The Resurrection: Why does it matter?

[PruePhillip]

It seems to me that the bodily resurrection of Jesus is a matter of great concern for both Christians and atheists. Since there has been so much discussion about the resurrection on this forum, I thought now would be a good time to ask:

1. Why does it matter so much to so many people if Jesus rose from the dead?
2. What is the significance of the bodily resurrection of Jesus?
3. Why is the bodily resurrection so vital to Christianity?
4. Why couldn’t Christianity exist without the resurrection?

I might be sorry I posted this thread; I often am, after I get a boatload of posts to respond to, but I am just dying to find out why because I do not understand why. There has to be a reason or reasons and I need to know what they are. I probably won’t agree with everyone, but at least I will know what others think or believe.

I could just blow it off as something I do not believe ever happened and go with the Baha’i explanation of what the resurrection means, but this is too important of an issue to sweep under the carpet. Besides, I find the Baha’i explanation wanting because it does not really explain why so much was written about the resurrection in the NT, as if it really happened.

It matters for this reason: if Jesus really was resurrected then it speaks to the
hope that WE could be resurrected.

 

[PruePhillip]

Saul was a phony.* He hijacked what someone else started,
the way Brigham Young did with LDS.

*see his snake story, for an obvious lie.

Snake story????
I don't see daylight between what Jesus said and what Paul wrote.
And I don't see much difference between what Peter wrote and
Paul wrote, or Jesus' brother James or the unknown author of
Hebrews.

 

[leov]

It seems to me that the bodily resurrection of Jesus is a matter of great concern for both Christians and atheists. Since there has been so much discussion about the resurrection on this forum, I thought now would be a good time to ask:

1. Why does it matter so much to so many people if Jesus rose from the dead?
2. What is the significance of the bodily resurrection of Jesus?
3. Why is the bodily resurrection so vital to Christianity?
4. Why couldn’t Christianity exist without the resurrection?

I might be sorry I posted this thread; I often am, after I get a boatload of posts to respond to, but I am just dying to find out why because I do not understand why. There has to be a reason or reasons and I need to know what they are. I probably won’t agree with everyone, but at least I will know what others think

I could just blow it off as something I do not believe ever happened and go with the Baha’i explanation of what the resurrection means, but this is too important of an issue to sweep under the carpet. Besides, I find the Baha’i explanation wanting because it does not really explain why so much was written about the resurrection in the NT, as if it really happened.

Christianity divided in two natures, soul and spirit (1 Cor 2). Paul mentioned two 'densities' , soul density is to be 'resurrected' into spiritual nature, this is resurrection of (spiritually) dead (see 1 Cor 15). Bodily resurrection is for soul natures as they are not capable to grasp spiritual resurrection Early Christianity was Gnostic based and they understood soul-spirit division , then Gnostic (spiritual)side was buried by soul types. Christ Jesus is
Archetype of soul nature (mortal) becoming immortal spiritual nature.

 

[Audie]

Snake story????
I don't see daylight between what Jesus said and what Paul wrote.
And I don't see much difference between what Peter wrote and
Paul wrote, or Jesus' brother James or the unknown author of
Hebrews.

You know your bible and yet have not seen the snake story?

 

[Brickjectivity]

Saul was a phony.* He hijacked what someone else started,
the way Brigham Young did with LDS.

*see his snake story, for an obvious lie.

Its debatable, because we don't know if Paul is just one author or several. Also its likely his writing is seditious. That is one possible explanation for his layered meanings.

 

[Trailblazer]

You're arguing against other religions on here; if you not willing to even study their topic, whilst pushing your agenda, this is trolling, bullying, and proselytising.

No, I am not arguing against other religions on here. I am discussing other religions with other religious people. I stopped arguing years ago because I realized it is arrogant and egotistical to argue, since the only purpose of arguing is to prove you are right and someone else is wrong. I have no need to do that.

I have no agenda so I cannot be pushing my agenda. I simply have a religion I believe in and I am not pushing it on anyone.

 

[Audie]

Its debatable, because we don't know if Paul is just one author or several. Also its likely his writing is seditious. That is one possible explanation for his layered meanings.

"Layered" is a euphemism for bs?

 

[Trailblazer]

Maybe Christianity does exist for 2000 years, without the resurrection (after all it is hard to prove this now, 2000 years later)

That's true, but it was the belief that I was talking about.

