualify to be published or even considered for publication.
    Korah
     
  20. Yarddog

    Yarddog Senior Contributor

    Messages:
    9,898
    Likes Received:
    0
    Faith:
    Catholic
    Hello Korah,
    If I have to choose from a modern scholar or an ancient scholar, who would have closer personal knowledge of who wrote the Gospels, I would go with those ancient men.

    Irenaeus, who was born and raised in the provence of Asia, where John taught and also who had chance to learn from Polycarp, who was a disciple of John, says that John was the author.

    Irenaeus says in Book 3 against heresies.

    1. WE have learned from none others the plan of our salvation, than from those through whom the Gospel has come down to us, which they did at one time proclaim in public, and, at a later period, by the will of God, handed down to us in the Scriptures, to be the ground and pillar of our faith. For it is unlawful to assert that they preached before they possessed "perfect knowledge," as some do even venture to say, boasting themselves as improvers of the apostles. For, after our Lord rose from the dead, [the apostles] were invested with power from on high when the Holy Spirit came down [upon them], were filled from all [His gifts], and had perfect knowledge: they departed to the ends of the earth, preaching the glad tidings of the good things [sent] from God to us, and proclaiming the peace of heaven to men, who indeed do all equally and individually possess the Gospel of God. Matthew also issued a written Gospel among the Hebrews in their own dialect, while Peter and Paul were preaching at Rome, and laying the foundations of the Church. After their departure, Mark, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, did also hand down to us in writing what had been preached by Peter. Luke also, the companion of Paul, recorded in a book the Gospel preached by him. Afterwards, John, the disciple of the Lord, who also had leaned upon His breast, did himself publish a Gospel during his residence at Ephesus in Asia.

    I add more weight to this than to a present day scholar who has no personal touch with the Gospels.
    Nope, I read all of the Gospels as one, but you fail to give me what I ask.
    You said:"As we know from the Synoptics, Jesus sent his Apostles around Palestine on missions, but always with his buddy."

    I know that Jesus did, on occasion, send his disciples out 2 x 2, but you are using this to try and prove Philip was the 2nd disciple in John 1:35-37. I ask for proof that he sent them out "always with their buddy". I know of no NT scripture saying that he did this nor that Philip and Andrew were on the buddy plan.
    Maybe you should try staying at a Holiday Inn. :thumbsup: Couldn't hurt.

    God Bless,
    Yarddog
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.