The Beloved Disciple (Who is HE)??

Originally posted by fourth horseman
"When Peter saw him, he said to Jesus, 'Lord, what about him?' Jesus said to him, 'What if I want him to remain until I come? What concern is it of yours? You follow me.' So the word spread among the brothers that that disciple would not die."

Please provide book and verse numbers when quoting the bible. This will cut the confusion and give people the ability to review the passage in context. Thank you...

Nowhere in the Fourth Gospel is the author or the Beloved Disciple explicitly identified by name. There has been considerable speculation regarding the identity of both the author and the Beloved Disciple.

There are wide differences in conclusions among highly qualified scholars. If it was John as many claim which John was it? Was it John son of Zebedee? or John Mark? or John the Elder?

I wondered if Joanna was a disciple that was later editted into a man. It is just a thought, and I am sorry I was so unclear.

Ahhhhhh that may well be a possibility. I seem to remember something somewhere saying that Johnna was one of those that accompanied
Mary M. to Gaul but I could be wrong. If she did that would sure have cleared the way for such a sex change over the next 30 or so years.

Originally posted by stalkingwolf

John the brother of Jesus

Please provide a source for this. I don't recall a John being a brother of Jesus.
There was James, Jude/Judas Thomas, Jose/ Joseph and several sisters who's names are not mentioned. He also had a cousin named John but that is the
only reference i can remember to a relative named John.

There is no evidence that the name of the person that wrote the Book of John
was infact John. It is generally accepted by biblical scholars that the names
attached to the gospels were attributed to them by the scribes who copied them.

There are some who believe that Lazarus was the beloved disciple. There are also some who believe that the book of John may have been originally written by Mary M.

John and James the sons of thunder where actually Jesus' cousins. Their parents where Mary's cousins. I did research on this a while ago. I know people will try to refute this, I will be back with the evidence though.

John was known as the desciple whom he loved. John 13:23 In the scripture you stated earlier, Jesus was telling his disciples that they would have to die for his name. Peter was crucified upside down, James was boiled in oil, etc. But John would get put into exile on the Island of Patmos, of God's own design, So that he could pen a very important book. A book that would reveal who Jesus is, why he came, and his plans for his poeple, and his deniers, for the future. That book is the book of Revealation, penned by John himself.

[edit on 1/26/05 by Hailthekingoflights]

James was boiled in oil,

which James ? as i recall James his brother was stoned. was it cousin James that was boiled?

John and James the sons of thunder where actually Jesus' cousins. Their parents where Mary's cousins. I did research on this a while ago

could you provide some sources please this is something that i dont recall seeing before.

Ahhh...Hailtheking

You might want to research again. The author of Revelation calls himself John, who because of his Christian faith has been exiled to the rocky island of Patmos, a Roman penal colony. Do you know how many people were named Jesus, at the time of Christ? Many.
This author, never claims to be John the apostle, whose name is attached (which is what's up for debate?) to the fourth gospel. This identification, howerver, was denied by other Fathers of the early church, including Denis of Alexandria, Eusebius of Caesarea, Cyril of Jerusalem, Gregory Nazianzen, and John Chrysostom.
I know this isn't what your southern TV preachers (Jerry Falwell) want you to know. This would take away their authority of tying the two books together in their "hell or hail & fire" preachings. They sometimes put TOO much emphasis on the gospel of John. If you look at some of the inconsistences (gospel of John) brought up (two "Conclusions" and two "endings" of Jesus' discorse in the upper room), you'll find it difficult to accept the idea that the gospel as it now stands was written by ONE person. Certain preachers need to learn the value of the teachings and parables of the other Gospel's Matthew, Mark, and John. They also need to know the history on each of these, as well!
The vocabulary, grammar, and style of Revelation, make it doubtful that the book could have been put into its present form by the same person(s) responsible fourth gospel. Never the less, there are dfinite linguistic and theological affinities between the two books. The tone of the letters to the seven churches is indicative of the great authority the author enjoyed over the Christian communities in Asia. It is possible, therefore, that he was a disciple of John the apostle, who is traditionally associated with that part of the world. The date of the book in its present form is probably near the end of the reign of Domitian (A.D. 81-96), a fierce persecutor of the Christians.
It's great to see you doing research on your Bible. It is more than most (Jerry Fal....??).

There were many people called Jesus at this time because the Hebrew equivalent of Jesus (Yeshua) is the same as Joshua, I believe.

As for the way that the disciples died, you might want to check "Fox's Book of Martyrs", or I could check it for you, I just don't feel like getting out of my seat at the moment.

Was it not James, "Beloved Disciple" of Christ who layed his head on Jesus' bussom during the last supper?

Deep

most believe it was John. others say it could have been Lazarus, and others believe that it may have been Mary M.

Is there any mention of Mary M in the pauline epistles, and if not, if she was married to Jesus why would she not be mentioned? Seeing that Paul himself stated that he thought it better not to marry, would he still say this with the same conviction if the Lord of GLory himself was married?

IMO paul was a sexist. also it is my opinion that paul did everything he could
to remove any reference to the historical Jesus and put as much attention as possible on his mythical christ.

Mary M was the Beloved disciple. Has anyone read the book of mary? If not then i highly suggest you read it and keep in mind the typical male mindset back in those days(ie how a woman being the most beloved of all the disciples would have been promoting Christianity).

Also who do you think "authored" the book of john? I believe the book was "penned" by john but probably not worte by him.

Did it say anywhere that he had already come.. or was already there? ...

perhaps the beloved disciple hasn't even been born yet..

Jesus has said there is none among you as great as John the Baptist, though...

