The Impossification of Lazarus.

 

By Dr. Hogwash

 

 

Thousands of years have passed since the holy works written in the bible.  Thousands more may pass by before philosophy puts truth into the pot.  And thousands more may sail by before the broth is even warm enough to taste.  The point of it all is that the ideas passed on are too large for one person; too expansive to reach your arms around.  Looking at the Bible as a whole, with its many authors and varied time line, it is hard to come up with convulsive proof of its truth…or its lie. 

 

This paper supposes only what has been told to us from generations of Religious teachings, those teachings passed down from Christian leaders:  That the bible is the word of god.  No other stories will be followed.  No contradictions noted.  No philosophical black holes about the nature of omnipotence.  Nothing but this one simple statement that bears repeating:  That the bible is the word of god.

 

What this implies is that god ‘embodied’ the writer, where the writer was only a clerk who moved the pen as it crossed the paper.  It allows, in this fashion, that the writer being guided by god was able to write his biblical information from his own perspective.  He was not free to take poetic license, but was free to in-vibe on the details of the story where another writer was not.  This demands that the bible be factual and above all else completely true.  If, for example, Mark had written in his book about the food they had eaten at the last supper, this would not be taken out of context, as it’s clear that he may have been present and had first hand knowledge of the event.  But if he were to make up a parable in order to express an idea that Yesu[1] explained to him, then this would be historically inaccurate.

 

It is therefore necessary that the bible be 100% completely true.  If one word of lies exists then the whole of the structure of biblical beliefs comes under question.  If one false story is discovered, then who is to say what else is false?  There are few actual Historical facts that we can gauge the truth with, so that when one inaccuracy is unveiled then the whole work must be set aside and re-examined.

 

NOTE: contradictions would normally be noted as inaccuracies, but in this case, we afford the contradictions to god.  He is, after all, omnipresent and the argument that they are contradictions may only be available to we linear creatures that require the motion of time, where as god would not see such contradictions because of his all encompassing existence.  The argument of this could be used in further discussions.

 

The bible mentions the name Lazarus twice in all its pages.  Both times are in the New Testament.  Both times involve Yesu in some regard.  Both times involve Lazarus’ death, and both have some mention of resurrection.  But this is where the similarities end. Both stories will be told in some detail within, in order to illustrate their similarities, but also to point out differences.  We will start with the story of Lazarus in Luke.

Luke 16:19-31

 

The story passed on by Luke is one told by Yesu as a series of quick parables.  It is as follows.  There once was a rich man and at the gates of a city a beggar by the name of Lazarus.  Lazarus was sick and it is said that the dogs would lick his wounds.  Eventually poor Lazarus dies and ascends to Heaven where he stands with Abraham.  Then one day the rich man dies as well but instead of transcending he descends into hell.  Looking up he sees Lazarus standing with Abraham and asks if Lazarus could be sent to give him something to drink (because he was being tormented).  Abraham says, “In his life he suffered and now he does not.  In your life you had great wealth, now you do not.”  Then adds, “Between you and I, there exists a gulf between us, so that I could not send him down to you any more than you could ascend to me.”  The rich man then says, “Then please send him to my father’s house so that they can know.”  Abraham replies, “Let them read Moses and the Prophets.”  And finally (from NIV):

 

30 "`No, father Abraham,' he (the rich man) said, `but if someone from the dead goes to them, they will repent.'  31 "He (Abraham) said to him (the rich man), `If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, they will not be convinced even if someone rises from the dead.'"

 

Is this the Lazarus of John, who is said to have been brought back?  It’s unlikely, as the Lazarus of John was the sister of Mary, but no other mention is made of his personal being.  Was the Lazarus of John poor?  Probably not, at least not a beggar, being that he was buried in a family crypt.  Was the Lazarus of Luke returned to life?  Again, probably not, being that Abraham claims that ‘someone rising from the dead’ would be of no consequence in regards to human beliefs.  But what is sure is that in no other Parable offered does Yesu name the characters.  This is of huge importance and shall be discussed in further papers.

 

John 11

 

Here is John 11 from the NIV:

 

1 Now a man named Lazarus was sick. He was from Bethany, the village of Mary and her sister Martha. 2 This Mary, whose brother Lazarus now lay sick, was the same one who poured perfume on the Lord and wiped his feet with her hair.

