|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Kerygmania: Lazarus
|
pimple
Ship's Irruption
# 10635
|
Posted
quote:
Now a certain man was ill, Lazarus of Bethany, the village of Mary and her sister Martha. Mary was the one who anointed the Lord with perfume and wiped his feet with her hair; her brother Lazarus was ill. So the sisters sent a message to Jesus, "Lord. he whom you love is ill." But when Jesus heard it, he said, "This illness does not lead to death...."
(Start of John 11.) That last phrase seems to me to be ambiguous. What I mean is that its meaning is perfectly clear to me. But it is also perfectly clear to others. And I am talking about two entirely different interpretations.
What I am hearing, loud and clear, is "Don't worry - it's not life-threatening - he's not going to die."
Is it possible to have a discussion on this between those who see the story of Lazarus as a miracle that both confirms Jesus' divinity and gives them a sure hope of resurrection - for Jesus, for their loved ones, and for themselves -
and on the other hand, those who see the story as a true account of one incident in the life of a truly wonderful and remarkable man, compassionate healer, trusted friend, and uncompromising champion of the truth (and many other things) - but not God?
[ 19. November 2013, 02:02: Message edited by: Mamacita ]
--------------------
In other words, just because I made it all up, doesn't mean it isn't true (Reginald Hill)
Posts: 8018 | From: Wonderland | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
pimple
Ship's Irruption
# 10635
|
Posted
Meaning? Shall we both be straight with one another?
--------------------
In other words, just because I made it all up, doesn't mean it isn't true (Reginald Hill)
Posts: 8018 | From: Wonderland | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
I think the story raises an interesting question. Jesus says "this illness will not lead to death", and as pimple notes the most obvious understanding of that is that the illness isn't life threatening - and hence, explain Jesus taking his time to get going.
BUT. The story makes it clear that Lazarus did die (albeit that he was later raised). So, the options we have are:
- Jesus knew Lazarus was going to die, and lied to justify his slow departure (and hence be "too late" and have to raise Lazarus rather than it being simply another healing).
- Jesus was mistaken, and the illness was more serious than he imagined.
- The simple interpretation is wrong, and "this illness will not lead to death" doesn't mean Lazarus isn't going to die. We're then faced with options of spiritualising it (eg: "His body will die, but it won't be a real spiritual death and Jesus proved it by raising him from death") or otherwise re-interpreting it
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
pimple
Ship's Irruption
# 10635
|
Posted
Sorry, Alan, but your list of alternative assumptions depend on the premise that Lazarus did die.
If Jesus meant "He's not going to die" then it could make sense to wait - for confirmation of Lazarus's recovery (that he asked for such confirmation would be pure conjecture - but a reasonable one, given that he neither wanted to put himself and his disciples in unnecessary danger, nor abandon his friend to the loving but perhaps too blindly faithful mercies of his sisters. Or perhaps not faithful enough. They had absolute faith in him - but faith in his words, through an intermediary, when they are looking at someone with no apparent sign of life in them? That's another matter.
After two days, I believe Jesus was sufficiently worried about his friend to go back to Bethany - not because his prognosis was incorrect, but because he knew the dangerously misleading nature of the illness.
When Jesus later appears to change his mind from
"he is asleep" to "he is dead" it is for two reasons - if Lazarus is merely asleep there is no need to go back, if he is dead it is too late to go back. But Jesus doesn't know which is true, and "Lazarus is dead" is the only reason he can give that the disciples will accept as a valid for returning - dangerous though that is. Thomas shows tremendous courage here - to be prepared to die rather than deny his friend the chance to grieve over a man he loves.
--------------------
In other words, just because I made it all up, doesn't mean it isn't true (Reginald Hill)
Posts: 8018 | From: Wonderland | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
pimple
Ship's Irruption
# 10635
|
Posted
Sorry - three reasons. The last one being that he has to deal with things as other people see them. An illness that renders a person so "obviously" dead that only very close observation can see the spark of life remaining?
With the girl, remember? "She is not dead, but sleeping". They laugh him to scorn. When he proves that he was right, he doesn't press the point - why would he want to tell a father he had been about to bury his daughter alive? Isn't it greater to make the father the object of God's bounty, and to pre-empt any feelings of guilt with a wish to give glory to God?
--------------------
In other words, just because I made it all up, doesn't mean it isn't true (Reginald Hill)
Posts: 8018 | From: Wonderland | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
sharkshooter
Not your average shark
# 1589
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by pimple:
quote:
Now a certain man was ill, Lazarus of Bethany, the village of Mary and her sister Martha. Mary was the one who anointed the Lord with perfume and wiped his feet with her hair; her brother Lazarus was ill. So the sisters sent a message to Jesus, "Lord. he whom you love is ill." But when Jesus heard it, he said, "This illness does not lead to death...."
(Start of John 11.) That last phrase seems to me to be ambiguous. ...
I'm not sure what translation you quoted (or misquoted), becuase I didn't find it.
The NIV reads: quote:
4 When he heard this, Jesus said, “This sickness will not end in death. No, it is for God’s glory so that God’s Son may be glorified through it.”
A significant difference, indeed.
--------------------
Let the words of my mouth, and the meditation of my heart, be acceptable in thy sight, O LORD, my strength, and my redeemer. [Psalm 19:14]
Posts: 7772 | From: Canada; Washington DC; Phoenix; it's complicated | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Adam.
