Can the "other disciple" be Lazarus?

[steve7150]

Why would i push a John tradition, what possible difference would it make to me or anyone? The info on your site is very good but as i said if i give credit to your site i should also credit other sites also, this is public information from a bible publically available to anyone.
Anyone interested in scripture will get ideas from a variety of different people on numerous topics and making the giving of credit to the right person an issue does not reflect well on the person concerned about getting the credit.
If you are a godly man, God will give you the credit friend.

[TheTruthMatters]

Why would i push a John tradition...

Because you assumed it was true because you saw everyone else teaching it and you never bothered to check the scriptures on your own. But this question is, of course, merely changing the subject to avoid the light of truth, a typical tactic when the facts are not on one's side. This question obviously has nothing to do with anything because you did it. That is a fact.

if i give credit to your site i should also credit other sites also

Well, Duh! And, shame on you for thinking that you can use the bogus reasoning that multiple wrongs mean you don't have to respect copyright law. Blogs are a very new medium but even there HONEST bloggers do NOT intentionally fail to credit their sources but they go out of their way to recognize them. Thankfully, most of the world has not adopted your moral standard for turning a blind eye to fairness.

But this too is a dodge, of course, because you continue to pretend that because you visit "other sites" that this should mean you can violate the COPYRIGHT along with all the legal and moral obligations that are expected to be observed by Christians.

making the giving of credit to the right person an issue…

You are the one who makes it an issue by pretending that the ideas that you take from others are yours in violation of the copyright condition on which that information was shared with the public and you.

[steve7150]

I disagree with everything you said and find your logic utterly ridiculous. Most of what i know about the bible i've heard or been inspired by a person or teacher and i have often read info on websites including this and the history channel and many other places.
I would have to credit half of what i say to someone somewhere on an ongoing basis and start recording where every idea came from.
Unless you first thought of this idea before anyone else you should follow your own ridiculous advice and credit whoever first conceived of this possibility, because it certainly was'nt you.

[Apollos]

edit

[darinhouston]

I haven't followed this whole thread, but I note a couple of things:

(1) I'm an intellectual property lawyer and attribution has nothing to do with copyright laws. Also, this is a functional equivalent of a living room conversation. In most instances, these rules just don't really apply here. If someone was scanning or copying and pasting the entirety of a book, then perhaps. Short of something like that, and in the context of commentary and discussion, it's not a big thing to worry about, legally speaking.
(2) I'm also a moderator here -- just try to treat each other with a little more respect and let's tone down the accusations .

[TheTruthMatters]

it's not enough to argue that it isn't John the son of Zebedee - that doesn't prove Lazarus.

This is true, but who said it did? The two are separate issues and showing that the Bible evidence can disprove the John tradition does not make the case that the unnamed "other disciple" was Lazarus or anyone else for that matter. But for most people to be willing to set aside their bias and fairly hear the evidence as to who this person might have been, the first thing that has to happen is they have to be shown that the John tradition cannot stand up to biblical scrutiny.

In fact the Beloved Disciple is neither John bar Zebedee nor Lazarus.

Any one can make a statement, but providing biblical evidence that would confirm that statement is another matter altogether. I have seen sufficient biblical evidence to disprove the John idea, so set that aside, but I would invite you to offer what you think is the biblical evidence that would support your statement that the unnamed one whom "Jesus loved" was not Lazarus.

The early tradition doesn't contradict anything in the Bible.

I can't comprehend what would lead anyone to make such an easily disproved claim. First off, you yourself just stated that "the Beloved Disciple" was not "John" and this clearly was what they assumed when that name was added to the fourth gospel. Defenders of the John idea like to quote a statement that Irenaeus made regarding John (they quote that one because it serves their purpose and they ignore other statements of Irenaeus that they disagree with) as if he could not possible be wrong. And if these are "early tradition" and they say that "the disciple whom Jesus loved" was John, either that idea is true or it is not. If it is in contradiction to the biblical evidence, then it must be false. If you are right when you say the beloved disciple was not John, then that early tradition would be false. And since the Bible is true, then statements on biblical issues that are NOT true cannot possibly comport with scripture. And that is just one example.

You might be able to get some wiggle room if you redefine "early tradition" in some way that it is not normally used, but there have always been debates, struggles, church councils, etc. (from the Book of Acts onward) that wrestled with VARIOUS SIDES of any number of issues (with councils sometimes even reversing the "decree" of earlier councils). And one thing is true -- when those sides DISAGREED those who held those opposing positions (on whatever issue) could not POSSIBLY both be biblical. And all of the wrangling was precisely to try and sort out, what was in line with scripture and what was not. And the run-up to each of those sorting out periods surely had people on both sides claiming to be biblical.

So, it seems that you would be hard pressed to defend that statement with evidence, but then again you may be defining the terms in a way that they are not commonly used.

people like Polycarp...

This bait and switch is tried all the time by the defenders of the John tradition. You have no testimony of Polycarp on the identity of "the disciple whom Jesus loved", because it doesn't exist.

And, regardless, if the biblical evidence says one thing and so-and-so from the "early church" says something that contradicts that biblical testimony, then what early church so-and-so says HAS to be wrong if the Bible is right.

[steve]

I agree with Darin.

Judging from my contact with you, on the air and here, Jim (TheTruthMatters), you seem to care less about "the truth" than about the "matter" of who gets the credit for certain insights that you (among others) have diseminated. You are not the only one who holds the opinions you espouse (Ben Witherington is a much better-known scholar, who thinks the same way).

The "truth" is the public domain, as are all evidences that point to it. You should be glad (if you think your view is true, and that it matters) that someone else besides you is passing along the word. Only a fool would call this a copyright violation. I am afraid that it is your ego that matters to you, not the truth.

I couldn't care less whether the Fourth Gospel was written by John or by Lazarus—or by Mary Magdalene—and there are probably relatively few who could give a rip. There is literally nothing at stake. Your spirit, however, is not right. Deal with it, or take it elsewhere. There are womenfolk present. We still watch our mouths here.

[TheTruthMatters]

The "truth" is the public domain

Why the caricature? Copyright cannot appy to "truth" so what you make here is a truly rediculous straw man argument that in no way represents what I said. But is apparent that it serves your prupose to distort this fact to this degree and engage in the name-calling (as you did on the radio also) rather than debating the issue STRICTLY on the biblical merits -- because you are promiting an unbibical traditon that you prefer to believe in. (PS your dancing around the Acts 4 evidence was unique piece of intellectual gymanstics)

It is surely best at this point to "take it elsewhere". So I'll follow the example in scripture and shake the dust off my feet in your direction.

[Apollos]

edit

[SteveF]

It seems strange to me that if Steve7150 was guilty of everything TTM is accusing him of that Steve7150 would post his thoughts at the History Channel in the exact same topical section that he was interacting with TTM. It seems to me that Steve7150 would assume that at some point TTM would see/join the discussion….which he did about 48 hours after the topic started.

If Steve7150 wanted to pretend he figured it all out himself then I don’t think he would have posted a link (at the History Channel) to this website either. This would risk having his “cover” blown by someone at the History Channel.


Steve wrote:

you seem to care less about "the truth" than about the "matter" of who gets the credit for certain insights that you (among others) have diseminated

Unfortunately, that was my impression when I read TTM's posts as well.

TTM, I don't know if you're still here but our custom at this Forum is to minimize simply posting links to articles/books etc... Instead, direct dialogue over specific points is encouraged at this site. It's generally assumed that most of what a poster has learned has come from various life encounters (including books).

SteveF