The “Gnostic Warrior” on the Nephilim

Under consideration is an article posted to the Gnostic Warrior site by Moe which is titled, “The Symbol of the Nephilim is the Caduceus of Hermes,” September 16, 2016 AD.

Of course, Moe’s interest is ultimately deciphering the symbol the Caduceus yet, I will focus upon the portion which is of greater interest to me: the identification of the Nephilim.
Sadly, I found his article to be very much along the lines of a tactic known as “elephant hurling” which refers to when a person asserts lots and lots of info which comes across as impressive but which is not necessarily accurate, well sourced, contextually correlated, etc.—he mostly provided a lot of references to Wikipedia.

Moe notes:

Hermes is also known as Cadmus or Cadman (Kadmos or Kad-man) amongst the Phoenicians, Spartans, Sidonians, Arcadians, Boetians, and Cadimians (all the same people)…Cadmus’ Soldiers were known as the Hivites, a name meaning serpents, and they are said to be changed into Serpents. They are also known by many as the Nephilim…

Well, I am already lost and the only references to these statements are the generic Wikipedia article about the Greeks in general. So, at this point, as in very many other points in the article, you either decide to dedicate a significant portion of your time towards tracking down his every rabbit hole, you simply go with it, you simply dismiss it or well, you chose. I just keep seeing where he is going with it.

baphomet-9484827
You can see the caduceus proceeding forth from Baphomet’s nether regions

Note that Moe, writes, “the Phoenician Nephilim who also went by many other names are part of the Catholic Church, and more specifically, they were its original priests, bishops and Popes.” Sorry, but the only reference is a generic one to Wikipedia’s entry on the Catholic Church in general.

He also writes that “the planet Jupiter, and is known biblically as the morning star.” Now, he does not cite it, I know that he is referring to but with a twist. Isaiah 14:12 reads “How art thou fallen from heaven” and then the term helel which has been variously translated finishing with “son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations!”
This has generally be thought to be a reference to Satan (sometimes helel is translated as Lucifer as in light bringer or bearer) symbolically as Venus when it precedes the Sunrise thus, it is the morning star.
As per Moe, “Not many people are aware of the fact that the planet Jupiter (Latin: Iuppiter, Iūpiter) is also called the morning star, and it is this morning star that is spoken of in the bible.”1 Well, whether the Isaiah reference is to Venus or Jupiter is not determined by Moe’s mere assertion. Also, note that he informs us that “Not many people are aware of the fact that…” and if that is the case then he is not helping matters as within the statement he offers a generic Wikipedia link to “Jupiter” and that page says nothing about it being aka morning star and also a generic link to the Latin language.

Moe concludes, “the etymology of the word caduceus indicates the meaning to be ‘the fall of Jupiter,’ or more appropriately the symbol of those who are known biblically as the fallen Sons of God (Jupiter).” He states this because the Latin is cadent and Moe tells us that the “Latin word ceus which is the equivalent of the Greek zeus.” Well, that depends on what equivalent means. Frankly, it seems that he just made that up and/or it is very common for New Age, occultists, astrotheology sorts to simply change a few letters around and claim equivalence: I would imagine that it is only in very late dating English that Moe can imagine that ceus is the equivalent of zeus simply because they look alike in English. It is like the Zeitgeist Jesus mythicists who claim that Sun is like Son—because it looks that way in English.

In another bout of elephant hurling, Moe asserts:

They are also known in Hebrew as the Bene Elohim and Nephilim described in Genesis 6:4; that the offspring of the Nephilim were “mighty men of old, men of renown”. They are sometimes known in literature by many names such as the Anunnaki, Boetians, Cadamians, Hivites, Ophites, Levites, Phoenicians, Judeans (Tribe of Judah), mighty men of renown, and simply as giants who became Gods on earth to name a few. Men who were renown for the super human mental power, strength, and length in years which they had lived.

By the way no, he provided no citations. Well, within many circles the term Anunnaki is sexy and could easily be made to force fit the bill but wait, the Levites and Tribe of Judah were Nephilim? There is simply no indication of this beyond Moe’s authoritative assertion. For example, we have no indication whatsoever that Levits and those of the Tribe of Juda possessed “super human mental power, strength, and length in years which they had lived.”

