The Raising of Lazarus Only Appears in the Last of the Canonical Gospels. There Is Something Wrong about That.

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 23, 2015 7:48 PM GMT
    How can something that great be left out of Mark, Matthew, and Luke?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 23, 2015 8:48 PM GMT
    Bart Ehrman:

    For many decades now there have been scholars who have been convinced that the Gospel of John is based, in large part, on written, but no-longer surviving, sources. It is much debated whether John relied on the Synoptic Gospels for any of its stories, or whether in fact its author had ever read (or even heard of) Matthew, Mark, and Luke.

    There are very few verbatim overlaps between John and the others, and outside of the Passion narrative there is not a lot of overlap in the stories told. Somewhat like the Synoptics John does have the healing of a Capernaum official’s son, the feeding of the 5000, and the walking on the water – all told in striking different ways. John’s four other miracles (which he doesn’t call miracles, but “signs”) are unique to his account (including the favorite miracle on college campuses everywhere, the turning of water into wine, and the favorite of most Hollywood screen writers, the raising of Lazarus).

    Moreover, the teachings of Jesus are highly distinctive in John. Almost nothing that Jesus teaches in the Synoptics can be found in John (there is not a single parable in John!)


    Stephenoabc,

    I would like to give this post a 4.9, so, I’m going to give it a 5 star rating.

    #1 As mentioned in my book, Heron/Hero of Alexandria, an inventor, made a vase that could poor water when tilted one way and pour wine when tilted another way. Because Vespasian was in Alexandria before going to Rome for crowning as emperor, the famed Heron/Hero and/or his inventions could have found their way into Flavian empire literature. Vespasian fulfilled the sign of the star prophecy “of the Jews.” Vespasian fulfilled the sign of giving sight to the blind by using his saliva as Jesus did. Vespasian fulfilled the sign of making the lame walk. Entertaining the powerful Roman general, emperor in waiting, Hero/Heron’s party trick/miracle could have been put in the hands of Vespasian or his entourage.

    #2 Jesus is not the messiah of the temporal world, he is a heavenly messiah who requires people’s consumption of his body and blood. I’m looking at: The “Son of Man” is Jesus’ own self-description—he uses the title twelve times in the Gospel of John (1:51; 3:13, 14; 5:27; 6:27, 53, 62; 8:28; 9:35; 12:23; 13:31; in 12:34 his language is quoted back to him).

    Here is the contrast of Son of Man and Messiah:

    John 12: 33 But He was saying this to indicate the kind of death by which He was to die. 34The crowd then answered Him, “We have heard out of the Law that the Messiah/Christ is to remain forever; and how can You say, ‘The Son of Man must be lifted up’? Who is this Son of Man?”

    In the Synoptics, Jesus tells John the Baptist he is the one for which all have been waiting. More specifically, the blind man asks, who is the Son of Man. Jesus answers, the one before you is the Son of Man.

    In the Synoptics the Son of Man is in first person and third person. In John, the Son of Man is glorified when Judas leaves to betray him. In the Synoptics, we have the Great Tribulation before the glorification of the Son of Man.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 23, 2015 8:49 PM GMT
    Jesus needs signs that he is
    a) son of God
    b) messiah – I don’t think the Jews were looking for a spiritual messiah, especially the Galileans who had Judah the Galilean trying to usher in a temporal, political revolt
    c) son of Man – Jesus’ self-identification
    ~ ~ ~
    With what I wrote above, John either did not read the Synoptics or he was disregarding their claim that Jesus was

    Son of Man in 1st person;

    but tragedy strikes making him unable to live out the roll to glorification after the tribulation. He is crucified (resurrects and ascends to heaven, abandoning the fulfillment of the temporal messiah, leaving no political provisions for the Tribulation during the Jewish Revolt and destruction of the Temple),

    then Son of Man is spoken of in the third person in the things that were to take place after Jesus’ ascension.

    There is no speaking of the Son of Man in the third person in John. John’s omission of the signs for the coming of the Son of Man is shocking, if not an affront to the orthodoxy of the Synoptics.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 25, 2015 9:23 PM GMT
    StephenOABC saidHow can something that great be left out of Mark, Matthew, and Luke?


