The book we call John

[Bartholomew Jones]

Several strong clues are given by the author, proving, in my own view quite resolutely, contrary to views held by other scholars by traditional assumptions, that it was actually written by Lazarus.

1) The author names himself, for modesty, only as "the disciple whom Jesus loved," near the end of the book.

2) Lazarus, whom Jesus raised from the dead on the fourth day, the brother of Mary and Martha, is named as "the one Jesus loves."

3) In the Greek, which is more trustworthy than the Latin in my view, the text describes that disciple who leaned on Jesus' breast during the last supper whom Jesus confided in, whom also the text betrays as "the disciple Jesus loved," as leaning in his "bosom." He's never named as John. That's scholarly tradition to assume so.

4) This last clue, coupled with the story Jesus gives in the book of Luke of a rich man and a certain "Lazarus," who was carried to Abraham's "bosom," is another reinforcement. It tells me more information did circulate in the early church.

5) Finally, the writer of the book we call John reminds the reader, "we know that (the disciple whom Jesus loved's) testimony is true." This tells me that the author was hinting that the reader shouldn't trust what people say howsoever they may be acclaimed as "scholars."

 

[2nd Timothy Group]

Several strong clues are given by the author, proving, in my own view quite resolutely, contrary to views held by other scholars by traditional assumptions, that it was actually written by Lazarus.

1) The author names himself, for modesty, only as "the disciple whom Jesus loved," near the end of the book.

2) Lazarus, whom Jesus raised from the dead on the fourth day, the brother of Mary and Martha, is named as "the one Jesus loves."

3) In the Greek, which is more trustworthy than the Latin in my view, the text describes that disciple who leaned on Jesus' breast during the last supper whom Jesus confided in, whom also the text betrays as "the disciple Jesus loved," as leaning in his "bosom." He's never named as John. That's scholarly tradition to assume so.

4) This last clue, coupled with the story Jesus gives in the book of Luke of a rich man and a certain "Lazarus," who was carried to Abraham's "bosom," is another reinforcement. It tells me more information did circulate in the early church.

5) Finally, the writer of the book we call John reminds the reader, "we know that (the disciple whom Jesus loved's) testimony is true." This tells me that the author was hinting that the reader shouldn't trust what people say howsoever they may be acclaimed as "scholars."

Nice! I love this kind of stuff. More, please!

 

[Bartholomew Jones]

Nice! I love this kind of stuff. More, please!

Thank you for the warm welcome!

 

[Mosheli]

The evidences for John include:
- It says it was written by the disciple the lord loved [John]. [John] the disciple the lord loved leaned on Jesus at the last supper to ask about who would betray him. Lazarus might have been a disciple but he was not an apostle (at the last supper), maybe not even one of the 70/72 disciples.
- John and Peter are often associated together. [John] the disciple the lord loved outran Peter to the tomb. They are also associated with each other in chapter 21.
- The letter of John 1 has similar beginning to John, and also mentions the word of life. The love one another command is mentioned in the same letter.
- Revelation 1 mentions the word of God like John 1 does. Revelation and John are both "mystical".
- The elect lady that John wrote to may be Mary who Jesus entrusted to [John] the disciple the lord loved when he was on the cross.
- The title John also matches John the Baptist in chapter 1.
- In tradition the disciple the lord loved who it was supposed would remain until Jesus coming (the wandering Jew?) is associated with John not Lazarus. John lived until the end of the 1st century. This might also match his epithet "the elder"?
- The gospel of John has always been associated with John never with Lazarus.

Lazarus might be the young man that fled naked, because they wanted to get rid of Lazarus too. But even this is doubtful because Lazarus wasn't young?

 

[2nd Timothy Group]

Thank you for the warm welcome!

You have earned it, through your offering of ideas and suggestions. It feels super, super good to have an open mind to the thoughts and ideas of others, and I like how you presented these ideas . . . not as utter fact, but as a wonderful hypothesis. What you have done is what I am trying to do, which is to remain open-minded, to not act or think that I know everything, but to be humble and respectful . . . even in my own presentations. Thanks . . . Bartholomew! (Great Name!)

 

[Enoch111]

Several strong clues are given by the author, proving, in my own view quite resolutely, contrary to views held by other scholars by traditional assumptions, that it was actually written by Lazarus.

You are welcome to your opinion, but it is rather far-fetched.