Yet, keep in mind what I noted that my goal is about where Moe is going with all of this.

Meo tells us something commonly believed which is that “The meaning of Nephilim in Hebrew is the verbal root n-ph-l ‘fall.’” This is the case on presuming the term to derive from the Hebrew naphal and yet, it may derive from the Aramaic root naphiyla which means giant (whatever that means).
In any case, Moe attempts to tie a bow in his goal by reiterating that since “cad is ‘to fall,’ and ceus is ‘Jupiter or the bright morning star’” then “This is why in the bible; ‘I, Jesus, have sent my angel to give you this testimony for the churches. I am the Root and the Offspring of David, and the bright Morning Star.’ Rev 22:16 (NIV).” Again he asserts that “Jupiter…is the planet they speak of.”

So, we are just about at the rock bottom of Moe’s goal: Jesus is Jupiter and is fallen—or Jesus is Zeus or whatever: hey look, Jesus looks like Zeus in English: Je-Zeus!!! Oh, I know: Hermes is Jupiter is Zeus is Jesus the Lorax ’cause—why not?

Moe next references the Isaiah text by asserting that “This event of the fall of the Sons of God” the plural Nephilim “is further spoken of in scriptures where it is said; ‘How you have fallen from heaven, O morning star, son of the dawn!…” I may imagine where he is getting such an idea but the grammar would be all wrong.

Job 38:7 refers to the “sons of God” bene Elohim rejoicing at witnessing, at least, part of God’s creative act. The Genesis 6 affair’s “sons of God” is the same plural “bene.” Yet, Isaiah 14 refers to the singular “ben.”

Moe refers to “The French Occultist, Eliphas Levi” who illustrated the Baphomet above, “had written; ‘The fallen angels gathered around their chief, Samiaxas, on a high mountain, which has been called ever since ‘the mountain of the Oath’, for the Eggregores pledged themselves there one to the other with a sacrilegious vow.’”
Now, Samiaxas is one of the very many transliterations of the name of the main fallen Watcher Angel within the apocryphal Book of Enoch specifically 1 Enoch aka Ethiopic Enoch—see my entries for Semjase.
By mountain of the Oath he is referring to the Enoch claim, not found in the Bible, which is the specific location where the Watcher Angels touched down when they came to Earth and that was Mount Hermon.

From these further unfounded assertions Moe further digs into the bottomless pit of his end goal, “Jesus was the Root and the Offspring of David, and the bright Morning Star, and he is also of the Tribe of Judah which would indicate he is from the same Mount Ida (Herm-On) where the Nephilim had made the sacrilegious vow.”
But why would Jesus being of David and the Tribe of Judah “indicate” Mount Hermon? Firstly, during Jesus’ time the Jews were not necessarily living within their traditional tribal lands. Secondly, the traditional land of the Tribe of Judah is very much far and away to the South of Mount Hermon. Thirdly, Jesus was born in Bethlehem which is also very much far and away to the South of Mount Hermon. Lastly, even if you, for some reason, want to pin point Jesus to where he grew up, Nazareth, that is still very much far and away to the South of Mount Hermon.

In other words, Moe cannot simply dismiss these points just so that he can manufacture his very own Gnostic Jesus mythicism.

Moe then writes, “The big difference with Jesus, is that he was the only Judean who did not make once of these vows, or deals with Satan to mislead mankind.” This is indicative of Moe’s utter confusion and lack of knowledge of the issue he seeks to elucidate. Firstly, what?! All Judeans except Jesus made sacrilegious vows, or deals with Satan to mislead mankind?! How does he come to such as conclusion? Well, he was playing off of Eliphas Levi’s and the Book of Enoch’s statement to the effect that “The fallen angels…pledged themselves there one to the other with a sacrilegious vow” but Moe tells us that it was where “the Nephilim had made the sacrilegious vow.”
Fallen Angels and Nephilim are not the same beings? The Fallen Angles are parents of the Nephilim. Also, even if the fallen Angels did touch down on Hermon that as pre-flood and Jesus was born millennias later.

