Who is the "Beloved Disciple?"

[Maui71]

Hey It is wrttien;

LETS TALK ABOUT YOUR SOURCE:

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.

THEN AFTER YOU ANSWER THE ABOVE LETS TALK “LOGIC”.

 

[ItIsWritten]

Does anyone know any evidence for John as the author, or someone else, of the gospel of John?

Thy word is truth

The Bible says “Thy word is truth” and for those who believe that the four gospels, Acts and Revelation are the word of God then the teaching that John was the beloved disciple must be rejected because this man-made tradition stands in direct contradiction to the facts in evidence therein. However when this evidence is offered there will be those who prefer to cling to tradition regardless of what scripture says about this disciple and such individuals, since they cannot cite even a single verse that would justify teaching this tradition, are reduced to using various tactics to change the subject in order to get the focus of what the Bible can tell us about this issue – because scripture can prove the John idea to be a false teaching.

So in desperation to shift the discussion away from an honest consideration of what the facts in scripture tell us about the unnamed “other disciple whom Jesus loved” some will be found throwing up smokescreens of one sort or the other, as can be seen in several posts on this thread. Because the false John teaching cannot stand up to Biblical scrutiny those who are unwilling to admit that John was not this anonymous “other disciple” will seek to discourage others from looking at the Biblical evidence.

While there are those who would like to pretend that it is proper to turn-a-blind-eye to the plain reading of the facts in the Biblical text simply because this-or-that non-Bible source says something opposite, it seems more reasonable that those who have a love of the truth should look first and foremost to the primary source of information on this unnamed “other disciple” when considering the matter of the identity of this person. And since the Bible IS the primary source of information on this disciple it is therefore patently unreasonable to suggest that the evidence in scripture be ignored unless those who would dare to cite the Biblical evidence on this issue will first be distracted into debating other issues.

Thus the evidence in the free Bible study on the beloved disciple cited in post 6 DIRECTLY addresses the question that was asked in post 1:

Does anyone know any evidence for John as the author, or someone else, of the gospel of John?

So unlike those who have sought to change the subject, I have stayed precisely on topic. This thread was not started as a debate on the composition of the canon of scripture, sola scriptura, or any number of side issues that have been raised in attempts to derail the discussion of the “evidence for John as the author, or someone else” which was the request of the initial poster. Those who want to continue to promote the John idea will no doubt be willing to point to some non-Bible source that says what they want it to say, but I prefer to point people to the word of God. And therein is the choice on this issue.

One can side with the plain text of scripture or they can choose rather to believe in the quotes of men, who quote other men, who quote other men… who all are simply repeating this error based on some NON-INSPIRED writing attributed to some second century church personality. The choice is between making the word of God void by one’s tradition or heeding the admonition of Ps. 118:8.

Prove all things

 

[ItIsWritten]

I don’t expect everyone to care what the Bible says, but I do hope that some will look past their emotion and stop with the distractions long enough honestly weigh the Biblical evidence on THIS question. Even a biased jury that is predisposed to defend the John tradition can, if it is willing to set aside it’s bias and give the Biblical evidence a fair hearing, at the very least will come to realize that the John tradition has no basis in scripture.

And as proof of this I will cite a quote that will also expose a lie from post 8 on this current thread claiming that in a prior thread on this question - forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=144748 - the truth was “rejected” when the opposite occurred. The truth is that the person who started that post after much resistance was honest enough to admit that the John tradition is not supported by the Bible evidence:

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.

 

[Maui71]

Your anemic attempt to dismiss my questions points to your circular argument.

How the “bible” came to be is a matter of grave concern with regards to your biblical argument. Because the “bible” did not compose it’s self. Nor did it choose which books are and are not in the “bible”.

Therefore, if the bible did not create it’s self how can it be its own ultimate authority and its own source? If it is its own authority then who are you or anyone to interpret its meaning and its authorship? So to judge and interpret the bible with the bible only is to ignore its creator.

Yes, its creator because the bible was compiled based on the extra biblical sources that you are now dismissing and it was based on those Traditions you so whimsically dismiss. Therefore, to disregard those extra biblical sources is to disregard the bible it’s self.

Further, as you must well know, the “bible” was composed 350 years after the death of Jesus, 250 years after John’s death, and 1500 years before the first secular early Christianity scholarly discipline was birthed.

You are not even considering the historical support for John as the author, you know Ephesus, Patmos, his clerical followers and of course their writings. Have you ever been to Ephesus?

Please you say you are not arguing bible alone but you are saying you can’t include anything but the bible?? What do you call that; fly manure?

You don’t need to answer we have had enough of you.

 

[ItIsWritten]

Good, then hopefully you’ll stop trying to distract from the topic of this thread and from the fact that scripture disproves this tradition. Those who believe the Bible will no doubt recognize that when the plain text of that Bible is contradicted by a non-Bible source then they are lying to themselves if they presume that both can be true.

