Posts by ItIsWritten

85

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

by VM44 in

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?.

the resurrection of lazarus was a major event in the life of jesus, but three writers failed to mention it, why?.

.

ItIsWritten

Anthony, You wrote: 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?

Surely one should believe the testimony that the Bible gives concerning Jesus. That goes without saying.

But surely we must also be informed in our use of biblical terms by the manner in which we see the God-inspired writers of scripture using those terms. One cannot have biblical warrant for ascribing rules for the use of biblical terms which are at odds with the way those very terms are used in scripture.

And, it is easy to show that the most frequent New Testament use of the term "word of God" in NOT in the first instance a reference to the person of Jesus (as the following quotes prove). So to suggest that the term must always refer only to the person of Jesus is just false.

Mar 7:13 (Jesus himself speaking) Making the word of God of none effect through your tradition

Luk 3:2 the word of God came unto John the son of Zacharias

Luk 4:4 (Jesus himself speaking) man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word of God

Luk 5:1 as the people pressed upon him (Jesus) to hear the word of God

Luk 8:11 (Jesus himself speaking) the parable is this: The seed is the word of God

Luk 8:21 (Jesus himself speaking) My mother and my brethren are these which hear the word of God, and do it

Luk 11:28 (Jesus himself speaking) blessed are they that hear the word of God, and keep it

Jhn 10:35 (Jesus himself speaking) If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came

Act 4:31 and they spake the word of God with boldness

Act 6:2 It is not reason that we should leave the word of God, and serve tables

Act 6:7 And the word of God increased

Act 8:14 the apostles which were at Jerusalem heard that Samaria had received the word of God

Act 11:1 heard that the Gentiles had also received the word of God

Act 12:24 the word of God grew and multiplied

Act 13:5 they preached the word of God in the synagogues

Act 13:7 desired to hear the word of God

Act 13:44 came almost the whole city together to hear the word of God

Act 13:46 It was necessary that the word of God should first have been spoken to you

Act 17:13 the word of God was preached of Paul at Berea

Act 18:11 teaching the word of God among them

Act 19:20 mightily grew the word of God and prevailed

Rom 10:17 faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God

1Cr 14:36 came the word of God out from you? or came it unto you only?

2Cr 2:17 we are not as many, which corrupt the word of God: but as of sincerity, but as of God, in the sight of God speak we in Christ

2Cr 4:2 have renounced the hidden things of dishonesty, not walking in craftiness, nor handling the word of God deceitfully

Eph 6:17 the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God

Col 1:25 to fulfil the word of God

1Th 2:13 ye received the word of God which ye heard of us, ye received it not as the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God

1Ti 4:5 sanctified by the word of God and prayer

Hbr 4:12 For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword

Hbr 13:7 have spoken unto you the word of God

Rev 1:2 bare record of the word of God, and of the testimony of Jesus Christ

Rev 1:9 for the word of God, and for the testimony of Jesus Christ

Rev 20:4 for the witness of Jesus, and for the word of God

---

Of course, it is true that this term was also sometimes directly applied to Jesus, as in: "he was clothed with a vesture dipped in blood: and his name is called The Word of God" (Rev. 19:13, et al.). Moreover, there is also a direct link between the written/spoken word of God and Jesus because it that word spoke of him: "in the volume of the book it is written of me" (Hb. 10:7, et al.)

In any case, while people may want to impose their preferred structure on the use of this or other terms in scripture, using biblical terms in the manner that those terms were used by the God inspired writers of scripture would seem to be the best practice.

85

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

by VM44 in

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?.

the resurrection of lazarus was a major event in the life of jesus, but three writers failed to mention it, why?.

.

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.

85

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

by VM44 in

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?.

the resurrection of lazarus was a major event in the life of jesus, but three writers failed to mention it, why?.

.

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"?

85

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

by VM44 in

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?.

the resurrection of lazarus was a major event in the life of jesus, but three writers failed to mention it, why?.

.

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.