The Disciple Whom Jesus Loved

[Ben Masada]

The Disciple Whom Jesus Loved

As far as I am concerned, John neither wrote the books attributed to him in the NT nor was he the disciple whom Jesus loved. First, if you read Acts 4:13, Luke reports about John and Peter as unlearnt and ignorant men. As you must know, I hope, illiterate people cannot write books. And second, it does not fit to a Jew of the "size" of Jesus in the First Century to hang around with 12 guys while calling one of them the disciple whom he loved. Even to mention the possibility if it had been true, would be embarrassing even to consider.

Why would John be mentioned as the disciple whom Jesus loved and not Peter who loved Jesus more than all the others? (John 21:15) For three times Jesus tested Peter as if he didn't care if the others did not love him too; even John. (John 21:16,17)

If you ask me, yes, there was a disciple whom Jesus really loved and whose love was honorable to be mentioned. That disciple was Mary Magdalene whom Jesus loved and for whom Jesus left his father and mother to cling to as a husband does to his wife and to become with her of one flesh. (Gen. 2:24) It is only obvious that Mary Magdalene followed Jesus many times to deserve that title of the disciple whom Jesus loved. And Mary Magdalene was with Jesus to the last moment of his life. (John 19:25,26)

 

[daqq]

The Disciple Whom Jesus Loved

As far as I am concerned, John neither wrote the books attributed to him in the NT nor was he the disciple whom Jesus loved. First, if you read Acts 4:13, Luke reports about John and Peter as unlearnt and ignorant men. As you must know, I hope, illiterate people cannot write books. And second, it does not fit to a Jew of the "size" of Jesus in the First Century to hang around with 12 guys while calling one of them the disciple whom he loved. Even to mention the possibility if it had been true, would be embarrassing even to consider.

Why would John be mentioned as the disciple whom Jesus loved and not Peter who loved Jesus more than all the others? (John 21:15) For three times Jesus tested Peter as if he didn't care if the others did not love him too; even John. (John 21:16,17)

If you ask me, yes, there was a disciple whom Jesus really loved and whose love was honorable to be mentioned. That disciple was Mary Magdalene whom Jesus loved and for whom Jesus left his father and mother to cling to as a husband does to his wife and to become with her of one flesh. (Gen. 2:24) It is only obvious that Mary Magdalene followed Jesus many times to deserve that title of the disciple whom Jesus loved. And Mary Magdalene was with Jesus to the last moment of his life. (John 19:25,26)

John 20:1-2
1. The first day of the week cometh Mary Magdalene early, when it was yet dark, unto the sepulchre, and seeth the stone taken away from the sepulchre.
2. Then she runneth, and cometh to Simon Peter, and to the other disciple, whom Jesus loved, and saith unto them, They have taken away the Lord out of the sepulchre, and we know not where they have laid him.

:rip:

 

[oatmeal]

The Disciple Whom Jesus Loved

As far as I am concerned, John neither wrote the books attributed to him in the NT nor was he the disciple whom Jesus loved. First, if you read Acts 4:13, Luke reports about John and Peter as unlearnt and ignorant men. As you must know, I hope, illiterate people cannot write books. And second, it does not fit to a Jew of the "size" of Jesus in the First Century to hang around with 12 guys while calling one of them the disciple whom he loved. Even to mention the possibility if it had been true, would be embarrassing even to consider.

Why would John be mentioned as the disciple whom Jesus loved and not Peter who loved Jesus more than all the others? (John 21:15) For three times Jesus tested Peter as if he didn't care if the others did not love him too; even John. (John 21:16,17)

If you ask me, yes, there was a disciple whom Jesus really loved and whose love was honorable to be mentioned. That disciple was Mary Magdalene whom Jesus loved and for whom Jesus left his father and mother to cling to as a husband does to his wife and to become with her of one flesh. (Gen. 2:24) It is only obvious that Mary Magdalene followed Jesus many times to deserve that title of the disciple whom Jesus loved. And Mary Magdalene was with Jesus to the last moment of his life. (John 19:25,26)

Could you teach scripture for about two and half minutes off the top of your head and use quotes from scripture for about half that time?

Without any notes? Just using your memory?

That would take some a great deal of past learning and knowledge to accomplish that.

Peter did that in Acts 2.

Where and when did Peter learn scripture like that?

Part of a child's education in those times was to learn scripture in the synagogues.

Unlearned and ignorant refers to not having gone to what we would refer to a "Bible college" or some such institution.

The Sanhedrin would generally be more highly educated than fishermen. Saul of Tarsus had that higher education being a pupil of Gameliel.

Acts 5:34

Then stood there up one in the council, a Pharisee, named Gamaliel, a doctor of the law, had in reputation among all the people, and commanded to put the apostles forth a little space;

Acts 22:3

I am verily a man which am a Jew, born in Tarsus, a city in Cilicia, yet brought up in this city at the feet of Gamaliel, and taught according to the perfect manner of the law of the fathers, and was zealous toward God, as ye all are this day.

Funny though for the most part, the disciples knew more scripture accurately and practically.

Stephen, Acts 6:8-10 is a clear example of that.

There is at least one person on this website who enjoys tooting his own horn regarding his Bible education, yet seems to have a great deal of trouble actually reading the actual words of scripture. He assumes he is right because of his education.

