Jump to content

Talk:Lazarus of Bethany

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Leitrim??

[edit]

The reputed first tomb of Lazarus is in the *Leitrim*? This looks like a typo? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.111.70.136 (talk) 21:44, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

The image Image:Ivorwilliams lazarus.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

  • That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
  • That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --05:32, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Feast day

[edit]

The infobox has July, but the text says before Palm Sunday or June (or December). -- Beardo (talk) 01:53, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

needs fixing to make sense

[edit]

2nd section starts like this, "In the Gospel of John[1] Lazarus, also called Lazarus of Bethany or Lazarus of the Four Days, was a man who lived in the town of Bethany.[2] The sisters are immediately identified:" What sisters? This is the first mention of them. ike9898 (talk) 13:41, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The "In modern culture" trivia section

[edit]

Editor's Note: This section has been copied in its entirety from its original location at Talk:Lazarus--Nomadic Whitt (talk) 07:01, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've made an effort to drastically reduce the number of examples of Lazarus in pop culture, because, besides making it clear that Lazarus is entirely pervasive in all different forms (movies, music, tv, etc.) pop culture, the examples provide no new information relevant to the article. Therefore, including every last example is totally unneeded. Now, if you can provide some evidence that your example for a particular form of media is more notable than the current example, feel free to replace the current example with your own. (Please discuss the change here, first). johnpseudo 03:16, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, with some slight caveat. I think this is a good rule of thumb. But the overriding principle is: "how does this addition help to understand Lazarus better?" Pointing out tha Lazarus is pervasive is certainly a help, and unending lists is not. But if there is an edit which is a mere addition, but which also helps the user understand Lazarus better, I think it would be ok. The comment added by johnpseudo is a good rule of thumb, but the real test is the usual one: does this help the reader understand the topic of the article? Tb (talk) 01:53, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed that lengthy lists can be tiresome, but part of understanding Lazarus better is to give clear evidence "that Lazarus is entirely pervasive." I believe this resonance is important in an of itself irregardless of how the examples may illuminate our understanding of the original parables. So I don't think this section needs such strict limitations (such as deleting an existing example before adding one that is more significant). I suggest that this guideline be modified to: "addition of new examples must be accompanied by an argument that they as significant as existing examples." That said, I'd like to add two example from popular music that I believe are at least as significant as the two already cited. Woody Guthrie's "Dead or Alive (Poor Lazarus)" from the 1940's and Nick Cave And The Bad Seeds' "Dig, Lazarus, Dig!!!" a 2008 album where the parable of Lazarus resonates throughout the album's lyrics most especially in the title track. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Xpdt (talk • contribs) 15:44, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your standard is a poor one. It tends to Listiness. Instead, how about this: don't add examples unless they better make the case that Lazarus is pervasive. How does knowing fifty famous and important songs make the case better than knowing forty-five? Tb (talk) 20:26, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Surely if this section exists, it should include the album "Dig, Lazarus Dig!!!" by Nick Cave and the Bad Seeds —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.175.54.101 (talk) 21:26, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I expanded the second point to include Dig, Lazarus, Dig!!! since people are just going to keep complaining about it's absence. -86.166.192.132 (talk) 18:42, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If people want to engage in this conversation and address the concerns I've raised about a ballooning modern culture section, then I'm all for it. Simply ignoring my suggestion to remove a less-important example when adding a new one and claiming that it is futile to resist the efforts of "people" who aren't talking here is not going to fly. johnpseudo 02:37, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am surprised at the omission of Joyce's reference to Lazarus - Come forth, Lazarus! And he came fifth and lost the job.[1] ,as it is a reference to the widespread Come forth!.. .and if you come fifth you'll lose your beer money!-type pun. From the previous discussions this would seem to come within the 'better make the case' criterion for proving that the Lazarus story is pervasive in modern(-ist!) culture. --Gilgamesh2000 (talk) 22:07, 2 November 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gilgamesh2000 (talk • contribs) 22:03, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I added the Star trek episode The Alternative Factor as an example in pop culture to diversify the chronological appearances of Lazaus. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.6.115.232 (talk) 23:37, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the examples of bands who have written songs should be allowed to be edited. With all respect to the band I Am Ghost They are basically a local band currently playing clubs, although they seem to be quite talented (I did give a listen on their myspace page) they have only been playing for 5 years and are a local phemomenon. I suggest replacing this example with the band moe.. A much more widely known band,moe. has been playing for 20 years, tour internationally, headline ampitheaters, host their own festival attracting other big name acts, and just finished playing the Bonnaroo music festival. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gr8ful ken (talk • contribs) 21:19, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Joyce J. (1992) Ulysses page 133 Penguin Books ISBN 0 14 01.8558 5
Lazarus is mentioned as one of the many previous identities of Mr. Flint (others being Alexander, Methuselah, Merlin, Leonardo da Vinci, and Johannes Brahms) in the Star Trek episode Requiem for Methuselah. I will leave it to others to determine whether that merits inclusion in this article.THD3 (talk) 18:08, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In Medieval culture

