ChristiaNet MallWorld's Largest Christian MallChristian BlogsFree Bible QuizzesFree Ecards and Free Greeting CardsLoans, Debt, Business and Insurance Articles

Gospel Of John By Lazarus

Ones believe that the Gospel of John was really written by Lazarus, and we have at least one person with us who believes this. So, could we have a discussion about this, please?

Join Our Free Dating and Take The Bible History Quiz
 ---Bill_willa6989 on 6/7/11
     Helpful Blog Vote (4)

Post a New Blog



Willa, the minute I started breaking down Colossians 1:15-19 sentence per sentence and give the Grk word for what is written, you run away. And I haven't even got to (v.18,19). I kind of had an idea that you didn't want to do that. But I will move on since all you wanted to do was to tell everyone that Christ was not God. Sorry, but Scripture speaks against you, He is still God right now.
---Mark_V. on 6/16/11


aka,
as for significance

It's like other pieces of information which simply help us get a better grasp of context and truth.

Take, for instance, the "other disciple" going into the tomb and looking at Jesus' burial linens. Would that resonate instantly with John? Maybe not. But Lazarus? Yes. He had come out of a tomb bound in linens (11:44), and Jesus told the people to unwrap him.

Lazarus knew that a mere man could not unwrap himself. And to see the care with which Jesus' linens and facecloth were neatly placed, in the midst of Roman guards, it couldn't have been others unwrapping Christ at the site, that would be too risky.

It had to be a resurrection. He's Alive !!!
---James_L on 6/15/11


Mark,

when you read without the blinders of a doctrine that has been forced by threat of death throughout history, then you will see the truth. Until then you are believing a mystery that does not exist. I hope you will study what I have given you. I already know where you come from and it is a lie, and steals Gods glory and negates the greatness of what Jesus accomplished. It is your choice, but do not just reject what I have said without considering the possibility you are wrong. Because something is taught for a length of time doesn't make it right.

Gods blessings
---willa5568 on 6/15/11


Willa, Let's take a passage at a time with it's interpretation. Throwing context's together confuses the issue.
Col. 1:15-19. Here is what the Word says about Christ.
1. He is the image of the invisible God. The word "image" is "elkon' from the English word "icon" which means copy. The exact likeness. He is the perfect image, the exact likness, of God and is the very form of God (Phil. 2:6, John 1:14, 14:9).
2. First born over all creation. The Grk. word for 'firstborn" refer to one who was born first chronologically, the preeminence in position, or rank (Rom. 8:29). First ranking son who received the right of inheritane from his father. In His incarnated state, Highest in rank, not first created.
---Mark_V. on 6/15/11


willa5568*"And the bread I will give for the life of the world is my flesh"
The bread that came down was his flesh. did his flesh come from heaven or are we to literally to eat his flesh?

The bread is his Flesh and he tells us to eat and drink, so how can it not be literally?

willa5568* He is contrasting the manna that perished with his sacrifice that gives eternal life.

And they physically eat the manna. When they question Jesus " How can this man gives us his Flesh" he did not retract and said no it is not my flesh I was talking about, did he? In fact he went even stronger and said "my flesh is food indeed"
---Ruben on 6/15/11




Willa 2,
"For by Him (Christ) all things were created that are in heaven, and that are on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or principalities or powers. All things were created through Him and for Him"
1. As God, Jesus created the material and spiritual universe for His pleasure and glory.
2. When the Universe had its beginning, Christ already existed thus by definition He is eternal ( Mic. 5:2, John 1:1,2, 8:58, 1 John 1:1, Rev. 22:13).
3. Throne are dominions or powers" here Paul rejected that Jesus was an angel and made it clear that angels, whatever their rank, whether holy or not, are mere creaters, and their Creator is none other than the preeminent One, our Lord Jesus Christ.
---Mark_V. on 6/15/11


Willa, you gave a sacrament to make your point. He is no more a piece of bread then you are. He is omnipresent everywhere in His Spirit but not in objects. So your arguement is not valid to proof a point. You are introducing transubstantiation. That Christ literally turns to a piece of bread something Catholics believe. Though Christ is omnipresent, He is present only in spirit. The bread represents His flesh, but it is only symbolically not literal.
Christ is presented to us as the firstborn, as the first begotten, as the Son of God, as Adoni, as Elohim, as Jehovah, as the angel of Jehovah, as the Creator, also as the Theophanies in the Old Testament. as Savior in the Old T. as Savior in the New T. those are just some of His titles.
---Mark_V. on 6/15/11


"No one has seen God, The only Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, He has made Him known" Mark 6/12

read the previous verse. "the law was given through Moses,grace and truth through Jesus Christ" Seen is not referring to physically seeing, but 'no one has understood God but the son has revealed Him'. And the same applies to John 6:46, read the prior verse " It is written in the Prophets, And they will all be taught by God. Everyone who has heard and learned from the Father comes to me" Read 1John 4:12 and you will see "no one has seen or gazed up God". Now Jesus has because "God exalted him at his right hand as Leader and Savior"
---willa5568 on 6/14/11


