|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Kerygmania: The death of Lazarus John 11
|
pimple
Ship's Irruption
# 10635
|
Posted
I think I half agree with you, Eutychus. ISTM that the idea of miracles as pointers to the wonder and compassion of God (for which we sceptics have yet to find a satisfactory alternative name) is one of the few bits of Christianity worth holding on to. The knowledge that there is something bigger than humanity (especially white, male, Western humanity!) is something often forgotten in this manifestly unconquered world. But -
there's a big point coming up, and it's an important one (important because of the subject matter, not because of my take on it). It's very complex, and I am finding it difficult to voice, succinctly, clearly, and accurately, what I feel I am beginning to get to grips with. It's about miracles in general, and healing miracles in particular (I'll get to the particular as quickly as I can).
What is the biggest miracle of all time, and no time? The creation? The resurrection of Jesus? Christians might say that they are both part of the one big mighty work. But the attitudes of believers and non-believers have changed over time. Few people now believe than God put trilobites in geological strata to tempt us into disbelieving Genesis. And AFAIK not many believers nowadays see Jesus being hoisted up by his armpits into a magical cloud at the ascension.
But not everyone can manage change, or face the possibility that things may not have happened exactly as they (and everybody else!) always knew they did. Creationists and their closet supporters in the mainstream churches seem to be gaining ground. Perhaps the reason for some conversions to Islam is that religion's attitude to Jesus - more fundamentalist in its intransigent belief in the indestructible nature of "prophet" Jesus than that of many mid-west "bible-bashers".
We (hominids) used to fear the elements, and made gods of them. Who now believes that thunder is the voice of God, and floods His divine punishment? Sadly, quite a few. [tbc]
--------------------
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
|
|
Nigel M
Shipmate
# 11256
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by pimple:
... not everyone can manage change, or face the possibility that things may not have happened exactly as they (and everybody else!) always knew they did. Creationists and their closet supporters in the mainstream churches seem to be gaining ground. Perhaps the reason for some conversions to Islam is that religion's attitude to Jesus - more fundamentalist in its intransigent belief in the indestructible nature of "prophet" Jesus than that of many mid-west "bible-bashers".
I think you're right about the state of belief today in that there are some lively and (apparently) entrenched views about the person and work of God (for Christians that includes ditto Jesus). We're in a post-something world where a number of older lively and (apparently) entrenched views have been seen to have no clothes: the naive liberalism that took two world wars to douse; and the naive Enlightenment objectivity (popularly a.k.a. “science”) that was undermined by post-modernism. What we seem to have now is a movement into one of two other camps: a 'drawing-of-the-breath' position after the passing away of of the great philosophical thinkers of the 20th century; or a 'I-plant-my-flag-on-this-hill' position.
The former (drawing breath) has no centre, no anchor. It is characterised by those who need some time to reflect on what just happened in the 20th century. It recognises that there are no great thinkers around at the moment and decides to remain agnostic in the face of fog until something certain arises again. The latter (planting flag) is for those who cannot stand fog. That position is occupied by those who need a centre, an anchor, and who cannot remain agnostic. This possibly explains why some young people are attracted to more literalistic interpretations of their sacred texts (in whichever religion) in an age when older 'scientific' fundamentalists thought they had won the day. It is proving to be very frustrating to that older generation to find that their worldview has been undermined by post-somethingisms!
Anyway, Lazarus would have had a fit. The thing with John's take on the Lazarus episode is that he (John) is aware that his audience needed guiding to the point that Jesus seems to have deliberately left Lazarus to die in order to effect a demonstration. John adds in helpful asides to offset any audience misapprehension that Jesus was a monster in this (e.g., 11:5 – Jesus loved Lazarus and his sisters).
So the issue does seem to be the one you identified – do we take John's take on this episode verbatim, or do we stand aside to draw breath, awaiting alternative centres to arise? In Christianity we don't really have quite the same level of issue that Islam has over human interpretation of the sacred texts. In Islam the central scriptures and traditions contain a number of black-and-white texts that if taken literalistically demand the planting of one's flag on a violent hill. In Christianity the battle is more over those 6-day, miracle, ascension, type texts.