 

[Bartholomew Jones]

The evidences for John include:
- It says it was written by the disciple the lord loved [John]. [John] the disciple the lord loved leaned on Jesus at the last supper to ask about who would betray him. Lazarus might have been a disciple but he was not an apostle (at the last supper), maybe not even one of the 70/72 disciples.
- John and Peter are often associated together. [John] the disciple the lord loved outran Peter to the tomb. They are also associated with each other in chapter 21.
- The letter of John 1 has similar beginning to John, and also mentions the word of life. The love one another command is mentioned in the same letter.

Everything you've stated to this point is based on traditional assumptions. You're assuming the book we call John was written by John. The book of John is one of those rare books whose author doesn't disclose, directly in this case, who he is. The title, "John," at the top of the text is excluded from the Scripture itself. The publishers, over the years have seen fit to put them there. Everywhere you've put John in square brackets is only acceptable if you assume what scholars assume by tradition.

- Revelation 1 mentions the word of God like John 1 does. Revelation and John are both "mystical".

So what.

- The elect lady that John wrote to may be Mary who Jesus entrusted to [John] the disciple the lord loved when he was on the cross.

Again you insert John in square brackets because scholars have done so traditionally. The text doesn't suggest any of this.

- The title John also matches John the Baptist in chapter 1.

So what.

- In tradition the disciple the lord loved who it was supposed would remain until Jesus coming (the wandering Jew?) is associated with John not Lazarus.

Same assumption.

John lived until the end of the 1st century. This might also match his epithet "the elder"?
- The gospel of John has always been associated with John never with Lazarus.

Lazarus might be the young man that fled naked, because they wanted to get rid of Lazarus too. But even this is doubtful because Lazarus wasn't

Altogether there's no logical connection to John in anything you've stated because it's not there. The only connection is the traditional scholarly assumptions, which I stated at the very beginning.

 

[Bartholomew Jones]

You have earned it, through your offering of ideas and suggestions. It feels super, super good to have an open mind to the thoughts and ideas of others, and I like how you presented these ideas . . . not as utter fact, but as a wonderful hypothesis. What you have done is what I am trying to do, which is to remain open-minded, to not act or think that I know everything, but to be humble and respectful . . . even in my own presentations. Thanks . . . Bartholomew! (Great Name!)

Iron sharpens iron someone said.

 

[2nd Timothy Group]

You are welcome to your opinion, but it is rather far-fetched.

The Bible is actually incredibly vague. In reading the Book of Jubilees, we discover that there are details about the characters of the Bible that we could never ascertain through Scripture alone. And honestly, we will find that many of our ideas will be unsubstantiated after we read other written Works outside of the Bible. But . . . it isn't necessary, for as long as we understand the Core of the Bible, our understandings should be in proper order where proper order is necessary.

That said, there is a reason for the ambiguity of God's Holy Word . . . and it is because most of the details that we think matter, do not actually matter. In fact, it is because of how humans become wrapped up in details, that the Word of God remains a Mystery, even to the vast majority of those who read it today.

Therefore, I thoroughly enjoy reading about the ideas of others . . . because quite frankly, I would have no problem with Lazarus being the Author of John. The only thing that Truly matters is that our Hearts would be cleansed of the Curse of Adam and Eve. If that detail is not resolved, it doesn't matter what we do and do not know . . . Hell awaits.

Matthew 7:21-23 NET - 21 "Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter into the kingdom of heaven - only the one who does the will of my Father in heaven. 22 On that day, many will say to me, 'Lord, Lord, didn't we prophesy in your name, and in your name cast out demons and do many powerful deeds?' 23 Then I will declare to them, 'I never knew you. Go away from me, you lawbreakers!"

 

[Bartholomew Jones]

You are welcome to your opinion, but it is rather far-fetched.

You only accept what's spoon fed to you.

 

[2nd Timothy Group]

Iron sharpens iron someone said.

Grind away, my friend! It will only help me.

 

[Bartholomew Jones]

The Bible is actually incredibly vague. In reading the Book of Jubilees, we discover that there are details about the characters of the Bible that we could never ascertain through Scripture alone. And honestly, we will find that many of our ideas will be unsubstantiated after we read other written Works outside of the Bible. But . . . it isn't necessary, for as long as we understand the Core of the Bible, our understandings should be in proper order where proper order is necessary.

That said, there is a reason for the ambiguity of God's Holy Word . . . and it is because most of the details that we think matter, do not actually matter. In fact, it is because of how humans become wrapped up in details, that the Word of God remains a Mystery, even to the vast majority of those who read it today.

