Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The apostle that Jesus loved

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Irenaeus states in Book 3 chapter 1 of Against all Heresies that:
    Afterwards, John, the disciple of the Lord, who also had leaned upon His breast, did himself publish a Gospel during his residence at Ephesus in Asia.
    Ireanaeus was a student of Polycarp who was a disciple of the Apostle John.

    This link is to Eusebius' Church History http://christianbookshelf.org/pamphi...r_of_the.htm#1

    I hope this helps.

    Comment


    • #32
      Originally posted by vemee View Post
      Irenaeus states in Book 3 chapter 1 of Against all Heresies that:

      Ireanaeus was a student of Polycarp who was a disciple of the Apostle John.

      This link is to Eusebius' Church History http://christianbookshelf.org/pamphi...r_of_the.htm#1

      I hope this helps.

      Okay, my history is a bit fuzzy. Refresh my memory. Are these the same line of people related to the idea that Peter was the first pope?


      Here's where I'm coming from.
      IF it can be "proven" by Scripture that "the disciple whom Jesus loved" (and thus the writer of the Book of John) could not have been John, then I would believe Scripture over extra-biblical historical accounts and tradition

      (... similar to the info at the link below, in the quote by Buzzardhut, about currently popular ideas based on "Jewish tradition" but not necessarily based on absolute truth - see link, below).

      This is what the author I am recalling was attempting to do.

      It was only after establishing that fact via Scripture (that is, that, evidently, John could not have been "the disciple whom Jesus loved" [and which points I have, admittedly, very poorly conveyed in these two threads], and which was fairly convincing) that he then goes into questioning just who it may have been instead (which is not quite as evident).


      Buzzardhut wrote:

      some are based on Jewish tradition ...

      word of caution http://www.seekgod.ca/rapturewedding.htm


      [The Jewish Wedding and the Rapture: Understanding the Rapture from Jewish Wedding Traditions]


      So, I have many questions that remain (even in light of this one historical account), one of which is:

      why would Jesus say (after being asked by each of His disciples, "Is it I?" [who will betray You]), He says, "[It is] one of the twelve, the [one] dipping [that dippeth] with Me in the dish" (Mark 14:18-19, 20) unless there were more than twelve present (even just one more - "the beloved disciple")? It (the part I bolded) would seem to be a completely pointless thing to say, if only the twelve were present.

      Last edited by acceptedintheBeloved; July 26th, 2011, 11:51 AM. Reason: no changes made, hit wrong button :)

      Comment


      • #33
        Originally posted by acceptedinthebeloved View Post
        Okay, my history is a bit fuzzy. Refresh my memory. Are these the same line of people related to the idea that Peter was the first pope?
        Irenaeus was before they came up with popes. Each city did have a bishop and I believe (relying on my memory so I can't say it 100% for sure) that the Bishop of Rome was considered the lead bishop after Jerusalem fell but the Eastern Churches did not always consider Rome the lead.. Each city kept a record of succession of their bishops.

        Eusebius was around the time of Constantine and knew Constantine. The church has always had problems with heresy but the paganism in the church started when Christianity was made the state religion. The main problems they were arguing about during Eusebius times was the nature of Christ and the Trinity especially Arianism.

        I think Irenaeus is a good source since he is only a generation away from the Apostle John and you have a clear chain of evidence. The trouble starts as you get farther away from the events and people who have had no contact with the Apostles start to add legends.

        You are right to be on wary about extra-biblical writings. Just like writers of today, some are sound and others are not.

        Comment


        • #34
          Originally posted by acceptedinthebeloved View Post
          Okay, my history is a bit fuzzy. Refresh my memory. Are these the same line of people related to the idea that Peter was the first pope?
          Again, there are indeed traditions passed down through the "early church fathers" that are accurate; the part we differ from them is when something directly contradicts scripture. The contention that John wrote the fourth gospel is not contradicting scripture, and further, there are other external sources before 200 A.D. that names John as the writer. Where are the sources that name Lazarus?

          I would assume you are also aware that other authors have been purposed; how do we check out each possibility? We can only use internal and external references to do that.

