Where is John the Apostle now?

[Cameron143]

Seriously? I doubt anyone thought you meant John would never die. We knew what you meant: John has not yet
died, and been alive these two thousand years. Gosh. I wonder what a two thousand year old man looks like. .

He must look pretty good for his age or someone would have noticed. But perhaps he still lives on Patmos in a cave and only comes out at night.

 

[posthuman]

Several people have pointed that passage out and I haven't been saying that John will not die, as those brethren thought he would not. John will die, but not until Jesus comes again. The passage emphasizes that Jesus only meant that He'd keep John alive until He comes again, not that John would not die at all and live forever as if he had eaten fruit from the Tree of Life.

yes but when Christ comes again does it mean death for believers or life?

if John will not die until Jesus returns, but John will die, isn't there the implication is that Jesus will kill John when He comes again?

 

[posthuman]

Several people have pointed that passage out and I haven't been saying that John will not die, as those brethren thought he would not. John will die, but not until Jesus comes again. The passage emphasizes that Jesus only meant that He'd keep John alive until He comes again, not that John would not die at all and live forever as if he had eaten fruit from the Tree of Life.

the thing though is why is this passage necessary in scripture?
it isn't necessarily telling us whether John will not physically die or not -- it is making sure we know the difference between "John will not die" and "what is it to you if John remains or not?"

why do we need to be told there is a difference in those two statements?
why do we need to know that the disciples misinterpreted "what is it to you?" to mean that John would not physically die?
what exactly was their error and why does the Holy Spirit through John make sure we are aware of it?

 

[posthuman]

Mark 13.30 and Luke21.32 do indeed echo Matthew 24.34, so it shows consistency through the Gospels that He is keeping someone, at least, alive until He returns. John 21.22 simply clarifies one person He referred to when He said, "this generation," in the other three Gospels. John is one of the generation He was referring to. These passages connect and show His plan for John.

this argument hinges on a very specific definition of 'generation' which is not necessarily the correct one.

we typically think of 'generation' in human terms meaning a group of people alive in a certain decade, or, in familial terms, a grandparent, parent, or child etc. represents a single generation - so that many generations coexist simultaneously at any given time. the word's usage in scripture can almost always be interpreted this way, and is sometimes specifically with the familial meaning, but it isn't always the only interpretation and consequently not always the correct interpretation to look at it in those human terms.

for example:

Who may ascend the mountain of the Lord?​

Who may stand in His holy place?​

The one who has clean hands and a pure heart,​

who does not trust in an idol​

or swear by a false god.​

They will receive blessing from the LORD​

and vindication from God their Savior.​

Such is the generation of those who seek Him,​

who seek Your face, God of Jacob.​

(Psalm 24:3-6 NIV)​

​

here, the word 'generation' isn't defined by a period of time or a relationship of child/parent/grandparent etc.
it is specifically defined as 'those who seek the face of the God of Jacob' -- that is, all who seek the LORD are members of the generation this Psalm speaks of, and that 'generation' is not limited by human age or human era; it stretches across all the history of the world and includes children and elderly and everyone in between, those now living and those long ago fallen asleep and those yet to come.

so 'generation' is not always strictly interpreted in such a way as to definitely link the conversation in Matthew 24 ((which is pre-crucifixion)) with John 21 ((which is post-resurrection)). those two conversations don't take place at all at the same time and they aren't on the same subject; the link is quite tenuous.

it is better therefore to look at all the ways Christ uses this word, and see what we can draw from that, then it is to impose a narrow human viewpoint on it:

