On your theory, Lazarus would
also have removed all mention of John from the book. That's hardly "using St. John's perspective when consulting," nor is it consistent with the book being "in honour of John."
In fact, it makes no sense whatsoever.
. Having removed all mention of John from a book is illogical when it comes to associating a work with another while being largely responsible for it - just as it is with John Mark being the author of the Gospel of Mark even though it was said that he himself was influenced by Peter. As already said, it would be foolish acting as if the Gospel of Mark could not have been seen as being written by St. John Mark due to those whom tradition ascribed them to be (as the Gospel of Mark was assumed to be written by St. Peter originally since
Church fathers believe that Mark was the interpreter of Peter, which would give reason to believe that he wrote his Gospel - even though there was never any evidence of this and o
thers in the Church felt John Mark was at best a disciple of Peter and presented his assessment as well as facts gathered from Peter...with John Mark being the young man who ran off naked as noted in
Mark 14:51 and connected with his mother whose house the Apostles used in Acts 12:1-11, indicating there were ALWAYS more than the 12 keeping watch over events, more shared in
Gospel of Mark and
Is Mark?s Gospel an Early Memoir of the Apostle Peter? | Cold Case Christianity).
And as it is, since John Mark isn't mentioned in the Book of Mark (even though he mentions Peter), the same is logical for Lazarus when mentioning John. THus, your rebuttal comes off quite pointless even when acting as if you have a point (Proverbs 18:13) - with the incredulous reactions being needless when one didn't even grasp the original point being made. If you're going to respond to something, respond to what was said rather than what you wish to make it into..And most of those kinds of claims you made were already addressed in the OP article linked:
If you did not read through the article
in its ENTIRETY before commenting, you didn't actually deal with the argument or what the OP asked for before responding.
As I already said, we already see plainly where even the
Book of Revelation was debated by the Church Fathers and they were never in agreement as to John the Apostle writing it, with others attributing it to another John...just as they felt II Peter was attributed to Jude (as noted before
here)....or just as others in the early Church felt that Thaddeus or Thaddaeus, one of the 12 (Matthew 10:3, KJV) believe that he actually penned the Book of Jude and used "Jude" as one of his surnames (as Thaddeus is regarded amongst Catholic interpreters as the Apostle James the son of Alpheus - St. James the Less - as goes the tradition, more noted in
CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Epistle of Saint Jude and
Thaddeus, Apostle of the Seventy - Beauty of the Saints - Ukrainian Orthodoxy).
Thus, as said before, do not go into discussions without actually having dealt with the facts or read what was noted BEFORE making false scenarios. That was one of the basics of the OP - and thus far, none of the responses you've given have really shown respect for that simple request.
By the way, if you compare Matt 27:55-56 and John 19:25, it seems that John was Jesus' cousin. That helps to explain the close relationship.
It also means that John and Jesus were related to the priestly line (see Luke 1:5 and 1:36), which in turn explains John 18:15-16.
I am well aware of Matthew 27:55-56/John 19:25 and how one view is that John and Jesus were cousins (as I have argued that myself in the distant past
here, for example and
here too) - for no one questions whether Jesus and John were close. I have also noted where John and Peter would be close to Christ due to John and James being fishing partners with Peter (as noted in Luke 5 and Mark 1 and as I addressed in-depth
here and
here).
Nonetheless, John and Jesus being potentially related does not show that the Gospel of John HAD to be written by Jesus nor does having John as part of Jesus' inner circle mean that Jesus did not have others he was very close to. Additionally, John and Jesus being related has nothing to do with showing that John and Jesus were known among the priestly line. Jesus technically had a priestly connection (as did his cousin John the Baptist) due to how their mothers were within the line of Aaron (as
I noted long ago in the thread entitled
What tribe was Mary- Levite or Judah? )- thus giving them room to show the concept of the New Priesthood developing for all since Jesus was truly both Prophet, Priest and King - even though the reality of the matter is that he did not come in the Line of Aaron (as Hebrews 5-10 note with regards to the priesthood of Melchizeldek) since he was identified through the Line of Judah by his father Joseph - and Christ was still respectful of the priesthood even as the Chief Priest did not know nor respect him. This can easily be seen in why they had significant issue with him when he turned over tables in John 2 - as well as the division that came from him and many not knowing where Christ even came from in John 7 - and on the issue, more was discussed in thread such as
Priests (
#72 ) and
Is the Court of the Gentiles a bad place to be?
