No Human has Gone to Heaven but Jesus!

[B-A-C]

You'll find those verses you used above, won't make any difference to others as well brother.

Probably not... but the name of the book is John... not Lazarus.

 

[Deep Seeker]

Rhema
How does One come to be so fully knowing as You? It seems that You seem to have the CORRECT answers to all quesitons !

 

[Rhema]

While the Gospel of John never names this disciple directly,

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

Let me know when you make up your mind.

Rhema

(It's hard to have any rational conversation with someone who contradicts himself.)

 

[Rhema]

✅

(Posting in tongues?)

 

[Rhema]

Probably not... but the name of the book is John... not Lazarus.

And just who plastered that name on it?

C'mon, fess up.

 

[Rhema]

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:

How one builds a compelling argument? By avoiding direct questions that are asked and stacking inference upon inference upon inference, ignoring the direct logic and statements made by scripture itself.

And apparently I'm not the only one who is able to think. (A quick search produced these links.)

Lazarus, not John, was the disciple whom Jesus loved - Alan Rudnick

Traditionally, John the Gospel writer was the disciple whom Jesus loved. However, upon closer study, there is another follower of Jesus that is a stronger candidate that you have likely not considered: Lazarus. The identity of the "beloved disciple" or the one John calls "disciple whom Jesus...

alanrudnick.org

The Disciple Whom Jesus Loved | A Better Bible Study Method

The Disciple Whom Jesus Loved is a A Better Bible Study Method. Read today.

thedisciplewhomjesusloved.com

I will admit that I did not know there were others who have arrived at the same conclusion. I rarely wander around the internet listening to other people. Excepting Dr. James Tabor's work. I rarely agree with him, but he does pose interesting questions.

Rhema

 

[Rhema]

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,

I would suggest that you re-read the thread, and not lean unto your own memory.

Rhema

 

[Rhema]

Authorship: We know that the Passover Meal covered more than a day which was my suggestion for you to look to.

No, the Passover Meal never covered more than a day. It was a single day, followed by the Observance of the Unleavened Bread.

You can complain about "cracks" all you'd like, but for you to post this means there is no foundation in your post at all.

I'd ask where the heck you came up with that one, but since both you and @B-A-C chose to dance off into some fog and not address my questions, you can dance off the cliff by yourself. I won't be baited.

Kindly,
Rhema

 

[Rhema]

Rhema
How does One come to be so fully knowing as You? It seems that You seem to have the CORRECT answers to all quesitons !

Uh... thank you kindly.

I think. I pray. I study. I read the actual Greek. I use my brain. I listen to the voice of God. Why would anyone follow a religious leader to whom God doesn't directly speak?

But there are some questions to which I don't have answers. Just a few, but there are some.

Kind regards,
Rhema

 

[Christ4Ever]

I would suggest that you re-read the thread, and not lean unto your own memory.

Rhema

You provide very little enlightenment by your above comment. Not surprising. (shrug)

No, the Passover Meal never covered more than a day. It was a single day, followed by the Observance of the Unleavened Bread.

You saying it is so, doesn't make it so.
I've looked to a variety of sources, where it is seen today and 2000 years ago to last up to 7 days.
Even the Jews of today acknowledge that Passover, occurred over more than one day.
Here is a link which is but one of many, that I am sure you could have found, but like someone we know would say "Lean not unto your own understanding" you choose not to do so.

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/3974040/jewish/Why-Is-Passover-Seven-or-Eight-Days-Long.htm

I'd ask where the heck you came up with that one, but since both you and @B-A-C chose to dance off into some fog and not address my questions, you can dance off the cliff by yourself. I won't be baited.