The difficulty, as I see it through the fog, is that if one wants to avoid planting a flag so definitely on a hill above the fog level, one finds oneself raging against the fates. It's extraordinarily difficult to maintain an agnostic worldview for long – drawing one's breath leads to blue faces after a while in the face of fate. One tends to need a god in order to be angry at him (possibly her). In the absence of such a god one needs to invent one to either hate or love in the absence of the alternatives on offer from existing religious texts.
Which brings me, at least, to a rather fundamental point. If the god represented in the bible (limiting this to Christianity now) is counter intuitive to the reader, upon which rock should we base the new god we want to replace that old god with? Which philosophical base is available to adopt as a support for the new god? If the older liberal or scientific worldview certainties have been swept away (even if they persist for a time in the popular imagination), what is left?
Not sure if I can plant my flag on an agnostic hill on that question!
Posts: 2826 | From: London, UK | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Moo
Ship's tough old bird
# 107
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
When you think about it, the whole thing must have been traumatic for Lazarus. Firstly being sick and dying, then being resurrected swathed in his grave clothes, and being restored to this life - only to know he'd have to go through the whole dying thing again one day. I'm not sure it would be easier to bear a second time round.
C. S. Lewis expressed great sympathy for him.
Moo
--------------------
Kerygmania host
---------------------
See you later, alligator.
Posts: 20365 | From: Alleghany Mountains of Virginia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
pimple
Ship's Irruption
# 10635
|
Posted
radical misdiagnosis as
--------------------
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
Another two hours down the shoot. My old machine had an UNDO button somewhere for inadvertent deletions/typos. This one even hides the refresh button sometimes. I'll get back to you when I've finished my sweetness and light exercises...
--------------------
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
|
|
Nigel M
Shipmate
# 11256
|
Posted
The computer is sick. But worry not, this sickness will not lead to death, but to God’s glory, so that the Son of God may be glorified through it.
Posts: 2826 | From: London, UK | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
pimple
Ship's Irruption
# 10635
|
Posted
What could be easier than Ctrl+Z? Only I could take five attempts to make it work.
There was something about waiting, and something about planting flags. Interesting analogies, Nigel. I shuffle between the two - a journey without maps, and maybe it's more exciting to nail your colours to the mast than plant a flag on a rock and say ils ne passeront pas. Don't you just love my rainbow metaphors?
There are many ways of approaching illness and disease. Some historical religious attitudes (I'm thinking chiefly of Judaeo-Christian ones) are scurrilous in their dealings with disease and deformity (in other people, of course). If you have a zit, don't show your face in the temple. If you were born blind, what dreadful sin must your parents have committed? If you have an epileptic fit, you are possessed by a devil that needs to be cast out. Don't trust Arabic physicians with their magic potions - what do they know? What you need is a reliable Christian bleeder and someone who knows that when a plant has heart-shaped leaves, it must be an infallible cure for heart failure. I could go on.
And why did I say "historic" attitudes? Exorcism is still widely advocated, if not so widely practised, in the USA. Some African children are routinely abused and sometimes killed to assuage superstitious fears of devil possession, or raped as a prophylactic against AIDS. Asian girls undergo genital mutilation to preserve their virginity and protect their husband's rights. Asian couples who marry outside their caste or without the approval of their uncles undergo "honour" killings to heal their parents' wounded pride. I could go on.
Though not all these practices are widespread, they have to be taken into account, as serious and inescapable examples of how wrong we can be about disease. Not all diseases are known, analyzed, and neatly catalogued for the benefit of today's doctors and patients. New ones crop up from time to time, and we have no reason to doubt that that has always been the case. It is a wonder that the rarest forms of disease get recognized at all, when so many mistakes are made in diagnosing the more common ones. I am not attacking today's doctors or the state of medical science - they have an increasingly difficult job to do and, thankfully, misdiagnosis is uncommon. But it happens. Even in the case of that most common of all syndromes, if you can call it that - death itself. There have always been innocent mistakes, rare exceptions to the rule, untidy endings. The ability of some human bodies - even those of children - to withstand and survive traumas that by all reasonable understandings ought to kill them is a verifiable fact of life. The recovery of such individuals to normal life is often attributed, understandably, to divine intervention.
