Gospels weren't really written by Matthew, Mark, Luke and John?

[NascarGirl2448]

Dr Ben Witherington, a professor at Asbury Theological Seminary in Wilmore, Kentucky, was the guest pastor at my church yesterday. Anyway he raised a very interesting issue that I had never really thought about before.

Apparently the 4 gospels in the Bible may not have actually been written by the disciples Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. Apparently the Gospels were actually anonymously written, and early church leaders actually guessed by using various writings and other things, who had written which one.

In Chapter 4 of his book What did they really do with Jesus Dr Witherington suggests that Lazarus (the Beloved disciple) had been the one who wrote the Gospel of John.

Anyway I was kinda curious what other people's thoughts were on this and had anyone ever heard this man speak before?

[Meriweather]

Dr Ben Witherington, a professor at Asbury Theological Seminary in Wilmore, Kentucky, was the guest pastor at my church yesterday. Anyway he raised a very interesting issue that I had never really thought about before.

Apparently the 4 gospels in the Bible may not have actually been written by the disciples Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. Apparently the Gospels were actually anonymously written, and early church leaders actually guessed by using various writings and other things, who had written which one.

In Chapter 4 of his book What did they really do with Jesus Dr Witherington suggests that Lazarus (the Beloved disciple) had been the one who wrote the Gospel of John.

Anyway I was kinda curious what other people's thoughts were on this and had anyone ever heard this man speak before?

I haven't heard Dr. Witherington speak, but it isn't the first time it's been suggested that that the Gospels of Matthew and John weren't written by the apostles. It says as much in the Bible I study most--and it's been out for over fifteen years now.

However, it is the first time I've heard that Lazarus qualifies as the Beloved disciple, and I find that interesting.

[daver]

First, he is historically inaccurate. The evidence to support the authorship of the gospels is very strong. Also, that is a liberal seminary and doesn't recognize the basic tenets of Christian Doctrine.

[CID_0687]

Dr Ben Witherington, a professor at Asbury Theological Seminary in Wilmore, Kentucky, was the guest pastor at my church yesterday. Anyway he raised a very interesting issue that I had never really thought about before.

Apparently the 4 gospels in the Bible may not have actually been written by the disciples Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. Apparently the Gospels were actually anonymously written, and early church leaders actually guessed by using various writings and other things, who had written which one.

In Chapter 4 of his book What did they really do with Jesus Dr Witherington suggests that Lazarus (the Beloved disciple) had been the one who wrote the Gospel of John.

Anyway I was kinda curious what other people's thoughts were on this and had anyone ever heard this man speak before?
Mark and Luke were not disciples of Jesus, that we know of...they were converts after His death and resurrection.

I've heard before that John and Matthew may not have been written by the Apostles, whether it's true or not, I don't know...I even heard or read somewhere that some people believe Mary Magdalene was the author of John, and was "the one He loved"...Doesn't make any difference to me what folks wanna believe.

[NascarGirl2448]

First, he is historically inaccurate. The evidence to support the authorship of the gospels is very strong. Also, that is a liberal seminary and doesn't recognize the basic tenets of Christian Doctrine.

What part of the Seminary's Statement of Faith contradicts Christian Doctrine?

http://www.asburyseminary.edu/about/statement-of-faith/

[CID_0687]

What part of the Seminary's Statement of Faith contradicts Christian Doctrine?

http://www.asburyseminary.edu/about/statement-of-faith/
Nothing.

My uncle is a graduate from Asbury seminary...and he's a mighty fine preacher...for a Baptist. :D

[NascarGirl2448]

I haven't heard Dr. Witherington speak, but it isn't the first time it's been suggested that that the Gospels of Matthew and John weren't written by the apostles. It says as much in the Bible I study most--and it's been out for over fifteen years now.

It was interesting, yesterday was the first time I had ever heard him speak. He's a bit long winded, but actually is very interesting to listen to.

However, it is the first time I've heard that Lazarus qualifies as the Beloved disciple, and I find that interesting.

I didn't know that either. I know Lazarus wasn't one of the original 12, but there is apparently there is credible evidence that suggests he was indeed the one who was beloved by Jesus.

[NascarGirl2448]

Nothing.

My uncle is a graduate from Asbury seminary...and he's a mighty fine preacher...for a Baptist. :D

Interesting. A Baptist preacher coming out of a Methodist seminary. :)

[RayMan]

Nothing.

My uncle is a graduate from Asbury seminary...and he's a mighty fine preacher...for a Baptist. :D

They may well have some flakey professors but that's as Biblically sound a Statement of Faith as you're going to find...although it is somewhat lacking in the Baptism of the Spirit and Spiritual Gifts area.









But hey, nobody's perfect but me and you...and I worry about you.

[darknessesedge]

Mark and Luke were not disciples of Jesus, that we know of...they were converts after His death and resurrection.

I've heard before that John and Matthew may not have been written by the Apostles, whether it's true or not, I don't know...I even heard or read somewhere that some people believe Mary Magdalene was the author of John, and was "the one He loved"...Doesn't make any difference to me what folks wanna believe.

then why wasnt it called the gospel according to mary?:rolleyes:

the gospels were written by mark/mathew/luke/john..

[RayMan]

First, he is historically inaccurate. The evidence to support the authorship of the gospels is very strong. Also, that is a liberal seminary and doesn't recognize the basic tenets of Christian Doctrine.

Some reputable sources illustrating your claims would be helpful.

[NascarGirl2448]

Some reputable sources illustrating your claims would be helpful.

I'd like to know that myself.

[CID_0687]

then why wasnt it called the gospel according to mary?:rolleyes:

the gospels were written by mark/mathew/luke/john..
How should I know? I'm simply stating that this isn't the first time it's been claimed that the authors were someone other than John and Matthew.

[CID_0687]

They may well have some flakey professors but that's as Biblically sound a Statement of Faith as you're going to find...although it is somewhat lacking in the Baptism of the Spirit and Spiritual Gifts area.









But hey, nobody's perfect but me and you...and I worry about you.
I'm as perfect as God wants me to be, so :razz:

[Finality]

Another interesting question (I think) is, even if John was written by John ... um, which John? There is plenty of dispute about whether there was more than one John writing back then.

[NascarGirl2448]

Another interesting question (I think) is, even if John was written by John ... um, which John? There is plenty of dispute about whether there was more than one John writing back then.

Hmmmm that does make a person wonder :think:

[Abe]

...and he's a mighty fine preacher...for a Baptist. :D
:)):)):)):))

[Abe]

Another interesting question (I think) is, even if John was written by John ... um, which John? There is plenty of dispute about whether there was more than one John writing back then.יוחנן Yohanan (John), was a very common name among Jews, (still is, though somewhat less than then).

[lwdc]

Another interesting question (I think) is, even if John was written by John ... um, which John? There is plenty of dispute about whether there was more than one John writing back then.

*sigh*



"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?"

24This is the disciple who testifies to these things and who wrote them down."

- JOHN 21

It was John, the disciple. He was the only disciple named John. If it wasn't him, then it was a liar.

[Finality]

*sigh*

"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?"

24This is the disciple who testifies to these things and who wrote them down."

- JOHN 21

It was John, the disciple. He was the only disciple named John. If it wasn't him, then it was a liar.
*sigh*

What are you sighing about? Do you dispute the fact that there is dispute among modern bible scholars about whom the author of the Gospel of John was?

