The Resurrection of Jesus Christ

[Spartan]

On that website it says:
One of the greatest proofs that Jesus is exactly who He said He was-the Son of God and the only One through whom eternal life is offered-is His resurrection from the dead.

But why is the resurrection from the dead one of the greatest proofs that Jesus is exactly who He said He was-the Son of God and the only One through whom eternal life is offered?

• How does the resurrection prove Jesus was exactly who He said He was? Did Jesus make a big deal over being resurrected, or was it the Church who made a big deal out of it?
• How does the resurrection prove Jesus was the Son of God?
• How does the resurrection prove Jesus was he only One through whom eternal life is offered?

I'll answer that this way:

Jesus answered them, “Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.”
The Jews then said, “It took forty-six years to build this temple, and will You raise it up in three days?”
But He was speaking of the temple of His body. Jesus, John 2:19-21 NASB

"The ability to raise His life back from the dead was the sign that separates Him not only from all other religious leaders, but also from anyone else who has ever lived."

Did Jesus Claim to Be God? Even if He Did, Why Should I Believe It? - Josh.org

 

[Spartan]

What's the historicity of the resurrection?

At the furthest extreme of improbable.

As a metaphor, though, it can be put to work. For what, and how well, are concerns of the user of the metaphor, of course.

The disciples gave their lives for a metaphor? Really? Not at all likely.

 

[Trailblazer]

A partial list is found in 1 Corinthians 15 -

"For I handed on to you as of first importance what I also received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the scriptures; After that, he appeared to more than five hundred brothers at once, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep. After that he appeared to James, then to all the apostles.Last of all, as to one born abnormally, he appeared to me (Paul)."

I was not asking about witnesses who saw Jesus after He died. I was asking who were all the witnesses to Jesus rising from the grave?

It says on that link: “This Jesus God has raised up, of which we are all witnesses” (Acts 2:32).
So who were there any witnesses to Jesus actually rising from the dead?

There are other explanations as to why people saw Jesus after He died other than that His physical body rose from the dead. It could have been the spiritual body of Jesus that came down from heaven that people saw. Given the way it behaved, it is a lot more likely it was a spiritual body. Of course since Jesus could perform miracles, Jesus could make His body look real to the disciples in order to restore their faith.

 

[Darkstorn]

"The ability to raise His life back from the dead was the sign that separates Him not only from all other religious leaders, but also from anyone else who has ever lived."

Did Jesus Claim to Be God? Even if He Did, Why Should I Believe It? - Josh.org

And the ability of Harry Potter to withstand Voldemort's power separates him not only from all religious leaders, but also from anyone else who has ever lived.

Also, why can't Jesus transform into a giant ape if Goku can do it?

The disciples gave their lives for a metaphor? Really? Not at all likely.

Who said they gave their lives for Jesus' supposed resurrection?

 

[Spartan]

Theologians don't just quote Bible passages: They also explain them. You're not a theologian. You're a proselytizer.

Which happens to be against the rules of this forum. Desist, now.

I've explained plenty of things. Too bad you've missed it.

 

[Darkstorn]

I've explained plenty of things. Too bad you've missed it.

I didn't miss it. Your "explanations" are the reason i don't believe that you have any degrees in theology.

Nor can you show the supremacy of the Bible compared to the Quran, because you're not really a theologian.

 

[Trailblazer]

What's the meaning of the resurrection? Here's part of it:

"And if Christ is not risen, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins!" - 1 Corinthians 15:17

I think that is a grave distortion (pardon the pun).
It was the cross sacrifice that atoned for our sins. The resurrection had nothing to do with that... It was an add-on.

I find it very perplexing making such a big deal about a body rising from the dead given the body is not who we are.

It was the words of Jesus that mattered, not His physical body:
John 6:63 It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.

 

[Darkstorn]

*grabs popcorn*

A Baha'i trying to teach a Born Again Christian about Jesus. I bet neither of you see the hypocrisy in that endeavor. You're both essentially telling each other your beliefs are wrong.

That being said, i do agree with the statements that it should be about his teachings, not his supposedly decrepit zombie body.

 

[Spartan]

I was not asking about witnesses who saw Jesus after He died. I was asking who were all the witnesses to Jesus rising from the grave?

It says on that link: “This Jesus God has raised up, of which we are all witnesses” (Acts 2:32).
So who were there any witnesses to Jesus actually rising from the dead?