          Thanks to sweeetlilgurlie on Narniaweb for the sig

          Comment


          • #35
            Originally posted by vemee View Post
            Irenaeus was before they came up with popes. Each city did have a bishop and I believe (relying on my memory so I can't say it 100% for sure) that the Bishop of Rome was considered the lead bishop after Jerusalem fell but the Eastern Churches did not always consider Rome the lead.. Each city kept a record of succession of their bishops.

            Eusebius was around the time of Constantine and knew Constantine. The church has always had problems with heresy but the paganism in the church started when Christianity was made the state religion. The main problems they were arguing about during Eusebius times was the nature of Christ and the Trinity especially Arianism.

            I think Irenaeus is a good source since he is only a generation away from the Apostle John and you have a clear chain of evidence.

            You are right to be on wary about extra-biblical writings. Just like writers of today, some are sound and others are not.

            I do recall that Irenaeus wrote this in order to counter the gnostic heresies of the time. And, if I recall correctly, it is the only written source indicating that it was John who wrote a gospel (apparently, the Book of John), and that it is not found in any of Polycarp's writings, as I've already mentioned.
            Last edited by acceptedintheBeloved; July 26th, 2011, 03:23 PM. Reason: corrected a word

            Comment


            • #36
              Originally posted by Kliska View Post
              Again, there are indeed traditions passed down through the "early church fathers" that are accurate; the part we differ from them is when something directly contradicts scripture.
              Yes, this was the point of my post (earlier) ... the main point of the writer I am recalling (albeit, poorly).

              Comment


              • #37
                Originally posted by acceptedinthebeloved View Post
                Yes, this was the point of my post (earlier) ... and the main point of the writer I am recalling (albeit, poorly).
                But if I read the arguments presented correctly, they (the author of said arguments) demands different wording and holds verses up to a different standard depending on whether or not they happen to support his theory or go against it. For example, picking on the wording about who was in the upper room, vs. Jesus' wording of "it will be one of the twelve..." etc...

                I currently see no evidence, only speculation, that having John being the author of the fourth gospel contradicts scripture.

                Thanks to sweeetlilgurlie on Narniaweb for the sig

                Comment


                • #38
                  Originally posted by Kliska View Post
                  I would assume you are also aware that other authors have been purposed; how do we check out each possibility? We can only use internal and external references to do that.
                  Yes, I am aware. For example, Mary Magdalene is one idea which is easily debunked, for the Scripture clearly states that it was a man.

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Originally posted by Kliska View Post
                    But if I read the arguments presented correctly, they (the author of said arguments) demands different wording and holds verses up to a different standard depending on whether or not they happen to support his theory or go against it. For example, picking on the wording about who was in the upper room, vs. Jesus' wording of "it will be one of the twelve..." etc...

                    I currently see no evidence, only speculation, that having John being the author of the fourth gospel contradicts scripture.
                    That particular example (in quote above) is not one of the "main proofs" (pointed out by the author), but simply remains one of my own questions (as I mentioned in my earlier post).

                    I'll have to dig back into my memory (not easy and maybe not possible ), it has been awhile, to recall precisely which points he used in more of a definitive way. I've only brought out the points, in this thread (and the one I linked), which I could recall off the top of my head.


                    Has anyone read the thread I linked, by the way? Just wondering (not asking this in a "accusatory" way, mind you).


                    ETA: Oh, and by the way, I had noted when reading this view/author, that he did not carry his conclusions into the area of "types" at all... those have been solely MY interjections and thoughts (after pondering the possibility of the beloved disciple being Lazarus. There are truly an astounding number of "connections" there, but this was not at all covered in this writer's points). Just so you know... that part was all MY conjecture, not his. His stated primary motive was to demonstrate what the Scriptures actually say
                    (and only secondarily to then "speculate" via Scripture [comparing Scripture with Scripture], regarding the possible identity having been Lazarus - offering John 11:3, etc, as one of these internal indicators).

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Gracethrufaith.com:

                      Was John Really John?
                      Q. I have just finished a book which has got me thinking. This book claims that john, the brother of James, both sons of Zebedee, was not the same John as “the beloved disciple”. Although I do not take this premise as fact, it has got me thinking as to who was whom? Was John ben Zebedee the beloved disciple? Which John wrote the 3 letters of John? Which John wrote the Gospel of John, and who was John the Revelator?