Could Christianity exist without the belief in the bodily resurrection?
I think it could still exist, since there are Christians who do not believe Jesus rose from the grave.

But just think about how different Christianity would be if no Christians believed that Jesus rose from the grave.
One thing that would be very different is that Christians would not be waiting for Jesus to return.

 

[Trailblazer]

To follow just an ordinary human being is not so special
It is more special (in the mind) for humans to follow special people

Ordinary people generally don't arise after being declared dead
Someone declared dead coming alive is special in ordinary people's view

So, to me it's easy to understand why "bodily resurrection" is so vital to humans

I am an ordinary person and I do not think there is anything "special" about someone rising from the dead, even if it was possible, which I do not think it is. Logically speaking, even if a body rose from the grave, it would ultimately have to die because all physical things die eventually. So what is all the fuss about?

I guess it is vital to most people because they consider the body important and they believe they cannot exist without a physical body. It is not vital to me because I do not believe that the physical body is who we are; I believe that the soul is our person which will continue to exist after we die. We need a body only while we are alive in the physical world, in order for the soul to express itself.

 

[PruePhillip]

Its debatable, because we don't know if Paul is just one author or several. Also its likely his writing is seditious. That is one possible explanation for his layered meanings.

Certainly to the Jews he was "seditious"

 

[CG Didymus]

This is the line Christians use to try and justify the ‘falseness’ of others religions. Only Jesus rose from the dead so other religions may have nice teachings they say but they are not equal to Jesus.


So i believe it makes them feel ‘superior ‘ and ‘greater’ than any other religion

Was Jesus the only one that rose from the dead?

There were many religions and many gods in the ancient world. Many of them have been called ‘dying and rising gods’ because it is said that the legends about them include their death and resurrection. Examples include Mithras, Dionysus (Bacchus), Attis, Osiris, Horus, Tammuz, Adonis, Persephone and Orpheus. (Sometimes the same god appears under different names in different cultures and languages.) These religions were followed in Graeco-Roman world in the period of about 500 BCE to 400 CE, but the Egyptian myths of Osiris and Horus go back 2000 years before that.​

I do think that early Christians believed that Jesus rose physically from the dead. What would be the point of his spirit rising, anybody could do that. Or, anybody could say that, because who would have seen a spirit rising. But the supposed eyewitnesses saw Jesus and one touched him. They NT claim is that he was alive and the tomb was empty... no dead body left behind.

If Jesus did rise from the dead, and he is the only way to get your sins forgiven, then Jesus is superior to everyone else. And, I think that is exactly what the NT teaches. But, I think there is a very good argument that it was made up. That it never happened. That the early Christians embellished the story to make Jesus superior than any other god/man from the other pagan religions. However, if that's true, then Christianity is the biggest religious hoax ever. And Baha'is can't have that. So now, is the Baha'i explanation the real deal, or just a made up hoax?

To say it was symbolic and has spiritual meaning doesn't make it any different than any of the pagan Gods that died and rose. They were all symbolic too... but the story had great spiritual meaning. But those God/men we call mythological. But Jesus, even though his resurrection story is believed to be fictional, Baha'is call him a manifestation of God... along with Adam, Noah, Abraham, Moses... who might be totally mythical characters. But, even if they really did exist, a large part of the story of their lives is probably fictional. Unless you're a born-again literal believing Christian, then those stories are literally true also. So what's the big deal if they believe Jesus rose from the dead? That's just one of many things they believe is true that other people might not.

 

[Brickjectivity]

Certainly to the Jews he was "seditious"

The Roman government was what I was referring to. That would kill anyone it suspected of undermining the government, non-citizens often by crucifixion.

"Layered" is a euphemism for bs?

BSing the Roman authorities. Suppose you're living in that part of the world where the Romans are, and you want to make a positive difference without getting yourself killed. You have movement, but you're not allowed to speak openly about things. Maybe you come up with a different way to communicate that looks to Roman authorities as Jewish religious babble, writings that won't get you put into jail. I'm not claiming to know this is the situation. I'm saying its a fair possibility.

 

[blü 2]

Puck up a Bible and read the passage carefully. Read Matthew's version.

Yes, it's necessary to pick one version of the bible's six accounts of the resurrection, since each one of the six contradicts the other five on major points.

