|
Post by Isapop on Apr 15, 2019 15:34:29 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? 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. Obviously, people can't "be forced to believe anything" (unless they've been subjected to some sort of mind altering drug). But you said, " It is perfectly ok to not believe in resurrections." And that's what you need to clarify. By "OK", are you saying that it doesn't risk God's displeasure to disbelieve in resurrections?
|
|
|
Post by faustus5 on Apr 15, 2019 17:30:43 GMT
Now who's being simplistic? You, and it is just painfully obvious. There is nothing more simple and intellectually dishonest than making shit up about what someone else believes. I never went looking for a source that would confirm my skepticism about the literal truth of the Lazarus story, because a nyone who understands how objective reality works knows the story is impossible bullshit. I stumbled across the excised version of the Gospel of Mark when reading a book on a completely different subject. It isn't a side story that I "came up with," ignorant fuckwit. It is part of the historical record that there is a letter from a bishop to a priest in ancient times quoting a portion of Mark in which Lazarus was clearly never dead and was merely participating in a symbolic ritual. You can wonder whether someone at the time forged the letter, but regardless, it is more plausible that that the letter is true and accurate than it is that fundamental laws of physics were routinely violated during biblical times.
|
|
|
Post by drystyx on Apr 15, 2019 19:03:31 GMT
He went to Scotland, and an assassin hired by the priests followed him, and then the assassin "kilt" him, and then the assassin "kilt" himself.
Over a thousand years later, after the only assassin of the ancient world was "kilt", a Scotsman kilt someone in the Crusades, and then the enemy stole the idea of assassins from the Scotsman, and now you know the rest of the story.
|
|
|
Post by Catman on Apr 16, 2019 23:38:58 GMT
Crisis actor.
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Apr 16, 2019 23:58:07 GMT
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 bible is a silly story to begin with, that is why it doesn't hold much credibility or believability. The source can only be backed up using common sense and rational logic, something Christians can seriously lack. You apparently commented in the wrong thread.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 17, 2019 6:25:01 GMT
I asked Fr. Cosmas before Evening Mass yesterday.
He doesn't think the High Priests killed Lazarus... A lot of Christ's followers scattered after Christ was killed... He suspects Lazarus was one of them. Where he wound up, nobody truly knows?
Sounds good to me.
|
|
|
Post by clusium on Apr 17, 2019 13:19:26 GMT
I asked Fr. Cosmas before Evening Mass yesterday. He doesn't think the High Priests killed Lazarus... A lot of Christ's followers scattered after Christ was killed... He suspects Lazarus was one of them. Where he wound up, nobody truly knows? Sounds good to me. I already posted what NewAdvent.org said what became of him.
|
|
|
Post by Zos on Apr 17, 2019 15:14:26 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. To be bought back to be murdered again would seem pointless as it serves no purpose so he would be bought back to life again until he served whatever purpose the reanimation was intended for. It's not like the Bible is intended to tie up loose ends exactly though, is it. It's just pick and mixed to serve a religio/political agenda of the early (not so) organised church.
|
|
|
Post by Zos on Apr 17, 2019 15:28:12 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. You are ignoring the fact that all gnostic teaching was excised from the Bible to support a particular viewpoint that gave more power into the hands of the Church authorities and strengthened their positions as the only people who could decide exactly what the Bible "meant". That is the same reason that the church was so opposed to non Latin translations of the Bible and hated the democratisation that the printing press bought by allowing the average man to decide for himself without being told from the pulpit or by decree. It has been argued many times that the raising from the dead of Jesus and Laz has done more harm to religion than good as it's where the book really jumps the shark. As, apart from fundamentalists, most would agree the Bible is nothing more than fables and parables for living a moral life in the same way that Plato's Atlantis allegory argued for a purer society, does it even really matter?
|
|
|
Post by mikef6 on Apr 17, 2019 16:51:51 GMT
Even though reading and learning about early church traditions and stories is fun and interesting, to debate about Lazarus’ life after death before his final death as if it were a historical accounting is hopeless.
There are four gospels. Three of them – Matthew, Mark, and Luke – are called the Synoptic Gospels from a word meaning “written together.” The three tell similar stories with very similar vocabulary, each of them, in their own way, created from the same original sources (now lost). The odd gospel out is that of John, written from different oral and written traditions from the Synoptics.
John is the only gospel that tells the story of Lazarus. If Jesus raising Lazarus from the dead was such a powerful event at the time it happened, why do the Synoptics know nothing about it?
One last point about all four gospels is that none of them should be taken as historical accounts from the time of Jesus. The gospels were complied from a second or later generation of Christians to record what was being said and taught about Jesus in their churches. The gospels tell us more about early Christianity and what they were preaching than it does about Jesus’ own historical level.
Thus, to speculate on “what happened next” is fruitless because the story itself is a teaching about the “signs” (the word is used several times in the gospel of John) that Jesus left that demonstrate who he really was to the Johannine community. The gospels, especially John, should not be read as a history book but as a theological text. In short, the resurrection of Lazarus never happened on the plane of history but is an illustrative fable about the power of Jesus over nature (much as the “walking on water” story from the Synoptics).
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Apr 17, 2019 18:02:16 GMT
ZosThat's called editing. It didn;t give them any power as the NT was complete during persecution. Further, it's not that the Bible doesn't have it's confusing bits and pieces in the NT and part that complete contradict the stances of the Catholic Church. The reason apocraphyls aren't legit is entirely because there wasn't enough circulation of them or they were already known to be phony and not accepted which is a totally valid reason to leave them out. Otherwise, you could simply include Cat in the Hat as part of Scripture. Everything has been argued many times, Lazarus is not special. Again, this conversation people are trying to have with me about whether the Bible is real or not is pointless. Let's pretend the Bible is completely fable and then may be you and others will have something interesting to say.
|
|
|
Post by Zos on Apr 17, 2019 20:10:53 GMT
Zos That's called editing. It didn;t give them any power as the NT was complete during persecution. Further, it's not that the Bible doesn't have it's confusing bits and pieces in the NT and part that complete contradict the stances of the Catholic Church. The reason apocraphyls aren't legit is entirely because there wasn't enough circulation of them or they were already known to be phony and not accepted which is a totally valid reason to leave them out. Otherwise, you could simply include Cat in the Hat as part of Scripture. Everything has been argued many times, Lazarus is not special. Again, this conversation people are trying to have with me about whether the Bible is real or not is pointless. Let's pretend the Bible is completely fable and then may be you and others will have something interesting to say. I'm sorry, but your obvious contempt for anyone who disagrees with you and arrogance of though make any attempt at debate pointless.
|
|
|
Post by faustus5 on Apr 17, 2019 21:13:29 GMT
The reason apocraphyls aren't legit is entirely because there wasn't enough circulation of them or they were already known to be phony. . . "Phony" fairy tales versus the legit ones--pretending additionally that there was no political or social agenda involved in making the distinction in the first place. You people are so hilarious.
|
|