51 [46]. Jesus says: "From Adam to John the Baptist, among those who have been born of women, there is none greater than John the Baptist! But for fear that the eyes should be lost I have said: He who among you shall be the small shall know the Kingdom and be higher than John!"

also concerning mary m ..

118 [114]. Simon Peter says to them: "Let Mary go out from our midst, for women are not worthy of life!" Jesus says: "See, I will draw her so as to make her male so that she also may become a living spirit like you males. For every woman who has become male will enter the Kingdom of heaven."

^^^^^^^^ Remember what being male back then meant.. not physically being male.. lol

[edit on 16/3/05 by dnero6911]

Originally posted by Packer898
Also who do you think "authored" the book of john? I believe the book was "penned" by john but probably not worte by him.

When I read that the wedding at Canaa was suggested to be Jesus and Mary Magdalene's union, I very meticulously reread the account.
It is hard to refute that the most sensible and literal conclusion, requiring the least mental gymnastics, is that the wedding is His.
Of course many will point to John 2:3, which states Jesus and his disciples had also been invited.
So, if that is all you need to hear to discount the notion of it being His wedding, there is no use reading further........note that it is John who shares this.
To summarize my reasons for thinking Jesus and Mary Magdalene were betrothed:

1. Mother Mary takes charge of supplying the wine when it ran out, an odd thing for a guest to do, when tradition is that the groom's family does so.
2. The couple who are married at Canaa, are curiously anonymous. Why?
3. Jesus supplies the wine, and the mc praises the groom, thereby supporting the traditional responsibility is the groom's family.
John 2:11 states that this is the 1st miracle, reveals Jesus' glory, and the disciples believed in Him.
4. Nowhere in the NT does it mention Jesus' marital status, one way or the other..........why? A valid question, I feel.
5. Three, not one or two, three times He is called Rabbi, a title which has as a firm prerequisite that the man be wedded.
6. So.....if He is not wedded, why does no one notice the obvious and comment on the contradiction?
7. Jesus preached that marriage is good, and divorce is bad. In this case, we are asked to believe that He did not take His own advice,
on top of the half dozen previous suggestive points. I look at Him as a do as I do, not do as I say kind of teacher, how do you see Him?

8. At the empty tomb, who would you predict would arrive at the tomb first that morning? Those who were closest to Him would.
Luke 24:10 "It was Mary Magdalene, and Joanna, and Mary the mother of James........."
John 1:29 "Behold the lamb of God" This is John the Baptist being quoted, and the lamb of God he is referring to is Jesus.
Revelations 21:9, (note the similar verse numbers, considering both chapters are by John). "Come hither, I will shew thee the bride, the lamb's wife."

It is clear that Mary is very close to Him, and that John, the sole recorder of the Canaa wedding is also very close to Him.
Did you know that Giovanna is the feminine form of Giovanni? Iohannas is the feminine for Iohannes, and Joanna is the feminine form of John, all three are examples of the same name, John. Interestingly, Joan is not from John. Just the name Joanna.
John writes Revelations, John describes the crucifixion quite differently than the other 3 'synoptic?' gospels, (synoptic, of one eye....lol)
In the KJAV, Luke 3:27 which is Jesus' dad's lineage, (else why put it in there?), it reads...." Which was the son of Joanna, which was the SON of Rhesa."

Originally posted by Nygdan
What verse is that from? The context would be illuminating no?

It's John 19:26. and I believe it's used by John in other places as a reference to himself.

We are informed that Revelation was written by John the apostle in Rev. ch. 1.

Someone wrote that John wrote the disciple whom Jesus loved out of humility. This is one of possibly other reasons. John was awed that Jesus would love him. John 3:16 tells us, "For God so loved the world(that's you and me, him and her).

Originally posted by dbrandt

Originally posted by Nygdan
What verse is that from? The context would be illuminating no?

It's John 19:26. and I believe it's used by John in other places as a reference to himself.

Hmm, the original poster is onl "Global Ignore" apparently. here is the passage you cite

26When Jesus saw his mother there, and the disciple whom he loved standing nearby, he said to his mother, “Dear woman, here is your son,”

Honestly, I don't even recall what this had to do with it.

We are informed that Revelation was written by John the apostle in Rev. ch. 1.

1The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave unto him, to shew unto his servants things which must shortly come to pass; and he sent and signified it by his angel unto his servant John

This is not specifically the apostle john. Many think that its a completely different john not associated with the apostles, one who was writting shortly after they were around and writting to a christian community that was growing, and under persecution.

Originally posted by Nygdan
This is not specifically the apostle john.

Factor in what is written about the Apostle John in John 21:19-24 and it brings about a stronger claim that it could be John who wrote Revelation.

John 21:19-24 NIV
Jesus said this to indicate the kind of death by which Peter would glorify God. Then he said to him, “Follow me!”

Peter turned and saw that the disciple whom Jesus loved was following them. (This was the one who had leaned back against Jesus at the supper and had said, “Lord, who is going to betray you?”) When Peter saw him, he asked, “Lord, what about him?”
Jesus answered, “If I want him to remain alive until I return, what is that to you? You must follow me.” Because of this, the rumor spread among the brothers that this disciple would not die. But Jesus did not say that he would not die; he only said, “If I want him to remain alive until I return, what is that to you?”
This is the disciple who testifies to these things and who wrote them down. We know that his testimony is true.

When was this gospel recorded tho?

I agree, it seems to lend some support to it. Tho why wouldn't John, when writting Revelation, also refer to himself as 'the disciple whom jesus loved' etc etc?

I dont remember anywhere where anyone named John is specifically
named as "the Beloved" or anything closely resembling that. Lazarus
however is refered to several times as " He whom thou lovest"