pandaflower
Well-Known Member
You mock scripture with childish jokes, ridiculous images and memes and expect to be taken seriously?
Archaeological proof of Christ's AD 70 bodily return
- Thread starter 3 Resurrections
- Start date
-
Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.
You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Anyone know why its disputed that the John that referred to himself as the one Jesus loved (who took into his house Mary, the mother of Jesus) who Jesus would now call John's mother, is not somehow the same John here?
John 19:25 Now there stood by the cross of Jesus his mother, and his mother's sister, Mary the wife of Cleophas, and Mary Magdalene.
John 19:26 When Jesus therefore saw his mother, and the disciple standing by, whom he loved, he saith unto his mother, Woman, behold thy son!
John 19:27 Then saith he to the disciple, Behold thy mother! And from that hour that disciple took her unto his own home.
Acts 12:12 And when he had considered the thing, he came to the house of Mary the mother of John, whose surname was Mark; where many were gathered together praying.
Not that it really really matters just curious
Nameaboveallnames
Active Member
Work on your own problems, of which you have many.
Far from "mocking scripture," I ridiculed somebody whose posts are ridiculous.
It wasn't John the Apostle, son of Zebedee that was being spoken of in these texts. It was "the disciple whom Jesus loved", who Scripture distinguishes as being a different man than John the son of Zebedee.
The only reason why this John 21:24 verse can claim so confidently that "we KNOW that his testimony is true" is that the record of this gospel was produced by a glorified, resurrected person who was incapable of giving a false account by any means whatever. No resurrected person can be mistaken, or tell a lie, or be led astray by any means. They are in a perfected state of righteousness, and can be trusted completely as to their testimony. The same comment is also given in 3 John 12. "Yea, and we also bear record; and ye know that our record is true." Hands down, no doubt whatsoever, "the disciple whom Jesus loved" / aka the beloved Lazarus / aka John Eleazar could be trusted implicitly to tell the truth.
There was a deliberate reason back then for creating such confused opinion as to the identity of "the disciple whom Jesus loved". This was done in order to confound and thwart the Pharisees who were "out to get" Lazarus and ANYBODY ASSOCIATING WITH HIM (like Mary the mother of Christ would have been, who was going to be put in the care of this disciple by Christ). The Pharisees regarded that "disciple whom Jesus loved" as a traitor. This man was "known unto the high priest" (John 18:15). Because Lazarus was raised from the dead and was a fervent devoted follower of the despised Christ, he earned the Pharisees' intense hatred. Unfortunately, this confusion has extended into our present day, with people still in doubt as to this "beloved disciple's" identity.
With the "beloved disciple" knowing that he had a target painted on his back by the Jewish religious leaders, he intentionally adopted several aliases so that mother Mary who had been put in his keeping would not likewise be targeted by their hatred for Christ. This is why we have such vague language which doesn't specifically identify the author of the fourth gospel by name, or the three epistles either.
It couldn't have been John the son of Zebedee who took mother Mary into his own home that hour of the crucifixion, because John son of Zebedee's home was in far-off Galilee. The beloved Lazarus's home was in Bethany, only a short walk away from the crucifixion site; a home which was readily available for Mary to move into immediately from that crucifixion hour onward.
To be fair I can understand where you are coming from in trying to reason with these thing because this was something I was infatuated with something like 30 years ago, so I was going through everything with a fine tooth comb and along the lines of some of the things you bring up, so I am no stranger to all of it. But I ended up getting nowhere with it and never picked it up again because it would mean very little.
I do see one John (meaning, John the baptist) as mentioned in every gospel (Matthew, Mark, Luke and John) and by that I mean, mentioned by his name (John) in all four gospels. But I only see John (the brother of James) mentioned by name in three of the gospels, Matthew, Mark, and Luke. The only book silent on the disciple John's name is the gospel of John.
Trust me I do understand you turning over every pebble trying to recconcile these things as you are, I can be the same way, but if it leaves too much to speculation and will bascially go nowhere in the end of the matter I make myself let go of it. But thats just me.
