Could “resurrection” be faked?

[Zzyzx]

.
Could “resurrection” be faked?

1. A supposed death could be an illusion (as is done for stage, movies and television regularly), or it could be in error, or it could be a fabrication.

2. OR, A dead body could be put into a tomb and later secretly removed (for publicity purposes).

3. OR, Supposed witnesses to the “empty tomb” could be unidentified so their reliability and honesty could not be investigated, or they could be mistaken or untruthful, OR their “testimony” could be fictional.

4. OR, An illusionist after faking death and entombment could later appear to witnesses.

5. OR, churchmen writing decades or centuries after the supposed event could have invented the tale in order to promote their interests and their religion.

6. OR, a combination of the above.

7. Harry Houdini could probably have arranged the trick very convincingly.

8. A clever author of fiction could write an emotional story including all the supposed conditions and characters.

9. Clever clerics have convinced people to believe their tales enough to follow instructions to kill innocent people, including children, to impress supposed gods “visible” only to clerics.


Two thousand years after the trick, no evidence is available to verify that the event actually happened as reported, and no witnesses left accounts of what occurred (existing reports are hearsay recorded decades or centuries later).

If told that a hundred years ago a dead body had come back to life, there was no evidence, the supposed witnesses could not be identified, and those who recorded the supposed incident could not be verified, would you believe it had been real?

If the “death” involved a godman for whom “death” was temporary at most, was the “death” and “resurrection” symbolic rather than literal?

Question for debate: Could “resurrection” be faked?

[The Nice Centurion]

Do we really have to do this 'there's no evidence' thing again? Because that's sort of the point. If evidence existed that the Bible was the inerrant word of God, for example, we'd all be breaking our backs trying to out-do each other with good deeds and worship to guarantee our place in a sudden real estate hot spot called Heaven.

I doubt it. There is evidence for divine inspiration, in fulfilled prophecy, but you don't believe anyway.

There's no evidence that the Bible is the inerrant word of God either, Easyrider. That doesn't stop it being claimed as such daily on this board. The only difference is that those who believe it is the inerrant word of God think it's reasonable to assume that words written by men are much more than what our perfectly good senses tell us....oh I'm boring even myself with this. You know how it goes.

That's your opinion. Mine is that the Bible is the inspired Word of God.

On that basis, my guess would be that faking of resurrection is certainly possible, and in the specific case of THE resurrection, there is a definite motive for fakery too.

You can drum up all the anti-resurrection hypotheses you want and say "if" and "maybe this" and "maybe that" all day long. But the historical accounts confirm the resurrection. You're going to have to produce some credible evidence that militates against the historical accounts. Just mere supposition in denying it isn't going to make it go away. And if anyone had anything really credible we'd probably have seen it by now.

If as a matter of fact the historical accounts confirm The Resurrection, it only remains to find out the mechanics of it.

Still, from what death did Jesus resurrect?

Surely from the death known of in Pauls time. And that is clinical death.

Back then a rising from (only known) clinical death was a resurrection.

Kind of makes you think. Doesnt it?

But why, in the historical accounts first no witnesses for the actual resurrection and then not even Jesus himself officially claims loud and clear to have resurrected?

So where is The Resurrection

[TRANSPONDER]

I noticed a post a bit earlier on that intends to put it beyond doubt that Jesus really was dead.

You really haven't 'discredited' the "Swoon Theory". You keep on claiming it is.. but no, it isn't.

Yes, it is:

A Lawyer Examines the Swoon Theory

http://www.godonthe.net/evidence/swoon.htm

Aside from either claiming Authority as a lawyer Or pointing the finger as an evident Bible apologists, we run into a problem with insisting first that everything in the account is reliable. This is arguable, in either the crucifixion account or the contradictory resurrection - stories.In one,we get lef -breaking and a spear thrust, but that appears nowhere but in John. Conversely we get an unexplained darkness but not in John. A lawyer on the other side would point out the witness statements are not reliable. On the resurrection, Matthew does into detail about the tomb- guard, but nobody else even mentions it.