    Famous Author, Dr. Bart Ehrman:

    Right! It probalby wasn’t widely known.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 25, 2015 9:24 PM GMT
    StephenOABC said
    StephenOABC saidHow can something that great be left out of Mark, Matthew, and Luke?


    Famous Author, Dr. Bart Ehrman:

    Right! It probalby wasn’t widely known.


    It was not widely known. That is so unlike you, professor. What is like you: the lack of multiple attestation means it is probably an interpolation or it did not happen. Why are we not getting that response?

    Jn 11: 7 - He said to his disciples, let's go back to Judea. So, each offspring community of disciples after Jesus' death would have to preserve this account.

    Jn 11: 16 Thomas said let's go with Jesus because those people who wanted to stone Jesus will stone him when he returns to help Lazarus. Let's go die with Jesus. [Dr. Ehrman, this means some of Jesus' enemies would have caught up with Jesus at Lazarus' grave site.]

    18Now Bethany was near Jerusalem, about two miles off; 19and many of the Jews had come to Martha and Mary, to console them concerning their brother.

    Dear Doctor Ehrman, please help us understand your reply: the resurrection of Lazarus was not widely known given all the disciples were there, all those to console the sisters of Lazarus were there, and all communities of disciples would have learned of this great sign.

    Here, Jesus is Isis for resurrecting Lazarus but more so Jesus is Osiris, the Resurrection (and the bread of heaven to the extent Osiris is tied to the planting of wheat and the sprouting of wheat after wheat has been buried in the earth).

    25Jesus said to her, "I am the resurrection and the life; he who believes in Me will live even if he dies, 26and everyone who lives and believes in Me will never die. Do you believe this?"

    Here, the writer of John is saying Osiris is no longer the resurrection but Jesus is the resurrection.

    On the first day of the Festival of Ploughing, where the goddess Isis appeared in her shrine where she was stripped naked, paste made from the grain were placed in her bed and moistened with water, representing the fecund earth. All of these sacred rituals were "climaxed by the eating of sacramental god, the eucharist by which the celebrants were transformed, in their persuasion, into replicas of their god-man" (Larson 20) - Search Osiris in Wikipedia

    Here: John 6: 32 and 51, speaking of bread of Heaven, are sourced from the former Egyptian Moses and from the wheat ploughing associated with Isis, Osiris, and Resurrection.

    Conclusion: without multiple attestation that the raising of Lazarus was a real event, it is a literary event to bring in Exodus and the popular Isis cult of Rome.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 25, 2015 10:35 PM GMT
    StephenOABC saidJesus needs signs that he is
    a) son of God
    b) messiah – I don’t think the Jews were looking for a spiritual messiah, especially the Galileans who had Judah the Galilean trying to usher in a temporal, political revolt
    c) son of Man – Jesus’ self-identification
    ~ ~ ~
    With what I wrote above, John either did not read the Synoptics or he was disregarding their claim that Jesus was

    Son of Man in 1st person;

    but tragedy strikes making him unable to live out the roll to glorification after the tribulation. He is crucified (resurrects and ascends to heaven, abandoning the fulfillment of the temporal messiah, leaving no political provisions for the Tribulation during the Jewish Revolt and destruction of the Temple),

    then Son of Man is spoken of in the third person in the things that were to take place after Jesus’ ascension.

    There is no speaking of the Son of Man in the third person in John. John’s omission of the signs for the coming of the Son of Man is shocking, if not an affront to the orthodoxy of the Synoptics.


    (Sorry about the 30-min. delay: lights in the neighborhood went out for about 25 minutes)

    Gospel according to John is written during Domitian's reign and the reference to the Tribulation of armies surrounding Jerusalem and the Temple being destroyed is absent from that gospel.

    Why?

    Domitian, son of Vespasian and brother of Titus, did not fight against the Jews in the Jewish Revolt against Rome.
    If there were to be gospels circulating in Rome for the Early Christianity in Rome, why mention the military gospel, good news, of his father and brother. Take it out. And also, during Domitian's reign, there were some sort of persecutions against Christians, Christians who probably were tied to Mark, Matthew, and Luke, reluctant or refusing the counter-gospel according to John.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 25, 2015 10:39 PM GMT
    Another Forum Member

    The gospel of John is so at odds with the synoptics on so many different levels that one might conclude that the Jesus of John’s gospel is a different guy altogether. Here’s another stark example: as you noted, Bart, there is not a single parable in the gospel of John yet Matthew (13:34) asserts that Jesus taught the crowds EXCLUSIVELY with parables! Huh?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 26, 2015 2:47 PM GMT
    StephenOABC said
    StephenOABC said
    StephenOABC saidHow can something that great be left out of Mark, Matthew, and Luke?


