No Human has Gone to Heaven but Jesus!

[Rhema]

So, do we mean a different type of resurrection, as being a final one, verses one where one comes back to an earthly life,

Rather astute questions. By Resurrection, most all Christians are under the impression that it is the resuscitation of a corpse (their corpse). But Paul talks about a new body, and the body of the resurrected Jesus was not instantaneously recognizable. I've always found that fascinating. Now I tend not to post on things of which I am unsure, or that which would lead to speciation, but Jesus may have been resurrected while his corpse lay in the ground. Of course such a statement will lead to immediate umbrage and outrage with claims (and scriptures) about a bodily resurrection.

Of course Jesus was resurrected bodily, but need it be the same body? The body that was sown in corruption?

I think it's a bit difficult to distinguish between the resuscitation of a corpse and the Resurrection into the new and glorified body because scripture itself isn't always clear on this. It also doesn't help when the beliefs of the translators are infused into their translation (i.e. translation bias) by adding in words.

I'll spare you the Greek lecture, but compare the following verses, and note that the NRSV adds in words. (And you know this infuriates me.)

Are they ministers of Christ? (I speak as a fool) I am more; in labours more abundant, in stripes above measure, in prisons more frequent, in deaths oft.​

- 2 Corinthians 11:23 KJV

Are they ministers of Christ? I am talking like a madman—I am a better one: with far greater labors, far more imprisonments, with countless floggings, and often near death.​

- 2 Corinthians 11:23 NRSV

εν (IN) θανατοις (DEATHS) πολλακις (MANY TIMES)​

This verse is an outright claim by Paul that he truly died when they killed him; dead-dead. (If I was out to kill Paul, I'd make sure he was dead.) But in something like the TV show Highlander, (and I am NOT mocking, merely providing an illustration); God (according to Paul) resuscitated his corpse so that he would continue on.

Now don't bother with the outrage, because in another passage, Paul made up a word. Your translations have washed it from the text, but Paul coined a phrase to speak about what Nick termed a "final resurrection."

That I may know him, and the power of his resurrection G386, and the fellowship of his sufferings, being made conformable unto his death; If by any means I might attain unto the resurrection G1815 of the dead. Not as though I had already attained, either were already perfect: but I follow after, if that I may apprehend that for which also I am apprehended of Christ Jesus.
- Philippians 3:10-12 KJV

Verse 11 has the phrase - την (THE) εξαναστασιν (OUT-RESURRECTION G1815) των (OF THE) νεκρων (DEAD).

If Resurrection means the resuscitation of a corpse, then Paul had been resurrected often (he says so). So how would Paul refer to this "final-end" resurrection? He coins this word, the "OUT-RESURRECTION." G1815 is found only in this single verse of the New Testament and nowhere else, because he is comparing Jesus' G386 to his own G1815.

Nick, if you could be so kind as to verify what I just wrote by checking your Marshal's Greek Interlinear, it would be greatly appreciated. (I don't make stuff up.)

I wonder if Brother Rhema asked the individual where he was during the time he was dead/asleep or if he recalls anything or nothing at all.

Walter saw nothing, experienced nothing. He was dead-dead. White skin, blue lips, no BP, no breathing. Most all of those other stories one hears are of near-death experiences, and I'll leave it at that.

Yet, it still does not speak of those who were risen from the dead in the OT, and where they might have been.

The accounts I recall from the OT can certainly be described as the resuscitation of a corpse, not the Out-Resurrection.

Kind regards,
Rhema

 

[Rhema]

And even though a person dies in this world it's only the physical shell of that person, the Temple of the Holy Spirit is what dies not the person. The person remains alive.

Bill, only you could say that dead people are not dead, but still alive.

While your faith teaches that the soul is immortal, Jesus declared otherwise.

'And be not afraid of those killing the body, and are not able to kill the soul, but fear rather Him who is able both soul and body to destroy in gehenna.​

- Matthew 10:28 YLT

Have fun telling your fables.

