The Lazarus timeline

[JimB]

This is a really good point, I noticed it your other thread on this also that I repped you for.

Jesus went to the sick girl to raise her from the dead. Jesus went to Lazarus to raise him from the dead. The only long distance healings I can remember are the ones where those receiving believed He didn't need to be there.

In the story of the centurions servant, Jesus answered him, "I will come and heal him", to which the centurion replied with that great statement of faith, saying that Jesus didn't need to go there to heal the servant, but that His Word would be enough, just like when he spoke to a servant.

It appears that if the ones receiving believed that Jesus had to be there, then Jesus had to be there.

Peace...

Really? So, it was all up to Mary and Martha. Jesus would wait, arms folded, and let a brother die of a terminal illness because two sisters, already in the throes of despair, could not work up enough faith to believe Jesus could heal Lazarus long distance.

Is that compassion? What kind of unfeeling Lord is that?

~Jim

The Bible is so simple you have to have help to misunderstand it.​

 

[probinson]

Really? So, it was all up to Mary and Martha. Jesus would wait, arms folded, and let a brother die of a terminal illness because two sisters, already in the throes of despair, could not work up enough faith to believe Jesus could heal Lazarus long distance.

Is that compassion? What kind of unfeeling Lord is that?

Emotional hype doesn't change the fact that Jesus rarely healed long distance. It also doesn't change the fact that when Jesus did heal long distance, it was because they believed He could do so.

 

[JimB]

Emotional hype doesn't change the fact that Jesus rarely healed long distance. It also doesn't change the fact that when Jesus did heal long distance, it was because they believed He could do so.

WOF gets weirder all the time.

~Jim

The Bible is so simple you have to have help to misunderstand it.​

 

[Always in His Presence]

Really? So, it was all up to Mary and Martha. Jesus would wait, arms folded, and let a brother die of a terminal illness because two sisters, already in the throes of despair, could not work up enough faith to believe Jesus could heal Lazarus long distance.

Is that compassion? What kind of unfeeling Lord is that?

~Jim

The Bible is so simple you have to have help to misunderstand it.​

Talk about weird -

You make a statement like that to prove your point, yet openly admit that you believe that it is the same God's will to allow a person to suffer a painful disease, and die from it.

What kind of unfeeling Lord is that?

 

[map4]

Nope. Like the OP, it is largely based on assumption. But it is a valid assumption since the context of John 11 (esp. vs.4 & 14) clearly shows that Jesus was somehow well aware (apparently, by revelation) of what was going on in distant Bethany. He knew (apparently, by revelation) Lazarus was sick and (apparently, by revelation) he would die but (apparently, by revelation) that his sickness and death was for the glorify of God (v. 4) and later He knew (apparently, by revelation) when Lazarus died (v. 14), even though He was miles away and without His cell phone. It is not too much for me to believe that He knew other details about the events in Bethany, enough to have healed Lazarus and spared him and his sisters of the death.

As for the timeline—it doesn’t matter. Jesus did not need to go to Bethany to heal Lazarus.

~Jim

The Bible is so simple you have to have help to misunderstand it.​

Jesus didn't need to do anything except what He saw and heard from the Father.

And, (apparently by revelation) the Father did not want Jesus to either go to heal or heal from a distance. Because, as you said, Jesus knew He was to raise Lazarus from the dead. Which is a greater miracle than healing him. And it was (apparently by revelation) needed to show that He is the resurrection and the life.

And, (apparently by revelation) Jesus knew he needed to go in person to raise Lazarus...even though He was quite capable of doing it from afar.

If we use the argument that Jesus didn't need to be there to heal Lazarus...then He didn't need to be there to heal anyone...but He was physically present in all but (how many)...one?...healing.

If that is the case...that He didn't need to be there...why didn't God just have Him stand on a mountain from afar and heal all? Why did God make those sick and possessed come to Jesus? I mean, Jesus didn't need to be there. What was the purpose of having crowds follow Him around and bring the sick to Him to be healed? He could've just spoken a word and they could have been healed. Seems that God had Jesus do things and be places He didn't need to be. I mean...the people should've just known that they didn't have to go to Jesus. He could've healed them where they were.
Shame on those people for not having the faith of the centurion. But, wait...even the centurion came to Jesus...maybe his faith wasn't as great as we thought?? Why didn't he just stay by his servant's bed and wait for Jesus to heal him? Why did he even have to go to Jesus to ask? After all, God doesn't need us to do anything at all.

