Proof Beloved Disciple is Simon Peter

Also to be clear, I said I was going to prove that Peter was the Beloved Disciple and I did.

The answer to who the B.D. is being the identity of the person who asked Jesus pbuh who will be the betrayer, the person being positively identified as Peter, my job is done.

I am happy to explain YOUR parables although isn't that your job? Muslims have not been calling what says itself Peter wrote the Gospel of John.

So the Gospel of John was written by Peter who is the beloved disciple according to the same Gospel and 2,000 years of theology and exegesis have not figured it out.

That's a bonus for me, I also proved who wrote the otherwise anonymous Gospel of John.

That Peter sees the beloved disciple after revealing he is the beloved disciple should tell you that he isn't actually looking at the beloved disciple and maybe ponder it for a few and exercise your brain.

Obviously he looked back and saw himself is saying he is leaving his old self behind, that's my interpretation.

But again, proving what I said I would is my job here and this is a courtesy.

You can interpret it however you want and it can't erase the positive identification of the for some reason hitherto unknown beloved disciple who Christians have called John for 2,000 years.

It's not entirely your fault for not knowing because seriously someone​should have noticed by know.

Seriously

So exactly at what point do you make your point? Simon Peter motioned to the beloved to ask Jesus.
He clearly motioned to another disciple next to Jesus.

What I am confused by is how you can see many don't believe your comprehension
That nobody really thinks you are right, but

You, like so many Muslims, well how we tend to perceive how so many Muslims act, just can't accept we think you are wrong, disagree
How your answer to our doubt is to bully your way into forcing people to submit to your beliefs even your assumed superior intelect
How you think forcing, demanding and imposing your view is going to make anyone think you are right

the smallest detail you have found and base a theology on it.
I can't understand your reasoning or follow your line of thought, don't even care to. I am sure all it proves some how is that there is no Trinity , that's where your argument will lead, because us infidels are stupid

a reply to: Disturbinatti

biblehub.com...

a reply to: Disturbinatti

John 13:18 ¶ I speak not of you all: I know whom I have chosen: but that the scripture may be fulfilled, He that eateth bread with me hath lifted up his heel against me.
19 Now I tell you before it come, that, when it is come to pass, ye may believe that I am he.
20 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that receiveth whomsoever I send receiveth me; and he that receiveth me receiveth him that sent me.
21 When Jesus had thus said, he was troubled in spirit, and testified, and said, Verily, verily, I say unto you, that one of you shall betray me.
22 Then the disciples looked one on another, doubting of whom he spake.
23 Now there was leaning on Jesus' bosom one of his disciples, whom Jesus loved.
24 Simon Peter therefore beckoned to him,that he should ask who it should be of whom he spake.
25 He then lying on Jesus' breast saith unto him, Lord, who is it?
26 Jesus answered, He it is, to whom I shall give a sop, when I have dipped it. And when he had dipped the sop, he gave it to Judas Iscariot, the son of Simon.
27 And after the sop Satan entered into him. Then said Jesus unto him, That thou doest, do quickly.

"To Him" as emboldened in the text in vss 24&25 and "He" is the one Peter asked to ask Jesus who it was who would betray him. Now if we follow your line of thought then Peter suffered from Schizophrenia or mul;tiple persaonality disorder.

Now the following underlined and emboldened words are important in verifying this to be John "who Jesus loved" compare to the following scriptures.

John 19:26 When Jesus therefore saw his mother, and the disciple standing by, whom he loved, he saith unto his mother, Woman, behold thy son!
John 20:2 Then she runneth, and cometh to Simon Peter, and to the other disciple,whom Jesus loved, and saith unto them, They have taken away the Lord out of the sepulchre, and we know not where they have laid him.
John 21:7 Therefore that disciple whom Jesus loved saith unto Peter, It is the Lord. Now when Simon Peter heard that it was the Lord, he girt his fisher's coat unto him, (for he was naked,) and did cast himself into the sea.
John 21:20 ¶ Then Peter, turning about, seeth the disciple whom Jesus loved following; which also leaned on his breast at supper, and said, Lord, which is he that betrayeth thee?