Which brings me to a rather belated reply to Eutychus's post above. I think I half agree with him. I think that the idea of miracles as pointers to the wonder and compassion of God is one of the few bits of Christianity worth hanging on to. Not just because it's comforting, but because we sceptics have yet to come up with a satisfactory alternative term for that other "something" which makes us thankful, thankful that there is something bigger than humanity - especially white, male, western humanity, that has to be taken account of. Or sworn at, if you like. [tbc]
--------------------
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
Apologies for half repeating my post to Eutychus, and for the big expansive philosophical gestures that run away with me sometimes. Ship's Drama Queen, that's me.
--------------------
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
|
|
Jamat
Shipmate
# 11621
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
General compassion you think?
Or was it tinged with a bit of guilt that he let Lazarus die first? Was he perhaps struggling with the agenda set before him like his struggle in the Garden of Gethsemane? That's the only other place that comes to mind where he was "greatly disturbed in spirit". (Though not - interestingly - in the Gospel of John)
One message I heard on this suggested Jesus anger at death and the way it had cut the life of his friend short. So, compassion for the afflicted but anger at the fact of death that was never part of God's plan.
--------------------
Jamat ..in utmost longditude, where Heaven
with Earth and ocean meets, the setting sun slowly descended, and with right aspect
Against the eastern gate of Paradise. (Milton Paradise Lost Bk iv)
Posts: 3228 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
pimple
Ship's Irruption
# 10635
|
Posted
Or perhaps he was angry with himself, with the sisters, and with his Father for letting them get it all wrong. Because the sisters had not believed his message, or because the messenger had never got through, or because he was actually wrong and this time, the victim really would die. And the victim was his own best friend,
and all that he believed in - in himself, in his father's faithfulness, in the promises he had made in good faith to others, seemed to be in jeopardy. Anyone else would have given up - when you're in a hole, stop digging!
This brings us back to the nub of the problem outlined in the OP. And before I return to my (half/threequarter-baked?) thesis, I have to acknowledge a serious recurrent error in my own reasoning.
Throughout my reading of the gospels, I have been guilty of trying to shoot the messenger. Time and time again. It was quite wrong to talk of John's "take" on this and that, in spite of the valid point about the gospels being propaganda. It seems to suggest that the final redactor of the fourth gospel manipulated and restructured the witness accounts he had received - both verbally and in writing - in order deliberately to conform to his and/or his community's Christological agenda. I'm grateful to IngoB on another thread for allowing me to see that I got the cart before the horse: "pimple, I don't believe in God because of miracles, I believe in miracles because I believe in God." (I hope that's accurate - I don't have the text in front of me).
So where I'm at now, regarding Lazarus, is this. There were witnesses to the recovery of Lazarus from the grave - possibly innocent bystanders as well as Jesus' followers, who provided the details in the early part of the story. What "John" received was whole cloth - a witnessed miracle, which he could not possibly leave out of the final version of the gospel. After all, nobody saw Jesus come out of the tomb. But they did see Lazarus do just that, and after four days! It would be a tremendous encouragement to those Christians who had been expecting the second coming since the ascension, and were getting restless.
But, as Nigel pointed out, John was also careful to explain certain anomalies, apparent contradictions in the account - contradictions only in the sense that this weeping Jesus didn't look like the man who stood up and lectured Pilate.
My thesis is not demolished however, and I will take it up again shortly. But for the time being,
I need to point out - perhaps rather pedantically - that witnesses have a point of view (I'm a witness myself - I can see what I think I can see, but I can't see round corners, any more than Jesus could). What the witnesses saw was a man being rescued from the grave. What they reported - and John faithfully passed on to posterity, was a resurrection from the dead. That was not a fact. That was a totally reasonable interpretation. And nobody could fault them, or John, for getting it wrong - if that is what they did. And that remains my thesis - not that there was any conspiracy or a wilful misrepresentation of the facts, but an innocent mistake. I'm not trying to destroy anybody's simple faith here, or trying to start a new movement. I'm only describing part of my own "journey without maps" in which nailing my colours to the mast sometimes feels dangerous. After all it's not that long ago that I could have been burned at the stake for it. If the traditional story makes sense to you, stick with it. But if it doesn't, use anything I say that helps, ditch the rest, and look for your own answers. It doesn't have to be a nightmare!
