Did John write the book of John? Or did Lazarus? I think Lazarus.

[3 Resurrections]

Its John.

It was John Eleazar. (Lazarus being the Latin version of Eleazar.) The Secret Gospel of Mark links the resurrected Lazarus with the John Eleazar name.

Lazarus used several pseudonyms to avoid harassment by the hostile Pharisees after Jesus raised him from the dead. Lazarus did this to protect Mary, who had been put under his care by the dying Christ. That same disciple took Mary "that same hour" to his own home. This beloved disciple taking Mary to his own home "that same hour" could not have been John the son of Zebedee, since that disciple's home was in far-off Galilee. But Lazarus's home WAS within a half hour's easy walk to Bethany, which the beloved disciple Lazarus and Mary could have easily reached in "that same hour".

Another pseudonym which Lazarus / John Eleazar used was the nickname "Barnabas", meaning "Son of consolation". Lazarus became Mary's "son" according to the dying Jesus, who consoled His own mother after He had died and then later ascended to heaven. Jesus provided excellent senior care for His own mother Mary. As a glorified, resurrected individual, Lazarus would never die again, or get sick, or injured, or fall into sin - or be tied down with a wife or children either, since there is no marriage or giving in marriage in the glorified, resurrected state. Lazarus could give Mary his undivided care until she died. Then Barnabas / John Eleazar / Lazarus / the beloved disciple was freed up to participate with Paul in his missionary evangelism around the 40's.

It's very interesting that Barnabas / Lazarus / John Eleazar was the only disciple who was willing to believe Paul's conversion, and to introduce him to the Jerusalem church as a faithful believer. What did Barnabas / Lazarus have to fear from Paul? Paul could not have hurt him in any way whatever, even if he had not been a true convert. But Barnabas / Lazarus as a glorified, resurrected saint had insight that the others did not, and could identify Paul as a true convert, in spite of his past reputation.

I also believe that the beloved Lazarus / John Eleazar / "beloved Barnabas" was quite possibly the beloved "rich young ruler" as well. Though he first turned away sorrowful at the time, Christ said that "nothing is impossible with God" - including the eventual conversion (and resurrection) of this beloved "rich young ruler".

Eleazar is a name that is constantly associated with the priesthood. And the beloved disciple did have a close familiarity with the high priest Caiphas and his household, which is why he was the only one admitted to Christ's trial put on in the high priest's palace (John 18:15). The "rich young ruler" of the Sanhedrin, beloved by Christ, could have very likely been the same as the beloved Lazarus / John Eleazar.

Lots of pseudonyms for the single author of the gospel of John, the 3 epistles of John, and Revelation. Deliberately intended to throw the pursuing Pharisees off track from trying to harass John and anybody that he was protecting (like Mary).

 

[3 Resurrections]

There is also some external evidence for Lazarus being the author of Revelation, but I think it is still worth considering. There was a story circulating as recorded in the first edition of "Foxe's Book of Martyrs" that the writer of Revelation was plunged into boiling oil by Nero's order. This was a sentence carried out by the governor of Ephesus (round about the time of the Ephesian riot in AD 57 against Paul, initiated by Demetrius and the silversmiths). The story goes that John emerged from that vat of boiling oil, unhurt by that experience. After failing to dispose of this beloved disciple, he was exiled to Patmos instead to get rid of his irritating influence, where he penned the Apocalypse. Patmos was under the jurisdiction of Ephesus, the capitol of Asia at the time.

Actually, if John the beloved disciple was the same as the glorified, resurrected Lazarus, this is only further proof that a glorified, resurrected individual cannot possibly be hurt by any means whatever, including being dunked into a vat of boiling oil. Nobody dies twice physically. It's impossible, according to the rule in Hebrews 9:27.

Lazarus / John Eleazar never died again, and neither did any others raised to life again by the disciples and Christ during their earthly ministries.

 

[ViaCrucis]

The Secret Gospel of Mark

Is probably a modern forgery.

Secret Gospel of Mark - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

-CryptoLutheran

 

[The Liturgist]

Is probably a modern forgery.

Secret Gospel of Mark - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

-CryptoLutheran

If its the same document that Karen King bought for Harvard Divinity School during her presidency of the UUA seminary, it has been shown to be a forgery.