The one leaning on Jesus bosom was the one who he loved and it is John, the brother of James, who wrote the book of James BTW.

Your wrong and God is true for his words prove whom it is that Peter spoke to and it was John. John being a humble man, unlike you, never mentioned himself by name when he spoke of himself in his gospel writing in this matter, he referred to himself as a disciple whom Jesus loved.

a reply to: Raggedyman

You do know this is Gnosisisfaith, the professed Moslem in over 50 ATS user accounts?

To Disturbinatti/Gnosisisfaith, Jesus is the One Holy GOD, JHVH in the flesh, He is Almighty and forever Holy and Great. Praise be unto Jesus the One True God.

Allah is a puny idol of Mohamed's family tribe, who was believed to be the highest of all the gods the Arabian tribes worshiped, known then as the moon god who had two daughters. So when Muslims say Allah had not son in that they speak truth.

a reply to: ChesterJohn

No I hadn't connected the dots, thanks CJ

Irrespective, to me it's irrelevant who wrote John, we have the writings and they are complementary to the gospels.

Just strange people like gnosisfaith arguing for the sake of arguing, like they want to destabilize faith in the bible.
My faith is in Christ so it's all good

originally posted by: Disturbinatti
I am actually shocked right now because it's so obvious that not noticing before is embarrassing. And I am not even a Christian.

But I will prove forthwith what I said is true.

John 21:15 "Jesus and Peter"

When they had finished breakfast, Jesus said to Simon Peter," Simon son of John, do you love me more than these​?" He said to him, "Yes lord; you know that I love you."

Jesus said to him, ''Feed my lambs."

16. A second time he said to him, "Simon, son of John, do you love me?" He said to him, "Yes, lord; you know that I love you." Jesus said to him, "Tend my sheep."

17. Be said to him the third time, Simon, son of John, do you love me?"

Peter felt hurt because of the third time, "Do you love me?" And he said to him, "Lord, you know everything; you know that I love you." Jesus said to him, "Feed my sheep."

18. Very truly I tell you when you were younger, you used to fasten your own belt and to go wherever you wished. But when you grow old you WILL STRETCH OUT YOUR HANDS, and someone else will fasten a belt around you and take you where you do not wish to go."

19. And he said this to indicate the kind of death by which he would glorify God. After this he said to him "Follow me."


Can we all agree on a few things real quick?

Simon Peter was son of Jonah, not John, Yonah and Yohann aren't that close to where scribal error can be blamed in an inspired text, in the NRSV which tells me the MS. tradition is unanimous on this as they point out when it isn't.

The original Koine Greek says Simon Peter son of Ionas (Jonah) [Stephens 1550 Textus Receptus, Scrivener 1894 Textus Receptus, Byzantine Majority Text] or Ionnau (also rendered Jonah) [Alexandrian Text, Hort and Westcott & Latin Vulgate].

So clearly the NRSV is a mistranslation.

That this must be explained.

3 times asking Peter "Do you love me" is not for no reason and the reason (at least give me that it's plausible) is the 3 denials of Peter are called attention to by this.

That Peter's crucifixion is prophecied is actually in the text, that it's never noticed or at least discussed but ''stretch out your arms" "fasten a belt around you and take you..." is describing his upside down crucifixion.

I can't argue with the logic for these two assumptions.

"Jesus and the beloved disciple."

20. Peter turned and saw the beloved disciple whom Jesus loved following them; he was the one who had reclined next to Jesus at the supper and had said, "Lord, who is it that is going to betray you?"

THAT WAS PETER!!!!

How could Peter turn and see himself following them? Did he turn around, like, really, really fast?

John 13:21 ...."Very truly I tell you, one will betray me." 22. The disciples looked around at one another, uncertain of whom he was speaking. 23. One of his disciples---the one whom Jesus loved----was reclining next to him;...