Like as the
# 4991
|
Posted
I think pimple was quoting the NRSV. What complicates this is that the Greek does not have any verb corresponding to "end in" or "lead" but works solely on prepositions:
quote:
Αυτη ασθενεια ουκ εστιν προς θανατον αλλ υπερ της δοχης του θεου
Translating word for word:
quote:
This sickness is not "to" death but "for" the glory of God.
Playing with prepositions is notoriously difficult, but let's try.
The preposition governing "death" is προς with the accusative which is used as a "marker of movement or orientation toward someone/thing" (BDAG). It can also mean "near, at or during" for a time or "(aiming) at or (striving toward) for a goal."
Jesus contrasts this with υπερ with the genitive governing "the glory of God." This means "for the benefit of" or "because of" or "concerning."
So, what do we do with all this? I don't think we can make much sense of the "but" without reading the two prepositions as getting at basically the same kind of relationship, or else there's nothing adversative about the two clauses to coordinate with a "but." So, I would go with the sense of προς that means "aiming towards" and translate loosely something like:
quote:
This illness is not pointing to death, but serving the glory of God
--------------------
Ave Crux, Spes Unica!
Preaching blog
Posts: 8164 | From: Notre Dame, IN | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
tclune
Shipmate
# 7959
|
Posted
It takes a brave soul, indeed, to quote the NIV around here as a standard of accuracy ![[Biased]](wink.gif) The KJV is generally a pretty good indicator of the original, assuming that language hasn't drifted too much and the text is not one that has been the object of hot debate as to original wording. In ths case, the KJV says, "This sickness is not unto death..." "Unto" may be a bit dated, but to all intents and purposes, the KJV has it about as plainly-rendered as you're likely to find. FWIW
--------------------
This space left blank intentionally.
Posts: 8013 | From: Western MA | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dinghy Sailor
Ship's Jibsheet
# 8507
|
Posted
Sharkshooter, the NRSV reads
quote:
But when Jesus heard it, he said, ‘This illness does not lead to death; rather it is for God’s glory, so that the Son of God may be glorified through it.’
Pimple, your postulation creates more problems than it solves. See verse 12: quote:
Jesus, however, had been speaking about his death, but they thought that he was referring merely to sleep.
The author of John (who was probably there at the time, remember) is quite clear that Jesus had known all along that Lazarus was dead (had been speaking about his death – the speech had always been about death), but had chosen to speak in terms of sleep.
When Jesus then reached the tomb (after two days of journeying IIRC), Lazarus had been dead for four days. To answer the question of why Jesus waited, many people have said (and I agree) that he waited precisely so that interpretations like yours would hold no water. If Lazarus wasn't dead when he was put in the tomb (and somehow, I doubt folks back then buried people who may still be alive any more readily than they do now), he'd most certainly be dead by the time he'd been lying in a cave with no water for four days. If the truth of the matter is remotely similar to the story in the bible, Lazarus was dead and Jesus raised him.
--------------------
Preach Christ, because this old humanity has used up all hopes and expectations, but in Christ hope lives and remains.
Dietrich Bonhoeffer
Posts: 2821 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
pimple
Ship's Irruption
# 10635
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Hart:
I think pimple was quoting the NRSV. What complicates this is that the Greek does not have any verb corresponding to "end in" or "lead" but works solely on prepositions:
quote:
Αυτη ασθενεια ουκ εστιν προς θανατον αλλ υπερ της δοχης του θεου
Translating word for word:
quote:
This sickness is not "to" death but "for" the glory of God.
Playing with prepositions is notoriously difficult, but let's try.
The preposition governing "death" is προς with the accusative which is used as a "marker of movement or orientation toward someone/thing" (BDAG). It can also mean "near, at or during" for a time or "(aiming) at or (striving toward) for a goal."
Jesus contrasts this with υπερ with the genitive governing "the glory of God." This means "for the benefit of" or "because of" or "concerning."
So, what do we do with all this? I don't think we can make much sense of the "but" without reading the two prepositions as getting at basically the same kind of relationship, or else there's nothing adversative about the two clauses to coordinate with a "but." So, I would go with the sense of προς that means "aiming towards" and translate loosely something like:
quote:
This illness is not pointing to death, but serving the glory of God
That all sounds reasonable to me. Why would the simple recovery of Lazarus's health not give glory to God?
Can a Greek or even better, Greek and Aramaic scholar help me out by a translating the phrase the other way? Given that then there was no exact verbal equivalent of "life-threatening illness (or even "fatal illness"?) - how would the meaning (my meaning, if you insist) of "this is not a fatal illness" be rendered in Aramaic and/or Greek?
P>S> Yes you are right -I was quoting from NRSV
[ 08. November 2010, 17:21: Message edited by: pimple ]
--------------------
In other words, just because I made it all up, doesn't mean it isn't true (Reginald Hill)
Posts: 8018 | From: Wonderland | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
pimple
Ship's Irruption
# 10635
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dinghy Sailor:
Sharkshooter, the NRSV reads
quote:
But when Jesus heard it, he said, ‘This illness does not lead to death; rather it is for God’s glory, so that the Son of God may be glorified through it.’
Pimple, your postulation creates more problems than it solves. See verse 12: quote:
Jesus, however, had been speaking about his death, but they thought that he was referring merely to sleep.
The author of John (who was probably there at the time, remember) is quite clear that Jesus had known all along that Lazarus was dead (had been speaking about his death – the speech had always been about death), but had chosen to speak in terms of sleep.
