N
NotWorthy
Guest
So… rather than refuting my “straw men”, you simply blow yourself up even larger, than reiterate what you’ve said.
I’m impressed!
How many people do you convert with this humble tactic, IIW?
- Status
I’m impressed!
How many people do you convert with this humble tactic, IIW?
I
ItIsWritten
Guest
You apparently fail to recognize that pointing out this logical fallicy is the refutation of it. The fact that you want to pretend that the Bible evidence disproving the John tradition is limited to one point mentioned on this thread is not something to be refuted, just exposed.
M
Mea_Culpa
Guest
ItIsWritten - What is the point of all this? To prove how smart you are?
It’s not working.
The Tradition of the Catholic Church predates the written Bible, so I don’t see why you would dismiss it so easily.
Sola scriptura is a false doctrine. John was the Beloved Disciple.
ItIsWritten - Jesus Christ founded the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church. Who founded your denomination? So, tell us again why we should accept what you’re saying as more authoritative than what the Church has been teaching for 2,000 years.
John 21:25 There was much else that Jesus did; if it were written down in detail, I do not suppose the world itself would hold all the books that would be written.
It’s not working.
The Tradition of the Catholic Church predates the written Bible, so I don’t see why you would dismiss it so easily.
Sola scriptura is a false doctrine. John was the Beloved Disciple.
ItIsWritten - Jesus Christ founded the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church. Who founded your denomination? So, tell us again why we should accept what you’re saying as more authoritative than what the Church has been teaching for 2,000 years.
John 21:25 There was much else that Jesus did; if it were written down in detail, I do not suppose the world itself would hold all the books that would be written.
N
NotWorthy
Guest
By “pointing out this logical fallacy” by simply sounding like MacBeth saying, “Out, damned spot!” is not much of a refutation.
Now, pretend I’m an idiot (surprisingly, most people don’t find this hard to do
) and explain to me why my straw-men won’t stand. And this time, try a little Christian Charity, my brother!
F
foundthelight
Guest
How did we ever survive those hundreds of years before the canon of the bible as we know it today was established? Think of the vacuum early Christians must have lived in with nothing to go on but a bunch of letters, word of mouth (read oral tradition), preaching by the elders and Bishops, and the Septuagint.
Those who teach Sola Scriptura have created their own traditions in answer to the traditions of the Catholic Church. Traditions which deny clear scripture about such things as the necessity to partake of the Body and Blood of Christ, The necessity for doing good, the necessity to be born again through the baptism for remission of sins. New traditions which ignore the volumes of letters and writings from the early Church along with the writings of apologists through the ages until the Reformation.
The disciple was John.
Those who teach Sola Scriptura have created their own traditions in answer to the traditions of the Catholic Church. Traditions which deny clear scripture about such things as the necessity to partake of the Body and Blood of Christ, The necessity for doing good, the necessity to be born again through the baptism for remission of sins. New traditions which ignore the volumes of letters and writings from the early Church along with the writings of apologists through the ages until the Reformation.
The disciple was John.
S
steppenwolf1218
Guest
So you got one very nice but very naive individual to swallow that theory. I’ve looked at Chapter 1. It has all the markings of brain washing. It reminds me of a used car salesman setting you up for the inevitable hard sell close. The bible quotes are snippets. Little is from John but rather from other parts of the bible with the claim of this is how to see it. Those quotes are the typical misquotes. I can hardly wait to get to chapter 2.
In the other thread that you so much like to cite (mainly the one post where marantha agrees with you) the other posters thoroughly refuted your claims as the ones here are doing now. So be careful the next time you try to call me a liar. Understand?
I will finish that book as I have the time. I work a 60+ hour work week and my volunteer work takes up much of my other free time, so I will get to it as I can. My critique will probably be much too long to post in here in its entirety but you can be assured I will pass along my findings to your convert for his/her own sake.
I
ItIsWritten
Guest
Sure.
As noted in post 40, you quoted three paragraphs following which you posed a silly question that was intended to suggest that the selection you quoted was the entirety of the Biblical evidence against the John idea.