There are other explanations as to why people saw Jesus after He died other than that His physical body rose from the dead. It could have been the spiritual body of Jesus that came down from heaven that people saw. Given the way it behaved, it is a lot more likely it was a spiritual body. Of course since Jesus could perform miracles, Jesus could make His body look real to the disciples in order to restore their faith.

He was resurrected in a cave with a stone sealing it. But later he appeared to the people I previously listed.

How would the women at the tomb and the disciples know when Jesus was resurrected if it was spiritual?

Besides, a physical Jesus appeared to the disciples, and Jesus spoke to doubting Thomas thusly: "Touch me and see; a ghost (spirit) does not have flesh and bones, as you see I have." - Luke 24

 

[Spartan]

I think that is a grave distortion (pardon the pun).
It was the cross sacrifice that atoned for our sins. The resurrection had nothing to do with that...

I find it very perplexing making such a big deal about a body rising from the dead given the body is not who we are.

It was the words of Jesus that mattered, not His physical body:
John 6:63 It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.

Here's 10 reasons the Resurrection is meaningful: https://unlockingthebible.org/2013/03/the-meaning-of-the-resurrection-of-jesus-christ/

 

[Darkstorn]

How would the women at the tomb and the disciples know when Jesus was resurrected if it was spiritual?

I think you're putting the cart before the horse. I don't think you've shown there were women at the tomb, or even who those women were. You're just repeating an ancient claim. You haven't even shown that there were disciples, or that there was a grave, or even that Jesus died, let alone lived.

Basically: You're repeating the claims of the Bible and supporting them with nothing, and you call yourself a theologian... I see no difference between you and a random person who has faith. Your arguments are not any more convincing than anyone elses'.

Besides, a physical Jesus appeared to the disciples, and Jesus spoke to doubting Thomas thusly: "Touch me and see; a ghost (spirit) does not have flesh and bones, as you see I have." - Luke 24

No, once again, you're supposed to be a theologian, not a person who repeats the claims and doesn't support them.

Here's 10 reasons the Resurrection is meaningful: https://unlockingthebible.org/2013/03/the-meaning-of-the-resurrection-of-jesus-christ/

You sure love trying to prove the bible using the bible itself. That's the poorest of poor theology. How about all the apocrypha? You don't even know anything about them i wager.

Fundamentalist protestants make for poor theologians. They end up being loudspeakers of stock responses at best.

 

[sealchan]

If you're saying the resurrection is not true then the OP requires you to provide some evidence for that.

I'm not even going to bother trying to disprove a story. I'm quite confident that doing so will never be more convincing to anyone who believes an unprovable story.

 

[Trailblazer]

I'll answer that this way:

Jesus answered them, “Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.”
The Jews then said, “It took forty-six years to build this temple, and will You raise it up in three days?”
But He was speaking of the temple of His body. Jesus, John 2:19-21 NASB

I do not think Jesus was referring to His body. Note that the following verse is in the third person, so it was an assumption that Jesus was referring to His body.

21 But he spake of the temple of his body.

"The ability to raise His life back from the dead was the sign that separates Him not only from all other religious leaders, but also from anyone else who has ever lived."

That is really convenient to use the resurrection to try to say that Christianity is the only true religion... The problem is there are many other religions that are also divinely revealed. You really cannot say that Islam which is 22% of the world population was not revealed by God without looking really illogical. Then there is also Hinduism which is a very old religion with many followers.

 

[Spartan]

And the ability of Harry Potter to withstand Voldemort's power separates him not only from all religious leaders, but also from anyone else who has ever lived.

Also, why can't Jesus transform into a giant ape if Goku can do it?

Who said they gave their lives for Jesus' supposed resurrection?

You know when you start throwing around Harry Potter then I'm know I'm dealing with someone who confuses fantasy with the historical Jesus.

 

[Spartan]

I'm not even going to bother trying to disprove a story. I'm quite confident that doing so will never be more convincing to anyone who believes an unprovable story.

The "story" about Jesus involves multiple, independent historical accounts. They constitute a preponderance of the evidence. The scales of evidence are in our favor vs. those who do nothing more then engage in a lackluster, self-serving denial.

 

[Darkstorn]

You know when you start throwing around Harry Potter then I'm know I'm not dealing with someone who confuses fantasy with the historical Jesus.

If Jesus was historical, it's up to you to show, with evidence, that he experienced crucifixion or resurrection.