What of the thief on the cross?
Jesus stated, today you will be with me in Paradise.

It wasn't a historical event. It was a spiritual parable of Luke. But nothing I write could change your mind, so I won't waste the time. But if you want historical accuracy review the testimony of Mark and Matthew.

Agape,
Rhema

 

[Rhema]

But every single Bibe scholar I know... says this is about John, not Lazarus.

Sigh... and what proof do they give?

They just repeat the company line that they learned in seminary from the Catholic Church Fathers.

THINK MAN... Really Think.

What would John have ever done to get Peter to challenge Jesus about "this man"? And then for Jesus to talk about whether he lives or dies? And for the person himself to record the rumor?

John doesn't make sense. Someone having already had their corpse resuscitated would.

Bible scholars that you know? Track one down and send him over to me. We'll see if he can think.
(But first find out if he knew about the OUT-Resurrection.)

Rhema

 

[Garee]

Even the so-called atheists of pop-culture preach Hell. Heaven is true, because Christ is The Truth, The Way, and The Life.
Hell is punishment for liars. Choose Christ as your Redeemer.
Everything else that can possibly happen in mortality matters nothing when you know Christ and your people are waiting in Heaven for you.
Amen.

The letter of the law Gods instrument of death. The tongue the power of born-again life and dead to return to dust

Romans 7:6 But now we are delivered from the law, that being dead wherein we were held; that we should serve in newness of spirit, and not in the oldness of the letter.

Death. .Eating the fruit of false prophecy, In dying life will come to an end of life never to rise again,

The body without the spirit of Christ returns to the dust from where it was taken from the field of clay and the temporal spirit given under the letter of the law Death returns to the Holy Father of all Spirit life, Christ the husband

One appointment no double jeopardy no miss -trial

Hebrews 9:27And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment:

The judgment below

Revelation 20:14 And death and (with) hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death.

Death and or with hell. Hell the living suffering we suffer in these bodies of death

The second death the death of death the letter of the law.

Death will no rise up and condemn to death the new creation, the bride. Then the old things will not be remembered or ever come to mind.

Ecclesiastics 9 informs the believer that before universal Alzheimer's( no memories) comes. now today is the time we can love our loved ones

Ecclesiastics 9:5-7;For the living know that they shall die: but the dead know not any thing, neither have they any more a reward; for the memory of them is forgotten. ;Also their love, and their hatred, and their envy, is now perished; neither have they any more a portion for ever in any thing that is done under the sun.;Go thy way, eat thy bread with joy, and drink thy wine with a merry heart; for God now accepteth thy works.

 

[B-A-C]

Sigh... and what proof do they give?

What proof do you give?

 

[Garee]

Eternal Spirit, "Christ in us"

God is not a man as us. He as an invisible god (Aoratos)has and neither needs to appear to the eye of dying mankind He gives his vision through living prophecy He demands being worshiped as an Eternal Spirit (no form) Like Jesus the son of man said An eternal Holy Spirit has not flesh and bones.

Jesus the Son of man dying mankind the promised first resurrected born-again son born of Christ the husband. The first of many sons of God the bride of Christ Christians

Jesus the Son of man like others apostles' prophets knew Christ in their flesh

2 Corinthians 5:16 Wherefore henceforth know we no man after the flesh: yea, though we have known Christ after the flesh, yet now henceforth know we him no more.

In that way it would seem to indicate Jesus the son of man was not ashamed to call other born again believers' brothers and sisters in the lord

Matthew 12:50For whosoever shall do the will of my Father which is in heaven, the same is my brother, and sister, and mother.

Mark 3:35For whosoever shall do the will of God, the same is my brother, and my sister, and mother

 

[Rhema]

What proof do you give?

A rational explanation for the very weird interaction between Jesus and Peter.

