Who was the Disciple that Jesus Loved?

[Brother Les]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brother Les
I think that people have trouble seeing The Forest (Beulah Land) because in their minds eyes 'the trees' (old Jerusalem) are in 'the way'. 'The War'....is the war between 'man' and God, from Adam until the consemation of The Mosaic Age 'in the Last Days'....Worldly Judauh and Jerusalem/Mosaic 'World' were the last to 'fall' in the 'battle' of sinful man. And it should be noted that within Judauh and Jerusalem was where many 'of The Dead', started to 'rise up' unto the fullness of life 'At The Cross'....Who was the very first 'to Believe' after 'The Cross'....it was 'The Disciple Whom Jesus Loved', when he went into The Sepulchre.....and saw the death shroud of Jesus. And who 'was' this Disciple?.....Not John.....but Lazarus.

Brother Les Lazarus? That's an interesting idea. The Bible does say that Jesus loved him. But that doesn't seem sufficient to prove the point. Do you have other evidence? And is there a reason it matters?

Richard



Where in the world did I get Lazarus? I read a very interesting e-book on "the disciple that Jesus loved". Through only Scripture (no 'early church Fathers) the gentilmen brings a very good case that Lazarus wrote 'The Book of John' and That Lazarus 'is' 'the disciple that Jesus Loved".
You can read the e-book at this page.

http://www.thedisciplewhomjesusloved.com/


Tell me what you think after you read it. It is not to long and reads very easy. (I printed it off for study, very interesting)
Brother Les

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Where in the world did I get Lazarus? I read a very interesting e-book on "the disciple that Jesus loved". Through only Scripture (no 'early church Fathers) the gentilmen brings a very good case that Lazarus wrote 'The Book of John' and That Lazarus 'is' 'the disciple that Jesus Loved".
You can read the e-book at this page.

http://www.thedisciplewhomjesusloved.com/


Tell me what you think after you read it. It is not to long and reads very easy. (I printed it off for study, very interesting)
Brother Les
Hey there Brother Les!

Thanks for the link. I'm about half way through it and am surprised to find that the there is a strong Biblical argument for his position. I didn't "like it" at first because I have long held John as the author of the entire Johanine corpus including his Gospel, three letters, and Revelation. And folks who dispute the authorship of the Gospels are often doing so as part of their program to diminish Scripture. But that's not what's going on here at all. Phillips has the highest regard for the Bible, and he is digging deep to learn what he can from it. His arguments are strong and the thematic coherence is extremely convincing - by which I mean John 11:5 states the Jesus LOVED (egape) Lazarus and then immediately after we find the disciple "whom Jesus loved" (again egape) reclining with him to eat. Given the supernatural integrity of Scripture, it is difficult to discount this link as anything but an obvious and intentional clue as to the identity of the author of the fourth Gospel.

I'm not utterly convinced yet because it will take time to evaluate how this impacts my general understanding of the rest of the Johanine corpus, and how this relates to extra-biblical testimonies of the church fathers regarding John as the author, and all that, but I must say that this is the best argument I have seen yet to identify the author of the fourth Gospel.

Richard

[Brother Les]

Thank-you Ram on your response to 'The disciple whom Jesus loved"...As we know now, a lot of what we read 'from' the Bible has been repeated over and over again and when we 'really' go and read for ourselve what said verse....'really says'....it is not always what we though for many years. The book of John, had always been 'the odd man out' from the first four books of the New Testament. I am not quite done with all of the e-book, but now if I read the book of 'John' from the view point that the writer was Lazarus and that he was a Levi Priest to boot (he was known to the High Priest and was able to walk freely in to Jesus' trail with no challenge to stop him) That puts a whole new angle on how to read the first three Gospels from a Galaleian view point and the fourth from a Jewish Levi (risen from 'the dead') view point.

If you think that it goes too far down this path of distraction, go ahead and delete it out and I will understand. As with the writer, I do not want to take away from the focus of and on Jesus. But when 'we' know more of 'the back ground' that is so very obvious to 'them', it is easier to understand by 'being in their shoes'.

Blessings
Brother Les

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Thank-you Ram on your response to 'The disciple whom Jesus loved"...As we know now, a lot of what we read 'from' the Bible has been repeated over and over again and when we 'really' go and read for ourselve what said verse....'really says'....it is not always what we though for many years.

Its not easy to question a view that has been beleived for a long time. The problem is that all our beliefs are tangled together, and it could be that tugging on a thread might just unravel the whole fabric of our belief "system." Of course .... that might not be a bad thing .... :lol:


The book of John, had always been 'the odd man out' from the first four books of the New Testament. I am not quite done with all of the e-book, but now if I read the book of 'John' from the view point that the writer was Lazarus and that he was a Levi Priest to boot (he was known to the High Priest and was able to walk freely in to Jesus' trail with no challenge to stop him) That puts a whole new angle on how to read the first three Gospels from a Galaleian view point and the fourth from a Jewish Levi (risen from 'the dead') view point.

If you think that it goes too far down this path of distraction, go ahead and delete it out and I will understand. As with the writer, I do not want to take away from the focus of and on Jesus. But when 'we' know more of 'the back ground' that is so very obvious to 'them', it is easier to understand by 'being in their shoes'.

Blessings
Brother Les
Well, many folks think Matthew was written from a Levite's perspective ... that's the common explanantion for why he was so "hung up" on things of the Law and Righteousness.

And your comments brings forth a very significant point ... we know very little of Lazarus. I certainly don't think we could justify the leap from "he had access to someone in the priesthood" to "he was a levitical priest."

I have found some comments online, but none yet that refute the thesis that Lazarus could be the beloved disciple. I intend to dig deeper to find out what we can. I still don't like the "shake up" that this does to my established ideas. For example, I'd hate to see the connection between the fourth Gospel and the rest of the Johanine corpus (Logos, Lamb, etc) broken. And I need to review the church fathers for knowledge of those who knew John (or claimed to, anyway). There's lots of work to do.

One thing I noticed in my initial studies is that John does not mention many disciples, such as Matther or James. And he refers to the virgin Mary only paraphrastically as "the mother of Jesus."

And we have the interesting thing that Lazarus IS mentioned by name in the fourth Gospel, so we would have an apparent inconsitency where he sometimes mentions himself by name and sometimes as the "disciple that Jesus loved." How would you answer that?

Well, that's a good start. Talk more soon,

Richard

[Greenbrier]

I still don't like the "shake up" that this does to my established ideas. Richard

Quite a bit would be impacted by such a thing if true. Like

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

This would mean Lazarus (Mary and Martha) took the mother of Jesus into their household (not a hard thing to believe at all).

This would also mean that one of the books of the bible was written by someone who really had died and come back to life...

Luk 16:30 "But he said, 'No, father Abraham, but if someone goes to them from the dead, they will repent!'

...and they were talking about a man named Lazarus!

Hmmmm.
Jeff

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Quite a bit would be impacted by such a thing if true. Like

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

This would mean Lazarus (Mary and Martha) took the mother of Jesus into their household (not a hard thing to believe at all).

This would also mean that one of the books of the bible was written by someone who really had died and come back to life...

Luk 16:30 "But he said, 'No, father Abraham, but if someone goes to them from the dead, they will repent!'

...and they were talking about a man named Lazarus!

Hmmmm.
Jeff

I've always thought there must be something to the fact that the only two mentions of "Lazarus" in the NT involved the resurrection of man from the dead. I'm not sure what the answer is yet. But I find it very interesting that not only did the Jewish leaders "not repent" after He reased Lazarus the dead - they even plotted to KILL Lazarus! Talk about being spiritually lost:
John 12:9-12 Much people of the Jews therefore knew that he was there: and they came not for Jesus' sake only, but that they might see Lazarus also, whom he had raised from the dead. 10 But the chief priests consulted that they might put Lazarus also to death; 11 Because that by reason of him many of the Jews went away, and believed on Jesus.
As for Lazarus as the Beloved Disciple - I still have many questions. But one other interesting thing came to mind. Why was there a rumor that the "disciple Jesus loved" would never die (John 21:23)? Was it because he already did die, and was already resurrected?

Richard

[Brother Les]

Greenbrier Quote:

Originally Posted by RAM
I still don't like the "shake up" that this does to my established ideas. Richard Quite a bit would be impacted by such a thing if true. Like

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

This would mean Lazarus (Mary and Martha) took the mother of Jesus into their household (not a hard thing to believe at all).

This would also mean that one of the books of the bible was written by someone who really had died and come back to life...

Luk 16:30 "But he said, 'No, father Abraham, but if someone goes to them from the dead, they will repent!'

...and they were talking about a man named Lazarus!

Hmmmm.


Jeff


Scripture says that ALL of the 'Apostals' had fled after the trial. But there at the foot of The Cross was 'the 'Disciple' who Jesus Loved'. Why did he not 'run'? Well, if he had been dead once and raised back to physical life. What did he have to fear? Also, if this is Lazarus,(the one whom Jesus Loved), who better to watch over His Mother. Lazarus (and Mary and Martha) only lived a couple of miles away in Bethal. Do we really think that Jesus would leave the care of His Mother to John? One of 'The Sons of Thunder', who was from Galilee? John could not 'take her home'....and would have so many distractions in taking care of her. Lazarus (and Mary and Martha) was the best and only choice. (IMO)

Scripture seems to bring out that many people knew of Lazarus before he had died...Jesus had brought a couple of only people back to life and there was never much of 'a stir'. But in the case of Lazarus, it says that many people believed 'Because of Lazarus'.....

It would be interesting 'if' Lazarus 'was' a Saducee (a Sect that did not believe in 'ANY' type of resurection). That would cause quite an interest in a healing bodily restoration.

Brother Les

[Richard Amiel McGough]

It would be interesting 'if' Lazarus 'was' a Saducee (a Sect that did not believe in 'ANY' type of resurection). That would cause quite an interest in a healing bodily restoration.

Brother Les

It certainly would have been ironic in Lazarus was a resurrection-denying Sadducee. We know that the high priest at the time of the crucifixion was a Sadducee:
Acts 5:17 Then the high priest rose up, and all they that were with him, (which is the sect of the Sadducees,) and were filled with indignation,But even if Lazarus was the beloved disciple identified as the "that other disciple, which was known unto the high priest" (John 18:16) there is nothing to indicate that he himself was a Sadducee. And that pretty much exemplifies why I have a feeling that this enquiry, while very interesting, and possibly correct, can never lead to any certain knowledge. It seems to me that God simply did not give us sufficient information to settle the issue, and I have little patience for biblical speculation since it usually just muddies the waters of the Word. My goal is to discern what we can know with certainty from Scripture. And in this regard, the question of Lazarus has has been very significiant in reminding us that the traditional attribution of the Fourth Gospel to John is largely just that .... tradition. And that is a very important thing to remember, but its also important that we don't reject tradition if there is no explicit reason to do so. We should trust that God has been faithful - in a broad general sense - to guide His people through time. This suggests that Christian traditions should get the benefit of the doubt, though never received uncritically.

Getting back to the topic .... it seems exceedingly odd that John never mentioned his brother James anywhere in his Gospel, if indeed he wrote it. They seem inseparable in the other Gospels. They were called together at the same time when they were working together mending nets in their father's boat. They were together on the mount of transfiguration. They shared a common title as the "sons of thunder." It is a profound mystery why James is not mentioned in the Gospel of John. Does anyone have any idea why this might be so?

Richard

[GotScripture]

it seems exceedingly odd that John never mentioned his brother James anywhere in his Gospel, if indeed he wrote it. They seem inseparable in the other Gospels. They were called together at the same time when they were working together mending nets in their father's boat. They were together on the mount of transfiguration. They shared a common title as the "sons of thunder." It is a profound mystery why James is not mentioned in the Gospel of John. Does anyone have any idea why this might be so?

Sure. It is so because John wasn't the author of the book that man-made tradition has erroneously attributed to him. This by the way is the same reason that the Mount of Transfiguration event is not mentioned in the gospel either. As with EVERY other event where John is specifically named as participating in the other three gospels, not one of these events is mentioned in the fourth gospel -- which would certainly argue to any fair-minded jury that this work is certainly not 'John's eyewitness testimony' as is often claimed by those who promote this tradition. The work is for the most part the eyewitness testimony of the anonymous author but the Bible proves that this author could not possible have been John, the brother of James, son of Zebedee.

Most notably absent of course are the raising of the daughter of Jairus, the Mount of Transfiguration and the prayers of Jesus at Gethsemane - arguably the three most significant events in the ministry of Jesus in which John was specifically selected to participate. The absence of these events is quite telling -- especially the omission of the Mount of Transfiguration event, given what Jesus told to Peter, James and John immediately after it happened.

But as already stated, beyond these three events we find that ALL the events where John is specifically named as participating in the other three gospels have this thing in common - they are all missing from the fourth gospel -- the book that hand-me-down tradition likes to tell us is John's eyewitness testimony.

Moreover James and John are not the only members of "the twelve" who are never mentioned in the fourth gospel -- and at least they get a secondary mention (though not by name) in the last chapter when the sons of Zebedee are mentioned as being on the fishing trip when the third appearance of Jesus after the resurrection occurred.

As noted above, TheDiscipleWhomJesusLoved.com cites the Bible and noting else and shows the proof from scripture why this author (A) could not have been John and (B) could not have been ANY of "the twelve" (which would explain why he referred to himself as "the other disciple" since he was "other" than "the twelve"). On the other hand those who promote this tradition will always end up pointing to this-or-that NON-BIBLE source because hearsay is what this tradition was founded on. As stated in the book - there is not a single verse in the entire Bible that would justify teaching the idea that John was the unnamed "other disciple whom Jesus loved". So when it turns out that those who present this idea AS IF IT WERE BIBLICAL are unable to cite even one verse that would justify teaching this idea, that should say a lot to anyone who knows Ps. 118:8. The Bible says "prove all things" and when one bothers to subject the John tradition to BIBLICAL SCRUTINY (as opposed to relying on NON-BIBLE sources) then they will see that the John idea is a tradition of men that makes void the word of God. The Bible always had the evidence on this question hidden in plain sight as it still does but one has to be willing to DO what Ps. 118:8 requires and not merely give lip service to it.

[Rose]

Who is the writer of the book of John?
After looking closely at the below verses I have come to the conclusion that the Disciple whom Jesus loved, and the writer of the book of John is one of the twelve disciples of Jesus. Even though there are many positive reasons to think that Lazarus is the Disciple whom Jesus loved, I don’t see how he can be included in the Last Supper without inserting far too many unknowns. It seems like the text goes out of it way to make sure we know that it is the twelve Disciples who are partaking of the Last Supper with Jesus, and the focus being on the one who will betray Him.


John 21:20 & 24 'Then Peter, turning about, seeing the disciple whom Jesus loved following; which also leaned on His breast at supper, and said, Lord, which is he that betrayed thee? 24) 'This is the disciple which testifies of these things, and wrote these things: and we know that his testimony is true.' The above verses tell us that the Disciple whom Jesus loved was the one who wrote the book of John. This Disciple also sat next to Jesus at the last supper leaning his head upon Jesus’ chest, and asked Him who it was that was going to betray Him, to which Jesus answers (below) it is the one who dips the bread after Me.


John 13: 21-26 'When Jesus had thus said, he was troubled in spirit, and testified, and said, Verily, verily, I say unto you, that one of you shall betray me. Then the disciples looked one on another doubting of whom he spoke. Now there was leaning on Jesus' bosom one of His disciples, whom Jesus loved. Simon Peter therefore beckoned to him, that he should ask who it should be of whom he spoke. He then lying on Jesus' breast said unto him, Lord, who is it? Jesus answered, He it is, to whom I shall give a sop, when I have dipped it. And when he had dipped the sop, he gave it to Judas Iscariot, the son of Simon.' The book of Mark tells us that the only ones who ate with Jesus at the table of the last Supper were the twelve Disciples (called Apostles in Luke 22:14). Jesus said one of the twelve Disciples that ate with Him would betray Him.


Mark 14:12-20 'And the first day of unleavened bread, when they killed the Passover, his disciples said unto him, where wilt thou that we go and prepare that thou may eat the Passover? And he sent forth two of his disciples, and said unto them, Go ye into the city, and there shall meet you a man bearing a pitcher of water: follow him. And wheresoever he shall go in, say ye to the goodman of the house, The Master said, Where is the guest chamber, where I shall eat the Passover with my disciples? And he will show you a large upper room furnished and prepared: there make ready for us. And his disciples went forth, and came into the city, and found as he had said unto them: and they made ready the Passover. And in the evening He cometh with the twelve. And as they sat and did eat, Jesus said, Verily I say unto you, One of you which eats with me shall betray me. And they began to be sorrowful, and to say unto him one by one, Is it I? and another said, Is it I? And he answered and said unto them, It is one of the twelve, that dips with me in the dish.' From the above passage in Mark it can be seen that the place where Jesus and the twelve Disciples ate the Passover supper is a place that was specially prepared for them at a previously unknown location. Jesus sent out two of His Disciples to find the place and prepare the Passover meal; then in the evening Jesus and the twelve came to the prepared place and ate the Passover meal. There is no mention of anyone else being there but the twelve since it was a previously unknown location and only those that Jesus brought with Him would know where it was.

It seems the purpose of the meal being shared by only the twelve Disciples was to reveal Judas the betrayer. Jesus says to the twelve that one of them will betray Him, and one by one (one of those being the Disciple whom Jesus loved) they each ask if it is them, and Jesus tells them it is the one who dips the bread after Him.

If only the twelve Disciples shared the meal than the person who leaned on Jesus’ chest was one of the twelve who dipped their bread in the dish, thus identifying the Disciple whom Jesus loved as one of the twelve Disciples, and concluding that the one who wrote the book of John was one of the twelve Disciples.



Rose

[Brother Les]

Sister Rose, I pray to be humble but to the point. By stating what you have written it is easy to tell that you did not read the short booklet. If you have by now read it all, it should be evident that Nothing in the book really points to 'John' as the author.




Quote:

John 21:20 & 24 “Then Peter, turning about, seeing the disciple whom Jesus loved following; which also leaned on His breast at supper, and said, Lord, which is he that betrayed thee? 24) “This is the disciple which testifies of these things, and wrote these things: and we know that his testimony is true.”

The above verses tell us that the Disciple whom Jesus loved was the one who wrote the book of John. This Disciple also sat next to Jesus at the last supper leaning his head upon Jesus’ chest, and asked Him who it was that was going to betray Him, to which Jesus answers (below) it is the one who dips the bread after Me.

Jhn 13:1 ¶ Now before the feast of the passover, when Jesus knew that his hour was come that he should depart out of this world unto the Father, having loved his own which were in the world, he loved them unto the end.


Jhn 13:2 And supper being ended,the devil having now put into the heart of Judas Iscariot, Simon's [son], to betray him;


It seems like the text goes out of it way to make sure we know that it is the twelve Disciples who are partaking of the Last Supper with Jesus, and the focus being on the one who will betray Him.

The writer of John, takes up the narration AFTER the supper has ended. It has nothing of what went on during 'The Supper'. Why would 'John' leave that out? 'The disciple whom Jesus Loved' does not indicate any 'changes' into a new covenant practices. There is also nothing in any of the 'Books' to indicate that 'only' "twelve Apostals" were at The Last Super, as there was an indication that there was always a large group of 'Disciples' around them almost all of the time. When they were to chose a replacement for Juduas, they said that they would choose from the men that had been with them 'from the very begining'






from 'The disciple whom Jesus Loved'
The evidence shows that the Apostle John was not the “other disciple” because:

The other three Gospel writers conspicuously treat these two very differently. They include John, but overtly omit the “other disciple”. This suggests they were two different people.


“The disciple whom Jesus loved” wrote his Gospel with the deliberate intent of remaining anonymous, yet the evidence indicates that the Apostle John did not attempt to hide his identity. In the Book of Revelation we see that the Apostle John was willing to openly identify himself, because he did so several times.


“The disciple whom Jesus loved” enjoyed a one-of-a-kind bond with Jesus. This cannot be said of John, since not even his role in the ‘inner circle’ suggests that John enjoyed a relationship that was equivalent to this.


These two behaved differently on the evening Jesus was arrested. John let Jesus down by falling asleep three times at Gethsemane. But the “other disciple” went into the palace of the high priest with Jesus and we only see him leave when Jesus dismissed him – at a time well into the next day.


The idea that “the disciple whom Jesus loved” was John is based on the mistaken assumption that this author had to be one of “the twelve”. Paintings of “the twelve” alone with Jesus at his last Passover help promote this notion. However, details in the Bible actually indicate that they were not alone (including the fact that they were guests in someone’s home when this event occurred). Besides this, note the phrase “other disciple”. “Other” suggests that the author was not one of “the twelve”, but rather, that he was one of the additional disciples that were continually with Jesus.


If “the disciple whom Jesus loved” joined Jesus and “the twelve” after the supper, then this person could not be John. Yet this is just what is indicated by the author’s own record of events at that Passover – which skips the ‘Lord’s table’ and opens with the foot washing (after which Jesus sat down again).


The “other disciple” was a known associate of Jesus and he was known to the high priest. But the high priest was not acquainted with John and he didn’t learn that John was an associate of Jesus until after Pentecost.


The author’s aim of anonymity argues against this being John, because the author’s record of the fishing trip cites “the sons of Zebedee” while leaving two “other” disciples unnamed when “the disciple whom Jesus loved” is said to be present. This cite would seem to run counter to the author’s effort to conceal his identity if this author had in fact been John.




Blessings
Brother Les

[Brother Les]

Here is a Sermon on the subject by David Curtis


The Disciple Whom Jesus Loved
Who Wrote the Fourth Gospel?



