Resurrection: What kind was it?

[OzSpen]

Especially around Christmas and Easter, I hope to get a biblical article published in a secular Australian source. It generally happens.

Today, On Line Opinion (23 April 2019), a secular e-journal, published my article on Jesus' resurrection, 'Any old resurrection will not do'.

I expect much opposition from the people who dislike Christianity and its claims. Will you please join me in responding with biblical answers?

You'll need to create your own pen name (non de plume). Mine is the one I use here, OzSpen.

Blessings in Christ,

Oz

 

[Wafer]

I can see that evangelism is not your ministry.

 

[shnarkle]

Especially around Christmas and Easter, I hope to get a biblical article published in a secular Australian source. It generally happens.

Today, On Line Opinion (23 April 2019), a secular e-journal, published my article on Jesus' resurrection, 'Any old resurrection will not do'.

I expect much opposition from the people who dislike Christianity and its claims. Will you please join me in responding with biblical answers?

You'll need to create your own pen name (non de plume). Mine is the one I use here, OzSpen.

Blessings in Christ,

Oz

I checked it out, and read it, but the article has been archived so no one can post on it anymore.

 

[OzSpen]

I checked it out, and read it, but the article has been archived so no one can post on it anymore.

You are correct. On Line Opinion (OLO) has archived the Comments section of the article. However, the content of what I wrote, Any old resurrection will not do, is still available at: http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=20265

Seems as though OLO has a time limit for Comments. I'll email the editor to discover the time frame.

 

[OzSpen]

I checked it out, and read it, but the article has been archived so no one can post on it anymore.

sh,

I've just received this reply from the editor of the e-journal:

We use an algorithm to close off comments. At one stage they stayed alive forever, but that gave us problems with comment spam being left on threads that were dead. So now we leave the threads open until it has been a while (can't remember the exact time) since anyone commented, and then it is closed.​

So I guess the sooner the reply the better as the unknown time frame of an algorithm determines it for us.

Oz

 

[shnarkle]

sh,

I've just received this reply from the editor of the e-journal:

We use an algorithm to close off comments. At one stage they stayed alive forever, but that gave us problems with comment spam being left on threads that were dead. So now we leave the threads open until it has been a while (can't remember the exact time) since anyone commented, and then it is closed.​

So I guess the sooner the reply the better as the unknown time frame of an algorithm determines it for us.

Oz

I read the article, and found it had its good points. I have pondered this for quite some time, and come to a different conclusion. I see the teachings themselves pointing to the reality of the resurrection, but the teachings point to first and foremost; self sacrifice, or self denial. The body is nothing to Christ or Paul. When the would be follower suggests that he will follow except that he must bury his father, Jesus says, "let the dead bury the dead". Those who would save their own lives will lose them. if the body sins, cut off the offending piece. The problem is that the entire body sins.

Where it really becomes apparent to me that the gospel writers aren't speaking of a literal, or historical resurrection is when we read about Christ walking through locked doors, spontaneously appearing and disappearing, etc. When Mary comes to the tomb, he tells her she can't touch him. When Thomas is asked if he wants to feel Christ's wounds, Thomas doesn't, and the whole point is to believe without seeing. Which in itself seems to be an echo of Christ's point that the kingdom doesn't come through observation. Perhaps this is why only Christ's disciples can see Christ.

 

[OzSpen]

I read the article, and found it had its good points. I have pondered this for quite some time, and come to a different conclusion. I see the teachings themselves pointing to the reality of the resurrection, but the teachings point to first and foremost; self sacrifice, or self denial. The body is nothing to Christ or Paul. When the would be follower suggests that he will follow except that he must bury his father, Jesus says, "let the dead bury the dead". Those who would save their own lives will lose them. if the body sins, cut off the offending piece. The problem is that the entire body sins.

Where it really becomes apparent to me that the gospel writers aren't speaking of a literal, or historical resurrection is when we read about Christ walking through locked doors, spontaneously appearing and disappearing, etc. When Mary comes to the tomb, he tells her she can't touch him. When Thomas is asked if he wants to feel Christ's wounds, Thomas doesn't, and the whole point is to believe without seeing. Which in itself seems to be an echo of Christ's point that the kingdom doesn't come through observation. Perhaps this is why only Christ's disciples can see Christ.

ahn,

We know Jesus' post-resurrection body was physical, but with qualities of immortality, i.e. he would not die again. He came to be crucified once. From 1 Cor 15 we learn that Jesus had a physical body and it was a human resurrection. However, this physical body after the Resurrection was very different from anything humans have experienced. It could never die, suffer from health issues, age, etc.

