Who is the "Beloved Disciple?"

[ICXCNIKA]

In her book Reading the New Testament professor Pheme Parker writes " The gospel’s [John] author is unknown, though its traditions are attributed to an anonymous figure in the narrative, ‘the beloved disciple.’ This disciple is not one of the twelve. He only appears in the tory during Jesus’ last days in Jerusalem, at the cross (Jn 19:35) and in the resurrection stories (21:24). He may have been the founder of the Johannine community (21:24). John 21:23 hints that unlike Peter he did not die a martyr but lived to a considerable age. He may have been responsible for the unique symbolic language that we find in the gospel" (4).

I was under the impression that John was the beloved disciple. Does anyone know any evidence for John as the author, or someone else, of the gospel of John?

 

[teachccd]

Tradition has always held that the Apostle John was the “beloved disciple”. It is not explicit in Scripture but then our deposit of faith is not based on Scripture alone. Many modern theologians are debating the identity of this beloved disciple but most will refer to him as John, the Apostle…teachccd

 

[Penitus]

His identity was nearly unanimously identified as John until the last few centuries.

 

[ICXCNIKA]

I found it interesting that the term “the beloved disciple” is only mentioned a few times at the end of John. It seems to me that John is the best candidate, given what Tradition tells us about Mary living in Ephesus with John etc.

 

[steppenwolf1218]

In her book Reading the New Testament professor Pheme Parker writes " The gospel’s [John] author is unknown, though its traditions are attributed to an anonymous figure in the narrative, ‘the beloved disciple.’ This disciple is not one of the twelve. He only appears in the tory during Jesus’ last days in Jerusalem, at the cross (Jn 19:35) and in the resurrection stories (21:24). He may have been the founder of the Johannine community (21:24). John 21:23 hints that unlike Peter he did not die a martyr but lived to a considerable age. He may have been responsible for the unique symbolic language that we find in the gospel" (4).

I was under the impression that John was the beloved disciple. Does anyone know any evidence for John as the author, or someone else, of the gospel of John?

Parker is wrong in a couple of assumptions. One, no one other than the Twelve (later the Eleven) were present for the Last Supper or the Ascension. Further, there were instructions given to them by Jesus that were meant only for the Apostles and not the general discipleship. The beloved disciple was present so he must have been an Apostle, one of the Twelve unless Parker is accidentally suggesting he is one the Thirteen?? John also did not die a martyr. There was also the tradition that the author doesn’t mention himself by name. Examples are Matthew using the name Levi in his gospel and Luke refering to his participation in Paul’s ministry only by the pronoun we in Acts. Luke names nearly everyone else involved but never himself by name. Likewise, it would be understandable that John refers to himself as the beloved disciple.

The other point on Parker is the claim of who actually authored the Gospel of John. Most will concur that John wrote his gospel sometime in the late 1st century while in exile. The Johanine letters come under dispute but are still held to be those of John. Revelations is the book which beliefs on authorship is divided as to which John actually wrote it.

 

[ItIsWritten]

I was under the impression that John was the beloved disciple. Does anyone know any evidence for John as the author, or someone else, of the gospel of John?

The Bible says what it says so no matter how many men one can find parroting the ideas of men found in non-Bible sources the fact is the Biblical evidence proves that John was not the “other disciple whom Jesus loved” (the anonymous author of the fourth gospel).

In fact there is not a single verse that would justify teaching that John was the one whom “Jesus loved” and yet most assume that this tradition cannot be wrong and then interpret scripture to fit this idea. But if one heeds Ps. 118:8 then the NON-Bible sources on which this man-made tradition rests will fall before the scriptures which prove that NO MATTER WHO this author was he most certainly was not John.

www.TheDiscipleWhomJesusLoved.com has a free Bible-only based study that cites what the Bible says about John and contrasts that with what the Bible says about “the other disciple whom Jesus loved” and thereby proves that whoever this unnamed author was he was not John – because the Bible cannot contradict itself. But one need not read this study if they will just read the fourth gospel from the beginning with the honest question, “Who would I conclude the author was based on just the facts stated in his own gospel?” Those who do so will never come to the conclusion that this “other disciple” was John because NONE of the evidence points toward John. Rather than trusting in the opinions of men in non-Bible sources one should employ the Ps. 118:8 Bible study method instead.