Peter, seeing him, said to Jesus, "But Lord, what about this man?" Jesus said to him, "If I will that he remain till I come, what is that to you? You follow Me." Then this saying went out among the brethren that this disciple would not die. Yet Jesus did not say to him that he would not die, but, "If I will that he remain till I come, what is that to you?"​

(John 21:21-23 NKJV)

The only person in the Gospel named John to which this could possibly apply is Lazarus.

But nobody thinks anymore, they just march in locked goosestep to their tradition.

Rhema

 

[B-A-C]

The only person in the Gospel named John to which this could possibly apply is Lazarus.

.. if you say so.

this disciple would not die

John is called a disciple in numerous places. Where is Lazarus called a disciple?

 

[Garee]

A rational explanation for the very weird interaction between Jesus and Peter.

Peter, seeing him, said to Jesus, "But Lord, what about this man?" Jesus said to him, "If I will that he remain till I come, what is that to you? You follow Me." Then this saying went out among the brethren that this disciple would not die. Yet Jesus did not say to him that he would not die, but, "If I will that he remain till I come, what is that to you?"​

(John 21:21-23 NKJV)

The only person in the Gospel named John to which this could possibly apply is Lazarus.

But nobody thinks anymore, they just march in locked goosestep to their tradition.

Rhema

Thats a weird explanation. Men's corrupted flesh and bones not dying. Sound like reincarnation the re-entering of someone's flesh

The question is . Could Christ of kept the body of John from corrupting to the point of no return until the last day under the Sun?

Jesus called it a lie and if every time he dispelled an oral tradition of dying mankind, we would need a bigger planet to hold the volumes upon volumes.

Like Catholic who dug up the bones of Pope Formosa dressed the bones in Pope attire and pronounced judgment on those bones.

I think four days with Lazarus that the lord strengthened Lazarus body of death to keep it from dying or three with Jesus our brother in the lord.

 

[Rhema]

.. if you say so.

And other than just your feelings, you would say ??? what?

I'll ask again, where in scripture is there any event recorded with regards to John that could possibly elicit the cryptic statement from Jesus about a certain disciple living forever?

Remember, Peter is being charged with leading the church in this passage, three times, and that's rather significant.

He saith unto him the third time, Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou me? Peter was grieved because he said unto him the third time, Lovest thou me? And he said unto him, Lord, thou knowest all things; thou knowest that I love thee. Jesus saith unto him, Feed my sheep.​

- John 21:17 KJV

Furthermore, Jesus then immediately speaks to Peter about Peter's DEATH, which in turn jogs Peter's memory about the Death of another nearby.

This spake he, signifying by what death he should glorify God. And when he had spoken this, he saith unto him, Follow me. Then Peter, turning about, seeth the disciple whom Jesus loved following; which also leaned on his breast at supper, and said, Lord, which is he that betrayeth thee? Peter seeing him saith to Jesus, Lord, and what shall this man do?​

- John 21:19-21 KJV

These are all valid questions when being placed in charge of the church (feed my sheep) - to wonder whether the disciple that Jesus loved should be placed in charge instead - the same disciple whose corpse was resuscitated from death and might be immortal. Why not put the man in charge who was both loved and immortal? AND ought Peter to have charge over this man?

John is called a disciple in numerous places.

And where might they all be? Most certainly he is named as disciple and an apostle:

And when he had called unto him his twelve disciples, he gave them power against unclean spirits, to cast them out, and to heal all manner of sickness and all manner of disease. Now the names of the twelve apostles are these; The first, Simon, who is called Peter, and Andrew his brother; James the son of Zebedee, and John his brother;​

- Matthew 10:1-2 KJV

And that's the only time in Matthew. so once.

And in Mark, John is referred to as one of the Twelve, but never overtly described as a disciple (though of course they were).

And he ordained twelve, that they should be with him, and that he might send them forth to preach,​

- Mark 3:14 KJV

John is part of numerous events in Mark, but never called a disciple, so zero. (Hardly to be characterized as numerous, wouldn't you say?)

