God's seed...

[StanJ]

24 This is the disciple who is testifying to these things and wrote these things, and we know that his testimony is true.

So do you know who that disciple was that the book of John says Jesus loved?

 

[justaname]

Stan the one referred to here is John even though you do not believe it. Just like He loved His other disciple Lazarus. In fact Jesus loves all His disciples.

23 One of his disciples, whom Jesus loved, was reclining at table at Jesus' side,
24 so Simon Peter motioned to him to ask Jesus of whom he was speaking.
25 So that disciple, leaning back against Jesus, said to him, "Lord, who is it?" - John 13:23-25

This is also referring to John.

 

[StanJ]

Stan the one referred to here is John even though you do not believe it. Just like He loved His other disciple Lazarus. In fact Jesus loves all His disciples.
23 One of his disciples, whom Jesus loved, was reclining at table at Jesus' side,
24 so Simon Peter motioned to him to ask Jesus of whom he was speaking.
25 So that disciple, leaning back against Jesus, said to him, "Lord, who is it?" - John 13:23-25
This is also referring to John.

I find it amazing that you can quote scripture but not really understand what it says. It says twice in John 11 the Jesus loved Lazarus. It doesn't say anywhere in John or any of the other gospels the Jesus loved John, so exactly how do you figure out that John the Apostle is who is being referred to in John 21:20-24, when Lazarus was the only disciple ever referred to as the disciple Jesus loved?

 

[justaname]

I find it amazing that you can quote scripture but not really understand what it says. It says twice in John 11 the Jesus loved Lazarus. It doesn't say anywhere in John or any of the other gospels the Jesus loved John, so exactly how do you figure out that John the Apostle is who is being referred to in John 21:20-24, when Lazarus was the only disciple ever referred to as the disciple Jesus loved?

Some, for instance, have suggested Lazarus, on the grounds that ‘beloved disciple’ would be an appropriate form of self-reference for one of whom it is elsewhere said that Jesus loved him (11:5, 36). Others have suggested the rich young man of Mark 10:21, on much the same ground. Still others argue for the owner of the upper room, arguing that the reason he could lay his head on Jesus’ breast was that, as the host, he was placed in a position of honour next to Jesus; perhaps he was John Mark. None of this is convincing, and all of it notoriously speculative. According to the Synoptic evidence, only the Twelve were present at the last supper with Jesus: that alone rules out all three suggestions. There is nothing to be said for the first two, other than that Jesus loved them; but that is surely an insufficient ground for identifying the beloved disciple, presupposing as it does that the circle of those whom Jesus loved was extremely limited.

D.A. Carson. Pillar New Testament Commentary
(concerning authorship and identifying the beloved disciple)

Irenaeus, Against Heresies 3.1.1, says: “John the disciple of the Lord, who also leaned upon his breast, did himself publish a Gospel during his residence at Ephesus in Asia.”

Ephrem the Syrian, in an appendix to his commentary on the Diatessaron (cf. ZNW 3 [1902]: 193), writes: “John wrote that Gospel in Greek at Antioch, for he remained in the country until the time of Trajan.”

Not only Irenaeus, but Clement of Alexandria and Tertullian as well, provide firm second-century evidence for the belief that the apostle John wrote the Gospel. According to Eusebius (H.E. VI. xiv. 7), Clement wrote: ‘But that John, last of all, conscious that the outward facts had been set forth in the Gospels, was urged on by his disciples, and, divinely moved by the Spirit, composed a spiritual Gospel.’

 

[StanJ]

Some, for instance, have suggested Lazarus, on the grounds that ‘beloved disciple’ would be an appropriate form of self-reference for one of whom it is elsewhere said that Jesus loved him (11:5, 36). Others have suggested the rich young man of Mark 10:21, on much the same ground. Still others argue for the owner of the upper room, arguing that the reason he could lay his head on Jesus’ breast was that, as the host, he was placed in a position of honour next to Jesus; perhaps he was John Mark. None of this is convincing, and all of it notoriously speculative. According to the Synoptic evidence, only the Twelve were present at the last supper with Jesus: that alone rules out all three suggestions. There is nothing to be said for the first two, other than that Jesus loved them; but that is surely an insufficient ground for identifying the beloved disciple, presupposing as it does that the circle of those whom Jesus loved was extremely limited.
D.A. Carson. Pillar New Testament Commentary
(concerning authorship and identifying the beloved disciple)

What synoptic evidence? As far as we can tell from the Gospels there were at least 14 apostles / disciples at the Last Supper. The two Jesus sent ahead of time and the 12 that he arrived with. There is no indication in the Synoptic Gospels as far as I read, that only the 12 where there. Jesus may have reclined at a table with the 12 but that doesn't mean there weren't other tables and that doesn't mean that only the 12 or at his table. If you're quoting DA Carson here then you quoted another person is not using his thinking cap at all. It might do you some good to use your own thinking cap and not rely on others to do your thinking for you question

Irenaeus, Against Heresies 3.1.1, says: “John the disciple of the Lord, who also leaned upon his breast, did himself publish a Gospel during his residence at Ephesus in Asia.”
Ephrem the Syrian, in an appendix to his commentary on the Diatessaron (cf. ZNW 3 [1902]: 193), writes: “John wrote that Gospel in Greek at Antioch, for he remained in the country until the time of Trajan.”
Not only Irenaeus, but Clement of Alexandria and Tertullian as well, provide firm second-century evidence for the belief that the apostle John wrote the Gospel. According to Eusebius (H.E. VI. xiv. 7), Clement wrote: ‘But that John, last of all, conscious that the outward facts had been set forth in the Gospels, was urged on by his disciples, and, divinely moved by the Spirit, composed a spiritual Gospel.’

