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 ....

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