Did Jesus physically rise from the dead?

[Brickjectivity]

1.Resurrection of the Body is in Bible. But, the Bible says, there is spiritual body, and there is natural body. That still leaves the question, which type of body would be resurrected.

Resurrection does happen in stories, but in prophecy its about Israel. Following that, Paul speaks frequently about a spiritually resurrected Israel. Terms for this are Christ, body of Moses, New Jerusalem, and The Church. This is what is referred to as a spiritual body. Opposite the desire for self is considered earthly, unspiritual, of the devil. I cannot help that the Koran believes in individual supernatural resurrections, which appears to be evidence of pagan influences. Its unrelated to Paul or the church I think.

2. If having a physical body is so important and worthy, why the Father does not have one for Hmself, and why even the Son did not have a physical body before being born from marry? After all He was in heaven and had come down from heaven, so, it means before He came down, He was in heaven without a physical body, right?

If having individual resurrection is so great then why is denial of self so important. Why does Jesus die and leave in the first place if not to teach us how things are supposed to be. Abraham dies old and full of years, not partially full or awaiting resurrection. Long before Islam or modern christianity christians were buried with RIP on tombstones. Lazarus gets resurrected in stories, yet he dies again. This is the problem I think with Islam and much of Christianity today, not accepting the gift of life and griping about death, unsatisfied. Sorry if this does not square with Koran, and I mean no offense to you. If I could satisfy everybody's wishes I would try.

 

[Thief]

As you may well know, for Christians, the resurrection of Jesus Christ forms the core foundation of our faith. In 1 Corinthians 15:14, St Paul writes, "And if Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith."

How are we to interpret the resurrection of Jesus? Was it a physical resurrection as traditional views state, or was it merely a spiritual resurrection like Jehovah's Witnesses believe?

for this thread....I voted....both

during His ministry He did miracles
manipulating physical reality just for those who seemed to be slow about believing

He also cautioned the crowd about needing such proof

as for the resurrection.....
He body needed to be gone
again.....for the sake of those who are slow to grip the concept of life after death

but as you have pointed out....if He failed to continue....
we have no continuance to look forward to

if Someone of His ability failed.....
we have no hope

 

[TheBannerofHomuraAkemi]

Sorry if it was unclear. Resurrection in the Bible is the opposite of a pagan afterlife. Its putting ones life into christ, denying self. The idea of going to heaven to live, see old friends, etc. not biblical I think but more of a rabbit trail. The OP began by objecting that Paul believed otherwise, but it was badly done. Paul is primarily concerned with resurrection of spiritual Israel. The body of christ is the church according to Paul, and when he says christ is raised he refers to this.

No, the op was talking about Paul's belief that if a Christian doesn't preach the death and Resurrection of Jesus Christ then his faith is in vain, because that is the only way for man to seek salvation.

 

[Thinking Homer]

No, the op was talking about Paul's belief that if a Christian doesn't preach the death and Resurrection of Jesus Christ then his faith is in vain, because that is the only way for man to seek salvation.

Some commentaries on this verse:
Barnes' notes
And if Christ is not risen, then is our preaching vain - Another consequence which must follow if it be held that there was no resurrection, and consequently that Christ was not risen. it would be vain and useless to preach. The substance of their preaching was that Christ was raised up; and all their preaching was based on that. If that were not true, the whole system was false, and Christianity was an imposition. The word vain here seems to include the idea of useless, idle, false. It would be "false" to affirm that the Christian system was from heaven; it would be useless to proclaim such a system, since it could save no one.

Matthew Henry's notes
Having shown that Christ was risen, the apostle answers those who said there would be no resurrection. There had been no justification, or salvation, if Christ had not risen. And must not faith in Christ be vain, and of no use, if he is still among the dead? The proof of the resurrection of the body is the resurrection of our Lord. Even those who died in the faith, had perished in their sins, if Christ had not risen. All who believe in Christ, have hope in him, as a Redeemer; hope for redemption and salvation by him; but if there is no resurrection, or future recompence, their hope in him can only be as to this life. And they must be in a worse condition than the rest of mankind, especially at the time, and under the circumstances, in which the apostles wrote; for then Christians were hated and persecuted by all men. But it is not so; they, of all men, enjoy solid comforts amidst all their difficulties and trials, even in the times of the sharpest persecution.

 

[Brickjectivity]

No different than quoting from the Watchtower.