Moe also asserts that “In fact” mind you “he was crucified for not taking this vow” no, he offers no quotation, no citation, no not even a generic link to Wikipedia for this one.

Yet, he argues his point thusly, “In the Passion of Christ, when he was reluctantly placed on the cross next to a thief named Barabbas…the crowd chose Barabbas to be released…The meaning of the name Barabbas in Aramaic is Bar-abbâ (בר-אבא), ‘son of the father.’” Thus far, this is accurate, “Jesus was also a son of the father. Hence, they were from the same tribe of Judah, but Barabbas is part of sect known as the Nephilim, or those that fell, and Jesus the messiah who refused to take that vow was sacrificed.”
Firstly, Jesus certainly is that “son of the father” even if not specifically referred to as such: He is called Son of God and more so that not prefers the term Son of Man. Secondly, why conclude that one man’s name Barabbas and that which Jesus “was also” have to do with their Tribal identification?

Overall, Moe’s article is very confused and consists of a lot of disjointed bit and pieces which he failed to connect.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

A plea: I have to pay for server usage and have made all content on this website free and always will. I support my family on one income and do research, writing, videos, etc. as a hobby. If you can even spare $1.00 as a donation, please do so: it may not seem like much but if each person reading this would do so, even every now and then, it would add up and really, really help. Here is my donate/paypal page.

Due to robo-spaming, I had to close the comment sections. However, you can comment on my Facebook page and/or on my Google+ page. You can also use the “Share / Save” button below this post.

VIDEO: Free speech on campus or authoritarianism without a legal premise?

Cherubim and Serpent in Flavius Josephus’ Antiquities of the Jews

Herein we prove quotations and citations on Cherubim and Serpent (within a Satanic context) from Flavius Josephus (37 AD-100 AD). The fuller complete result consists of quotations of those sections within the text that refer to Angels, Cherubim, Seraphim, Devil, Satan, demons, serpent and dragon. The point is not to elucidate these references but to provide relevant partial quotations and citations. See my section on Angels here, Cherubim and Seraphim here, Satan here and Demons here.

Antiquities of the Jews Book VII

14:9 …hundred talents, and three hundred other talents of pure gold, for the most holy place, and for the chariot of God, the cherubim, which are to stand over and cover the ark.

Antiquities of the Jews Preface

1:4 But while all the living creatures had one language, at that time the serpent, which then lived together with Adam and his wife, shewed an envious disposition, at his supposal of their living happily…she again accused the serpent…she persuaded Adam with the same arguments wherewith the serpent had persuaded her, and had thereby brought him into a calamitous condition. He also deprived the serpent of speech, out of indignation at his malicious disposition towards Adam.

In the next segment, we will consider Josephus on Demons.

Miracle Baby Causes Atheist to Pray

The following news story seemed both politically and polemically relevant.

Gene Warner, “Women & Children’s Cares for Ontario ‘Miracle Baby’-Shortage at Hospital Where Ava Was Born Necessitated Journey,” Buffalo News, July 02, 2009

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

One-week-old Ava Isabella Stinson – all 2 pounds of her – has made quite a dramatic entrance into the world.

First her birth. Last Thursday, her parents, Natalie Paquette and Richard Stinson, rushed to a Hamilton, Ont., hospital, where she was born 20 minutes later – more than three months before her due date.
She weighed 2 pounds 4 ounces at birth.

Then came another complication that doctors couldn’t treat – there was no room at the inn for Ava in the Hamilton area.

Lack of any empty beds in a neonatal unit in Hamilton’s McMaster Children’s Hospital forced authorities to prepare to take Ava across the border to Women & Children’s Hospital in Buffalo.

But an intense storm that afternoon grounded the helicopter, so the McMaster neonatal transport team brought her here by ambulance_

“It happens all the time,” Ryan said [Dr. Rita M. Ryan, Women & Children’s chief of neonatology]. “They have a certain number of NICU beds [in Southern Ontario], and sometimes they run out”_

When there are no beds available at McMaster, hospital officials look for other neonatal beds in Ontario. If none can be found, they look to the United States_

Ava’s story, with all its cross-border twists and turns, also remains a human one.

