Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 15, 2019 8:08:32 GMT
After his resurrection he became a friend of Jesus.
The Jewish priests vowed to kill Lazarus:
"Then the chief priests decided to kill Lazarus as well, since it was on his account that many of the Jews were leaving them and believing in Jesus"
Some say they put him to sea in a boat without sail or oars, and he washed up in Cyprus, becoming Bishop there.
Some that he made it to France.
Or did the priests kill him as they said they would? Perhaps once they had killed Jesus, they thought 'job done', and didn't bother with Lazarus?
|
|
|
Post by The Herald Erjen on Apr 15, 2019 8:32:15 GMT
Good question. And what of Lazarus?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 15, 2019 8:52:52 GMT
Good question. And what of Lazarus? So you're saying, that like many people who survive a brush with death, Lazarus found a whole reinvigorated new lease of life... He left his old life in Bethany behind, and became an actor in a ropey sci-fi telly series 🤔 I find that hard to believe.
|
|
|
Post by The Herald Erjen on Apr 15, 2019 8:59:19 GMT
Good question. And what of Lazarus? So you're saying, that like many people who survive a brush with death, Lazarus found a whole reinvigorated new lease of life... He left his old life in Bethany behind, and became an actor in a ropey sci-fi telly series 🤔 I find that hard to believe. And I find it hard it hard to believe that Our Lord and Savior would raise a man from the dead knowing beforehand that the man would wind up on the junkpile.
|
|
|
Post by faustus5 on Apr 15, 2019 10:21:18 GMT
A portion of the Gospel of Mark that was excised from the official version suggests his "resurrection" was merely part of a symbolic ritual and was not literal. This makes a lot more sense, both from a scientific and spiritual perspective.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 15, 2019 10:41:21 GMT
A portion of the Gospel of Mark that was excised from the official version suggests his "resurrection" was merely part of a symbolic ritual and was not literal. This makes a lot more sense, both from a scientific and spiritual perspective. That's a whole debate on it's own 🤔 I'm more interested in the last we hear of Lazarus is that the Jewish Priests decided to kill him as well as Jesus... Then nothing. So, did they end up killing him, or not 🤷 It would be a bit of a bummer to be brought back to life, only to be murdered a short while later by jealous priests. I'll ask Fr. Cosmas what he thinks became of old Lazarus.
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Apr 15, 2019 10:47:38 GMT
He was a friend of Jesus before his resurrection.
He lived and then he died of natural causes.
Or perhaps he remained a disciple and was integral to the growth of Christianity in his area or maybe he died a martyr.
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Apr 15, 2019 10:50:02 GMT
A portion of the Gospel of Mark that was excised from the official version suggests his "resurrection" was merely part of a symbolic ritual and was not literal. This makes a lot more sense, both from a scientific and spiritual perspective. People should stop trying to come up with loopholes. It is perfectly ok to not believe in resurrections, but the story is what it is and he was not the only one resurrected by Jesus. This dude had been dead long enough to be ripe. Out of all of the resurrection stories this would be the one least likely to support a literal resurrection.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 15, 2019 10:50:34 GMT
He was a friend of Jesus before his resurrection. He lived and then he died of natural causes. Or perhaps he remained a disciple and was integral to the growth of Christianity in his area or maybe he died a martyr. The last we are told is the priests decided to kill him as well as Jesus. We don't know if they did or not 🤷 I'm kind of leaning towards because his story ended with that decision, the chief priests carried out their threat.
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Apr 15, 2019 11:10:30 GMT
He was a friend of Jesus before his resurrection. He lived and then he died of natural causes. Or perhaps he remained a disciple and was integral to the growth of Christianity in his area or maybe he died a martyr. The last we are told is the priests decided to kill him as well as Jesus. We don't know if they did or not 🤷 I'm kind of leaning towards because his story ended with that decision, the chief priests carried out their threat. True although they likely didn't that day Rather than spend another day conspiring to kill, they had a clear cut plan to get rid of Jesus and was successful. If Lazarus were that popular, they would either be afraid to kill him outright just like they were afraid to do with Jesus and his disciples or they would have hung him up at the same time. There would be very little reason to outright murder him and they wouldn't have gotten their hands dirty doing it in the first place. That's why they were always in conspiring mode over murder mode. But who knows. Maybe they did kill him. It doesn't matter that much.
|
|
|
Post by faustus5 on Apr 15, 2019 11:10:34 GMT
People should stop trying to come up with loopholes. It is perfectly ok to not believe in resurrections, but the story is what it is. . . No, that is childishly simplistic. The story has been edited and changed by persons with agendas over time. That is an indisputable fact. There is no one story, period, full stop.
Given that resurrection is not physically possible, the much more plausible interpretation is that metaphorical resurrection rituals existed and were practiced by persons during the time of Jesus, and these rituals were then changed to something literal as a selling point as time went on.
We have a bishop writing to a priest about the excised portion of Mark and telling the guy to lie about it to his flock, in part to maintain the illusion that the resurrection of Lazarus was literal. That this letter might be a fabrication is far less plausible, by a factor of almost infinity, that the resurrection story has any truth to it at all.
