Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 41 to 51 of 51

Thread: The apostle that Jesus loved

  1. #41
    dwray Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by acceptedinthebeloved View Post
    I agree with you, for the most part, but it's just that I see no reason to rule out Lazarus (for the reason you state above... gotta admit that Lazarus's personal testimony was pretty outstanding, not to mention the number of actual witnesses of it - John 12:9-10, 11). And I think, according to the biblical evidence alone (if that's all we had to go by), that there is a stronger case for Lazarus than John.


    ETA: If I recall rightly, the proponent of this "Lazarus" idea suggests that perhaps he (that is, Lazarus) was the unnamed "one of the two which heard John [the Baptist] speak, and followed Him" (the other one, being named in the text, was Andrew) in John 1:35-41 (and this would tie into the "personal witness" aspect of this whole idea). The two went to where Jesus was staying, and stayed with Him that day. This may have been when the unique familial/love relationship between them (Jesus and Lazarus) began, which is nowhere else explained (that is, before we see Jesus at their home [Mary, Martha, Lazarus] in Bethany, in John 12, after Lazarus was raised [John 11:3, 5 - "he whom Thou lovest is sick"], and just before His own death).
    Just some thoughts...
    Still if it was Lazarus who wrote John, when he told the story of Lazarus being raised from the dead wouldn't he have continued to call himself "the disciple Jesus loved"?

  2. #42

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by dwray View Post
    Still if it was Lazarus who wrote John, when he told the story of Lazarus being raised from the dead wouldn't he have continued to call himself "the disciple Jesus loved"?
    I think I understand your question.

    The thing is, the phrase "the disciple whom Jesus loved" was not mentioned until chapter 13 (John 13:23). That is the first mention. (And this is after Lazarus is raised from the dead.) Lazarus is only named in 11 verses of this gospel (6 times in chapter 11, where he is first mentioned; and 5 times in chapter 12).

    Where Lazarus is first talked about, his sisters are telling Jesus "he whom thou lovest is sick" (John 11:3). We don't see anything about him before this chapter. And nothing about him after chapter 12.

    Oddly, we also see nothing about "the disciple whom Jesus loved" before chapter 13 (and nothing more about Lazarus... by name).

    So, "he whom thou lovest" (Lazarus) abruptly disappears (after being singled out as being "loved" by Jesus), and then the only disciple singled out as being "loved" by Jesus abruptly appears in this same gospel.

    Something to think about.

  3. #43
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    in Christ alone
    Posts
    4,956

    Default

    AITB, I never heard of these ideas before, and I think you made some good points, but couldn't John still have written the Gospel of John, the epistles and Revelation, and described himself at times as the disciple who Jesus loved, and at other times, Lazarus as the disciple who Jesus loved, and still both be true? Jesus did love both disciples, after all, even though Lazarus wasn't one of the twelve.

    John 11:3 So the sisters sent word to Him, saying, “Lord, behold, he whom You love is sick.” LAZARUS

    John 11:5 Now Jesus loved Martha and her sister and Lazarus. LAZARUS

    John 11:35-36 Jesus wept. So the Jews were saying, “See how He loved him!” LAZARUS

    John 12:2 So they made Him a supper there, and Martha was serving; but Lazarus was one of those reclining at the table with Him. LAZARUS

    John 13:23 There was reclining on Jesus’ bosom one of His disciples, whom Jesus loved.

    John 18:15-17 Simon Peter was following Jesus, and so was another disciple. Now that disciple was known to the high priest, and entered with Jesus into the court of the high priest, but Peter was standing at the door outside. So the other disciple, who was known to the high priest, went out and spoke to the doorkeeper, and brought Peter in. Then the slave-girl who kept the door said to Peter, “You are not also one of this man’s disciples, are you?” He said, “I am not.”

    John 18:19 The high priest then questioned Jesus about His disciples, and about His teaching.

    John 19:26-27 When Jesus then saw His mother, and the disciple whom He loved standing nearby, He said to His mother, “Woman, behold, your son!” Then He said to the disciple, “Behold, your mother!” From that hour the disciple took her into his own household.