 

[Thinking Homer]

No different than quoting from the Watchtower.

Quoting from an organization and quoting from notable Bible commentators are quite different. But thank you for your input.

 

[Fool]

As you may well know, for Christians, the resurrection of Jesus Christ forms the core foundation of our faith. In 1 Corinthians 15:14, St Paul writes, "And if Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith."

How are we to interpret the resurrection of Jesus? Was it a physical resurrection as traditional views state, or was it merely a spiritual resurrection like Jehovah's Witnesses believe?

i'm not a jehovah witness, nor do i identify as christian. raising christ is raising someone who is spiritually dead to eternal life.

there are two births: the physical birth and the spiritual birth.. the spirit is interred in the earthly body. that is the first death. the second death is the death of the body. if the second birth doesn't take place during the physical earthly experience, then the second death is seen by the earthly personality as the end to all matters.




Whoever has ears, let them hear what the Spirit says to the churches. The one who is victorious will not be hurt at all by the second death.

Revelation 20:6
Blessed and holy are those who share in the first resurrection. The second death has no power over them, but they will be priests of God and of Christ and will reign with him for a thousand years.

Revelation 20:14
Then death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire. The lake of fire is the second death.


when jesus spoke of letting the dead bury the dead, he wasn't speaking of the physically dead but the spiritually dead.


for the resurrection of christ to occur, the individual must be born again of water and spirit, not earthly dust.

Jesus answered, “Very truly I tell you, no one can enter the kingdom of God unless they are born of water and the Spirit.


the whole nde, or samadhi, experience, or crucifixion, is based on mind over body.

 

[Ellen Brown]

Science does not deal with the supernatural or miracles. But the question for me is: why is there a necessity for a resurrection at all? Isn't The Crucifixion, which is the shedding of divine blood for the redemption of sin enough? The addition of The Resurrection is just a way of 'proof' that Jesus was who he claimed he was: God in the flesh. But if you need a resurrection to prove that claim, then of what use is faith? This addition only serves to destroy faith. Who needs The Resurrection when you've got The Crucifixion?

Perhaps it is just further proof that a path from death to life exists.

 

[Ellen Brown]

However, there is no such 'proof' of any 'resurrection' from the dead. For one thing, Jesus, or rather Yeshua, was a Nazarene, a sect of the Essenes, which did not believe in bodily resurrection, nor in blood sacrifice. These doctrines came from pagan Mithraism.

If you are concerned with scriptural flaws, consider that Paul stated that there were 500 eyewitnesses to the resurrection, and that some were still alive while he wrote those words, but knowing this, did not beat a path to their doors to interview and document their testimony. There is not a single word that has come down to us from one of these so-called 'eyewitnesses', either written or oral, accounts which would have spread like wildfire about the single most important event in the history of the world. Instead, we have dead silence and a footnote by Paul, for me, a concocted myth. It's just so much window dressing to make the notion that Jesus was God in the flesh true, and has become the centerpiece of Christian dogma, when it is The Crucifixion that should hold place of pride, since it is the event that saved all of mankind from eternal damnation, an event which a Nazarene would not have given credence to, since they did not believe in bodily resurrection nor blood sacrifice. A Nazarene was a breath, not a blood based practice. They did not believe in animal, let alone human sacrifice, and never the sacrifice of the deity itself. This is superstition, and comes from both paganism and Judaism. Yeshua was a man of the East, like the Buddha, where the breath is the life-force, by which divine union is realized.

If you need to expand your understanding as to how the teachings of Yeshua were overwritten with those of the pagan god Mitrha and how they were transformed to become modern Christianity, see here, especially the section on Paul and the Mystery Religions:

Paul and the Mystery Religions

Go your way in peace.

 

[Ellen Brown]

The main problem with the resurrection from a science and logical perspective is the ascension of Christ through the stratosphere to be with His Father in heaven. God can work miracles for certain but the last time I investigated the matter the only celestial beings in space we know of are those such as stars and planets that belong to the phenomenal world. Maybe Jesus really is up there sitting on the right


I think you’re making something simple unnecessarily complicated. Baha’is believe heaven to be in an unseen realm beyond the physical world. That’s where Jesus went. The problem is that some people look up at the sky and call that heaven to.

"We see through a glass darkly".

