Question:
Can some brilliant person please give me details on the resurrection! Longest answer wins the points!?
savoureuse
2007-05-06 04:46:17 UTC
I'm doing a project on "Who Was Jesus?" and i need to know about the ressurrection etc. If you could please give me a few words and sites that would be great because i am really struggling thanks!
Sixteen answers:
2007-05-06 04:51:24 UTC
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_and_Resurrection_of_Jesus
2007-05-06 12:07:15 UTC
After three days, there was a great earthquake, and an angel of the Lord rolled back the stone from the tomb's door. In fright, the Roman soldiers trembled and then ran away. When followers of Jesus came to the tomb and saw the stone moved, they were confused.





Suddenly, two men stood by them in shining garments, saying, "Why are you looking for the living among the dead? He is not here, He is risen. Remember how He told you before that He must be delivered into the hands of sinful men and be crucified, and the third day rise again?"



Then they remembered His words.



The same day in the evening, Jesus came to the disciples and stood among them and said, "Peace to you."



But they were terrified, thinking that they were seeing a spirit.





So He said, "Look at my hands and my feet, it is really Me. Touch me and see, for a spirit doesn't have flesh and bones, like you see I have. Everything happened as I told you it would because all the writings that described me in the law of Moses, and in the Prophets, and in the Psalms, had to be fulfilled."



Then He opened their understanding, saying, "It is written in the Scriptures that Christ must suffer and rise from the dead the third day; and that repentance and forgiveness of sins should be preached in His name among all nations. And you have seen these things."



Jesus continued appearing to many people, showing them that He was alive, which gave infallible proof of His resurrection. And He instructed His disciples, "Go into all the world and preach the Gospel."





At the end of forty days, Jesus announced to His disciples, "You shall receive power after the Holy Spirit comes upon you, and you shall tell others about Me, both in Jerusalem, and in all Judaea, and in Samaria, and to the uttermost part of the earth."





Hope this is of some help !!!
?
2007-05-06 12:07:01 UTC
Check the 27th and 28th chapters of Matthew, John chapters 20 and 21, 1Corinthians chapter 15 verses 1-11.



The resurrection means Jesus defeated death. Whoever accepts His death as payment for their own sin means they also will have eternal life. Physical death is no longer permanent for them. At His second coming, the dead in Christ (the faithful) will be raised up to eternal life, then everyone else after that will be raised for judgment. Just as "There are many mansions in my Father's kingdom," there must be different degrees of hell, some worse than others.



Friendship is good and all good comes from God. There is no friendship in hell. Those who think they're going to party with their friends in hell are wrong.



You need the link below to really do some good research. Check out Biblegateway.com:



God Bless!
Rafa-No1
2007-05-07 10:44:11 UTC
In the Bible he is described as "David's son" "he who comes in the name of the Lord" "prophet" "messiah" For more names look in the bible particulally psalm sunday: Matthew 21 v9

try http://www.biblegateway.com/ to search the bible.

jesus was the son of god who was born in bethlehem to Mary and whem he was 30 he started his ministry. He could heal the sick and bring people such as Lazarus (John 11) back from the dead.

He challenged many Jewish laws and made his own. He said we should "love your enimies" instead of being against people with different beliefs, we don't have to make scarifices, we should treat everyone equally, we shouldn't make a big display of praying and many more.

the pharisees (religious leaders) disliked him because of this and he attracted so many followers. On passover he was arrested as one disciple called Judas had betrayed him to the Romans. this was Thursday night. They wanted to crucify him the next day as saturday was the sabbath and nobody could be killed then. If they left him until sunday they were worried he would escape. He had a trial by Pilate but he didn't answer the questions as he knew he had to die so our sins would be forgiven. Pilate knew he was innocent so he offered to the crowd to release Jesus or barabbas a mass-murderer. The pharisees persuaded them to shout for Barabbas so Jesus was crucified and when he died the whole sky went dark.

On the sunday Mary Magdelene went to anoint the body and found the stone of the tomb rolled away. The body was gone, when she went out she saw a gardener and asked where the body was. Then she realised it was Jesus. He told her to tell the other disciples and laterJesus apeared to them. John 20V1. Later he ascended up to heaven.

For more about Jesus look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus

For the resurection http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus

Hope this helps
vex
2007-05-06 12:01:11 UTC
According to the Gospels, Jesus rose from the dead on the third day after his crucifixion.[26] The Gospel of Matthew states that an angel appeared near the tomb of Jesus and announced his resurrection to Mary Magdelene and "another Mary" who had arrived to anoint the body (Matthew 28:1-10). According to Luke there were two angels (Luke 24:4), and according to Mark there was a youth dressed in white (Mark 16:5). Mark states that on the morning of his resurrection, Jesus first appeared to Mary Magdalene (Mark 16:9). John states that when Mary looked into the tomb, two angels asked her why she was crying; and as she turned round she initially failed to recognize Jesus until he spoke her name (John 20:11-18).