“Prove all things”. One can choose to ignore the facts stated in the plain text of scripture if they prefer to quote the words of men who quote other men who quote other men but the one thing that none these non-Bible sources can do is cite even a single verse that would justify the idea that John was “the other disciple, whom Jesus loved” (and that includes the non-Bible sources you cited that promote this unbiblical man-made tradition).

See forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=144748 for a previous discussion of this issue. For those who prefer to rely on something other than the Biblical evidence there are plenty of non-Bible sources and endless hearsay (from about 200ad an on) that has been used to promote any number of unbiblical answers to this question, including the unbiblical John tradition. But those who rely on facts found in the plain text of scripture will see the John does not hold up to Biblical scrutiny.

 

[Maui71]

Hey It is wrttien;

Were in the bible does it say that the Gospel of John belongs in the bible? Where in the bible does the bible say what books should be included and what books shouldn’t?

So if the bible does not say what books belong in the bible then how did the bible happened? Jesus did not write it and give it to Peter or did he?

So the bible must have been put together by some extra-biblical source? By what authority were the books of the bible chosen? Who chose them? Why did they choose them and why did they leave out other books?

Answer me that and then tell me about extra-biblical books.

 

[steppenwolf1218]

The Bible says what it says so no matter how many men one can find parroting the ideas of men found in non-Bible sources the fact is the Biblical evidence proves that John was not the “other disciple whom Jesus loved” (the anonymous author of the fourth gospel).

In fact there is not a single verse that would justify teaching that John was the one whom “Jesus loved” and yet most assume that this tradition cannot be wrong and then interpret scripture to fit this idea. But if one heeds Ps. 118:8 then the NON-Bible sources on which this man-made tradition rests will fall before the scriptures which prove that NO MATTER WHO this author was he most certainly was not John.

www.TheDiscipleWhomJesusLoved.com has a free Bible-only based study that cites what the Bible says about John and contrasts that with what the Bible says about “the other disciple whom Jesus loved” and thereby proves that whoever this unnamed author was he was not John – because the Bible cannot contradict itself. But one need not read this study if they will just read the fourth gospel from the beginning with the honest question, “Who would I conclude the author was based on just the facts stated in his own gospel?” Those who do so will never come to the conclusion that this “other disciple” was John because NONE of the evidence points toward John. Rather than trusting in the opinions of men in non-Bible sources one should employ the Ps. 118:8 Bible study method instead.

“Prove all things”. One can choose to ignore the facts stated in the plain text of scripture if they prefer to quote the words of men who quote other men who quote other men but the one thing that none these non-Bible sources can do is cite even a single verse that would justify the idea that John was “the other disciple, whom Jesus loved” (and that includes the non-Bible sources you cited that promote this unbiblical man-made tradition).

See forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=144748 for a previous discussion of this issue. For those who prefer to rely on something other than the Biblical evidence there are plenty of non-Bible sources and endless hearsay (from about 200ad an on) that has been used to promote any number of unbiblical answers to this question, including the unbiblical John tradition. But those who rely on facts found in the plain text of scripture will see the John does not hold up to Biblical scrutiny.

This is sola scripture and quite frankly baseless in itself. There is no biblical evidence as to who the author is for sure. Basing it on the premise that certain key elements that are missing from that are in the other Gospels only certifies that you and the author of that study really don’t know John’s Gospel nor his reason for writing it. I will give you a clue. John didn’t wish to parrot what was already written in the three synoptics. He gave his Gospel as the last living testament of the Apostles to the Church. There were many errors and deviations and John wanted to give personal testimony to the contrary. Further by writing his Gospel the way he did, he in fact enhanced and rounded out the other three.

Now you already pushed this idea in another part of this forum and was pretty much rejected. Why don’t you do us a favor and give it a rest?

 

[Jimdandy]

The beloved disciple was St John the apostle.

The Gospel of John is a synopsis of what the apostle St. John preached-it was written by one or more of his close disciples. Revelation was written by John as he was inspired by Jesus and the Holy Spirit.

On the night that Jesus was betrayed St.John was admitted to the high priest’s house, he let St. Peter in the gate there. (he is supposed to have been studying to be a rabbi) He stood by Our Mother Mary’s side at the crucifixion.

For more info read the hstory of our Church.

