tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4683970826895755480.post5017811202059278229..comments2024-03-29T15:13:42.610+00:00Comments on Bruce Charlton's Notions: Was John the Evangelist the resurrected Lazarus?Bruce Charltonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09615189090601688535noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4683970826895755480.post-77689671903944462252016-06-02T11:49:06.516+01:002016-06-02T11:49:06.516+01:00@Wm - Good arguments.
One solution may be that t...@Wm - Good arguments. <br /><br />One solution may be that the four gospels ought each to be read and regarded separately, rather than examined for cross references. I know that this flies in the face of the historical method as applied to secular texts (and the tradition of concordances which I think long predates the 'German scholarship of Strauss et al), but perhaps that is not appropriate for divinely inspired scriptures? <br /><br />It is possible to read each gospel as having a distinct provenance and sources, inspired in different men in different ways. <br /><br />In saying this, of course I am *not* assuming that any human product is inerrant or infallible - even when truly divinely inspired. <br /><br />(That would only apply to a text taken by dictation in a specific language and bypassing the human altogether except as a mouthpiece - and even then there would need to be an assumption of infallible and inerrant translation/ interpretation/ understanding by each authoritative reader.) <br /><br />At any rate, that is the direction I find myself pulled; although I have not gone very far as yet (and I am not in any hurry). <br /><br />The 'inconsistencies' between the gospels would then not be unexpected; but a natural consequence of the different evangelists, different sources, and different ways they were written - leading to different objectives and coverage for each one.<br /><br />(Of course, I am assuming that the reader is already convinced of the validity of the gospels before examining them closely, and is not reading and comparing in order to 'test' their validity - which is so different an attitude as to lead to almost opposite conclusions. One must be convinced of the truth of the gospels *first* - by some variant of personal revelation - and *then* engage with them in a trusting and faithful attitude - to understand, learn, be inspired etc.) Bruce Charltonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09615189090601688535noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4683970826895755480.post-48527168302238538922016-06-02T11:06:31.390+01:002016-06-02T11:06:31.390+01:00I remember that when the Jewish authorities starte...I remember that when the Jewish authorities started plotting to kill Jesus, there was also a plot to kill Lazarus, so if Lazarus's friends stopped using his name and started calling him "John" or "the disciple that Jesus loved," perhaps it was for his own protection.<br /><br />Also, when Jesus told his disciples that "our friend Lazarus" was sick, it perhaps suggests that Lazarus was one of their circle, as we would expect if he were the same person as John.<br /><br />One hang-up for me, though, is the absence of James in the stories about Lazarus, and indeed in the entire gospel of John. (Aside from one passing reference to "the sons of Zebedee," neither James nor John is ever mentioned in the fourth gospel.) Lazarus's sisters are mentioned several times, but the evangelist never so much as hints that Lazarus had an elder brother as well, let alone that his brother was also one of Christ's very closest disciples.<br /><br />Actually, even without the Lazarus/John theory, it's hard to account for the absence of James from the fourth gospel if John is in fact its author. In the synoptics, James and John are apparently inseparable, and one is rarely mentioned without the other. I'm almost tempted to think that the beloved disciple is indeed Lazarus but that he is not John the son of Zebedee.Wm Jas Tychonievichhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07446790072877463982noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4683970826895755480.post-86827140036630249252016-06-02T03:23:45.243+01:002016-06-02T03:23:45.243+01:00Yes, was mentioned by Edgar Cayce, the only psychi...Yes, was mentioned by Edgar Cayce, the only psychic that I trust. Cayce also tells of how Jesus healed Pilate of migranes and his son of epilepsy, another unchronicled Jesus story which I believe true. ROYORhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02997974526522697868noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4683970826895755480.post-69378848031463061252016-06-01T22:26:16.127+01:002016-06-01T22:26:16.127+01:00@WM - I wondered what you would make of this. You ...@WM - I wondered what you would make of this. You are correct of course, that John does not name himself in the gospel, so that talking of a name change is not quite right - but you get the point, clearly. Bruce Charltonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09615189090601688535noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4683970826895755480.post-27870954915211095182016-06-01T21:09:01.782+01:002016-06-01T21:09:01.782+01:00I'd run across this idea once before, perhaps ...I'd run across this idea once before, perhaps in the writings of Edgar Cayce or some similar New Age writer (not Steiner, whom I've never read). You're right that it helps explain the other disciples' idea that perhaps the beloved disciple would not die; I hadn't thought of that before.<br /><br />Re the name change, the "disciple whom Jesus loved" is never actually referred to by name, so identifying him with Lazarus is no less conjectural than identifying him with John.Wm Jas Tychonievichhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07446790072877463982noreply@blogger.com