• He who has ears to hear, let him hear!
  But to what shall I liken this generation? It is like children sitting in the marketplaces and calling to their companions, and saying:
  ‘We played the flute for you,
  And you did not dance;
  We mourned to you,
  And you did not lament.’
  (Matthew 11:15-17)
• An evil and adulterous generation seeks after a sign, and no sign will be given to it except the sign of the prophet Jonah. For as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of the great fish, so will the Son of Man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth. The men of Nineveh will rise up in the judgment with this generation and condemn it, because they repented at the preaching of Jonah; and indeed a greater than Jonah is here. The queen of the South will rise up in the judgment with this generation and condemn it, for she came from the ends of the earth to hear the wisdom of Solomon; and indeed a greater than Solomon is here.
  (Matthew 12:39-42)
• A wicked and adulterous generation seeks after a sign
  (Matthew 16:35)
• O faithless and perverse generation, how long shall I be with you? How long shall I bear with you?
  (Matthew 17:17)

in each of these it's equally well understood that all who are seeking signs, all who are faithless and perverse, and all who are insincere are all of the same generation He is speaking of -- not necessarily confined to a time period. will not the men of Ninevah and the queen of Sheba equally testify against all who hear preaching and do not repent, and all who hear wisdom and do not turn from their foolishness?

• Therefore, indeed, I send you prophets, wise men, and scribes: some of them you will kill and crucify, and some of them you will scourge in your synagogues and persecute from city to city, that on you may come all the righteous blood shed on the earth, from the blood of righteous Abel to the blood of Zechariah, son of Berechiah, whom you murdered between the temple and the altar. Assuredly, I say to you, all these things will come upon this generation.
  (Matthew 23:34-36)
• For whoever is ashamed of Me and My words in this adulterous and sinful generation, of him the Son of Man also will be ashamed when He comes in the glory of His Father with the holy angels.
  (Mark 8:38)

in each of these the interpretation that these things only apply to the people living at the time they were spoken does not seem to be the correct one: will not the blood of all the prophets be required from all who reject prophets? or are those who actually killed the prophets exempt, and it all falls on the people living in 1st century AD? and would that even be 'all people alive around 30AD' or only those in Jerusalem? so the definition of 'generation' becomes troubling when we confine it to a human lifetime or era.

and in this passage from Mark, is it only the people alive in Israel around 30AD who Christ will be ashamed of if they are ashamed of Him and His words? or does that not apply to everyone who has heard His words and His name?

• For the sons of this world are more shrewd in their generation than the sons of light.
  (Luke 16:8)

and finally this passage clearly does not speak of a generation in terms of a period of time, but defines two generations by their father: all the sons of the world are one generation, and all the sons of light are another generation.


i have omitted a few instances of Jesus using the word 'generation' for brevity, but i think this is enough to conclusively show that the definition meaning a specific people alive in a specific time period is not a universally accurate definition -- so a conclusion based on that word having to mean exactly that and never anything other than that is a very shaky conclusion.















thanks for reading my drivel

 

[Magenta]

thanks for reading my drivel

It was something that looked tl and I was going to skip over but
after seeing how you ended it like that? Yeah. I read it. Not drivel!

 

[Cameron143]

It was something that looked tl and I was going to skip over but
after seeing how you ended it like that? Yeah. I read it. Not drivel!

I thought that stood for dr ivel and thought he was bizzaro dr evil. I'm waiting for the sequel.

 

[HeIsHere]

He meant it, Nehemiah6. You know it for sure because Matthew 24.34 also contains: "Verily I say to you, This generation will not have passed away until all these things shall have taken place." He said "this generation," which makes me wonder if it is more than just John that He is keeping alive until He returns.

You are on the right track but still missing the mark.
Keep thinking.
The Book of Revelation was written before 70 AD

 

[The_Watchers_2017]

The Book of Revelation was written before 70 AD

We "ALL KNOW"" that John wrote the Book of Revelation During or just After his release from Patmos.

We even have eye witnesses accounts, written accounts, that John wrote this after Patmos, lived another possible 10 years and died during the Roman Emperor Trajen's Reign, THAT DID NOT BEGIN UNTIL 97 AD.

Here's some of those Accounts about John living to past 100 AD:

Irenaeus of Lyons explicitly tells us that John was still living at the time of Emperor Trajan's accession (AD 98):

[T]he Church in Ephesus, founded by Paul, and having John remaining among them permanently until the times of Trajan, is a true witness of the tradition of the apostles. (Against Heresies 3.3.4)
And he [John] remained among them up to the times of Trajan (Against Heresies 2.22.5)
Irenaeus was a pupil of Polycarp who was a disciple of John. Furthermore, Irenaeus grew up in early 2nd century Asia Minor, in a world saturated with John’s influence. He also studied the works of Papias (another disciple of John). Irenaeus is in an extraordinarily good position to know what he's talking about here.