 

[joecap]

It’s pretty clear to me by the last paragraph of John that John is telling us that he is the author of the Gospel, and that he is the beloved disciple:

John: 21:20 & 24:

20 Peter turning about, saw that disciple whom Jesus loved following, who also leaned on his breast at supper and said: Lord, who is he that shall betray thee?

24 This is that disciple who giveth testimony of these things and hath written these things: and we know that his testimony is true.

(The bolded parts are what I take to indicate his meaning).

The fact that the most detailed of the Gospels was written first-hand by an actual witness lends creditility to all the Gospels.

 

[ItIsWritten]

A lot of people seem to like to repeat completely baseless claims even when those claims have already been refuted. There is little benefit in going over the same ground simply because someone doesn’t want to take the time to investigate the evidence on offer before they post their shoot from the hip arguments and to demonstrate this I’ll cite just one of several possible examples from the comments that have been posted on this thread thus far.

Post 11 from forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=144748 shows the utter carelessness of a claim was on this thread and as this was previously cited herein it would seem that anyone who was interested in the facts in this case would have bothered to see what was posted there (as well as in the aforementioned beloved disciple Bible study which cites Biblical proof that disproves the John idea).

A partial quote from that post -

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.

Despite evidence to the contrary being already posted for consideration as noted and easily accessible by one mouse click on the link and a little reading (or just via a search of the scriptures on this matter) Joecap posted two key points:

It’s pretty clear to me by the last paragraph of John that John is telling us that he is the author of the Gospel, and that he is the beloved disciple

Joecap, While the beloved disciple establishes himself as the author of the fourth gospel you have said NOTHING that would even begin to identify this person as John. You have assumed this so your presupposition has deceived you into engaging in the logically fallacy called circular reasoning – i.e. you ASSUME that the beloved disciple was John so you presume (without proof) that passages that never mention John still refer to him if they mention the unnamed “other disciple whom Jesus loved”.

You went on to suggest that the fourth gospel was “written first-hand by an actual witness” (who you merely assumes to be John) without bothering to take the time to see that the evidence already offered (in post 11 and in the study cited) shows that problem with the ‘John’s eyewitness testimony’ claim.

While it is certainly fair to conclude that the anonymous author of the fourth gospel was presenting himself as an eyewitness those who do so must answer this question. Since you believe that the author IS presenting his eyewitness testimony in his book do you not at all think it strange that John’s most important eyewitness experiences in the ministry of Jesus are missing from the fourth gospel?

The Mount of Transfiguration, Jesus’ prayers in the Garden of Gethsemane and the raising of Jairus’ daughter from the dead – the key points of John’s involvement in Jesus’ ministry – are all missing from the fourth gospel. Why? Could it be the author of the fourth gospel (the unnamed “other disciple whom Jesus loved”) was not an eyewitness to these events?

There is a disconnect between the FACTS found in the plain text of scripture and the claims of promoters of this man-made tradition who assert that the fourth gospel is ‘John’s eyewitness testimony’.

Worse yet, every single time John is specifically mentioned by name as participating in an event in the first three gospels, that event is not found in the fourth gospel. It is indeed hard to understand how this come to be if the author of the fourth gospel was John, but it is easy to understand the fourth gospel’s omission of these if this anonymous author was someone other than John.

While the fourth gospel is for the most part an eyewitness account, the Biblical evidence can prove that this author, the one whom “Jesus loved”, was not John. And as always, the challenge to those who promote this erroneous, man-made tradition is to produce just one verse that would justify teaching the idea that John was the unnamed “other disciple whom Jesus loved”. The fact they cannot do so shows that the presentation of this idea AS IF IT WERE BIBLICAL is not a truthful presentation.

 

[thistle]

A lot of people seem to like to repeat completely baseless claims even when those claims have already been refuted. There is little benefit in going over the same ground simply because someone doesn’t want to take the time to investigate the evidence on offer before they post their shoot from the hip arguments and to demonstrate this I’ll cite just one of several possible examples from the comments that have been posted on this thread thus far.

Post 11 from forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=144748 shows the utter carelessness of a claim was on this thread and as this was previously cited herein it would seem that anyone who was interested in the facts in this case would have bothered to see what was posted there (as well as in the aforementioned beloved disciple Bible study which cites Biblical proof that disproves the John idea).