The Acts of the Apostles state that Jesus appeared to various people in various places over the next forty days. Hours after his resurrection, he appeared to two travelers on the road to Emmaus (Luke 24:13-35). To his assembled disciples he showed himself on the evening after his resurrection (John 20:19). Although his own ministry had been specifically to Jews, Jesus is said to have sent his apostles to the Gentiles with the Great Commission and ascended to heaven while a cloud concealed him from their sight. According to Acts, Paul of Tarsus also saw Jesus during his Road to Damascus experience. Jesus promised to come again to fulfill the remainder of Messianic prophecy.[27]



Resurrection of Jesus

The resurrection of Jesus may have been the most central doctrinal position in Christianity taught to a Gentile audience. Only the Apostle Paul said that 'if Jesus has not risen from the dead then the Christians were the most miserable of all men'(I Corinthians 15:19). According to Paul, the entire Christian faith hinges upon the centrality of the resurrection of Jesus. Christians annually celebrate the resurrection of Jesus at Easter.
Birdman
2007-05-06 11:51:16 UTC
I think reading the New Testament would be the best place to research as you have the words of some of Jesus' Apostles who witnessed his agonising death. If you haven't got a Bible you will always find one in a charity shop.
Oephelia
2007-05-06 12:16:45 UTC
it depends how controversial you would want to be.



in effect you could state that the ressurection didnot actually

occur as when was it mary magdalene? gave jesus the drink of water at thye cross could it have contained some ingredient to induce a 'like death state' to ease his pain. and then he came to three days later? apparently resurrecting?

questions questions

it depneds what you believe, your point of view, how correct wre the accounts written by the disciples. its like one ufo seen by 4 people, they all have a slightly different account as the brains like to over emphasise certain things.

basically jesus was the son of god, had a following, got persecuted when he got a bit too popular and then got killed.

bit like john lennon?
2007-05-06 11:54:45 UTC
Don't be lazy and in such important topic instead of believe some lunatic fanatic you should search properly in a library and take it with the importance it is required and not in the Forum where you don't have any reference of the background on anybody for speaking about such things.
2007-05-06 13:23:49 UTC
Read the New Testament..everything you need is there.
2007-05-06 11:49:59 UTC
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resurrection
Evo
2007-05-06 11:49:53 UTC
I'm sure some do-gooder will write your homework for you - however what you need to write is simply this - 'There is no god, nor was there any resurrection'. Hand that in.
good-for-all
2007-05-06 12:23:11 UTC
Try this yourself.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12789a.htm
Lammy
2007-05-06 19:28:55 UTC
this is so sad.....
minty359
2007-05-06 15:10:07 UTC
It has been argued on the basis of Paul’s testimony that Jesus’s resurrection body was spiritual in the sense of being unextended, immaterial, intangible, and so forth. But neither the argument appealing to the nature of Paul’s Damascus Road experience nor the argument from Paul’s doctrine of the resurrection body supports such a conclusion. On the contrary, Paul’s information serves to confirm the gospels’ narratives of Jesus’s bodily resurrection. Not only is the gospels’ physicalism well-founded, but it is also, like Paul’s doctrine, a nuanced physicalism.



Source: "The Bodily Resurrection of Jesus," in Gospel Perspectives I, pp. 47-74. Edited by R.T. France and D. Wenham. Sheffield, England: JSOT Press, 1980.





--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

There are probably few events in the gospels for which the historical evidence is more compelling than for the resurrection of Jesus. Historical-critical studies during the second half of this century, increasingly freed from the lingering Deistical presuppositions that largely determined in advance the results of resurrection research during the previous 150 years, have reversed the current of scepticism concerning the historical resurrection, such that the trend among scholars in recent years has been acceptance of the historical credibility of Jesus's resurrection.

Nevertheless, there is still one aspect of the resurrection that a great number of scholars simply cannot bring themselves to embrace: that Jesus was raised from the dead physically. The physicalism of the gospels' portrayal of Jesus's resurrection body accounts, I think, more than any other single factor for critical skepticism concerning the historicity of the gospel narratives of the bodily resurrection of Jesus. Undoubtedly the prime example of this is Hans Grass's classic Ostergeschehen and Osterberichte. {2} Inveighing against the 'massiven Realismus' of the gospel narratives, Grass brushes aside the appearance stories as thoroughly legendary and brings every critical argument he can summon against the empty tomb. Not that Grass would construe the resurrection, at least overtly, merely in terms of the survival of Jesus's soul; he affirms a bodily resurrection, but the body is 'spiritual' in nature, as by the apostle Paul, not physical. Because the relation between the old, physical body and the new, spiritual body is totaliter- aliter, the resurrection entails, not an emptying of the tomb, but the creation of a new body. Because the body is spiritual, the appearances of Christ were in the form of heavenly visions caused by God in the minds of those chosen to receive them.



It is difficult to exaggerate the extent of Grass's influence. Though few have been willing to join him in denying the empty tomb, since the evidence inclines in the opposite direction, one not infrequently finds statements that because the resurrection body does not depend upon the old body, we are not compelled to believe in the empty tomb. And it is everywhere asserted, even by those who staunchly defend the empty tomb, that the spiritual nature of the resurrection body precludes physical appearances such as are narrated in the gospels. John Alsup remarks that '. . . no other work has been so widely used or of such singular importance for the interpretation of the gospel accounts. . . as Grass'. . .' {3} But, Alsup protests, Grass's insistence that the heavenly vision type of appearance underlies the physical appearances of the gospels 'is predicated upon the impossibility of the material realism of that latter form as an acceptable answer to the "what happened" question. . . . Grass superimposes this criterion over the gospel appearance accounts and judges them by their conformity or divergence from it.'{4} As a result, '. . . the contemporary spectrum of research on the gospel resurrection appearances displays a proclivity to the last century (and Celsus of the second century) in large measure under the influence of Grass' approach. In a sense the gospel stories appear to be something of an embarrassment: their "realism" is offensive.'{5}



What legitimate basis can be given to such a viewpoint? Those who deny the physical resurrection body of Jesus have developed a line of reasoning that has become pretty much stock-in-trade:



The New Testament church does not agree about the nature of Christ's resurrected body. Material in Luke and John perhaps suggest this body to be corporeal in nature.43 Paul, on the other band, clearly argues that the body is a spiritual body. If any historical memory resides in the accounts of Paul's conversion in Acts, he must not have understood the appearance of Christ to have been a corporeal appearance. Most critics identify this conversion with the event referred to in I Cor. 15:8: 'Last of all, as to one untimely born, he appeared also to me.44 The arguments in verses 47-50 of this chapter for the identity between Christ's body and the spiritual body of the resurrection indicate that for the Apostle his Lord rose from the dead in a spiritual body. Most importantly, Paul has equated the appearance of Christ to him with the appearances to the other apostles. The resurrected Christ, as he was manifested to the church is thus a spiritual body . . . .

