Alright, I have to start by saying, Dominos is better than it was, but it is not good enough that I crave it. The crust was great and the toppings were good, but overall it is an average Pizza.
Now let's get to what is on my mind. I have not blogged for a while because I have been writing a study guide for the next teaching series we are doing this year. It is a study through the gospel of John. It will last until December of 2010. My goal is to post the weekly study every week throughout the year.
Sunday is just an introduction to the gospel of John. About 15 years ago I was blessed to hear Brennan Manning speak at a Youth Specialties Convention. I have never forgotten the picture he painted of a relationship Jesus had with one of his disciples. The disciple was John and the relationship caused John to refer to himself as the disciple who Jesus loved.
Jesus has just told them someone is going to betray him. John 13:23-25 says this, "One of them, the disciple whom Jesus loved, was reclining next to him. Simon Peter motioned to this disciple and said, 'Ask him which one he means.' Leaning back against Jesus, he asked him, 'Lord who is it?'"
In Brennan Manning's book, "Abba's Child" he calls John's encounter with Jesus a defining moment in John's life. He feels so comfortable around Jesus that he reclines back with his head against Jesus' chest. Do you know what he heard? He heard the heartbeat of Jesus.
How many times have you gotten close enough to someone to listen to their heartbeat? John is close enough to Jesus that he gets to hear the heartbeat of his Messiah. The disciple whom Jesus loves writes about his encounter with Jesus. He does not write as a historian. He does not write for his own gain. He writes the gospel of John so that we can know his best friend. He writes so that we can fall in love with our lord. He is in tune with the heartbeat of Jesus.
Spend some time reading through John. Discover the testimony one man gives of his encounter with Jesus. As you read you will begin to realize John is not the only. We all have the opportunity to call ourselves the "disciple whom Jesus loves." Let's all get in tune with the heartbeat of our Lord. It is time we recline aginast the breast of Jesus and hear his heartbeat.
6 comments:
Looking forward to the series.
How about the word of God being the standard of truth and the foundation of that which is biblical? Admittedly, things done in ignorance are judged differently than those things that are done in direct, willful, knowing opposition to the truth that is recorded in God's word. And we are told that scripture is profitable for reproof, rebuke and correction, so I hope you will be willing to receive its correction.
When the Bible urges the readers of scripture to “prove all things” it was not suggesting that they should look to the traditions of men as their standard of truth but, rather (in accord with Ps. 118:8), that they should look to scripture and trust the authority of God’s word — not the traditions which men add to it. And these words are true: “Every word of God is pure: he is a shield unto them that put their trust in him. Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar” (Pr. 30:5-6), so one is always better off conforming their hypothesis to the scriptures rather than the other way around.
You obviously think that John was “the disciple whom Jesus loved” but here you are misled by the traditions of men because the truth is that there is not a single verse that would justify teaching that John was the unnamed “other disciple, whom Jesus loved” (the unnamed man who wrote the fourth gospel) and that is why non-Bible sources must ALWAYS be used to sell the John tradition. While non-Bible sources may say that John was “the disciple whom Jesus loved”, what happens when one subjects that claim to biblical scrutiny, will it hold up? No it will not because two things are true:
1: No one can cite a single verse of scripture that would justify promoting the idea that the unnamed “disciple whom Jesus loved” was anybody named John — not the Apostle John, nor any other John. Moreover, the reason that this cannot be done is that no such verse exists, which is the reason that no such verse is ever cited by those who put forth the unbiblical John tradition.
2: The facts in the plain text of scripture can prove that WHOEVER the unnamed “other disciple, whom Jesus loved” was he could not have been John — because that idea forces the Bible to contradict itself, which the Bible cannot do if it is true. (A presentation of the biblical evidence on this topic is available at BelovedDiscipleBibleStudy.com).
Two good rules of respect for the authority of God’s word: A) One should not be presenting an idea AS IF IT WERE BIBLICAL if they cannot cite a single verse that would justify teaching that idea – and - B) If the facts in the plain text of scripture prove that an idea is false, then those who love the truth will reject that false idea — no matter how many people believe it, no matter how loud some may shout it, no matter if a big-wig so-and-so believes it, no matter how long the false idea has been around, etc.
One can surely find a NON-Bible source to cite if they want to justify their belief in the idea that the unnamed “other disciple whom Jesus loved” was John. But what no one has ever done is cite a single verse that would justify teaching that the unnamed “disciple whom Jesus loved” was John — not those who originated the unbiblical John idea and not those who repeat their error to this day.
The fact is that the John tradition is simply a case of mistaken identity. This, for example, explains why Jesus’ transfiguration, his prayers in the Garden of Gethsemane, and his raising of the daughter of Jairus are NOT in the fourth gospel. Only three disciples were present at each of these events and John was one of them. Thus John was able to give eyewitness testimony when it came to these key incidents and yet there is no mention of these events in the fourth gospel, because the author, “the disciple whom Jesus loved”, was not John. And the missing ‘John testimony’ is just the tip of the iceberg.
