ST. JOHN 11:26

[Jacob]

I'm not trying to be a pest, but I'm not sure how to answer your question about the resurrection unless you can tell me which part of what I said about it was confusing you when you said this:





Regarding the other topic:

So what is the name of "the disciple whom Jesus loved" in any of those verses? How do we know who it was, except that we are relying on the tradition that John was the disciple whom Jesus loved. And it may be a perfectly correct tradition. But it is from tradition, nonetheless, and not from specific words in scripture that we normally think of John as the author of the Gospel of John. As I pointed out before, there are at least a few words in that last chapter that were NOT written by the apostle John, so we at least know that not all of the gospel of John was written by John the apostle.

Why do you say that some wasn't written by him? Yes, traditionally John was written by John. I think he recognized that Jesus loved him and that was what was important to him, not his name.

As for the resurrection, in general, there is the general resurrection, if there is one. I think that this is important. But I do not know what you are saying. I know that there is a resurrection of the righteous and of the wicked, the just and the unjust, and that there is a first resurrection, but that is all I know (some came or come to life after this also).

 

[Rosenritter]

This last "story" you mention is the "storyline" I was referring to. The moving around of Paradise is necessary to make the rest of the "story" consistent. Thus, in my mind, it has become a Christian myth. Not necessary proven untrue, but with little weight of scripture without the special, added, "storyline".

I agree. If "the tree of life" is a physical thing--a real tree with real leaves--it hardly seems like it would survive in a place under the earth. If it is a metaphorical thing, it hardly seems like it belongs in a place of the dead.

On same wavelength here, so splitting the quote for focus below:

You've discerned my point. Christ's promise to the thief of being with Him was not a promise of being with Him while dead, was it? And if He was still dead for a couple more days, why was His promise to the thief of much consolation, being promised for "today".

Christ didn't promise that the thief (or himself) would be anywhere that Passover day. He enacted a divine proclamation that went into effect that day with the fulfillment at the later date of the resurrection. It's not an unusual form of speech, and you'll see the same used by God in the garden of Eden to Adam, of Saul when arranging for David to become his son-in-law, and of Solomon when threatening execution to Shimei.

1 Samuel 18:21-26 KJV
(21) And Saul said, I will give him her, that she may be a snare to him, and that the hand of the Philistines may be against him. Wherefore Saul said to David, Thou shalt this day be my son in law in the one of the twain.
(22) And Saul commanded his servants, saying, Commune with David secretly, and say, Behold, the king hath delight in thee, and all his servants love thee: now therefore be the king's son in law.
(23) And Saul's servants spake those words in the ears of David. And David said, Seemeth it to you a light thing to be a king's son in law, seeing that I am a poor man, and lightly esteemed?
(24) And the servants of Saul told him, saying, On this manner spake David.
(25) And Saul said, Thus shall ye say to David, The king desireth not any dowry, but an hundred foreskins of the Philistines, to be avenged of the king's enemies. But Saul thought to make David fall by the hand of the Philistines.
(26) And when his servants told David these words, it pleased David well to be the king's son in law: and the days were not expired.


We can speculate whether David killed (and harvested fleshly trophies) from 200 Philistines (the king asked for 100 but David brought double) by himself in a 200-to-1 showdown, whether he backstabbed 200 enemies one at a time, or whether he took the time to assemble enough help to take out 200 of them, but considering the time taken to fight, then to cut out their private parts, and the time to travel back and forth (even assuming they didn't eat or use the bathroom) it certainly took more than 24 hours if you include bathing before the wedding ceremony.

1. Thou shalt this day - the proclamation is made on the authority of the king that day
2. be my son in law in one of the twain - the result of that proclamationIt's like when you receive a check with a date stamp on it, the promise is made on that day, but it does not necessarily reflect when the promise is redeemed or the act is fulfilled. Saul wasn't contradicting himself, and neither was God in the garden or Solomon to Shimei. That's the way one speaks when enacting a royal decree.

And God's decree (as Christ) is a notch above royal.

