Resurrection of Lazarus only mentioned by John, not others, why?

by VM44 85 Replies latest watchtower bible

• 

  donuthole

  Is there any reason to see Irenaeus' statement as a lie?

  I don't have any reason to suspect he was being dishonest, but possibly confused or misinformed There may be reason to suspect his motive colors his statement somewhat. Irenaeus spent alot of time defending what he believed to be the true faith against numerous heresies. What he was attempting to do was to show that there were only four true gospels versus all of the other gnostic gospels that were floating around during his day. His argument was certainly bolstered by attaching John the Apostle to the fourth gospel.

  It might be assumed since he was a disciple of Polycarp who was said to be a disciple of John that he would have the inside scoop on who wrote the fourth gospel. However strangely enough in Polycarp's letter to the Phillipians he make numerous NT allusions and quotes but does not draw from the Gospel of John. It begs the question, did Polycarp even know of this gospel? Again, very strange for someone who came from Asia Minor and was a said to be a disciple of the apostle.

  Another early writer that Irenaeus favors is Papias. Eusebius also draws from Papias comments on the authorship of Matthew and Mark. Papias states that he was interested in knowing first-hand what Jesus and the apostles had said and so he saw it was important to get in contact with those that had heard them. One such "hearer" was John the Elder from Asia Minor who Papias distinguishes from John the evangelist (apostle). This shows that there was another notable John in Asia Minor. I think this lead to confusion later when this John the Elder began to be associated with the Apostle John.

  One of my lingering issues I have always had with this notion that the Apostle John lived to a very advanced age and died "naturally" in Asia Minor was Jesus prophecy to the two Zebedee brothers that they would also drink the cup that Jesus' was to drink. I understand this to mean that John like James would be executed for the sake of the Word.

  Back to the GoJ - no matter who wrote it, the inspiration of the writer is very clear to me. It has a spiritual character that is beyond the other three gospels. I also think there was probably a good reason that these works were originally anonymous and attempting to pin names on them is more an intellectual curiousity to me, more than a necessary, spiritual pursuit. Further while I'm certain that "disciple Jesus' loved" was Lazarus I do not know if he was even the author of the fourth gospel.
• 

  PSacramento

  Interesting points Dh and I agree on most of them, though the fact that there was no debate as to who wrote the GOJ in the first generations makes me think that, at least JOHN did write it, though he may not have been the sole writer and the way hat at least 1John is textually the same as the GOJ makes me think that John shoudl at least get credit for puuting it on papyus ;)

  And yes, I agree that Lazarus was the beloved disciple.
• 

  hamsterbait

  The disciples of jesus were mocked as "unlettered, ordinary men"

  This implies they were illiterate.

  The Gospel records were therefore dictated to those who could write. Any story retold over and over(even by the same person) changes and takes on new details and angles.

  The Gospel of John CANNOT have been written by an ignorant fisherman. This is a retelling of orally transmitted fables by a modern greek-educated man of the time.

  And as for John putting it on papyrus - he was a social outcast, in a prison colony. They were barely given enought to eat - let alone paper ink and pens to pass away their non-existent leisure time. ( I accept the dating of the Gospel - just before Revelation - the ravings of a starving religiomane - That book is by an illiterate, according to language experts.

  HB

  HB
• 

  PSacramento

  The disciples of jesus were mocked as "unlettered, ordinary men"

  By the pharisees, yes, in Acts if I recall.

  This implies they were illiterate.

  Nope, it implies they were NOT educated like the Sanhedren, all jews coudl read and write at least Hebrew, they had to to read the Torah and speak in the synagouges as they did.

  The Gospel records were therefore dictated to those who could write. Any story retold over and over(even by the same person) changes and takes on new details and angles.

  Oral traditons were not so easily changed, people that were there would be the first to say "BS !! you changed that !!!" or "that's not how it goes".

  The Gospel of John CANNOT have been written by an ignorant fisherman. This is a retelling of orally transmitted fables by a modern greek-educated man of the time.

  Agreed, though there is no evidence that John, any of the Johns, was an ignorant fisherman.

  And as for John putting it on papyrus - he was a social outcast, in a prison colony.

  Which John?

  John Zebedee that was killed ?

  John the evanelist of Ephesia?

  John of Patmos ?
• 

  ItIsWritten

  Donuthole:

  "all of the attribution of authorship for the gospels comes, not from those who knew the apostles, but those that came after"

  In fact the attribution of authorship for the fourth gospel comes in the closing verses of the gospel itself: "This is the disciple which testifieth of these things, and wrote these things", so unlike the first three gospels, we see not only this claim of authorship but we also see the that the author repeatedly refers to himself in his writings -- albeit by using various anonymous terms like "the disciple whom Jesus loved", "other disciple", "other disciple, whom Jesus loved", etc.

