M
Maranatha
Guest
Is “the other disciple” mentioned in John 18:16also “The one whom Jesus loved.” like in John 20:2? If this person is John the Apostle - the son of a Galilean fisherman, how does he know the High Priest?
- Status
R
Ron_Conte
Guest
The answer is somewhat speculative, but ‘the other disciple’ is generally thought to be John the Gospel writer and Apostle. He was the youngest of the Apostles and may have studied the Jewish faith in Jerusalem. The high priest likely knew, or knew of, some of the older and more accomplished students. But this is speculative. It is also possible that the high priest knew of John through family members or friends of the family.
Ron
M
Maranatha
Guest
Yes, I though of this. My thoughts were also based on speculation and I hoped others may have more concrete knowledge.
Since elsewhere in scripture, it states that Jesus took James and John from their fathers fishing boat and left the boats in the hands of his father’s employees, it’s generally assumed that Zebedee, John’s father, is a man of means. If he was also a pious man who tithed to the temple and sent his son there to study, then it’s very possible that he John the Apostle knew the High priest.
I
ItIsWritten
Guest
Maranatha, You ask a key question and rather than speculate about what the answer might be (which tends to reach beyond the bounds of what we find revealed in the scriptures), the cause of truth will be better served if we look to God’s word for the answer (in accord with Ps. 118:8).
So perhaps it would be better to frame the question in such a way as to keep the focus on the word of God – something like, Does the Bible present us with any evidence that John would have been known to the high priest? - or - What facts about John do we find in the Biblical record that would argue for or against the idea that he was known to the high priest?
Those who prefer to investigate this question without speculation should be aware that the Bible has preserved important evidence that directly bears on this question. In fact, if you are willing to sit as a jury and hear a presentation of just the Biblical evidence on this question then this study on the beloved disciple.
What you will find is beyond the fact that the text of scripture reveals important material evidence on the question of whether or not John was known to the high priest, the Bible also has much to say about things such as the absence of this “other disciple” from the first three gospels, why this author refers to himself as the “other disciple” (Other than what?) and why the key events that John had special knowledge of are all missing from the fourth gospel (all the events where only Peter, James & John or only Peter, James, John & Andrew were present - events like the Mount of Transfiguration, Jesus’ prayers in the Garden at Gethsemane, etc.).
Before one resorts to speculation, it seems more reasonable for those who love the truth to make sure they first search the scriptures to see if these things are so (as in Acts 17:11).
M
Maranatha
Guest
Thanks for the reply. I’d like to listen to any interpretation from scripture but I disagree with the linked provided. The link has the quote:
This statement, Sola Scriptura, is not Biblically based and so is self-refuting.
I
ItIsWritten
Guest
If you’re wanting an interpretation (i.e. someone giving you their opinion on what they think various verses mean as opposed to just reading them for yourself) then this Bible study on the beloved disciple is not for you. It only quotes various passages of scripture on this issue and compares what is said in those passages to what is said in other passages – in both cases taking the plain reading of the text as just that.
There are only five passages of scripture where the terms “the disciple whom Jesus loved” “other disciple" or “other disciple who Jesus loved” appear and since the facts required to show that this unnamed “other” disciple was not John are apparent from the text itself, there is no need to interpret anything. It’s not rocket science to read these five passages and compare scripture with scripture regarding what is said about the “other disciple” in these passages.
But you say you “disagree with the link provided” because of a passage you quote from the introduction on the site that says:
(A)
This is a true statement. There is not even a single verse of scripture that can be cited to justify teaching the idea that John was this “other disciple”. But it gets even worse. The evidence preserved for us in the Biblical record proves that the unnamed “other disciple” could not possible have been John – and the book cites the passages of scripture that prove this.
And the introduction on the site goes on to say:
(B)
Instead of looking at the Biblical passages that pertain to this question, you’ve instead decided to set up a straw-man argument about “Sola Scriptura” that you then proceed to knock down – which I guess is supposed to negate the need for having to consider what the Bible has to say on this issue. But the study never even discusses the issue of “Sola Scriptura” so you’ve only done a disservice to yourself and why anyone who says that the Bible is inspired by God would want to suggest that citing the Bible alone makes an argument “self-refuting” is beyond me.
