The resurrection of Jesus.

[Muffled]

Here is the whole story of Jesus(PBUH) resurrection

Allah(God) says:
"And when Allah said: ‘O Jesus! I will take you and lift you up to Me, and purify you of those who disbelieve, and will make those who followed you above those who disbelieved until the Day of Resurrection. Then to Me shall you all return, and I shall judge between you in that which you dispute.’" (3:54,55)
Then He said in Chapter The Women (An-Nisa)':
"For their breaking the covenant, and their disbelief in Allah ’s Signs, and their slaying the Prophets unjustly, and for their saying: 'Our hearts are impermeable'. No, but Allah has set a seal upon them for their blasphemy, so little it is what they believe. And for their rejection to the Faith, and for their uttering against Mary a monstrous lie." (4:155,156)
"And for their saying (in boast): 'We killed Messiah, Jesus the son of Mary, the Messenger of Allah'; but they killed him not nor crucified him. Only a likeness of that was shown to them. And those who differ therein are full of doubt with no certain knowledge, but only follow mere conjecture, for of a surety they killed him not. But Allah lifted him up to Him, and Allah is All-Mighty, All-Wise. And there is none of the people of the Book, but will believe in him before his death, and on the Day of Judgment, he will be a witness against them." (4:157-159)

This is not the full story since it is from the Qu'ran and most of the story is in the Bible.

This starts out with the departure of Jesus from earth saying that Jesus will return and at that time there will be a general resurrection of the dead. This is also reported in the BIble as the Rapture.

This is not relevant to the resurrection of Jesus from death.

This is not relevant to the OP in any way.

 

[Muffled]

how long does it say that he remained in the tomb?

Technically three days however two of those days; Friday and Sunday were partial days.

 

[sniper762]

very, very partial. the prophesy said 3 days and 3 nights but the scriptures only point to 1 day and 2 nights.

 

[Muffled]

very, very partial. the prophesy said 3 days and 3 nights but the scriptures only point to 1 day and 2 nights.

It wouldn't matter becuase His wounds were sever enough so that He would not be able to resuscitate.

As for the false prophesy, it would not surprise me a bit if Jesus were deceiving the Jews who would have been quite willing to kill a resurrected Jesus if they could. Ostensibly the soldiers they posted were to guard against the disciples stealing the body because they didn't believe He would be resurrected but the fact that they sought to kill the resurrected Lazarus suggests that in the back of their minds they hadn't completely dismissed the possibility.

He tol his disciples that He would be in the grave three days and calendar days technically fulfill the prophesy.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

very, very partial. the prophesy said 3 days and 3 nights but the scriptures only point to 1 day and 2 nights.

Ever sayed at a hotel?

 

[sniper762]

muffled, he said 3 days AND 3 nights, just as jonah was in the belly of the fish.

from friday evening just before th e sabboth (when he died on the cross and was removed) until sunday morning before daybreak, the day after the sabboth). hardly 3 days and 3 nights

 

[Autodidact]

I am new to this thread so I am probably repeating something others have said.

You are looking at the reseurrection from a materialistic view. From that view you are correct people do not get resurrected naturally.

Miracles are only the least likely thing if God isn't involved.

This is easily refuted by the accont of Thomas's encounter with Jesus where he was invited to touch the body of Jesus since he was a dyed in the wool materialist and wouldn't believe any other wway.

However the surviving record says that Jesus died on the cross and was placed in a tomb.

The only reasonable explanation was that He was resurrected by the creative power of God to a physical body that would no longer age. His resurrected body was better than the original.

Yes, that's the only reasonable explanation, because people never make mistakes or anything. Also, usually people are willing and able to pass on rumors for decades from one person to the next without writing them down, and that's a reliable and accurate record.