 

[Rosenritter]

I'm not trying to be a pest, but I'm not sure how to answer your question about the resurrection unless you can tell me which part of what I said about it was confusing you when you said this:

Regarding the other topic:

So what is the name of "the disciple whom Jesus loved" in any of those verses? How do we know who it was, except that we are relying on the tradition that John was the disciple whom Jesus loved. And it may be a perfectly correct tradition. But it is from tradition, nonetheless, and not from specific words in scripture that we normally think of John as the author of the Gospel of John. As I pointed out before, there are at least a few words in that last chapter that were NOT written by the apostle John, so we at least know that not all of the gospel of John was written by John the apostle.

Considering that the gospel of John gives a name for every other person, what would possibly be different about "the disciple whom Jesus loved?" If it was Lazarus is there any reason why he wouldn't have said Lazarus? But there would be a reason of modesty for not naming oneself by name.

 

[Derf]

Considering that the gospel of John gives a name for every other person, what would possibly be different about "the disciple whom Jesus loved?" If it was Lazarus is there any reason why he wouldn't have said Lazarus? But there would be a reason of modesty for not naming oneself by name.

Were all the apostles named in the book except for John?

The same modesty that might prevent John from naming himself might also prevent Lazarus from naming himself. This would, of course, draw a line of demarcation in the text between at least 2 different authors of the gospel of John, one that named Lazarus and one that did not. There is a line of that sort, somewhere between John 12:17 (last use of the name "Lazarus") and John 13:23 (first use of the phrase, "the disciple whom Jesus loved"). The part of the text that names Lazarus seems to be in places where Lazarus was definitely NOT in attendance, except for the instances in chapter 12.

Why would John, not having ever referred to himself that way through the first 12 chapters, suddenly start calling himself "the disciple whom Jesus loved"?

Again, this is an interesting side issue, one that intrigues me (I haven't decided one way or another who I think wrote it), but not really that important to the main topic.

 

[Derf]

Christ didn't promise that the thief (or himself) would be anywhere that Passover day. He enacted a divine proclamation that went into effect that day with the fulfillment at the later date of the resurrection. It's not an unusual form of speech, and you'll see the same used by God in the garden of Eden to Adam, of Saul when arranging for David to become his son-in-law, and of Solomon when threatening execution to Shimei.

1 Samuel 18:21-26 KJV
(21) And Saul said, I will give him her, that she may be a snare to him, and that the hand of the Philistines may be against him. Wherefore Saul said to David, Thou shalt this day be my son in law in the one of the twain.
(22) And Saul commanded his servants, saying, Commune with David secretly, and say, Behold, the king hath delight in thee, and all his servants love thee: now therefore be the king's son in law.
(23) And Saul's servants spake those words in the ears of David. And David said, Seemeth it to you a light thing to be a king's son in law, seeing that I am a poor man, and lightly esteemed?
(24) And the servants of Saul told him, saying, On this manner spake David.
(25) And Saul said, Thus shall ye say to David, The king desireth not any dowry, but an hundred foreskins of the Philistines, to be avenged of the king's enemies. But Saul thought to make David fall by the hand of the Philistines.
(26) And when his servants told David these words, it pleased David well to be the king's son in law: and the days were not expired.


We can speculate whether David killed (and harvested fleshly trophies) from 200 Philistines (the king asked for 100 but David brought double) by himself in a 200-to-1 showdown, whether he backstabbed 200 enemies one at a time, or whether he took the time to assemble enough help to take out 200 of them, but considering the time taken to fight, then to cut out their private parts, and the time to travel back and forth (even assuming they didn't eat or use the bathroom) it certainly took more than 24 hours if you include bathing before the wedding ceremony.

1. Thou shalt this day - the proclamation is made on the authority of the king that day
2. be my son in law in one of the twain - the result of that proclamationIt's like when you receive a check with a date stamp on it, the promise is made on that day, but it does not necessarily reflect when the promise is redeemed or the act is fulfilled. Saul wasn't contradicting himself, and neither was God in the garden or Solomon to Shimei. That's the way one speaks when enacting a royal decree.

And God's decree (as Christ) is a notch above royal.

I think your explanation a reasonable one (not completely sold on it, but it's a good one), but I was hoping first to make the other explanation unreasonable, else those who hold to the other would have no reason to look to yours.

 

[Derf]

Why do you say that some wasn't written by him? Yes, traditionally John was written by John. I think he recognized that Jesus loved him and that was what was important to him, not his name.