It is true that this study cites nothing but the Bible, but if you choose to believe that a study which cites nothing but evidence that comes from the plain reading of scripture cannot be true, so be it.
Given your original question I had no idea that you’d find this a presentation that only cites scripture to be offensive so I’ll leave it there. However I hope that someone else may happen upon this thread that would like to read what the Bible does say on this issue – framing the question as was stated earlier:
M
Maranatha
Guest
Once again, thanks for your response. While I agree the Bible is inerrant, I don’t think that need be our sole source of information.
The site you provided and your argument above do not even provide any Biblical grounds that the other disciple could not possibly be John the Apostle.
I
ItIsWritten
Guest
Again you elect to go with a straw-man argument – who said the Bible “need be our sole source of information”, only you – because the beloved disciple Bible study never says anything of the kind. So keep misrepresenting the arguments if you wish, but anyone who actually reads this study will know that your statements in this regard are incorrect.
However worse still is your statement the site link that was provided
This is a patently false statement and this fact will be self-evident to anyone who reads the study – because the study does exactly that; it provides Biblical evidence (which you don’t want to accept because this study happens to provide only Biblical evidence) that the other disciple could not possibly have been John.
How can one know if your claim is baseless? Read the study. There is certainly no need for debate on this – the Bible passages that are cited in the study refute your claim and those who bother to read these passages can see the truth on this for themselves.
(PS - Since no where “above” did I ever claim to or attempt to repeat those passages of scripture here on this thread, your adding that my “arugment above” didn’t prrovide Biblical evidence proving that John couldn’t have been the “other disciple” is clearly just a red-herring. As I’ve said all along one only needs to click on the beloved disciple for that evidence.)
M
Maranatha
Guest
I’m sorry, I didn’t see, on the link you provided, that the full study was available. I’ll read and and let you know what I think. (May take a while since I’ll be away for a few days.)
O
Oliviad
Guest
Church Tradition says that a number of those beloved by JESUS assembled together, and that a Revelation revealed to them that John should write a Gospel with various things in it. It is evident that though he wrote the bulk of the Book, one or more of those with him penned statements of verification as Witnesses to all he had written. It is not always speaking about one person only, when it says “the one whom JESUS loved”. All in that group showed humility!
It’s obvious that at least one or more times John is intended.
The stupid view in the DaVinci Code is stolen from Holy Blood, Holy Grail. The only thing preventing those earlier writers from just beating that plagiarizer Dan Brown in court for his thefts, is that it would mean their public confession of having lied in court in the past about inventing the contents of their own book’s invented “sources”, and they would face prison. But there’s only one reason they have taken the bum to court twice (despite their loss the first time): they want copyrights over the false documents that they jealously guard as the bad fruit of their own vain imaginations.
It’s obvious that at least one or more times John is intended.
The stupid view in the DaVinci Code is stolen from Holy Blood, Holy Grail. The only thing preventing those earlier writers from just beating that plagiarizer Dan Brown in court for his thefts, is that it would mean their public confession of having lied in court in the past about inventing the contents of their own book’s invented “sources”, and they would face prison. But there’s only one reason they have taken the bum to court twice (despite their loss the first time): they want copyrights over the false documents that they jealously guard as the bad fruit of their own vain imaginations.
I
ItIsWritten
Guest
False. What is evident is that the unnamed “other disciple whom Jesus loved” wrote the book. Your presupposition that this “other disciple” was John is necessarily erroneous because that is what the facts in the Biblical record prove.
The beloved disciple was not John and the linked study presents this evidence so there is no need to repeat that information here. However in contrast to the baseless claim of what “is evident” quoted above, here is a highlight on just one point to where the words “is evident” are actually backed up by the facts of scripture.
What is evident is the absence of the key events that John was a select eyewitness to! Is this an indication that he was the author of the fourth gospel?
