Lazarus. Yet Another Problematic, Ambiguous Anomalous Biblical Half Story About The Wonder Of Resurrection. Pt (1)

I regret that you yet have doubt, first, and assume the wor4st of scripture. I have said that faulty translation is often a problem with scripture, but not that it is the only problem. Doubt is a much greater problem, and that, first, must be defeated before God will see your honest desire to have answers to your many questions. Unless doubt is abolished, your questions will remain questions.

I have also said numerous times that selecting verses either to prove something or to criticize will both result in continu3ed questions rather than understanding. Reading the Bible means reading it cover to cover. It's a dedicated effort, but must be done, if for nothing else than to demonstrate that you can finish a task, once started. God rewards those who do for themselves rather than expect He do all for them. A dedicxatipon to read, with a desire to un dertstand, and not to find criticism, will be met with approval from God to bless with understanding. Where something is difficult, first read James, first chapter. Read the whole chapter, then review verses 1 - 5 for a description ab out how to read all: where you encounter terror questions, ask Him, never doubting.

I've said all this before, numerous times. Do it. Don't criticize and don't doubt. Try to acjnow;edge it may be meaningful. Understanding will come, I guarantee it.

So shooting the messenger is your own preference, then faux.

You assume that I haven't read the bible at all while claiming that you have "from cover to cover". And you also claim to have a "better understanding of the bible than most here". Yet you haven't once attempted to iron out for us any single part this strange story about a dead man, that after a delay of some FOUR days rather than the customary THREE was brought back to life, and those disciples that too wanted " to die"?

Ok try part 2.

Part (2)

On arrival back at Bethany the centre of Jesus’ operations, none of the women do seem too happy about the situation, so it appears on the face of it, they this woman didn’t expect any miracles that day either when she says:

“Lord,” Martha said to Jesus, “if you had been here, my brother would not have died. 11:21.

What even causes her to believe that just by Jesus being there he could have saved her brother from a “sickness That initially that" wasn’t unto death”?

Maybe she didn't know the script?

We get to the “raising” of the man he loved.

And when he thus had spoken, he cried with a loud voice, Lazarus, come forth.

And he that was dead came forth, bound hand and foot with grave clothes: and his face was bound about with a napkin. Jesus saith unto them, Loose him, and let him go.

Yes , just like that, Jesus Raised him from the dead and off he went, not a please or thank you or how the hell did you do that?

So nothing seems to explain at all Jesus’ carelessness and indifference. It appears that Lazarus was closer to Jesus than even his disciples.

The Scriptures never mention if Lazarus was ever a disciple, it is never explained.

Why did Jesus love this person seemingly above all other never explained

Lazarus was on a hit list but never explained: Why? What had Lazarus done to deserve to die...again?

“Much people of the Jews therefore knew that he was there: and they came not for Jesus' sake only, but that they might see Lazarus also, whom he had raised from the dead.

But The chief priests consulted that they might put Lazarus also to death;

Because that by reason of him many of the Jews went away, and believed on Jesus”.

John 12:9-11

He didn’t even attend the crucifixion and after being raised from the dead himself, that’s gratitude for you. Didn’t this man owe Jesus his life?

And another anomalies in the fact that, this once dead now raised person who Jesus so, so loved, is never ever mentioned in the scriptures again. He vanishes completely and altogether. Unless of course, like many other characters in these scriptures, Lazarus also has another name or two?

I did not reply as you expect because I am not going to engage a discussion which you are already convinced is not worth your time. Context and content is king, and unle3ss every word is read, and I guarantee you have not, or all your questi0ons would bet answered, I will not engage until you do.

Lazarus was dead, but did not resurrect. His shirt was returned to his body to extend his mortal life. He eventually died again. No one resurrected until Christ did. That's the only way it works.

I did not reply as you expect because I am not going to engage a discussion which you are already convinced is not worth your time.

On the contrary. You have responded exactly as I expected , you always do. And a discussion about Jesus bringing a man back from the "dead" is certainly worth my time.

Lazarus was dead, but did not resurrect

Can you expand on that.? Was Lazarus dead as Jesus clearly says he was in the BIBLE and once he'd finally made up his mind about the physical state of Lazarus, and was he brought back to life after being dead, or not?

Or is it in truth as I put it in my OP? Does "dead " actually mean biologically and physically dead? Not breathing and loss of all life sustaining functions? Not in this case it doesn't.

Context and content is king

I agree context is important. So if you are of the belief that I have taken this whole story out of context, then right here is your opportunity to put it all into context for us. It would be extremely interesting to hear and understand the true meaning of this absolutely baffling, enigmatic half story coming from the mouth of a proclaimed "ordained high priest", such as yourself, faux.

By and by...

But, to satisfy for now, yes, Lazarus was dead, as in he ceased living,

The spirit left his body.

