Christian Theological/Philosophical Book Club discussion

Just out of curiousity, how many people here read the story of Jesus raising Lazarus literally...that a man who was four days dead in the tomb was raised to life...and how many read it as a parable, sort of like what was said of the prodigal son: "he was dead and now he lives."

Literally, same way I read every other story I hear about Christians raising the dead.

http://documentedhealings.com

Here are a bunch of them for you, Joshua!

http://www.patrolmag.com/2008/05/27/j...

haha the controversy rages. There are lots of phonies out there of course, but I have many personal experiences that put me in the "does happen sometimes, and I would like more" basket.

just fyi, leaders are learning. Bill Johnson for example doesn't get as much flack because he has a large number of doctors on his board and an one who travels with him full time. I know a doctor in our town who spends a lot of time documenting miracles at a church in Melbourne.

I assume and trust that the Lazarus raising was literal. (I wasn't there).

It is interesting that the story gives us so many details. And: " 44The man who had died came out, his hands and feet bound with linen strips, and his face wrapped with a cloth. Jesus said to them, “Unbind him, and let him go.”

If we undo this story as Lee most likely suggests: when do we stop undoing the Bible? Erase the reality of people, places, events, prophecies, true meaning, and like many scholars suggest "EVEN JESUS HIMSELF". Eventually we will all be atheists with some cute myths to think fondly of.
If that is the truth - then so be it.

I don't believe 99.9% of charismatic healings. Mostly because they document these things in such a desperate comical fashion.

I give Bill Johnson just as much flack. When someone grows a missing limb back I will be impressed. OR a healer goes into a hospital and empties it.
I have met a lot of really sick charismatics - and yet they claim they are healed. It's funny and sad at the same time.

Can God heal:YES!
Can Satan heal: probably YES!
Do charismatics know the difference: Not in the slightest.

I watched a few of those WELL DOCUMENTED VIDEO'S Joshua. Is that the best they can??? Don't you see how funny this is to atheists? And embarrassing to Christianity in general?

Wouldn't it be funny if someone made a Charismatic healing document that scientifically stated:
"I had liquid coming out of my nose and mouth for about 2 weeks. I went to see Bill Johnson and I was healed...slowly at first, but then a week later everything cleared up. The Doctors tried everything - but it was God who finally healed me. I haven't needed any Kleenex for a month now - PRAAAAAAaaaaaiiiiIIIISSSSSeeeeeeee JESUSSSssssss but mostly Bill Johnson for his Harry Potter powers!""

I agree with Rod.

Rod - now you're getting into my arena, molecular genetic research. Maybe within 25 years and 50 at the outer limit, humans WILL be able to regenerate limbs and probably a whole lot more (organs?). I don't know about Lee's marijuana impaired brain - that may be irreparable, but could end up at the Smithsonian as a medical curiosity.

Thanks Brent. If you disagree with me: then the fun really begins and I have some serious research to do.

Robert hopefully science doesn't attempt to explain away Jesus' miracles even more. I've seen them try and fail. But as always: it's good science vs. bad science achieved only by honest scientists.

Rod,

You make a fair point, but perhaps in Jesus' day you would have unfortunately found yourself sitting on the wrong side of the fence.

I do recall a certain section of the community being particularly suspicious of the source of His power.

I have seen snippets myself so I guess experience trumps argument for me. Anyway, perhaps one day God will surprise you.

Joshua wrote: "experience trumps argument"

Quite right, friend.

Joshua I see Jesus' miracles everywhere. I'm just not impressed by cheap miracles that many religions are abusing. Experience means almost NOTHING to me. EVerybody lies and abuses their valued truth... they don't even know it.

Jesus power is not the impressive part Joshua (some bits anyway?), it's his logic, love and purpose. The scriptures point to HIM - that is better than a few healings and charismatic outbursts. Satan also has powers...it is dangerous to get excited by them. Can a demon remove an illness that it placed on someone??? Sure, therefore a healing isn't necessarily of God - maybe just a demon playing give and take to confuse people about one's authority.

Jesus quoted scripture to Satan (instead of showing his Holy Spirit powers) . I will do the same.