Read this verse carefully and try to figure out how many people are referenced in it:

[Jhn 21:24 KJV] 24 This is the disciple which testifieth of these things, and wrote these things: and we know that his testimony is true.

Now use the number you counted (which MUST be greater than one, since the word "we" is used), and tell me which of those must have been involved in writing that one verse. If you can say "John" wrote that verse and all the others in the gospel of John, I don't know how to help any more on that topic.

As for the resurrection, in general, there is the general resurrection, if there is one. I think that this is important. But I do not know what you are saying. I know that there is a resurrection of the righteous and of the wicked, the just and the unjust, and that there is a first resurrection, but that is all I know (some came or come to life after this also).

The resurrection of the righteous vs the wicked or the just vs the unjust is not specified to be more than a single event, where of those that are resurrected, some are righteous (and are judged and rewarded as such) and some are wicked (and are judged and punished as such). So those passages don't specify multiple resurrections, just two different categories of people being resurrected. Daniel's version is pretty clear that it is a single resurrection: [Dan 12:2 KJV] 2 And many of them that sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame [and] everlasting contempt.
But Daniel also allows for some to be resurrected at a different time (or some not to be resurrected at all), because he talks of "many" that sleep and shall awake, instead of "all".

 

[Jacob]

Read this verse carefully and try to figure out how many people are referenced in it:

[Jhn 21:24 KJV] 24 This is the disciple which testifieth of these things, and wrote these things: and we know that his testimony is true.

Now use the number you counted (which MUST be greater than one, since the word "we" is used), and tell me which of those must have been involved in writing that one verse. If you can say "John" wrote that verse and all the others in the gospel of John, I don't know how to help any more on that topic.

The resurrection of the righteous vs the wicked or the just vs the unjust is not specified to be more than a single event, where of those that are resurrected, some are righteous (and are judged and rewarded as such) and some are wicked (and are judged and punished as such). So those passages don't specify multiple resurrections, just two different categories of people being resurrected. Daniel's version is pretty clear that it is a single resurrection: [Dan 12:2 KJV] 2 And many of them that sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame [and] everlasting contempt.
But Daniel also allows for some to be resurrected at a different time (or some not to be resurrected at all), because he talks of "many" that sleep and shall awake, instead of "all".

John may have had a scribe.

That is one interpretation of Daniel.

 

[Rosenritter]

Were all the apostles named in the book except for John?

The same modesty that might prevent John from naming himself might also prevent Lazarus from naming himself. This would, of course, draw a line of demarcation in the text between at least 2 different authors of the gospel of John, one that named Lazarus and one that did not. There is a line of that sort, somewhere between John 12:17 (last use of the name "Lazarus") and John 13:23 (first use of the phrase, "the disciple whom Jesus loved"). The part of the text that names Lazarus seems to be in places where Lazarus was definitely NOT in attendance, except for the instances in chapter 12.

Why would John, not having ever referred to himself that way through the first 12 chapters, suddenly start calling himself "the disciple whom Jesus loved"?

Again, this is an interesting side issue, one that intrigues me (I haven't decided one way or another who I think wrote it), but not really that important to the main topic.

Just an idea that might shortcut this whole discussion,

John 19:26-27 KJV
(26) When Jesus therefore saw his mother, and the disciple standing by, whom he loved, he saith unto his mother, Woman, behold thy son!
(27) Then saith he to the disciple, Behold thy mother! And from that hour that disciple took her unto his own home.

Early church tradition would know who it was that took care of Jesus's mother after his crucifixion, wouldn't it?

 

[Derf]

Just an idea that might shortcut this whole discussion,

John 19:26-27 KJV
(26) When Jesus therefore saw his mother, and the disciple standing by, whom he loved, he saith unto his mother, Woman, behold thy son!
(27) Then saith he to the disciple, Behold thy mother! And from that hour that disciple took her unto his own home.

Early church tradition would know who it was that took care of Jesus's mother after his crucifixion, wouldn't it?

John was from Galilee. How did he take her into his own home so quickly? Lazarus was from the Jerusalem area, so it is more feasible than John based on the scripture you reference. This is not a slam-dunk answer, though, as John could have taken her into his accommodations, whatever they were.

Early church tradition has the apostle John as the author already. I'm not sure there is additional help with the mother of Jesus question.