 

[3 Resurrections]

If its the same document that Karen King bought for Harvard Divinity School during her presidency of the UUA seminary, it has been shown to be a forgery.

Whether it is a modern forgery or not makes no difference to the fact that John the son of Zebedee was NOT the beloved disciple leaning on Jesus at the Last Supper. We can compare scripture with scripture to find this out.

John the son of Zebedee and his brother James were both going to die a violent death, by "drinking the same cup" as Christ, as He predicted in Matthew 20:23. But the disciple whom Jesus loved Christ said was going to "tarry until I return" (John 21:22). James the son of Zebedee was already slain by King Herod in Acts 12:2, so it could not have been long before his brother John son of Zebedee followed.

John the son of Zebedee was one of the eleven disciples (besides Judas) who in Mark 16:14 were rebuked by Christ "for their unbelief and hardness of heart" for not believing those who had seen Him alive again. The beloved disciple was not among those unbelieving eleven, since John 20:8 says that he "came first to the sepulchre, and he saw, and believed". The beloved disciple who believed was not numbered among the unbelieving eleven (minus Judas).

This beloved disciple was also mentioned separately from the sons of Zebedee among the Galilee fishing expedition members listed in John 21:2. Two unnamed "other disciples" besides the two sons of Zebedee were mentioned. One of those two unnamed disciples was mentioned as "the disciple whom Jesus loved", who had also leaned on Jesus' breast at the Last Supper. There were more than just the twelve disciples present at the Last Supper with Christ. Lazarus, the beloved disciple, was one of those "other disciples".

The testimony concerning the absolute truth of the written words of the beloved disciple are found in John 21:24 ("...we know that his testimony is true"), and in 3 John 12 ("...and ye know that our record is true.") There was absolutely no doubt whatever that what the beloved disciple wrote was true, because no glorified, resurrected individual can possibly tell a lie - there is "no guile in their mouth". The bodily resurrection of Lazarus was a well-known story in the early church. All who knew the resurrected Lazarus were convinced that anything which he wrote could not possibly have any falsehood in it.

This is also true of Revelation, and its author who was called John. The messenger giving John those visions told him in Revelation 22:9 that he was himself just like John. "I am thy fellowservant, and of thy brethren, the prophets..." This messenger giving the visions was not a celestial angelic messenger, but just like John, he was also a glorified, resurrected human, and was John's "fellowservant". They were both alike prophets.

It was the resurrected, glorified man Lazarus who supplied the error-free material for the gospel of John, the 3 epistles of John, and the Revelation.

 

[The Liturgist]

Whether it is a modern forgery or not makes no difference to the fact that John the son of Zebedee was NOT the beloved disciple leaning on Jesus at the Last Supper. We can compare scripture with scripture to find this out.

John the son of Zebedee and his brother James were both going to die a violent death, by "drinking the same cup" as Christ, as He predicted in Matthew 20:23. But the disciple whom Jesus loved Christ said was going to "tarry until I return" (John 21:22). James the son of Zebedee was already slain by King Herod in Acts 12:2, so it could not have been long before his brother John son of Zebedee followed.

John the son of Zebedee was one of the eleven disciples (besides Judas) who in Mark 16:14 were rebuked by Christ "for their unbelief and hardness of heart" for not believing those who had seen Him alive again. The beloved disciple was not among those unbelieving eleven, since John 20:8 says that he "came first to the sepulchre, and he saw, and believed". The beloved disciple who believed was not numbered among the unbelieving eleven (minus Judas).

This beloved disciple was also mentioned separately from the sons of Zebedee among the Galilee fishing expedition members listed in John 21:2. Two unnamed "other disciples" besides the two sons of Zebedee were mentioned. One of those two unnamed disciples was mentioned as "the disciple whom Jesus loved", who had also leaned on Jesus' breast at the Last Supper. There were more than just the twelve disciples present at the Last Supper with Christ. Lazarus, the beloved disciple, was one of those "other disciples".