You may wish to think otherwise but an attempt to falsely portray the case against the John teaching as if it the quote was the entire case against the John idea is intellectual dishonesty.
I
ItIsWritten
Guest
I’ll take that as a correction of the false characterization you made in post 8. But clearly your insult of them indicates that in your mind one must be naive unless they agree with you so this is hardly indicative of a fair-minded jury. And unless you are willing to dismiss a false tradition if the Bible evidence says otherwise then it is pointless for you to read the book.
There are two types of people who teach the John tradition and two major problems with it as has already been noted. The two major problems with the John idea are (A) a FALSE presentation – this is because the John idea is presented AS IF IT WERE BIBLICAL even thought there is not a single verse that would justify teaching this idea and (B) it is in contradiction with the Bible record regarding this unnamed “other disciple whom Jesus loved”.
The two types of people who teach the John idea are (A) those who do so in ignorance of the fact that this idea cannot stand up to Biblical scrutiny and (B) those who have been made aware of the fact that this idea might not be Biblical but who don’t care to look at the Biblical evidence or who have decided that they will continue to promote this idea regardless of what the Bible says.
In either case one thing is clear if a teaching stands in contradiction to the Biblical evidence, either the teaching is wrong or the Bible is wrong because mutually exclusive ideas cannot be true. And it is sad to see some who delude themselves into thinking that they serve the cause of truth by pretending that a tradition that is in contradiction with the Bible can be believed by one who believes the Bible.
I
ItIsWritten
Guest
In response to this question that started this thread, one group of posters has attempted to point to scripture that can offer evidence pro or con concerning the John idea and the another group of posters continues to repeat the refrain, “tradition”.
To those who want to rely on tradition even on those matters where a tradition is in contradiction to the text of scripture the best one can say is what Jesus said when he faced a similar situation.
Regarding attempts to offer Bible evidence for the John idea, one person offered four verses where Peter and John were together as the supposed evidence that the one who stuck with Jesus after rest of the disciples had fled for their lives could not possibly have been any other follower of Jesus besides John – the one who couldn’t even stay awake and pray in the garden as Jesus had requested. And perhaps those four verses will be enough to convince some to believe the John idea. Another offered a deduction that the one whom “Jesus loved” had to be John because they assumed that all the other followers of Jesus besides “the twelve” were excluded from the last supper (which means by the way that they also have to believe that guys like the disciple in Mk 14:51 were welcomed to join Jesus immediately after the supper but not during it – and other Bible evidence also must be ignored) and from this supposed to eliminate names and gospel writers in order to end up with two James’ and John. And perhaps this too will suffice to convince some to believe the John idea.
However it seems fair to point out that these attempts to construct a supposed Biblical evidence case in support of the teaching that John was the unnamed “other disciple whom Jesus loved” while they might serve to salve the conscience of those today who want to THINK that the John idea ORIGINATED from a search of the scriptures this is not the case. The John error originated from assuming that non-Bible hearsay from some early church personality could not be wrong. So while these novel creations may seem to prop up the house-of-cards that underlies the unbiblical John teaching, those who today seek to create Biblical evidence arguments in support of the John idea will not find these arguments being used to justify the John idea by those who originally made the mistake of identifying the anonymous author of the fourth gospel as John. They relied on hearsay.
To assume that such scriptural conjecture was what originally led to the John idea is to put words in the mouth of those who originated this mistaken identity teaching.
N
NotWorthy
Guest
And for the third time, you’ve felt it was right just to deride me, accusing me of intellectual dishonesty, rather than answer my other three attempts at refuting this argument of yours.
I’m very impressed once again with your charity, IIW.
A
Angelos
Guest
Please show us your purely Biblical evidence which will convince us that the author of the fourth Gospel (or the beloved disciple in the fourth Gospel) is NOT John. Then try answering the question “who is the beloved disciple?” with the help of your arguments which are said to be based solely on the Bible.
Thanks from now.