John wrote John: Lazarus wrote no scripture.
---Eloy on 6/14/11


Mark,

another thing. You used this "mighty God, Ever Lasting(eternal) Father". There is a problem here because it says his name shall be called. Is Jesus the eternal Father? You should probably do some study on the word translated eternal. It would better read, Father of the age, which refers to him being the firstborn. Study the OT to see the use of father used to represent those who begin something.Mighty God refers to a mighty warrior, not God. the word el, translated as God, can refer to god, god-like one, mighty one, mighty men, men of rank, mighty heroes angels, god, false god, (demons, imaginations) God, the one true God, Jehovah
mighty things in nature strength, power
---willa5568 on 6/14/11




Mark,

first, I gave you a quote of what I said about the gospel of Luke. Nor have you given me any scripture to prove the eternality of Jesus, but rather your interpretation of those scriptures, which oppose what plainly says he is the Son of God, a man unlike no other.

here an example of misinterpretation: "I am the living bread that came down from heaven. If anyone eats this bread, he will live forever. And the bread I will give for the life of the world is my flesh"
The bread that came down was his flesh. did his flesh come from heaven or are we to literally to eat his flesh? He is contrasting the manna that perished with his sacrifice that gives eternal life.
---willa5568 on 6/14/11


Willa, you said, before I acccuse you of something, I have only mentioned what you said. You said you believe that Jesus was God at one time but now you don't. You also question the gospel of Luke. So what part of Scripture is correct? That is why I said, if you have doubt in the Word of God how do you know what is Truth? And how can anyone answer you if what they give you, you don't believe it is the word of God? There is really no debate. If the Bible proofs that Christ is eternal and I give you passages that say so, and you don't believe it's truth, how can anyone answer you? With their opinions against your opinions?
---Mark_V. on 6/14/11


james_l,

i am not talking about the significance to you and me and others. if anybody thinks that there salvation depends on their own interpretation of scripture, they need to read it again.

what is the significance to the full revelation of Jesus Christ?

and then...who do you believe the author is?
---aka on 6/13/11


aka,
Jesus actually did select more than twelve. We know from Luke 10 that there was a group of seventy. Do you think they banded together themselves to form a club? Or did Jesus select them?

The significance is scriptural accuracy and proper interpretation. Plus,
I have been charged with denying scripture, denying the resurrection, blasphemy, heresy, and salvation my hangs in the balance.

But those same people will ask "well, if Lazarus did write it, what's the big deal?"

Well, if they think I will go to hell for wrongly ascribing to Lazarus, wouldn't they then be subject to hell for wrongly ascribing to John?

Just a two way street is all I ask
---James_L on 6/13/11


That's reading something into it that's not there.
---James_L on 6/13/11

so, by your logic, Jesus might have selected more than twelve disciples, there may be more than 12 sons of Jacob...there might be Adam, Eve, and Lilith. Perhaps, Adam was tired of Eve, got with Lilith. That explains his silence.

The Bible does not specifically say that this did not happen.

It seems you are also reading into it. So, there is only stalemate.

Can you perhaps address the significance now?
---aka on 6/13/11


Mark,

before you accuse people of something read what they say," Luke heard the Apostles and other disciples present with Jesus personally.And his gospel is backed by two others that agree with what is written in his just as Mark". Colossian 1:18,19"he is the head of the body, the church. He is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, that in everything he might be preeminent. For in him all the fullness of God was pleased to dwell". He was given the spirit without measure.And it is not created by, but in or through, read the end of the verse and it refers to the kingdom of God not creation, read the context. The name YHWH is used only once I can think of, John refers to I am he (the Christ).
---willa5568 on 6/13/11


Read These Insightful Articles About Cash Advance


Willa 2, I want you to understand that my purpose is not to question your salvation, but to question what you say. Without faith, how can you tell what is truth and what is not?
Second, I heard you speak also that you question what gospel is truth and brought doubt to at least one Gospel, the Gospel of Luke. As Samuel had said before, the principles for understanding truth is so important that we cannot question as to whether the Bible is infallable and authoritive revelation concerning the facts of Christ. Important in basic principle is the dictum that the Bible is factual and propositional in its presentation of Truth. But even that you had questioned. That is the reason I have answered you. No other reason.
---Mark_V. on 6/13/11


Willa, 3, it's not what I say that's Truth but what Scripture says. You lost faith in the God of Scripture "For by Him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible" It is revealed in Scripture that Christ is all the fullness of the "Godhead, "For in Him the whole fulness of deity dwells bodily" Col. 2:9). Christ is declared to be not only "Mighty God, but also "Everlasting Father" or better translated, "Father of eternity" ( Is. 9:6). The name Jehovah frequently given to Christ as well as to God the Father and the Holy Spirit for this title is defined as referring to the Eternal I AM (Exo. 3:14).
---Mark_V. on 6/13/11


