The Resurrection: Why does it matter?

[Trailblazer]

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.

 

[Brickjectivity]

Threads by me related to this topic:
Reason for Jesus Death Explained
Some reasons not to be literalist about the NT
Below is my comment in the thread about the resurrection asking whether it is allegorical or literal:

This is what I gather: The physical resurrection is just as real as eating Jesus flesh and drinking his blood. The two things are equally real. As you approach the altar for eucharist you enter heaven where the eucharist is real. Then you descend back to earth. Its something like that, so allegory and metaphor do not capture the concept. The concept may be is that this world is untrue compared with the heaven. The term 'Reality' is not in Greek Koine, but the concept is. You leave this false reality and go to the real one.

This is a response I made to someone who thought Christianity was all about the resurrection expressing my opinion about it. I hope this is beneficial:

No, not as far as I can see. The crux I think is his obedience for all of his life even obediently accepting his own death. Also we aren't supposed to look for signs. Anyone can believe anything, but how many people are willing to give up their own lives to be like Jesus is? Not many!

Its clear that Paul makes some comments about the importance of saying 'Christ' has been resurrected. This does not answer the question about the nature of the resurrection.
"But if it is preached that Christ has been raised from the dead, how can some of you say that there is no resurrection of the dead?" (1Co 15:12 NIV) The question is not of whether there is a resurrection but of what it means. Who is saying 'Lord Lord' but is not known by their lord? That is the question, the controversial question, the question dividing the church today which ought not to be.

I think that most men consider that its selfish to live righteously only in hope of an afterlife. It doesn't make sense to me to think that this would have value to any god let alone the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. There are several places where Jesus alludes to repentance as resurrection. The mistake is thinking that we can trade either trust, belief or good behavior today as payment for an afterlife. Perhaps this is a story for children? In my opinion it doesn't match the words of Jesus or the apostles to adults.

I say that repentance matters, and this is what the apostles and Jesus refer to as resurrection. Even so I do not suggest that we test people on understanding it. There has been too much testing already, too much 'Shibboleth' in our conversation. That is exactly what we do not need.

 

[Twilight Hue]

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.

I doubt it's any concern for atheists.

It's obvious beyond any shadow of a doubt you cannot ressurect a dead person. I mean actually completely entirely dead. Like dead as a doornail.

 

[Thief]

if there is no continuance after the last breath
then Man is a complete mystery with no resolve

I happen to believe the resurrection is not of body
but is of spirit

 

[Trailblazer]

Its clear that Paul makes some comments about the importance of saying 'Christ' has been resurrected. This does not answer the question about the nature of the resurrection.
"But if it is preached that Christ has been raised from the dead, how can some of you say that there is no resurrection of the dead?" (1Co 15:12 NIV) The question is not of whether there is a resurrection but of what it means. Who is saying 'Lord Lord' but is not known by their lord? That is the question, the controversial question, the question dividing the church today which ought not to be.

I do not think anything Paul wrote means that the physical body of Jesus rose from the dead; I believe Christians interpreted what he said incorrectly.

However, if Jesus never actually rose from the dead, what about all the stories about the empty tomb and those who saw the resurrected Jesus walking around, how do you explain those? How and why did they get written into the NT?

 

[Trailblazer]

I doubt it's any concern for atheists.

Then why do they talk about it so much? I do not believe Jesus rose from the dead bodily, so I normally do not talk about it. Right now I am just trying to figure out why it matters so much to other people.

It's obvious beyond any shadow of a doubt you cannot ressurect a dead person. I mean actually completely entirely dead. Like dead as a doornail.

It is obvious to me too, because it goes against science. How can a decomposed body recompose?
So how do you think people can believe it? Why do they believe it, just because it is written in a book that said it happened? I don't get it.

This is not the same as having faith in a God that cannot be proven to exist, this is belief in something that is scientifically impossible.