[edit]

The Eastern tradition of the unsmiling Lazarus is already mentioned, but Huizinga (in The Waning of the Middle Ages, whose 1924 translation is lightened of footnotes) also mentions "the popular belief, then widely spread, according to which Lazarus, after his resurrection, lived in a continual misery and horror at the thought that he should have again to pass thought the gate of death." (Anchor paperback 1954, p.147). Does anyone know of other Western documentation, or care to dig up ref's in the Dutch edition? Sparafucil (talk) 21:43, 25 May 2011 (UTC) That wasnt nearly as hard as I thought! Still, "widely spread" from one instance? Sparafucil (talk) 22:29, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Fourth Gospel" section may need revision

[edit]

The section title is a question, the tone is casual, and the citations are confusing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.124.89.246 (talk) 22:42, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why is "art" separated from "culture?"

[edit]

We have a fairly long section on Lazarus in "culture" and then a completely separate section for Lazarus in "art." Why would "art" be different from "culture?" Shouldn't they be combined?

In fact, shouldn't we have a separate article on Lazarus in culture - literature, art, music, mythology, etc? - and move the current materials to it? I think that could be a very valuable effort. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Poihths (talk • contribs) 15:34, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Odd Omissions

[edit]

According to the fourth gospel, ,Jesus visits Martha and Mary and raises their brother Lazarus from the dead. But in the synoptic gospels Jesus visits Martha and Mary, but there is no mention of Lazarus or the astounding miracle of his resurrection. This is odd, to say the least.Jim Lacey (talk) 14:25, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lazarus in Niven

[edit]

SF : In a Larry Niven https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Larry_Niven short story "And All the Bridges Rusting" (1973), two interstellar space-ships called "Lazarus [,I,II]" are central to the tale. 94.30.84.71 (talk) 20:34, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If that information were to be added anywhere, it would be at Lazarus, not here. And in order to be added there, you'd need to provide a wiki article that talks about these ships (see MOS:DABMENTION). -- Fyrael (talk) 04:44, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Lazarus of Bethany. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:35, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Lazarus of Bethany. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:51, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Lazarus of Bethany. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:38, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Lazarus of Bethany. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:28, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Has anyone questioned the assumption that this name comes from Eleazar?

[edit]

The thing that bugs me about it is it seems every other Hebrew name that begins with an El theophoric still starts with an E in their New Testament forms. I wouldn't be impressed by the Lazurus spelling being use din the Septigant since I think the Septuigant as we know it was preserved through Christian copyists.--JaredMithrandir (talk) 13:44, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 18 May 2018

[edit]
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: No consensus to move. There is no agreement among participants that this subject is the primary topic. Editors were divided, with reasonable arguments on the issue of primary topic in terms of long-term significance, given the presence of another significant Lazarus in the Bible. The page view evidence also does not support the primary topic claim. As to the argument that the current disambiguation is not optimal, if another is identified, a new RM can be opened. Cúchullain t/c 17:26, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]