And when it was day, he called unto him his disciples: and of them he chose twelve, whom also he named apostles; Simon, (whom he also named Peter,) and Andrew his brother, James and John, Philip and Bartholomew,​

- Luke 6:13-14 KJV

So then Luke repeats the story where indeed John is called a disciple. Once. Should I count a parallel account as one or two? There is the passage of Luke 6:17 that describes a multitude of people, some of whom were disciples, and others who were not, but this doesn't call John a disciple. But perhaps mere inclusion should count, so Luke, then, maybe twice John is "called" a disciple. Even thrice with such a loose definition, if Luke 22:39 is to be counted, although no mention of John is made, it would be absurd to think John wasn't there.

So once in Luke, with two inferences. Are we to think this to be "numerous"?

And the Apostle John is not mentioned once in the Gospel labeled John. So, zero times is John called a disciple.

Now I'm not being combative, B-A-C, I am just responding to the actual words that you wrote. And three times is hardly "numerous."

But if there are gaps in my reckoning, please point them out. It would be greatly appreciated.

Where is Lazarus called a disciple?

That reeks of desperation, B-A-C, to question the discipleship of Lazarus, he whom Jesus loved.

Therefore his sisters sent unto him, saying, Lord, behold, he whom thou lovest is sick.​

- John 11:3 KJV

One shouldn't need to grasp at straws.

Were the seventy whom Jesus sent out disciples? Do we have their names? Would you question their discipleship?

After these things the Lord appointed other seventy also, and sent them two and two before his face into every city and place, whither he himself would come.​

- Luke 10:1 KJV

And while Joseph of Arimathaea is called a disciple, is Nicodemus NOT a disciple because he wasn't so explicitly named? How could one seriously question the discipleship of Lazarus?

I never said, nor claimed that Lazarus was one of the Twelve, which is likely the exact reason why the Gospel of Lazarus (aka "John") is so radically unlike the other three gospels as to describe a completely different Jesus if that were possible. Lazarus would have had his own take on events, and miracles, and timelines.

But where in the Gospel record is John ever called the disciple that Jesus loved?

The phrase "the disciple that Jesus loved" is mentioned only FOUR times, all in the Gospel labeled "John." A gospel where the Apostle John is never once mentioned. And where is there ANY other description of an a person whom is explicitly mention as one whom Jesus loved?

Therefore his sisters sent unto him, saying, Lord, behold, he whom thou lovest is sick. (This is said of Lazarus.)​

- John 11:3 KJV

Now Jesus loved Martha, and her sister, and Lazarus.​

- John 11:5 KJV

Then Peter, turning about, seeth the disciple whom Jesus loved following; which also leaned on his breast at supper, and said, Lord, which is he that betrayeth thee? Peter seeing him saith to Jesus, Lord, and what shall this man do? Jesus saith unto him, If I will that he tarry till I come, what is that to thee? follow thou me.​

- John 21:20-22 KJV

So Lazarus whom Jesus loved was a resuscitated corpse. Would he live forever?

We are not told.

Rhema

 

[Bill]

Lazarus went to paradise... but most scholars don't consider that to be heaven.
Also was the thief under the old covenant? Jesus hadn't ascended yet when the thief died.
He told Mary Magdelene he wasn't yet glorified, after after He was resurrected.

There are some Bible scholars that don't believe the miracles of Jesus ever took place either. In my personal opinion Bible scholars need to go back to learn what it is to have faith.

I have a question for you. Did Heaven exist before Jesus ascended to heaven? And did Jesus exist before he was born from Mary?