But Christ did not resurrect him. Jesus, himself, was not yet resurrected himself, and he was to be first, being the only perfect man ever living and dying on Earth, up to that point. Lazarus was again a living mortal man, and subsequently died later; we don't know when.

fauxlaw wrote: But, to satisfy for now, yes, Lazarus was dead, as in he ceased living,

The spirit left his body.

fauxlaw wrote: But Christ did not resurrect him. Jesus, himself, was not yet resurrected himself, and he was to be first, being the only perfect man ever living and dying on Earth, up to that point. Lazarus was again a living mortal man, and subsequently died later; we don't know when.

So according to your own belief as a "High Priest" , and your understanding of the New Testament story of the raising Of Lazarus, Jesus didn't raise anyone at all from the "dead"? not once. NOT the Son of the Widow of Nain (Luke 7:11-17) NOR the daughter of Jairus (Luke 8)??. As they were suppose to have been raised from the dead 1st and 2nd respectively. AND ALL BEFORE THE RESURECTION OF JESUS and before Lazarus.

This is where you got it all correct, but you don't know why , do you?

When you said this :

fauxlaw wrote: Lazarus was dead, but did not resurrect

But then went and ruined it all for yourself by telling us this:

fauxlaw wrote: But, to satisfy for now, yes, Lazarus was dead, as in he ceased living,

You see in these cases dead does not mean biologically "dead" as in ceased living, not breathing, heart stopped, brain dead, "DEAD" at all.

It means nothing less than banished or exiled either voluntarily (apostasy) or forcefully ( excommunicated) , i.e. metaphorically "dead" to the movement. Anyone not in the movement or followers of Jesus were simply regarded as the "DEAD"!

When you understand this it should explain even to the thickest of Christians, why those disciples want to go "so that they may die with him". (John 11:16) It will explain why people just drop down dead as in the case regarding the husband and wife Acts .

The prodigal son was not "dead" was he? But his father said he was "dead", and his father also said he he was "alive again" after being "dead", didn't he?

When the disciple asked to have time off to bury his father, Jesus's reply was "let the dead bury the dead" Luke 9

Why? Because as I explain above the disciple's father wasn't part of the Jesus movement so he was regarded as "DEAD".

And here endeth the lesson faux.

fauxlaw wrote: Lazarus was again a living mortal man, and subsequently died later; we don't know when.

Indeed another one of the half told stories that I keep referring to and highlighting.

Jesus didn't raise anyone at all from the "dead"?

You have misrepresented what I said. Yes, Jesus did not cause the resurrection off several people who were dead, such as

Lazarus, but he did raise them to life from death. There is a difference. As I said, Lazarus eventually died, and remains dead, as did the others. Once a person is resurrected, they will never die again.

You see in these cases dead does not mean biologically "dead" as in ceased living, not breathing, heart stopped, brain dead, "DEAD" at all.

Wrong. Biologically, these people who died and were raised from the dead by Christ, were dead, dead, dead. No longer living in the body, in physical, mortal flesh.

The prodigal son was not "dead" was he? But his father said he was "dead", and his father also said he he was "alive again" after being "dead", 

There are two types of death, physical and spiritual. Physical death occurs when critical bodily functions cease [brain, heart, and other vital organs] and the spirit leaves the body, continuing to remain alive itself. The spirit does not die, only the physical body. Spiritual death is separation from God, a condition which can occur to mortals [physical body and spirit, combined as a human soul] when those humans willfully oppose and distance themselves from God when, by willful obedience to his commands, they would remain under the influence of the Holy Spirit.

--> @Stephen

Jesus didn't raise anyone at all from the "dead"?

fauxlaw: You have misrepresented what I said. Yes, Jesus did not cause the resurrection off several people who were dead, such as Lazarus, but he did raise them to life from death.

Nope these were nothing more than rituals as in a rite. These so called "raisings" were raisings (promotions in other words) to another level or degree in the Jesus movement.

Stephen:You see in these cases dead does not mean biologically "dead" as in ceased living, not breathing, heart stopped, brain dead, "DEAD" at all.It means nothing less than banished or exiled either voluntarily (apostasy) or forcefully ( excommunicated) , i.e. metaphorically "dead" to the movement. Anyone not in the movement or followers of Jesus were simply regarded as the "DEAD"!

fauxlaw: but he did raise them to life from death. Wrong. Biologically, these people who died and were raised from the dead by Christ, were dead, dead, dead. No longer living in the body, in physical, mortal flesh.

Nope they were not biologically "DEAD" as I and the BIBLE clearly proves and makes obvious.

Tell me ; wtf do you think Thomas meant when he said these words and why he said them? Jesus tells those that are with him that Lazarus is "dead" and and Thomas says " “Let us also go, that we may die with him.” John 11:16

Stephen: The prodigal son was not "dead" was he? But his father said he was "dead", and his father also said he he was "alive again" after being "dead", DIDN'T HE?

fauxlaw:There are two types of death, physical and spiritual.