– Per COMMONNAME and PRIMARYTOPIC: while the "of Bethany" suffix is used, most of the literature available in Gbooks is relatively recent, and some if it is conflated with the fact that it isn't being used as a name, but "of Bethany" is being used to described where he lived. In terms of all the Lazarus', I think it's fairly strong contender for the primary topic criterion of long-term significance because most of the others can likely trace their names to this one, given the significance in the Christian gospels, and in terms of the impact the name has had in the secular world: Lazarus taxon, Lazarus syndrome, Lazarus sign, all the titles at Lazarus effect (disambiguation), and anything else you type related to Lazarus in the search box are going to be cultural references to the story of Jesus raising this Lazarus from the dead in the Christian gospels. No disambiguation is needed in this case as it is a pretty clear primary topic just in terms of sheer cultural impact. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:45, 18 May 2018 (UTC)--Relisting. Kostas20142 (talk) 16:34, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please expand on what you mean by either of these? Do you perhaps think that we're talking about removing the disambiguation page? Because that's not what's been proposed. -- Fyrael (talk) 15:53, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Except no one knows who Lazarus of Bethany is because it is not commonly used. MOS:SAINTS is clear that they go by the name by which they are most commonly know: that is simply Lazarus. There is a question if this is a primary topic, which it is by either test under that guideline. Policies, guidelines, and naming conventions support this move. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:58, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, per nom, per common and most familiar name, and per long-term significance. This Lazarus "stands out", so to speak, from the other entries on the disambiguation page. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:36, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom and WP:POLA. The other entities called "Lazarus" are highly derivative and typically are not (and even cannot) be referred to simply as "Lazarus", or are relatively unimportant. —  AjaxSmack  12:32, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - purely from the biblical standard, the other Lazarus is almost as significant and well-known - and the two are unrelated. I fear the nominator has overlooked this in saying "anything else you type related to Lazarus in the search box are going to be cultural references to the story of Jesus raising this Lazarus from the dead". StAnselm (talk) 20:18, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No, I was not ignoring that, and what is more important or almost as important from a biblical perspective is not what matters on Wikipedia. What matters in determining primary topic is which has the longest significance and which one is the primary usage. One can be both or either. I would strongly argue that this one meets both: let's just take a look at a comparison of the all-time page views of both pages if we want to discuss which one our readers are looking for: this page had almost triple the average daily page views of Rich man and Lazarus last year, and almost 5x the number of average views all time, and the other page has the benefit of people who could be searching for the name Lazarus or just for the parables. I could go through the rest of the titles on the disambiguation page, but I don't think anyone would even attempt to argue that any of those could be a primary topic.
On the point of long-term significance, let's grant that both get commentary in Christian literature and theological discourse. Can you please provide examples of medical and scientific phenomenon, films, novels, and any other non-theological subjects that take their name from the other Lazarus in the Christian gospels? I'm unaware of any, and even if they do exist, they are easily dwarfed by the number that refer to this Lazarus. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:33, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Did you read the article? There's the Order of Saint Lazarus, for a start. StAnselm (talk) 01:12, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. I asked for secular impact, which you haven't shown. Both obviously have had impact within Christianity or in times where Christianity and culture were intertwined. This Lazarus, however, has had impact both within secular contexts and religious contexts. You also haven't addressed the page view issue. WP:PRIMARYTOPIC doesn't require that a topic be the only topic of the name, just that it is the main topic that the reader will be looking for. This Lazurus meets both of the ways that we judge that.
Just because another Lazarus exists in the Christian gospels and is important enough to have an article does not mean that there is no primary topic, and not establishing this one as the primary topic does a disservice to our readers, as most will have no clue who Lazarus of Bethany is, because it is not that commons of a phrase even within Christianity: I'm very well versed in Christian theological and historical literature, and I had never heard him referenced as such until yesterday when it took me 5 minutes to find this page! That's anecdotal evidence, sure, but let's look at a comparison to Christian saints and historical figures that are frequently disambiguated: [1] I randomly picked three that would be of similar enough status within Christianity and historical circles to comment on: Ignatius of Antioch, John of the Cross, and Augustine of Hippo. Of those three, the one that is used the next least times to Lazarus of Bethany is Ignatius of Antioch. His name is found in English language books over 1125% more than this disambigutor. This is how usage that is common looks on ngrams when compared to subjects of similar stature that use disambiguators commonly.
Lazarus of Bethany is a used disambigutor, so it is allowed under policy, but it is not common at all. If our goal here is to help our readers find what they are looking for, moving the primary topic to the primary topic status is what needs to be done. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:42, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
And numbers like that, by themselves, usually lead to a disambiguation page. If there are no other factors to consider regarding primary topic (such as original meaning), I would think we normally look for a different order of magnitude - i.e. one topic 10x the hits of any other. StAnselm (talk) 05:36, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
3 1/2 times as many seems plenty for primary, and seems to have been throughout the RM's I've participated in. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:38, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm. Anyway, sadly - but correctly - WP:DETERMINEPRIMARY doesn't give us any numbers to work off. StAnselm (talk) 19:04, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - Agree per OP that this topic seems to be the namesake of many of the other uses, which demonstrates is long-term significance. It does consistently lead in pageviews, although not dominantly so and the current primary disambig ranks highly as well. A hatnote to the parable and the musical would seem to be wise along with this. -- Netoholic @ 03:44, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the fact that it does not have the majority of pageviews indicates that the disambiguation page should be primary. StAnselm (talk) 05:22, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There are two components of WP:PRIMARYTOPIC and the page views alone, you're right, would suggest primary disambiguation page since its doesn't get "more than all others combined". But, as I see it, the long-term significance tips the scales for me. -- Netoholic @ 05:38, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. The current title is the proper title for introductory use. The title is already short, shorter is not better once the title is already s

