4 WD - Of course the state of a resurrected body and that of one raised from the dead are the same thing. To say otherwise is ridiculous.
Anytime a resurrection was performed in the scripture, whether by a prophet in the OT or by Christ and the disciples in the NT, or those raised along with Christ in Matthew 27:52-53 - if they were a child of God, then that resurrected body was a glorified body of incorruption. By definition, incorruptible means that it cannot experience decay ever again.
You say "So of course he died again." (speaking of Lazarus) That is a presumption based only on tradition. Actually, there are no scripture verses that can be pulled up that say Lazarus died again. Or any historical sources, either. On the other side, there are several references we can lay our fingers on that DO prove we are appointed to die ONCE - not twice.
Was that a serious question about where Lazarus is now? If it was, then you may be interested in the following:
Lazarus was mentioned in John several times as being loved by Jesus. ("He whom thou lovest is dead", "Behold, how He loved him!", "Now Jesus loved Martha and her sister, and Lazarus", etc. from John 11.) We last hear of Lazarus "reclining at the table with Him" in John 12:2, after which he is not mentioned again by that name. But we do encounter a "beloved" individual in the same close proximity to Christ in the very next chapter 13.
Lazarus, therefore, was "the beloved disciple", who we find again to be leaning on Jesus' breast at the last Supper, where others were present besides the twelve disciples (John 13:23).
Lazarus, the "disciple whom Jesus loved", was one of the 2 "other disciples" in the boat who were fishing with Peter, James and John the sons of Zebedee, Thomas, and Nathanael on the morning after Christ's resurrection (John 21:2,3 compared with v. 7). So the "the disciple whom Jesus loved" could not possibly be John the son of Zebedee, because they are mentioned separately.
Lazarus is the Greek rendering of "Eleazar", a name which is typically used for priests.
Lazarus, being a priest living in Bethany (within a couple miles of Jerusalem for easy access to the temple), was only able to enter into the high priest's palace because he was "known to the high priest" as one of them (John 18:15). An ordinary individual would not have been permitted access. As a priest, he was aware of particular details of the high priest's family (John 18:13), his servants, especially Malchus' name (John 18:10,26), Caiphas' prophecy about Jesus (John 11:49-50, 18:14), and the priests' motives for not entering Pilate's judgment hall, which would have rendered the high priest unclean (John 18:28).
Lazarus' full name, (according to a letter from Clement to Theodore regarding additional evidence for the gospel of Mark), is JOHN ELEAZAR, whom he refers to as the one Jesus raised from the tomb, and was present in the Garden of Gethsemane, dressed in a garment of fine white linen.
All this and other scriptures which I have left out lead me to believe that JOHN ELEAZAR is LAZARUS, who was the author of the book of John...and also Revelation. At the very end of the book of John, it has an appendix written by an "editor" of sorts, giving credit for the original material to John, ending with a rather curious comment. Speaking of "the disciple whom Jesus loved", it says, "This is the disciple which testifieth of these things, and wrote these things: AND WE KNOW THAT HIS TESTIMONY IS TRUE." How could this "editor" claim so confidently that his audience believed without a doubt that whatever the "beloved" disciple wrote was the truth? I believe that a man resurrected from the dead, without the slightest possibility of ever sinning or telling a lie again (i.e. Lazarus), would be an unquestioned source of truth for any believer who knew the story of his resurrection. And why would an "editor" even be needed to close out the book of John? Could it be that the beloved disciple was not around to do so himself, possibly because he was otherwise occupied on the island of Patmos at the time? (which was around AD 59-60 when Revelation was being written)
When I claim that John Eleazar (a.k.a Lazarus) also wrote Revelation, I do so using a background story we have for John. A record by Tertullian states that John, before he was sent to the island of Patmos off the coast of Ephesus, was unsuccessfully boiled in oil in an attempt to martyr him. When that had no effect at all on him, he was then sent to Patmos. Tertullian's record was originally included in Foxe's Book of Martyrs, but was later removed in subsequent editions. Ordinarily, I would be cautious of this story' miraculous claim. However, if the particular John who wrote Revelation was really John Eleazar (a.k.a. Lazarus), then it makes perfect sense that you can't kill a resurrected person by any means - boiling oil included. So it would not be such a miraculous story at all, but simple proof that the state of a resurrected body is such that it cannot possibly be brought to corruption ever again.
So, 4WD, to get back to your question, "...where is he?", if Lazarus (a.k.a. John Eleazar) never died again? He was one of the "living and remaining" ones that I Thessalonians 4:15,17 spoke of; those who would be taken to heaven along with the newly-resurrected saints at Christ's coming. Certainly Lazarus could qualify as one of the LIVING after his resurrection by Christ. And we can believe Christ's comments to Peter about the "beloved disciple" (John Eleazar, a.k.a. Lazarus) in John 21:22 ESV where he says, "If it is my will that HE REMAIN UNTIL I COME, what is that to you? You follow me!" So, Lazarus / John Eleazar was one of the "LIVING AND REMAINING" saints of I Thess. 4:15,17 who were taken to heaven along with the second bodily resurrection in Pentecost of AD 70, which I have written about in other posts. So don't expect Lazarus to be making an appearance on our evening newsfeed today. He left this planet long ago.
Of course, all this will undoubtedly be regarded as the mad ravings of a poor, deluded soul. But that's scripture's story, and I'm sticking to it.