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

John 21:24





--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Today's message is a correction to something I said in a prior message in the Mark series. I received an e-mail several months ago that stated: "I was reading one of your sermons on Mark 10 which you preached near the end of 2006, and you stated that the disciple that Jesus loved was John." This e-mail is referring to the message I preached entitled: "The Only Good Man," from Mark 10:17-27. In that message, commenting on Mark 10:21, I made the following comments:
And looking at him, Jesus felt a love for him, and said to him, "One thing you lack: go and sell all you possess, and give to the poor, and you shall have treasure in heaven; and come, follow Me." (Mark 10:21 NASB)
"'Jesus felt a love for him'*this is the Greek word agapao, which refers to a divine love. It's rare in the New Testament that we find Jesus being spoken of as directly loving individuals, and perhaps the most remembered statement is:
There was reclining on Jesus' breast one of His disciples, whom Jesus loved. (John 13:23 NASB)
"This refers to John (see also John 20:2, 21:7,20). The only other place that I can think of such a statement being made is:
Now Jesus loved Martha, and her sister, and Lazarus. (John 11:5 NASB)"
The writer of the e-mail was challenging me on the fact that I said: "The disciple whom Jesus loved refers to John." What I find interesting now is what I said after that: "The only other place that I can think of such a statement being made is 'Jesus loved...Lazarus.'" If that is the only other place that Jesus is said to love someone by name, why didn't I see that the disciple whom Jesus loved was not John, but Lazarus? It is obviously because I was blinded by tradition. The title of the fourth Gospel in my Bible is: "The Gospel According to John." So when I read in chapter 21 that the writer of this Gospel was "the disciple whom Jesus loved," I automatically assumed that the disciple whom Jesus loved was John. And so do we all.

According to church tradition, John wrote the fourth Gospel. There were various church fathers in the second century that thought the Apostle John, the son of Zebedee, was the author. There was an increasing urgency about this conclusion for the mainstream church after the middle of the second century, because the fourth Gospel seems to have been a favorite amongst the Gnostics, and therefore, apostolic authorship was deemed important if this Gospel was to be rescued from the heterodox.

Irenaeus, in around A.D. 180, stressed that this Gospel was written in Ephesus by one of the Twelve*John. I hope to prove to you from the Scripture that John did not write this. But this was not the conclusion of earlier witnesses*Papias of Hierapolis ascribes this Gospel to one elder John, whom he distinguishes from another John, and it is only the former that he claims to have had personal contact with. Eusebius, in referring to the Preface to Papias' five volume work, stresses that Papias only had contact with an elder John and one Aristion, not with John of Zebedee (Hist. Eccl. 3.39-3-7).

So tradition says that John wrote the fourth Gospel, although there is some difference of opinion as to which John, and we all, like sheep, believe that without question. After all, the title in our Bible says that John wrote it. What I want you to see here is that tradition can rob us of the precious truth of Scripture if we are not careful. Let me again give you the quote from J. I. Packer. This quote is worth our repeating over and over:

We do not start our Christian lives by working out our faith for ourselves; it is mediated to us by Christian tradition, in the form of sermons, books and established patterns of church life and fellowship. We read our Bibles in the light of what we have learned from these sources; we approach Scripture with minds already formed by the mass of accepted opinions and viewpoints with which we have come into contact, in both the Church and the world. . . . It is easy to be unaware that it has happened; it is hard even to begin to realize how profoundly tradition in this sense has molded us. But we are forbidden to become enslaved to human tradition, either secular or Christian, whether it be "catholic" tradition, or "critical" tradition, or "ecumenical" tradition. We may never assume the complete rightness of our own established ways of thought and practice and excuse ourselves the duty of testing and reforming them by Scriptures. (Fundamentalism and the Word of God, by J.I. Packer. [Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1958.] pp. 69-70)
Believer, we must test everything we believe by the text. The beliefs you hold must come from the text. There is often a difference between what people say the Bible says and what it actually says. The Bereans are praised for checking out Paul's teaching, so how much more should we test what we are taught. Even if everybody thinks that something is true, that does not make it true! Do you agree with that? Remember there was a time when all the educated people believed that the earth was flat, and anyone would be ridiculed if they questioned the accepted truth.

Prior to 1543 it was a commonly accepted truth that the earth was the center of the universe. Then Nicolaus Copernicus enunciated an astronomical principle which revolutionized the study of science. Copernicus discovered that this earth was not the center of the universe, nor did the sun revolve around the earth. This single discovery completely reversed the order of scientific thinking.

We must be open to allowing the Biblical text to shatter our false ideas. And this morning that means shattering our false idea that the Apostle John wrote the fourth Gospel. Which, until recently, I'm sure was a tradition we all held to.

If you don't know who wrote a letter, it's hard to understand what is being talked about. About a month ago, I received a thank-you note in the mail. I opened it and read it, but it was unsigned. Without an author, I had trouble understanding what was being said. I think that is true of the fourth Gospel; if you think John wrote it, you will have trouble understanding why some things are said, and some are left unsaid. Its author was not a Galilean, but a Judean. This is what makes it so different from the rest of the Gospels.

Let's forget tradition for a moment and look at the Scripture, and see if we can determine who wrote the fourth Gospel. This is really not difficult, because we are told who wrote this Gospel in the book itself:

Peter, turning around, saw the disciple whom Jesus loved following them; the one who also had leaned back on His breast at the supper, and said, "Lord, who is the one who betrays You?" (John 21:20 NASB)
Here the writer mentions "the disciple whom Jesus loved," and then states that this is the disciple that wrote this letter:

This is the disciple who bears witness of these things, and wrote these things; and we know that his witness is true. (John 21:24 NASB)
The antecedent of "this" is "the disciple whom Jesus loved" in verse 20. So we know who wrote this Gospel; it was "the disciple whom Jesus loved." Now all we have to do is to figure out who that was. Does the Bible say any where that John was the "disciple whom Jesus loved"? NO, it does not! Does the Bible explicitly name anyone who was "loved" by Jesus? Yes. There is only one man named in the Bible that is said to be loved by Jesus:

Now a certain man was sick, Lazarus of Bethany, the village of Mary and her sister Martha. 2 And it was the Mary who anointed the Lord with ointment, and wiped His feet with her hair, whose brother Lazarus was sick. (John 11:1-2 NASB)
Here, for the first time, we are introduced to Lazarus. Now notice carefully what we are told about him:

The sisters therefore sent to Him, saying, "Lord, behold, he whom You love is sick." (John 11:3 NASB)
Lazarus' sisters refer to him as a man whom Jesus loved. That tells us something very important about Lazarus. But that is his sisters' opinion. Even more revealing is what the Spirit tells us through the inspired text:

Now Jesus loved Martha, and her sister, and Lazarus. (John 11:5 NASB)
Please notice carefully what this says, "Jesus loved...Lazarus." So Lazarus' sisters said Jesus loved him, the text says Jesus loved Lazarus, and notice:

This He said, and after that He said to them, "Our friend Lazarus has fallen asleep; but I go, that I may awaken him out of sleep." (John 11:11 NASB)
Here Jesus says that Lazarus is his friend. And notice what else Jesus said about His friends:

"Greater love has no one than this, that one lay down his life for his friends. (John 15:13 NASB)
Laying down your life would imply love. So when Jesus said that Lazarus was His friend, He was saying that He loved Lazarus. And that is not all, even the Jews said that Jesus loved Lazarus:

And so the Jews were saying, "Behold how He loved him!" (John 11:36 NASB)
It seems to me that the Spirit of God is going to great lengths in John 11 to make it known that Jesus loved Lazarus. Lazarus is the only man named in the Bible that is specifically identified as being "loved" by Jesus. Before Pentecost, only fifteen verses mention Jesus' love. Three of these reference Jesus' love for Lazarus, and five others refer to "the disciple whom Jesus loved." The Bible has only seven more verses prior to Pentecost that overtly mention Jesus' love: Mark 10:21, Jn. 13:1(2x), 13:34, 14:21, 15:9 & 15:12. Not one of these verses names anyone, and only Mark 10:21 refers to a single individual.

Because of this love, it should be obvious that Jesus and Lazarus have known each other for a while and must have spent some time together, but the first we hear of Lazarus is in John 11. That is the first time we hear of him by name anyway. I think we see Lazarus very early in this Gospel. I believe that he was a disciple of John the Baptist:

Again the next day John was standing with two of his disciples, 36 and he looked upon Jesus as He walked, and said, "Behold, the Lamb of God!" 37 And the two disciples heard him speak, and they followed Jesus. (John 1:35- 37 NASB)
Here we have two of John's disciples leaving him to follow Jesus. Who are these two?

One of the two who heard John speak, and followed Him, was Andrew, Simon Peter's brother. (John 1:40 NASB)
Here we see that one of the disciples was Andrew. The other one is never named. This would be consistent with the author's practice of not naming himself! It seems safe to assume that when the Writer makes any reference to another, unnamed disciple, he has in mind this one particular disciple whom Jesus loved. It is hard to believe that the writer has a number of different disciples that he is committed to keeping anonymous.

Let's go back to John 11 where we see Jesus raise Lazarus from the dead:

And when He had said these things, He cried out with a loud voice, "Lazarus, come forth." 44 He who had died came forth, bound hand and foot with wrappings; and his face was wrapped around with a cloth. Jesus said to them, "Unbind him, and let him go." (John 11:43-44 NASB)
So we see that Lazarus, Jesus' friend, the one He loved, He raised from the dead. This is an incredible miracle, especially for Lazarus. They were good friends before Jesus raised him from the dead. What do you think their friendship was like now? Do you think that this resurrection had a profound life changing effect on Lazarus? I sure do.

Being raised from the dead made Lazarus quite a celebrity; everybody wanted to see him:

The great multitude therefore of the Jews learned that He was there; and they came, not for Jesus' sake only, but that they might also see Lazarus, whom He raised from the dead. (John 12:9 NASB)
This large crowd is not gathering just because of Jesus, they wanted to see Lazarus.

But the chief priests took counsel that they might put Lazarus to death also; 11 because on account of him many of the Jews were going away, and were believing in Jesus. (John 12:10-11 NASB)
Lazarus was causing such a stir that the Jewish leadership wanted him dead. From here the text goes into the Triumphal Entry. And we learn something interesting here; the crowd was there because of Lazarus:

And so the multitude who were with Him when He called Lazarus out of the tomb, and raised him from the dead, were bearing Him witness. 18 For this cause also the multitude went and met Him, because they heard that He had performed this sign. (John 12:17-18 NASB)
Lazarus had become a big celebrity, everyone was talking about him and wanted to see him. Some even wanted to kill him. I think that it is for this reason that the author of the fourth Gospel wanted to remain anonymous. He calls himself "the disciple whom Jesus loved" and the "other disciple."

[Brother Les]

Now I want you to notice something that I think is very significant. John 12 is the last time we hear of Lazarus. After chapter 12 this celebrity disappears from Scripture. This good friend of Jesus, this man whom Jesus loved and raised from the dead, suddenly disappears. Notice where we see him last:

Jesus, therefore, six days before the Passover, came to Bethany where Lazarus was, whom Jesus had raised from the dead. 2 So they made Him a supper there, and Martha was serving; but Lazarus was one of those reclining at the table with Him. (John 12:1-2 NASB)
The last time we see Lazarus named, he is reclining at a table with Jesus. Then he disappears from the pages of Scripture. What is really interesting is right after Lazarus' name disappears, someone else appears that we have never heard of before:

There was reclining on Jesus' breast one of His disciples, whom Jesus loved. (John 13:23 NASB)
The last time we see Lazarus, he is reclining at a table with Jesus, and the first time we see the "disciple whom Jesus loved," he is reclining at a table with Jesus. The only man named in the Bible as being "loved" by Jesus abruptly vanishes from this Gospel, and then the only disciple singled out as being "loved" by Jesus abruptly appears in this same Gospel. It is my contention that this "disciple whom Jesus loved" is Lazarus. This seems so clear from the text, but we miss this because the title of this Gospel is "The Gospel According to John," so we assume that John is the disciple whom Jesus loved. But the inspired text tells us, "Jesus loved Lazarus."

Now some will argue, as my daughter did, that only the 12 were at the Last Supper, and Lazarus was not one of the 12. Where did the idea come from that only Jesus and the twelve were at the Last Supper? Most likely from DaVinci and his paintings and not the Scripture. The Scriptures never tell us that Jesus and "the twelve" were alone at that last Passover. As a matter of fact, they were probably very rarely alone. Acts 1 tells about the time when the eleven remaining Apostles named a replacement for Judas. They began by selecting two men. But notice what is said about the group from which these two came:

"It is therefore necessary that of the men who have accompanied us all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us*22 beginning with the baptism of John, until the day that He was taken up from us-- one of these should become a witness with us of His resurrection." (Acts 1:21-22 NASB)
This text teaches us that Jesus had many loyal disciples that accompanied Him throughout His time here on earth. Is it hard to believe that some of them would have been at the Last Supper? Something Jesus says also indicated the presence of others at the Last Supper. Jesus tells them that one of them will betray Him, and when they ask who, He replies:

And He said to them, "It is one of the twelve, one who dips with Me in the bowl. (Mark 14:20 NASB)
"The twelve" is a specific designation to refer to the twelve Apostles:

And when day came, He called His disciples to Him; and chose twelve of them, whom He also named as apostles: (Luke 6:13 NASB)
The term "disciple" is a broad term that refers to any follower of Jesus. If Jesus and "the twelve" were the only ones at that last Passover, then why would Jesus need to say "one of the twelve"? If "the twelve" were the only ones present, wouldn't Jesus have said, "One of you"?

We learn from the text that the "disciple whom Jesus loved" was not one of the twelve. The next text in the fourth Gospel that mentions this "other disciple" is:

So the Roman cohort and the commander, and the officers of the Jews, arrested Jesus and bound Him, 13 and led Him to Annas first; for he was father-in-law of Caiaphas, who was high priest that year. 14 Now Caiaphas was the one who had advised the Jews that it was expedient for one man to die on behalf of the people. (John 18:12-14 NASB)
This is referring to the trial of Jesus.

And 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, 16 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 in Peter. (John 18:15-16 NASB)
This "other disciple" was known to the High Priest, and he was the one who got Peter in. If you read John 20, you will see that the "other disciple" is "the disciple whom Jesus loved":

And so she ran and came to Simon Peter, and to the other disciple whom Jesus loved, and said to them, "They have taken away the Lord out of the tomb, and we do not know where they have laid Him." (John 20:2 NASB)
Now if we compare John 18 to Acts 4, I think we will see that this "other disciple" could not be John. Acts 4:1-23 tells us what happened to Peter and John following the healing of a crippled man. Peter and John were seized and brought before the "rulers, and elders, and scribes, and Annas the high priest, and Caiaphas" in order to be questioned about this miracle.

Now as they observed the confidence of Peter and John, and understood that they were uneducated and untrained men, they were marveling, and began to recognize them as having been with Jesus. (Acts 4:13 NASB)
Notice here what these Jewish leaders recognized: It was in that moment that they suddenly understood that these men had been with Jesus. The principal thing that we need to get out of this passage is that it was at that point that the high priest and the other rulers became acquainted with Peter and John for first time. But our text in John 18 tells us that the "other disciple" was known by the High Priest. This teaches us that the high priest did not know John or Peter before this incident. So the "other disciple" could not have been John.

As the infomercials on TV would say, "But wait, there's more!" We see in John 20 that this "other disciple" was the first to believe after the resurrection:

So the other disciple who had first come to the tomb entered then also, and he saw and believed. 9 For as yet they did not understand the Scripture, that He must rise again from the dead. (John 20:8-9 NASB)
This happened early on the first day of the week; "the other disciple...saw and believed," but later that day notice what Mark tells us:

And afterward He appeared to the eleven themselves as they were reclining at the table; and He reproached them for their unbelief and hardness of heart, because they had not believed those who had seen Him after He had risen. (Mark 16:14 NASB)
The "eleven", this is the "twelve" minus Judas, did not believe, but the "other disciple" had believed that morning. The "other disciple" was clearly not one of the twelve.

At Jesus' trial there are only two disciples there with Him, Peter and the "other disciple." Peter denies that he even knows Him. Then we go to the cross, and none of the "twelve" are there. They were all afraid. But notice who was there:

Therefore the soldiers did these things. But there were standing by the cross of Jesus His mother, and His mother's sister, Mary the wife of Clopas, and Mary Magdalene. 26 When Jesus therefore saw His mother, and the disciple whom He loved standing nearby, He said to His mother, "Woman, behold, your son!" 27 Then He said to the disciple, "Behold, your mother!" And from that hour the disciple took her into his own household. (John 19:25-27 NASB)
The Synoptics say all the Twelve deserted Jesus once he was taken away for execution, even Peter, and record only women being at the cross. There is no contradiction here if the disciple whom Jesus loved is Lazarus rather than one of the Twelve.

The only man that we know of who was at the cross as Jesus died was "the disciple whom He loved." Why? What gave Lazarus this boldness? Think about it. Why would Lazarus be afraid to die? He had already died and been raised from death. He had no fear of death; he was loved by Him who is the Resurrection and the Life.

Jesus loved Lazarus, and He made him responsible to take care of His mother. The historical figure of Lazarus is more important than we may have previously imagined due to his role in the life of Jesus and Jesus' mother. Jesus must have trusted him implicitly to hand over his mother to him when he died.

After hearing from the women that the tomb was empty, Peter runs to the tomb. The parallel texts in the Synoptics make it sound like Peter is alone:

But Peter arose and ran to the tomb; stooping and looking in, he saw the linen wrappings only; and he went away to his home, marveling at that which had happened. (Luke 24:12 NASB)
Luke makes it sound like Peter was alone. But we learn from the fourth Gospel that Peter was not alone, he was with "another disciple":

And so she ran and came to Simon Peter, and to the other disciple whom Jesus loved, and said to them, "They have taken away the Lord out of the tomb, and we do not know where they have laid Him." (John 20:2 NASB)
Now notice what happened when they got to the tomb:

And the two were running together; and the other disciple ran ahead faster than Peter, and came to the tomb first; 5 and stooping and looking in, he saw the linen wrappings lying there; but he did not go in. (John 20:5 NASB)
Why does the "other disciple" stop at the sight of the "the linen wrappings"? This sight would have affected, and could easily have overwhelmed, Lazarus. He understood the significance of these items, because he had experienced the wearing of "linen clothes." He would never forget the time that he wore "linen"* the material that was used to wrap dead bodies! Notice what else is specifically mentioned:

Simon Peter therefore also came, following him, and entered the tomb; and he beheld the linen wrappings lying there, 7 and the face-cloth, which had been on His head, not lying with the linen wrappings, but rolled up in a place by itself. (John 20:6-7 NASB)
The Greek word used for "face-cloth" here is soudarion. Lazarus is familiar with this face cloth, he had worn one:

He who had died came forth, bound hand and foot with wrappings; and his face was wrapped around with a cloth [soudarion]. Jesus said to them, "Unbind him, and let him go." (John 11:44 NASB)
It's not an accident that the author took the time to mention this seemingly trivial detail of the "face-cloth" with regard to Lazarus also. Lazarus had worn this cloth on his own face, and the sight of it at Jesus' tomb caused him to believe.

After the resurrection morning, the next mention of "the disciple whom Jesus loved" occurs in John 21:2-8.

There were together Simon Peter, and Thomas called Didymus, and Nathanael of Cana in Galilee, and the sons of Zebedee, and two others of His disciples. 3 Simon Peter said to them, "I am going fishing." They said to him, "We will also come with you." They went out, and got into the boat; and that night they caught nothing. (John 21:2-3 NASB)
Two of those who were present are not named*which is consistent with the author's practice of not naming himself! He refers to himself in verse 7.

That disciple therefore whom Jesus loved said to Peter, "It is the Lord." And so when Simon Peter heard that it was the Lord, he put his outer garment on (for he was stripped for work), and threw himself into the sea. (John 21:7 NASB)
Since "the disciple whom Jesus loved" was present, look at the author's list in John 21:2. We see that "the sons of Zebedee" are named, one of which was John, and we know that the unnamed "disciple whom Jesus loved" is present at the same time! (Jn. 21:7) This is strong evidence that the author was not the Apostle John.

At the end of the fourth Gospel, Jesus is talking to Peter and tells him what kind of death he would experience. In response to this:

Peter, turning around, saw the disciple whom Jesus loved following them; the one who also had leaned back on His breast at the supper, and said, "Lord, who is the one who betrays You?" 21 Peter therefore seeing him said to Jesus, "Lord, and what about this man?" (John 21:20-21 NASB)
Jesus tells Peter how he is going to die, and Peter's response is, "Lord, what about this man [Lazarus]?" As soon as the topic became death, who did Peter's mind turn to? Lazarus!

Jesus said to him, "If I want him to remain until I come, what is that to you? You follow Me!" (John 21:22 NASB)
This is a Preteristic verse. Jesus is saying, "If I want him [Lazarus] to live until I come, what is that to you?" Would Jesus say this if His coming was thousands of years away?

This saying therefore 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?" (John 21:23 NASB)
Something about this "other disciple" caused some or all of the disciples that were present at this event to jump to their erroneous conclusion*that Jesus' words, "If I want him to remain until I come" meant: "That disciple should not die" (Jn. 21:23).

The rumor, "That disciple should not die," did not spring from a misunderstanding about what Jesus said. This error happened because of whom Jesus was speaking about!

I'm sure that Peter and the rest of these disciples knew that this individual was Lazarus (who had already died and been brought back from the dead). In this case, a reason for one or more of those disciples jumping to the conclusion that they did, suddenly becomes evident. Since Jesus had already raised his friend Lazarus from the dead, those who knew that Lazarus was the subject of Jesus' words in John 21:22-23 had mistakenly interpreted Jesus' words to mean that Lazarus would be "exempted" from having to undergo a second physical death.

I think that you would agree that the raising of Lazarus from the dead was a profound event in the life of Jesus. Yet this remarkable miracle is missing from three of the four Gospels. The first three Gospels don't offer even a hint that this miracle occurred, and they never mention that Jesus had a friend named Lazarus that he loved.

Now consider that Matthew was probably an eyewitness to the raising of Lazarus. This was surely a powerful and unforgettable experience, yet Matthew left this out when he wrote his Gospel. Lazarus was big news! So why is it that the other Gospels fail to mention any of this?

Strangely enough, it turns out that there is another prominent figure in the life of Jesus who is also nowhere to be found in the first three Gospels. The person is "the disciple whom Jesus loved." Is this simply a coincidence?