Mark,

I know it is Gods word, not believe. Jesus is never called Lord God in the NT so that is pointless to say. It refers to his position of authority(Matt 28:18). There is another word translated Lord in the Greek. It is used three times Luke 2:29, Acts 4:24,Rev 6:10 and never refers to Jesus. It means "absolute ruler" which Jesus is not being he will hand over the kingdom his Father gave him end the end. It does not matter what you or anyone tries to concoct, for us their is one God the Father. Jesus said "that they may know YOU (the Father)the ONLY true God". If he was God he is a liar because he said the Father is the ONLY true God.
---willa5568 on 6/13/11


aka,
the text does not say that Jesus was there ONLY with the twelve, and it does not say that Lazarus wasn't there. In fact, reading Mark 14:18-20

Jesus said, 'Truly I say that one of you will betray Me'...They began to...say to Him, 'Surely not I?' And He said to them, 'It is one of the twelve'

Why would He need to clarify that it was one of the twelve if they were the only ones there with Him?

At the beginning of Acts 1, it could easily be thought that the 12 were the only ones in the upper room until later we find that others were there.

Just because the 12 are mentioned doesn't mean only the 12. That's reading something into it that's not there.
---James_L on 6/13/11


Read These Insightful Articles About Credit Counseling


Mark,

continued...

Lord God, YHWH Elohyim. elohyim is a plural noun for gods. But in this case the Lord or YHWH, is a singular person, so it would be not the Lord gods,but as it is the LORD God singular, one person not two, three or more. Jesus is not YHWH Elohyim- " & #8203,the declaration of YHWH(LORD) to my Lord(elohyim)Sit thou at my right hand, Until I make thy foes thy footstool" Jesus in this is elohyim, Lord. And here is what Peter says about him being this Lord, "GOD has made him both Lord and Christ, this Jesus whom you crucified"(Acts 2:34-36). if God made him something, then he is not God. And this is Peter not Jesus who also said Jesus has a God and Father in one of his letters.
---willa5568 on 6/13/11


aka,
if you read John 20 along with Mark 16, you will find that Peter and the "other disciple" ran to the tomb after Mary Magdaline told them Jesus was gone. The "other disciple" went in after Peter, and he believed (Jn 20:1-8)

It does not say that Peter believed. Why?

When Mary Magdaline told it to the eleven, NONE of them believed

Mark 16:11-14
When they heard that He was alive...they refused to believe it...Afterward He appeared TO THE ELEVEN...and reproached them for their unbelief because they had not believed those who had seen Him


If John believed when he saw the linens in the tomb, why would he not believe the testimony of others who said they saw Jesus?
---James_L on 6/13/11


Willa, you don't need faith so how do you believe what you said is Truth? I say, One Lord, Jesus Christ. In the Old Testament, who is speaking? The Lord your God. If the Lord is God, and there is only One Lord Jesus Christ, then wouldn't that tell you that Christ is God? There is only One Father, who is One Lord and Savior, in the Old Testament, Who is Lord and Savior of your life? Jesus Christ. The Second Person is the visible God of the New Testament. Neither the Father nor the Spirit is characteristically revealed in bodily and visible form. While the Fathers voice is heard from heaven, and the Holy Spirit is seen descending in the form of a dove, Christ, the Second Person, is the full manifestation of God in visible form.
---Mark_V. on 6/12/11


Mark,

One God, the Father,one God and Father of all.That says the Father is the one God. Like I said you change the meaning to fit the doctrine. Jesus said that they may know you the only true God. I can go on and on and on and on and on with scripture that says he is the son of God, the son of man, God is his Father, God gave him authority, God anointed him, God did the works through him, God raised him from the dead,he sits at the right had of God until God makes his enemies his footstool. But you ignore all of this because of verses you claim saying he is God from mainly one book.
---willa5568 on 6/12/11


Send a Free Online Ecard


Who Jesus was...

John 17

1) These words spake Jesus, and lifted up his eyes to heaven, and said, Father, the hour is come, glorify thy Son, that thy Son also may glorify thee:

2) As thou hast given him power over all flesh, that he should give eternal life to as many as thou hast given him.

3) And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.

4) I have glorified thee on the earth: I have finished the work which thou gavest me to do.

