Why does Jesus grieve for Lazarus’s death?

[Ruth Harris]

Well, I can understand how a non-believer could see it that way. But for me the stumbling block is that superheroes are not divine beings plus, of course, they are fictional characters. I do accept the reality and divinity of Jesus so that would not be a position I could support.

Neither of us is willing to change our stance on the nature of Jesus and I refuse to beat someone over the head with the Bible to make my point, so I am not sure there is any reason to continue a conversation on this particular issue unless you have something in mind that is different in focus. I do appreciate your courteous attitude about what I believe even though you don’t share it.

Ruth

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Superheroes are heroes with divine powers. Not my definition. Jesus sounds like a superhero. You claim Jesus is real but other superheroes are not. Is that because Jesus is a religious superhero?

I respect you too.

 

[Ruth Harris]

Superheroes are heroes with divine powers. Not my definition. Jesus sounds like a superhero. You claim Jesus is real but other superheroes are not. Is that because Jesus is a religious superhero?

I respect you too.

Interesting. I have never heard a definition of a superhero as having "divine powers". Special or extraordinary powers, yes. Where did you get that definition?

No, my claim is not that Jesus is a "religious superhero". I am saying he is not a superhero at all as that is a fictional character by the definition I know. He is the incarnation of God come to earth, fully human and also fully divine. I suspect we are talking past each other since we seem to have different definitions for superheroes.

Ruth

 

[Jarhyn]

Superheroes are heroes with divine powers. Not my definition. Jesus sounds like a superhero. You claim Jesus is real but other superheroes are not. Is that because Jesus is a religious superhero?

I respect you too.

Interesting. I have never heard a definition of a superhero as having "divine powers". Special or extraordinary powers, yes. Where did you get that definition?

No, my claim is not that Jesus is a "religious superhero". I am saying he is not a superhero at all as that is a fictional character by the definition I know. He is the incarnation of God come to earth, fully human and also fully divine. I suspect we are talking past each other since we seem to have different definitions for superheroes.

Ruth

You defining superheroes as "fictitious" makes them no more so than Emily defining Wizards fictitious makes me any less of what I am.

I could point to any number of super hero (and otherwise) media wherein the main character is divine in the origin of their powers.

Of course, "divine" is not necessary, merely sufficient in the section I bolded. The correct treatment is "heroes with divine powers are superheroes; superheroes are heroes with powers, which MAY come from divine origin."

After all, batman is a superhero, and his superpower is just having a butt load of money and a technology company he can redirect towards his own ends.

As this relates to your 2000 year old comic books, I've met plenty of 20-somethings who believed in Slenderman until they didn't.

All it takes is a play wherein the players claim fact rather than fiction.

I will repeat TGG's gripe: what basis do you have to claim other mighty morphin power rangers are not real, but that yours is, in fact, a power ranger?

 

[Ruth Harris]

Jarhyn (and possibly T.G.G. Moogly although I didn't take his question that way):

Let me make it clear; I have no intention to debate whether Jesus is God or not so I won’t be addressing any “not a real god” statements.

Ruth

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Superheroes are heroes with divine powers. Not my definition. Jesus sounds like a superhero. You claim Jesus is real but other superheroes are not. Is that because Jesus is a religious superhero?

I respect you too.

Interesting. I have never heard a definition of a superhero as having "divine powers". Special or extraordinary powers, yes. Where did you get that definition?

No, my claim is not that Jesus is a "religious superhero". I am saying he is not a superhero at all as that is a fictional character by the definition I know. He is the incarnation of God come to earth, fully human and also fully divine. I suspect we are talking past each other since we seem to have different definitions for superheroes.

Ruth

I just googled up the definition of divine and it said "of, from or like God or a god." Then it gave an example of using it in a sentence and said "heroes with divine powers."

heroes with divine powers

But I understand where you are coming from. To someone secular like myself Jesus is in fact a superhero. He's this normal guy with super powers. But he's your god so he's not fictional to you. I get it. I would call that a distinction without a difference. But it's all good.

 

[Ruth Harris]

Ah, I see. We were searching for different things; I searched for "superhero definition".

superhero definition

Yep, we are talking past each other here

Ruth

 

[Jarhyn]

Jarhyn (and possibly T.G.G. Moogly although I didn't take his question that way):

Let me make it clear; I have no intention to debate whether Jesus is God or not so I won’t be addressing any “not a real god” statements.