The idea that a swoon would itself lead to a quick death is debatable. The account suggests - particularly in John - that a quick death was not what was expected. There was concern that all the victims would still be undergoing crucifixion into the night when it was Sabbath. Insisting that this distance the writer of that piece knew better than anyone there whether Jesus (having swooned) would for sure be dead just sounds like trying to claim a certainty that is, as I say, arguable.

Without even getting onto the evidence of an 'assisted' swoon, it is by no means sure that the Swoon theory is refuted.

[alexxcJRO]

I noticed a post a bit earlier on that intends to put it beyond doubt that Jesus really was dead.

You really haven't 'discredited' the "Swoon Theory". You keep on claiming it is.. but no, it isn't.

Yes, it is:

A Lawyer Examines the Swoon Theory

http://www.godonthe.net/evidence/swoon.htm

Aside from either claiming Authority as a lawyer Or pointing the finger as an evident Bible apologists, we run into a problem with insisting first that everything in the account is reliable. This is arguable, in either the crucifixion account or the contradictory resurrection - stories.In one,we get lef -breaking and a spear thrust, but that appears nowhere but in John. Conversely we get an unexplained darkness but not in John. A lawyer on the other side would point out the witness statements are not reliable. On the resurrection, Matthew does into detail about the tomb- guard, but nobody else even mentions it.

The idea that a swoon would itself lead to a quick death is debatable. The account suggests - particularly in John - that a quick death was not what was expected. There was concern that all the victims would still be undergoing crucifixion into the night when it was Sabbath. Insisting that this distance the writer of that piece knew better than anyone there whether Jesus (having swooned) would for sure be dead just sounds like trying to claim a certainty that is, as I say, arguable.

Without even getting onto the evidence of an 'assisted' swoon, it is by no means sure that the Swoon theory is refuted.

Jesus the cult leader & the conspiracy of Joseph of Arimathea.

Jesus survived the crucifixion with the help of Joseph


"Crucifixion is a historical method of capital punishment in which the victim is tied or nailed[1] to a large wooden beam and left to hang for several days(Jesus stayed only 6 h on the cross. ) until eventual death from exhaustion and asphyxiation.[2][3] It is principally known from classical antiquity, but remains in occasional use in some countries.

Survival
Since death does not follow immediately on crucifixion, survival after a short period of crucifixion is possible, as in the case of those who choose each year as a devotional practice to be non-lethally crucified.
There is an ancient record of one person who survived a crucifixion that was intended to be lethal, but that was interrupted. Josephus recounts: "I saw many captives crucified, and remembered three of them as my former acquaintance. I was very sorry at this in my mind, and went with tears in my eyes to Titus, and told him of them; so he immediately commanded them to be taken down, and to have the greatest care taken of them, in order to their recovery; yet two of them died under the physician's hands, while the third recovered."[58] Josephus gives no details of the method or duration of the crucifixion of his three friends before their reprieve."

The procedure was very simple: the victim was tied, hanging to the crossbar, while his feet were supported on a block at the base of the cross. The Romans were generally trained to place nails through Destot's space (between the capitate and lunate bones) without fracturing any bones. Ropes may have also been used to fasten the hands in addition to the use of nails. "

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crucifixion

We have nails only in the hands(nails placed through Destot's space). Therefore no fractured bones in the hand.
His feet were supported on a block at the base of the cross. Therefore he was able to walk afterwards.

While on the cross, Jesus complained that he was thirsty. A sponge soaked in vinegar was placed on the end of a long reed and held up to him. But far from reviving Jesus, the drink from this sponge apparently caused him to die. This is a curious reaction and suggests that the sponge was soaked not in vinegar, a substance that would have revived Jesus, but rather in something that would have caused him to lose consciousness, some sort of drug. And there was just this type of drug available in the Middle East. It was known that a sponge soaked in a mixture of opium and other compounds such as belladonna and hashish served as a good anesthetic. Such sponges would be soaked in the mixture, then dried for storage or transport. When it was necessary to induce unconsciousness for surgery, for example the sponge would be soaked in water to activate the drugs and then placed over the nose and mouth of the subject, who would promptly lose consciousness. Given the description of the events on the cross and the rapid apparent "death" of Jesus, it is a plausible suggestion that this use of a drugged sponge was the cause.