M
mich2
Guest
I personally don’t believe this to be a very important issue.Debate over authorship is not uncommon to scriptures.Who wrote the gospel of Mark? Who was Mark? Was he truly a disciple of Peter? How do we know this for certain? Authorship remains secondary to the gosple story as such. While the author of John’s gospel gives mearly a clue to it’s authorship,being someone who was an eyewitness, Matthew gives no indication at all as to who was the author of it’s gospel. We need to rely totally on tradition. How certain are we of this? What is known about the author of John’s gospel is that he is indeed a reliable witness.
Now, since tradition unanimously identifies the apostleJohn as being it’s author, it is at least a starting point. Why would John be the believed author? Well since he is an eyewitness to the events, he must have been one of the two disciples of the Baptist, as the other was Andrew, Peter’s brother.
Since the synoptics identify the first disciples of Jesus as being Peter, Andrew James and John, it is understandable that James or John was understood as being the possible author. Now, since James was martyred very early, it leaves only John.
However, there is still a chance for the unknown disciple of John the Baptist as being someone other than John, and not one of the twelve.
To begin with, I would personally agree that the gospel of John was not written by the apostle John. The author seems to use an eloquent greek
form of writing, while John, the apostle was a fisherman, who may not have used a sophisticated form of writing at all.
Therefore I believe it to be possible for John to have written the gospel in Hebrew while the author of John translated it into the greek language and interpolated some text into it.
**13 So the word spread among the brothers that that disciple would not die. But Jesus had not told him that he would not die, just “What if I want him to remain until I come? (What concern is it of yours?)”
24
It is this disciple who testifies to these things and has written them, 14 and we know that his testimony is true.
25
There are also many other things that Jesus did, but if these were to be described individually, I do not think the whole world would contain the books that would be written. **
Let us assume this to be an interpolation of the author; notice the words and we know his testimony is true
This statement alone supports the theory. Therefore, to answer the question of why would John use the term the disciple whom Jesus loved to refer to himself? My question would be why would any author use such words to identify himself?
I find it very possible that the original gospel may have used the words “I, John” and the author of John inserted the words “the apostle whom Jesus loved”.
Andre
J
Jimdandy
Guest
Jesus told St.Faustina to read the Gospel of John when He was her spiritual director-He did not say read the Gospel purported to be written by John. This is good enough for me.
John’s Gospel is a collection of the truths that John preached about Jesus, written by one or more of his followers.
John’s Gospel is a collection of the truths that John preached about Jesus, written by one or more of his followers.
S
steppenwolf1218
Guest
No dont take it as a correction of anything. And I don’t consider one naive merely because they don’t agree with me. As I said, I read through the first chapter of that book. That’s quite a selling job the author does there to set the reader’s mind into the mode which he wants. I do plan to read the rest. So far I am impressed with salesmanship. I am unimpressed with the theology. Please tell my there is a better claim to his point other than John omitted to tell of the Transfiguration? Also, the KJV while being the preferred version of most Protestants, it is not the preferred source used by scholars. For Protestants it is usually the NIV or the NSRV. For Catholics, it is the NAB, NSRV Catholic edition or the St. Jerome’s. KJV is generally not used by scholars because of the olden language and errors in translations. Note the KJV used today is not the one commissioned originally by King James. That one had all 72 books and has been lost to us a long time ago.
I
ItIsWritten
Guest
As you are so desperate as to resort to a straw-man has already been beat to death your prejudice is utterly clear. So you can do yourself a favor and NOT read the book. Your non-Bible sources will appreciate it. (Feel free to hold the childish comments as I won’t be responding to them – thought the Bible-is-no-better-than-non-Bible crowd will no doubt appreciate them.)
I
ItIsWritten
Guest
Non-bible sources vs. the testimony of scripture, that IS what this whole debate comes down to and many here seem to prefer to side with non-Bible source over the testimony of scripture. It is sad that this is the case and while repetition has its place it is becoming apparent that little would be gained from having to continue restating what has already been said on this thread so I figure these will be my last three posts (which should make all of the tradition chorus happy).