Simon Peter therefore motioned to him to ask Jesus of whom he was speaking.

"...disciple he whom Jesus loved....; he was the one that said "Lord, who is it that is going to betray you." (as just quoted in full above)

Why should you assume they were the same person? Why would Peter motion to himself to and ask himself to relay a message to Jesus? Perhaps Peter felt guilty because Jesus had previously told Peter that Peter was going to betray Him (Jesus) three times (in John 13:37-38).

Ok. That's proof. And I don't mean to be arrogant but if nobody can prove that I am not the first person to figure this out, I am. I don't doubt someone else has but damn Christians you've been saying forever John was the beloved disciple, Gospel of John.

The whole time Peter revealed to you he wrote it and nobody knows?

Nope, it is quite clear. Get a better translation, too.

24.This IS THE DISCIPLE WHO IS TESTIFYING TO THESE THINGS AND HAS WRITTEN THEM, AND WE KNOW THAT 'HIS' TESTIMONY IS TRUE.

He said it in the third person but there is absolutely no doubt he is saying he is the beloved disciple, that's Peter, and that was the least cryptic thing he just did.

Proven by the fact that nobody noticed for 2,000 years apparently until today.

I would be relieved to find out I didn't just figure this out first, I really would.

Really Christians???? It's not that cryptic! I know someone who didn't pay attention will argue otherwise but I will not entertain such absurd denials of clearly written statements, even if it is cryptic it's not complex, he factually stated his identity and both clearly and in riddles.

The actual writer of the Gospel of John never identifies himself by name. However, all ancient commentaries and scholars attribute it to John the Apostle, one of the 12 Disciples and the son of Zebedee and Salome.

No-one close to the 1st Century Church has ever suggested Peter as an alternate writer. We also know that John lived longest of all the disciples. Also the Gospel of John has more references to being an eyewitness to the events especially to being one of the 12 disciples, than any other Gospel, it doesn't leave room for many other candidates.

The text shows, however that the "disciple whom Jesus loved", was not a reference to Peter (and no doubt, Jesus loved all His disciples).

originally posted by: Disturbinatti

originally posted by: BlueJacket
a reply to: Disturbinatti

He is pointing out that Peter (1st person if you will)
Turned and saw the beloved disciple ( 3rd person if you will)

So unless he was looking in a mirror (which he wasnt) the beloved disciple wasnt in fact Peter.

Pretty clear really.

Course I think it was Mary Magdalene...but thats a different thread

You obviously missed the question that reveals who is the beloved disciple.

I suggest you go read it again because... it's Peter.

The question in the passage you quoted was "Who would betray Jesus".

originally posted by: Disturbinatti
a reply to: BlueJacket

The question who asked who will betray Jesus pbuh is what revealed the identity and that was said in the same book and it's Peter.

Denying a positive identification because you didn't get a parable...bad strategy.

You are not doing Christianity any favors.

Do you know what proof is?

If 'John' said "Whoever asked 'Who will betray..." Jesus pbuh and it says in 'John' it's Peter your rationale for denying it is comical.

Jesus explained earlier, to the disciples, why He used parables when addressing the crowd. Jesus also said that He didn't need to use parables with the disciples as they had understanding.

This wasn't a parable.

a reply to: Disturbinatti

You are trying to make the text match your argument rather than matching your argument to what is in the text. Only amateurs and unscrupulous self serving narcissists do such things.

Years ago I used to make the same mistakes until I learned humility and honesty. In years to come you will realize your earlier errors, too.

a reply to: Revolution9

I didn't try to do anything I did something.

You have my words prove it. Don't say it prove it.

Like I did when I typed almost every word of the last part of John.

So 'John' says the identity of the beloved disciple is the person who asked "Who will betray" Jesus pbuh.

That was Peter. Those are facts. Prove me wrong.

