Saint John

[Charlatan]

Saint John was one of the witnesses that saw Jesus crucified along with Peter and James. He often refers to himself as 'the disciple the Jesus loved', and I find this disgusting, as in the other scriptures we are told that Jesus loves us all equally, so to refer to yourself as the disciple that Jesus loved would be like casting a screen over yourself to either avoid identification for personal reasons like humility, which could be a good thing, or it could be for not wantint to be convicted by the authorities, right? Again denying Jesus! Maybe it was a way of trumpeting your his own self worth, a sign of pride in his day to day living, and that this pride could creep into his gospel is also disgusting. If Jesus said to him one night that He loved him, must he repeat it every time he feels it necessary?

Surely the other apostles got the same treatment, so to say that you are more loved may be a way of saying that your gospel is more in tune with the Holy Spirit than the others and therefore more important, and therefore you deserve more praise, and more authority over the wishes of the deceased Christ? Was it a Claim to power? Could we then say that Saint John was like a cat, who would stick around referring to himslef as the one that was loved and when times got tough he was a labeless supporter? No that would be misleading, I am sure all the disciples were good men. Either way you can see that he had a problem coming to terms that he was equal with other men, whatever he may have done, and that is a sin and character flaw.

[Jack_Sparrow]

You do realise he never said that in english dont you? This could just be another case of 'lost in translation', POSSIBLY

[HelioPrime]

lacking what was direcrtly wrote I guess its open game to flame people dead for over 1000 years.

[gallo]

When you consider that all four of the Gospels were written so many years after the events that they allege, none of the authors could have possibly been alive to witness the events. Biblical scholars generally assert that John was the last Gospel written, somewhere around 90 to 100 A.D. The author is anonymous and the text is considered to be non-historical. It is probably based on other lost writings an oral traditions.

Luke was written between 80 & 90. The source seems to be Mark and an unknown document.

Matthew was written about 80 to 85. It's source seems to be Mark and another unknown document. Although it is possible that the source of Mark may have been Matthew. The dates are a bit fuzzy.

Mark may be the oldest gospel, written around 70 AD. If that is true, then it is was a source for Matthew and Luke.

So, I'm not sure how you think that St. John is somehow relevant. I find it especially strange since the influence of Descartes, Kant, and Locke on the founding fathers is quite well understood. Jesus had nothing to say about a republic, or even about religious freedom, freedom of speech, the right to bear arms, the quartering of troops, rights against unreasonable search and seizure, the right against self incrimination, protection against double jeopardy, the right to a trial by jury, and so on. If I am wrong, please cite specific references to the words of Jesus that support these concepts.

[Charlatan]

Well those guys got the most of the important stuff, and his views on politics were not what I was really talking about, although now that you mention it, no, Jesus probably didn't try to interfere with the running of the state, and how could he? He might try a word of wisdom here or there but if it wasn't logical, then it wouldn't be listened to. Maybe in between sips of water He could have given hints of the running of the sate, but then He would have been in real trouble and and could have faced a immediate execution. It was so structured that the law protected Jesus long enough for Him to sow his seed while the other clergy went crazy, but if he had tried to do that with the laws then he would have looked like a real threat and been dealt with. Anyways, the laws were similar to the laws of Moses enough for Him and His Father, with the exception being the recommendations about divorce and the certificate, but i think that was all good and well.

[GotScripture]

Quote by: Charlatan He (John) often refers to himself as 'the disciple the Jesus loved', and I find this disgusting...

First off you begin with the false assumption tht "the disciple whom Jesus loved" was John. Clearly you have not heeded the Biblical admonition to "prove all things" since there is not a single verse in the entire New Testament that would justify promoting this idea. Your parroting of the John idea proves that you are a victim of the man-made tradition that claims this was John.

Of course this-or-that NON-BIBLE source will immediately be cited by those who want to try and defend this man-made tradition but the fact is that this idea cannot hold up to Biblical scrutiny. The facts stated in the Biblical record prove that whoever the unnamed "other disciple whom Jesus loved" was, he cannot have been John.

The habit of presenting an idea AS IF IT WERE BIBLICAL when one cannot cite even a singel verse that would justify teaching that idea is surely repugnant, but your willingess to sit in judgement and deem the inspired author's self discription as the one whom "Jesus loved" as disgusting is a mark of true blindness.

"Every word of God is pure" so when the author was insprired to refer to himself as the one whom "Jesus loved", while it is clear that he was seeking to conceal his identity, it is your pride that leads you to assume that he could not have had a motive for doing so that could be unseen by you.

I would encourage those who read this thread to do a Bible-ONLY based study comparing all of the facts that we find in scritpure about this unnamed author to the facts in scritpure that we are told about John. This evidence proves that the "other disciple whom Jesus loved" was not John and allows the word of God to remove the blinders of man-made tradition.