Critical analysis makes it difficult to accept the idea that the gospel as it now stands was written by one person. John 21 seems to have been added after the gospel was completed; it exhibits a Greek style somewhat different from that of the rest of the work.

And

However, the accuracy of much of the detail of the fourth gospel constitutes a strong argument that the Johannine tradition rests upon the testimony of an eyewitness. Although tradition identified this person as John, the son of Zebedee, most modern scholars find that the evidence does not support this.

http://www.usccb.org/nab/bible/john/intro.htm

[lwdc]

*sigh*

What are you sighing about? Do you dispute the fact that there is dispute among modern bible scholars about whom the author of the Gospel of John was?No. I don't dispute that there is dispute among modern bible scholars about whom the author of the Gospel of John was. I don't dispute that there is dispute among modern bible scholars about who Jesus was. I don't dispute that there is dispute among modern bible scholars about whether God exists. I don't dispute that there is dispute among modern bible scholars about whether there are such things as "good" and "evil".

There is plenty of dispute to go around.

You choose what you want to believe, and I'll do likewise.

[RayMan]

<snip>

There is plenty of dispute to go around.

You choose what you want to believe, and I'll do likewise.

Sweet.

That's my new sig line.

Buh-bye Reeder

[lwdc]

Sweet.

That's my new sig line.Happy Birthday Rayguy!:D

I would have given you a cute little animated birthday gif, but they were all taken. :((

(Glad you could use a new sig line.) ;)

[Semi-Sweet]

We are separated from the New Covenant documents by 2,000 years. The autographs (originals) are no longer available. We are dependent on a long history of translations and versions. There is no way to have a reliable Bible except for Biblical Criticism. And. . . .there are responsible ways to deal with Scripture in determining its meaning. Biblical Criticism helps us to do this.

We have no reason to fear biblical scholarship. Except for the work of scholars and translators we would not have a Bible to read, much less numerous translations that enable us to compare and better understand the message of the original writer.

[Old_Mil]

Dr Ben Witherington, a professor at Asbury Theological Seminary in Wilmore, Kentucky, was the guest pastor at my church yesterday. Anyway he raised a very interesting issue that I had never really thought about before.

Apparently the 4 gospels in the Bible may not have actually been written by the disciples Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. Apparently the Gospels were actually anonymously written, and early church leaders actually guessed by using various writings and other things, who had written which one.

In Chapter 4 of his book What did they really do with Jesus Dr Witherington suggests that Lazarus (the Beloved disciple) had been the one who wrote the Gospel of John.

Anyway I was kinda curious what other people's thoughts were on this and had anyone ever heard this man speak before?

Sounds like a rehash of old 19th century German textual criticism. There's nothing new under the sun.

[Semi-Sweet]

*sigh*

What are you sighing about? Do you dispute the fact that there is dispute among modern bible scholars about whom the author of the Gospel of John was?



And



http://www.usccb.org/nab/bible/john/intro.htm

THE BIBLE
It tops the best seller lists every year.
Nothing beats it.
World sales of the Bible are more than 100 million every year.

Dispute that. :mrgreen:

[Finality]

THE BIBLE
It tops the best seller lists every year.
Nothing beats it.
World sales of the Bible are more than 100 million every year.

Dispute that. :mrgreen:
I prefer niche, indy kind of works to historical ficti... er, I mean, popular literature ... :mrgreen:

[Elmo]

I'm trying to follow this thread but it appears to be in reverse order? How do I make the 1st post show up first. Is this some kind of "and the first will be last and the last first?" :mrgreen:

[Meriweather]

I'm trying to follow this thread but it appears to be in reverse order? How do I make the 1st post show up first. Is this some kind of "and the first will be last and the last first?" :mrgreen:

Hi, Elmo and welcome to the Religion Forum. Once you have been registered for twenty-four hours, you gain access to "User CP" which you will find at the top of the page--the red bar. User CP will be the first button.

Click on User CP
On the Menu, Click on Edit Options
Scroll down the page until you see "Thread Display Options" and check the one you like best.

Until the twenty-four hours has passed, try going up to the top of each thread (Post #1). Look at that red bar. Do you see Display Options? If so, you could choose the display option from that drop-down menu, but I believe it only affects that thread.

Hope this helps. And have fun!

[RayMan]

I'm trying to follow this thread but it appears to be in reverse order? How do I make the 1st post show up first. Is this some kind of "and the first will be last and the last first?" :mrgreen:


http://t1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:RTHRbTFvE4W3tM:http://blogs.phillyburbs.com/news/bcct/wp-content/blogs.dir/2/files/2009/March/Tuesday/elmo.jpg

Hello there Elmo,

If you just created your account there are a number of functions you will not be able access for the first 24 hrs. If I recall correctly you will not be able to access your user control panel to do avatar, sig line, etc.

[Jacob_Rising]

If they would just give the Gospels their real names then there would be a Problem.

The 4 Gospels are 4 because they show you four steps, first to the Jew, Then to the gentile, 1 book to teach you healings bewteen the first two.

The Fourth Gospel is to Benjamin, The Beloved of the Lord who rests in his Busson.

Matthew should be named, '' Levi''

[RayMan]

If they would just give the Gospels their real names then there would be a Problem.

The 4 Gospels are 4 because they show you four steps, first to the Jew, Then to the gentile, 1 book to teach you healings bewteen the first two.

The Fourth Gospel is to Benjamin, The Beloved of the Lord who rests in his Busson.

Matthew should be named, '' Levi''


And Bob should be named Steve.






I like this game. :mrgreen:

[Jacob_Rising]

And Bob should be named Steve.






I like this game. :mrgreen:Mark 2:14 And he Passed By, He saw Levi the son of Alphaeus sitting at the tax Office, and said to him,'' Follow me'' and he arose and followed him.

Now it happened when he was dining in Levi's House.

Levi was Matthew's Surname, This is Matthew.

The names can all be changed and to find the meaning of them is very special.

My favorite Part is when Paul sets Naphtilli loose from the Stall.

[Elmo]

Hi, Elmo and welcome to the Religion Forum. Once you have been registered for twenty-four hours, you gain access to "User CP" which you will find at the top of the page--the red bar. User CP will be the first button.

Click on User CP
On the Menu, Click on Edit Options
Scroll down the page until you see "Thread Display Options" and check the one you like best.

Until the twenty-four hours has passed, try going up to the top of each thread (Post #1). Look at that red bar. Do you see Display Options? If so, you could choose the display option from that drop-down menu, but I believe it only affects that thread.

Hope this helps. And have fun!Thank you for the instructions.

[Elmo]

http://t1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:RTHRbTFvE4W3tM:http://blogs.phillyburbs.com/news/bcct/wp-content/blogs.dir/2/files/2009/March/Tuesday/elmo.jpg

Hello there Elmo,

If you just created your account there are a number of functions you will not be able access for the first 24 hrs. If I recall correctly you will not be able to access your user control panel to do avatar, sig line, etc.Nice picture! When I get a chance to use an avatar image I should use the one you posted. Elmo is my daughter's favorite SS character.

[RayMan]

Mark 2:14 And he Passed By, He saw Levi the son of Alphaeus sitting at tax Office, and said to him,'' Follow me'' and he arose and followed him.

Now it happened when he was dining in Levi's House.

Levi was Mathew's Surname.

The names can all be changed and to find the meaning of them is very special.

My favorite Part is when Paul sets Naphtilli loose from the Stall.