When Jesus then reached the tomb (after two days of journeying IIRC), Lazarus had been dead for four days. To answer the question of why Jesus waited, many people have said (and I agree) that he waited precisely so that interpretations like yours would hold no water. If Lazarus wasn't dead when he was put in the tomb (and somehow, I doubt folks back then buried people who may still be alive any more readily than they do now), he'd most certainly be dead by the time he'd been lying in a cave with no water for four days. If the truth of the matter is remotely similar to the story in the bible, Lazarus was dead and Jesus raised him.
I would not argue with the text as a whole, because it looks like a complete story with an authentic writtten source (even without the affidavit that appears on a couple of other of John's accounts). But "Jesus was talking abo0ut his death" is clearly a gloss by the evangelist to clear up any misunderstanding in the original. The only person qualified to explain what Jesus meant was Jesus himself. That has never stopped those who knew better, however.
--------------------
In other words, just because I made it all up, doesn't mean it isn't true (Reginald Hill)
Posts: 8018 | From: Wonderland | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dinghy Sailor
Ship's Jibsheet
# 8507
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by pimple:
"Jesus was talking abo0ut his death" is clearly a gloss by the evangelist to clear up any misunderstanding in the original. The only person qualified to explain what Jesus meant was Jesus himself. That has never stopped those who knew better, however.
Yes. Since John (assuming he really was John, which is something I accept) was one of Jesus' closest confidants, I'll take his clarifications of Jesus' words over the post hoc speculations of someone who never knew the man Jesus. Should I do differently?
--------------------
Preach Christ, because this old humanity has used up all hopes and expectations, but in Christ hope lives and remains.
Dietrich Bonhoeffer
Posts: 2821 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bullfrog.
Prophetic Amphibian
# 11014
|
Posted
Wouldn't any serious illness in the ancient world be life-threatening? It's not like they had germ theory, let alone antibiotics or hospitals...
[ 08. November 2010, 18:14: Message edited by: Bullfrog. ]
--------------------
Some say that man is the root of all evil
Others say God's a drunkard for pain
Me, I believe that the Garden of Eden
Was burned to make way for a train. --Josh Ritter, Harrisburg
Posts: 7522 | From: Chicago | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
In the Orthodox Church this incident is taken to be a prefigurement of Christ's resurrection, and to show that He has power over death. It is celebrated the day before Palm Sunday -- we call that day, "Lazarus Saturday." That weekend forms an island between Lent proper, which ends on the day before Lazarus Saturday, and Holy Week proper, which starts the day after Palm Sunday.
We take it as read that Lazarus died.
The problem with going down the route of blaming glosses on John's faulty understanding and contrasting them to the words of Christ, is that we're also trusting John to correctly report the words of Christ. If he is unreliable as a commentator, why isn't he equally unreliable as a reporter? He could easily be misrepresenting the words of Christ to serve his own ends. It makes no sense to say he was honest and savvy in reporting the words, but dishonest or mistaken in glossing them.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
pimple
Ship's Irruption
# 10635
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dinghy Sailor:
quote:
Originally posted by pimple:
"Jesus was talking abo0ut his death" is clearly a gloss by the evangelist to clear up any misunderstanding in the original. The only person qualified to explain what Jesus meant was Jesus himself. That has never stopped those who knew better, however.
Yes. Since John (assuming he really was John, which is something I accept) was one of Jesus' closest confidants, I'll take his clarifications of Jesus' words over the post hoc speculations of someone who never knew the man Jesus. Should I do differently?
Certainly not, given your acknowledged assumption that John (The Beloved Disciple - son of Zebedee?) was there at the time. But that's not an assumption that I - and many other people - share. It would be a rather long tangent to discuss here, I think, though I acknowledge it as central to your argument.
I would prefer to agree to differ on this point and move on, but would understand if you're reluctant or unable to do so.
--------------------
In other words, just because I made it all up, doesn't mean it isn't true (Reginald Hill)
Posts: 8018 | From: Wonderland | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
pimple
Ship's Irruption
# 10635
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Bullfrog.:
Wouldn't any serious illness in the ancient world be life-threatening? It's not like they had germ theory, let alone antibiotics or hospitals...
Indeed. So wouldn't it be even more pressing for Jesus, given some knowledge of healing not common to the general public, to re-assure the messenger that this particular illness was not life-threatening, in spite of the symptoms? And sensible for him to wait for confirmation that the message had got through?
--------------------
In other words, just because I made it all up, doesn't mean it isn't true (Reginald Hill)
Posts: 8018 | From: Wonderland | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
pimple
Ship's Irruption
# 10635
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
In the Orthodox Church this incident is taken to be a prefigurement of Christ's resurrection, and to show that He has power over death. It is celebrated the day before Palm Sunday -- we call that day, "Lazarus Saturday." That weekend forms an island between Lent proper, which ends on the day before Lazarus Saturday, and Holy Week proper, which starts the day after Palm Sunday.
We take it as read that Lazarus died.
The problem with going down the route of blaming glosses on John's faulty understanding and contrasting them to the words of Christ, is that we're also trusting John to correctly report the words of Christ. If he is unreliable as a commentator, why isn't he equally unreliable as a reporter? He could easily be misrepresenting the words of Christ to serve his own ends. It makes no sense to say he was honest and savvy in reporting the words, but dishonest or mistaken in glossing them.