  The authors of the first three gospels do not name themselves in their work. But unlike the author of the fourth gospel, they do not include a claim of authorship as he did, and we do not find them explicitly referring to themselves throughout the text or highlight their participation in given events (as the author of the fourth gospel clearly does).

  Regardless, any investigator knows that the primary source is ALWAYS the best evidence, and when it comes to biblical matters the plain text of scripture is the primary source. Therefore, one should not first be looking to non-Bible sources and then looking to fit the text of scripture to the opinions/traditions of men found in those sources.

  The Disciple Whom Jesus Loved is a free eBook that just compares scripture with scripture in order to highlight details about the author of the fourth gospel that are often overlooked. Unlike Baukham or others who believe that non-Bible sources stand on par with or trump the record of scripture, the facts in the plain text of scripture are the only evidence that is presented in The Disciple Whom Jesus Loved and those facts prove that the John tradition is a false teaching.

  Pr. 30:5-6. Ps. 118:8 and other verses warn against putting the authority of God’s word in subjection to non-Bible sources. While it may be impressive to some to spend time quoting endless non-Bible sources which say that John was "the disciple whom Jesus loved", what happens if one subjects that claim to biblical scrutiny, will it hold up? No it will not because two things are true:
  
  1: No one can cite a single verse of scripture that would justify promoting the idea that the unnamed "disciple whom Jesus loved" was the Apostle John, nor any other John. No such verse exists, which is why no such verse is ever cited by those who put forth the unbiblical John tradition (and instead, they quote this-or-that non-Bible source as a stand-in for trusting what the Bible actually says on this issue).
  
  2: The facts in the plain text of scripture can prove that WHOEVER the unnamed "other disciple, whom Jesus loved" was he could not have been John - because that idea forces the Bible to contradict itself, which the Bible cannot do if it is true.

  I'll leave off there as those who want to see if the John idea can hold up to biblical scrutiny are welcome to consider the evidence for themselves and those who believe that a good Bible study method begins with relying on the authority of non-Bible sources are unlikely to be persuaded by statements in the word of God that contradict the traditions of men that they want to continue to promote.
• 

  PSacramento

  I'll leave off there as those who want to see if the John idea can hold up to biblical scrutiny are welcome to consider the evidence for themselves and those who believe that a good Bible study method begins with relying on the authority of non-Bible sources are unlikely to be persuaded by statements in the word of God that contradict the traditions of men that they want to continue to promote.

  Even as one the semi-agrees with your position, your tone is reminding me of the WT.

  A slippery slope we walk on when we believe that what we THINK is right and everyone else is wrong, slippery indeed since, at best we are all just speculating and the Gospels are, in plain fact, silent on the matter.

  And the Word of God is NOT the Bible it is Jesus, never forget that as the JW's do.
• 

  AGuest

  Now see, this is what I'd call a sort of "manly" discussion (LOLOLOLOL! and may you all have peace!), although I do not know for a certainty that you are all male. I do believe you all are (but you can certainly feel free to correct me if I am in error), and I would like to say this and then I'll leave the thread entirely to you:

  Why do you not go to the SOURCE?

  I do not understand, I MUST say, why you WANT to do all of this... ummmm... discussing, debating, and speculating. It is all detail and irrelevant information, in truth. Knowing who wrote what isn't what gives us... or our loved ones... LIFE. And shouldn't THAT be the thing... the person... we expend our energies discussing?

  Dear PSacto... I went to Wikipedia and looked up most of the "Church/Apostolic Fathers"... and I have to say... I must reject them all. Every one of them. On the basis that they (1) look to men... and writings... for guidance... rather than to Christ; (2) claim or are known to be "disciples" of John, Jim, Tommy, Tucker, and who have you... rather than of Christ; (3) ALSO speculate and debate and discuss things of absolutely NO importance, as well as appear to have tried to put men BACK under "law", etc.

  The thing regarding "removing officers" in the early Corinthian congregation blew me away - it is FALSE. Dear ones, there ARE no "officers"... or "bishops"... or "presbyters", etc. ALL of those titles and designations were given AFTER the apostles died. The ONLY designations made by Christ were what we refer to as "apostles." And these only designated OVERSEERS... which were men who had the task of "overseeing"... the DISTRIBUTION (of donations/contributions) to the widows, orphans, infirmed, and poor... and NOTHING more.

