Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Joh 12:1 Then Jesus six days before the passover came to Bethany, where Lazarus was which had been dead, whom he raised from the dead.
Joh 12:2 There they made him a supper; and Martha served: but Lazarus was one of them that sat at the table with him.
Joh 12:3 Then took Mary a pound of ointment of spikenard, very costly, and anointed the feet of Jesus, and wiped his feet with her hair: and the house was filled with the odour of the ointment.
Notice again this is a reference to the same place or event as recorded where Simon the Leper is because we notice the same ointment event is being recorded.
So now we have Lazarus being in the home of a Leper. Interesting isn't it?
Mat 26:6 Now when Jesus was in Bethany, in the house of Simon the leper,
Mat 26:7 There came unto him a woman having an alabaster box of very precious ointment, and poured it on his head, as he sat at meat.
WOW! Did you get that?
Shall I keep going?...
Please do if you think that it makes your argument. But i dont see that it does.
I could offer many rebuttals to this line of thought. But i don't see it as accomplishing any more than i have already posted so i wont be redundant. I wonder if you have read everything i have posted in this thread concerning these things. Anyway, i understand that an argumentative stance is not evidence.
So does Lazarus live in Bethany or just visiting this home of the leper?
Joh 11:1 Now a certain man was sick, named Lazarus, of Bethany, the town of Mary and her sister Martha.
Notice what else? - guess how is related to him? The very same people doing the service in the house of Simon the Leper where nobody else is mentioned as doing the service. Hmmmmmm..... still naysayers? Anyone?
Please do if you think that it makes your argument. But i dont see that it does.
I could offer many rebuttals to this line of thought. But i don't see it as accomplishing any more than i have already posted so i wont be redundant. I wonder if you have read everything i have posted in this thread concerning these things. Anyway, i understand that an argumentative stance is not evidence.
Selah.
It is alright Ironmaw, God gives me a place to shine Light.
There is more.... but only for the ones that want it. I'm thinking about stopping now in the hopes the searchers will ask for more.
Tre...just go on and finish...
dont get put off by Iron,, (he is still upset about the Martha thingy)
LOL, yeah, probably looking for all these reasons about now to continue in disbelief. But since you want me to continue I shall. Now, all this can still be pure chance. Sure we got Lazarus in the house of Simon the Leper, and sure it is only Martha and Mary that are doing service in the house and they are sisters and sure it Lazarus, Martha, and Mary are all from Bethany but so far we haven't shown that Lazarus is even related to any of them. Ut-oh....
Joh 11:19 And many of the Jews came to Martha and Mary, to comfort them concerning their brother.
and we read further...
Joh 11:43 And when he thus had spoken, he cried with a loud voice, Lazarus, come forth.
It is alright Ironmaw, God gives me a place to shine Light.
There is more.... but only for the ones that want it. I'm thinking about stopping now in the hopes the searchers will ask for more.
How do you know that Lazarus is Simon the leper. Could it be that Lazarus was Simon's son? If Simon the leper is Lazarus, couldn't simon the leper/lazarus be the very same disciple of Jesus Simon the Cannanite? In which Case Lazarus would in fact himself have been a gentile, which would be in line with the symbolism of dogs ...
Mat 10:4 "Simon the Canaanite, and Judas Iscariot, who also betrayed him."
Mar 3:18
"And Andrew, and Philip, and Bartholomew, and Matthew, and Thomas, and James the son of Alphaeus, and Thaddaeus, and Simon the Canaanite, ... "
And seeing that the parable of Lazarus and the rich man was told by Christ before Lazarus died to begin with, how can you say for sure the same Lazarus of the parable was the same Lazarus whom Christ resurrected? As the name Lazarus is most likely a Greek translation of one of the Hebrew names 'El`azar or 'Eliy`ezer ... Elazar just being an extended play on the name Eliyezer, both mean the same thing, the difference being a reference to past or present tense in the sense of God having helped (past tense) or God helping (present tense).
Again i point you to my post #51 in this thread.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Please do if you think that it makes your argument. But i dont see that it does.
