The Beloved Disciple

[twinc]

It wasn't Lazarus. It was very clearly John.

John Chapter 21, Verse 20: Peter turned and saw the desciple whom Jesus loved following them, the one who also had leaned back against him during the supper and had said, "Lord, who is it that is going to betray you?"

While Lazarus did have a DINNER with Lazarus in John Chapter 20, this is speaking of the SUPPER in John Chapter 13, in which the disciple whom Jesus loved asked, "Lord, who is it?" in Verse 25. Notice the difference in the words DINNER and SUPPER. The meal with Lazarus clearly says DINNEr, while the meal with the beloved disciple later on clearly says SUPPER, which is referred to in John Chapter 21, Verse 20; The SUPPER in which "...he reclined at the table with the twelve (Mattew Chapter 26, Verse 20)," John being one of the twelve.

Would it be considered inappropriate to make a joke about Catholics apparently truly not being able to interpret scripture without the guidance of the Church?

not only that but also missing that John was an Apostle and that John was beloved not only to Jesus but Mary also - twinc

 

[twinc]

It wasn't Lazarus. It was very clearly John.

John Chapter 21, Verse 20: Peter turned and saw the desciple whom Jesus loved following them, the one who also had leaned back against him during the supper and had said, "Lord, who is it that is going to betray you?"

While Lazarus did have a DINNER with Lazarus in John Chapter 20, this is speaking of the SUPPER in John Chapter 13, in which the disciple whom Jesus loved asked, "Lord, who is it?" in Verse 25. Notice the difference in the words DINNER and SUPPER. The meal with Lazarus clearly says DINNEr, while the meal with the beloved disciple later on clearly says SUPPER, which is referred to in John Chapter 21, Verse 20; The SUPPER in which "...he reclined at the table with the twelve (Mattew Chapter 26, Verse 20)," John being one of the twelve.

Would it be considered inappropriate to make a joke about Catholics apparently truly not being able to interpret scripture without the guidance of the Church?

not only that but that John was an Apostle whilst Lazarus is referred to as a disciple - also John was beloved of Jesus and Mary - twinc

 

[Forge3]

What does it mean to be beloved?

 

[twinc]

It wasn't Lazarus. It was very clearly John.

John Chapter 21, Verse 20: Peter turned and saw the desciple whom Jesus loved following them, the one who also had leaned back against him during the supper and had said, "Lord, who is it that is going to betray you?"

While Lazarus did have a DINNER with Lazarus in John Chapter 20, this is speaking of the SUPPER in John Chapter 13, in which the disciple whom Jesus loved asked, "Lord, who is it?" in Verse 25. Notice the difference in the words DINNER and SUPPER. The meal with Lazarus clearly says DINNEr, while the meal with the beloved disciple later on clearly says SUPPER, which is referred to in John Chapter 21, Verse 20; The SUPPER in which "...he reclined at the table with the twelve (Mattew Chapter 26, Verse 20)," John being one of the twelve.

Would it be considered inappropriate to make a joke about Catholics apparently truly not being able to interpret scripture without the guidance of the Church?

so how about you needing guidance since you missed that John was an Apostle whereas Lazarus is referred to as a disciple - twinc

 

[L0NEW0LF]

Are we really to the point of pretending the 12 weren't referred to as disciples?

Right from the beginning of John, Jesus calls his first disciples in Chapter 1, Verses 35-51. In Chapter 2, Verse 2, "Jesus also was invited to the wedding with his disciples."

Well, that didn't take very long.

 

[GotScripture]

While Lazarus did have a DINNER with Lazarus in John Chapter 20, this is speaking of the SUPPER in John Chapter 13, in which the disciple whom Jesus loved asked, "Lord, who is it?" in Verse 25. Notice the difference in the words DINNER and SUPPER. The meal with Lazarus clearly says DINNEr, while the meal with the beloved disciple later on clearly says SUPPER...

Sadly, like most who need craft excuses to defend their belief in this-or-that unbiblical tradition, your assertions about what scripture is actually teaching do not stand up to biblical scrutiny.

First off the God-inspired writer of the fourth gospel did not use one word designate the meal where Lazarus joined Jesus at the table and a different word to designate the meal where the author leaned on Jesus at the Passover just before Jesus was arrested and killed. Your claim may serve to help prop-up the John idea in the minds of those who refuse to subject the John idea to biblical scrutiny, but it is sadly a real example of the type of pitiful research that is used to tickle the itching ears of tradition devotees.