"28 Later, knowing that everything had now been finished, and so that Scripture would be fulfilled, Jesus said, "I am thirsty. "29 A jar of wine vinegar was there, so they soaked a sponge in it, put the sponge on a stalk of the hyssop plant, and lifted it to Jesus's lips. 30 When he had received the drink, Jesus said, "It is finished." With that, he bowed his head and gave up his spirit."(John 19:28-30)

The person responsible for the sponge is Joseph of Arimathea.

Later we have this:

"33 But when they came to Jesus and saw that He was already dead, they did not break His legs. 34 But one of the soldiers pierced His side with a spear, and immediately blood and water came out." (John 19:33-34)

Jesus was not dead but just unconscious from the mixture of opium, belladonna and hashish. Of course the spear did not hit any vital part of the body to cause death.

It is also curious that Jesus just happens to have been crucified next to a garden and a tomb, the latter at least owned by Joseph of Arimathea. This is all rather convenient to say the least.

"Jesus Is Buried
57 When it was evening, there came a rich man from Arimathea, named Joseph, who also was a disciple of Jesus. 58 He went to Pilate and asked for the body of Jesus. Then Pilate ordered it to be given to him. 59 And Joseph took the body and wrapped it in a clean linen shroud 60 and laid it in his own new tomb, which he had cut in the rock. And he rolled a great stone to the entrance of the tomb and went away."(Matthew 27:57-60)

Joseph with the help of Nicodemus return in the night and tend to the Jesus wounds with myrrh and aloes. Both substances have a medicinal use most notably, myrrh has been used as an aid to stop bleeding.
Aloe Vera is one of the most powerful known medicinal plants. It has been used for 5000 years. Today is has known for widespread usage in cosmetics, particularily to treat sunburns, to aid wound healing, etc.

They bribed the guards and took Jesus away.

An earthquake occurred after the tree days passed; that scared the guards and they run away. The turbulence from the earthquake moved the stoned.
When the women/the apostles return and they saw the tomb empty and believe that Jesus has indeed risen when in fact he was resting and recovering in Joseph house or whatever.

"and that he appeared to Cephas, and then to the Twelve. 6 After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers and sisters at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep. 7 Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles, 8 and last of all he appeared to me also, as to one abnormally born."( 1 Corinthians 15:5-8)

Jesus after 3 days of recovery meets with the women and his followers. They saw him because he was there in flesh and not dead.

Jesus knew he was going to die(told by the physician) from a subsequent infection caused by the spear wound. He told his followers to go and spread the good news without him because he was going to return to Heaven. They listen and left to do as commanded. Jesus went to the desert and died alone from the infection.

Maybe he was suffering from some kind of Delusion or/and Narcisistic Personality Disorder.
Maybe he was a combination of Sathya Sai Baba, Joseph Smith and Charles Milles Manson a "The delusional martyr" or a "The preacher-turned-egomaniac" or a "The hard-and-fast narcissist".

Observation: Jesus is just like any another Cult Leader out there.