 

[darklydreaming]

This subject is addressed in detail in 1 Corinthians 15, which is structured chiastically. The entire chapter pivots around the idea expressed in verse 26, that "the last enemy that will be abolished is death." The word for 'death' here is θάνατος (thánatos), which can signify either physical or spiritual death depending on the context; yet since Paul says in verse 21, "For since by a man came death, by a man also came the resurrection of the dead," using the Greek ἀνάστασις (anástasis, lit. 'standing up') for 'resurrection,' which specifically refers to a physical resurrection, it seems clear that he is likewise referring to physical death. In the same way, Paul says in verse 4, quoting from a creed which is dated to a few years after Jesus's death, "that He was buried, and that He was raised," and it is obvious here that what was buried is what was also raised; otherwise, the mention of his burial is superfluous.

All of this matters because, as Paul says in verses 13-19, if Christ was not raised from the dead, then one's faith in him is in vain, which is the hope that since he was raised, we may be raised as well, that since he conquered death and sin, we may be granted victory over them as well. Otherwise, Paul says, "let us eat and drink, for tomorrow we die" (1 Cor. 15:32), and this statement makes little sense if Paul is merely speaking of a spiritual death and a spiritual resurrection. The physical, bodily resurrection of Jesus is the ultimate proof that he was who he said he was and that, having died according to the Scriptures, he did not die in vain.

 

[Brickjectivity]

I do not think anything Paul wrote means that the physical body of Jesus rose from the dead; I believe Christians interpreted what he said incorrectly.

Which ones? Some must know what he is talking about, such as the ones he knows personally.

However, if Jesus never actually rose from the dead, what about all the stories about the empty tomb and those who saw the resurrected Jesus walking around, how do you explain those? How and why did they get written into the NT?

I see no basis to argue for corruption in the gospel stories about resurrection unless you insist its something that Paul doesn't. Paul says Christ is resurrected and that we can live in Christ by dying now while living. Paul directly says so, but he doesn't directly say Jesus the human is resurrected or that my human desires and will are resurrected. He and Jesus teach that as individuals we are to deny ourselves and live as part of a body. To suggest that the gospels are corruptions? No, I think that is suggesting too much. They appear non-literal, written in a way which strongly suggests they aren't literal. Perhaps they are inconveniently written, but they aren't corruptions.

 

[Trailblazer]

This subject is addressed in detail in 1 Corinthians 15, which is structured chiastically. The entire chapter pivots around the idea expressed in verse 26, that "the last enemy that will be abolished is death." The word for 'death' here is θάνατος (thánatos), which can signify either physical or spiritual death depending on the context; yet since Paul says in verse 21, "For since by a man came death, by a man also came the resurrection of the dead," using the Greek ἀνάστασις (anástasis, lit. 'standing up') for 'resurrection,' which specifically refers to a physical resurrection, it seems clear that he is likewise referring to physical death. In the same way, Paul says in verse 4, quoting from a creed which is dated to a few years after Jesus's death, "that He was buried, and that He was raised," and it is obvious here that what was buried is what was also raised; otherwise, the mention of his burial is superfluous.

All of this matters because, as Paul says in verses 13-19, if Christ was not raised from the dead, then one's faith in him is in vain, which is the hope that since he was raised, we may be raised as well, that since he conquered death and sin, we may be granted victory over them as well. Otherwise, Paul says, "let us eat and drink, for tomorrow we die" (1 Cor. 15:32), and this statement makes little sense if Paul is merely speaking of a spiritual death and a spiritual resurrection. The physical, bodily resurrection of Jesus is the ultimate proof that he was who he said he was and that, having died according to the Scriptures, he did not die in vain.

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. Moreover, even if such a miracle happened to Jesus, I do not believe that means that the physical bodies of all the believers that ever lived are going to come up out of their graves when Jesus returns. 13 But if there be no resurrection of the dead, then is Christ not risen: and 16 For if the dead rise not, then is not Christ raised: refers to rising from spiritual death, rising from the graves of ignorance of Christ, not to anyone rising from physical graves. Had the Cause of Christ not been brought back to life after three days, everyone would have remained in their sins and in spiritual death.

I believe that 26 The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death refers to spiritual death. The physical body was never designed to live forever, but the soul is immortal so it can never die. Those souls who believe in Jesus have eternal life (everlasting life) because they are near to God; other souls who are veiled from God continue to exist in the spiritual world after their physical body dies, but, in comparison with the holy existence of the children of the Kingdom of God, they are nonexistent because they are separated from God.

