The Bible vs. NON-Bible sources
One who is seeking the truth on the identity of the one whom "Jesus loved" (or any other Bible question) should start with the premise that the testimony of scripture is trustworthy, for if it is not then there is nothing further to be said. Beginning from this premise, one should carefully consider all of the God inspired testimony that is able to shed light on the matter in question. After doing so, they should be led to their conclusion by that evidence, and not by their feelings, popular opinion or outside influences.
In this case the Bible says what it says and nothing will change that. So the best method for seeking truth on this question is to simply reading this unnamed author's gospel (cf. 21:20&24) from the beginning with the honest question, "Who would I conclude the author was based on just the facts stated in his own gospel?" Those who do won't come to the conclusion that this "other disciple, whom Jesus loved" (20:2, et. al) was John simply because none of the evidence points toward John.
The truth is there is not a single verse in scripture that would justify teaching that John was the unnamed "other disciple, whom Jesus loved" and yet most simply assume that this tradition cannot be wrong and then interpret scripture to fit this idea. The facts recorded in the plain text of scripture which prove that WHOEVER this anonymous author was he most certainly was not John -- because this would require the Bible to contradict itself.
If someone is in jail who has been convicted of a crime and we later uncover irrefutable evidence that prove we mistakenly identified the wrong person, then we let him go. We don’t keep him in jail until we find out who did do it. Likewise, if Bible evidence can prove that the “other disciple, whom Jesus loved” cannot be John, then we need to admit our mistake and let go of this erroneous tradition - whether or not we believe that the Bible has sufficient evidence to prove who this anonymous author actually was.
To show respect for the word of God we need to heed the Biblical admonition to "prove all things" - and not simply be parrot the ideas of others but rather searching the scriptures to see if what we've been taught can stand up to Biblical scrutiny. The John idea cannot. The Bible says what it says. So, no matter how many may believe the opinions they find in NON-Bible sources the facts in scripture can prove that John wasn't the "other disciple whom Jesus loved" (the anonymous author of the fourth gospel). This tradition comes from NON-Bible sources but the Bible says otherwise. Speculations as to the identity of the beloved "other disciple" seem to know no end -- John, James, Thomas, Nicodemus, Mary Magdalene, James the less, Judas (no kidding!) -- as any Google search will show. However, all of these ideas rely on this-or-that NON-Bible source, as does the erroneous John tradition, despite the clear warnings to those who would promote unbiblical traditions (or who blindly follow other men in believing such ideas) like the one that is found in Psalm 118:8- [It is] better to trust in the LORD than to put confidence in man.
Because we've been taught to trust in NON-Bible sources and accept the teachings of men, most people never bother to test these ideas or else they'd notice thinks like the fact that 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 this author's omission of the those three times that Jesus included John with James and Peter to be eyewitnesses of three of the key 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.
The fourth gospel is certainly the author's eyewitness testimony, but this "other disciple, whom Jesus loved" was also certainly not John.
Those who promote the John idea are routinely guilty of the logical fallacy called circular reasoning -- one of the many errors that are made in order to attempt to make the unbiblical John tradition appear to be Biblical when, in fact, the Bible says nothing of the kind. It's clear that the unnamed author of the fourth gospel calls himself the one "Jesus loved", etc. and this unnamed disciple later notes that HE was the writer of this book. But what is even more clear is that this author never identifies himself as John.
The problem is presupposition. They begin with the assumption that the John idea is true and then they, therefore, proceed to read John into the text in verses that never mention John -- they claim that John is referred to in the five passages that, in fact, never mention him, but that rather talk only about the anonymous "other disciple whom Jesus loved". But it is not logical to presume that verses that never mention John can be used to teach that this unnamed "other disciple" was John -- because there is not a single verse that would justify making believing that these two were the same person. To say that these verses talk about John because the "other disciple, whom Jesus loved" is mentioned is circular reasoning, because they of their presupposition that the unnamed "other disciple" must be John (since they trust the hearsay they find in NON-Bible sources). However, leaving one's prejudice behind and seeking to go where ever the evidence leads would be a better practice if one is looking for the truth.
There are plenty of NON-Bible sources one can put their trust in if they want an excuse to believe the John tradition (sources like 'majority opinion', pastor 'x', scholar 'y', 'z' from the 'early church', etc. etc.) Defenders of the John tradition can choose to ignore the facts stated in the plain text of scripture if they prefer to quote the opinions of men found in NON-Bible sources, but, one thing neither they nor their NON-Bible sources cannot do is cite even a single verse that would justify the John idea. No one ever has; not those who originated this unbiblical idea and not those who repeat their error unto this day.
Created over 3 years ago