5) And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was.
---Jasheradan on 6/11/11


Willa, you are not thinking before you write an answer. You said,
" I don't need faith to believe what the bible says, it's clear."
Willa, if you don't have faith in Scripture what else is there to talk about? Not a thing. It is God's Word to the believers, without faith in His Word you are like the unbelievers who read it, but cannot hear, or for that matter understand spiritual matters.
"All come short of the glory of God" If Christ is not God, then He falls short of God's glory for all means everyone except God.
"No one has seen God, The only Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, He has made Him known" ( John 1:18 ).
---Mark_V. on 6/12/11


Willa, 1 Cor. 8:6, "Yet for us there is one God, the Father of whom are all things, and we for Him, and one Lord Jesus Christ, through whom are all things, and through whom we live" This is a clear affirmation of the essential equality of God the Father and God the Son, Eph. 4:4-6. There is but one God. Then explains both the Father and the Son. Eph. 4:4-6 explains
" one body, (church) one Spirit (Holy Spirit) one hope, one Lord,(Jesus Christ) one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all, who is above all and through all, and in you all"
One God Father of all, no more fathers but one that counts. There is many lords, only one counts. The Spirit of Christ is in all, The Holy Spirit of God is in all.
---Mark_V. on 6/12/11


Mark,

The Apostles gospel: Acts 10:38-42 "God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Spirit and with power. He went about doing good and healing all who were oppressed by the devil, for God was with him.And we are witnesses of all that he did both in the country of the Jews and in Jerusalem.They put him to death by hanging him on a tree, but God raised him on the third day and made him to appear, not to all the people but to us who had been chosen by God as witnesses, who ate and drank with him after he rose from the dead. And he commanded us to preach to the people and to testify that he is the one appointed by God to be judge of the living and the dead"

does this sound like they taught he was God? Acts 2:22-36
---willa5568 on 6/12/11


Read These Insightful Articles About Debt Relief


James L said://My comment was not an aside, but was related to understanding the passage.// fine.

the point of micha's use of scripture is that it said the twelve disciples were there and included in one of them was: "John 13:23 ...leaning on Jesus' bosom one of his disciples, whom Jesus loved."

lazarus was not there. if you can surmise this lazarus theory from a few scriptures, you could have figured this one out if you wanted.

anyway, i believe there is significance to every word (meaning) of the bible towards the full revelation of Jesus Christ. So, what is the significance?
---aka on 6/11/11


Mark//No one is perfect but God, and because Jesus was perfect you cannot have salvation in any other but Jesus Christ who is perfect who is God//

Hebrews 4:15 " 15 For we do not have a high priest who is unable to sympathize with our weaknesses, but one who in every respect has been tempted as we are, yet without sin"

Adam was created without sin, Jesus was born without sin and when he was offered as a sacrifice he was without spot or blemish(sinless). That does not prove he has to be God. And I would also like to know when he became not incarnate any more? Because after the resurrection he still had a God and said he was given his authority.
---willa5568 on 6/11/11


Mark,

I never said your faith wavered, nor did mine. I don't need faith to believe what the bible says, it's clear. What you are saying is I am suppose to believe the bible teaches Jesus is 100% man and 100% God, which the bible says no where it is pieced together by this verse saying he's God and this saying he's man. And to believe that "God the Son" became an embryo in Mary's womb, or was placed in an embryo. I'm suppose to believe he called himself God and then said he had a God. Every scripture I have given is very plain but then someone says "well Paul said the Father was his God in the human side". It is not my faith, it is the truth that has turned me from this "mystery".
---willa5568 on 6/11/11


Willa, I remember you told Warwick concerning John usa, that he was trying to win an argument. Now you are too. You presented that Jesus who is God incarnated as a human being, who is 100% human and 100% God in Spirit is not God but man. You claim you have proof with what you say. I say you are wrong and I have proof you are wrong. For Christ is eternal. And I can proof that. The only thing you can proof is what He said when He was incarnated. Otherwise you have nothing at all. You said you once believed He was God, and now suddenly you have no more faith He is. So who's faith has wavered? Not mine. No one is perfect but God, and because Jesus was perfect you cannot have salvation in any other but Jesus Christ who is perfect who is God.
---Mark_V. on 6/11/11


Read These Insightful Articles About Debt Settlement


Samuel,
I never said that John was not present in chapter 21. But the writer also never said that he is John, either.

\\To get them to point to anyone else means you must say these are lies.

What words are you talking about? The words that aren't there? Of course you are.

Your argument doesn't even make sense, Samuel.

The words of scripture do not point to John. If they do, then demonstrate it. Tradition is what points to John, and it is based on a game of telephone, where one says to another, who in turn tells another, and he tells another.

The only problem with that is that the earliest one in the game never said that the previous ones told it to him. That is later conjecture.
---James_L on 6/11/11


Mark Eaton,
I did touch on your post. You gave two references, and I responded to both.

Equivalent to denying the resurrection? Have you lost your mind?

You say that Iraneus learnt the author of this gospel by way of the apostles. He also taught that Jesus was at least 50 when He died. Did he get that one from the apostles, too?

Do you believe he was reliable on that? If not, are you denying the resurrection?

