|
|
Post by Allyn on Feb 8, 2011 19:59:04 GMT -5
It runs in cycles but right now and for several weeks my EndTimesMadness.com website has attracted alot of attention along the lines of many subjects. One of those subjects currently under review is about who really may have written the Gospel of John. www.endtimesmadness.com/TheDisciple-3.htmlOver the last couple of years I have seen that John has been used as an excuse in supporting one view or the other. I don't believe John is the author of the book that his name has been given to. Instead I believe, like the author of "The Disciple Whom Jesus Loved", that Lazuars, the one who Jesus raised, is the actual disciple in question. My question is does it matter? I believe so but what about you and how may it matter? |
|
|
|
Post by Once4all on Feb 8, 2011 20:03:56 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by Allyn on Feb 8, 2011 20:33:20 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by mellontes on Feb 8, 2011 21:03:47 GMT -5
It runs in cycles but right now and for several weeks my EndTimesMadness.com website has attracted alot of attention along the lines of many subjects. One of those subjects currently under review is about who really may have written the Gospel of John. www.endtimesmadness.com/TheDisciple-3.htmlOver the last couple of years I have seen that John has been used as an excuse in supporting one view or the other. I don't believe John is the author of the book that his name has been given to. Instead I believe, like the author of "The Disciple Whom Jesus Loved", that Lazuars, the one who Jesus raised, is the actual disciple in question. My question is does it matter? I believe so but what about you and how may it matter? Actually, I think the foruth Gospel was written by Lazarus and not Lazuars  laugh, tee hee, etc... Well, for one, it would eliminate all the arguments for the dating of Revelation in regard to John's alleged exile by Domitian... And two, it adds more meaning to John 21:21-23... I am under the impression that 1st, 2nd, and 3rd John were written by Lazarus as well, although I haven't really studied it out...tradition is such a pain! And having quickly read through the first chapter of those three letters just now, it would seem more likely that Paul wrote 3rd John because of the mention of Gaius. There doesn't seem to be much in the way of authorship one way or another... |
|
|
|
Post by Once4all on Feb 9, 2011 1:10:35 GMT -5
I was reading the few negative reviews of J. Phillips' book over at Amazon. Two of them used Luke 5:4-10 and John 21:5-7 to supposedly prove that the disciple whom Jesus loved had to be John. The reason being that John was one of the witnesses of the same miracle Jesus performed earlier in Luke 5 (with the great catch of fish), so it had to also be John in John 21:7.
I don't think it is a very strong case, though. In Luke 5, even though Peter, James, and John are the only disciples named, Luke 5:9 mentions that "all his (Peter's) companions" were amazed at the catch of fish. These companions, whoever they were, were other than James and John; therefore, Lazarus could have been among them.
Of course that whole argument is based on the assumption that the disciple who said, "It is the Lord!" in John 21:7 had that recognition solely because of the other incident (Luke 5).
It's not a bad argument, it's just not ironclad.
|
|
|
|
Post by mellontes on Feb 9, 2011 14:13:34 GMT -5
Ed Stevens has written a rebuttal to David Curtis' view that Lazarus was NOT the author of the fourth Gospel. Instead of posting his article here, he has requested that you email him (preterist1@preterist.org) to receive his free article. Mr. Stevens is the President of the International Preterist Association (www.preterist.org) and has many materials for sale. I have purchased dozens of books from his website and have just recently placed my order for his special 5-piece packet and an additional two titles. Because my order exceeded $40, I was given a free copy of The Parousia by James Stuart Russell... |
|
|
|
Post by Morris on Feb 10, 2011 10:24:52 GMT -5
It's not a bad argument, it's just not ironclad. This is my thought on the matter at present. I have read good arguments for and against. Therefore I believe it could have been Lazarus but does not have to be Lazarus. I come to this conclusion by being as opened minded to the possibility as I am to argument that suggests otherwise. The other thing that I recognize is that people in the century following its writing were in a better position to be 'in the know' than we are today. These documents were copied and transmitted from church to church, and as such I find it rather odd that these people, who no doubt treasured these letters, would so quickly lose track of their authors. |
|
|
|
Post by Allyn on Feb 10, 2011 10:38:57 GMT -5
It's not a bad argument, it's just not ironclad. This is my thought on the matter at present. I have read good arguments for and against. Therefore I believe it could have been Lazarus but does not have to be Lazarus. I come to this conclusion by being as opened minded to the possibility as I am to argument that suggests otherwise. The other thing that I recognize is that people in the century following its writing were in a better position to be 'in the know' than we are today. These documents were copied and transmitted from church to church, and as such I find it rather odd that these people, who no doubt treasured these letters, would so quickly lose track of their authors. I think the the main reason I would go with Lazuras as the author is that he refers to Lazuras as the one Jesus loved in John 11 and the term is then used throughout as the disciple Jesus loved. |