                      A. Only one of the 12 disciples was named John and Matt.4:21 identifies him as the brother of James and son of Zebedee. In the Gospel of John he referred to himself only as the disciple whom Jesus loved. This makes sense if he wrote it, but not if he didn’t. The early church believed he wrote it and all other evidence agrees as well. Iraneus (140-203) Clement of Alexandria (155-215) Tertullian (150-222) and Origen (185-253) all stated that John, the son of Zebedee, wrote the gospel and the three letters that bear his name.

                      The early Church also believed that the Book of Revelation was written by John, which is why some call him John the Revelator. In the 3rd Century it was first suggested that another John might have been the real author of Revelation, but events of John’s life, such as his imprisonment on Patmos, the fact that he was well known to the seven churches to whom the book was written , and his reputation as a deeply religious Jewish believer provide overwhelming evidence of his authorship of this and all of the books that are credited to him.



                      Was this reference made? If it was then the repost may help.
                      It's ALL about Jesus. The Son of God - Emanuel - The Mighty God - Our Salvation.

                      John 1:1-3 NKJV --- Luke 22:42 NKJV --Romans 3:23 NKJV, Rom 5:8 NKJV, Rom 8:28 NKJV, Rom 8:31 NKJV, Rom8:38-39 NKJV, ---Titus 1:2 NKJV - Heb 6:18 NKJV --- John 14:6 NKJV --- 1 John 5:13 NKJV --- Acts 16:29-31 NKJV ... John 6:28-29 NKJV... 1John 2:22 NKJV... Heb 10:11-13 NKJV

                      “Oh Look,... an Atheist........I Don't believe it....”
                      sigpic

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Originally posted by acceptedinthebeloved View Post
                        I agree with you, for the most part, but it's just that I see no reason to rule out Lazarus (for the reason you state above... gotta admit that Lazarus's personal testimony was pretty outstanding, not to mention the number of actual witnesses of it - John 12:9-10, 11). And I think, according to the biblical evidence alone (if that's all we had to go by), that there is a stronger case for Lazarus than John.


                        ETA: If I recall rightly, the proponent of this "Lazarus" idea suggests that perhaps he (that is, Lazarus) was the unnamed "one of the two which heard John [the Baptist] speak, and followed Him" (the other one, being named in the text, was Andrew) in John 1:35-41 (and this would tie into the "personal witness" aspect of this whole idea). The two went to where Jesus was staying, and stayed with Him that day. This may have been when the unique familial/love relationship between them (Jesus and Lazarus) began, which is nowhere else explained (that is, before we see Jesus at their home [Mary, Martha, Lazarus] in Bethany, in John 12, after Lazarus was raised [John 11:3, 5 - "he whom Thou lovest is sick"], and just before His own death).
                        Just some thoughts...
                        Still if it was Lazarus who wrote John, when he told the story of Lazarus being raised from the dead wouldn't he have continued to call himself "the disciple Jesus loved"?

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Originally posted by dwray View Post
                          Still if it was Lazarus who wrote John, when he told the story of Lazarus being raised from the dead wouldn't he have continued to call himself "the disciple Jesus loved"?
                          I think I understand your question.

                          The thing is, the phrase "the disciple whom Jesus loved" was not mentioned until chapter 13 (John 13:23). That is the first mention. (And this is after Lazarus is raised from the dead.) Lazarus is only named in 11 verses of this gospel (6 times in chapter 11, where he is first mentioned; and 5 times in chapter 12).

                          Where Lazarus is first talked about, his sisters are telling Jesus "he whom thou lovest is sick" (John 11:3). We don't see anything about him before this chapter. And nothing about him after chapter 12.

                          Oddly, we also see nothing about "the disciple whom Jesus loved" before chapter 13 (and nothing more about Lazarus... by name).

                          So, "he whom thou lovest" (Lazarus) abruptly disappears (after being singled out as being "loved" by Jesus), and then the only disciple singled out as being "loved" by Jesus abruptly appears in this same gospel.

                          Something to think about.