    John 21:2 Simon Peter, and Thomas called Didymus, and Nathanael of Cana in Galilee, and the sons of Zebedee [James and John], and two others of His disciples were together.

    John 21:7 Therefore that disciple whom Jesus loved said to Peter, “It is the Lord.”

    John 21:20-25 Peter, turning around, saw the disciple whom Jesus loved following them; the one who also had leaned back on His bosom at the supper and said, “Lord, who is the one who betrays You?” So Peter seeing him said to Jesus, “Lord, and what about this man?” Jesus said to him, “If I want him to remain until I come, what is that to you? You follow Me!” Therefore this saying went out among the brethren that that disciple would not die; yet Jesus did not say to him that he would not die, but only, “If I want him to remain until I come, what is that to you?” This is the disciple who is testifying to these things and wrote these things, and we know that his testimony is true. And there are also many other things which Jesus did, which if they were written in detail, I suppose that even the world itself would not contain the books that would be written.

    Luke 24:50-51 And He led them out as far as Bethany, and He lifted up His hands and blessed them. While He was blessing them, He parted from them and was carried up into heaven.


    As far as the writing style, I appreciate bookworm's literary explanations from his professional viewpoint. IMO, John carefully wrote the Revelation account as instructed by the Lord, thus the absolute certainty in who was doing the recording (John) as opposed to the careful, but nameless writer of the Gospel of John, who I believe was the same John, not Lazarus.

    But maybe for love's sake it will be both John and Lazarus sitting on His right and on His left at the Marriage Supper?

    Since you question that the Gospel of John may have been written by Lazarus, doesn't it seem a little odd to you that Lazarus, even as close as he was to Jesus and the disciples, wasn't the Lord's choice to replace him by casting lots as the twelfth disciple after Judas died?


    Also, after reading the thread you linked to this one, I'm considering leaning more toward Lazarus being the man who had the linen wrapped around him and fled away naked. It makes much more sense to me than Mark, for the reasons you gave. The religious explanation never sat quite right with me, even when I first heard the account as a child. I trust those instincts.

    Mark 14:50-52 And they all left Him and fled. A young man was following Him, wearing nothing but a linen sheet over his naked body; and they seized him. But he pulled free of the linen sheet and escaped naked.


    Adding more, after sleeping on it:

    If supposing it was Lazarus at the cross who was given the charge to take care of Jesus' mother, the only one around after all the eleven disciples had fled (including John), then why didn't the Pharisees have the soldiers lay hold of him at that time, since they had been trying to kill him ever since he had been raised? Or do you think (supposing it was Lazarus) that it was a moot point by then, since it was apparent Jesus wasn't coming down from the cross to save himself from his own death?

    I asked all these questions off the top of my head last night and this a.m. just after reading the threads, which were quite extensive and deep in and of themselves, including all the Scripture given to support. Today I started studying these things for myself. Again, thanks for all you bring to the board.


    Here's your link again, to that other thread:

    http://rr-bb.com/showthread.php?1008...the-nude-dude&
    Last edited by EarsToHear; August 6th, 2011 at 11:33 AM. Reason: Added Scriptures after some study; fixed typos.
    Rom. 8:19 For the anxious longing of the creation waits eagerly for the revealing of the sons of God.
    Rom. 8:28 God causes all things to work together for good to those who love God, to those who are called according to His purpose.

  4. #44

    Default

    I see you've added quite a bit since I copied your post in order to respond to it as best I can (so please excuse the fact that your post is not completely copied, here).

    And I'm attempting to compose this post while being not very well rested, so we'll see if it ends up making any sense, at all.

    Here goes...