But alas...God did feel the need to have Jesus be physically present to heal most. The people needed to see and hear Jesus to believe. Jesus needed to show them that He was the one they had been waiting for. He was their Savior. The Father needed Him to be physically present to work the miracles He did. How else would they have known Him at that time? That He was sent by the Father?

The fact that He didn't need to be physically present, as in God has the capability to heal from afar, is immaterial. The truth is, He needed to be their to show them the Father. And to show them that He, Jesus, is the way, the truth and the life.

Everything that Jesus did and the way He did it was NEEDED.
Maybe He could have done some things differently (ie heal Lazarus from afar)...but He didn't. Because that is not what was NEEDED.

 

[JimB]

Talk about weird -

You make a statement like that to prove your point, yet openly admit that you believe that it is the same God's will to allow a person to suffer a painful disease, and die from it.

What kind of unfeeling Lord is that?

I know, B. That is a tired old PHIA argument that has been bandied endlessly in this forum. I was just lobbing your team’s serve back into your court.

Do I believe God allows people to suffer? Yes, of course I do. Look around. If God did not allow people to suffer, they would not suffer.

Suffering is the price we pay for freewill.

I hate to bring him up again , but C.S. Lewis said it well …

Of course God knew what would happen if they used their freedom the wrong way: apparently He thought it worth the risk. Perhaps we feel inclined to disagree with Him. But there is a difficulty about disagreeing with God. He is the source from which all your reasoning power comes: you could not be right and He wrong any more than a stream can rise higher than its own source. When you are arguing against Him you are arguing against the very power that makes you able to argue at all: it is like cutting off the branch you are sitting on. If God thinks this state of war (suffering) in the universe is a price worth paying for free will--that is, for making a live world in which creatures can do real good or harm and something of real importance can happen, instead of a toy world which only moves when He pulls the strings--then we make take it it is worth paying.
​

~Jim

The Bible is so simple you have to have help to misunderstand it.​

 

[LeadWorship]

I believe Lazarus died for the glory of God. Jesus had to be present, so He could be fully credited with the raising, so the Jews could get mad at Him, and plot to kill Him, ultimately for the Glory of God. The whole story of Lazarus worked out exactly how God had planned it, imo.

 

[Always in His Presence]

Well, your perfectly free to take seriously the writings of a Catholic theologian


I'll stay with scripture.

 

[JimB]

Well, your perfectly free to take seriously the writings of a Catholic theologian


I'll stay with scripture.

C.S. Lewis? Catholic? Theologian?

I thought he was an Anglican literature professor.

And, yes, I will take his interpretation of scripture over yours any time.

~Jim

If the first step in an argument is wrong everything that follows is wrong.​

~C.S. Lewis, The Problem of Pain​

 

[LeadWorship]

According to Wiki, "Lewis had been baptised in the Church of Ireland at birth, but fell away from his faith during his adolescence. Owing to the influence of Tolkien and other friends, at about the age of 30, Lewis re-converted to Christianity, becoming "a very ordinary layman of the Church of England"."

Also stated about the Church of England : considers itself to be both Catholic and reformed.

 

[JimfromOhio]

Church of England is basically Catholic and reformed which basically means an Anglican.

 

[JimB]

Church of England is basically Catholic and reformed which basically means an Anglican.

Henry VIII broke from the Roman Catholic Church and formed the Anglican Church (Church of England) in 1533. There are major differences between Anglican/Episcopalians and Catholics. Just ask them.

~Jim

If the first step in an argument is wrong everything that follows is wrong.​

~C.S. Lewis, The Problem of Pain​

​

 

[JimfromOhio]

Henry VIII broke from the Roman Catholic Church and formed the Anglican Church (Church of England) in 1533. There are major differences between Anglican/Episcopalians and Catholics. Just ask them.