 

[Autodidact]

Here is the whole story of Jesus(PBUH) resurrection

Allah(God) says:
"And when Allah said: ‘O Jesus! I will take you and lift you up to Me, and purify you of those who disbelieve, and will make those who followed you above those who disbelieved until the Day of Resurrection. Then to Me shall you all return, and I shall judge between you in that which you dispute.’" (3:54,55)
Then He said in Chapter The Women (An-Nisa)':
"For their breaking the covenant, and their disbelief in Allah ’s Signs, and their slaying the Prophets unjustly, and for their saying: 'Our hearts are impermeable'. No, but Allah has set a seal upon them for their blasphemy, so little it is what they believe. And for their rejection to the Faith, and for their uttering against Mary a monstrous lie." (4:155,156)
"And for their saying (in boast): 'We killed Messiah, Jesus the son of Mary, the Messenger of Allah'; but they killed him not nor crucified him. Only a likeness of that was shown to them. And those who differ therein are full of doubt with no certain knowledge, but only follow mere conjecture, for of a surety they killed him not. But Allah lifted him up to Him, and Allah is All-Mighty, All-Wise. And there is none of the people of the Book, but will believe in him before his death, and on the Day of Judgment, he will be a witness against them." (4:157-159)

Who wrote that? Were they there? Did they talk to anyone who was there?

 

[sojourner]

In the strictest historical sense, there probably was a crucifixion. However, it is much more likely that the body was either dumped in a common grave or fed to the dogs. The Resurrection may be wholly metaphorical. This is the provocative and interesting opinion of John Dominic Crossan.

 

[James Humphreys]

In the strictest historical sense, there probably was a crucifixion. However, it is much more likely that the body was either dumped in a common grave or fed to the dogs. The Resurrection may be wholly metaphorical. This is the provocative and interesting opinion of John Dominic Crossan.

I agree that there was a crucifixion. The Bible portrays the disciples as being shocked and demoralized, and mostly scattering to save their skins. It appeared to be a movement headed for an early death. But, it didn't die out. Something happened, something powerful enough convert those shaky kneed disciples into people speaking out boldly and confidently, even at the risk of their lives.

To me these were people who had become true believers, not the participants in a massive conspiracy. I think they believed they had seen, talked to, even eaten with the resurrected Jesus. Did they? I believe the resurrection was spiritual, but in large part they perceived it as being physical.

 

[Autodidact]

I agree that there was a crucifixion. The Bible portrays the disciples as being shocked and demoralized, and mostly scattering to save their skins. It appeared to be a movement headed for an early death. But, it didn't die out. Something happened, something powerful enough convert those shaky kneed disciples into people speaking out boldly and confidently, even at the risk of their lives.

I agree with this.

To me these were people who had become true believers, not the participants in a massive conspiracy. I think they believed they had seen, talked to, even eaten with the resurrected Jesus. Did they? I believe the resurrection was spiritual, but in large part they perceived it as being physical.

I think this is too big a conclusion to draw. We don't know when the resurrection part of the myth came into it. We don't know whether the disciples believed this or said they did, because we don't have their words. There's too much game-of-telegraph (or as the English call it, Chinese Whispers.)

 

[sojourner]

I agree that there was a crucifixion. The Bible portrays the disciples as being shocked and demoralized, and mostly scattering to save their skins. It appeared to be a movement headed for an early death. But, it didn't die out. Something happened, something powerful enough convert those shaky kneed disciples into people speaking out boldly and confidently, even at the risk of their lives.

To me these were people who had become true believers, not the participants in a massive conspiracy. I think they believed they had seen, talked to, even eaten with the resurrected Jesus. Did they? I believe the resurrection was spiritual, but in large part they perceived it as being physical.

For the ancient Jews, the spiritual and physical were one thing, not separated things as the Greeks held. Ultimately Xy followed the Greek, not Hebrew philosophy.

 

[fallingblood]

You are looking at the reseurrection from a materialistic view. From that view you are correct people do not get resurrected naturally.

I'm looking at it in a rational point of view. The resurrection of Jesus would have been a miracle. By definition, is the least likely event to occur. It does not have to be supernatural though. It just is highly improbable.

Miracles are only the least likely thing if God isn't involved.

They are, by definition, the least likely. Even if God is involved, the event is still highly improbable. God being involved does not change it.

This is easily refuted by the accont of Thomas's encounter with Jesus where he was invited to touch the body of Jesus since he was a dyed in the wool materialist and wouldn't believe any other wway.

The thing with the account of Thomas though is that it most likely never happened. We are looking at the Gospel of John, that was written, by most accounts at earliest 95 C.E. It is the most theological Gospel as well, which has to be taken into consideration.