Peter then revealed the b.d. wrote the book you read called the Gospel of John.

So how am I doing what you said I am?

I simply am not. I don't know what everyone's​problem is exactly but it is not about me I can tell you that.

I find your argument which stands adverse to the truth silly, that's the most diplomatic word for it.

There are others probably more accurate.

originally posted by: Revolution9
a reply to: Disturbinatti

You are trying to make the text match your argument rather than matching your argument to what is in the text. Only amateurs and unscrupulous self serving narcissists do such things.

Years ago I used to make the same mistakes until I learned humility and honesty. In years to come you will realize your earlier errors, too.

You have whatever this jumbled accusation is...confused with proper exegesis.

Prove me wrong.

Prove 'John' DIDN'T say that the same person who asked who will betray Jesus pbuh is the beloved disciple. But I already proved he did so....

Prove this beloved disciple didn't say he is the author of the Gospel called 'of John.'

But I already proved he did.

Prove it isn't Peter.

But I already proved it was.


What was your issue???

What was your accusation?

It waa misplaced whatever it was and you look silly arguing about this as I've literally factually proven everything I said.


You....not so much...at all.

Good luck!!

Interesting how every person who commented on this that I noticed and responded to, save Disraeli who was a smidge hostile but decent enough to admit proper exegesis does reveal exactly what I said it does, his problem was after said revelation Peter says something that requires thinking about like any parable, that he saw himself behind him....

Interesting to notice nobody who shows any sense of Biblical comprehension (except Disraeli, credit where due) wants to dispute the facts in this thread which is pretty unique if I do say so myself.

Read the "Nuh, uh's" of these people and tell me they aren't just hack arguments from people who don't see how simple this is.

Whats complicated is explaining how Christians call what was written by Peter according to the book itself, "Gospel of John.".
And that scholars have always said, since Biblical criticism began, all 4 Gospels are anonymous.

John isn't. And John didn't write John.

Peter, the Beloved disciple, did.

The 1 Gospel that identifies its author positively, superior to the guess that is the other 2 and educated guess that is Luke's authorship of Luke....

Has never been recognized for this fact by scholars.

Why?, is the question you should ask. Instead of saying "Nuh uh you are_______(fill in generic accusation typical of Christians who learned something from anyone but a Christian no matter how obvious and true it may be, at least in this thread and my general experience with Christians).

I am not even bothered that anyone who writes a paragraph to slander Islam and everyday gets​ 20, 30 stars because people hate Islam, their hate, their problems.

I am bothered that discovering something nobody has doesn't get even 1. Though not at all surprised. It certainly doesn't reflect on me personally just the state of education among Christians, so "Nuh uh" me all you want you aren't going to (I hate this word) "debunk" facts written in the Bible, you can try but I have proof on my side and you have a misinformed opinion due to the fact that you just haven't read the Bible enough to notice what I did while actually looking for evidence that Peter witnessed the crucifixion. There's ​evidence but not proof positive.

Except in the (Coptic) Revelation of Peter. Which actually is a great Apocalypse that confirms the Quranic account of the 'crucifixion' unless you decide you don't want it to be true because it's non Canonical and was found with but is not a Gnostic text (no demiurge, it's Orthodox Apocryphal with esoteric exegesis applied to explain the mystery of the 'crucifixion.' No Christian, Orthodox will accept this but it is not my problem.

Paul didn't write most of the epistles that say they are written by Paul, so you have falsley attributed-to-Paul (lies) Epistles that are still considered inspired (to lie???) by the Spirit (of Truth!!!) Hmmm.

Who wants to confront the fact that for as long as they've called themselves Christians and pretended​ to have knowledge of the Bible that the whole time and 2,000 years before nobody has figured it out?!!!

I do!

I guess it's worse that the first to do so was a non-Christian, to them, but that's ridiculous if the case! I suspect if a Christian revealed it they'd be a hero.

Whatever, I will play villain if you want.