The testimony concerning the absolute truth of the written words of the beloved disciple are found in John 21:24 ("...we know that his testimony is true"), and in 3 John 12 ("...and ye know that our record is true.") There was absolutely no doubt whatever that what the beloved disciple wrote was true, because no glorified, resurrected individual can possibly tell a lie - there is "no guile in their mouth". The bodily resurrection of Lazarus was a well-known story in the early church. All who knew the resurrected Lazarus were convinced that anything which he wrote could not possibly have any falsehood in it.

This is also true of Revelation, and its author who was called John. The messenger giving John those visions told him in Revelation 22:9 that he was himself just like John. "I am thy fellowservant, and of thy brethren, the prophets..." This messenger giving the visions was not a celestial angelic messenger, but just like John, he was also a glorified, resurrected human, and was John's "fellowservant". They were both alike prophets.

It was the resurrected, glorified man Lazarus who supplied the error-free material for the gospel of John, the 3 epistles of John, and the Revelation.

It is possible as per @HTacianas that St. John the Beloved Disciple was someone other than St. John the Son of Zebedee. I have expressed my own thoughts on the matter.

However, as far as Lazarus being resurrected in a glorified state, this seems unlikely, because it would mean he was still alive today, and is also unscriptural, since our Lord is referred to as the “first fruits of the Resurrection.” In other words, he did resuscitate and resurrect Lazarus, but not in the sense that He Himself would be, in a glorified, immortal form. Otherwise, we have the problem of Lazarus/John still being alive and in the world, or alternately having been assumed bodily, yet there being no record in ecclesiastical history to support this, whereas we do have bodily relics of his, unlike in the case of the Theotokos and Ever Virgin Mary, who clearly was assumed bodily into Heaven, and there exist no relics of her body.

Another problem with your hypothesis is that it appears to make St. John absent at the Transfiguration, which is a rather important event, and also makes his presence at the Last Supper inexplicable.

 

[The Liturgist]

Whether it is a modern forgery or not makes no difference to the fact that John the son of Zebedee was NOT the beloved disciple leaning on Jesus at the Last Supper.

By the way, what you have is at best a historical theory, but more likely an hypothesis, since the evidence is disputed. There is a huge difference between that and a fact. And insofar as your hypothesis was motivated by the Secret Gospel of Mark, its status as a forgery is, respectfully, a problem, in that the means that you came to this idea has itself been compromised. I would suggest you take a more open-minded approach and re-evaluate the evidence relying only on scripture and documents from the early church.

I would also note that Foxe’s Book of Martyr’s is not known for its reliability; although in this case what it mentions sounds reasonable, however, there are numerous instances where the martyrologies record martyrs failing to be killed repeatedly. For example, St. Abanoub the Child Martyr.

 

[3 Resurrections]

However, as far as Lazarus being resurrected in a glorified state, this seems unlikely, because it would mean he was still alive today, and is also unscriptural, since our Lord is referred to as the “first fruits of the Resurrection.” In other words, he did resuscitate and resurrect Lazarus, but not in the sense that He Himself would be, in a glorified, immortal form.

Lazarus truly IS still alive today in his glorified, resurrected form. Just not on earth anymore, since he was taken to heaven long ago. The "First-fruits" is not a title unique to Christ alone. The "First-fruits" title also was given to the 144,000 First-fruits of Revelation 14:4. They were the Matthew 27:52-53 saints raised the same day as Christ the First-fruits. None of them are on earth anymore either, having been taken to heaven long ago also, with Lazarus and others with that same resurrected status.

Lazarus was not "resuscitated". This man had lain dead for four days and was beginning to stink with corruption. Any time a bodily resurrection was staged in scripture (whether OT or NT), this was into a glorified body form which would never die again.

The rule according to Hebrews 9:27 is that "it is appointed unto men ONCE to die..." ONCE ONLY. Lazarus, once brought to life again, never lost that resurrected status. For those who are resurrected, "neither CAN they die anymore". They are like the elect angels in that respect, according to Luke 20:35-36. It takes the power of the Holy Spirit to resurrect someone once the person's spirit has departed; a process which changes the nature of that body into a state that in incorruptible and immortal.

 

[The Liturgist]

Lazarus truly IS still alive today in his glorified, resurrected form. Just not on earth anymore, since he was taken to heaven long ago.