How did the fourth Gospel ever come to be attributed to John? A man named John, not the son of Zebedee, could very well have edited this book. Although the Beloved Disciple is claimed as the Source of the book, that does not necessarily mean that he is its actual writer. Most scholars are in agreement that John 21 makes clear that while the Beloved Disciple is said to have written down some Gospel traditions, he is no longer alive when at least the end of this chapter was written:

This is the disciple who bears witness of these things, and wrote these things; and we know that his witness is true. (John 21:24 NASB)
The "we know his witness is true" is a dead give away that someone other than the "Disciple whom Jesus loved" put this Gospel into its final form and added this appendix. This also explains something else. Whoever put the memoirs of the "Disciple whom Jesus loved" together is probably the one who insisted on calling him that. In other words, the "Disciple whom Jesus loved" is called such by his final editor, and this is not a self designation. If the writer was a close colleague and follower of the source, it is quite understandable that he would refer to his master by using the honorific title: "the disciple whom Jesus loved."

My position at the present time is that Lazarus also wrote the Epistles, which explains their similarities with the Gospel. They also were edited by John the elder.

Hopefully this study will be a wake-up call for all of us to be Bereans. It is our responsibility to search the Scriptures and not to rely on what others have said. We have to stop relying on the "scholars" and do our own homework. The "-scholars" tend to rely on the work of other "scholars" that went before them. What happens if successive generations tended to rely on the work of those who have preceded them? And what happens if an error gets introduced into this sequence early on? If an error went unchallenged long enough, it would eventually become accepted as truth and correcting this error would become more difficult as time went on, because its "historical acceptance" would become a rationale for assuming that this idea must be true.

Let me close today with the words of J. I. Packer that I quoted earlier in this message: "We may never assume the complete rightness of our own established ways of thought and practice and excuse ourselves the duty of testing and reforming them by Scriptures." In other words, "Be a Berean!"



This message preached by David B. Curtis on August 5, 2007. Media #377.


I pray that this sermon will bring more to light, in a very easy format.


Blessings Brother Les

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Sister Rose, I pray to be humble but to the point. By stating what you have written it is easy to tell that you did not read the short booklet. If you have by now read it all, it should be evident that Nothing in the book really points to 'John' as the author.

Hey there Brother Les,

A careful reading of Rose's last post will show that she didn't write a word about John being the author of the fourth Gospel. Her point was merely to show that the text seems to indicate that the author was one of the 12 disciples. This is clear from her first and last sentences:



After looking closely at the below verses I have come to the conclusion that the Disciple whom Jesus loved, and the writer of the book of John is one of the twelve disciples of Jesus.

<snip>

If only the twelve Disciples shared the meal than the person who leaned on Jesus’ chest was one of the twelve who dipped their bread in the dish, thus identifying the Disciple whom Jesus loved as one of the twelve Disciples, and concluding that the one who wrote the book of John was one of the twelve Disciples.






The writer of John, takes up the narration AFTER the supper has ended. It has nothing of what went on during 'The Supper'. Why would 'John' leave that out?

The same question applies to Lazarus. Why would he leave out those details? There are many mysteries about why certain prominent things were "left out" of the fourth Gospel, but such questions have no answers and so probably won't help identify the author.



'The disciple whom Jesus Loved' does not indicate any 'changes' into a new covenant practices. There is also nothing in any of the 'Books' to indicate that 'only' "twelve Apostals" were at The Last Super, as there was an indication that there was always a large group of 'Disciples' around them almost all of the time. When they were to chose a replacement for Juduas, they said that they would choose from the men that had been with them 'from the very begining'

The testimony of Mark can not be dismissed so glibbly. Granted, it is possible that there were others besides the 12, but you do not get that idea from the text of Mark. And that seems to have been Rose's point, which is why she wrote "There is no mention of anyone else being there but the twelve."

It seems you have reversed the process here and said "The text does not expliclity deny there were more, so there were more." Obviously, that's not a valid deduction. The truth is simple - we don't know if more were there, and there is nothing in the text that indicates more were there.

As for the "evidence" that you cited to show that the Apostle John was not the "other disciple," here are my answers:

The other three Gospel writers conspicuously treat these two very differently. They include John, but overtly omit the 'other disciple'. This suggests they were two different people.That seems to be a pretty good argument.

'The disciple whom Jesus loved' wrote his Gospel with the deliberate intent of remaining anonymous, yet the evidence indicates that the Apostle John did not attempt to hide his identity. In the Book of Revelation we see that the Apostle John was willing to openly identify himself, because he did so several times.That's not so strong an argument because an author can have a motive to remain anonymous when writing one book, but not have the same motivation when writing another.

'The disciple whom Jesus loved' enjoyed a one-of-a-kind bond with Jesus. This cannot be said of John, since not even his role in the ‘inner circle’ suggests that John enjoyed a relationship that was equivalent to this.Good point.

These two behaved differently on the evening Jesus was arrested. John let Jesus down by falling asleep three times at Gethsemane. But the 'other disciple' went into the palace of the high priest with Jesus and we only see him leave when Jesus dismissed him – at a time well into the next day.Why couldn't John had done both?

The idea that 'the disciple whom Jesus loved' was John is based on the mistaken assumption that this author had to be one of 'the twelve'. Paintings of 'the twelve' alone with Jesus at his last Passover help promote this notion. However, details in the Bible actually indicate that they were not alone (including the fact that they were guests in someone’s home when this event occurred). Besides this, note the phrase 'other disciple'. 'Other' suggests that the author was not one of 'the twelve', but rather, that he was one of the additional disciples that were continually with Jesus.I think those are very weak points. Folks didn't just "make up" the idea that there were twelve and only twelve disciples at the last supper. It's not a mere "assumption" - it is derived from the text, which was the point of Rose's post.

If 'the disciple whom Jesus loved' joined Jesus and 'the twelve' after the supper, then this person could not be John. Yet this is just what is indicated by the author’s own record of events at that Passover – which skips the ‘Lord’s table’ and opens with the foot washing (after which Jesus sat down again).That is a false deduction. You can not conclude whether a person was present or absent at an event from the presence of absence of a record of that event in their writings.

The 'other disciple' was a known associate of Jesus and he was known to the high priest. But the high priest was not acquainted with John and he didn’t learn that John was an associate of Jesus until after Pentecost.
This conclusion is based on Acts 4:13 which Phillips interpets to mean that the high priest DEFINITELY did not know John until that moment. I do not believe that the Greek justifies that conclusion. And we have other evidence that coheres with John being the beloved Dicsiple. It would make sense that he was "known" to the high priest if he was a memeber of his extended family, as suggested by the fact that there was another "John" closely associated with him:
Acts 4:6 And Annas the high priest, and Caiaphas, and John, and Alexander, and as many as were of the kindred of the high priest, were gathered together at Jerusalem.
I searched Phillips booklet for any reference to this verse and found nothing. It seems to be a pretty big hole in his argument.

The author’s aim of anonymity argues against this being John, because the author’s record of the fishing trip cites 'the sons of Zebedee' while leaving two 'other' disciples unnamed when 'the disciple whom Jesus loved' is said to be present. This cite would seem to run counter to the author’s effort to conceal his identity if this author had in fact been John.That brings up a counter point. If John were the author, at least he was consistent in not mentioning himself by name, whereas if Lazarus was the author, then he was inconsistent because he sometimes used his name and sometimes didn't.

In conclusion, I do believe there is a lot of merit in the hypothesis, but I do not think the case is nearly as strong as you want it to be Brother Les. But in any case, it is a pleasure to be working on this with you.

Peace in Christ,

Richard

[Brother Les]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brother Les
Sister Rose, I pray to be humble but to the point. By stating what you have written it is easy to tell that you did not read the short booklet. If you have by now read it all, it should be evident that Nothing in the book really points to 'John' as the author.
Hey there Brother Les,

A careful reading of Rose's last post will show that she didn't write a word about John being the author of the fourth Gospel. Her point was merely to show that the text seems to indicate that the author was one of the 12 disciples. This is clear from her first and last sentences:


I was going to come back and delete that statement. But now that it has been moved forward, I will coment more. The text speaks of 'The Disciple whom Jesus Love'. "The 12' that you are trying to indicate 'are' Apostles. The text does not give 'a' number of Apostles at 'The Supper' or the number of Disciples (which there were many) were at 'The Supper' or 'After' the meal. 'In all of the verses that reference 'The Disciple that Jesus Loved', there is no clear indication that he is an Apostle. The book of John only writes about 'after' the meal, leaving out inportant events that happened 'during the meal'. The 12 Apostles and more disciples may have been at 'the meal', but "John" does not indicate that the 'writer' is an Apostal.



by David Curtis
Now some will argue, as my daughter did, that only the 12 were at the Last Supper, and Lazarus was not one of the 12. Where did the idea come from that only Jesus and the twelve were at the Last Supper? Most likely from DaVinci and his paintings and not the Scripture. The Scriptures never tell us that Jesus and "the twelve" were alone at that last Passover. As a matter of fact, they were probably very rarely alone. Acts 1 tells about the time when the eleven remaining Apostles named a replacement for Judas. They began by selecting two men. But notice what is said about the group from which these two came:

"It is therefore necessary that of the men who have accompanied us all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us*22 beginning with the baptism of John, until the day that He was taken up from us-- one of these should become a witness with us of His resurrection." (Acts 1:21-22 NASB) This text teaches us that Jesus had many loyal disciples that accompanied Him throughout His time here on earth. Is it hard to believe that some of them would have been at the Last Supper? Something Jesus says also indicated the presence of others at the Last Supper. Jesus tells them that one of them will betray Him, and when they ask who, He replies:


And He said to them, "It is one of the twelve, one who dips with Me in the bowl. (Mark 14:20 NASB)
"The twelve" is a specific designation to refer to the twelve Apostles:

And when day came, He called His disciples to Him; and chose twelve of them, whom He also named as apostles: (Luke 6:13 NASB)
The term "disciple" is a broad term that refers to any follower of Jesus. If Jesus and "the twelve" were the only ones at that last Passover, then why would Jesus need to say "one of the twelve"? If "the twelve" were the only ones present, wouldn't Jesus have said, "One of you"?

Forgive my forwardness, I am ready to drop the matter of did the Apostle John write the book of 'John'?

Brother Les

[Richard Amiel McGough]

I was going to come back and delete that statement. But now that it has been moved forward, I will coment more. The text speaks of 'The Disciple whom Jesus Love'. "The 12' that you are trying to indicate 'are' Apostles. The text does not give 'a' number of Apostles at 'The Supper' or the number of Disciples (which there were many) were at 'The Supper' or 'After' the meal. 'In all of the verses that reference 'The Disciple that Jesus Loved', there is no clear indication that he is an Apostle. The book of John only writes about 'after' the meal, leaving out inportant events that happened 'during the meal'. The 12 Apostles and more disciples may have been at 'the meal', but "John" does not indicate that the 'writer' is an Apostal.

The parallel account in Mark does give the number as 12. I grant that it does not say "only 12" but neither does it give any indication of more than 12. Therefore, we must admit that the text tends towards, but does not demand, the conclusion that there were only 12.



Forgive my forwardness, I am ready to drop the matter of did the Apostle John write the book of 'John'?

Brother Les
Hey bro - your forwardness is most welcome here. I don't think there was any offense taken by either Rose or myself. I enjoy this discussion. We are not judging each other - we are doing our best to discern what the Bible is really teaching.

My conclusion is that we can not know the answer for sure because God did not give us sufficient info. But I am very thankful to have the issue raised since it helps remind people to be "Bereans" and to test all things. But of course, that sword cuts both ways. I test the thesis that Lazarus wrote the fourth Gospel just as severely as I test the theory that John wrote it.

Please continue this converstaion if you feel so inclined. If not, I will understand that you have tired of it. Either way, all is good.

God bless!

Richard

[Rose]

Hi All :yo:

I have found this subject most interesting, and am glad you brought it up Brother Les. I read the excerpts you posted....thanks :thumb:
I have no issues at all concerning Jesus' love for Lazarus, I think it was indeed very special!

One of the points that I found to be very interesting in my research was the location of the last Passover. It was usual for the Passover meal to be shared with family and friends, the First Passover was shared by each family who put the blood of the lamb over their door posts.


Exo. 12:3-4 "Speak ye unto all the congregation of Israel, saying, In the tenth day of this month they shall take to them every man a lamb, according to the house of their fathers, a lamb for an house:And if the household be too little for the lamb, let him and his neighbour next unto his house take it according to the number of the souls; every man according to his eating shall make your count for the lamb."This last Passover that Jesus shared with His twelve Disciples was different. Instead of it being at the house of His family or friend it was at a strangers house, using their guestroom. Jesus had to first tell the two Disciples He sent out what to look for, and then in the evening lead all of them to the house (telling us it was an unknown place). That is one of the points that leads me to feel that this last Passover was different for many reasons, especially the people that were chosen to share it with Him (the twelve). First it was to identify the betrayer, and then to set apart those who would become the foundation of the church. It seems to me that the story goes out of its way to convey the message that this is an intimate meal shared by Jesus and His twelve Disciples.

Once again, I have truly enjoyed this discussion.... it has caused me to think about something that I never gave much thought to before. I feel I know a little more now than I did before. :pop2:

Rose

[Brother Les]

posted by Rose
One of the points that I found to be very interesting in my research was the location of the last Passover. It was usual for the Passover meal to be shared with family and friends, the First Passover was shared by each family who put the blood of the lamb over their door posts.

Christians tend to look at this meal 'as' the Passover Meal. I tend to see it as 'The Last Super'. The Passover over meal was after 'The Lamb (s)' was slain. There seems to something wrong with the order of thought, here. I do not think that it was an 'early' Passover meal 'because' Jesus knew that He would not be there.

The Apostles would want a lot more 'detail' of what was going on and may have tried to get Jesus out of The City for His 'safety'. IMO(which is good for another thread).


Blessings
Brother Les

[Rose]

Christians tend to look at this meal 'as' the Passover Meal. I tend to see it as 'The Last Super'. The Passover over meal was after 'The Lamb (s)' was slain. There seems to something wrong with the order of thought, here. I do not think that it was an 'early' Passover meal 'because' Jesus knew that He would not be there.

The Apostles would want a lot more 'detail' of what was going on and may have tried to get Jesus out of The City for His 'safety'. IMO(which is good for another thread).


Blessings
Brother Les

I see it as both "the Last Super" and "the Passover meal".


Mark 14:12-16 "And the first day of unleavened bread, when they killed the passover, his disciples said unto him, Where wilt thou that we go and prepare that thou mayest eat the passover? And he sendeth forth two of his disciples, and saith unto them, Go ye into the city, and there shall meet you a man bearing a pitcher of water: follow him.And wheresoever he shall go in, say ye to the goodman of the house, The Master saith, Where is the guestchamber, where I shall eat the passover with my disciples?And he will shew you a large upper room furnished and prepared: there make ready for us.And his disciples went forth, and came into the city, and found as he had said unto them: and they made ready the passover."The text seems to be very clear in stating that this was the first day of "Unleavened Bread", the day when they killed the Passover lamb. The two Disciples (Peter and John, Luke 22:8) were sent by Jesus to go and find the place and prepare the Passover meal, that would be the last meal they shared together. The order seems to be that they first ate the meal (the lamb) and then drank the wine and dipped the bread.

Rose

[Brother Les]

Does any one have a good 'timeline' of that year for these Holy Days of The Feast of Unleaven Bread, Feast of Passover, and Feast of First Fruits? I think that they all were on seperate days and (if I can remember correctly) that one was several days long and 'overlaped' one of the others. The Religious leaders did not want 'bodies' on 'crosses' during the 'High Holy Day', which is not the weekly Sabbath. I need to look into this a little more. I know that scripture says in several places talking about 'the Passover meal', but I think this might have been a general term, combining all three 'Feasts' under one 'label'. It does not seem correct that Jesus is The Passover Lamb and killed when all of The Lambs were killed and still be able to eat 'The Passover Meal' before it should have been 'Time to Eat That Meal'....



Brother Les

[Rose]

Hi Brother Les :yo:

I'm working on an article about....was the "Last Supper" the Passover meal, and when did it occur? I'll post it when I get it finished.

Rose

[David Hurley]

Where in the world did I get Lazarus?

Going back to Brother Les's question, the Lazarus/John link was made by Rudolf Steiner the founder of the founder of the Anthroposophists, who linked it to the Egyptian mystery rites.

See:

http://wn.rsarchive.org/Books/GA008/English/RPC1961/GA008_c08.html

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Going back to Brother Les's question, the Lazarus/John link was made by Rudolf Steiner the founder of the founder of the Anthroposophists, who linked it to the Egyptian mystery rites.

See:

http://wn.rsarchive.org/Books/GA008/English/RPC1961/GA008_c08.html
Thanks for the link David! It was very informative. Steiner wrote a big load of Gnostic codswallop ... here's a sample from the end of the article:


It was an initiation such as had been understood throughout the ages. It had been demonstrated by Jesus as the initiator. Union with the divine had always been represented in this manner.

In the words 'Lazarus, come forth,' we can recognize the call by which the Egyptian priest-initiators summoned back to everyday life those who had subjected themselves to the processes of 'initiation,' which withdrew them from the world that they might die to earthly things and gain a conviction of the reality of the eternal. But with these words Jesus had revealed the secret of the Mysteries. It is easy to understand that the Jews could not let such an act go unpunished, any more than the Greeks could have refrained from punishing Aeschylus, had he betrayed the secrets of the Mysteries. For Jesus the main point in the initiation of Lazarus was to represent before all 'the people which stand by,' an event which, according to ancient priestly wisdom, might be accomplished only in the secrecy of the Mysteries. The initiation of Lazarus was to prepare the way for the understanding of the 'Mystery of Golgotha.' Previously only those who 'saw' — that is to say, who were initiated — were able to know something of what was achieved by initiation; but now a conviction of the secrets of higher worlds could also be gained by those who 'have not seen and yet have believed.'

But as I scanned the article, I did not find any reference to Lazarus as the author of the Fourth Gospel. Did I miss something?

Richard

[Hugh391]

Hi, I have been reading on the BibleWheel site for awhile now and find it an interesting resource.

I've looked into the possiblity that Lazarus wrote the fourth gospel and now lean to that understanding based solely on the Scriptures alone.


John 20:1-8 (NASB)
1 Now on the first day of the week Mary Magdalene came early to the tomb, while it was still dark, and saw the stone already taken away from the tomb.
2 So she ran and came to Simon Peter and to the other disciple whom Jesus loved, and said to them, "They have taken away the Lord out of the tomb, and we do not know where they have laid Him."
3 So Peter and the other disciple went forth, and they were going to the tomb.
4 The two were running together; and the other disciple ran ahead faster than Peter and came to the tomb first;
5 and stooping and looking in, he saw the linen wrappings lying there; but he did not go in.
6 And so Simon Peter also came*, following him, and entered the tomb; and he saw* the linen wrappings lying there,
7 and the face-cloth which had been on His head, not lying with the linen wrappings, but rolled up in a place by itself.
8 So the other disciple who had first come to the tomb then also entered, and he saw and believed.

When this passage is compared to Mark 16:9-14,

Mark 16:14 (NASB)
14 Afterward He appeared to the eleven themselves as they were reclining at the table; and He reproached them for their unbelief and hardness of heart, because they had not believed those who had seen Him after He had risen.

It becomes clearer that the disciple whom Jesus loved was not one of the eleven Apostles. The beloved disciple believed at the empty tomb while the eleven apostles did not believe until later. So that rules out the apostle John as the author of the fourth gospel. The 'disciple whom Jesus loved wrote the fourth gospel (Jn.21:20-24).

Hugh391

[David Hurley]

Hi Richard,

Steiner believed that John = Lazarus and that John/Lazarus was a reincarnation of "the being who was present in Elijah":

http://www.steinerbooks.org/detail.html?id=1902636678

I have not found a specific quotation to the effect that Steiner believed Lazarus wrote the fourth gospel, but there is a claim on the following page that Steiner believed Lazarus wrote the Book of Revelation:

http://www.doyletics.com/arj/tdwjlrvw.htm

Back in England I have a book of Steiner's lectures in which he discusses the Lazarus/John connection, the raising of Lazarus, and John's account of the crucifixion in terms of a mystery initiation... The following link is not the same lecture, but it does explicitly describe the crucifixion as a seven stage initiation:

http://wn.rsarchive.org/Religion/GospJohn1906/19060226p01.html

Quote: "The John Gospel is a description of this Christian path of initiation. He who takes it as an account of an external happening does not understand it. It can only be comprehended if one has lived through it inwardly."

What I would like to know is whether or not Steiner was the first to make the Lazarus/John link. It seems to me that Steiner was a genius of the type who could combine some brilliant insights with a hefty dose of your "codswallop". Perhaps that is the inherent condition of all genius...:lol:

[Brother Les]

David Hurley

I have not found a specific quotation to the effect that Steiner believed Lazarus wrote the fourth gospel, but there is a claim on the following page that Steiner believed Lazarus wrote the Book of Revelation:
http://www.doyletics.com/arj/tdwjlrvw.htm


I found this statement interesting, about 'Lazarus' writing the book of Revelation. Last week I was skimming through a book that was writting in 1924 (I will find it and post the name and author, later). Not an easy read to get into as most of the book was in the format of 'this writer thinks this...', (sites book) and 'this writer thinks this...'(sites book). The book was comparing Matt.,Mark, Luke in a contrasting manner to 'John' and how hardly anything 'matches up'. The writer of this 1924 book sites another writer and book that 'a' John the 'Elder' (not the Apostle) wrote 'John'....and 'John' (the Apostle) wrote Revelation OR (in this sited books view) 'John' (the Apostle) wrote 'John' and 'John the Elder', wrote Revelation. I thought that this was very interest, since the writer of "The Disciple whom Jesus Loved", sites 'John the Elder' as the 'Scribe' whom was writing for 'Lazarus'. This is not any 'solid' proof by a long shot, but with all of the 'colorful' Old Testement language within the pages of Revelation. Lazarus,(the Levi) could and may have 'written' (scribed by 'John the Elder') both books.


just some thoughts
Brother Les

[Victor]

Sure. It is so because John wasn't the author of the book that man-made tradition has erroneously attributed to him. This by the way is the same reason that the Mount of Transfiguration event is not mentioned in the gospel either. As with EVERY other event where John is specifically named as participating in the other three gospels, not one of these events is mentioned in the fourth gospel -- which would certainly argue to any fair-minded jury that this work is certainly not 'John's eyewitness testimony' as is often claimed by those who promote this tradition. The work is for the most part the eyewitness testimony of the anonymous author but the Bible proves that this author could not possible have been John, the brother of James, son of Zebedee.

