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

ViaCrucis said:

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.

Click to expand...

Hmmm, how could I possibly "force" anyone to believe anything I write here on the forum? We all are firmly convinced of our viewpoints, or we wouldn't all be posting here. You are convinced of your own position. I am equally convinced that scripture tells me otherwise on this point of Lazarus dying twice.

I have not "attacked" all institutional churches. I merely put them in the position which scripture puts them - subservient to Christ, the "Head of all things to the church". The church is composed of the individual members of the body as believers serving each other with their various gifts. Christ never designed His church to operate like an authoritarian business corporation that should never be questioned or challenged.

And you have misquoted my statement. My statement was a challenge with regard to the traditions of having Lazarus dying again for a second time in Cyprus, with his relics retained for veneration. I wrote that this goes completely against the scripture's requirement that mankind is appointed to die once only, and that resurrected individuals cannot possibly die anymore once they have been resurrected. For that reason, I discard the traditional "Twice-dead-Lazarus" viewpoint because it contradicts scripture - not because I trash all tradition completely. I have even quoted an external traditional source above in repeating the story of John being boiled in oil at Nero's orders, which he survived without injury. This I believe to be a plausible story because it lines up with scripture which tells us that resurrected individuals have an immortal and incorruptible form, impervious to injury of any kind. And I believe the author of Revelation to be the resurrected Lazarus, the beloved disciple.

The Liturgist said:

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.

Click to expand...

I speak generically when referring to a pulpit. Personally, I believe the use of this piece of furniture in an assembly of believers should be discarded. I believe Christ's idea of how a church should function would be better served with a coffee table surrounded by chairs.

1Tonne said:

At the end of the book of John, it tells us who the author of this book is. It tells us that the "one whom Jesus loved" was the one who wrote the book of John. It says:
"Peter turned around and saw the disciple whom Jesus loved following them—the one who also had leaned back on His chest at the supper and said, “Lord, who is the one who is betraying You?” So Peter, upon seeing him, said to Jesus, “Lord, and what about this man?” Jesus said to him, “If I want him to remain until I come, what is that to you? You follow Me!” Therefore this account went out among the brothers, that that disciple would not die; yet Jesus did not say to him that he would not die, but only, “If I want him to remain until I come, what is that to you?” This is the disciple who is testifying about these things and wrote these things, and we know that his testimony is true." John 21:20-24
So, we know that whoever was known to be the one whom Jesus loved the most was the author of the book of John.
Now if we look through the book of John it mentions "the one whom Jesus loved" several times. The first time this phrase is used was with Lazurus when he was sick and about to die. It says, "Now a certain man was sick: Lazarus of Bethany, the village of Mary and her sister Martha. And it was the Mary who anointed the Lord with ointment and wiped His feet with her hair, whose brother Lazarus was sick. So, the sisters sent word to Him, saying, “Lord, behold, he whom You love is sick." John 11:3
Then, when Lazurus died, it says in John 11:35-36 that Jesus wept and that the Jews were so amazed that they said, "See how He loved him!" It is even said with an exclamation mark to show how much the Jews stressed this point. Jesus loved Lazarus a lot.
Then a little further on in John 13:23, we see the disciple whom Jesus loved again. In this text, it does not mention any names but one of the disciples is leaning on Jesus' bosom. This disciple was loved by Jesus. "Lying back on Jesus’ chest was one of His disciples, whom Jesus loved". This person who leaned on Jesus' breast is confirmed to be the author of the book of John as previously mentioned in John 21:20-24.

There are other verses too that mention the author of the book of John. That is, "the one that Jesus loved." There is John 19:26, John 20:2-8 and John 21:7.

My question is, how do we know that it was John who wrote this book when if we read it, the evidence says it was Lazurus?

Click to expand...

This does not agree with the qualifications of a witness, to personally hear or see. Unless Lazarus is also John. Either way hearsay does not qualify as a witness.
Act 1:20 For it is written in the book of Psalms, Let his habitation be desolate, and let no man dwell therein: and his bishoprick let another take. {bishoprick: or, office, or, charge }
21 Wherefore of these men which have companied with us all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us,
22 Beginning from the baptism of John, unto that same day that he was taken up from us, must one be ordained to be a witness with us of his resurrection.