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Apr 15, 2019 11:14:59 GMT
People should stop trying to come up with loopholes. It is perfectly ok to not believe in resurrections, but the story is what it is. . . No, that is childishly simplistic. The story has been edited and changed by persons with agendas over time. That is an indisputable fact. There is no one story, period, full stop.
Given that resurrection is not physically possible, the much more plausible interpretation is that metaphorical resurrection rituals existed and were practiced by persons during the time of Jesus, and these rituals were then changed to something literal as a selling point as time went on.
We have a bishop writing to a priest about the excised portion of Mark and telling the guy to lie about it to his flock, in part to maintain the illusion that the resurrection of Lazarus was literal. That this letter might be a fabrication is far less plausible, by a factor of almost infinity, that the resurrection story has any truth to it at all.
Now who's being simplistic? There is nothing more simple than reading and story and deciding not to believe it and then afterward looking for the source that will back that up. The reality is it's not necessary to believe it even if you were there to see it. No need to come up with silly side stories.
|
|
The Lost One
Junior Member
@lostkiera
Posts: 2,654
Likes: 1,275
|
Post by The Lost One on Apr 15, 2019 11:25:54 GMT
I've heard some suggest that Lazarus was the "beloved disciple" ie the guy who supposedly founded the community that produced the Gospel of John.
|
|
|
Post by Cody™ on Apr 15, 2019 13:01:53 GMT
According to church tradition he became the Bishop of Kition.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 15, 2019 13:07:27 GMT
According to church tradition he became the Bishop of Kition. Eastern Orthodox tradition.
|
|
|
Post by Isapop on Apr 15, 2019 13:43:30 GMT
It is perfectly ok to not believe in resurrections Would you clarify that? Do you mean that for a Christian who wishes to please God it is still perfectly ok to not believe in resurrections? Or do you mean that if you're not concerned with pleasing God then it is perfectly ok to not believe in resurrections?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 15, 2019 13:54:29 GMT
It is perfectly ok to not believe in resurrections Would you clarify that? Do you mean that for a Christian who wishes to please God it is still perfectly ok to not believe in resurrections? Or do you mean that if you're not concerned with pleasing God then it is perfectly ok to not believe in resurrections? The whole Lazarus being raised from the dead thing isn't the issue here. That's a whole other discussion. At discussion here is the Jewish high priests vowing to kill Lazarus as well as Jesus, as Christ heads to fulfil the Passion... Then no more is heard or known about Lazarus' fate 🤷 I'm closely following Jesus' journey through Holy Week... and it's a loose end that's kind of bugging me 🤔
|
|
|
Post by Isapop on Apr 15, 2019 14:10:19 GMT
Would you clarify that? Do you mean that for a Christian who wishes to please God it is still perfectly ok to not believe in resurrections? Or do you mean that if you're not concerned with pleasing God then it is perfectly ok to not believe in resurrections? The whole Lazarus being raised from the dead thing isn't the issue here. Nevertheless, the statement was made, and I'm asking for some clarification from the poster who made it.
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Apr 15, 2019 15:10:36 GMT
It is perfectly ok to not believe in resurrections Would you clarify that? Do you mean that for a Christian who wishes to please God it is still perfectly ok to not believe in resurrections? Or do you mean that if you're not concerned with pleasing God then it is perfectly ok to not believe in resurrections? There is no need for clarity. The statement is what it is and it encompasses all of your hypotheticals. Whether someone is an atheist or religious person they aren’t going to be forced to believe anything. In context I was saying people can believe as they wish but the point of the story was Lazarus was a dead man literally who was resurrected by Jesus.