    Quote Originally Posted by EarsToHear View Post
    AITB, I never heard of these ideas before, and I think you made some good points, but couldn't John still have written the Gospel of John, the epistles and Revelation, and described himself at times as the disciple who Jesus loved, and at other times, Lazarus as the disciple who Jesus loved, and still both be true? Jesus did love both disciples, after all, even though Lazarus wasn't one of the twelve.
    [One of my points was just to say --->]... the text does not anywhere state that Jesus "loved" John (although I realize that He loved all of His disciples, surely).
    Of course it is possible, but the text itself does not indicate this.



    Quote Originally Posted by EarsToHear View Post
    As far as the writing style, John carefully wrote the Revelation account as instructed by the Lord, thus the absolute certainty in who was doing the recording (John) as opposed to the careful, but nameless writer of the Gospel of John, who I believe was the same John, not Lazarus.
    One of the reasons people point out, for the John idea, is that he was basically being "humble" in not naming himself in the gospel of John. Yet he does not hesitate to name himself 5 times as the writer of the Book of Revelation. This seems inconsistent, at the very least. If John wrote John, why not say so, since he clearly names himself as the writer of Revelation with no problem.

    John's characteristics, described elsewhere, do not seem to be particularly "humble."

    Another reason often cited (in support of John's authorship, apart from being named) was for the purpose of "anonymity," yet in John 21 "the sons of Zebedee" are listed as being on the fishing trip (along with two unnamed disciples). This fact would seem to (somewhat) undermine the author's efforts at "anonymity," if the author were John.

    The same could be said of Lazarus, I suppose... but I still find it intriguing that the stated purpose of the Book (found in John 20:30, 31) is pretty much the exact same stated purpose Jesus gave for raising Lazarus from the dead (found in John 11:4, 15, 42). And Lazarus actually seemed to have had reason(s) to want to remain anonymous. It would make some sense, regarding him. As for John, no apparent reason.



    Quote Originally Posted by EarsToHear View Post
    But maybe for love's sake it will be both John and Lazarus sitting on His right and on His left at the Marriage Supper?
    I don't have any reason to think so (again, nowhere does the text state that Jesus "loved" John, specifically), but I suppose anything is possible (though I must say that I think Lazarus seems a better candidate, if we were to choose based only on the text).

    Another thought I've pondered is related to how Jesus says, in Matthew 19:28, "Verily I say unto you, That ye which have followed Me, in the regeneration when the Son of man shall sit in the throne of His glory, ye also shall sit upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel," that perhaps this (and related passages) indicates that there will be 12 disciples "sitting upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel," while there may be two additional, "special" positions: one seated on His right hand and the other seated on His left.



    Quote Originally Posted by EarsToHear View Post
    Since you question that the Gospel of John may have been written by Lazarus, doesn't it seem a little odd to you that Lazarus, even as close as he was to Jesus and the disciples, wasn't the Lord's choice to replace him by casting lots as the twelfth disciple after Judas died?
    Perhaps, but I've always thought it was a little odd that Matthias was chosen, since we hear so very little about him (seemingly only in Acts 1:23, 26).
    (And maybe this is because God "already had" a special position marked out for Lazarus's future... again, complete speculation, there, based on my previous comment).

    One thing the writer of this idea pointed out was, whomever was to be chosen had to have been with Him from the beginning, starting with Jesus' baptism. Acts 1:21-22 specifically says, "Wherefore of these men which have companied with us all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us, beginning from the baptism of John, unto the same day that He was taken up from us, must one be ordained to be a witness with us of His resurrection."

    He points out this passage as yet another "evidence" that there were indeed more than just the 12 present at the Last Supper.

    The author also points out how the fourth gospel leaves out the details of "the bread and the cup" (as Matthew 26:26-29, Mark 14:22-25, Luke 22:16-20 have it), and goes straight from the Passover Supper (when Judas receives the sop and goes out) directly to the washing of His disciples' feet ("the bread and the cup" being distinctively for the Church, as Paul demonstrates in 1 Corinthians 11:23-26). Just a bonus thought, there.