3 So the sisters sent word to Jesus, "Lord, the one you love is sick." 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." 5 Jesus loved Martha and her sister and Lazarus. 6 Yet when he heard that Lazarus was sick, he stayed where he was two more days.

7 Then he said to his disciples "Let us go back to Judea." 8 "But Rabbi," they said, "a short while ago the Jews tried to stone you, and yet you are going back there?" 9 Jesus answered, "Are there not twelve hours of daylight? A man who walks by day will not stumble, for he sees by this world's light. 10 It is when he walks by night that he stumbles, for he has no light."

11 After he had said this, he went on to tell them, "Our friend Lazarus has fallen asleep; but I am going there to wake him up." 12 His disciples replied, "Lord, if he sleeps, he will get better." 13 Jesus had been speaking of his death, but his disciples thought he meant natural sleep. 14 So then he told them plainly, "Lazarus is dead, 15 and for your sake I am glad I was not there, so that you may believe. But let us go to him." 16 Then Thomas (called Didymus) said to the rest of the disciples, "Let us also go, that we may die with him."

17 On his arrival, Jesus found that Lazarus had already been in the tomb for four days. 18 Bethany was less than two miles from Jerusalem, 19 and many Jews had come to Martha and Mary to comfort them in the loss of their brother. 20 When Martha heard that Jesus was coming, she went out to meet him, but Mary stayed at home. 21 "Lord," Martha said to Jesus, "if you had been here, my brother would not have died. 22 But I know that even now God will give you whatever you ask."

23 Jesus said to her, "Your brother will rise again." 24 Martha answered, "I know he will rise again in the resurrection at the last day." 25 Jesus said to her, "I am the resurrection and the life. He who believes in me will live, even though he dies; 26 and whoever lives and believes in me will never die. Do you believe this?" 27 "Yes, Lord," she told him, "I believe that you are the Christ, the Son of God, who was to come into the world." 28 And after she had said this, she went back and called her sister Mary aside. "The Teacher is here," she said, "and is asking for you." 29 When Mary heard this, she got up quickly and went to him.

30 Now Jesus had not yet entered the village, but was still at the place where Martha had met him. 31 When the Jews who had been with Mary in the house, comforting her, noticed how quickly she got up and went out, they followed her, supposing she was going to the tomb to mourn there. 32 When Mary reached the place where Jesus was and saw him, she fell at his feet and said, "Lord, if you had been here, my brother would not have died." 33 When Jesus saw her weeping, and the Jews who had come along with her also weeping, he was deeply moved in spirit and troubled. 34 "Where have you laid him?" he asked. "Come and see, Lord," they replied. 35 Jesus wept. 36 Then the Jews said, "See how he loved him!" 37 But some of them said, "Could not he who opened the eyes of the blind man have kept this man from dying?" 38 Jesus, once more deeply moved, came to the tomb. It was a cave with a stone laid across the entrance. 39 "Take away the stone," he said. "But, Lord," said Martha, the sister of the dead man, "by this time there is a bad odor, for he has been there four days."

40 Then Jesus said, "Did I not tell you that if you believed, you would see the glory of God?" 41 So they took away the stone. Then Jesus looked up and said, "Father, I thank you that you have heard me. 42 I knew that you always hear me, but I said this for the benefit of the people standing here, that they may believe that you sent me." 43 When he had said this, Jesus called in a loud voice, "Lazarus, come out!" 44 The dead man came out, his hands and feet wrapped with strips of linen, and a cloth around his face. Jesus said to them, "Take off the grave clothes and let him go." 45 Therefore many of the Jews who had come to visit Mary, and had seen what Jesus did, put their faith in him.

 

This story transcribed by the Apostle John is very important to the core beliefs of Christian teaching.  Yesu had in early chapters already brought a girl back to life, but had informed those parties involved to saying nothing about it.  Here Yesu, in all his glory, and in full spectacle, resurrects the dead Lazarus.  The problem with this story is that it defies logic.  Occum’s Razor shall be our judging tool.  There are two possibilities: 1. Yesu resurrected Lazarus or 2. Yesu did not Resurrect Lazarus.  It’s impossible to prove through logic what he did NOT do, but it might be possible to solve what he did do.  So we will take this course of action first.