Jesus says that he's the Alpha and the Omega. Basically he never began he never ended he always was. That's what the Gospel of John says. In the beginning was the word the word was with God and the words was God. So if Jesus is the word and Jesus Is God then he always was in heaven always is. So the concept that you have to wait until Jesus ascended into heaven for heaven to existence is a joke. It doesn't make any sense. Elijah was taken to heaven on the fiery chariot, Enoch was taken to heaven to be with God. It's just a matter of faith

 

[Christ4Ever]

That reeks of desperation, B-A-C, to question the discipleship of Lazarus, he whom Jesus loved.

Therefore his sisters sent unto him, saying, Lord, behold, he whom thou lovest is sick.- John 11:3 KJV

One shouldn't need to grasp at straws.

I never said, nor claimed that Lazarus was one of the Twelve, which is likely the exact reason why the Gospel of Lazarus (aka "John") is so radically unlike the other three gospels as to describe a completely different Jesus if that were possible. Lazarus would have had his own take on events, and miracles, and timelines.

But where in the Gospel record is John ever called the disciple that Jesus loved?

We're not going there again, are we? Considering the last conversation on this was pretty much left open at the Passover.

If you were to say, something like, we're not really sure who wrote the Gospel of John then I'm with you.
However, to claim it was Lazarus....not so much brother. Which is why unless you can add to our previous discussion on this with greater convincing evidence, won't it be better to just say, author cannot be confirmed 100% as John or someone else, like let's say Lazarus? Which statement I could agree with, but whose consideration I would say holds even less water than John does but won't argue against...well not much anyway since I believe the Gospel to be inspired by someone who was present with our Lord Jesus during the Passover Meal. Though I can appreciate your reasoning for say the resuscitated/resurrected one.

With the Love of Christ Jesus.
YBIC/Moderator
Nick
\o/
<><

 

[Bill]

Bill, only you could say that dead people are not dead, but still alive.

While your faith teaches that the soul is immortal, Jesus declared otherwise.

'And be not afraid of those killing the body, and are not able to kill the soul, but fear rather Him who is able both soul and body to destroy in gehenna.​

- Matthew 10:28 YLT

Have fun telling your fables.


It wasn't a historical event. It was a spiritual parable of Luke. But nothing I write could change your mind, so I won't waste the time. But if you want historical accuracy review the testimony of Mark and Matthew.

Agape,
Rhema

""'And be not afraid of those killing the body, and are not able to kill the soul, but fear rather Him who is able both soul and body to destroy in gehenna.""

Yes he could destroy the soul if he so desired. But he will not destroy the creation of humans because he loves them so.

Even though Lucifer and the following demons and all those who have gone with them into hell have rejected God and his ways it does not mean that God still does not love them. Because he does. God is love. It's what he does love. Even when he rejects a person his love is still there.

I know you do not understand that love.

Regarding historical events. Is Matthew and Mark are considered historical events how is it that Luke is not? And if Luke who is also another member of the Apostles is not considered real then how can Matthew and Mark?

 

[Rhema]

We're not going there again, are we?

It was relevant to the conversation.

 

[Rhema]

I believe the Gospel to be inspired by someone who was present with our Lord Jesus during the Passover Meal.

You are quite welcome to address the points I made to brother B-A-C, but I strongly doubt that you will. You just dismiss them out of hand and flush it down the tube with your Passover argument.

Where in scripture is there any event recorded with regards to the Apostle John that could possibly elicit the cryptic statement from Jesus about a certain disciple living forever? What possibly relevance could there be unless said certain disciple had died and been raised?

Given that the author of "John" changes the day on which Jesus was crucified, and that the manuscript evidence shows part of John to have been added at a significantly later date, there are quite a number of Bible scholars that would say the meal recorded in John 13 wasn't that of the Passover Meal. The account of Judas just got mixed into the story.

You're welcome to believe whatever you want, including that the Flying Spaghetti monster created the world.

But I brought this to the discussion about the deceased since it is relevant to the OP. The supposed Passover meal in John is not. (Start a new thread if you wish.) But the question still stands...

