I hope you will receive, this offer of biblical correction. 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.
In your comments above you said that "constantly describes himself as being the one whom Jesus loved" but the "prove all things" admonition presents a problem to your claim, since the facts stated in the plain text of scripture can prove that WHOEVER the unnamed "other disciple, whom Jesus loved" was he could not have been John -- because that idea forces the Bible to contradict itself, which the truth cannot do.
While the "other disciple, whom Jesus loved" is a designation that does depict the one-of-kind-relationship that the author had with Jesus, it is also true that no passage of scripture ever described John as having 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" and yet people continue to make unbiblical claims (as you did here) and use non-Bible hearsay and circular logic to convince themselves that the unbiblical man-made John tradition can be made to fit with scripture.
This is why repetition of hearsay from non-Bible sources must be used to sell the John tradition. One can pick and choose their favorite non-Bible source to cite as a reason why they believe the idea that the unnamed "other disciple whom Jesus loved" was John. But what no one has ever done is cite a single verse that would justify teaching that this person was John -- not those who originated this unbiblical teaching and not those who repeat their error to this day.
Of course, 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. But those who love the truth and who would care to see a presentation of the a presentation of the Bible evidence on this topic (just scripture, no hearsay from non-Bible sources) should check out a free eBook at TheGospelofJohn.com that uses the legal evidence method to show beyond a reasonable doubt that this unnamed disciple could not have been John.
Get my ebook, "The Apocryphal Jesus," here
I hope you will receive, this offer of biblical correction. 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.
ReplyDeleteIn your comments above you said that "constantly describes himself as being the one whom Jesus loved" but the "prove all things" admonition presents a problem to your claim, since the facts stated in the plain text of scripture can prove that WHOEVER the unnamed "other disciple, whom Jesus loved" was he could not have been John -- because that idea forces the Bible to contradict itself, which the truth cannot do.
While the "other disciple, whom Jesus loved" is a designation that does depict the one-of-kind-relationship that the author had with Jesus, it is also true that no passage of scripture ever described John as having 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" and yet people continue to make unbiblical claims (as you did here) and use non-Bible hearsay and circular logic to convince themselves that the unbiblical man-made John tradition can be made to fit with scripture.
This is why repetition of hearsay from non-Bible sources must be used to sell the John tradition. One can pick and choose their favorite non-Bible source to cite as a reason why they believe the idea that the unnamed "other disciple whom Jesus loved" was John. But what no one has ever done is cite a single verse that would justify teaching that this person was John -- not those who originated this unbiblical teaching and not those who repeat their error to this day.
Of course, 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. But those who love the truth and who would care to see a presentation of the a presentation of the Bible evidence on this topic (just scripture, no hearsay from non-Bible sources) should check out a free eBook at TheGospelofJohn.com that uses the legal evidence method to show beyond a reasonable doubt that this unnamed disciple could not have been John.