A partial quote from that post -

Despite evidence to the contrary being already posted for consideration as noted and easily accessible by one mouse click on the link and a little reading (or just via a search of the scriptures on this matter) Joecap posted two key points:

Joecap, While the beloved disciple establishes himself as the author of the fourth gospel you have said NOTHING that would even begin to identify this person as John. You have assumed this so your presupposition has deceived you into engaging in the logically fallacy called circular reasoning – i.e. you ASSUME that the beloved disciple was John so you presume (without proof) that passages that never mention John still refer to him if they mention the unnamed “other disciple whom Jesus loved”.

You went on to suggest that the fourth gospel was “written first-hand by an actual witness” (who you merely assumes to be John) without bothering to take the time to see that the evidence already offered (in post 11 and in the study cited) shows that problem with the ‘John’s eyewitness testimony’ claim.

While it is certainly fair to conclude that the anonymous author of the fourth gospel was presenting himself as an eyewitness those who do so must answer this question. Since you believe that the author IS presenting his eyewitness testimony in his book do you not at all think it strange that John’s most important eyewitness experiences in the ministry of Jesus are missing from the fourth gospel?

The Mount of Transfiguration, Jesus’ prayers in the Garden of Gethsemane and the raising of Jairus’ daughter from the dead – the key points of John’s involvement in Jesus’ ministry – are all missing from the fourth gospel. Why? Could it be the author of the fourth gospel (the unnamed “other disciple whom Jesus loved”) was not an eyewitness to these events?

There is a disconnect between the FACTS found in the plain text of scripture and the claims of promoters of this man-made tradition who assert that the fourth gospel is ‘John’s eyewitness testimony’.

Worse yet, every single time John is specifically mentioned by name as participating in an event in the first three gospels, that event is not found in the fourth gospel. It is indeed hard to understand how this come to be if the author of the fourth gospel was John, but it is easy to understand the fourth gospel’s omission of these if this anonymous author was someone other than John.

While the fourth gospel is for the most part an eyewitness account, the Biblical evidence can prove that this author, the one whom “Jesus loved”, was not John. And as always, the challenge to those who promote this erroneous, man-made tradition is to produce just one verse that would justify teaching the idea that John was the unnamed “other disciple whom Jesus loved”. The fact they cannot do so shows that the presentation of this idea AS IF IT WERE BIBLICAL is not a truthful presentation.

We are still waiting for you to respond to post #7!!

 

[NotWorthy]

None of the authors put their names on their Gospels. Sacred Tradition gives us the name of each author. For instance, I don’t think Matthew is recognized as the author of his Gospel til the 2nd century (at least that’s the earliest known recorded claim of Matthew authorship).

 

[NotWorthy]

Some people have been claiming recently that it was Lazarus who wrote the Gospel of John.

I think it’s a crock, because:
a) the authorities wanted Lazarus dead, too, and I don’t think he would have risked being at the crucifixion of the man who caused the death warrant on Lazarus’ own head.

b) Why would Lazarus go from calling himself Lazarus to calling himself “the beloved disciple”. It smacks of the lack of humility that Jesus taught against.

 

[joecap]

Worse yet, every single time John is specifically mentioned by name as participating in an event in the first three gospels, that event is not found in the fourth gospel.

John Chapter 21 Verse 25:

But there are also many other things which Jesus did which, if they were written every one, the world itself. I think, would not be able to contain the books that should be written.

 

[NotWorthy]

This is sola scripture and quite frankly baseless in itself. There is no biblical evidence as to who the author is for sure. Basing it on the premise that certain key elements that are missing from that are in the other Gospels only certifies that you and the author of that study really don’t know John’s Gospel nor his reason for writing it. I will give you a clue. John didn’t wish to parrot what was already written in the three synoptics. He gave his Gospel as the last living testament of the Apostles to the Church. There were many errors and deviations and John wanted to give personal testimony to the contrary. Further by writing his Gospel the way he did, he in fact enhanced and rounded out the other three.

Now you already pushed this idea in another part of this forum and was pretty much rejected. Why don’t you do us a favor and give it a rest?

It is said that John wrote his Gospel to combat gnostics who were already mis-leading the faithful on the true Presence in the Eucharist. That’s why his Gospel is so Christo-centric and Eucharist-based.