Where in scripture is there any event recorded with regards to the Apostle John that could possibly elicit the cryptic statement from Jesus about a certain disciple living forever?

But we'll just sweep that cryptic statement under the rug shall we?

Agape,
Rhema

 

[B-A-C]

While the Gospel of John never names this disciple directly, there is a strong cumulative case—based on internal and external evidence—that this beloved disciple is John the Apostle. Here's how you can build a compelling argument:

---

1. Internal Clues from the Gospel of John​

A. The Beloved Disciple Is One of the Twelve​

• He is present at the Last Supper (John 13:23), which was attended only by the Twelve (see Matthew 26:20, Mark 14:17, Luke 22:14).
• This rules out Lazarus, Nicodemus, or any other follower not among the Twelve.

B. He Is Closely Associated with Peter​

• The beloved disciple runs with Peter to the tomb (John 20:2–8).
• He is present with Peter at the Sea of Galilee (John 21:7).
• This mirrors the Peter–John pairing seen in Acts (Acts 3:1, Acts 4:13, Acts 8:14).

C. He Is the Author of the Gospel​

• John 21:24 says:

“This is the disciple who is bearing witness about these things, and who has written these things…â€
— This links the beloved disciple directly to the authorship of the Gospel.

---

2. External Historical Evidence​

A. Early Church Tradition​

• Irenaeus (c. 180 AD), a disciple of Polycarp (who knew John), explicitly identifies John the Apostle as the author of the Gospel and the beloved disciple.
• Other early sources like Eusebius, Clement of Alexandria, and Tertullian affirm this.

B. No Competing Tradition​

• There is no early Christian tradition identifying Lazarus or anyone else as the beloved disciple.
• The consistent witness of the early church is that John the Apostle is the beloved disciple and the Gospel’s author.

---

3. Why Not Lazarus?​

• While Jesus loved Lazarus (John 11:3, 11:5), he is never called a disciple, never appears at the Last Supper, and is not present in the resurrection or post-resurrection scenes.
• The beloved disciple is clearly a close, consistent companion of Jesus and Peter, which Lazarus is not shown to be.

---

✅ Summary Argument​

Evidence	Supports John	Supports Lazarus
Present at Last Supper	✅	âŒ
Runs with Peter to the tomb	✅	âŒ
Identified as Gospel author	✅	âŒ
Early church tradition	✅	âŒ
Called “discipleâ€	✅	âŒ

---

 

[B-A-C]

I have a question for you. Did Heaven exist before Jesus ascended to heaven? And did Jesus exist before he was born from Mary?

Jesus says that he's the Alpha and the Omega. Basically he never began he never ended he always was. That's what the Gospel of John says. In the beginning was the word the word was with God and the words was God. So if Jesus is the word and Jesus Is God then he always was in heaven always is. So the concept that you have to wait until Jesus ascended into heaven for heaven to existence is a joke.

I agree with all of this, but I think you're missing the point here. Yes Jesus always existed, and yes He was in heaven before He was incarnated as a human baby. No argument on any of that.

However.... this is what inaugurated the new covenant.

Hebrews 9:11–12 (NASB95)​

“But when Christ appeared as a high priest of the good things to come, He entered through the greater and more perfect tabernacle, not made with hands, that is to say, not of this creation;
and not through the blood of goats and calves, but through His own blood, He entered the holy place once for all, having obtained eternal redemption.”

Hebrews 9:24 (NASB95)​

“For Christ did not enter a holy place made with hands, a mere copy of the true one, but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us.”

​

Hebrews 9:22–23 (NASB95)​

“And according to the Law, one may almost say, all things are cleansed with blood, and without shedding of blood there is no forgiveness.
Therefore it was necessary for the copies of the things in the heavens to be cleansed with these, but the heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices than these.”