After Jesus dies, graves literally open up, and previous saints start walking. Then Jesus himself rises. Then the guard is instructed to tell an official stoey about this incident.

In other words, the resurrection is not just Jesus coming back, a sort of "huh the Romans couldn't kill someone" it was a MAJOR upheaval in state power.

It'd be reasonable to expect that the citizens of Jerusalem, seeing the faithful Christian dead out and about on the streets of the city, would have said, Wow! and jotted a note in their diaries or reports, or sent letters to their distant friends. But Paul doesn't mention it, twenty or more years after the crucifixion, and the author of Mark doesn't mention it forty-five years or more after the crucifixion, and the author of Luke doesn't mention it say fifty-five years after the crucifixion (even though he's contemporary with Matthew's author), and the author of John doesn't mention it say seventy years after the crucifixion.

And on first principles, it's not at all credible anyway, is it? Far more likely that it's a fictional embellishment, no?

Why do you pay taxes?

Because Mark's Jesus said "Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's?

And as you know from history, if there was an historical Jesus, and if he was crucified by the Romans, it was an event of minimal importance at the time, such that no one noticed ─ not a single contemporary report anywhere. With or without a resurrection.

 

[PruePhillip]

And as you know from history, if there was an historical Jesus, and if he was crucified by the Romans, it was an event of minimal importance at the time, such that no one noticed ─ not a single contemporary report anywhere. With or without a resurrection.

Correct. He was killed as a common criminal.
But it clearly was a Big Deal at the time. But the Jews were not
going to give the oxygen of publicity to this event. Made no difference,
Jesus' death, like His birth, meant Nothing to the Jews - but the Gentiles
became Christian, and the Jews were killed, enslaved or exiled for 2,000
years.

 

[Riders]

It seems to me that the bodily resurrection of Jesus is a matter of great concern for both Christians and atheists. Since there has been so much discussion about the resurrection on this forum, I thought now would be a good time to ask:

1. Why does it matter so much to so many people if Jesus rose from the dead?
2. What is the significance of the bodily resurrection of Jesus?
3. Why is the bodily resurrection so vital to Christianity?
4. Why couldn’t Christianity exist without the resurrection?

I might be sorry I posted this thread; I often am, after I get a boatload of posts to respond to, but I am just dying to find out why because I do not understand why. There has to be a reason or reasons and I need to know what they are. I probably won’t agree with everyone, but at least I will know what others think or believe.

I could just blow it off as something I do not believe ever happened and go with the Baha’i explanation of what the resurrection means, but this is too important of an issue to sweep under the carpet. Besides, I find the Baha’i explanation wanting because it does not really explain why so much was written about the resurrection in the NT, as if it really happened.

To me I am bothered by the fact Christians make a big deal over scientific evidence of the body being scene and physical resurrection, because they seem to be content to be focused on the flesh of the body instead of the message Jesus taught.

All the I am gonna prove that science and history proves Jesus rose from the dead, he rose in his stabbed out body bleeding to death apparently God magically wiped away the wounds and blood if he had not Jesus was just a meat sack when dead. But then to focus and try to worship the idea of him being raised from the dead and to go over scripture over and over about his death and resurrection, comes across to me as a vampire blood cult.

 

[InChrist]

Thanks for sharing. The following is what I believe. In 1 Corinthians 15:12-22, Paul was referring to a spiritual resurrection. That Jesus was raised up means His spirit was resurrected; brought back to life. If Christ’s spirit was not brought back to life, then your faith would be in vain and you would still be in your sins. 22 For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive means that all shall be made spiritually alive, not physically rise and be alive in bodies. That does not mean Jesus’ soul (spirit) was brought back to life (because the soul cannot die, so it does not need to be brought back to life); it means that the Cause of Christ (what He taught and represented) were brought back to life after three days... Had it NOT been brought back to life you would still be in your sins because it was the Cause of Christ that needed to be brought back to life in order to save people from their sins. People needed to get the Gospel message that Jesus taught and the disciples needed to carry that far and wide. Their faith in Jesus needed to be renewed (resurrected) after Jesus had died and the disciples lost all hope.

I do not believe that a physical body can come back to life after three days; that goes against all that is known by science.

The fact that it goes against science or at least human understanding is what demonstrates that it was an event God alone orchestrated. Only God the Creator of life can bring the dead back to life. Jesus made a point of telling the disciples that He was not a spirit, but literally risen flesh and bones. ( Luke 24: 38-39).