Stinson said he has found only one way to explain the whirlwind of events in the last week.

“I was an atheist,” he said in a lengthy phone interview from his Hamilton home. “Now I’m considering going to church and being a believer. There’s got to be someone up there who’s saving our little daughter.”

On Tuesday morning, Stinson got up and prayed for little Ava. That day, he and Paquette learned their baby had been taken off the ventilator the day before.

“That’s enough for me to be a believer,” he said_

“She’s the smallest baby in the world,” he said. “I’ve never seen anything like it.”
And he’ll never forget the first time he saw Ava.

“The first thing I did was cry. Then I cupped her head in my right hand. Her head was way too small for my hand. I was talking, and she reached up and touched my finger”_

The whole experience has changed Stinson, and not only in a religious way. He also has a different view of Americans.
“The American people have been so awesome, I’d like to go back there and vacation,” he said_

“I’m just going to tell her she’s a celebrity – and a miracle baby.”

Is the Bible Skeptical About Miracles? – The Timing Test for Miracles

Let us consider perhaps the closest we could get to testing whether a miracle has taken place.

The New Testament presents a very interesting occurrence which provides one of the very best tests for ascertaining whether a miracle took place-from John 4:46-54.

So Jesus came again to Cana of Galilee where He had made the water wine. And there was a certain nobleman whose son was sick at Capernaum. When he heard that Jesus had come out of Judea into Galilee, he went to Him and implored Him to come down and heal his son, for he was at the point of death. Then Jesus said to him, “Unless you people see signs and wonders, you will by no means believe.”
The nobleman said to Him, “Sir, come down before my child dies!”Jesus said to him, “Go your way; your son lives.” So the man believed the word that Jesus spoke to him, and he went his way.

There you have it; the nobleman asked for a healing and Jesus claimed to have granted it.

Next we find that,

And as he [the nobleman] was now going down, his servants met him and told him, saying, “Your son lives!”

There it is; Jesus claimed to have healed the son and it was so.

And now comes the test:

Then he inquired of them the hour when he got better. And they said to him, “Yesterday at the seventh hour the fever left him.”So the father knew that it was at the same hour in which Jesus said to him, “Your son lives.” And he himself believed, and his whole household.

This again is the second sign Jesus did when He had come out of Judea into Galilee.

This is quite a test; matching up the time of the claim to have preformed a healing to the time when the healing actually took place-and it was so.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

A plea: I have to pay for server usage and have made all content on this website free and always will. I support my family on one income and do research, writing, videos, etc. as a hobby. If you can even spare $1.00 as a donation, please do so: it may not seem like much but if each person reading this would do so, even every now and then, it would add up and really, really help. Here is my donate/paypal page.

Due to robo-spaming, I had to close the comment sections. However, you can comment on my Facebook page and/or on my Google+ page. You can also use the “Share / Save” button below this post.

Michael Shermer and the Greatest Miracle

The greatest miracle has already occurred and that was the creation of the universe.

During his debate with John Lennox, Michael Shermer made some interesting comments about the universe’s conception. How does he propose we resolve the infinite regress which is set on its tracks by the assertions of a previously existing universe giving rise to the one in which we live? Michael Shermer proposes that the answer is found by inebriation. The lesson is that if you get drunk enough you can resolve the problem.

Certainly, his statement was surely stated with tongue firmly ensconced in cheek but I think that it does speak volumes and sheds light on his actual, sober, explanation.

There is something about appealing to inebriation that is reminiscent of the manner in which Michael Shermer actually deals with the issue. The realm of inebriation is the realm of limitless possibility; people develop “beer muscles” and can take on the world. They lose their inhibitions in search of anything that will (momentarily) satisfy. And besides saying, “I loooove you maaaaan!” the realm of possibility is wide open, “Wow maaaaan, what if…” “Yeah, dude!”

Let us keep in mind that in Michael Shermer we are speaking about Mr. Skepticism himself (or pseudo-skepticism as was hinted to in Expelled). Yet, when it comes to the origin of our universe he is left with, I suppose, the only thing that we have-theories.