 

[Derf]

John may have had a scribe.

Yes, but it shows that John did not write the whole book, even if he wrote most of it.

 

[Jacob]

Yes, but it shows that John did not write the whole book, even if he wrote most of it.

Not if the scribe wrote the whole thing. Because that would mean it came from John, as the scribe attests.

 

[way 2 go]

I don't see Jesus mentioned by Abraham at all. How do you know he is referring to Jesus, especially since the context is about Lazarus being sent to the man's brothers.

same way I know this is about Jesus

Psa 22:16 For dogs encompass me; a company of evildoers encircles me; they have pierced my hands and feet—
Psa 22:17 I can count all my bones— they stare and gloat over me;
Psa 22:18 they divide my garments among them, and for my clothing they cast lots.

I agree with both of these statements, but they don't tell us what form Moses and Elijah were in, or what kind of body (if any).

Act_26:23 That Christ should suffer, and that he should be the first that should rise from the dead, and should shew light unto the people, and to the Gentiles.

Moses and Samuel both buried

Moses and Samuel brief visits so not raised from the dead like Lazarus Joh 11:44

Moses and Samuel both do not have a body like Jesus resurrected body as Jesus was the first

therefore Moses and Samuel just spirits.


Elijah

1Co 15:50 Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God;

Enoch and Elijah were both taken up into heaven
so what form was Elijah in :idunno:

 

[way 2 go]

Then I think you are interpreting the passage about the thief in Paradise in heaven based on your understanding of the trinity, and not based on actual scripture.

actual scripture ?

anti trinitarian ?

 

[Rosenritter]

John was from Galilee. How did he take her into his own home so quickly? Lazarus was from the Jerusalem area, so it is more feasible than John based on the scripture you reference. This is not a slam-dunk answer, though, as John could have taken her into his accommodations, whatever they were.

Early church tradition has the apostle John as the author already. I'm not sure there is additional help with the mother of Jesus question.

John 12:1-2 KJV
(1) Then Jesus six days before the passover came to Bethany, where Lazarus was which had been dead, whom he raised from the dead.
(2) There they made him a supper; and Martha served: but Lazarus was one of them that sat at the table with him.

John 13:22-23 KJV
(22) Then the disciples looked one on another, doubting of whom he spake.
(23) Now there was leaning on Jesus' bosom one of his disciples, whom Jesus loved.

Some more evidence for consideration. Lazarus is named in the gospel of John (multiple times) but never as a disciple, but the only "John" named in the gospel of John is John the Baptist. No mention is made of John the disciple by name, lending to the thought that "the disciple whom Jesus loved" would be the disciple.... which is the same language in John 13:23, "one of his disciples, whom Jesus loved."

From a question you asked earlier, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apostles

Unlike the Synoptic Gospels, the Gospel of John does not offer a formal list of apostles. Although it refers to "the Twelve" (John 6:67–71), the gospel does not present any elaboration of who these twelve actually were, and the author of the Gospel of John does not mention them all by name. There is also no separation of the terms "apostles" and "disciples" in John.

 

[Rosenritter]

same way I know this is about Jesus

Psa 22:16 For dogs encompass me; a company of evildoers encircles me; they have pierced my hands and feet—
Psa 22:17 I can count all my bones— they stare and gloat over me;
Psa 22:18 they divide my garments among them, and for my clothing they cast lots.





Act_26:23 That Christ should suffer, and that he should be the first that should rise from the dead, and should shew light unto the people, and to the Gentiles.

Moses and Samuel both buried

Moses and Samuel brief visits so not raised from the dead like Lazarus Joh 11:44

Moses and Samuel both do not have a body like Jesus resurrected body as Jesus was the first

therefore Moses and Samuel just spirits.


Elijah

1Co 15:50 Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God;

Enoch and Elijah were both taken up into heaven
so what form was Elijah in :idunno:

I at least partially agree with way 2 go as to whom was meant by "if one came back from the dead." It would be a primary reference to Lazarus (whom Jesus did bring back from the dead) but also with a double prophetic meaning in relation to Jesus (to which way 2 go made reference.)

I am not following the rest of this post very well, but I will comment that
1) The bible does not say that Enoch was taken up to heaven (book chapter and verse for that claim please?)
2) In the context of Elijah the heaven to which he was drawn up can be the heaven of the sky. It could not have been the third heaven of the abode of God of which Jesus says "no man has ascended to heaven" without creating immediate contradiction.

