Quantcast

Comments about ‘LDS World: Biblical 'Jesus wept' offers valuable lessons’

Return to article »

Published: Sunday, Jan. 27 2013 5:00 a.m. MST

Comments
  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
Cedarcreek320
Star Valley Ranch, WY

Another chapter of Mother Goose

gcardon
Logan, UT

While I dont disagree with your angle here, I think it is pretty superficial. No doubt the love the Savior felt for these devoted disciples could not be contained as he felt the reality of their pain that He, by design, had allowed to play fully out in their lives. Christ's weeping is His pain, and a reflection of the pain it must bring to our Heavenly Father to see us, His literal children, experience the pains and ills and sorrows of Earth life. He knows it is for our greater good to "pass through sorrow that we might know good from evil", but it hurts in a very real way. How comforting to know that my Savior and my Father love me so much that they put aside their own sorrows in favor of my learning, growing, understanding and becoming as they are.

Itsme2
SLC, UT

I'm sorry for you Cedarcreek. Kristine, thank you for this message. I feel its truth, and I really appreciate it. The Savior constantly demonstrated his compassion and love for his people - as he does today. I can imagine if I ever saw him and wept, he would join me because of his marvelous charity and kindness.

Cedarcreek320
Star Valley Ranch, WY

Don't feel sorry for me. I am comfortable in my life of reality. If you are comfortable in your life of fantasy, good for you.

t702
Las Vegas, NV

@Cedarcreek....so how is Christ weeping a fantasy? How is this article so different from your "reality"?

Serenity
Manti, UT

Cedacreek how do you know that your life of Reality is not really a very sad life of self-delusion - the worst kind of fantasy. Jesus is and was real. It would be hard to prove that Jesus did not exist because He is in history. Sorry, but I simply don't understand your logic except you want to make some controversial remark so others will respond to you. Good for you - it worked

Serenity
Manti, UT

Good article, but I think that when Jesus saw the sadness of Mary He was affected by her extreme sorrow just as we are when we go to a friend's funeral. We see their family and the deep grief they are experiencing, we can't help but grieve with them; to feel their sorrow. Jesus knows the depth of our feelings and feels them with us. He wept then, and He weeps today for the sorrow, the evil, the madness in our world

DeseretNewsReaders
Utah County, UT

Part I: Your leadup to this is instructive and appropriate.  Jesus is preaching about, receives message of Lazarus' illness, His choice not to go, and His intentional delay.  Then His intent is revealed along with His prophetic power:  "Lazarus is dead...glad...I was not there...that ye may believe."

So the context is set. Just like His own death, the Lord wanted to make good and sure that all knew that Lazarus was mortally dead, so He allowed Lazarus' body to remain inanimate and decaying for several days....again just like His own death. Now we must remember that Our Lord had commented about the people in general and the Jewish leaders in particular on believing on the Savior's words, even if the words seem miraculous and incredible.... "If any man awalk in the day, he stumbleth not, because he seeth the light of this world. But if a man walk in the night, he stumbleth, because there is no light in him."  Then he proceeds immediately to speak of Lazarus' death and how it is meant to be an instructive lesson on His power over all, especially the elements.

DeseretNewsReaders
Utah County, UT

Part II: Martha had already had been explained this lesson, as had other disciples. He knew she would inform Mary of His arrival and hopefully testify of His teaching, which would naturally necessitate her testimony being heard by the funeral party that was attending Mary. Their ostentatious displays of weeping and wailing and sometimes rending garments, etc., were an abomination to the Lord. Yet Martha took Mary aside "secretly" and gave no testimony but simply announced to her of The Christ's arrival.

So when Mary flings herself at Our Lord's feet, undoubtedly crying and sorrowful, chastises Him for not coming earlier, and He sees also her party doing their pretentious weeping. He groaned in His Spirit and was troubled....because they had not believed and His testimony had not been declared. Then He wept....even after that, the Jews mocked Him about how He should have prevented Lazarus' death then He continued to groan in the Spirit. Finally, when even Martha shows the lack of faith and blindness to His power;when she comments about Lazarus' body would stink, He chides her, also in John 11, "...if thou wouldest believe, thou shouldest see the glory of God..."

kargirl
Sacramento, CA

Let's not be so hard on Mary, the others, or even the faithful Martha, who may have begun to wonder about the whole process, in spite of her undeniable belief in the divinity of Jesus. They are mortal people, and like many of today's faithful who weep and mourn at the death of loved ones, even knowing they shall live beyond the veil, and having that truth to bear them up, still grieve as do all who love deeply those who passed. But Jesus, being perfect, understands that, and, as has been noted, feels that in an empathetic way no one else can match.