Besides, the Transfiguration and other events that are missing had already been covered very adequately by the other three gospels. There was no reason to re-write the synoptics in order to teach others about Christ. But there was a good reason to cover the other key points of this Gospel.

 

[DanteAlighieri]

A lot of people seem to like to repeat completely baseless claims even when those claims have already been refuted. There is little benefit in going over the same ground simply because someone doesn’t want to take the time to investigate the evidence on offer before they post their shoot from the hip arguments and to demonstrate this I’ll cite just one of several possible examples from the comments that have been posted on this thread thus far.

Post 11 from forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=144748 shows the utter carelessness of a claim was on this thread and as this was previously cited herein it would seem that anyone who was interested in the facts in this case would have bothered to see what was posted there (as well as in the aforementioned beloved disciple Bible study which cites Biblical proof that disproves the John idea).

A partial quote from that post -

Despite evidence to the contrary being already posted for consideration as noted and easily accessible by one mouse click on the link and a little reading (or just via a search of the scriptures on this matter) Joecap posted two key points:

Joecap, While the beloved disciple establishes himself as the author of the fourth gospel you have said NOTHING that would even begin to identify this person as John. You have assumed this so your presupposition has deceived you into engaging in the logically fallacy called circular reasoning – i.e. you ASSUME that the beloved disciple was John so you presume (without proof) that passages that never mention John still refer to him if they mention the unnamed “other disciple whom Jesus loved”.

You went on to suggest that the fourth gospel was “written first-hand by an actual witness” (who you merely assumes to be John) without bothering to take the time to see that the evidence already offered (in post 11 and in the study cited) shows that problem with the ‘John’s eyewitness testimony’ claim.

While it is certainly fair to conclude that the anonymous author of the fourth gospel was presenting himself as an eyewitness those who do so must answer this question. Since you believe that the author IS presenting his eyewitness testimony in his book do you not at all think it strange that John’s most important eyewitness experiences in the ministry of Jesus are missing from the fourth gospel?

The Mount of Transfiguration, Jesus’ prayers in the Garden of Gethsemane and the raising of Jairus’ daughter from the dead – the key points of John’s involvement in Jesus’ ministry – are all missing from the fourth gospel. Why? Could it be the author of the fourth gospel (the unnamed “other disciple whom Jesus loved”) was not an eyewitness to these events?

There is a disconnect between the FACTS found in the plain text of scripture and the claims of promoters of this man-made tradition who assert that the fourth gospel is ‘John’s eyewitness testimony’.

Worse yet, every single time John is specifically mentioned by name as participating in an event in the first three gospels, that event is not found in the fourth gospel. It is indeed hard to understand how this come to be if the author of the fourth gospel was John, but it is easy to understand the fourth gospel’s omission of these if this anonymous author was someone other than John.

While the fourth gospel is for the most part an eyewitness account, the Biblical evidence can prove that this author, the one whom “Jesus loved”, was not John. And as always, the challenge to those who promote this erroneous, man-made tradition is to produce just one verse that would justify teaching the idea that John was the unnamed “other disciple whom Jesus loved”. The fact they cannot do so shows that the presentation of this idea AS IF IT WERE BIBLICAL is not a truthful presentation.

Flawed logic.

You’re saying the fact that John didn’t mention X is proof that he didn’t witness X. My parents never told me about the circumstances leading up to my conception; am I to infer that they didn’t witness them?

Please.

Peace,
Dante

 

[NotWorthy]

Flawed logic.

You’re saying the fact that John didn’t mention X is proof that he didn’t witness X. My parents never told me about the circumstances leading up to my conception; am I to infer that they didn’t witness them?

Maybe their eyes were closed?

 

[steppenwolf1218]

It is said that John wrote his Gospel to combat gnostics who were already mis-leading the faithful on the true Presence in the Eucharist. That’s why his Gospel is so Christo-centric and Eucharist-based.

Besides, the Transfiguration and other events that are missing had already been covered very adequately by the other three gospels. There was no reason to re-write the synoptics in order to teach others about Christ. But there was a good reason to cover the other key points of this Gospel.

Very true. I didn’t want to include all that in my post. I thought ItIsWritten had enough to contemplate already. Which may be true because we havent heard from him lately.

 

[ItIsWritten]

If one will not even take the time to honestly and carefully consider Biblical evidence when it is offered to them (as it has been offered in the two links posted above), then they will reap what they sew.

