25 Reasons that the Gospel of John was Actually Written by Lazarus, the Disciple Jesus Loves

[Isaachaeus]

How funny that tradition's last gasp is upon us which clings to Johannes authorship when John was never away from James and John constantly names himself in the epistles and Revelation?

Time to do some math. This won't be pulling teeth and forcing square apostles into round other disciples:

Jesus wept because....

Full Preterism : 25 Reasons the Gospel of John was Really Written by Lazarus: http://youtu.be/V5DOQxpLkgs

 

[Bibliocentrist]

Sorry i can't watch videos on my dialup and xp etc.

Lazarus doesn't fit the common authorship/language of John gospel and letters and revelation, and doesn't fit the 3/4 gospels pattern:
https://seventynations.files.wordpress.com/2015/06/3-types-3.gif. John not Lazarus was the disciple at last supper.

I had thought that the man that fled at Jesus arrest might be Lazarus since the authorities would esp want to rid of him too. Though i may be wrong since it says *young* man.

 

[Isaachaeus]

If you can't watch the video please don't reply I don't have time for such ignorance have a nice day

 

[Bibliocentrist]

If you couldn't be bothered to write and just post a video, and if majority of people prefer videos/pictures to written text that is not my fault.
If you post in a forum anyone has the right to respond. If you attack a christian forum they have the right the defend with evidence/proofs.
I should be able to mention this forum in another forum (http://earlywritings.com/forum/viewforum.php?f=3) without finding i unintentionally brought another attack on this forum.
If you can't be bothered to check out all other evidences other than just your own pet theory. One has to study all world history/mythology and whole bible not just some small bits.

 

[Phantasman]

I believe the Gospel According to John was probably written by presbyters of the Johannine's, those who John taught through oral tradition. Many scholars share this view. A good chance John was no longer alive since 90-120AD is the focal point of it's writing.

 

[StanJ]

Sorry i can't watch videos on my dialup and xp etc.

Lazarus doesn't fit the common authorship/language of John gospel and letters and revelation, and doesn't fit the 3/4 gospels pattern:
https://seventynations.files.wordpress.com/2015/06/3-types-3.gif. John not Lazarus was the disciple at last supper.

I had thought that the man that fled at Jesus arrest might be Lazarus since the authorities would esp want to rid of him too. Though i may be wrong since it says *young* man.

Most scholars agree that the gospel of John is NOT Johannine in style, and the following link will show that for you.
http://www.lazaruscomeforth.com/lazarus-the-beloved-disciple/

 

[StanJ]

I believe the Gospel According to John was probably written by presbyters of the Johannine's, those who John taught through oral tradition. Many scholars share this view. A good chance John was no longer alive since 90-120AD is the focal point of it's writing.

John was alive until 94-96, which is the time span he wrote Revelation in, but nevertheless, he nor his disciples wrote the Gospel in his name.

http://www.lazaruscomeforth.com/lazarus-the-beloved-disciple/

 

[Phantasman]

John was alive until 94-96, which is the time span he wrote Revelation in, but nevertheless, he nor his disciples wrote the Gospel in his name.

http://www.lazaruscomeforth.com/lazarus-the-beloved-disciple/

A blog? When one traverses the early church fathers, early Christian writings (pre 200AD) of both Canon and non Canon accounts, there is more information to decipher from. The Jewish revolt was a good reason to comfort Christian Jews with the Apocalypse of John and Peter also. (circa 96-97AD). Eusebius wrote the History of the Church while the Catholics destroyed all and any writings that didn't verify their conceived view of the "congregation". A shame, and now we have bits and pieces, and we don't know for sure. In the end, the content matters more than the writing author. And the same spirit that gave them the truth, is the same spirit we depend on today.

 

[StanJ]

A blog? When one traverses the early church fathers, early Christian writings (pre 200AD) of both Canon and non Canon accounts, there is more information to decipher from. The Jewish revolt was a good reason to comfort Christian Jews with the Apocalypse of John and Peter also. (circa 96-97AD). Eusebius wrote the History of the Church while the Catholics destroyed all and any writings that didn't verify their conceived view of the "congregation". A shame, and now we have bits and pieces, and we don't know for sure. In the end, the content matters more than the writing author. And the same spirit that gave them the truth, is the same spirit we depend on today.