 

Assuming Yesu resurrected Lazarus.  This raises more points:  Either the act of resurrection was (A.) common to the people of this time or the act of resurrection was (B.) an anomaly and consistent with the supernatural powers of god. 

 

For Point 1.A: If in fact resurrections were common things in ancient times.  Why then are there no texts on the subject?  Though the Hebrew culture had not yet learned to write, the Roman’s had, and had great libraries of text and information on all sorts of things.  It is also known that the Roman’s kept a census in order to allocate funding and spending for its empire.  Even if resurrections were only common in Outreyemer the volume of them (compared to the rest of the Empire) would have been noticed by some astute Roman Governor.   And this normal function of life in Ancient Israel would then work it’s way through the system of Rome and in doing so leave a trail that we modern men could follow.  To further illustrate it:  if resurrections were common, then no one would really have cared about this one man coming back from the dead and frankly Mary would probably not have had to go to Yesu for his help, she probably would have known about the common resurrection and at least been able to ask someone close to her for the location of a person who specialized in resurrections, instead of having to wait four days.  Which brings up another point:  Where are all the resurrectionists?  Sounds like a good trade to ply if it was pretty common that the dead came back to life.  But there are no other resurrectionists mentioned in any ancient text (excluding other religious myth of course).  So logic tells us that point 1.A. is false.  That resurrections were not common.

 

Point 1.B:  If resurrections were not common, then they must have an anomalous nature.  This of course is consistent with the idea of god’s power.  Being that he could do something that no other person could do.  The problem here is the same as point A: the burden of proof.  The event of Lazarus’ rise was witnessed by a number of people.  The disiples, Mary, Lazarus, their family, those that worked at the tomb, and according to scripture, a number of Jews.  This means that of all those people that were there only 1 (John) took the time to translate this story.  This seems highly unlikely.  A story as fantastic as someone coming back from the dead would surely circulate.  The Roman Governor should have heard it at some point, but he makes no mention of it.  Even Josephus makes no mention of it in his histories of Jewish culture.  Not one other person every documented this incredible event.  This could only mean one of two things: (I.) That no one else thought it was important enough or (II.) John made it up.  This can be answered with a modern example: A plane crash.  Plane crashes are so few and far between that when one happens it makes the news.  Not just on a television[2] station, but every television station airs some facts about the plane crash.  This bible story about the resurrection of Lazarus is akin to television not broadcasting the moon landing.  The point is, everyone who was there would have thought that Lazarus coming back from the dead was of huge importance.  But only one person did: John. 

Point 1.A and 1.B.I are false then.  This only leaves 1.B.II and 2.  John made it up and it never happened.

 

Now to refocus back on the premise supposed by the church founders: The Bible is the word of God.  As was stated earlier, for the Bible to be the word of God, then it would contain no inaccuracies, no ‘lies’ or more directly, made up stories that do nothing for the Bible’s good.  Accordingly, John made up the resurrection of Lazarus, this means the Book of John is in fact not believable.  Because, if one section can be proven wrong, then the whole work should be considered with the same scrutiny and reproach.  This means that the book of John is not the word of God, and if the book of John is not the word of God, then the premise of the Bible, to which the book of John belongs, is not the word of God.  Therefore the Bible is not the word of God and should then be viewed as such.

 


[1] Unfortunately, the assumption that Jesus was his name can not be made here in this work.  The word Jesus is a loose Greek translation of either Yeshu or Yeshua.  Hebrew culture was not so unlike Victorian Europe, where wealthy, well to do people of power often named their children in a fashion that seemed reserved to them.  Names like Charles in England were used for the rich, while Charlie, though the same name, would be given to an underclassman.  Yesu was most assuredly not Yeshua (the most senior of the names).  It’s also important to note that in Hebrew culture the son was named directly to the father.  Classic example would be Judah Ben Herr, where Judah was the man’s given name, while Herr was the name of his father.  This would roughly translate to: Judah the son of Herr.  Historical texts leave off this important identification, implying the worst: that Yesu was father-less. Luke 3:23 - …he was the son, so it was thought, of Joseph…

[2] I can only hope that the reader of this paper has no idea what television is.  If this is the case, a public library, or the Internet, should be able to help you.