The importance of Lazarus to the doctrine of resurrection in the orthodox (small and large O)
church, and the great comfort and hope the story has given to countless millions of people, is largely what has prevented me from opening this thread for some years. When I typed out the OP my hands were shaking so much I inadvertently wiped the first draft and had to begin all over again. I felt like I was standing in front of a class of very small children and telling them there was no Father Christmas - with their parents waiting for me outside the door.
I need time to answer your post Mousethief, because I think there may be room for both interpretations of this story - well, there ought to be, given how much good it has done - and how much harm.
--------------------
In other words, just because I made it all up, doesn't mean it isn't true (Reginald Hill)
Posts: 8018 | From: Wonderland | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
I certainly am not offended by people not believing the same things that I do. (For one thing it would make it very hard to be on the SOF at all!) I'm interested to hear what you think are the advantages of your interpretation, and what harm has been done from the conventional interpretation.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
Dear Pimple, I really can't see how your interpretation of the story could do such harm as you suggest, so please stop worrying. The primary hope and comfort of the Christian is the Lord Jesus' resurrection, not that of Lazarus. I think you hear of Lazarus so often only because the story is smaller--more manageable, more bite-sized, more easily preachable than the resurrection of the God-Man himself and all the theological arteries that flow out of that beating heart. To THAT resurrection, the story of Lazarus is a mere lymph node.
I hope you don't mind that we will definitely disagree with you! Little children notwithstanding, I would be astonished if you had come up with a startling new disproof that the mind of mankind hasn't found already in lo these two thousand years.
[ 09. November 2010, 10:51: Message edited by: Lamb Chopped ]
--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!
Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
pimple
Ship's Irruption
# 10635
|
Posted
Wow! ![[Votive]](graemlins/votive.gif)
--------------------
In other words, just because I made it all up, doesn't mean it isn't true (Reginald Hill)
Posts: 8018 | From: Wonderland | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
sharkshooter
Not your average shark
# 1589
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by pimple:
... When I typed out the OP my hands were shaking so much I inadvertently wiped the first draft and had to begin all over again. I felt like I was standing in front of a class of very small children and telling them there was no Father Christmas - with their parents waiting for me outside the door.
...
Fear not. We are all grown ups here. We are quite comfortable knowing your "interpretation" is hooey and moving on.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
--------------------
Let the words of my mouth, and the meditation of my heart, be acceptable in thy sight, O LORD, my strength, and my redeemer. [Psalm 19:14]
Posts: 7772 | From: Canada; Washington DC; Phoenix; it's complicated | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dinghy Sailor
Ship's Jibsheet
# 8507
|
Posted
Pimple, it seems to me that you're constructing an entire situation, making many more suppositions than you could possibly reasonably make at this distance from the event, in order to support your version of events. You're going out on a very long limb indeed. For a start, you're basing this on some words of Jesus that fit fine with the conventional interpretation of the story and so don't really need reinterpreting.
To apply Occam's razor, there's a much simpler explanation of what went on and what John wrote: It did exactly what it said on the tin. Lazarus died, the people of the village (who were not stupid and knew what death looked like) buried him, Jesus raised him four days later. As Mousethief has asked, what do you gain by concluding differently?
--------------------
Preach Christ, because this old humanity has used up all hopes and expectations, but in Christ hope lives and remains.
Dietrich Bonhoeffer
Posts: 2821 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
pimple
Ship's Irruption
# 10635
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
I certainly am not offended by people not believing the same things that I do. (For one thing it would make it very hard to be on the SOF at all!) I'm interested to hear what you think are the advantages of your interpretation, and what harm has been done from the conventional interpretation.
Well I think that the chief harm of the conventional interpretation is that for centuries it could get you burned at the stake if you questioned a single word of it! Nowadays of course we are all much more civilised so God knows why I still get the occasional whiff of an incipient faggot - even on these liberal pages...
The scariness of some Christians apart, I feel that some bible stories - but this one in particular - deserve a far wider audience than the traditional treatment of them allows. If you haven't guessed long ago, I no longer feel compelled to worship Jesus as God, but as that compulsion fades, my appreciation of and respect for Jesus the man seems to have mushroomed. I think it's a crying shame - literally - that people of goodwill are sent packing by the fundamentalists when they look for - and find -insights that the "fixed smile" brigade wouldn't recognise if they jumped up and bit them on the nose. And there I must stop before I start making any more ad hominem comments. I'll be back - with I hope a more generous appreciation of John the Evangelist than I seem to have given you so far.
--------------------
In other words, just because I made it all up, doesn't mean it isn't true (Reginald Hill)
Posts: 8018 | From: Wonderland | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
pimple
Ship's Irruption
# 10635
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dinghy Sailor:
Pimple, it seems to me that you're constructing an entire situation, making many more suppositions than you could possibly reasonably make at this distance from the event, in order to support your version of events. You're going out on a very long limb indeed. For a start, you're basing this on some words of Jesus that fit fine with the conventional interpretation of the story and so don't really need reinterpreting.
To apply Occam's razor, there's a much simpler explanation of what went on and what John wrote: It did exactly what it said on the tin. Lazarus died, the people of the village (who were not stupid and knew what death looked like) buried him, Jesus raised him four days later. As Mousethief has asked, what do you gain by concluding differently?