In the fourth gospel, in 12:2, 13:2, 13:4 & 21:20 prove your assertion wrong:

-- There they made him a supper 1173; and Martha served: but Lazarus was one of them that sat at the table with him.
-- And supper 1173 being ended, the devil having now put into the heart of Judas Iscariot, Simon's [son], to betray him;
-- He riseth from supper 1173, and laid aside his garments; and took a towel , and girded himself.
-- Then Peter , turning about, seeth the disciple whom Jesus loved following; which also leaned on his breast at supper 1173, and said, Lord, which is he that betrayeth thee?

So, the God-inspired author of the fourth gospel used ONE word (G1173) to describe BOTH meals, and to imply this writer of scripture intended to show a distinction between these two meals by using different words to refer to them is false.

Of course these meals were different, they took place at different times and the later meal was special, for it was the Passover meal. But while you may have found a translation that offers an excuse for making the DINNER / SUPPER word distinction claim which you have made, if you would look past your self-serving motive and do the least bit of research, you could have easily seen the God-inspired author of the fourth gospel used the same word to refer to both events.

BlueLetterBible, eSword, and other free Bible software and Bible study tools are resources that one can (and should) check before making any truth claim regarding God's word. These days there no excuse for blaming some version/translation. We should obey Ps. 118:8 and do the work before we assert something is true.

PS - Additional terms for meals, like the 15 gospel references to "sat at meat" and the word designated by Strong's number G712, would need to be included in any true search for truth on the topic of differing ways of referring to meals.

Psalm 138:2b says of the Lord, "thou hast magnified thy word above all thy name". God honors his word and so should we. So when we are speaking about God's word, it is worth the time it takes for us to do the work it takes to be accurate in way we think and the statements we make regarding scripture.

 

[mog144]

GotScripture, nice work but I failed to see your choice of who this mystery person is. Can you simply state who you believe it is after all that you posted? I don't have any rebuttal to present, I'd rather stay out of this but I am curious to whom you believe it is. If I was so blind to miss this in your post, I do apologize in advance. Thanks.

 

[GotScripture]

GotScripture, ... I am curious to whom you believe it is. If I was so blind to miss this in your post, I do apologize in advance.

No you didn't miss it here. See post #10 for the biblical evidence link that lays out case. The biblical evidence disproves the John tradition (and THAT is more important than who the unnamed "other disciple, whom Jesus loved" actually was -- because the scriptures can impeach the methods which are used promote that false teaching).

As that post noted, a straightforward reading of the fourth gospel from the beginning to end will enable the author's own words to give us all the data we need to know in order to discern his identity.

 

[L0NEW0LF]

I see what you're saying about the word usage, however, it's probable that the supper being spoken of is the last supper. When speaking of "the supper," I don't know anyone that says or thinks, "Oh yes, the supper with Lazarus." If the verse is speaking of the last supper, which it logically is, then the evidence is strong that the disciple being spoken of is John, the author. Not only would it be odd that the supper with Lazarus is being spoken of, but it would be extremely odd that John would be left out of a Gospel. Correct me if I'm wrong, but he's spoken of by name in every Gospel but John. Since he is, traditionally, the author of John, this makes sense. Instead of writing of himself as "John" he writes of himself as the beloved disciple.

Also, what about Peter and John consistently being linked together? They were the ones sent by Jesus to prepare the feast. At the end of John, Jesus tells Peter to follow him. Another disciple tags along and Peter asks about it. Jesus doesn't turn the "beloved disciple" away. This is after Jesus tells Peter, just before, to tend and feed his sheep. In Acts, it's Peter AND JOHN working together and performing miracles, and Peter AND JOHN before the council. Peter was chosen by Jesus to be a leader. He allowed another disciple to come along. The other disciple consistently by Peter's side is John. It's entirely probable that the "beloved disciple" that follwed Jesus along with Peter at the end of John, was John.

Instead of pointing us towards a book, could you provide some of the information here that leads you to believe that John couldn't possibly be the author?

 

[mog144]

No you didn't miss it here. See post #10 for the biblical evidence link that lays out case. The biblical evidence disproves the John tradition (and THAT is more important than who the unnamed "other disciple, whom Jesus loved" actually was -- because the scriptures can impeach the methods which are used promote that false teaching).

As that post noted, a straightforward reading of the fourth gospel from the beginning to end will enable the author's own words to give us all the data we need to know in order to discern his identity.

May I ask again, who do you believe it is? Just give one name, please. I've read enough to see how you say that we can know who it isn't, then you say that we can know who it is by a link to another source of scripture and yet it's still a mystery, lol. Okay... So, what is the verdict?

