I've always been interested in John. "The disciple Jesus loved"
And I wonder how you get a title like that.
I've always felt more of a connection with Peter the crazy, often failing disciple than any of the others. But in a way I've always wondered what John did, what John had about him that gave him the specific distinction of being the "disciple whom Jesus loved".
Any ideas from anyone?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
I too like John, but am most like Peter. John had his faults also if you will notice these words are found only in the Gospel of John the book that bears his name these were holy men of old moved by the Holy Ghost but if you will notice these words were not in red. He was also the disciple who sought the place of honor. I am not saying Jesus did not love him it could be a personal opinion. (pride)
o
Re: your wondering "what John had about him that gave him the specific distinction of being the "disciple whom Jesus loved". And scripture shows us that the answer to that question is, nothing!
When the Bible urges the readers of scripture to “prove all things” it was not suggesting that they should look to the traditions of men as their standard of truth but, rather (in accord with Ps. 118:8), that they should look to scripture and trust the authority of God’s word — not the traditions which men add to it. And these words are true: “Every word of God is pure: he is a shield unto them that put their trust in him. Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar” (Pr. 30:5-6), so one is always better off conforming their ideas to scripture rather than the other way around.
You clearly think that John was “the disciple whom Jesus loved” but here you are misled by the traditions of men because the truth is that there is not a single verse that would justify teaching that John was the unnamed “other disciple, whom Jesus loved” (the unnamed man who wrote the fourth gospel) and that is why non-Bible sources must ALWAYS be used to sell the John tradition. While non-Bible sources may say that John was “the disciple whom Jesus loved”, what happens when one subjects that claim to biblical scrutiny, will it hold up? No it will not because two things are true:
1: No one can cite a single verse of scripture that would justify promoting the idea that the unnamed “disciple whom Jesus loved” was anybody named John — not the Apostle John, nor any other John. Moreover, the reason that this cannot be done is that no such verse exists, which is the reason that no such verse is ever cited by those who put forth the unbiblical John tradition.
2: The facts in the plain text of scripture can prove that WHOEVER the unnamed “other disciple, whom Jesus loved” was he could not have been John — because that idea forces the Bible to contradict itself, which the Bible cannot do if it is true. (A presentation of the biblical evidence on this topic is available at BelovedDiscipleBibleStudy.com).
Two good rules of respect for the authority of God’s word: A) One should not be presenting an idea AS IF IT WERE BIBLICAL if they cannot cite a single verse that would justify teaching that idea – and - B) If the facts in the plain text of scripture prove that an idea is false, then those who love the truth will reject that false idea — no matter how many people believe it, no matter how loud some may shout it, no matter if a big-wig so-and-so believes it, no matter how long the false idea has been around, etc.
One can surely find a NON-Bible source to cite if they want to justify their belief in the idea that the unnamed “other disciple whom Jesus loved” was John. But what no one has ever done is cite a single verse that would justify teaching that the unnamed “disciple whom Jesus loved” was John — not those who originated the unbiblical John idea and not those who repeat their error to this day.
The fact is that the John tradition is simply a case of mistaken identity. This, for example, explains why Jesus’ transfiguration, his prayers in the Garden of Gethsemane, and his raising of the daughter of Jairus are NOT in the fourth gospel. Only three disciples were present at each of these events and John was one of them. Thus John was able to give eyewitness testimony when it came to these key incidents and yet there is no mention of these events in the fourth gospel, because the author, “the disciple whom Jesus loved”, was not John. And the missing ‘John testimony’ is just the tip of the iceberg.
John thank you so much for the detail you put into your comment to correct my assumption concerning the disciple. I'd recently turned on moderation and I've gotten so many comments concerning pornography and drug advertisements that out of habit I accidentally hit reject on your comment. I apologize!!! and I hope you return to see this response.
I went back and looked and you are absolutely right that the Bible never specifically says that John was that disciple. It's assumed by a lot of people but not necessarily specified.
Which leaves me wondering even more. If it was John, then (as anonymous said) it's more about how John identified hiimself by the fact that he was loved by Christ.
If it wasn't John, then it is someone that had a special relationship enough that others identified him by Jesus' love for him.
I still find both ideas interesting.
I still appreciate you challenging my words since it made me go back and take a second look at scriptures that I hadn't even realized I'd made assumptions on.
Thanks!
Post a Comment