Yeah that's right up there with "four at the causeway, and two at Parbar." :cool:

[Jacob_Rising]

Yeah that's right up there with "four at the causeway, and two at Parbar." :cool:But there are 4's at the causeway because there are a set of 4 Bronze posts on either side of the entrance to the screen leading into the courtyard.

There are four screens around the structure of the Tabernacle.

The screen of Bronze Posts
The screen of the entrance between the double 4 posts.
The Screen into the Holy place
The screen into the Holy of Holies.

[RayMan]

But there are 4's at the causeway because there are a set of 4 Bronze posts on either side of the entrance to the screen leading into the courtyard.

There are four screens around the structure of the Tabernacle.

The screen of Bronze Posts
The screen of the entrance between the double 4 posts.
The Screen into the Holy place
The screen into the Holy of Holies.


I have two screen doors at my house. One for the front door and one for the back.

[Jacob_Rising]

Everything refers to 4-3's

This is why Divinci Painted a Cosine right through the Head of Philip and through the Head of Christ and going through the Head of Judas.

He painted 4 sets of 3 at the Last supper and then gave you the right angel going through the greatest to the Least.

Israel camps round the structure of the Tabernacle in 4 sets of 3.

[RayMan]

Everything refers to 4-3's

This is why Divinci Painted a Cosine right through the Head of Philip and through the Head of Christ and going through the Head of Judas.

He painted 4 sets of 3 at the Last supper and then gave you the right angel going through the greatest to the Least.

Israel camps round the structure of the Tabernacle in 4 sets of 3.

Math sucks.

(In loving memory of our departed colleague vir doctus.)

[Jacob_Rising]

Math sucks.

(In loving memory of our departed colleague vir doctus.)

Well, as long as it's in Vir's name.

Math sucks.

[doodle5]

Changing who wrote the gospels...
I take it as is unless there can be an absolute truth to it.
No one else the better theologians have ever said this or will. They are teaching "THE WORD" faithfully!!

Carlene

[CID_0687]

And Bob should be named Steve.






I like this game. :mrgreen:
:))

[darknessesedge]

I'm trying to follow this thread but it appears to be in reverse order? How do I make the 1st post show up first. Is this some kind of "and the first will be last and the last first?" :mrgreen:

hey elmo, how are big bird and the gang?

welcome to the forums!!

[5thIDSoldier]

First, he is historically inaccurate. The evidence to support the authorship of the gospels is very strong. Also, that is a liberal seminary and doesn't recognize the basic tenets of Christian Doctrine.

Well said.

[Graehame Thorne]

Scholars can & will dispute anything, but there is no serious doubt that the Gospel according to Matthew was written by the Apostle who was called Mathew. Mark was the secretary of St. Peter, so the Gospel according to Mark should probably be called the Gospel of Peter, who was its eyewitness source, rather than Mark, who merely transcribed the tradition he'd been taught. Luke was a disciple of St. Paul, from whom he learned most of what he wrote in the Gospel and in Acts of the Apostles, which is Part 2 to the Gospel according to Luke. And John was the beloved disciple who wrote the last Gospel during his declining years at the city of Ephesus.
Although Lazarus was a friend of Jesus, he was not one of the Twelve and there is no credible evidence whatsoever that he was the beloved disciple. And as for Mary Magdalene, to identify her as the beloved disciple is to attempt a calumny agaiust Jesus-- to imply that they shared a sexual relationship.

[Koushi Shinigami]

. And as for Mary Magdalene, to identify her as the beloved disciple is to attempt a calumny agaiust Jesus-- to imply that they shared a sexual relationship.

:eh: Really? Then what does saying that the beloved disciple was a man imply?

[NascarGirl2448]

Well said.

Do you have any credible evidence to refute Dr Witherington? If so, I have yet to see it.

[RayMan]

:eh: Really? Then what does saying that the beloved disciple was a man imply?

You so bad Koushi...:))

[CID_0687]

Do you have any credible evidence to refute Dr Witherington? If so, I have yet to see it.
Some folks think seminaries are bad...that they serve no purpose because everyone can pick up the Bible and learn these things for themselves, without the aid of an instructor...I'm not one of these people..I believe both ways are good.

Typically, these same people also think that anytime someone questions the Bible, they're evil for doing so. I don't fall under that category either.

Some folks are silly...now that's a category I can relate too.

[lwdc]

Do you have any credible evidence to refute Dr Witherington? If so, I have yet to see it.Yes. The Bible.

So your real question is, is the Bible credible or not?

[lwdc]

Do you have any credible evidence to refute Dr Witherington? If so, I have yet to see it.I would imagine that you've seen it, although I could be mistaken.

You're just not sure that it's credible.

[lwdc]

No worries, NascarGirl. You have lots of company. Including Dr Witherington.

[NascarGirl2448]

Yes. The Bible.

So your real question is, is the Bible credible or not?

I guess the real question would be, is the Bible something to be taken 100% literally? There are serious problems with that way of thinking, imho.

[NascarGirl2448]

No worries, NascarGirl. You have lots of company. Including Dr Witherington.

Well if that company includes people who have actually studied the Bible and church history, I'm pretty safe, I would imagine.

[GotScripture]

John was the beloved disciple

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.

Contrasting the facts found in the plain text of scripture is the best way to answer some of the questions that naturally follow from the efforts taken by the fourth gospel author (the "other disciple, whom Jesus loved") to remain anonymous. And the biblical evidence actually 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 truth cannot do. (See the free eBook at TheGospelOfJohn.com for a presentation of the Bible evidence on this topic -- just scripture, no hearsay from non-Bible sources).

When the Bible urges the readers of scripture to "prove all things" it certainly was not suggesting that they should look to the hearsay of men as their standard of truth but, rather, in accord with Ps. 118:8 they should look to scripture and trust the authority of God's word -- and not the traditions of men which may be added to that word. And the truth is that there is not a single verse that would justify teaching the idea that John was the unnamed "other disciple, whom Jesus loved" and yet people continue to make unbiblical claims and use non-Bible hearsay and circular logic to sell idea that the unbiblical man-made John tradition can be made to fit with scripture.

This is why repetition of hearsay from non-Bible sources must be used to sell the John tradition. One can pick and choose their favorite non-Bible source to cite as a reason why they believe the idea that the unnamed "other disciple whom Jesus loved" was John. But what no one has ever done is cite a single verse that would justify teaching that this person was John -- not those who originated this unbiblical teaching and not those who repeat their error to this day.

Got scripture?

PS - You make another false assumption. In order to protect your false tradition, you add requirements other than those that are demanded by the words that were recorded by God's inspired writer. But adding to scripture is never a good idea and, of course, this does not serve the cause of truth (all this does is serve to avoid having to subject the John tradition to biblical scrutiny.) Where you do this is when you act as if the Bible requires the "other disciple whom Jesus loved" to be one of the twelve, even though the facts in scripture prove that he could not have been ANY of "the twelve" -- which, by the way explains why he called himself the "other" disciple, because he was "other" than "the twelve".

And for those who may not be aware of it, prior to Pentecost, ONLY the twelve were named "apostles", while the term "disciple" was also used of the additional men who also followed Jesus [like, for example, those who accompanied Jesus ALONG WITH "the twelve" throughout Jesus' earthly ministry - from the time that John the Baptist baptized Jesus unto the day that Jesus was taken up into heaven.]

[beaker]

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.

