Talk:Lazarus (New Testament)

message: Do we have any historical evidence outside of the bible to suggest that either Lazarus was a real person. Please add some sources. If not then the first sentence should be altered.
:Do you honestly expect there to be any?
::Is there some reason to suggest that Lazarus of Bethany is not a real person? Even if there is only a single primary source mentioning him, that would not be unusual for antiquity. Does the fact that the single source is the Bible somehow make it less reliable than say Tacitus? This Lazarus has generally been considered a real person throughout history.
::Regardless, I think the first sentence now has a neutral POV.--Nomadic Whitt (talk) 18:00, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Historical Evidence

message: “A Fundamentalist Protestant belief is that ...".  Why restrict this to Fundamentalist Protestants?  Most Protestants are not Fundamentalists, and many Christians have the same belief.  I have changed it to “Many Christians believe...” Ergateesuk (talk) 23:25, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Parable of Lazarus

message: "Lazarus" is also a well known software. lazarus.freepascal.org
--
Information on the Lazarus software project has been moved to Lazarus (software) Peter Grey 04:21, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Software

message: So the Bible didn't say why Jesus raised him from the dead? --Menchi 14:09, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems that Jesus was rather upset about the news of Lazarus' death, and also that he was a close personal friend (or friend 'of the family'). The Secret Gospel of Mark may indicate an even closer relationship.--81.156.179.151 20:13, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: One could look at  as Jesus' explanation in the context of the narrative - "for the glory of God, that the Son of God may be glorified by it."--Nomadic Whitt (talk) 15:54, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Question

message: Could we have a name of one of the `scholars` talking about Osiris in this context? In my opinion this paragraph is speculation at best and doesn`t warrant inclusion.
User:Andycjp
13th March 2005
:It's been over a year, and no citation has appeared, so I removed the dubious paragraph. Wesley 06:43, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Osiris

message: The X-files clearly is related, and Swarbrick's group.
Whilst other characters mixes related and unrelated.
-- Beardo 05:07, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Unrelated" uses 

message: In the disambiguation page says that this article is about the Lazarous who was raised from the dead by Jesus. All the reference related to the Lazarous of the Parable must been moved to the article Lazarus and Dives.
<DIV align="Right">(es:) Eloy</DIV>
:The disambiguation page has since been changed. This article is now more of an extended disambiguation which also explores the conflation of the two figures.--Nomadic Whitt (talk) 18:03, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disambiguation 

message: This is duplicated in Lazarus of Bethany where the paragraph is fuller.  This section should be linked to that article. Ergateesuk (talk) 23:25, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I think this section could be moved there entirely. - Nomadic Whitt (talk) 09:32, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I have moved most of the material. What now remains here is a short summary with a link to the full section at Lazarus of Bethany.--Nomadic Whitt (talk) 05:18, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Tombs of Lazarus

message: As of August 26 2006 trying to load the Lazarus article brings up only a blank white screen.  Perhaps this is a database error?
JohnH 19:48, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Site error? 

message: Just out of interest, since Jesus raised Lazarus from death, would it not be theologically logical (a theological loophole in a way) that Lazarus would just continue to live forever, because biological death was completely reversed (Lazarus had already began to decay)? 6 Nov 06.
Interestingly, in some esoteric circles this is exactly what is believed to have happened. Various esoteric writers have identified figures such as the Comte St Germain and/or Christian Rosenkreutz as being Lazarus. Indeed I have read one author argue that John the Beloved (the disciple mentioned in the Gospel of John as lying on Jesus' breast at the Last Supper) was Lazarus. Interesting ideas. ThePeg 00:08, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Did Lazarus die a second death? 