Narcisistic Personality Disorder
"It is described as an all-pervasive pattern of grandiosity (in fantasy or behavior), need for admiration or adulation and lack of empathy. It usually begins by early adulthood and is present in various contexts. Five (or more) of the following criteria must be met (all quotes are from Dr. Sam Vaknin's Malignant Self Love: Narcissism Revisited):
1. Feels grandiose and self-importance (e.g., exaggerates achievements and talents to the point of lying, demands to be recognized as superior without commensurate achievements);
The narcissist is prone to magical thinking. He thinks about himself in terms of ‘being chosen or of having a destiny. He believes that his life is of such momentous importance, that it is micro-managed by God. In short, narcissism and religion go well together, because religion allows the narcissist to feel unique.
God is everything the narcissist ever wants to be: omniscient, omnipresent, admired, much discussed, and awe inspiring. God is the narcissist's wet dream, his ultimate grandiose fantasy.
2. Is obsessed with fantasies of unlimited success, fame, fearsome power or omnipotence, unequalled brilliance (the cerebral narcissist), bodily beauty or sexual performance (the somatic narcissist), or ideal, everlasting, all-conquering love or passion;
The narcissist is haunted by the feeling that he is possessed of a mission, of a destiny, that he is a part of fate, of history. He is convinced that his uniqueness is purposeful, that he is meant to lead, chart new ways, to innovate to modernize, to reform, to set precedents, to create. Every act is significant, every writing of momentous consequences, every thought of revolutionary calibre. He feels part of a grand design, a world plan and the frame of affiliation, the group, of which he is a member, must be commensurately grand.
3. Firmly convinced that he or she is unique and, being special, can only be understood by, should only be treated by, or associate with, other special or unique, or high-status people (or institutions);
The narcissist despises the very people who sustain his Ego boundaries and functions. He cannot respect people so expressly and clearly inferior to him, yet he can never associate with evidently on his level or superior to him, the risk of narcissistic injury in such associations being too great.
4. Requires excessive admiration, adulation, attention and affirmation “ or, failing that, wishes to be feared and to be notorious (Narcissistic Supply);
A common error is to think that narcissistic supply consists only of admiration, adulation and positive feedback. Actually, being feared, or derided is also supply. The main element is ATTENTION.
He feeds of other people, who hurl back at him an image that he projects to them. This is their sole function in his world: to reflect, to admire, to admire, to applaud, to detest in a word, to assure him that he exists.
In short: the group must magnify the narcissist, echo and amplify his life, his views, his knowledge, his history.
5. Feels entitled. Expects unreasonable or special and favorable priority treatment. Demands automatic and full compliance with his or her expectations;
He considers his very existence as sufficiently nourishing and sustaining (of others). He feels entitled to the best others can offer without investing in maintaining relationships or in catering to the well-being of his suppliers.
6. Is interpersonally exploitative, i.e., uses others to achieve his or her own ends;
He will not hesitate to put people's lives or fortunes at risk. He will preserve his sense of infallibility in the face of his mistakes and misjudgments by distorting the facts, by evoking mitigating or attenuating circumstances, by repressing the memories, or simply lying.
7. Devoid of empathy. Is unable or unwilling to identify with or acknowledge the feelings and needs of others;
But the narcissist does not care. Unable to empathize, he does not fully experience the outcomes of his deeds and decision. For him, humans are dispensable, rechargeable, reusable. They are there to fulfill a function: to supply him with Narcissistic Supply (adoration, admiration, approval, affirmation, etc.). They do not have an existence apart from the carrying out of their duty.
8. Constantly envious of others or believes that they feel the same about him or her;
First there is pathological envy. The narcissist is constantly envious of other people: their successes, their property, their character, their education, their children, their ideas, the fact that they can feel, their good mood, their past, their present, their spouses, their mistresses or lovers, their location.
9. Arrogant, haughty behaviors or attitudes coupled with rage when frustrated, contradicted, or confronted.
That which has cosmic implications calls for cosmic reactions. A person with an inflated sense of self-import, reacts in an exaggerated manner to threats, greatly inflated by his imagination and by the application of his personal myth.
Narcissists live in a state of constant rage, repressed aggression, envy and hatred. They firmly believe that everyone is like them. As a result, they are paranoid, suspicious, scared and erratic."

[The Nice Centurion]

[Replying to alexxcJRO in post #43]
And the funny thing is that such wild consporacy theorys a la Atwill, though intending to refite the NT, still need to take the gospels as historical accounts to base their conspiracy theory on something

[alexxcJRO]

[Replying to alexxcJRO in post #43]
And the funny thing is that such wild consporacy theorys a la Atwill, though intending to refite the NT, still need to take the gospels as historical accounts to base their conspiracy theory on something

Yes. I was extremely generous incorporating almost all details which off course, some of them could simply not be historical truth.

