tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20930767.post1410616036399110488..comments2023-06-01T14:08:49.977+00:00Comments on Confessions of a Doubting Thomas: The disciple whom Jesus lovedUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger11125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20930767.post-20898330984004759282014-10-14T20:21:35.537+00:002014-10-14T20:21:35.537+00:00Hi Ricky,
I respect your opinion. As I said, mayb...Hi Ricky,<br /><br />I respect your opinion. As I said, maybe it wasn't really John. But since the scripture proves only the twelve were at the last supper and the beloved disciple is a fisherman, like John 21 shows, I don't know how Lazarus can fit on it.Rowenanoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20930767.post-62622548713571369462014-10-10T16:55:33.597+00:002014-10-10T16:55:33.597+00:00Hi Rowena,
Saying the theory is 'totally wron...Hi Rowena,<br /><br />Saying the theory is 'totally wrong' is probably going too strong. Several of the presuppositions of this theory are questionable, so there are great reasons for doubting it, but no 'smoking gun' which totally blows it out of the water. Meanwhile your own reasoning also has questionable presuppositions, so there's always room for doubt. And room for doubt must always entail the possibility that a theory just <i>might</i> be true.Ricky Carvelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17975085318645232701noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20930767.post-40649939820242573722011-12-23T16:19:50.583+00:002011-12-23T16:19:50.583+00:00Thank you for the writing. I have been searching ...Thank you for the writing. I have been searching for years for someone close to my problem. A Christian doubting Thomas. Although I've never heard this view - I'm eager to read more and will.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20930767.post-22693778450944249542011-01-23T16:29:46.203+00:002011-01-23T16:29:46.203+00:00my mistake ... :)
found just a few minutes ago, af...my mistake ... :)<br />found just a few minutes ago, after read chapter 3 - that's why i hurrily come back here, to say I'm sorry ...:)<br /><br />anyway, i like J.Phillip book - as it's detailed and more intrigue me than the idea it's john who wrote the 4th gospel.<br /><br />thank you for your correction.balihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08670823521800611450noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20930767.post-162253230396471272011-01-23T08:42:18.766+00:002011-01-23T08:42:18.766+00:00Hi there.
I think the Acts 4 comment refers to th...Hi there.<br /><br />I think the Acts 4 comment refers to the guy who was healed in Acts 3. Certainly it is implied that it is someone Peter and John healed.<br /><br />But thanks for commenting!Ricky Carvelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17975085318645232701noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20930767.post-12536938316106970162011-01-23T05:29:56.728+00:002011-01-23T05:29:56.728+00:00Act 4 : (14) And since they saw the man who had be...Act 4 : (14) And since they saw the man who had been cured standing there beside them, they could not contradict the fact or say anything in opposition.<br /><br />I don't know who wrote the book of Act - but it clearly stated in verse 14, that there's "other guy" besides John and Peter there.<br /><br />and as the verse use "who had been cured".. I think there is possibility, he was Lazarus.balihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08670823521800611450noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20930767.post-65235302946058020112009-01-30T13:52:00.000+00:002009-01-30T13:52:00.000+00:00I had a comment left on my site as well by a "bk" ...I had a comment left on my site as well by a "bk" and following his link found interesting info that make me think that it is possible that TDJL could be Lazarus. Since he was being sought for the death sentence as well, it seems strange that he would have freely gone into the courtyard...but, perfect love does drive out fear...<BR/><BR/>The question that comes to me is why wouldn't the "eleven" have picked him to fill Judas' place?<BR/><BR/>And, why wouldn't Lazarus if still with the others have written a first hand account? Jealousy just doesn't seem to me to be the reason to surpress such miraculous knowledge or insight. Maybe they were protecting Lazarus at Jesus' request.Nancyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03127927719002627674noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20930767.post-48311422224283335022009-01-21T22:31:00.000+00:002009-01-21T22:31:00.000+00:00Enjoyed the posting. One thought: You say that, ...Enjoyed the posting. One thought: You say that, "All of the possible reasons for omitting Lazarus from the other three gospels are human in origin. Not down to inspiration."<BR/><BR/>Doesn't this imply that you know "all of the possible reasons for omitting Lazarus from the other three gospels"? How can you make that presumption?<BR/><BR/>JB SmithAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20930767.post-7196434594576511842009-01-11T11:20:00.000+00:002009-01-11T11:20:00.000+00:00I find it helpful to think of the four Gospels not...I find it helpful to think of the four Gospels not as biographies but as photo albums; four guys with cameras taking snapshots of the same events. What's in one snapshot may not be in another depending on the camera angle.<BR/><BR/>You'd get the same result if you and three friends go to the ballgame with cameras. Each photo you take would be "true" but may not show the same people or scenes as the other guys snapshots.<BR/><BR/>Thus, if you take a picture of the Finish Line, one may show a bunch of runners, another may show only the lead guy, and another may show the top two contenders--say like Peter and TDWJL or Peter only.<BR/><BR/>Just my luck, if I'd been there at the raising of Lazarus, like Mat, Mark & Luke, I'd have been so surprised that I'd have left my lens cap on too.John Cowarthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01105166273383950695noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20930767.post-56261604845973905672009-01-11T07:45:00.000+00:002009-01-11T07:45:00.000+00:00Oh. I've never heard that one before.The thing...Oh. I've never heard that one before.<BR/><BR/>The thing is, Jim Phillips's reasoning is pretty good as to why TDWJL can't be John (or, indeed, any of "the twelve").<BR/><BR/>One great point regarding it not being John is that the 4th Gospel makes it clear that TDWJL was 'known to the high priest' (Jn 18v15&16), while Acts (Ch 4) makes it quite clear that the high priest had no idea who John (or Peter) was, prior to this time.<BR/><BR/>But, as I said, just because the book is written from the perspective of TDWJL, doesn't actually mean it was written by him. It could, quite easily, have been written by a disciple of TDWJL...<BR/><BR/>R.Ricky Carvelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17975085318645232701noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20930767.post-83617857572713461922009-01-11T01:13:00.000+00:002009-01-11T01:13:00.000+00:00great thoughts here...though i've always wondered ...great thoughts here...though i've always wondered why someone would pen a book and call him/herself "the disciple whom Jesus loved." i prefer the theory that the author is one of John's disciples, but John is the disciple whom Jesus loved. can't remember where i first encountered that theory, but that resonated with me...<BR/><BR/>i guess it's similar to saying Moses penned the Torah and then realize that Moses calls himself the "most humble person ever" and greatest prophet ever. sort of boastful if he wrote the whole thing!Chad McDanielhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01531034188570730195noreply@blogger.com