Yes. OK even atheist understand that. Its called apostasy, as I have already explained above. As in people lose faith hence they suffer a "spiritual death". Stop taking us all for fkn mugs FFS!

And Lazarus had lost faith in the cause and the Jesus movement, he understood that "the mission" was doomed to fail and didn't fancy being executed (crucified) and so had a few other disciples hence "let us go die with him" John 11:16 . they were deserting in droves I.E. they were apostatising I.E. they were abandoning, renouncing, and forsaking their faith in Jesus' political ambitions. these disciples come to understand and accept that they stood no chance of defeating the might of Rome even with Jesus on the throne. This is why they chose to "die" in faith. And Incidentally. at the fall of Jerusalem in 69-70 AD , do you know who it was the handed over the High Priests vest and other temple regalia to Titus? Yes that's correct. it just happened to be a man with authority to do so and his name was JESUS!!!

And now it can be perfectly understood what Jesus meant when he said to his young disciple " let the DEAD bury the DEAD" (Luke 9.)

You know that I am right, you just can't admit nor accept it. I should imagine that its tough to accept - once the actual facts are pointed out to you - especially after all the hundreds of hours you must have spent reaching the degree of "high Priest" in the church of your chosen faith.

How many Christian denominations are there now? FKN hundreds! and after over 2000 years and multiple versions you still cannot even agree on a coherent version of the bible that removes ambiguity, doubt and confusion about what the hell went on in the ancient Roman province of Judaea in Jesus's time.

So, what age was Jesus when he was executed?

32-33 is the accepted age, Serge. But I believe he survived to cross.

So was this another Jesus swapping vests with Titus in AD 79?

nothing less than banished or exiled either voluntarily (apostasy) or forcefully ( excommunicated) , i.e. metaphorically "dead" to the movement.

As I've frequently told you, you're not capturing context or content in your"reading." Lazarus was not a voluntary apostate, nor an excommunicate. Nor the little girl whose name escapes me, but not her background. Nr anyone else for whom Christ brought back life from death, but nor by resurrection, anon parlor tricks, magic, nor advertising gimmick. Jesus' middle name was not P.T.Barnum.

wtf do you think Thomas meant

Thomas [Θωμάς] aka Δίδυμος [Didymus]: both names imply being a twin, and may also refer to his personal dual personality, being both a faithful and ultimately valiant apostle while originally being doubtful. You would that had you studied Greek sufficiently.

Stop taking us all for fkn mugs FFS!

To avoid being called "fkn mug," stop asking mug questions, or mug claims, like:

And Lazarus had lost faith in the cause and the Jesus movement, he understood that "the mission" was doomed to fail.

Where did that claim come from, because neither the Bethanian Lazarus, nor Thomas "lost faith in the cause." Lazarus ultimately was the first Bishop of Masala [modern Marseille, FR] and Thomas died a martyr in Mylapor [India]. And do not confuse the parable of

Lazarus in hell seeking aid from Abraham. Different Lazarus, a parable told by Jesus before the Bethenian Lazarus died, though both events are within a few months or less from the passion of Christ.

You know that I am right, you just can't admit nor accept it. 

No, my friend, you're wrong on all counts. keep reading0 [or start]

swapping vests

Jesus was not an uncommon name in 79 CE. However, vests were.

wtf do you think Thomas meant when he said "“Let us also go, that we may die with Him"? John 11:16

Thomas [Θωμάς] aka Δίδυμος [Didymus]: both names imply being a twin, and may also refer to his personal dual personality, being both a faithful and ultimately valiant apostle while originally being doubtful. You would that had you studied Greek sufficiently.

And I am not talking or asking about the name of the disciple. Or what the name of the disciple means.

This has nothing to do at all with what I asked you. Stop evading the question.

What did this disciple mean when he said "“Let us also go, that we may die with Him"? John 11:16

YOU state above that Lazarus was biologically DEAD! YOU also tell us that " There are two types of death, "physical and spiritual".

SO which type of "DEATH" was it that Thomas Didymus wanting to undergo - a physical DEATH or a spiritual DEATH? and WHY? .