Most notably absent of course are the raising of the daughter of Jairus, the Mount of Transfiguration and the prayers of Jesus at Gethsemane - arguably the three most significant events in the ministry of Jesus in which John was specifically selected to participate. The absence of these events is quite telling -- especially the omission of the Mount of Transfiguration event, given what Jesus told to Peter, James and John immediately after it happened.

But as already stated, beyond these three events we find that ALL the events where John is specifically named as participating in the other three gospels have this thing in common - they are all missing from the fourth gospel -- the book that hand-me-down tradition likes to tell us is John's eyewitness testimony.

Moreover James and John are not the only members of "the twelve" who are never mentioned in the fourth gospel -- and at least they get a secondary mention (though not by name) in the last chapter when the sons of Zebedee are mentioned as being on the fishing trip when the third appearance of Jesus after the resurrection occurred.

As noted above, TheDiscipleWhomJesusLoved.com cites the Bible and noting else and shows the proof from scripture why this author (A) could not have been John and (B) could not have been ANY of "the twelve" (which would explain why he referred to himself as "the other disciple" since he was "other" than "the twelve"). On the other hand those who promote this tradition will always end up pointing to this-or-that NON-BIBLE source because hearsay is what this tradition was founded on. As stated in the book - there is not a single verse in the entire Bible that would justify teaching the idea that John was the unnamed "other disciple whom Jesus loved". So when it turns out that those who present this idea AS IF IT WERE BIBLICAL are unable to cite even one verse that would justify teaching this idea, that should say a lot to anyone who knows Ps. 118:8. The Bible says "prove all things" and when one bothers to subject the John tradition to BIBLICAL SCRUTINY (as opposed to relying on NON-BIBLE sources) then they will see that the John idea is a tradition of men that makes void the word of God. The Bible always had the evidence on this question hidden in plain sight as it still does but one has to be willing to DO what Ps. 118:8 requires and not merely give lip service to it.

Hello GotScripture!

It sounds like you are the author of the TheDiscipleWhomJesusLoved.com site. Is that correct?

Thank you for your post!

Victor

[Victor]

I was introduced to the idea that Lazarus could be the author of the Fourth Gospel about three years ago. The idea is fascinating, though it is very hard to state conclusively that he indeed is the author of that Gospel.

The internal evidence within the Gospel is the primary evidence. It is not exactly a "Bible alone" exegesis, but a "John alone" one. The Gospel hints at Lazarus as the main author based on four literary lines of evidence in special:

Lazarus was loved by Jesus. The disciple was loved by Jesus. These are the only characters who are said to be individually loved by Jesus in the Gospel.
Lazarus is singled out as being at the table with Jesus (sunanakeimai) during a supper. The beloved disciple is singled out as being at the the table (anakeimai) with Jesus during a supper.
When Lazarus is about to be resurrected by Christ, the Lord 'comes to the grave'. A napkin (soudarion) was over "his face" when he was dead. When Christ resurrects, the beloved disciple comes to his grave. A napkin (soudarion) was over "his head" when He was dead. Lazarus leaves his graveclothes behind when he is resurrected and the beloved disciple sees Christ's graveclothes left behind when He is resurrected. This correspondance fits together both resurrection accounts like a pair of literary puzzle pieces.
Jesus says that he who believes in Him will never die in the very context of the resurrection of the Lazarus (the one who "should not have died", 11:37), and there is an expectation that the beloved disciple would never die.

[Richard Amiel McGough]

I was introduced to the idea that Lazarus could be the author of the Fourth Gospel about three years ago. The idea is fascinating, though it is very hard to state conclusively that he indeed is the author of that Gospel.

The internal evidence within the Gospel is the primary evidence. It is not exactly a "Bible alone" exegesis, but a "John alone" one. The Gospel hints at Lazarus as the main author based on four literary lines of evidence in special:

Lazarus was loved by Jesus. The disciple was loved by Jesus. These are the only characters who are said to be individually loved by Jesus in the Gospel.
Lazarus is singled out as being at the table with Jesus (sunanakeimai) during a supper. The beloved disciple is singled out as being at the the table (anakeimai) with Jesus during a supper.
When Lazarus is about to be resurrected by Christ, the Lord 'comes to the grave'. A napkin (soudarion) was over "his face" when he was dead. When Christ resurrects, the beloved disciple comes to his grave. A napkin (soudarion) was over "his head" when He was dead. Lazarus leaves his graveclothes behind when he is resurrected and the beloved disciple sees Christ's graveclothes left behind when He is resurrected. This correspondance fits together both resurrection accounts like a pair of literary puzzle pieces.
Jesus says that he who believes in Him will never die in the very context of the resurrection of the Lazarus (the one who "should not have died", 11:37), and there is an expectation that the beloved disciple would never die.
I think those are pretty strong points. But I would amplify them as follows:

1: The exact form of the verb HGAPA (loved) occurs in John ONLY in reference to Lazarus and the "disciple whom Jesus loved." This has a very strong impact when read in Greek, especially since the reference to Lazarus as "loved' and the disciple as "loved" are found in close in context.

2: In the verses I checked, the same verb anakeimai is found in reference to both Lazarus and the "disciple whom Jesus loved":

John 12:2 There they made him a supper; and Martha served: but Lazarus was one of them that sat at the table with him.
John 13:23 Now there was leaning on Jesus' bosom one of his disciples, whom Jesus loved.I didn't find any occurrence of synanakeimai in relation to Lazarus or the beloved disciple. What version did you use?

3: Fascinating symmetry. I hadn't noticed that before.

4: I think an even more significant implication comes from the fact that Lazarus was already resurrected, so it could have seemed "only logical" that he wouldn't die again.

I find my resistence breaking down a bit as I think about this. Initially, I just did NOT LIKE THE IDEA that John didn't write the Fourth Gospel. And since I figured we could never prove it, I thought it best to stick with tradition. But the more that I think about it, the stronger the case seems to be, and the less disturbed I am by the possibility that tradition failed us on this point.

But I'm still not convinced ... though I am open to the possibility.

Richard

[Victor]

I think those are pretty strong points. But I would amplify them as follows:

1: The exact form of the verb HGAPA (loved) occurs in John ONLY in reference to Lazarus and the "disciple whom Jesus loved." This has a very strong impact when read in Greek, especially since the reference to Lazarus as "loved' and the disciple as "loved" are found in close in context.
Excellent point. Which exact verses do you have in mind?


2: In the verses I checked, the same verb anakeimai is found in reference to both Lazarus and the "disciple whom Jesus loved":

John 12:2 There they made him a supper; and Martha served: but Lazarus was one of them that sat at the table with him.
John 13:23 Now there was leaning on Jesus' bosom one of his disciples, whom Jesus loved.I didn't find any occurrence of synanakeimai in relation to Lazarus or the beloved disciple. What version did you use?
I used 1894 Scrivener Textus Receptus. But it seems like a textual variation. Once again have the EXACT word applied only to Lazarus and the beloved disciple, the conjugated form anakeimenon.


3: Fascinating symmetry. I hadn't noticed that before..And I noticed another link. Both accounts mention a "weeping Mary"!

4: I think an even more significant implication comes from the fact that Lazarus was already resurrected, so it could have seemed "only logical" that he wouldn't die again.
Yep!


I find my resistence breaking down a bit as I think about this. Initially, I just did NOT LIKE THE IDEA that John didn't write the Fourth Gospel. And since I figured we could never prove it, I thought it best to stick with tradition. But the more that I think about it, the stronger the case seems to be, and the less disturbed I am by the possibility that tradition failed us on this point.


But I'm still not convinced ... though I am open to the possibility.

Richard
The authorship of the Fourth Gospel is a tough issue. I still remain unconvinced too. One of the problems is that we have a great difficulty on accepting more than a single author when we talk about Bible books, although when we 'cross the canonicity border' we don't find much problem with that since it was common back then.

I don't think we need to unnecessarily attribute multiple authorships to Bible books. But the Gospel of John does exactly that in the epilogue:
Joh 21:24 This is the disciple which testifieth of these things, and wrote these things: and we know that his testimony is true.
So at least that verse was not penned by the original writer. In fact, the whole chapter 21 seems to be a later addition. It sounds like the book passed through the hands of at least two people: the main one, the writer of the bulk of the work, and the editor who may have added the Prologue and the Epilogue. You can then come up with other ones (like e.g. the Prologue and the Epilogue being splitted into two different writers), but that's unnecessary.

With that picture in mind, we can suggest that Lazarus could be the "disciple whom Jesus loved", who "testified" those things and put down in writing his account. Then later another writer (a John?) was inspired to add the introduction and conclusion.

It seems like the final editor could have followed the OT prophet style of using his name in the corpus of his work, like you examplified (http://www.biblewheel.com/Forum/showthread.php?t=194) elsewhere:

Malachi means "my messenger" - and this word appears in the text of his prophecy: Malachi 3:1 "Behold, I will send my messenger, and he shall prepare the way before me:"

Isaiah means "The Lord is Salvation" - and this is the unique message of his book, as seen by the fact that the word "salvation" appears in his book many more times than in any other prophet. A good example of its unique style is Isaiah 45:17 "But Israel shall be saved in the LORD with an everlasting salvation: ye shall not be ashamed nor confounded world without end." The only book that mentions salvation more is Psalms, which also is the largest book in the Bible.

Zephaniah means "the Lord has Treasured" or "The Lord has Hid" - it comes form the root tzaphan which means treasured or hidden. This word first occurs in Exodus 2:2 when Moses was hidden so he wouldn't be killed by Pharoah. Some speculate (http://net.bible.org/dictionary.php?word=Zephaniah,%20Book%20Of) that Zephaniah was given this name because he too had to be hidden to protect him from the wicked king Manasseh. The meaning of his name appears in Zephaniah 2:3 "Seek ye the LORD, all ye meek of the earth, which have wrought his judgment; seek righteousness, seek meekness: it may be ye shall be hid in the day of the LORD'S anger." Now in this case, the word "hid" is different than the root of the prophets name. This is an example of the linked theme being based on a synonym of the prophet's name.
So if the author of the Prologue was called John, that would be very interesting, for only there do we find the meaning of his name:

Joh 1:14 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.
Joh 1:16 And of his fulness have all we received, and grace for grace.
Joh 1:17 For the law was given by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ.
The last verse is particularly intriguing. The law was given by Moses, and the law is found in the first five Spokes of the Bible Wheel (the five books of the Torah). John contrasts law and grace, and, in the same fashion, his name appears in the last five Spokes of the Wheel (1 John, 2 John, 3 John, John and Revelation). Law and Grace. It is beautiful to see on the Bible Wheel this symmetry between complementary concepts. They are bilaterally symmetric.

This is also strengthened by the fact that the Number Five has been historically linked to both the concepts of Law (via the number of books in the Pentateuch) and Grace (via Christian tradition). What’s more, they are found on John 1:17, the number 117 being itself a pentagonal (http://www.biblewheel.com/GR/GR_Figurate.asp#pent) number and having a 'divider of waters' role in the structure of the Bible (cf. Psalm 117 (http://www.biblewheel.com/Collaboration/darroch2002_07_03.asp)), just like the line of bilateral symmetry divides the 'Law' and 'Grace' portions of the Wheel.



The name of John is also deeply linked to the Gospel’s introduction by the fact that John is the Gospel of the Word, and the Word has a numeric value of 373, appearing thrice in the opening statement:

Joh 1:1 In the beginning was the Word (373), and the Word (373)was with God, and the Word (373) was God.
Thus, we have 3 X 373 = 1119 = John!

Victor

[Richard Amiel McGough]

1: The exact form of the verb HGAPA (loved) occurs in John ONLY in reference to Lazarus and the "disciple whom Jesus loved." This has a very strong impact when read in Greek, especially since the reference to Lazarus as "loved' and the disciple as "loved" are found in close in context.
Excellent point. Which exact verses do you have in mind?

Here are all the verses in the NT that contain the exact word HGAPA (loved):

John 11:5 Now Jesus loved Martha, and her sister, and Lazarus.
John 13:23 Now there was leaning on Jesus' bosom one of his disciples, whom Jesus loved.
John 19:26 When Jesus therefore saw his mother, and the disciple standing by, whom he loved, he saith unto his mother, Woman, behold thy son!
John 21:7 Therefore that disciple whom Jesus loved saith unto Peter, It is the Lord. Now when Simon Peter heard that it was the Lord, he girt his fisher's coat unto him, (for he was naked,) and did cast himself into the sea.
John 21:20 Then Peter, turning about, seeth the disciple whom Jesus loved following; which also leaned on his breast at supper, and said, Lord, which is he that betrayeth thee?Note that I mistated things slightly when I said that "The exact form of the verb HGAPA (loved) occurs in John ONLY in reference to Lazarus and the "disciple whom Jesus loved."" As you will note, the word is applied not only to Lazarus, but also to Martha and her sister.



I used 1894 Scrivener Textus Receptus. But it seems like a textual variation. Once again have the EXACT word applied only to Lazarus and the beloved disciple, the conjugated form anakeimenon.

I found it in Scriverner's TR. This textual variation is not very significant because the particle "sun" can be used as a prefix to the word anakeimenon as in Scrivener's or as a separate preposition that follows as it is in the NU and MT (sunanakeimenon vs. anakeimenon sun).



And I noticed another link. Both accounts mention a "weeping Mary"!

And it's not just a "weeping Mary" - its a weeping Mary in conjunction with the word "tomb":

John 11:31 Then the Jews who were with her in the house, and comforting her, when they saw that Mary rose up quickly and went out, followed her, saying, "She is going to the tomb to weep there."
John 20:11 But Mary stood outside by the tomb weeping, and as she wept she stooped down and looked into the tomb.Note the symmetry of "rose up" vs. "stooped down." I'm now starting to think there may be a HUGE linkage between the resurrection stories of Lazarus and Jesus. Here's another big link:

John 11:34 And He said, "Where have you laid him?" They said to Him, "Lord, come and see."
John 20:2 Then she runneth, and cometh to Simon Peter, and to the other disciple, whom Jesus loved, and saith unto them, They have taken away the Lord out of the sepulchre, and we know not where they have laid him.And in both stories, Jesus or Peter are said to "come to the grave" -

John 11:38 Jesus therefore again groaning in himself cometh to the grave. It was a cave, and a stone lay upon it.
John 20:3 Peter therefore went forth, and that other disciple, and came to the sepulchre.Except for conjugation of the verb, the two red phrases are the same, and found no where else in Scripture.

Futhermore, both tombs were caves covered by a stone, and in both cases mention is made of removing the stone:

John 11:38-39 Jesus therefore again groaning in himself cometh to the grave. It was a cave, and a stone lay upon it. 39 Jesus said, Take ye away the stone. Martha, the sister of him that was dead, saith unto him, Lord, by this time he stinketh: for he hath been dead four days.
John 20:1 The first day of the week cometh Mary Magdalene early, when it was yet dark, unto the sepulchre, and seeth the stone taken away from the sepulchre.And that's just the beginning. I think we should collaborate and make a thread that completely compares the resurrection of Lazarus and Jesus. There is much there to discover.



The authorship of the Fourth Gospel is a tough issue. I still remain unconvinced too. One of the problems is that we have a great difficulty on accepting more than a single author when we talk about Bible books, although when we 'cross the canonicity border' we don't find much problem with that since it was common back then.

I don't think we need to unnecessarily attribute multiple authorships to Bible books. But the Gospel of John does exactly that in the epilogue:
Joh 21:24 This is the disciple which testifieth of these things, and wrote these things: and we know that his testimony is true.
Well, there actually are lots of ways to interpret that plural. My first thought was that it could be like modern authors who avoid the singular "I." Here's another possibility that seems likely to me from the Beasley-Murray commentary on John:




(ii) The author, using the 'editorial ‘we’,' as he does at times in the Gospel (e.g. 3:2, 11; 20:2) and in his epistles (1 John 1:2, 4; 3 John 11). J. Chapman, convinced of this view, wrote, 'The writer uses ἡμεῖς (we) and the plural verbs for the sake of solemnity, and always does so when referring to his μαρτυρία, (witness)' ('We know that his Testimony is true,' 379–85).



I don't think we'll be able to conclude much from the plural.



So at least that verse was not penned by the original writer. In fact, the whole chapter 21 seems to be a later addition. It sounds like the book passed through the hands of at least two people: the main one, the writer of the bulk of the work, and the editor who may have added the Prologue and the Epilogue. You can then come up with other ones (like e.g. the Prologue and the Epilogue being splitted into two different writers), but that's unnecessary.

Is there any textual evidence for the prologue (which I assume you are taking to be vss. 1-5?, or 1-18?) being composed separately? I've never heard of any early copies of John missing that section. Why should we think it was added later?

As an aside - it matters not one bit if there were multiple human writers since God still could have superintended the whole process to achieve His ultimate end. The proof is obvious - He used some 40+ human writers to compose the 66 books of the Bible. There is no reason He could not have accomplished the same thing using multiple writers for each book. The only problem is that this view might mess with some folks' theories of inspiration. But it poses no threat to the doctrine of inspiration per se.



With that picture in mind, we can suggest that Lazarus could be the "disciple whom Jesus loved", who "testified" those things and put down in writing his account. Then later another writer (a John?) was inspired to add the introduction and conclusion.

Funny thing about giving names to the Gospels - if God Himself chose not to reveal the names in the text of the Gospels, who are we to impose names upon them? Just something to think about ....





It seems like the final editor could have followed the OT prophet style of using his name in the corpus of his work, like you examplified (http://www.biblewheel.com/Forum/showthread.php?t=194) elsewhere:
Malachi means "my messenger" - and this word appears in the text of his prophecy: Malachi 3:1 "Behold, I will send my messenger, and he shall prepare the way before me:"

Isaiah means "The Lord is Salvation" - and this is the unique message of his book, as seen by the fact that the word "salvation" appears in his book many more times than in any other prophet. A good example of its unique style is Isaiah 45:17 "But Israel shall be saved in the LORD with an everlasting salvation: ye shall not be ashamed nor confounded world without end." The only book that mentions salvation more is Psalms, which also is the largest book in the Bible.

Zephaniah means "the Lord has Treasured" or "The Lord has Hid" - it comes form the root tzaphan which means treasured or hidden. This word first occurs in Exodus 2:2 when Moses was hidden so he wouldn't be killed by Pharoah. Some speculate (http://net.bible.org/dictionary.php?word=Zephaniah,%20Book%20Of) that Zephaniah was given this name because he too had to be hidden to protect him from the wicked king Manasseh. The meaning of his name appears in Zephaniah 2:3 "Seek ye the LORD, all ye meek of the earth, which have wrought his judgment; seek righteousness, seek meekness: it may be ye shall be hid in the day of the LORD'S anger." Now in this case, the word "hid" is different than the root of the prophets name. This is an example of the linked theme being based on a synonym of the prophet's name.


So if the author of the Prologue was called John, that would be very interesting, for only there do we find the meaning of his name:
Joh 1:14 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.
Joh 1:16 And of his fulness have all we received, and grace for grace.
Joh 1:17 For the law was given by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ.


The last verse is particularly intriguing. The law was given by Moses, and the law is found in the first five Spokes of the Bible Wheel (the five books of the Torah). John contrasts law and grace, and, in the same fashion, his name appears in the last five Spokes of the Wheel (1 John, 2 John, 3 John, John and Revelation). Law and Grace. It is beautiful to see on the Bible Wheel this symmetry between complementary concepts. They are bilaterally symmetric.

Now THAT'S an excellent observation! I would like to revive that thread (http://www.biblewheel.com/Forum/showthread.php?t=194) about the subtle correlation between book names with their authorship and content.




This is also strengthened by the fact that the Number Five has been historically linked to both the concepts of Law (via the number of books in the Pentateuch) and Grace (via Christian tradition). What’s more, they are found on John 1:17, the number 117 being itself a pentagonal (http://www.biblewheel.com/GR/GR_Figurate.asp#pent) number and having a 'divider of waters' role in the structure of the Bible (cf. Psalm 117 (http://www.biblewheel.com/Collaboration/darroch2002_07_03.asp)), just like the line of bilateral symmetry divides the 'Law' and 'Grace' portions of the Wheel.


You are on a roll, my brother! :thumb:




The name of John is also deeply linked to the Gospel’s introduction by the fact that John is the Gospel of the Word, and the Word has a numeric value of 373, appearing thrice in the opening statement:
Joh 1:1 In the beginning was the Word (373), and the Word (373)was with God, and the Word (373) was God. Thus, we have 3 X 373 = 1119 = John!

Victor
Yes, I have long been impressed by that numerical correlation.

The value of Lazarus is

λαζαρος = 409 (http://www.biblewheel.com/GR/GR_Database.asp?Gem_Num=409)

which doesn't have any obvious linkage to the fourth Gospel, at least not on the level of JOHN = 3 x LOGOS!

This exemplifies the challenge we face. We need to compare the whole range of reasons supporting the identity of the author of the Fourth Gospel. For example, there are many unique links between it and the Johanine Epistles. But get this ... the Johanine Epistles are also anonymous! 1 John has no opening salutation, and the author of 2nd and 3rd John identifies himself only as "the elder." So we can maintain the common authorship of first four books of the Johanine corpus and still not identify the author as John. Of course, the author of Revelation identifies himself as "John" but maybe his name was really "John Lazarus"? :lol:

In any case, this study is fascinating, and it is already bearing much good fruit in my understanding.

Richard

[Brother Les]

Thank-you gentlemen for the dialog.

When 'we' read Scripture that we feel is writtenby 'a'faceless 'writer'...are 'we' really 'there' and do 'we' catch the full context from 'his eyes'? I do know that I am reading 'John' vastly different now, than I did before. When I thought that the author was 'John the Apostle', I was reading 'John', through his eyes and his background and experiences. Now, with the possiabilty that Lazarus may be 'the writer' and taken down by 'his' scribe 'John the Elder', the whole book of 'John' reads vastly different. 'The man', being 'Loved' by Jesus....who was not in His inner circle as an Apostle....but who was able to do even MORE as a disciple. Lazarus was used as a teaching example for Jesus. An example, 'of things to come...' Lazarus was raised from physical death because of their Love for each other...being 'a' type of Resurrection. But in 'The Age' to come... (The Age that started 'in full' in AD 70) With Jesus' Love and those who Love Him, the Full Anti-type of Spiritual Resurrection from 'the Dead'...