Fair enough. Yet, he asserts, “It’s a little early in the history of science, only four centuries old, to say ‘We now know enough about everything to say, ‘It can’t possibly be explained by natural forces therefore, there has to be a supernatural force.” Thus, he considers the theory of collapsing black holes producing expanding bubble universes to be “one answer,” other answers being that we do not yet know.

Is this “one answer”? It is as much of an answer as theorizing that our universe is inside of a marble with which an alien child is playing.

Firstly, it is not an answer to merely invent assertions off of the top of one’ head. Merely piling materialistic stories upon materialistic stories about how thinks could have, may have (should have?) happened may be “intellectually satisfying” at some level or another but is no answer. Atheists tend to reject supernatural options that at least have some merit with material options that have no merit.

I wonder when “science” will mature. Perhaps someone could set an age limit-has anyone checked science’s identification card? He sets its age at 400 although it is millennia older. Perhaps he only considers “science” to be the materialist cooption of “science” which has increased to the point that some people actually believe that even though science has nothing to say about the existence of the supernatural, it disproves it. Some atheists oppose the supernatural based on methodology that does not deal with the supernatural.

Just when will science be considered mature, or over the hill-with regards to Michael Shermer’s claim that it is a virtual babe in arms? One thousand years? Two thousand? Two million? Fifty billion trillion quintillion? Just when will atheists allow us the privilege of coming to a supernatural conclusion?

Here is the bottom line: atheists commit the fallacy of expected future human omniscience. This is a faith based view based on worldview adherence. The argument is basically that one cannot scientifically or logically infer the existence of the supernatural until human beings learn everything that there is to know and everything about everything that there is to know-not until we know everything, how everything works, every cause for every effect and how everything interacts in every possible combination.

Meanwhile, atheists can give as “one answer” anything that they could possibly imagine. Where you to ask for evidence, that is easy enough: “scientists are working on it.”

The greatest miracle has already occurred and that was the creation of the universe. Just because this violated the atheists worldview and they go on to invent modern day cosmogenic myths does not change this fact.

Until such time as all of our deepest questions about life the universe and everything can be explained by absolutely materialistic means theism is the default position.

The Myth of Warfare Between “Science,” “Religion” and “Miracles”

Cherubim in Philo of Alexandria

Herein we provide quotations and citations on Cherubim from Philo of Alexandria (20 BC-50 AD). The fuller complete result consists of quotations of those sections within the text that refer to Angels, Cherubim, Seraphim, Devil, Satan, demons, serpent and dragon. The point is not to elucidate these references but to provide relevant partial quotations and citations. See my section on Angels here, Cherubim and Seraphim here, Satan here and Demons here.

Cherubim in Philo of Alexandria’s The Cherubim, Questions and Answers on Genesis, On the Life of Moses and On Flight and Finding.

The Cherubim Part 1

I “And God cast out Adam, and placed him opposite the paradise of happiness; and he placed there the cherubim and a flaming sword, which turned every way, to keep the way of the tree of Life

IV Then also, “The flaming sword and the cherubim have an abode allotted to them exactly in front of paradise.”

VI But God very appropriately assigns to the cherubim and to the flaming sword a city or abode in front of Paradise.

VII But we must now consider what the figurative allusions are which are enigmatically expressed in the mention of the cherubim and of the flaming sword which turned every way…Accordingly, by one of the cherubim is understood the extreme outermost circumference of the entire heaven…But the other of the cherubim is the inner sphere.

VIII This, then, is one of the systems, according to which what is said of the cherubim may be understood allegorically…And may we not say, according to another way of understanding this allegory, that the two cherubim are meant as symbols of each of the hemispheres?

IX Now, of this ruling authority and of this goodness, being two distinct powers, the cherubim were the symbols, but of reason the flaming sword was the symbol…And do thou, O my mind, receive the impression of each of these cherubims unadulterated, that thus becoming thoroughly instructed about the ruling authority of the Creator of all things.

Questions and Answers on Genesis, I
57 Why God places a cherubim in front of the Paradise, and a flaming sword, which turned every way, to keep the way of the tree of life? (#Ge 3:24). The name cherubim designates the two original virtues which belong to the Deity, namely, his creative and his royal virtues.

