Also, I'm not sure a lot of people say that second statement, either. The "taxation-is-theft" libertarians would be all about it for sure, but I don't think most people's objections to more taxes is because they think it's encroaching on their freedom. I suppose that wouldn't be totally wrong, in the sense that more taxes means less freedom to do what you want with your money, but that's usually not the objection I hear people making.
That sounds like a wildly different statement, though. What's the connection between that and the original statement? I don't see how saying that taxes encroach on freedom implies that working for basic needs is synonymous with freedom.
Who ever said that having to work is synonymous with freedom? I've never heard anyone say that.
The leaderboard sorting default should be greatest-to-least, not least-to-greatest. That already is the case when you first open the page. However, when I click on Comments, for example, the first page is all the users who only made one comment. I have to click again to see the users who've made the most comments.
Oh, it's so much worse than I thought. I had to go back to page 4 to find a thread that's most recent post wasn't by Debby. Now, that's in large part due to the lack of activity here, but still. Come on.
Debby, the entire front page of the politics forum is threads you've boosted to the top in the last 10 hours or so. Some of us might be interested in reading the recent topics and not just the topics you've raised from the dead.
If I'm understanding you correctly, you're looking for two things in historical documents. First, that they are contemporary with the events and/or people, and secondly that they are from unbiased sources. A few questions:
I'm seeing a divide in your posts. You started by making a specific claim about the word Gentile and are now making more general claims about the Bible. That's fine, but I don't see how the two are connected. What is deceptive about using the English word Gentile in English translations? What is the false claim being made there?
There are no original texts, only supposed translations of original texts from about the 2nd/3rd centuries onwards, as most of the claims made about the life of Jesus, post date his execution and are based upon the supposed hearsay of ex-disciples, who are then subsequently credited with authorship.
Do you know what textual criticism is? Do you know how historians determine whether an ancient historical document is reliable or not?
Those questions might be a little vague, so here's more vague questions, but from a different perspective that might make my point a little clearer. Consider some ancient historical event A and some ancient document B. What would you expect the documentary evidence for A to look like? How would you know if B was an accurate copy of the original document or not?
Yes, Gentile is an English word, and English translations of the Bible are in English and not in the original Hebrew and Greek. That is what happens when you translate something. However, merely being translated does not make something unreliable. I still don't see what the deception is. I don't see any Christians claiming that English translations are the original and not translations (Possibly excepting a few crazy people, because there's always a few crazy people). What is the false claim being made? How does the use of the English word Gentile in English translations relate to this false claim?
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.
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.
Yes, the word "Gentile" doesn't mean the same thing as its root word. However, I'm not seeing what your point is. What is the deception here?
Are Canaanites Jewish?
What is a Gentile?
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.
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.
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):
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)
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?