Ruth

Well, I'm just saying, this is, in fact the internet infidels forum, not the internet "bible believing christians" forum.

The subject is doubt of the allegory. If you will not accept discussion involving doubt of the allegory, then...

There are threads to discuss what gods may be and what may be a god, but this is to discuss what may disqualify an entity of being a god.

 

[atrib]

It makes no sense to me that an infinitely powerful and sophisticated god, or its meat-puppet clone (which is 100% supernatural and 100% human, how does that compute?), would be willing to engage itself in the lives of simple humans, or feel any emotion about the happenings on a tiny speck of dust in a universe filled with trillions of trillions of such specks, many of which presumably have life on them. Its not like humans go around crying when they use soap to kill millions of bacteria every day as they clean their hands. And the relative gap between humans and bacteria is far, far, far smaller than the gap between humans and their alleged creator.

 

[Rhea]

. I still don't think it is unreasonable, or anything other than human, to mourn our dead.

I feel that it is only “human” to the extent that humans doubt an afterlife. I really don’t understand at all mourning something that you truly believe, I mean deeply and unequivocally, to be temporary.

I do not understand this. It does not compute for me. It never has.

Especially when “temporary” means less than 1 millionth of one percent of total awareness time.

Does not compute.

It's funny, all these atheists complaining about one of the single most humanizing moments in all the Gospels. Would you really prefer that Jesus were cold and heartless as a stone?

I did not cry when my kids went to college. I was excited for them. I don’t get to be there, but they are doing something fun and important to them.

Does this make me cold and heartless as a stone to be happy for their happiness?

This is my final attempt to explain. Let me make it clear; I have no intention to debate whether Jesus is God or not so I won’t be addressing any “not a real god” statements. SLD, I do find it amusing that you think your definition of how a god should act is the only possible viewpoint.

“Only possible viewpoint” after saying your “final attempt to explain” made me chuckle.

 

[Politesse]

It's funny, all these atheists complaining about one of the single most humanizing moments in all the Gospels. Would you really prefer that Jesus were cold and heartless as a stone?

I did not cry when my kids went to college. I was excited for them. I don’t get to be there, but they are doing something fun and important to them.

Does this make me cold and heartless as a stone to be happy for their happiness?

No, of course not. But if you did cry, it wouldn't prove that you weren't their parents.

 

[Bronzeage]

But in John, Jesus is god. John is the source for the doctrine of the trinity. In Mark, Jesus explicitly denies being god. If the story appeared in Mark, I might understand it. But why would any god weep? Immortality and omnipotence would imply no need for such an emotion. Thus Jesus is faking it. He’s basically lying to them instead of cheering them up. Hundreds of millions if not billions had died since Adam was thrown out of Paradise 4000 years prior. Billions more if you are an old earth creationist. Does god weep for them? Were none worth weeping for? Not even the great prophets and kings of Israel? If god weeps for the dead, why did he create death? If there is eternal life in heaven, there‘s no need for a god to weep, and on the contrary, he should rejoice and be happy about it.

If you’re saying that this just shows Jesus’s humanity, I’d be OK with it, but then you are denying one of the major tenets of Christianity, i.e. his divinity. Maybe that‘s a good UU argument against the Trinity. Jesus is just another great prophet like Elijah.

Okay, I will try one more time to explain what I meant.

Jesus was NOT crying because Lazarus was dead. He was showing empathy for the pain of Martha, Mary and the others. Just like my sister showed her empathy for my pain when my son moved out.

You seem to be trying to focus this story on a single thing, Jesus crying. That was not the intended focus when it was written.

As for your statement that I am denying a major tenet of Christianity – not so. I am a Baptist. Part of our basic faith and practice states Jesus was “fully human and fully divine”. Ergo, showing grief or any other emotion is perfectly natural for the incarnate Jesus.

Ruth

If Jesus was crying, he is not a god. That's the point. Empathetic crying is not appropriate for a god either. He's confirming their grief and making them suffer. He knows he's going to raise him from the dead (something that also contradicts the very foundations of Christianity, but that's a whole 'nother problem) so he should've said to them. Relax, I'm here. I'm the doctor and I'm going to save him. Or something like that. Cheer them up.

Can God create a rock so big that even he can't lift it?

A better question is: Can a human define what a God is, or is not? How can a mortal creature place limits on what a God can do? This is especially strange when such definitions and limits are based on the information supplied by other mortal creatures, any of whom could have altered the story.