Contrasting the facts found in the plain text of scripture is the best way to answer some of the questions that naturally follow from the efforts taken by the fourth gospel author (the "other disciple, whom Jesus loved") to remain anonymous. And the biblical evidence actually 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 truth cannot do. (See the free eBook at TheGospelOfJohn.com for a presentation of the Bible evidence on this topic -- just scripture, no hearsay from non-Bible sources).

When the Bible urges the readers of scripture to "prove all things" it certainly was not suggesting that they should look to the hearsay of men as their standard of truth but, rather, in accord with Ps. 118:8 they should look to scripture and trust the authority of God's word -- and not the traditions of men which may be added to that word. And the truth is that there is not a single verse that would justify teaching the idea that John was the unnamed "other disciple, whom Jesus loved" and yet people continue to make unbiblical claims and use non-Bible hearsay and circular logic to sell idea that the unbiblical man-made John tradition can be made to fit with scripture.

This is why repetition of hearsay from non-Bible sources must be used to sell the John tradition. One can pick and choose their favorite non-Bible source to cite as a reason why they believe the idea that the unnamed "other disciple whom Jesus loved" was John. But what no one has ever done is cite a single verse that would justify teaching that this person was John -- not those who originated this unbiblical teaching and not those who repeat their error to this day.

Got scripture?

PS - You make another false assumption. In order to protect your false tradition, you add requirements other than those that are demanded by the words that were recorded by God's inspired writer. But adding to scripture is never a good idea and, of course, this does not serve the cause of truth (all this does is serve to avoid having to subject the John tradition to biblical scrutiny.) Where you do this is when you act as if the Bible requires the "other disciple whom Jesus loved" to be one of the twelve, even though the facts in scripture prove that he could not have been ANY of "the twelve" -- which, by the way explains why he called himself the "other" disciple, because he was "other" than "the twelve".

And for those who may not be aware of it, prior to Pentecost, ONLY the twelve were named "apostles", while the term "disciple" was also used of the additional men who also followed Jesus [like, for example, those who accompanied Jesus ALONG WITH "the twelve" throughout Jesus' earthly ministry - from the time that John the Baptist baptized Jesus unto the day that Jesus was taken up into heaven.]


OK, since you seem to have this figured out, who wrote the gospel of John?

and..

Who was the disciple whom Jesus loved?

[Reeder]

Um, GotScripture, you may want to take a look at the Rules of Respect for this sub forum found here:

http://forums.hannity.com/showthread.php?t=68516

[RayMan]

Um, GotScripture, you may want to take a look at the Rules of Respect for this sub forum found here:

http://forums.hannity.com/showthread.php?t=68516

Oh yeah. Next you will be saying that this is a RELIGIOUS Forum rather than a Christian Forum, that all religions are to be treated with civility and respect and that calling anyone's beliefs "false" is verboten.


Oh wait, those are the rules around here, aren't they?


Ray, you silly Pentecostal. :angel:

[RayMan]

OK, since you seem to have this figured out, who wrote the gospel of John?

and..

Who was the disciple whom Jesus loved?

That would be Bob, right?

[Reeder]

Oh yeah. Next you will be saying that this is a RELIGIOUS Forum rather than a Christian Forum, that all religions are to be treated with civility and respect and that calling anyone's beliefs "false" is verboten.


Oh wait, those are the rules around here, aren't they?


Ray, you silly Pentecostal. :angel:

Wait......Pentecostals are allowed to speak on here?

[RayMan]

Wait......Pentecostals are allowed to speak on here?

As long as there is an interpreter, yeah.

[Reeder]

As long as there is an interpreter, yeah.

Ah, thats why both you and CID are on so often. Makes sense now.

[RayMan]

Ah, thats why both you and CID are on so often. Makes sense now.


http://images.fanpop.com/images/image_uploads/Abbott---Costello-abbott--26-costello-280712_253_313.jpg

I'm the tall one on the right.

[Reeder]

http://images.fanpop.com/images/image_uploads/Abbott---Costello-abbott--26-costello-280712_253_313.jpg

I'm the tall one on the right.


:))

[lwdc]

I guess the real question would be, is the Bible something to be taken 100% literally? There are serious problems with that way of thinking, imho.There are serious problems with thinking that 100% literal thinking is required to believe one person wrote a book instead of another person. Attribution of book authorship has nothing to do with literal thinking.

[lwdc]

Well if that company includes people who have actually studied the Bible and church history, I'm pretty safe, I would imagine.No, not really, because your position would put you at odds with the company of those who WROTE the Bible and who ARE church history.

[lwdc]

If Dr Witherington wants to do battle with prophets and saints, I bid him good luck.

[Semi-Sweet]

John wrote of Jesus "having loved his own who were in the world, he loved them to the end" or. . .to the uttermost. John 13:1

In view of all this, how could John be so shameless as to claim to be Jesus' favorite without his displaying egotism?

John could think of Jesus as giving himself for him in a very personal way. In humble praise of him who loved such an unworthy person, John could exalt Jesus by declaring, "I am the disciple whom Jesus loved!"

There was nothing exclusive about such a claim.

When I reflect on how he loved me individually, I also can say. . ."I am that disciple whom Jesus loved". . . .so can you.

[gpd®]

John wrote of Jesus "having loved his own who were in the world, he loved them to the end" or. . .to the uttermost. John 13:1

In view of all this, how could John be so shameless as to claim to be Jesus' favorite without his displaying egotism?

John could think of Jesus as giving himself for him in a very personal way. In humble praise of him who loved such an unworthy person, John could exalt Jesus by declaring, "I am the disciple whom Jesus loved!"

There was nothing exclusive about such a claim.

When I reflect on how he loved me individually, I also can say. . ."I am that disciple whom Jesus loved". . . .so can you.

This is why John has and will always be my favorite writer.

[Semi-Sweet]

This is why John has and will always be my favorite writer.

He's my favorite as well.

[GotScripture]

OK, since you seem to have this figured out...

You have made a false inference, an error in basic logic.

If there is a man in jail who has been convicted of a crime and we later uncover videotape or DNA evidence that prove we’ve identified the wrong man, then we let him go. We don’t keep him in jail until we find out who did do it. Likewise, 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 -- regardless of whether or not we can establish the true identify of the unnamed author of the fourth gospel.

The idea that the beloved disciple was John does not come from the word of God (i.e. the actual content produced by God's inspired authors) it has been added to it. There is not a single verse that would justify teaching that the “other disciple, whom Jesus loved” was John, which is why those who promote this man-made tradition ultimately end up pointing to some non-Bible source(s) in their attempts to defend this unbiblical tradition.

In fact this tradition is the result of relying on non-Bible sources (the selected statements of this-or-that person) and presuming that those non-Bible sources do not need scripture to justify the statements that they made. No one offers any biblical evidence that would justify teaching the John idea and yet many will say that this idea cannot be wrong simply because it has been around for a long time – clearly faulty logic.

Likewise, in my previous post (http://forums.hannity.com/showpost.php?p=61603521&postcount=56), all I said was that the facts recorded in the plain text of scripture can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that WHOEVER the unnamed "other disciple, whom Jesus loved" was, he could not have been John. As shown by example in the first paragraph of this post, this is not the same as saying that one can prove beyond a reasonable doubt who this unnamed gospel author was. So your premise is based on a false inference.

Also, those who think about this issue should consider this: if we have the complete word of God, then no one has ever had more of the word of God than we have. Not in the second or third century 'early church', not ever. Therefore what is true today was also true then, which is why no one has ever offered biblical evidence to prove that the beloved disciple was John. This tradition is simply repeated without biblical justification while Bible's evidence to the contrary is ignored.