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to alexxcJRO in post #43]
And the funny thing is that such wild consporacy theorys a la Atwill, though intending to refite the NT, still need to take the gospels as historical accounts to base their conspiracy theory on something

You are right. At one time I was half -convinced that the explanation that fit all the facts was a plan to save Jesus. Not a plot to fake a resurrection, but a plan to save Jesus while satisfying the Sanhedrin who wanted him dead.

An important part of this was the resurrection of Lazarus which (fitting all the evidence) was faked to impress the followers. Consider:
Jesus goes from Galilee to the Jordan where he collects support(in addition to some picked up at Bethsaida where his messianic mission was declared (1) and the women at Bethany know where to send the note. Pre - planning. Jesus waits a couple of days, sets out via Jericho where the penultimate miracle is faked - Bar Timaeus is parked outside the Jericho gate to be 'healed' and to hail Jesus with the messianic title, 'Son of David'. Arriving at Bethany about midday, there is some staged conversation to tell everyone that Lazarus is dead and Jesus summons forth Lazarus wrapped in bandages (legs separately so he can walk) and the crowd (who will be asked to put their lives on the line in an effective assault on the temple with Pilate and 1,000 Roman troops there) are convinced that Gott is mitt Dems. The clues are a staged fake miracle and not the first.

Later I realised that the lack of this story in the synoptics was a serious problem. I now think this is not a real record but made up by John. If the synoptics knew of this, they wouldn't leave it out (the excuse that 'they didn't think it important' would be laughable. It is the most stunning miracle Jesus ever did). It looks fishy? Even if that occurred to the synoptic writers, they'd try to 'correct it'. They wouldn't ALL THREE cut it out. No, regretfully, John invented it. It never happened and the miracles are invented stories, not faked miracle - events.

So the Crucifixion. Consider: The Hoshanah procession and battle in the Temple (note Luke's historical reference that Pilate spilt the blood of the Galileans amongst the sacrifices - which can only be in the Temple). And Suppose that Jesus escaped with some armed support. Tracked down to Gethsemane (on the mount of Olives) and arrested with a final fight "Have you come out with clubs and swords, like I was a robber? (lestes or insurrectionist)?
"Yep, that's right."
The severed ear is a write down of a last stand where maybe Judas, defending his master, fell headlong on a field of blood (that at least makes sense of the conflicting stories (2) and Jesus is grilled by Caiaphas about his intentions. There is no Sanhedrin trial, and the nonsensical Blasphemy charge is made up by Christianity to disguise the real charge - subversive insurrection. 'Claiming to be king of the Jews'. And of course Jesus and Barrabbas are the same person divided into Zealot Barrabbas (son of Abba - the father) and Jesus the Christian.

Some of that I still think is true, but some is invented. Like Pilate trying to let Jesus off. He knew very well what Jesus had done and didn't need 'The Jews' pushing him or taking the blame for Jesus' death thus allowing the Roman Christian writers to excuse Rome and blame the Jews.

But IF we supposed the record to be correct (which I no longer think is so) when Arimathea (who as a well - off Sanhedrin member would know Pilate) suggests a way to save Jesus, Pilate is happy to instruct his soldiers to co - operate. Just they need to make the High Priests think Jesus is really dead. So there's drugged wine all ready and an unnamed person (crony of Arimathea) provides Jesus with the drugged wine. Assisted 'swoon'. There's a problem of the leg breaking and spear thrust but as I say, I no longer credit the account. But Arimathea does a quick popping into the tomb which is his own and identical with the Lazarus tomb at Bethany of course, not either of the present sepulchres in the city. Normally the women would do this burial, but Arimathea handles the body which is not dead so he is not defiled for the Sabbath, and he knows it.

There is no tomb guard (only Matthew mentions this) and even if there was, they only arrive after 'the disciples took the body' which Matthew says was the story in his day. Dead or alive, Jesus gets taken back to Galilee. Give or take Mary and the other Mary finally seeing Jesus recovered.