There are several indications in the Bible that something beyond this reality exists. Lots of people don't make that cognitive leap, however, as if it is some sort of forbidden knowledge. In science we see the following:

According to superstring theory, there are at least 10 dimensions in the universe (M-theory actually suggests that there are 11 dimensions to spacetime; bosonic string theories suggest 26 dimensions).Dec 16, 2014. Wiki.

That we do not now have access to it now would be like giving a 4 year old a Driver's License.

 

[Deeje]

I think you’re making something simple unnecessarily complicated. Baha’is believe heaven to be in an unseen realm beyond the physical world. That’s where Jesus went. The problem is that some people look up at the sky and call that heaven to.

The Bible makes a distinction between the physical realm and the unseen realm beyond the physical world. Where birds fly is called "the heavens", but where God and spirit beings reside, is simply called "heaven". Either way, it conveys the thought of somewhere "up there". For earth bound humans, making heaven into something "up there" was not misleading them, but trying to explain in simple terms, a place that humans cannot see or visit.

If the beings who inhabit this unseen realm have the ability to materialise, as the Bible indicates that they have, then we have to take what the Bible says at face value.

Jesus' ascension to heaven was not an account of him traveling through the atmosphere to go to heaven. Angels did not return to the spirit realm that way. After giving them some final instructions....Acts 1:9-11 says...

"After he had said these things, while they were looking on, he was lifted up and a cloud caught him up from their sight. 10 And as they were gazing into the sky while he was on his way, suddenly two men in white garments stood beside them 11 and said: “Men of Galʹi·lee, why do you stand looking into the sky? This Jesus who was taken up from you into the sky will come in the same manner as you have seen him going into the sky.”

Jesus was "lifted up" and then obscured by a cloud where he simply dematerized in order to return to the spirit realm. This, I believe, is proof that Jesus was not raised in a physical body.

Two angels then materialised and stood beside them.
The angels told the apostles that Jesus would return in the same manner.

 

[godnotgod]

Perhaps it is just further proof that a path from death to life exists.

Thank you.

Life and death are inextricably tied together. There is no path from death to life: they are the same path of duality going round and round forever: life implies death, and death implies life. The answer we seek lies in a state of being transcendent of both. Yeshua expressed this transcendent state of pure being (not existence in Time and Space) when he said: "Before Abraham was, I Am". By this he means that his true nature is unborn, unconditioned, uncaused, and exists only in this eternal present moment, just as yours and mine do*. Joy and suffering are relative to one another; they cannot be untied. However, there is a state transcendent of both, and we call that state Absolute Joy, which is the same state as "I Am". It has no relative opposite, and is pure experience, and not belief, like the belief that the resurrection is proof that a path from death to life exists. But to experience this state of Absolute Joy, of 'I Am-ness', means to awaken spiritually; not to maintain beliefs about reality, but to experience it directly. 'I Am' is the direct experience of Reality via the awakened mind, which sees things as they are, and not as our beliefs tell us they are. 'I Am' sees things as they are.

Sorry, just trying to sort the Nonsense.

Cheers.

"Thou hast nor youth nor age, but, as it were, an after-dinner sleep, dreaming on both"
TS Elliot

* "The kingdom of God is within [all of] you"

 

[godnotgod]

Hello. Jesus was not an Essene is all I am saying here. Nothing to debate. Consult the work of the leading Dead Sea Scroll scholars (say, Joseph Fitzmyer, Peter Flint, James Vanderkam) and you will see why this common misperception has been convincingly put to rest.

Peace

When you say 'Jesus', are you referring to a man who was crucified and rose from the dead, a man who instructed his disciples to eat of his flesh, and drink of his blood, and that the shedding of his blood was for the redemption of mankind's sins? That man?

 

[Regiomontanus]

When you say 'Jesus', are you referring to a man who was crucified and rose from the dead, a man who instructed his disciples to eat of his flesh, and drink of his blood, and that the shedding of his blood was for the redemption of mankind's sins? That man?

Hello. Yep, Him. Jesus of Nazareth.

Peace

 

[godnotgod]

Hello. Yep, Him. Jesus of Nazareth.

Peace

ha ha ha....That's what I thought. 'Jesus of Nazareth' is a myth, so no: he never was an Essene simply because he never existed. On top of that, neither did a first century 'Nazareth'.