We only have one mention of this event with Thomas. That in itself suggests that it may not have happened. More so, it is in the oldest canonical Gospel, making it even less likely. Looking at the historical context, there is also a logical reason as to why the author/s of John would add this account. At the same time of John, the Gospel of Thomas was also circulating. John was then belittling the Gospel of Thomas, trying to discredit it. So no, what I suggested is not easily refuted. There are many reasons to believe that the account of Thomas in John is a fabrication.

However the surviving record says that Jesus died on the cross and was placed in a tomb.

The surviving records also contradicts itself many times. More so, the surviving record was written some 30 years after the fact. And it was not written as strictly as a biographical account. It had theological implications as well. So since the authors were detached from the events, did not intend to write just biographical accounts, the surviving record can't always be trusted.

The only reasonable explanation was that He was resurrected by the creative power of God to a physical body that would no longer age. His resurrected body was better than the original.

How is it reasonable?

 

[fallingblood]

how long does it say that he remained in the tomb?

3 days. One just has to take into consideration Jewish customs. The accounts were written by Jews, Jesus was a Jew. Jewish customs must be taken into consideration.

 

[fallingblood]

It wouldn't matter becuase His wounds were sever enough so that He would not be able to resuscitate.

We really can't say that for sure. We know from Josephus that in fact, there was one victim who survived crucifixion. So it is possible to do so. Now, in the case of Jesus, we don't fully know how bad the flogging one. There is a suggestion that it overly severe; however, we can not say this for definite.

As for the false prophesy, it would not surprise me a bit if Jesus were deceiving the Jews who would have been quite willing to kill a resurrected Jesus if they could. Ostensibly the soldiers they posted were to guard against the disciples stealing the body because they didn't believe He would be resurrected but the fact that they sought to kill the resurrected Lazarus suggests that in the back of their minds they hadn't completely dismissed the possibility.

Jesus was a Jew. His followers were Jews. The Jews did not put Jesus to death. The Jews, most likely, from what we know about their overall opinion of different sects, especially ones similar to Jesus's, they would not have had much of a problem with Jesus.

There is no reason to assume the Jews would have wanted to kill a resurrected Jesus. The Romans, who killed Jesus, most likely would have though.

More so, there is little reason to assume that their was a soldier present at the tomb. We see this only in one Gospel. That itself suggests that it didn't happen. In addition though, there is a logical reason as to why it was added to just one Gospel. There was most likely rumors that the body of Jesus had been stolen. So in order to dispel these rumors, the story of the guard was fabricated.

 

[sniper762]

well, can you explain the 3 days and 3 nights, even with jewish customs?

 

[Rainbow Mage]

"And for their saying (in boast): 'We killed Messiah, Jesus the son of Mary, the Messenger of Allah'; but they killed him not nor crucified him. Only a likeness of that was shown to them. And those who differ therein are full of doubt with no certain knowledge, but only follow mere conjecture, for of a surety they killed him not. But Allah lifted him up to Him, and Allah is All-Mighty, All-Wise. And there is none of the people of the Book, but will believe in him before his death, and on the Day of Judgment, he will be a witness against them." (4:157-159)

That might be so, but then again the Quran was written 600+ years after the fact, so a book that far removed from the actual event calling the belief of Jesus' death "mere conjecture to follow" is sort of humorous.

 

[fallingblood]

well, can you explain the 3 days and 3 nights, even with jewish customs?

Yes. According to Jewish customs, any part of the day, was included as part of the full day.

Now, you are simply taking just Matthew on this account. If we look at Mark, which Matthew used as a source, we see that it was simply 3 days. We also see this in Luke, and Acts. So you have to explain why Matthew happens to be more correct.

 

[sniper762]

parts of 3 days, custoomarily or otherwise does not equate to this "specific" time frame

Matthew 12:40
For as Jonas was three days and three nights in the whale's belly; so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.

 

[fallingblood]

parts of 3 days, custoomarily or otherwise does not equate to this "specific" time frame

Matthew 12:40
For as Jonas was three days and three nights in the whale's belly; so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.

Actually, parts of 3 days do equate to the specific time frame according to the other Gospels. Again, why is Matthew better than the other Gospels? Why is Matthew, which was written later, and used Mark as a source, better than the other Gospels? Can you explain that?