Thus I believe that eternal life refers to a quality of life, gaining the rewards of the heaven, which are peace, the spiritual graces, the various spiritual gifts in the Kingdom of God, the gaining of the desires of the heart and the soul, and the meeting of God. Eternal life does not refer to continuance or duration of life, since all souls live forever.

John 3:16: For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life.

John 3:36 He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him.

John 17:3 And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.

1 John 5:13 I write these things to you who believe in the name of the Son of God that you may know that you have eternal life.

John 5:24 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life,and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life.

John 11:25-26 Jesus said to her, “I am the resurrection and the life. He who believes in Me, though he may die, he shall live. And whoever lives and believes in Me shall never die. Do you believe this?”

John 4:13-14 Jesus answered and said unto her, Whosoever drinketh of this water shall thirst again: But whosoever drinketh of the water that I shall give him shall never thirst; but the water that I shall give him shall be in him a well of water springing up into everlasting life.

 

[Aupmanyav]

It seems to me that the bodily resurrection of Jesus is a matter of great concern for both Christians and atheists.

For atheists, it is one more lie of a succession of Abrahamic religions, that is about all.

I happen to believe the resurrection is not of body but is of spirit

Ah! So many people cannot accept the realities of life.

I do not think anything Paul wrote means that the physical body of Jesus rose from the dead; I believe Christians interpreted what he said incorrectly.
However, if Jesus never actually rose from the dead, what about all the stories about the empty tomb and those who saw the resurrected Jesus walking around, how do you explain those? How and why did they get written into the NT?

As if what all is written in the book is God's own truth!
Yeah, Christians are wrong, Jews are wrong, Zoroastrians are wrong, Muslims are wrong, Hindus are wrong, Buddhists are wrong; only Bahais are correct.

 

[Trailblazer]

Which ones? Some must know what he is talking about, such as the ones he knows personally.

Yes, but where are they today?

I see no basis to argue for corruption in the gospel stories about resurrection unless you insist its something that Paul doesn't. Paul says Christ is resurrected and that we can live in Christ by dying now while living. Paul directly says so, but he doesn't directly say Jesus the human is resurrected or that my human desires and will are resurrected. He and Jesus teach that as individuals we are to deny ourselves and live as part of a body. To suggest that the gospels are corruptions? No, I think that is suggesting too much. They appear non-literal, written in a way which strongly suggests they aren't literal. Perhaps they are inconveniently written, but they aren't corruptions.

I do not believe that the gospels are corrupted, and one reason is because Baha'u'llah wrote to the Muslims that they had not been corrupted, since many Muslims believed they had been. I believe that the resurrection stories were not literal, and believers were expected to sort that out. I believe that possibly it was a test given by God.

I guess you mean dying to self and living in Christ. I agree, we can do that in this life, and that is what Jesus enjoined His followers to do, as in John 12:24-26 and Matthew 16:23-26.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Then why do they talk about it so much? I do not believe Jesus rose from the dead bodily, so I normally do not talk about it. Right now I am just trying to figure out why it matters so much to other people.

It is obvious to me too, because it goes against science. How can a decomposed body recompose?
So how do you think people can believe it? Why do they believe it, just because it is written in a book that said it happened? I don't get it.
This is not the same as having faith in a God that cannot be proven to exist, this is belief in something that is scientifically impossible.

You started the topic, not the atheists, nor even Christians, but Bahais.
Belief in existence of an Allah and belief in a message sent by Allah also is not provable, then why do you persist with that?

I do not believe that the gospels are corrupted, and one reason is because Baha'u'llah wrote to the Muslims that they had not been corrupted, since many Muslims believed they had been.

You are a strange Bahai. All the time, Bahais have been insisting that Bible is not authoritative. It is not a first hand account (who knows what Jesus said?) and it has been edited many a times in various languages. But when it comes to prophecies proved by Bahaullah, then Bible is correct. It seems Bahais cook up stories as they go by.

 

[loverofhumanity]

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.

I don’t think it really matters because if it did then I don’t think other religions would have as many members as Christianity because Muslims are around 1.6 billion and no physical resurrection. I think it is more important to Christians in this age because of close proximity to other Faiths and fear of losing members so this doctrine has been used.