No baiting, because I presented it before to you, about the Passover being more than one meal/day, but you never replied back to it, and I'm sure treat it as never having been presented to you at all. Can't help you with you recalling only the things that agreeable to you. (shrug)

There are many more Jewish sources to confirm what I said about the Passover, which you could have found if you had actually chosen to look into it. In fact, I thought like you did, until our other thread discussion, when I did some researching of Passover because of the position you had presented. I like to look at the problem from as many sides as present themselves. Surprise, surprise, but that it actually could go for 7 days! Who knew? Not me until I researched it, and not you even now that's for sure! lol Also, did you know that an additional day was added because of the Diaspora, making it 8 days outside of Israel!

It was pretty foggy/mist like today where I'm at! lol Such coincidences! Oh, and I had responded to you before I ever went out today to see the fog that you believe is an issue! Also, please don't add the part of the discussion that was not connected to the authorship of the Gospel of John, because this dog only hunts one game at a time. woof woof. (I hope you are laughing, but sadly something tells me you are not.)

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

 

[Rhema]

You provide very little enlightenment by your above comment. Not surprising. (shrug)

Why should I given what you said?

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 tell me not to think of doing so, and then berate me because I didn't. Not surprising. (shrug)

....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.

Just because you're moderator doesn't mean I have to take your snark. So no, you wanted very little enlightenment, so I gave you what you wanted.

For you do recall it was your belief that it was another meal entirely being discussed and not the Passover Meal.

I can assure you, I know what I believe. And the majority of actual Bible scholars believe the supper described in "John" 13 was not the Passover, because "John" had Jesus dead before the Passover meal even began.

Even the Jews of today acknowledge that Passover, occurred over more than one day.

Nick, there is a difference between the term Passover, and Passover MEAL. There's only one Meal. And I replied to the words you used.

We know that the Passover Meal covered more than a day

So NO. We don't know that. Now I can agree that the term Passover (JUST Passover) has grown to encompass the entire festival, but there was only one MEAL at the beginning.

Here is a link which is but one of many,

I've actually read this link before, but it doesn't say what you think it does. There is no indication in the article that the Passover MEAL covered (as you said) covered more than one day. I can only deal with the words you actually write. I don't read minds, and I don't put words into the mouths of others.

No baiting, because I presented it before to you, about the Passover being more than one meal/day, but you never replied back to it, and I'm sure treat it as never having been presented to you at all.

Thanks for reading my mind and imputing motive. But it's on my "I'll get to it at some point" list, I've just had other fish to fry. I haven't replied in that thread yet, because it's going to take some time to FIRST deal with the other member's concerns.

Clement thought the whole Gospel of "John" to be a Spiritual Narrative instead of a historical one.

But @B-A-C had wondered about people's reactions to Lazarus having been dead and would he die again. My reply was that Peter had the exact same question, and I quoted the relevant portion of "John" 21.

 

[Garee]

I can assure you, I know what I believe. And the majority of actual Bible scholars believe the supper described in "John" 13 was not the Passover, because "John" had Jesus dead before the Passover meal even began

Looking at what it represents helps define what kind of food passes over .

It would seem the doctrine of the circumcision (to cut round) of our bloody husband Christ s the first reference of the cross. God using the second born seed Gershom (pilgrim stranger ) to represent the spiritual seed Christ.

Ziporah the prophet used to represent the bride of Christ as a priestess acted as an in-between like the parable of Abraham and Issac rescued by a lamb

Twice to emphasize bloody husband (Christ )

Exodus 4:25-26Then Zipporah took a sharp stone, and cut off the foreskin of her son, and cast it at his feet, and said, Surely a bloody husband art thou to me. So he let him go: then she said, A bloody husband thou art, because of the circumcision.

When the veil used to represent the work of our bloody husband was rent. Satan fell and could no longer deceive all the nations of the world that God is a dying Jewish king of kings. When it was rent there was no dying Jewish man sitting in the holy of holies as king of kings

Passover the kind of spiritual food the disciples knew not of also called hidden manna ,. . . . food to both hear the understanding of Aoratos and do the good will of the one Holy Father. The one King of earthly kings

John 4:30-33;Then they went out of the city, and came unto him.In the mean while his disciples prayed him, saying, Master, eat.;But he said unto them, I have meat to eat that ye know not of.;Therefore said the disciples one to another, Hath any man brought him ought to eat?
;Jesus saith unto them, My meat is to do the will of him that sent me, and to finish his work.