Jesus Christ loved all, but one was a noteworthy friend.

Peter did not necessarily love people more than other disciples, but Jesus Christ did encourage him to learn to love more by feeding those who would follow his leadership

No one is specifically named in reference to "the disciple whom Jesus loved"

John is not mentioned in that context, there is a far better candidate for that distinction than John

 

[nonanomanon]

God appointed John to measure heaven in order to produce the book of Revelation, in doing so, God did not allow his body to receive corruption. Its not so much that John ended up being in isolation, thats according to the account of a corrupt church. Their lives were simply terminated, and they stayed away from John or their euthanasia would of only continued. We have not yet reached this understanding on a large scale with the Antichrist, but considering mankind's current suicidal nature, what happened with the Apostle John will be repeated in some capacity with the Antichrist.

Jesus did not intend for Peter to measure heaven to some capacity. Jesus intended Peter to serve as a representation of a High Priest, not necessarily with the intent to serve as a high priest. Peter appears to be rejected as a High Priest when the "Roster Clucked Thrice", but that was simply a restatement of Christ's intention. A large euthanasia had taken place after the Apostle Peter was taken out of Jerusalem to be killed because he rejected the service of a High Priest, and especially outside of Jerusalem (as Jeremiah the Prophet intended the New Testament Church to be invested in Jerusalem, but Jerusalem was eventually abandoned, and rather quickly because of sin).

A considerable number of people were simply put down, euthanized, and in both accounts of the gospel in this respect, or as according to history, these accounts are simply ignored. ... ... ... ... Jesus rebuked Peter from going on to minister, when he answered Peter and said John is the one I love, acknowledging the conclusion of euthanasia as a result of sin that ended the Apostle Peter's call to faith.

John 20:1-2
1. The first day of the week cometh Mary Magdalene early, when it was yet dark, unto the sepulchre, and seeth the stone taken away from the sepulchre.
2. Then she runneth, and cometh to Simon Peter, and to the other disciple, whom Jesus loved, and saith unto them, They have taken away the Lord out of the sepulchre, and we know not where they have laid him.
:rip:

Acts 4:13 says Peter and John were ignorant, that is according to the church of that day. Peter and John did not reveal the Body of Benjamin to Magdalene ... as the gospel records Peter dies without ministering any further at some point. Where as God drives the congregation from John in order to allow John to produce the book of revelation. For some period of time, the Gospel largely existed in bit sized portions, so the churches of that day were largely ignorant, and that lasted for quite a few years afterwards because of their sin.

 

[daqq]

Originally Posted by daqq
John 20:1-2
1. The first day of the week cometh Mary Magdalene early, when it was yet dark, unto the sepulchre, and seeth the stone taken away from the sepulchre.
2. Then she runneth, and cometh to Simon Peter, and to the other disciple, whom Jesus loved, and saith unto them, They have taken away the Lord out of the sepulchre, and we know not where they have laid him.
:rip:

Acts 4:13 says Peter and John were ignorant, that is according to the church of that day. Peter and John did not reveal the Body of Benjamin to Magdalene ... as the gospel records Peter dies without ministering any further at some point. Where as God drives the congregation from John in order to allow John to produce the book of revelation. For some period of time, the Gospel largely existed in bit sized portions, so the churches of that day were largely ignorant, and that lasted for quite a few years afterwards because of their sin.

Hi there, and welcome to the forum.
The above portion appears to be addressed toward me so I will attempt a response. But first let me say that the RIP smiley was intended toward the IDEA in the OP and not the OP himself. What I tried to show by the Scripture is that there is no way Mariam Magdalene could have been "the disciple whom Yeshua loved" because, as shown by the passage quoted, (John 20:1-2) Mariam Magdalene ran to tell Peter and the disciple whom Yeshua loved what she had witnessed at the tomb.

But as far as what you have addressed to me in your response I do believe you have the wrong "John" because it was the greatest of all the Prophets who penned the Revelation of Yeshua while he was yet in the Macherus-Patmos Prison of Herod, (before he was beheaded). Where do you suppose Paul received his understanding? He received it not from man but from the Revelation of Messiah Yeshua as he plainly states, (Galatians 1:12). Yeshua received the same when he was in the desert forty days and forty nights, and tempted of the Satan, and was with the Revelation 13:2 wild beasts, (Mark 1:13) and thus is the same Gospel that Paul preaches. Other than that I do not want to throw the thread off topic but that is my answer to the supposed "John" who penned the Revelation of Messiah Yeshua.

:sheep:

 

[nonanomanon]

But as far as what you have addressed to me in your response I do believe you have the wrong "John" because it was the greatest of all the Prophets who penned the Revelation of Yeshua while he was yet in the Macherus-Patmos Prison of Herod, (before he was beheaded). Where do you suppose Paul received his understanding?

:mmph:
MARK 14:51 And there followed him a certain young man, having a linen cloth cast about [his] naked [body]; and the young men laid hold on him:
MARK 14:52 And he left the linen cloth, and fled from them naked.
MARK 14:53 And they led Jesus away to the high priest: and with him were assembled all the chief priests and the elders and the scribes.