The label The Gospel of John was added to scripture and since the content of the Bible – the words of the God inspired authors thereof – can show the John idea is not true, then those who believe in the inspired word of God certainly have a compelling reason to cease promoting the false idea that that the one whom “Jesus loved” was John.

While it will surely mean having to endure scornful looks from those who won’t be swayed by the Biblical evidence on this question, rejecting the unbiblical man-made John tradition befits the admonition, “Prove all things; hold fast that which is good.” (1 Th. 5:21)

Inspired scripture is what we are to rely on – not the things that men may add to it

...who wrote the gospel of John? and.. Who was the disciple whom Jesus loved?

If you read the last chapter of the fourth gospel you will see that the author WAS the disciple whom Jesus loved - they are one in the same person (though your questions seem to want to suggest otherwise)

[CID_0687]

http://images.fanpop.com/images/image_uploads/Abbott---Costello-abbott--26-costello-280712_253_313.jpg

I'm the tall one on the right.
Hey Abbott!!

[Semi-Sweet]

You have made a false inference, an error in basic logic.

If there is a man in jail who has been convicted of a crime and we later uncover videotape or DNA evidence that prove we’ve identified the wrong man, then we let him go. We don’t keep him in jail until we find out who did do it. Likewise, 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 -- regardless of whether or not we can establish the true identify of the unnamed author of the fourth gospel.

The idea that the beloved disciple was John does not come from the word of God (i.e. the actual content produced by God's inspired authors) it has been added to it. There is not a single verse that would justify teaching that the “other disciple, whom Jesus loved” was John, which is why those who promote this man-made tradition ultimately end up pointing to some non-Bible source(s) in their attempts to defend this unbiblical tradition.

In fact this tradition is the result of relying on non-Bible sources (the selected statements of this-or-that person) and presuming that those non-Bible sources do not need scripture to justify the statements that they made. No one offers any biblical evidence that would justify teaching the John idea and yet many will say that this idea cannot be wrong simply because it has been around for a long time – clearly faulty logic.

Likewise, in my previous post (http://forums.hannity.com/showpost.php?p=61603521&postcount=56), all I said was that the facts recorded in the plain text of scripture can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that WHOEVER the unnamed "other disciple, whom Jesus loved" was, he could not have been John. As shown by example in the first paragraph of this post, this is not the same as saying that one can prove beyond a reasonable doubt who this unnamed gospel author was. So your premise is based on a false inference.

Also, those who think about this issue should consider this: if we have the complete word of God, then no one has ever had more of the word of God than we have. Not in the second or third century 'early church', not ever. Therefore what is true today was also true then, which is why no one has ever offered biblical evidence to prove that the beloved disciple was John. This tradition is simply repeated without biblical justification while Bible's evidence to the contrary is ignored.

The label The Gospel of John was added to scripture and since the content of the Bible – the words of the God inspired authors thereof – can show the John idea is not true, then those who believe in the inspired word of God certainly have a compelling reason to cease promoting the false idea that that the one whom “Jesus loved” was John.

While it will surely mean having to endure scornful looks from those who won’t be swayed by the Biblical evidence on this question, rejecting the unbiblical man-made John tradition befits the admonition, “Prove all things; hold fast that which is good.” (1 Th. 5:21)

Inspired scripture is what we are to rely on – not the things that men may add to it



If you read the last chapter of the fourth gospel you will see that the author WAS the disciple whom Jesus loved - they are one in the same person (though your questions seem to want to suggest otherwise)

M-E-H meh

[lwdc]

the facts recorded in the plain text of scripture can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that WHOEVER the unnamed "other disciple, whom Jesus loved" was, he could not have been John.Where?

I actually agree with the other things you said in your posts. So, any circumlocution on your part will be ignored as you set forth your proof from the plain text of scripture. (Your other points are well taken.)

[lwdc]

GotScripture, I look forward to your reading your proof beyond reasonable doubt from plain text of scripture that the "other disciple, whom Jesus loved" could not have been John.

[GotScripture]

the facts recorded in the plain text of scripture can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that WHOEVER the unnamed "other disciple, whom Jesus loved" was, he could not have been John.
Where? I actually agree with the other things you said in your posts. So, any circumlocution on your part will be ignored as you set forth your proof from the plain text of scripture... I look forward to your reading your proof beyond reasonable doubt from plain text of scripture that the "other disciple, whom Jesus loved" could not have been John.

And I look forward to hearing your verdict after you do read what the scripture says on this matter.

However, regarding the "where" question, I already provided the link to the info that you claim that you want. But first let me say that those that survive on a diet of fast food drive through answers to their Bible questions (or even demand such, see post 57), reap what they sow. Those currently addicted to thinking that reading God's word can be replaced by simply swallowing the seminary hand-me-downs that are routinely repackaged (usually with new stories and laugh lines) and passed on from the clergy to the laity, should reconsider whether or not the Bible itself would support or discourage that approach to the study of scripture. Acts 17:11, Ps. 118:8, 1 Thess. 5:21, and numerous other passages would suggest that relying on others to do the thinking for us is not a good Bible study method, nor a reliable means for seeking the truth.

Since my first post already supplied the link (thegospelofJohn.com (http://thegospelofjohn.com)) that presents all of this evidence in a free eBook, those who are unwilling to read the evidence for themselves may want to pretend that they can avoid having to discard the John tradition, unless that evidence is copied and pasted here. But two things are true: (A) a quotation of scripture does not change whether it is posted on that site or this one and (B) those who are unwilling to read the evidence when it is posted on a different site can hardly act as if they think it would be proper to cut and paste the work of that eBook over onto this thread.

The evidence is there. The evidence is from the Bible only - nothing but the facts found in the plain text of scripture is cited. The presentation of the evidence is free. The verdict is left up to the readers. But as with any jury (the OJ jury comes to mind), some individuals are willing to set aside their biases and follow where the truth leads, and some are not. Nevertheless, the Bible says what it says, and what it says regarding "the disciple whom Jesus loved" and what it says regarding John has not changed. And if scripture presents mutually exclusive facts about these two, then those who adhere to the authority of God's word will recognize that these two must be two different people -- as opposed to the tradition that claims these are just two different ways of referring to the same person (like Clark Kent and Superman).

Of course, lwdc, if you find that either (A) a verse (or verses) of scripture that was material to the case was overlooked - or - (B) a verse (or verses) of scripture was misconstrued in the presentation, then I would invite you to point that out. But, again, even if one thought that it was ethical to repost that presentation over here, surely there is a character limit on this forum that would prevent one from doing so. Therefore, I hope that you will take the time to evaluate the presentation of Bible evidence that is offered in the study posted there and I trust that you will give the evidence a fair hearing.

"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)

PS - Just like there are some jurors who make up there mind before they ever hear one word of the evidence presented, there are some people who treat biblical evidence with the same disrespect. Rather than examine what scripture has to say, their approach is to protect the John tradition. So, on this issue they assume that "read" means to skim over a few pages of the presentation and from that they assume that they can engage in an informed discussion of the facts. But that, of course, would be like a member of a jury assuming that he could skip the trial and the presentation of evidence that happens at the trial and issue his verdict simply based on just showing up for the jury summation.

Those who want the truth will do the work. If AFTER HEARING the Bible evidence on this topic you conclude that scripture does NOT prove beyond a reasonable doubt that John could not have been the anonymous author of the fourth gospel (the "other disciple, whom Jesus loved"), then I expect you will report back here as to why you did not find the Bible verses that were quoted on this matter to be sufficient to prove this point.