I agree that "there were people around who knew who the author was and had personally talked with him." (like apostles, or Luke, or Mark, etc)

Where is their testimony as to authorship of this gospel? Provide it, and there won't be any debate from me.
---James_L on 6/10/11


Mark,

that is a two way street. And I think you and those who claim him to be God deny the magnitude of what was accomplished. I was trained to believe he was God as well until I read scripture for myself. You cannot determine for yourself when he speaks as God or as a man if he knows he's God. If he knows he is God as you say then when he says he has a God he is lying. He is God when he chooses to and he has a God when he chooses to. But I am suppose to believe this by faith because you just can't explain the trinity. I'll keep saying what Paul said " there is ONE GOD, THE FATHER", or lets reword that "the Father is the one God". And since Jesus is God, "there is one LORD(YHWH,adonai,etc) Jesus". 1+1=2
---willa5568 on 6/11/11


\\And you actually think there is an intrinsic difference between "apostle" and "disciple"?\\ -Cluny

I do. At least in the Muratorian Canon, when several times it names someone as "the apostle", but calls "John" a disciple

\\the Orthodox Church and her teachings...doesn't make it gnostic.\\ -Cluny

I never said the Orthodox Church or teachings are Gnostic. What I said is that I can spin your words to make it sound Gnostic, which is what you tried to do to my words.

Did you not notice "see how that works? I know how to twist words just like you."

Of course you read that. But it wouldn't suit your purpose to acknowledge the context of my words, would it?
---James_L on 6/11/11


Read These Insightful Articles About Distance Learning


Mark,

Why do you insist on bringing that up. I don't believe that what I have presented can be any clearer. If it says "there is one God, the Father", how much clearer does it need to be. If I say, there is one father, Mark, can anyone else be that father other than Mark? If there is one God, the Father, can anyone but the Father be that one God? Even Jesus said to the Father, "that they know you the only true God". He said the Father is the only true God. I don't have to explain that it says it by itself. You can explain it away to justify what you believe, I don't condemn you for that.
---willa5568 on 6/11/11


Read John 21. A list of who is there is given John is one of the sons of Zebedee. John is one of the inner circle and is fishing with Peter. The writer says that he is the diciple who JESUS loved and Peter asks about this same disciple who is walking behind Peter and JESUS.

Lazarus lived in Bethany.

These scriptural statments along with tradition point to John. To get them to point to anyone else means you must say these are lies.

Do you believe these are lies or are the words truth?
---Samuel on 6/11/11


James L, I do appreciate finding out if the traditions of man changed Scripture or not. What we have here though is who wrote the Gospel of John as the argument. Whether John wrote it or not is really not that important, for we don't know who wrote the first five books, or Hebrews. What matters is that the Word of God is Truth, and that whoever the writers were, they were inspired by God. The Word of God is not in question but who was the writer. The information we have whether truth on not on who wrote it, cannot bring to question the Word of God. When the question of tradition comes in view, it is when tradition made by man oppose the Word of God.
---Mark_V. on 6/11/11


Samuel,

If you can provide a scripture that says the apostle John penned this gospel, I will readily concede and apologize for any error. But if you cannot, then maybe you could apologize for accusing someone of denying scripture?

Mark v,
Also related, in what way am I questioning the gospels? I am questioning tradition. You should appreciate that. After all, wasn't that a major thrust of the reformation?

aka,
the other blog was sort of like "how does this passage in John make sense?"

My comment was not an aside, but was related to understanding the passage. bill willa then asked if we could take it up in another thread. You might notice that I did have not commented in that other thread since.
---James_L on 6/10/11


Read These Insightful Articles About Education


I appreciate theological inquiry. It has allowed many great developments in understanding just exactly what the author was trying to communicate. Most Christian scholars believe there was only one author, The Holy Spirit. So does it really matter who's hand the quill was in when the words made it to the paper?
Dan Brown postulates that Jesus was married to Mary Magdalene and pregnant with His child when He was crucified. There is far more circumstantial and inferred "evidence" for that than for the theory that Lazarus penned the Gospel of John. In the end, what difference does it make? You either believe John (or Lazarus) 1:14 and 3:16-18 or not.
---Brother_David on 6/10/11


Willa, Samuel is correct. If you begin to question the gospels, then you will question everything written in Scripture. The very reason you do not believe Jesus Christ is God. I don't know who taught you about the Deity of God, but you missed out on so much. What is hard is answering you, because any passages given to you, you will not believe. Only the one's you put down you believe, kind of a one way street. So there is really no debate with you.
---Mark_V. on 6/10/11


micha9344,

"...not an account that can be backed by anything such as the biblical writings we have, for there is no such writings of Polycarp expressing this...". There is no other witness than Ireaneus who stated this. Luke heard the Apostles and other disciples present with Jesus personally.And his gospel is backed by two others that agree with what is written in his just as Mark. What matters is those who wrote them are witnesses of Jesus' ministry which is proven not just in the gospels but all throughout the letters as well. But I very much doubt Lazarus wrote it though.
---willa5568 on 6/10/11


This type of speculation with no proof and denying what the Scripture says leads to disbelief in the authority of scripture.