Did you actually read the article? I addressed your concern, and am NOT interested in flitting from one issue to the next.

 

[Phantasman]

I did. I just did not read "into it". Didn't see the importance.

It's like calling Peter a rock. Peter denied Jesus, was called Satan by Jesus, and Jesus had to harness him in Gethsemane. A devout patriarch creating a patriarch religion.

I just don't see what others have been trained to see (by man).

 

[StanJ]

I did. I just did not read "into it". Didn't see the importance.

It's like calling Peter a rock. Peter denied Jesus, was called Satan by Jesus, and Jesus had to harness him in Gethsemane. A devout patriarch creating a patriarch religion.
I just don't see what others have been trained to see (by man).

Jesus didn't call Peter a rock, He called Peter's confession the rock on which His church would be built. You have to study the Greek to see the play on words, but suffice it to say when one STUDIES to show themselves approved, they WILL rightly divide the Word of God. We don't learn in a vacuum, and it has been my experience that everyone who refuses to acknowledge sound hermeneutical practices are the ones that need it the most. If you make up your mind before you ever post, then you will NEVER be open to the truth FOUND in scripture.

 

[Phantasman]

Jesus didn't call Peter a rock, He called Peter's confession the rock on which His church would be built. You have to study the Greek to see the play on words, but suffice it to say when one STUDIES to show themselves approved, they WILL rightly divide the Word of God. We don't learn in a vacuum, and it has been my experience that everyone who refuses to acknowledge sound hermeneutical practices are the ones that need it the most. If you make up your mind before you ever post, then you will NEVER be open to the truth FOUND in scripture.

Good common ground there, friend.

Jesus asks who he is. Peter says he (Jesus) is the Christened Son of the Living God. Jesus asks him as Simon Barjona. But flesh and blood (physical) Simon doesn't see it, it is Peter (the new spiritual man) who see's and understands. The rock means "sturdy platform",of seeing with spiritual mind over physical mind. Philip explains:

Names given to the worldly are very deceptive, for they divert our thoughts from what is correct to what is incorrect. Thus one who hears the word "God" does not perceive what is correct, but perceives what is incorrect. So also with "the Father" and "the Son" and "the Holy Spirit" and "life" and "light" and "resurrection" and "the Church (Ekklesia)" and all the rest - people do not perceive what is correct but they perceive what is incorrect, unless they have come to know what is correct. The names which are heard are in the world [...] deceive. If they were in the Aeon (eternal realm), they would at no time be used as names in the world. Nor were they set among worldly things. They have an end in the Aeon.= Gospel of Philip

In study, whether you choose to arrive closer through your own Koine Greek translation, or Coptic or Aramaic, or even Latin, the Spirit of Truth will always prevail with continued seeking.

Jesus said, "Those who seek should not stop seeking until they find. When they find, they will be disturbed. When they are disturbed, they will marvel, and will reign over all. [And after they have reigned they will rest.]"-Gospel of Thomas

Because we are worldly, in the world, Truth will first appear as a disturbance to us. Remember what Paul said we were fighting. Truth is the reward gained through constant seeking, your seeking, not others.

 

[StanJ]

Good common ground there, friend.

Jesus asks who he is. Peter says he (Jesus) is the Christened Son of the Living God. Jesus asks him as Simon Barjona. But flesh and blood (physical) Simon doesn't see it, it is Peter (the new spiritual man) who see's and understands. The rock means "sturdy platform",of seeing with spiritual mind over physical mind. Philip explains:

Names given to the worldly are very deceptive, for they divert our thoughts from what is correct to what is incorrect. Thus one who hears the word "God" does not perceive what is correct, but perceives what is incorrect. So also with "the Father" and "the Son" and "the Holy Spirit" and "life" and "light" and "resurrection" and "the Church (Ekklesia)" and all the rest - people do not perceive what is correct but they perceive what is incorrect, unless they have come to know what is correct. The names which are heard are in the world [...] deceive. If they were in the Aeon (eternal realm), they would at no time be used as names in the world. Nor were they set among worldly things. They have an end in the Aeon.= Gospel of Philip

In study, whether you choose to arrive closer through your own Koine Greek translation, or Coptic or Aramaic, or even Latin, the Spirit of Truth will always prevail with continued seeking.