So when a Christian is looking at another religion to find out if it’s true or not they say such things as your Prophet died and is buried’ so he was just an ordinary man but Jesus rose from the dead so He’s far greater.


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 which I personally believe appeases the ego. I think it’s an egotistical assertion not a spiritual truth because Jesus was the essence of humility the way He died and the way He lived. Jesus was not into ‘bragging rights’ His most strong emphasis was on love and harmony.

I believe that if not for the supremist feelings the false idea like that of of physical resurrection generates then Christians would not feel unique or supreme and would begin to view all religions as equal.

Scientifically, Christ or no Christ, bodily resurrection from the dead is not possible.

Luke 9:60 shows the allegorical nature of Christ’s Words.

Let the dead bury the dead.

NIV

let the spiritually dead bury the dead.


The choice of interpretation that says physical resurrection is possible is based I believe upon ego I believe not love or harmony. The resurrection can be understood and interpreted in a manner that is in accordance with science and reason but that interpretation would mean no bragging rights and tyat Vhrust was a Prophet amongst many Prophets and equal to other religions.

So if the motive is supremacy and bragging rights then it’s a physical resurrection from the dead but if the motive is harmony with science and reason then it simply meant that the Cause of Vhrist found life again after 3 days of doubt.

 

[Trailblazer]

For atheists, it is one more lie of a succession of Abrahamic religions, that is about all.

If I was an atheist, I would not spend so much time talking about a lie.
I would be off sunning myself on a beach somewhere.
I tell this to all my atheist friends.

Ah! So many people cannot accept the realities of life.

Imo, the spiritual resurrection IS a reality of life, if we rise.

As if what all is written in the book is God's own truth!
Yeah, Christians are wrong, Jews are wrong, Zoroastrians are wrong, Muslims are wrong, Hindus are wrong, Buddhists are wrong; only Bahais are correct.

They are all right. We just interpret some scriptures differently.

 

[Trailblazer]

Belief in existence of an Allah and belief in a message sent by God also is not provable, then why do you persist with that?

Because I have ample evidence I do not need proof.

 

[wizanda]

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,

This is another typical bullying and proselytizing anti-Abrahamic rhetoric thread...

Do not see the point in replying, as it isn't a debate of the topic, it is another thread for marketing Baha'i, whilst rejecting everyone else's texts.

In my opinion.

 

[Trailblazer]

I don’t think it really matters because if it did then I don’t think other religions would have as many members as Christianity because Muslims are around 1.6 billion and no physical resurrection. I think it is more important to Christians in this age because of close proximity to other Faiths and fear of losing members so this doctrine has been used.


So when a Christian is looking at another religion to find out if it’s true or not they say such things as your Prophet died and is buried’ so he was just an ordinary man but Jesus rose from the dead so He’s far greater.


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 which I personally believe appeases the ego. I think it’s an egotistical assertion not a spiritual truth because Jesus was the essence of humility the way He died and the way He lived. Jesus was not into ‘bragging rights’ His most strong emphasis was on love and harmony.

I believe that if not for the supremist feelings the false idea like that of of physical resurrection generates then Christians would not feel unique or supreme and would begin to view all religions as equal.

Scientifically, Christ or no Christ, bodily resurrection from the dead is not possible.

Luke 9:60 shows the allegorical nature of Christ’s Words.

Let the dead bury the dead.

NIV

let the spiritually dead bury the dead.


The choice of interpretation that says physical resurrection is possible is based I believe upon ego I believe not love or harmony. The resurrection can be understood and interpreted in a manner that is in accordance with science and reason but that interpretation would mean no bragging rights and tyat Vhrust was a Prophet amongst many Prophets and equal to other religions.

So if the motive is supremacy and bragging rights then it’s a physical resurrection from the dead but if the motive is harmony with science and reason then it simply meant that the Cause of Vhrist found life again after 3 days of doubt.

I explained what I think the resurrection of the dead means up in post #9.

Why does the bodily resurrection of Jesus matter to Christians? Well, first, I do not think that most of them question it because that is what they were taught. So even if someone comes up with a different interpretation, a spiritual resurrection, they cannot believe it because it is too foreign to them to even understand. That is giving them the benefit of the doubt because Christians are not unintelligent nor is the concept of "spiritual" a new concept.