 

[B-A-C]

But @B-A-C had wondered about people's reactions to Lazarus having been dead and would he die again. My reply was that Peter had the exact same question, and I quoted the relevant portion of "John" 21.

It seems no one but you on this entire forum believes in the Johnnine scholarship.

Matt 26:19 The disciples did as Jesus had directed them; and they prepared the Passover.
Matt 26:20 Now when evening came, Jesus was reclining at the table with the twelve disciples.
Matt 26:21 As they were eating, He said, "Truly I say to you that one of you will betray Me."

With the 12, and no one else. No Lazarus here.

Mark 14:16 The disciples went out and came to the city, and found it just as He had told them; and they prepared the Passover.
Mark 14:17 When it was evening He *came with the twelve.
Mark 14:18 As they were reclining at the table and eating, Jesus said, "Truly I say to you that one of you will betray Me—one who is eating with Me."

With the 12, no one else. No Lazarus here.

Luke 22:13 And they left and found everything just as He had told them; and they prepared the Passover.
Luke 22:14 When the hour had come, He reclined at the table, and the apostles with Him.
Luke 22:15 And He said to them, "I have earnestly desired to eat this Passover with you before I suffer;

With the apostles, no one else. If you cross-reference with Matthew and Mark, this would be the original 12 disciples.
Matt 26 and Mark 14 make it clear that Judas Iscariot was there.

John 13:22 The disciples began looking at one another, at a loss to know of which one He was speaking.
John 13:23 There was reclining on Jesus' bosom one of His disciples, whom Jesus loved.
John 13:24 So Simon Peter *gestured to him, and *said to him, "Tell us who it is of whom He is speaking."

The disciple whom Jesus loved was reclining with Jesus. But Lazarus wasn't in the room.
In fact no where in the Bible is Lazarus called a disciple. He certainly wasn't attending the last supper.
Luke 22 says it was the apostles with Him at the last supper. Lazarus certainly wasn't an apostle.

Now of course there were more than 12 disciples afterwards. But none of them can qualify as one of "the twelve".
Not even Lazarus.

So what does this mean for John 21 ?

John 21:20 Peter, turning around, *saw the disciple whom Jesus loved following them; the one who also had leaned back on His bosom at the supper and said, "Lord, who is the one who betrays You?"
John 21:21 So Peter seeing him *said to Jesus, "Lord, and what about this man?"
John 21:22 Jesus *said to him, "If I want him to remain until I come, what is that to you? You follow Me!"
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?"

The "disciple that Jesus loved: in this passage, is clearly identified as the discipled that reclined with Him at the last supper.

There is simply no way it can be Lazarus.

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.

The disciple that reclined with Jesus is the one writing these things down.
Not Lazarus, no way it could be.

 

[B-A-C]

| Key Event | John son of Zebedee | Lazarus | |----------------------------------|---------------------------------------------------------------|---------------------------------------|
| Present at Last Supper | Yes (Matt 26:20, Mark 14:17, Luke 22:14) | No (Not one of the Twelve) |
| Reclined next to Jesus | Yes (John 13:23, 21:20) | No (Not mentioned at Last Supper) |
| At the Crucifixion | Implied (John 19:26–27, as Beloved Disciple) | No (Not mentioned at Crucifixion) |
| Recognized Jesus at the shore | Yes (John 21:7) | No (Not mentioned in John 21) |
| Identified as Gospel author | Yes (John 21:24) | No (Not identified as author) |
| Named as one of the Twelve | Yes (Matt 10:2–4, Mark 3:16–19, Luke 6:14–16) | No

 

[Christ4Ever]

You provide very little enlightenment by your above comment. Not surprising. (shrug)

Why should I given what you said?

That is why I added the shrug.

