“To Jim who I figure is also JP who I suspect is also the author of the tract mentioned”

Actually, Jim and I are two completely different persons. Have you listened to the mp3 I posted?

Here is the challenge an issue where the only real principle at stake may be a love of the truth. It starts with the following premise: One should not present an idea AS IF it were Biblical if neither they nor those who sell them on the idea can cite a single verse that would justify teaching that idea. And those who prefer to parrot the opinions of men that they have chosen to follow should give to what the Bible says.

We’re told, “[It is] better to trust in the LORD than to put confidence in man”. Given this explicit statement (along with the other statements in scripture concurring on this matter) it is clear that one should be leery of those who encourage people trust in NON-Bible sources and put their confidence in unbiblical man-made traditions. To show respect for the word of God we need to heed the Biblical admonition to “prove all things” – and not simply be repeating the ideas of men but rather looking to scripture and searching the scriptures to see if what we have read or have been told can stand up to Biblical scrutiny. It is difficult to see how it could be honoring to God for one to present an idea AS IF IT WERE BIBLICAL if they cannot cite a single verse that would justify teaching that idea. But, as an example, those who promote the unbiblical tradition that the “other disciple whom Jesus loved” was John do just that — even though a search of the scriptures will reveal that this is a false man-made idea. Those who promote this error today are routinely guilty of using circular reasoning in order to try and sell the idea that John is referred to in passages that never mention him but that rather talk about the anonymous author of the fourth gospel. Defenders of this tradition can choose to ignore the facts stated in the plain text of scripture if they prefer to quote the words of men who quote other men who quote other men but one thing that neither they nor their non-Bible sources cannot do is cite even a single verse that would justify this idea. No one ever has — not those who originated this unbiblical idea and not those who repeat their error unto this day.

The truth is there is not a single verse in scripture that would justify teaching the idea that John was the unnamed “other disciple whom Jesus loved” and yet most simply assume that this man-made tradition cannot be wrong and then interpret scripture to fit this idea. But if one will heed Ps. 118:8 then the NON-BIBLE sources on which this man-made error is based will give way to the facts stated in scripture which prove that NO MATTER WHO this anonymous author was he most certainly was not John.

Since one will discover that they cannot cite a single verse of scripture that would justify promoting the idea that John was this unnamed “other disciple” some may be led to take another look at what the Bible has to say on this matter. If so instead of looking to the writings of men try a Bible-only based strategy; examine the facts stated in scripture and compare what the Bible says about “the disciple whom Jesus loved” with what it says about John. The Bible evidence proves that whoever the one who “Jesus loved” was he could not have been John — because the Bible cannot contradict itself as the John idea requires.

The Bible says what it says. So no matter how many men, scholars or chief priests that one can find parroting the ideas of men found in non-Bible sources the fact is the Biblical evidence proves that John was not the “other disciple whom Jesus loved” (the anonymous author of the fourth gospel). That idea comes from NON-Bible sources and the hand-me-down ideas of men but scripture says otherwise.

Still it’s often the case that in an effort to get the focus off of the fact that scripture DISPROVES the John idea those who promote the man-made John tradition will rush to change the subject to something else. They’ll talk about the tone or attitude rather than admitting that they have been promoting an idea AS IF IT WERE BIBLICAL when there is not a single verse that would justify doing so. Or they’ll change the subject to the question of who did write this gospel and pretend that if they can argue against this-or-that author candidate then their John tradition somehow ‘wins by default’. But this is one of the many logical fallacies that are committed by promoters of this tradition. For they assume that if they can argue against the idea of this being someone else (James, Thomas, Mary Magdalene Judas being among the most frequent candidates mentioned) that then even though they still cannot cite a single verse that would justify doing so, they can go on presenting the John idea AS IF IT WERE BIBLICAL [even to the point of adding John's name to the text where God's inspired writer never put it (i.e. John leaned on Jesus at the last supper, Jesus gave his mother to John at the cross, John wrote, etc.) ]. Bad logic.