Therefore, I thoroughly enjoy reading about the ideas of others . . . because quite frankly, I would have no problem with Lazarus being the Author of John. The only thing that Truly matters is that our Hearts would be cleansed of the Curse of Adam and Eve. If that detail is not resolved, it doesn't matter what we do and do not know . . . Hell awaits.

Matthew 7:21-23 NET - 21 "Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter into the kingdom of heaven - only the one who does the will of my Father in heaven. 22 On that day, many will say to me, 'Lord, Lord, didn't we prophesy in your name, and in your name cast out demons and do many powerful deeds?' 23 Then I will declare to them, 'I never knew you. Go away from me, you lawbreakers!"

These passages always give me reason to fear God, to remember my fear of God.

 

[marks]

You only accept what's spoon fed to you.

There's no call for that.

 

[Bartholomew Jones]

The Bible is actually incredibly vague. In reading the Book of Jubilees, we discover that there are details about the characters of the Bible that we could never ascertain through Scripture alone. And honestly, we will find that many of our ideas will be unsubstantiated after we read other written Works outside of the Bible. But . . . it isn't necessary, for as long as we understand the Core of the Bible, our understandings should be in proper order where proper order is necessary.

That said, there is a reason for the ambiguity of God's Holy Word . . . and it is because most of the details that we think matter, do not actually matter. In fact, it is because of how humans become wrapped up in details, that the Word of God remains a Mystery, even to the vast majority of those who read it today.

Therefore, I thoroughly enjoy reading about the ideas of others . . . because quite frankly, I would have no problem with Lazarus being the Author of John. The only thing that Truly matters is that our Hearts would be cleansed of the Curse of Adam and Eve. If that detail is not resolved, it doesn't matter what we do and do not know . . . Hell awaits.

Matthew 7:21-23 NET - 21 "Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter into the kingdom of heaven - only the one who does the will of my Father in heaven.

The Bible is actually incredibly vague. In reading the Book of Jubilees, we discover that there are details about the characters of the Bible that we could never ascertain through Scripture alone. And honestly, we will find that many of our ideas will be unsubstantiated after we read other written Works outside of the Bible. But . . . it isn't necessary, for as long as we understand the Core of the Bible, our understandings should be in proper order where proper order is necessary.

That said, there is a reason for the ambiguity of God's Holy Word . . . and it is because most of the details that we think matter, do not actually matter. In fact, it is because of how humans become wrapped up in details, that the Word of God remains a Mystery, even to the vast majority of those who read it today.

Therefore, I thoroughly enjoy reading about the ideas of others . . . because quite frankly, I would have no problem with Lazarus being the Author of John. The only thing that Truly matters is that our Hearts would be cleansed of the Curse of Adam and Eve. If that detail is not resolved, it doesn't matter what we do and do not know . . . Hell awaits.

The text of Gen 3 doesn't actually say Adam or Eve were cursed. The serpent was cursed and the ground was cursed. Cain, in chapter 4 is under a curse. In fact in the best translations the severe measures toward Adam are given, "for your sake." Too many years have gone by during which the church leadership has been misleading the sheep.

 

[Bartholomew Jones]

There's no call for that.

If he says it's far fetched then have him answer one point.

 

[marks]

If he says it's far fetched then have him answer one point.

I'm talking about your pronouncements of your negative opinion of him personally.

Much love!

 

[2nd Timothy Group]

The text of Gen 3 doesn't actually say Adam or Eve were cursed. The serpent was cursed and the ground was cursed. Cain, in chapter 4 is under a curse. In fact in the best translations the severe measures toward Adam are given, "for your sake." Too many years have gone by during which the church leadership has been misleading the sheep.

Okie Doke.

 

[Bartholomew Jones]

I'm talking about your pronouncements of your negative opinion of him personally.

Much love!

Okay. Rewind. Delete. You should establish what you say or don't say it. Arent you accepting what you say solely on the basis that it's been accepted traditionally? Maybe I'm wrong. The Berean approach in my view has more merit.

 

[Mosheli]

Everything you've stated to this point is based on traditional assumptions. You're assuming the book we call John was written by John. The book of John is one of those rare books whose author doesn't disclose, directly in this case, who he is. The title, "John," at the top of the text is excluded from the Scripture itself. The publishers, over the years have seen fit to put them there. Everywhere you've put John in square brackets is only acceptable if you assume what scholars assume by tradition.