One can pick and choose their favorite non-Bible source to cite as a reason why they believe the idea that the unnamed “other disciple whom Jesus loved” was John since there plenty to choose from on this issue as the foregoing post demonstrates. What one cannot do however is cite a single verse that would justify teaching that this person was John, the brother of James, son of Zebedee – not those who originated this unbiblical teaching and not those who parrot their error to this day.
I
ItIsWritten
Guest
One problem with the structure of forums is that people will jump into conversations without having read what has already been said. This means they will ask questions/raise issues which have already been dealt with but as was noted in post 20 (please read) one cannot expect others to spoon feed them on demand or to have to cut-and-paste answers from other sources to cater to those don’t bother to read those sources or who are prefer basing their decisions on the cliff-notes version of the evidence.
However here again comes a request for Biblical evidence that was already offered earlier in this thread and since it likely comes about because the person making the request didn’t know about the earlier cite I will repeat it here in the hope that they will actually read the wholly Biblical presentation of evidence that this study offers.
TheDiscipleWhomJesusLoved.com examines the facts stated in the plain text of scripture on the one whom “Jesus loved”. By comparing what the Bible says about “the disciple whom Jesus loved” with what it says about John it proves that whoever the one who “Jesus loved” was he could not have been John – encouraging Bible students to take seriously the Biblical admonition to “prove all things”, especially in light of Ps. 118:8.
It was the presentation of Biblical evidence in this study that led one anti-sola-scriptura juror to say:
The truth is there is not a single verse in scripture that would justify teaching the idea that John was the one whom “Jesus loved” and yet most simply assume that this man-made tradition cannot be wrong and then interpret scripture to fit this idea. But if one will heed Ps. 118:8 then the NON-BIBLE sources on which this man-made error is based will give way to the facts stated in scripture which prove that NO MATTER WHO this anonymous author was he most certainly was not John.
While it is true that the author of the fourth gospel repeatedly identifies himself with the anonymous terms “the disciple whom Jesus loved”, “the other disciple” and “the other disciple whom Jesus loved”, it is also equally clear that this author NEVER identifies himself as John. Yet we see John in Revelation exhibit a totally different behavior as he repeatedly identifies himself by name. So why not heed the Biblical admonition to “prove all things” when it comes to the question of the beloved disciple?
In order to show reverence for the word of God, certainly one should not be presenting an idea as if it were Biblical if they cannot cite even one verse that would justify teaching that idea. But sadly the urge to follow the traditions of men can lead many to present the ideas that they were taught AS IF THEY WERE BIBLICAL even though they have not searched the scriptures to see if these things are so.
I
ItIsWritten
Guest
The problem is your presupposition. You begin with the assumption that the John idea is true and then you therefore proceed to read John into the text or find a way to rationalize that a given verse fits John. However leaving one’s prejudice behind and seeking to go where ever the evidence leads would be a better place to start from if one is looking for the truth.
For those that are looking to be led by the Biblical evidence as opposed to non-Bible sources (again note these comments are not directed towards those who are looking to follow non-Bible sources) if one is really seeking the truth they should have no presupposition that they’re looking to prop up.
One who is seeking the truth on the identity of the “other disciple whom Jesus loved” (or any other Bible question) should start with the premise that the testimony of scripture is trustworthy – for if it is not then there is nothing further to be said. And beginning from this premise, then one should carefully look to consider all of the available testimony on the matter in question. After doing so, they should be led to their conclusion by the evidence and not by their feelings or outside influences.
A jury for example is supposed to base their verdict on the evidence. We recognize that those who have a prejudice are unlikely to give the evidence fair consideration. We also know that it is sometimes the case that even when overwhelming evidence is presented that would demand a given verdict a jury can be led to render an opposite verdict for their own personal reasons and they’ll find a way to rationalize an excuse for it, such as we in the case of the OJ jury. But regardless the evidence is what it is.