(John the Baptist's Body was delivered to the Women, that concluded his revelation ... ... ... ... this eliminates the possibility of John the Baptist as the author of the Book of Revelation, because it is not completed, therefore the Apostle John's Body was not delivered to the Women, nor did it see Corruption)

The Apostle Paul believed he had a sound reason to prosecute the church, and they claimed that Jesus's Revelation was not completed and that the would come again. Which causes a controversy with the Gospel, because the Gospel says, Jesus's body was delivered to the church to complete his ministry. ... ... ... ... This is true in part, Jesus's Body was delivered to the Church (as a son of god or as the messiah), however, Jesus as God, did not deliver the "Body of Benjamin" to the Church (in order to remove the Curse and bring the Blessing).

The "Body of Benjamin" must be delivered to the Church to complete the Gospel's Program. God had later rebuked the Apostle Paul, in allowing him to see not just the Body of Benjamin which is the "Temple Stones", but beyond that he had seen "Star Wormwood" and was "Blinded", that is he had realized the vision of Heaven that Jesus talked about was not completed, but it was only completed in part. Once the Apostle Peter had realized this, he returned to the churches and to the Romans, and told them, they that had to immediately stop what they had begun to have done, but it was too late. The Romans left Jerusalem instead of keeping the Gospel there, and continued their condemnation, until this day, the end of time, where they are once again asked by the Gospel to repent, if they are faithful or not, we do not know as of yet.

 

[Ben Masada]

The Disciple Whom Jesus Loved

John 20:1-2
1. The first day of the week cometh Mary Magdalene early, when it was yet dark, unto the sepulchre, and seeth the stone taken away from the sepulchre.
2. Then she runneth, and cometh to Simon Peter, and to the other disciple, whom Jesus loved, and saith unto them, They have taken away the Lord out of the sepulchre, and we know not where they have laid him.

Yea, first day of the week, early in the morning when it was still dark, Mary Magdalene went to see the sepulcher of Jesus whom she had seen being buried by Joseph of Arimathea late Friday evening and saw that the stone had been removed and the tomb was empty. And mind you, we are talking about someone who had been prophesied in Mat. 12:40 to remain in the grave for three days and three nights. What happened?

Never minding that particularity but, how could Mary Magdalene not think of resurrection but that Jesus' body had been taken away and she did not know where they had put it? Because Jesus, throughout his Ministry had never said any thing about bodily resurrection. Why not? Because he was a Jew and bodily resurrection was not an item in the agenda of Judaism.

Then she ran away to the disciples of Jesus and reported about the empty tomb and Jesus' disciples did not believe her bur rather brushed away her delirious condition of probably a bad dream. (Luke 24:10,11) Why would the disciples of Jesus consider her words as an idle tale which made no sense? Because they were also Jewish and had never heard a word out of Jesus' mouth about bodily resurrection. Now, as if out of nowhere, millions of Christians have chosen to believe the words of Paul that Jesus did resurrect. (II Tim. 2:8) That's beyond comprehension.

 

[nonanomanon]

Yea, first day of the week, early in the morning when it was still dark, Mary Magdalene went to see the sepulcher of Jesus whom she had seen being buried by Joseph of Arimathea late Friday evening and saw that the stone had been removed and the tomb was empty. And mind you, we are talking about someone who had been prophesied in Mat. 12:40 to remain in the grave for three days and three nights. What happened?

Jesus was not just simply another prophet, he is the incarnation of God. For God's testimony to be completed, this would mean the Gospel is also completed. God only intended his testimony to be completed in part, this is where the church had made the mistake in their over zealousness, about the possibility of Jesus giving the blessing to them:

MARK 14:21 The Son of man indeed goeth, as it is written of him: but woe to that man by whom the Son of man is betrayed! good were it for that man if he had never been born.
MARK 14:22 And as they did eat, Jesus took bread, and blessed, and brake [it], and gave to them, and said, Take, eat: this is my body.

Jesus indicated that his body would see corruption, and that it would be feed to the Church. ... ... ... ... Judas in his over zealousness wanted to ensure Jesus's Body did see corruption, so he started a campaign to brand Jesus as a grevious: "blasphemer and rouser of the people", so that the Romans could Crucify Jesus, and he body could see corruption. Judas completely forgot or wanted to dismiss the fact that, the corruption Jesus's body would experience was a result of God subjecting him to the "Curse", in order to kill his body. Crucifixion was entirely not necessary, when Jacob wrestled with God, God had subjected his body to the same "Curse", but not as much as Jesus.

MATTHEW 21:19 And when he saw a fig tree in the way, he came to it, and found nothing thereon, but leaves only, and said unto it, Let no fruit grow on thee henceforward for ever. And presently the fig tree withered away.

Jesus used this as a parable. If the Fruit of Jesus's Body is the "Tree of Life", then Jesus did not intend to give the "Fruit of the Tree", which removes the "Curse" at the time of his Crucifixion as a Man in a body of Flesh. Indicating that Crucifixion for Jesus was unprofitable. Jesus gave the "Fruit of his Body" at the Last Supper as a picture of the blessing the church would receive, by receiving the Holy Spirit. ................. Jesus said in short: "My Body of Flesh is Barren Forever" .... indicating that he must be crucified as revelation reports in a resurrected body, the "Temple Stones/UFOs" or the "Body of Benjamin" must be crucified. Judas was convicted of being overzealous but the Church after Judas had given them a rebuke did not repent, they continued as if Christ and the Apostles were criminals and as if the death of Jesus represented the invalidation of their teachings.