------------------

43Luke 24.39-43; John 20.26-38. There are, of course, contradictory elements in the stories which imply the body is more than physical.

44. . .{6}

We can formulate this reasoning as follows:

1. Paul's information is at least prima facie

more reliable than the gospels.



a. For he stands in closer temporal and personal

proximity to the original events.



2. Paul's information, in contrast to the gospels,

indicates Jesus possessed a purely spiritual

resurrection body.



a. First Argument:



(1) Paul equated the appearance of Jesus to

him with the appearances of Jesus to the

disciples.

(2) The appearance of Jesus to Paul was a

non-physical appearance.

(3) Therefore, the appearances of Jesus to the

disciples were non-physical appearances.



b. Second Argument:



(1) Paul equated Jesus's resurrection body with

our future resurrection bodies.

(2) Our future resurrection bodies will be

spiritual bodies.

(3) Therefore, Jesus's resurrectionbody was a

spiritual body.



3. Therefore, Jesus possessed a purely spiritual

resurrection body.



In this way the gospel accounts of the physical resurrection may be dismissed as legendary.



Now it is my conviction that this reasoning cannot bear the weight placed upon it by those who would reject the physical resurrection. I shall not in this essay contest the first premise. But I wish to take sharp issue with the second. Neither of the two supporting arguments, it seems to me, is sound; on the contrary, they embody serious misconceptions.



With regard to the first supporting argument, concerning the appearance of Jesus to Paul, it seems to me that both premisses (1) and (2) are highly questionable. Taking the premisses in reverse order, what is the evidence for (2) The appearance of Jesus to Paul was a non-physical appearance? Usually appeal is made to the accounts of this incident in Acts, where, it is said, the appearance is to be understood as a visionary experience (Acts 9.1-19: 22.3-16 26.9-23). As a matter of fact, however, the appearance in Acts, while involving visionary elements, cannot without further ado be characterized as purely visionary, since in all three accounts it is accompanied by extra-mental phenomena, namely, the light and the voice, which were experienced by Paul's companions. Grass dismisses these as due to Luke's objectifying tendencies.{7} This is, however, very doubtful, since Luke does not want to objectify the post-ascension visions of Jesus; it is the pre-ascension appearances whose extra-mental reality Luke emphasizes. Had Luke had no tradition that included Paul's companions, then we should have another vision like Stephen's, lacking extra-mental phenomena. And secondly, if Luke had invented the extra-mental aspects of the appearance to Paul, we should have expected him to be more consistent and not to construct such discrepancies as that Paul's companions heard and did not hear the voice. These inconsistencies suggest that the extra-mental phenomena were part of Luke's various traditions.



Grass further maintains that Luke had before him a tradition of Paul's experience that could not be assimilated to the more physical appearances of Christ to the disciples and that therefore the tradition is reliable; the extra-mental aspects are the result of mythical or legendary influences.{8} But one could argue that precisely the opposite is true: that because the appearance to Paul is a post-ascension experience Luke is forced to construe it as a heavenly vision, since Jesus has physically ascended. Grass's anthropomorphic parallels from Greek mythology (Homer Illiad a 158; idem Odyssey p. v. 161; Apollonius Argonauts 4. 852) bear little resemblance to Paul's experience; a genealogical tie between them is most unlikely. Thus, no appeal to the Acts accounts of the appearance to Paul can legitimately be made as proof that that appearance was purely visionary in nature.



Paul himself gives us no firm clue as to the nature of Christ's appearance to him. But it is interesting to note that when Paul speaks of his 'visions and revelations of the Lord' (II Cor 12.1-7) he does not include Jesus's appearance to him. Paul and the early Christian community as a whole were familiar with religious visions and sharply differentiated between these and an appearance of the risen Lord. {9} But what was the difference? Grass asserts that the only difference was in content: in an appearance the exalted Christ is seen.{10} But surely there must have been religious visions of the exalted Christ, too. Both Stephen's vision and the book of Revelation show that claims to visions of the exalted Christ which were not resurrection appearances were made in the church. Nor can it be said that the distinctive element in an appearance was the commissioning, for appearances were known which lacked this element (the Emmaus disciples, the 500 brethren). It seems to me that the most natural answer is that an appearance involved extra-mental phenomena, something's actually appearing, whereas a vision, even if caused by God, was purely in the mind. If this is correct, then Paul, in claiming for himself an appearance of Christ as opposed to a vision of Christ, is asserting to have seen something, not merely in the mind, but actually 'out there' in the real world. For all we know from Paul, this appearance could conceivably have been as physical as those portrayed in the gospels; and it is not impossible that Luke then 'spiritualized' the appearance out of the necessity of his pre- and post-ascension scheme! At any rate, it would be futile to attempt to prove that either Acts or Paul supports a purely visionary appearance to the apostle on the Damascus road.