--------------------
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
Unexplained deaths were, and are, legion. We still have an imperfect understanding of cot death and sudden death syndromes.
Miraculous recoveries are comparatively rare. Perhaps we should not be too surprised when they come in pairs. Were the miracles of Elisha in II Kings a re-working of those performed by his former master in I Kings?
There is a similar sort of coupling in the New Testament. Peter's "Get up, Tabitha" (i.e. Dorcas!) clearly echoes his master's "Get up, little girl! ( talitha cumi).
But that doesn't mean that any of the events quoted above were fictional, or that they were not intrinsically discrete happenings. The writers were drawing our attention not so much to the historical facts as to their cosmic significance. In religious folklore, ther is no such thing as coincidence. In our own day (almost!) Carl Jung developed this idea with his theory of synchronicity, which, briefly put, suggests that even those events which seem to lack importance in their own right are given enhanced validity by apparent repetition, while events which seem beyond belief in the first place are rendered credible by the same process. Miracles grow barnacles which, far from sinking the ship, merely slow it down so that we can get on board!
There was (and, who knows, possibly still is, a sleep which looks so much like death that mistakes are sometimes made. And sometimes there is an intuitive genius around who can recognize these mistakes and rectify them before it is too late. But he does not blame or castigate those in error. He gives them back their vulnerable children and gives the glory to God. And partly through his compassion for those innocently in error, he tells people round about not to shoot off their mouths about it.
[tbc with the last brick - potentially a weak one - in my theoretical wall: the argument from personal experience, which must be accepted as totally subjective and therefore flawed to a greater or lesser desree - you be the judges).
--------------------
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
|
|
Nigel M
Shipmate
# 11256
|
Posted
It's certainly worth asking whether it is possible to set the historical background to a reported event on one side in favour of its interpretation – or perhaps better, its significance. A miracle is a sign (John is quite sure about that) and so one could park the miracle aside and concentrate on what it points to. In effect, this takes the miracle to be a metaphor that opens up a world of meaning. Perhaps the term 'symbol' works better here than 'sign' (in English, at any rate).
John makes the point that even Jesus' opponents understood that miracles had significances beyond the immediate effect. Just after Lazarus emerges from the tomb a report is sent to the authorities in Jerusalem who reacted thusly (John 11:47):
quote:
So the chief priests and the Pharisees convened the Administrative Assembly and said, “We must do something! This man is performing many miraculous signs.”
They go on to set out the significance of these signs – what they point to (v.48):
quote:
“If we permit him this course of action, everyone will turn their loyalty to him and the Romans will come and destroy our place and nation.”
One question arises here, I suppose: Can a symbol (or sign) work adequately or even at all without a real event in the background? In other words, could the significance drawn by the Assembly have worked if people didn't really believe that a miracle had occurred – that Lazarus had indeed been dead and resurrected? My take is that it is actually quite difficult to divorce or set aside the miracle (as the event) from the significance – one doesn't really work without the other.
But what if the 'miracle' was a misinterpretation of an event? I understand the argument being made: that it is one thing for a miracle event to have actually occurred, but another for an event to have been misconstrued as a miracle. I suppose everyone at the scene of Lazarus' emergence (and later John - and also Jesus?) could have misconstrued the event; they may have earnestly believed that Mr L. had been dead, whereas in fact he had not actually died. What came out of the tomb was Mr L. as was, and there was a genuinely rationale reason for his appearing to have died – presumably one in which Mr L. was just as ignorant as his contemporaries or he would have tried to correct the record (“No really, I was just asleep; no one was more surprised than I was to find myself in a cave...”). In this case the significance is being built on a perceived miraculous event and that significance would still work for those who interpreted the event as a miracle.
Which brings us to the point pimple is making and the question arising: What implication is there for Christians in taking the event as something that was not, in fact, a miracle, but rather a mistake? Does it matter? Can a significance that worked for a misguided set of Jews in the early 1st century work for those who do not perceive an event as a miracle? Would Caiaphas have reacted to the significance of the symbol in the way he did if had not earnestly believed that Mr L. had joined the choir celestial only to be booted back to earth again?