Because we’ve been taught to trust in non-Bible sources and accept the spoon-fed teachings of men most will never bother to test these ideas or else they would notice that the work of the anonymous author of the fourth gospel is said to be ‘John’s eyewitness testimony’ despite the fact that (A) there is no verse that would justify doing so and (B) this anonymous author’s omission of EVERY event where John is actually named as being an eyewitness in the other three gospels IS a strong argument against ascribing this anonymous author’s testimony to John. This is especially true given the fourth gospel’s omission of the those three times that Jesus included John with James and Peter to be EYEwitnesses of three of the most notable events of his ministry — the raising of the daughter of Jairus, the prayers of Jesus at Gethsemane and his transfiguration. This then exposes the logical fallacy behind this claim, for it makes no sense that ‘John’s eyewitness testimony’ would fail to include ALL of these events.

Proverbs 15:32 “he that heareth reproof getteth understanding.” In scripture we see the scholars called “hypocrites” by Jesus. (Attitude?) We see time and again there were those willing to give lip-service to honoring the word of God but when it came to humbly responding to scriptural truth that would reprove them they rejected it. As Jesus rightly said they had made void the word of God by their tradition.

Many people feel they get to pick and choose which parts of scripture need to be paid attention to so they can willfully ignore other parts of it whenever it suits their presuppositions to do so. Any accusatory tone is of course addressed to and/or directed against only those hypocrites that will give lip service the authority of God’s word but ignore the facts stated in the plain text of God’s word whenever the choice comes down to the Bible vs. their preference for a tradition. Just as it is right for us to call others on their hypocrisy on this, so it is right for anyone to call us on our own hypocrisy if we should fail to respond to the correction of God’s word while calling on others to do so.

PS The false assumptions abound so I’ll correct another loose-lip-shoot-from-the-hip comment posted above. I have no idea who the JP in comment 3 was nor have I visited the link posted nor do I care to.

To whom are you responding? JP, I presume. I’d like to hear back from him, addressing your comment.

But fair is fair. Searching for the source reveals a little download-for-free, self-published tract by an author who undoubtedly is making the adamant statements on this blog. Before dismissing anything as adamantly as he dismisses all the above mentioned scholarship, I look for his credentials inside the book, and what do I find? Nothing! Why wouldn’t such an eminent scholar disclose his extensive credentials? I go on searching the net, and what do I find. Nothing other than another tract declaring that Mary Magdalene must be the author of the Gospel. Once again, no credentials, peer recommendations, credible reviews to give the author even a shred of credibility…

The internet and modern self-publishing are truly wonderful media, open to the highly learned and brilliant as well as the totally unqualified creack pot alike. We as readers have to figure out where on this continuum specific contributors to public discussion fall. Do they have a track record of responsible scholarship? Do they utilize evidence that is recognized by other scholars or long-discredited theories, or perhaps at least disputed sources?

If we fail to make these distinctions, we are bound to fall for just about anything…

Btw, check out Lee Strobel’s latest book: The Case for the Real Jesus. He interviews some real scholars (those with credentials, awards, publishing track records, and qualifications pertaining to what they are writing about). It’s a joy to listen to these learned individuals. Beyond the questions they discuss, reading about researchers of this caliber will also equip the reader to appreciate the difference of whom to listen to: the fake or the genuine article.

In my post you’ll notice words such as “the gospel attributed to…” or “teachings attributed to…” . Such wording allows for the possibility that another author penned the oral tradition of the gospel attributed to said disciple. After allowing for that in one part of the paper, it would be redundant to repeat it throughout. I make the assumption that the reader is intelligent. Perhaps it was an error to do so?

If you had spent your time looking at the facts in the Biblical record you might have noticed the evidence that proves WHOEVER the author of the fourth gospel was he could not possibly have been John.