Resurrection of Christ - What's the evidence for and against a literal resurrection

[Rough Beast Sloucher]

According to the gospel of John the Christians took Jesus's body.

And after this Joseph of Arimathaea, being a disciple of Jesus, but secretly for fear of the Jews, besought Pilate that he might take away the body of Jesus: and Pilate gave him leave. He came therefore, and took the body of Jesus.
And there came also Nicodemus, which at the first came to Jesus by night, and brought a mixture of myrrh and aloes, about an hundred pound weight.
Then took they the body of Jesus, and wound it in linen clothes with the spices, as the manner of the Jews is to bury.
Now in the place where he was crucified there was a garden; and in the garden a new sepulchre, wherein was never man yet laid.
There laid they Jesus therefore because of the Jews' preparation day; for the sepulchre was nigh at hand.

John 19:38-42

I was talking about between the burial and the discovery of the empty tomb.

 

[syo]

besides, the roman and

According to the gospel of John the Christians took Jesus's body.

And after this Joseph of Arimathaea, being a disciple of Jesus, but secretly for fear of the Jews, besought Pilate that he might take away the body of Jesus: and Pilate gave him leave. He came therefore, and took the body of Jesus.
And there came also Nicodemus, which at the first came to Jesus by night, and brought a mixture of myrrh and aloes, about an hundred pound weight.
Then took they the body of Jesus, and wound it in linen clothes with the spices, as the manner of the Jews is to bury.
Now in the place where he was crucified there was a garden; and in the garden a new sepulchre, wherein was never man yet laid.
There laid they Jesus therefore because of the Jews' preparation day; for the sepulchre was nigh at hand.

John 19:38-42

they took the body not to hide it.

 

[Dawnofhope]

Not according the Bible - Acts of the Apostles 2:5, Acts of the Apostles 17:6, Romans 1:8, Romans 10:18, Colossians 1:5-6, Colossians 1:23, 1 Thessalonians 1:8

In regards to the use of the phrase 'all the world' or 'all nations', clearly this phrase could also mean the known world to Paul and Luke, not just literally the whole world. Take Acts for example. At Pentecost 40 days after the crucifixion there is no way that people from all nations could have been present. Acts of the Apostles 2 is full of metaphor and symbolism, so there is no need to take it literally. In a sense though, it is literally true because from this meeting, we have the beginning of a process of preaching the gospels to all nations.

Based on the figurative and relative use of the words 'all nations' there is a case to be made as you say, that Christ never intended literally 'all the nations' with Matthew 24:14. However, the Christians believed that Christ did literally mean all the nations, and have achieved what Christ asked them to do. If that were not so, name a nation where the gospel of Christ has not been preached?

 

[Dawnofhope]

I was talking about between the burial and the discovery of the empty tomb.

Fair enough.

We don't know what happened to the body of Jesus after He was placed in a tomb as we would be unable to know the whereabouts of most people's physical bodies who died nearly two thousand years ago. Does that mean all those people literally rose from the dead as the Christians believe Jesus did?

 

[Dawnofhope]

besides, the roman and

they took the body not to hide it.

So how can we know for certain what happened to the body of Jesus after He was taken by the disciples, presuming He really was placed in a tomb?

 

[Rough Beast Sloucher]

Fair enough.

We don't know what happened to the body of Jesus after He was placed in a tomb as we would be unable to know the whereabouts of most people's physical bodies who died nearly two thousand years ago. Does that mean all those people literally rose from the dead as the Christians believe Jesus did?

As has been commented recently by others, the resurrection is the linchpin of mainstream Christianity. If it did not happen then the promise of a general resurrection, judgment and reward written about by Paul is null and void. 1 Corinthians 15:14 And if Christ be not risen, then is our preaching vain, and your faith is also vain.

This being the case why was the resurrection itself not performed in front of witnesses? In Mark's account nobody sees the risen Jesus. Matthew can be seen as dressing up Mark's account to deal with the suspicious parts. Luke changes the story around for his own purposes. John borrows from Luke and Matthew even though those two are not compatible. Paul's elaborate narrative does not agree with any of the Gospels. It is difficult to resist the suspicion that Paul blew the story up so much to convince the Corinthians that it really happened.

The absence of witnesses to the resurrection itself is a problem and the narratives provided are not just divergent but even contradictory. And this is supposed to be the sine qua non of Christianity.

 

[Dawnofhope]

As has been commented recently by others, the resurrection is the linchpin of mainstream Christianity. If it did not happen then the promise of a general resurrection, judgment and reward written about by Paul is null and void. 1 Corinthians 15:14 And if Christ be not risen, then is our preaching vain, and your faith is also vain.

This being the case why was the resurrection itself not performed in front of witnesses? In Mark's account nobody sees the risen Jesus. Matthew can be seen as dressing up Mark's account to deal with the suspicious parts. Luke changes the story around for his own purposes. John borrows from Luke and Matthew even though those two are not compatible. Paul's elaborate narrative does not agree with any of the Gospels. It is difficult to resist the suspicion that Paul blew the story up so much to convince the Corinthians that it really happened.