Nevertheless, it was a real human body (with a difference). What did Jesus say to Thomas after the Resurrection? 'Then he said to Thomas, “Put your finger here, and look at my hands. Put your hand into the wound in my side. Don’t be faithless any longer. Believe!”' (Jn 20:27 NLT). Jesus could be touched in the flesh and his wounds were still in his side.

“Touch me and see”, he challenged his disciples, “a ghost does not have flesh and bones as you see I have” (Lk 24:39).

There is evidence Jesus had a physical body after resurrection. See: Luke 24.39-43; John 20.26-38. However, Paul in 1 Cor 15 speaks of spiritual dimensions.

Oz

ahn,

We know Jesus' post-resurrection body was physical, but with qualities of immortality, i.e. he would not die again. He came to be crucified once. From 1 Cor 15 we learn that Jesus had a physical body and it was a human resurrection. However, this physical body after the Resurrection was very different from anything humans have experienced. It could never die, suffer from health issues, age, etc.

Nevertheless, it was a real human body (with a difference). What did Jesus say to Thomas after the Resurrection? 'Then he said to Thomas, “Put your finger here, and look at my hands. Put your hand into the wound in my side. Don’t be faithless any longer. Believe!”' (Jn 2027 NLT). Jesus could be touched in the flesh and his wounds were still in his side.

“Touch me and see”, he challenged his disciples, “a ghost does not have flesh and bones as you see I have” (Lk 24:39).

There is evidence Jesus had a physical body after resurrection. See: Luke 24.39-43; John 20.26-38. However, Paul in 1 Cor 15 speaks of spiritual dimensions in the bodies. N T Wright describes these 2 dimensions in Jesus' Resurrection as 'transphysicality'.

Oz

 

[shnarkle]

it was a real human body (with a difference). What did Jesus say to Thomas after the Resurrection? 'Then he said to Thomas, “Put your finger here, and look at my hands. Put your hand into the wound in my side. Don’t be faithless any longer. Believe!”' (Jn 2027 NLT). Jesus could be touched in the flesh and his wounds were still in his side.

“Touch me and see”, he challenged his disciples, “a ghost does not have flesh and bones as you see I have” (Lk 24:39).

What is the message of Thomas' doubt? The message is to believe without seeing because those who believe without seeing are blessed. It should also be noted that Thomas doesn't actually probe Christ's body. He believes what he sees, but what does he see?

You definitely believe it was a physical resurrection, but with a difference. It is a physical body that only those who believe can see. You can call that a physical body if you want to, but the rest of the unbelieving world is going to call it a spiritual body, or no body at all.

However, I think if we look at Christ's teaching in the gospel accounts we find a clue that supports your position, and that is that Christ points out to his disciples that they are the light of the world. He also points out that whatever you do to the least of his brethren, you do it to him. So we have a whole room full of Christ's disciples, and suddenly it dawns on them what Christ was teaching them. They begin to see that Christ is with them in the room in their physical bodies. We can touch Christ in each other, but we don't need to probe for spike holes in each other's feet or hands. The world will provide those for us.

The bible says to love others as yourself which means to love them the same way you love yourself, but to truly do that would be to love yourself in the other person. As if that person is you. Jesus comes along and says to love others as he loved them. Which places Christ in our neighbors. When we see Christ in everyone we meet, then we're living the resurrected life. We're living as if we just woke from death itself. We don't have to wait for Christ's return because he's already returned as our advocate reminding and revealing everything he taught when he was in the flesh.

 

[OzSpen]

What is the message of Thomas' doubt? The message is to believe without seeing because those who believe without seeing are blessed. It should also be noted that Thomas doesn't actually probe Christ's body. He believes what he sees, but what does he see?

You definitely believe it was a physical resurrection, but with a difference. It is a physical body that only those who believe can see. You can call that a physical body if you want to, but the rest of the unbelieving world is going to call it a spiritual body, or no body at all.