In your opinion. Okay, fair enough.
No, after it is finished. God's millennium is the time period in which this "first resurrection" takes place. It is a one-time event for individuals, certainly, but takes place progressively over the course of the God's millennium.
You're conflating about two or three related but very different things, here, 3R.
First in the sense of being the One of preeminence, the One who makes it all possible, not first simply in number. Psalm 89 speaks of David being the firstborn in this context: "I have found David, my servant; with my holy oil I have anointed him... He shall cry to me, ‘You are my Father, my God, and the Rock of my salvation.’ And I will make him the firstborn, the highest of the kings of the earth." David, as you must know, was the youngest of all his brothers, so the "firstborn" cannot mean woodenly "born before any others," because in that sense he was born after all the others.
<chuckles> See above.
Good...
Not what I said or insinuated. His act on the cross made possible the first resurrection for all God's elect. Again, the first resurrection of Revelation 20 is what Paul speaks of in Ephesians 2:5-6... "even when we were dead in our trespasses, made us alive together with Christ ~ by grace you have been saved ~ and raised us up with him and seated us with him in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus..." So each in his own time, and this is how each one of us comes to share in the first resurrection.
Well, yes, but because he was being shown all these things as if expired, finished, fulfilled. But this does not mean they were at that time expired, finished, fulfilled.
Well good, but Christ's ministry is not ended. Christ's ministry is now in the Person of the Holy Spirit, and in that way He is even now "plundering Satan's goods."
It has not ended. The conclusion of it will be the impetus for Christ's return. And the second ~ physical ~ resurrection, and as I said, His final defeat of Satan, then the final judgment, and finally the ushering in of the New Heaven and New Earth.
He can still exert some influence, but he is absolutely restricted from deceiving the nations, which he was allowed to do before Christ came, by God, because it suited His purposes to do so.
That is still to come. But may be very close, even by our standards.
Time is not the same to God as it is to us. Our time is a part of God's Creation, which He is above. God is present over all our time at once; He is the great I AM. He is always present in what we might call "the eternal now." This is what Peter is saying when he writes, "do not overlook this one fact, beloved, that with the Lord one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day. The Lord is not slow to fulfill his promise as some count slowness..." (2 Peter 3:8-9).
Ugh. <smile>
Grace and peace to you, 3R.
David in NJ
Well-Known Member
God gave a specific and verifiable time of a literal 1,000 years that only begins with the specific Time of His Second Coming.
Yes, I agree but only to this point of what you said.
I wholeheartedly disagree that the thousand years is to be understood in the sense that you understand it. As I have said many times, the thousand years is to be understood in the same context as the cattle on a thousand hills in Psalm 50:10, among other things. And also that the thousand year period of Revelation 20 (which is not a literal thousand of our 365-day periods) coming to a close is what prompts Christ's return... or, with regard to what Jesus says in Matthew 12, when Jesus is finished plundering Satan's "house"... when that is completed. Yes, I'm well aware that you disagree, and that's fair enough.
Grace and peace to you, David.
Last edited:
What we do have in the fourth gospel is the one-and-only description in all the gospels of the account of Christ resurrecting Lazarus: namely, "He whom thou lovest" (John 11:3). We then read about the feast given in Lazarus's home in Bethany in John 12:1. "There they made him a supper; and Martha served: but Lazarus was one of them that sat at the table with him." Here is Lazarus seated in close proximity to Christ at a supper table given in His honor, with the upcoming Passover being "nigh at hand" at that point.
From this chapter 12:1 point in this fourth gospel, the man known as Lazarus completely disappears from the narrative. However, just as Lazarus disappears from the script, we suddenly have the appearance in chapter 13:23 of "the disciple whom Jesus loved" in close proximity to Christ at the Last Supper, this time leaning on His breast. This moniker of "the disciple whom Jesus loved", which was specifically applied to this one man Lazarus, is carried over into the rest of the fourth gospel. It is hardly a stretch to say that all these references still applied to Lazarus as "the disciple whom Jesus loved."