Eusebius puts John in Ephesus during the reign of Nerva (AD 96-98)

1. But after Domitian had reigned fifteen years, and Nerva had succeeded to the empire, the Roman Senate, according to the writers that record the history of those days, voted that Domitian's honors should be cancelled, and that those who had been unjustly banished should return to their homes and have their property restored to them.
2. It was at this time that the apostle John returned from his banishment in the island and took up his abode at Ephesus, according to an ancient Christian tradition. (HE 3.20.10-11)

Jerome puts John's death during Trajan's reign (AD 98-117):

But Domitian having been put to death and his acts, on account of his excessive cruelty, having been annulled by the senate, he [John] returned to Ephesus under Pertinax and continuing there until the time of the Emperor Trajan, founded and built churches throughout all Asia, and, worn out by old age, died in the sixty-eighth year after our Lord's passion and was buried near the same city. (De Viris Illustribus ch. ix)



So, I ask You, knowing that we have Solid Concrete Factual Evidence and Written Account of First Hand Witness to John in Patmos around 93-96 AD, then of his release to Ephesus, and then concerning Him being the Bishop over the 7 Churches of Asia Minor he even wrote about in the first TWO Chapters of Revelation, plus we know he died in Ephesus more towards the END of TRAJEN's Reign between 105-110 AD.......The Fact that we have this hardcore concrete factual evidence, so how is it you actually believe the Book of Revelation was written in 70 AD? There are NO Church Father Accounts, the Roman Archive does not align with that idealism and they have factual Book Keeping on Record. So, how is it possible to come up with 70 AD?

 

[Beckie]

All Biblical scholars do not agree on the date of Revelations.
Some place it before God's destruction of Jerusalem 70 AD . One reason could be John did not include massacre . Leveling the temple would have been a big deal. Thinking about the number of kings

 

[The_Watchers_2017]

All Biblical scholars do not agree on the date of Revelations.
Some place it before God's destruction of Jerusalem 70 AD . One reason could be John did not include massacre . Leveling the temple would have been a big deal. Thinking about the number of kings

Why would John include the Destruction of 70 AD? Revelation had nothing to do with that Event [ALL about the End of the World, last One 7 Year Week, and End of Age + Second Coming/Judgement/Mill Reign..... Matthew 24 and Daniel 12 is about 70 AD.

Revelation is in No Way connected to 70 AD even if Revelation was written in 40 AD!

 

[DanielJosephBoucher]

Seriously? I doubt anyone thought you meant John would never die. We knew what you meant: John has not yet
died, and been alive these two thousand years. Gosh. I wonder what a two thousand year old man looks like. .

Yes, seriously. I wonder about what some of you were thinking sometimes.

 

[The_Watchers_2017]

All Biblical scholars do not agree on the date of Revelations.
Some place it before God's destruction of Jerusalem 70 AD . One reason could be John did not include massacre . Leveling the temple would have been a big deal. Thinking about the number of kings

Something else that cracks me up.

Let's say Revelation is dated 40 AD, or 67 AD:

The Third Epistle of John fragment dates later in Century and almost same age as Revelation and John 3 is Scholarly agreed was written before Patmos around 90 AD.

So, if the writer of Revelation did write Revelation in 67 AD, and people are worried about WHY John did not mention 70 AD, he could have explained it in John 3 he wrote in 90 AD.?.

Clearly, GOD DON'T CARE ABOUT 70 AD and His plan got rid of the Temple and now it's about Jesus, not a physical Temple! Probably why we never read about it again in the Bible.

 

[Beckie]

Why would John include the Destruction of 70 AD? Revelation had nothing to do with that Event [ALL about the End of the World, last One 7 Year Week, and End of Age + Second Coming/Judgement/Mill Reign..... Matthew 24 and Daniel 12 is about 70 AD.