I do hope that in saying that, you do not deny the doctrine of the Dormition or Assumption of the Theotokos.

None of them are on earth anymore either, having been taken to heaven long ago also, with Lazarus and others with that same

So are you saying that those raised from the dead, which is Biblical, (but there is no indication that they were assumed, the only persons the Church has historically believed were assumed were Saints Enoch, Elijah, Moses and the Blessed Virgin Mary, the latter event not recorded in scripture but in the history of the early Church rather prominently). were holier than the Holy Martyrs who gave their life for Christ like St. Stephen the Protomartyr, St. James the Great, St. Peter, St. Paul, St. Thomas and the other Apostles, and early Christians like St. Ignatius of Antioch, St. Justin Martyr, St. Polycarp, and so on, right through the Diocletian persecution (St. George, St. Mina, St. Abanoub, St. Peter the Bishop of Alexandria, St. Sergius and St. Bacchus) and subsequent martyrs at the hands of the Muslims, and the Communists and other oppressors of Christianity? Because that would clash with the words of our Lord, “Whoever confesses me before men, I will confess before the Father.”

And also, how do you see this issue as being relevant to Christian doctrine? Because in my view it makes very little difference if these people were

 

[3 Resurrections]

So are you saying that those raised from the dead, which is Biblical, (but there is no indication that they were assumed,

Yes, there is scripture evidence that all those resurrected ones ascended to heaven already. Paul wrote to Timothy about the coming judgment and resurrection which was "about to be" in his own first-century generation (2 Timothy 4:1). He also spoke of this same approaching resurrection to Felix in Acts 24:15, telling him that "there is ABOUT TO BE a resurrection of the dead, both of the just and unjust".

Paul spoke to comfort and encourage the believers in 1 Thess. 4:13-18 about this soon-coming bodily resurrection, in which those who were then "alive" and who had "remained" would also be caught up together in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air.

Those saints who had already been made "alive" by the bodily resurrection process (such as Lazarus and others) had "remained" on earth (just like Lazarus the beloved disciple which Christ said would remain until His coming). Those resurrected ones would not be the first to ascend, but would be preceded by the rest of the righteous dead to be resurrected, at which point they would be caught up together with them and return to heaven with Christ.

We are given the actual day this would be accomplished by Daniel 12:11-13. That resurrection at Christ's return would take place 1,335 days after two notable events had taken place in the same season (which two events are given in Daniel 12:11). Those two events already took place in the same season in AD 66, at which point the 1,335 countdown to the next bodily resurrection began. The 1,335 days concluded on AD 70's Pentecost day, at which point all those who had been bodily resurrected up to that point left this planet for heaven with Christ.

We at present are waiting for the next bodily resurrection event in our future. God staged three groups of separate "harvests" of the saints' bodies out of the grave, just as there were three main harvest feast celebrations in OT Israel at Passover, Pentecost, and the Feast of Tabernacles. It is the next, final "FOT" resurrection which we are anticipating in our future.

It is not a matter of one group of resurrected people being "holier" than another group. No one group has more importance over the other two resurrection events. God just designed those three separate resurrection "harvests" to fulfill the symbolic pattern laid out in the Mosaic rituals, which were all centered around those three main harvest feast celebrations.

I'm sure you remember the parable about the workmen who were hired at different point in the day, but who all received the very same wage of a penny at the end of the day. No matter which of the three resurrected groups a saint is assigned to participate in, they ALL will have ultimately received the same "wage" of a glorified, resurrected, incorruptible body form.

 

[prodromos]

Lazarus truly IS still alive today in his glorified, resurrected form. Just not on earth anymore, since he was taken to heaven long ago.

Lazarus became the bishop of Kition in Cyprus where he eventually died around 30 years later, being remembered as "twice dead Lazarus". His relics (bodily remains) were placed in a "larnax" in the Church in Kition where many people came from far and wide to venerate him, so much so that the city became known for the place of his relics and is today known as Larnaca

 

[prodromos]

The Church has never been in doubt that the Gospel of John and Revelations were written by John the Apostle, one of the sons of Zebedee.