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            AITB, I never heard of these ideas before, and I think you made some good points, but couldn't John still have written the Gospel of John, the epistles and Revelation, and described himself at times as the disciple who Jesus loved, and at other times, Lazarus as the disciple who Jesus loved, and still both be true? Jesus did love both disciples, after all, even though Lazarus wasn't one of the twelve.

                            John 11:3 So the sisters sent word to Him, saying, “Lord, behold, he whom You love is sick.” LAZARUS

                            John 11:5 Now Jesus loved Martha and her sister and Lazarus. LAZARUS

                            John 11:35-36 Jesus wept. So the Jews were saying, “See how He loved him!” LAZARUS

                            John 12:2 So they made Him a supper there, and Martha was serving; but Lazarus was one of those reclining at the table with Him. LAZARUS

                            John 13:23 There was reclining on Jesus’ bosom one of His disciples, whom Jesus loved.

                            John 18:15-17 Simon Peter was following Jesus, and so was another disciple. Now that disciple was known to the high priest, and entered with Jesus into the court of the high priest, but Peter was standing at the door outside. So the other disciple, who was known to the high priest, went out and spoke to the doorkeeper, and brought Peter in. Then the slave-girl who kept the door said to Peter, “You are not also one of this man’s disciples, are you?” He said, “I am not.”

                            John 18:19 The high priest then questioned Jesus about His disciples, and about His teaching.

                            John 19:26-27 When Jesus then saw His mother, and the disciple whom He loved standing nearby, He said to His mother, “Woman, behold, your son!” Then He said to the disciple, “Behold, your mother!” From that hour the disciple took her into his own household.

                            John 21:2 Simon Peter, and Thomas called Didymus, and Nathanael of Cana in Galilee, and the sons of Zebedee [James and John], and two others of His disciples were together.

                            John 21:7 Therefore that disciple whom Jesus loved said to Peter, “It is the Lord.”

                            John 21:20-25 Peter, turning around, saw the disciple whom Jesus loved following them; the one who also had leaned back on His bosom at the supper and said, “Lord, who is the one who betrays You?” So Peter seeing him said to Jesus, “Lord, and what about this man?” Jesus said to him, “If I want him to remain until I come, what is that to you? You follow Me!” Therefore this saying went out among the brethren that that disciple would not die; yet Jesus did not say to him that he would not die, but only, “If I want him to remain until I come, what is that to you?” This is the disciple who is testifying to these things and wrote these things, and we know that his testimony is true. And there are also many other things which Jesus did, which if they were written in detail, I suppose that even the world itself would not contain the books that would be written.

                            Luke 24:50-51 And He led them out as far as Bethany, and He lifted up His hands and blessed them. While He was blessing them, He parted from them and was carried up into heaven.


                            As far as the writing style, I appreciate bookworm's literary explanations from his professional viewpoint. IMO, John carefully wrote the Revelation account as instructed by the Lord, thus the absolute certainty in who was doing the recording (John) as opposed to the careful, but nameless writer of the Gospel of John, who I believe was the same John, not Lazarus.

                            But maybe for love's sake it will be both John and Lazarus sitting on His right and on His left at the Marriage Supper?

                            Since you question that the Gospel of John may have been written by Lazarus, doesn't it seem a little odd to you that Lazarus, even as close as he was to Jesus and the disciples, wasn't the Lord's choice to replace him by casting lots as the twelfth disciple after Judas died?


                            Also, after reading the thread you linked to this one, I'm considering leaning more toward Lazarus being the man who had the linen wrapped around him and fled away naked. It makes much more sense to me than Mark, for the reasons you gave. The religious explanation never sat quite right with me, even when I first heard the account as a child. I trust those instincts.

                            Mark 14:50-52 And they all left Him and fled. A young man was following Him, wearing nothing but a linen sheet over his naked body; and they seized him. But he pulled free of the linen sheet and escaped naked.


                            Adding more, after sleeping on it:

                            If supposing it was Lazarus at the cross who was given the charge to take care of Jesus' mother, the only one around after all the eleven disciples had fled (including John), then why didn't the Pharisees have the soldiers lay hold of him at that time, since they had been trying to kill him ever since he had been raised? Or do you think (supposing it was Lazarus) that it was a moot point by then, since it was apparent Jesus wasn't coming down from the cross to save himself from his own death?