|
|
|
Post by Morris on Feb 10, 2011 12:17:04 GMT -5
I think the the main reason I would go with Lazuras as the author is that he refers to Lazuras as the one Jesus loved in John 11 and the term is then used throughout as the disciple Jesus loved. Yes, that is certainly a possibility. Another possibility is that someone else wrote down the testimony of Lazarus. John 21:24 says that this disciple whom Jesus loved is the one who was testifying/witnessing and writing/describing* these events, and a group (i.e. a "we") were aware that his testimony was true. So this can be viewed in two different ways. One is that Lazarus was testifying/witnessing by writing, and the "we" statement was added later by others, Or, Lazarus was testifying/witnessing by describing the events, and the "we" statement is made by the person(s) scribing the record as affirmation of this testimony. Either way, there are parts that must be supplied by witnesses other than Lazarus since they occurred prior to his discipleship or in his absence. Therefore I say that perhaps Lazarus wrote it and perhaps he didn't, but I do think he was involved in some capacity at least. * This word used here means, "to "grave", especially to write; figuratively, to describe". |
|
|
|
Post by Allyn on Feb 10, 2011 12:34:07 GMT -5
I think the the main reason I would go with Lazuras as the author is that he refers to Lazuras as the one Jesus loved in John 11 and the term is then used throughout as the disciple Jesus loved. Yes, that is certainly a possibility. Another possibility is that someone else wrote down the testimony of Lazarus. John 21:24 says that this disciple whom Jesus loved is the one who was testifying/witnessing and writing/describing* these events, and a group (i.e. a "we") were aware that his testimony was true. So this can be viewed in two different ways. One is that Lazarus was testifying/witnessing by writing, and the "we" statement was added later by others, Or, Lazarus was testifying/witnessing by describing the events, and the "we" statement is made by the person(s) scribing the record as affirmation of this testimony. Either way, there are parts that must be supplied by witnesses other than Lazarus since they occurred prior to his discipleship or in his absence. Therefore I say that perhaps Lazarus wrote it and perhaps he didn't, but I do think he was involved in some capacity at least. * This word used here means, "to "grave", especially to write; figuratively, to describe". Yes, I see what you mean. Another interesting thought is that Lazuras would be the prime candidate for one to have known the temple authorities while John would not necessarily. Lazuras would have to go and show that he was clean after his resurrection. This would be part of the purification law. This would have also made Lazuras well known to them. All I'm saying is that this is just one more bit of evidence. |
|
|
|
Post by mellontes on Feb 10, 2011 13:18:11 GMT -5
Another interesting thought is that Lazuras would be the prime candidate for one to have known the temple authorities while John would not necessarily. Lazuras would have to go and show that he was clean after his resurrection. This would be part of the purification law. This would have also made Lazuras well known to them. All I'm saying is that this is just one more bit of evidence. That seems to work well since John, as a lowly fisherman, would not be associated with the priests... |
|
|
|
Post by Morris on Feb 10, 2011 14:23:50 GMT -5
Another interesting thought is that Lazuras would be the prime candidate for one to have known the temple authorities while John would not necessarily. Lazuras would have to go and show that he was clean after his resurrection. This would be part of the purification law. This would have also made Lazuras well known to them. All I'm saying is that this is just one more bit of evidence. That seems to work well since John, as a lowly fisherman, would not be associated with the priests... Naturally. I have read that before as one of the arguments in favour of Lazarus as the author. Yet there are many other instances were the author (of any given gospel) wrote of things they were not direct witnesses of. In these cases they would have received testimony from a witness other than themselves, or perhaps at least two others if they held to that principle. Other things may have also been told to them by Jesus himself after His resurrection. One thing I am fairly certain of is that the early Christians shared testimony among themselves and in witnessing to others of Jesus' Christhood (I think I just made that word up but I hope people understand what I mean). In other words, Christianity didn't grow in a vacuum but rather through personal interactions. And I rambled off topic again. Back to authorship. I'm leaning towards Lazarus as a major contributor of the gospel of John (if not the author) just as Peter was a major person behind the gospel of Mark. |
|