The bodily resurrection of Jesus sets Jesus apart from all the other Messengers of God and I say this because this is what Christians tell me.... "Your Baha'u'llah is dead so what good is he, whereas Jesus is alive." This gives some people a sense of superiority.

Also, they think it sets the religion apart because only Jesus rose from the grave so Christianity is superior to all the other religions. The reason I started this thread was to find out why it matters so much if Jesus rose bodily; I mean what is the big deal anyway even if He did? Jesus was destined to die physically anyway as we all do, unless one believes that His physical body ascended into the clouds and lives above the atmosphere somewhere in heaven where there is no oxygen.

To be fair though, many Christians believe that if Jesus had not risen they would remain forever dead in their sins and they would have no afterlife, because they believe that they need a physical body to rise from the grave in order to have an afterlife since they do not believe in the immortal soul as Baha'is do. This stems from a belief based upon some verses in the OT that the soul is ONLY the breath of life, so it dies when the body dies. Why then was Jesus concerned about believers losing their soul? Some detective work is required to uncover the truth.

I think one reason the bodily resurrection matters so much to Christians is because without it Jesus would not still be alive in a physical body, and thus Jesus could never return in the same physical body. Of course this prevents them from ever recognizing the Spirit of Christ in another body, since they are waiting for Jesus, and this is what I believe causes the greatest harm. It causes harm because it keeps them waiting for Jesus to return forever, and because they believe that Jesus will "fix everything" when He returns, there is no need for them to do anything to make the world a better place.

When will it end? How long will they wait? It does not matter if all the prophecies for the return have been fulfilled, they will find a way to interpret them so that they have not yet been fulfilled, like saying that the Bible has not yet been preached all over the world.

But projections for the future of religion is that Islam will overtake Christianity by the year 2060 and keep growing. Christianity cannot continue to be the predominant religion and one reason is because of beliefs that contradict science. People in this new age are dropping out and by attrition eventually Christianity will shrink. It is also growing slower than Islam or Baha'i, which are the two fastest growing religions in the world.

 

[Aupmanyav]

If I was an atheist, I would not spend so much time talking about a lie. I would be off sunning myself on a beach somewhere. I tell this to all my atheist friends.
Imo, the spiritual resurrection IS a reality of life, if we rise.
They are all right. We just interpret some scriptures differently.

No problem about time. I am retired, I have time on my hands. And Delhi does not have a beach. We are about 1500 kms from the beach. And it is not an inconsequental lie. It is a matter of life and death. I need to know.
Rise where, up in clouds?
But either you can be right or they can be right. Both them and you cannot be right.

Because I have ample evidence I do not need proof.

I have not come across any evidence provided by Bahais, on the other hand you say that there was no Maid of Heaven, so that little proof also is not tenable any more.

 

[Trailblazer]

This is another typical bullying and proselytizing anti-Abrahamic rhetoric thread...

Do not see the point in replying, as it isn't a debate of the topic, it is another thread for marketing Baha'i, whilst rejecting everyone else's texts.

In my opinion.

You have no right to speak about other peoples' motives, as if you know what they are. I posted this thread and I know why I posted it, exactly for the reasons I cited in the OP. God is the only other Entity that knows my heart and mind.

No, this is not a debate topic, it was posted for me to learn what other people believe about the resurrection and why they believe it matters so much.

Baha'is do not reject anyone's texts, we just do not interpret them the way you do. Then again, neither do most Christians or Jews.

 

[Aupmanyav]

So if the motive is supremacy and bragging rights then it’s a physical resurrection from the dead but if the motive is harmony with science and reason then it simply meant that the Cause of Christ found life again after 3 days of doubt.

What is your motive in saying that Bahaullah is the latest manifestation of Allah? Bragging rights, supremacy, egotism? You know Allah sent Mirza Ghulam Ahmad of the Ahmadiyyas immediately after sending Bahaullah. Allah wanted some change in the message given to Bahaullah. Who is Bahaullah to say that no new manfiestation will come before 1000 years? Can he stop Allah from sending new messengers?