                            I asked all these questions off the top of my head last night and this a.m. just after reading the threads, which were quite extensive and deep in and of themselves, including all the Scripture given to support. Today I started studying these things for myself. Again, thanks for all you bring to the board.


                            Here's your link again, to that other thread:

                            http://rr-bb.com/showthread.php?1008...the-nude-dude&
                            Last edited by EarsToHear; August 6th, 2011, 11:33 AM. Reason: Added Scriptures after some study; fixed typos.

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              I see you've added quite a bit since I copied your post in order to respond to it as best I can (so please excuse the fact that your post is not completely copied, here).

                              And I'm attempting to compose this post while being not very well rested, so we'll see if it ends up making any sense, at all.

                              Here goes...


                              Originally posted by EarsToHear View Post
                              AITB, I never heard of these ideas before, and I think you made some good points, but couldn't John still have written the Gospel of John, the epistles and Revelation, and described himself at times as the disciple who Jesus loved, and at other times, Lazarus as the disciple who Jesus loved, and still both be true? Jesus did love both disciples, after all, even though Lazarus wasn't one of the twelve.
                              [One of my points was just to say --->]... the text does not anywhere state that Jesus "loved" John (although I realize that He loved all of His disciples, surely).
                              Of course it is possible, but the text itself does not indicate this.



                              Originally posted by EarsToHear View Post
                              As far as the writing style, John carefully wrote the Revelation account as instructed by the Lord, thus the absolute certainty in who was doing the recording (John) as opposed to the careful, but nameless writer of the Gospel of John, who I believe was the same John, not Lazarus.
                              One of the reasons people point out, for the John idea, is that he was basically being "humble" in not naming himself in the gospel of John. Yet he does not hesitate to name himself 5 times as the writer of the Book of Revelation. This seems inconsistent, at the very least. If John wrote John, why not say so, since he clearly names himself as the writer of Revelation with no problem.

                              John's characteristics, described elsewhere, do not seem to be particularly "humble."

                              Another reason often cited (in support of John's authorship, apart from being named) was for the purpose of "anonymity," yet in John 21 "the sons of Zebedee" are listed as being on the fishing trip (along with two unnamed disciples). This fact would seem to (somewhat) undermine the author's efforts at "anonymity," if the author were John.

                              The same could be said of Lazarus, I suppose... but I still find it intriguing that the stated purpose of the Book (found in John 20:30, 31) is pretty much the exact same stated purpose Jesus gave for raising Lazarus from the dead (found in John 11:4, 15, 42). And Lazarus actually seemed to have had reason(s) to want to remain anonymous. It would make some sense, regarding him. As for John, no apparent reason.



                              Originally posted by EarsToHear View Post
                              But maybe for love's sake it will be both John and Lazarus sitting on His right and on His left at the Marriage Supper?
                              I don't have any reason to think so (again, nowhere does the text state that Jesus "loved" John, specifically), but I suppose anything is possible (though I must say that I think Lazarus seems a better candidate, if we were to choose based only on the text).

                              Another thought I've pondered is related to how Jesus says, in Matthew 19:28, "Verily I say unto you, That ye which have followed Me, in the regeneration when the Son of man shall sit in the throne of His glory, ye also shall sit upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel," that perhaps this (and related passages) indicates that there will be 12 disciples "sitting upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel," while there may be two additional, "special" positions: one seated on His right hand and the other seated on His left.



                              Originally posted by EarsToHear View Post
                              Since you question that the Gospel of John may have been written by Lazarus, doesn't it seem a little odd to you that Lazarus, even as close as he was to Jesus and the disciples, wasn't the Lord's choice to replace him by casting lots as the twelfth disciple after Judas died?
                              Perhaps, but I've always thought it was a little odd that Matthias was chosen, since we hear so very little about him (seemingly only in Acts 1:23, 26).
                              (And maybe this is because God "already had" a special position marked out for Lazarus's future... again, complete speculation, there, based on my previous comment).

                              One thing the writer of this idea pointed out was, whomever was to be chosen had to have been with Him from the beginning, starting with Jesus' baptism. Acts 1:21-22 specifically says, "Wherefore of these men which have companied with us all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us, beginning from the baptism of John, unto the same day that He was taken up from us, must one be ordained to be a witness with us of His resurrection."