I know some of the responses that are raised against taking Lazarus' resurrection as a misconceived event. The common response from some quarters is the slippery slope argument (give in on this and bang goes the resurrection itself), closely allied with the “If you can't believe this then what can you believe” argument. Then there's the rather circular argument that the Bible is the Word of God and God doesn't lie (because it says so in the Bible) so a miracle must be true.
Those arguments, it seems to me, preach to the converted, but are not persuasive in the public arena (God TV really needs to buck up its message here!).
I've not really thought through the argument around implications for Christians. I'll have a think. Is there anything apart from the 'preaching to the converted' responses that work here?
Posts: 2826 | From: London, UK | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
pimple
Ship's Irruption
# 10635
|
Posted
I think you've explained my position rather better than I did myself. And I probably don't need to hammer it further. The personal point was going to be about the people I have watched dying, and one I saw dead, unprepared for the shock. How I might, in a bygone age, have buried my own beloved sister prematurely. But you have pre-empted all that with a very interesting set of questions regarding the essential importance of miracles.
I've read many commentaries which claim that a sign is a vastly different kettle of fish to a piece of supernatural "magic". But Jesus himself, in John's gospel says "If you don't believe me, believe what I have done." I don't think that's an appeal to anything metaphorical.
Having said that, I have not always given Christians in general the respect their genuine beliefs deserve, thinking, and sometimes saying, that they have turned a wonderful, extraordinary man into a clairvoyant prestidigitator. It's a not very intelligent over-reaction on my part. When I see children laughing at the Sunday-school version of Lazarus, staggering out of his cardboard tomb looking like a Hammer-horror dummy, while the kiddies hold their noses and laugh, I tend to forget all the "horrors" I enjoyed as a child, a way of growing up with things that go bump in the night.
But above all, I remember the grief of Jesus himself, which the Christian tradition in no way takes into account when telling the story of Lazarus. John has to mention it, because it was there - this is not John's power of dramatization, I'm sure of it. And the witnesses tell us that he was deeply disturbed, twice, and then broke down, crying.
How many of you have been in the position where someone you love is in dire distress, and you have to be strong,for them - giving way to your own grief only when they are out of the way and you can weep alone. Jesus couldn'y do that. What? The Son of God couldn't hold his own grief in check? Or - and this is a really nasty crack, if it were serious - did he just cry to show the onlookers how human he was? I don't think 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
|
|
Nigel M
Shipmate
# 11256
|
Posted
Had a think about the miracle-sign thing.
The issue was: Does a significance drawn from a perceived miracle stand if that miracle was in fact not a miracle at all, but rather a genuine misconstrual of an event.
Just by way of background – I think there has to be an historical event underlying this. It doesn't work trying to explain surface things away. There had to be, for example, a man named Lazarus who was ill, who (apparently to all around him) died, and who emerged from his grave tomb on the command of Jesus. Anything else, including the consumption of magic mushrooms or conspiracy theories, will not suffice to get to the bottom of what we are talking about.
The real historical point is whether there was a miracle (Lazarus being raised to life again from mortal death), or whether everyone associated with this historical event was mistaken. Then we come to the issue for Christians and whether the related significances remain valid if the event was interpreted mistakenly. I should add that this is not a question about whether miracles are possible. Books have been written about that.
Of course, being able to define the question is not the same thing as being able to answer it!
One line I thought of was somewhat linguistic. It's a famous statement (among students of linguistics) from 1931: “The map is not the territory”. This is a warning concerning signs / symbols/ models etc. that they are not the reality itself. The bit that interests me here is that the territory is the reality and that this can stand in the following relationship:
The territory is to the map as the miracle is to the significance.
Does this work? It says that the reality is the physical event (or territory). What comes later as a reflection on that reality is the significance drawn up by human interpretation.