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 tell me not to think of doing so, and then berate me because I didn't. Not surprising. (shrug)

Whether you see it as berating, is beside the point. That I do so for the clarity of conscious for at least having given the information to one who can then come to an informed discission and decides to use it or not.

....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.

Just because you're moderator doesn't mean I have to take your snark. So no, you wanted very little enlightenment, so I gave you what you wanted.

How you take it, like motivation is not for me to say. We can agree to disagree on this point, because you never see your words as being anything but the highest form of civility even when pointed out by me when it isn't, you disagree.

For you do recall it was your belief that it was another meal entirely being discussed and not the Passover Meal.

I can assure you, I know what I believe. And the majority of actual Bible scholars believe the supper described in "John" 13 was not the Passover, because "John" had Jesus dead before the Passover meal even began.

Glad you know what you believe, and my words were only reflective of your words. By "actual Bible scholars" do you mean only those you agree with?

Then those "actual Bible scholars" were wrong, and you should seek out others to follow. Which is what you do to others by the way. As I pointed out and you did not disagree, John 13 taken to its conclusion went from meal to Jesus being arrested, with no break for another meal or days for that matter to have passed. Unless you are of the belief that Jesus was not crucified during the Passover time period, but the day before, which of course disagrees with the other 3 Gospels. If you do, then I would say my 3 Gospels trump your one, whose authorship is unknown. While there are questions to the authors of the other Gospels as well, the consensus of "actual Bible scholars" have them as being known while John not so much. Maybe, I need to find other "actual Bible scholars"

Even the Jews of today acknowledge that Passover, occurred over more than one day.

Nick, there is a difference between the term Passover, and Passover MEAL. There's only one Meal. And I replied to the words you used.

We know that the Passover Meal covered more than a day

So NO. We don't know that. Now I can agree that the term Passover (JUST Passover) has grown to encompass the entire festival, but there was only one MEAL at the beginning.

Unleavened bread is eaten every day of the Passover, and the Seder takes 2 days. So, however you want to describe the duration of meal and what a meal consists of, there you have it.

No, you said it was not the Passover Meal that the conversation in John had taken place but another meal. While I then presented 3 Gospels, and the conversation length, and the evident that happened after the meal to show otherwise.

Here is a link which is but one of many,

I've actually read this link before, but it doesn't say what you think it does. There is no indication in the article that the Passover MEAL covered (as you said) covered more than one day. I can only deal with the words you actually write. I don't read minds, and I don't put words into the mouths of others.

Glad you read it and chosen your own interpretation of the time duration. I guess I should have added one for the Seder as well to show that it covered 2 days, or the unleavened bread that was eaten every day of the Passover. Unless you believe it's not a meal if you only have unleavened bread to eat.

That last comment of yours I do question. Why? Because for one so educated as you that a 10th Grade Teacher would have been proud of to call their student , to continually disregard the "text, context, greater context" of another's writings does kind of speaks otherwise.

No baiting, because I presented it before to you, about the Passover being more than one meal/day, but you never replied back to it, and I'm sure treat it as never having been presented to you at all.

Thanks for reading my mind and imputing motive. But it's on my "I'll get to it at some point" list, I've just had other fish to fry. I haven't replied in that thread yet, because it's going to take some time to FIRST deal with the other member's concerns.

Just following your lead in that. Oh, no time to answer it there, but time enough to answer it here? zzzzzzzz

Also, please don't add the part of the discussion that was not connected to the authorship of the Gospel of John

Clement thought the whole Gospel of "John" to be a Spiritual Narrative instead of a historical one.

But @B-A-C had wondered about people's reactions to Lazarus having been dead and would he die again. My reply was that Peter had the exact same question, and I quoted the relevant portion of "John" 21.

You're going to do whatever you want. I get it. (shrug)

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

 

[Garee]

It seems no one but you on this entire forum believes in the Johnnine scholarship.