Jesus said, "Those who seek should not stop seeking until they find. When they find, they will be disturbed. When they are disturbed, they will marvel, and will reign over all. [And after they have reigned they will rest.]"-Gospel of Thomas

Because we are worldly, in the world, Truth will first appear as a disturbance to us. Remember what Paul said we were fighting. Truth is the reward gained through constant seeking, your seeking, not others.

The play on words was Peter and petra, which early on, was lost by RC theologians who didn't really understand the Greek when translating it to Latin and effectively changing it's impact to suit their own eisegetical purposes. Jesus himself said that violence was the norm then, but as Ellicott states; The “violent” are men of eager, impetuous zeal, who grasp the kingdom of heaven—i.e., its peace, and pardon, and blessedness—with as much eagerness as men would snatch and carry off as their own the spoil of a conquered city. Their new life is, in the prophet’s language, “given them as a prey” (Jeremiah 21:9; Jeremiah 45:5). There is no thought of hostile purpose in the words.

 

[Phantasman]

The play on words was Peter and petra, which early on, was lost by RC theologians who didn't really understand the Greek when translating it to Latin and effectively changing it's impact to suit their own eisegetical purposes. Jesus himself said that violence was the norm then, but as Ellicott states; The “violent” are men of eager, impetuous zeal, who grasp the kingdom of heaven—i.e., its peace, and pardon, and blessedness—with as much eagerness as men would snatch and carry off as their own the spoil of a conquered city. Their new life is, in the prophet’s language, “given them as a prey” (Jeremiah 21:9; Jeremiah 45:5). There is no thought of hostile purpose in the words.

An interesting synopsis. But wouldn't patriarch Peter be really considered "violent" in his own right? Mary (Magdalene) feared Peter. Peter suggested her to be no part of the journey. Even Paul had a violent disagreement with Peter. I'm not degrading Peter, just pointing to the issues he experienced.

While he had the attitude that he would die for Jesus, the words spoke more than the actions. Eventually he became calm. Some think that the Gnostic Gospel of Peter is a bit of an apology for creating a path for catholic theology.

"And there shall be others of those who are outside our number who name themselves bishop and also deacons, as if they have received their authority from God. They bend themselves under the judgment of the leaders. Those people are dry canals."- Secret Peter

Peter saw the (church) leaders bending to Rome. In the end, the Catholics declare themselves Romes religion. And Constantine accepts it because "God" allowed him to defeat an enemy in battle with a vision. Wealthy Constantine is sainted by the Catholics and so starts the change from Jesus truth to a captive truth by men of great power.

I don't see this as what Jesus died for. Dry canals is a good description, IMO.

 

[StanJ]

An interesting synopsis. But wouldn't patriarch Peter be really considered "violent" in his own right? Mary (Magdalene) feared Peter. Peter suggested her to be no part of the journey. Even Paul had a violent disagreement with Peter. I'm not degrading Peter, just pointing to the issues he experienced.

While he had the attitude that he would die for Jesus, the words spoke more than the actions. Eventually he became calm. Some think that the Gnostic Gospel of Peter is a bit of an apology for creating a path for catholic theology.

"And there shall be others of those who are outside our number who name themselves bishop and also deacons, as if they have received their authority from God. They bend themselves under the judgment of the leaders. Those people are dry canals."- Secret Peter

Peter saw the (church) leaders bending to Rome. In the end, the Catholics declare themselves Romes religion. And Constantine accepts it because "God" allowed him to defeat an enemy in battle with a vision. Wealthy Constantine is sainted by the Catholics and so starts the change from Jesus truth to a captive truth by men of great power.

I don't see this as what Jesus died for. Dry canals is a good description, IMO.

You are definitely on the outside looking in, and sadly lacking in proper knowledge, not just ill informed. Peter never wrote what you assert, it is from a gnostic writing proved to NOT be from him. Are you gnostic?