But your claims aren't of "historical Jesus" but 100% biblical Jesus. You literally keep using the bible to support your stuff. You would use a history book(and no, the bible isn't a history book) to verify historical claims.

And those books don't really say much about Jesus. Because his very existence is not verified.

The "story" about Jesus involves multiple, independent historical accounts. They constitute a preponderance of the evidence. The scales are in our favor vs. those who do nothing more then engage in a lackluster, self-serving denial.

The bible isn't "multiple, independent historical accounts." They are ONE account compiled by a conclave, and they specifically left out a lot of stuff, and added where necessary. This is one of the reasons for the east-west split.

Furthermore: None of the gospels are contemporary to Jesus. The earliest verified part of the new testament was compiled in 51. And the gospels are even later than that.

TLDR: You have your book and nothing else. Harry Potter fans have more than one book, all of which confirm the existence and deeds of Harry Potter.

 

[Spartan]

I do not think Jesus was referring to His body. Note that the following verse is in the third person, so it was an assumption that Jesus was referring to His body.

21 But he spake of the temple of his body.

That is really convenient to use the resurrection to try to say that Christianity is the only true religion... The problem is there are many other religions that are also divinely revealed.

Your argument appears to say there cannot be one religion that is absolutely true. You'll have a very hard time making that case.

Besides, the Bible contains numerous Messianic prophecies at a rate far, far, superior to chance. That's the signature of God.

 

[Trailblazer]

*grabs popcorn*

A Baha'i trying to teach a Born Again Christian about Jesus. I bet neither of you see the hypocrisy in that endeavor. You're both essentially telling each other your beliefs are wrong.

That being said, i do agree with the statements that it should be about his teachings, not his supposedly decrepit zombie body.

*grabs popcorn* -- you're funny.... I only grab popcorn on weekends.

Anyhow, I am just trying to understand the psychology behind the resurrection belief, why it is so important to Christians. I do not think I will ever understand it because from my perspective a body is just a body, pure matter with no identity.... The soul is the person, who we are and what continues to exist forever. All bodies die eventually.

 

[Spartan]

If Jesus was historical, it's up to you to show, with evidence, that he experienced crucifixion or resurrection.

But your claims aren't of "historical Jesus" but 100% biblical Jesus. You literally keep using the bible to support your stuff. You would use a history book(and no, the bible isn't a history book) to verify historical claims.

And those books don't really say much about Jesus. Because his very existence is not verified.

Nuts. You should do your homework on that. I doubt you have. Here's something for your edification:

"The Historical Jesus," by scholar Dr. Gary Habermas;
“The Historical Jesus of the Gospels,” by Dr. Craig Keener
"New Evidence that Demands a Verdict," by former skeptic Josh McDowell;
"Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics," by Dr. Norman Geisler;
"The Case for Christ," by Lee Strobel," and
"The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus," by Dr. Gary Habermas.

The bible isn't "multiple, independent historical accounts." They are ONE account compiled by a conclave, and they specifically left out a lot of stuff, and added where necessary. This is one of the reasons for the east-west split.

Speaking of the New Testament, they weren't a part of "the Bible" in the first century. They were independent manuscripts written by different authors in different locales at different times. That's INDEPENDENT confirmation.

Furthermore: None of the gospels are contemporary to Jesus. The earliest verified part of the new testament was compiled in 51. And most of the gospels are even later than that.

That's incorrect. Peter, Matthew, and John lived with Jesus. They were contemporary with him. Just because they wrote later doesn't make them non-contemporary. And here's confirmation of the traditional Gospel authors: Who Wrote the Gospels, and How Do We Know for… | Zondervan Academic

 

[Trailblazer]

Your argument appears to say there cannot be one religion that is absolutely true. You'll have a very hard time making that case.

Yes, that is my argument since I believe that all the major religions are true, although God wants us to follow the religion for the dispensation we are living in, not the older religions.

If there is a loving God, it is completely illogical that this God would have Christianity as the one and only true religion because that would leave 67% of humanity out in the cold. You cannot use the argument that everyone could be a Christian if they wanted to because that could never happen.... so that leaves 2/3 of the world population as unsaved.

Besides, the Bible contains numerous Messianic prophecies at a rate far, far, superior to chance. That's the signature of God.

Jesus did not fulfill the Messianic prophecies that refer to the messianic age and that is one reason the Jews rejected Jesus.