Matt 26:19 The disciples did as Jesus had directed them; and they prepared the Passover.
Matt 26:20 Now when evening came, Jesus was reclining at the table with the twelve disciples.
Matt 26:21 As they were eating, He said, "Truly I say to you that one of you will betray Me."

With the 12, and no one else. No Lazarus here.

Mark 14:16 The disciples went out and came to the city, and found it just as He had told them; and they prepared the Passover.
Mark 14:17 When it was evening He *came with the twelve.
Mark 14:18 As they were reclining at the table and eating, Jesus said, "Truly I say to you that one of you will betray Me—one who is eating with Me."

With the 12, no one else. No Lazarus here.

Luke 22:13 And they left and found everything just as He had told them; and they prepared the Passover.
Luke 22:14 When the hour had come, He reclined at the table, and the apostles with Him.
Luke 22:15 And He said to them, "I have earnestly desired to eat this Passover with you before I suffer;

With the apostles, no one else. If you cross-reference with Matthew and Mark, this would be the original 12 disciples.
Matt 26 and Mark 14 make it clear that Judas Iscariot was there.

John 13:22 The disciples began looking at one another, at a loss to know of which one He was speaking.
John 13:23 There was reclining on Jesus' bosom one of His disciples, whom Jesus loved.
John 13:24 So Simon Peter *gestured to him, and *said to him, "Tell us who it is of whom He is speaking."

The disciple whom Jesus loved was reclining with Jesus. But Lazarus wasn't in the room.
In fact no where in the Bible is Lazarus called a disciple. He certainly wasn't attending the last supper.
Luke 22 says it was the apostles with Him at the last supper. Lazarus certainly wasn't an apostle.

Now of course there were more than 12 disciples afterwards. But none of them can qualify as one of "the twelve".
Not even Lazarus.

So what does this mean for John 21 ?

John 21:20 Peter, turning around, *saw the disciple whom Jesus loved following them; the one who also had leaned back on His bosom at the supper and said, "Lord, who is the one who betrays You?"
John 21:21 So Peter seeing him *said to Jesus, "Lord, and what about this man?"
John 21:22 Jesus *said to him, "If I want him to remain until I come, what is that to you? You follow Me!"
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?"

The "disciple that Jesus loved: in this passage, is clearly identified as the discipled that reclined with Him at the last supper.

There is simply no way it can be Lazarus.

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.

The disciple that reclined with Jesus is the one writing these things down.
Not Lazarus, no way it could be.

Twelve is the word metaphor used in parables to represent the authority of God .

Twelve a remnant of the all the disciples (students of the teacher)

Twelve a remnant of the all the tribes used to represent gates to the city of Christ the bride (all the born again old testament saints

Twelve remnant of the apostles used to represent walls of the city (all the new testament born again saints.

The tribe of Dan missing to represent the old testament and the apostle Judas missing

13 -1= 12 God's authority

Thirteen often signifies rebellions' and sin . It's a number associated with moments of spiritual conflict, departure from God's order, and opposition to divine authority.

 

[Rhema]

It seems no one but you on this entire forum believes in the Johnnine scholarship.

You may wish to also proof-read your posts. Because what you wrote doesn't say what you think it does.

I think you had intended to write, "It seems ALL but you on this entire forum believe in the Johannine scholarship authorship." What you wrote states that I believe in the Johannine scholarship. (Whatever that might mean.)

But really, B-A-C, "this entire forum" is to be the extent of Biblical scholarship upon which one is to rely? "This entire forum" is your source of authority? I think you'd better go get some new authorities.

With the 12, and no one else. No Lazarus here.

Does the Greek text of Matthew say only the Twelve?

With the 12, no one else. No Lazarus here.

Does the Greek text of Mark say only the Twelve?

Mark 14:17 When it was evening He *came with the twelve.

(What the heck does the * mean?) In Mark, though, one can just as easily read the narrative that Jesus arrived "with the Twelve" to a Passover Meal already waiting for them. Who cooked the meal? Were these Jews then kicked out? (How rude.) Surely Jesus didn't hire Goyim to cook, or how could it be Kosher? Maybe Mary and Martha prepared the meal, and were accompanied by their brother from Bethany for safety?