    Famous Author, Dr. Bart Ehrman:

    Right! It probalby wasn’t widely known.


    It was not widely known. That is so unlike you, professor. What is like you: the lack of multiple attestation means it is probably an interpolation or it did not happen. Why are we not getting that response?

    Jn 11: 7 - He said to his disciples, let's go back to Judea. So, each offspring community of disciples after Jesus' death would have to preserve this account.

    Jn 11: 16 Thomas said let's go with Jesus because those people who wanted to stone Jesus will stone him when he returns to help Lazarus. Let's go die with Jesus. [Dr. Ehrman, this means some of Jesus' enemies would have caught up with Jesus at Lazarus' grave site.]

    18Now Bethany was near Jerusalem, about two miles off; 19and many of the Jews had come to Martha and Mary, to console them concerning their brother.

    Dear Doctor Ehrman, please help us understand your reply: the resurrection of Lazarus was not widely known given all the disciples were there, all those to console the sisters of Lazarus were there, and all communities of disciples would have learned of this great sign.


    Conclusion: without multiple attestation that the raising of Lazarus was a real event, it is a literary event to bring in Exodus and the popular Isis cult of Rome.


    Dr. Bart Ehrman

    I’m not saying it happened. I don’t think it did.

    I’m saying that the story was not widely known.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 26, 2015 3:07 PM GMT
    StephenOABC said
    StephenOABC said
    StephenOABC said
    StephenOABC saidHow can something that great be left out of Mark, Matthew, and Luke?


    Famous Author, Dr. Bart Ehrman:

    Right! It probalby wasn’t widely known.


    It was not widely known. That is so unlike you, professor. What is like you: the lack of multiple attestation means it is probably an interpolation or it did not happen. Why are we not getting that response?

    Jn 11: 7 - He said to his disciples, let's go back to Judea. So, each offspring community of disciples after Jesus' death would have to preserve this account.

    Jn 11: 16 Thomas said let's go with Jesus because those people who wanted to stone Jesus will stone him when he returns to help Lazarus. Let's go die with Jesus. [Dr. Ehrman, this means some of Jesus' enemies would have caught up with Jesus at Lazarus' grave site.]

    18Now Bethany was near Jerusalem, about two miles off; 19and many of the Jews had come to Martha and Mary, to console them concerning their brother.

    Dear Doctor Ehrman, please help us understand your reply: the resurrection of Lazarus was not widely known given all the disciples were there, all those to console the sisters of Lazarus were there, and all communities of disciples would have learned of this great sign.


    Conclusion: without multiple attestation that the raising of Lazarus was a real event, it is a literary event to bring in Exodus and the popular Isis cult of Rome.


    Dr. Bart Ehrman

    I’m not saying it happened. I don’t think it did.

    I’m saying that the story was not widely known.


    You are really hurting the feelings of Christians.

    - Jesus wasn't the "leading man" who saved a woman from being stoned to death.
    - Jesus did not raise Lazarus.
    (etc.)

    Interruption for a more important but related point: Wikipedia says:

    Biblical scholar Bart D. Ehrman relates that in the introduction to his textbook on the New Testament, he describes an important figure from the first century without first revealing he is writing about Apollonius of Tyana:

    ... Apollonius of Tyana raised the dead.

    Ehrman goes on to explain that Apollonius was a real person and that his followers believed Jesus to be a fraud.

    Dr. Ehrman, was the raising of the dead by Apollonius of Tyana (born 15 died 100) more widely known?

    John says he raised the dead in front of all of his disciples. Without this appearing in Mark, Matthew, and Luke, it probably did not make it into Oral Tradition or Q source. This leaves us with the possibility that the Lazarus account only dates to when it was written. Apparently, Jesus had to best Apollonius and that is part of the reason why the resurrection of Lazarus appears in John.