The other three gospels tell of events where John acted alone or where Peter and John, or James and John, or Peter, James and John or Peter, James, John and Andrew were acting apart from the rest of the disciple or were selected to be an eyewitness to key events. Yet those who seek to promote the unbiblical John idea always want to ignore the FACT that these events (i.e. the Mt. of Transfiguration, the raising of Jairus’ daughter and the prayers of Jesus prayers at Gethsemane, etc.) are missing from the gospel that they want to assert was written by John?
The fourth gospel omits all of these key events. John was there. But the gospel that is attributed to John never says one word about them. So would an unbiased jury conclude that this was evidence that John was the unnamed “other disciple”? Not.
Moreover, the first three gospels freely mention John but nowhere the first three gospels is there a single mention of the unnamed “other disciple” who “Jesus loved”. So those who believe the John idea are in fact claiming that the writers of the first three gospels freely mention John but they refused to mention John when John is busy calling himself the one who “Jesus loved” in the fourth gospel. But is the FACT of this different treatment actually an argument FOR the John idea or is it in fact an argument against the John idea?
“It is] better to trust in the LORD than to put confidence in man.” (Ps. 118:8) But those who put confidence in the opinions of men found in fallible non-Bible sources in order to defend the man-made John tradition are promoting an idea that is contrary to scripture.
Why not let the Bible be our guide on this question? Search the scriptures – it’s certainly not hazardous to one’s health but it is likely to be hazardous to non-Bible traditions – the man-made John tradition in particular.
Here you attack an idea that no one has even mentioned. But since you brought it up, it is interesting to note that those who claim that Mary Magdalene was the unnamed “disciple whom Jesus loved” make the same mistake as those who claim that this was John. Both of these groups ignore the fact that not a single verse of scripture would justify teaching either of these ideas. They continue to promote these ideas despite Biblical evidence to the contrary.
Mary Magdalene was not the beloved disciple and the lest any one get a wrong idea from this comment, the beloved disciple Bible study cited above certainly does not advocate the fallacies of the DaVinci Code. Just the opposite.
The same can be said of any notion that is presented as if it were Biblical even though there is not a single verse that would justify teaching that idea.
I
ItIsWritten
Guest
Whoever this “other disciple” was, he wasn’t John and those who will cling to this non-Bible tradition have to ignore the Biblical evidence to do so.
For those seeking the truth on this question, searching the scriptures leads to the truth:
Compare the facts revealed in the five passages that refer to the beloved disciple (Jn. 13:21-28, 18:12-18, 19:25-27, 20:1-10 & 21:2-24) to the facts reported in scripture about John and you will have the proof that this unnamed person was not John.
Keep in mind that the verses about the unnamed “other disciple” who “Jesus loved” (Jn. 13:21-28, 18:12-18, 19:25-27, 20:1-10, 21:2-24) reveal facts about him and not facts about John. One should never twist scripture to fit their own preconceived ideas, but that is what is routinely done by those who want to claim that man-made tradition and non-Bible sources (i.e., opinions of teachers, radio preachers or of guys who lived in the second or third century) is sufficient reason to pretend that verses about the unnamed “other disciple” are talking about John.
In seeking to comport with Ps. 118:8, for example just for starters note the following:
John identifies himself by name multiple times in the Book of Revelation. Moreover, John never calls himself the one who “Jesus loved”, "other disciple” or “the other disciple whom Jesus loved” in the one book where John is clearly identified as the author.
So the author of the fourth gospel conceals his identity (multiple times in his book)
while the author of the Book of Revelation reveals his identity (multiple times in his book)
Should an unbiased jury should consider these dissimilar facts to be an argument in favor of the idea that these two authors were the same person?
For those seeking the truth on this question, searching the scriptures leads to the truth:
Compare the facts revealed in the five passages that refer to the beloved disciple (Jn. 13:21-28, 18:12-18, 19:25-27, 20:1-10 & 21:2-24) to the facts reported in scripture about John and you will have the proof that this unnamed person was not John.