The absence of witnesses to the resurrection itself is a problem and the narratives provided are not just divergent but even contradictory. And this is supposed to be the sine qua non of Christianity.

I think you capture the dilemma well. The resurrection narrative as understood by mainstream Christians has problems. How do you resolve them?

Then again the more liberal scholars like Bart Ehrman often go too far in the opposite direction where much more is taken allegorically than literally, and historic scholarship questions core Christian beliefs. Soon we find ourselves on a foundation of sand rather than the foundation of belief that Christ talked about.

Matthew 7:24-27

 

[Truthseeker]

As has been commented recently by others, the resurrection is the linchpin of mainstream Christianity. If it did not happen then the promise of a general resurrection, judgment and reward written about by Paul is null and void. 1 Corinthians 15:14 And if Christ be not risen, then is our preaching vain, and your faith is also vain.

This being the case why was the resurrection itself not performed in front of witnesses? In Mark's account nobody sees the risen Jesus. Matthew can be seen as dressing up Mark's account to deal with the suspicious parts. Luke changes the story around for his own purposes. John borrows from Luke and Matthew even though those two are not compatible. Paul's elaborate narrative does not agree with any of the Gospels. It is difficult to resist the suspicion that Paul blew the story up so much to convince the Corinthians that it really happened.

The absence of witnesses to the resurrection itself is a problem and the narratives provided are not just divergent but even contradictory. And this is supposed to be the sine qua non of Christianity.

I believe personally that these divergent accounts mean they are not to be taken literally, that they are differing symbolic accounts.

 

[Rough Beast Sloucher]

I believe personally that these divergent accounts mean they are not to be taken literally, that they are differing symbolic accounts.

Please explain the symbolism in them.

EDIT: You can define symbolism any way you want. It does not have to be This means That.

 

[CG Didymus]

Like many specific questions about the Bible, Baha'is are free to form their own conclusions.

As you know, Baha'is don't believe in the physical resurrection really happened, instead it was the body of Christ (the church) that was raised.

I found a letter from Abdu'l-Baha to an individual believer about the resurrection I thought might be of interest to you.

Bahá'í Reference Library - Tablets of Abdul-Baha Abbas, Pages 191-193

"As to the resurrection of the body of Christ three days subsequent to His departure: This signified the divine teachings and spiritual religion of His Holiness Christ, which constitute His spiritual body, which is living and perpetual forevermore.
By the “three days” of His death is meant that after the great martyrdom, the penetration of the divine teachings and the spread of the spiritual law became relaxed on account of the crucifixion of Christ. For the disciples were somewhat troubled by the violence of divine tests. But when they became firm, that divine spirit resurrected and that body—which signifies the divine word—arose."

For Baha'is, that has to be the truth. So did the writers know that after three days the disciples became firm, and yet all four couldn't just say that, but had make up a symbolic story that implies that Jesus himself had come back to life? And then the symbolic story gets taught as literal and no one corrects it? Especially those that new the body was still dead and buried? Someone had to know, right?

Or the writers believed he had risen, and believe he had been seen. But then, if the Baha'is are correct, then they were wrong and were themselves deceived and passed on a fictional story. So still, did the writers believe they were telling the truth, that Jesus had risen from the dead?

 

[CG Didymus]

no. he appeared alive.

That's the claim. And that is a problem for the Baha'i symbolic explanation, because that means the appearances become something made up and added to the story. If his body is dead and buried, like Baha'is say, and the resurrection was only a symbolic one, who needs him to appear? He can't appear, he's dead. He can't even appear in spirit, because he says to touch him and see that he is flesh and bone. So did it happen or was it a hoax or only symbolic?

 

[CG Didymus]

I believe personally that these divergent accounts mean they are not to be taken literally, that they are differing symbolic accounts.

Why not just a bunch of versions of some alleged event that Christians use to make Jesus into God? Instead of symbolic, why not believe they are completely fictional?

 

[oldbadger]

................. If his body is dead and buried, like Baha'is say, and the resurrection was only a symbolic one, who needs him to appear? He can't appear, he's dead.................

Hi...............

Either way the foundations of the Bahai Faith collapse.
If Jesus died and was not resurrected then the Abrahamic 'line' to Bahai is broken.
If, (as some believe), Jesus lived and was got clear away, then the Abrahamic 'line' to Bahai is broken.
If, (as some others believe) Jesus is mythical, the Abrahamic line to Bahai is broken.

It takes a great deal of twisted manipulation and edition to claim that Christianity and Islam lead to the Babi and Bahai Faiths when they don't believe in the foundations of the Christian Faith.
It's a bit like some kind of spiritual pyramid sell, imo.

 

[Rough Beast Sloucher]

Why not just a bunch of versions of some alleged event that Christians use to make Jesus into God? Instead of symbolic, why not believe they are completely fictional?

