Revelation 1:4&5 >John to the seven churches which are in Asia: Grace be unto you, and peace, from him which is, and which was, and which is to come; and from the seven Spirits which are before the throne; vs5) And from Jesus Christ, who is the faithful witness.... Obviously there are three personas addressed in this introduction that provide grace and peace to the churches. How do Jehovah Witness explain the seven Spirits (Holy Spirit) as being a non-person if John addressed Him on an equal basis of respect in this introduction?

Jesus said to them, “You will drink the cup I drink and be baptized with the baptism I am baptized with... I know about James but what is reported in the later writings about the death of John?

I have heard somewhere that the apostles thought that John betrayed Jesus. I might have heard this from Father Perry during Bible study. Remember Jesus didn't spell out Judas as the traitor. They thought Judas left to get food for the poor or something like that.

I've read in Ellicott's commentary that the "other" disciple of John 18:15 might be James, for it stands in contrast to John's supposed self-designation as "the beloved disciple". But that got me wondering: why did John not directly name himself or his brother within the entire gospel? Is there any church traditions or research out the that disseminates why John may have not wanted to name himself or James within his own gospel?

What were the ages of the Apostles Peter and John when Jesus was crucified? What I’ve heard is Peter was about the same age as Jesus (30-33), while John was an older teenage, approximately 18. This makes sense in the passages: >When Jesus saw his mother and the disciple whom he loved standing nearby, he said to his mother, “Woman, behold, your son!” Then he said to the disciple, “Behold, your mother!” And from that hour the disciple took her to his own home. (John 19:26–27, ESV) A teenager along with women would be less threatened being present at the crucifixion. >Both of them were running together, but the other disciple outran Peter and reached the tomb first (John 20:4, ESV) For men who were not athletes, you would expect an 18 year old to outrun a 30 year old. > Peter turned and saw the disciple whom Jesus loved following them, the one who also had leaned back against him during the supper and had said, “Lord, who is it that is going to betray you?” When Peter saw him, he said to Jesus, “Lord, what about this man?” (John 21:20–21, ESV) Jesus had told Peter to feed his sheep. Usually younger brothers were given the task of taking care of the literal sheep. Peter had to get used to the idea that shepherds (pastors) were elders. What other evidence to we have for the ages of Peter and John at the crucifixion.

During a Bible discussion for seekers last week, one of them asked a question that led me to ponder this questions. As I understand it, the body of Moses (not Elijah since he never died) should still have been in the grave at the time of the Transfiguration of Jesus--and would be pretty decomposed at that point. However, his spirit (and probably souls) would have been in Paradise at that time--still separated from his body until the resurrection at the last day. > And after six days Jesus took with him Peter and James, and John his > brother, and led them up a high mountain by themselves. 2 And he was > transfigured before them, and his face shone like the sun, and his > clothes became white as light. 3 And behold, there appeared to them > Moses and Elijah, talking with him. Matthew 17:1-3 ESV If that is true, then what exactly did Peter, James and John see on the Mount of Transfiguration? Did they see the spirit of Moses? Can our spirits be seen with physical eyes? Were the disciples perhaps allowed to see spiritual things as Elisha appears to have done in 2 Kings 6? > When the servant of the man of God rose early in the morning and went > out, behold, an army with horses and chariots was all around the city. > And the servant said, “Alas, my master! What shall we do?” He said, > “Do not be afraid, for those who are with us are more than those who > are with them.” Then Elisha prayed and said, “O Lord, please open > his eyes that he may see.” So the Lord opened the eyes of the young > man, and he saw, and behold, the mountain was full of horses and > chariots of fire all around Elisha. 2 Kings 6:15-17 ESV As a side note, the rich man and Lazarus presumably "saw" each other as well. I'm looking for the Protestant understanding of this.

Which earliest sources does Christianity posses that claim that apostle John spent the last years of his life in Ephesus?

Were the names Matthew, Mark, Luke and John common names in the time of Jesus? If not, what were their real names and why were they changed?

There is a legend that says that John traveled to Ephesus where he took care of Virgin Mary and that he lived there until the end of his life. Is this legend true? Are there any historical accounts that support the legend? Are there any other theories about the later life of apostle John?

Polycarp is said to be a student of the Apostle John. Yet he never mentions it in his epistle, nor does he quote the Gospel of John. Why is that?