[lwdc]

<snip>Since you missed it the first time, I said:any circumlocution on your part will be ignored as you set forth your proof from the plain text of scripture.

Now, where is your proof from scripture?

[GotScripture]

Your words from post 75 & 76:Where?... any circumlocution on your part will be ignored as you set forth your proof from the plain text of scripture... I look forward to your reading your proofYour words from post 78: any circumlocution on your part will be ignored as you set forth your proof from the plain text of scripture. Now, where is your proof from scripture?

You are comfortable throwing around 75cent words, so we can all see that you are an educated person. And you obviously can read. But then one has to wonder why you would say one thing and subsequently then do something that indicates that you words were not sincere. You said, "I look forward to your reading your proof beyond reasonable doubt from plain text of scripture that the "other disciple, whom Jesus loved" could not have been John". But then, revealingly, you avoid simply making one click and "reading" the evidence (http://thegospelofjohn.com) that you SAID that you "looked forward to reading". Why?

When you asked, "Where?", I told you where (http://thegospelofjohn.com) -- but to make it easier, *click here* (http://thegospelofjohn.com) and you don't even have to scroll back to post 77 and click the link there.

If you really were interested in "reading" the evidence (http://thegospelofjohn.com) that you claimed that to want to read, then why wouldn't you just read it and say why you were convinced or not convinced by that evidence? Instead of "reading" the evidence that you SAID you want to read (http://thegospelofjohn.com), you DON'T do so -- so what does this indicate? Does it indicate a love of the truth?

As always, those who teach ideas AS IF THEY ARE BIBLICAL when they cannot cite a single verse that would justify teaching that idea have to change the subject -- because the light of scripture proves that the emperor has no clothes. If, lwdc or anyone else could cite a single verse of scripture that justifies teaching the John idea they would, of course, do so. Moreover, if lwdc or anyone else was confident that they could refute the biblical evidence that proves that John could not be the unnamed "other disciple, whom Jesus loved", then instead of refusing to "read" the evidence (or finding excuses to do so), they would simply "read" the evidence and then present a logical case as to why the biblical evidence that was cited was not sufficient to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that "the disciple whom Jesus loved" was not John.

Don't say you want to "read" and then act as if a mouse click is a hurdle that you refuse to cross. You can "read" or you can dance -- but don't pretend that you want to "read" when what we see is that you spend your time NOT "reading", but rather you waste time finding silly excuses NOT to read. If you will respond with a critique of any of the points of the evidence (http://thegospelofjohn.com) that are cited in the study, then I'll be happy to engage in a dialogue with you about the MERITS OF THE EVIDENCE. But if you want to play dodge-ball, so that you don't have to talk about what the evidence says, then you will have to look elsewhere.

Scripture tells us "But let your communication be, Yea, yea; Nay, nay: for whatsoever is more than these cometh of evil" (Mt. 5:37). So if you are willing to do what you said, then click and start "reading" -- and, when you are done, then you can explain why the Bible's report of mutually exclusive facts about John and "the disciple whom Jesus loved" (along with all of the other Bible evidence that argues against the John idea) is not sufficient to meet the "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard for evidence. But, if you won't even read after you have said that you "look forward to reading", then don't expect me to reply to your time wasting word games in the future. Got scripture?

Where?... I look forward to your reading your proof beyond reasonable doubt from plain text of scripture that the "other disciple, whom Jesus loved" could not have been John.
Either you meant it when you said this or you didn't.

Again, you asked, "Where?" and I told you where (http://thegospelofjohn.com).

You said that you looked forward to reading the evidence (http://thegospelofjohn.com). But, then instead of reading the evidence, you repeat your "where" question.

Humm! Should one conclude that you are refusing to read the biblical evidence (http://thegospelofjohn.com) (that you said that you looked "forward" to reading) that proves that John could not have been "the disciple whom Jesus loved" unless it is cut an pasted onto this thread? In what way would the cause of truth be served by refusing to simply read the evidence if it is posted on another site while saying/implying that you want to give a fair hearing to that same evidence (but only if that text was posted on this thread)?

PS - Feel free to avoid "reading" if saying circumlocution again makes you feel justified in continuing to believe the John idea (even though you cannot cite a single verse that would justify doing so).

[RayMan]

One click? Yeah right. Your link took me to ad for an e-book, I had to search around the site making numerous clicks until I found a link to get to the actual text of the book as a Word file, download the Word file and then scroll down to page 32 of the book to find the following:


Hidden In Plain Sight


In fact there is actually so much evidence that points to the identity of this author that one begins to wonder how this could have been overlooked. To start with, think about the term “the disciple whom Jesus loved”. More than just the author’s ‘handle’, this is proof of Jesus’ relationship with the author.

Does the Bible explicitly name anyone who was “loved” by Jesus? Yes. The Bible names one, and only one, candidate who had this relationship! Two verses confirm that this individual was “loved” by Jesus. In John 11:3, Jesus receives a plea for help from his friends Mary and Martha of Bethany, “Lord, behold, he whom thou lovest is sick” and John 11:5 simply says, “Jesus loved Martha, and her sister, and Lazarus“.

Lazarus is the only man named in the Biblethat is also identified as being “loved” by Jesus(for the period prior to Jesus’ resurrection). Twice it is stated that Jesus “loved” Lazarus – three times if we count the opinion of the Jews from John 11:36. Of course, this fact alone can’t prove that Lazarus was “the disciple whom Jesus loved”. However, this is certainly a lead that is worth investigating! [And as we do so you will see how each piece of scriptural evidence points to this person being Lazarus.]




One click. :rolleyes: Give me a break.

Why didn't you post a link directly to the e-book (http://www.thedisciplewhomjesusloved.com/free_printable_Bible_study/PrinterVer.doc)? Sheesh.

[lwdc]

<snip>I'm not disputing that there are arguments, even strong arguments, that St. John is not the author of the eponymous book.

I am disputing your claim that:the plain text of scripture can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that WHOEVER the unnamed "other disciple, whom Jesus loved" was, he could not have been John

I asked you to provide such proof from scripture, not from e-books online.

You have been unable to do so.

[RayMan]

<snip>

I asked you to provide such proof from scripture, not from e-books online.

You have been unable to do so.


But the author of the e-book makes inferences, and assumptions and, and, guesses from things which aren't listed in the Bible...



Why do you have to be so hard to please, lwdc? ;)

[lwdc]

GotScripture, as I said before:I actually agree with the other things you said in your posts.

Your points are well taken. But there is one point of yours with which I do not concur, namely, that it can be proven beyond reasonable doubt from the plain text of scripture that St. John did not author the gospel.

You have yet to show me any scripture plainly stated that supports your claim.

[lwdc]

But the author of the e-book makes inferences, and assumptions and, and, guesses from things which aren't listed in the Bible...



Why do you have to be so hard to please, lwdc? ;):))

[windstar3x3]

The principle is quite simple and insidious, discredit the Bible, any part will do. Then proceed with if the Bible authenticity is in doubt, so is all the rest. Then people will wander far and wide away from salvation, the straight and narrow path.

[RayMan]

The principle is quite simple and insidious, discredit the Bible, any part will do. Then proceed with if the Bible authenticity is in doubt, so is all the rest. Then people will wander far and wide away from salvation, the straight and narrow path.


The strait gate and the narrow way actually.