This would explain so much more, when comparing Matt., Mark, and Luke....with 'John'.


Blessings
Brother Les

[GotScripture]

if God Himself chose not to reveal the names in the text of the Gospels, who are we to impose names upon them?
This IS actually the correct (and humble) posture to take when approaching any Bible question, the misidentification of the "other disciple whom Jesus loved" being just one example of man's tendency to go beyond the plain reading of the text. Now in an early post on this thread Richard wondered…
how this relates to extra-biblical testimonies of the church fathers regarding John as the authorand the answer is that the Bible proves that ALL non-Bible sources which teach that John was the unnamed "other disciple whom Jesus loved" are wrong because they stand in opposition to the word of God -- those today who repeat the John idea (without a single verse to justify doing so) and the late second century source that is usually cited as the foundation for the John tradition (who also never cited a single verse that would justify teaching this idea).

The Disciple Whom Jesus Loved (http://TheDiscipleWhomJesusLoved.com) is a wholly Biblical presentation that proves that whoever the unnamed "other disciple" was he most certainly was not John. But this is not the key insight that one should take away from reading this free Bible study. The key insight is that the popular methodology of looking to men who quote other men who quoted still other men before them is a NOT a good method for those who are seeking the truth. If God's word is always reliable, then why not take Ps. 118:8 seriously?

On the other had if one believes that this-or-that personality in the late second or early third century cannot be wrong, then they have decided to vest the attribute of infallibility in that non-Bible source despite the many Bible passages that would argue against doing so. Still the Bible makes it clear that things done in ignorance are quite different than those things that are done in full faced opposition to the truth when one is confronted by it. So those that have bought and taught this tradition in ignorance are in one place while those who have been made aware that there is not a single verse that would justify teaching that the beloved disciple was John but who continue to promote this idea as if it were Biblical because pride will not allow them to admit they have been wrong.

Sadly we continue to see efforts to defend the man-made John tradition, two examples of this being (A) the attempt to say that God's inspired writers intended their readers to understand that Jesus forbid his dinner host and all of his followers except for "the twelve" from joining him at his last passover meal or (B) trying to use Bible numbers to argue for the idea that the beloved disciple was John when the plain text of scripture proves he was not John. However it seems fair to point out something novel about 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 such attempts 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 mislabeling of the fourth gospel as John comes from assuming that non-Bible hearsay attributed to some early church personality could not be wrong. So while today 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. It was not the witness of scripture that is at fault. It was relying on non-Bible sources that led to this error.

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. All such attempts to create a Biblical argument after the fact with the presumption that one can construct a Biblical justification for those who never bothered to offer such arguments is to ignore the truth that they relied on non-Bible sources. And this is also true of attempts to make up excuses for the erroneous John name being printed on the gospel when the fact is the reason that name is there is not because of some accidental mix-up of Johns but it is there because the "other disciple whom Jesus loved" (the gospel author) was falsely assumed to be the Apostle John, the brother of James, son of Zebedee.

Changing Johns seems an extremely desperate move by those who want to continue to pretend that "John" is a right name for the fourth gospel. Because the Bible proves that the one whom "Jesus loved" was not THE John (of Zebedee) it seems some would now have us believe that even though those who originally titled the gospel falsely thought that John of Zebedee the one "Jesus loved" they none the less through some wild coincidence got lucky on the name because even though John of Zebedee was not actually involved with the writing of the fourth gospel some other John might have been (i.e. put the finishing touches on the gospel of the disciple whom Jesus loved, etc). But there is of course no Biblical evidence for ANY John being involved in its authorship.

Relying on the plain reading of the Bible vs. relying on non-Bible quotes. Consider the source!

[Rose]

Hi All, :yo:

An interesting point to note in trying to flesh out who the author of "the Gospel of John" is, is something I noticed while researching the phrase "Only begotten Son" as used in reference to Jesus. That term occurs in only two books of the Bible:


John 1:14 "And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth. (18. "No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him"

John 3:16 "For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. (18. "He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God."

1 John 4:9 "In this was manifested the love of God toward us, because that God sent his only begotten Son into the world, that we might live through him."Rose

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Hi All, :yo:

An interesting point to note in trying to flesh out who the author of "the Gospel of John" is, is something I noticed while researching the phrase "Only begotten Son" as used in reference to Jesus. That term occurs in only two books of the Bible:

Rose
There are many similar unique words and phrases that strongly suggest that the same writer penned all five books of the traditional Johannine corpus. For example, the title of Christ as the Word (Logos) is unique to John and Revelation. When I find time, I will see about putting together a list. It's probably been done already ... if so, perhaps someone will post the results here. Also, I encourage anyone who stumbles upon such unique references to Christ as the "only begotten" and the "Logos" to post their findings.

Richard

[Rose]

Here is another similarity in the terminology and the way ideas are phrased between the Gospel of John and the Epistle of 1 John: it is the only places this particular wording occurs.



John 3:15-17 'That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal
Life For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.'

John 3:36 'He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him.'

John 6:40 'And this is the will of him that sent me, that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life: and I will raise him up at the last day.'

John 5:24 'Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life.'

1 John 5:11 'And this is the record, that God hath given to us eternal life, and this life is in his Son.'

1 John 5:13 'These things have I written unto you that believe on the name of the Son of God; that ye may know that ye have eternal life, and that ye may believe on the name of the Son of God.'Rose

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Here is another similarity in the terminology and the way ideas are phrased between the Gospel of John and the Epistle of 1 John: it is the only places this particular wording occurs.

John 3:15-17 'That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal
Life For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.'

John 3:36 'He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him.'

John 6:40 'And this is the will of him that sent me, that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life: and I will raise him up at the last day.'

John 5:24 'Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life.'

1 John 5:11 'And this is the record, that God hath given to us eternal life, and this life is in his Son.'

1 John 5:13 'These things have I written unto you that believe on the name of the Son of God; that ye may know that ye have eternal life, and that ye may believe on the name of the Son of God.'

Rose
And here is another pair found only in John and 1 John:

John 20:31 But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name.

1 John 5:13 These things have I written unto you that believe on the name of the Son of God; that ye may know that ye have eternal life, and that ye may believe on the name of the Son of God.
Those verses are essentially identical, and are unique to the Johannine corpus.

Richard

[Victor]

And here is another pair found only in John and 1 John:
John 20:31 But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name.


1 John 5:13 These things have I written unto you that believe on the name of the Son of God; that ye may know that ye have eternal life, and that ye may believe on the name of the Son of God.Those verses are essentially identical, and are unique to the Johannine corpus.

Richard

Good! Not only do the verses say the same thing, the also occupy symmetric positions in each book: they're both found near the conclusion.

Something similar happens to the introduction! The vocabulary of John's Prologue and 1 John's intro is unique.

John 1:1-5
1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
2 The same was in the beginning with God.
3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.
4 In him was life; and the life was the light of men.
5 And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not.

1 John 1:1-5
1That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled, of the Word of life;
2(For the life was manifested, and we have seen it, and bear witness, and shew unto you that eternal life, which was with the Father, and was manifested unto us)
3That which we have seen and heard declare we unto you, that ye also may have fellowship with us: and truly our fellowship is with the Father, and with his Son Jesus Christ.
4And these things write we unto you, that your joy may be full. 5This then is the message which we have heard of him, and declare unto you, that God is light, and in him is no darkness at all.

Thus John and 1 John are framed around the same ideas!

[Rose]

Something similar happens to the introduction! The vocabulary of John's Prologue and 1 John's intro is unique.
John 1:1-5
1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
2 The same was in the beginning with God.
3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.
4 In him was life; and the life was the light of men.
5 And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not.

1 John 1:1-5
1That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled, of the Word of life;
2(For the life was manifested, and we have seen it, and bear witness, and shew unto you that eternal life, which was with the Father, and was manifested unto us)
3That which we have seen and heard declare we unto you, that ye also may have fellowship with us: and truly our fellowship is with the Father, and with his Son Jesus Christ.
4And these things write we unto you, that your joy may be full. 5This then is the message which we have heard of him, and declare unto you, that God is light, and in him is no darkness at all.
Thus John and 1 John are framed around the same ideas!


WOW! Excellent insight. :clap2:

:woohoo:

Rose

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Good! Not only do the verses say the same thing, the also occupy symmetric positions in each book: they're both found near the conclusion.


Something similar happens to the introduction! The vocabulary of John's Prologue and 1 John's intro is unique.
John 1:1-5
1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
2 The same was in the beginning with God.
3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.
4 In him was life; and the life was the light of men.
5 And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not.

1 John 1:1-5
1That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled, of the Word of life;
2(For the life was manifested, and we have seen it, and bear witness, and shew unto you that eternal life, which was with the Father, and was manifested unto us)
3That which we have seen and heard declare we unto you, that ye also may have fellowship with us: and truly our fellowship is with the Father, and with his Son Jesus Christ.
4And these things write we unto you, that your joy may be full. 5This then is the message which we have heard of him, and declare unto you, that God is light, and in him is no darkness at all.

Thus John and 1 John are framed around the same ideas!
I would add: "the same unique ideas that are found in no book outside the Johannine corpus."

[Victor]

I'm bringing up your post that I still hasn't responded to.


And it's not just a "weeping Mary" - its a weeping Mary in conjunction with the word "tomb":

John 11:31 Then the Jews who were with her in the house, and comforting her, when they saw that Mary rose up quickly and went out, followed her, saying, "She is going to the tomb to weep there."
John 20:11 But Mary stood outside by the tomb weeping, and as she wept she stooped down and looked into the tomb.Note the symmetry of "rose up" vs. "stooped down." I'm now starting to think there may be a HUGE linkage between the resurrection stories of Lazarus and Jesus. Here's another big link:

John 11:34 And He said, "Where have you laid him?" They said to Him, "Lord, come and see."
John 20:2 Then she runneth, and cometh to Simon Peter, and to the other disciple, whom Jesus loved, and saith unto them, They have taken away the Lord out of the sepulchre, and we know not where they have laid him.And in both stories, Jesus or Peter are said to "come to the grave" -

John 11:38 Jesus therefore again groaning in himself cometh to the grave. It was a cave, and a stone lay upon it.
John 20:3 Peter therefore went forth, and that other disciple, and came to the sepulchre.Except for conjugation of the verb, the two red phrases are the same, and found no where else in Scripture.

Futhermore, both tombs were caves covered by a stone, and in both cases mention is made of removing the stone:

John 11:38-39 Jesus therefore again groaning in himself cometh to the grave. It was a cave, and a stone lay upon it. 39 Jesus said, Take ye away the stone. Martha, the sister of him that was dead, saith unto him, Lord, by this time he stinketh: for he hath been dead four days.
John 20:1 The first day of the week cometh Mary Magdalene early, when it was yet dark, unto the sepulchre, and seeth the stone taken away from the sepulchre.And that's just the beginning. I think we should collaborate and make a thread that completely compares the resurrection of Lazarus and Jesus. There is much there to discover.
That's HUGE no doubt! Lazarus' resurrection is an antecipation of Christ's resurrection. Jesus says "I am the resurrection and life" when He resurrects Lazarus, and then His words are literally fulfilled in His own life and resurrection.

The Lazarus episode is found in the center of the book. Christ's resurrection is in the end of the book. So we have the Creation in the beginning (John 1), the ultimate foreshadowing of the New Creation in the middle (John 11) and the New Creation itself in the death of resurrection of Christ in the end (John 20).



The authorship of the Fourth Gospel is a tough issue. I still remain unconvinced too. One of the problems is that we have a great difficulty on accepting more than a single author when we talk about Bible books, although when we 'cross the canonicity border' we don't find much problem with that since it was common back then.

I don't think we need to unnecessarily attribute multiple authorships to Bible books. But the Gospel of John does exactly that in the epilogue:
Joh 21:24 This is the disciple which testifieth of these things, and wrote these things: and we know that his testimony is true.

Well, there actually are lots of ways to interpret that plural. My first thought was that it could be like modern authors who avoid the singular "I." Here's another possibility that seems likely to me from the Beasley-Murray commentary on John:



(ii) The author, using the 'editorial ‘we’,' as he does at times in the Gospel (e.g. 3:2, 11; 20:2) and in his epistles (1 John 1:2, 4; 3 John 11). J. Chapman, convinced of this view, wrote, 'The writer uses ἡμεῖς (we) and the plural verbs for the sake of solemnity, and always does so when referring to his μαρτυρία, (witness)' ('We know that his Testimony is true,' 379–85).

I don't think we'll be able to conclude much from the plural.
Correct. It is really hard to come to a conclusion based only on the "we" in John 21. The "we" is fairly used in Johannine writings as shown in the quote above. In 1 John 1:2, for example, it suggests that it means the author. What is really curious in John 21:24 is the joint appearance of "we" and "his", suggesting different people. And since John 21 has a slightly different "taste" from the rest of the book (which sounds like it is concluded in 20:31), it has been suggested that this chapter is a postscript, like an appendix, written later by close associates. It is certainly a possibility.

And I am coupling this idea with the hypothesis that the "John" who names the Fourth Gospel could be this secondary writer who added the epilogue to the original writings of the "beloved disciple". Note that this is just speculation that arises from the effort to harmonize the many things in common between the writer and Lazarus with the tradition that says that a man named John wrote the Fourth Gospel.

I'll comment the rest of your post as soon as I get some time.

Victor

[Brother Les]

Soooo? Is it that Lazarus, transcribed to 'a' group ('we') of 'scribes', with the lead 'scribe' being 'John the Elder'? :confused2::pop2:

Myself (at this time) will still understand that Lazarus is the one who 'wrote', the book of 'John', and 'others' (John the Elder?) penned it for him.

The reading of 'John', from the light that Lazaurs may have been a Sadducee and 'known to the High Priest',..... and may have been part of the Sanhedrin .... makes reading 'the book' take on a whole different perspective than a Galallian writing it.

Blessings
Brother Les

[Victor]

Is there any textual evidence for the prologue (which I assume you are taking to be vss. 1-5?, or 1-18?) being composed separately? I've never heard of any early copies of John missing that section. Why should we think it was added later?
Hey, if there had been found manuscripts of John missing the Prologue, I guess it would be one of the most debated subjects in the field of biblical studies ever. :D What I am doing is just making a suggestion. If we take the book as having a second writer who penned the Epilogue, he could also have been the one who put together 1:1-18. The Prologue and the Epilogue could thus be seen as the frame around the main body initially composed by the Beloved Disciple.

So it would make sense that the "primary author" has much in common with Lazarus (literary links like being "beloved" by Jesus) and the "second author" has much in common with John ("grace" only appearing in the Prologue and John being the traditional name held by the early Church of the elder who wrote the three Epistles, being him either John the Apostle or John the Elder).

Please note that this is just some speculation. I'm only suggesting it. I don't hold it as a belief, since that "belief" wouldn't have a solid foundation. I offer it only as a possibility arising from the debate on the identity of the Beloved Disciple. And if I recall correctly, the idea above also sounds to be mentioned by the author of the online book we've been discussing.


As an aside - it matters not one bit if there were multiple human writers since God still could have superintended the whole process to achieve His ultimate end. The proof is obvious - He used some 40+ human writers to compose the 66 books of the Bible. There is no reason He could not have accomplished the same thing using multiple writers for each book. The only problem is that this view might mess with some folks' theories of inspiration. But it poses no threat to the doctrine of inspiration per se.
I have the same opinion of yours. No problems with multiple authorship but I usually work with the thesis that the Bible books were written by the traditional authors. So, for example, in the case of Revelation I believe that the writer was really John as the book says and I also believe that he was John the apostle like tradition says. In the case of Isaiah too: I believe there was only one writer of the whole book despite the common scholastic teaching that there were two or more authors.

In fact, each Bible book had only one Author after all: the Almighty God!



Funny thing about giving names to the Gospels - if God Himself chose not to reveal the names in the text of the Gospels, who are we to impose names upon them? Just something to think about ....
It seems like it is intentional. If God didn't reveal it, it seems like it is not the greatest deal after all. In the case of the Fourth Gospel, for example, I don't have any definite opinion. That Gospel itself is not so clear.




The name of John is also deeply linked to the Gospel’s introduction by the fact that John is the Gospel of the Word, and the Word has a numeric value of 373, appearing thrice in the opening statement:
Joh 1:1 In the beginning was the Word (373), and the Word (373)was with God, and the Word (373) was God. Thus, we have 3 X 373 = 1119 = John!

Victor

Yes, I have long been impressed by that numerical correlation.

The value of Lazarus is

λαζαρος = 409 (http://www.biblewheel.com/GR/GR_Database.asp?Gem_Num=409)

which doesn't have any obvious linkage to the fourth Gospel, at least not on the level of JOHN = 3 x LOGOS!
Ha, I did the same thing as you did. The number 409 does not have an immediate link with that Gospel (as of yet). John = 3 x Logos seems really tight.


This exemplifies the challenge we face. We need to compare the whole range of reasons supporting the identity of the author of the Fourth Gospel. For example, there are many unique links between it and the Johanine Epistles. But get this ... the Johanine Epistles are also anonymous! 1 John has no opening salutation, and the author of 2nd and 3rd John identifies himself only as "the elder." So we can maintain the common authorship of first four books of the Johanine corpus and still not identify the author as John. Of course, the author of Revelation identifies himself as "John" but maybe his name was really "John Lazarus"? :lol:

In any case, this study is fascinating, and it is already bearing much good fruit in my understanding.

Richard
And there's nothing that says that the John of Revelation was the author of the Epistles! (Or the 4th Gospel, for the matter!) In fact, in style it is pretty much distinct from the other four books. But to me this does not prove at all that they must have different authors.

BTW, they are all called "Johanine" because they have a common tradition: they all steam from the Christian community centered around Ephesus, they have unique themes in common and they all have been traditionally assigned to men named "John". I think the extracanonical Odes of Solomon is considered part of the "Johannine corpus" by scholars too.

Victor

[Victor]

Myself (at this time) will still understand that Lazarus is the one who 'wrote', the book of 'John', and 'others' (John the Elder?) penned it for him.

Hey, that's yet another possibility: Lazarus as the author and a John as the amanuensis. :)

[Victor]

WOW! Excellent insight. :clap2:

:woohoo:

Rose


I would add: "the same unique ideas that are found in no book outside the Johannine corpus."

I guess you got the central idea: 1 John begins like John begins, and 1 John ends like John ends!


Here's another tidbit: in both the introduction and the conclusion and only there do we find Eternal Life personified:

1Jo 1:2 For the life was manifested, and we have seen it, and bear witness, and shew unto you that Eternal Life, which was with the Father, and was manifested unto us.

1Jo 5:20 And we know that the Son of God is come, and hath given us an understanding, that we may know him that is true, and we are in him that is true, even in his Son Jesus Christ. This is the true God, and Eternal Life.
These are the only instances where Christ is predicatively paralleled to Eternal Life. One occurs in the second verse of the book and the other in the second to last verse of the book. As an aside, it shows that Jesus Christ is "the true God".

This correlation finds an echo in the Gospel of John. There Jesus says twice: "I am the Life" (11:25; 14:6).

And here's another structural correlation between John and 1 John concerning the life motif: just like the first five verses of each book have common themes, including the life theme, the first five chapters of each book have a remarkable "coincidence" concerning Life. The peak of occurances of the word "life" in the first five chapters is on Chapter 5 of each book! That is truly amazing because Five is the Number of Life. "Life" first appears on the fifth day of Creation and then continues making an impression on the structure of the Bible, as shown in the article Living Creatures (http://www.biblewheel.com/wheel/spokes/Heh_Day.asp).

[Richard Amiel McGough]

I guess you got the central idea: 1 John begins like John begins, and 1 John ends like John ends!



Here's another tidbit: in both the introduction and the conclusion and only there do we find Eternal Life personified:
1Jo 1:2 For the life was manifested, and we have seen it, and bear witness, and shew unto you that Eternal Life, which was with the Father, and was manifested unto us.
1Jo 5:20 And we know that the Son of God is come, and hath given us an understanding, that we may know him that is true, and we are in him that is true, even in his Son Jesus Christ. This is the true God, and Eternal Life. These are the only instances where Christ is predicatively paralleled to Eternal Life. One occurs in the second verse of the book and the other in the second to last verse of the book. As an aside, it shows that Jesus Christ is "the true God".

This correlation finds an echo in the Gospel of John. There Jesus says twice: "I am the Life" (11:25; 14:6).

And here's another structural correlation between John and 1 John concerning the life motif: just like the first five verses of each book have common themes, including the life theme, the first five chapters of each book have a remarkable "coincidence" concerning Life. The peak of occurances of the word "life" in the first five chapters is on Chapter 5 of each book! That is truly amazing because Five is the Number of Life. "Life" first appears on the fifth day of Creation and then continues making an impression on the structure of the Bible, as shown in the article Living Creatures (http://www.biblewheel.com/wheel/spokes/Heh_Day.asp).
Hey there Victor,

The excellent quality of your insights continue to delight me. Thanks! :yo:

I am especially impressed by the corresponding "book ends" found in John and 1 John.


Another strong and unique parallel is found in the theme of "overcoming the world" through Christ.
John 16:33 These things I have spoken unto you, that in me ye might have peace. In the world ye shall have tribulation: but be of good cheer; I have overcome the world.


1 John 5:4-5 4 For whatsoever is born of God overcometh the world: and this is the victory that overcometh the world, even our faith. 5 Who is he that overcometh the world, but he that believeth that Jesus is the Son of God?
And there is more. The specific form of the participle translated as "he that overcometh" in 1 John 5:5 is found nowhere else in the NT but Revelation where it occurs seven times. It is characteristic of the promise to believers in the letters to the seven churches:

Revelation 2:11 He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches; He that overcometh shall not be hurt of the second death.
Revelation 2:26 And he that overcometh, and keepeth my works unto the end, to him will I give power over the nations:
Revelation 3:5 He that overcometh, the same shall be clothed in white raiment; and I will not blot out his name out of the book of life, but I will confess his name before my Father, and before his angels.
Revelation 3:12 Him that overcometh will I make a pillar in the temple of my God, and he shall go no more out: and I will write upon him the name of my God, and the name of the city of my God, which is new Jerusalem, which cometh down out of heaven from my God: and I will write upon him my new name.
Revelation 3:21 To him that overcometh will I grant to sit with me in my throne, even as I also overcame, and am set down with my Father in his throne.Thus, we have a very strong threefold chord based on the unique usage of the idea of "overcoming" that binds the three largest books of the traditional Johannine corpus - John, 1 John, and Revelation.