Never minding that particularity but, how could Mary Magdalene not think of resurrection but that Jesus' body had been taken away and she did not know where they had put it? Because Jesus, throughout his Ministry had never said any thing about bodily resurrection. Why not? Because he was a Jew and bodily resurrection was not an item in the agenda of Judaism.

There was a tremendous divide between the Church and the Apostles after Jesus was crucified, and after many people falsely reported that Jesus's body was stolen to convince people that he was still alive. ..................... Most of the Church believed the "Body of Jesus" was given to the Church, it saw the corruption of death, and therefore, the additional teachings of the apostles were simply fabrications, they could not be authenticate revelations from God. ..................... The Apostle Paul was acting under the Church's authority in prosecuting people that followed after the apostles in some way or another, because he was holding to their belief that the revelation was completed. ......................... Regardless of the church eventually not having the body of Jesus, they became corruptible very quickly, after the Crucifixion of Jesus, as the gospel indicates, there was no devout association between the apostles and Mary or Mary Magdalene.

Then she ran away to the disciples of Jesus and reported about the empty tomb and Jesus' disciples did not believe her bur rather brushed away her delirious condition of probably a bad dream. (Luke 24:10,11) Why would the disciples of Jesus consider her words as an idle tale which made no sense? Because they were also Jewish and had never heard a word out of Jesus' mouth about bodily resurrection. Now, as if out of nowhere, millions of Christians have chosen to believe the words of Paul that Jesus did resurrect. (II Tim. 2:8) That's beyond comprehension.

Jesus had indicated to the Apostle John beforehand that he was the, "Disciple Whom Jesus Loved, and his Body wouldn't see Corruption", so they knew to some degree that the testimony of God, that is also of Jesus was not finished before he was crucified as a result of Judas's over zealousness.

Jesus also stated as you indicated, "after three days the temple will be rebuilt", so the apostles also held the fact that Jesus was going to remain in that tomb for "3 Days". However, in order to set an example about the position of the Gospel. Jesus was taken from the Tomb, and there was no body, no "Body of Benjamin" was in that tomb. .......................... ..........................

1. Judas betrayed Jesus because of his Over Zealousness, in wanting to believe the "Curse", was going to be removed, which is only done at the end of time.

2. Mary Magdalene continued in Judas's pattern of betrayal in refusing to believe that Jesus elected his Apostles to continue in the testimony that was started when Jesus began his ministry. The Fact that Jesus was not in the Tomb, seems to have invalided the testimony of the Apostles in the mind of Mary Magdelene ................ The Fact that she goes on to see Jesus Christ as a resurrected personality later on, only seems to enforce this position, even though it is wrong, she was simply overzealous like Judas, and the gospel describes this trend, in the prosecution of the apostles, but the language of euthanasia that follows is turncoated.

 

[Dan Emanuel]

...Jesus, throughout his Ministry had never said any thing about bodily resurrection. Why not? Because he was a Jew and bodily resurrection was not an item in the agenda of Judaism.

Then she ran away to the disciples of Jesus and reported about the empty tomb and Jesus' disciples did not believe her bur rather brushed away her delirious condition of probably a bad dream. (Luke 24:10,11) Why would the disciples of Jesus consider her words as an idle tale which made no sense? Because they were also Jewish and had never heard a word out of Jesus' mouth about bodily resurrection. Now, as if out of nowhere, millions of Christians have chosen to believe the words of Paul that Jesus did resurrect. (II Tim. 2:8) That's beyond comprehension.

Versus John 2:

18 Then answered the Jews and said unto him, What sign shewest thou unto us, seeing that thou doest these things? 19 Jesus answered and said unto them, Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up. 20 Then said the Jews, Forty and six years was this temple in building, and wilt thou rear it up in three days? 21 But he spake of the temple of his body. 22 When therefore he was risen from the dead, his disciples remembered that he had said this unto them; and they believed the scripture, and the word which Jesus had said.​

You don't believe in Jesus.


Daniel

 

[Ben Masada]

The Disciple Whom Jesus Loved

Could you teach scripture for about two and half minutes off the top of your head and use quotes from scripture for about half that time? Without any notes? Just using your memory? That would take some a great deal of past learning and knowledge to accomplish that. Peter did that in Acts 2.

I could but, never mind me! I am not the one under examination here but Peter and, he was not the author of Acts 2. That speech was never delivered by Peter. He was a Jew and he had nothing against the Jewish authorities or the Jewish People for that matter to charge them with having crucified Jesus. He knew that the Romans were the ones who had crucified Jesus and not the Jews. (Acts 2:36) That speech was "written" by Luke and perhaps never delivered at all especially in Jerusalem.

Where and when did Peter learn scripture like that? Part of a child's education in those times was to learn scripture in the synagogues.

That scripture is from the gospel of Paul and not something which we learn in synagogues or Yeshivas.

Unlearned and ignorant refers to not having gone to what we would refer to a "Bible college" or some such institution.

Tell this to Luke. He was the one reporting about John and Peter as unlearned and ignorant fellas. (Acts 4:13)

The Sanhedrin would generally be more highly educated than fishermen. Saul of Tarsus had that higher education being a pupil of Gameliel.