However, I think if we look at Christ's teaching in the gospel accounts we find a clue that supports your position, and that is that Christ points out to his disciples that they are the light of the world. He also points out that whatever you do to the least of his brethren, you do it to him. So we have a whole room full of Christ's disciples, and suddenly it dawns on them what Christ was teaching them. They begin to see that Christ is with them in the room in their physical bodies. We can touch Christ in each other, but we don't need to probe for spike holes in each other's feet or hands. The world will provide those for us.

The bible says to love others as yourself which means to love them the same way you love yourself, but to truly do that would be to love yourself in the other person. As if that person is you. Jesus comes along and says to love others as he loved them. Which places Christ in our neighbors. When we see Christ in everyone we meet, then we're living the resurrected life. We're living as if we just woke from death itself. We don't have to wait for Christ's return because he's already returned as our advocate reminding and revealing everything he taught when he was in the flesh.

shn,

Loving others is not the topic of the OP. However, this is:

33 And within the hour they were on their way back to Jerusalem. There they found the eleven disciples and the others who had gathered with them, 34 who said, “The Lord has really risen! He appeared to Peter.

35 Then the two from Emmaus told their story of how Jesus had appeared to them as they were walking along the road, and how they had recognized him as he was breaking the bread. 36 And just as they were telling about it, Jesus himself was suddenly standing there among them. “Peace be with you,” he said. 37 But the whole group was startled and frightened, thinking they were seeing a ghost!

38 “Why are you frightened?” he asked. “Why are your hearts filled with doubt? 39 Look at my hands. Look at my feet. You can see that it’s really me. Touch me and make sure that I am not a ghost, because ghosts don’t have bodies, as you see that I do.” 40 As he spoke, he showed them his hands and his feet.

41 Still they stood there in disbelief, filled with joy and wonder. Then he asked them, “Do you have anything here to eat?” 42 They gave him a piece of broiled fish, 43 and he ate it as they watched (Luke 24:33-43 NLT).​

Your allegorical interpretations do not come out of the text:

• 'We can touch Christ in each other';
• 'It is a physical body that only those who believe can see';
• 'the rest of the unbelieving world is going to call it a spiritual body, or no body at all'. That's arguing from silence and it's a logical fallacy. You didn't get that information from the text.
• 'When we see Christ in everyone we meet, then we're living the resurrected life'. From where did you get that theology?

I find your spiritualising, allegorical interpretations to destroy the meaning of the texts.

Oz

 

[shnarkle]

shn,

Loving others is not the topic of the OP. However, this is:

33 And within the hour they were on their way back to Jerusalem. There they found the eleven disciples and the others who had gathered with them, 34 who said, “The Lord has really risen! He appeared to Peter.

35 Then the two from Emmaus told their story of how Jesus had appeared to them as they were walking along the road, and how they had recognized him as he was breaking the bread. 36 And just as they were telling about it, Jesus himself was suddenly standing there among them. “Peace be with you,” he said. 37 But the whole group was startled and frightened, thinking they were seeing a ghost!

38 “Why are you frightened?” he asked. “Why are your hearts filled with doubt? 39 Look at my hands. Look at my feet. You can see that it’s really me. Touch me and make sure that I am not a ghost, because ghosts don’t have bodies, as you see that I do.” 40 As he spoke, he showed them his hands and his feet.

41 Still they stood there in disbelief, filled with joy and wonder. Then he asked them, “Do you have anything here to eat?” 42 They gave him a piece of broiled fish, 43 and he ate it as they watched (Luke 24:33-43 NLT).​

Your allegorical interpretations do not come out of the text:

• 'We can touch Christ in each other';
• 'It is a physical body that only those who believe can see';
• 'the rest of the unbelieving world is going to call it a spiritual body, or no body at all'. That's arguing from silence and it's a logical fallacy. You didn't get that information from the text.
• 'When we see Christ in everyone we meet, then we're living the resurrected life'.

I find your spiritualising, allegorical interpretations to destroy the meaning of the texts.

Oz

I agree. They most definitely destroy your meaning of the texts. There are no secular accounts of Jesus being seen after the resurrection. The bible never mentions anyone except believers seeing the risen Christ. Again, the teachings of Christ and Paul both support my interpretation. Paul completely loses his identity in Christ. He says, "not me, but Christ in me", and "Christ in you, your only hope of salvation".

Christ teaches the necessity of self sacrifice, and the gospel writers illustrate it with an excruciating crucifixion. To even begin to ponder the idea of the loss of one's own identity is no less horrifying to most people. It's an apt illustration.

