The resurrection of Jesus.

[kingdombuilder]

Out of all of the supernatural claims made about Jesus, this is one that I have the hardest time with.

- With good reason as well. It is also the one that has caused a number of previous non-christians to become a christian. The original disciples also staked the entire truth claims of Christianity on this supernatural claim as well. Here is an excerpt of the original persecutor of christians, Paul, and what he had to say concerning the claim: "...He (Jesus) appeared to me also...and if Christ has not been raised (physical resurrection from the dead), then our preaching is in vain, your faith also in vain. Moreover we are even found to be false witnesses...and if Christ has not been raised, your faith is worthless..." (1 Corinthians 15:12-17).

Just to start out, I do not believe in a physical resurrection of Jesus. The reason being that it defies what we knows happen. People simply do not come back from the dead. Since it is a miracle, it is the least likely thing to occur in that situation.

- Note that you have ruled out the possibility of a miracle even before any attempt to investigate the claim has begun. In other words, you are assuming a naturalistic explanation from the beginning.

I've heard a couple of theories on explanations of how the resurrection came into the Jesus tradition. The one that I like the most, at this point, is the idea that in a time of grief, a human can have visions of the dead. We have many documented cases of this phenomena, so it is a logical possibility. It still happens to this day, and even looking at various third world countries (parts of Asia, especially underdeveloped parts of India), there have been cases in which people are believed to have come back from the dead.

The problem with this theory that I see is that multiple people having a vision of Jesus, at the same time, would be unlikely. It is somewhat of a stretch to assume that all of the visions can be explained from this phenomena, especially considering the accounts of him appearing before large groups. My only explanation for this would be something I've seen happen frequently when performing magic. That is the fact that people have a tendency to create a miracle in their minds, and honestly believe it. But I don't think that perfectly fits either.

Another interesting idea that I've considered is the possibility that Jesus did survive the crucifixion. However, just knowing what the crucifixion entailed, I am more apt to believe that he was left on the cross, and later picked apart by scavenging animals.

- Good to at least see that you have considered some of the problems with the above explanations. Yet again, note your following question and the underlying assumption it presents.

So what is the most likely explanation for the resurrection of Jesus?

-That Jesus is who He and his original disciples (after his death) claimed to be.

- Have you also considered that Jerusalem at that time would also be the most unlikey place for a man-god resurrection myth to begin and the original believers in that "myth" the most unlikely people to believe and claim it?
-Additionally, all the opponets of the "myth" had to do was produce the physical body of Jesus since it was only 3 days later that the claim of his resurrection was beginning to spread.

See other responses in red above.

 

[Blackdog22]

@ FallingBlood,

I have always had a theory. It was said that Jesus' appearance changed, his face even changed. So much so that the disciples did not know who he was, Thomas refused to believe Jesus was who he said he was because he looked so different unless he could see the holes in his hands. If Jesus had come in as a mighty glowing presence of Holy Fire I would imagine they would know it was him and his facial characteristics wouldn't of changed. Why would Jesus change his face? To confuse them?

I would think that Jesus had this planned from the beginning. He spoke with the religious leaders in the temple as he grew up and learned all there is to know about the Bible. Rather odd seeing as he supposedly wrote it.

I think he then set out to find someone who looked like him. I think Jesus, the man, died. I think he looked different because he was different. The man the disciples saw , I believe, wasn't Jesus at all. I think this man had his hands nailed weeks before the crucifiction. I think this was possibly planned by many people with different motivations. I think the guards could of possibly been in on it, his mother loved him so much she followed him or he persuaded her. Getting 12 people to believe a lie isn't so hard as we have seen over the centuries. Hitler made millions of people believe a lie.


I think there motivations could have been to bring forth the prophesies that are spoken of in the Old Testament. No one can be sure of his motive exactly if this was the case. Perhaps the Old Testaments teachings were so atrocious that he felt the need to erase them in some way, and he needed people to believe this so they would throw it away in favor of something better.

All I know is, the whole thing stinks to me.

 

[Misty]

@ FallingBlood,

I have always had a theory. It was said that Jesus' appearance changed, his face even changed. So much so that the disciples did not know who he was, Thomas refused to believe Jesus was who he said he was because he looked so different unless he could see the holes in his hands. If Jesus had come in as a mighty glowing presence of Holy Fire I would imagine they would know it was him and his facial characteristics wouldn't of changed. Why would Jesus change his face? To confuse them?