The phrase "straight and narrow path" doesn't appear in the Bible.


Mat 7:13 Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat:

Mat 7:14 Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it.

BTW - strait means narrow, not straight. I live just off the San Pablo Bay, near the Carquinez Strait and the Mare Island Strait. They are narrow waterways as opposed to the broad waterway which is the bay.



WEYMOUTH translates the Greek better IMO.

Mat 7:13 "Enter by the narrow gate; for wide is the gate and broad the road which leads to ruin, and many there are who enter by it;

Mat 7:14 because narrow is the gate and contracted the road which leads to Life, and few are those who find it.

[lwdc]

The principle is quite simple and insidious, discredit the Bible, any part will do. Then proceed with if the Bible authenticity is in doubt, so is all the rest. Then people will wander far and wide away from salvation, the straight and narrow path.I agree, windstar (even if Rayguy really has that verse down solid).

[beaker]

<snip>

Frankly the condesending attitude I read in your response to me and LWDC, I really don't see that you are here to discuss anything but rather tell everyone how right you are and how wrong we are.

Rayman took a look at it, and from his interpretation of the material you offered, I'll pass.

I will remind you as did Reeder, you may want to take a look at the http://i285.photobucket.com/albums/ll47/beakerboysracing/Rulez.gif of respect in the RF.

[Semi-Sweet]

Edgar J. Goodspeed, from his book Translation to Readers and Introduction To The New Testament are representative of the views of the translators of the Revised Standard Version. Doctor Goodspeed, of the Union Theological Seminary, though not the president of the revision committee of the RSV was its dominating influence, and it is evident that his individual translations were adopted and adapted throughout the RSV.

"The epistles of John were written by an unknown elder. . .tradition calls him John the elder. . .but he was not the apostle. (Introduction, page 316) Furthermore, there is little or no value to 2 John and 3 John, as they have little or no meaning, and without merit for their survival or preservation." (Page 320)

Goodspeed further denies the authorship of the epistles of John, and eliminates John the apostle from the inspired authors of the New Testament epistles. (Page 325)

On these pages, this dominant translator of the Revised Standard Bible, repudiates the inspiration of all the New Testament epistles. He hypothesizes that they were produced by the hand of some collector writing under the pen names of Paul and Peter, James and John, and could prove it by the use of the words 'probably' and 'perhaps'!

I have only mentioned a few of his quotes. He rejects the authorship of all of the New Covenant books. Goodspeed does not credit the Bible with being divine revelation.


:rolleyes:

[Mikko]

First, he is historically inaccurate. The evidence to support the authorship of the gospels is very strong. Also, that is a liberal seminary and doesn't recognize the basic tenets of Christian Doctrine.
1. No, he is not historically accurate.
2. No, the evidence to support the authorship of the gospels is not strong.
3. The vast majority of biblical textual critics concur that the gospels were (with the exception of Luke) written anonymously and later ascribed to Matthew, Mark, and John.

[Mikko]

then why wasnt it called the gospel according to mary?:rolleyes:
There is, in fact a gospel of Mary Magdelene.


the gospels were written by mark/mathew/luke/john..
Wrong. Biblical textual critics agree for the most part that Luke was indeed written by Luke, and they agree that the other three gospels were written anonymously and later attributed to Matthew, Mark, and John.

[Mikko]

*sigh*



"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?"

24This is the disciple who testifies to these things and who wrote them down."

- JOHN 21

It was John, the disciple. He was the only disciple named John. If it wasn't him, then it was a liar.
Or someone who was telling the story. It probably wasn't John, according to most bilical textual critics.

[lwdc]

Or someone who was telling the story. It probably wasn't John, according to most bilical textual critics.Good to see you in this thread Mikkie.

Thanks for weighing in.

[Thank you Troops]

Strictly speaking, the gospels are anonymous, but apparently there are no known competitors for the authorship. According to the uniform testimony of the early church, it wasn't in duspute.

[windstar3x3]

I was well aware that the Bible says strait instead of straight, if i wanted an exact copy of the words, the concordances are easy enough, and i am quite familiar with them. The words strait and narrow are there, and word games degrade the level of the discussion. What was intended was more than clearly written and easily understood.

[CID_0687]

I was well aware that the Bible says strait instead of straight, if i wanted an exact copy of the words, the concordances are easy enough, and i am quite familiar with them. The words strait and narrow are there, and word games degrade the level of the discussion. What was intended was more than clearly written and easily understood.
I don't believe it has anything to do with word games...what Rayman was pointing out is that "the straight and narrow path" is a misquoting of scripture.

If we're gonna quote scripture, we ought to quote it right, and in context, or not at all...but that's just my opinion.

Welcome to the forum by the way. :)

[RayMan]

I was well aware that the Bible says strait instead of straight, if i wanted an exact copy of the words, the concordances are easy enough, and i am quite familiar with them. The words strait and narrow are there, and word games degrade the level of the discussion. What was intended was more than clearly written and easily understood.

If you are going to misquote Scripture, apparently on purpose from what you write above, I will be quoting them properly for the benefit of our visitors who might mistakenly be led to believe that you are actually quoting the Scripture rather than making up a paraphrase which does not reflect the Scripture you are misquoting.

Again - strait does not mean straight.

I hope this is written clearly enough for you to easily understand.

[Voxpopuli]

Dr Ben Witherington, a professor at Asbury Theological Seminary in Wilmore, Kentucky, was the guest pastor at my church yesterday. Anyway he raised a very interesting issue that I had never really thought about before.

Apparently the 4 gospels in the Bible may not have actually been written by the disciples Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. Apparently the Gospels were actually anonymously written, and early church leaders actually guessed by using various writings and other things, who had written which one.

In Chapter 4 of his book What did they really do with Jesus Dr Witherington suggests that Lazarus (the Beloved disciple) had been the one who wrote the Gospel of John.

Anyway I was kinda curious what other people's thoughts were on this and had anyone ever heard this man speak before?

I've always thought it was a commonly held view (scholarly view) that none of the disciples wrote the Gospels. Actually Mark and Luke were not even disciples. I guess it can be suprising to a lot of people (particularly protestants) that there is a strong oral tradition in the early Church.

This is a pretty good subject and I am glad you created a thread on it. For those interested there is site called NTGateway that serves as a great source of biblical scholarship materials on the New Testament. It is run by Mark Goodacre who is a solid NT scholar. He also puts out a lot of podcasts that I would recommend. http://www.ntgateway.com/

[meggers49]

Scholars can & will dispute anything, but there is no serious doubt that the Gospel according to Matthew was written by the Apostle who was called Mathew. Mark was the secretary of St. Peter, so the Gospel according to Mark should probably be called the Gospel of Peter, who was its eyewitness source, rather than Mark, who merely transcribed the tradition he'd been taught. Luke was a disciple of St. Paul, from whom he learned most of what he wrote in the Gospel and in Acts of the Apostles, which is Part 2 to the Gospel according to Luke. And John was the beloved disciple who wrote the last Gospel during his declining years at the city of Ephesus.
Although Lazarus was a friend of Jesus, he was not one of the Twelve and there is no credible evidence whatsoever that he was the beloved disciple. And as for Mary Magdalene, to identify her as the beloved disciple is to attempt a calumny agaiust Jesus-- to imply that they shared a sexual relationship.

welcome to the forum

[meggers49]

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.