The original ending to Mark's gospel ended with just an empty tomb that he asks his readers to peer into. And what do we see? Nothing; it's empty which is what we're told Jesus did as well. He emptied himself of his divinity to share in our humanity. He emptied himself on a cross. He preaches self denial. To live for God and others is to die to oneself.

These are timeless truths that are routinely ignored by most Christians in favor of believing that they can keep their physical bodies for eternity as if this is somehow something that Christ ever taught.

 

[OzSpen]

I agree. They most definitely destroy your meaning of the texts. There are no secular accounts of Jesus being seen after the resurrection. The bible never mentions anyone except believers seeing the risen Christ. Again, the teachings of Christ and Paul both support my interpretation. Paul completely loses his identity in Christ. He says, "not me, but Christ in me", and "Christ in you, your only hope of salvation".

Christ teaches the necessity of self sacrifice, and the gospel writers illustrate it with an excruciating crucifixion. To even begin to ponder the idea of the loss of one's own identity is no less horrifying to most people. It's an apt illustration.

The original ending to Mark's gospel ended with just an empty tomb that he asks his readers to peer into. And what do we see? Nothing; it's empty which is what we're told Jesus did as well. He emptied himself of his divinity to share in our humanity. He emptied himself on a cross. He preaches self denial. To live for God and others is to die to oneself.

These are timeless truths that are routinely ignored by most Christians in favor of believing that they can keep their physical bodies for eternity as if this is somehow something that Christ ever taught.

shn,

You did not deal with the content I wrote. If you continue with this avoidance of the evidence I provide, I'll discontinue this interaction.

You claim:

There are no secular accounts of Jesus being seen after the resurrection.

You are drawing a long bow with this one as the evidence from secular Roman and Jewish officials was all around the resurrection. Here is a compilation of relevant information:

That there was ample evidence, even to the non-believing Roman and Jewish authorities, that Christ has been raised from the dead, seems quite apparent when all the relevant data are assembled. Think about the following facts as reflected in Matthew 28:3-4.

First, as the guards were at their stations, a great earthquake shook the region.

Second, an angel of the Lord descended from heaven and opened the tomb by rolling away the massive stone that blocked the entrance, thus breaking the Roman seal.

Third, the angel sat upon the stone, illuminated in brilliant light, comparable to lightning.

Fourth, the guards were terrified, shaking with great fear. They were so seized with terror that a temporary paralysis made them immobile.

Fifth, it was painfully obvious to the soldiers that Christ was not in the tomb, and that his body had not been removed by any natural means.

Then think about this.

Some of the guards reported to the chief priests “all the things that came to pass” (28:11). Especially, note the term “all.” If the guards did not actually see the Savior come from the tomb, they clearly inferred it from the evidence available, e.g., Christ’s earlier prophecies, that he would rise the third day (cf. 27:63), together with the fact that none of the disciples had come to confiscate the body. These facts would have been compelling indeed.

Clearly their report was given serious credibility, as evidenced by the fact that the priests informed the elders of the soldiers’ report, and a significant sum of money was appropriated to silence the guards as to what actually had happened.

Here’s another point to consider. The ridiculous story was fabricated that the disciples “stole the body” while the guards were “asleep.” What credibility — sleeping witnesses!

The priests and elders further promised that if the report of the Lord’s disappearance reached the attention of Pilate, they would take care of the problem (vv. 12-14). Consider also the fact that the guards were not punished with the usual death sentence (cf. Acts 12:19; 16:27); instead they were rewarded.

And then, why was there not the slightest piece of evidence that an investigation was launched, or that any search for Christ’s body was ever pursued. If his body were recovered, that would have silenced forever any report of a “resurrection.”

Finally, is it not intriguing that, eventually, a “great company of the priests were obedient unto the faith” (Acts 6:7)? Did the report of the Roman guard have anything to do with this unusual collection of conversions? It is difficult to believe otherwise.

These facts show that there was sufficient evidence of Christ’s resurrection, even to his enemies, to establish the reality of that event (Why did the resurrected Jesus not appear to his enemies? Wayne Jackson)​

Oz​

 

[shnarkle]

shn,

You did not deal with the content I wrote. If you continue with this avoidance of the evidence I provide, I'll discontinue this interaction.

