The Miracle Of The Raising Of Lazarus

[consiglieri]

John 11 records what must surely be the most amazing miracle performed by Jesus--that being the raising of Lazarus who was 4-days dead and buried at the time.

I think it pretty much beyond dispute that Jesus never did anything more stunning.

And yet we find it recorded only in the gospel of John.

Surely if the authors of the synoptic gospels knew of this miracle, they would have included it.

Which raises the question--how could they not have known of this miracle, performed publicly the way that it was?

So either the synoptic gospel authors knew of it and did not record it; or they did not know of it.

Either option seems to present its own set of problems.

Anybody want to try to resolve this conundrum?

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[charity]

consiglieri, you just asked a "why did somebody do something or not do something" question when the only source(s) of the answer are not around to answer.

[consiglieri]

consiglieri, you just asked a "why did somebody do something or not do something" question when the only source(s) of the answer are not around to answer.

Let us not be intimidated into silence by so measly an impediment.

All the truly great quesions begin with "Why?"

Onward, rush onward!

--Consiglieri

[The Dude]

I know, Consiglieri! It's because "John" made it up to boost his testimony while "Matthew", "Mark", and "Luke" were not aware.

This is why police like to interview people separately -- so the witnesses or suspects can't prepare a coordinated set of lies.

[William Schryver]

I know, Consiglieri! It's because "John" made it up to boost his testimony while "Matthew", "Mark", and "Luke" were not aware.

This is why police like to interview people separately -- so the witnesses or suspects can't prepare a coordinated set of lies.

Either you're getting more cynical as time goes by, or you're just getting lazy in concealing how cynical you've always been.

Haven't you ever seen someone rise from the dead?

[Thunderfire]

I read an account offered in the "History of the Church" by Eusebius that gave some unique insights into the gospels. He reported that John was shown and had read the other accounts (Mark, Matthew, Luke) and then wrote his, offering those things he felt were left out and needed conveyed.

Look at some of the other things recorded in John that are absent in the other gospels....miracle of turning water into wine, Jesus conversation with Nicodemus about being born again, account of the woman taken in adultery, and Christ's intercessory prayer. There are other miracle stories and teachings in John that are not recorded in the other gospels, so it fits the account by Eusebius.

Anyway, it seems to answer your question!

In Christ I Serve,

Thunderfire

[consiglieri]

I know, Consiglieri! It's because "John" made it up to boost his testimony while "Matthew", "Mark", and "Luke" were not aware.

This is why police like to interview people separately -- so the witnesses or suspects can't prepare a coordinated set of lies.

Hi, Duder,

Thank you for taking the burden off me by proposing the most obvious rationale--that John made it up!

But the real reason that police like to interview people separately is so that there will be no witnesses to the tampering the police do with the statements!

And you think you're cynical?

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[No Touch]

The Gospels were written with different purposes. The others focus more on sayings and teachings, even if they do take the form of narratives.

[consiglieri]

I read an account offered in the "History of the Church" by Eusebius that gave some unique insights into the gospels. He reported that John was shown and had read the other accounts (Mark, Matthew, Luke) and then wrote his, offering those things he felt were left out and needed conveyed.

Look at some of the other things recorded in John that are absent in the other gospels....miracle of turning water into wine, Jesus conversation with Nicodemus about being born again, account of the woman taken in adultery, and Christ's intercessory prayer. There are other miracle stories and teachings in John that are not recorded in the other gospels, so it fits the account by Eusebius.

Anyway, it seems to answer your question!

In Christ I Serve,

Thunderfire

Thanks for the input, Thunderfire.

Here is why this answer does not satisfy me personally.

If Mark, Luke and Matthew knew of the raising of Lazarus, they would have included it in their gospels. Period. I can think of no reason why they would not.

Now maybe they would have left out the water into wine thing. I have no problem with that.

But it is tough for me to swallow that the synoptic gospel writers would have left out the single most amazing miracle performed by Jesus if they knew about it.

Does Eusebius try to account for this?

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

The Gospels were written with different purposes. The others focus more on sayings and teachings, even if they do take the form of narratives.

You may be right about this, No Touch, but it can hardly be denied that the synoptic gospels also spend a lot of time talking about the miracles performed by Jesus.

Which gets me right back to where I started--if they knew of the one most amazing miracle performed by Jesus, why not include it?

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[No Touch]

You may be right about this, No Touch, but it can hardly be denied that the synoptic gospels also spend a lot of time talking about the miracles performed by Jesus.

Which gets me right back to where I started--if they knew of the one most amazing miracle performed by Jesus, why not include it?

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

Perhaps, even accepting it as true, the Gospel writers were reluctant to publish it because they thought it would seem too amazing, too unreal, and would be asking too much for new comers to accept when first reading of Christ's mortal ministry. I realize that this idea would conflict with those gospels then recording the resurrection, BUT, the resurrection is the end of the Gospels, perhaps the writers figured that Lazarus would be too much too soon, but that by the time someone reached the story of the resurrection, they would be ready for it.