One more thing: Delaying is not something we mortals can do. That is in the realm of the divine Master of all things. When another needs us, we humans should never delay. Jesus knew that His delay was not reckless, not abandoning His dear friend. We do not have such knowledge. Someday we will be able to ask Him all about that day, and any other. There's something to look forward to.

skeptic
Phoenix, AZ

@Serenity, One's pipe dreams may be real unto themselves, but it doesn't make it historical or real unto the world at large. That is one of the reasons there are so many different religions and believes. Accept your own if you wish, but leave others to choose for themselves.

sharrona
layton, UT

RE: Kristine Frederickson,” as scriptures are often improved when given some context and background, that is where we will begin.”

Jesus wept. The Greek word used here for Jesus’ weeping (dakryo, Greek.# 1145) is different from he one used to describe the weeping( klaio, Greek.#2799) of Mary and the Jews in v.33 which indicated loud wailing and cries of lament.
This word simply means “to shed tears” and has more the idea of quiet grief. But why did Jesus do this? It seems that in the context the weeping is triggered by the thought of Lazarus in the tomb: This was not personal grief over the loss of a friend (since Lazarus was about to be restored to life) but grief over the effects of sin, death, and the realm of Satan. It was a natural complement to the previous emotional expression of anger (11:33).
It is also possible that Jesus wept at the tomb of Lazarus because he knew there was also a tomb for himself ahead

John Simpson
ARLINGTON, VA

It's also possible that the tears reflected Jesus' love for Lazarus. People were dying every day in Judea and Galilee when Jesus was there, yet Jesus raised very few. Lazarus was the only one who had been dead so long that his body had begun to decay. This was the most extraordinary of Jesus' miracles, prompted by the profound nature of Jesus's relationship with Lazarus and his sisters.

Joggle
Big Island, HI

@Serenity

Actually history doesn't support the existence of Jesus! The power of faith has so forcefully driven the minds of most believers, and even apologetic scholars, that the question of reliable evidence gets obscured by tradition, religious subterfuge, and outrageous claims. No one has the slightest physical evidence to support a historical Jesus; no artifacts, dwelling, works of carpentry, or self-written manuscripts. All claims about Jesus derive from writings of other people. There occurs no contemporary Roman record that shows Pontius Pilate executing a man named Jesus. Devastating to historians, there occurs not a single contemporary writing that mentions Jesus. All documents about Jesus came well after the life of the alleged Jesus from either: unknown authors, people who had never met an earthly Jesus, or from fraudulent, mythical or allegorical writings. As time goes on, more and more scholars have begun to open the way to a more honest look at the evidence, or should I say, the lack of evidence. Some people actually believe that just because so much voice and ink has spread the word of a character named Jesus throughout history, that this must mean that he actually lived. It doesn't!

sharrona
layton, UT

RE: John Simpson, Lazarus was the only one who had been dead so long that his body had begun to decay.
This is the key point of the whole story, for it is believed in the rabbinical teaching that the soul of the departed hovers near the body for three days and then leaves without any possibility of returning.
Jesus deliberately made sure that He would resurrect Lazarus after three days of his death to demonstrate to His disciples and to all that truly He was Lord of the living and of the dead. V.4 When Jesus heard that, he said, This sickness is not to death, but for the glory of God, that the Son of God might be glorified through it.

"For as Jonas was three days and three nights in the whale’s belly; so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth." (Mat 12:40) {Jonah 1:17}.(Ecc 12:7)… the spirit shall return unto God who gave it.

RE: Joggle, Actually history does support Jesus .
In the 1st Century MS, the nomina sacra: contractions in Greek for Jesus=(IHC) Christ= (XR).