That fits the story better than a miracle, and explains many of the problems.

Like I say I nearly believed it and still think some of it might be true. IF the record is reliable. But since I now think it is NOT reliable, with or without block capitals, the 'assisted swoon' is a coincidence from invented stories, but nevertheless is a better story than the resurrection miracle the believers want to demand is the only possible explanation. It is the third place theory at best.


(1) Peter's declaration 'You are the messiah) a ceremony of God's approval of 'His son' dressed up with magical appearances reconciled with John who has none of that but 'the people (the 5,000 men) wanted to make him a king 'by force'. A messianic revolt brings the two otherwise contradictory accounts together.

(2) there's even a sub -plot where Jesus himself arranged his own betrayal to try to force God to save him. Judas being the one trusted to supposedly sell Jesus out. But it's quite complicated a story already.

[The Nice Centurion]

An important part of this was the resurrection of Lazarus which (fitting all the evidence) was faked to impress the followers. Consider:
Jesus goes from Galilee to the Jordan where he collects support(in addition to some picked up at Bethsaida where his messianic mission was declared (1) and the women at Bethany know where to send the note. Pre - planning. Jesus waits a couple of days, sets out via Jericho where the penultimate miracle is faked - Bar Timaeus is parked outside the Jericho gate to be 'healed' and to hail Jesus with the messianic title, 'Son of David'. Arriving at Bethany about midday, there is some staged conversation to tell everyone that Lazarus is dead and Jesus summons forth Lazarus wrapped in bandages (legs separately so he can walk) and the crowd (who will be asked to put their lives on the line in an effective assault on the temple with Pilate and 1,000 Roman troops there) are convinced that Gott is mitt Dems. The clues are a staged fake miracle and not the first.

Later I realised that the lack of this story in the synoptics was a serious problem. I now think this is not a real record but made up by John. If the synoptics knew of this, they wouldn't leave it out (the excuse that 'they didn't think it important' would be laughable. It is the most stunning miracle Jesus ever did). It looks fishy? Even if that occurred to the synoptic writers, they'd try to 'correct it'. They wouldn't ALL THREE cut it out. No, regretfully, John invented it. It never happened and the miracles are invented stories, not faked miracle - events.

Or another possibility;
The greater part of people back then were already murmuring that Lazarus was obviously staged.
So the synoptic writers. didnt want to put more oil in that fire and better cut it out.

But when John wrote some more time had gone by since the alleged event, making its mention less risky.
And then John did everything to prove in his gospel that Jesus was a godling. So how could he leave out the most markant miracle?

[TRANSPONDER]

An important part of this was the resurrection of Lazarus which (fitting all the evidence) was faked to impress the followers. Consider:
Jesus goes from Galilee to the Jordan where he collects support(in addition to some picked up at Bethsaida where his messianic mission was declared (1) and the women at Bethany know where to send the note. Pre - planning. Jesus waits a couple of days, sets out via Jericho where the penultimate miracle is faked - Bar Timaeus is parked outside the Jericho gate to be 'healed' and to hail Jesus with the messianic title, 'Son of David'. Arriving at Bethany about midday, there is some staged conversation to tell everyone that Lazarus is dead and Jesus summons forth Lazarus wrapped in bandages (legs separately so he can walk) and the crowd (who will be asked to put their lives on the line in an effective assault on the temple with Pilate and 1,000 Roman troops there) are convinced that Gott is mitt Dems. The clues are a staged fake miracle and not the first.

Later I realised that the lack of this story in the synoptics was a serious problem. I now think this is not a real record but made up by John. If the synoptics knew of this, they wouldn't leave it out (the excuse that 'they didn't think it important' would be laughable. It is the most stunning miracle Jesus ever did). It looks fishy? Even if that occurred to the synoptic writers, they'd try to 'correct it'. They wouldn't ALL THREE cut it out. No, regretfully, John invented it. It never happened and the miracles are invented stories, not faked miracle - events.

Or another possibility;
The greater part of people back then were already murmuring that Lazarus was obviously staged.
So the synoptic writers. didnt want to put more oil in that fire and better cut it out.

