Re: [FamilyofGod] Question
Thanks for all the responses to this question. I, too, was thinking it was John. 
Joyonya,
Bonnie
Thinking about this, John wrote the Gospel of John so it seems rather logical to think that he would have had to be a witness of who was with Peter when Jesus was taken to the high priest. Plus, if you read about the resurrection and how Peter and another disciple went to the tomb....
John 20: 1
On the first day of the week, Mary of Magdala came to the tomb early in the morning, while it was still dark, and saw the stone removed from the tomb.
Val
Psalm 121
Psalm 121
From: valerie cornell <cornell7251@
To: FamilyofGod@
Sent: Mon, October 26, 2009 5:00:21 PM
Subject: Re: [FamilyofGod] Question
I think it was John...the one who Jesus called His 'beloved'. John's father, I think, was among the elite and John would have known those men. Also John seemed to frequently refer to himself as 'another' or 'the one Jesus loved' in his gospel.
I don't recall any scriptual references given as to who was with Peter at that time.
Val Psalm 121
From: Bonnie :-) <browley7@att.
To: FamilyofGod@
Sent: Mon, October 26, 2009 4:25:11 PM
Subject: [FamilyofGod] Question
I have a question:
John 18:15 And Simon Peter followed Jesus, and so did another disciple: that disciple was known unto the high priest, and went in with Jesus into the palace of the high priest.
Who was "another disciple"? Why wasn't a name given? MH Commentary suggests that it was someone "bold" enough to stand WITH Jesus.
If anyone has SCRIPTURAL references, please let me know. Thanks.
John 18:15 And Simon Peter followed Jesus, and so did another disciple: that disciple was known unto the high priest, and went in with Jesus into the palace of the high priest.
Who was "another disciple"? Why wasn't a name given? MH Commentary suggests that it was someone "bold" enough to stand WITH Jesus.
If anyone has SCRIPTURAL references, please let me know. Thanks.
Joyonya,
Bonnie
__._,_.___
MARKETPLACE
Change settings via the Web (Yahoo! ID required)
Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Daily Digest | Switch format to Traditional
Visit Your Group | Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use | Unsubscribe
.
__,_._,___
Bonnie,
the-beloved-disciple.com has all of the scriptural references on the unnamed "disciple whom Jesus loved" brought together in a free eBook that presents only scripture (no non-Bible sources are cited) using a courtroom scenario to explore the biblical evidence on this "other disciple, whom Jesus loved".
When the Bible urges the readers of scripture to "prove all things" it certainly was not suggesting that they should look to the hearsay of men as their standard of truth but, rather, in accord with Ps. 118:8 they should look to scripture and trust the authority of God's word -- and not the traditions of men which may be added to that word. While the term "the disciple whom Jesus loved" depicts the one-of-kind-relationship that the author had with Jesus, it is also true that no verse of scripture ever said that John had this unique relationship with Jesus. The fact is that there is not a single verse that would justify teaching the idea that John was the unnamed "other disciple, whom Jesus loved". This is why repetition of hearsay from non-Bible sources must be used to sell the John tradition.
The fourth gospel does present the author’s eyewitness testimony, but the facts recorded in the plain text of scripture can actually prove that WHOEVER the unnamed "other disciple, whom Jesus loved" was he could not have been John - because that idea actually forces the Bible to contradict itself. The truth is that the man-made John tradition was a case of mistaken identity. (This, for example, explains why the 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.)
Those who want to avoid the light of scripture on this topic (because it proves the John tradition is false) will rush to change the subject - raising this-or-that objection to divert attention from what the word of God actually has to say on this topic. On the other hand, those welcome biblical correction may want to check out the presentation of the Bible facts on this topic (just scripture, no hearsay from non-Bible sources) that was mentioned above that uses the evidence in scripture to show why the one whom "Jesus loved" could not have been John.
A good first step in seeking truth on this issue is to just read the fourth gospel from beginning to end with this question in mind, "Who would I conclude that its unnamed author was based on just the facts stated in his own gospel?" Those who do won't come to the conclusion that the one whom "Jesus loved" was John because none of the evidence points toward John. However, those who go on further to compare the facts recorded about this author in his own gospel to what scripture tells us about John, will discover that whoever the unnamed "other disciple, whom Jesus loved" was he could not possibly have been the Apostle John. Not only did these two men behave differently, more important is the fact that there are Bible details that are reported about these two men that are mutually exclusive -- they cannot be the same person or the Bible would have to contradict itself.
Post a Comment