                              He points out this passage as yet another "evidence" that there were indeed more than just the 12 present at the Last Supper.

                              The author also points out how the fourth gospel leaves out the details of "the bread and the cup" (as Matthew 26:26-29, Mark 14:22-25, Luke 22:16-20 have it), and goes straight from the Passover Supper (when Judas receives the sop and goes out) directly to the washing of His disciples' feet ("the bread and the cup" being distinctively for the Church, as Paul demonstrates in 1 Corinthians 11:23-26). Just a bonus thought, there.



                              Originally posted by EarsToHear View Post
                              Also, after reading the thread you linked to this one, I'm considering leaning more toward Lazarus being the man who had the linen wrapped around him and fled away naked. It makes much more sense to me than Mark, for the reasons you gave. The religious explanation never sat quite right with me, even when I first heard the account as a child. I trust those instincts.
                              Speaking of our childhood perceptions, when I was very young, I just thought of the title "John" as nothing more than, well... a title... merely as an easy way to find "John 3:16," for instance. I remember reading the whole Book of John, never once giving thought to its title indicating anything other than just "a reference point" (I was a child! )

                              A few years later, when someone happened to point out (to us young people) the reason of its being titled "John" ---> "BECAUSE John was the one who wrote it [ ... oh! silly me! ] and is also therefore 'the disciple whom Jesus loved,'" I remember thinking to myself, "why John? I've read through it. He doesn't seem so special. He doesn't stand out any more than the others" (meaning, out of the inner circle, "Peter, James, and John"... and possibly even "Andrew" - Mark 13:3, John 1:40). It has only been in the past several years that I have come to scrutinize the text more closely, to give it much more thought and deeper examination, and I can now see a number of reasons why I would have naturally thought that way, as an "uninformed" (read: unbiased) child.



                              One last thought. In the other three gospels, they mention John, but they leave him out when recording the events where the fourth gospel mentions "the disciple whom Jesus loved," "the other disciple," etc (such as when Peter and "the other disciple" were at the tomb [John 20:3-4, 8], it only mentions Peter, not John [Luke 24:12] - as one example)... the other three gospels do not mention "the other discple" nor "the disciple whom Jesus loved." Why not? Why not mention "John" (in those incidents), in light of the fact that John is freely mentioned (basically throughout) the rest of those other three gospels?

                              Maybe because "that other disciple" ("the disciple whom Jesus loved") was not John.



                              Originally posted by EarsToHear View Post
                              Adding more, after sleeping on it:

                              If supposing it was Lazarus at the cross who was given the charge to take care of Jesus's mother, the only one around after all the eleven disciples had fled (including John), then why didn't the Pharisees have the soldiers lay hold of him at that time, since they had been trying to kill him ever since he had been raised? Or do you think (supposing it was Lazarus) that it was a moot point by then, since it was apparent Jesus wasn't coming down from the cross to save himself from his own death?

                              I asked all these questions off the top of my head last night and this a.m. just after reading the threads, which were quite extensive and deep in and of themselves, including all the Scripture given to support. Today I started studying these things for myself. Again, thanks for all you bring to the board.


                              Here's your link again, to that other thread:

                              http://rr-bb.com/showthread.php?1008...the-nude-dude&
                              Thank you. Hopefully more later, after I've done some sleeping, myself.
                              .
                              Last edited by acceptedintheBeloved; August 6th, 2011, 10:55 AM. Reason: added 2 scripture references

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Originally posted by acceptedinthebeloved View Post
                                [One of my points was just to say --->]... the text does not anywhere state that Jesus "loved" John (although I realize that He loved all of His disciples, surely).
                                Of course it is possible, but the text itself does not indicate this.
                                But it does...

                                John 13:34 A new commandment I give unto you, That ye love one another; as I have loved you, that ye also love one another.

                                This was to the Disciples. He did love John; you and I have gone over this in the thread, so others can go back and read our conversations, but I just felt compelled again to point out that Jesus did indeed love them all, and states so in scripture. He goes on in scripture to call them His friends; His emotional attachment to them was strong and personal.

                                Thanks to sweeetlilgurlie on Narniaweb for the sig

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X