[consiglieri]

Perhaps, even accepting it as true, the Gospel writers were reluctant to publish it because they thought it would seem too amazing, too unreal, and would be asking too much for new comers to accept when first reading of Christ's mortal ministry. I realize that this idea would conflict with those gospels then recording the resurrection, BUT, the resurrection is the end of the Gospels, perhaps the writers figured that Lazarus would be too much too soon, but that by the time someone reached the story of the resurrection, they would be ready for it.

While this may be true, we cannot overlook the fact that the synoptic gospels do include raising-from-the-dead miracles; being the son of the widow of Nain, and Jairus' daughter (if memory serves).

So it seems that the synoptic gospel writers were not completely averse to describing Jesus as raising someone from the dead.

Why then, it may be wondered, did they shun the mention of Lazarus, if they knew of it.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[emeliza]

They weren't around when this one happened. They didn't hear about it either. :S

[simply_disappear]

John 11 records what must surely be the most amazing miracle performed by Jesus--that being the raising of Lazarus who was 4-days dead and buried at the time.

I think it pretty much beyond dispute that Jesus never did anything more stunning.

And yet we find it recorded only in the gospel of John.

Surely if the authors of the synoptic gospels knew of this miracle, they would have included it.

Which raises the question--how could they not have known of this miracle, performed publicly the way that it was?

So either the synoptic gospel authors knew of it and did not record it; or they did not know of it.

Either option seems to present its own set of problems.

Anybody want to try to resolve this conundrum?

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

The answer to this would answer the question as to which Church was true for all people Consiglieri! We already know the book as a whole is incomplete and lacking. I think by virtue of that simple answer right there we can know why we don't find all of the stories in all of the books by all of the Apostles who would or should have known certain things concerning the Lord's ministry, don't you?

[Familyof4]

On a side note, I heard that Lazarus was:

1. not himself, ie had some mental issues after this evet or

2. He did not last long after this event, ie he died shortly afterwords.

Wonder if HF said to him...hey...will you go down there one more time for a few weeks and help to show that Jesus is the Lord and then come back?

But on topic from the OP I believe that since they were not first hand witnesses they did not record the event, only John.

[Doctor Steuss]

[...]

2. He did not last long after this event, ie he died shortly afterwords.

[...]

It is a very mixed blessing to be brought back from the dead. --Kurt Vonnegut

[emeliza]

On a side note, I heard that Lazarus was:

1. not himself, ie had some mental issues after this evet or

2. He did not last long after this event, ie he died shortly afterwords.

Wonder if HF said to him...hey...will you go down there one more time for a few weeks and help to show that Jesus is the Lord and then come back?

But on topic from the OP I believe that since they were not first hand witnesses they did not record the event, only John.

Where did you hear this from?

[Vex]

There are in fact other witnesses to the even besides John. However their statements are not available to us. Also some other reasons the other Gospel writers made no mention of the event was that it was either [A] So widely known that assuredly everyone would remember it forever more.

It was kept only through close persons of the event and given the charge "Tell no one of this thing"

[Mark Beesley]

John 11 records what must surely be the most amazing miracle performed by Jesus--that being the raising of Lazarus who was 4-days dead and buried at the time.

I think it pretty much beyond dispute that Jesus never did anything more stunning.

And yet we find it recorded only in the gospel of John.

The questiion is set up with this statement that the raising of Lazarus from the dead was the most stunning thing that Jesus did, and the statement is offered in such a matter-of-fact way that no one has challenged it. But step back for a moment. Was the raising of Lazarus from the dead the most stunning thing that Christ did during His earthly ministry? Maybe not. Other cultures and faiths the pre-date Christ had legends and accounts of people being raised from the dead. It is one of those things that caused the pagan Celsus to brand Christ as a sorcerer, schooled in Egyptian magic. So, perhaps the raising of Lazarus from the dead was not viewd by Matthew, Mark and Luke as being an event that required recordation.

I, for one, do not view the raising of Lazarus from the dead as being the most stunning thing Christ did. His fasting the wilderness for 40 days is more stunning. His refusal to condemn the woman taken in adultery is more stunning. His agony in Gethsemane is more stunning. His emergence from the Garden Tomb iis more stunning. And I could go on.

And while Consiglieri did not find personal satisfaction in the rationale offered by Thunderfire, I found it quite compelling.

[jadams_4242]

John 11 records what must surely be the most amazing miracle performed by Jesus--that being the raising of Lazarus who was 4-days dead and buried at the time.

I think it pretty much beyond dispute that Jesus never did anything more stunning.

And yet we find it recorded only in the gospel of John.

Surely if the authors of the synoptic gospels knew of this miracle, they would have included it.

Which raises the question--how could they not have known of this miracle, performed publicly the way that it was?

So either the synoptic gospel authors knew of it and did not record it; or they did not know of it.

Either option seems to present its own set of problems.

Anybody want to try to resolve this conundrum?

All the Best!

i firmly beleive this type of thing can be directly attributed to translation issues over

thousands of years.. it has also been pretty much proven fact that a number of scriptures

were not included in the present canon... among numerous other translation quandries.

