This means he was talking to the twelve apostles. This verse can be read in parallel with this one from Mark: "Afterward he appeared to the eleven themselves as they sat at table; and he upbraided them for their unbelief and hardness of heart, because they had not believed those who saw him after he had risen. And he said to them, "Go into all the world and preach the gospel to the whole creation.
He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned. And these signs will accompany those who believe: in my name they will cast out demons; they will speak in new tongues; they will pick up serpents, and if they drink any deadly thing, it will not hurt them; they will lay their hands on the sick, and they will recover. Lazarus wasn't even one of the twelve. Scripture also shows only the twelve were at the last supper.
The beloved disciple was at the last supper. This rules Lazarus out, too. While they were reclining at the table eating, he said, truly I tell you, one of you will betray me--one who is eating with me. They were saddened, and one by one they said to him, "Surely you don't mean me? This chapter shows the disciple whom Jesus loved is a fisherman. He was among the seven who gone fishing in the Sea of Galilee.
The miraculous catching of fish is very similar to this one: "When he had finished speaking, he said to Simon, "Put out into deep water, and let down the nets for a catch. But because you say so, I will let down the nets. So they signaled their partners in the other boat to come and help them, and they came and filled both boats so full that they began to sink. Luke Maybe the disciple whom Jesus loved remembered the first miraculous catch of fish? This is also an answer to these who like to argue the author of the fourth gospel cannot be a simple Galilean fisherman.
The scripture shows Zebedee had boats and servants; he and maybe Peter and others had money. Also, because the Sea of Galilee was rich in fish, not everyone could be a fisherman. For this reason, the fishery licenses were very expensive.
Philips says that since the raising of the Jairu's daughter, and the transfiguration isn't in the fourth gospel, John couldn't have written it. And why Lazarus name would disappear, since it would be so obvious? Many people uses this as an argument, like the rich young ruler, since Jesus "loved him". So, it's ironic how Mr.
The Disciple whom Jesus Loved
Philips states John absolutely cannot be the author of the fourth gospel when the evidence rules out Lazarus. We cannot say for sure it was John, but at least there are chances to him. For these who came across of the modern scholars theories, think by yourself. Read the scripture and don't be persuaded by others. Many of the people who accept such theories are these who only love to hear a different story.
I've even heard about people who thinks that seeing John as the disciple whom Jesus loved is "unglamorous". Because to them the scholars theories are "refreshing". Phillips: It doesn't seem right to write your own review on amazon. It's hardly an unbiased review. I usually steer clear of books that debate or discuss theology, and I can't really remember why I selected this one although I have a hunch that the selection of review books on offer was not inspiring, and this may have been the best available.
10 Reasons I Think Lazarus, Not John, Is the Disciple Whom Jesus Loved
I am sceptical of any author who claims to bring a new interpretation of the Bible. After all, I usually steer clear of books that debate or discuss theology, and I can't really remember why I selected this one although I have a hunch that the selection of review books on offer was not inspiring, and this may have been the best available.
After all, there is a long tradition of this - Joseph Smith and Mary Baker Eddy spring to mind — and these new interpretations generally contradict mainstream Christian theology. And what difference does it make to the central truths of the Christian message? If I had read to the end of the book, I might be able to answer these questions.
Is it too much to believe that John, son of thunder, could have learned humility later in life? So, I stopped reading, and went to look at the other reviews on Amazon. There were a lot of five-star reviews, including one by the author which is a big no-no on Amazon , and the author was refuting some of the one-star reviews which, in my opinion, is another no-no. Out of curiosity, I Googled the term. Apparently, there are two separate Berean denominations. One, the Berean Fellowship, appears to be a Baptist denomination.
But this is not the one that the author is aligned with. Instead, it appears that he is a Berean Christadelphian. Phillips appears to be a Berean Christadephian, placing the Bible above the teachings of the early leaders, but I am not convinced that this author represents mainstream Christian thinking, so would not recommend this book. Thanks to BookCrash for providing a free ebook for review. I'm giving this book a high rating because it made me think, and think hard. I just finished a Bible study of John, and after reading this book I was forced to go back through and reread the entire gospel with the point of view that this unnamed disciple was not John.
Many passages in John become much clearer using this perspective. The Lazarus theory harmonizes with the other gospels as well.
