You are of course correct to say that the mere fact that someone does not state their name specicifically in there would does not mean that they didn’t write it. However, in the caae of the fourth gospel it is not fact that the author did not mention his name is only of relavant when contrasted with the Book of Revelation when John refers to himself by name repeatedly — exhibiting a different BEHAVIOR than the author of the fourth gospel. While this in and of itself is not a reason to rule out John it is one of the MANY stark contrasts that one finds if they compare the facts in scripture about John with the facts in scripture about the “other disciple whom Jesus loved”.

More important is the fact that the fourth gospel author didn’t just fail to mention himself. Far from it. Unlike other New Testament books (Hebrews for example) where the author doesn’t mention himself, the author of the fourth gospel repeatedly insterts himself into the text but with a series of very cumbersome phrases — “other disciple whom Jesus loved”, “disciple whom Jesus loved”, “other disciple” etc. — an the author’s action to conceal his identity using these phrases is altogether different in this regard and invites us to investigate why he would have sought to do so.

http://www.TheDiscpleWhomJesusLoved.oom free ebook of course goes well beyond the mere fact as to how and why the author conceals and does present the Biblical evidence that rules out John — in fact the Biblical evidence actually rules out any of “the twelve” (which by the way explains why he designated himself the “other” disciple because he was “other” than “the twelve”). Again this is done by comparing the FACTS found in the plain text of the Biblcial record, facts about John and “the twelve” which are mutually exclusive with facts that we are told about this unnamed author.

You said you will do more study on this and I hope that the Lord leads you and others to do so. I commend you for being open to considering the question because many people won’t even allow themselves to cosider the idea that tradition could be wrong on this so they will never allow themselves to search the scriptures on this issue. I leave off here and won’t tie up any more space on this page except to say that if one will go back and simply read the fourth gospel from the beginning with the honest question “Who would I counclude the author was based on JUST THE FACTS FOUND IN THE TEXT?”, then they will NEVER come to the conclusion that this was John because NONE of the evidence in the text points toward John.

“The BIBLICAL EVIDENCE proves that he cannot be John.” What biblical evidence? I have not heard any evidence that proves that John is not the author. I agree with you one hundred percent that proving that someone else (Lazarus for example) is not the author does not prove that John IS the author, but I have not heard any evidence that leads me to believe that John is not the author. Do not get me wrong; I deeply respect your commitment to prove all things, and absolutely agree with you on this point. But the fact that someone does not state their name specifically in their book does not mean that they didn’t write it. On the other hand it makes it hard to prove that they did write it. I would have to do more study on this subject to give a definite answer.

When one is asked for just one verse to justify what they believe and if they had one wouldn’t they just cite it?

But instead of doing so those who want to keep teaching the unbiblical John idea will seek to change the subject to get the focus off of the fact that there is no verse that would justify teaching this idea.

Yet if one rushes to shift the focus rather than simply pointing to a verse that would justify the John tradition, then this simply proves the point.

Daniel, one thing is true, whoever the unnamed “other disciple whom Jesus loved” was the BIBLICAL EVIDENCE proves that he cannot be John. While you may like to think that arguing against other suggestions as to who this person might be is somehow a justification for teaching the John idea, but you would be wrong. Instead of trying to shift the focus off of the fact that the man-made John tradition is unbiblical, why not just admit that there is no verse that would justify teaching this idea?

Could you show me a verse or passage from John that clearly states that Lazarus is the author? Consider John chapter 21 where Peter, Thomas, Nathanael, The sons of Zebedee (James and John) and two other disciples are fishing. Was Lazarus a fisherman? In verse 7 it says that, “the disciple whom Jesus loved said to Peter, ‘it is Jesus.’” Also at the end of the chapter “the disciple whom Jesus Loved” is said to have written the book of John and explains why everything that he was a witness to is not recorded in his book in verse 25.

The FAQ page on the site mentioned deals with the problems of trusting the opinions of those who suggest that we add John’s name to the Bible based on the supposed ’style’ similarities between the anonymous fourth gospel and the anonymous letters that the want to claim as the basis of comparision.