John--Thank you for your comment. I have read some of the book, especially the part that claims that Lazarus is the author of John.
If you are a perosn who wants to allow the word of God to be the standard of truth and the foundation of that which is biblical, than I can not understadn how you would buy into this theory. The book you refer to is nothing more than a theory based upon many assumptions to place Lazarus as the author of John.
I would rather stand on the credibility of the early church fathers who believe John is the author than a theory by someone who is trying to promote a book or a website.
Proverbs 18:13 "He that answereth a matter before he heareth it, it is folly and shame unto him."
Moreover, just like there are some jurors who make up there mind before they ever even hear one word of the evidence presented, there are some people who treat biblical evidence with the same disrespect. Rather than actually examine what scripture has to say, their approach is to protect the their tradition. So, on this issue, for example, rather than actually "read" means to skim over a few pages of the presentation and look for a point that they think they can ridicule and from that they assume that they can engage in an informed discussion of the facts. But that, of course, would be like a member of a jury assuming that he could skip the trial and the presentation of evidence that happens at the trial and issue his or her verdict simply based on just hearing the jury summation. And engaging in drive-thru jury duty is no better than engaging in drive-thru Bible study.
You said: If you are a person who wants to allow the word of God to be the standard of truth and the foundation of that which is biblical, than I can not understand how you would buy into this theory.
And given this statement it is clear that, sadly, that you feel that peeking at the back of a book is a sufficient way to evaluate a presentation of biblical evidence. Regardless, those who actually take the time to "prove all things" on the matter can see that WHOEVER the unnamed "other disciple, whom Jesus loved" was cannot be John because the plain text of scripture DISPROVES the John tradition.
However, you would not know that because you did not heed Proverbs 18:13 -- in your zeal to defend your tradition you decided that you should speak against the biblical evidence that disproves the John tradition, even though you haven't bothered to read what that evidence is (else you could not have made the statement that you did). But, like Nicodemus, you talk without knowledge.
If there is a man in jail who has been convicted of a crime and we later uncover videotape or DNA evidence that prove we’ve identified the wrong man, then we let him go. We don’t keep him in jail until we find out who did do it. Likewise, if Bible evidence can prove that John was not the “other disciple, whom Jesus loved”, then we need to admit our mistake and let go of this erroneous tradition REGARDLESS of who this unnamed author actually was (i.e., whether or not we can identify the actual author).
The idea that the beloved disciple was John does not come from the word of God (i.e. the actual content produced by God's inspired authors) it has been added to it. There is not a single verse that would justify teaching that the “other disciple, whom Jesus loved” was John, which is why those who promote this man-made tradition ultimately end up pointing to some non-Bible source(s) in their attempts to defend this unbiblical tradition. But the fact that scripture disproves the John tradition is of little interest to many who verbally declare their respect for the word of God.
Still, as you are so clearly committed to follow your belief in the John tradition regardless of what the scripture has to say, I will leave you to your man-made unbiblical tradition, and I will stick with the facts that are recorded in the plain text of scripture and shake the dust off of my feet in your direction.
But thank you for proving my point -- by NOT citing a single verse that would justify teaching the false John tradition, you reveal that you are willing to present an idea AS IF IT WAS BIBLICAL even though you cannot cite a single verse that would justify doing so. In your zeal to defend this man-made tradition you make several logical fallacies, but it is likely that you will not want to see that either. You can parrot the words of men that contradict scripture if you so choose, but the Bible says what it says.
Jer. 19:15 "They have hardened their necks…"
Seriously John, I read the chapter that revealed Lazarus as the disciple plus parts of other chapters. It was enough to know that your theory is one that can not be proven. One of the things I did not read was the back of the book. Sorry.
You say that scripture does not say John was the disciple. Well it does not say that Lazarus was either. There is no scripture that would back up that Lazarus was even present at the Passover meal with Jesus and his disciples. There is scripture to say that John was there with the twelve. You have to assume that Lazarus was there for your point to even be considered. Matthew 26:20 specifically sasy that Jesus was reclining at the table with the Twelve. Last I read in the Bible, Lazarus was not included in the twelve. It would be odd that even one of the other three gospels would not mention Lazarus' presence at the table if he was there.
I also thought about your theory after Jesus ascended into heaven. Why wasn't Lazarus chosen as an Apostle or even considered? If he was that close to Jesus then he would have been the logical choice.
I assume and maybe this is further in the book, that 1, 2, 3 John would have been written by Lazarus as well since they all have the same writing style and were probably written by the same person.
Again thanks for your comment.
John needs to get a life
Post a Comment