Why is it more important to be convinced that it isn't John than it is to know who it really is?
What is the hidden agenda here?
Are you selling books?

LOL

Based on all the efforts to discredit John as the mystery man, I will tell you now that it IS John and you will stand corrected on Judgment day.

 

[Radagast]

TheDiscipleWhomJesusLoved.com is a free eBook (new revised edition)

In other words, a booklet that no actual publisher would touch.

WHOEVER this anonymous author of the fourth gospel was, scripture proves he could not have been John

It's the Bible that shows it must be John. Particularly the way Matthew, Mark, and Luke tell us that John was present at key events, while John says the "beloved disciple" was.

A Better Bible Study Method is an audio presentation that expands on this topic

Another unreliable source.

 

[Unix]

Yes, of course I always exclude Jn 21.
See what I've posted in another context: http://www.christianforums.com/t7665024-post60752112/#post60752112

So do you take a black marker and scribble out John 21 in your Bibles, or do you only dismiss it when it benefits your argument(s)?

Yes, really. No Church matches exactly what I believe.

Really? Those are two very, very different viewpoints.

... where I say that I've done 2 tests which show that the RCC and the Anabaptists are the closest to what I believe.

 

[Unix]

Competition. That was a healthy thing.

And the fans of the Lazarus idea have never explained why John would be completely left out of the gospel of John (which he must have been if the Lazarus idea is true).

 

[ebedmelech]

John 21:24 certainly says that the beloved disciple is the man whose name is on top of the gospel -- John.

Without a doubt.
One could also Read 1 John as well and the Revelation (in my view), and see John's gospel is the same writer.

 

[AHJE]

I believe that the person in question is St. John the Holy Apostle.

But, I have a question for all of you, ... why do you think that he is left UNNAMED in the Gospel according to St. John? Is there a Revelation Purpose behind this?

What does it mean in Scripture when one is left unnamed?

I'll wait for your answer.

God bless you.

 

[GotScripture]

I see what you're saying about...

Maybe not. But before addressing specifics in your response, here are a few questions to help clarify where you stand on this issue and on respect for the authority of God's word. There are a number of things to be said regarding your comments, but your answers to these questions will help avoid some possible wrong assumptions on my part about where you stand.

Are you claiming it was not following after the traditions of men that prejudiced your view on this issue, but it was a careful consideration of the facts in the plain text of scripture that forced you to conclude the unnamed "other disciple, whom Jesus loved" must be the Apostle John and no one else? (YES or NO? YES=facts in scripture led to your belief on this issue. NO=you relied on non-Bible sources.)

Could you be wrong about the anonymous author of the fourth gospel being John? (YES or NO? YES=it is possible you are wrong on this issue. NO=you could not be wrong on this issue.)

[Skip this question if you answered NO to the last question]. If you answered YES to the last question, then what would it take to convince you that the one "whom Jesus loved" was not John, i.e. what would you consider to be sufficient evidence to show to your satisfaction that the John idea is untrue?

 

[ebedmelech]

I believe that the person in question is St. John the Holy Apostle.

But, I have a question for all of you, ... why do you think that he is left UNNAMED in the Gospel according to St. John? Is there a Revelation Purpose behind this?

What does it mean in Scripture when one is left unnamed?

I'll wait for your answer.

God bless you.

John is unnamed because he want the readers focus on Jesus and not on himself.

I don't think it's any other reason....when it comes to Revelation, it is a prophecy and therefore John Identifies himself so the reader knows he is authoritative as an apostle and prophet of the Lord Jesus.

 

[L0NEW0LF]

I posted biblical evidence on why I believe the tradition that the author is John. You, on the other hand, provide nothing as to why you believe the author is not John. No, instead you point us towards someone else's work, which, as has been said, no publisher has been willing to touch. So why do you believe the author isn't John?

 

[GotScripture]

So, that would be a YES answer to the first question, and a NO to the second, i.e.:

YES, you say it was not the traditions of men that prejudiced your view on this issue, rather it was a careful consideration of the facts in the plain text of scripture that forced you to conclude the unnamed "other disciple, whom Jesus loved" must be the Apostle John and no one else; &

NO, you could not be wrong about the anonymous author of the fourth gospel being John.

My bad. I had hoped you might be open to biblical correction, but If I had gone back to review your earliest statements on this issue, I could have avoided the second question, for you made it clear you had already dug in your heels on this issue:

It's John. Always has been, always will be.

