B-A-C
Loyal
- Joined
- Dec 18, 2008
- Messages
- 11,877
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.
By registering with us, you'll be able to discuss, share and private message with other members of our community.
SignUp Now!You'll find those verses you used above, won't make any difference to others as well brother.![]()
While the Gospel of John never names this disciple directly,
Let me know when you make up your mind.John is identifying himself, right here. The one who wrote these things down.
(Posting in tongues?)
And just who plastered that name on it?Probably not... but the name of the book is John... not Lazarus.
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.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:
I would suggest that you re-read the thread, and not lean unto your own memory.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, the Passover Meal never covered more than a day. It was a single day, followed by the Observance of the Unleavened Bread.Authorship: We know that the Passover Meal covered more than a day which was my suggestion for you to look to.
Uh... thank you kindly.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 !
You provide very little enlightenment by your above comment. Not surprising. (shrug)I would suggest that you re-read the thread, and not lean unto your own memory.
Rhema
You saying it is so, doesn't make it so.No, the Passover Meal never covered more than a day. It was a single day, followed by the Observance of the Unleavened Bread.
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)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.
Why should I given what you said?You provide very little enlightenment by your above comment. Not surprising. (shrug)
You tell me not to think of doing so, and then berate me because I didn't. Not surprising. (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.
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.....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.
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.For you do recall it was your belief that it was another meal entirely being discussed and not the Passover Meal.
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.Even the Jews of today acknowledge that Passover, occurred over more than one 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.We know that the Passover Meal covered more than a day
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.Here is a link which is but one of many,
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.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.
Looking at what it represents helps define what kind of food passes over .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
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 provide very little enlightenment by your above comment. Not surprising. (shrug)
That is why I added the 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.
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.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.
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.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.
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?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
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.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,
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.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.
Just following your lead in that.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.
Also, please don't add the part of the discussion that was not connected to the authorship of the Gospel of John
You're going to do whatever you want. I get it. (shrug)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.
Twelve is the word metaphor used in parables to represent the authority of God .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.
You may wish to also proof-read your posts. Because what you wrote doesn't say what you think it does.It seems no one but you on this entire forum believes in the Johnnine scholarship.
Does the Greek text of Matthew say only the Twelve?With the 12, and no one else. No Lazarus here.
Does the Greek text of Mark say only the Twelve?With the 12, no one else. No Lazarus here.
(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?Mark 14:17 When it was evening He *came with the twelve.
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.)With the apostles, no one else.
A slave to your tradition ye be.There is simply no way it can be Lazarus.
Not Lazarus, no way it could be.
Does the Greek text of Matthew say only the Twelve?
Does the Greek text of Matthew say only the Twelve?
You would claim that these are not disciples (followers)?
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 Johanninescholarshipauthorship." What you wrote states that I believe in the Johannine scholarship. (Whatever that might mean.)
You are forgetting Paul's own words speaking about what people are called to be via the Holy Spirit. ApostlesNo, 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.
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.