Paul had a higher education alright but not at the feet of Gamaliel. He was educated in the Stoic University of Tarsus in the Cilicia. He was the son of a well-to-do coupe of Hellenistic Jews. He was never a pupil of Gamaliel. He was lying when he said so.

Acts 5:34 Then stood there up one in the council, a Pharisee, named Gamaliel, a doctor of the law, had in reputation among all the people, and commanded to put the apostles forth a little space;

Why, because their business would not last if it was not from God? A Jew would think better than that. Six hundred years later Islam rose and it is growing to this day more than the Church of Paul. Are we to believe Islam is of God for lasting and overgrowing any other religion on earth? I don't think so.

Acts 22:3 I am verily a man which am a Jew, born in Tarsus, a city in Cilicia, yet brought up in this city at the feet of Gamaliel, and taught according to the perfect manner of the law of the fathers, and was zealous toward God, as ye all are this day.

Paul could have had some training in an around-the-corner yeshiva but a Jewish education from youth, I don't find any probability.

Funny though for the most part, the disciples knew more scripture accurately and practically.

How do you know it? There is nothing written by the Apostles of Jesus in the NT. The NT was canonized with only the gospel of Paul.

Stephen, Acts 6:8-10 is a clear example of that.

I don't think so. He could have happen at the time he is claimed to have lived but his testimony was totally Christian at a time when Christianity did not exist yet as Paul was only a teenager so to speak when Stephen was executed. (Acts 7:58) Given the contradiction, I choose to consider him never to have happened as the record of him just does not make any sense at all. Perhaps "Stephen" was only an allegory.

There is at least one person on this website who enjoys tooting his own horn regarding his Bible education, yet seems to have a great deal of trouble actually reading the actual words of scripture. He assumes he is right because of his education.

If you are talking about me, all you need to do is to correct me with the proper evidences without contradictions. It looks like you don't know how.

Jesus Christ loved all, but one was a noteworthy friend.

But of course! Who could be more noteworthy than his wife Mary Magdalene?

Peter did not necessarily love people more than other disciples, but Jesus Christ did encourage him to learn to love more by feeding those who would follow his leadership.

Except the Gentiles, said Jesus. (Mat. 10:5,6) I consider that a blunder by the Fathers of the Church because later, the Sect of the Nazarenes extended the gospel to the Gentiles too and Peter was the one assigned to take the gospel to them. (Acts 15:7)

No one is specifically named in reference to "the disciple whom Jesus loved".

Mary Magdalene was the disciple whom Jesus loved in a special way and there is nothing you can say.

John is not mentioned in that context, there is a far better candidate for that distinction than John

Of course not! Jesus was a straight Jew and not a Hellenistic one.

 

[nonanomanon]

Versus John 2:

18 Then answered the Jews and said unto him, What sign shewest thou unto us, seeing that thou doest these things? 19 Jesus answered and said unto them, Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up. 20 Then said the Jews, Forty and six years was this temple in building, and wilt thou rear it up in three days? 21 But he spake of the temple of his body. 22 When therefore he was risen from the dead, his disciples remembered that he had said this unto them; and they believed the scripture, and the word which Jesus had said.​

Mark 14:51-53, the Apostle Paul throws his soiled undies at Jesus Christ, as a declaration that the "Curse", is going to be removed, because he was convinced beyond a reasonable doubt, that Judas would ensure Jesus's body would receive corruption and his testimony would be completed .............. completing the testimony of God at the same time, and thus completing the Gospel. If that is indeed the Apostle Paul, he could not be a saved person, indicating that the Apostle Paul in his recordings of the Gospel, is simply parroting the teachings that he hears from the apostles and publishes them as his own.

John 2:20 viewed as an Equation? 40 Days of Repentance (in which Moses returns to go up the mountain for 40 Days like he gave the commandments, paralleling the 40 days of Noah's Flood, Rev. 12:15-17) .......... after the 40 Days, the SIXTH SEAL is opened, that begins the "3 Days of Darkness", after the SEVENTH SEAL is opened, the "3 Days of Darkness" are finished. If that is an equation however, we could also say this ..................

(13 Gons in one Lunar Year of 384)
46 Lunar Months of 1311 Days (each Lunar Month is 28.5 Days)

1311 Days is about 43.7 Solar Months of about 30 Days Each
Janurary to December = 12 Solar Months (2012)
Janurary to December = 12 Solar Months (2013)
Janurary to December = 12 Solar Months (2014)
Janurary to July = 7 Solar Months (7/17/2015, this is soon to be done)

July is described as the "Seventeenth Day of the Seventh Month", the Gospel says the days of Jesus are like Joseph (Moses) in revelation, so the 12,000 Day pattern is the same, going back to Moses, if that is true, they attempted to make the association of 7/17/2015, which is tomorrow.

I could but, never mind me! I am not the one under examination here but Peter and, he was not the author of Acts 2. That speech was never delivered by Peter. He was a Jew and he had nothing against the Jewish authorities or the Jewish People for that matter to charge them with having crucified Jesus. He knew that the Romans were the ones who had crucified Jesus and not the Jews. (Acts 2:36) That speech was "written" by Luke and perhaps never delivered at all especially in Jerusalem.