I think it follows that if a significance to an historical event is based on a misconstrual, then it does not properly reflect the reality. As with a distorted map, it fails to draw proper attention to the territory. So – if a follower of Jesus who saw the Lazarus event determined that what had happened was a foretaste of resurrection from the dead, he or she would have drawn the wrong conclusion if what had in fact happened was not a resurrection. No matter that everyone present had misconstrued the event, the fact that there was no miracle would invalidate the significance, because the significance must be linked to the actual event it purports to represent.
That's rather wordy. What would the impact be? I guess that a Christian who concludes that there is a God and that this God heals, on the basis of an observed healing today, would in fact have drawn the wrong conclusion if there had been no healing (just a mistake). There has to be a real territory, and this trumps all the maps.
Close thought mode. Eat dinner.
Posts: 2826 | From: London, UK | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
pimple
Ship's Irruption
# 10635
|
Posted
I don't see the point of your last paragraph. If a modern Christian believed in God, and that God heals, on the basis of a single observed healing...and there was no healing, only a mistake...?
What if his reasoning process is at fault? What if he's looking at the wrong map, or the right one upside-down? What if the dismissal of the event as "only a mistake" is throwing out the baby with the bath water, like referring to Jesus as "only a human being"? How many miracles does any human being encompass, if we had the wit to recognize them all? What if there are other aspects of the event which are of greater significance than a miraculous healing?
Or is that not possible? Can there be nothing more significant than a proof that we don't after all, die? That wouldn't help me much. I'm under the knife in forty-eight hours time. Statistically, there's a one in a hundred thousand chance I won't survive the general anaesthetic (they're obliged to give you these facts nowadays).
It's not my first operation, and every one is a miracle. I'm just as valid - or invalid - a reason for believing in a healing God as Lazarus, and millions of other people. And if I'm unlucky this time, it's no reason to believe that I've been divinely zapped. Just sayin'. Just in case!
--------------------
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
That last post made absolutely no sense at all. Too much of a hurry trying to find my dressing gown and toothpaste. Very sorry.
--------------------
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
|
|
Nigel M
Shipmate
# 11256
|
Posted
All the best for tomorrow - puts the working week in perspective! I'll get back to this next weekend.
Cheers
Nigel
Posts: 2826 | From: London, UK | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nigel M
Shipmate
# 11256
|
Posted
Having mulled over the issue I have to admit that this all feels a little far out on the philosophy tree, somewhat akin to the arguments over the existence (or non-existence) of God, which assume but rarely define the 'God' being argued about. The god of the philosophers seems to have been created because it fits nicely in a category box amenable to logical argument, whereas the God of Jesus is so much more.
While it's possible to consider links between specific miracles and their significances, I suppose the joker in the deductive pack is that God could by definition perform miracles (such as resurrection) if he so desired, regardless of any mistaken and therefore logically unsound significance drawn by your average human.
Still – I was thinking along the lines of where the real reality lies. If a miracle was not a miracle, then any significance drawn from it is worthless, or perhaps better – invalid. We would have to look elsewhere to draw the significance. Of course with the Lazarus event we have recourse to another event – Jesus' resurrection. If the former fails, then the latter... well, that brings us back to the same issue: If we are mistaken about Jesus' resurrection, then does that invalidate its significance?
Posts: 2826 | From: London, UK | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
TurquoiseTastic
Fish of a different color
# 8978
|
Posted
Here is an alternative take from my former house-group leader:
* Jesus hears that Lazarus is gravely ill
* Jesus waits two days
* Jesus journeys to Bethany
* On arrival Jesus finds that Lazarus has been dead for four days
* Therefore even had Jesus set out immediately, he would still have arrived after Lazarus had died. Perhaps Lazarus was even already dead by the time the news arrived.
So - he suggested - perhaps the delay might have been in order to arrive a few days after the death rather than in the immediate aftermath, which might have been even more traumatic.
Posts: 1092 | From: Hants., UK | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
pimple
Ship's Irruption
# 10635
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Nigel M:
Having mulled over the issue I have to admit that this all feels a little far out on the philosophy tree, somewhat akin to the arguments over the existence (or non-existence) of God, which assume but rarely define the 'God' being argued about. The god of the philosophers seems to have been created because it fits nicely in a category box amenable to logical argument, whereas the God of Jesus is so much more.