I did answer your dumb question, and as I said, you would know were you more attentive to Greek. I meant that Thomas was doubtful through most of Christ's ministry, and thought they should go and die [be dead, literally, biologically, physically], because he thought they would be persecuted by either the Sanhedrin, the Pharisees, or the Romans, or all of them, and Lazarus' death seemed more agreeable. Lazarus was ill, and died, and it didn't sound to Thomas to be a painful death. The other potential death by perceived enemies[asThomas viewed them] would be painful. Get it? Yet? This isn't rocket science; it's typical, fearful human behavior when doubt or ignorance rule like they ruled Thomas, until he changed. Peter had to go through a similar life-change, not by ignorance, but by being over-zealous when not really certain about what was important. Christ's apostles were, before joining him, ordinary folks totally overwhelmed by a kingdom not of this Earth, but in tended to be its ruling principles if only they would embrace it with faith. Moses had the same frustrati0on with the Israelites in his day [not just Jews, but the entire House of Israel; there is a difference] They [Peter and Thomas, and others] had to be taught, as we do, about what faith really is [much more than mere belief], and how it functions [miraculously, but according to law/evidence/substance - things that are beyond the willful, self-limiting mind]. Read Paul's Hebrews, Chapter 112 - all of it. In fact, the entire book. Then, read all of James, because that is how to use the power Pauls describes in Hebrews. The thing about reading the Bible is that one cannot take every word given and think that is the literal, inter red word. Translation is an impediment. I wish you would accept that it has problems, but that sincere prayer can overcome those issues.

Are these objections original with you, or did you get them from somewhere? Are you aware of any scholars who have the same objections? Names of particular scholars would be helpful.

Second question: Do you think that the author of John intended for his readers to think that Jesus had performed miracles, or was that not his intent? If not, what was his intent?

Are these objections original with you, or did you get them from somewhere?

I wouldn't know is a short answer. If I remember correctly, what led me down this path of investigation into the so called raising of the "dead" man Lazarus was the casualness of which the whole affair takes place. No one is even surprised that that a supposed "dead" man was brought back to life with just a 3 spoken words ("Lazarus come forth" - John 11:43-44). And no one a offered a word of thanks. No one even complained the Jesus had let this man that it is said "Jesus loved " and" wept over", "die" in the first place?

Are you aware of any scholars who have the same objections? Names of particular scholars would be helpful.

I'm not. Although you may find it interesting that Essenes of Qumran are said to have "died" when excommunicated or left the sect of their own free will. Scholars are still debating as to whether or not Jesus was ever a member of the Qumran community.

Second question: Do you think that the author of John intended for his readers to think that Jesus had performed miracles, or was that not his intent? If not, what was his intent?

Well, when we look at the casualness in which of all these so called "miracles" are presented in all four gospels you think that these authors expected their readers to know exactly what they were conveying. Its interesting too that none of the other gospelers even mention this so called "miracle".

The amount of questions that just this one gospel story raises are never ending. Unless of course we understand what "dead" in these instances, then it becomes clearer.

" Let the dead bury the dead" Luke 9:60

Simply ask yourself, can an actual physically, biological lifeless "dead" person bury another person dead person? NO! is the answer. But this is what Jesus said to one of of his followers.

Then there is that enigmatic verse when one of the disciples are said to have said : "lets go that we may die with him" John 11:16 , him being Lazarus?

These, among other instances, in my opinion are the give away that "Dead" in these instances cannot mean a physical biological death. So what can it all mean? I believe the answer is simple. It means that anyone outside of the Jesus' movement/ following is considered spiritually "dead".

Good fair questions. Thank you.

Thanks for answering!

The reason I asked if you knew of any scholars with similar objections is because I don't think most scholars, including most non-Christian scholars, would agree with your interpretation of this story as referring to spiritual death. For example, if you read through this section of Lazarus's Wikipedia page, you can see that a lot of critical scholars (most? Not possible to be sure from just Wikipedia.) think that the author of John is attributing an actual physical resurrection to Jesus, but that the story was invented for theological reasons.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lazarus_of_Bethany#Narrative_criticism

I'm a Christian, so I think that the story is true, but if it is false, I think "The story was made up" is a simpler and better explanation than "The story is talking about spiritual death." It's a better explanation because the contents of the story very strongly indicate that the author does intend this to be a story about a physical resurrection. Before I get into that, I first want to say that you are correct that Christians at the time, and also today, had a concept of spiritual death that wasn't physical. There's being dead in your sins, which is the spiritual state of the unsaved, and there's the second death, which is hell. However, having a concept of spiritual death does not mean that every reference to death is referring to spiritual death and not physical. Otherwise, it would be hard to communicate what happened if grandma keeled over. Some references to death are about physical death, and some are about spiritual death. In this story about Lazarus, I think it's pretty clearly talking about physical death. Here's why (all references to the KJV since that's the version you used):

1. The story contains descriptions of specific physical details.

v. 17: Then when Jesus came, he found that he had lain in the grave four days already.

Lazarus was lying in a grave. This verse also mentions a specific timeline (four days).

v. 38: Jesus therefore again groaning in himself cometh to the grave. It was a cave, and a stone lay upon it.

Again, this is talking about a physical grave. In this case, it's a cave with a stone on it, which was common at that time.

v. 39: Martha, the sister of him that was dead, saith unto him, Lord, by this time he stinketh: for he hath been dead four days.