The only limb I'm out on is this - what if Jesus is not God? If you can face that question honestly, many of the problems in the text vanish and the story becomes more, not less, enhancing of Jesus (the man). Everything then makes sense - his delay in going to Bethany, his apparent changes of mind (not need for John's explanation), his shock at finding his friend already buried, his comforting of Mary and Martha - targeted to give hope even if he is, after all, too late, his grief over his (buried) friend, and his ultimate joy in discovering that there was, after all, no smell from the tomb. And finally, his reticence to enter the tomb and spook the poor man who has recovered in time to loosen some of the grave clothes. Lazarus knows it's safe to come out when he hears the voice of his friend. Barging in there without warning might well have finished him off.
What, of all this, is inarguably contradicted by the text? I agree with one of your statements. The story of Lazarus does exactly what it says on the tin. Do me a favour and read it again before you reply to this.
--------------------
In other words, just because I made it all up, doesn't mean it isn't true (Reginald Hill)
Posts: 8018 | From: Wonderland | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dinghy Sailor
Ship's Jibsheet
# 8507
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by pimple:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
I certainly am not offended by people not believing the same things that I do. (For one thing it would make it very hard to be on the SOF at all!) I'm interested to hear what you think are the advantages of your interpretation, and what harm has been done from the conventional interpretation.
Well I think that the chief harm of the conventional interpretation is that for centuries it could get you burned at the stake if you questioned a single word of it!
You could also get burned for doing other things as well. Burning people was the fault of the people doing the burning, not of the excuses they used for it: If I write something now and in the year 3000 someone decides to burn people for not listening to what I said, that's not my fault. I'm afraid that this is the sort of obvious fallacy that makes it very hard for me to take your idea seriously.
quote:
I think it's a crying shame - literally - that people of goodwill are sent packing by the fundamentalists when they look for - and find -insights that the "fixed smile" brigade wouldn't recognise if they jumped up and bit them on the nose.
Just to remind you, believing the gospel accounts does not make anyone a fundamentalist, just a Christian. How about you make your case without using unnecessary slurs?
--------------------
Preach Christ, because this old humanity has used up all hopes and expectations, but in Christ hope lives and remains.
Dietrich Bonhoeffer
Posts: 2821 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jon in the Nati
Shipmate
# 15849
|
Posted
Pimple, could you kindly post your real life, physical address? I'd like to send the Inquisitors to your place to have a little 'chat' with you. Please, pay no attention to the torches they will be carrying.
Wait...
--------------------
Homer: Aww, this isn't about Jesus, is it?
Lovejoy: All things are about Jesus, Homer. Except this.
Posts: 773 | From: Region formerly known as the Biretta Belt | Registered: Aug 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kelly Alves
Bunny with an axe
# 2522
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jon in the Nati:
Pimple, could you kindly post your real life, physical address? I'd like to send the Inquisitors to your place to have a little 'chat' with you. Please, pay no attention to the torches they will be carrying.
Wait...
[HOSTING]
That's getting pretty personal. Feel free to attack each others ideas, but stay off of the person. If the person is getting on your nerves, you know where to take it.
Back to the topic.
Kelly Alves, Kerygmania Host.
[/HOSTING]
--------------------
I cannot expect people to believe “
Jesus loves me, this I know” of they don’t believe “Kelly loves me, this I know.”
Kelly Alves, somewhere around 2003.
Posts: 35076 | From: Pura Californiana | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bullfrog.
Prophetic Amphibian
# 11014
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by pimple:
quote:
Originally posted by Bullfrog.:
Wouldn't any serious illness in the ancient world be life-threatening? It's not like they had germ theory, let alone antibiotics or hospitals...
Indeed. So wouldn't it be even more pressing for Jesus, given some knowledge of healing not common to the general public, to re-assure the messenger that this particular illness was not life-threatening, in spite of the symptoms? And sensible for him to wait for confirmation that the message had got through?
I'm skeptical. I'm not sure Jesus shows signs of having scientific knowledge in a pre-scientific community, though it might make him more palatable to moderns who think everything must be scientifically resolved. Just seems to be reading too much of our own presuppositions onto the text for me.
--------------------
Some say that man is the root of all evil
Others say God's a drunkard for pain
Me, I believe that the Garden of Eden
Was burned to make way for a train. --Josh Ritter, Harrisburg
Posts: 7522 | From: Chicago | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
shamwari
Shipmate
# 15556
|
Posted
I have problems with this passage.
John defines all the miracles he records as "signs". Signs point to a reality beyond themselves and so the historicity of the incident takes second place/ What happened is subsumed under the heading of "what did it mean/point to".
The Orthodox (LC and MT) in their posts accept this "sign" emphasis and insist it is a sign that Jesus is "the resurrection and the life" ( John's evaluation of the sign).
But is it? The 'resurrection' of Lazarus was a temporary reprieve. he subsequently died.
And in what sense does this temporary resurrection to life apply to what Jesus and subsequent Christin Faith mean by resurrection to eternal life? The one is not analagous of the other.
Moreover, much seems to be made of the words Jesus used in this incident. I, for one, am highly sceptical that John ever records the words of Jesus verbatim. I prefer to evaluate them as (inspired) commentary and mature reflection on Jesus. I cite the " I am" sayings as evidence. It seems to me that a truly human person *such as we believe Jesus to be) would have any consciousness, let alone go around claiming, divinity.
I have zee problem!!!
Posts: 1914 | From: from the abyss of misunderstanding | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
shamwari
Shipmate
# 15556
|
Posted
My puter is playing up and editing time defeated me.
My last para was meant to say that I cannot conceive of any truly human person being conscious of being Divine - let alone claiming such status.
And C.S. Lewis' Mad, Bad or God answer to that dilemma is deplorable in its logic.
