The Raising of Lazarus

[TK]

I was listening to Steve's lectures on the Gospel of John and a question came to mind.

Why does only John's gospel mention the raising of Lazarus from the dead? I guess the same could be said about the miracle at Cana, but this one really stands out as a biggie. It is certainly understanable that John wanted to include it since the other gospels did not, but this begs the question: why didn't the other gospels include this spectacular miracle?

TK

[Allyn]

I believe it is possible that Lazuras was actually the writer of what is commonly called the gospel of john. The writing is attributted to john assuming he was that disciple that Jesus loved, but there is no real evidence otherwise. So if Lazuras was the writer then this could be one of the reasons.

[TK]

whoa, allyn. never heard that one before. sort of puts a different twist on things.

TK

[Allyn]

whoa, allyn. never heard that one before. sort of puts a different twist on things.

TK

Its an interesting twist

[steve7150]

I believe it is possible that Lazuras was actually the writer of what is commonly called the gospel of john. The writing is attributted to john assuming he was that disciple that Jesus loved, but there is no real evidence otherwise. So if Lazuras was the writer then this could be one of the reasons.




I'm not sure there is no other evidence since John uses several expressions unique to him also found in his other writings like calling Jesus "the Word" (Rev 19 & John 1).
Raising Lazarus is extraordinary but is it that different then Jesus other miracles which all have the same theme that being the supernatural is greater then the natural. Was Jesus telling a fever to leave a person less of a miracle or commanding the wind and waves to subside less amazing?

[Allyn]

I believe it is possible that Lazuras was actually the writer of what is commonly called the gospel of john. The writing is attributted to john assuming he was that disciple that Jesus loved, but there is no real evidence otherwise. So if Lazuras was the writer then this could be one of the reasons.




I'm not sure there is no other evidence since John uses several expressions unique to him also found in his other writings like calling Jesus "the Word" (Rev 19 & John 1).
Raising Lazarus is extraordinary but is it that different then Jesus other miracles which all have the same theme that being the supernatural is greater then the natural. Was Jesus telling a fever to leave a person less of a miracle or commanding the wind and waves to subside less amazing?

Hey Steve,
Just wondering, can you list some other expressions unique to John which show up in both Revelation and the Gospel of John?

TK, here is something that I have wondered why its only in Matthew -
Matthew 28
51At that moment the curtain of the temple was torn in two from top to bottom. The earth shook and the rocks split. 52The tombs broke open and the bodies of many holy people who had died were raised to life. 53They came out of the tombs, and after Jesus' resurrection they went into the holy city and appeared to many people.

[Paidion]

It's true that the gospel of John is more disputed as to authorship than any of the other three. Yet, I think internal evidence as well as early ascription to John, provide considerable evidence for the apostle John as author. If not, then the writer pretended to be John the apostle, and thus the book is fraudulent and should not be accepted as part of the New Testament "canon".

Consider the following:

GOSPEL OF JOHN

[Allyn]

It's true that the gospel of John is more disputed as to authorship than any of the other three. Yet, I think internal evidence as well as early ascription to John, provide considerable evidence for the apostle John as author. If not, then the writer pretended to be John the apostle, and thus the book is fraudulent and should not be accepted as part of the New Testament "canon".

Consider the following:

GOSPEL OF JOHN

Paidion, how could the author have pretended to be John when John's name is never attributed to the writing, ever, in the Gospel of John or any of the other books?

[Allyn]

This is no reflection on John, since there is no proof that he ever claimed to be the author of the Gospel that came to bear his name. This was the fault of others erroneously attributing it to him. I also believe that regardless of who the author truly is we should not then assume that this was an uninspired book. I believe it is and that my interest is purely personal.

A simple truth can sometimes go unnoticed; but when we realize it or when it is pointed out to us, then we wonder how it could have been missed. Consider, for example, the other books contained in the scriptures that are attributed to the Apostle John. Can you guess what is missing from all of these other books?

None of these other books ever refers to the Apostle John as “the disciple whom Jesus loved”! So, if the Apostle John wrote the Gospel that bears his name, then what explains this glaring contrast?

Acts 4:13 speaking of the high priest and these rulers says, “when they saw the boldness of Peter and John, and perceived that they were unlearned and ignorant men, they marveled; and they took knowledge of them, that they had been with Jesus“.

This verse exposes the telltale discovery that was made by those leaders. It was in that moment that they suddenly understood something like, ‘Oh, these two were followers of that Jesus of Nazareth’!

The principal thing that we need to get out of this passage is that it was at that point that the high priest and the other rulers became acquainted with Peter and John for first time. Keep in mind that the ones having this reaction were Annas the high priest and Caiaphas, etc. (Acts 4:5 & 6).

Compare Acts 4 with the information that the Bible reveals regarding the night that Jesus was betrayed and taken away to be falsely accused.

John 18:13 tells us that Jesus was brought “to Annas first”. Then we read about two disciples that followed Jesus. John 18:15 begins, “And Simon Peter followed Jesus and so did another disciple”. [The Greek here states, “Now there followed Jesus Simon Peter and the other disciple”.] The words that follow this, however, are what ultimately ‘clear’ John.

John 18:15 goes on to say, “that disciple was known unto the high priest”. Also it seems that God wanted to highlight this point, for his inspired author elected to emphasize this fact by repeating it.

In John 18:16 we read, “Peter stood at the door without. Then went out that other disciple, which was known unto the high priest, and spake unto her that kept the door, and brought in Peter“. Therefore, there is no doubt that the “other disciple” was known to the high priest. This “other disciple” could get into the palace and furthermore, he was responsible for getting Peter past the doorkeeper.

Consequently, the Apostle John could not have been the “other disciple” because we know from Acts 4:13 that John was not known to the high priest! [Since both Annas and Caiaphas were present during the events of Acts 4, this holds up no matter which one was high priest during Jesus’ trial.]

When Peter and John were brought before them, those Jewish rulers “took knowledge of them, that they had been with Jesus” (Acts 4:13). Yet this “other disciple” was publicly associated with Jesus, even before he “went in with Jesus” (in John 18:15). Besides the fact that he was “known unto the high priest”, something else said that night reveals that the “other disciple” was known to be a disciple of Jesus prior to Jesus’ trial. [But this was not true of Peter, who was later specifically asked about it!]

In John 18:17 we see that “the damsel that kept the door” asked Peter this question: “Art not thou also one of this man’s disciples?” She used the word “also” in reference to the “other disciple”, who had just spoken with her (Jn. 18:16). Therefore, we see that even “the damsel that kept the door” knew the “other disciple” was a disciple of Jesus. However as you now know, John’s association with Jesus was not understood until Acts 4:13 occurred.

[Paidion]

Paidion, how could the author have pretended to be John when John's name is never attributed to the writing, ever, in the Gospel of John or any of the other books?

Allyn, if you should take a moment of your time to read the link I provided, or better yet, read the gospel of John itself, you will discover that John did, without naming himself, indicate his authorship of that book.