This verse mentions that Lazarus stinks, which is a physical sensation and would be expected if he died physically, not just if he died spiritually.

v. 44: And he that was dead came forth, bound hand and foot with graveclothes: and his face was bound about with a napkin.

This mentions specifics about Lazarus's grave clothes.

These specific physical descriptions are things we would expect to find in a literal account talking about a literal, physical death, and not in an account of a spiritual death. This on its own is pretty conclusive.

2. It is very different than how the Bible talks about spiritual death. Compate, for example, Ephesians 2:1-3:

And you hath he quickened, who were dead in trespasses and sins;

² Wherein in time past ye walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that now worketh in the children of disobedience:

³ Among whom also we all had our conversation in times past in the lusts of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind; and were by nature the children of wrath, even as others.

It's very obvious metaphorical language; it doesn't talk about any physical details; and it explicitly says it's talking about when they "walked according to the course of this world." This is very different from the story in John.

3. Thomas's statement is talking about physical death.

In Thomas's statement, "Let us also go, that we may die with him," "him" doesn't refer to Lazarus, but to Jesus. The chapter immediately before this talks about how Jesus left Jerusalem after the Jews picked up stones to stone him. So in this chapter, when Jesus says, "Let us go into Judaea again." (v. 7), the disciples reply, "Master, the Jews of late sought to stone thee; and goest thou thither again?" (v. 8) The disciples are concerned that if Jesus goes back to Judea, he will be stoned to death. Note here that, since it's impossible for Jesus to not follow Jesus, this can't be talking about spiritual death. It has to be talking about physical death. And read what is said directly before Thomas's statement:

14 Then said Jesus unto them plainly, Lazarus is dead.

¹⁵ And I am glad for your sakes that I was not there, to the intent ye may believe; nevertheless let us go unto him.

¹⁶ Then said Thomas, which is called Didymus, unto his fellow disciples, Let us also go, that we may die with him.

When Thomas says, "Let us also go," it is referring back to the verse before when Jesus says they will go to Lazarus. When he says, "that we may die with him," it is because the disciples are afraid that, if Jesus goes back to Judea, he will die, and the disciples will die with him. In the context of this conversation, it is clearly talking about physical death.

(Don't reply yet; more to come shortly)

Now to address the things that you brought up to support the interpretation of a spiritual death.

If I remember correctly, what led me down this path of investigation into the so called raising of the "dead" man Lazarus was the casualness of which the whole affair takes place. No one is even surprised that that a supposed "dead" man was brought back to life with just a 3 spoken words ("Lazarus come forth" - John 11:43-44). And no one a offered a word of thanks. No one even complained the Jesus had let this man that it is said "Jesus loved " and" wept over", "die" in the first place?

Firstly, there actually is quite a bit of complaining for a fairly short story.

²¹ Then said Martha unto Jesus, Lord, if thou hadst been here, my brother had not died.

³² Then when Mary was come where Jesus was, and saw him, she fell down at his feet, saying unto him, Lord, if thou hadst been here, my brother had not died.

³⁷ And some of them said, Could not this man, which opened the eyes of the blind, have caused that even this man should not have died?

There isn't any surprise or thanks because the author ends the story almost immediately after Lazarus walks out of the tomb and just summarizes people's reactions in two sentences.

⁴⁵ Then many of the Jews which came to Mary, and had seen the things which Jesus did, believed on him.

⁴⁶ But some of them went their ways to the Pharisees, and told them what things Jesus had done.

Why does the author end the story there?* We can ask that question, but I don't see how proposing that he's talking about spiritual death rather than physical does anything to answer that question.

*If you want, I think I know the answer to that question.

As for why it's so casual? I don't think it actually is. I think we're so used to the claims and language of Christianity that it feels almost passe and we gloss over how monumental they are. Look back at the story.

²⁵ Jesus said unto her, I am the resurrection, and the life: he that believeth in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live:

²⁶ And whosoever liveth and believeth in me shall never die. Believest thou this?

²⁷ She saith unto him, Yea, Lord: I believe that thou art the Christ, the Son of God, which should come into the world.

This is anything but casual. It's a claim to the ultimate power of life and death; it's a claim that believing in Him is a matter of life and death; it's a claim that he is the Messiah, the Christ, the fulfillment of prophecy; it's a claim to outright divinity. This is crazy stuff here.

⁴⁰ Jesus saith unto her, Said I not unto thee, that, if thou wouldest believe, thou shouldest see the glory of God?

How often do you casually tell your friends that if they believe in you, they will see the glory of God?

Then there is this enigmatic and ambiguous statement from Jesus himself:

“And I am glad for your sakes that I was not there, to the intent ye may believe; nevertheless let us go unto him”.11:15. ?????

“And I am glad for your sakes that I was not there” ?