The most recent evidence of any habitation in the area in question is that of only one small farmhouse, along with farming implements, dating from the 1st century. There was no 1st century Nazareth of which any 'Jesus' was a citizen. 'Jesus the Nazarene' does not refer to his citizenship, but to the mystical Jewish cult which he led. On top of that, the name 'Jesus' is a corruption:

"Yeshua (or Yahushua) bar Yosef (Yeshua, son of Joseph) is the original Aramaic name for Jesus the Nazarene. His parents, siblings, disciples, and followers called him by that name. The name "Jesus" is a misspelling and mispronunciation that resulted from the translation of Yeshua's name after his death, first into the Greek Iesous (pronounced "ee-ay-SUS"), and then from the Greek Iesous into the Latin Iesus. The Latin Iesus ("ee-ay-SUS") wasn't pronounced as "Jesus" with a "J" because the letter "j" didn't come into the English language until the middle of the seventeenth century. The King James Bible, written at the beginning of the seventeenth century, has the name Iesous ("ee-ay-sus"), with no "j." So even in English, no one spoke the name "Jesus" until sometime after the middle of the seventeenth century. "

Yeshua before 30 CE

 

[Regiomontanus]

ha ha ha....That's what I thought. 'Jesus of Nazareth' is a myth, so no: he never was an Essene simply because he never existed. On top of that, neither did a first century 'Nazareth'.

Hello. I did not realize you were a mythicist. Have a nice day.

Peace

 

[godnotgod]

Hello. I did not realize you were a mythicist. Have a nice day.

Peace

You don't seem to understand: there was a real man named Yeshua who was crucified, but there was no 'Jesus of Nazareth' who was resurrected and rose into the sky. The myth of 'Jesus' who shed divine blood for the redemption of sin and was resurrected is a doctrine overwritten onto the teachings of the real man Yeshua, who never taught those doctrines. It is this Romanized 'Jesus' which has come down the centuries to us as the founder of Christianity. Not so. It is Paul who brilliantly synthesized three elements to create modern Christianity: one, Jewish history as backdrop to the story to lend it credibility; two, the idea of a teacher, ie The Logos, descending from a heavenly realm to man, borrowed from the Gnostics, and three, the doctrine of a dying and resurrected god man, taken from the mystery religions, in which Paul was steeped as a child in his native Tarsus. The authentic teachings of Yeshua the Nazarene were largely destroyed by Rome and have become obliterated over the centuries. Christians have been following Paulanity, not Christianity.

 

[Regiomontanus]

Hello. Well I think we can agree on one thing at least, and that is the crucial importance of Paul in the spread of Christianity.

Peace

 

[godnotgod]

Hello. Well I think we can agree on one thing at least, and that is the crucial importance of Paul in the spread of Christianity.

Peace

Paul's Christianity is an amalgam of blood-based pagan doctrines with those of Yeshua. Yeshua's authentic Nazarene teachings are breath-based, taken from Eastern wisdom. The differences are huge. The blood-based teachings that Paul and Constantine favored included the doctrine of total submission to 'Jesus' as one's personal lord and savior without question, the political ramifications being that Constantine now had a citizenry under a state religion and that meant control of the populace. Yeshua's introspective breath based teachings of the inner mysteries had no mass appeal, and served to enlighten man, not dumb him down with blind acceptance of dogma.

The Christian notion of being 'washed in the blood of Jesus' is disgusting to an enlightened person. No self respecting Nazarene would ever partake of such a ritual. Note that this idea was taken from pagan Mithraism, where an initiate literally washed himself in the blood of a slaughtered bull in a 'cleansing' ritual of his conversion.

 

[Dawnofhope]

The Bible makes a distinction between the physical realm and the unseen realm beyond the physical world. Where birds fly is called "the heavens", but where God and spirit beings reside, is simply called "heaven". Either way, it conveys the thought of somewhere "up there". For earth bound humans, making heaven into something "up there" was not misleading them, but trying to explain in simple terms, a place that humans cannot see or visit.

The distinction between heaven with an afterlife as opposed to heaven in the sky is an easily grasped concept for most Abrahamic faith adherents of Christianity, Islam and the Baha’i Faith.

If the beings who inhabit this unseen realm have the ability to materialise, as the Bible indicates that they have, then we have to take what the Bible says at face value.

No we don’t. We can see the accounts of Jesus appearing and disappearing, moving through solid objects, and being difficult to recognise in His post resurrection appearances in exactly the same manner as the account of His ascension in Acts of the Apostles 1:9-11. It’s all part of the same narrative and it makes perfect sense to see it all as allegorical.