In this case the Bible says what it says and nothing will change that. So the best idea for one looking for the truth is to simply 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 whom Jesus loved” was John because NONE of the evidence points toward John.
Speculations as to the identity of the beloved disciple seem to know no end – Thomas, James, John, Nicodemus, Mary Magdalene, James the Less, Judas (no kidding!) – as a simple Google search will show. However all of these ideas rely on this-or-that non-Bible source, as does the man-made John tradition, so a clear warning to those who promote these ideas or blindly follow other men in believing them can be found in Ps. 118:8. And I’ll leave these parting words for those who see the Bible as the word of God:
M
Mea_Culpa
Guest
Why is this such a big deal? What ramifications does it have to you if the Beloved Disciple is someone other than John?
Anyhow, I found the Biblical evidence. Sola scriptura fundamentalists such as yourself say that every word in the Bible is literally true… correct?
Well, on p. 78 of the New Testament of my Bible it says “The Gospel According to John” It’s in the Bible. Then John 21:24 says of the Beloved Disciple: “This is the disciple who is bearing witness to these things, and who has written these things; and we know that his testimony is true.” So John wrote the Gospel of John, and he is the Beloved Disciple … the Bible says so.
We Catholics already knew that anyhow because Sacred Tradition has been teaching that for 2,000 years.
Anyhow, I found the Biblical evidence. Sola scriptura fundamentalists such as yourself say that every word in the Bible is literally true… correct?
Well, on p. 78 of the New Testament of my Bible it says “The Gospel According to John” It’s in the Bible. Then John 21:24 says of the Beloved Disciple: “This is the disciple who is bearing witness to these things, and who has written these things; and we know that his testimony is true.” So John wrote the Gospel of John, and he is the Beloved Disciple … the Bible says so.
We Catholics already knew that anyhow because Sacred Tradition has been teaching that for 2,000 years.
A
annem
Guest
ItisWritten
Hengel and Bauckham are traditional and devout Protestants, arguing against the non-orthodox. Their opinions should be respected by anyone who believes in Jesus. They are NOT part of the agnostic hoard who hate everything that Christianity stands for. (For example, scholar April DeConick recently wrote a book arguing that the gospel of John was written to answer Gnostics because no one before the gospel of John took the resurrection literally. Her argument is ridiculous because the Gnostics didn’t show up for another fifty years),
The fact remains there are many contradictions and questions posed by the gospels. The fact also remains only the Catholic church can answer these questions.
Before the gospels existed, Paul was urging everyone to follow “the traditions” that were passed on to them. There was no canon until about 400 years after the death of Jesus. There was only the Catholic church, guarding the gospels, collecting the canon, and following the traditions given to them by Paul and the apostles.
If the bible alone can answer all questions, why have I never met two Protestants who agree on everything?
May God bless you, Annem:shrug:
Dear ItisWritten, Martin Hengel and Richard Bauckham, two of the greatest biblical scholars today, have both recently suggested that the author of John might have been a disciple that Papias called John the Elder. Others have argued that the gospel might have been written by John and the ending added by, perhaps, John the Elder, or another of John’s disciples.
Hengel and Bauckham are traditional and devout Protestants, arguing against the non-orthodox. Their opinions should be respected by anyone who believes in Jesus. They are NOT part of the agnostic hoard who hate everything that Christianity stands for. (For example, scholar April DeConick recently wrote a book arguing that the gospel of John was written to answer Gnostics because no one before the gospel of John took the resurrection literally. Her argument is ridiculous because the Gnostics didn’t show up for another fifty years),
The fact remains there are many contradictions and questions posed by the gospels. The fact also remains only the Catholic church can answer these questions.
Before the gospels existed, Paul was urging everyone to follow “the traditions” that were passed on to them. There was no canon until about 400 years after the death of Jesus. There was only the Catholic church, guarding the gospels, collecting the canon, and following the traditions given to them by Paul and the apostles.
If the bible alone can answer all questions, why have I never met two Protestants who agree on everything?
May God bless you, Annem:shrug:
- Status