I would think that Jesus had this planned from the beginning. He spoke with the religious leaders in the temple as he grew up and learned all there is to know about the Bible. Rather odd seeing as he supposedly wrote it.

I think he then set out to find someone who looked like him. I think Jesus, the man, died. I think he looked different because he was different. The man the disciples saw , I believe, wasn't Jesus at all. I think this man had his hands nailed weeks before the crucifiction. I think this was possibly planned by many people with different motivations. I think the guards could of possibly been in on it, his mother loved him so much she followed him or he persuaded her. Getting 12 people to believe a lie isn't so hard as we have seen over the centuries. Hitler made millions of people believe a lie.


I think there motivations could have been to bring forth the prophesies that are spoken of in the Old Testament. No one can be sure of his motive exactly if this was the case. Perhaps the Old Testaments teachings were so atrocious that he felt the need to erase them in some way, and he needed people to believe this so they would throw it away in favor of something better.

All I know is, the whole thing stinks to me.

Interesting theory.

 

[fallingblood]

@ FallingBlood,

I have always had a theory. It was said that Jesus' appearance changed, his face even changed. So much so that the disciples did not know who he was, Thomas refused to believe Jesus was who he said he was because he looked so different unless he could see the holes in his hands. If Jesus had come in as a mighty glowing presence of Holy Fire I would imagine they would know it was him and his facial characteristics wouldn't of changed. Why would Jesus change his face? To confuse them?

I would think that Jesus had this planned from the beginning. He spoke with the religious leaders in the temple as he grew up and learned all there is to know about the Bible. Rather odd seeing as he supposedly wrote it.

I think he then set out to find someone who looked like him. I think Jesus, the man, died. I think he looked different because he was different. The man the disciples saw , I believe, wasn't Jesus at all. I think this man had his hands nailed weeks before the crucifiction. I think this was possibly planned by many people with different motivations. I think the guards could of possibly been in on it, his mother loved him so much she followed him or he persuaded her. Getting 12 people to believe a lie isn't so hard as we have seen over the centuries. Hitler made millions of people believe a lie.


I think there motivations could have been to bring forth the prophesies that are spoken of in the Old Testament. No one can be sure of his motive exactly if this was the case. Perhaps the Old Testaments teachings were so atrocious that he felt the need to erase them in some way, and he needed people to believe this so they would throw it away in favor of something better.

All I know is, the whole thing stinks to me.

I agree with Misty that it is an interesting theory. It reminds me somewhat of Frank Peretti's book, Visitation.

 

[fallingblood]

With good reason as well. It is also the one that has caused a number of previous non-christians to become a christian. The original disciples also staked the entire truth claims of Christianity on this supernatural claim as well. Here is an excerpt of the original persecutor of christians, Paul, and what he had to say concerning the claim: "...He (Jesus) appeared to me also...and if Christ has not been raised (physical resurrection from the dead), then our preaching is in vain, your faith also in vain. Moreover we are even found to be false witnesses...and if Christ has not been raised, your faith is worthless..." (1 Corinthians 15:12-17).

Paul also stated that without the general resurrection, there was no resurrection of Jesus. Paul believed the end was near, and I would argue that he was awaiting the general resurrection, as he believed that the resurrection of Jesus was a signal of its beginning.

Note that you have ruled out the possibility of a miracle even before any attempt to investigate the claim has begun. In other words, you are assuming a naturalistic explanation from the beginning.

I definitely do have a bias here. I should accept that there is a chance that a miracle did happen (by definition though, it is the least likely thing to happen, but it could be possible). It would probably have been better for me to accept the possibility that Jesus truly was resurrected, but I do have a clear bias. I just can't see it being true. If it could be shown to be true, I would accept it, most likely. But as of now, it is something I dismiss as myth. It may not be the best approach to the subject, and I admit that. But I would prefer to find a naturalistic explanation.

I am open to supernatural explanations, or at least I won't attack them much, but honestly, I don't see myself accepting one. As I said, I do have a bias on this subject.

Good to at least see that you have considered some of the problems with the above explanations. Yet again, note your following question and the underlying assumption it presents.

I can agree that the most likely explanation may not be the correct explanation. But I think I would put more credibility into it.

 

[waitasec]

1 Corinthians 15:50

I declare to you, brothers, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God, nor does the perishable inherit the imperishable.

so why was jc's body missing? wasn't it supposed to be the soul that resurrected?