What is the basis for the belief that Ignatius of Antioch knew the Apostle John? This seems to be a traditional belief. For example, The Catholic Encyclopedia entry from 1910 says > "It is also believed, and with great probability, that, with his > friend Polycarp, he was among the auditors of the Apostle St. John." Yet it gives no explicit reason why it is believed with great probability. A Q & A answerer here says > "Ignatius of Antioch doesn't mention any personal connection to John > in his authentic letters. Irenaeus mentions that he met Polycarp, who > had known John and at least one other apostle, as he refers to > "apostles" in the plural being known to Polycarp (Against Heresies > 3.3). Ignatius did write letters to Polycarp and to the church at Smyrna. There are two letters of Ignatius to John preserved in Latin, > but these are universally recognized as forgeries dated to the middle > ages. **There's no reliable evidence to connect Ignatius directly with > any of the apostles. So, as you say, this is likely a case of > "tradition based on forgery."**" Is this correct - is the idea that Ignatius of Antioch knew the Apostle John based solely on forged letters?

In the Rituale Romanum of the Catholic Church one can find a blessing for wine which is reserved for the Feast of St. John the Apostle (December 27). Why does the Catholic Church associate this tradition with St John? Occasionally artists show a snake or a dragon coming out of a chalice with St. John the Apostle. El Greco: St. John the Evangelist, 1595-1604

Maybe this question is better suited for Biblical Hermeneutics, but it is on-topic here too. We know that King Solomon built a temple in Jerusalem for God, then the Assyrians or Babylonians (I forget which) destroyed the temple and scattered the Israelites to foreign lands. Eventually they were sent home by the King of Persia and they rebuilt the temple. Then the Romans came and destroyed the temple shortly after Jesus's life and Resurrection and the Jews were once again scattered to foreign lands. In the 20th century after WW2 the Israelites had an initiative to return to "The Promised Land" — many of them have, where they have been in regular conflict with the Arabs. My question is why do some Christians believe that when the Jews will rebuild the Temple of Solomon for the third time, and that this will trigger the Apocalypse and the Second Coming of Christ. Does this have a biblical basis. Is this mentioned in the apostle John's Revelation?

Listening to Trending with Timmerie podcast on Christmas traditions, the guest was talking about "Drinking the Love of St. John" which seems like a pretty fantastic idea. But it seems like it a particular blessing might be more appropriate especially for a priest who has never heard of the tradition. So is there a particular blessing I can give to a priest to use for a blessing on St. John's feast day or do we just rely on priests to come up with it?

From the official [LDS website](https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/new-era/2017/11/to-the-point/are-john-the-beloved-and-the-three-nephites-actually-still-on-the-earth-if-so-what-are-they-doing?lang=eng) : > Yes, the Savior granted to John the Beloved and the Three Nephites their desire to tarry on the earth. What they’re doing is bringing souls unto the Lord until He comes again (see D&C 7:2; 3 Nephi 28:9). Now I must say, this is the most curious doctrine. I have never heard of it before, and it seems quite absurd. So I have a question. If St. John along with the three Nephites believe fully in the truth of the LDS faith, why have none of them come out in support of the LDS church? Surely this would be undeniable proof of the truth of the LDS faith?

We see John the Evangelist referring to himself as `the disciple whom Jesus loved' , four times in the Gospel (Vs 13:23, 19:26, 21:7 and 21:20), the first reference being to the conversation at Last Supper : > One of them, the disciple whom Jesus loved, was reclining next to him. The first time we see Jesus giving a special consideration to John is when the Lord entrusts the care of his mother to John ( 19:26) . In the Gospel accounts preceding that incident, we do not see any special consideration given by Jesus to John. On the contrary, Jesus disappoints John and James who come to him demanding 'VIP seats' in glory (Mk 10: 35-40) One is, therefore, inclined to believe that John, at the time of writing the Gospel, thought deeply about the event at the foot of the Cross,and considered himself to have been 'the special disciple' right from the beginning. In other words, John was referring to himself as 'the disciple whom Jesus loved' in retrospect. My question therefore, is: According to Catholic scholars, did John the Evangelist refer to himself as 'the disciple whom Jesus loved' in retrospect?