Hebrews 10:19–20 (NASB95)​

“Since therefore, brethren, we have confidence to enter the holy place by the blood of Jesus,
by a new and living way which He inaugurated for us through the veil, that is, His flesh…”

---

​

Revelation 11:19 (NASB95)​

“And the temple of God which is in heaven was opened; and the ark of His covenant appeared in His temple…”

Revelation 15:5–6 (NASB95)​

“After these things I looked, and the temple of the tabernacle of testimony in heaven was opened,
and the seven angels who had the seven plagues came out of the temple…”

I would argue no one was under the new covenant, until these things happened.

 

[Christ4Ever]

It was relevant to the conversation.

lol - the authorship of the Gospel was introduced by you and not Brother BAC from what I could tell, making it really irrelevant to the discussion at that point, no matter how you "will" try to twist and turn it to make it so. Even if say, you could, to try to support the authorship, which cannot be ascertained at 100% certainty, it would leave the evidential support for the other position on shaky ground at best by being included. For if you have a crack in one part of your foundation, there is a better than even chance there's another. I'm just not going to look because one crack is enough for me not to buy the house or suggest that you might try something else if you were thinking of doing so.

You just dismiss them out of hand and flush it down the tube with your Passover argument.

Not at all. lol Except until you can answer it in truth, which I know you always try to do if it doesn't paint you into a corner that you'd have difficulty getting out of. At least not without messing up your previously presented paint job. You'd more likely try to make another door in the corner where you're stuck at than admit the mistake and repaint.

Authorship: We know that the Passover Meal covered more than a day which was my suggestion for you to look to. For you do recall it was your belief that it was another meal entirely being discussed and not the Passover Meal. While I presented to you that it was not. All I was doing in this was to show you that though you believe the authorship to be Lazarus, it is not, and that another thread already exists that has open presentation of evidence provided for your review/consideration of. So, you don't have to answer it here, but I suggest you don't include it in this discussion or for that manner any discussion, as being evidence to support other arguments, nor create a needless new thread.

By the way, unless you are that wealthy, if you flushed a precious jewel down "the tube", won't you make an attempt at retrieving it?

As to the rest of the argument, I was really not that interested in getting involved in. I wanted to clarify that the authorship of the Gospel of John as support would be inadvisable as it would undermine your argument, as mentioned previously.

Flying Spaghetti monster created the world.

I thought it was God? Your positions do evolve do they not brother........(Apologies ahead of time, but "text, context, greater context" is ever important isn't it?

But I brought this to the discussion about the deceased since it is relevant to the OP. The supposed Passover meal in John is not.

So, why bring in the Lazarus authorship into the discussion when you know the authorship of the Gospel cannot be definitively established? When all that would do is leave your position again, I will say, on shaky ground at best. You could have discussed/included Lazarus resurrection/resuscitation without including/making mention of him being the author of the Gospel of John. That is all I am saying, which I hope at the least you can agree with. Knowing that I'm like a dog with bone at times, and love to watch how you treat not only scripture, but others as well could have saved us both some time, if you hadn't brought authorship of John into the conversation/discussion.

With the Love of Christ Jesus.
YBIC/Moderator
Nick
\o/
<><

 

[B-A-C]

John 21:23 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?"
John 21:24 This is the disciple who is testifying to these things and wrote these things, and we know that his testimony is true.

John is identifying himself, right here. The one who wrote these things down.

 

[Christ4Ever]

John 21:23 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?"
John 21:24 This is the disciple who is testifying to these things and wrote these things, and we know that his testimony is true.

John is identifying himself, right here. The one who wrote these things down.

Not meant to derail but only a side note: This post reminds me how those who do not believe that Jesus is God, use the following passage question Jesus presents to the rich young man as evidence that He is not God. (heavy sigh) You'll find those verses you used above, won't make any difference to others as well brother.

"Why do you call me good?" Jesus asked. "Only God is truly good. Mark 10:18 NLT

With the Love of Christ Jesus.
YBIC
Nick
\o/
<><