As opposed to any opinion of style, the book simply contrasts the facts found in the plain text that is available for all to read and consider. And since the facts in the text prove that the unnamed “other disciple whom Jesus loved” cannot be John no opinion of ’style’ that can over come the text itself.

Besides this is the fact that John openly identifies himself multiple times in Revelation and this difference in BEHAVIOR that is presented in the text itself is a stark contrast with the author of the forth gospel who goes to great lengths to conceal his idenity.

And let those who want to claim that John was the forth gospel explain how it is that the author’s of the first three gospels freely mention John except when John was busy calling himself the one whom “Jesus loved” in the fourth gospel? They never mention anything regarding “the disciple whom Jesus loved” so how did they know when to leave John out?

As the book demonstrates from scripture itself, the authors of the first three gospels treat John and the “other disciple” in a completely different manner – they freely mention one and they completely omit the other. Would this lead an unbiased jury to conclude that these are the same person? Hardly.

The evidence is posted on http://www.TheDiscipleWhomJesusLoved.com — so rather than cut and paste that evidence here it seems fair to suggest that you read the Bible-only evidence presentation which this free ebook lays out. It contrasts facts found in scripture regarding John with what scripture tells us about the unnamed “other disciple whom Jesus loved” and since the John idea would necessarily mean that the Bible conradicted itself those who trust the scriptures must conclude that the non-Bible sources that are used to justify the man-made John tradition are in error on this point.

By the way note that none of those non-Bible sources that are used to defend the John idea can cite even a single verse that would justify teaching this idea — and this the first clue that would lead one to subject this idea to Biblical scrutiny.

Some points to look for when you read the fourth gospel — not one of the events where John is named as participating in other three gospels is described in the gospel that we are told is John’s eyewitness testimony. Does this make sense?

Moreover John was one of three selected witnesses at The Mount of Transfiguration, the prayers of Jesus in the Garden of Gethsemane, the raising of the daughter of Jairus and we are to believe that it makes sense to believe that ‘John’s eyewitness testimony’ would omit any mention of these events?

The breaking of the bread and the sharing of the cup at Jesus’ last passover are NOT in the fourth gospel. Certainly this was a very important moment and we know that John was there for this and yet we are to believe that his ‘eyewitness testimony’ regarding the ministry of Jesus would leave this out?

And neither John nor anybody else can belielve and not believe at the same time. Neither John nor anybody else can be both known and not known at the same time. Yet these are just two of the contradictions that arise when one subjects this false tradition to Biblical scrutiny.

“Prove all things” is a good rule of thumb and Ps. 118:8 is a clear warning to those who would prefer non-Bible sources as their standard of truth on any Bible question.

You have spoken several times of evidence that proves that John is not the author of the book of John. Would you mind giving some of that evidence? Also, I would not go so far as to say, just because some of the accounts from the first three gospels, the ones that say John was an eye witness, are not recorded in the book of John, that John could not be the author.

Regardless of who the unnamed “other disciple, whom Jesus loved” was, the Biblical evidence proves that he cannot have been the Apostle John. The fact that there is not even a single verse that would justify teaching the John idea — not one verse and yet this man-made tradition is presented AS IF it were Biblical! But beyond this the facts preserved for us in the Biblical record prove that John cannot possibly be the unnamed “other disciple, whom Jesus loved” because this would require the Bible to contradict itself, which it cannot do.

Some people fail to see that arguing against alternate suggestions as to who this disciple was does not answer the problem of promoting the man-made John idea AS IF it were Biblcal, since those who do so cannot cite even one verse that would justify teaching this idea. They are reduced to pointing to this-or-that non-Bible source but the fact that they have to rely on non-Bible sources and cannot cite even one verse that justifies what they are presenting should make anyone who knows Ps. 118:8 think twice about rushing to parrot this tradition.

If you care about the truth, then put first things first. Forget about the Lazarus idea and heed the Biblical admonition to “prove all things” as concerns the John idea. Search the scriptures (as opposed to the opinions found in non-Bible sources) to see if this thing is so. If you do you will find that the John tradition is not so – because the Bible cannot be wrong.