short enough. SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:33, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Jesus asked God

[edit]

Meyer's NT Commentary
John 11:41-42. Jesus knows that His prayer, that God would suffer Him to raise Lazarus to life,—a prayer which He had previously offered up in stillness, perhaps only in the inarticulate yearnings of His heart,—has been heard, and He thanks God for hearing it. Petition and thanksgiving are not to be conceived as blended in one (Merz in die Wurtemberg. Stud. 1844, 2, p. 65; Tholuck); nor is the latter to be regarded as anticipatory (Hengstenberg), as though He offered thanks in the certain anticipation of the hearing of His prayer (Ewald, comp. Godet). Not that He offers thanks because the hearing of His prayer was unexpected and unhoped for (εἶπον); no, He for His part (ἐγώ) knew, even whilst He was asking God in stillness, that God always heard Him;[89] but because of the people standing by, etc. [2]

This tells me that it was not Jesus who raised Lazarus, but the God he prayed to. Undoubtedly there are many references that say Jesus is God and many references that say Jesus is not God, but in this case the conversation should be enough, as in other cases when Jesus speaks to God and God answers. Someone should edit the into so it doesn't say Jesus raised Lazarus when he asked God to do it.50.70.236.24 (talk) 00:47, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Criticism Section

[edit]

I just reverted the insertion of a criticism section. I do not see what the purpose is. The criticism was not a criticism of Lazarus himself, but was a perspective that the raising of Lazarus cannot be true. I don't think that is required here, and it has potential to become a troll magnet. Per Jimbo Wales, such criticism sections may not be a good idea.[3]. Happy to discuss. -- Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 11:07, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Criticism

[edit]