--Consiglieri

[consiglieri]

It is a very mixed blessing to be brought back from the dead. --Kurt Vonnegut

Yeah. Just read Pet Semetary!

P.S. I am not sure that I correctly spelled the intentional mispelling in the title.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

Where did you hear this from?

I don't know, but I am certainly going to bring this up in Sunday school class this week!

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

(Just kidding, folks. Even Consiglieri has standards.)

There are in fact other witnesses to the even besides John. However their statements are not available to us. Also some other reasons the other Gospel writers made no mention of the event was that it was either [A] So widely known that assuredly everyone would remember it forever more.

It was kept only through close persons of the event and given the charge "Tell no one of this thing"

As to [A], we could make the same argument for Jesus' resurrection.

As to , John's gospel portrays the raising of Lazarus as intensely public. But if the charge were given to "tell no one of this thing," I guess John didn't get the memo.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[consiglieri]

The questiion is set up with this statement that the raising of Lazarus from the dead was the most stunning thing that Jesus did, and the statement is offered in such a matter-of-fact way that no one has challenged it. But step back for a moment. Was the raising of Lazarus from the dead the most stunning thing that Christ did during His earthly ministry? Maybe not. Other cultures and faiths the pre-date Christ had legends and accounts of people being raised from the dead. It is one of those things that caused the pagan Celsus to brand Christ as a sorcerer, schooled in Egyptian magic. So, perhaps the raising of Lazarus from the dead was not viewd by Matthew, Mark and Luke as being an event that required recordation.

I, for one, do not view the raising of Lazarus from the dead as being the most stunning thing Christ did. His fasting the wilderness for 40 days is more stunning. His refusal to condemn the woman taken in adultery is more stunning. His agony in Gethsemane is more stunning. His emergence from the Garden Tomb iis more stunning. And I could go on.

And while Consiglieri did not find personal satisfaction in the rationale offered by Thunderfire, I found it quite compelling.

Good for you for challenging the assumptions of the question.

For me, I consider it so obvious a proposition as to need little argument. But people can differ over this, as you appear to.

Of course, John did not include either the event of John baptizing Jesus or the fasting in the wilderness for 40-days.

John is the only gospel writer to record the story of the woman taken in adultery (which most scholars take to be a late addition to the text and not original).

John has nothing to say about the agony Jesus suffered (and skips Gethsemane completely).

And I could go on.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[Thunderfire]

If Mark, Luke and Matthew knew of the raising of Lazarus, they would have included it in their gospels. Period. I can think of no reason why they would not.

Now maybe they would have left out the water into wine thing. I have no problem with that.

But it is tough for me to swallow that the synoptic gospel writers would have left out the single most amazing miracle performed by Jesus if they knew about it.

Hello brother,

With all kindness, I believe the single most amazing miracle performed by Jesus would be the resurrection and that is in all the accounts!

Then too, Lazarus was not the only person that Jesus raised from the dead having also brought back the daughter of Jarius. We also find the account in Luke (7:11-16) where Jesus raised the widows son from the dead. So we do have additional accounts of Jesus performing this type of miracle besides the raising of Lazarus and outside of John's gospel.

I had to chuckle in that John's account leaves out many of the best parables Jesus taught. Taking this same approach we could ask, "Why would John leave out some the the Lords greatest teachings in his writing?"

In Christ I Serve,

Thunderfire

[consiglieri]

So then, perhaps I should have done this as a poll.

Who thinks that Matthew, Mark and Luke knew about the raising of Lazarus but intentionally omitted it?

Who thinks that Matthew, Mark and Luke never knew about the raising of Lazarus?

[seriously honestly]

Thanks for the input, Thunderfire.

Here is why this answer does not satisfy me personally.

If Mark, Luke and Matthew knew of the raising of Lazarus, they would have included it in their gospels. Period. I can think of no reason why they would not.

Now maybe they would have left out the water into wine thing. I have no problem with that.

But it is tough for me to swallow that the synoptic gospel writers would have left out the single most amazing miracle performed by Jesus if they knew about it.

Does Eusebius try to account for this?

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

You may be right about this, No Touch, but it can hardly be denied that the synoptic gospels also spend a lot of time talking about the miracles performed by Jesus.

Which gets me right back to where I started--if they knew of the one most amazing miracle performed by Jesus, why not include it?

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

Jesus also raised a widows son from the dead in Luke (Lk 7:11-16). His desciples were present for that yet it's only found in Lukes gospel. So what's the big deal if John is the only one that recorded Lazarus being raised? Maybe the other's didn't think it was nessecary to put it into their gospels.

Besides, raising Lazarus was hardly "the single most amazing miracle". What Jesus did on the cross and being raised himself are far more impressive then raising someone who has absolutley no effect on salvation.

[Hammer]

Hi, Duder,

Thank you for taking the burden off me by proposing the most obvious rationale--that John made it up!

But the real reason that police like to interview people separately is so that there will be no witnesses to the tampering the police do with the statements!

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

OUCH! The truth hurts.