    Quote Originally Posted by EarsToHear View Post
    Also, after reading the thread you linked to this one, I'm considering leaning more toward Lazarus being the man who had the linen wrapped around him and fled away naked. It makes much more sense to me than Mark, for the reasons you gave. The religious explanation never sat quite right with me, even when I first heard the account as a child. I trust those instincts.
    Speaking of our childhood perceptions, when I was very young, I just thought of the title "John" as nothing more than, well... a title... merely as an easy way to find "John 3:16," for instance. I remember reading the whole Book of John, never once giving thought to its title indicating anything other than just "a reference point" (I was a child! )

    A few years later, when someone happened to point out (to us young people) the reason of its being titled "John" ---> "BECAUSE John was the one who wrote it [ ... oh! silly me! ] and is also therefore 'the disciple whom Jesus loved,'" I remember thinking to myself, "why John? I've read through it. He doesn't seem so special. He doesn't stand out any more than the others" (meaning, out of the inner circle, "Peter, James, and John"... and possibly even "Andrew" - Mark 13:3, John 1:40). It has only been in the past several years that I have come to scrutinize the text more closely, to give it much more thought and deeper examination, and I can now see a number of reasons why I would have naturally thought that way, as an "uninformed" (read: unbiased) child.



    One last thought. In the other three gospels, they mention John, but they leave him out when recording the events where the fourth gospel mentions "the disciple whom Jesus loved," "the other disciple," etc (such as when Peter and "the other disciple" were at the tomb [John 20:3-4, 8], it only mentions Peter, not John [Luke 24:12] - as one example)... the other three gospels do not mention "the other discple" nor "the disciple whom Jesus loved." Why not? Why not mention "John" (in those incidents), in light of the fact that John is freely mentioned (basically throughout) the rest of those other three gospels?

    Maybe because "that other disciple" ("the disciple whom Jesus loved") was not John.



    Quote Originally Posted by EarsToHear View Post
    Adding more, after sleeping on it:

    If supposing it was Lazarus at the cross who was given the charge to take care of Jesus's mother, the only one around after all the eleven disciples had fled (including John), then why didn't the Pharisees have the soldiers lay hold of him at that time, since they had been trying to kill him ever since he had been raised? Or do you think (supposing it was Lazarus) that it was a moot point by then, since it was apparent Jesus wasn't coming down from the cross to save himself from his own death?

    I asked all these questions off the top of my head last night and this a.m. just after reading the threads, which were quite extensive and deep in and of themselves, including all the Scripture given to support. Today I started studying these things for myself. Again, thanks for all you bring to the board.


    Here's your link again, to that other thread:

    http://rr-bb.com/showthread.php?1008...the-nude-dude&
    Thank you. Hopefully more later, after I've done some sleeping, myself.
    .
    Last edited by acceptedintheBeloved; August 6th, 2011 at 10:55 AM. Reason: added 2 scripture references

  5. #45
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    The Shadowlands
    Posts
    8,109

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by acceptedinthebeloved View Post
    [One of my points was just to say --->]... the text does not anywhere state that Jesus "loved" John (although I realize that He loved all of His disciples, surely).
    Of course it is possible, but the text itself does not indicate this.
    But it does...

    John 13:34 A new commandment I give unto you, That ye love one another; as I have loved you, that ye also love one another.

    This was to the Disciples. He did love John; you and I have gone over this in the thread, so others can go back and read our conversations, but I just felt compelled again to point out that Jesus did indeed love them all, and states so in scripture. He goes on in scripture to call them His friends; His emotional attachment to them was strong and personal.

    Thanks to sweeetlilgurlie on Narniaweb for the sig

  6. #46

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kliska View Post
    Originally Posted by acceptedinthebeloved
    [One of my points was just to say --->]... the text does not anywhere state that Jesus "loved" John (although I realize that He loved all of His disciples, surely). [yes, we know the text states that Jesus loved all of His disciples]

    Of course it is possible, but the text itself does not indicate this. [that John is "singled out" as being "loved" by Jesus]

    But it does...

    John 13:34 A new commandment I give unto you, That ye love one another; as I have loved you, that ye also love one another.