~Jim

If the first step in an argument is wrong everything that follows is wrong.


~C.S. Lewis, The Problem of Pain​

I know there are alot of differences between Anglican, Episcopalians and Catholics. They have been dividing more and more over the years due to doctrinal differences.

J.I. Packer, one of the world's most renowned evangelical theologians, left the Anglican Church of Canada, citing "poisonous liberalism" in the church body. J.I. Packer was a friend of C.S. Lewis and Packer was an Oxford-trained theologian. As a student at Oxford where he first met C.S. Lewis whose teachings would become a major influence in his life.

http://www.christianpost.com/article/20080428/famed-theologian-quits-anglican-church-of-canada.htm

 

[Always in His Presence]

And, yes, I will take his interpretation of scripture over yours any time.

~Jim

If the first step in an argument is wrong everything that follows is wrong.
~C.S. Lewis, The Problem of Pain​

Really?! I didn't say mine - I said scripture - Like I said - I'll stay with the Word of God - Good luck with C.S.

 

[JimB]

Really?! I didn't say mine - I said scripture - Like I said - I'll stay with the Word of God - Good luck with C.S.

Sorry, Oh, Infallible One. Silly me, I keep forgetting that your interpretation of the Bible is “scripture”.

Thanks for the reminder.

~Jim

The Bible is so simple you have to have help to misunderstand it.​

 

[JimfromOhio]

Really?! I didn't say mine - I said scripture - Like I said - I'll stay with the Word of God - Good luck with C.S.

Okay.. I will stay with C.S. Lewis and other similar writers while you stay with WOF's writers.

 

[Always in His Presence]

Sorry, Oh, Infallible One. Silly me, I keep forgetting that your interpretation of the Bible is “scripture”.

Thanks for the reminder.

~Jim

The Bible is so simple you have to have help to misunderstand it.​

And yet..... you continue to go off topic and make things personal and condescending -

If the Word of God says Jesus waited two days before going to Bethany - which was 2 miles away - then I believe that Jesus waited two days and then went to Bethany - two miles away.

And when Jesus Got to Bethany - two miles away - Lazarus had been in the tomb for four days already - cause the Word of God says Lazarus had been in the tomb for four days.

It's not difficult to interpret that.

Now if you have something from scripture that contradicts that - I'm open.

 

[Tamara224]

LOL, does anyone else remember the time Balance claimed it took Jesus 3 days to travel from where he was to Bethany?

Also, can someone please ask Balance to explain exactly where in the story we are told that Jesus was in Jerusalem when he got the news?

As far as I can tell, all it says is

6Yet when he heard that Lazarus was sick, he stayed where he was two more days.
7Then he said to his disciples, "Let us go back to Judea."

​

And I'm pretty sure that Jerusalem was in Judea... So Jesus must not have been in Jerusalem. And I'm not sure where that idea is coming from...

 

[Tamara224]

An older "Lazarus Timeline" by Balance for our reading enjoyment...

http://christianforums.com/showthread.php?t=5190875&highlight=Lazarus


Kind of interesting, actually... Just proves there's lots of ways for all of us to speculate about things.

 

[JimB]

And yet..... you continue to go off topic and make things personal and condescending -

If the Word of God says Jesus waited two days before going to Bethany - which was 2 miles away - then I believe that Jesus waited two days and then went to Bethany - two miles away.

And when Jesus Got to Bethany - two miles away - Lazarus had been in the tomb for four days already - cause the Word of God says Lazarus had been in the tomb for four days.

It's not difficult to interpret that.

Now if you have something from scripture that contradicts that - I'm open.

So, offering your opinions/views/interpretations as “scripture” is not condescending to those of us who disagree with your opinions/views/interpretations? What am I supposed to think you are calling my opinions/views/interpretations?

And where do you get the idea that Jesus was just “two miles” away from Bethany? According to the context (v.10.40) Jesus was “beyond the Jordan” which could have put Him anywhere anywhere from Perea to Decapolis when he received word from Martha and Mary, which would have been perhaps two to four days (not two miles) journey from Bethany.

Where do you get some of these ideas?

~Jim

The Bible is so simple you have to have help to misunderstand it.​