What's The Deal With The Man Jesus Loved?

who?

Well I have always heard that it was because John wrote John. That it was not that Jesus loved John more than the other disciples or whatever but since John was writing the text instead of referrng to himself by name he decided to show that God loved him through using that title. That he knew and experienced the love of Christ himself. That it was not just a theoretical thing that Jesus was speaking about but he actually loved John. He showed it in real life and in a real way. Also he showed it enough for John to state that he was loved by Jesus.

I think he was trying to show God's love.

As I recall, it was the Disciple jesus loved, not Man.

People have alot of different theories on the Disciple Who Jesus Loved, but I think that it was an ingenious way for John to actually put the reader into the stories- I've tried reading that way, and it's incredible.

Really? Fascinating. I've never tried that.

Most likely, it is thought by many, that the BELOVED DECIPLE was a Priest, or relative OF a Jewish priest. And to actually name him would risk his family and put them in physcial jeapordy. Hence the allusive lack of a real name.

Throughout history, the Church has taught that the Beloved Disciple is John. John refers to himself in the third person so as not to elevate himself.

Just so there is no confusion, the Greek word translated as "love" is agapao

Jer 31:3
(3) The LORD hath appeared of old unto me, saying, Yea, I have loved thee with an everlasting love: therefore with lovingkindness have I drawn thee.

Blasphemy is ridiculous. No sodomite can enter the Kingdom of Heaven! We shall all be "changed" in a moment and a twinkling of an eye! Jeremiah 18:1-6. God will make all things new especially former sodomites and "sinners", and YOU!!! Praise God!!

John,
GOOD NEWS, Inc.

In greek and stuff there are several different types of love agape being one...but they all mean different kinds, ie: brotherly love, lover, family love and stuff ...too bad we dont break things down in English (I highly doubt people love their cars, or a song etc...) Anyways if you look at it closely I am sure it is brotherly/friendship way or fatherly...I mean Jonathon and David loved eachother dearly so much so it says David become one with him in spirit....I think people underestimate the bonds of friendship sometimes!

IMHO, Philip and Force are pretty close to being on target. First, let's discount the interpretation that casts Jesus as a practicing homosexual -- aside from one bizarre passage from an apocryphal gospel, there's no suggestion whatsoever for that.

Sticking directly to Scripture and the dogmatic pronouncements of the Church accepted so far as I know by everyone, what can we find? Well, the teaching of the church from earliest times, formalized at the Council of Chalcedon, and believed by everyone from Antiochan Orthodox to Assembly of God, is that Jesus was and is truly God and truly man. In our zeal to honor him as our Savior and Lord, it's important not to forget that He became as one of us. He grieved at the death of Lazarus, He was weary, He became angry, He prayed in the Garden of Gethsemane that "if it be possible take this cup from Me." He knew full well what it is like to be human; He's "been there."

Now one of the great human needs is for intimate companionship, for someone who truly cares and understands and who accepts one's love. For married people, usually, one's spouse takes this role, and the Jews prescribed that rabbis should marry for this reason. But the role is not a sexual or romantic one, based in eros, but rather the deepest sort of friendship, philia love. And for a soldier in time of war, it may be filled by a comrade in arms, for a celibate person by another person he or she is close to.... Even children recognize this in having "best friends" from whom they are inseparable.

Israelite customs of expressing such bonds of friendship differed from our own. The story of David and Jonathan in I Samuel, notably in chapter 20, is one of close intimate friendship -- but how they showed it includes behavior that would never be seen in America 2003 A.D. outside a gay bar.

IMHO, Jesus the man was like every other person in desiring such intimate friendship -- it was an integral part of being human as he had chosen to do. But his itinerant ministry of teaching precluded his marrying as a rabbi should. John son of Zebedee was the youngest of the Apostles, according to tradition -- a boy in his teens when he with James left his nets to follow Jesus. Like many boys, he was ripe for hero worship -- finding an older man to whose example he might aspire to emulate. And who better to follow and live up to the example of than the Master?

So they filled necessary human roles for each other, John and Jesus. And such is God's wisdom that in livng in intimate contact with the Man he idolized, John came to know better than any other man the depths of Jesus's wisdom, and so was able in his old age to put words around that in the Fourth Gospel and three wonderful letters.

And so he referred to himself, with humble pride, as the one who gave Jesus the fulfillment of that particular human need, as Mary had given Him a mother's love, and Mary and Martha the hospitality of their home -- he called himself "the disciple whom Jesus loved." Not in the agapetic sense in which God loves all men, and we are called to love our neighbor as ourself, but in the philiatic sense of being Jesus's best friend, the one with whom He could share human love.