As final note - it is only in the Gospel of John and the Book of Revelation that Christ Himself explicitly declares "I have overcome."

I suspect that this would become a very large thread if we continue to document the unique linguistic elements that characterize the traditional Johannine corpus.

Richard

[Victor]

The specific form of the participle translated as "he that overcometh" in 1 John 5:5 is found nowhere else in the NT but Revelation where it occurs seven times.
Wow! Isn't it such a strong link? :thumb: Really impressive.


I suspect that this would become a very large thread if we continue to document the unique linguistic elements that characterize the traditional Johannine corpus.

Richard
I guess this documentation would turn into a might outflow of living waters!

Joh 4:10 Jesus answered and said unto her, If thou knewest the gift of God, and who it is that saith to thee, Give me to drink; thou wouldest have asked of him, and he would have given thee living water.

Joh 4:14 But whosoever drinketh of the water that I shall give him shall never thirst; but the water that I shall give him shall be in him a well of water springing up into everlasting life.

Joh 7:38 He that believeth on me, as the scripture hath said, out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water.

Rev 7:17 For the Lamb which is in the midst of the throne shall feed them, and shall lead them unto living fountains of waters: and God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes.

Rev 21:6 And he said unto me, It is done. I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end. I will give unto him that is athirst of the fountain of the water of life freely.

Rev 22:1 And he shewed me a pure river of water of life, clear as crystal, proceeding out of the throne of God and of the Lamb.

Rev 22:17 And the Spirit and the bride say, Come. And let him that heareth say, Come. And let him that is athirst come. And whosoever will, let him take the water of life freely.

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Wow! Isn't it such a strong link? :thumb: Really impressive.


I guess this documentation would turn into a might outflow of living waters!
Joh 4:10 Jesus answered and said unto her, If thou knewest the gift of God, and who it is that saith to thee, Give me to drink; thou wouldest have asked of him, and he would have given thee living water.

Joh 4:14 But whosoever drinketh of the water that I shall give him shall never thirst; but the water that I shall give him shall be in him a well of water springing up into everlasting life.

Joh 7:38 He that believeth on me, as the scripture hath said, out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water.

Rev 7:17 For the Lamb which is in the midst of the throne shall feed them, and shall lead them unto living fountains of waters: and God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes.

Rev 21:6 And he said unto me, It is done. I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end. I will give unto him that is athirst of the fountain of the water of life freely.

Rev 22:1 And he shewed me a pure river of water of life, clear as crystal, proceeding out of the throne of God and of the Lamb.

Rev 22:17 And the Spirit and the bride say, Come. And let him that heareth say, Come. And let him that is athirst come. And whosoever will, let him take the water of life freely.


Wow! That was well done.

We better be careful lest we get blinded by the light!

John 1:4 In him was life; and the life was the light of men.

John 8:12 Then spake Jesus again unto them, saying, I am the light of the world: he that followeth me shall not walk in darkness, but shall have the light of life.

1 John 1:5 This then is the message which we have heard of him, and declare unto you, that God is light, and in him is no darkness at all.

Revelation 1:16 And he had in his right hand seven stars: and out of his mouth went a sharp twoedged sword: and his countenance was as the sun shineth in his strength.

Revelation 21:23 And the city had no need of the sun, neither of the moon, to shine in it: for the glory of God did lighten it, and the Lamb is the light thereof.
I gotta get my shades, man! This is just too bright!

:sunny:

Richard

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Here's another combination of words unique to the traditional Johannine corpus that Rose just showed me:

John 3:16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

1 John 4:10-11 Herein is love, not that we loved God, but that he loved us, and sent his Son to be the propitiation for our sins. 11 Beloved, if God so loved us, we ought also to love one another.
The highlighted phrases are essentially identical in Greek, differing only in word order. Note also that the message is the same, that God demonstrated His love by giving His Son.

I find it quite striking that this unique link is based on one of the most well-known verses of John.

Richard

[Victor]

We also have the thematic nexus between John and Revelation based on the Lamb motif. In John there is the sacrificial Lamb (Amnos); in Revelation, the triumphant Lamb (Arnion).

Joh 1:29 The next day John seeth Jesus coming unto him, and saith, Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world.

Joh 1:36 And looking upon Jesus as he walked, he saith, Behold the Lamb of God!

Rev 12:11 And they overcame him by the blood of the Lamb, and by the word of their testimony; and they loved not their lives unto the death.

Rev 13:8 And all that dwell upon the earth shall worship him, whose names are not written in the book of life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world.

Rev 17:14 These shall make war with the Lamb, and the Lamb shall overcome them: for he is Lord of lords, and King of kings: and they that are with him are called, and chosen, and faithful.

[Richard Amiel McGough]

We also have the thematic nexus between John and Revelation based on the Lamb motif. In John there is the sacrificial Lamb (Amnos); in Revelation, the triumphant Lamb (Arnion).
Joh 1:29 The next day John seeth Jesus coming unto him, and saith, Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world.
Joh 1:36 And looking upon Jesus as he walked, he saith, Behold the Lamb of God!
Rev 12:11 And they overcame him by the blood of the Lamb, and by the word of their testimony; and they loved not their lives unto the death.
Rev 13:8 And all that dwell upon the earth shall worship him, whose names are not written in the book of life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world.
Rev 17:14 These shall make war with the Lamb, and the Lamb shall overcome them: for he is Lord of lords, and King of kings: and they that are with him are called, and chosen, and faithful.
Yes, that is a very significant thematic link ... but the odd thing is that the word for "lamb" in John (amnos) is different than in Revelation (arnion). Here is an interesting snippet of a discussion about this difference from the b-greek mailing list:

http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/b-greek/2003-January/024168.html


----- Original Message -----
From: "Pere Porta Roca" <pporta at tinet.fut.es (http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-greek)>
To: "Biblical Greek" <b-greek at franklin.oit.unc.edu (http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-greek)>
Sent: Tuesday, January 14, 2003 12:58 AM
Subject: [b-greek] RE: [b-Greek] EPHESIANS 1.4,5


> I'm seeking for the true difference, if any, between the term 'AMNOS', lamb,
> (John 1:29) and ARNION (Revelation in general, anywhere, for example 5:12,
> etc.).
> Is perhaps O AMNOS a different animal from TO ARNION?
> I've not looked at any biblical Dictionary nor know I whether such a
> Dictionary speaks about this. Perhaps if I look at such a work I'll get the
> answer which I'm seeking for?

The two terms are practically synonyms. AMNOS appears strictly to be a lamb;
ARNION can mean either an adult sheep or a lamb, and though originally a
diminutive of ARHN, it seems to have lost the force of a diminutive by NT times.

> I'm asking myself: If John is the author of both the Evangile and the
> Revelation is it not a little striking he doesn't use in both books the same
> term to show or to point to the same animal?

This gets us into areas beyond the scope of b-greek, but I would say it's no
more striking than my saying "car" in one context, and "automobile" in another.
I happen to think the style of Revelation is deliberately affected, but it would
take a great deal of time and effort to prove that...

> Perhaps is an ARNION a horned and a more developped or grown AMNOS?
> Or, if you prefer, is perhaps an AMNOS the same thing (animal now) as an
> ARNION but one calls AMNOS the animal when it is in the first months of its
> life, that's to say: AMNOS = young/baby ARNION?

I think the point of the vocabulary group is to call attention to sacrificial
imagery.

> May we say that in John 1:29 it is not John the evangelist who is speaking
> but John the Baptist is speaking so that who uses the word AMNOS is not John
> (the writer)?

Since John the B. almost certainly made his comment in Aramaic, I think we have
to say that it is still John the Evangelist who has chosen that Greek word for
that specific context.

> I'm from the South Europa area and I've seen that generally speaking the
> Bible translations to romanic languages --such as Spanish, Catalan, French,
> Italian and so on-- give of both terms the same translation word: sp.
> cordero; cat. anyell; fr. agneau, etc.

The same in the English translations.

> Is it done wrong, in the present case, to translate these two differents
> terms into the same word? So should AMNOS be translated into one word and
> ARNION should be translated into another word (if these two different and
> specific words exist in the target language, of course)?

Probably not -- one would require two different words with almost the
practically the identical range of meaning in the receptor language as in the
original, and that's tough to get. Contextually, and considering the OT
background for the imagery, "lamb" seems to work just fine.

> (Please be not struck by my use of English prepositions: as I said I am not
> from the English or anglophone area)

Honestly, I hardly noticed...

N.E. Barry Hofstetter

Fecisti nos ad te et inquietum est cor nostrum, donec requiescat in te...
-- Augustine, Confessions 1:1

http://home.earthlink.net/~nebarry (http://home.earthlink.net/~nebarry)



Richard

[Victor]

Oh yeah, that's why I called the 4th Gospel's Lamb the sacrificial Lamb and Revelation's the triumphant Lamb - although the words are synonyms they have a slightly different emphasis in each book. That would be a whole different study on its own.

[Richard Amiel McGough]

While discussing the "little season" that preceeded the final judgment on Jerusalem [see here (http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/showthread.php?p=8026#post8026)], I found another unique link between the Gospel of John and the book of Revelation. The exact phrase "eti chronon mikron" appears only in two verses of the Bible:

John 7:33 Then said Jesus unto them, Yet a little while am I with you, and then I go unto him that sent me.
Revelation 6:11 And white robes were given unto every one of them; and it was said unto them, that they should rest yet for a little season, until their fellowservants also and their brethren, that should be killed as they were, should be fulfilled.There also are two variations of this phrase that have the word order reversed. They also are found only in John and Revelation:


John 12:35 Then Jesus said unto them, Yet a little while is the light with you. Walk while ye have the light, lest darkness come upon you: for he that walketh in darkness knoweth not whither he goeth.
Revelation 20:3 And cast him into the bottomless pit, and shut him up, and set a seal upon him, that he should deceive the nations no more, till the thousand years should be fulfilled: and after that he must be loosed a little season.The list of unique words and phrases found only in the traditional Johannine corpus continues to grow.

Richard

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Wow! Isn't it such a strong link? :thumb: Really impressive.


I guess this documentation would turn into a might outflow of living waters!
Joh 4:10 Jesus answered and said unto her, If thou knewest the gift of God, and who it is that saith to thee, Give me to drink; thou wouldest have asked of him, and he would have given thee living water.

Joh 4:14 But whosoever drinketh of the water that I shall give him shall never thirst; but the water that I shall give him shall be in him a well of water springing up into everlasting life.

Joh 7:38 He that believeth on me, as the scripture hath said, out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water.

Rev 7:17 For the Lamb which is in the midst of the throne shall feed them, and shall lead them unto living fountains of waters: and God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes.

Rev 21:6 And he said unto me, It is done. I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end. I will give unto him that is athirst of the fountain of the water of life freely.

Rev 22:1 And he shewed me a pure river of water of life, clear as crystal, proceeding out of the throne of God and of the Lamb.

Rev 22:17 And the Spirit and the bride say, Come. And let him that heareth say, Come. And let him that is athirst come. And whosoever will, let him take the water of life freely.




It seems like no matter what I am researching, new unique internal connections within the traditional Johannine corpus leap out unexpectedly. I was discussing how Revelation follows the pattern of the Seven Feasts of the Lord with Rose and I noticed that it was on the "last day" of the Feast of Tabernacles that Christ called for all the thirst to come to Him for living waters:
John 7:37-39 In the last day, that great day of the feast, Jesus stood and cried, saying, If any man thirst, let him come unto me, and drink. 38 He that believeth on me, as the scripture hath said, out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water. 39 (But this spake he of the Spirit, which they that believe on him should receive: for the Holy Ghost was not yet given; because that Jesus was not yet glorified.)


Christ said this on the "last day" of the Feast of Tabernacles which corresponds to the final vision of Revelation:
Revelation 21:3-6 And I heard a great voice out of heaven saying, Behold, the tabernacle of God is with men, and he will dwell with them, and they shall be his people, and God himself shall be with them, and be their God. 4 And God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes; and there shall be no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain: for the former things are passed away. 5 &#182; And he that sat upon the throne said, Behold, I make all things new. And he said unto me, Write: for these words are true and faithful. 6 And he said unto me, It is done. I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end. I will give unto him that is athirst of the fountain of the water of life freely.


The connection with the Holy Spirit is amplified at the very end of the book:
Revelation 22:17 And the Spirit and the bride say, Come. And let him that heareth say, Come. And let him that is athirst come. And whosoever will, let him take the water of life freely.


Thus we have a very strong connection with the pattern of Revelation based on the Seven Feasts. But my point as concerns this thread is that there is a unique combination of Greek words found only in John 7:37 and Revelation 22:17 that again points to a common authorship of those two books:

Joh 7:37 εαν τις διψαι ερχεσθω (if any man thirst, let him come)

Rev 22:17 και ο διψων ερχεσθω (and let him that is athirst come)

The exact Greek construction represented by the red letters is unique to the traditional Johannine corpus. The only difference is the case and inflection of the verb διψαω (to drink).

Richard

[Victor]

Hey Richard,

This reminds me that both the Fourth Gospel and Revelation use the Jewish Feasts as a backdrop for the structural development of the plot!

Many commentators have noticed the feasts motif as a recurring element in the Gospel of John that usually leads to Christ's discourses. And you have documented the allusions throught Revelation to elements of the feasts of the Jewish liturgical year.

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Hey Richard,

This reminds me that both the Fourth Gospel and Revelation use the Jewish Feasts as a backdrop for the structural development of the plot!

Many commentators have noticed the feasts motif as a recurring element in the Gospel of John that usually leads to Christ's discourses. And you have documented the allusions throught Revelation to elements of the feasts of the Jewish liturgical year.
Hey there Victor,

Great to be chatting again. I've been real busy with work (coding) and got caught up arguing with some really weird futurists who interpret everything anyway they want regardless of what the text says. So I finally quit that exercise in futility and decided I should devote myself to things that will yield real fruit worthy of God and His Word.

As for the feasts in John - I gotta look more into that. I know that its structured on seven "I AM" statements, and the number seven of course is the number of feasts. I'll definitely have to look into that more. But the big thing first is to fill out more of the feast pattern in Revelation since that follows the feasts in perfect order.

Talk more soon, my friend, :sunny:

Richard

[Victor]

Great to be chatting!

The important thing that I'm bringing out here is that the Feasts are an integral part of both works, irrespective of their exact development within each book. No other book of the NT has such usage of the Feasts theme working on the background.

So we have another link between John and Revelation, this time not in a linguistic sense (like the preceding ones), but in a literary sense.

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Great to be chatting!

The important thing that I'm bringing out here is that the Feasts are an integral part of both works, irrespective of their exact development within each book. No other book of the NT has such usage of the Feasts theme working on the background.

So we have another link between John and Revelation, this time not in a linguistic sense (like the preceding ones), but in a literary sense.

That's a very good insight. It reminds me of your earlier observation about the common thematic flow found that we found in the opening and (near) closing passages of John and 1 John:






And here is another pair found only in John and 1 John:
John 20:31 But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name.
1 John 5:13 These things have I written unto you that believe on the name of the Son of God; that ye may know that ye have eternal life, and that ye may believe on the name of the Son of God.Those verses are essentially identical, and are unique to the Johannine corpus.

Richard

Good! Not only do the verses say the same thing, the also occupy symmetric positions in each book: they're both found near the conclusion.



Something similar happens to the introduction! The vocabulary of John's Prologue and 1 John's intro is unique.
John 1:1-5
1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
2 The same was in the beginning with God.
3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.
4 In him was life; and the life was the light of men.
5 And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not.

1 John 1:1-5
1That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled, of the Word of life;
2(For the life was manifested, and we have seen it, and bear witness, and shew unto you that eternal life, which was with the Father, and was manifested unto us)
3That which we have seen and heard declare we unto you, that ye also may have fellowship with us: and truly our fellowship is with the Father, and with his Son Jesus Christ.
4And these things write we unto you, that your joy may be full. 5This then is the message which we have heard of him, and declare unto you, that God is light, and in him is no darkness at all.


Thus John and 1 John are framed around the same ideas!

I think the "feast motif" will prove to be very rich. And its not the only unique "literary" commonality between John and Revelation, since both books are structured on patterns of based on the Number Seven: John is patterned on the seven "I AM" statements and seven "SIGNS" and seven "DISCOURSES" (according to the 934 page commentary by Leon Morris). And we all know that the Number Seven is the primary structual number in Revelation.

I found three feasts in John - Passover, Tabernacles, and Hannukah. The first two are the first and the last of the Biblical feasts. This seems very significant in light of John's description of Christ in Revelation as the "Alpha and the Omega, the first and the last."

But it seems odd to see the non-biblical feast of Hannukah mentioned while others are left out. It looks sort of like a "misfit" after the mention of the "Alpha and Omega" of the biblical feasts. What do you suppose is the meaning of that?

Richard

[Victor]

I think the "feast motif" will prove to be very rich. And its not the only unique "literary" commonality between John and Revelation, since both books are structured on patterns of based on the Number Seven: John is patterned on the seven "I AM" statements and seven "SIGNS" and seven "DISCOURSES" (according to the 934 page commentary by Leon Morris). And we all know that the Number Seven is the primary structual number in Revelation.
And that's another link I was planning to point out! John and Revelation stand out in the NT because of their greater insistance on symbolic numbers! Of course number symbolism is spread throughout the NT, but these two constantly use symbolic numbers, with special emphasis on the Number Seven.



I can document more on numbers in the 4th Gospel later. But you already bring up the seven I AM's, signs and discourses. This is specially interesting because Seven (Sheba) (http://www.biblewheel.com/Topics/seven.asp) is a Shin KeyWord!
AV Psa 119:164 Shin Seven times a day do I praise thee because of thy righteous judgments. John is on Spoke 21 (Shin) of the Bible Wheel and thus links to the Number 7. This is reinforced by the fact that 21 = 7 X 3.

21 (= Ehyeh = I AM) = 7 (Perfection) X 3 (Trinity)

Of course this idea has everything to do with the Gospel of John! Seven also links to Revelation via Spoke 22 of the Bible Wheel. Spoke 22 corresponds to Tav, the letter of Consummation (for it is the last letter). Seven is the number of Completion. Thus, both 7 and 22 relate to the idea of "last things". No wonder there are so many sevens in the Last Book!

The link between 7 and 22 is reinforced because 22/7 is the best approximation of Pi (3,14159...) using small integers. And Pi is the number of the Circle, the optimal symbol describing the Structure of Scripture!


I found three feasts in John - Passover, Tabernacles, and Hannukah. The first two are the first and the last of the Biblical feasts. This seems very significant in light of John's description of Christ in Revelation as the "Alpha and the Omega, the first and the last."

Very good! I think John had the "First and Last" title in mind when he wrote his Gospel, specially since it occurs in Deutero-Isaiah from which he gets his "I AM" and "know and believe" language.

The actual mention of Feasts in John is the following in order of appearance:

Passover (2:13)
An unidentified feast (5:1)
Passover (6:4)
Tabernacles (7:2)
Dedication (10:22)
Passover (11:55)So according to the Torah's calendar, only Passover and Tabernacles are identified, and these happen to be the first and last feasts.


But it seems odd to see the non-biblical feast of Hannukah mentioned while others are left out.
Well, it's only non-biblical to those who do not recieve the books of Macabbees as canonical. Those who do feel vindicated by the mention of this feast in the NT, specially because it was attended by Christ. But I don't a see a problem at all with that. Jesus took part in many other traditions that weren't laid out in the OT.


It looks sort of like a "misfit" after the mention of the "Alpha and Omega" of the biblical feasts. What do you suppose is the meaning of that?

Richard

Well, I think there are several reasons. The feasts in John serve as kinds of clues, "catchmotifs" to introduce theological themes. So the Passover reminds that Jesus is the sacrificial Lamb (1:29). The Tabernacles (Sukkoth) remind that Jesus "tabernacled" with us (1:14). During each day of that feast a priest took a pitcher filled with water from the Pool of Siloam and poured it out over the temple altar as an offering to the Lord to remind of the miraculous waters provided in the wilderness. That would provide a motif for Jesus to introduce His saying about symbolic waters (7:37-39).

Likewise, the Feast of Dedication is associated in a number of ways with theological principles highlighted in John:

(1) It was an eight-day feast very similar to Tabernacles (like using palm trees) but in the winter. So it also reminded of God's indwelling with us.

(2) It was known as the Feast of Lights. The ninefold Menorah is a symbol of Chanukkah. This links to the depiction of Christ as the "Light of the World" in John (1:4; 9:5).

(3) The Dedication came after the Macabbee victory over Anthiocus Epiphanes, who desecrated the temple and was a "blasphemer" who considered himself "equal to God" (2 Maccabees 9:12,28). That's where his "Epiphanes" comes from. The Jews in John 10 think that it is blasphemous for Jesus to make Himself equal to God, specially because it was the time of the Feast of Dedication and He said it in the temple (10:31-36; cp. 2:19; 5:18; Leviticus 24:16). So Christ uses the Feast of Dedication to show that He is not a false Christ, but the true Messiah; indeed, God Himself.

Victor

[Richard Amiel McGough]

And that's another link I was planning to point out! John and Revelation stand out in the NT because of their greater insistance on symbolic numbers! Of course number symbolism is spread throughout the NT, but these two constantly use symbolic numbers, with special emphasis on the Number Seven.



I can document more on numbers in the 4th Gospel later. But you already bring up the seven I AM's, signs and discourses. This is specially interesting because Seven (Sheba) (http://www.biblewheel.com/Topics/seven.asp) is a Shin KeyWord!
AV Psa 119:164 Shin Seven times a day do I praise thee because of thy righteous judgments. John is on Spoke 21 (Shin) of the Bible Wheel and thus links to the Number 7. This is reinforced by the fact that 21 = 7 X 3.

21 (= Ehyeh = I AM) = 7 (Perfection) X 3 (Trinity)

Of course this idea has everything to do with the Gospel of John! Seven also links to Revelation via Spoke 22 of the Bible Wheel. Spoke 22 corresponds to Tav, the letter of Consummation (for it is the last letter). Seven is the number of Completion. Thus, both 7 and 22 relate to the idea of "last things". No wonder there are so many sevens in the Last Book!