 

[dogsgod]

1 Corinthians 15:50

I declare to you, brothers, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God, nor does the perishable inherit the imperishable.

so why was jc's body missing? wasn't it supposed to be the soul that resurrected?

An empty tomb makes for good story telling.

 

[fallingblood]

1 Corinthians 15:50

I declare to you, brothers, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God, nor does the perishable inherit the imperishable.

so why was jc's body missing? wasn't it supposed to be the soul that resurrected?

The Jewish belief, or one of them, was that it would be a bodily resurrection. So in context, it makes sense.

 

[waitasec]

The Jewish belief, or one of them, was that it would be a bodily resurrection. So in context, it makes sense.

the pretext was the set up for a spiritual resurrection, makes no sense really.
his body was missing...

 

[fallingblood]

the pretext was the set up for a spiritual resurrection, makes no sense really.
his body was missing...

It makes perfect sense. You are assuming that the Kingdom of God is heaven.

When Jesus was resurrected, as by definition, his life was restored. A soul does not resurrect. It is the body that does so. That is from the definition of the word.

 

[fallingblood]

the pretext was the set up for a spiritual resurrection, makes no sense really.
his body was missing...

Also, the pretext also sets up the idea for a physical resurrection. Taking the whole passage in context, it makes a lot of sense.

We see that the whole idea is that the body, after the resurrection is changed. That after the resurrection, the physical body becomes a spiritual body. The perishable body becomes an imperishable body. We are told clearly that the body will be changed.

So no, the context of the passage does not suggest a spiritual resurrection in the idea that only the soul is resurrected. It supports the idea of a physical resurrection which changes the body into a spiritual body, and imperishable body.

 

[waitasec]

Also, the pretext also sets up the idea for a physical resurrection. Taking the whole passage in context, it makes a lot of sense.

We see that the whole idea is that the body, after the resurrection is changed. That after the resurrection, the physical body becomes a spiritual body. The perishable body becomes an imperishable body. We are told clearly that the body will be changed.

So no, the context of the passage does not suggest a spiritual resurrection in the idea that only the soul is resurrected. It supports the idea of a physical resurrection which changes the body into a spiritual body, and imperishable body.

1 Corinthians 15:50

I declare to you, brothers, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God, nor does the perishable inherit the imperishable.

so why was jc's body missing? wasn't it supposed to be the soul that resurrected?

makes no sense

 

[fallingblood]

makes no sense

That's because you're not reading the entire passage. You took it out of context and tried to use it to support your idea. That simply doesn't work. I've explained why your idea was wrong.

 

[DavyCrocket2003]

fallingblood,
In order to reason with a person, it is imperative that they believe God's inspired word, The Holy Bible. If you do not it is impossible to prove anything, because every person can come up with some explanation of anything, no matter how unreasonable it may seem to us. No person's word has any weight, except when reading and explaining God's word.

Hmm... That doesn't make sense to me. So the only reason I should believe the Bible is because the Bible says that I should? And the only way to reason with someone is if they believe in the Bible? Besides, the Bible is not infallible. I mean, where did we get the Bible? The Bible as we know it only came into existence recently. If belief in God etc. requires a prior belief of the Bible, what did people do before there was a Bible?

 

[logician]

I do believe there were physical resurrection cults around the time the gospels were written that lead to the literalist belief in a physical risen Christ (and also the story of Lazarus). Odd that nobody has been ressurected from the dead in that way since.

 

[waitasec]

That's because you're not reading the entire passage. You took it out of context and tried to use it to support your idea. That simply doesn't work. I've explained why your idea was wrong.

oh please explain the context, if you know it....
maybe you should read the whole passage before making any assumptions

 

[Autodidact]

fallingblood,
In order to reason with a person, it is imperative that they believe God's inspired word, The Holy Bible.

Just want to stop you right there. Your position is that if a person does not believe all the silly, ridiculous, absurd stories in the Bible, then it is not possible for you to reason with them? Is that right?

 

[fallingblood]

oh please explain the context, if you know it....
maybe you should read the whole passage before making any assumptions

I did, and I did. Here it is again:

Also, the pretext also sets up the idea for a physical resurrection. Taking the whole passage in context, it makes a lot of sense.

We see that the whole idea is that the body, after the resurrection is changed. That after the resurrection, the physical body becomes a spiritual body. The perishable body becomes an imperishable body. We are told clearly that the body will be changed.

So no, the context of the passage does not suggest a spiritual resurrection in the idea that only the soul is resurrected. It supports the idea of a physical resurrection which changes the body into a spiritual body, and imperishable body.

