My Links
Steve's Blog
|
John the Baptist vs. John the Beloved disciple.
Tonight, during our home Bible study, somebody was having difficulty remembering whether it was John the Baptist or John the Beloved who had been beheaded. Steve told her "John the Baptist is the one who was beheaded. John the Beloved is the one who laid his head on Jesus...but it was still attached!!"  |
Posted: 9:43 PM, Aug. 19, 2008 |
Add Comment |
Untitled Comment
| Excellent! |
Posted by Arby at 10:23 PM, Aug. 19, 2008 |
Link |
|
Untitled Comment
You've been tagged!
http://www.homeschoolblogger.com/arbysarchives/577504/ |
Posted by Arby at 11:59 PM, Aug. 19, 2008 |
Link |
|
The Bible vs. Another unbiblical man-made tradition
One should not accept that an idea is BIBLICAL if neither they nor those who sell them on the idea can cite a single verse that would justify teaching that idea. But here you do just that.
The truth is there is not a single verse in scripture that would justify teaching the idea that John was the unnamed "other disciple whom Jesus loved" and yet most simply assume that this man-made tradition cannot be wrong and then interpret scripture to fit this idea. But if one will heed Ps. 118:8 then the NON-BIBLE sources on which this man-made error is based will give way to the facts stated in scripture which prove that NO MATTER WHO this anonymous author was he most certainly was not John.
Since you will discover that you cannot cite even one verse of scripture that would justify promoting the idea that John was this unnamed “other disciple”, you may be led to take another look at what the Bible has to say on this matter. If so instead of looking to the writings of men try a Bible-only based strategy; examine the facts stated in scripture and compare what the Bible says about "the disciple whom Jesus loved" with what it says about John. The Bible evidence proves that whoever the one who "Jesus loved" was he could not have been John -- because the Bible cannot contradict itself.
The Bible says what it says. So no matter how many men one can find parroting the ideas of men found in non-Bible sources the fact is the Biblical evidence proves that John was not the "other disciple whom Jesus loved" (the anonymous author of the fourth gospel).
The-Beloved-Disciple.com has a Bible only Bible study (i.e. it cites no NON-Bible sources) if you are interested |
Posted by Jim at 10:22 AM, Aug. 20, 2008 |
Link |
|
Untitled Comment
Well, thanks for pointing this out. It gave me something to think about. There is so much to the Bible that it's impossible to know everything, that's for sure.
If it makes you feel any better, this was far from the main point of our Bible Study last night and was actually a more light-hearted moment of the evening. |
Posted by wrongwaywendy at 11:58 AM, Aug. 20, 2008 |
Link |
|
Bible vs. Tradition
| Jim--I looked through the info on that website and was not convinced that this one man's interpretation of scripture concerning the authorship of the book of John is as valid as the thousands of theologians who have studied the scriptures for the past two thousand years. The scriptures used to make the connection to Lazarus as the author are not anymore convincing than the scriptures that others use to suggest that John was the author. The evidence of the original scriptures indicate that the book of John was written specifically for John's church to help them see the total picture of Jesus, who is Truth. The Book of Revelation was written after John had been exiled, yet the writing styles are very similar to the previous book and his three letters. While the study shown on the website is interesting, it did not change my opinion about the authorship of John. |
Posted by Anonymous at 2:27 PM, Aug. 20, 2008 |
Link |
|
The Bible evidence vs. NON-Bible sources and quotes of men
I notice that you could not cite a single verse of scripture that would justify teaching the idea but you you are nonetheless williing to follow "the thousands of theologians who have studied the scriptures for the past two thousand years" -- even though none of them could cite a single verse of scripture that would justify teaching this idea either.
Those who made void the word of God by their tradition in Jesus' day have way more than 2000 years of history on which they pretended to build their ideas. But one thing is true -- it is a LOGICAL FALLICY to believe that the amount of time an idea is expoused can make it true.
Wrong way is correct. As scripture says you'd do better to heed Ps. 118:8 than to rely on those who parrot the ideas of other men who quote other men, etc. etc. etc.
Skimming over the Biblical evidence? We are told one will reap what they sow. Bible students who assume they can let someone else do their thinking for them or that there is safety in numbers should remember the fate of those who followed the scholars in Jesus' day.
those who want to pretend that my quoting the plain text of scripture in refutation of a false idea can be dismissed as if it were just my 'opinion' are simply employing the ostrich strategy -- which is a foolish strategy indeed and not one that exhibits a love of the truth.
A love of the truth would of course lead one to embrace the "prove all things" admonition of scripture and accept the correction offered by the evidence that has been preserved for us in the Biblical record.
However, just as was true in Jesus' day, many will prefer to make void the word of God by their tradition and will choose to stand with the unbiblical ideas of religious leaders and their NON-Bible sources rather than face the ridicule from those who would promote a man-made tradition AS IF IT WERE BIBLCIAL in spite of the fact that they cannot cite a single verse that would justify teaching that idea.
The Bible says what it says. So no matter how many men one can find parroting the ideas of men found in non-Bible sources the fact is the Biblical evidence proves that John was not the "other disciple whom Jesus loved" (the anonymous author of the fourth gospel).
|
Posted by Anonymous at 8:30 PM, Aug. 21, 2008 |
Link |
|
Response
| You are also only quoting another man's opinion (unless you are the one who wrote the book). The scriptural references used on the website you listed do not point to the conclusion that the author suggests. He is reaching and doing his best to try and make the scriptures say what he wants. Many inconsistencies appear when reading it. I would rather rely on what God has revealed through many thousands than what one man is attempting to reveal as a new revelation. You hold to this idea that John did not write the book of John as if you know better than any other Christian. Holding that view is very dangerous. I would rather place my trust in God, not in your opinion. I never trust anybody who tells me that I must only use the Bible for my arguments and then tells me that their opinion is the correct interpretation of the scripture. Rather than getting stuck on one insignificant aspect of scripture, you should spend your time and effort in sharing the Good News with the lost world. Non-Christians could care less who wrote the book of John. I personally belief that God was the author and some human simply wrote it down. |
Posted by Anonymous at 9:14 PM, Aug. 21, 2008 |
Link |
|
|
|