Additionally, there's no real way of claiming John was well-known by the high priest since he was considered ignorant/unlearned right alongside Peter - a common dynamic that happened for others coming out of Galilee (as noted in
John 7:37-53)....even though Lazarus, being from area near Jerusalem, would have had NO issue with being well-known among the priest. As it concerns how John was not well known, this was already discussed earlier - as seen here:
Gxg (G²);66511233 said:
[*]
Rethink: John was NOT the disciple whom Jesus loved.
...As said in one of the aforementioned link references (for brief excerpt):[/COLOR]
[/FONT][/SIZE][/COLOR]
So the Roman cohort and the commander, and the officers of the Jews, arrested Jesus and bound Him, and led Him to Annas first; for he was father‑in‑law of Caiaphas, who was high priest that year. Now Caiaphas was the one who had advised the Jews that it was expedient for one man to die on behalf of the people. [John 18:12-14]
And Simon Peter was following Jesus, and so was another disciple. Now that disciple was known to the high priest, and entered with Jesus into the court of the high priest, but Peter was standing at the door outside. So the other disciple, who was known to the high priest, went out and spoke to the doorkeeper, and brought in Peter. [John 18:15-16]
The context for this is during the trial of Jesus. We see that Jesus was being followed by Peter, which everyone knows about, and our second mysterious disciple make another appearance. Peter would not have been able to gain access by himself, but rather it was the “other disciple” who was known to the High Priest and he was the one who got Peter in. If you read John 20 you will see that the “other disciple” is “the disciple whom Jesus loved:And so she ran and came to Simon Peter, and to the other disciple whom Jesus loved, and said to them, “They have taken away the Lord out of the tomb, and we do not know where they have laid Him.” [John 20:2]
At this point we will build a case against the “beloved disciple” being John. When we contrast John 18 to Acts 4 I think we will see that this “other disciple” could not be John. Acts 4:1-23 tells us what happened to Peter and John following the healing of a crippled man. Peter and John were seized and brought before the “rulers, and elders, and scribes, and Annas the high priest, and Caiaphas” in order to be questioned about this miracle.Now as they observed the confidence of Peter and John, and understood that they were uneducated and untrained men, they were marveling, and began to recognize them as having been with Jesus. [Acts 4:13]
Here is where it gets interesting. Notice here what these Jewish leaders recognized. It was in that moment that they suddenly understood that these men had been with Jesus. The principal thing that we need to get out of this passage is that it was at that point that the high priest and the other rulers became acquainted with Peter and John for first time. But our text in John 18 tells us that the “other disciple” was known by the High Priest. This teaches us that the high priest did not know John [or Peter] before this incident. So the “other disciple” could not have been John! Furthermore, and building upon this, we see in John 20 that this “other disciple” was the first to believe after the resurrection: So the other disciple who had first come to the tomb entered then also, and he saw and believed. For as yet they did not understand the Scripture, that He must rise again from the dead. [John 20:8-9]
This happened early on the first day of the week “the other disciple saw and believed” but later that day notice what Mark tells us:And afterward He appeared to the eleven themselves as they were reclining at the table; and He reproached them for their unbelief and hardness of heart, because they had not believed those who had seen Him after He had risen. [Mark 16:14]
When he is speaking of “eleven” he is speaking of the“twelve” minus Judas. These eleven did not believe but the “other disciple” had believed that morning. This fits really well because while we are told that “the other disciple whom Jesus loved” believed, Peter did not believe, but would believe a little later, as we see in Mark 16. The other disciple was clearly not one of the eleven and could not have been John, because John was counted among the eleven who were rebuked for not believing, while the disciple whom Jesus loved, Lazarus, had already believed!
And as another noted (for another brief reference):
(1) If John 18:15-18 is talking about an actual relationship with the high priest, then is it necessary to conclude that the chief priests would have known of the relationship as well, or even took part of it? Several commentaries I've read said that this trial in the passage is an informal one in the high priest's room, not necessarily with the chief priests present. Maybe the high priest wasn't aware of the plot to kill Lazarus. I don't know...my knowledge is limited on such questions and subjects of trials and the Sanhedrin.
The 2nd option seems more plausible to me:
(2) John 18 isn't talking about a relationship with Annas (or Caiaphas), but rather just stating that Annas knew who Lazarus was (of course! he was a celebrity). Perhaps he was let in as a witness to the things Jesus did, and since he was so close to Jesus throughout his ministry, he (Lazarus) could be questioned on the subject..
__________________