|
|
|
Post by clusium on Apr 15, 2019 15:20:38 GMT
After his resurrection he became a friend of Jesus. The Jewish priests vowed to kill Lazarus: "Then the chief priests decided to kill Lazarus as well, since it was on his account that many of the Jews were leaving them and believing in Jesus" Some say they put him to sea in a boat without sail or oars, and he washed up in Cyprus, becoming Bishop there. Some that he made it to France. Or did the priests kill him as they said they would? Perhaps once they had killed Jesus, they thought 'job done', and didn't bother with Lazarus? St. Lazarus of Bethany Please help support the mission of New Advent and get the full contents of this website as an instant download. Includes the Catholic Encyclopedia, Church Fathers, Summa, Bible and more — all for only $19.99... Reputed first Bishop of Marseilles, died in the second half of the first century. According to a tradition, or rather a series of traditions combined at different epochs, the members of the family at Bethany, the friends of Christ, together with some holy women and others of His disciples, were put out to sea by the Jews hostile to Christianity in a vessel without sails, oars, or helm, and after a miraculous voyage landed in Provence at a place called today the Saintes-Maries. It is related that they separated there to go and preach the Gospel in different parts of the southeast of Gaul. Lazarus, of whom alone we have to treat here, went to Marseilles, and, having converted a number of its inhabitants to Christianity, became their first pastor. During the first persecution under Nero he hid himself in a crypt, over which the celebrated Abbey of St.-Victor was constructed in the fifth century. In this same crypt he was interred, when he shed his blood for the faith. During the new persecution of Domitian he was cast into prison and beheaded in a spot which is believed to be identical with a cave beneath the prison Saint-Lazare. His body was later translated to Autun, and buried in the cathedral of that town. But the inhabitants of Marseilles claim to be in possession of his head which they still venerate. Like the other legends concerning the saints of the Palestinian group, this tradition, which was believed for several centuries and which still finds some advocates, has no solid foundation. It is in a writing, contained in an eleventh century manuscript, with some other documents relating to St. Magdalen of Vézelay, that we first read of Lazarus in connection with the voyage that brought Magdalen to Gaul. Before the middle of the eleventh century there does not seem to be the slightest trace of the tradition according to which the Palestinian saints came to Provence. At the beginning of the twelfth century, perhaps through a confusion of names, it was believed at Autun that the tomb of St. Lazarus was to be found in the cathedral dedicated to St. Nazarius. A search was made and remains were discovered, which were solemnly translated and were considered to be those of him whom Christ raised from the dead, but it was not thought necessary to inquire why they should be found in France. The question, however, deserved to be examined with care, seeing that, according to a tradition of the Greek Church, the body of St. Lazarus had been brought to Constantinople, just as all the other saints of the Palestinian group were said to have died in the Orient, and to have been buried, translated, and honoured there. It is only in the thirteenth century that the belief that Lazarus had come to Gaul with his two sisters and had been Bishop of Marseilles spread in Provence. It is true that a letter is cited (its origin is uncertain), written in 1040 by Pope Benedict IX on the occasion of the consecration of the new church of St.-Victor in which Lazarus is mentioned. But in this text the pope speaks only of relics of St. Lazarus, merely calling him the saint who was raised again to life. He does not speak of him as having lived in Provence, or as having been Bishop of Marseilles. The most ancient Provençal text alluding to the episcopacy of St. Lazarus is a passage in the "Otia imperialia" of Gervase of Tillbury (1212). Thus the belief in his Provençal apostolate is of very late date, and its supporters must produce more ancient and reliable documentary evidence. In the crypt of St.-Victor at Marseilles an epitaph of the fifth century has been discovered, which informs us that a bishop named Lazarus was buried there. In the opinion of the most competent archæologists, however, this personage is Lazarus, Bishop of Aix, who was consecrated at Marseilles about 407, and who, having had to abandon his see in 411, passed some time in Palestine, whence he returned to end his days in Marseilles. It is more than likely that it is the name of this bishop and his return from Palestine, that gave rise to the legend of the coming of the Biblical Lazarus to Provence, and his apostolate in the city of Marseilles. Sources CHEVALIER, Gallia christ. noviss., II (Paris, 1899), 1-6; Analect. Bolland., VI (Brussels, 1887), 88-92; BOUCHE, Vindicœ fidei et pietatis Provinciœ pro cflitibus illius tutelaribus restituendis (Aix, 1644); DE CHANTELOUP, L'apttre de la Provence ou la vie du glorieux S. Lazare, premier ivjque de Marseille (Marseilles, 1864); FAILLON, Mon. inid. sur l'apostolat de Ste. Marie Madeleine en Provence et sur les autres apttres de cette contrie (Paris, 1848); DE LAUNOY, De commentitio Lazari et Maximini Magdalenœ et Marthœ in Provinciam appulsu dissertatio (Paris, 1641); DE MAZENOD, Preuves de la mission de S. Lazare ' Marseille in Annales de philos. Chrit., XIII (Paris, 1846), 338-50; TILLEMONT, Mem. pour servir ' l'hist. ecclis., II (Paris, 1694); 32-4; L. DUCHESNE, Fastes ipisc. de l'anc. Gaule, I (Paris, 1894), 324-5, 341-4; MORIN, S. Lazare et S. Maximin, donnies nouvelles sur plusieurs personnages de la tradition de Provence in Mim. de la Soc. des ant. de France, F, VI (Paris, 1897) 27-51. About this page APA citation. Clugnet, L. (1910). St. Lazarus of Bethany. In The Catholic Encyclopedia. New York: Robert Appleton Company. Retrieved April 15, 2019 from New Advent: www.newadvent.org/cathen/09097a.htmMLA citation. Clugnet, Léon. "St. Lazarus of Bethany." The Catholic Encyclopedia. Vol. 9. New York: Robert Appleton Company, 1910. 15 Apr. 2019 <http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09097a.htm>. Transcription. This article was transcribed for New Advent by Paul T. Crowley. In Memoriam, Sr. Mary Leah, O.P. Ecclesiastical approbation. Nihil Obstat. October 1, 1910. Remy Lafort, Censor. Imprimatur. +John M. Farley, Archbishop of New York. Contact information. The editor of New Advent is Kevin Knight. My email address is webmaster at newadvent.org. Regrettably, I can't reply to every letter, but I greatly appreciate your feedback — especially notifications about typographical errors and inappropriate ads. Copyright © 2017 by Kevin Knight. Dedicated to the Immaculate Heart of Mary. PRIVACY POLICY Source: Newadvent.org. I tried to post the link to the site, but, for some reason, it wouldn't work.
|
|