With the apostles, no one else.

Not what the text says. That's THREE times you added in words that are not in the text. But let's take a closer look at Luke, who was NOT there, and merely wrote down the stories of others, giving the parts that he felt to be important. (And I'm not even going to go into the fact that Luke has TWO cups.)

And he shall shew you a large upper room furnished: there make ready. And they went, and found as he had said unto them: and they made ready the passover. And when the hour was come, he sat down, and the twelve apostles with him. And he said unto them, With desire I have desired to eat this passover with you before I suffer:​

- Luke 22:12-15 KJV

Okay, here you have the Twelve cooking the food. But compare with Mark:

And his disciples went forth, and came into the city, and found as he had said unto them: and they made ready the passover. And in the evening he cometh with the twelve.​

- Mark 14:16-17 KJV

Disciples made ready the Passover, and in the evening Jesus with the twelve came. Look at what you're trying to do. You're saying that the Twelve (or whatever part of them) made ready the Passover, and then LEFT? only to come back in again with Jesus? How does that even make sense? If you saw that in a movie, you'd scoff. Part of the Twelve setting out dinner, and then leaving to make some grand entrance into a room that was empty.

Are you really going to make me post the verses that say women were also disciples of Jesus?

And many women were there beholding afar off, which followed G190 Jesus from Galilee, ministering unto him:​

- Matthew 27:55 KJV

You would claim that these are not disciples (followers)?

Look at your own Strong's...

G190 ἀκολουθέω akoloutheō ak-ol-oo-theh'-o
From G1 (as a particle of union) and κέλευθος keleuthos (a road); properly to be in the same way with, that is, to accompany (specifically as a disciple):

There were also women looking on afar off: among whom was Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James the less and of Joses, and Salome; (Who also, when he was in Galilee, followed G190 him, and ministered unto him and many other women which came up with him unto Jerusalem.​

- Mark 15:40-41 KJV

Have some respect, B-A-C, these women weren't puppy dogs. They weren't slaves. They were disciples.

While the texts you've quoted do indeed establish that all the Twelve were there, they do NOT state that only the Twelve were there. The women would have cooked and run errands, and likely washed the clothes.

I don't think Jesus would have kicked out the women, or any other disciple not of the Twelve that happened to be there.

And he will shew you a large upper room furnished and prepared: there make ready for us.​

- Mark 14:15 KJV

Why a LARGE upper room for only 13 people?

Look, B-A-C, I hold no ill will towards you, but you really need to ask the follow up questions.

Matthew, Mark and Luke have NO one leaning on the breast of Jesus.

One last thing I would add. Y'all have this image up in your mind that Lazarus was an adult male. Why? Who put that image in your head? Could he have been a youth? A younger brother of Mary and Martha? A youth that Jesus loved (i.e. was fond of)? A youth whom Jesus had sit with him at Meal? A youth who then sneaked out and followed the Twelve to the Garden?

And there followed him a certain young man, having a linen cloth cast about his naked body; and the young men laid hold on him: And he left the linen cloth, and fled from them naked.​

- Mark 14:51-52 KJV

Why a linen cloth? Maybe he was helping his sisters clean up and wash dishes after the meal.

And why would the cabal who arrested Jesus run after the young man and not any of the other Twelve who fled?

But the chief priests consulted that they might put Lazarus also to death;​

- John 12:10 KJV

There is simply no way it can be Lazarus.

Not Lazarus, no way it could be.

A slave to your tradition ye be.

(Ask the follow up questions....)

Agape,
Rhema

 

[Garee]

Does the Greek text of Matthew say only the Twelve?

The word "apostle" a very powerful word it must be defined if one is seeking the spirit of truth If not defined using the living word then twelve has no foundation. Twelve what. . for what purpose?