I don’t expect everyone to care what the Bible says, but I do hope that some will look past their emotion and stop with the distractions long enough honestly weigh the Biblical evidence on THIS question. Even a biased jury that is predisposed to defend the John tradition can, if it is willing to set aside it’s bias and give the Biblical evidence a fair hearing, at the very least will come to realize that the John tradition has no basis in scripture.

And as proof of this I will cite a quote that will also expose a lie from post 8 on this current thread claiming that in a prior thread on this question - forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=144748 - the truth was “rejected” when the opposite occurred. The truth is that the person who started that post after much resistance was honest enough to admit that the John tradition is not supported by the Bible evidence:
Maranatha;2222070:

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.

 

[BRB]

The ‘beloved disciple’ is clearly identified as among the 12.

John speaks of him three X’s in his Gospel …1). as the one who overheard Jesus telling Peter about his fate, and also that the ‘beloved’ might not see death 2). as the one who was leaning against Jesus at the Last Supper 3). as the one to whom Jesus intrusted His mother.

Since John took Mary to his home … He is the beloved.

We also know John is the beloved … because he was one of the big 3 disciples [James, John, and Peter] … as attested to by those who went up mountain to witness the Transfiguration.

 

[ItIsWritten]

The ‘beloved disciple’ is clearly identified as among the 12.

John speaks of him three X’s in his Gospel …1). as the one who overheard Jesus telling Peter about his fate, and also that the ‘beloved’ might not see death 2). as the one who was leaning against Jesus at the Last Supper 3). as the one to whom Jesus intrusted His mother.

Since John took Mary to his home … He is the beloved.

We also know John is the beloved … because he was one of the big 3 disciples [James, John, and Peter] … as attested to by those who went up mountain to witness the Transfiguration.

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.

One should try reading what has been posted before they respond, unless they expect things should have to be repeated upon request for their benifit.

For example, if a defender of the John tradition had bothered to read post 20 (or the fourth gospel for that matter) then they would know that NONE of the big events of the “big 3” are in the gospel that was subsequently and erroneously attributed to John.

Clear case of mistaken identity.

PS Jesus gave his mother to the “other disciple”

 

[Mea_Culpa]

The Beloved Disciple is John. Tradition teaches it. Therefore it is true.

 

[ItIsWritten]

Tradition teaches it.

Making the word of God of none effect through your tradition…

That some will chose tradition over the word of God is nothing new.

We see this done in scripture and we see it done today, but this practice does not improve with age.

Neither will repeating an error make it true – not even if it is repeated for 2000 years. The warning of Col. 2:8 stands true today.

 

[Pons]

The warning of Col. 2:8 stands true today.

“So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter” (2 Thessalonians 2:15).

The beloved disciple was one of the Twelve, as indicated by the Last Supper. Not Peter, not Andrew, not Nathanael Bartholomew, not Philip, not Thomas, not Jude Thaddeus, and not Judas, as they’re all mentioned. Not Matthew since he/his disciples already produced a gospel. So he must be either one of the two Jameses or John.

*The only time the sons of Zebedee are mentioned is in John 21, probably added by John’s followers.

 

[NotWorthy]

Two things to consider on why Lazarus wouldn’t be the author (and I hope these haven’t been brought up already):

a) Why does Lazarus switch from using his name to calling himself “the beloved disciple”?

b) The Jews are trying to kill Lazarus also, according to this Gospel. Why isn’t Lazarus captured and killed along with Jesus?

 

[NotWorthy]

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.

Is this really your reasoning for it NOT being John? I mean, to take this as “proof” is to ignore the facts about why John’s Gospel was written.

Another thing:
If Lazarus is the one Jesus loved, why is he never mentioned in the other Gospels?

And again:
You claim (rather humbly, I might add… NOT! ) that the Mt. of Transfiguration, Baptism, and other major events were excluded because Lazarus wasn’t there. Hmmmm… Does that mean St. Juke was there at the Mt. of Transfiguration, since it’s in his Gospel? How about Matthew? I mean, wouldn’t Lazarus have heard of these stories, and told them second-hand, just as Matthew, Mark and Luke did?

Might I suggest instead that maybe the author of John’s Gospel didn’t feel the need to tell these stories. Maybe because they were already so well-known that the author didn’t feel the need to re-introduce them?

 

[Mea_Culpa]

That some will chose tradition over the word of God is nothing new.

We see this done in scripture and we see it done today, but this practice does not improve with age.

Neither will repeating an error make it true – not even if it is repeated for 2000 years. The warning of Col. 2:8 stands true today.

The Word of God is transmitted in three ways: Sacred Scripture, Tradition, and the Magisterium of the Church. Tradition is not opposed to the Word of God, it IS part of the Word of God.

Your sola scripture nonsensical babblings are what happens when scripture isn’t read in the light of the teachings of the Magisterium.

 

[ItIsWritten]

The Beloved Disciple is John. Tradition teaches it.

That some will chose tradition over the word of God is nothing new… Neither will repeating an error make it true

Likewise just keep repeating “Tradition teaches it” and perhaps you will convince others to likewise ignore the Biblical evidence that disproves the unbiblical man-made John tradition. But the Bible says what it says and no amount of error-chanting will change that.