So far everyone but me reads the story literally. This is because it's in the Bible, right? And the assumption is that the Bible is just supposed to be read this way?

When you read the same story about the resurrection of Osiris, do you read it literally? I don't mean whether or not you believe the same thing really happened to Osiris (I know you don't), but do you think those who told the Egyptian story considered it a literal event, or a myth, or a parable or what?

If you don't say "literally", what is different about the Bible that makes you believe the story is to be read differently this time around?

Good and fair questions Lee.

And it goes back to "When does the story start/stop being literal"?

I often tell people:
Read the whole Bible as a story. Then go back and see what fits.

If the Bible started: long, long ago, in a mystical land of magic coconuts and Unicorns... We would have a clear setting.
But we can read the Bible backwards through empires, geography, history, and cultures...and YES even science.

Lee wrote: "So far everyone but me reads the story literally. This is because it's in the Bible, right? And the assumption is that the Bible is just supposed to be read this way?

When you read the same story ..."

There is a qualitative difference from exegeting what NT authors witnessed to be verifiable history, and what has been written as popular cultic mythology engrained in the minds of the ancients. Surely, Lee, you're not such a terrible historian to fall so easily into this sophomoric fallacy so pervasive in the internet by thirteen-year-old "expert's" upon watching the Zeitgeist movie..

The Bible puts all of the pieces on the table immediately (and explains them).

A real universe, a real planet with real water and land and stars. Animals, insects, humanity, meaning, boundaries, sin, farming... you get the idea.

How much impressive and systematic detail does the Osiris story deliver? Same goes for Gilgamesh and Noah's account.
If Jesus pranced around the middle east with Unicorns and fairies and Lazer guns with moon jumping cows then we'd have to look carefully at what cards are on the table.

The writers of the Bible knew what WAS a miracle and what WASN'T. And yet just enough to excite the Atheists and thrill the charismatics - as well as fuel thousands of academic theologians with no sense of humor.

Lee do we remove all supernatural bits from the Bible (as some liberal groups seem to desire?!). But then we must continue to remove life itself and consciousness, even good and evil.

So I agree with you Lee that we have a huge challenge that will demand some faith and logic.
It is funny meeting people who claim there is NO superstition whatsoever - and yet fight for love, justice, fairness, kindness, and question good & evil and the worth of humanity.

brent, my question is why you believe it to be written as verifiable history, while believing a very similar story was written to be understood as a myth. it's not clear to me why you chose one and not the other, especially given all the clues that the Lazarus story isn't history

the biggest clue is that it is the greatest miracle Jesus did, presented as the reason for his arrest, and yet no writer had heard of it until John wrote 60 years later. but other reasons are that it seems to purposefully mimic the Osiris story, the Jewish means of wrapping the body would prevent him walking out of the tomb, the story appears highly exaggerated like the other stories in John , and of course the most obvious one: this sort of thing doesn't happen in real life.

Why does it have to be a parable or a literal story? I'll take both. On one hand, I think that fighting over whether it really happened might just miss the point of the story. I think of Enns' recent book - because we defend the Bible we forget how to read it. The point of most stories in the Bible is not just to defend they happened, but to see what they teach us about how to live now.

On the other hand, I'm a Christian and the Bible is my book. God exists and I see no reason to doubt God could raise people from the dead. Jesus did lots of miracles. I see no reason to doubt that Lazarus rose, call me naive.

I'd add that simply the fact no one wrote it down for 60 years means no one knew of it. I call Richard Bauckham to the stand, he is no crazy fundie but a top scholar and if I recall his book Jesus and the Eyewitnesses puts forth a reasonable theory as to why this story was not written down sooner. He argues, I think (its been years since I read it) that Lazarus was the naked man who ran away in Mark and that was in Mark to cause the listener to ask. They couldn't write it because Lazarus would still have been a wanted man. Years later everyone, including Lazarus, was dead so John could include the story that many people around Jerusalem already knew.

I don't think I need to "prove" this, at face value what I just wrote is as plausible as saying John made it up to mimic Osiris. I suspect your presuppositions will impact which one you choose.

David, there were lots of witnesses to the Lazarus story, as told by John. Bauckham is proposing that all of these witnesses managed to keep a secret for 60 years? Does he forget that this is the event which prompts the Jews to arrest Jesus, and that it is the cause for many to believe?