  The apostles weren't "over" anyone, nor did they have "authority" over anyone or anything. Because, as our Lord himself is recorded to say, the one of them who wanted to be the GREATEST... had to be the LEAST. They were "apostles" in that they were SENT... by our Lord. Thus, ANY one of us who are sent by that One... is an "apostle," in the manner of Paul... and James and Jude, the fleshly brothers of our Lord.

  But this... ummmm... discussion... of who wrote what to say who wrote the gospel attributed to John is... well... wreckless, is a word that comes to mind. That Lazarus wrote it (or that it is HIS account, rather than some "John") is, to me, a wonderful revelation in that a previously debatable matter has now been answered. But can we not be satisfied with that; do we really need to know who EDITED it, who validated that such and so edited it... or who agreed that Lazarus wrote it or does not agree... and who followed who's teaching on it, etc.?

  Dear ones, if you REALLY want to know the TRUTH about the matter... if it really matters to you... why not just ASK... Christ... who is the TRUTH and whose palate, in low tones utters truth itself? Why not submit to the ANOINTING that is in YOU... rather than the musing and speculations of men who some say were "of the church" while others say they were not... and what does it really matter?

  I am stating these things NOT to chastise you... but to get you to SEE... what stands in the way of your HEARING: you won't just GO to the One who SPEAKS... and listen to HIM... even on such trival matters. You've read where it say "that one will lead you into ALL truth," yes? But I fear that you don't TRULY believe that... TRUST that... so as to take advantage of that TRUTH.

  I understand that this kind of discussion may even be "fun"... but is it truly beneficial? If so, for what? I'm just asking. If you want to continue, please... do so. But if you TRULY want to KNOW the truth... why not ask? It really is that simple. Really. But I must leave off here and return to seeking... NOT knowledge of trivial matters... but the kingdom... which is Christ, and not John, Lazarus, Polycarp, Eusebias, or anyone else... and HIS righteousness...

  As always, I bid you the greatest of love and peace!

  YOUR servant and fellow slave of Christ,

  SA, bowing out...
• 

  donuthole

  @Itiswritten

  I saw you only had 3 posts on this forum, all on this topic. I'm glad you decided to join in the discussion and hope you decide to stick around.

  I have already stated that I believe that the unnamed disciple in the fourth Gospel is Lazarus. (You are already preaching to the choir on that one.) I also believe that he, at the very least, wrote (or dictated) the source material the Gospel is drawn from. What is unclear is how this this work came to be attributed to a "John" despite no internal evidence to even suggest such. In absence of such evidence we are looking at some external evidence to see what's there. Really for me it is just an intellectual curiousity.

  I do have a question for you about something with a little more importance. When John the Elder encourages his readers to "not believe every inspired expression, but test the inspired expressions to see whether they originate with God", does this apply to collection of books we know as the Bible? And I agree with PSacramento that it is important for Christians to understand that the Word of God is not the Bible, it is Jesus. If one "believes in the Bible" surely they should believe the testimony it gives concerning him?

  Peace and love - Anthony
• 

  Inkie

  AGuest:

  I do not understand, I MUST say, why you WANT to do all of this... ummmm... discussing, debating, and speculating.

  Speaking as a man, because I am one, I must say that I do believe this IS a man thing. This kind of thing is done everywhere--even in law firms. And these days, women join the men in this kind of environment.

  I understand that this kind of discussion may even be "fun"... but is it truly beneficial?

  When I used to engage in this kind of thing, indeed, it was fun. Sometimes it still is. Although I do not engage in this activity hardly any more. However, your question, Is it truly beneficial? is most pertinent. . . . The important thing is to find the Truth (Christ), not necessarily finding the truth of things. I couldn't agree with you more on that.

  --Inkie, a friend of the Nazarene
• 

  Terry

  The Gospel records were therefore dictated to those who could write. Any story retold over and over(even by the same person) changes and takes on new details and angles. Oral traditons were not so easily changed, people that were there would be the first to say "BS !! you changed that !!!" or "that's not how it goes". I hear this over and over. It is just silly! There was no technology in the first century. People couldn't read on Facebook or Drudge Report or twitter that somebody had misquoted them. How would anybody EVER know what what said from one person to another? You tell me a story and I repeat in another city or weeks later. How do you know I did it accurately or not? Is everything which is said immediately confirmed/disconfirmed by telephone? Do you realize how many variants these Jesus stories had? I just posted a Topic about Jesus' Apostles NOT knowing he was going to return from the dead although it is inserted into scripture repeatedly that he warned them and explained it in great detail. The knew in one version and were clueless in another. Who was in charge of keeping THAT one straight? See: The Apostles KNEW (didn't know): which is it??? Something fishy!