As Irenaeus was not born for at least another hundred years after the Last Supper, I doubt very much that he talked to anybody who was an eyewitness to the event. He sure didn't get his understanding from the Gospels, so maybe he just believed that whoever wrote the header got it right?
The same goes with Clement, and Ephrem the Syrian was another two centuries out from there.
I'm not aware of much critical thinking when it comes to the ECFs. They were indeed holy men of God but they didn't have all the tools and manuscripts that are available to today's scholars to really know what they were espousing when it came to historical facts. In my opinion we may be farther out from what happened in the New Testament but we are much better equipped at dissecting what we do have to arrive at a more reasonable conclusion about these issues. Feel free to do a little studying yourself into the matter, like going to the following link and learning something you've probably never even considered.

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

 

[justaname]

What synoptic evidence? As far as we can tell from the Gospels there were at least 14 apostles / disciples at the Last Supper. The two Jesus sent ahead of time and the 12 that he arrived with. There is no indication in the Synoptic Gospels as far as I read, that only the 12 where there. Jesus may have reclined at a table with the 12 but that doesn't mean there weren't other tables and that doesn't mean that only the 12 or at his table. If you're quoting DA Carson here then you quoted another person is not using his thinking cap at all. It might do you some good to use your own thinking cap and not rely on others to do your thinking for you question

As Irenaeus was not born for at least another hundred years after the Last Supper, I doubt very much that he talked to anybody who was an eyewitness to the event. He sure didn't get his understanding from the Gospels, so maybe he just believed that whoever wrote the header got it right?
The same goes with Clement, and Ephrem the Syrian was another two centuries out from there.
I'm not aware of much critical thinking when it comes to the ECFs. They were indeed holy men of God but they didn't have all the tools and manuscripts that are available to today's scholars to really know what they were espousing when it came to historical facts. In my opinion we may be farther out from what happened in the New Testament but we are much better equipped at dissecting what we do have to arrive at a more reasonable conclusion about these issues. Feel free to do a little studying yourself into the matter, like going to the following link and learning something you've probably never even considered.

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

The two sent to prepare were John and Peter. Maybe you should reread the synoptic Gospels.

Irenaeus studied under Polycarp who was John's disciple .

Reading that link is not thinking for myself.

 

[StanJ]

The two sent to prepare were John and Peter. Maybe you should reread the synoptic Gospels.
Irenaeus studied under Polycarp who was John's disciple .
Reading that link is not thinking for myself.

Ok, I did that and found that Luke does refer to the two as Peter and John, who were apostles, 2 of the 12, and yet Matthew and Mark refer to them as disciples? When all the four Gospels differ in certain details, which ones are we to pick? The place at Bethany where Jesus ate before the Last Supper, shows two different places. Two say at the house of Simon the leper one says at the house of Martha and Lazarus. Do you believe it is at the house of Simon the leper because two of the three days so, or do we ignore it because Luke doesn't even mention the event? I ask this because you seem to defer to Luke being accurate when the others don't say exactly who the two are? In addition, Mark says that Jesus arrived with the 12, so if that was the case then who were the two that were preparing the meal? Also why would Jesus say in Mark 14, that it is one of the 12 that will betray him, v20, if only the 12 were there? Mark was NOT one of the 12 now was he?

So you accept heresay in regards to Irenaeus, Polycarp etc...but wont read a modern day exposition of the word that you can verify? How exactly is that thinking for yourself? Seems you would rather take the word of unproven ECFs that convey heresay, than learn something new?

I do think you have a lot of thinking to do.

 

[justaname]

Ok, I did that and found that Luke does refer to the two as Peter and John, who were apostles, 2 of the 12, and yet Matthew and Mark refer to them as disciples? When all the four Gospels differ in certain details, which ones are we to pick? The place at Bethany where Jesus ate before the Last Supper, shows two different places. Two say at the house of Simon the leper one says at the house of Martha and Lazarus. Do you believe it is at the house of Simon the leper because two of the three days so, or do we ignore it because Luke doesn't even mention the event? I ask this because you seem to defer to Luke being accurate when the others don't say exactly who the two are? In addition, Mark says that Jesus arrived with the 12, so if that was the case then who were the two that were preparing the meal? Also why would Jesus say in Mark 14, that it is one of the 12 that will betray him, v20, if only the 12 were there? Mark was NOT one of the 12 now was he?

So you accept heresay in regards to Irenaeus, Polycarp etc...but wont read a modern day exposition of the word that you can verify? How exactly is that thinking for yourself? Seems you would rather take the word of unproven ECFs that convey heresay, than learn something new?

I do think you have a lot of thinking to do.

I think you have steered this far enough off course...You can start a different thread if you like. I would be more than happy to discourse there.

God Bless Ya!

 

[StanJ]

I think you have steered this far enough off course...You can start a different thread if you like. I would be more than happy to discourse there.

God Bless Ya!

Sorry, but as it was just you and me, I was going with the flow. I actually did start a thread about this issue and it didn't go far but that's because the premise that it based on is pretty sound.
Thanks.