Graeme, it just seems incredibly implausible that anyone wishing to prove Jesus' power would neglect to tell of the greatest miracle he did. Yes, it seems to me that it is the greatest, by quite a long ways...but if you disagree, I'd be curious to hear which miracle you think was greater.

Lazarus mimics Orisis in a number of ways: They both have two sisters who weep for them, the promise of resurrection is familiar: "you have slept, but you will awake; you have died, but you will live." Both are concerned about decay and smell. For both, the tomb is opened on the fourth day, both called to come forth from the tomb, and both come still in their wrappings. It's hard to imagine that anyone in that day wouldn't recognize the intentional parallels.

Are you seriously asking how he came out if not by walking? Are you thinking hopping, or dancing, or strutting? I'm not really understanding your question.

Anyway, the "detailed" story of Lazarus does the exact opposite of proving it to be history. It tells us rather that it is NOT history. The choice of names matches the story of the beggar and rich man, who also went down to Sheol. The names Martha and Mary are common in many stories of sisters, so much so that they would be recognized as "anysisters."

As far as it not happening in real life, it is not just my opinion, I've NEVER heard of this happening again. This is the sort of storyline that I would expect an author to use to indicate that he was writing fantasy, knowing that nobody would get confused and take it literally. It's like the story of Jonah and the whale; surely, its author assumed, nobody would try to take THAT whopper of a story seriously, so believing it as history wouldn't confuse people about its purpose.

But am I trying to convince you that Lazarus never came back from the death after he had begun to decay? No, not really. I'm only trying to show that there is more than one way to read scripture. Whether it really happened is, as David says, not the important thing at all.

For me I think perhaps this is a bit of mountain out of a molehill. Mark records a resurrection, Luke records two. Both Peter and Paul are recorded as raising the dead in Acts.

Everyone had their own stories. It would be reasonable to conclude from the gospel that John was close to this family that included Mary, Martha and Lazarus. Also it's apparent that Peter wasn't part of this social circle. It seems perhaps Peter sometimes felt a bit of brotherly rivalry to John.

John mentions Peter many times, but Peter only really mentions John when he dobs him in for forbidding someone from exorcism and asks for special privileges.

Maybe Peter just wasn't in town for the event and so it didn't become one of his stories.

I've read that later in life John approved the gospels based on Peter's stories and then wrote his own to fill in some more details.

For me I find on a practical level the gospel of John has the most profound teaching in all the bible. His records of Jesus' teaching on the work of the Holy Spirit and how we relate to God is stunning. Of all the teachings in the bible I would point to John as the best on how to "walk the walk".

I'm still missing your point, Graeme. What is it that you think Lazarus did when Jesus called him to "come forth?"

btw, the wording seems to tie to the promise made in John that "An hour is coming, in which all who are in the tombs will hear his voice, and will come forth"

Joshua, the difference between John's resurrection and the others is that the others are all newly-dead, possibly in a coma. But John makes a point of delaying the resurrection of Lazarus until the 4th day, so that he is dead as a doornail. Every Jew knew that the spirit departs after the 3rd day. So, in competition with Osiris, Lazarus is 4 days dead and already decaying. Nowhere in Hebrew tradition has anything like this happened, except in Johannine tradition, where Lazarus, Jesus, and the witnesses of Revelation all were dead beyond resuscitation. (Jesus is dead longer in John than in the Synoptics).

John knowingly spins tales impossible to believe; in my opinion, it's so that we don't get confused and try to read the stories as history.

David wrote: "Why does it have to be a parable or a literal story? I'll take both. On one hand, I think that fighting over whether it really happened might just miss the point of the story. I think of Enns' r..."

Hello Lee,

I take the Lazarus description as I think the text intends; as an eye witness description of what actually happened.