Revelation is in No Way connected to 70 AD even if Revelation was written in 40 AD!

One of the reason for the judgement was the murder of Jesus.

 

[The_Watchers_2017]

When was 2 and 3 John written?


Letters of John, abbreviation John, three New Testament writings, all composed sometime around 100 ce and traditionally attributed to St. John the Apostle, son of Zebedee and disciple of Jesus.


Clearly, John had all the time in the WORLD to explain the Destruction of 70 AD if 70 AD had any more real meaning Spiritually than we already know.

John had at least 2 more Letters he wrote AFTER 70 AD.

so 70 AD is finished and over and Revelation is about OUR FUTURE TO COME!

 

[Beckie]

Something else that cracks me up.

Let's say Revelation is dated 40 AD, or 67 AD:

The Third Epistle of John fragment dates later in Century and almost same age as Revelation and John 3 is Scholarly agreed was written before Patmos around 90 AD.

So, if the writer of Revelation did write Revelation in 67 AD, and people are worried about WHY John did not mention 70 AD, he could have explained it in John 3 he wrote in 90 AD.?.

Clearly, GOD DON'T CARE ABOUT 70 AD and His plan got rid of the Temple and now it's about Jesus, not a physical Temple! Probably why we never read about it again in the Bible.

His plan got rid of the Temple and now it's about Jesus, not a physical Temple!
The above line i totally agree with

 

[DanielJosephBoucher]

Well, I'm still holding out for John. He's alive somewhere. That's what Jesus meant. At least I learned that the Mormons believe he's still alive, thanks to posthuman. I know I'm not alone on this now. It just makes sense from both John 21.22 and Matthew 24.34, Mark 13.30, and Luke 21.32. Thanks for all your thoughts.

 

[The_Watchers_2017]

Well, I'm still holding out for John. He's alive somewhere. That's what Jesus meant. At least I learned that the Mormons believe he's still alive, thanks to posthuman. I know I'm not alone on this now. It just makes sense from both John 21.22 and Matthew 24.34, Mark 13.30, and Luke 21.32. Thanks for all your thoughts.

Nothing is Impossible for God.

but as Followers of God we know about Enoch and Elijah and it gives us true Hope.

having the Apostle John alive today, and not making it clear this was His Plan, cheats us from another Victory over physical Death. I totally doubt God would ever withhold something that Beneficial to us. John is physically DEAD and Buried and his Disciples wrote about it and explained where at in Ephesus.

 

[ResidentAlien]

If the LDS believe something it must be true.

 

[Cameron143]

Nothing is Impossible for God.

but as Followers of God we know about Enoch and Elijah and it gives us true Hope.

having the Apostle John alive today, and not making it clear this was His Plan, cheats us from another Victory over physical Death. I totally doubt God would ever withhold something that Beneficial to us. John is physically DEAD and Buried and his Disciples wrote about it and explained where at in Ephesus.

Good point. It is appointed unto men once to die...

 

[Bruce_Leiter]

In John 21.22, Jesus says that John would remain alive until He returns. So, where is John now? Where has he been? Did Jesus keep anyone else alive? John is the oldest living person if it's just him, at over 2000 years old. So, where is he? Wouldn't he be in the news? Wouldn't he be out preaching and healing people and working wonders and miracles?

I think he is either one of two things: 1. being held captive somewhere. or 2. in hiding somewhere. Those are the only explanations I can come up with for not knowing his whereabouts.

In John 21.22, Jesus says that John would remain alive until He returns. So, where is John now? Where has he been? Did Jesus keep anyone else alive? John is the oldest living person if it's just him, at over 2000 years old. So, where is he? Wouldn't he be in the news? Wouldn't he be out preaching and healing people and working wonders and miracles?

I think he is either one of two things: 1. being held captive somewhere. or 2. in hiding somewhere. Those are the only explanations I can come up with for not knowing his whereabouts.

In verse 23, John specifically denies that Jesus meant he would not die. John's soul is in heaven, while his body is buried somewhere.