What will your community remember you for? What would you like your community to call you after your death? Are you even known at all in your community?
Thursday, January 21, 2010
His community remembered him favorably
The more research I do on John, the more I come to know and understand who he was. As most of you know, I am wrestling with why John was called " the disciple whom Jesus loved." Commentaries are divided on why he refer to himself with this title. Although one commentary did say that it was John's followers who wrote the rest of the gospel after he died and that is how they remembered him. I like this choice because it shows how much John was loved by his community. Who wouldn't want to be known or remembered as someone to whom Jesus gave His favor? I would love for people to refer to me with as much love and warmth as John's followers did in that designation.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Michelle,
ReplyDeleteWhen the Bible urges the readers of scripture to “prove all things” it was not suggesting that they should look to the traditions of men as their standard of truth but, rather (in accord with Ps. 118:8), that they should look to scripture and trust the authority of God’s word -- not the traditions which men add to it. And these words are true: “Every word of God is pure: he is a shield unto them that put their trust in him. Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar” (Pr. 30:5-6), so one is always better off conforming their hypothesis to the scriptures rather than the other way around. Therefore, I hope you will be willing to receive the following note of biblical correction.
You obviously think that John was "the disciple whom Jesus loved" but here you are misled by the traditions of men because the truth is that there is not a single verse that would justify teaching that John was the unnamed "other disciple, whom Jesus loved" (the unnamed man who wrote the fourth gospel) and that is why non-Bible sources must ALWAYS be used to sell the John tradition. While non-Bible sources may say that John was “the disciple whom Jesus loved”, what happens when one subjects that claim to biblical scrutiny, will it hold up? No it will not because two things are true:
1: No one can cite a single verse of scripture that would justify promoting the idea that the unnamed “disciple whom Jesus loved” was anybody named John — not the Apostle John, nor any other John. Moreover, the reason that this cannot be done is that no such verse exists, which is the reason that no such verse is ever cited by those who put forth the unbiblical John tradition.
2: The facts in the plain text of scripture can prove that WHOEVER the unnamed “other disciple, whom Jesus loved” was he could not have been John — because that idea forces the Bible to contradict itself, which the Bible cannot do if it is true. (A presentation of the biblical evidence on this topic is available at BelovedDiscipleBibleStudy.com).
Two good rules of respect for the authority of God’s word: A) One should not be presenting an idea AS IF IT WERE BIBLICAL if they cannot cite a single verse that would justify teaching that idea – and – B) If the facts in the plain text of scripture prove that an idea is false, then those who love the truth will reject that false idea — no matter how many people believe it, no matter how loud some may shout it, no matter if a big-wig so-and-so believes it, no matter how long the false idea has been around, etc.
One can surely find a NON-Bible source to cite if they want to justify their belief in the idea that the unnamed “other disciple whom Jesus loved” was John. But what no one has ever done is cite a single verse that would justify teaching that the unnamed “disciple whom Jesus loved” was John — not those who originated the unbiblical John idea and not those who repeat their error to this day.
Unlike John, who repeatedly identified himself by name in the Book of Revelation, we can see that the unnamed "other disciple, whom Jesus loved" repeatedly used cryptic terms to conceal his identity, even though we see that he included himself in the text at key moments in the ministry of Jesus.
The fact is that the John tradition is simply a case of mistaken identity. This, for example, explains why Jesus’ transfiguration, his prayers in the Garden of Gethsemane, and his raising of the daughter of Jairus are NOT in the fourth gospel. Only three disciples were present at each of these events and John was one of them. Thus John was able to give eyewitness testimony when it came to these key incidents and yet there is no mention of these events in the fourth gospel, because the author, “the disciple whom Jesus loved”, was not John. And the missing ‘John testimony’ is just the tip of the iceberg.
BK,
ReplyDeleteAs I was looking through my initial research for this book, I came across your bible study and read it. What I find most hysterical is that you have not posed any more convincing arguments for Lazarus being the disciple whom Jesus loved than there is for John. Furthermore, what about John 21:24 says " This is the disciple who testifies to these things and writes them down. We know that his testimony is true." What about this verse?
so, if it is Lazarus, why is he only mentioned in chapters 11-12 then left out in other accounts? If they had such a close relationship, why is he not included in the inner circle?
One final point is that you mention that I am citing non- biblical ideas ( as are you) and forming that as biblical fact. But, when someone reads your book and forms an opinion, aren't they doing the same? What is the point of reading your book, or bible study, ( or even writing the book) if we should only trust Scripture and not other sources? I think I would consider biblical scholars ( who have looked at the greek and hebrew) over yours anyday.