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

by VM44 85 Replies latest watchtower bible

• 

  AGuest

  Dearest PSacto... peace to you... and thanks for the Wiki thoughts. As you can see, not everyone is in agreement. Which is why I would exhort everyone to just go the Source... if you've the faith to do so.

  Dearest Donuthole... peace to you, and HUH??

  Shelby - why are you always talking down about men?

  I'm sorry, but I don't know what you mean, truly. Let's take a look, if that's okay:

  2. "John" didn't play fast and loose but Lazarus himself did.

  Okay, not sure how this talks down about men. I mean, I just responded to what dear PSacto offered...

  Very few men mention their infirmities outright.

  Which is entirely true. We women not only talk about our infirmities, but what was discussed with our doctors, etc. Men, however, tend to keep such things to themselves. So, not sure how this talks down men...

  Those who might not like them so much (i.e., foster a bit of jealousy) would, however.

  If you think the disciples... no, the apostles... didn't have jealousies among themselves, you are seriously fooling yourself. Omigosh, they had a great deal (and I only alluded to a "bit"!)... as well as strifes, etc. And they didn't all "like" one another... but that wasn't required. The requirement was that they LOVE one another, which was lacking... and why our Lord counseled them about loving one another on more than one occasion. Heck, they even had a problem with a man going around healing the sick and casting out demons on the basis of our Lord's name... because he wasn't one of them. Not, "Hey, LOOK, Lord... someone's been HEALED! Look! That man is no longer tortured by demons! PRAISE JAH!!" Nope, they were concerned that, "Well, who does he think HE is? Why is he doing that?" The man was doing a loving thing and although they walked directly with our Lord (which the man apparently did not)... they didn't see the GOOD in his acts first, but were jealous of what he was doing ("he ain't one of us, so....").

  If you read other writings, outside of the Bible accounts, you will "see" this.

  BUT... my statement had nothing to do with MEN... but with the disciples/apostles. That they happen to be men is... well... what it is. So, I am not sure, dear one, why you feel a little "slighted" (which it how it appears to me, but I could be wrong)... on behalf of men. Oh, wait. Uh-oh. Oh, please, dear DH, ... please... I am truly hoping that you are not taking such "offense" (even slightly)... on behalf of men... because you "identify" with Paul's teachings as to women?? Oh, dear one, please... say it ain't SO! If it is, I exhort you to look to Christ when it comes to how women were to be regarded... and treated... and not to Paul, good-intentioned though misguided (by Jewish TRADITION and Roman law) he might have been.

  Particularly, the account regarding the disciple's reaction when they came upon our Lord speaking to the Samaritan woman. Under Jewish TRADITION at the time, women weren't to be considered with much regard. Even she was taken aback when our Lord addressed her... NOT because she was a WOMAN... but because she was a SAMARITAN. But that is NOT the Law of the Christ, nor of the Father, not at all... when is why our Lord disregarded his disciples' curiosity about it.

  Now, I understand that there are some men who need teachings like Paul's to... well... "validate" their... what, authority... superiority... or women's "requirement" to be "in subjection" and/or "submissive." And some women who need it, as well. But, in Christ, there is neither male... nor female.

  But... I could be... and truly hope I am... wrong... that your... ummmmm... perception... isn't based on this.

  I bid you both peace!

  YOUR servant and a slave of Christ,

  SA
• 

  ItIsWritten

  Re: "it could just be the case that Lazarus IS John, not John the son of Zebedee, but John the "elder""

  PScaramento,

  Given that the ONLY John that is mentioned in the fourth gospel is John the Baptist and given that there is not a single verse of scripture that would justify believing that the "other disciple, whom Jesus loved" (the unnamed author of the fourth gospel) was anyone named John, why not just let go of the unbiblical tradition of men that erroneously identified the beloved disciple as the Apostle John.

  Scripture gives NO reason to believe that Lazarus changed his name to John, so why suppose such an idea? Why not just let go of the false title that was added to this author's word by men who assumed that Apostle John was "the disciple whom Jesus loved"?
• 

  donuthole

  Oh, wait. Uh-oh. Oh, please, dear DH, ... please... I am truly hoping that you are not taking such "offense" (even slightly)... on behalf of men... because you "identify" with Paul's teachings as to women?? Oh, dear one, please... say it ain't SO!