One can side with the plain text of scripture or they can choose rather to believe in the quotes of men, who quote other men, who quote other men… who all are simply repeating this error based on some NON-INSPIRED writing attributed to some second century church personality. The choice is between making the word of God void by one’s tradition or heeding the admonition of Ps. 118:8.

PS As was shown in post 22 efforts to dodge the question that started this thread by trying to pretend this thread is a sola scriptura debate are not only disingenuous they also reveal the need of those who promote the John error to get the focus off of what the evidence actually says.

Furthermore the pretense of a sola scriptura objection was already dealt with in this exchange with Maranatha where this was already discussed.

 

[ItIsWritten]

The beloved disciple was one of the Twelve, as indicated by the Last Supper. Not Peter, not Andrew, not Nathanael Bartholomew, not Philip, not Thomas, not Jude Thaddeus, and not Judas, as they’re all mentioned. Not Matthew since he/his disciples already produced a gospel. So he must be either one of the two Jameses or John.

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… 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.

The fact that you bother to suggest that at his last passover meal Jesus excluded the rest of his disciples and sealed himself off in a room with the twelve for the duration of this event just proves that you have not bothered to examine the evidence. As you don’t even bother to read the evidence on offer before you post there is no reason to cut-and-paste the arguments for you here.

I will however point out that your convoluted mental gymnastics of elimination by non-mention serves only to get you to three of the twelve and not to John – which is probably one key reason that such rambling is not often cited as the basis by which the anonymous “other disciple whom Jesus loved” was assumed to be John by those who originally misidentified this author of the forth gospel as John.

While you may not have read it the question that was asked by the person who started this thread was

Does anyone know any evidence for John as the author, or someone else, of the gospel of John?

and if you feel that this sort of rationale (and the mere one-in-three odds for John that results) should suffice to answer their question then you have made your case as best you can but whether or not others will be persuaded by your contorted assumption is another question.

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.

 

[NotWorthy]

ItIsWritten,

At the risk of sounding like the pot speaking to the kettle, I would suggest that you spend more time studying Matthew 5:3-8 than Col. 2:8.

 

[BRB]

ItIsWritten is so puffed up with pseudowisdom … he has now started quoting himself

 

[Angelos]

The deliberate identification of the second apostle after Peter as John by Luke supports the traditional view that the beloved disciple in John’s Gospel was no one else than John Himself:

Compare the following verses:

Mark 14:12:13 Now on the first day of the unleavened bread, when they sacrificed the pasch, the disciples say to him: Whither wilt thou that we go and prepare for thee to eat the pasch? And he sendeth two of his disciples and saith to them: Go ye into the city; and there shall meet you a man carrying a pitcher of water. Follow him.

**Luke 22:7-8 ** And the day of the unleavened bread came, on which it was necessary that the pasch should be killed. And he sent Peter and John, saying: Go, and prepare for us the pasch, that we may eat.

Acts 3:1-2 Now Peter and John went up into the temple at the ninth hour of prayer. And a certain man who was lame from his mother’s womb was carried: whom they laid every day at the gate of the temple, which is called Beautiful, that he might ask alms of them that went into the temple. (The first miracle was wrought by Peter and John).

Acts 1:12-13 Then they returned to Jerusalem from the mount that is called Olivet, which is nigh Jerusalem, within a sabbath day’s journey.And when they were come in, they went up into an upper room, where abode Peter and John, James and Andrew, Philip and Thomas, Bartholomew and Matthew, James of Alpheus and Simon Zelotes and Jude the brother of James. (This list of the twelve apostles is different from the one given by Luke in His Gospel)

 

[BRB]

Might I suggest instead that maybe the author of John’s Gospel didn’t feel the need to tell these stories. Maybe because they were already so well-known that the author didn’t feel the need to re-introduce them?

exactly …

John had read all the other 3 gospels many years earlier. Why re-tell what was common knowledge ?

He desired to give a spiritual emphasis to message of Christ. John was so humble … he wouldn’t even mention himself by name.

 

[ItIsWritten]

ItIsWritten;3645520:

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.
Is this really your reasoning for it NOT being John?

Your simplistic straw-man argument is not worthy of the term argument.

Clearly there are many points of Biblical evidence that help make the case that John was not “the disciple whom Jesus loved”. So for you to attempt to falsely portray the entire body of Biblical evidence against the John idea as if the foregoing words were the ONLY point against the John teaching is the worst kind of intellectual dishonesty and you did this even though the very post that you excerpted this single item of evidence from already discusses people who “repeat completely baseless claims even when those claims have already been refuted.” So let it be said again:

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.

For an HONEST assessment of all the Biblical evidence presented against the John idea in the free study The Disciple Whom Jesus Loved that was cited earlier herein I will defer to the comments of one who, after an initial knee-jerk response against looking at what the Bible had to say, decided to go beyond blind allegiance to the traditional teaching on this topic – who after actually reading all of the evidence against the John idea posted this verdict:

I did get a chance 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.