No its not all based on traditional assumptions, and even if it were the fact that the gospel has always only been associated with John and never with Lazarus is a valid evidence in favour.

The book does say who wrote it, it says the disciple who the lord loved, and the book mentions this person in certain stories in the book.

So what.

So what? The fact that the gospel and the letter and Revelation all similarily mention the Word is evidence of same authorship.
Likewise the letter of John mentions "in the beginning" like the gospel does, and mentions love, light, truth in similar context.
Surely both the gospel and the letters are not also misattrubted to John as author.
Revelation says it was written by John.

Again you insert John in square brackets because scholars have done so traditionally. The text doesn't suggest any of this.

You don't seem to understand the point. Its not the insertion in square brackets that is the evidence. The evidence is that the elect lady in John's letter probably likely matches Mary who was entrusted to the disciple the lord loved (who wrote the gospel), this confirming the author of the gospel and the letter are likely the same. It is less likely two are misattributed to John than just one is.

Same assumption.

It is not assumption. It is 2000 yrs tradition from apostolic times to th present as evidence. Plus the fact that he lived so long longer than the other apostles is valid possible match evidence.

Altogether there's no logical connection to John in anything you've stated because it's not there. The only connection is the traditional scholarly assumptions, which I stated at the very beginning.

Its not just traditional scholarly assumptions, see reply to first quote.

The disciple and Peter are associated together in a couple of places. John and Peter and often associated together like they are in Acts. So it is evidence that the disciple the lord loved is John.

You only have 1 or "2" evidences for Lazarus as a candidate: That Lazarus was one loved by Jesus. Plus that his namesake in the parable was in Abraham's bosom. But you stretch it when you equate Abraham's bosom with Jesus' bosom. Jesus could have loved more than one person.
Lazarus was not an apostle (and not an apostle at the Last Supper) so he can't be the disciple who the lord loved that leaned on his bosom there.
The author of the gospel and the letter were evidently with Jesus and close as his words are the same and reminiscent as Jesus'.
Lazarus is not named in the disciples that went fishing in chapter 21, though there are 2 unnamed ones.

Whereas we gave multiple evidences for John.

 

[Bartholomew Jones]

No its not all based on traditional assumptions, and even if it were the fact that the gospel has always only been associated with John and never with Lazarus is a valid evidence in favour.

The book does say who wrote it, it says the disciple who the lord loved, and the book mentions this person in certain stories in the book.




So what? The fact that the gospel and the letter and Revelation all similarily mention the Word is evidence of same authorship.
Likewise the letter of John mentions "in the beginning" like the gospel does, and mentions love, light, truth in similar context.
Surely both the gospel and the letters are not also misattrubted to John as author.
Revelation says it was written by John.



You don't seem to understand the point. Its not the insertion in square brackets that is the evidence. The evidence is that the elect lady in John's letter probably likely matches Mary who was entrusted to the disciple the lord loved (who wrote the gospel), this confirming the author of the gospel and the letter are likely the same. It is less likely two are misattributed to John than just one is.





It is not assumption. It is 2000 yrs tradition from apostolic times to th present as evidence. Plus the fact that he lived so long longer than the other apostles is valid possible match evidence.





Its not just traditional scholarly assumptions, see reply to first quote.

The disciple and Peter are associated together in a couple of places. John and Peter and often associated together like they are in Acts. So it is evidence that the disciple the lord loved is John.

You only have 1 or "2" evidences for Lazarus as a candidate: That Lazarus was one loved by Jesus. Plus that his namesake in the parable was in Abraham's bosom. But you stretch it when you equate Abraham's bosom with Jesus' bosom. Jesus could have loved more than one person.
Lazarus was not an apostle (and not an apostle at the Last Supper) so he can't be the disciple who the lord loved that leaned on his bosom there.
The author of the gospel and the letter were evidently with Jesus and close as his words are the same and reminiscent as Jesus'.
Lazarus is not named in the disciples that went fishing in chapter 21, though there are 2 unnamed ones.

Whereas we gave multiple evidences for John.

Apostleship/non-apostleship has nothing to do with it.
John and Peter are associated, yes. They were fishing partners. John got Peter admission to the ruler's quarters etc. John isn't named as the one who followed Peter and Jesus at the end. That's the tradition which is the very thing I'm disputing. You keep doing the same thing.
Etc. Etc.
You're debating. Debating is useless. Goodbye.