The most we you can hope for is for someone to survey all the available material and declare, "This body of information does not conform to my concept of an omnipotent being independent of time and space."

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

You can't cry for someone else. When I cry it's for me. When you cry it's for you. We cry because it hurts us, blame it on mirror neurons if that's what it takes, but I think it's a bit dishonest to claim that one's weeping is happening for someone else, that Jesus was weeping for his friends loss.

So human Jesus cried because human Jesus was hurting. The weird part isn't the weeping or the human Jesus but having to invent the religious silliness that this particular demigod was fully human and fully a god to attempt to stitch all the events together. It's a lie invented to explain another lie.

I give Ruth credit in doubting the veracity of the story as written. It only makes sense allegorically if dogma insists that Jesus had to be the first raised. Jesus didn't raise Lazarus literally, but believing he did is where the problems start.

 

[Ephesians]

So the story of Lazarus is only told in John. It’s a sign of his miracles.

But Jesus tarries for two days after he hears that he’s sick. Then he says he’s going to wake him as a sign. So he knows that Lazarus has died. So he goes to Lazarus and being informed that Lazarus has been buried for four days, and by this time he stinks. And then he weeps.

Why? In John, Jesus is god. Just bring his soul to heaven. Death makes no difference after John’s Jesus is done. So why does he weep?

Because God has compassion. Duh.

 

[atrib]

So the story of Lazarus is only told in John. It’s a sign of his miracles.

But Jesus tarries for two days after he hears that he’s sick. Then he says he’s going to wake him as a sign. So he knows that Lazarus has died. So he goes to Lazarus and being informed that Lazarus has been buried for four days, and by this time he stinks. And then he weeps.

Why? In John, Jesus is god. Just bring his soul to heaven. Death makes no difference after John’s Jesus is done. So why does he weep?

Because God has compassion. Duh.

He has so much compassion that he created all his children broken, cursed to sin, toil and death, and will roast them in hell forever if we don't bow down and accept him as our lord and master. Compassion indeed.

He has so much compassion that he killed all his children, other than a small handful in a boat, with a flood. The word is genocide, and even we flawed humans know that genocide is immoral.

Thank god this monster is just a figment of our imagination.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Thank god this monster is just a figment of our imagination.

Yes, the monster is fake. But all the little monsters like Ephesians are not.

 

[Learner]

So the story of Lazarus is only told in John. It’s a sign of his miracles.

But Jesus tarries for two days after he hears that he’s sick. Then he says he’s going to wake him as a sign. So he knows that Lazarus has died. So he goes to Lazarus and being informed that Lazarus has been buried for four days, and by this time he stinks. And then he weeps.

Why? In John, Jesus is god. Just bring his soul to heaven. Death makes no difference after John’s Jesus is done. So why does he weep?

Because God has compassion. Duh.

He has so much compassion that he created all his children broken, cursed to sin, toil and death, and will roast them in hell forever if we don't bow down and accept him as our lord and master. Compassion indeed.

He has so much compassion that he killed all his children, other than a small handful in a boat, with a flood. The word is genocide, and even we flawed humans know that genocide is immoral.

Thank god this monster is just a figment of our imagination.

It seems to me - you have a totally different concept understanding of the bible, than many theists do (I am asssuming Ephesians understands it as I do), in contex that 'death and sin' came into the world, AFTER Adam and Eve (who were perfect in the first place) were decieved.

 

[Learner]

Thank god this monster is just a figment of our imagination.

Yes, the monster is fake. But all the little monsters like Ephesians are not.

Personally imho, and if you were honest to yourself. Ephesian would be the least of your worries, comparing with what madness there is out there, in the world.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Personally imho, and if you were honest to yourself. Ephesian would be the least of your worries, comparing with what madness there is out there, in the world.

Little monsters are little monsters. Life would be better without little monsters. If I can be convinced that I'm a ghost, be convinced to believe irrational things I'm capable of serious madness.

 

[SLD]

Personally imho, and if you were honest to yourself. Ephesian would be the least of your worries, comparing with what madness there is out there, in the world.

Little monsters are little monsters. Life would be better without little monsters. If I can be convinced that I'm a ghost, be convinced to believe irrational things I'm capable of serious madness.

He who can be made to believe in absurdities, can be made to commit atrocities.