The Mystery of the Beloved Disciple
The key parts for me were the following two facts: 1 Acts clearly states that "John and Peter" wer I'm giving this book a high rating because it made me think, and think hard. The key parts for me were the following two facts: 1 Acts clearly states that "John and Peter" were not known to the high priest, yet John clearly states that the "other unnamed disciple" was known by the high priest. The Bible cannot contradict itself, so this proves by scripture that John was not the "unnamed disciple.
He believed as soon as he saw the folded linens, whereas the eleven believed not until they saw Christ Mark Therefore scripture again shows that the unnamed disciple could not have been John. Some of those who gave one-star used arguments that Lazarus wasn't a fisherman. This is sheer silliness. I'm not a fisherman, in fact I hate fish, but I have been on a fishing boat with my friends. Just because the "unnamed disciple" was on the fishing boat at the end of the gospel doesn't infer that he had to be a fisherman. I believe the preponderance of evidence will show that this could very likely be Lazarus.
One final note: relying on church tradition is precarious. A read of the book titled "Modern Bible Translations Unmasked" by Russell and Colin Standish should clearly give you a glimpse as to the reasons behind the protestant reformation and what the "church" is willing to do to the Word of God in order to uphold its pagan-influenced doctrine. Ralph rated it did not like it Jul 02, David Gaddy rated it really liked it Jul 22, William Struse rated it it was amazing Sep 03, Thaddeus Weaver rated it it was amazing Mar 20, Carol rated it it was ok Oct 19, Phyllis Schumacher rated it it was amazing Apr 18, Robert Castillo rated it really liked it Jul 07, Kirk Mahoney rated it liked it Jan 17, Piko Aplo rated it did not like it May 15, William Worthington rated it it was amazing Feb 11, George Shanovski rated it it was amazing Mar 21, Putting all together that we know about his personality, we look upon him as a man who was the reverse of your cold, calculating, slow-moving ion of diffidence.
You know the sort of persons I mean, very good people in their way, but by no means fascinating, or much to be imitated. He was quite the reverse of those dried, juiceless brethren who have no human nature in them — men who are somewhere about perfect, for they have not life enough to sin. They do no wrong, for they do nothing at all. I know a few of those delightful people, sharp critics of others and faultless themselves, with this one exception, that they are heartless.
John was a hearty man: a man of brain, but of soul too— a soul which went out to the tips of his fingers, a man who was permeated with intense but quiet life: a man to be loved. His life was not that of an ice-plant, but of the red rose. He carried summer in his countenance, energy in his manner, steady force in all his movements.
He was intense, sincere, and unselfish by nature, and a fulness of grace came upon him and sanctified these virtues. Let us now view him in his relation to his Lord. What sort of disciples do masters love? You that have ever been teachers of youth know that if teachers had their choice certain persons would be selected before others. If we teach we love teachable people: such was John. He was a man quick to learn. He was not like Thomas, slow, argumentative, cautious; but having once assured himself that he had a true teacher, he gave himself right up to him, and was willing to receive what he had to reveal.
His emblem in the early church was the eagle,— the eagle which soars, but also the eagle which sees from afar. John saw the spiritual meaning of types and emblems; he did not stop at the outward symbols, as some of the disciples did, bat his penetrating soul read into the depths of truth.
You can see this both in his gospels and in his epistles. He is a spiritually minded man; he stays not in the letter, but he dives beneath the surface.
- Disciple Whom Jesus Loved.
- The Wings of the Dove (Oxford Worlds Classics).
- Disciple whom Jesus loved - Wikipedia?
- Beloved Disciple in poetry and music.
- No Establishment of Religion: Americas Original Contribution to Religious Liberty!
He pierces through the shell, and reaches the inner teaching. His first master was John the Baptist, and he was so good a disciple that he was the first to leave his teacher. You hint that this did not show that he was a good disciple. This-he did without a violent jerk: his progress was natural and even. Paul came to Jesus with a great start and twist, when he was put upon the lines on the road to Damascus: but John glided gently to the Baptist and then from the Baptist to Jesus.
He was full of faith to accept what he was taught.
Your Viewing History
He believed it, and he believed it really and thoroughly. He did not believe as some people do, with the finger-ends of their understanding, but he gripped the truth with both hands, laid it up in his heart, and allowed it to flow from that centre, and saturate his whole being. He was a believer in his inmost soul; both when he saw the blood and water at the cross, and the folded grave-clothes at the sepulchre, he saw and believed. His faith wrought in him a strong and enduring love, for faith worketh by love.
John had great receptiveness. He drank in what he was taught.
His whole nature absorbed the truth as it is in Jesus.