With respect to Osiris, I don't see the parallel at all. I checked Bullfinch's Mythology page 333-335
-Osiris the husband/brother of Isis was killed by his jealous brother Typhon by tricking him into a box which Typhon and his co-conspirators sealed and threw into the Nile.
-The coffin was caught in some reeds near Byblos and Osiris' divine power caused a bush to grow into a tree which enveloped the coffin.
-The tree was cut down and built into the palace of the king of Phoenicia.
-Isis found this out, split the tree/column apart and hid the coffin in the forest.
-Typhon found the coffin and cut Osiris' body into 14 pieces and scattered them
-Isis reassembled the body (minus one piece) and buried it at Philoe
-Osiris' soul or spirit was thought to inhabit the bodies of successive bulls of Apis

To be honest Lee, I don't see much similarity to the raising of Lazarus. From Bulfinch's description, Osiris was never resurrected. With respect to believing the Egyptian description, I'm agnostic. It seems far-fetched, but I don't have any direct evidence against it--so I just don't know (any argument I make would be an argument from silence, bolstered by a prejudice (this sort of thing can't happen)).

John made this statement

"He who saw it has borne witness-his testimony is true, and he knows that he is telling the truth-that you may also believe." John 19:35

and

"Now Jesus did many other signs in the presence of the disciples, which are not written in this book; but 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 20:30,31

Truth is a massive theme all through the book of John. John did clearly present these things claiming to be a true witness of the deeds of Jesus Christ. In my opinion if the story was a myth, John is a liar.

Allow me to quote the apostle Paul.

"Why is it thought incredible by any of you that God raises the dead?"

Also in my limited research of egyptian mythology the story of Osiris seems to be more about his wife reassembling the pieces of his body. I can't find any substantial comparisons apart from Osiris was resurrected (temporarily) and depicted in burial clothes. I would interested to know where the version you have came from.

Graeme, when you first came, I thought you to be a rather thoughtful person. I've begun to lose respect for you, when you object to the obvious means of transportation (walking) and then can't answer even the simplest question about how you think he "came out." At this point, I'm assuming you think he floated through the air. Good grief, the things people won't believe to protect their assumptions about the Bible.

Peter, this isn't the best description I've read...it's pretty abbreviated...but here is the thinking:

http://freethoughtnation.com/is-lazar...

Lee wrote: "Graeme, when you first came, I thought you to be a rather thoughtful person. I've begun to lose respect for you, when you object to the obvious means of transportation (walking) and then can't answ..."

Hello Lee,

Thank you for the link. The abbreviated citations in the table are from a book by D. M. Murdock, Christ in Egypt: The Horus-Jesus Connection attempting to prove the connection between Jesus and Horus.

I went over this in greater detail when I blogged and talked with friends about the Zeitgeist movie (which from my investigation was all malarkey and propaganda). When I pick up a book on Egyptian Mythology (the books genre--not my characterization) and I piece together a story for Horus or Osiris (as I did in my post), it does not even remotely resemble either the Jesus of the Gospel nor the resurrection of Lazarus.

This says to me that Murdock and the authors of Zeitgeist did not try to disprove their claims of similarity by searching out contrary evidence (something I think good scholarship requires). Instead, it looks to me like they cherry-picked quotes, which if placed in the right context (next to the text from John) shows similarity.

Bulfinch, as far as I can tell, had no agenda on this topic and just summarized the story of Osiris.

Lee, the citations in the table in the internet link, were they from the Egyptian Book of the Dead? Perhaps some time if I revisit this, I'll look more into the historical data for myself (rather than just read historical summaries like Bulfinch).

Graeme, four posts you've made so far and in not one of them do you suggest any possible means of exiting the tomb while wrapped in grave strips. If you are unable to even imagine another possible means of locomotion, why should I take you seriously at all? So I don't; you're merely a troll, with nothing intelligent to add to the conversation.

C'mon guys it just says he came out, it doesn't say he walked. He could have rolled! or shuffled, or awkwardly inched along like a worm. Or they could have wrapped his legs separately. The fact that it doesn't say walked perhaps indicates he didn't walk but there are no words to describe his clumsy flailing! Interesting but not really a myth buster.

The point is this: If he were entombed as per Jewish tradition, he wouldn't have been able to do more than perhaps roll off onto the floor. Jewish readers would have known this. Given that there was no reasonable explanation given for how he "came out," it is one more clue that the story would be recognized as parable.