Tremendous insights my friend! You amaze me with the clarity of your thought and presentation. I would add that I wrote about the significance of Seven in Revelation in my article (from the book) called The Bible Sealed with Seven Seals (http://biblewheel.com/Topics/SevenSeals.asp). In a very literal sense, the Bible is sealed with the Seal of the Number Seven! And this, of course, exemplifies the symbolic meaning of the Number Seven as taught within the pages of the Book with which it is sealed! This is a "meta-confirmation" in which their is a mutual confimation between the whole and its parts.

As for the connection between John on Spoke 21 and the Number 21 - there is no end to the wonders their either. As you noted, John is the I AM Gospel, and I AM = AHYH = 21 (from the defining statement "I AM THAT I AM" in Exodus 3:14) - and as an aside Exodus in on Spoke 2 (Bet) which is bilaterally symmetric (Atbash) with Shin (Spoke 21). And there is more! The prime factors of 21 = 3 x 7 and these are the primes that combine to form the large prime number 373 = LOGOS and the primes of the Creation Holograph Genesis 1:1 = 2701 = 37 x 73. And then we see this number appear in the name of the fourth Gospel John = 1119 = 3 x 373. And on it goes - endless wonder expressed with the greatest simplicity and grace.





I found three feasts in John - Passover, Tabernacles, and Hannukah. The first two are the first and the last of the Biblical feasts. This seems very significant in light of John's description of Christ in Revelation as the "Alpha and the Omega, the first and the last."

Very good! I think John had the "First and Last" title in mind when he wrote his Gospel, specially since it occurs in Deutero-Isaiah from which he gets his "I AM" and "know and believe" language.

The actual mention of Feasts in John is the following in order of appearance:

Passover (2:13)
An unidentified feast (5:1)
Passover (6:4)
Tabernacles (7:2)
Dedication (10:22)
Passover (11:55)So according to the Torah's calendar, only Passover and Tabernacles are identified, and these happen to be the first and last feasts.

It sure would be interesting if we could find a way to identify the feast in 5:1.



Well, it's only non-biblical to those who do not recieve the books of Macabbees as canonical. Those who do feel vindicated by the mention of this feast in the NT, specially because it was attended by Christ. But I don't a see a problem at all with that. Jesus took part in many other traditions that weren't laid out in the OT.

Granted. I didn't have a "problem" per se - it just seemed a little out of place since it was not part of the Seven Feasts listed in the Torah. But now that I think more about it, I realize that there is a deep significance to Hannukah. It was the Feast of Dedication celebrating the time when the Temple was cleansed after the original ABOMINATION OF DESOLATION under Antiochus. This then links directly to Revelation which is the prophetic record of the AOD that happened when the second Temple was desolated in 70 AD. I haven't had time to flesh this out, but it is ringing many intuitive bells.



Well, I think there are several reasons. The feasts in John serve as kinds of clues, "catchmotifs" to introduce theological themes. So the Passover reminds that Jesus is the sacrificial Lamb (1:29). The Tabernacles (Sukkoth) remind that Jesus "tabernacled" with us (1:14). During each day of that feast a priest took a pitcher filled with water from the Pool of Siloam and poured it out over the temple altar as an offering to the Lord to remind of the miraculous waters provided in the wilderness. That would provide a motif for Jesus to introduce His saying about symbolic waters (7:37-39).

Likewise, the Feast of Dedication is associated in a number of ways with theological principles highlighted in John:

(1) It was an eight-day feast very similar to Tabernacles (like using palm trees) but in the winter. So it also reminded of God's indwelling with us.

(2) It was known as the Feast of Lights. The ninefold Menorah is a symbol of Chanukkah. This links to the depiction of Christ as the "Light of the World" in John (1:4; 9:5).

(3) The Dedication came after the Macabbee victory over Anthiocus Epiphanes, who desecrated the temple and was a "blasphemer" who considered himself "equal to God" (2 Maccabees 9:12,28). That's where his "Epiphanes" comes from. The Jews in John 10 think that it is blasphemous for Jesus to make Himself equal to God, specially because it was the time of the Feast of Dedication and He said it in the temple (10:31-36; cp. 2:19; 5:18; Leviticus 24:16). So Christ uses the Feast of Dedication to show that He is not a false Christ, but the true Messiah; indeed, God Himself.

Victor
Wow - those are some extremely significant insights. Especially the connection with Antiochus because of the thematic correlation with John 10. I wish I had ten lifetimes to trace out all these connections.

Also, the fact that Hannukah is "an eight-day feast very similar to Tabernacles" is interesting because it is the "eighth feast" since it follows Tabernacles. And Tabernacles ended on the 8th day, which was actually the 22nd Day of the 7th month (7/22 again).

Thanks again for your excellent contribution Victor, :thumb:

Richard

[Victor]

It sure would be interesting if we could find a way to identify the feast in 5:1.
Years ago I read an explanation that made a good case to demonstrate that the unnamed feast in 5:1 was the Passover.

Regardless of it being Passover or not, this Feast is paramount in John. The Passover typology runs deep in the book, from "behold the Lamb" to "no bone shall be broken". And it makes much sense. Structurally speaking, it serves to remind that John resides on a Spoke that is atbash of the Spoke where Exodus is found. And Exodus is the book of Passover.


Granted. I didn't have a "problem" per se - it just seemed a little out of place since it was not part of the Seven Feasts listed in the Torah. But now that I think more about it, I realize that there is a deep significance to Hannukah. It was the Feast of Dedication celebrating the time when the Temple was cleansed after the original ABOMINATION OF DESOLATION under Antiochus. This then links directly to Revelation which is the prophetic record of the AOD that happened when the second Temple was desolated in 70 AD. I haven't had time to flesh this out, but it is ringing many intuitive bells.
Christ claims to be equal to God. He says I AM. He is the true God but when others say anything like that it is a blasphemy. This links to the beast of Revelation 13.


Wow - those are some extremely significant insights. Especially the connection with Antiochus because of the thematic correlation with John 10. I wish I had ten lifetimes to trace out all these connections.
I wish I had too! Seems like most of these links will be traced out after resurrection! ;)


Also, the fact that Hannukah is "an eight-day feast very similar to Tabernacles" is interesting because it is the "eighth feast" since it follows Tabernacles. And Tabernacles ended on the 8th day, which was actually the 22nd Day of the 7th month (7/22 again).

Thanks again for your excellent contribution Victor, :thumb:

Richard
Very good point! It gets even better because Chanukkah begins with Chet, the eight letter. It is the "eight" feast, lasting eight days, just like Sukkoth. And Sukkoth begins with Samek, the fifteenth letter. 15 has the 7n+1 form just like the number 8! So the eight-day feasts of Sukkoth (Tabernacles) and Chanukkah (Dedication) sound like an octave (http://www.biblewheel.com/wheel/spokes/Chet_Eight.asp).

But, guess what, there's more! Tabernacles is in the seventh month and Dedication ends in the tenth month. Now look at where they appear in the book of John: in Chapter 7 and Chapter 10 respectively! The months of the two feasts match with the corresponding chapters in the Gospel!

Passover is not limited to a single chapter because it pinpoints the whole book. But the link to the other two feasts are very beautiful and remind that there is another link between months and chapters in John: the unique mention of "four months till harvest" appears in Chapter 4!

Incidentally, I think that this is the clue that suggests that the feast 5:1 is the Passover. And so it goes... :D

[Richard Amiel McGough]

But, guess what, there's more! Tabernacles is in the seventh month and Dedication ends in the tenth month. Now look at where they appear in the book of John: in Chapter 7 and Chapter 10 respectively! The months of the two feasts match with the corresponding chapters in the Gospel!

Passover is not limited to a single chapter because it pinpoints the whole book. But the link to the other two feasts are very beautiful and remind that there is another link between months and chapters in John: the unique mention of "four months till harvest" appears in Chapter 4!

Incidentally, I think that this is the clue that suggests that the feast 5:1 is the Passover. And so it goes... :D
It's still going ... the first occurence of "Hannukah" in the Bible is in Numbers 7:10!

Numbers 7:10 And the princes offered for dedicating of the altar in the day that it was anointed, even the princes offered their offering before the altar.
Here is Strong's definition for the highlight word:

חנכה chanukkah {khan-ook-kaw'} from 02596; TWOT- 693b; n f AV - dedication 6, dedicating 2; 8 1) dedication, consecration
That's pretty cool. :sunny:

And as for the numbers in John's Gospel, we also see the Number 5 featured in Chapter 5:

John 5:2 Now there is at Jerusalem by the sheep market a pool, which is called in the Hebrew tongue Bethesda, having five porches.
Richard

[Rose]

Considering the place where the "unidentified Feast" lies in the text, it seems to me that it could be Pentecost, because we have in chapter 4:35 Jesus speaking of there being 4 months left till harvest. The fall harvest is about 4 months from Pentecost, so taking that into consideration it seems like a strong possibility that this unidentified feast of chapter 5 is Pentecost.

We also see in 4:45 the Galileans speaking of the a previous feast which is probably the Passover of 2:13, because it was there that Jesus spoke of the signs that He would show, like "Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up".

John 4:45 "Then when he was come into Galilee, the Galilaeans received him, having seen all the things that he did at Jerusalem at the feast: for they also went unto the feast."

So it seems if the previous Feast that was referred to is Passover, the next Feast in line would be Pentecost.

What say you all?

Rose

[gregoryfl]

Very true Rose. And also considering the fact that they went up to Jerusalem for that feast, which would have been only 1 of 3 possible ones commanded by God in scripture, where he says:

Three times a year shall all your males appear before the Lord your God in the place which He chooses, in the feast of unleavened bread (Passover), and in the feast of weeks (Pentecost), and in the feast of tabernacles or booths. The parenthetical remarks are mine.

Ron

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Very true Rose. And also considering the fact that they went up to Jerusalem for that feast, which would have been only 1 of 3 possible ones commanded by God in scripture, where he says:

Three times a year shall all your males appear before the Lord your God in the place which He chooses, in the feast of unleavened bread (Passover), and in the feast of weeks (Pentecost), and in the feast of tabernacles or booths. The parenthetical remarks are mine.

Ron
Hey Ron,

That's a good support for Rose's view that the feast of John 5 is Pentecost. :thumb:

Thanks!

Richard

[Victor]

Considering the place where the "unidentified Feast" lies in the text, it seems to me that it could be Pentecost, because we have in chapter 4:35 Jesus speaking of there being 4 months left till harvest. The fall harvest is about 4 months from Pentecost, so taking that into consideration it seems like a strong possibility that this unidentified feast of chapter 5 is Pentecost.

We also see in 4:45 the Galileans speaking of the a previous feast which is probably the Passover of 2:13, because it was there that Jesus spoke of the signs that He would show, like "Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up".

John 4:45 "Then when he was come into Galilee, the Galilaeans received him, having seen all the things that he did at Jerusalem at the feast: for they also went unto the feast."

So it seems if the previous Feast that was referred to is Passover, the next Feast in line would be Pentecost.

What say you all?

Rose

Very good Rose. I've seen people propose that this was Pentecost. Unfortunately it is not altogether clear, but your reasoning would make sense.

Victor

[Victor]

Very true Rose. And also considering the fact that they went up to Jerusalem for that feast, which would have been only 1 of 3 possible ones commanded by God in scripture, where he says:

Three times a year shall all your males appear before the Lord your God in the place which He chooses, in the feast of unleavened bread (Passover), and in the feast of weeks (Pentecost), and in the feast of tabernacles or booths. The parenthetical remarks are mine.

Ron


Hey Ron,

That's a good support for Rose's view that the feast of John 5 is Pentecost. :thumb:

Thanks!

Richard

Well, this only helps us in eliminating the others at best. Also Jesus could have attended a feast that was not mandatory.

But since there were three feasts which males should attend, the unnamed feast if probably one of the three. Yet this reasoning in nothing helps us determine which one of the three was it. So it is only good support to show that it was most likely Pentecost, Tabernacles or Passover.

The "four months till harvest" could be intepreted in more than way:

(1) It could have been four months before Pentecost, following Rose's reasoning.

(2) It could have been four months before Passover, for that was the time of the firstfruits of the barley harvest.

(3) It could have been only a reference to a proverbial saying of the Jews of the time.

[Victor]

It's still going ... the first occurence of "Hannukah" in the Bible is in Numbers 7:10!
Numbers 7:10 And the princes offered for dedicating of the altar in the day that it was anointed, even the princes offered their offering before the altar.

Here is Strong's definition for the highlight word:
חנכה chanukkah {khan-ook-kaw'} from 02596; TWOT- 693b; n f AV - dedication 6, dedicating 2; 8 1) dedication, consecration That's pretty cool. :sunny:


:pop2:

This "7:10" appearance is very nice. Chanukkah is not linked to the seventh month (except that it is similar to Tabernacles) but is linked to the symbolic meaning of the number seven. Seven is a special number, dedicated to God, as we read in Genesis: "God blessed the seventh day and sanctified it."


So the idea of "dedication" naturally coheres with the Symbol of Seven - "setting apart to God." Chanukkah is maximized in chapters 7 of Scripture (Numbers 7 and 2 Chronicles 7). It just like the offering (qorban) to God mentioned in the immediate context of Numbers:
Num 7:11 And the LORD said unto Moses, They shall offer their offering (qorban), each prince on his day, for the dedicating (chanukkah) of the altar.
Qorban is something specially consecrated to the Lord. No wonder qorban is maximized in Leviticus 7 and Numbers 7! And there is also an appearance of "qorban" in Mark 7 - unique in the NT!

So Channukah links to the Numbers 7 (special consecration) and 8 (Chen word, eight-day duration, the eight feast). And "chanukkah" appears 8 times in the Bible in 7 different verses! It is just like the idea of the "Day of the Lord" that saturates Joel and Amos (Spokes 7 and 8 of the Bible Wheel), which in turn reminds of Saturday and Sunday, the seventh and "eight" days of the week - the "days of the Lord"! Wow!

Something that was in the back of my mind just came up. I used to associate the word Chanukkah with Solomon's great Dedication Prayer of the Temple in a great chapter of God's Word: 1 Kings 8. It made all the sense. I went to check it a minute ago and found out that the verb "to dedicate" (cognate of the noun chanukkah) appears in the climax of that chapter! (1 Kings 8:63) This loops back to the Feast of Dedication that Jesus attended, because it celebrated the re-dedication of the Temple in the intertestamental period!

Wonders without end!

[Victor]

There's yet another idea linked to Chanukkah.

We know that Seven is a number dedicated to God who sanctified the Seventh Day. But we also know of the deep relationship between the numbers Four and Seven. God chose the Fourth Commandment to be the one that commands to 'keep the seventh day', because "He rested in the seventh day". God thus linked Four and Seven.

This idea of dedication to God is therefore reflected on Spoke 4. In Book 4 is found the first occurence of Channukah! (Numbers 7:10) The very idea of "dedicating" is linked to another Chet word. It is Charam. Its primary meaning is exactly that - devoted to God.

There is even a KeyLink between Numbers and Ezekiel based upon this word. It is found in the article Dedicated to God (http://www.biblewheel.com/wheel/spokes/Dalet_Dedicated.asp).

It is very interesting to note then that the first occurence of Chanukkah is in Book 4 of the OT and that the only mention of the feast of Chanukkah is in Book 4 of the NT! So we have the idea of "dedication to God" linked to Number 4 in the structure of the Bible.

Victor

[Rose]

Here is another striking connection between the the Epistles of John and the Gospel of John. It is the unique idea of one laying down his life for his friends, for the sake of Love.

What John begins in his Gospel.....

John 10:15 "As the Father knoweth me, even so know I the Father: and I laydown my life for the sheep. "

John 13:37 "Peter said unto him, Lord, why cannot I follow thee now? I will laydown my life for thy sake. "

John 15:13 "Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends."

He finishes in his Epistle.

1 John 3:16 "Hereby perceive we the love of God, because he laid down his life for us: and we ought to lay down our lives for the brethren."

Rose

[Rose]

Here's another unique link between the "John's", connecting the idea of Grace, and Truth coming from the Father through the Son.


John 1:14 'And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth. "No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him"

John 1:17 'For the law was given by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ.'

2 John 1:3 'Grace be with you, mercy, and peace, from God the Father, and from the Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of the Father, in truth and love.'


Rose

[The Homemommy]

The below verses always are curious to me. Who is the disciple that Jesus loved?

John 21:20-23

Peter turned and saw that the disciple whom Jesus loved was following them. (This was the one who had leaned back against Jesus at the supper and had said, 'Lord, who is going to betray you?') 21When Peter saw him, he asked, 'Lord, what about him?'

22Jesus answered, 'If I want him to remain alive until I return, what is that to you? You must follow me.' 23Because of this, the rumor spread among the brothers that this disciple would not die. But Jesus did not say that he would not die; he only said, 'If I want him to remain alive until I return, what is that to you?'

O.k. So we go back to John 13:23-26, where the last supper takes place.


His disciples stared at one another, at a loss to know which of them he meant. 23One of them, the disciple whom Jesus loved, was reclining next to him. 24Simon Peter motioned to this disciple and said, 'Ask him which one he means.'

25Leaning back against Jesus, he asked him, 'Lord, who is it?'

26Jesus answered, 'It is the one to whom I will give this piece of bread when I have dipped it in the dish.' Then, dipping the piece of bread, he gave it to Judas Iscariot, son of Simon. 27As soon as Judas took the bread, Satan entered into him.


Why would Peter be concerned with this man in John 21? Why is Jesus talking about him REMAINING til he comes? Is this not a Preterism "proof" text? Why would Jesus say that if his coming would be 2,000 years later??

Is the disciple that Jesus loved John? The author of the four books of John and Revelation? The disciple that Jesus entrusted His mother with?

Thoughts?

[Rose]

The below verses always are curious to me. Who is the disciple that Jesus loved?

John 21:20-23

Peter turned and saw that the disciple whom Jesus loved was following them. (This was the one who had leaned back against Jesus at the supper and had said, 'Lord, who is going to betray you?') 21When Peter saw him, he asked, 'Lord, what about him?'

22Jesus answered, 'If I want him to remain alive until I return, what is that to you? You must follow me.' 23Because of this, the rumor spread among the brothers that this disciple would not die. But Jesus did not say that he would not die; he only said, 'If I want him to remain alive until I return, what is that to you?'

O.k. So we go back to John 13:23-26, where the last supper takes place.


His disciples stared at one another, at a loss to know which of them he meant. 23One of them, the disciple whom Jesus loved, was reclining next to him. 24Simon Peter motioned to this disciple and said, 'Ask him which one he means.'

25Leaning back against Jesus, he asked him, 'Lord, who is it?'

26Jesus answered, 'It is the one to whom I will give this piece of bread when I have dipped it in the dish.' Then, dipping the piece of bread, he gave it to Judas Iscariot, son of Simon. 27As soon as Judas took the bread, Satan entered into him.


Why would Peter be concerned with this man in John 21? Why is Jesus talking about him REMAINING til he comes? Is this not a Preterism "proof" text? Why would Jesus say that if his coming would be 2,000 years later??

Is the disciple that Jesus loved John? The author of the four books of John and Revelation? The disciple that Jesus entrusted His mother with?

Thoughts?

Here is a link to another thread where we discussed in some detail this question: Who was the Disciple Jesus loved? (http://biblewheel.com/forum/showthread.php?t=457&highlight=disciple+jesus+loved)

I myself think it was the Apostle John, but there are some folks who feel it was Lazarus, you should find that Thread quit interesting.

You are right in thinking that this is strong support for the Preterist position of a 1st century fulfillment of Jesus' coming, since John was the Disciple who received the vision of Revelation, and lived passed the destruction of the Temple in AD 70.

Blessings
Rose

[The Homemommy]

Here is a link to another thread where we discussed in some detail this question: Who was the Disciple Jesus loved? (http://biblewheel.com/forum/showthread.php?t=457&highlight=disciple+jesus+loved)

I myself think it was the Apostle John, but there are some folks who feel it was Lazarus, you should find that Thread quit interesting.

You are right in thinking that this is strong support for the Preterist position of a 1st century fulfillment of Jesus' coming, since John was the Disciple who received the vision of Revelation, and lived passed the destruction of the Temple in AD 70.

Blessings
Rose

Oops, sorry! I should have done a search for this topic before starting a new thread. Thanks for linking the old thread for me.

Carrie :)

[Brother Les]

I myself think it was the Apostle John, but there are some folks who feel it was Lazarus, you should find that Thread quit interesting.

You are right in thinking that this is strong support for the Preterist position of a 1st century fulfillment of Jesus' coming, since John was the Disciple who received the vision of Revelation, and lived passed the destruction of the Temple in AD 70.

Blessings
Rose


Yes, I still believe that the books of John, 1,2,3 John were dictated out by Lazarus and that Lazarus is the 'Disciple whom Jesus Loved'. Reading these books from the lenses of a Jerusalem, Levi, Sadducce, who might have been on the Sanhedren makes the books come out in a whole different light. The writer is writing with the mindset that he has studied Genesis everyday for all of his Life.


John 1 (King James Version)

John 1
1In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

2The same was in the beginning with God.

3All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.

4In him was life; and the life was the light of men.

5And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not.

6There was a man sent from God, whose name was John.

7The same came for a witness, to bear witness of the Light, that all men through him might believe.

8He was not that Light, but was sent to bear witness of that Light.

9That was the true Light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the world.

10He was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not.

11He came unto his own, and his own received him not.

12But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:

13Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.

14And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.

15John bare witness of him, and cried, saying, This was he of whom I spake, He that cometh after me is preferred before me: for he was before me.

16And of his fulness have all we received, and grace for grace.

17For the law was given by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ.


This is the Creation from Genesis. This is Lazarus the Levi 'Disciple', not 'John' the 'Apostle'.


Blessings

[CWH]

Here is a link to another thread where we discussed in some detail this question: Who was the Disciple Jesus loved? (http://biblewheel.com/forum/showthread.php?t=457&highlight=disciple+jesus+loved)

I myself think it was the Apostle John, but there are some folks who feel it was Lazarus, you should find that Thread quit interesting.

You are right in thinking that this is strong support for the Preterist position of a 1st century fulfillment of Jesus' coming, since John was the Disciple who received the vision of Revelation, and lived passed the destruction of the Temple in AD 70.