On the Life of Moses, II
XX But the ark is the depository of the laws, for in that are placed the holy oracles of God, which were given to Moses; and the covering of the ark, which is called the mercy-seat, is a foundation for two winged creatures to rest upon, which are called, in the native language of the Hebrews, cherubim, but as the Greeks would translate the word, vast knowledge and science. Now some persons say, that these cherubim are the symbols of the two hemispheres, placed opposite to and fronting one another, the one beneath the Earth and the other above the Earth, for the whole heaven is endowed with wings.

On Flight and Finding
XIX The images of the creative power and of the kingly power are the winged cherubim which are placed upon it. But the divine word which is above these does not come into any visible appearance, inasmuch as it is not like to any of the things that come under the external senses, but is itself an image of God, the most ancient of all the objects of intellect in the whole world, and that which is placed in the closest proximity to the only truly existing God, without any partition or distance being interposed between them: for it is said, “I will speak unto thee from above the mercyseat, in the midst, between the two Cherubim.”

In the next segment, we will consider Philo on the Devil, Serpent and Dragon.

On Natural Laws and Miracles

there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature.”1
-Fred Hoyle

Atheists oft argue that miracles cannot occur because the laws of nature are immutable. By a convenient inference they further argue that since miracles do not occur, the supernatural does not exist.

I mostly wish to brainstorm in a few directions as I do not claim to be as omniscient about the laws of nature-as some of my atheist friends appear to consider themselves:

What are the laws of nature?
The laws of nature are: gravity, electromagnetism, strong nuclear force and weak nuclear force. Yet, the point of my question was not intended to list and discuss them but was to point out that what we term “the laws of nature” is our taxonomy of inferences derived from observations of the natural world. One question to keep in mind is whether we have discovered all of the laws of nature as of yet.

atheismatheistcosmologycreationcreationismcreationscienceintelligentdesign-1450308

Are they immutable?
Perhaps. They certainly appear to be. Yet, in order to answer in the affirmative we must first presuppose that we know all of the laws. Assuming that we do; we must further assume that we know of every possible action and interaction of these laws in every possible scenario and in every possible combination.

What if they are not immutable?
In such a case, God can bend them.

What if they are immutable?
In such a case, God can “break” them. According to such a scenario God would have created what we understand to be immutable laws for the very purpose of displaying His ability to “break” them and in doing so alert us to the miraculous.

Can God break, or manipulate, the laws of nature?
Some atheists claim that God cannot exist for the very reason that the laws of nature cannot be broker, or bent. However, answering presuppositionally; God created the laws of nature, God invented them, God holds the patent on them, has the template of them, God put them into place and can manipulate them like a guitarist who strung her guitar can strum the strings, or place them in whatever order, or tightness them she pleases.

Lastly, note that as our scientific knowledge increases the more parochial concepts such as the impossibility of God due to presumed immutable laws fades away:

In hindsight, it is an irony that while modernity in its positivistic spirit started out with the notion that the reality perceived by our senses is the only knowable reality there is, we now end up with the idea that the true nature of physical reality is quite different from what we experience through our senses. The legend of the tangibility of matter, or what may be called “the matter myth,” which served as the basis for the certainty of knowledge, was lost.2

Here, within science, were raised the problem of reality (an ontological problem), issues of the limits of human knowledge (an epistemological problem), and the problem of testability (a methodological problem).

Relativity and quantum physics, which serve as the pillars of contemporary science, and more recently chaos theory, are now presenting us with a radically new physical view of the world in which positivistic, deterministic, and materialistic philosophies no longer have secure places. They present us with deeper, greater, and more mysterious aspects of nature.

Scientists now proceed to the area that traditionally belonged to metaphysics, discussing the possibility of the ultimate reality of the universe, the origin and finality of the cosmos, the problem of consciousness, and the like. The natural sciences, as they touch upon the edge of objectivity and empirical testability, raise many questions about the world to which science itself cannot provide definite answers within its limited framework. In these frontiers of science, our metaphors are running out and our common sense often breaks down. We have to wrestle with the limits of our knowledge, logic, and rationality. Here in science the fundamental epistemic problems are naturally raised, as they were in religion and theology in earlier centuries.