Posts: 1914 | From: from the abyss of misunderstanding | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
sharkshooter
Not your average shark
# 1589
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by shamwari:
... I cannot conceive of any truly human person being conscious of being Divine - let alone claiming such status.
....
So because you cannot understand it, it must not be true.
Good luck applying that to the rest of your life.
--------------------
Let the words of my mouth, and the meditation of my heart, be acceptable in thy sight, O LORD, my strength, and my redeemer. [Psalm 19:14]
Posts: 7772 | From: Canada; Washington DC; Phoenix; it's complicated | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
shamwari
Shipmate
# 15556
|
Posted
Sarcasm is a poor substitute for rational argument / discussion.
Posts: 1914 | From: from the abyss of misunderstanding | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by shamwari:
Sarcasm is a poor substitute for rational argument / discussion.
As is saying "I can't conceive of it" as if that disproves something.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dinghy Sailor
Ship's Jibsheet
# 8507
|
Posted
Of course shamwari can't conceive of it, I can't conceive of it either. If Jesus was really God-man, he was a completely unique event and we've got no other experience to compare him to, so his thoughts jolly well ought to be inconceiveable!
--------------------
Preach Christ, because this old humanity has used up all hopes and expectations, but in Christ hope lives and remains.
Dietrich Bonhoeffer
Posts: 2821 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by pimple:
Wow!
Um, what?????
(Seriously, I'm confused. ESPECIALLY by the prayer smiley. ?)
--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!
Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bullfrog.
Prophetic Amphibian
# 11014
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by shamwari:
My puter is playing up and editing time defeated me.
My last para was meant to say that I cannot conceive of any truly human person being conscious of being Divine - let alone claiming such status.
And C.S. Lewis' Mad, Bad or God answer to that dilemma is deplorable in its logic.
In that case, I think you're going to have a hard time with the gospel, though it does explain why there's such a strong urge to try to read past the gospel to the historical Jesus. Trouble is, dig too far and I fear you end up in a mirror-void where nothing is too clear except what one wants to see (lacking other evidence.)
--------------------
Some say that man is the root of all evil
Others say God's a drunkard for pain
Me, I believe that the Garden of Eden
Was burned to make way for a train. --Josh Ritter, Harrisburg
Posts: 7522 | From: Chicago | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by pimple:
Well I think that the chief harm of the conventional interpretation is that for centuries it could get you burned at the stake if you questioned a single word of it!
But that's not the fault of the interpretation, but of the interpreters. It's a non sequitur to say that this implies the interpretation is false. ("Guilty by association" perhaps?)
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by shamwari:
I have problems with this passage.
John defines all the miracles he records as "signs". Signs point to a reality beyond themselves and so the historicity of the incident takes second place/ What happened is subsumed under the heading of "what did it mean/point to".
Actually, I've always understood the term "sign" to indicate something more like one's I.D. or calling card--the miracles were Jesus' I.D., they were his identification to the people of Israel that the God of Israel (no other god) now walked in flesh among them. This particular miracle harks back to several Old Testament miracles, and also to the passage in Ezekiel 37:11-13 (here NIV):
quote:
11 Then he said to me: “Son of man, these bones are the people of Israel. They say, ‘Our bones are dried up and our hope is gone; we are cut off.’ Therefore prophesy and say to them: ‘This is what the Sovereign LORD says: My people, I am going to open your graves and bring you up from them; I will bring you back to the land of Israel. Then you, my people, will know that I am the LORD, when I open your graves and bring you up from them."
The point of these signs is not so much to prove anything to unbelievers; the point is to call back and reassure the wandering people of Israel that this is, after all, their God:
quote:
from Isaiah 43:11-13 (New International Version)
I, even I, am the LORD,
and apart from me there is no savior.
I have revealed and saved and proclaimed—
I, and not some foreign god among you.
You are my witnesses,” declares the LORD, “that I am God.
Yes, and from ancient days I am he."
quote:
Originally posted by shamwari:
The Orthodox (LC and MT) in their posts accept this "sign" emphasis and insist it is a sign that Jesus is "the resurrection and the life" ( John's evaluation of the sign).
But is it? The 'resurrection' of Lazarus was a temporary reprieve. he subsequently died.
And in what sense does this temporary resurrection to life apply to what Jesus and subsequent Christin Faith mean by resurrection to eternal life? The one is not analagous of the other.
To clear up a misunderstanding--I'm Lutheran, not Orthodox (though I am "orthodox" with a small o.). And what I'm saying is nothing new, it's the mainstream teaching of the Christian church over the centuries in all times and in all places, east or west. No brilliance (or foolishness!) of mine! ![[Two face]](graemlins/scot_twoface.gif)
I explained the sign thing up above, but it might be good to note here that signs are by their very nature incomplete and lacking. If they were not, they would not be signs; they would be the thing itself, the thing signified. So of course Lazarus died again. Of course the wine at Cana eventually ran out (and doubtless got a few people drunk). This is not the true and final resurrection of the dead yet; that must wait for the Last Day. This is not the wine of heaven yet; that must wait for the wedding feast of the Lamb. To descend to the absurd, my driver's license photo bears only a faint and passing resemblance to me (at least I HOPE so!). For the reality, you must look out of the wallet and at the person carrying that particular sign.
--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!
Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by shamwari:
My last para was meant to say that I cannot conceive of any truly human person being conscious of being Divine - let alone claiming such status.
Well I can't blame you for that! Who could conceive of such a thing?
