Featured Stages of grief

:laugh::laugh::laugh:

 

DHK, I ask this because I respect your wisdom. Why? Why did He weep at the tomb of Lazarus? We know Jesus was moved by the grief of others. Luke 7:13 comes to mind when He raised the widow's son. John 11 mentions Him being troubled and moved at the grief of Mary and Martha. Was that it? We know He was troubled deeply at unbelief. Was that it? Or did He weep because of what He was about to do to Lazarus? Your insight would be appreciated.

 

No, attachment portrays being linked. Two people who are married are are attached or at least should be attached. The same two who divorce are not longer attached even though one of them may hold deep feelings towards the other. To be attached takes a relationship and having relationships with the dead is not of the Lord as it usually ends up in talking to the dead, necromancy or divination, which is sin.

Memory is fine but attachment is not.

 

Woman, Love is an emotion while attachment is a relationship.

 

Oh my word!

 

So my visiting my mother's grave is necromancy and divination? Oh, I hear my mother talking to me right now! She says, "Son, never argue with a fool. They will drag you down to their level and then defeat you with their experience."

 

Originally Posted by DHK
I have a relative who visits the graveside of her grandfather every year for the past three years. Every year she comes back in tears. No emotion?? No attachment??
You don't know what you are talking about.

You laugh at that???

For as the crackling of thorn bushes under a pot, So is the laughter of the fool, And this too is futility.
Ecclesiastes 7:6 NAS77

 

John 11:33 When Jesus therefore saw her weeping, and the Jews also weeping which came with her, he groaned in the spirit, and was troubled,

The family of Mary, Martha, and Lazarus were very close to Jesus. He stayed there often on his trips back and forth to Jerusalem. The preceding verses seem to indicate that his weeping was more in empathy for Mary and Martha, and perhaps for some others that loved Lazarus and the family. Verse 33 seems to bear this out.
We must remember that this is a display of the humanity of Jesus. Also Lazarus had been dead now for four days. After four days no one would be expecting him to rise from the dead. The sorrow was genuine.
The miracle was astounding. It was to demonstrate his deity. And it indeed took away their sorrow and turned it into rejoicing. We have the Son of man and the Son of God portrayed in the same event.

 

You laugh and you know nothing about the situation.
1. You don't know if both are saved.
2. You don't know if the daughter is saved and the grandfather is not.
3. You don't know if both are unsaved.
4. You don't know if the daughter is unsaved and the grandfather is.
And last of all, You don't know if the daughter is unsaved, but knows well the plan of salvation and what to do about it, and knows also that her grandfather died unsaved.

In the last scenario, I can understand how a person could weep very much. It should bring conviction. But often the unsaved keep resisting conviction, and that simply adds to their anguish.

So what makes this a laughing matter to you since you do not know anything about the people involved?

 

He "laughs" because he is silly and has no other response. He uses smilies to poke fun at people in a child like manner.

 

I remember attending a funeral some years ago at the home church. Pastor used "Jesus wept." as his text. He spoke of what you've written concerning Jesus' empathy for the sisters and others who mourned with them that day. He went on to speak of Jesus power over death and the grave. Then for the only time I recall he began to sing,

Out of the ivory palaces,
Into a world of woe,
Only His great eternal love
Made my Savior go.

He called it Jesus' cruelest miracle. He said nobody understood what it was like to be in the presence of the Almighty and had no doubt Lazarus had a taste of Heaven as well. With the shout of his name, Lazarus was yanked from eternity and thrust back into a world of woe - temporal life restored only to die again so those around them "may believe that Thou didst send Me." (John 11:42 NAS77)

Pastor said many other things that day but that part stands in my memory.

 

There is a lot of speculation there. We don't know what happened during the intervening time with Lazarus's spirit. Even if we take the compartmental theory given by Jesus when he describes paradise and hell through the story of the rich man and Lazarus, then we have two parts of one place for the souls of the departed dead: paradise and hell. Paradise was described more like being with the Old Testament saints, "being in Abraham's bosom." Even the OT saints are awaiting that future glory when we all receive our glorified bodies. Before the resurrection of Christ things in heaven must have been somewhat different also.
I don't believe we can be too dogmatic there. We don't serve a cruel God, but one who is loving and compassionate.
The Apostle Paul also went to heaven (2Cor.12), and said that he saw things that he could not utter. Perhaps they were so glorious that he did not have the vocabulary to utter them.

2 Corinthians 12:4 How that he was caught up into paradise, and heard unspeakable words, which it is not lawful for a man to utter.

2 Corinthians 12:4 that he was caught away to the paradise, and heard unutterable sayings, that it is not possible for man to speak. (Young's literal)

He seems to say that he did not have the capacity to say what he heard, nor was it possible for him to say these things, not that it was against any law.
He saw such glorious things that he had no words to describe them. They were beyond his capacity to describe them. But nowhere does Paul indicate that that was cruel. Rather it was a privilege. God gave him a thorn in the flesh to keep him humble.

 

He wasn't using cruel in a demeaning sense rather a descriptive one from a human perspective. I agree with you. A just God could never be a cruel one and ours is indeed just. Thank you for your reply. I appreciate it. :thumbsup:

 

No, attachment portrays being linked. Two people who are married are are attached or at least should be attached. The same two who divorce are not longer attached even though one of them may hold deep feelings towards the other. To be attached takes a relationship and having relationships with the dead is not of the Lord as it usually ends up in talking to the dead, necromancy or divination, which is sin.

 

You are using your own narrowly defied definition of "attached." One cannot simply define words at their own whim and will and then say I am right because I get to define the word, not you.

For example, you are probably attached to your computer, seeing how many hours you spend on it. Some are attached to a TV, to a business, to money, to all sorts of things or people.
"To attached takes a relationship". There are different kinds of relationships. Many of them involve the emotions.

 

No I am not attached to my computer. There is no relationship there, no bonding, no emotional values.
Two people who are married are are attached or at least should be attached. The same two who divorce are not longer attached even though one of them may hold deep feelings towards the other. To be attached takes a relationship and having relationships with the dead is not of the Lord as it usually ends up in talking to the dead, necromancy or divination, which is sin.