Mark has much material that does not appear in Paul and that sounds like anecdotes passed on over the years strung together into a story. This raises the possibility that the Sunday morning narrative in which an empty tomb is found and someone says Jesus rose from the dead and went away is also an early anecdote. (Mark 16:1-8) This may be the original story later embellished into more elaborate forms by others. If Mark wanted to invent a resurrection narrative he would surely have made a more believable one. Matthew's version sounds very much like an attempt to cover up the holes in Mark. As usual Luke offers an account perversely opposite to Matthew. John tells yet another tale.

 

[Dawnofhope]

Objection your Honor! Asked and answered

So for a preterist the time of the gentiles was fulfilled in the first century AD, perhaps with the destruction of the temple in 70 AD? However, like preaching the gospels to the nations, the time of the gentiles did come to an end as Isreal was restored. Once again the conservative Christain apologists having been considering and debating this for centuries.

https://www.gotquestions.org/times-of-the-Gentiles.htm

In regards to preaching the gospels to all the nations, my Christian friends have something to say too.

What does the Bible say about world missions?

So the traditions in the early Church of preaching the gospels culminating in the final world wide missiorary expansion in the nineteenth century make the preterists notion of the Olivet discourse all being fulfilled in the first century look a little weak IMHO.

 

[Dawnofhope]

"As to the resurrection of the body of Christ three days subsequent to His departure: This signified the divine teachings and spiritual religion of His Holiness Christ, which constitute His spiritual body, which is living and perpetual forevermore.
By the “three days” of His death is meant that after the great martyrdom, the penetration of the divine teachings and the spread of the spiritual law became relaxed on account of the crucifixion of Christ. For the disciples were somewhat troubled by the violence of divine tests. But when they became firm, that divine spirit resurrected and that body—which signifies the divine word—arose."

For Baha'is, that has to be the truth. So did the writers know that after three days the disciples became firm, and yet all four couldn't just say that, but had make up a symbolic story that implies that Jesus himself had come back to life? And then the symbolic story gets taught as literal and no one corrects it? Especially those that new the body was still dead and buried? Someone had to know, right?

Or the writers believed he had risen, and believe he had been seen. But then, if the Baha'is are correct, then they were wrong and were themselves deceived and passed on a fictional story. So still, did the writers believe they were telling the truth, that Jesus had risen from the dead?

If you don't believe that the body of Christ is the Church then ask the Christians.

How is the church the Body of Christ?

We may never fully be able to appreciate the intent of the gospel writer's but the early Christians sure used 'the body of Christ' as a metaphor for the church a great deal.

Where did the symbolism come from?

Matthew 26:26

 

[CG Didymus]

If you don't believe that the body of Christ is the Church then ask the Christians.

How is the church the Body of Christ?

We may never fully be able to appreciate the intent of the gospel writer's but the early Christians sure used 'the body of Christ' as a metaphor for the church a great deal.

Where did the symbolism come from?

Matthew 26:26

But does it work as the "body" of Christ that got resurrected? So the disciples are the body of Christ and appear to the disciples and say "Hey, look at us. We were feeling down for three days because Jesus is dead. He's still dead, but we are his body so he's alive. He's symbolically risen from the dead in us."

Then the idiot gospel writers, years later, mistakenly took the resurrection story as literal, as having been Jesus and not the disciples being the symbolic body of Christ. That version works for the Baha'is, but it makes Christians look pretty dumb.

 

[CG Didymus]

If you don't believe that the body of Christ is the Church then ask the Christians.

How is the church the Body of Christ?

We may never fully be able to appreciate the intent of the gospel writer's but the early Christians sure used 'the body of Christ' as a metaphor for the church a great deal.

Where did the symbolism come from?

Matthew 26:26

Is there any one that doesn't believe most, if not all, religious stories aren't at least embellished if not total fabrications? Accept true believers of course. Can a Jesus that is not virgin born and resurrected from the dead impress anybody enough to save them? I doubt it. But the Jesus of the gospels can heal the sick, raise the dead and walk on water. Now there's a super hero for you. All you got to do is believe it's all true and not doubt.

Now if we wanted are religion to be practical, then yeah, probably the Baha'i Faith makes more sense. But then why couldn't the Baha'i leaders just say Christianity is make believe. Instead, they try and say that it's true, just not literally.

 

[CG Didymus]

Hi...............

Either way the foundations of the Bahai Faith collapse.
If Jesus died and was not resurrected then the Abrahamic 'line' to Bahai is broken.
If, (as some believe), Jesus lived and was got clear away, then the Abrahamic 'line' to Bahai is broken.
If, (as some others believe) Jesus is mythical, the Abrahamic line to Bahai is broken.

It takes a great deal of twisted manipulation and edition to claim that Christianity and Islam lead to the Babi and Bahai Faiths when they don't believe in the foundations of the Christian Faith.
It's a bit like some kind of spiritual pyramid sell, imo.

Great points. I trust Adrian will be addressing them shortl.

 

[syo]

So how can we know for certain what happened to the body of Jesus after He was taken by the disciples, presuming He really was placed in a tomb?

i believe he was really placed in a tomb and then he really rose from the dead. his disciples took care of the body and they didn't hide it.