Blessings
Rose

I think it has a strong futurist support rather than a strong preterist support because beside John, Matthew, Thomas also survived AD 70. So who was the disciple Jesus loved?

http://agards-bible-timeline.com/q6_apostles_die.html

22Jesus answered, “If I want him to remain alive until I return, what is that to you? You must follow me.” 23Because of this, the rumor spread among the brothers that this disciple would not die. But Jesus did not say that he would not die; he only said, “If I want him to remain alive until I return, what is that to you?”

The passage above do sounds like "If I want him to live till my second coming, what is that to you?" The words, "this disciple would not die" sounds weird in the sense that the apostles know that everyone will one day die but "this disciple would not die"? In fact, Jesus came back man times after His resurrection, yet all the apostles were still alive when He came back except Judas.

Many Blessings.

[basilfo]

Hi Carrie,
Here are a few things to consider:

1. Jesus didn't say "until I physically return" or "until the second coming". Scripture never uses the term "second coming". There is one 'coming of the Son of Man' in judgment spoken of in Scripture.

He said "until I come" (come=Gr: erchomai, Strongs #2064) used interchangably with the "coming (Gr: parousia) of the Lord".

Check out all the passages that speak of His coming/return/appearance/presence after His resurrection and you will find that when that event is phrased in verb form (come/comes), erchomai is used, and when the event is expressed in noun form, (the coming of the Lord) parousia is used.

So "until I come" in John 21 is clearly the parousia. The same parousia in the Olivet discourse (Matt 24, Luke 21, Mark 13) and other places mainly in Paul's writings. The point: If you place the parousia in the 1st century, then you must interpret John 21 "until I come" in the first century, as preterists do.

2. From the very earliest writings of believers who carried on after the apostles were martyred, I don't believe there is much support for Lazarus being "the disciple that Jesus loved". (Please correct me if I'm wrong with the text).

So, for that to be true, one would have to believe that infant Church IMMEDIATELY departed from the "true" identity being Lazarus, and incorrectly labeled him John. This is highly unlikely since those early writers were so close to the life of John - even overlapping - that their writings would have been instantly discredited by those believers alive at the time - which they were not. It would be like trying to get away with writing that the President of the US during the Great Depression was Henry Ford. You'd be laughed off the paper.

Peace to you,
Dave

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Yes, I still believe that the books of John, 1,2,3 John were dictated out by Lazarus and that Lazarus is the 'Disciple whom Jesus Loved'. Reading these books from the lenses of a Jerusalem, Levi, Sadducce, who might have been on the Sanhedren makes the books come out in a whole different light. The writer is writing with the mindset that he has studied Genesis everyday for all of his Life.

<snip>

This is the Creation from Genesis. This is Lazarus the Levi 'Disciple', not 'John' the 'Apostle'.

Blessings
I may have asked this before, but I forget. What is it about being a Sadducee that puts the writings attributed to John into a "whole different light?" It actually seems quite odd since the writings attributed to John are very strong on angels and resurrection and Scripture, all of which the Sadducees had problems with. And besides that, could not John himself had been a Sadducee for all we know?

Richard

[Brother Les]

Ram
And besides that, could not John himself had been a Sadducee for all we know?

If the Apostle John was a Sadducee, then all of your other question would be answered quickly.....
The text states that the people, priest, captain of the temple AND the Sadducees (Acts 4:1) thought John and Peter were unlearned and ignorant (Acts 4:13), The Sadducees did not claim John as one of their own.



It actually seems quite odd since the writings attributed to John are very strong on angels and resurrection and Scripture, all of which the Sadducees had problems with.

I am a 'Southern Baptist'.... What do you 'hear' 'Southern Baptists' believe and 'teach? No drinking, no dancing, The rapture will happen 'soon'.... Well I don't fit that mold too well (if you know what I mean :winking0071: )
I believe that Lazuras (the writer of John) was part of the Sanhedrin, just as the Bible infers that Joseph of Arimathea was.




I may have asked this before, but I forget. What is it about being a Sadducee that puts the writings attributed to John into a "whole different light?

It seems to be written from one who is continually studying and reading the first testament. Of one who is using the symbolic language of Genesis and the first 5 'books' and the Law and the Prophets. One, who knows the very meaning and act, as in the types and anti-types. The fisherman, John would have a hard time rising to that level during the times of the events as they occured and unfolded. John, the fisherman is not writing from the perspective of John the Fisherman. The writer of the book of 'John' is writing as if he belongs to and is part of this highly energized religious community. The writer of 'John' is writing from the perspective of a 'New Creation', when every word and action of Jesus' Apostles is geared to the continuation of the 'Old creation'.

Blessing Ram.

(the answer is not highly thought out as I am in a hurry and have little time to restudy about Lazarus as The Disiple whom Jesus Loved. But a good study it is.)

Blessings

[Richard Amiel McGough]

If the Apostle John was a Sadducee, then all of your other question would be answered quickly.....
The text states that the people, priest, captain of the temple AND the Sadducees (Acts 4:1) thought John and Peter were unlearned and ignorant (Acts 4:13), The Sadducees did not claim John as one of their own.

Granted, they saw Peter and John as "unlearned."

But the text tells us nothing about how they saw Lazarus, so I guess this point is probably moot.



I am a 'Southern Baptist'.... What do you 'hear' 'Southern Baptists' believe and 'teach? No drinking, no dancing, The rapture will happen 'soon'.... Well I don't fit that mold too well (if you know what I mean :winking0071: )
I believe that Lazuras (the writer of John) was part of the Sanhedrin, just as the Bible infers that Joseph of Arimathea was.

Why do you call yourself a "Southern Baptist" if you disagree with them on their distinctive doctrines? Isn't that like a Pentecostalist who doesn't speak in tongues? Are you a "Southern Baptist" merely by heritage, or by a current active belief in their distinctive doctrines?

But I get your point, no group is perfectly uniform.



It seems to be written from one who is continually studying and reading the first testament. Of one who is using the symbolic language of Genesis and the first 5 'books' and the Law and the Prophets. One, who knows the very meaning and act, as in the types and anti-types. The fisherman, John would have a hard time rising to that level during the times of the events as they occured and unfolded. John, the fisherman is not writing from the perspective of John the Fisherman. The writer of the book of 'John' is writing as if he belongs to and is part of this highly energized religious community. The writer of 'John' is writing from the perspective of a 'New Creation', when every word and action of Jesus' Apostles is geared to the continuation of the 'Old creation'.

Blessing Ram.

(the answer is not highly thought out as I am in a hurry and have little time to restudy about Lazarus as The Disiple whom Jesus Loved. But a good study it is.)

Blessings
Actually, that was a very good answer. Sometimes the better answers come out when we write quickly before we have a chance to second-guess ourselves.

I agree that there is nothing in "John" that would make me think it was written by a first century fisherman. This is different than Peter's first letter which is written in very rough and unsophisticated Greek.

And I agree that the high Christology and profound OT symbolism in "John" indicates the writer was quite familiar with the OT. But I still am waiting for the reason for choosing "Sadducee" over "Pharisee" - especially since it was the Pharisees who believed in the resurrection and angels.

And there is always the possibility that some highly educated priest took John under his wings and taught him everything he needed in order to write his Gospel. He was a young man, and John was written decades after the events. So it seems quite reasonable to think that John could have become quite well "lettered" by the time he wrote his Gospel.

But don't get me wrong, I see that there is a lot of good evidence for the Lazarus theory. But on the other hand, it remains an unconfirmed theory in my mind. There is too much we simply do not know.

Many blessings my friend,

Richard

[Brother Les]

Why do you call yourself a "Southern Baptist" if you disagree with them on their distinctive doctrines? Isn't that like a Pentecostalist who doesn't speak in tongues? Are you a "Southern Baptist" merely by heritage, or by a current active belief in their distinctive doctrines?

But I get your point, no group is perfectly uniform.

There is every make and model within the S.B. Convention. The church where I go has a very good mix of Pre-, A-, Post-mils and the majority of 'I don't knows.....'



Granted, they saw Peter and John as "unlearned."

But the text tells us nothing about how they saw Lazarus, so I guess this point is probably moot.....
......And I agree that the high Christology and profound OT symbolism in "John" indicates the writer was quite familiar with the OT. But I still am waiting for the reason for choosing "Sadducee" over "Pharisee" - especially since it was the Pharisees who believed in the resurrection and angels. Other text tells about Lazarus and his relationship with Jesus and the Apostles. Jesus says " 'OUR' friend lazarus"(John 11:11) Jesus seemed to know that Lazarus would die "but for The Glory of God" (John 11:4)
Jesus told His Apostles that Lazarus 'slept'.... the Apostles said he should do well to get some 'rest'..... meaning that the Apostles knew that Lazarus worked very hard for their cause. Jesus then said planly...."Lazarus is Dead and it was good that I (Jesus) was not there (to save him) for NOW ye may Believe when I awaken him. (John 11:11-15)

John 11:36 Then said the Jews, Behold how he loved him!


But it is when Lazarus goes with Jesus into town that the 'trouble' really starts.....
John12:
9Much people of the Jews therefore knew that he was there: and they came not for Jesus' sake only, but that they might see Lazarus also, whom he had raised from the dead.
10But the chief priests consulted that they might put Lazarus also to death; 11Because that by reason of him many of the Jews went away, and believed on Jesus.
12On the next day much people that were come to the feast, when they heard that Jesus was coming to Jerusalem,


On any 'issue' one of the changing points of an 'issue' is when one the people (Sanhedrin, Sadducees) did an about face and show openly that what he 'Had' stood for as 'doctrine' was now totally destroyed. 'Lazarus' must 'die' because 'Lazarus' 'WAS' (paste tense) their (sadducees) 'own'....Now Lazarus was a follower of The Way and must be removed.....


And there is always the possibility that some highly educated priest took John under his wings and taught him everything he needed in order to write his Gospel. He was a young man, and John was written decades after the events. So it seems quite reasonable to think that John could have become quite well "lettered" by the time he wrote his Gospel.

I don't see evidence that Paul, James, Peter 'changed' and 'ran' from who they 'were' and 'become' someone 'else'. Paul, James, Peter knew their 'roots and preached from that as a foundation. 'John' starts off as if it would be 'good' to be in The Temple Complex when studying it.



Actually, that was a very good answer. Sometimes the better answers come out when we write quickly before we have a chance to second-guess ourselves.

'sometimes' when 'one' engauges the mouth (typing) before the mind.... a truer gut heartfelt answer will come out. It is not a 'light' thing for me to do to stand in this position (Lazarus as the writer of John) it would be easier to 'keep my own council' and go with 'tradition'.... Matthew wrote Matthew, Mark wrote Mark and John wrote John and Luke wrote Luke.....the 'only one' that I really think wrote 'their own' 'book'...is Luke..


Blessings

[basilfo]

Do you guys know of any early Christian writers who even floated the possibility of any of the 5 books we attribute to John were written by Lazarus? Or that Lazarus was 'the disciple that Jesus loved'? If not, it means that:

Polycarp, Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Ignatius, Clement, Tertullian, Origen, Eusebius, etc

all erred in thinking (and writing) that John was the disciple that Jesus loved, and no believers fought against that obvious (to them at the time) error.

As I study more and more of how fiercely and diligently the early believers of the 1st few centuries fought off heresies and false doctrines that attempted to enter the Christian faith right from the start, I realize how unrealistic it is to believe major departures from the truth occured so quickly without rebuke from other believers.

Another 2 cents.

Dave

[GotScripture]

Do you guys know of any early Christian writers who even floated the possibility of any of the 5 books we attribute to John were written by Lazarus?

Since John identifies himself repeatedly by name in the Book of Revelation, why would anyone think that it was reasonable to be looking for "early Christian writers who even floated the possibility" that Lazarus wrote that book? Why would anyone want to turn a blind eye to the fact that the behavior of the writer of the fourth gospel (who repeatedly concealed his identity in his book) is the opposite of the behavior of John in Revelation (who repeatedly identified himself in his book)? The way that the question is framed is unreasonable and your biased method of argumentation reveals a desire to cling to the man-made John tradition.

Like it or not, scripture proves that EVERY non-Bible source that has identified "other disciple, whom Jesus loved" as John is in error. Moreover, scripture documents that the first false teaching in what would become the church was a mistaken idea about "the disciple whom Jesus loved" that was circulated among the brethren. So why would one suppose that men who came along in the second and third century could not possibly be mistaken about this same disciple? The Old Testament was the word of God and the people in the Old Testament heard directly from messengers of God, but still their leaders repeatedly fell into error.

Those who were believed they should look to that what religious leaders SAID about the scriptures, rather than to what the scriptures themselves actually said, were deceived to the point that it could be said of those people that they were "making the word of God of none effect", even though they actually had the word of God.

The fact that others who followed after Irenaeus were just assuming that he could not be wrong if he said that John was the one who leaned on Jesus at the supper is a simple mistake, and this is what people continue to do to this day. However, it is certainly ridiculous to suppose that one can blame the John idea on Polycarp simply because Irenaeus claimed that when he was young he met Polycarp once. And repeating a false idea of Irenaeus or anybody else for two-thousand years does not make it true.

Earlier in this tread I posted a comment (http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/showpost.php?p=7483&postcount=33) on and linked to a presentation of biblical evidence that showed the author of the fourth gospel was not John (http://thefourthgospel.com/beloved-disciple-fourth-gospel-author/). And, though those who want to hang on to the John tradition will continue to trust in the non-Bible sources that agree with them, the truth is if Bible evidence can prove that John was not the 'other disciple, whom Jesus loved', then we need to admit our mistake and let go of this erroneous tradition whether or not we can identify the actual author.

[Brother Les]

Do you guys know of any early Christian writers who even floated the possibility of any of the 5 books we attribute to John were written by Lazarus? Or that Lazarus was 'the disciple that Jesus loved'? If not, it means that:

Polycarp, Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Ignatius, Clement, Tertullian, Origen, Eusebius, etc

all erred in thinking (and writing) that John was the disciple that Jesus loved, and no believers fought against that obvious (to them at the time) error.

As I study more and more of how fiercely and diligently the early believers of the 1st few centuries fought off heresies and false doctrines that attempted to enter the Christian faith right from the start, I realize how unrealistic it is to believe major departures from the truth occured so quickly without rebuke from other believers.

Another 2 cents.

Dave


Hello my friend, Dave. When I read this, a smile came to my face. I know you to be a man who wants to 'Let The Bible Speak'. What comes to mind is 'The Judeizers' (Christian Jews, proclaim to others to keep the Law). What comes to mind are those who say,"I am of Apollos, I am of Paul, I am of Peter." What comes to mind is when Paul asks some believers "Have you recieved The Holy Spirit?" they did not have a clue on what Paul was talking about. We go with what we 'know' and reject what we do not. But what we 'know' is not always correct.

1) We are from the Government and we are here to help you... nope
2) The dollars is as sound as the Government.... nope, fiat
3) Your minister and Elders know everything about the Bible.... nope
4) Oil is a finite fossil fuel.... nope, not finite or fossil
5) Global warming will kill the planet and 'all life'....nope
6) John is the 'disicple that Jesus Loved'.... scripture does not say that.


All of what I have said in the first part of the points are thought of as true and always implied as true, but the realities are, that they are not true. Repeating a false hood, knowingly or unknowinly still does not make it true. Apealing to The Church Fathers is futile in many areas of 'their' thoughts and teaching. Major examples of the splits of the early East and West 'Universal' church. The using of some apocrypha 'books' in some Bibles and not other. The 'Reformation' and cry of 'the Church has changed and is forever changing. And I, growing up in what is called the Restoration Movement, ie...to Restore.

Let The Bible Speak....

How many times have you picked up a book and read the 'title' and think one thing and then read the book and it had nothing to do with what you thought that it should be about. We see the name 'John' on it and assume that John wrote it.

We have the 'books' of First and Second 'Peter'.... Why is 'Second' Peter 'Second'? Because he states in it that it is the 'second' time he wrote..... If 'one' reads 'Second' peter first and the 'First' Peter second.... the flow of the books makes more sense. What I am saying is that I understand that 'First' Should really be 'Third' Peter.... ie.... Peters First Letter Was Lost to all History.....

Who labeling the book (letter?) 'John'.... Why and who put a label on it? The 'book' was not 'about' 'John'.... it was about Jesus and The New Creation.

It is about Covenants....

Would 'John' the fisherman, truely understand the Covenantal impact of what he was (supposed) writing? would he (John the fisherman) start his 'Gosple' (good news) with such a highly impactable Creationist motif with Elias (John the Baptist) coming to make straight the road for The Lord? John the fisherman would write none of that, but a Levi Priest who belonged to The Temple Cultus would have.


I don't want to convince you, me or anyone else that 'Lazarus' wrote the 'book of John'.... but the evidence with in the Book, that the Apostle John wrote it or that He was the disciple that Jesus is said to have Loved with in the book is not proven.

Blessings
My Friend

[Enlightened]

I found this statement interesting, about 'Lazarus' writing the book of Revelation. Last week I was skimming through a book that was writting in 1924 (I will find it and post the name and author, later). Not an easy read to get into as most of the book was in the format of 'this writer thinks this...', (sites book) and 'this writer thinks this...'(sites book). The book was comparing Matt.,Mark, Luke in a contrasting manner to 'John' and how hardly anything 'matches up'. The writer of this 1924 book sites another writer and book that 'a' John the 'Elder' (not the Apostle) wrote 'John'....and 'John' (the Apostle) wrote Revelation OR (in this sited books view) 'John' (the Apostle) wrote 'John' and 'John the Elder', wrote Revelation. I thought that this was very interest, since the writer of "The Disciple whom Jesus Loved", sites 'John the Elder' as the 'Scribe' whom was writing for 'Lazarus'. This is not any 'solid' proof by a long shot, but with all of the 'colorful' Old Testement language within the pages of Revelation. Lazarus,(the Levi) could and may have 'written' (scribed by 'John the Elder') both books.


I'm curious, where do we find that Lazarus was a Levite?

[Brother Les]

How are you about to get that little button in the 'quote' (the arrow) in order to go back to the page sited?

Enlightened
I'm curious, where do we find that Lazarus was a Levite?

The long answer is to read 'The Disciple who Jesus Loved'. it is online in pdf. form and is not a long book to read.


http://www.thedisciplewhomjesusloved.com/fourth-gospel-John-v-beloved-disciple/


The short answer is deductive speculation.

[Enlightened]

The long answer is to read 'The Disciple who Jesus Loved'. it is online in pdf. form and is not a long book to read.


http://www.thedisciplewhomjesusloved.com/fourth-gospel-John-v-beloved-disciple/


The short answer is deductive speculation.

I read the article, and indeed it throws new light on the fourth gospel, however Lazarus was the brother of Mary & Martha of Bethany who were from the tribe of Benjamin. This is why Mary could anoint Jesus with Genuine Nard. Only a woman from the tribe of Benjamin could do so. They were wealthy, and explains why Lazarus had such a nice burial tomb.

Lazarus coming from such a distinguished family, would have been more "learned" than the other disciples, and there is evidence that his father Simon was a Pharisee, or may even be Nicodemus...but that's another study.

That would give some weight as to why the "other disciple" went in to the palace of the high priest while Peter stayed outside keeping himself warm. If it was indeed Lazarus. Aside from his faith after being raised from the dead, he may have had "connections" if you will.

Just some food for thought.

[seasunned]

Here is a link to another thread where we discussed in some detail this question: Who was the Disciple Jesus loved? (http://biblewheel.com/forum/showthread.php?t=457&highlight=disciple+jesus+loved)

I myself think it was the Apostle John, but there are some folks who feel it was Lazarus, you should find that Thread quit interesting.

You are right in thinking that this is strong support for the Preterist position of a 1st century fulfillment of Jesus' coming, since John was the Disciple who received the vision of Revelation, and lived passed the destruction of the Temple in AD 70.

Blessings
Rose
Gospel of MarySurely the Savior knew her very well [cf. Luke 10:38- 42]. For this reason he loved her more than us [cf. John 11:5].
You must think outside the box.
For example, Lazarus is a theory.
Anyone is a "guess", unless one reads all Gospels, not just the Books chosen for you to read and contemplate.
We are each on a Spiritual quest, hense, each of us = many roads leading to The Way, The Truth, The Light.
Seek to find.

[Rose]

Gospel of MarySurely the Savior knew her very well [cf. Luke 10:38- 42]. For this reason he loved her more than us [cf. John 11:5].
You must think outside the box.
For example, Lazarus is a theory.
Anyone is a "guess", unless one reads all Gospels, not just the Books chosen for you to read and contemplate.
We are each on a Spiritual quest, hense, each of us = many roads leading to The Way, The Truth, The Light.
Seek to find.

Hi Seasunned,

Welcome to the Forum....:welcome: Glad to have another soul who is seeking after the Truth!

You are absolutely right! We are each on a spiritual quest. One can find Truth in many places, and it is the only foundation which we can build upon.

Rose

[basilfo]

Since John identifies himself repeatedly by name in the Book of Revelation, why would anyone think that it was reasonable to be looking for "early Christian writers who even floated the possibility" that Lazarus wrote that book?

Yeah, no reason at all as long as you think the Holy Spirit was not guiding the Church into truth for 19 or 20 centuries. Good thing you guys came along to get it right. If it's so obvious to you 2000 yrs later, it might be "reasonable" to think that some believers living a few generations from Lazarus' time wrote of the "true author". It's not that tricky.



The way that the question is framed is unreasonable and your biased method of argumentation reveals a desire to cling to the man-made John tradition.

Not really. Just looking for some historical :eek: evidence. How about even one source.....just one who was guided by the Holy Spirit into the truth about the 4th Gospel's author?


Like it or not, scripture proves that EVERY non-Bible source that has identified "other disciple, whom Jesus loved" as John is in error.

Thus saith "GotScripture"! Imagine how much error Christianity could have avoided if only you posted this back in 80AD!!

A serious question: By what authority do you have to KNOW that your interpretation is the truth vs. another believer (who is convinced he ALSO is guided by the Holy Spirit) who presents an opposing view?

Your homework is to find out how the apostles answered this exact question.
Hint: Acts 15:2 is a good starting point.

Extra Credit: How was the Table of Contents of your Bible determined?