ViaCrucis said:

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.

Click to expand...

No, that was more than Lazarus just being restored to mortal life. Christ told Martha that if she believed, she would see the "glory of God" (John 11:40) on display. What kind of "glory of God" is displayed in merely restoring a man to a body form which is still dying and subject to infirmities, and will collapse in death yet again? There is nothing triumphant or "glorious" in that.

ViaCrucis said:

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.

Click to expand...

You are not giving any consideration at all to the resurrected 144,000 First-fruits individuals found in Revelation 14:4. This title of the "First-fruits" is one which included many individuals - not just Christ alone as the "First-fruits". If the term "First-fruits" means only a single resurrected man (Christ), then how can these 144,000 First-fruits be only a single person?

And the daughter of Jairus was also raised to an incorruptible, immortal life as well, just as Lazarus was, and Dorcas the woman Peter raised from the dead, and those the disciples raised up (as in Matt. 11:5), etc.. These resurrected individuals all ascended bodily to heaven long ago.

1Tonne said:

Sorry, I do not understand what you are saying.

Regarding the discussion about Lazurus never dying. I do not know. But, interestingly, the disciples themselves were wondering if the author of the book of John would ever die and Jesus gave them a very vague answer that does not let us know either way.
John 21:23 "Therefore this account went out among the brothers, that that disciple would not die; yet Jesus did not say to him that he would not die, but only, “If I want him to remain until I come, what is that to you?”

Click to expand...

Sorry, I did not make myself clear. What is you did not understand?

1Tonne said:

To personally see or hear what?

Click to expand...

oh ok. It was required for a witness to have seen or heard with their own eyes and ears, to what they seen and heard personally. No hearsay as is below

"Hearsay, in a legal forum, is an out-of-court statement which is being offered in court for the truth of what was asserted. In most courts, hearsay evidence is inadmissible (the "hearsay evidence rule") unless an exception to the hearsay rule applies.

For example, to prove that Tom was in town, a witness testifies, "Susan told me that Tom was in town." Because the witness's evidence relies on an out-of-court statement that Susan made, if Susan is unavailable for cross-examination, the answer is hearsay. A justification for the objection is that the person who made the statement is not in court and thus not available for cross-examination."

1Tonne said:

So, what part was heresay?

Click to expand...

????
If Lazerus was not also John, he could not have written John
21 Wherefore of these men which have companied with us all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us,
22 Beginning from the baptism of John, unto that same day that he was taken up from us, must one be ordained to be a witness with us of his resurrection.

3 Resurrections said:

No, that was more than Lazarus just being restored to mortal life. Christ told Martha that if she believed, she would see the "glory of God" (John 11:40) on display. What kind of "glory of God" is displayed in merely restoring a man to a body form which is still dying and subject to infirmities, and will collapse in death yet again? There is nothing triumphant or "glorious" in that.

Click to expand...

Jesus' resurrection.

3 Resurrections said:

You are not giving any consideration at all to the resurrected 144,000 First-fruits individuals found in Revelation 14:4. This title of the "First-fruits" is one which included many individuals - not just Christ alone as the "First-fruits". If the term "First-fruits" means only a single resurrected man (Christ), then how can these 144,000 First-fruits be only a single person?

Click to expand...

There's nothing to consider here, as it has no relevance to this topic.

3 Resurrections said:

And the daughter of Jairus was also raised to an incorruptible, immortal life as well, just as Lazarus was, and Dorcas the woman Peter raised from the dead, and those the disciples raised up (as in Matt. 11:5), etc.. These resurrected individuals all ascended bodily to heaven long ago.

Click to expand...

When did they ascend to heaven? I suspect that this is another example of you just making things up.