John the Evangelist is often depicted in art as effeminate (e.g. long hair, clean shaven, gentle face), as illustrated below. This is especially apparent when compared with other males in the same painting (e.g. Da Vinci's). Obviously the artists didn't know what he actually looked like, but is there a written tradition that would explain this common depiction. [Da Vinci — Close-up from *The Last Supper*, circa 1497](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Last_Supper_(Leonardo)#/media/File:%C3%9Altima_Cena_-_Da_Vinci_5.jpg) [Piero di Cosimo (Piero di Lorenzo) — *St. John the Evangelist*, circa 1500](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_the_Evangelist#/media/File:Piero_di_Cosimo_(Piero_di_Lorenzo)_-_St._John_the_Evangelist,_c._1500.jpg)

Eusebius of Cesarea writes (Church History, Book 3, Chapter 39) > In these words, it is noteworthy that Papias lists the name John > twice. The first time he includes John with Peter, James, Matthew and > the other apostles; he obviously means the evangelist. The second > time, in a new sentence, he includes John in another category, which > is different from that of the apostles; he places Aristion before him > and expressly calls him a presbyter. This proves the report true that > in Asia two disciples had the same name, and that in Ephesus two tombs > were erected, each of which still bears the name John. This must be > taken into account. For it is probable that, if one does not want to > think of the first John, the second saw the revelation that went under > the name of John. John's name, the second has seen the revelation that > goes under John's name. Papias, whom we have just quoted, confesses, > received the teachings of the apostles from their disciples, and heard > Aristion and the presbyter John personally. The thesis has been disputed; see SE anwer to https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/17428/who-wrote-the-book-of-revelation My question: Are there any independent sources available that support Eusebius thesis that John the Disciple and John the Elder were two different persons? I read in aforementioned article: "But Zahn and most Catholic writers agree that Dionysius was mistaken about the tomb". I could not identify the citation; in the writings of Dionysius I have only found passages about the tomb of Jesus. Have the two tombs in Ephesos been mentioned or even been identified?

> Revelation 4 > > 2 At once I was in the Spirit, and there before me was a **throne** in > heaven with someone **sitting** on it. 3 And the one who sat there had the > **appearance** of jasper and ruby. A rainbow that shone like an emerald > encircled the throne. > > Revelation 5 > > 1 Then I saw in the **right hand** of him who sat on the throne a scroll > with writing on both sides and sealed with seven seals. > 6 Then I saw a Lamb, looking as if it had been slain, standing at the > center of the throne, encircled by the four living creatures and the > elders. **The Lamb** had seven horns and seven eyes, which are the seven > spirits of God sent out into all the earth. 7 He **went and took the > scroll from the right hand of him who sat on the throne**. Apostle John saw God in Heaven. God was sitting on a throne, had a glorious appearance and His right hand was holding a scroll. The Lamb, who was Jesus Christ, came and took the scroll from the right hand of God. From this vision, can we conclude that God has a form like us? Does God have a head, body, hands and legs so that God could sit down on a throne like us?

>**That which was from the beginning**, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled, concerning the Word of life ... **That which we have seen and heard** declare we unto you, that ye also may have fellowship with us: and truly our fellowship is with the Father, and with his Son Jesus Christ. [1 John 1:1-3 KJV] Towards the end of the first century, John the apostle, now an aged man, as heresies and schism began to grow in the early church, rather than 'go forward' to 'further revelation' seeks to re-establish the church as to 'that which was from the beginning'. The early church was established on nothing other than 'Jesus Christ and him crucified', 1 Corinthians 2:2 : his birth, his baptism, his temptation, his ministry, his transfiguration, his entry into Jerusalem, his sufferings, his death, his bloodshed, his resurrection, his ascension and his enthronement : twelve essentials of the New Testament. Nothing remained other than to 'hold fast the form of sound words', 2 Timothy 1:13, in the kingdom of God, Colossians 4:11, and to 'wait for His Son from heaven', 1 Thessaloninans 1:10, to return 'in like manner as ye have seen him go into heaven', Acts 1:11. --------------------------- John's message is to hold that which was from the beginning, not to expect, seek, follow after . . . something new. John had already given further revelation, but it was information about what would shortly come to pass, Revelation 1:1, during the Church age. *It was not a new gospel*. Thus, in regard to doctrine, conduct, church practice and church government : he refers them *back* to 'that which was from the beginning'. Thus was the Reformation. Not a 'further revelation' but a return to that which was from the beginning. A return to the scripture. A return to simplicity. A return to justification by faith. A return to a scriptural form of church government and Christian conduct. What denominations (within the sphere of Trinitarian, Protestant, Reformed and Baptist profession) confess, publicly, that this is what they do, particularly in times of declension, of backsliding, of confusion, of failure : rather than look forward to a 'further revelation', look back to 'that which was from the beginning' and seek to be re-established on that sure - that apostolic - foundation ?