 

[Evandr]

So what is the most likely explanation for the resurrection of Jesus?

Either you believe it happened or you don't, it's really that simple. As For me I believe it happened because it fits as a necessary part of what I understand to be a much greater plan; you have to step back and consider things from an eternal perspective, if a person believes that God created life from the dust of the earth then raising someone from the dead is really not that hard to accept. Understanding the details of how such a thing happens is not relevant to someone who sees it as a part of a greater plan, a plan that can be understood once belligerence and pride is put aside and a person opens themselves to being taught. It's really a marvelous experience that is enjoyed be millions leaving the rest to debate the issue, often coming to conclusions that don't change a thing other than to maybe appease the ego of the individuals who thinks they got the last word in.

 

[fallingblood]

oh please explain the context, if you know it....
maybe you should read the whole passage before making any assumptions

Just to make sure that there is no doubt though, I will go more in depth.

First, 1 Corinthians 15:4 (that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures) recaps what Paul believed of the resurrection of Jesus. First, we see no suggestion of a spiritual resurrection. He says he was raised.

There is one point that must be addressed right away though. He says according to the Scriptures. Looking at what Paul said about the resurrection, we have to go to Acts. Now, Acts was not written by Paul, but it gives us very good information about the early Jesus movement. Acts 13:35 (So it is stated elsewhere: " 'You will not let your Holy One see decay.') directs us to what scripture is being referenced. It is Psalms 16:10 (because you will not abandon me to the grave, nor will you let your Holy One see decay.) that is being referenced.

What is key here is that a soul does not decay. A human body decays. So Paul is saying that Jesus was raised in order so that he would not decay. The implication here is a physical body resurrection. Acts goes into more detail about this (Acts 13:36-37- "For when David had served God's purpose in his own generation, he fell asleep; he was buried with his fathers and his body decayed. But the one whom God raised from the dead did not see decay.). What we know from this is that the early Jesus movement believed a bodily resurrection, a physical resurrection.

Now, we know that Psalms 16:10 does not actually refer to Jesus, but as was common for the early Christian writers, they searched the scriptures in order to support the ideas that they believed. So what we are seeing here is what the early Jesus movement believed, what Paul believed.

We can now examine the direct context of the passage you quoted, 1 Corinthians 15:50 (I declare to you, brothers, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God, nor does the perishable inherit the imperishable.) Let's first take the idea of the perishable not inheriting the imperishable. 1 Corinthians 15:42 (So will it be with the resurrection of the dead. The body that is sown is perishable, it is raised imperishable) explains this more. We are clearly being told that the resurrection is taking our perishable body and making it imperishable. It is a changing that occurs, as we are told in 1 Corinthians 15:51 (For the trumpet will sound, the dead will be raised imperishable, and we will be changed.). What Paul is telling us is quite simple. Our perishable bodies, that which is made of flesh and blood, can not inherit the kingdom of God, the imperishable. So something has to be done, a change must occur. That change is that we must become imperishable. We are told that when the dead are resurrected, they are resurrected imperishable. 1 Corinthians 15:42 clearly shows that this is a resurrection of the body.

1 Corinthians 15:44 (it is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body.) makes a very good point in this. We see talk of a spiritual body. However, we know by 1 Corinthians 15:42-43, that this is still the same body. The difference is that it has been changed. It is no longer perishable, it is no longer weak, it is no longer dishonorable.

So just looking at the context of what is being said, we can see that what Paul is referring to is a physical body, that when it is resurrected, changes. It is no longer perishable (no longer flesh and blood) and thus can enter into the Kingdom of God. There is no suggestion that he is talking about a soul.

We also see his view on the resurrection of Jesus earlier in 1 Corinthians 15, which makes it even more clear that Paul is speaking of a bodily resurrection.

But there is more to this argument. If we look at this in a historical context, we see that Paul most definitely would have believed in a physical resurrection. Paul states that he was a Pharisee (Philippians 3:4-6- If anyone else thinks he has reasons to put confidence in the flesh, I have more: circumcised on the eighth day, of the people of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew of Hebrews; in regard to the law, a Pharisee; as for zeal, persecuting the church; as for legalistic righteousness, faultless.). The reason this is important is because of the Pharisees believed in a bodily resurrection.

Taking all of this into consideration, there really is no support to the idea that Paul believed that the resurrection referred to the soul. It is clear that it referred to the body.