-CryptoLUtheran

3 Resurrections said:

And you have misquoted my statement. My statement was a challenge with regard to the traditions of having Lazarus dying again for a second time in Cyprus, with his relics retained for veneration. I wrote that this goes completely against the scripture's requirement that mankind is appointed to die once only, and that resurrected individuals cannot possibly die anymore once they have been resurrected.

Click to expand...

That's not a "requirement", it's an observation of what is typical, and it asserts that all we have is this present mortal life, after which we face Judgment.

Lots of people have been pronounced clinically dead and then been resuscitated through modern medicine. This doesn't contradict what is written in Hebrews either.

3 Resurrections said:

For that reason, I discard the traditional "Twice-dead-Lazarus" viewpoint because it contradicts scripture - not because I trash all tradition completely. I have even quoted an external traditional source above in repeating the story of John being boiled in oil at Nero's orders, which he survived without injury. This I believe to be a plausible story because it lines up with scripture which tells us that resurrected individuals have an immortal and incorruptible form, impervious to injury of any kind. And I believe the author of Revelation to be the resurrected Lazarus, the beloved disciple.

Click to expand...

It doesn't contradict Scripture. It contradicts your opinions, and your flawed interpretations of Scripture.

If the people you mention had been resurrected and then ascended into heaven that'd probably have been noteworthy enough for someone, somewhere to have mentioned it.

So, again, I would consider those traditions far more reliable than your personal opinions and make-believe. And you've offered me no reason to think otherwise.

-CryptoLutheran

1Tonne said:

Are you saying that Lazurus was not a witness? Where does it say he is not?
Sorry. I am not sure how you have proved that he is not the author or the book of John. Maybe I am missing something.

Click to expand...

One of the most fundamental rules of discussion and debate is that the burden of evidence rests on the one making the positive claim. And also that one does not, as a rule, prove a negative.

It's not about demonstrating that Lazarus wasn't a witness, but rather it would be necessary to provide evidence that Lazarus was.

If one is going to claim that Lazarus is the author of the Fourth Gospel that requires providing a defensible argument. The Fourth Evangelist identifies himself as "the disciple whom Jesus loved", never identifying his own identity, but is clearly presented as one within Jesus' inner circle. Lazarus is never identified as being within Jesus' inner circle, the whole family in Bethany was very important to the Lord but there is nothing to suggest Lazarus had been an active disciple and follower of the Lord, literally following Him around during His earthly ministry throughout Galilee and Judea. Our sole biblical evidence concerning Lazarus places Lazarus in Bethany, with his sisters.

To argue that Lazarus wrote the Fourth Gospel requires, again, a defensible argument, and evidence. It would require placing Lazarus as an active follower of Jesus, traveling with Jesus, witnessing the things Jesus said and did. One does not say "Prove that he wasn't a witness", no, it requires building an argument that he was. Otherwise we violate the fundamental principle of burden of evidence, which is a fundamental principle for a very good reason. Without it no meaningful discourse, and no meaningful ground for debate can ever take place on any subject whatsoever. If I say "Prove that Genghis Khan didn't own a pet unicorn" as a way to argue that he did, then all reasonable communication, discussion, and debate is thrown out the window, anyone can just say anything about anything and all that is left is disordered confusion and chaos.

That Jesus loved Lazarus is insufficient. For our Lord Jesus also said, "There is no greater love than this, than that a man lays down his life for his friends, and I call you friends." That Jesus loved someone is insufficient grounds to determining who "the disciple whom Jesus loved" is. Because Jesus loved all of His disciples, He loves us too. He's Jesus. The Son of God came down, was born of the Virgin, made flesh, suffered and died because of the infinite and unstoppable love with which He loves all of us, that love with which God loves the whole world "that He gave His only begotten Son".

Note that all of these love statements come from the Fourth Gospel. Rather than "the disciple whom Jesus loved" then being an honorific the author bestows upon himself to highlight that he might be special, one might instead understand that here the author is actually being modest, who is the disciple whom Jesus loved? All of them. So "the disciple whom Jesus loved" becomes a way of saying, "I'm just another disciple", "I'm not special"--instead the author rather than focusing on himself as important, instead stresses his witness, he wants to point to the things Jesus said and did, "these are written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in His name." (John 20:31). It is the testimony that is true, hear and believe; "Come and see" as Jesus says near the beginning of the Fourth Gospel.