This following of human wisdom starts a person down the road to denying scripture.
---Samuel on 6/10/11


Read These Insightful Articles About Home Equity Loans


According to willa's reasoning, we had better not accept Luke's gospel either, for it is hearsay. Come to think of it. Jesus never wrote a book of His own, so it is all hear...say...
2 Peter 1:16 For we have not followed cunningly devised fables, when we made known unto you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of his majesty.
Luke 1:2 Even as they delivered them unto us, which from the beginning were eyewitnesses, and ministers of the word,
Is there any other reason not to believe Ireneaus through Polycarp?
Should we believe what Luke write's about what others have said about what Jesus said? How about Mark?
How about Baruch writing what Jeremiah said that God said?
---micha9344 on 6/10/11


Mark Eaton,

"out of the mouth of two or three witness' shall a matter be established".

Ireaneus saying Polycarp said John wrote it is hearsay, not an account that can be backed by anything such as the biblical writings we have, for there is no such writings of Polycarp expressing this. There is no name mentioned as to who wrote it, and considering the various Apostles and disciples, it is only speculation as to who did. If you feel it is important that John wrote it,fine. But I'm content knowing that it is legitimate and a truthful account, though many misunderstand it.
---willa5568 on 6/10/11


james_l, fine. the point of micha's use of scripture is that it said the twelve disciples were there and included in one of them was: "John 13:23 ...leaning on Jesus' bosom one of his disciples, whom Jesus loved."

lazarus was not there. if you can surmise this lazarus theory from a few scriptures, you could have figured this one out if you wanted.

anyway, i believe there is significance to every word (meaning) of the bible towards the full revelation of Jesus Christ. So, what is the significance?

//And I'm not trying to use a few verses to create doubt, it was not even I who started this blog question...// this question was as a result of response that you gave that really was an aside to his original question.
---aka on 6/10/11


Not true. You are probably thinking of Iraneus, himself assuming so. Iraneus never quoted Polycarp as saying this.
---James_L on 6/9/11

Still, you did not touch on what was the message of my post. There were people around who knew who the author was and had personally talked with him.

This is the same lind of evidence that Paul lists in 1 Cor 15 as proof that the gospel and resurrection of Jesus was a fact.

Denying this evidence of the fourth Gospel authorship is nearly the same as denying that Christ rose from the dead.

If you do not trust people to give reliable evidence and rather need "emperical" evidence, then you lack faith in God and in your fellow man.
---Mark_Eaton on 6/10/11


Read These Insightful Articles About Interest Rates


It's fun to speculate, but does it really matter?
---John.usa on 6/10/11


\\Luke's "acts of all the apostles" yet calls John "disciple"?\\

And you actually think there is an intrinsic difference between "apostle" and "disciple"?

Just because you haven't heard of the Orthodox Church and her teachings--about which there is nothing secret but are available to all--doesn't make it gnostic.

The very fact that it sounds gnostic to you shows your ignorance.

Glory to Jesus Christ!
---Cluny on 6/10/11


micha,
to simply copy and paste scripture verses made it difficult for me to identify a point you might have been trying to make, so I didn't reply. I guess that's the pitfall of quoting scripture without commenting on how it supports a position.

Were you making a case that Jesus was there with only the twelve?
---James_L on 6/10/11


\\The Muratorian Canon, dated 170-200 AD, lists the author of the fourth Gospel as John.\\ -Mark Eaton

The Muratorian Canon says that the fourth gospel was written by "John, of the disciples". Interestingly, it refers to "Andrew, of the apostles", "the blessed apostle Paul", Luke's "acts of all the apostles" yet calls John "disciple"?


\\Polycarp, a disciple of John, lived until 155 AD and emphatically insisted that John wrote the fourth Gospel. \\

Not true. You are probably thinking of Iraneus, himself assuming so. Iraneus never quoted Polycarp as saying this.
---James_L on 6/9/11


Read These Insightful Articles About Internet Marketing


\\As I said, this is nothing that other amateurs haven't claimed in the past!\\
---Cluny on 6/9/11

Yep. You haven't added anything to this discussion except to give hints that you might be ignorant of what Gnosticism taught.

You have repeatedly asserted that you were submerged in the darkness of "Baptist" theology until you saw the "light" of the Orthodox church, and the "salvation" you aquired after being immersed in this "knowledge" that us pitiful amateurs are woefully "ignorant" of. That sounds more Gnostic to me.

See how that works? I know how to twist words just like you.

