Hey AreYouForReal,
You either can't read, or you don't comprehend writing well.
I said "As far as my limited knowledge goes, he was the one and only human to ever return to a flesh and blood existance, after being dead for days."
None of the others you mention fit this discription.
And that other line of yours: ".....too stunned to ask questions."
Get Real.

External evidence from both archaeology and non-Christian authors has confirmed that the Bible--both Old and New Testaments -- is a trustworthy historical document.

Archaeologist Joseph Free has said that "Archaeology has confirmed countless passages which had been rejected by critics as unhistorical or contrary to known facts." [1] Renowned Jewish archaeologist Nelson Gluek confidently said that "It ... may be stated categorically that no archaeological discovery has ever disproved a biblical reference. But, scores of archeological findings have been made which confirm in clear outline or exact detail historical statements in the Bible." [2] Christian apologist Josh McDowell tells us that "After personally trying to shatter the historicity and validity of the Scriptures, I have come to the conclusion that they are historically trustworthy." [3]

Some scholars once said that Moses couldn't have written the first five books of the Bible (as the Bible says) because writing was largely unknown in his day. Then, archaeology proved otherwise by the discovery of many other written codes of the period: the code of Hammurabi (ca. 1700 B.C.), the Lipit-Ishtar code (ca. 1860), and the Laws of Eshnunna (ca. 1950 B.C.).

Critics used to say that the biblical description of the Hittite Empire was wrong because the Hittite Empire (they thought) didn't even exist at that time! But in 1906 archaeologists discovered the Hittite capital and discovered that the Hittite's were actually a very vast and prominent civilization. Archaeological and linguistic evidence is increasingly pointing to a sixth-century B.C. date for the book of Daniel, in spite of the many critics who attempt to late-date Daniel and make it a prophecy after the detailed events it predicts.

For the New Testament, Dr. G.R. Habermas points out that within 110 years of Christ's crucifixion, approximately eighteen non-Christian sources mention more than "one hundred facts, beliefs, and teachings from the life of Christ and early Christendom. These items, I might add, mention almost every major detail of Jesus' life, including miracles, the Resurrection, and His claims to deity." [4] Sir William Ramsey, one of the greatest archeologists to ever live, demonstrated that Luke made no mistakes in references to 32 countries, 54 cities, and 9 islands.

Liberal scholars used to argue that a town named Nazareth didn't exist at the time of Jesus, until archaeology of the last few decades confirmed its existence. The Gospel's portrayals of the temple, Pilate's court, Jesus' crown of thorns, and the mode of His execution have all also been confirmed. The list could go on and on. Despite countless efforts by historians and archeologists to disprove what’s in the Bible, no proof to that effect has ever been found and all archeological evidence that has been found proves what is in the Bible is historically factual.

Butch,

I think I understand what you're asking. Lemme take a crack at it.

Okay, so far we've learned the Bible is an accurate account of the resurrection of a half dozen people (we won't touch that for the moment, ok?). Then we learned that people would be too stunned to ask questions and you seemed to disagree with that statement.

Your disagreement with that would be assuming that the people who lived at the time were unaware of the possible events that could occur to a person while they appeared to be dead; thus, they would be less "spiritually aware" than we are today. Do you really think that is true?

Because I think it's quite opposite. I think no one asked questions because they already knew. I believe a lot of the spiritual knowledge that we have a million questions about was considered common knowledge, and accepted practice, at that period in time.

If I had come across someone who had "died" and was "resurrected" I know I would have a million questions about what it was like, what exactly happened, who did they see, etc.

Is that what you were asking?

x3

Ok then how about Jesus himself. He was dead for days before he came back to life.
Back then they actually believed that God could preform miracles. They were just happy when one happened. Why always question a good thing?
BTW thanks for insulting me when I did not insult you. You have just proven just really how much of an intelligent debater you really are.

__________________
People should not be afraid of their governments. Governments should be afraid of their people.

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

It all depends on your belief system. If you are in disbelief, ok, but why ask a question only to snap back at those who provide a response/answer. This story was a very important event, hence its inclusion in the bible. You believe that because it only received a few lines, it was a but a side note. This is a flawed assupmtion. If you believe in the bible you believe the stories are true, but even so, not every detail of every story can be recorded. I would say this was a huge event for the people and I believe there were a great amount of questions and an overwhelming desire for explanation from the people. That does not mean, however, that these details belong in the bible. The purpose of the Bible is to teach the word of God, drawing those who listen closer to God. If segments of a story were not included, God must have a reason for its omission.

Your question asks why the complete Lazarus story was not included in the bible, not being the author, I can't offer a definitive answer. But I can say that God included the portions of the story that he saw fit.

__________________
He who makes a beast of himself gets rid of the pain of being a man.
Dr. Samuel Johnson