We now start to take seriously, especially in fundamental physics and cosmology, the things that are not seen. As recent developments in theoretical physics and cosmology witness, as speculative as they may be, some theories quite beyond what can be directly measured by physical apparatus are possible and are indeed commonplace. It not only raises a possibility for the epistemology of the unseen in general, but also makes its ontological discussion feasible.3

Is the Bible Skeptical About Miracles? – Lazarus Comes Forth

In John chapter 11 we learn of the death of Lazarus of Bethany.

Lazarus’ sisters, Mary and Martha, had sent for Jesus with a message stating, “Lord, behold, he whom you love is sick.”
Jesus offers an odd response, “This sickness is not unto death, but for the glory of God, that the Son of God may be glorified through it.” Odder still he stayed put two more days. Afterward, upon leaving for Lazarus’s home he stated, “Our friend Lazarus sleeps, but I go that I may wake him up” to which the disciples responded, “Lord, if he sleeps he will get well.”

Yet, we learn that Jesus was employing a common idiom for death as He explains, “Lazarus is dead. And I am glad for your sakes that I was not there, that you may believe. Nevertheless let us go to him.”
It is noteworthy that Jesus often did and said odd things which are not understood until the completes His actions. The things He did are as important and telling as the things that He did not do, or waited to do.

We find that it took Jesus four days to travel from Bethany to Jerusalem, a distance of two miles.

“Now Martha, as soon as she heard that Jesus was coming, went and_said to Jesus, ‘Lord, if You had been here, my brother would not have died. But even now I know that whatever You ask of God, God will give You.'”

atheismandatheistandlazarusandjesusandbibleandgodandchristianity-9327649

As the conversation ensues we learn that Jesus told her that Lazarus will rise again and that she thought that He referred to an eventual, general, resurrection. Employing various idioms, Jesus states, “I am the resurrection and the life. He who believes in Me, though he may die, he shall live. And whoever lives and believes in Me shall never die. Do you believe this?” To which she responded, “Yes, Lord, I believe that You are the Christ, the Son of God, who is to come into the world.”

Next Martha goes out to meet Jesus and states, “Lord, if You had been here, my brother would not have died.”

“Therefore, when Jesus saw her weeping, and the Jews who came with her weeping, He groaned in the spirit and was troubled. And He said, ‘Where have you laid him?’They said to Him, ‘Lord, come and see.’Jesus wept. Then the Jews said, ‘See how He loved him!’

And some of them said, ‘Could not this Man, who opened the eyes of the blind, also have kept this man from dying?'”

Upon reaching the tomb Jesus asks that the stone which sealed the tomb be removed at which time, and before a crowd of mourners, Martha states what everyone knew, “Lord, by this time there is a stench, for he has been dead four days” (or as the quaint Authorized King James Version put it, “he stinketh”).

“Jesus said to her, ‘Did I not say to you that if you would believe you would see the glory of God?’ Then they took away the stone from the place where the dead man was lying.And Jesus lifted up His eyes and said, ‘Father, I thank You that You have heard Me. And I know that You always hear Me, but because of the people who are standing by I said this, that they may believe that You sent Me.’Now when He had said these things, He cried with a loud voice, ‘Lazarus, come forth!’

And he who had died came out bound hand and foot with graveclothes, and his face was wrapped with a cloth.”

Lazarus had been sick and died, been declared dead, had his corpse prepared with wrappings and spices for encasement in the cave (until a year later when his bones would have been placed within an ossuary). These were well known facts and yet, a resurrection from the dead was evidenced.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

A plea: I have to pay for server usage and have made all content on this website free and always will. I support my family on one income and do research, writing, videos, etc. as a hobby. If you can even spare $1.00 as a donation, please do so: it may not seem like much but if each person reading this would do so, even every now and then, it would add up and really, really help. Here is my donate/paypal page.

Due to robo-spaming, I had to close the comment sections. However, you can comment on my Facebook page and/or on my Google+ page. You can also use the “Share / Save” button below this post.