But suppose this is altogether wrong. Suppose the appearance to Paul was purely visionary. What grounds are there for believing premise (1), Paul equated the appearance of Jesus to him with the appearances of Jesus to the disciples? Usually appeal is made to the fact that Paul places himself in the list of witnesses of the appearances; hence, the other appearances must have also been visionary appearances like his own. This, however, does not seem to follow. First, in placing himself in the list of witnesses, Paul does not imply that the foregoing appearances were the same sort of appearance as the one to him. He is not concerned here with the how of the appearances, but with who appeared. He wants to list witnesses of the risen Christ, and the mode of the appearance is entirely incidental. But second, in placing himself in the list, Paul is not trying to put the appearances to the others on a plane with his own; rather he is trying to level up his own experience to the objectivity and reality of the others. Paul's detractors doubted or denied his apostleship (I Cor 9. 1-2; II Cor 11.5; 12.11) and his having seen Christ would be an important argument in his favor (Gal 1.1, 11-12, 15-16; I Cor 9. 1-2; 15.8-9). His opponents might tend to dismiss Paul's experience as a mere subjective vision, not a real appearance, and so Paul is anxious to include himself with the other apostles as a recipient of a genuine, objective appearance of the risen Lord. By putting himself in the list, Paul is saying that what he saw was every bit as much a real appearance of Jesus as what they saw. In fact, one could argue that Paul's adding himself to the list is actually a case of special pleading! At any rate, it is a non sequitur to infer that because Paul includes himself in the list of witnesses, all the other appearances must be of the same mode as the appearance to Paul.



Hence, the first argument against Jesus's physical resurrection seems doubly unsound. Not only does the evidence run against a purely visionary appearance to Paul, but there is no indication that Paul equated the mode of the appearance of Jesus to himself with the mode of the appearances to the other disciples.



Let us turn then to the second supporting argument for a purely spiritual resurrection body of Jesus: the argument from Paul's term swma pneumatikon. Premise (1), Paul equated Jesus's resurrection body with our future resurreation bodies, is surely correct (Phil 3.21; I Cor 15.20; Col 1.18). But the truth of premise (2), our future resurrection bodies will be spiritual bodies, depends upon how one defines its terms. Therefore, before we look more closely at Paul's discussion of the resurrection body in I Cor 15.35-57, a word ought to be said about Paul's anthropological terms swma, sarx, and yuch.



The most important term in the second half of I Cor 15 is swma.{11} During the nineteenth century under the influence of idealism, theologians interpreted the swma as the form of a thing and the sarx as its substance.{12} In this way they could avoid the objectionable notion of a physical resurrection, for it was the form that was raised from the dead endowed with a new spiritual substance. Hence, in the old commentaries one finds that the swma pneumatikon was conceived to be a body made out of himmlischer Lichtsubstanz. This understanding has now been all but abandoned.{13} The view of swma as merely form and sarx as its substance cannot be exegetically sustained; swma is the body, form and substance. This does not mean, however, that twentieth century theologians take swma to mean the physical body. Rather under the influence of existentialism, particularly as adopted by Bultmann, they take swma, when used theologically, as the whole person conceived abstractly in existentialist categories of self-understanding. Thus, swma does not equal the physical body, but the person, and hence, a bodily resurrection means, not a resurrection of the physical body, but of the person. In this way the doctrine of physical resurrection is avoided as adroitly as it was in the days of philosophical idealism. It is the burden of Gundry's study to show that this understanding is drastically wrong. Even if his exegesis suffers at times from over-kill,{14} Gundry succeeds admirably in carrying his main point: that swma is never used in the New Testament to denote the whole person in isolation from his physical body, but is much more used to denote the physical body itself or the man with special emphasis on the physical body. Gundry's conclusion is worth quoting:

The soma denotes the physical body, roughly synonymous with 'flesh' in the neutral sense. It forms that part of man in and through which he lives and acts in the world. It becomes the base of operations for sin in the unbeliever, for the Holy Spirit in the believer. Barring prior occurrence of the Parousia, the soma will die. That is the lingering effect of sin even in the believer. But it will also be resurrected. That is its ultimate end, a major proof of its worth and necessity to wholeness of human being, and the reason for its sanctification now.{15}

T he importance of this conclusion cannot be overemphasized. Too long we have been told that for Paul swma is the ego, the 'I' of a man. Like a dash of cold water, Gundry's study brings us back to the genuine anthropological consciousness of first century man. The notion of body as the 'I' is a perversion of the biblical meaning of swma: Robert Jewett asserts, 'Bultmann has turned swma into its virtual opposite: a symbol for that structure of individual existence which is essentially non-physical.'{16} Hence, existentialist treatments of swma, as much as idealist treatments, have been a positive impediment to accurate historical-critical exegesis of I Cor 15 and have sacrificed theology to a philosophical fashion that is already passé.{17} To say that swma refers primarily to the physical body is not to say that the word cannot be used as synecdoche to refer to the whole man by reference to a part. 'The soma may represent the whole person simply because the soma lives in union with the soul/spirit. But soma does not mean "whole person," because its use is designed to call attention to the physical object which is the body of the person rather than the whole personality.'{18} Nor does this preclude metaphorical use of the word, as in the 'body of Christ' for the church; for it is a physical metaphor: the church is not the 'I' of Christ. When we turn to I Cor 15 and inquire about the nature of the resurrection body, therefore, we shall be inquiring about a body, not about an ego, an 'I', or a 'person' abstractly conceived apart from the body.