Be not deceived; God is not mocked: for whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap.

It is not someone else’s job to run around gathering the answers to every question I may raise when God has provided his word for “reproof, rebuke, correction”. If I am to lazy to do the work then that does not oblige other’s to become my information servant who must spoon feed me an answer every time I think of a question – especially if I have already been informed where I can go to find that answer myself. It is hardly fair to expect that someone else should take the time to cut and paste sections from that which has already been offered in order to respond to objections that stem directly from a failure to consider the evidence that has already been offered.

For example, in response to Joecap’s suggestion that the forth gospel is John’s eyewitness testimony I did take the time to go back to one of the sources that had already been offered and cut and paste an item that he clearly hadn’t bothered to read and that directly addressed this. If he had bothered to read the information for himself then he should have seen that (A) there NOTHING in the text of the anonymous author’s work that would suggest that it is the eyewitness testimony of JOHN and (B) the Biblical evidence suggests exactly the opposite – it indicates that this is the testimony of someone else (i.e., one of the “other” followers of Jesus).

You’re saying the fact that John didn’t mention X is proof that he didn’t witness X.

No I didn’t say this as that would be a false assumption. While you can try to twist my words if you wish you certainly can’t quote this from posts that I’ve actually written. It seems that since you cannot cite even a single verse that would justify the John idea you’ve been reduced to misrepresenting the statements I’ve made.

Nonetheless I will restate the point to clarify for those who are apparently unable to follow the simple reasoning on the matter of what material could be justifiably be labeled ‘JOHN’S eyewitness testimony’. By definition a person’s EYEwitness testimony must include things that they were an eyewitness to. And since there is NO BIBLICAL REASON to presume that the testimony of the ANONYMOUS “other disciple” is the testimony of the apostle John, anyone who was looking to follow the admonition of PS. 118:8 is obliged to note false teachings that stem from violating the warning of that verse.

Those who trust in non-Bible sources will routinely refer to the testimony of the anonymous author of the fourth gospel as ‘JOHN’s eyewitness testimony’ despite the fact that (A) there is NO verse that would justify doing so and (B) this anonymous author’s omission of EVERY event where John is actually named as being an eyewitness in the other three gospels offers a strong argument against ascribing this anonymous author’s testimony to John – especially given the omission of the times that Jesus selected John with James and Peter to be EYEwitnesses of three of the most notable events of his ministry. This then exposes the logical fallacy behind post 17, for makes no sense to suggest that the parents eyewitness testimony of the conception of their child would fail to include the things that they had witnessed.

My parents never told me about the circumstances leading up to my conception; am I to infer that they didn’t witness them?

No but if someone tried to sell you an anonymous account of those events that they claimed was written by your parents EVEN THOUGH that account failed to mention all of the important events that you knew your parents had witnessed, then you would be a fool to assume that the failure to mention those events either (A) somehow supported this claim or (B) was of no import in weighing the evidence.

It sad to find those who claim to BELEIVE what is in THE BIBLE being so desperate to shield their own non-Bible traditions from the light of scripture that – since they cannot cite a single verse to justify the that tradition – they would fail to see it when they’ve been reduced to citing examples that actually help to make the case against it.

The Biblical evidence of the Book of Revelation (a book that John DID write) makes it clear that this was John’s eyewitness testimony, for his repeated statements “I saw…” make this apparent and demonstrate that John was both willing to identify himself by name in his writings and knew how to call attention to those things which he was an eyewitness to. This is quite unlike the eyewitness testimony of the author of the forth gospel who includes NOTHING in HIS eyewitness testimony that would suggest he was John.

The evidence revealed in the plain text of scripture does NOT suggest that the fourth gospel is ‘JOHN’s eyewitness testimony’. To an UNBIASED jury without a prejudice toward the John tradition the Biblical evidence would of course indicate that the conclusion that is called for by the evidence is in fact exactly the opposite.

This by the way is why those who want to promote the unbiblical man-made John tradition will work so hard to change the subject. As already noted the challenge to those who promote the John idea is to produce just one verse that would justify teaching the idea that John was the unnamed “other disciple whom Jesus loved”. The fact they cannot do so speaks volumes and this is why they must change the subject to get the focus off of what the Bible actually says because what the Bible actually says proves that the John idea is a false teaching.