Oddly, Graeme seems to believe the default belief is that Lazarus really did physically, bodily exit the tomb at Jesus's command!! He seems to think the onus is on me to disprove the incredible! To me, the normal reading is that is isn't meant to be taken literally, and if he wants me to believe in the impossible, he can at least give an explanation of HOW it can occur...which he does not even try to do.

To reiterate: it is not my intent to prove it couldn't happen, it's to show that it's entirely reasonable (much more so, IMHO) to assume that it was never meant to be read literally in the first place. I therefore give several reasons that may help you understand my stance--many hints tell us that this is not meant to be read as history--so that you come to realize there are multiple reasonable ways of reading the Bible. To insist on a literal interpretation is unreasonable, and ESPECIALLY to insist upon a literal interpretation without even offering a reasonable means by which it could happen.

So what DOES Graeme contribute to the conversation? As best I can tell, nothing at all.

Lee, could you suggest a scholarly, as unbiased as possible book that goes into more detail on dates of writing and how the Osiris myth came to be?

I'll see what I can find when I get back from vacation, David and Peter

One more time, Graeme. I'm not the one objecting, I am the one suggesting a solution, to which YOU apparently object, without providing any alternative. The most obvious solution to the problem, especially given all the other clues, is that it was never meant to be read literally. Thus, Lazarus didn't walk, run, crawl, wiggle, or float out.

I hardly consider incarnation at miracle at all, BTW. It has probably happened billions of times. The Mary and Martha issue seems settled as a difference of opinion, and when I say "nobody wrote it down" I mean nobody wrote it down where the anonymous gospel writers of Mark, Matthew and Luke ever saw or heard of it. They seem to think Jesus was arrested for causing a disturbance, not for bringing a dead man to life.

Lee wrote: "the biggest clue is that it is the greatest miracle Jesus did, presented as the reason for his arrest, and yet no writer had heard of it until John wrote 60 years later ..."

I was interested by your comments, Lee, which prompted me to do a posting, entitled 'Whatever Happened to Lazarus?' on my blog pages.

I'm not terribly struck on the theory that Lazarus was the naked man in Mark's gospel. That was a 'young man;' and the most likely candidate would be John Mark himself.

Nevertheless, there appear to be several perfectly adequate reasons why the other gospel writers would not have chosen to include the account of Lazarus' resurrection. For the sake of brevity, however (I've got to go out in a few minutes), I won't reproduce them here.

Hello Lee and Graeme -- don't mean to intrude, but here is a thought about Lazarus. Because of movies and paintings, we presume the cave Lazarus was buried in was upright, and that a person could walk in and out upright, but not all caves were the same. If the cave was a pit that the body was lowered into, when called, the body could have stood up, and with the head and shoulders protruding, thus be considered to have 'come forth'.

Hi D.L., thanks for offering a solution. Have you seen burial tombs like this?

Graeme, another well-known Martha and Mary are the daughters of Nicodemus in the Talmud. There are at least six unique Mary's in the N.T., and two pairs of Martha/Mary (Luke and John). It is often assumed that the two Biblical pairs are the same Martha and Mary, but the connection is more literary than historical. In other words, its quite unlikely they are the same people, but it is very possible that John used Luke, or the Lukan story, to create his own Mary/Martha. Note the theme similarity in the Lazarus story between Luke and John. Here is an interesting comparison:

https://www.umass.edu/wsp/project/sen...

Regarding incarnation being a miracle, we have very little to go on other than that a spirit apparently descended upon Jesus while he was in the Jordan River, but could this really have been witnessed? Would it not be similar to spiritual experiences of many others? I've felt it myself, it's not uncommon at all.

Maybe you're thinking about incarnation happening at birth, and calling it a miracle birth? That, too, is very common. I've seen statistics that about 1 in 100 pregnancies are claimed to be by virgins...so not quite billions of events, but certainly millions.

Regarding "writing it down," you protest too much. Matthew, Mark and Luke do not seem to have heard of the event, even though it is the greatest miracle Jesus performed and the reason for Jesus arrest. It remains very hard for me to imagine that they would have ignored this miracle if they had heard about it. (Kevin, I haven't read your page yet, but look forward to it!)