@Sirfurboy: Thanks for your criticism of the section. I agree it is a little random. However, I think the value of the section increases in the context of the Raising of Lazarus page where the entire Wikipedia page is focused on the actual resurrection event. (I originally wrote this material with that Wikipedia page in mind.) I feel like a sceptical / atheist / agnostic whatever type of perspective on the resurrection of Lazarus' dead body from culturally or academically significant persons like Ingersoll or Palmer who have written about religion from a critical perspective deserve a place somewhere in these pages- can we ignore that while there are people that say they believe this story (Christians and others), there are also at least some prominent persons who say they don't believe it? Since so many people are at least supposedly doctrinally committed to this event as a true event of human history, I think it makes sense to bring up the opinions of persons that don't seem accept the story as actually possible. It's hard to know exactly what to write because I think on some level we all assume that resurrection of the dead is nigh on impossible, but I'm trying to make something interesting. Do you have any suggestions on how I go about producing a worthwhile section about people who have said that this event didn't actually happen? I'm also thinking that I should include material concerning Christians who have written about doubts that this event could have happened (I'm sure that material is probably out there too.) Thanks for any suggestions you can give me. Geographyinitiative (talk) 11:22, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I think my concern here is that it is not really the place of this article to be concerned with whether people believe in the raising of Lazarus or not. This article should tell us about Lazarus. If a reader believes he was truly raised from the dead, then Wikipedia attempting to educate them otherwise will appear WP:POV pushing. If a reader is not inclined to believe in such miracles, it does not need saying. I left the Ingersoll interpretation in the other article because that article has a section on the interpretation of the event. That fits there, as would any biblical criticism as to the veracity, sourcing of the account or his identity etc., and that might be a solution here too, although there is no need to put the same edits on multiple pages, so maybe it is not needed here. In an interpretation section, how a leading agnostic interprets the event is clearly relevant, but again, we need to avoid a burgeoning section that feels it has to describe and refute every viewpoint ever. This is just not the place for that. -- Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 11:39, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merger proposal

[edit]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
To merge Raising of Lazarus into a section on Lazarus of Bethany on the grounds of overlap. Klbrain (talk) 08:04, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I propose to merge Raising of Lazarus into Lazarus of Bethany. I think that the content in the Raising of Lazarus article can easily be explained in the context of Lazarus of Bethany, and the Lazarus of Bethany article is of a reasonable size that the merging of Raising of Lazarus will not cause any problems as far as article size is concerned. PepperBeast (talk) 17:37, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Geographyinitiative, Sirfurboy, Everedux, Onceinawhile, and Frood: PepperBeast (talk) 17:45, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge - the raising of Lazarus is a key event in the account of Lazarus, but can fully be incorporated in the article page of Lazarus of Bethany. Agree with the nom. that the resulting article would be of appropriate size. -- Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 17:48, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Makes sense to me. The links to 'Raising of Lazarus' could be piped directly to that section of the Lazarus article. I wonder what the original rationale for having separate articles for these topics was. My best guess is that the two articles were created from different motives, one being made by someone that was making articles about all the different miracles of Jesus and one from someone that was making articles about saints. Geographyinitiative (talk) 21:27, 19 March 2020 (UTC) (modified)[reply]
Also fine with this. Onceinawhile (talk) 22:40, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think I understand why I was pinged here... – Frood (talk) 02:25, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Presumably as a recent page editor, although your edit was clearly just reverting vandalism (thanks).[4]. -- Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 07:39, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yup, that was all-- just grabbed a bunch off the top of the stack :-) PepperBeast (talk) 12:02, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I support this merging proposal, as long as links to the miracle redirect to the proper section in the main article and not just to the top of the article. Dronebogus (talk) 01:43, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
  checkY Merger complete. Klbrain (talk) 08:34, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Omnipotence of God and the Word of God

[edit]

The raising of Lazarus deals withe the omnipotence of God and the Word of God that has the power to do everything with His human-divine voice. The human-divine words that resurrected Lazarus are not different from the fiat lux at the beginning of the creation of the universe: while the soul and body of Lazarus just existed and were simply separated before the kiracle of the raising, the light was created ex nihilo. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.12.250.31 (talk) 20:57, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Obviously this is incorrect. I don't know how the game is linked to the page but he can't have been born 80 years after Jesus died. 109.151.94.33 (talk) 17:10, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Lazarus_of_Bethany&oldid=1219083635"