-CryptoLutheran

ViaCrucis said:

There's nothing to consider here, as it has no relevance to this topic.

Click to expand...

The relevance in discussing Lazarus as well as the 144,000 First-fruits is in the fact that all of these shared in the same type of bodily resurrection into a glorified, immortal and incorruptible body during those first-century days.

ViaCrucis said:

When did they ascend to heaven? I suspect that this is another example of you just making things up.

Click to expand...

Scripture tells us when resurrected people were first allowed entrance into heaven's temple. Revelation 15:8 tells us that "no man was able to enter into the temple, till the seven plagues of the seven angels were fulfilled." Before that time, according to Christ's discussion with Nicodemus in John 3:13 - "and no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven..." And that also applied to Enoch and Elijah.

ViaCrucis said:

Lots of people have been pronounced clinically dead and then been resuscitated through modern medicine. This doesn't contradict what is written in Hebrews either.

Click to expand...

To be "resuscitated" is not the same as people being dead for days and starting to stink, as was true for Lazarus. Science may battle about when death actually occurs, but scripture tells us that death occurs when "the spirit returns to God who gave it." After that point, it takes the power of the Holy Spirit to raise that body back to life again into a changed, incorruptible and immortal form, with the person's spirit restored back into that changed body form by the power of the Holy Spirit. That changed body cannot die again at that point. You might as well claim that the Holy Spirit can die.

ViaCrucis said:

That's not a "requirement", it's an observation of what is typical, and it asserts that all we have is this present mortal life, after which we face Judgment.

Click to expand...

It is called an "appointment". And it is an "appointment" which no one is ever late or early in arriving at that appointment. God determines that appointment date for each individual, and it is inevitable for all mankind. It's not as if you have an option. "As in Adam ALL die". If you are in Adam, then you have an appointment scheduled with a physical death experience to go through. Once only. Hebrews 9:27 is pretty blunt.

ViaCrucis said:

If the people you mention had been resurrected and then ascended into heaven that'd probably have been noteworthy enough for someone, somewhere to have mentioned it.

Click to expand...

Just how long do you think it takes for resurrected individuals to ascend to heaven? It's not as if it has to be some slow-motion type of movie where it takes considerable time to get off the ground and enter heaven's temple. After all, the resurrection process itself takes place "in the twinkling of an eye". The angelic transportation of glorified, resurrected saints into heaven's realm can be equally brief. With not necessarily enough time for the public to document or observe it happening.

Where are all those public records of the resurrected Christ Himself ascending to heaven? We have the gospel accounts and the record in Acts 1 due to those few disciples directly viewing when Christ ascended, but other than that - nothing from the local "news".

1Tonne said:

So, I have given evidence in the OP of who the writer of the gospel of John may be. It is written in the text. You dismiss it. Not only did Jesus say that the one whom He loved was John, but also the Jews were so amazed that they exclaimed it loudly. People back then knew that Lazurus was the one whom Jesus loved. This should be evidence enough to put doubt in someone's mind about who the assigned author really is.
Please give evidence within the text that John is the writer of the book of John. I have given my burden of evidence. Now it is your turn since you claim that it is not Lazurus.

I know we cannot be 100% sure it is John or Lazurus. However, the evidence within the text points to Lazurus. We cannot ignore that.

Click to expand...

Forgive me, bur I think @ViaCrucis and @prodromoe have provided strong evidence. The only possible alternative theologoumenon (considered theological opinion that does not contradict established doctrine) is that proposed by @HTacianas.

For my part, I think the text makes it obvious that St. John was the youngest of the disciples; if he were still adolescent, this could explain why he sought to be held by our Lord, and also how he was still alive longer than anyone else. Whereas St. Lazarus was already elderly.