I have already alluded to Paul's use of sarx , and it will not be necessary to say much here. Theologians are familiar with sarx as the evil proclivity within man. This touches sensitive nerves in German theology because the Creed in German states that I believe in the resurrection of the Fleisch, not of the body as in the English translation. Hence, many theologians are rightly anxious to disassociate themselves from any doctrine that the flesh as a morally evil principle will be resurrected. But they seem prone to overlook the fact that Paul often uses sarx in a non-moral sense simply to mean the physical flesh or body. In this morally neutral sense the resurrection of the flesh = resurrection of the body. Now in I Cor 15 Paul is clearly speaking of sarx in a physical, morally neutral sense, for he speaks of the flesh of birds, animals, and fish, which would be absurd in any moral sense. Hence, understood in a physical sense, the doctrine of the resurrection of the flesh is morally unobjectionable.



Finally a brief word on the third term yuch: Paul does not teach a consistent dualism of swma-yuch, but often uses pneuma and other terms to designate the immaterial element of man. In fact in the adjectival form, yuchikoV has a meaning that does not connote immateriality at all, but rather the natural character of a thing in contradistinction to the supernatural character of God's Spirit. Thus in I Cor 2.14-3.3 Paul differentiates three types of men: the anJrwpoV yuchikoV or natural man apart from God's Spirit; the anJrwpoV pneumatikoV or spiritual man who is led and empowered by God's Spirit; and the anJrwpoV sarkinoV or carnal man who, though possessing the Spirit of God (I Cor 12. 13), is nevertheless still under the sway of the sarx or evil principle in human nature. This makes it evident that for Paul yucikoV did not have the connotations which we today associate with 'soul.'



With these terms in mind we now turn to Paul's discussion in I Cor 15.35-37. He begins by asking two polemical questions: How are the dead raised? With what kind of body do they come? (v 35; cf. II Bar 49.2-3). Paul's opponents seemed to have been unable to accept the resurrection because the resurrection of a material body was either inconceivable or offensive to their Greek minds (cf. Bultmann's 'resuscitation of a corpse'). Paul's answer steers a careful course between the crasser forms of the Pharisaic doctrine of resurrection, in which the raised will, for example, each beget a thousand children and eat the flesh of Leviathan, and the Platonistic doctrine of the immortality of the soul apart from the body. Paul will contend that the resurrection body will be radically different from this natural body, but that it will nevertheless be a body-- Paul contemplates no release of the soul from the prison house of the body. Paul's answer is that the resurrection body will be a marvellous transformation of our present body, making it suitable for existence in the age to come-- a doctrine not unusual in the Judaism of Paul's day and remarkably similar to that of the contemporary II Bar 50-51, which should be read in conjunction with Paul's argument.{19} It is highly instructive, particularly if we accept that the author of Luke-Acts was an associate of Paul that Luke specifically identifies Paul's doctrine of the resurrection with that of the Pharisees (Acts 23.6; cf. 24.14; 16.6, 21-23).



In the first paragraph, vv 36-41, Paul searches for analogies to the resurrection of the dead (v 42). The first analogy is the analogy of the seed. The point of the analogy is simply to draw attention to how different the plant is from the seed that is buried in the ground (cf. Matt 13.31-32 for Jesus's use of a similar analogy in another context). It is a good analogy for Paul's purposes, for the sowing of the seed and its death are reminiscent of the burial of the dead man (vv 42-44). To criticize Paul's analogy from the standpoint of modern botany--saying, for example, that a seed does not really die--presses the analogy too far. Similarly some commentators criticize Paul's analogy because he lacked the modern botanical notion that a particular type of seed yields a particular type of plant; Paul thought God alone determined what plant should spring up from any seed that was sown (v 38). But this is quite unreasonable, as though Paul could think that a date-palm would conceivably spring from a grain of corn! He specifically says that God gives 'each kind of seed its own body' (v 38), which harks back to the Genesis account of creation according to kinds (Gen 1.11). At any rate this loses the whole point of the analogy: that from the mere seed God produces a wonderfully different plant.



Paul then appeals to the analogy of different sorts of flesh again in order to prove that if we recognize differences even in the physical world then the resurrection body could also be different from our present body. Paul's analogy may have in mind the creation account, but I think the Jewish distinction between clean and unclean food is closer (cf. Lev 11; animals: 1-8; fish: 9-12; birds: 13-19; insects: 20-23; swarming things: 29-30).{20 } So I do not think sarx here is precisely identical with swma. Not only would that reduce Paul's argument to the rather banal assertion that men have different bodies from fish, but it would also entail the false statement that all animals have the same kind of body. Rather in the present connection, sarx means essentially 'meat' or 'organic matter.' The old commentaries were therefore wrong in defining sarx tout simple as 'substance,' for inorganic matter would not be sarx; Paul would never speak of the flesh of a stone. To say that the resurrection body has therefore a different kind of flesh than the present body probably presses the analogy too far; all Paul wants to show is that as there are differences among mundane things, analogously the supernatural resurrection body could also differ from the present body.



The third analogy is that of terrestrial and celestial bodies (vv 40-41). There can be no doubt from v 41 that Paul means astronomical bodies, not angels. Again the point of the analogy is the same: there are radical differences among bodies in the physical world, so why should not the body in the world to come differ from the present body? Paul's analogy is particularly apt in this case because as the heavenly bodies exceed terrestrial bodies in glory, so does the resurrection body the natural body (v 43; cf. Phil 3.21).{21} The doxa of the heavenly bodies is their brightness, which varies; there is no trace here of Lichtsubstanz. When applied to the resurrection body, however, doxa seems to be honor (v 43). Paul has thus prepared the way for his doctrine of the world to come by three analogies from the present world. All of them show how things can be radically different from other things of the same kind; similarly a swma pneumatikon will be seen to be radically different from a swma yuchikon. Moreover, Paul's analogies form an ascending scale from plant to animal to terrestrial bodies to celestial bodies; the next type of body to be mentioned will be the most wonderful and exalted of all.