 

[3 Resurrections]

Lazarus became the bishop of Kition in Cyprus where he eventually died around 30 years later, being remembered as "twice dead Lazarus". His relics (bodily remains) were placed in a "larnax" in the Church in Kition where many people came from far and wide to venerate him, so much so that the city became known for the place of his relics and is today known as Larnaca

This is just one church tradition theory of what happened to Lazarus. There are other theories which locate Lazarus in different locations. None of these traditional theories matter when compared to what the scriptures tell us about the resurrected state for believers. It is ONCE ONLY that humans are appointed to die, Hebrews 9:27 tells us. Not twice.

The Church has never been in doubt that the Gospel of John and Revelations were written by John the Apostle, one of the sons of Zebedee.

The institutional church has been in error on many things throughout history. They have a long record of having to revise certain mistaken beliefs or doctrines, and this is still an ongoing issue today. Even the Apostle Paul wrote instructions that if he taught anything other than what the believers were to find in the scriptures, then he should be "accursed", and they should not believe him. Paul commended the Bereans for searching the scripture daily to see if what he taught was so or not.

It is not good to believe without question everything the institutional church has taught as if it came from God Himself. It's a lazy practice.

 

[prodromos]

This is just one church tradition theory of what happened to Lazarus. There are other theories which locate Lazarus in different locations. None of these traditional theories matter when compared to what the scriptures tell us about the resurrected state for believers. It is ONCE ONLY that humans are appointed to die, Hebrews 9:27 tells us. Not twice.

The institutional church has been in error on many things throughout history. They have a long record of having to revise certain mistaken beliefs or doctrines, and this is still an ongoing issue today. Even the Apostle Paul wrote instructions that if he taught anything other than what the believers were to find in the scriptures, then he should be "accursed", and they should not believe him. Paul commended the Bereans for searching the scripture daily to see if what he taught was so or not.

It is not good to believe without question everything the institutional church has taught as if it came from God Himself. It's a lazy practice.

I'm not going to even bother.

 

[3 Resurrections]

I'm not going to even bother.

That is the very issue that I am speaking about. This same mindset when applied to swallowing whatever you are fed from the pulpit without question is a dangerous practice. If you don't "bother" to do your own personal research into the scriptures, you are likely to fall for anything that is proposed - even from an "orthodox" source - which is also as prone to error as the rest of us.

 

[FenderTL5]

..whatever you are fed from the pulpit without question is a dangerous practice.

This can be a true statement.

If you don't "bother" to do your own personal research into the scriptures, you are likely to fall for anything that is proposed

If you do your own personal interpretation of Holy Scripture you are also prone to error, maybe even moreso (2 Peter 1:20).

- even from an "orthodox" source - which is also as prone to error as the rest of us.

speaking of individual interpretation, that is an agreeable statement.
That is why we rely on ~2000 years of collective Orthodoxy.

 

[3 Resurrections]

speaking of individual interpretation, that is an agreeable statement.
That is why we rely on ~2000 years of collective Orthodoxy.

The "collective Orthodoxy" is not a superior authority to be depended upon more than the contributions of each individual believer on this forum. Didn't Paul write that it was the ordinary members of the assemblies who were going to be given the honor of judging angels? How much more the things that pertained to this life? Each of us has been given plenty of advantages with biblical resources to research the original scriptures on our own, and with the opportunity to give voice to this online. Each member of the body is to contribute to the advantage of the whole.

We only have one head as believers, and that is Christ - not the institutional church. HE only is "the head over all things to the church".

 

[ViaCrucis]

This is just one church tradition theory of what happened to Lazarus. There are other theories which locate Lazarus in different locations. None of these traditional theories matter when compared to what the scriptures tell us about the resurrected state for believers. It is ONCE ONLY that humans are appointed to die, Hebrews 9:27 tells us. Not twice.

The institutional church has been in error on many things throughout history. They have a long record of having to revise certain mistaken beliefs or doctrines, and this is still an ongoing issue today. Even the Apostle Paul wrote instructions that if he taught anything other than what the believers were to find in the scriptures, then he should be "accursed", and they should not believe him. Paul commended the Bereans for searching the scripture daily to see if what he taught was so or not.

It is not good to believe without question everything the institutional church has taught as if it came from God Himself. It's a lazy practice.