The Gospel exclaims the Apostle Judas was elected to betray Jesus, and the Apostle Paul was elected to come as a Gentile. Because the Gospel makes this statement, we could perhaps discredit certain books published under Paul, as theology that originated from him, perhaps.

MARK 9:26 And [the spirit] cried, and rent him sore, and came out of him: and he was as one dead; insomuch that many said, He is dead.
MARK 9:27 But Jesus took him by the hand, and lifted him up; and he arose.
MARK 9:28 And when he was come into the house, his disciples asked him privately, Why could not we cast him out?

We could say, that Jesus's baptism of the Apostles at the "Last Supper", was not completed until Jesus was crucified. Once Jesus had been crucified, the Apostles could cast out evil spirits from the Church, this would authenticate the language from Acts 2, as not only happening after the Crucifixion, and possibly as originating from Peter with the Apostle Paul serving as the scribe, (as the "gentile" scribe according to his election).​

 

[Bright Raven]

The Disciple Whom Jesus Loved

As far as I am concerned, John neither wrote the books attributed to him in the NT nor was he the disciple whom Jesus loved. First, if you read Acts 4:13, Luke reports about John and Peter as unlearnt and ignorant men. As you must know, I hope, illiterate people cannot write books. And second, it does not fit to a Jew of the "size" of Jesus in the First Century to hang around with 12 guys while calling one of them the disciple whom he loved. Even to mention the possibility if it had been true, would be embarrassing even to consider.

Why would John be mentioned as the disciple whom Jesus loved and not Peter who loved Jesus more than all the others? (John 21:15) For three times Jesus tested Peter as if he didn't care if the others did not love him too; even John. (John 21:16,17)

If you ask me, yes, there was a disciple whom Jesus really loved and whose love was honorable to be mentioned. That disciple was Mary Magdalene whom Jesus loved and for whom Jesus left his father and mother to cling to as a husband does to his wife and to become with her of one flesh. (Gen. 2:24) It is only obvious that Mary Magdalene followed Jesus many times to deserve that title of the disciple whom Jesus loved. And Mary Magdalene was with Jesus to the last moment of his life. (John 19:25,26)

You don't know biblical history. John wrote his Gospel and there is no mention of Mary being at the Last Supper. It really is a pretty foolish looking post. Mary was a follower of Jesus. Nowhere is she called a disciple. This was a position held by males not females.

 

[Ben Masada]

The Disciple Whom Jesus Loved

Jesus was not just simply another prophet, he is the incarnation of God.

Now, you are talking idolatry of the Greek kind. I am talking about a Jew called Yeshua. If you want to talk about idolatry, choose a Greek one, not a Jew.

For God's testimony to be completed, this would mean the Gospel is also completed. God only intended his testimony to be completed in part, this is where the church had made the mistaken in their over zealousness, about the possibility of Jesus giving the blessing to them:

What church are you talking about, not Christianity? All are Christians, Catholics or not.

MARK 14:21 The Son of man indeed goeth, as it is written of him: but woe to that man by whom the Son of man is betrayed! good were it for that man if he had never been born.

The son of man in Hebrew means the mortal one. Jesus was a Hebrew one. Therefore, not God as God is not mortal.

MARK 14:22 And as they did eat, Jesus took bread, and blessed, and brake [it], and gave to them, and said, Take, eat: this is my body.

This language is not Jewish. Jesus was a Jew. Therefore, it never happened.

Jesus indicated that he body would see corruption, and that it would be feed to the Church. Judas in his over zealousness wanted to ensure Jesus's Body did see corruption, so he started a campaign to brand Jesus as a grevious: "blasphemer and rouser of the people", so that the Romans could Crucify Jesus, and he body could see corruption. Judas completely forgot or wanted to dismiss the fact that, the corruption Jesus's body would experience was a result of God subjecting him to the "Curse", in order to kill his body. Crucifixion was entirely not necessary, when Jacob wrestled with God, God had subjected his body to the same "Curse", by not as much as Jesus.

Please! Enough of verbal juggling that means nothing.

MATTHEW 21:19 And when he saw a fig tree in the way, he came to it, and found nothing thereon, but leaves only, and said unto it, Let no fruit grow on thee henceforward for ever. And presently the fig tree withered away.

And you believe right away, and literally without a discount? Do you know what is a parable by definition? If you do, that was only a parable. If you don't believe, take a look at Mat. 24:32 for the explanation of the fig tree. Jesus was not talking about a real tree but only a parabolic one.

Jesus used this as a parable. If the Fruit of Jesus's Body is the "Tree of Life", then Jesus did not intend to give the "Fruit of the Tree", which removes the "Curse" at the time of his Crucifixion as a Man in a body of Flesh. Indicating that Crucifixion for Jesus was unprofitable. Jesus gave the "Fruit of his Body" at the Last Supper as a picture of the blessing the church would receive, by receiving the Holy Spirit. Jesus said in short: "My Body of Flesh is Barren Forever" .... indicating that he must be crucified as revelation reports in a resurrected body, the "Temple Stones/UFOs" or the "Body of Benjamin" must be crucified. Judas was convicted of being overzealous but the Church after Judas had given them a rebuke did not repent, they continued as if Christ and the Apostles were criminals and as if the death of Jesus represented the invalidation of their teachings.