But then, there are a lot of things I can't wrap my mind around that are nevertheless true. Such as the fact that my husband has made it to the advanced age of nevermind without learning to put dirty clothes in the hamper.
--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!
Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
IconiumBound
Shipmate
# 754
|
Posted
The entire Gospel of John is an attempt (probably successful) to answer growing doubts and other excursions fom Christianity. Written in the very late or early 2nd century it tries to answer these and gnostic claims to the 'truth'. Thus you have the significance of 'signs', re-organizing of the Temple incident and the story of Lazarus. The latter being the definitive (they thought) rebuttal to anyone doubting the resurrection.
Posts: 1318 | From: Philadelphia, PA, USA | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jay-Emm
Shipmate
# 11411
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by shamwari:
My puter is playing up and editing time defeated me.
My last para was meant to say that I cannot conceive of any truly human person being conscious of being Divine - let alone claiming such status.
And C.S. Lewis' Mad, Bad or God answer to that dilemma is deplorable in its logic.
But you've just maintained the logic (just then followed it up in the other way).
Lewis argues:
I know what a fairy tale looks like and this isn't one (this IS logic weak, although experience rich-for Lewis)
"I cannot conceive of any truly (solely) human person being conscious of being Divine - let alone claiming such status."
(you could have some debate about which of (mad/bad/god)/not truly human is better English, which is fairer,*
or you and Lewis could both be wrong)
Therefore (following the statement) he 'accepts' the conclusion (possibly having already prejudged his ideas on fairy tales to get that answer).
Whereas:
You go from explicitly excluding all the non-truly human, via the same statement to refute the postulate (I.E therefore John can't say that or he's wrong)
With regard to your original point personally I can't read the writer not writing that Lazerus was dead (I.E he did say that, logically he could still be wrong)**.
However your post is v interesting, non the less.
Jesus' reaction is interesting:
it could be a contradiction (suggesting that John was a unreliable witness),
it could be Jesus being deliberately misleading (it doesn't require reading much supposition into the passage, but does require some),
or Jesus could raise the dead and be dead wrong (which would be dead interesting theologically, but require much reading out of the passage)
*Technically you've got space for Jesus to be a cat/angel/etc..., but can't explain the camp wacco founder, and Lewis the opposite. The true statement should do both, and then take several reams to cover every cases.
**Whether by completely misinterpreting Jesus, or not realising Jesus was misinterpreting reality "But, master, that's not a tomb, that's a bed, and he doesn't look dead he just looks pissed off".
Posts: 1643 | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jay-Emm
Shipmate
# 11411
|
Posted
Sorry that read overly long and seems critical, but if I took any out it would be conspicuous by it's absence.
Posts: 1643 | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
pimple
Ship's Irruption
# 10635
|
Posted
Dinghy Sailor. Regarding the fundamentalist slur. You are quite right. I'm not proud of that unthinking statement. Wild generalisations have no place here, and the majority of Christians on the Ship are generous and understanding to a fault. Please accept my apologies.
Bullfrog. I didn't mean to imply that Jesus was blessed with precocious pre-scientific knowledge in the way you read me. His healing powers are completely beyond my comprehension, but even a non-believer can appreciate that they were phenomenal. What undoubtedly helped was his willingness to look very closely at things other folk did their best to look away from - a good diagnostic starting-point!
Mousethief. In response to your comment on (my denigration of?) St. John the Evangelist - a man to whom I have surely been uncharitable in the past. I regret the knee-jerk remarks some of his sayings have prompted. There is a big red blob on the delete button of my new keyboard! Moving on -
We all have our corporate, cultural and personal axes to grind ( pace K.A. St. John is no exception; indeed, he tells us clearly and succinctly where he is coming from in the "Epilogue" to the fourth gospel:
quote:
Now Jesus did many other signs in the presence of his disciples, which are not written in this book. But these are written so that you may come to believe that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God, and that through believing you may have life in his name.
[John 21:30]
This tells us a number of things. Firstly that he had access to far more material than he needed for his version of the good news. Secondly that he accepted some accounts and rejected others. Thirdly that his choice of material and his treatment of it was governed by one sole aim - to convince people to accept Jesus as the Son of God and thereby not perish, but have eternal life.
The story of Lazarus was a great gift to that end. Whether he (John) witnessed the actual event himself - which I and many others doubt - or whether he was working from oral tradition and/or written accounts noted at the time and handed down verbatim, the story of the raising of Lazarus seems to foreshadow the death and resurrection of Christ so closely that he'd have been an utter fool to leave it out (and, no, I am not saying that the synoptic writers were fools - they too had their own priorities and included material that John left out).
John's story as it came down to him (or as he saw it) was made of whole cloth. He was a consummate dramatist, knowing when a lot of detail was needed (as here) and when a lighter touch was more effective (that one gut-wrenching word "Mary" in the resurrection garden, "Jesus wept" in the Lazarus story. But his editing never included what we would regard as fiction he was true, both to his sources, and to his own inner vision. I'm sure the Lazarus story was so well known anyway, that he would have been pilloried if he'd dared to change a word of it.
So he tells the story as it is - exactly as he received it, or experienced it. And as he wrote, he kept in the front of his mind his great purpose...
Some points cannot be made in a couple of sentences, and too much haste leads to misunderstandings. I'm sure you have all twigged that the devil is in the detail yet to come - and I am very glad that I can say that here without being taken too literally.