It's completely valid to question if certain traditions are accurate, questioning the validity of a claim and wondering if it is true can be a valid critical or skeptical position. It invites further inquiry to test whether something holds water.

What isn't valid is saying "that's just tradition, so it's obviously wrong", then attack all institutional churches and historic Christian traditions and teachings, all for the purpose of just trying to force others to believe your own personal opinion and made up claims.

"Lazarus is still alive" is a pretty bold claim to make. And it's not one that holds up to the scrutiny of Holy Scripture. Biblical arguments have already been provided, the only Person to have experienced Resurrection (with a capital 'R') is Jesus Christ, for He is The Resurrection and the Life. The First-fruits of those who will be raised (future tense). For when He returns, in glory, that is when all who are asleep in the body shall be raised. As Scripture clearly and explicitly testifies. All who have fallen asleep in Christ shall be raised up on the Last Day, when He returns, to life everlasting.

Lazarus will be among those who partake in the Resurrection on the Last Day. Why can I make that claim? Because Lazarus, like his sisters Mary and Martha, were devoted to the Lord and the promise given to us is also for them, "The dead in Christ shall rise first, and we who are alive and remain will be caught up together with them" (1 Thessalonians 4:16-17). When our Lord came to Lazarus' tomb, He called forth Lazarus from his bodily slumber, not to the resurrection to eternal life, but to a restored mortal life. That claim is backed up by the consistent testimony of Scripture concerning not only Christ's own Resurrection, but the future Resurrection at Christ's Parousia. There is a point to Jesus bringing Lazarus back to life, it points to Christ's power over death which He shall demonstrate clearly when He conquers death, because He is Life, He is Resurrection, He is the Son and Word of God Incarnate, the Author of Life right here in flesh. He speaks and the winds and waves obey, He speaks, and little girls get up and walk, grown men walk out of their tomb, lepers are cured, blind receive sight, the mute speak, paraplegics have full restoration of motility. None has power over Him, the life He gives up He gives up freely by His own volition; He voluntarily and freely chose weakness, suffering, and the shame of the cross for our sakes; in order that He might conquer death for all of us, that we should live even as He lives. He took on Himself our death, that we might be clothed with His Life.

There is simply no reason to believe Lazarus is still alive. The restoration of bodily life which Lazarus experienced is like that of the little girl to whom the Lord said, "talitha koum", "little girl, get up". When we read St. Paul speak of Christ as the First Fruits no other is mentioned, there is nobody else among the First-Fruits, there is only Christ. Christ and Him only, He who tasted death for all people and who vanquished death and hell and beat the devil at his own game and left the devil toothless and broken, crushed under heel--the Son of God has trampled the old serpent, and in this we know "the God of peace will soon crush Satan underneath your feet" (Romans 16:20).

I don't know what happened to Lazarus after Scripture stops telling us about him. But those who knew Lazarus personally existed, and they certainly would have known something, and stories about Lazarus exist. How accurate are those stories? I don't know, but it's reasonable that Lazarus would have been involved in the Church in some way, and that Lazarus would have later succumbed to his own mortality eventually. Those are reasonable assumptions given what we know from Scripture; and that means that while I can't know just how accurate stories about Lazarus are, they are far more reasonable and trustworthy than what some modern person decides to just make up on their own.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[FenderTL5]

The "collective Orthodoxy" is not a superior authority to be depended upon more than the contributions of each individual believer on this forum. Didn't Paul write that it was the ordinary members of the assemblies who were going to be given the honor of judging angels? How much more the things that pertained to this life? Each of us has been given plenty of advantages with biblical resources to research the original scriptures on our own, and with the opportunity to give voice to this online. Each member of the body is to contribute to the advantage of the whole.

We only have one head as believers, and that is Christ - not the institutional church. HE only is "the head over all things to the church".

Christ is indeed the head of the Church and the Church is His body on earth. To place your individual interpretation(s) above that of the Church is to esteem yourself above Christ Himself.

 

[The Liturgist]

This same mindset when applied to swallowing whatever you are fed from the pulpit without question is a dangerous practice.

Orthodox churches don’t even have pulpits! Indeed they never have, going back to the early church. The Pulpit is an innovation of the Western Church.