Greek Angelous "sent messengers or apostles" Not "angel" a fake word coined in the 10th century.to create an illusion of diembodied workers with familiar spirits, and the wizards, and the images, and the idols, and all the abominations

2 Kings 23:24Moreover the workers with familiar spirits, and the wizards, and the images, and the idols, and all the abominations that were spied in the land of Judah and in Jerusalem, did Josiah put away, that he might perform the words of the law which were written in the book that Hilkiah the priest found in the house of the Lord

Not Apostles as highly venerable dying mankind. How beautiful are there feet shod with the beautiful gospel of peace

Apostles are not called angels or patron saints . That sounds like Greek mythology . The kind the faithless unbelievers accused Barnabas and Paul of gods in the likeness of dying mankind

Acts 14:11-14;And when the people saw what Paul had done, they lifted up their voices, saying in the speech of Lycaonia, The gods are come down to us in the likeness of men.;And they called Barnabas, Jupiter(The father); and Paul, Mercurius (apostle) , because he was the chief speaker;Then the priest of Jupiter, which was before their city, brought oxen and garlands unto the gates, and would have done sacrifice with the people.

Twelve apostles as sent messengers. UPS, Fed X, Pony Express, Smoke signals. Twitter

Twelve used in parables denotes the authority of Christ.

Twelve a remnant of the 27 listed in the New Testament. Many saints in the old beginning with the apostle Abel the second born murdered by the first-born Cain. God replaced Abel with Enos another second born establishing the foundation a man must be born again from above. It was then and not before born again mankind could call on the invisible Holy Father Yoked with them, he made their burden lighter


Geneisis4:25-26;And Adam knew his wife again; and she bare a son, and called his name Seth: For God, said she, hath appointed me another seed instead of Abel, whom Cain slew.;And to Seth, to him also there was born a son; and he called his name Enos: then began men to call upon the name of the Lord.

 

[B-A-C]

Does the Greek text of Matthew say only the Twelve?

No, but it doesn't say anyone else was there either. I can prove John was there. Can you prove Lazarus was there? I didn't think so.
So then.. who is adding words here?

You would claim that these are not disciples (followers)?

I didn't, in fact I said the opposite, I said there were other disciples, but I said they weren't part of "the twelve"

You may wish to also proof-read your posts. Because what you wrote doesn't say what you think it does.

I think you had intended to write, "It seems ALL but you on this entire forum believe in the Johannine scholarship authorship." What you wrote states that I believe in the Johannine scholarship. (Whatever that might mean.)

Hmmm.... well I agree, I sometimes make typos and mistakes, but in this case, I didn't.
I meant sponsorship.

You can google it if you like. But it's a belief that Lazarus may have written (all/part) of John.

https://api.pageplace.de/preview/DT0400.9780567075963_A23694662/preview-9780567075963_A23694662.pdf

The Lazarus story within the Johannine tradition : North, Wendy E. S. (Wendy E. Sproston) : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive

184 pages ; 24 cm

archive.org

also related.

Johannine community - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

You may not want to read links that someone else has posted, but in this case they agree with you more than me.

 

[Bill]

No, but it doesn't say anyone else was there either. I can prove John was there. Can you prove Lazarus was there? I didn't think so.
So then.. who is adding words here?



I didn't, in fact I said the opposite, I said there were other disciples, but I said they weren't part of "the twelve"



Hmmm.... well I agree, I sometimes make typos and mistakes, but in this case, I didn't.
I meant sponsorship.

You can google it if you like. But it's a belief that Lazarus may have written (all/part) of John.

https://api.pageplace.de/preview/DT0400.9780567075963_A23694662/preview-9780567075963_A23694662.pdf

The Lazarus story within the Johannine tradition : North, Wendy E. S. (Wendy E. Sproston) : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive

184 pages ; 24 cm

archive.org

also related.

Johannine community - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

You may not want to read links that someone else has posted, but in this case they agree with you more than me.

You are forgetting Paul's own words speaking about what people are called to be via the Holy Spirit. Apostles