    This was to the Disciples. He did love John; you and I have gone over this in the thread, so others can go back and read our conversations, but I just felt compelled again to point out that Jesus did indeed love them all, and states so in scripture. He goes on in scripture to call them His friends; His emotional attachment to them was strong and personal.
    I should have written my point more clearly. I meant that the text does not specifically state that Jesus "loved" John (as it specifically states of Lazarus). By saying that Jesus loved all of His disciples (as we know the text says here), how might this help us pinpoint John (out of the disciples) as being "the disciple whom Jesus loved" (and the writer of the Book) as opposed to any of the other disciples? (We know it could not have been Peter, based on the written, internal evidence - John 21:20.) It doesn't help us to pinpoint John.

    Hope that makes my point more clear.

  7. #47
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    in Christ alone
    Posts
    4,956

    Default

    Some other thoughts...

    Is this right? John 21:2 is the first time John specifically mentions himself (as the son of Zebedee) in the Book of John. Because members of the twelve in this verse were so specifically named, it's possible that the "two others of His disciples" weren't of the twelve, and that Lazarus could have been in the boat along with John. But John still could have been referring to himself in John 21:7, as he had done in other verses.

    John 13:23 - Here at the Last Supper, a disciple who Jesus loved was reclining on Jesus' bosom.

    But, in Peter's confrontational conversation with Jesus (John 21:21), he referred to that disciple at the Last Supper as the one who had leaned on Jesus's breast and who asked who would be the betrayer (John 21:20). If it had been Lazarus, why didn't Peter mention the divisive incident in Bethany, when Lazarus was at the table with Jesus (John 12:2) and Mary anointed Him with nard, and some (maybe even Peter) were indignant (Mark 14:4)? Since he didn't use that example, it seems more leading that it was John he was talking about.

    Just noticing...

    3 John 15 "Peace be to you. The friends greet you. Greet the friends by name." Which is what John did with the twelve in John 21:2.


    Also, it seems that in John, Philip from Bethsaida is mentioned by name more than any of the other disciples (except for Peter) and light is shed on his relationships (e.g., John 1:44-45, John 12:22). Starting to wonder why and if knowing who hung around with who can be of help here.
    Rom. 8:19 For the anxious longing of the creation waits eagerly for the revealing of the sons of God.
    Rom. 8:28 God causes all things to work together for good to those who love God, to those who are called according to His purpose.

  8. #48

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by EarsToHear View Post
    Some other thoughts...

    Is this right? John 21:2 is the first time John specifically mentions himself (as the son of Zebedee) in the Book of John. Because members of the twelve in this verse were so specifically named, it's possible that the "two others of His disciples" weren't of the twelve, and that Lazarus could have been in the boat along with John.

    John 13:23 - Here at the Last Supper, a disciple who Jesus loved was reclining on Jesus' bosom.

    But, in Peter's confrontational conversation with Jesus (John 21:21), he referred to that disciple as the one at the Last Supper who had leaned on Jesus's breast and who asked who would be the betrayer (John 21:20). If it had been Lazarus, why didn't Peter mention the divisive incident in Bethany, when Lazarus was at the table with Jesus (John 12:2) and Mary anointed Him with nard, and some (maybe even Peter) were indignant (Mark 14:4)? Since he didn't use that example, it seems more leading that it was John he was talking about.
    I think (if I'm understanding your question correctly) it would be because the topic under discussion at that time was "death" (Jesus telling Peter that he [and how he, Peter] would die).

    There would be no reason to list everything Lazarus ever did (if it were Lazarus). But it would make (more) sense to ask "what about Lazarus?" (with regard to "death") than it would to inquire (seemingly out of the blue), "what about John?" (with regard to "death")... at the time. (Jesus' answer would also fit the "type," if it were Lazarus, but that is another train of thought: "If I will that he [Lazarus/believing Remnant of Israel] tarry till I come...")