  I'm not gonna answer this one. You'll have find out for yourself or ask my sisters in Christ.
• 

  AGuest

  I'm not gonna answer this one. You'll have find out for yourself or ask my sisters in Christ.

  And you don't have to answer, of course, my dear brother in Christ, DH (again, peace to you!). But I "had" to ask, coming from where we've come from. Perhaps it was for some other man? LOLOLOL! I already know the answer, as well as have heard from our dear sister(s), so...

  As always, the greatest of love and peace to you!

  YOUR servant and fellow slave of Christ,

  SA
• 

  PSacramento

  Scripture gives NO reason to believe that Lazarus changed his name to John, so why suppose such an idea? Why not just let go of the false title that was added to this author's word by men who assumed that Apostle John was "the disciple whom Jesus loved"?

  We are just speculating and discussing things that are, obviously, going beyond what is written in the bible.

  We do know that the early church fathers that KNEW the apostles, directly, soem of them said that John was the author of the GOJ, which doens't mean he was the beloved disciple but the one who wrote it, hence my view that Lazarus and John PROBABLY collaborated in it in soem way and that John was the final editor, or close to final editor.

  There is NOTHING written in the first few generations of the early church that, if we are going on "facts", leads us to believe tha ANYONE though the author to be anyoneother then John, there is no direct evidence to refute that.

  Why wasn't Lazarus or his ressurection mentioned in the other Gospels?

  Well, I think that there was some "jealousy" issues there, especialy between Peter and lazarus, no matter how much of the HS Peter had, he was still a man and very stubborn at times.

  It may will be that Peter never told Mark or told Mark to omit, any mention of Lazarus because of that.

  But the facts are, we don't know WHY the other Gospels don't mention it, we can only speculate.
• 

  donuthole

  Why not just let go of the false title that was added to this author's word by men who assumed that Apostle John was "the disciple whom Jesus We do know that the early church fathers that KNEW the apostles, directly, soem of them said that John was the author of the GOJ

  This is a study in itself but a fascinating one. If I understand it, all of the attribution of authorship for the gospels comes, not from those who knew the apostles, but those that came after. If you are interested in such a thing the book "Jesus and the Eyewitnesses" by Richard Bauckham is a good read.
• 

  PSacramento

  A quick Note From Wiki:

  Traditional view

  This article incorporates text from theCatholic Encyclopediaof 1913, a publication now in the public domain.

  As the gospel's name implies, the author has traditionally been understood to be the Apostle John. This understanding of the authorship of the Fourth Gospel remained in place until the end of the 18th century. [ 14 ] John A. T. Robinson, a staunch defender of the apostolic authorship of the Gospel, says the Johannine tradition did not suddenly emerge around 100. He says there is "a real continuity, not merely in the memory of one old man, but in the life of an ongoing community, with the earliest days of Christianity." [ 15 ]

  According to the Church Fathers, John the Apostle was the last of the Evangelists to compose a gospel. The Bishops of Asia requested he write such a gospel in response to Cerinthus, the Ebionites and other Hebrew groups which they deemed heretical. [ 16 ] [ 17 ] [ 18 ]

  The second reason given for this work was that the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke only gave a history for the one year, of and following the imprisonment of John the Baptist. Therefore, the Evangelist expanded on the Synoptic gospels of which he had read and approved. [ 19 ] [ 20 ] Johannine authorship was also evidenced by Polycarp, (who is said to have known the apostles), Irenaeus and Eusebius. [ 21 ] [ 22 ] [ 23 ] [ 24 ]
• 

  donuthole

  Johannine authorship was also evidenced by Polycarp, (who is said to have known the apostles), Irenaeus and Eusebius. [ 21 ] [ 22 ] [ 23 ] [ 24 ]

  I don't know that this statement is true. Polycarp is said to have been a disciple of John, true enough. However I am not aware of any place where Polycarp makes reference to gospel of John or its authorship. To the contrary in his letter to the Phillipians he makes numerous quotations to other books that would become the New Testament, but strangely omits any reference to the Gospel of John. Irenaeus was Polycarp's disciple and he does link the Gospel to the apostle John, but this was later. Writing later, Eusebius sees Irenaeus' statement as authoritative.
• 

  PSacramento

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

  PSacramento

  Of course, even if John was the writer that doesn't mean he was the dictatir of the Gospel or that John is John son of Zebedee.

  Of course the similarities of 1John and the GOJ is also something to take into account.