 

[Samantha Rinne]

Yes, it's necessary to pick one version of the bible's six accounts of the resurrection, since each one of the six contradicts the other five on major points.
It'd be reasonable to expect that the citizens of Jerusalem, seeing the faithful Christian dead out and about on the streets of the city, would have said, Wow! and jotted a note in their diaries or reports, or sent letters to their distant friends. But Paul doesn't mention it, twenty or more years after the crucifixion, and the author of Mark doesn't mention it forty-five years or more after the crucifixion, and the author of Luke doesn't mention it say fifty-five years after the crucifixion (even though he's contemporary with Matthew's author), and the author of John doesn't mention it say seventy years after the crucifixion.

And on first principles, it's not at all credible anyway, is it? Far more likely that it's a fictional embellishment, no?
Because Mark's Jesus said "Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's?

And as you know from history, if there was an historical Jesus, and if he was crucified by the Romans, it was an event of minimal importance at the time, such that no one noticed ─ not a single contemporary report anywhere. With or without a resurrection.

You're picking apart the argument, rather than reading it as a whole. The reason the resurrection is relevant is that it undermines state power. The reason Jesus was crucified, was that the Jews and Romans believed he threatened their power. This core truth, while the six resurrection details are different, is key to understanding why the resurrection is important.

Lastly, you (don't blame yourself, few people understand) completely missed the point of this phrase.

Render Unto Caesar: A Most Misunderstood New Testament Passage - LewRockwell LewRockwell.com

...Thus, J. Spencer Kennard argues that the denarius' circulation in Judaea was likely scarce. The only people to transact routinely with the denarius in Judaea would have been soldiers, Roman officials, and Jewish leaders in collaboration with Rome. Thus, it is noteworthy that Jesus, Himself, does not possess the coin. The questioners' quickness to produce the coin at Jesus' request implies that they routinely used it, taking advantage of Roman financial largess, whereas Jesus did not.

"Pay unto Caesar what is his, and to God what is his" was phrased to sound good to the Romans. But it was actually a very clever thing to say. You see, first, when he asked for the coin, the argument was already over. The Jewish priests had the Roman denarii (they were in the pocket of Rome) while those being asked to pay taxes typically had shekels. Second, the denarii was a religiously obscene object that the priests should not have held in the first place, neither brought inside the temple because it describes Tiberius as a god. In other words, paying taxes here is idol worship ("whose image and inscription is on this coin" refers back to the Ten Commandments on graven images along with the Deuteronomic command to inscribe the name of God several places). Lastly, what is Caesar's under Jewish law? Virtually nothing. What is God's? Everything. Pay the worthless fiat money if you want, but don't take it seriously.

Payment of taxes is not an obligation that Jesus prescribed. It is one that he paid lip service to, while telling the real Jews to decide for themselves. If God has power over life and death, we need not fear the nonpayment of taxes. We need not fear anything. And that is dangerous to a government.

No serious historian doubts Jesus's existence.

As for the minimal importance, many things seem to be of minimal importance at the time, such that people might not record them in history books. For example, it is of minimal importance that some crank in Mecca tells people there to stop worshiping their gods and instead only respect his. Is it of minimal importance today? One hundred years later, when Romans were now martyring Christians among both Jews and their own population of Romans (in addition to their colonies like Gaul), suddenly these Christians were a nuisance.

Not only the Jews (Babylonian Talmud, though it's not flattering) but several other non-Christians mention Jesus.

 

[Trailblazer]

To me I am bothered by the fact Christians make a big deal over scientific evidence of the body being scene and physical resurrection, because they seem to be content to be focused on the flesh of the body instead of the message Jesus taught.

This is what bothers me the most. Christians focus so much on the resurrection that they lose sight of what Jesus taught. I am sure that Jesus would not be pleased with His followers worshiping His body. What I see Christians doing is the opposite of what Jesus taught, worshiping the a physical body of Jesus, which is flesh, instead of focusing on His Words, which are Spirit and which confer eternal life on the soul.

John 3:6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.

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.

1 John 2:16 For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life, is not of the Father, but is of the world.

Die to Your Flesh and Live

 

[Samantha Rinne]

Trailblazer, I also think the other thing he would be annoyed with is "fanclubism" of taking his "No one comes to the father but through me" as a command that you must be Christian.