But I'd rather not continue in that manner of insults.
---James_L on 6/9/11


aka,
I'm not trying to minimize anything. Simply showing interchangable use of two words. You are the one who made the big deal about Lazarus being "phileo" loved by Jesus, and the "other" disciple being "agape" loved.

But you didn't respond to the point both were used of the "other" disciple.

And I'm not trying to use a few verses to create doubt, it was not even I who started this blog question.

I simply honored a request from another blog after this thread was started by another.
---James_L on 6/9/11


The Muratorian Canon, dated 170-200 AD, lists the author of the fourth Gospel as John.

Polycarp, a disciple of John, lived until 155 AD and emphatically insisted that John wrote the fourth Gospel.

With these two witnesses so close in time, the authorship of the fourth Gospel was not in question until after the time of Polycarp, by Dionysius of Alexandria around the middle of the third century.

Do you think these two sources lied about the authorship of the fourth Gospel?
---Mark_Eaton on 6/9/11


Which christians come up with these foolish question?
---francis on 6/9/11


Read These Insightful Articles About Life Insurance


Aka, I agree with your answers. Although the author's name does not appear in the gospel, early church teachings from the early church fathers like Irenaeus who was a disciple of Polycarp who was a disciple of the Apostle John, and testified on Polycarp's authority that John wrote the gospel during his residence at Ephesus in Asia Minor (Against Heresis 2. 22.5, 3,1,1). John (the author) prefered to identify himself as the disciple "Whom Jesus loved" (13:23, 19:26, 20:2, 21:7,20). Meaning also that Jesus not only loved Lazarus but all of His own.
---Mark_V. on 6/9/11


james_l,

my point is not the big difference between the two words. but, there is a difference. don't try to minimize it. to have a loving friendship with God is no small matter...to be considered family is not either, but there is a difference.

my point is that the friends used one word in humility (...maybe they were unsure of the depth), but a few verses later, in actuality the writer said God loved them.

maybe, the writer was using third person, which seem to be a device that was used a lot in the day. Jesus did a lot.

just like the others, you are using a few verses to create doubt.

address micha's post.
---aka on 6/9/11


\\ It's called S-T-U-D-Y

Are you sure you even know what gnosticsm is, or was? You throw around the accusation a lot at people who question tradition.\\

As I said, this is nothing that other amateurs haven't claimed in the past.

Glory to Jesus Christ!
---Cluny on 6/9/11


Thre is no contradictions in Scripture. Lazarus was mention as one that the Lord Loved, but Jesus also loved the others for John 13:1 says, He loved them to the end, also 13: 23, His disciples whom Jesus loved. Two people were send by Jesus to find and prepare the place, for only two people were allowed to accompany a lamb to the sacrifice. Peter and John were to prepare the passover meal for Jesus and the twelve. The place that Jesus had in mind was a guest room just for Himself and the Twelve. The words "Guest room" is translated "Inn" in Luke 2:7. It typecally referred to a place where a traveler could spend the night, a place of lodging or a guest room in someone's home, as was the case here (Matt. 26:18).
---Mark_V. on 6/9/11


Read These Insightful Articles About Make Money


aka,
I never said that Jesus was only allowed to love one person. But the writer did not refer to himself as "one of the disciples whom Jesus loved"

He referred to himself as "THE disciple whom Jesus loved", denoting a significance that at least he saw.

Concerning the use of "phileis" (phileo) (11:3) and "hegapa" (agape) (11:5)

there is not quite the significant difference between the two meanings as most suspect.

Both are used interchangably in reference to this disciple - 13:23 "hegapa" and 20:2 "hephilei"

We are commanded to "hagapeseis" God (Matt 22:37)

We are even to "philei" God (1Cor 16:22)
---James_L on 6/8/11


Of all the Gospels and NT writings. The Gospel of John is the most authenticated of the Gospels. It is the earliest writings we have in existence. The Parchment states the name John.
---John on 6/8/11


John 11:3 So the sisters sent to him, saying, "Lord, he whom you love (phileo') is ill."

John 13:23 One of his disciples, whom Jesus loved (agapao'), was reclining at table close to Jesus,

good buddy v. family...Martha and her sister spoke in humility.

John 11:5 Now [in reality] Jesus loved (agapao') Martha and her sister and Lazarus.

to say that Jesus was only allowed to love one person (or consider one person 'family') is ludicrous.

the Word holds a great winnowing fork.
---aka on 6/8/11


\\what difference would it make?\\
Cluny on 6/8/11

some passages make more sense if it were Lazarus. John 21:21-24, If Peter were pointing to Lazarus, the rumor that he wouldn't die makes sense.

the high priest knew this "other disciple" at Jesus' trial, but apparently did not konw him only a few weeks later in Acts 4.

If it doesn't make any difference to you, why comment?