This is not inconsequential information, because Christ announced that this beloved disciple would "tarry" until He came (John 21:22).
To your above references, concerning the disciple Jesus loved (as being Lazarus) if we would read that into the following verse (and look at it through that lense) it says
John 21:23 Then went this saying abroad among the brethren, that that disciple should not die: yet Jesus said not unto him, He shall not die; but, If I will that he tarry till I come, what is that to thee?
Why would the book of John correct the record (so to speak) on that particular saying if it were Lazarus, see what I mean? Or am asking?
Yes, I have heard this very same point being raised before concerning Christ's question in John 21:23. The writer of the fourth gospel, (the disciple whom Jesus loved), was trying to draw attention to the main point Christ was making, which was not really about his own resurrected status at that point. To paraphrase this beloved disciple, the intent of his statement in this verse could be understood, "To be precise, at that time, Christ didn't mention anything one way or another regarding my not dying in the future. The only point He was addressing was the fact that I am going to remain on earth until He comes." Christ didn't have to say anything about John not dying (twice), because He had already addressed that issue earlier in Luke 20:35-36. Those who were counted worthy to experience a bodily resurrection from the dead "neither marry, nor are given in marriage: Neither CAN they die any more: for they are equal unto the angels; and are the children of God, being the children of the resurrection."
This beloved disciple in John 21:22 couldn't possibly die any more, so it was a moot point for the disciples to even bring up that debate in John 21:23.
Outside of a parable in Luke, the name of Lazarus is only mentioned in the gospel of John (while the name of the disciple of John) is nowhere to be found (only the words, "the disciple whom he loves". And so if Lazarus wrote the gospel of John and excluded ever mentioning one of the chosen twleve disciples (such as John was) then how true can his word be neglecting to mention one of the twelve disciples of Jesus Christ, see what I mean?
Shows Jesus In Bethany here in Matthew
Matt 26:6 Now when Jesus was in Bethany, in the house of Simon the leper,
It picks up here in Matthew
Matt 26:17 Now the first day of the feast of unleavened bread the disciples came to Jesus, saying unto him, Where wilt thou that we prepare for thee to eat the passover?
Matt 26:18 And he said, Go into the city to such a man, and say unto him, The Master saith, My time is at hand; I will keep the passover at thy house with my disciples.
Matt 26:19 And the disciples did as Jesus had appointed them; and they made ready the passover.
Matt 26:20 Now when the even was come, he sat down with the twelve. (Matt 10:2-3)
Matt 26:21 And as they did eat, he said, Verily I say unto you, that one of you shall betray me.
In John it gives the number of days out in Bethany before the passover here
John 12:1 Then Jesus six days before the passover came to Bethany, where Lazarus was which had been dead, whom he raised from the dead.
They are hardened, they won't hear the truth about the second coming, even with the many scriptural proofs.
I suppose that wasn't so much that the author of the fourth gospel was being dismissive or neglectful in not mentioning John the Apostle as being the son of Zebedee. That was probably more of a protective measure to keep his references to the Apostle John rather vague, seeing that the Jewish leadership was out for blood during those days of the early church. After all, Christ had said that both sons of Zebedee were going to be martyred by their "drinking the same cup" that He Himself would drink. Nobody knew better than the author of the fourth gospel, (who was 'known unto the high priest") just how vindictive they could be. This disciple whom Jesus loved knew much about the Sanhedrin's plots to have Jesus killed and to persecute anyone who was His Apostle. It's almost like the beloved disciple was a "fly on the wall" and could hear their conversation and plans to kill Christ while in their council sessions.
David in NJ
Well-Known Member
God established a literal 1,000 years in Genesis.
Therefore it only causes confusion when we argue against that which God has determined.
SHALOM
Preterists are absolutely convinced that "the coming of the Lord has drawn near" in the time that James 5 was written. "Behold, the judge standeth before the door" was a clear indication that the Lord's hand was "on the doorknob", as it were, before He bodily returned in those days when James was writing.
Similar threads
