Resurrection of Lazarus only mentioned by John, not others, why? (page 5)

AGuest

Dearest PSacto... may you have peace! I offer to you that:

1. "Simon" very could have been Lazarus' father... if "Simon" was Lazarus' surname.

2. "John" didn't play fast and loose but Lazarus himself did. Very few men mention their infirmities outright. Those who might not like them so much (i.e., foster a bit of jealousy) would, however. Thus, the other accounts that mention this "leper."

3. As one whom's home our Lord repeatedly stayed in, Lazarus did not have had to accompany our Lord around the region as often as some of the others did. As our Lord's overnight host, he was privileged to even more "private" discussions than the others.

Finally, dear Donuthole's "story" notwithstanding, although I realize many lepers were healed by my Lord early on in his walk, I have not heard that Lazarus was among them and his leprosy healed during those days. To the contrary, my understanding is that his alone was allowed to progress, along with other ailments resulting from the same disease that, combined, expedited the disease's ultimate result... for the very reason that our Lord stated, prove that he had been sent by the Father. He had been curing all sorts of people, yes, but pretty much just curing... until now. In resurrecting Lazarus, not just healing him,he proved that HE... had life in HIM. I offer that (1) Lazarus was still referred to as a leper by both Matthew and Mark, long after the first leper had been healed (by then, they would have referred to him as "Simon, the one healed of leprousy" or Simon, "the former leper"... or something of that nature... but the term used indicates a current affliction); and (2) in Luke's account of the Rich Man, Lazarus is "full of sores"... at the time he dies.

I bid you both the greatest of love and peace!

Your servant and a slave of Christ,

SA

(though having ANY "John" compile the account WOULD explain why it's attributed to "John")...

Octarine Prince

Things like these help me appreciate my new spiritual leanings.

Whether the account is true or not, it reminds us of the saving power of the Son.

PSacramento

Thanks Shelby :)
There is still the part about Lazarus not beung buried when he was, can you clear that up for me?

Oh, by the way :)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simon_the_Leper

Simon the Leper is a biblical figure mentioned by the Gospels according to Matthew ( 26:6-13 ) and Mark ( 14:3-9 ). These two books narrate how Jesus made a visit to the house of Simon the Leper at Bethany during the course of which a woman anoints the head of Jesus with costly ointment. Bethany was the home of Simon the Leper as well as Mary, Martha, and Lazarus. The Gospel according to John ( 12:1-8 ) recounts that Mary, Martha and Lazarus attended a supper for Jesus Christ six days before the Passover and Crucifixion of Jesus. Martha served. According to John's Gospel, the feet of Jesus were also anointed. Not all the details in the accounts of Matthew, Mark, and John can be reconciled. [ 1 ] Comparing them suggests that Judas Iscariot and other disciples of Jesus also attended and protested the costly anointing of Jesus.

Simon the Leper is sometimes identified with Simon the Pharisee (see Shimon ben Gamliel), who is mentioned in the Gospel of Luke ( 7:36-50 ) as the host of a meal during which the feet of Jesus are anointed by a woman. [ 2 ] Because of these similarities, efforts have been made to reconcile the events and characters but some scholars have pointed out differences between the two events [ 1 ] . An alternative explanation for the similarities is that the Luke 7 anointing and the anointing at Bethany ( Matthew 26:6 , Mark 14:3 , John 12:1 ) happened with some of the same participants, but several years apart. [ 3 ]

Simon the Leper is also sometimes identified as the same person as Lazarus of Bethany, or identified as his father or brother. This is because Matthew and Mark mention Simon, while John mentions Lazarus, but all four gospels assume one lodging at Bethany during the last week. Abbé Drioux identified all three as one: Lazarus of Bethany, Simon the Leper of Bethany, and the Lazarus of the parable, on the basis that in the parable Lazarus is depicted as a leper, and due to a perceived coincidence between Luke 16:30 and John 12:10 - where after the raising of Lazarus Caiaphas and Annas tried to have him killed. [ 4 ]

The meaning of his nickname the Leper is sometimes questioned because of the outcast status of lepers. Reinterpretations include that of the potter [ 5 ] or the Essene.

Some assume that Simon had been healed of his leprosy by Jesus, but the name was attached to him perhaps due to the length of his condition or to distinguish him from Simon Peter, or other Simons of the time. However the Gospels do not include an account of his healing, unless, that is, alternatively, Simon and Lazarus were the same person.

ItIsWritten

This thread opened with this question: The resurrection of Lazarus was a major event in the life of Jesus, but three writers failed to mention it, why?

The writers of the first three gospels all omitted the event that is arguably the preeminent public miracle in the earthly ministry of Jesus (i.e., the raising of Lazarus), so clearly this omission was intentional and not an accidental oversight. But what most Bible students fail to notice is that this pattern of intentional omission by the writers of the first three gospels is not restricted to their omission of the raising of Lazarus.

The writers of the first three gospels all exhibit this exact same pattern of omission with regards to another high-profile biblical figure and their similar treatment of these biblical figures is, likewise, clearly intentional.

LazarusComeForth.com presents the facts from scripture that help to explain why the authors of the first three gospels omitted the raising of Lazarus and compares scripture with scripture in a way that allows the Bible to point the way to the answer for this question. Hope it helps.

donuthole

2. "John" didn't play fast and loose but Lazarus himself did. Very few men mention their infirmities outright. Those who might not like them so much (i.e., foster a bit of jealousy) would, however. Thus, the other accounts that mention this "leper."

Shelby - why are you always talking down about men?

OnTheWayOut

Why is it that the story of the resurrection of Lazarus of Bethany only is mentioned in the book of John and not in the other three gospel accounts of the life of Jesus?

Some author wrote a different account and was dissatisfied with re-telling the fictions from the previous writings so he came up with new fictions.
No mystery.

I find all these speculations about who was who and who did what fascinating. It's almost like you people think the Gospels harmonize with each other and couldn't contain contradictions.

PSacramento

Of course, it could just be the case that Lazarus IS John, not John the son of Zebedee, but John the "elder".

I mean, Changing names was very common as we can see.

But even if that is also the case, there is still the hints of collaboration on this, at least in regards to the final work.

donuthole

It's almost like you people think the Gospels harmonize with each other and couldn't contain contradictions.

Not guilty my friend. I do not believe the accounts are fictitious. I do believe that they were written by humans, who although were good intentioned, are only as good as their memory served and availability/accuracy of eyewitnesses. Consequently there are contradictions and error, but there is much truth in there too. Nevertheless like all human sources we should be cautious about putting our complete trust within. Above all else we need to look to God and Christ, the Word of God.

ex-witness

At the Council of Nicea, where they decided WHAT would be included in the Bible, they rejected many "gospels" such as the gospel of Timothy and Mary Magdalene. These were removed because in some cases, took the power from the male ruling class and in others, made Jesus sound like a mystic, a charlatan or were just made up stories (i.e. lengthening the wood for his father during a carpentry project, turning friends into toads.) Let's be honest for a second.

The men lived back then saw things, wonderous to behold, that their feeble first and second century minds tried to wrap around. So to take ANY miracle in the life Jesus at face value takes a HUGE imagination and a little bit of crazy.

I don't think he was god's son, as a non-existent god can only have a non-existent son. I do think, if he existed, he was a unique man who had a message of peace. (But really, he wouldn't have spread his message to the Gentiles as Jews felt they were unclean. Having been raised in that Jewish system, I'm sure that feeling was inculcated in him at birth. Just like JWs feel about the "worldly" people. )

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

Share this