Who is the "Beloved Disciple?"

[Angelos]

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.

Calm down amigo!

I had written that specific post of mine before I could find time to read your previous theories. Now that I have observed your previous allegations, I deem to have the right to pose the same question again because your arguments fail to convince me.

Your theory would be stronger if you had biblically proven that John was compelled by someone or something to use the same data in the synoptic Gospels.

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.

You first say people following the tradition of Jesus’ Church and early disciples for the identification of the fourth evangelist will be proven wrong and condemned in the light of Psalm 118.8, and then base your arguments on the personal objections and interpretations of a simple human that claims to know better than the early followers of Christ. How fair and reasonable is this?

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.

Please tell me with the help of biblical evidence WHO that beloved disciple was . Show me one single verse in the fourth Gospel that will condemn the teaching that the author of the fourth Gospel was John the apostle. It is not good and sufficient to deny something and leave believers in suspense.

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?

Show me one single verse from the Gospel of Matthew where first person plural pronoun (WE) is employed in narrations. You falsely judge the Gospel narratives by your personal expectations, and will therefore be condemned in the light of Psalm 118:8

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.

Where is your biblical evidence that remarks “John must have incorporated the three major events (transfiguration, etc) narrated in the synoptic Gospels into his own Gospel if he ever wished to write one”.

Where does Jesus in the Bible say “try to identify the author of the fourth Gospel by comparing the form and content of the text to the other three Gospels written prior to it”?

 

[mich2]

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

Not really; first, I believe I did mention the possibilty of the gospel as having been written by some other than John the apostle. I then preceded to explain why I believe John is a good candidate; then, I wrote the hypothesis that the writer of the gospel of John may have been someone who translated into greek the original author’s gospel, which may have been written in Hebrew, and interpolated some text into it, including the words “the disciple whom Jesus loved”,which, originally might have been the author’s identity…it could have been anyone. However, since we know the author of Revelation wrote with a style which uses his name often ( I John), it fits the style used in the gospel of John. I did mentioned that I would find it hard to believe that the original author, whoever he may be, would have identified himself in such a way.

.

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.

Well, if you don’t mind, let’s first see the argument given against John as being the author, as identified in the book “the disciple whom Jesus loved”.

In the book “the disciple whom Jesus loved”, the author writes:The most unusual thing about this individual is that he seems to unexpectedly pop up from out of nowhere.
However, he goes on to say say that he is also identified as being simply “the other disciple”, meaning simply that this particular person remains an anonymous disciple. If this is true, then this disciple does not pop up from nowhere but is identified at the very beginning as a disciple of the Baptist.

Again, the next day, John was standing with two of his disciples, 1:36and he looked at Jesus as he walked, and said, “Behold, the Lamb of God!” 1:37The two disciples heard him speak, and they followed Jesus.

**…One of the two who heard John, and followed him, was Andrew, Simon Peter’s brother. **

So, who was the other disciple? According to the synoptic gospels, the first disciples who are said to having followed Jesus were Andrew, Peter, James and John.

Also, the author of “the disciple whom Jesus loved” claims that the “other disciple” was the first to believe when he entered the tomb.

Scripture tells us that “the other disciple did outrun Peter, and came first to the sepulchre… and he saw, and believed” so we know that he was the first follower of Jesus who “believed” on the morning of the resurrection. Thus he “believed” before the rest of the disciples and one can know for certain that the “other disciple” was not one of “the twelve” apostles of Jesus by considering the timing of their belief. While the one whom “Jesus loved” clearly “believed” early on the morning of the resurrection the apostles did not believe until much later that day – after they saw Jesus.

He is therefore claiming that Peter, who was with this disciple, and saw the same, as remaining in unbelief.This is clearly unsubstanstuated, for, it seems to me that the disciples at the tomb began to believe the **words **that Jesus had said concerning He was to raise from the dead. However, their beliefs were **vindicated **when Jesus appeared to them.

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.

…which is what the author of “the disciple whom Jesus loved” seems to be doing, since a prejudice is simply another way of saying “preferenced over something else”. My preference is John. However, the author speaks dogmatically and claims to have proven the identity of the author as being Lazarus.I highly disagree with his form of reasoning.
For example: the scripture reads:

1Now a certain man was sick, Lazarus from Bethany, of the village of Mary and her sister, Martha

The word “man” and not disciple is used; Lazarus therefore could not have been the one who was following the Baptist with Andrew.

, he said to them, **“Our friend, Lazarus, has fallen asleep, but I am going so that I may awake him out of sleep.” **
**11:12The disciples therefore said, “Lord, if he has fallen asleep, he will recover.” **

This must be an eyewitness account written by the author himself since the mentioning of this misunderstanding is unimportant to the event as such. Since this eyewitness event happened during the time when Lazarus was dead, then, I personally would not consider Lazarus as being the eyewitness, and therefore, the author.

Secondly, I find it odd that the apostles John along with his brother James are nowhere mentioned by name at all in John’s gospel. Two very prominent apostles remaining totally unidentified, whereas Lazarus is indeed identified and is not an anonymous person at all.

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:

If the author is not John, the apostle, my second choice would actually be Marc, who, incidently, is also called John.

Andre

 

[NotWorthy]

I still haven’t seen why, if Lazarus was the author, he went from using his name (when describing Lazarus’ death and raisin grom the dead) to referring to himself as “the disciple that Jesus loved”. Has this been covered.

Secondly, didn’t Lazarus have a price on his head by the Jews as well? If so, and he was at the crucifixion, it seems the Jews would have seen to it that Lazarus was nailed right up their next to Christ.

Idio, I joyfully await your condescension in answering this! You’ve become quite a hoot to follow on this thread!

 

[steppenwolf1218]

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.)

Ah! Throwing out insults and ultimatums…the last resort to those fresh out of intelligent arguments.

My reponses are never “straw men arguments”. Let me though leave you with one thought on this subject and I will consider it done. It doesn’t matter who wrote the Gospel of John. If it did then we would know for sure beyond any shadow of a doubt within the book itself. The important thing is that it was written. Besides, claiming autorship by Lazarus when Lazarus had indeed died long before the Gospel of John was know to be written is a rather shallow and poorly thought out argument.
With that I give you my leave
Dennis