Regarding walking out of the tomb, that's how most people get in and out of tombs. That's how I would do it. Change the word to whatever you means of transportation you think is more common, I really don't care, its totally immaterial...if he's wrapped up like a dead Jew, he ain't going anywhere.

Lee at what point is your religion (or belief system) worth embracing? You've spent years here attempting to disprove any claim on reality it might have.
I would love to watch you witness to an atheist or tribal cult.

I assume your spirituality is similar to the Buddhists I chat with - the proudly informed me that Buddhism is Not necessary... Comical indeed.

I rather like this little exchange from the Logos Bible Software forums...

EastTN | Replied: Sun, Nov 23 2014 3:08 PM

Adam Cinzio:
It's not hard to see Lazarus tearing the cloth to get his feet moving a little bit.

It's also not hard to imagine him being highly motivated to get loose. It's not every day that one awakens tied up in a tomb.
;-)

Lee wrote: "Hi D.L., thanks for offering a solution. Have you seen burial tombs like this?

Graeme, another well-known Martha and Mary are the daughters of Nicodemus in the Talmud. There are at least six uniq..."

Here is a small example, Lee: http://dannythediggercom.c.presscdn.c...

Graeme, I have no desire to change your beliefs, only to help others understand there are legitimate differences of opinion in how to read scripture so that fundamentalism can be harnessed. If you feel the necessity to defend literal religious claims, you are free to offer ideas of how the event literally happened, why other Gospel writers ignored the event, and even why raising someone from the dead is not a significant miracle.

D.L. wrote: "Here is a small example, Lee: http://dannythediggercom.c.presscdn.c... "

Thanks D.L., where did that picture come from? How do we know it's representative of a 1st-century Jewish burial?

The report "on its face" is incomplete, Graeme, that's part of the point. It neglects to explain how such a thing could happen given Jewish burial customs, which invites us to consider it to be something other than a literal event. If you prefer to read it literally (a method that I find far from obvious, inconsistent with the writing of the Gospel) then I consider it to be on your shoulders to explain how it could happen; not on mine to imagine a possible way for you.

@D.L. that's really cool. the link is from a site run by an Israeli who lectures in archaeology. Apparently the tombs date around the time of Christ.

You might have to concede to that post Lee!

Graeme if you enjoy arguing you are doing well but if you want to convince Lee you might have to present something a little more convincing like D.L. did.

Graeme, you misunderstand. If the only clue were that it is nearly impossible for a properly buried Jew to move, that wouldn't be enough to convince me. There are LOTS of clues, I gave several. Have you given a single one to back up your belief that it is supposed to be read literally? Nor do I see my position changing at all...I stand by everything I've written.

The greatest clue, which I didn't bother to present at all because of your bias but which completely convinces me, is that ALL of the signs in John are written in such a way that we cannot separate history from interpretation. Each sign is a lesson, an introduction to a later theological point, so we don't know whether it is parable or history. This is done on purpose, every time. He forces us to recognize them as a riddle, with no clear interpretation, but his signs get more and more unbelievable until he drops a bombshell...the raising of lazarus...which is simply so "out there" that we MUST finally accept that he isn't writing history.

Given that, the default position (my studied opinion, of course) is that we should not read it as history. If you think it really happened, you are free to explain what happened.

Ok Lee, I'm intrigued.

John concludes with this statement.

This is the disciple who is bearing witness about these things, and who has written these things and we know that his testimony is true. Now there are many other things that Jesus did..

I think it requires some significant gymnastics to move that to

this disciples is not bearing witness, these are just made up parables, don't think they are a true testimony you would be misunderstanding me. Jesus didn't actually do these things.

don't you think?

The author of the signs gospel did not write those words, Joshua. The final chapter is a later add-on which undoes a lot of the genius of John's Gospel.

I should say that I consider this gospel to be a literary masterpiece, on the same level as Mark and Revelation.

Graeme, nobody was really buried and raised to life by Jesus, properly buried or not. This is a Hellenized piece of literature, unconforming to Jewish practices. There was no real person named Lazarus.

Oh, is that where you are coming from. For me the theme of witness and truth is throughout the signs gospel, but I guess John 4:48 would apply to you my friend. ;) maybe we should take a trip together.