Joggle
Big Island, HI

@Sherrona

Men who oversaw the transcription of Greek-language Gnostic writings into Coptic seeing the incoherence of these materials, and the maddening mix of Christian and non-Christian elements, suggests to me that Coptic-speaking monks transcribed a hodge-podge of received materials that they could barely understand. The huge range of scribal errors and inconsistencies lend support to this view. We simply don't know if the scribes of the NHC were Christian monks robotically following orders, or if they were a straggling remnant of students of the Egyptian Mysteries who, for some odd reason, chose to preserve jumbled notes from their instruction in the language of the Christianized conquerers. What it says is that scholars today agree on what the codes mean, but this is no assurance of what the codes meant to the people who originated them. XC and XRC is mere speculation. It does not prove a Jesus actually existed by any means. As far as I know, there is "no external attestation" to support the opinion of modern scholars that XC and XRC refer expressly to the historical person referred to as Jesus-the-Christ. Speculation does not equal proof!

Serenity
Manti, UT

I always thought that the Bible was historical. True it has been changed some but its message is the same. First part speaks of a Redeemer who was expected to save Israel. It is full of prophecy concerning a Savior even as to describe him and what he will do. This part of the Bible is one of the oldest historical books, some parts older than others. It was treated as sacred and carried through the centuries by people who protected it. Then, the New Testament fulfills the Old Testament with the coming of the Savior. I don't understand why people would spread such a story if it weren't true; why people would gladly walk into the gaping jaws of lions and other horrid ways of death if it were just a fantasy. If it weren't true, why would all those who walked with Jesus gladly give their lives for Him. All the apostles save one were martyred for Him. They would rather die than deny Him. We cannot discredit the Bible. It is, perhaps better than any history book from those times. It has survived through the ages and it survives today.

Joggle
Big Island, HI

Even those intended to relate actual events were not written from the perspective of purely factual, objective history because that genre didn't exist at the time — for most of history, writing "history" meant pursuing a political, ideological, or religious agenda at the same time. History can be distorted or simply created to fulfill a need. The gospels were stitched together decades after the alleged crucifixion by non-eyewitness zealots freely borrowing from oral traditions and now-lost earlier texts. Differing manuscripts show that the gospels have undergone insertions, deletions, additions, and revisions. The Bible is full of improbabilities that bend natural law. Scientists tend to regard it as superstitious nonsense. It was written during a time of ignorance to give explanation to a world people at that time didn't understand and as a tool to control populations and cultures. There are numerous examples of "literary license," a notable one being that Nazareth, for example, didn't even exist at the time of Jesus's purported existence. One cannot claim a book that is written exclusively from the perspective of one people to be credible history. Many books survive the ages, but that doesn't make them true.

JonathanPDX
Portland, Oregon

I have to smile when I read comments like the ones left by @CedarCreek. The mockery and scorn such commenters show toward the beliefs of others is common, but it makes me wonder why, if they are so certain it is a fairy tale, do they come here and bother to read the articles and leave comments? Certainly they have much more important things to do than bait the believers.

But regardless of what others might say or do, we should endeavor to show kindness and compassion, even as Christ showed kindness and compassion to Saul of Tarsus, an evil persecutor of Christ's followers who ended up becoming an Apostle.

We have no need to contend with them, but only to show love, compassion and forgiveness. At times that can be difficult, but if we are strong in Christ and follow his example, who knows what blessings might come from it...perhaps the Spirit might even touch them, and like the small stream of water that wears down a mountain, so too might return visits to read of Christ's love wear down their hardened hearts.

sharrona
layton, UT

RE: Joggle, scribal errors and inconsistencies .
Although you read thousands of variants or mistakes, keep in mind that they count the same error in each of the 5,000 manuscripts. After careful examination, they have found that only 40 lines (400 words) of the 20,000 lines are in question. We can be sure that the New Testament is 99% pure. The Iliad by contrast has 5% corrupted text. There is no ancient text that is more reliable than the N. T..

We have accurate well- preserved Copies of the original text. There are some 5,700 early N.T. MS, and they contain all or nearly all of the original text . The original text can be reconstructed 99% accuracy. There is a distinction between the text and the truth of the text. While we have 99% of the original text, 100% of the truth comes through. Over 26,000 N.T. "quotes from the(2nd c) Disciples" of the Apostles and early church fathers can reconstruct the N.T. less 11 verses.It is not true that we do not possess the original text of the Bible. What we do not possess are the original manuscripts.

to comment

DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.
About comments