Most Helpful Customer Reviews
37 of 41 people found the following review helpful:
5.0 out of 5 stars
Be a Berean!, January 7, 2006
This review is from: The Disciple Whom Jesus Loved - The Bible v. Tradition on the beloved disciple (Paperback)
J. Phillips in this remarkable observance does not bend and break rules of scriptural interpretation, historical document interpretation and simple rules of logic as one accused him of. In fact, he had been thoroughly logically in all his arguements against the case of John being the beloved diciple. It's the theory of John that's not logical. The Bible had always pointed to the truth, and sadly, it's just now that someone had finally taken the time to observe it. When reading this book, be like the Bereans in Acts 17:11, and judge for yourself as you compare his arguements with those written in the Bible. And remember, seek the truth "not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual." -Cor. 2:13
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No
41 of 46 people found the following review helpful:
5.0 out of 5 stars
It is better to trust in the LORD than to put confidence in man. (Ps. 118:8), August 14, 2006
This review is from: The Disciple Whom Jesus Loved - The Bible v. Tradition on the beloved disciple (Paperback)
Whoever the unnamed "other disciple, whom Jesus loved" was, one thing is true - as this book details, the evidence in the Biblical record proves that this unnamed other disciple was not the Apostle John. This is why those who seek to defend the unbiblical, man-made tradition that this unnamed other disciple was John are forced to rely on everything but the Bible, because there is not even one verse that would justify teaching this idea.
Critic 'x' can make up screen names (I.B. Sadd/Sin Bigger/Jekyll Dog) to rant against the challenge that this book presents, but the one thing no defender of this tradition can do is cite scripture to justify teaching the John idea. This only proves what is stated in the book, that being that there is not a single verse of scripture that can be cited which would justify teaching the idea that the Apostle John was the one "whom Jesus loved".
Since there is no scripture that would justify presenting this tradition, those who wish to defend their continued promotion of this idea will use everything but the Bible in their attempts to defend this man-made tradition. They point to non-Biblical writings and act as if those that suggest the John idea can't be wrong. And as the Pharisees did in the time of Jesus, ridicule is used to discourage others from seeking the truth in God's word.
Those who have not a love of the truth or think that tradition must be defended at all costs and in spite of the facts, will shut their eyes to the evidence that shows that this unnamed disciple was not John, so this book is not for them. However those who love the truth will find that this book presents nothing-but-the-Bible in an effort to show that while the Bible is trustworthy and reliable, the same cannot always be said of the traditions of men.
Trust the opinions of men or the facts in the Bible. This book cites nothing but the Bible as it presents the Bible evidence on this question so that those who want to can decide for themselves what the Bible says (rather than adopting the ideas of non-Bible writings and assuming that they cannot be wrong). Search the scriptures or trust the tradition?
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No
36 of 40 people found the following review helpful:
5.0 out of 5 stars
Thought it was going to be ridiculous, but it was outstanding!, February 28, 2007
This review is from: The Disciple Whom Jesus Loved - The Bible v. Tradition on the beloved disciple (Paperback)
I have never questioned the belief that John wrote the "Gospel of John," however, now that I have read this book, I do have serious doubts. Now, let me say that I have written a book as well (which took several years to do), and, in the book I wrote, I attribute the narrative of the "book of John" to the disciple John. Therefore, I actually have a vested interest in seeing John be the author (otherwise the book that I wrote is incorrect on this point). However, who cares about vested interests! Let the Bible say what it says! Jim Phillips makes a very good case. I would say a solid one. Granted, he does not address post-Biblical history inside the book (other than passingly comparing its validity against the validity of the Bible), but he does do an EXCELLENT job of making his points from the Biblical text itself. And I do mean excellent! I enjoyed the read very much, no matter how crushing it was to my traditional understanding. I was reluctant to read it at first, then I was very pessimistic (once I discovered the subject matter), but when I took an honest look at what he was saying, I could find no fault in his reasoning. To my surprise, he did not just make ridiculous, illogical, unsupported claims (which is what I expected).
Post-Biblical history truly is subject to the Biblical account, not vise-versa. However, I would like to see the post-Biblical history addressed by him (but maybe that burden should fall upon us instead). Nevertheless, as to his Biblical exegesis, it is very well done. It makes perfect sense. Good book!
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No
|