This passage means specifically that only Jesus is a personification of the true and eternal God, and that a personal relationship with God is to be the means of salvation. That is, you ought to feel like God is either a dear friend (or even an enemy, for see the passage of lukewarm vs hot/cold) and build a relationship accordingly.

What Does the Bible Say About Personal Relationship With God?

 

[rational experiences]

It seems to me that the bodily resurrection of Jesus is a matter of great concern for both Christians and atheists. Since there has been so much discussion about the resurrection on this forum, I thought now would be a good time to ask:

1. Why does it matter so much to so many people if Jesus rose from the dead?
2. What is the significance of the bodily resurrection of Jesus?
3. Why is the bodily resurrection so vital to Christianity?
4. Why couldn’t Christianity exist without the resurrection?

I might be sorry I posted this thread; I often am, after I get a boatload of posts to respond to, but I am just dying to find out why because I do not understand why. There has to be a reason or reasons and I need to know what they are. I probably won’t agree with everyone, but at least I will know what others think or believe.

I could just blow it off as something I do not believe ever happened and go with the Baha’i explanation of what the resurrection means, but this is too important of an issue to sweep under the carpet. Besides, I find the Baha’i explanation wanting because it does not really explain why so much was written about the resurrection in the NT, as if it really happened.

When you live on Earth as a natural life, that science ignores, for science, thinking talks just about thoughts and not about reality....why science is the condition CULT....group coercion itself and always was.

To coerce by bullying tactics as owned by the original science group in natural human history...seeing everyone seems to forget we all own the exact same natural living life in the same environmental conditions as all other natural life.

Males in science attacked our life, for they studied and researched the natural history of God the O Earth and the Sun, and how the Sun attack, mass metallic hot radiation converted its mass. And then the Earth was saved by a stone release in heated space, as the wandering star or asteroid stone.....gases cooled heated space.

So when a male always knew that the planet owned its natural protection first, then builds machines, the pyramid and nukes/destroys all life on Earth, as archaeology by astute aware minds said...must dig up the past life evidence, deep inside of Earth knowing that males as a group had destroyed all life and did.

Because we know that scientists are all liars, actually, and the Bible, being AI male voice machine and vision recordings, is heard speaking by human chemical minds irradiated changed....the speaking of voice itself.

Yet we all know we own the bio condition to speak.

The male lives are inferred in science to be the Destroyers of us all....what prophetic or numbering mathematical conditions based on O MASS, the planet of God O Earth was all about.....prophetic realization by MASS conditions and its removal/conversion.

Sin removal by symbolism of old science K...….sink holes.

Science in cult male groups always knew that life gets removed by the Ark wooden/carbonisation/coal effect of stone converting in UFO radiation mass...that wanders around the Earth as a radiation mass attacking everything.

Life is mass owned.

Yet animals died and had physical organs and blood/ removed in UFO attack, as humans have in attack also.....we are losing slowly our physical existing healthy life bio bodies.....every day one by one....Genetic, or Genesis exodus.

The resurrection was written by living males after the event attack on natural life...for you cannot predict what sort of life attack exists in a UFO radiation mass, the ARK, that males in science confessed and said I built it by copying what happened in science themes to the body of God O the stone...the law of fusion.

And know they did.

So if a living male was being destroyed genetically and many died in that attack, then historically those left were saved and not destroyed, then they are the storyteller after the fact of how they got saved because of known sacred ice.

Sacred ice...the sacrifice.....reasoning of what was resurrected.

We live life protected from radiation mass, and science said that water was split and lifted off the face of Earth, as mass evaporation....why flooding occurs for ICE melted, and put back mass water evaporation so that we were again protected from fall out.....the UFO mass radiation attack.

To resurrect, is to have put back what spirit bodies the heavenly gas mass naturally pre owned as the statements in male known adult sciences, what the Father adult self knew. For no human baby ever knew why it was born sacrificed mutated, yet science, the Father adult self knew...for he irradiated our Genetics by UFO alienation of it. Why Satanists only believe in the UFO mass of science as stories of our beginnings, and do not talk about natural history in any use COMMON SENSE.

When the act of 2 human being natural selves...is where our life came from as a real science explanation of 2 humans having sex....which science cannot use in a theory about God.....so they tell lies to take the mind from realising its own natural history. Satanic coercion.....science.