Contrasting the facts found in the plain text of scripture is the best way to answer some of the questions that naturally follow from the efforts taken by the fourth gospel author (the "other disciple, whom Jesus loved") to remain anonymous. And the biblical evidence actually 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 truth cannot do. (See the free eBook at TheGospelOfJohn.com for a presentation of the Bible evidence on this topic -- just scripture, no hearsay from non-Bible sources).

When the Bible urges the readers of scripture to "prove all things" it certainly was not suggesting that they should look to the hearsay of men as their standard of truth but, rather, in accord with Ps. 118:8 they should look to scripture and trust the authority of God's word -- and not the traditions of men which may be added to that word. And the truth is that there is not a single verse that would justify teaching the idea that John was the unnamed "other disciple, whom Jesus loved" and yet people continue to make unbiblical claims and use non-Bible hearsay and circular logic to sell idea that the unbiblical man-made John tradition can be made to fit with scripture.

This is why repetition of hearsay from non-Bible sources must be used to sell the John tradition. One can pick and choose their favorite non-Bible source to cite as a reason why they believe the idea that the unnamed "other disciple whom Jesus loved" was John. But what no one has ever done is cite a single verse that would justify teaching that this person was John -- not those who originated this unbiblical teaching and not those who repeat their error to this day.

Got scripture?

PS - You make another false assumption. In order to protect your false tradition, you add requirements other than those that are demanded by the words that were recorded by God's inspired writer. But adding to scripture is never a good idea and, of course, this does not serve the cause of truth (all this does is serve to avoid having to subject the John tradition to biblical scrutiny.) Where you do this is when you act as if the Bible requires the "other disciple whom Jesus loved" to be one of the twelve, even though the facts in scripture prove that he could not have been ANY of "the twelve" -- which, by the way explains why he called himself the "other" disciple, because he was "other" than "the twelve".

And for those who may not be aware of it, prior to Pentecost, ONLY the twelve were named "apostles", while the term "disciple" was also used of the additional men who also followed Jesus [like, for example, those who accompanied Jesus ALONG WITH "the twelve" throughout Jesus' earthly ministry - from the time that John the Baptist baptized Jesus unto the day that Jesus was taken up into heaven.]

welcome to the forum

[GotScripture]

welcome to the forum
Thank you for the greeting.

[Thank you Troops]

I've always thought it was a commonly held view (scholarly view) that none of the disciples wrote the Gospels. Actually Mark and Luke were not even disciples. I guess it can be suprising to a lot of people (particularly protestants) that there is a strong oral tradition in the early Church.

This is a pretty good subject and I am glad you created a thread on it. For those interested there is site called NTGateway that serves as a great source of biblical scholarship materials on the New Testament. It is run by Mark Goodacre who is a solid NT scholar. He also puts out a lot of podcasts that I would recommend. http://www.ntgateway.com/

Thanks for the link.

[Koushi Shinigami]

You so bad Koushi...:))

Ayup. :cool: Dat's me. :dance:

[windstar3x3]

I find strait and narrow or straight and narrow sufficently clear enough to not embark on the wide broad path to destruction. As is inferred by some.
Odd how the straight/straits and narrow confines of morality are insufferable in such times, yet mysterously indecipherable to those same that suffer from it.

Deuteronomy 5:32 (http://forums.hannity.com/passage/?search=Deuteronomy+5:32&version=KJV)

Ye shall observe to do therefore as the LORD your God hath commanded you: ye shall not turn aside to the right hand or to the left.

Deuteronomy 17:20 (http://forums.hannity.com/passage/?search=Deuteronomy+17:20&version=KJV)

That his heart be not lifted up above his brethren, and that he turn not aside from the commandment, to the right hand, or to the left: to the end that he may prolong his days in his kingdom, he, and his children, in the midst of Israel.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Joshua 1:7 (http://forums.hannity.com/passage/?search=Joshua+1:7&version=KJV)

Only be thou strong and very courageous, that thou mayest observe to do according to all the law, which Moses my servant commanded thee: turn not from it to the right hand or to the left, that thou mayest prosper withersoever thou goest.

2 Kings 22:2 (http://forums.hannity.com/passage/?search=2 Kings+22:2&version=KJV)

And he did that which was right in the sight of the LORD, and walked in all the way of David his father, and turned not aside to the right hand or to the left.

Proverbs 4:27 (http://forums.hannity.com/passage/?search=Proverbs+4:27&version=KJV)

Turn not to the right hand nor to the left: remove thy foot from evil

windstar3x3:
Remove your foot from wicked intent.

[ObjectiveObserver1]

Dr Ben Witherington, a professor at Asbury Theological Seminary in Wilmore, Kentucky, was the guest pastor at my church yesterday. Anyway he raised a very interesting issue that I had never really thought about before.

Apparently the 4 gospels in the Bible may not have actually been written by the disciples Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. Apparently the Gospels were actually anonymously written, and early church leaders actually guessed by using various writings and other things, who had written which one.

In Chapter 4 of his book What did they really do with Jesus Dr Witherington suggests that Lazarus (the Beloved disciple) had been the one who wrote the Gospel of John.

Anyway I was kinda curious what other people's thoughts were on this and had anyone ever heard this man speak before?

Indeed, Matthew, Mark, Luke and John were not the only four writers of the gospels. They were written by secondhand sources (historians believe the "synoptic" gospels as they are called, all drew on a single source). The teachings are likely from the apostles themselves- but they were not alive at the time the gospels were written. John's gospel, for example, is said to have been completed near 100 A.D. , and the other gospels around 60 -80 A.D.

A distinction should be drawn between the apostles and the actual writers of the gospels.

I'm not an expert on the bible- but if the Lazurus you are refering to is the one that the Bible describes Jesus bringing back from the dead- then I'd have to tell you no, that Lazurus did was not a gospel writer- he would have been dead even after an abnormally long life by the time the gospels were written. This claim is especially far-fetched considering John's gospel was the last one written in terms of chronology .

[RayMan]

Indeed, Matthew, Mark, Luke and John were not the only four writers of the gospels. They were written by secondhand sources (historians believe the "synoptic" gospels as they are called, all drew on a single source). The teachings are likely from the apostles themselves- but they were not alive at the time the gospels were written. John's gospel, for example, is said to have been completed near 100 A.D. , and the other gospels around 60 -80 A.D.

A distinction should be drawn between the apostles and the actual writers of the gospels.

I'm not an expert on the bible- but if the Lazurus you are refering to is the one that the Bible describes Jesus bringing back from the dead- then I'd have to tell you no, that Lazurus did was not a gospel writer- he would have been dead even after an abnormally long life by the time the gospels were written. This claim is especially far-fetched considering John's gospel was the last one written in terms of chronology .


An excellent point IMO.

[windstar3x3]

It shouldn't go unnoticed that the gospels have been discredited abundantly, except archeologist have a habit of unearthing evidence that proves the gospels amazingly accurate !

[GotScripture]

Lazurus... would have been dead even after an abnormally long life by the time the gospels were written.
Since there is not a single verse of scripture that would justify this silly claim, it can be put in the same catagory as the unbiblical tradition that claims (without a single verse of scripture that would justify doing so) that John was the "other disciple, whom Jesus loved" who was the anonymous author of the fourth gospel.

NEVER in scripture are we told anything about the age of Lazarus, when he died, or how long he lived after Jesus raised him from the dead. So your claim to know when he would have died is utterly baseless. While you seem to think that the Apostle John had to outlive every human being who was alive at the time of Jesus' earthly ministry, that idea would also be completely without merit.

Got scripture? No, you don't.