No offense meant but, you rather have an unproductive though rich imagination.

There was a tremendous divide between the Church and the Apostles after Jesus was crucified, and after many people falsely reported that Jesus's body was stolen to convince people that he was still alive.

Mary Magdalene believed that Jesus' body had been stolen from the tomb because she had no idea of bodily resurrection. If you don't believe Jesus' body was stolen, who removed it from the tomb before the dawn of Sunday?

Most of the Church believed the "Body of Jesus" was given to the Church, it saw the corruption of death, and therefore, the additional teachings of the apostles were simply fabrications, they could not be authenticate revelations from God.

I have never heard of such a version.

The Apostle Paul was acting under the Church's authority in prosecuting people that followed after the apostles in some way or another, because he was holding to their believe that the revelation was completed.

I am aware of this "persecution of the followers of the Apostles" but of Paul against the Nazarenes. (Acts 9:1,2)

Regardless of the church eventually not having the body of Jesus, they became corruptible very quickly, after the Crucifixion of Jesus, as the gospel indicates, there was no devout association between the apostles and Mary or Mary Magdalene.

That's an evidence that John was not at the Calvary but Mary Magdalene was.

Jesus had indicated to the Apostle John beforehand that he was the, "Disciple Whom Jesus Loved, and his Body wouldn't see Corruption", so they knew to some degree that the testimony of God, that is also of Jesus was not finished before he was crucified as a result of Judas's over zealousness.

I don't think Judas had any thing to do with the crucifixion of Jesus. Not Judas alone but together with all the disciples who were acclaiming Jesus to be the king of the Jews at the entrance of Jerusalem. That's why Jesus was arrested and crucified. Hence his verdict: INRI. (Luke 19:37-40)

Jesus also stated as you indicated, "after three days the temple will be rebuilt", so the apostles also held the fact that Jesus was going to remain in that tomb for "3 Days". However, in order to set an example about the position of the Gospel. Jesus was taken from the Tomb, and there was no body, no "Body of Benjamin" was in that tomb.

So, why the need of the prophecy that he would remain three days and three nights in the heart of the earth? (Mat. 12:40)

 

[Ben Masada]

The Disciple Whom Jesus Loved

Versus John 2:18 Then answered the Jews and said unto him, What sign shewest thou unto us, seeing that thou doest these things? 19 Jesus answered and said unto them, Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up. 20 Then said the Jews, Forty and six years was this temple in building, and wilt thou rear it up in three days? 21 But he spake of the temple of his body. 22 When therefore he was risen from the dead, his disciples remembered that he had said this unto them; and they believed the scripture, and the word which Jesus had said. You don't believe in Jesus.

Daniel

Jesus had not said any thing about bodily resurrection so that his disciples could remember now and believe. This record is messed up. Jews once dead will never raise from the dead. (Isa. 26:14)

 

[Dan Emanuel]

Jesus had not said any thing about bodily resurrection so that his disciples could remember now and believe. This record is messed up...

Confirmation bias.

...Jews once dead will never raise from the dead. (Isa. 26:14)

Isaiah 26:19 KJV


Daniel

 

[Ben Masada]

The Gospel exclaims the Apostle Judas was elected to betray Jesus, and the Apostle Paul was elected to come as a Gentile.

That would be a divine contradiction of man's attribute of Freewill. Any one can see that it was all planned by the Church after the fact. And if Paul was elected to go to the Gentiles, when did he ever do it? Throughout his life he never left the Jews in peace from his first station in Damascus and until his last in Rome. (Acts 9:1,2; 28:17)

Because the Gospel makes this statement, we could perhaps discredit certain books published under Paul, as theology that originated from him, perhaps.

If you ask me, the whole of the NT if not 80% of it is from Paul.

We could say, that Jesus's baptism of the Apostles at the "Last Supper", was not completed until Jesus was crucified.

Against his will if you read the text about his three prayers during that last night at the Gethsemane.

Once Jesus had been crucified, the Apostles could cast out evil spirits from the Church, this would authenticate the language from Acts 2, as not only happening after the Crucifixion, and possibly as originating from Peter with the Apostle Paul serving as the scribe, (as the "gentile" scribe according to his election).

Paul was never a scribe. He had himself a scribe whom to dictate to. His scribe was called Silvanus. (II Cor. 1:19) The language in Acts 2 for that speech attributed to Peter was not Jewish. Since Luke was the writer of the book of Acts, he was the one who wrote that speech which was not delivered in Jerusalem or he would be killed by a Jewish Siccarii.

 

[nonanomanon]

Mary Magdalene believed that Jesus' body had been stolen from the tomb because she had no idea of bodily resurrection. If you don't believe Jesus' body was stolen, who removed it from the tomb before the dawn of Sunday?

Peter and John were caught by surprise, most likely because Jesus was missing from the Tomb before "3 Days and Nights" had passed. If this is true, the Gospel records, Peter and John were ignorant, Jesus talked nothing about going to the father in less then "3 Days and Night".

So, why the need of the prophecy that he would remain three days and three nights in the heart of the earth? (Mat. 12:40)

1. Fulfilled Prophecy - (Luke 2:43-46) Jesus comes from the Tomb before "Three Days/Nights", after the Crucifixion
2. Unfulfilled Prophecy - MATTHEW 12:40 For as Jonas was three days and three nights in the whale's belly; so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.
3. Unfulfilled Prophecy - MATTHEW 26:61 And said, This [fellow] said, I am able to destroy the temple of God, and to build it in three days.

