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

by VM44 85 Replies latest watchtower bible

• 

  PSacramento

  Lets us look at this passage:

  51 And behold, the curtain of the temple was torn in two, from top to bottom; and the earth shook, and the rocks were split; 52 the tombs also were opened, and many bodies of the saints who had fallen asleep were raised, 53 and coming out of the tombs after his resurrection they went into the holy city and appeared to many. 54 When the centurion and those who were with him, keeping watch over Jesus, saw the earthquake and what took place, they were filled with awe, and said, “Truly this was the Son of God!”

  Matthew was not there, he is re-telling what he was told and it seems by what was written, he was told this by those that saw this: people that were there, saw the curtain tear, tombs being opened and saw the bodies of those ressurected, inculding roman soldiers.

  Mark mentiones only the Curtain being torn and Luke and John mention neither.

  I don't think that there was a resurrection of the saints, because the only one to be resurrected was Jesus and no one else.

  This seems to be a case of Matthew passing on what he was told.

  DO I believe it?

  No, I think this was a case of Matthew just passing on what he was told and letting the reader be judge.
• 

  acolytes

  PSacramenta

  So Matthew wasnt inspired by holy spirit when he wrote the gospel.?

  To stay on topic why did the holy spirit not motivate only John to write about the resurrection of Lasarus?

  Acolytes
• 

  StAnn

  I'm not going to jump in the fray here but would like to ask, if all four of the gospels were identical, why would there need to be four of them? In that instance, wouldn't one suffice?
• 

  PSacramento

  So Matthew wasnt inspired by holy spirit when he wrote the gospel.?

  Yes, but inspired doesn't equal the HS holding his hand and writing for him, people seem to think that and I am not sure why.

  Matt wrote the things he knew and wrote what he saw and what he was told by others, the Gospels are just that, what the writers saw, heard, and felt.

  Obviously Matt knew people are was told of people that experiencied those things and according to them, that is what happened and Matthew wrote it.

  His inspiration to write came from the HS, but WHAT he wrote came from Matthew.

  To stay on topic why did the holy spirit not motivate only John to write about the resurrection of Lasarus?

  Well, that is a valid question and of course only the other writers can say for sure why they didn't include it, but for John to go into such deatil about the event it makes me think that because no one had written about it, he wanted to make it clear that it happened and that people could find out for themselves if they doubted.

  Or perhaps the story was circulating around in a different way, maybe Matthews "resurrected saints" story, and John would to clear that up.

  John, like Peter and John's brother James, had a very special relationship with Jesus.
• 

  excito-are

  Hey

  The authors of the gospels all used sources, for instance the sources of Q, the non-markan material was used by Matthew and Luke. However, John used other sources which am sorry, but cant quite remember. But I do recall it was to make the point he was a miracle worker and that his works were more powerful than Elijah and Elisha thus showing him to be superior to the OT prophets. The many stories of Jesus in the NT is to show him more powerful than the prophets of old. For instance, his cures of leprosy have close parallels with the stories of Moses and Elijah. Jesus feeds more people than Elisha. Moses divides the water for the jews to cross over, while Jesus can WALK over water. The story of turning water into wine is infact a Sidionian cult legend, but retold to show his superiority over Moses.

  The resurrection of Laz and others ( or the waking of someone from a hysterical coma ) are rare in storytelling of the time despite all the wonderful claims being made. Though a man called Apollonius is credited with raising the dead in the same time period. The two views of Jesus life while he was alive is Jesus the son of God and Jesus the magician. Its just a shame that the evidence and reports for the latter claim were mostly destroyed after Christianity become the Religion of Rome. Hope that answers you question a little.

  Excito
• 

  AGuest

  Is it possible (may you all have peace!)... that it's because the gospel "according to John"... was not written by John, at all?

  I was asked this very question by a dear one recently and the answer... is quite surprising. And wonderful. I had hoped he would share what he received here, but he has not, yet. I will not... unless I receive permission from him because it was not given to me, but to him, and he only shared the truth with me. But it is wonderful... faith building... and possible "earth-shaking."

  I hope he shares this truth, because it is truly fantastic.

  Again, I bid you all peace!

  A slave of Christ,

  SA
• 

  hamsterbait

  leo once mentioned that the greek of Johns gospel is NOT that of an ignorant fisherman from the levant but an educated greek from much further west.

  he would be aware of these arguments and write with them in mind.

  it is astonishing that such an event would not be more widely talked about. Look at all the other stories of cures and resurrections in the gospels. people could not keep silent.

  This resurrection did raise the ire of the S + Ph - from then on they sought to kill him. john is constantly pointing up the "jews" and how evil and unfair they are.

  HB
• 

  hamsterbait

  More to the point, why did the Church suppress all the other gospels extant at the time, even destroying some?

  Do any of the pseudepigraphia tell of such resurrections.

  HB
• 

  PSacramento

  Shelby ( Aquest),

  Yes, it is true that the GOJ was not written by John, it was dictated by John the Apostle, son of Zebedee to another, possibly John the Elder.

  The whole notion of Lazarus being the one that was dicating and John being the one that was writting is alao thrown around, insinuating that because Lazarus was loved by Jesus that he was the discipled "whom Jesus loved", but that leaves open MANy questions and issues,, since there is no record of Lazarus being an apostle or ever accompaning Jesus on a regualr basis.

  The Gospel of Mark was written by Mark but it was what was told to him by Peter.

  Some think that the Gospel of Matthew was written by Matthwe the former tax collector and Apostle and of course the Gospel of Luke was written by Luck the physician and the writter of Acts.
• 

  notverylikely

  I think it's relevant to ask why the death of all male babies 2 and under, if it actually happened as ordered by herod, was mentioned anywhere in any secular source....