So you obviously have convinced yourself you cannot be wrong on this issue. Now you claim to have cited biblical evidence for your belief, and I found this gem of an example of how you managed to convince yourself to be so committed to your belief in the John tradition:

it's John because: John Chapter 21, Verse 24: "This is the disciple that testifieth of these things, and wrote these things..." Speaking of the Gospel of John, of which John is the author.

That example is very telling. In your first comments on this thread you lead with that statement as your supposed biblical evidence knock-out punch that you obviously think should end the debate. Clearly you assume this qualifies as biblical evidence that your belief in the man-made John tradition is well founded. But you do err.

(Do you understand what it means to engage in circular reasoning? It is a logical fallacy that leads one to the conclusion they started out with because they actually have no frame of reference which does not depend on their initial assumption. Truly, circular reasoning is deception; it is not biblical evidence.)

Your response to Post 26 was quite telling:

I see what you're saying...

Unfortunately, nothing could be further from the truth.

You claimed to see what post 26 was about, but clearly you are blind. You missed the point.

But it would not serve to protect your ego or your belief in your belief to acknowledge what the scriptural evidence cited in that post had, in fact, just proved about your methodology.

Post 26 showed you do not know how to properly weigh biblical evidence or know what constitutes a sound argument or even understand what can rightly be called biblical evidence. The argument that you believed refuted the Lazarus hypothesis of another post by claiming a DINNER/SUPPER word difference was exposed to be nothing but a bunch of unbiblical drivel. While YOUR standard for biblical evidence was obviously satisfied with your belief that scripture backed up your claim, a search of the scriptures easily showed you to be making a patently false claim. But it did much more than that.

More important, in post 26 scripture itself showed your shoot-from-the-hip Bible study methodology would lead one to be easily duped by baseless arguments and it was given to self-serving rather than to truth seeking.

Making false claims does not prove anything, whether that involves the twisting scripture to paint the picture that the words DINNER and SUPPER present biblical evidence against the Lazarus hypothesis, or whether that involves claiming to have "posted biblical evidence" when you have only offered baseless assertions and assumptions from your own imagination.

Your initial post demonstrated your devotion to circular reasoning on this issue and since that is where you are determined to go that is where you will stay. Have fun chasing your tail.

When a person is proven wrong their reaction says a lot. So it says a lot that you so easily misrepresent the word of God and then casually brush aside a rebuke from scripture with "I see what you are saying" when the fact is your comments after those words revealed that just the opposite was true.

Psalm 138:2b says of the Lord, "thou hast magnified thy word above all thy name".

Those who have a love of the truth should recognize the importance of honoring God's word.

But you obviously had not done so. Your ridiculous assertion regarding a DINNER/SUPPER distinction was exposed to be nothing but a bunch of unbiblical drivel. Your fertile imagination may have been satisfied with your idea that you had biblical evidence to back up your claim, but it turns out a search of the scriptures easily showed you to be making a patently false claim, and showed your Bible study methodology to be given to self-serving not to truth seeking.

The problem was not just that you misrepresented what God's word was teaching. The problem is you practice a Bible study method that resulted in you misrepresenting God's word. You failed to see that the biblical rebuke not only proved your conclusions on this point were false. More important was it also proved you do not have a proper standard for determining what is biblical and what is not biblical.

You "see" the rebuke as being only about the particular false claim regarding DINNER/SUPPER words. But you are blind to the truth that the rebuke was not only about you avoiding the embarrassment of repeating that particular error. The rebuke exposed a much larger problem. But as a Kool-aid drinking defender of your preferred tradition, you cannot see you have been blindly following the blind, which is also, in effect, what is going on when you engage in circular reasoning.

Also silly straw-man assertions like this don't help the cause of truth either:

Are we really to the point of pretending the 12 weren't referred to as disciples?

Since no one had claimed the term "disciples" is not used of "the twelve", how would the cause of truth be advanced by acting as if someone had actually suggested that idea just so you can mock it. (Note: both straw-man and circular reasoning are problems of method.)

With that, and since you have convinced yourself you cannot be wrong on this issue, I will shake the dust off of my feet in your direction and move on without further response to whatever darts your ego feels are needed. I leave you to your belief in tradition and just say "the Lord judge between me and thee".

PS Before you toss your barbs at Catholics, try obeying the admonition of Jesus in Lu. 6:41-42 first

 

[L0NEW0LF]

Once again, you post no reasoning at all as to why you believe the author isn't John. You use my words as your way out. Typical of someone with no logic behind their claim.