--------------------
In other words, just because I made it all up, doesn't mean it isn't true (Reginald Hill)
Posts: 8018 | From: Wonderland | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
Pimple: I wasn't sticking up for the evangelist so much as critiquing a hermeneutical principle: that of believing the evangelists when they report Christ's words, but disbelieving them when they are not. I don't think it holds water, for the reasons I cited.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
pimple
Ship's Irruption
# 10635
|
Posted
Yes, I was coming to that. It's not so much belief or disbelief in the evangelist's clarification. More a suspicion that no clarification is necessary. An indecisive, vacillating Jesus is not the best testament to divinity, is it? He stops for two days - he doesn't say why. So John says why for him. He says first one thing, then the opposite, about Lazarus's state of health. So John crosses a few tees and dots a couple of eyes. This doesn't make him an unreliable recorder. It makes him a damned good evangelist - because it makes the story more clear cut, removes the chance of any possiblwe misunderstanding.
He's not writing history or biography in the modern sense. That doesn't mean he fails to get his facts right. But even historians interpret their facts and some interpretations are pretty wild. John's interpolations are aimed at propagating the one important truth he wants to get across, and he succeeds, I think. He removes any cause for doubt, any ambiguity.
That makes for good evangelism. But there is a real event there which is capable of being imterpreted in other ways. Not any old way. I don't think I have made anything up, any more than John did. I can live with uncertainties and probabilities. I don't have John's evangelistic impulse. But I do want people who have been turned off by the church to read about the man Jesus, to explore the rich resources of the biblical books, and not be afraid of writing "their own" stories. [I think I make a bettert fist of Lazarus than Pullman doeas of Christ, btw ![[Razz]](tongue.gif) ] And if they find, while doing this, that I'm talking total bollocks and John has it all right, nobody's the loser, are they?
Er, no, in case that's too ambiguous, no, I'm not playing devil's advocate.
--------------------
In other words, just because I made it all up, doesn't mean it isn't true (Reginald Hill)
Posts: 8018 | From: Wonderland | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bullfrog.
Prophetic Amphibian
# 11014
|
Posted
quote:
Originally Posted by pimple:
Bullfrog. I didn't mean to imply that Jesus was blessed with precocious pre-scientific knowledge in the way you read me. His healing powers are completely beyond my comprehension, but even a non-believer can appreciate that they were phenomenal. What undoubtedly helped was his willingness to look very closely at things other folk did their best to look away from - a good diagnostic starting-point!
I dunno. Spitting into the ground and rubbing it into someone's eyes is pretty unconventional from a modern medical perspective, though I'll grant that insight was one of Jesus' gifts. I'm not sure miracles are reducible to "Oh, well, he was just ahead of his time," though perhaps our historic pursuit of himself may have led us farther along in our own time...
I think, somewhat on mousethief's critique, that when we try to sort out the real historical Jesus simply be redacting out bits of the text that are too strange or "convenient" for someone else, we end up with turning Jesus into an ego-reflector. I don't think you're going that far, but this approach to exegesis always throws that flag in my mind.
[ 11. November 2010, 19:52: Message edited by: Bullfrog. ]
--------------------
Some say that man is the root of all evil
Others say God's a drunkard for pain
Me, I believe that the Garden of Eden
Was burned to make way for a train. --Josh Ritter, Harrisburg
Posts: 7522 | From: Chicago | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by pimple:
Yes, I was coming to that. It's not so much belief or disbelief in the evangelist's clarification. More a suspicion that no clarification is necessary. An indecisive, vacillating Jesus is not the best testament to divinity, is it? He stops for two days - he doesn't say why.
John says he stops for two days. If John is making up the explanation, he could well be making up the pause. You say there's a "real event" here, but you have no evidence of that, or of what that real event was should it have existed, except John's narrative. If John's purpose is served by pulling an explanation of a putative event out of thin air, it could just as easily be served by pulling the event out of the same thin air.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
[Tangent ON] Love the Thomas Browne sig! I did my darndest to dig up a dissertation topic in his stuff, but no go. [sigh]
--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!
Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
pimple
Ship's Irruption
# 10635
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by pimple:
Yes, I was coming to that. It's not so much belief or disbelief in the evangelist's clarification. More a suspicion that no clarification is necessary. An indecisive, vacillating Jesus is not the best testament to divinity, is it? He stops for two days - he doesn't say why.
John says he stops for two days. If John is making up the explanation, he could well be making up the pause. You say there's a "real event" here, but you have no evidence of that, or of what that real event was should it have existed, except John's narrative. If John's purpose is served by pulling an explanation of a putative event out of thin air, it could just as easily be served by pulling the event out of the same thin air.
It's a good point. What, in part, convinces me that this is a real story, the basic facts of which John records without any deletion, is just the necessity for dotting those eyes and crossing those tees. If he'd made the story up, what would be the point of including features that obscure his central tenet?
Bullfrog. I know how exegesis should work. I am not claiming that my "take" is exegetical. Any Christian exegesis is bound to start from John's own perspective - that Jesus is God. I think that by ditching that a priori stance, a more interesting - amd even more inspiring - story might emerge. And it doesn't necessarily rule out the possibility of accepting, after all, John's high Christology (but it begin to look for more substantial foundations).
It's a bit like using the nonsensical notion of the square root of a minus number to arrive at a sensible mathematical solution.
--------------------
In other words, just because I made it all up, doesn't mean it isn't true (Reginald Hill)
Posts: 8018 | From: Wonderland | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Thread closed
Printer-friendly view