I don't see you addressing anything more than one claim, and even then you deflect with hearsay. So I'll save you the bother, and move on without you.

the evidence from secular Roman and Jewish officials was all around the resurrection. Here is a compilation of relevant information:

The evidence from the secular world borders on non existent. Quoting from biblical "believers" isn't the testimony of secular Roman and Jewish officials. It's the testimony of believers. It is what is known in a courtroom as "hearsay", and is inadmissible as evidence.

The earliest accounts are from Paul and he makes all of ZERO remarks concerning Jesus' tomb. Mark simply has an empty tomb. No resurrection narratives or witnesses. For some unknown reason, you presume that these witnesses that seem to show up decades after the fact are more trustworthy than those closer to these events. When people arrive at the scene of an accident, they take down notes from those who were closest to the scene, not those who show up after it's all been cleaned up, and everyone is gone.

The historical evidence suggests that Jesus' body was most likely left on the cross to be eaten by scavengers. There is no Jewish or Roman evidence of any custom to let prisoners go, much less those held for treason. For a Jewish Sanhedrin to seek a capital case, in the middle of the night no less, would have been considered bloodthirsty, especially for someone who most would have dismissed as a case of insanity.

It is much more likely that the authors are drawing a parallel with the feast of Atonement. The parallels are striking, and much more likely than a physical body being resurrected, especially that of an observant Jew who preached the necessity of self sacrifice. The value was in the way he lived his life, not the body he lived it in. To steal his life from him was to steal worthless trash. To speak truth to power; priceless.

 

[OzSpen]

shn,

The historical evidence suggests that Jesus' body was most likely left on the cross to be eaten by scavengers

From where did you gain that historical information?

That's the version of John Dominic Crossan of the Jesus' Seminar who stated:
So “what actually and historically happened to the body of Jesus”? According to John Dominic Crossan: “His body [was] left on the cross or in a shallow grave barely covered with dirt and stones, the dogs were waiting
(Crossan 1994:154).

It's not a biblical view but a postmodern, deconstructionist, reader-response interpretation.

Works consulted:

Crossan, J. D. 1994, Jesus: A Revolutionary Biography, HarperSanFrancisco, San Francisco.

 

[101G]

Addressing the OP.
just reading some of the responses, nothing new. the Lord's body was resurrected by the power of his own Spirit. which it, (the body), live by... no more blood. for the blood is the "LIFE" of a Natural body, (see Lev 17:11 & 14). but this body, the resurrected body is change in NATURE, scripture, 2 Peter 1:4 "Whereby are given unto us exceeding great and precious promises: that by these ye might be partakers of the divine nature, having escaped the corruption that is in the world through lust" and John makes its clear,
1 John 3:2 "Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that, when he shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is". now I must agree with John here because we don't know what we shall be, supportive scripture, 1 Corinthians 15:35 "But some man will say, How are the dead raised up? and with what body do they come?
1 Corinthians 15:36 "Thou fool, that which thou sowest is not quickened, except it die:
1 Corinthians 15:37 "And that which thou sowest, thou sowest not that body that shall be, but bare grain, it may chance of wheat, or of some other grain:
1 Corinthians 15:38 "But God giveth it a body as it hath pleased him, and to every seed his own body". this is in concert with what he said by the Spirit in the very next verses. 1 Corinthians 15:39 "All flesh is not the same flesh: but there is one kind of flesh of men, another flesh of beasts, another of fishes, and another of birds.
1 Corinthians 15:40 "There are also celestial bodies, and bodies terrestrial: but the glory of the celestial is one, and the glory of the terrestrial is another.
1 Corinthians 15:41 "There is one glory of the sun, and another glory of the moon, and another glory of the stars: for one star differeth from another star in glory.
1 Corinthians 15:42 "So also is the resurrection of the dead. It is sown in corruption; it is raised in incorruption:
1 Corinthians 15:43 "It is sown in dishonour; it is raised in glory: it is sown in weakness; it is raised in power:
1 Corinthians 15:44 "It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body. There is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body.

so it is the Spirit that determine the glory that a body has, 1 Corinthians 15:38 "But God giveth it a body as it hath pleased him, and to every seed his own body". but yet it will be "LIKE" his, 1 John 3:2 "Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that, when he shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is".

so we'll have a body powered by the Spirit, or emanating from God.

PICJAG.