While it's possible to consider links between specific miracles and their significances, I suppose the joker in the deductive pack is that God could by definition perform miracles (such as resurrection) if he so desired, regardless of any mistaken and therefore logically unsound significance drawn by your average human.
Still – I was thinking along the lines of where the real reality lies. If a miracle was not a miracle, then any significance drawn from it is worthless, or perhaps better – invalid. We would have to look elsewhere to draw the significance. Of course with the Lazarus event we have recourse to another event – Jesus' resurrection. If the former fails, then the latter... well, that brings us back to the same issue: If we are mistaken about Jesus' resurrection, then does that invalidate its significance?
--------------------
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
In answer to your last question, some Christians would say not. Though some other Christians would refuse to acknowledge the former as Christians.
There is a very wide spectrum of belief among the "faithful". As there was in the time of Jesus himself (probably) and Peter and Paul (reportedly)
--------------------
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
[BUMP] I'm coming back from IngoB's erudite thread on how literal biblical translation can, or ought, to be. In quoting John 11.38-39, I seem to have re-opened a can of worms. Maybe that it what, consciously or nor, I intended to do.
I'll try not to be rude this time! Here is the passage in question, in NRSV:
quote:
Then Jesus, again greatly disturbed, came to the tomb. It was a cave, and a stone was lying against it. Jesus said, "Take away the stone." Martha, the sister of the dead man, said to him, "Lord, already there is a stench because he has been dead four days." Jesus said to her, "Did I not tell you that if you believed, you would see the glory of God?" So they took away the stone. And Jesus looked upward and said, "Father, I thank you for having heard me..."
[John 11.38-41]
I have trawled through a large number of the various translations of verses 38 and 39 provided by Bible Gateway. Most of them seem to support my point that Martha is making a reasonable assumption - though for her it's a matter of fact. "Don't open the tomb, there will be an awful smell!" she says. In some cases she is quoted literally "He stinks already!" but it's still an assumption, based on the fact that Lazarus has been dead for four days.
Now some have objected to this and said that maybe Martha could smell the decaying body - the text after all doesn't seem to describe anything like a hermetically sealed tomb.
Seconds before, Jesus had broken down in tears. Now he turns to Martha and says "I told you so!"
That's my abbreviation of the full speech, because I reckon he's not just talking about the comforting pep talk he gave her on arrival at the scene, but also to his earlier message - that Lazarus wouldn't die.
"This illness does not end in death," he says - "Don't worry, it's not fatal". But can he trust the sisters the way he trusted another character worried by the same or a similar disease? He hangs around for a while, to be certain.
As soon as the stench is mentioned, Jesus is saying "I told you so!" - most likely because he has had a good sniff. And as soon as the stone rolls away - and the stench fails to roll out, he knows he's home and dry. He gives grateful praise to his Father - without in any way loading guilt on the sisters for their panic. And of course this is immediate - he has no need to look in the tomb. In the absence of the smell he knows Lazarus is all right.
He doesn't claim any credit for himself. He thanks God. He doesn't rush up and embrace Lazarus. He tells the others (Mary and Martha) - the ones who bundled him up - to untie him. And days later they're having a quiet party among themselves.
A man who risks everything - his life, his reputation, his reason for being, to save his friend, is for me a far more attractive person than a circus clairvoyant who walks six inches above the ground and thinks he's synonymous with God Almighty. But then, the Beloved Disciple probably had the same problem...
--------------------
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
|
|
Meike
Shipmate
# 3006
|
Posted
There might be a sense of anger and frustration both in Jesus’ tears and his "I told you so!" remark to Marta, about people’s unbelief and accusations that he hadn’t been there when he was needed.
Many translations use expressions like “groaned” or “was angry in his spirit” in verses 33 and 38 and it also makes sense in context.
So I don’t think his mood had necessarily changed or that he discovered something at the grave, like the absence of smell, which made him change his mind.
--------------------
“A god who let us prove his existence would be an idol” ― Dietrich Bonhoeffer
Posts: 250 | From: I like this place | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
pimple
Ship's Irruption
# 10635
|
Posted
I agree entirely with your first two paragraphs.
--------------------
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
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
