Evidence for God from Science

We are told in the NT that Jesus was the first person to be resurrected from the dead.

But,

Wasn't Lazarus resurrected?

Some say Lazarus was resuscitated. In other words, he went back to his normal life and then died a normal death.

But,

How do we know Lazarus went back to his normal life and then died later?

Jesus also brought a little girl back to life after she died. Was she resurrected or resuscitated?

Thanks.

There are many 'dogmas' of so-called elements of faith appended to the
the life of Jesus that can be taken as ligitimate elements of enquiry.

Before attempting to delineate such, one might ask: what keeps one from
asking Jesus himself?

As the Just One lives, He can be addressed and the individual who
so addresses Him, alone, can attest to the answers given to such.

Right? Or do you think He doesn't live forever? And that all answers
must be derived from static printed words?

It is interesting to me that when Jesus was refused from a town, that
some disciples advised that he should call down fire from 'heaven' to
consume that town. And he answered: you don't know what manner of
spirit you are in asking such a thing.

So, in the extant record accepted, Jesus repugned such attitude of
retribution.

Yet in the, also extant accepted, record: a couple were literally
'cursed to death' by these 'apostles': Ananias and his wife.

Later on, Saul - - - later 'Paul' - - - had an encounter with Jesus
on a road. And the extant record tells us one 'ANANIAS' helped
Saul/Paul regain his sight.

While it might be thought that this name: Ananias, was a very common
name, we might also see that what the 'apostles' deemed 'sin' was not
deemed sin by Jesus, just as Jesus did not deem all things called by
'law' sin.

I think there is a record of a true division of paths from the life
and teaching of Jesus and the so-called teaching of the 'church' or
rather 'churches' that sprang forth after the fact of Jesus.

I'm certain that the Ananias of the first part was the same Ananias of
the second part, and that the resurrection of Ananias included the
resurrection of his wife.

They didn't lie to the "holy spirit" as adjudged by that cult. But they,
Ananias and his wife, were uncertain of which cult to believe was truly
in harmony with 'that one'.

When Ananias talked to Saul/Paul, he called Jesus 'the Just One'.

Why?

Why would Ananias think Jesus 'just'?

If you were wrongly accused, and sentenced wrongly, but someone came to
you rescue and brought you back to your rightful estate. What would you
call that rescuer? Would you not think that one 'Just'?

If you were wrongfully sentenced, THAT wrongful sentencer would be
UNJUST. And we know mostly about a lineage derived from the latter,
not the former. In my opinion.

Jesus was Just. The killers of Ananias and his wife were UNJUST.

They took advantage of a reputation based on an appearance of
'blessing' that, evidently, didn't take. Didn't hold.

Otherwise, why would there have been a division between them and Paul?

And even Paul, after such enlightenment, fell away from a closer
association and equality.

Yet this one said: have in you the same mind that was in Jesus. Who thought
it not sin to think himself equal with YHVH: God.

Some early 'Christians' were killed for enunciating: Jesus is YHVH (read
'LORD').

Evidently, Paul, or maybe some later editor of Paul, decided that
Jesus was advocating worship of himself . . . that is, of Jesus as
that I AM (YHVH: LORD).

Well, when a Jew came to Jesus and said 'Good Rabbi', Jesus said: why
do you call me 'good'. When there are none good, but YHVH only?

Evidently, later biographers took this as a retorical query. It might also
be a Platonic argument by Jesus ere Plato or his teachers.

We can understand this as an algebraic proposition: unity of purpose
and effort or unity of principle and life: if you say that I AM is God
or Good, then if I do good, am I not expressing God or I AM?

This was the criterion of being a 'prophet'. So there are different
ways of reading this.

Later still, John at Patmos, tried to worship this same one in spirit,
which is called the Angel of Jesus, but Jesus forbade him.

If that isn't true, then in the 'Old Word' or 'testament', the
appearance of the 'angel of JHVH' isn't really 'God', either, but just
some 'channel'.

Evidently, this story isn't finished.

But you go read. You decide.

In doing so, at least the minimum any undecided one can do is not to
be unkind to their own parents and neighbors. To not be unjust or
unrighteous or untruthful.

It would be interesting to know, who doubts their own awareness?

There's nothing closer than that. Which can be called 'the soul' and
'heart'.

Which we commune with . . . or not.

Ooooo...we have a live one in rogerscottq!

Christian2 wrote:We are told in the NT that Jesus was the first person to be resurrected from the dead.

Lazarus was brought back from the dead as the same man he was before. Jesus resurrected into His glorified body, and He was the first to have been resurrected into a glorified body.

FL

I'd just like to add something to my previous post:

Lazarus was resurrected from the dead as the same man he was before, then he died at the end of his life and is still dead.

Jesus was resurrected from death into His glorified body, and He remains alive to this day. Jesus is thus the first to be resurrected into a glorified body.

FL

Fürstentum Liechtenstein wrote:Ooooo...we have a live one in rogerscottq!

Christian2 wrote:We are told in the NT that Jesus was the first person to be resurrected from the dead.

Lazarus was brought back from the dead as the same man he was before. Jesus resurrected into His glorified body, and He was the first to have been resurrected into a glorified body.

FL

Thanks. We have no information about Lazarus after he was brought back to life, so we have to assume he went on with his life and died at some point later.

What do you intend to mean by 'we'?