Why was he “glad”? And why for their sakes”?

“to the intent ye may believe”?

“Believe what”? This Is beginning to sound all put up in advance.

If the author intends his readers to think that Jesus can do miracles, this isn't enigmatic at all. There's a simple explanation: this is also a miracle. Jesus knows the future. He knows that Lazarus died; He knows that He will raise him from the dead; and He knows that seeing a resurrection will give the disciples reason to believe that He is the resurrection and the life. He "knows the script" and Martha and the disciples don't because he knows the future. It's another miracle.

One point here: there actually is an appearance of casualness here because Jesus seems unworried about Lazarus dying. This is because He knows He will just raise him from the dead, but you're not wrong to read that and think that it's weird. The disciples thought it was weird too.

And finally, why is Thomas okay with dying? Is he suicidal? Does he want to die? I don't think he wants to die, although he is willing to. He's more like a soldier who volunteered to fight even though he knows the risks than a suicide bomber who's planning to blow himself up. But whether he wants to die or doesn't want to but is willing to, the explanation is the same. Thomas is a religious fanatic, and so are the other disciples. Think about who these guys are. They abandoned their normal lives to follow this rabbi. And he's not an ordinary rabbi; he's making claims that the religious leaders think are blasphemous. This is radical stuff. A person would have to be absolutely devoted to do this. Now, maybe the gospels are telling the truth, and Jesus can do miracles, and their fanaticism is completely sane and justified. Or maybe it's not justified and the disciples are just standard religious fanatics. There's no shortage of those. Either way, that's why Thomas makes that seemingly crazy statement.

In conclusion to this ridiculous wall of text that you should feel no obligation to reply to, I could be completely correct about everything I wrote, and this story could still be total fiction. In fact, if Christianity isn't true, and Jesus didn't physically raise Lazarus from the dead, I think the best explanation is just that this story was made up later for theological reasons. I don't think we need to try to interpret this as being a really elaborate metaphor for spiritual death. It's pretty clear from the text that the author is trying to communicate a physical resurrection. Maybe his story is true, and maybe it's not.

When Thomas says, "Let us also go," it is referring back to the verse before when Jesus says they will go to Lazarus. When he says, "that we may die with him," it is because the disciples are afraid that, if Jesus goes back to Judea, he will die, and the disciples will die with him. In the context of this conversation, it is clearly talking about physical death.

How do you know they/ Thomas are "referring back" to Jesus talking about returning to Jerusalem?

It is more than clear that the whole conversation is about Lazarus only and going back to Bethany where Lazarus is supposedly laying "dead". Jesus is not even talking about returning to the city Jerusalem at all in the whole story. I think its more than just a bit of a push to say that Thomas is talking about something else when they are discussing Lazarus's welfare status and when the whole chapter is concerned with the state of Lazarus. With no mention whatsoever about Jerusalem.

I think its more than a bit of a push to say that Thomas is talking about something else entirely when the whole chapter is concerned with the state of Lazarus only and the so called miracle. There are no cross purposes.

And here's a thought. Thomas who is said to be among the witnesses to this so called “dead” Lazarus miracle doubted the Christ himself had also raised from the dead, Why!? Hadn’t he witnessed Jesus himself raise a dead man!? Hadn’t the Christ continuously told his followers that he would rise from the dead? One has to ask why he doubted his masters resurrection after what he and the disciples been told and what he himself had witnessed?

Then, as I pointed out above:  

The prodigal so was not “dead” was he? But his father said he was “dead” and he also said that he was “alive” again after being “dead”.

Then we notice that as quick as one can be raised from the “dead” one can it seems, also return to being “dead” when we look at the story of Ananias, and Sapphira his wife, Acts 5:1-11. Taken literally here we have two people just dropping down “dead” and getting buried, for no other reason than they hadn’t handed over money to god (the cause). And, to be cast out at such a crucial time must have been a terrifying punishment considering they believed that the “kingdom of god” was just around the corner. If they wasn't then we’d have to ask why all of those present were? Acts 5:11

This of course was not a case of people actually physically dying , it was a disciplinary action, a excommunication from the movement. Ananias, and Sapphira his wife had simply been banished to live among the dead. As I explained above, anyone not part of the Jesus movement were called the dead while those in the movement/inner circle were called the living and to be part the Jesus movement one had to be “raised from among the “dead” in a ritualistic ceremony.

And this also -to my mind at least- perfectly explains that very odd reply by Jesus to one of his disciples “let the dead” bury the dead". Luke 9:60 This is Jesus himself calling those not in the/his movement “THE DEAD”!

You see, its all to do with the terminology of the age.

How do you know they/ Thomas are "referring back" to Jesus talking about returning to Jerusalem?