This blog question was started because of a single comment another, perhaps relevant, blog. I don't go around shouting that I know something "hidden". It's called S-T-U-D-Y

Are you sure you even know what gnosticsm is, or was? You throw around the accusation a lot at people who question tradition.
---James_L on 6/8/11


Read These Insightful Articles About Rehab Treatments


Were it positively demonstrated that the Gospel that bears John's name was written by Lazarus, Barnabas, the Rich Young Ruler, or anyone other than John, what difference would it make?

It would still say the same thing.

Or do you want to feel you're in that elite circle of those who know a little bit better than the average Christian (which is the heresy of Gnosticism)?

This idea has been around for centuries, so you've told us nothing new.

Glory to Jesus Christ!
---Cluny on 6/8/11


Mar 14:14b-15a ...Where is the guestchamber, where I shall eat the passover with my disciples? And he will shew you a large upper room furnished [and] prepared...
Luk 22:11b-12 ...Where is the guestchamber, where I shall eat the passover with my disciples? And he shall shew you a large upper room furnished: there make ready.
Mat 26:20 Now when the even was come, he sat down with the twelve.
Mar 14:17 And in the evening he cometh with the twelve.
Luk 22:14 And when the hour was come, he sat down, and the twelve apostles with him.
Joh 13:23 Now there was leaning on Jesus' bosom one of his disciples, whom Jesus loved.
---micha9344 on 6/8/11


\\Maybe you can use this to prove that Lazarus and RYR are the same person!\\
---Cluny on 6/8/11

Well, if you can demonstrate that the rich young ruler was a disciple, I might make a case that he was Lazarus.

But, considering that I said Lazarus was the "only disciple called by name as one Jesus loved"

Then my statement still stands.

Can you show any other disciple called by name and described as one that Jesus loved?
---James_L on 6/8/11


\\"John" 11:3 says "Lord, he Whom You Love is sick" (clearly Lazarus). The only disciple called by name as one Jesus loved.\\

While his name is not mentioned, the Rich Young Ruler who kept all the commandments from his youth we are told that Jesus loved. (Maybe you can use this to prove that Lazarus and RYR are the same person!)

Is there anyone Jesus did NOT love?

Glory to Jesus Christ!
---Cluny on 6/8/11


Read These Insightful Articles About Stocks


there is no mention of John writing the gospel or letters ascribed to his name. It is tradition, which most accept. There were many other disciples who were with Jesus during his ministry so wither John or another disciple wrote it, that does not negate its validity. Hebrews is another letter by tradition believed to be written by Paul as someone already mentioned. There were many others in the church, such as Barnabas, Apollos and so on, who were Jews capable of writing this letter and were in positions equal to Paul's, which would allow them to.
---willa5568 on 6/8/11


Whoever believes this will have a hard time convincing others, as the tradition that St. John wrote it is too well established.

Glory to Jesus Christ!
---Cluny on 6/7/11


Samuel,
evidence for your claim, please?


"John" 11:3 says "Lord, he Whom You Love is sick" (clearly Lazarus). The only disciple called by name as one Jesus loved.

Interestingly, Lazarus is mentioned only through chapter 11, and the disciple whom Jesus loved is not.

Then from chapter 12 on, the disciple "whom Jesus loved" is mentioned several times, and Lazarus is never mentioned again.

It is typically believed that Jesus and the Twelve were the only ones at the Last Supper, but Mark 14:17 says "When it was evening He came with the twelve"

Came where? Who's house were they at? Did they kick everyone else out?

There's more
---James_L on 6/7/11


Its not true, the early Church strongly belief that it was Apostle John who wrote the gospel of John and also, i strongly believe that it will only take someone who followed Jesus closely to be able to write the gospel of John.
---Comfort on 6/8/11


Read These Insightful Articles About Diabetes


There have been a number of suggestions that some books have not been written by the person who says he is that author. The most common is the suspicion that Hebrews is not actually by Paul - this is taken from the style of writing.

I have not read about the idea about John's gospel. Can someone tell me why this is thought?
---Peter on 6/8/11


This position is one of the many ways that some are tryng to destroy trust in the bible.
---Samuel on 6/7/11


Wow, that was fast service to get this blog question posted! (c: In another blog, James L shared >

"Also, Peter asking 'what about his man?' in 21:21-24 where Jesus said 'what if I want him to live until I return?' makes much more sense if it were Lazaurs, who had been raised from the dead.

"Also, 15:13-16 says the 'other disciple' (suppposedly John?) was known to Caiaphas at Jesus' trial, but Acts 4:13 says 'they' (incl Caiaphas) began to recognize that Peter and John had been with Jesus, so he did not know John."

John was an apostle. And the apostles were together after Jesus died. I'm not sure Lazarus was with them so he would have gone with Peter and been with them later. Let's have more evidence (c:
---Bill_willa6989 on 6/7/11


Copyright© 1996-2015 ChristiaNet®. All Rights Reserved.