Open the debate and let's see who wins. Someone who is a competent exegete at least as much as Disraeli will do, the rest of the comnents I have read pretty much can be summarized as the "Nuh uh" defense of something that is just plain factually true.

Not hard to refute that type of argument. Then there is the incoherent accusation strategy: "You are just doing _____ and _______."

No, I am doing this:

Peter is the author of the Gospel of John and the beloved disciple according to the Gospel of John. And then I proved it.

But immature denials of uncomfortable facts make America ignorant and anyone who denies plain facts for that matter must be, by definition, ignorant of the facts.


Humility is a Nazarene quality, Ebionites, the true Hebrew followers, etc.

NOT a Pauline Christian quality.

About the parable where he looks back and sees himself which isn't hard to interpret:

But) However you interpret the parable can't contradict the fact that the beloved disciple was revealed to be Peter, and the author of the Gospel of John the beloved disciple, Peter.

Now let an educated scholarly or academically minded person challenge anything I said.

Why would they?

a reply to: Raggedyman



Hey I would not be mad or embarrassed or deny it if a Christian taught me something about the Qur'an that was true and easy to prove.

Why are you mad that I did with the Bible?

Why is everyone?

Complain, cry, do whatever you want.

But if you can't prove me wrong, because I have proof and anyone who has a Bible and a brain will realize it, what are you crying about?

Why do you complain so damn much about your religion?

So what, I proved something nobody has before, and people are angry???

Fact: The identity of the beloved disciple is the person who asked re: the betrayer at the 'last supper."

Fact: That person is Peter.

Fact: The beloved disciple wrote the Gospel of John according TO the beloved disciple who is Peter.

Logically decuced (not difficult)fact:

Peter wrote the Gospel of John.

Prove me wrong, but you can't so....

Oa reply to: Disturbinatti

I don't want to prove you wrong, I don't care

The bible is in agreement, Jesus is part of the Trinity, Jesus accepted our sin on the cross and set whomever chooses Him as messiah, free
All your claims change nothing

I don't give Gnosticism or the Koran any of my time any more.its trash

Prove you wrong, I couldn't care less what you say

I just want to help others se how e,pty your words are through logic

Arguing over who wrote what, the author didn't say who he was because it doesn't matter

originally posted by: Raggedyman
Oa reply to: Disturbinatti

I don't want to prove you wrong,

You can't.

I don't care

The bible is in agreement, Jesus is part of the Trinity, Jesus accepted our sin on the cross and set whomever chooses Him as messiah, free
All your claims change nothing

I don't give Gnosticism or the Koran any of my time any more.its trash

Prove you wrong, I couldn't care less what you say

I just want to help others se how e,pty your words are through logic

Arguing over who wrote what, the author didn't say who he was because it doesn't matter

And???

Peter wrote the Gospel of John, we agree then I assume, because you don't want to prove the Bible wrong.

Because it does factually say, as I have factually proven, beloved disciple is Peter and author of the Book called "Gospel of John."

I give you props for recognizing the truth as truth then.

Unless you deny it but you are not and really can't.

Why would you not care about your religion though? Such an odd thing to say.



That makes sense.

Peter didn't write the book of John nor did he write his own epistle. In fact he didn't write anything.

Is this the only "proof" you have of a literate fisherman?

You clearly have no idea of what you are talking about.

a reply to: Raggedyman

It is a tactic of Islam to disestablish other peoples faith and substitute it with Islam.

You are correct the only faith is in Jesus Christ the one who ransomed our souls from sin.

originally posted by: ChesterJohn
a reply to: Raggedyman

It is a tactic of Islam to disestablish other peoples faith and substitute it with Islam.

This has nothing to do with Islam I just happen to be one.

What tactic did I use?

Exegesis that you can only complain about that isn't really damaging to Christianity anyway?

If exegesis is a tactic I stand guilty and proud!.

Maybe Christians should learn the technique themselves so Muslims don't have to teach you your religion!!!