Keep in mind that the verses about the unnamed “other disciple” who “Jesus loved” (Jn. 13:21-28, 18:12-18, 19:25-27, 20:1-10, 21:2-24) reveal facts about him and not facts about John. One should never twist scripture to fit their own preconceived ideas, but that is what is routinely done by those who want to claim that man-made tradition and non-Bible sources (i.e., opinions of teachers, radio preachers or of guys who lived in the second or third century) is sufficient reason to pretend that verses about the unnamed “other disciple” are talking about John.
In seeking to comport with Ps. 118:8, for example just for starters note the following:
John identifies himself by name multiple times in the Book of Revelation. Moreover, John never calls himself the one who “Jesus loved”, "other disciple” or “the other disciple whom Jesus loved” in the one book where John is clearly identified as the author.
So the author of the fourth gospel conceals his identity (multiple times in his book)
while the author of the Book of Revelation reveals his identity (multiple times in his book)
Should an unbiased jury should consider these dissimilar facts to be an argument in favor of the idea that these two authors were the same person?
T
TarlsQtr
Guest
I am not going to get caught up in the subsequent conversation but Eusebius held that John belonged to a priestly family, which would explain his knowing the High Priest.
S
SFH
Guest
Some speculate that the “disciple who Jesus loved” that’s referred to in St. John’s Gospel is St. Lazarus, who Christ raised from the dead. They point out that when Our Lord is informed of Lazarus’ illness, the language is similar to the “disciple who Jesus loved” language. If Lazarus was the author, it would also explain why the author of St. John’s Gospel has such an impressive knowledge of Jerusalem and so many contacts within Jerusalem. Lazarus lived near Jerusalem; St. John was from Galilee miles away.
This is all speculation, however. Tradition has consistently assigned the authorship of the fourth Gospel to St. John, and that is probably the best historical evidence we have at this point.
I
ItIsWritten
Guest
Those in Acts 17:11 did not ‘search the speculations to see if these things were so’ and neither should we. They “searched the scriptures” and so should we.
Translation: The speculation that this was John became ‘tradition’ because many men chose to repeat this speculation in their non-Bible writings – even though they could not cite a single verse of scripture that would justify teaching this idea). Therefore many today will follow the speculations of other men and ignore the Biblical evidence that proves that the “other disciple” was not John.
For those who want to see a presentation of the Biblical evidence on this issue here is a presentation of the Biblical evidence on the beloved disciple.
I
ItIsWritten
Guest
Those who want to base their conclusions on the beliefs of Eusebius will of course do so. But regardless of what any non-Bible source says the Bible proves that John was not known to the high priest. Therefore John could not have been the “other disciple” who wrote the fourth gospel. (The Biblical proof of this is cited in the aforementioned beloved disciple Bible study.)
I
ItIsWritten
Guest
Maranatha, I was just wondering if you’ve had a chance to read the study on the beloved disciple and weigh all of the Biblical evidence that proves that John was not the “other disicple whom Jesus loved”? I’m headed out for a few weeks myself, so I’ll check this when I get back,
M
Mintaka
Guest
I don’t know why people have such a hard time believing that John might know the high priest. Maybe the high priest summered on the lake. Maybe John met him by chance at some point in Jerusalem.
Judea and Galilee didn’t have anywhere near as many people as the US does, and yet I bet there’s somebody on this forum who knows somebody famous. Heck, I know people who are famous. These things happen.
Judea and Galilee didn’t have anywhere near as many people as the US does, and yet I bet there’s somebody on this forum who knows somebody famous. Heck, I know people who are famous. These things happen.
M
Maranatha
Guest
In the Gospel of John 18:15, the other disciple, who many claim is the author of the Gospel of John (see footnote #8 for Jn 13:23) gains access to the High Priests’ Annas house where Jesus’ first trial is held. He explains that he gets this access because he is known to the High Priest.
In Acts 3:1-13, Peter and Apostle John are confronted by the High Priest, Annas, and the High Priest doesn’t know who John is.
Many people interpret the combination of these passages to mean that the Apostle John is not the same as the beloved disciple who wrote the Gospel of John.
M
Maranatha
Guest
I did get a change to review the study. I agree that if you take the Bible alone and do not use the CC’s traditional interpretation of the passages, it does not seem that the apostle John wrote the Gospel that bears his name.
- Status