From vv 42-50 Paul spells out his doctrine of the swma pneumatikon. The body that is to be differs from the present body in that it will be imperishable, glorious, powerful, and spiritual; whereas the present body is perishable, dishonourable, weak, and physical (w 42-44). These are the four essential differences between the present body and the resurrection body. What do they tell us about the nature of the resurrection body?



First, it is sown en jJora, but it is raised en ajJarsia. These terms tell us clearly that Paul is not talking about egos, or 'I's,' but about bodies, for (1) the speiretai-egeiretai has primary reference to the burial and raising up of a dead man's body, not the 'person' in abstraction from the body and (2) only the body can be described as perishable (II Cor 4.16), for man's spirit survives death (II Cor 5.1-5; cf. Rom 8.10; Phil 1. 23), Rather the disjunction under discussion concerns the radical change that will take place in our bodies: Paul teaches personal bodily immortality, not immortality of the soul alone (cf. vv 53-54). Strange as this may seem, the Christian teaching (or at least Paul's) is not that our souls will live forever, but that we will have bodies in the after-life.



Second, it is sown en atimia, but it is raised en doxh. Our present bodies are wracked by sin, are bodies of death, groaning with the whole creation to be set free from sin and decay; we long, says Paul, for the redemption of our bodies (II Cor 5.4; Rom 8.19-24). This body, dishonored through sin and death, will be transformed by Christ to be like his glorious body (Phil 3.21). In a spiritual sense we already have an anticipation of this glory insofar as we are conformed inwardly to the image of Christ and are sanctified by his Spirit (II Cor 3.18), but Paul teaches that the body will not simply fall away like a useless husk, but will be transformed to partake of this glory also.



Third, it is sown en asJenia, but it will be raised en dunamei. How well Paul knew of weakness! Afflicted with a bodily malediction which was offensive to others and a burden to those around him, Paul found in his weakness the power of Christ (Gal 4.13-14; II Cor 12.7-10). And on his poor body which had been stoned, beaten, and scourged for the sake of the gospel, Paul bore the marks of Christ, so much so that be dared to write '. . . in my flesh I complete what is lacking in Christ's afflictions. . .' (Cal 1.24). Just as Christ 'was crucified in weakness, but lives by the power of God' (II Cor 13.4) so Paul longed to know the power of the resurrection and looked forward to the day when he, too, would receive the resurrection body (II Cor 5.1-4; Phil 3.10-11).



Fourth, it is sown a swma yucikon, but it is raised a swma pneumatikon, By a swma yucikon Paul clearly does not mean a body made out of yuch. Rather just as Paul frequently uses sarkikoV to indicate, not the physical composition of a thing, but its orientation, its dominating principle, so yucikoV also indicates, not a composition, but an orientation. In the New Testament yucikoV always has a negative connotation (I Cor 2.14; Jas 3.15; Jude 19); that which is yucikoV partakes of the character and direction of natural human nature. Hence, the emphasis in swma yucikon is not that the body is physical, but that is natural. Accordingly, swma yucikon ought rightly to be translated 'natural body;' it means our present human body. This is the body that will be sown. But it is raised a swma pneumatikon. And just as swma yucikon does not mean a body made out of yuch, neither does swma pneumatikon mean a body made out of pneuma. If swma pneumatikon indicated a body made out of spirit, then its opposite would not be a swma yucikon, but a swma sarkinon. For Paul, yuch and pneuma are not substances out of which bodies are made, but dominating principles by which bodies are directed. Virtually every modern commentator agrees on this point: Paul is not talking about a rarefied body made out of spirit or ether; he means a body under the lordship and direction of God's Spirit. The present body is yucikon insofar as the yuch is its dominating principle (cf. anJrwpoV yucikoV I Cor 2.14). The body which is to be will be pneumatikon, not in the sense of a spiritual substance, but insofar as the pneuma will be its dominating principle (cf. anJrwpoV pneumatikoV-- I Cor 2.15). They do not differ qua swma; rather they differ qua orientation. Thus, philological analysis leads, in Clavier's words, to the conclusion that '. . . le "corps pneumatique" est, en substance, le même corps, ce corps de chair, mais controlé par l'esprit, comme le fut le corps de Jésus-Christ.'{22} The contrast is not between physical body / non-physical body, but between naturally oriented body / spiritually oriented body. Hence, I think it very unfortunate that the term swma pneumatikon has been usually translated 'spiritual body,' for this tends to be very misleading, as Héring explains:



En français toutefois la traduction littérale corps spirituel risque de créer les pires malentendus. Car la plupart des lecteurs de langue française, étant plus ou moins consciemment cartésiens, céderont à la tendence d'identifier le spirituel avec l'inétendu et naturellement aussi avec l'im-matériel, ce qui va à l'encontre des idées pauliniennes et crée de plus une contradictio in adjecto; car que serait un corps sans étendue ni matière?{23}

H éring therefore suggests that it is better to translate swma pneumatikon as the opposite of natural body ( swma yucikon ) as supernatural body. Although this has the disadvantage of ignoring the connotation of pneumatikoV as 'Spirit-dominated,' it avoids the inevitable misunderstandings engendered by 'spiritual body.' As Héring rightly comments, this latter term, understood substantively, is practically a self-contradiction. By the same token, 'physical body' is really a tautology. Thus, natural body/supernatural body is a better rendering of Paul's meaning here.