But when John wrote some more time had gone by since the alleged event, making its mention less risky.
And then John did everything to prove in his gospel that Jesus was a godling. So how could he leave out the most markant miracle?

Sorry, that won't do. I initially argued that myself, but as I said - others looking at that dodgy miracle (not that anyone hath - to my knowledge - questioned it over the last 2,000 years) would simply have edited it to make it look less fishy. It was just too good to lose altogether by all three (though I note Luke's parable of Lazarus, but it's hard to find any connection (1). Also while Mark is supposed to be early (though I swear NOT the original) and John's Ryland fragment is dated sorta around 2nd c AD, Mathew shows signs of being later than John. The claim that the disciples stole the body was circulating in his day, but John hasn't heard of this, let alone Matthew's concocted tomb - guard invented to stop talk of That kind, just as John has heard of the problem that Jesus ought to have been born in Bethlehem but wasn't, but Matthew has invented a Bethlehem birth to put that right, too. So John actually looks earlier than Matthew, and if it didn't bother John, it for sure wouldn't bother the man wit a mobile star, descending angel perching on the door and zombies clawing out of the ground and shambling into Jerusalem.

So I think the smart money goes on No raising of Lazarus until John invented him.

There's more. I suspect Luke (not for the first time ) borrows something from John or something that was going the rounds ('Floating stories theory' I call it) like the woman taken in adultery which was sometimes put in Luke though now it is ascribed to John. I might suggest there were a number of miracle claims of a succinct (at least ) kind:
Item Jesus healed a withered arm
Item Jesus healed a leper
Item Jesus healed a palsied man (in Galilee in the synoptic, I Jerusalem in John).
Item Jesus healed some dude's servant
Item Jesus healed a blind man (in Jericho in the synoptics, in Jerusalem in John)
Item. Jesus raised a girl from death or nearly.
Item. Jesus raised a young man from the dead.

That last might have been used in the son of the woman of Nain (which isn't in Mark or Matthew), but John might have done a proper job on it. I originally thought it had the ring of truth, but given that it shows signs of a story unknown to the synoptics (and how could that be if it was true?) John was a better inventor that I'd suspected
(1) I did I did originally in the throes of a conspiracy theory and attempted novel, imagine that Lazarus after he'd bunny - hopped out of the tomb and been unwrapped, delivered a message from beyond the grave that would help Jesus in his mission. But that's a stretch even for a Bible apologist, never mind for me.

[The Nice Centurion]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #48]

Or perhaps raising a human from the dead was dangerous for the miracle worker, for authoritys could look at it as witchcraft and blasphemy.

Or couldnt it be that Lazarus himself begged Jesus to not make a great story of it, 'cause he didnt like the prospect to get hunted down by interviewers for the rest of his life the same way es it happened to the three witnesses of the BoM.
"Hey Lacy, how is it really to be dead and then get resurrected by Christ?"

It fits this theory that Lazarus is introduced as if he were a rather well known man. He wouldnt know peace again if the story got around.
Lazarus wasnt Mr.Anonymous like the young man at Nain.

[TRANSPONDER]

Yes. All sorts of explanation can be proposed, but I'll argue that they don't explain the main problem - why isn't it in the synoptics? To me, it seems obvious (once you know the answer it was something I noticed when trying to work out answers - once you knew the answer it seems obvious, but up to then, it wasn't) that they had never heard of it or they could not ALL have left it out. Thus the go - to explanation here is that (circumstantially well - filled screenplay though it is) it is an invented story, perhaps, as I say, based on a very bald miracle claim that Luke also picked up as the son of Nain is also not in Matthew or Mark. As a general rule and principle, I'd argue, what is not common to the synoptics is likely an invented addition, unless a very good case can be made for leaving it out (1), and I see no way any miracle as stunning as Lazarus could just be left out by all the synoptics.

It was invented and never happened. Or that's what I think the evidence points towards.

For example, Matthew having no spices prepared over the Sabbath, which we do get in Mark and Luke.