    If Peter was pointing to Lazarus, and inquiring whether or not HE would die before the kingdom commenced (Christ's return), this would "fit" better, because Peter (and most, I would think) would be wondering whether or not Lazarus would have to die AGAIN. He had already died once, and seemingly had the promised/prophesied resurrection, himself. It seems to fit the context of the conversation about death (esp. in relation to His Coming in the Kingdom... and their promised/prophesied resurrection that they were all aware of, from the OT).

    Hope I understood you rightly.

    Oh, and yes, I do believe that one of the two unnamed disciples in the boat (John 21:2) could have been Lazarus.

  9. #49
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    in Christ alone
    Posts
    4,956

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by acceptedinthebeloved View Post
    I think (if I'm understanding your question correctly) it would be because the topic under discussion at that time was "death" (Jesus telling Peter that he [and how he, Peter] would die).

    There would be no reason to list everything Lazarus ever did (if it were Lazarus), but it would make (more) sense to ask "what about Lazarus?" (with regard to "death") than it would to inquire (seemingly out of the blue), "what about John?" (with regard to "death.")

    If Peter was pointing to Lazarus, and inquiring whether or not HE would die before the kingdom commenced (Christ's return), this would "fit" better, because Peter (and most) would be wondering whether or not Lazarus would have to die AGAIN. He had already died once, and seemingly had the promised/prophesied resurrection, himself. It seems to fit the context of the conversation.

    Hope I understood you rightly.

    Oh, and yes, I do believe that one of the two unnamed disciples in the boat (John 21:2) could have been Lazarus.
    Thanks, I do see your point of view and you make sense, but I still am not convinced. Anyway, while you were typing your answers I added a couple more thoughts to my post.

    Lazarus did die again though, didn't he? Or do you think he was translated sometime, possibly in Bethany (Luke 24:50-51)?
    Rom. 8:19 For the anxious longing of the creation waits eagerly for the revealing of the sons of God.
    Rom. 8:28 God causes all things to work together for good to those who love God, to those who are called according to His purpose.

  10. #50

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by EarsToHear View Post
    Thanks, I do see your point of view and you make sense, but I still am not convinced. Anyway, while you were typing your answers I added a couple more thoughts to my post.

    Lazarus did die again though, didn't he? Or do you think he was translated sometime, possibly in Bethany (Luke 24:50-51)?
    I did the same thing. (Maybe we should agree not to quote each other for at least an hour after our initial posts... to give time for some of these additions we always seem to have. )

    I do tend to believe that Lazarus died again ( ), but I think I was just pointing out how Jesus' words (usually said to be about John; John 21:21-23) could be a better "fit" if we viewed it as being about Lazarus (the one man of which it was actually stated in the text that "Jesus loved," and the man who had already died and been raised, as promised), instead of John.

  11. #51
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    in Christ alone
    Posts
    4,956

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by acceptedinthebeloved View Post
    If Peter was pointing to Lazarus, and inquiring whether or not HE would die before the kingdom commenced (Christ's return), this would "fit" better, because Peter (and most, I would think) would be wondering whether or not Lazarus would have to die AGAIN. He had already died once, and seemingly had the promised/prophesied resurrection, himself. It seems to fit the context of the conversation about death (esp. in relation to His Coming in the Kingdom... and their promised/prophesied resurrection that they were all aware of, from the OT).
    Breaking the rules and posting within 1 hour.

    Thinking out loud about the dying twice problem...

    After Lazarus slept (died), he was brought back to life (like others who were raised from the dead in the O.T. and N.T.), back into "restored" flesh, without getting an incorruptible body. The Bible doesn't say Lazarus was translated (out of his "restored" flesh). He would have to die and remain out of his decayed flesh until the prophesied resurrection. So, maybe changing the semantics fixes the problem.

    Seems like Peter isn't the only one with questions about "that man."


    Note: I'm glad we agree about one of the two unidentified men in the boat.
    Rom. 8:19 For the anxious longing of the creation waits eagerly for the revealing of the sons of God.
    Rom. 8:28 God causes all things to work together for good to those who love God, to those who are called according to His purpose.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •