xjwsforChrist

I'm not sure it was a command, dear one (again, peace to you!), but rather something that impressed PAUL so much that he HAD to tell those he was writing to about it (although he couldn't give them details). Because it was something HE was HOPING would also occur with him... and he had faith IN that hope.

He first says:

"I must go on boasting."

What he MEANT is bragging about the UNION with Christ... which for HIM, in addition to everlasting life, HE believed would also include visions and revelations. Not that that made him SPECIAL, but it was merely something HE wanted, hoped for, and so had FAITH... would occur for HIM:

"Although there is nothing to be gained, [i]I will go on to visions and revelations from the Lord."

Because of what he had heard occurred with JOHN... HE wanted... NEEDED... to boast about the wonderful things that those who are joined to Christ receive/can do, etc. BUT... he could not boast about himself in this... because such had not OCCURRED for HIM, yet ("I will go ON to..."). And so, to fulfill his EXCITED ANTICIPATION of what he for FOR HIMSELF, he shared with the Corinthians ANOTHER person's experience, once he HOPED to experience himself:

"I know a man in Christ who fourteen years ago was caught up to the third heaven. Whether it was in the body or out of the body I do not know—God knows. And I know that this man—whether in the body or apart from the body I do not know, but God knows— was caught up to paradise and heard inexpressible things, things that no one is permitted to tell. I will boast about a man like that, but I will not boast about myself, except about my weaknesses.

If one considers what John wrote he HEARD and SAW... then one can SEE that they were things that NO ONE who hadn't seen them for themselves COULD utter/express... without appearing utterly insane. Or worse: such things could and would have absolutely been used by the Jews (of that time) to accuse the Christians of being false... indeed, sorcerers and such... and all manner of things against Jewish AND Roman law.

So, not only could Paul NOT include the DETAILS of what John (MAY have) shared with him and some others... for his OWN safety and that of those he was writing to... but could not tell those he was writing to that it was JOHN... for JOHN's safety.

Remember, it was 14 years earlier that the "man" had shared the event. Given even what PAUL was about back then (as Saul of Tarsus)... ANYTHING that could be used to have the Body routed out, arrested, and even fed to the lions would be used. Not only were the Jews seeking to KILL the new Body, for being, in THEIR eyes, apostates, heretics, and blasphemers... and trying to convince Rome that the Body consisted of seditionists... but BROTHER was delivering up BROTHER to DO so! Who, then, could TRULY be trusted??

And so the letters of the early congregation were not only distributed in GREAT secrecy and with extraordinary care and caution... but sometimes what they either included information ONLY those of the Body would understand... or EXCLUDED information that could bring great trouble, perhaps even death, one or all of them!



Most don't, dear one.



I TOTALLY understand... and I take absolutely NO offense that you aren't able to (at this time).



Indeed! Ponder away, dear one. Or... you could simply ask. Because even as to this, you do not need to... even should not... take MY word for it. I'm just a servant, YOUR servant, and a good-for-nothing servant at that. There is One, however, whose servant I ALSO am... that you or anyone can ask. Just ask him to tell/show you the TRUTH... and then put faith in what you hear/see from him, he the HOLY One of Israel, JAHESHUA, the Chosen One of JAH (MischaJah).

I hope this helps and, again, peace to you!

YSSFS of Christ,

Shellamar

Ha ha ha... why did I type "Paul's command"? That wasn't even what I was thinking! Must be too tired. But thanks for humoring my faux pas anyhow.

Forgive ME, if I read you wrong, dear one (mornin' and peace to you!). I assumed it a faux pas... BUT I also know how the WTBTS raises up Paul as THEIR "authority" (vs. Christ) and thought perhaps it was an inadvertent and unconscious bit of "baggage" from THAT... and that if YOU had some maybe others did, too, particularly about this matter (who Paul was talking about) and so took the opportunity to clarify. I do understand that perhaps not all WANT clarification (all the time) but I can't assume who does and who does not, so I just put it out there. My sincere apologies if you thought I was taking "issue" with you! I truly was not but just trying to set the matter accurate. I hope you can understand/receive that!

Again, peace to you!

YSSFS of Christ,

Shellamar

Some view the passage as Paul's humble way of talking about HIS vision.
Of course the issue with that was that Paul wasn't always humble, LOL!
I think that it makes more literary sense to read that passage as Paul speaking about someone.
The issue with it being John of Patmos would be that, according to some, John's vision happened after Paul died.
Some date Revelation to late 1st century, at least 30 years after Paul's death.
Personally I think that point of the story is more important than the "facts" BUT that said, IMO:
Paul was speaking of someone other than himself and that someone was "John", the one some believe to be Lazarus.

What those don't understand, dear P (mornin' and peace to you, dear one!) is that while John was told to write and WROTE the account(s) well after Paul's death, he RECEIVED part of it 14 years before Paul told the Corinthians of it. John was told to write:

1. What he HAD seen... hence, many decades before, indeed, about 1.5 decades before Paul wrote of it:

To John: “Write, therefore, what you have seen"...

From Paul: "I know a man in Christ who fourteen years ago..."

2. What he WAS seeing ... our dear Lord standing before him with the seven stars and seven lampstands, as he gave John messages for the seven stars/spirits):

To John: "what is now"... (meaning, what John was seeing right at that time)

3. And what he WOULD see:

"... what will take place later."

This "what you WILL see" or "what will take place later" refers to what John saw LATER... AFTER the he was given the letters to the seven spirits... when he was taken IN SPIRIT into the spirit realm:

"After this I looked, and there before me was a door standing open in heaven. And the voice I had first heard speaking to me like a trumpet said, “Come up here, and I will show you what must take place after this.” At once I was in spirit, and there before me was a throne in heaven with someone sitting on it." Revelation 4:1, 2

This, John being told "Come UP here" is what Paul was referring to when he wrote, OF John:

"... was caught UP to the third HEAVEN."

It was John's stating that he was "at once IN SPIRIT" that Paul meant when he wrote:

"Whether it was in the body or out of the body I do not know—God knows."

John was saying that, as with Isaiah, Ezekiel, Jeremiah, and our dear Lord, he, TOO... had been in spirit. Paul was confused; he didn't know whether John had entered just in spirit OR whether his body had gone, too. We can know, however, that while John's SPIRIT entered (through the "door" - Christ), his body did not. It could not. Because flesh with IT'S blood CANNOT enter. It is only by spirit that one can enter:

“Very truly I tell you, no one can enter the kingdom of God unless they are born of water and spirit. Flesh gives birth to flesh, but spirit gives birth to spirit. You should not be surprised at my saying, ‘You must be born again.’ The wind blows wherever it pleases. You hear its sound, but you cannot tell where it comes from or where it is going. So it is with everyone born of the spirit.” John 3:5-8

Since John had received (holy) spirit (John 20:22), he could very well be granted entry by his SPIRIT, although not (yet) by his flesh as THAT had not yet died/changed and been born AGAIN. As a JEW who had come to Christ, however, his SPIRIT had died and was buried in Christ and so IT was re-conceived so as to be able to enter:

"We were therefore buried with him through baptism into death..." Romans 6:4

It was JOHN'S being taken into the spirit realm in SPIRIT that Paul was confused about - HOW he went, just in spirit or in body as well - but he did not doubt that John had indeed gone.



(Smile) Had to be Lazarus, dear one, as he was the one for whom our dear Lord had affection. Loved... more than the others:

1. As to WHO wrote the account, the disciple that our dear Lord loved, we have the words of the account itself:

"Peter turned and saw that the disciple whom [Jesus] loved was following them. (This was the one who had leaned back against [Jesus] at the supper and had said, “Lord, who is going to betray you?”) When Peter saw him, he asked, “Lord, what about him?”

"[Jesus] answered, “If I want him to remain alive until I return, what is that to you? You must follow me.” Because of this, the rumor spread among the believers that this disciple would not die. But [Jesus] did not say that he would not die; he only said, “If I want him to remain alive until I return, what is that to you?”

"This is the disciple who testifies to these things and who wrote them down. We know that his testimony is true." John 21:20-24

2. As to WHO was the disciple whom our dear Lord loved:

"Now a man named Lazarus was sick. He was from Bethany, the village of Mary and her sister Martha. (This Mary, whose brother Lazarus now lay sick, was the same one who poured perfume on the Lord and wiped his feet with her hair.) So the sisters sent word to [Jesus], “Lord, the one you love is sick.”

3. As to whether he, Lazarus, as also an apostle:

"This was the one who had leaned back against [Jesus] at the supper..."

The writer of the account attributed to "John" (and there are disputes as to WHICH John!) was Lazarus, also called "Simon, the Kanean" (or "Simon, the Zealot")... who was loved by our dear Lord as a TRUE brother, our dear Lord having been rejected by his own fleshly brothers at the time, and taken in and greatly loved by dear Lazarus and his sisters, Mary (also known as "the Magdalene) and Martha. These three, originally from Magdala, had relocated to Bethany, just about 2 miles from Jerusalem, and it was with them that our dear Lord stayed when he was in the area.

His relationship with these three, and particularly with Lazarus and Mary are of great interest to US:

1. Lazarus had been a Pharisee who wanted the Jews to stand up and fight against Rome. Unfortunately, he contracted leprosy and so was shunned by his former colleagues. He died from the leprosy but was raised up by our dear Lord, which is why Peter asked what would happen to him: would he remain alive until our dear Lord returned, he having been resurrected... or would he die AGAIN? Our Lord's response to those who wondered was not to worry about what would happen with Lazarus but worry about themselves and keep following him. Lazarus' great humility is shown in two things: (1) his not naming himself outright in his account (although, none of the others did, either, but Lazarus literally wrote as if a third person; and (2) walking BEHIND the others:

"Peter turned and saw that the disciple whom [Jesus] loved was following them."

He did this because, although cured of leprosy, as his illness grew the LAW required him to separate himself. The Jews would not get near him, of course, and had it not been for our dear Lord, neither would the other disciples. That our dear Lord did not separate HIMSELF from dear Lazarus, but even stayed with him/ate in his home, caused that one to have such great LOVE for... and FAITH... in our Lord as the Son of God.

2. Mary had been a woman possessed with demons and also a prostitute who was also shunned. Because he FORGAVE her her sins and thus set her FREE, her LOVE for and FAITH in our dear Lord was SO great that even when others forgot to wash his feet, or really view him as the anointed king, SHE didn't forget; she washed his feet with her tears, wipes them with her hair, and anointed his head with very expensive oil. As a result of her love and faith... SHE was granted the privilege of being the first to see him raised.

This is important due to our dear Lord's lesson in the following account, recorded at Luke 7:36-50:

"When one of the Pharisees invited [Jesus] to have dinner with him, he went to the Pharisee’s house and reclined at the table. A woman in that town who lived a sinful life learned that Jesus was eating at the Pharisee’s house, so she came there with an alabaster jar of perfume. As she stood behind him at his feet weeping, she began to wet his feet with her tears. Then she wiped them with her hair, kissed them and poured perfume on them.

"When the Pharisee who had invited him saw this, he said to himself, “If this man were a prophet, he would know who is touching him and what kind of woman she is—that she is a sinner.”

"[Jesus] answered him, “Simon, I have something to tell you.”

“Tell me, teacher,” he said.

“Two people owed money to a certain moneylender. One owed him five hundred denarii, and the other fifty. Neither of them had the money to pay him back, so he forgave the debts of both. Now which of them will love him more?”


"Simon replied, “I suppose the one who had the bigger debt forgiven.”

“You have judged correctly,” [Jesus] said.

"Then he turned toward the woman and said to Simon, “Do you see this woman? I came into your house. You did not give me any water for my feet, but she wet my feet with her tears and wiped them with her hair. You did not give me a kiss, but this woman, from the time I entered, has not stopped kissing my feet. You did not put oil on my head, but she has poured perfume on my feet. Therefore, I tell you, her many sins have been forgiven—as her great love has shown. But whoever has been forgiven little loves little.”

"Then [Jesus] said to her, “Your sins are forgiven.”

"The other guests began to say among themselves, “Who is this who even forgives sins?”

"[Jesus] said to the woman, “Your faith has saved you; go in peace.”

The woman didn't care who was present or what they though of her. All she knew was that her was the Son of God, the LAMB of God... who takes away the sins of the world. Including HER sins. She knew that... had FAITH in it and in him... and so she KNEW what he would forgive her... and forgive her a LOT... and so she loved him for it.

Her brother, that Pharisee in whose home they were... learned the same. We can KNOW he knew her... and was a relative... because he didn't turn her out, as someone else would have (remember, he was a Pharisee and the Law REQUIRED that such a woman be stoned! But he loved her, too, because she was his sister!). When his leprosy developed to the point that even his "friends" would no longer be associated with him (and he had no way to make an income - remember, Pharisees were lawyers! - and so had to be cared for BY his sister and the money SHE made)... our dear Lord, who had not condemned or turned away his sister... who was "unclean" and a sinner under the Law... did not condemn or turn HIM away... he ALSO being "unclean" under the Law.

For that reason, he and his sisters loved and helped care for our dear Lord... and he, in turn, loved THEM... as his brother and sisters:

"Who really is my mother and brothers and sisters? He who does the will of my Father is..."


I hope this helps. Is any of this important? Perhaps not... unless truth is important (to one). In which case, maybe it is! LOLOL!

Peace to you!

YSSFS of Christ,

Shellamar

The issues with that, as some would state is this:
Revelation and the GOJ were, based on literary style, not written by the same person ( which may simply mean that the person that wrote the copy of revelation that survived put a bit too much of himself in the literary style.
John of Patmos states that He was exiled in Patmos when he had this revelation and that brings us two issues:
John of Patmos does NOT identify himself as John of the GOJ.
When Paul meet John He had NOT be exiled yet.

Of course these concerns can be addressed by the following:
John simply states his name and that he was in Patmos on exile, him not mentioning anything else is irrelevant to the point of the letter and that is the Revelation from Christ.
John may have had a partial vision earlier, the one he related to Paul and this vision ( Revelation) is a new/continuation of the original one.
By the way, some suggest that John's original vision happened when he was dead, before Our Lord resurrected him.

One thing that we do get from Paul and Revelation is this (assuming Paul was speaking of John).
That the vision John had, He related to Paul when they met a couple of years after Paul's conversion.
John then evangelized and settled down in Ephesus and then during the persecutions he was banished to Patmos where He had his revelation and them passed it on to others.
Some suggest that the GOJ and Revelation are so different because while Revelation was written by John, the GOJ was dictated to one of His followers, also named John ( John the Elder according to some).


That the GOJ is, IMO, the most beautifully written of all the NT books and that Revelation is a mess ( LOL) makes me think that there may be some trulth to that.
Lets not forget that the GOJ states this:

I would also add that the reason the GOJ focuses almost exclusively on our Lords ministry in/near Jerusalem ( as opposed to the synoptics) is because John/Lazarus was in Bethany, as Shelby mentioned.

No issue if they were written by two completely different persons, though, right, luv (peace!)? Such would explain all of this - LOLOL!



John identifies himself in ALL of his writings, though, does he not? Including his letters? He does... because that is his style - LOLOL!



Yep!



John died and was resurrected?? I thought perhaps you meant Lazarus (because some believe his account was written after John's revelation)... but then you stated "vision," so I'm not sure. I have not heard that John died/was resurrected BEFORE Patmos and the Revelation, so can you clarify?



Yep!



(Smile) Funny, you should say that. Because something in it led me to ask about it. Because it STATES that [Lazarus] wrote it. But there was something else and so I had to ask... and what I received is that the ORIGINAL words were written by Lazarus... in ARAMAIC... and then, in order for the account to be shared with the GREEK-speaking Body, it had to be copied. It was copied(albeit, verbatim, at least at the time) into Greek... and that copying is what was attributed to [a] "John."

What prompted me to ask about it, however, is that the copying/rewrite was done/approved by more than one, as the disclaimer it includes as to LAZARUS being the writer shows:

"This is the disciple who testifies to these things and who wrote them down. WE know that his testimony is true."

My understanding is that Lazarus didn't write it in Aramaic to keep it from being shared with others. He wrote it in that language because (1) it was HIS native tongue/hand and because HIS task (and that of the other 11)... was to be witnesses to the Jews/Samaritans... "in Judea and Samaria", FIRST. So, he wrote to them first, and then others copied his account for the benefit of those who spoke Greek.



I agree that John is a beautiful (and my favorite, followed by the Psalms) writing but the Revelation isn't a mess, dear one. The KEY to understanding the Revelation is, in addition to holy spirit, understanding that it is a REVELATION. A "revealing." And so what I have been able to understand is because I have been GIVEN the understanding, REVEALED (opened/uncovered) to me... and not because I have/can do understand in and of myself.

I hope this helps... and I have shared with you that which I received from my dear Lord, the HOLY One of Israel and Holy Spirit, JAHESHUA, the Chosen One of JAH (MischaJah), just as I received it from him.

Peace to you!

YSSFS of Christ,

Shellamar

woah, wait, so the book of revelation and Gospel of John are the books of Lazarus! ....talk about coded message:

Lazarus 4:8


and everyone's gonna be like 'WTF is lazarus 4:8'

Let me get this straight. This Lazarus was the same Lazarus that was resurrected from the dead ('Lazarus come out!!'), brother of Mary and a pharisee that asked if the MAster was the true Son of god he would throw out his [Lazarus'] sister because of her being a 'prostitute' ..when she was washing his feet......and who contracted leporsey which then made him loose his job and then have to be supported by his sister's prostitution (not sure if hta twas before or after the invitation to the house, maybe during?)

BUT is the same 'john' that was on patmos that received the 'revelation' over the course of his life?

Did i get all that right?

then, why the HELL couldn't he just call himself LAZURUS!.....imma haflta bitch slap that fool.

"WHATS YOUR NAME?" *WHACK*

"--john..."

"I SAID WHATS YOUR NAME!?' *WHACK*

'it's lazarus okay! jeez!'

In the gospel of luke it does mention that account in chapte r7 but then it says that he was found with his 12 disciples and mary and joanna and Suzanna... .... right? chapter 8 i think. So...How come it doesn't say 'he went to lazarus' house? and ate' ...it's the book of luke, I can see not writing it as a book of john ....humility and third person yeah..but ...luke.....? cause it's a historical account and not really 'inspired?' Then it mentions that he went out with the 12... I just don't see why he couldn't have said, he went to the home of one of the disciples....lazarus, also known as John the zealot

It is kinda cool that he received the revelation throughout his entire life. Kinda like 'that's what Christ used him for!' his purpose or whatever.

Me

p.s. uh.....ive come to understand this post was written in december, .....im sorta catching up, so if i'm asking questions on OLD posts, i apologize.

Unless I misunderstood, I don't think Shelby has stated that John (who wrote Revelation) and Lazarus (who wrote John) are the same person.

Two different people; hence the two different styles.

John of Patmos received and wrote Revelation.
Lazarus is the witness who wrote the book of John, commonly attributed to 'John'.


The Jews were trying to kill Lazarus too, if you remember, since many people were coming to Christ because they saw or heard that He had raised Lazarus from the dead. John 12:9-11
It was also just after this, at the time for the Passover (lamb to be chosen) that Christ rode into Jerusalem, and the great crowd of those who were coming to him, came out to meet him, shouting,

"Hosanna!' Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord! Blessed is the King of Israel!" John:12:13



Peace to you,
tammy

Yes Voices,
This is how I understand it as well although the first time I read it I was a bit confused for a minute as well. The only difference for us is that Lazarus wrote the book of John! NOT John!

Good morning and peace to you my brother,
Your sister in CHRIST Kim

Dear tec is right, dear Voices (peace to you, both!): John is the one who was given the Revelation, as well as wrote the 3 letters attributed to "John." Lazarus, however, is the disciple that our dear Lord has affection for (as a brother - ) and who penned the gospel attributed to "John". John 11:1-3; 21:20-24

Lazaruz was his surname. His name was Simon Lazarus, and he was called the "Kanean" (NOT Cananean, as in "from Cana" or Canaanite, as in from Canaan - Matthew 10:4).. but "Kanean" as in "Zealot". Simon... the "Zealot".

THAT "Simon"... the "Zealot" (versus, "Simon Peter"... or Simon Kefas) was the "leper", Simon El'Eazar... or Simon Lazarus. Matthew 26:6; Luke 16:20;

His sister, Mary was not "Mary Magdalene"... but Mary, THE Magdalene... because they originated from Magdala. Because of his being UNCLEAN (due to the leprosy)... AND being a zealot... and his sister's "occupation"... Simon El'Eazar (Lazarus) and his sisters had to leave Magdala. And so, they ended up in Bethany, just a couple of miles outside of Jerusalem. They fled TOWARD Jerusalem, versus away from it... because of things like the Pool of Siloam (where he thought he could bathe away the leprosy - John 5:2-4).

This Simon El'Eazer/Lazarus also wrote the letter to the Hebrews. Along with his humility and desire to glorify only our dear Lord, he did not put his name in his accounts for the reason dear tec said: they were also seeking to kill him. Because he was the LIVING evidence... even after our dear Lord ascended... that our dear Lord WAS the Son of God. There were physicians who could heal, etc., but none could resurrect from the dead. Lazarus was proof that our Lord could... and did... do that. As only the Son of GOD could so. If they could get rid of him... they would have gotten rid of the PROOF. None of the others provided this proof and so, although their lives were also in danger, their deaths weren't AS desirable as Lazarus'.

I hope this helps!

Peace to you!

YSSFS of Christ,

Shellamar