I didn't say returning back to Jerusalem; I said returning back to Judea. Both Jerusalem and Bethany are in Judea. In fact, they are less than 2 miles apart.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bethany

They'd just come from Jerusalem in Judea, where people had tried to kill Jesus. Now Jesus is proposing going back to Judea to Bethany, only two miles from Jerusalem. This is why Thomas is concerned about dying.

And here's a thought. Thomas who is said to be among the witnesses to this so called “dead” Lazarus miracle doubted the Christ himself had also raised from the dead, Why!? Hadn’t he witnessed Jesus himself raise a dead man!? Hadn’t the Christ continuously told his followers that he would rise from the dead? One has to ask why he doubted his masters resurrection after what he and the disciples been told and what he himself had witnessed?

Indeed, we should ask that question! Thomas had seen what Jesus could do; it was completely irrational for him to doubt Jesus. And yet, that is a common pattern. The Israelites saw God send plagues to Egypt and part the Red Sea, and yet they doubted again and again on the way to Canaan until God said they weren't to enter it until that generation had died off. Gideon saw an angel, yet still asked for a sign - and then asked for another sign! The people who were at the feeding of the 5,000 and personally saw Jesus do a miracle asked Him for a sign shortly afterward, as if He hadn't just done that. The disciples do it multiple times. They see the feeding of the 5,000, and the feeding of the 4,000, and yet are still concerned when they forget to bring bread. Jesus even calls them out on this:

Mark 8

14 Now the disciples had forgotten to take bread, neither had they in the ship with them more than one loaf.

15 And he charged them, saying, Take heed, beware of the leaven of the Pharisees, and of the leaven of Herod.

16 And they reasoned among themselves, saying, It is because we have no bread.

17 And when Jesus knew it, he saith unto them, Why reason ye, because ye have no bread? perceive ye not yet, neither understand? have ye your heart yet hardened?

18 Having eyes, see ye not? and having ears, hear ye not? and do ye not remember?

19 When I brake the five loaves among five thousand, how many baskets full of fragments took ye up? They say unto him, Twelve.

20 And when the seven among four thousand, how many baskets full of fragments took ye up? And they said, Seven.

21 And he said unto them, How is it that ye do not understand?

I have seen people I know who have seen God's work in their lives doubt Him in similar circumstances. I have seen myself do the same. It is irrational, and it is illogical, but it is a very human thing to do.

The prodigal so was not “dead” was he? But his father said he was “dead” and he also said that he was “alive” again after being “dead”.

Then we notice that as quick as one can be raised from the “dead” one can it seems, also return to being “dead” when we look at the story of Ananias, and Sapphira his wife, Acts 5:1-11. Taken literally here we have two people just dropping down “dead” and getting buried, for no other reason than they hadn’t handed over money to god (the cause). And, to be cast out at such a crucial time must have been a terrifying punishment considering they believed that the “kingdom of god” was just around the corner. If they wasn't then we’d have to ask why all of those present were? Acts 5:11

You are right that the prodigal wasn't physically dead, but there are some important differences between the prodigal and Ananias and Sapphira and Lazarus. In the prodigal's case, the details mention show that he was physically alive. He ran toward and embraced his father; those are actions done by a living person. I mentioned in my earlier comment how the physical details in the Lazarus story show that the story is talking about someone who was actually, physically dead. And in the Ananias and Sapphira story, the details also support a physical death.

Acts 5

5 And Ananias hearing these words fell down, and gave up the ghost: and great fear came on all them that heard these things.

6 And the young men arose, wound him up, and carried him out, and buried him.

Ananias fell down, was wrapped up, and carried out. These details are consistent with someone who died physically. The details are similar for Sapphira.

More broadly, spiritual death is indeed a thing, but it does not follow from the existence of spiritual death as a concept that every mention of death in early Christian writings is therefore talking about spiritual death and not physical death. Physical death is still a real thing that Christians in all ages have to talk about. Indeed, it would be wildly implausible for there to be a religion that had nothing to say about physical death at all. Now for a thought experiment: put yourself in the shoes of an early Christian writer who wants to write about someone who died. How do you communicate to your readers that you're talking about physical death? You could, of course, explicitly write "This is physical death, not spiritual death" every time you want to do that, but that is very cumbersome. Short of explicitly spelling it out every single time, what is sufficient to communicate that you're talking about physical death? If talking about someone who got sick, died, was wrapped in burial garments with a cloth over the face, was buried in a grave some distance from the house, was mourned by Jews, and stank because he had been dead four days doesn't communicate that you're talking about physical death, what in the world would communicate that? That's not just rhetorical (although it is rhetorical too), that's a serious question. If you were an early Christian writer, how would you communicate that you're talking about physical death without having to explicitly say it every single time?

As a final point, there are a bunch of details in the Lazarus story that contradict the idea that this is a spiritual death.

1. 8 His disciples say unto him, Master, the Jews of late sought to stone thee; and goest thou thither again?