That John uses agapao and not phileio is not an issue -- the New Testament writers use the verbs interchangeably; it is only we who work theology and insist on distinguishing one kind of love from another who fuss about the kind of love that is meant.

Here's what I think. The beloved deciple was St. Mary Magdalene! I've done some studying of her, and it seems perfectly logical. She and Jesus seemed to be very close. I will try to get you some quotes in the bible to show you the evidence of this. Email me if you want to talk!!! Jessnsync1@aol.com

First we must have a firm understanding of what love truly is. There is certainly a difference between loving someone, and being in love with someone. The term has also been used to imply sexuality, but in the case of the Bible, it is obviously love of the agape sort. Keep John 3:16 in mind when reading texts that use the word love. "For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten son..." This instance is no different.

I read somewhere, I forget where, that when St. John referred to himself as ,,the one that Jesus loved" he used a word for love in a context which can be interpreted as ,,loved in spite of hisself". More accurately, the assertion here was that St. John was attempting to portray Christ's love for him as one that he was not deserving of, but one that Christ gave him anyway unequivocably. Basically a humbled sinner's outlook, the Orthodox teachings of humility being very consistent with that. Hope that helps some.

StMaryMagdalene said:

Here's what I think. The beloved deciple was St. Mary Magdalene! I've done some studying of her, and it seems perfectly logical. She and Jesus seemed to be very close. I will try to get you some quotes in the bible to show you the evidence of this. Email me if you want to talk!!! Jessnsync1@aol.com

Click to expand...

Just from reading John 20, I do not believe this could be a valid conclusion.


v.1: Mary Magdalene finds the tomb empty.
v.2: Mary Magdalene runs to "Simon Peter and the other disciple, the one Jesus loved."

So, unless Mary Magdalene can run to herself, she cannot be the "disciple whom Jesus loved"

Furthermore, the pronouns "he" and "him" are used to describe the one whom Jesus loved.
(v.6, v.8)

I believe that John was "the one whom Jesus loved" because he was the most innocent, young and pure... less hardened by the world than the others. Remember, the group disciples included a former warrior (Simon the Zealot) and a former money-hungry tax collector (Matthew).

Did Jesus really love John more than the other disciples? Since John identifies himself as "that disciple whom Jesus loved," it is understood generally that Jesus loved him most. But I am raising 8 question about that, and I am being bold to assert that I am that disciple whom Jesus loved also.

As the author of the fourth Gospel, we see John to be a man of such modesty that he never mentions his own name even though he was much involved in the events narrated. He includes himself as "the other disciple" a number of times. He was reclining close to Jesus' breast at the Passover supper (John 13:23), but that would seem to be more an expression of John's love for Jesus than of Jesus' love for John. None of the other writers of sacred history point out John as being specially loved by Jesus. Were they unaware of such partiality or just too jealous to mention it?

Concerning Jesus' indiscriminate love for all of the disciples, John wrote of him "having loved his own who were in the world, he loved them to the end"-or, to the uttermost (John 13:1). In view of all this, how could John be so shameless as to claim to be Jesus' favorite without his displaying unbecoming egotism and without tempting the other disciples to become alienated by jealousy?

Five times this unpretentious man identified himself as the disciple whom Jesus loved. This seems to be a distinction that John claimed for himself long after the events of the narrative took place. As the years passed, he could relive by memory those experiences with his beloved Jesus. Perhaps, he remembered with some embarrassment his lack of faith, his faltering support, and his reluctance to express his love to him while with him. After a loved one is taken from us, we are inclined to recall our experiences together and to reproach ourselves for not having been kinder, more expressive of love, and more considerate of that loved one. The fact that the departed loved us in spite of our faults becomes more evident, causing us to contemplate deeply, "How he/she loved me!" So, in his own feelings of unworthiness, after witnessing and reflecting on the ultimate demonstration of Jesus' love for all sinners, John could think of Jesus as giving himself for him in a very personal way. Then in humble praise of him who loved such an unworthy person, John could exalt Jesus by declaring, "I am the disciple whom Jesus loved!" There was nothing exclusive about such a claim.

When I reflect on how he loved me individually when I was a helpless offender, I also can declare, "I am that disciple whom Jesus loved!" So can you.


http://www.freedomsring.org/fts/chap10.html