Gospel of John or not?

[GotScripture]

Jester and I have agreed to do a head-to-head debate in which neither of us will cite any source other than the Bible. The subject of the debate will be the following statements Jester made regarding the fourth gospel and it's anonymous author:

one will notice many places in John’s gospel where the author refers to all the disciples by name, save one. He (John) is only ever called “the disciple whom Jesus loved”, and his actions correspond with the John of the other gospels. Certainly, regardless of name, he (John) is presenting himself as an eye witness.

Upon seeing Jester’s statement, I posted this invitation to Jester:

Jester, "Prove all things" is an admonition of scripture and in the sprit of obedience to that admonition I hope you will be willing to do just that. I noticed that you made several wholly unbiblical claims in post 83 and while you no doubt believe the claims or you wouldn't have made them, I fully trust that you would also agree that passing along hand-me-down errors and promoting false traditions as if they were Biblical is not the way to bring glory to Jesus and will not serve to advance the cause of truth.

So in that regard (advancing the cause of truth) I hope you pray about whether the Lord would have to to participate in a one-on-one debate where we would both agree to cite NOTHING BUT THE BIBLE in an effort to see if I can in fact disprove your statements directly from the text of scripture -- or, if you in fact can provide a Biblical justification for the statements you made.

Of course one should not be making statements on Biblical issues if they don't have a Biblical justification, so I hope you will agree to defend your claims in a one-on-one debate. Rather than challenge your statements on this thread (where it would be a distraction) it seemed more likely to serve the cause of truth if we could engage directly in a Biblical discussion that would be free from both the 'noise' of outsider comments and might encourage others to search the scriptures to see if these things are so. And since we'll both agree to use the Bible as our only measure of truth, then i would also hope others would be led to pay more heed to "every word of God".

If the Lord leads you to agree then I'll post your quotes in a one-on-one debate thread and we can engage in a time of reasoning from his word where either I'll correct you or you'll correct me directly from his word -- and if not then so be it. As I will be out of town this week I will check for your response when I return weekend -- A) Yes -or- B) No.

Jester graciously responded as follows:

Absolutely! I'd love to discuss theology. I actually have lamented the fact that I can't get more in depth in these debates (there's definitely a limit to how far we can go with apologetics alone), and am always looking to learn some things about scripture. As such, I'd be glad to do a one on one as we are able.

That said, Jester will seek to present scripture to justify his statements on the fourth gospel and I will seek to present the Biblical evidence that proves this “other disciple whom Jesus loved” was not John.


Jester, in this effort to seek the truth certainly quality is more important than speed of response is the goal, so please take whatever time you need to respond and I will do likewise. Now, as noted above you stated:

one will notice many places in John’s gospel where the author refers to all the disciples by name, save one. He (John) is only ever called “the disciple whom Jesus loved”, and his actions correspond with the John of the other gospels. Certainly, regardless of name, he (John) is presenting himself as an eye witness.

The Bible proves that your statement is wrong on each of these four counts:
1 - ...one will notice many places in John’s gospel where the author refers to all the disciples by name, save one
2 - ...He (John) is only ever called “the disciple whom Jesus loved”
3 - ...his (the author’s) actions correspond with the John of the other gospels
4 - ...regardless of name, he (John) is presenting himself as an eye witness

Let’s subject each of these claims to Biblical scrutiny. (To make it easier to respond I will use a separate post for refuting each claim)

[GotScripture]

Jester,

An update for you and other readers of this thread. New biblical evidence prompted a revised edition of the Bible study on the author of the fourth gospel, which was just released. As with the previous edition that was referenced in the discussion above, the new book cites nothing but scripture and it is available free online as an eBook or as a printer-friendly download. It simply compares scripture with scripture in order to highlight facts that are recorded in the plain text of the Bible that are routinely overlooked.

It turns out that there was much more to consider when it comes to the biblical record of the unnamed “disciple whom Jesus loved� who wrote the fourth gospel than was covered in the previous book. And if you or anyone else cares to receive the correction that scripture has to offer on this topic, then I would invite you/them to consider the presentation of Bible evidence that it presents.

While non-Bible sources may say that John was “the disciple whom Jesus loved�, what happens when one subjects that tradition to biblical scrutiny, will it hold up? No it will not because two things are true:

1: There is not a single verse of scripture that would justify promoting the idea that the unnamed “disciple whom Jesus loved� was John (as noted above).

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.

The following would seem to be two good rules of respect for the authority of God’s word: (A) One should not be presenting an idea as if it was 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 we should reject that 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 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 “disciple whom Jesus loved� who wrote the fourth gospel was John; not those who originated the unbiblical John idea and not those who repeat their error to this day.

I hope that the new evidence cited in the book and the better Bible study method that it puts forth will encourage you and other Bible students to rely more on what scripture actually says rather than assuming that it says whatever a tradition of men may say that it says. For when it come face to face with a case of The Bible vs. Tradition, one would be wise to come down on the side of God’s word.

Pr. 30:5-6