Having described the four differences between the present body and the resurrection body, Paul elaborates the doctrine of the two Adams. His statement that the first Adam was eiV yuchn zwsan and the second eiV pneuma zwopoioun (v 45) must be understood in light of the foregoing discussion. Just as Paul does not mean Adam was a disembodied soul, neither does he mean Christ turned into a disembodied spirit. That would contradict the doctrine of the resurrection of the swma. Rather these terms refer once again to the natural body made at creation and the supernatural body produced by the resurrection (cf. v 43b). First we have our natural bodies here on earth as possessed by Adam, then we shall have our supernatural bodies in the age to come as possessed by Jesus (vv 46, 49; cf. vv 20-23). The fact that materiality is not the issue here is made clear in v 47:



o prwtoV anJrwpoV ek ghV coikoV

o deuteroV anJrwpoV ex ouranou

There is something conspicuously missing in this parallel between to yucikon and to pneumatikon (v 46): the first Adam is from the earth, made of dust; the second Adam is from heaven, but made of-- ?{24} Clearly Paul recoils from saying the second Adam is made of heavenly substance. The contrast between the two Adams is their origin, not their substance. Thus, the doetrine of the two Adams confirms the philological analysis. Then comes a phrase that has caused great difficulties to many: 'I tell you this, brethren, flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God, nor does the perishable inherit the imperishable' (v 50.) Does not this clearly indicate that the resurrection body will be immaterial? Jeremias has tried to escape this conclusion by arguing that 'flesh and blood' refers to those alive at the Parousia, while the 'perishable' refers to the dead in Christ: Paul means that neither living nor dead as they are can inherit God's kingdom, but must be transformed (v 51).{25} This, however, is unlikely, for it requires that v 50 go with v 51. But not only does v 50 appear to be a summary statement of the foregoing paragraph, but v 51 introduces a new paragraph and a new thought, as is indicated by the introductory words, 'Lo! I tell you a mystery!' and by the fact that something new and previously unknown is about to be communicated. Neither need one adopt the expedient of Bornhäuser that Paul means flesh and blood will decay in the grave, but the bones will be raised.{26} This falsely assumes Paul is here speaking of anatomy. Rather commentators are agreed that 'flesh and blood' is a typical Semitic expression denoting the frail human nature.{27} It emphasizes our feeble mortality over against God; hence, the second half of v 50 is Paul's elaboration in other words of exactly the same thought. The fact that the verb is in the singular may also suggest that Paul is not talking of physical aspects of the body, but about a conceptual unity: 'flesh and blood is not able to inherit . . . .' Elsewhere Paul also employs the expression 'flesh and blood' to mean simply 'people' or 'mortal creatures' (Gal 1.16; Eph 6.12). Therefore, Paul is not talking about anatomy here; rather he means that mortal human beings cannot enter into God's eternal kingdom: therefore, they must become imperishable (cf. v 53). This imperishability does not connote immateriality or unextendedness; on the contrary Paul's doctrine of the world to come is that our resurrection bodies will be part of, so to speak, a resurrected creation (Rom 8.18-23). The universe will be delivered from sin and decay, not materiality, and our bodies wil1 be part of that universe.

In the following paragraph, Paul tells how this will be done. When he says 'We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed' (v 51), it is not clear whether he means by 'all' either Christians in general or Christians alive at his time (cf. I Thess 4.15, 17). But in either case, two things are clear: (1) Paul held that the transformation would take place instantaneously at the moment of the resurrection (v. 52). In this he differs sharply from II Bar 50-51 which holds that the resurrection yields the old bodies again which are transformed only after the judgement.{28} Paul's doctrine is that we are raised imperishable and glorified. (2) For Paul the resurrection is a transformation, not an exchange. Klappert draws the distinctions nicely:



Es geht also in der Auferstehung nach Paulus weder 1. um eine Wiederbelebung, d. h. um eine Neuschöpfung aus ( ! ) dem Alten, noch 2. um eine Shöpfung aus dem Nichts, d. h. um eine Neuschöpfung anstelle ( ! ) des Alten, Sondern 3. um eine radikale Verwandlung des sterblichen leibes, d. h. um eine Neuschopfung an ( ! ) dem alten. {29}

I n the resurrection the 'ego' of a man does not trade bodies. Rather the natural body is miraculously transformed into a supernatural body. The metaphor of the sowing and raising of the body points to this. In fact, the very concept of resurrection implies this, for in an exchange of bodies there would be nothing that would be raised. When Paul says 'We shall all be changed,' he means the bodies of both the dead and the living alike. Paul's doctrine is that at the Parousia, the dead will rise from their graves transformed and that those who are still alive will also be transformed (vv 51-52; I Thess 4.16-17). The concept of an exchange of bodies is a peculiarly modern notion. For the Jews the resurrection of the dead concerned the remains in the grave, which they conceived to be the bones.{30} According to their understanding while the flesh decayed, the bones endured. It was the bones, therefore, that were the primary subject of the resurrection. In this hope, the Jews carefully collected the bones of the dead into ossuaries after the flesh had decomposed. Only in a case in which the bones were destroyed, as with the Jewish martyrs, did God's creating a resurrection body ex nihilo come into question. It is instructive that on the question of the resurrection, Jesus sided with the Pharisees. He held that the tomb is the place where the bones repose and that the dead in the tombs would be raised (Matt 23.27; John 5.28). It is important to remember, too, that Paul was a Pharisee and that Luke identifies his doctrine of the resurrection with that of the Pharisees. Paul's language is thoroughly Pharisaic, and it is unlikely that he should employ the same terminology with an entirely different meaning. This means that when Paul says the dead will be raised imperishable, he means the dead in the graves. As a first century Jew and Pharisee he could have understood the expression in no other way.