Jesus had not said any thing about bodily resurrection so that his disciples could remember now and believe. This record is messed up. Jews once dead will never raise from the dead. (Isa. 26:14)

Unfulfilled Prophecy of the Body of Benjamin being Revealed, so that it is destroyed in "3 Days/Nights"

DEUTERONOMY 33:11 Bless, LORD, his substance, and accept the work of his hands: smite through the loins of them that rise against him, and of them that hate him, that they rise not again.
DEUTERONOMY 33:12 [And] of Benjamin he said, The beloved of the LORD shall dwell in safety by him; [and the LORD] shall cover him all the day long, and he shall dwell between his shoulders.
DEUTERONOMY 33:13 And of Joseph he said, Blessed of the LORD [be] his land, for the precious things of heaven, for the dew, and for the deep that coucheth beneath,
DEUTERONOMY 33:14 And for the precious fruits [brought forth] by the sun, and for the precious things put forth by the moon,

When Jesus withered the Fig Tree he said: "My Body will not produce any Fruit as an offering to God". Jesus also clearly said that he would: "Bring the Body of Benjamin ("Temple Stones"), in order to destroy it at the "3 Days of Darkness" recorded in Revelation". In Deuteronomy 33:11, Jesus says my "Body" will produce fruit when I rise again. Not his Body of Flesh, but the "Body of Benjamin" that must be destroyed, in the "3 Days of Darkness", in order to bring the blessing of Jospeh, which removes the Curse of Jacob, or simply the Curse.

"Babylon is Fallen is revealed as the Body of Benjamin", that is destroyed in 3 Days of Darkness of Revelation

ISAIAH 21:8 And he cried, A lion: My lord, I stand continually upon the watchtower in the daytime, and I am set in my ward whole nights:
ISAIAH 21:9 And, behold, here cometh a chariot of men, [with] a couple of horsemen. And he answered and said, Babylon is fallen, is fallen; and all the graven images of her gods he hath broken unto the ground.

The Book of Revelation does not say the "Body of Benjamin" ("Temple Stones"), that are revealed in order to be destroyed ... the gospel connects these together by saying, the Horsemen of the Lord are Fallen to divide the "daytime ... whole night", that is "3 Days of Darkness" recounted in Isiah 21:8-9 this is when Jeremiah 33:20-21 is fulfilled, when the "Key of David" (Rev. 5:5) is used to separate the "Body of Benjamin", so the Lord's Body can be Crucified to offer to the Lord, and bring the Blessing of Joseph, and complete the Unfulfilled Prophecy recounted in the New Testament of the "3 Days of Darkness".

That would be a divine contradiction of man's attribute of Freewill. Any one can see that it was all planned by the Church after the fact. And if Paul was elected to go to the Gentiles, when did he ever do it? Throughout his life he never left the Jews in peace from his first station in Damascus and until his last in Rome. (Acts 9:1,2; 28:17)

Acts 28:3-8 ... The Apostle Paul baptizes in the name of the Serpent (a picture of the Holy Spirit) to perform miracles, not in the name of the Holy Ghost, this is a picture of of Paul serving as a gentile. Paul calls on the Serpent to heal a blood curse, where as Jesus called on God to heal a blood curse, Mark 5:25-29.

 

[Ben Masada]

The Disciple Whom Jesus Loved

You don't know biblical history. John wrote his Gospel and there is no mention of Mary being at the Last Supper. It really is a pretty foolish looking post. Mary was a follower of Jesus. Nowhere is she called a disciple. This was a position held by males not females.

Are you implying that Jesus was a homosexual to hang around with 12 young guys and calling one of them his beloved? I prefer that he was a respectful Rabbi married with a woman he loved and became known as the disciple whom Jesus loved. Don't you feel much better that way? Why go for the decisions of the Catholic Church which was afraid that Jesus could be less than a god by being married to an earthly woman? Simply amazing!

 

[Bright Raven]

Are you implying that Jesus was a homosexual to hang around with 12 young guys and calling one of them his beloved? I prefer that he was a respectful Rabbi married with a woman he loved and became known as the disciple whom Jesus loved. Don't you feel much better that way? Why go for the decisions of the Catholic Church which was afraid that Jesus could be less than a god by being married to an earthly woman? Simply amazing!

I'm not a Catholic. Why do you even bring up homosexuality. How stupid. Give references as to where you think he was married. Actually, no reply is needed to this nonsensical post. Jesus a homosexual or married, how absurd.

 

[Ben Masada]

Confirmation bias.
Isaiah 26:19 KJV

Daniel

No bias! Why didn't the disciples believe Mary Magdalene when she reported that Jesus had been raised up from the tomb? Because they were Jews and Jews do not believe in bodily resurrection. Isaiah 26:19 is about the "dead" Jews in exile who choose not to return to the Land of Israel. (Ezek. 37:12)

And for Daniel, you did not complete the quote but I am almost sure you refer to Dan. 12:2. That's about the "Dry Bones" of Ezek. 37:12. Many will awake to return to the Land of the living aka Israel and some to the shame to remain in exile in everlasting contempt.