message: The article begins by stating the Lazarus of the parable (Luke 16:19–31) and the Lazarus that Jesus resurrects (John 11:41–44) are two separate characters. However, this assertion doesn’t seem to be defended by citation. While this may be a traditional interpretation of the New Testament, it is not the only one possible. In the alternative, the authors of Luke and John could have been telling radically different stories about the same character named Lazarus. This would be in line with other discrepancies between the gospels, for instance the difference in Jesus’ last words according to Luke 23:46 as opposed to those at John 19:30. Plaidscreen 21:02, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The difference is deeper than that.  In John's gospel, Lazarus is a character, a part of the tale.  In Luke's, Lazarus is merely a name used by Jesus in telling a story.  Tb (talk) 01:55, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Two Different Lazaruses? (Lazarusi?) 

message: Does anyone know why this article is listed in the Interfaith project? I guess that the folks in that project would be the ones to say definitively, but this seems to be a mis-categorization, since this seems to be an exclusively Christianity-related topic.--Nomadic Whitt (talk) 18:11, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Interfaith Wikiproject 

message: Does anyone know why this article is listed in the Interfaith project? I guess that the folks in that project would be the ones to say definitively, but this seems to be a mis-categorization, since this seems to be an exclusively Christianity-related topic.--Nomadic Whitt (talk) 18:12, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Interfaith Wikiproject 

message: ...The Holy See has repeatedly stated that it does not regard the present-day Order of Saint Lazarus as the continuation of the historical order by that name. It has denounced the order by name as a fraud, first in a lengthy note in L'Osservatore Romano in 1935, then again in 1953 and 1970. To this day, the Holy See has not changed its position. The Italian government has placed the Order on its official list of bogus orders. The Sovereign Military Order of Malta discourages its members from joining the Lazarists. The French government, which regulates orders and decorations, does not recognize it as an order either, and its official position remains that the last knights of the historical order were nominated in 1788, that the order was abolished in 1791 and never officially revived. Under threat of prosecution, the Paris branch of the Lazarist organization has in fact changed its name, ranks and insignia to comply with French law in 1980. There isn't a government on earth that recognizes the order, save perhaps the Franco government in the 1940s, and, it is now claimed, Croatia and South Africa.
There is no doubt in my mind that the present-day Order of Saint Lazarus is an early 20th century private revival of a defunct order. The original Order's French branch, having resisted Papal decisions, had become a royal order in the 17th century, and just as clearly its last Grand Master, once on the throne, purposefully let it disappear. No new appointments were made after 1788 and the last original knights died off in the 1840s. The revival took place around 1910, and is due to a strange coalition of French legitimists with a couple of experts in fake orders. The crooks dropped out of the picture at various dates, but the order continued. Its growth presents an amazing parallel with that of the fake Order of Saint George which involved some of the same people.
Of course, the Order has changed since then, and these unsavory origins have little bearing on the value of the Order's present-day activities, which is undeniable. But those who attach paramount importance to the notion of "legitimacy", indeed anyone who claims that this Order is the Order of Saint-Lazarus has to face the evidence. In my opinion, this order fully deserves the label of "self-styled". It has a definite role as an honourable charitable organization, and may even invoke the model of the hospitaller activities of the historical knights of Saint Lazarus as an inspiration. But whenever it tries to pass itself off as the Order of Saint-Lazarus, claiming to be in the same position vis-a-vis the historical order of that name as the Sovereign Order of Malta is vis-a-vis the historical Order of Saint John, it is perpetrating a fraud... 
http://www.heraldica.org/topics/orders/lazarus.htm#link  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.52.30.94 (talk) 01:47, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  No reference to doubtful origins? 

message: This title should be the disambiguation page.  There should be no substantial coverage of the two figures here, as they're properly described in their respective article.  There's no need for separate "Lazarus (disambiguation)".  There doesn't seem to be any signficant shared material to justify a shared article, except a few sentences where the two are conflated.   --Rob (talk) 16:11, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. I'll do some splitting and redirecting when I get a chance. StAnselm (talk) 08:51, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  this should be a disambiguation 

message: Given that the section on "Saint Lazarus" has an article specifically on it the extended explanation of it appears to be unneeded. 
Any thoughts?
115.124.4.18 (talk) 11:02, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Shortening the section on "Saint Lazarus"