2 Kings 2:1 KJV
(1) And it came to pass, when the LORD would take up Elijah into heaven by a whirlwind, that Elijah went with Elisha from Gilgal.

But in 2 Chronicles 21 the king receives a letter from Elijah, indicating that he is still on the earth. If "heaven" means the abode of God then Jesus was wrong, but if "heaven" means the upper limits of the sky then God can set him down again elsewhere and he still sends his letter.

So what form were they in? Elijah would have been in physical form, and Enoch didn't go to heaven.

 

[Derf]

Not if the scribe wrote the whole thing. Because that would mean it came from John, as the scribe attests.

Except the scribe said the guy who "wrote these things": [Jhn 21:24 KJV] 24 This is the disciple which testifieth of these things, and wrote these things: and we know that his testimony is true.

If he "wrote these things", why did he need a scribe to write the same things for him?

 

[Jacob]

Except the scribe said the guy who "wrote these things": [Jhn 21:24 KJV] 24 This is the disciple which testifieth of these things, and wrote these things: and we know that his testimony is true.

If he "wrote these things", why did he need a scribe to write the same things for him?

If John was speaking the scribe could write it, or John wrote all up to this point.

 

[Derf]

same way I know this is about Jesus

Psa 22:16 For dogs encompass me; a company of evildoers encircles me; they have pierced my hands and feet—
Psa 22:17 I can count all my bones— they stare and gloat over me;
Psa 22:18 they divide my garments among them, and for my clothing they cast lots.

Really? Jesus quoted Himself talking about Lazarus and the rich man, like He quoted from Ps 22: "My God, My God, Why hast thou forsaken Me"?

You know about Ps 22's applicability to Jesus crucifixion because of 2 things--1)Jesus quoting the Psalm's first lines, and 2) the events match up.

You can't use the first means to establish who Abraham's talking about because Jesus did NOT quote Himself speaking the parable as far as we know.

You can't use the second means to differentiate between Jesus vs Lazarus coming back from the dead because both Jesus and at least one Lazarus came back from the dead.

Act_26:23 That Christ should suffer, and that he should be the first that should rise from the dead, and should shew light unto the people, and to the Gentiles.

Moses and Samuel both buried

Moses and Samuel brief visits so not raised from the dead like Lazarus Joh 11:44

Moses and Samuel both do not have a body like Jesus resurrected body as Jesus was the first

therefore Moses and Samuel just spirits.

Lazarus didn't have a body like Jesus' either, as far as we know. So maybe the brief visits WERE like Lazarus', but Lazarus stayed around for longer.

Elijah

1Co 15:50 Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God;

Enoch and Elijah were both taken up into heaven
so what form was Elijah in :idunno:

Yet no man had ascended into heaven except the one that descended from heaven, at least prior to the time of John 3:13. All we know about Enoch is that God "took him". Not where he went. Elijah might be a similar case, because he was taken up to heaven, but he later wrote a letter to a king of Israel. See 2 Chronicles 21:12-15. And the men that heard Elisha's version of the story thoght, "Perhaps the Spirit of the Lord has picked him up and set him down on some mountain or in some valley." I'm saying we might be reading more into scripture than scripture has for us in these cases. It's the idea of a "storyline" that we're familiar with, but perhaps we're more familiar with the storyline than the actual information that's revealed to us in scripture.

I don't know Elijah's or Moses' or Samuel's form either. But there's no indication that they were "spirits", especially since the texts don't say that.

actual scripture ?

anti trinitarian ?

Are these questions for me? Can you write them in the form of questions so I can tell what it is you want me to answer?

 

[Derf]

If John was speaking the scribe could write it, or John wrote all up to this point.

Maybe the scribe was Lazarus. As long as we're dealing with maybe's, I can throw some in the mix, too.

 

[way 2 go]

Then I think you are interpreting the passage about the thief in Paradise in heaven based on your understanding of the trinity, and not based on actual scripture.

you said "not based on actual scripture" , prove it.

my proof .
Psa 139:8 If I ascend to heaven, you are there! If I make my bed in Sheol, you are there!

are you anti trinitarian ?