If this is about spiritual death, why are the disciples concerned about stoning?

2. 16 Then said Thomas, which is called Didymus, unto his fellowdisciples, Let us also go, that we may die with him.

If spiritual death is being outside of Jesus' movement and this is talking about spiritual death, how can the disciples die "with him"? Jesus can't very well not be in Jesus' movement.

3. The Jews in the passage:

31 The Jews then which were with her in the house, and comforted her, when they saw Mary, that she rose up hastily and went out, followed her, saying, She goeth unto the grave to weep there.

36 Then said the Jews, Behold how he loved him!

37 And some of them said, Could not this man, which opened the eyes of the blind, have caused that even this man should not have died?

45 Then many of the Jews which came to Mary, and had seen the things which Jesus did, believed on him.

Why are people who didn't previously believe in Jesus mourning that Lazarus had "died", i.e. was no longer one of Jesus' followers?

4. 47 Then gathered the chief priests and the Pharisees a council, and said, What do we? for this man doeth many miracles.

48 If we let him thus alone, all men will believe on him: and the Romans shall come and take away both our place and nation.

Why would the chief priests and Pharisees think this was a miracle? Lazarus leaving and then rejoining Jesus' movement isn't remotely miraculous and wouldn't cause anyone to believe on him.

Ok, that wasn't the final point. Here's the final point.

As I explained above, anyone not part of the Jesus movement were called the dead while those in the movement/inner circle were called the living and to be part the Jesus movement one had to be “raised from among the “dead” in a ritualistic ceremony.

And this also -to my mind at least- perfectly explains that very odd reply by Jesus to one of his disciples “let the dead” bury the dead". Luke 9:60 This is Jesus himself calling those not in the/his movement “THE DEAD”!

You see, its all to do with the terminology of the age.

I think you are likely correct that Luke 9:60 is talking about the spiritually dead. It is true that Christians did, and still do today, refer to Christians as being spiritually alive and non-Christians as being spiritually dead, although I think you are overstating that point and reading it into places where it doesn't belong. As for the ceremony, I think it's just baptism. See Romans 6:

3 Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death?

4 Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.

All verses in KJV, since that's what you were using in the original post.

You asked me above

 SirAnonymous Are these objections original with you, or did you get them from somewhere?

At the time my answer to you was this:

Stephen: I wouldn't know is a short answer. ......

But since then I have have come across a wonderful piece of work that appears to agree with me.

In their book The Hiram Key _ Pharaohs, Freemasons And The Discovery Of the Secret Scrolls of Jesus- authors Christophe Knight and Dr Robert Lomas wrote as follows:

" Sometimes people underwent a temporary 'death ' by leaving the inner group and then being readmitted [raised from the dead]. An example of this was Lazarus, who lost his nerve when the going got tough towards the end of Jesus' life.

They go on:

"The kind of expression of the 'living and the 'dead' has been shown, beyond all doubt, to have been the terminology used at the rime of Jesus and those that insist on taking it literally not only deny all the evidence but also do a great disservice to a unique and brilliant teacher........."

"The idea of a rotting corpse being brought back to life would have been a disgusting concept to all Jews of the age, and for modern Christians to think that such things were spoken of in such a matter- of - fact way is as foolish as thinking that magic carpets were the usual mode of transport in Baghdad. people who are generally pragmatic seem open to believing that the ridiculous could have happened in the remote past in some lost 'golden age'. "

So unless anyone can convince me otherwise, I am sticking to my own belief that "raising the dead" is / was, nothing more than an initiation ceremony into the inner circle of the Jesus movement of called the "living".

Good morning Stephen, hope that you are well.

Yes, I was excavating under my shed the other day and came across a secret scroll that clearly proves that Jesus was from Merthyr Tydfil.

It's no longer a secret though...Such is what happens when one uncovers a secret.

Have a lovely day and enjoy the sunshine whilst it lasts.

Morning ,Serge. Indeed secret scrolls must be a thorn in the side of many a believer, except when they appear to come down on their side.

Thing here is though; with or without such findings many of these biblical ambiguous stories of "miracles" that appear in the New Testament in particular can be worked out from the bible itself..

"Walking On Water" was a bit difficult for me to work out for a while, until it dawned on me one day that the Sea of Galilee actually has tides and sandbars; not in the sense of ocean tides but tides all the same. it was then that the penny dropped. Do you get my meaning, Serge?

Lazarus was dead and buried before Jesus brought him back to life.what was different was Lazarus was restored to his regular physical life and would eventually die again. The Bible mentions this as one of Jesus’s miracles and is important Christians.

Yes, exaggeration is the remit of story tellers, and the more times the story is retold the more exaggerated it becomes.

The Anglicised fantasy novel known as "The Bible" is a prime example.

Even the Jews don’t deny Jesus’s miracles happened.