Thus, Grass is simply wrong when he characterizes the resurrection as an exchange, a re-creation, and not a transformation.{31} He mistakenly appeals to v 50; his statement that Paul has no interest in the emptying of the graves ignores the clear statements of I Thess 4.16 (which in light of v 14, which probably refers, according to the current Jewish idea, to the souls of the departed, can only have reference to the bodies in the graves) I Cor 15.42-44, 52. be attempts to strengthen his case by arguing that the relation of the old world to the new is one of annihilation to re-creation and this is analogous to the relation of the old body to the new. But Grass's texts are chiefly non-Pauline (Heb 1.10-12; Lk 13.31; Rev 6.14; 20.11; 21.1; II Pet 3.10). As we have seen, Paul's view is a transformation of creation (Rom 8.18-23; cf. I Cor 7.31). According to Paul it is this creation and this body which will be delivered from bondage to sin and decay. Paul, therefore, believed that the bodies of those alive at the Parousia would be changed, not discarded or annihilated, and that the remains (the bones?) of the dead bodies would likewise be transformed.



But this at once raises the puzzling question: what happens to those Christians who die before the Parousia? Are they simply extinguished until the day of resurrection? The clue to Paul's answer may be found in II Cor 5.1-10. Here the earthly tent = swma yucikon, and the building from God = swma pneumatikon. When do we receive the heavenly dwelling? The language of v 4 is irresistibly reminiscent of I Cor 15.53-54, which we saw referred to the Parousia. This makes it evident that the heavenly dwelling is not received immediately upon death, but at the Parousia. It is unbelievable that had Paul changed his mind on the dead's receiving their resurrection bodies at the Parousia, he would not have told the Corinthians, but continued to use precisely the same language. If the body were received immediately upon death, there would be no reason for the fear of nakedness, and v 8 would become unintelligible. In short this would mean that Paul abandoned the doctrine of the resurrection of the dead: but his later letters show he continued to hold to it.



In I Cor 15 Paul did not speak of a state of nakedness; the mortal simply "put on" (endusasqai) the immortal. But in II Cor 5 he speaks of the fear of being unclothed and the preference to be further clothed (ependusasqai), as by top-clothing. It is evident that Paul is here describing losing the earthly body as being stripped and hence naked. He would rather not quit the body, but simply be transformed at the Parousia without experiencing the nakedness of death. In this sense, putting on the new body is like putting on top-clothing; namely, one need not undress first. Taken in isolation, this might be thought to imply that the resurrection is an exchange of bodies, not a transformation; but this presses the metaphor too hard. Paul is not trying to be technical, as is evident from his use of the ordinary endusamenoi in v 3; and the notion of 'putting on' is not inconsistent with the concept of transformation, as I Cor 15.53-54 makes clear. Indeed, the 'putting on' consists precisely in being transformed. Neither the ecomen nor the aiwnion of v 1 indicates that the new body already exists; rather they express the certitude of future possession and the subsequent eternal duration of the new body. The idea that the new body exists already in heaven is an impossible notion, for the idea of an unanimated swma pneumatikon, stored up in heaven until the Parousia, is a contradiction in terms, since pneuma is the essence and source of life itself. Rather from I Cor 15 we understand that the heavenly dwelling is created at the Parousia through a transformation of the earthly tent, a point concealed by Paul's intentional contrast between the two in v 1, but hinted at in v 4 (cf. also Rom 8.10-11, 18-23). What Paul wants to express by the metaphor is that he would rather live to the Parousia and be changed than die and be naked prior to being raised.



The nakedness is thus the nakedness of an individual's soul or spirit apart from the body, a common description in Hellenistic literature. This is confirmed in vv 6-9 where Paul contrasts being at home in the body and being at home with the Lord as mutually exclusive conditions. Paul is saying that while we are in this natural body we sigh, not because we want to leave the body through death and exist as a disembodied soul, but because we want to be transformed into a supernatural body without the necessity of passing through the intermediate state. But despite the unsettling prospect of such an intermediate state, Paul still thinks it better to be away from the body and with the Lord (v 8). Christ makes all the difference; for Paul the souls of the departed are not shut up in caves or caskets until the end time as in Jewish apocalyptic, nor do they 'sleep': rather they go to be with Jesus and experience a conscious, blissful communion with him (cf. Phil 1.21, 23) until he returns to earth (I Thess 4.14). This overrides the dread of nakedness.



Paul's doctrine of the nature of the resurrection body now becomes clear. When a Christian dies, his conscious spirit or soul goes to be with Christ until the Parousia, while his body lies in the grave. When Christ returns, in a single instant the remains of the natural body are transformed into a powerful, glorious, and imperishable supernatural body under the complete lordship and direction of the Spirit, and the soul of the departed is simultaneously reunited with the body, and the man is raised to everlasting life. Then those who are alive will be similarly transformed, the old body miraculously changed intro the new without exess, and all believers will go to be with the Lord.



This doctrine teaches us much about Paul's conception of the resurrection body of Christ. In no sense did Paul conceive Christ's resurrection body to be immaterial or unextended. The notion of an immaterial, unextended body seems to be a self- contradiction; the nearest thing to it would be a shade in Sheol, and this was certainly not Paul's conception of Christ's glorious resurrection body! The only phrases in Paul's discussion that could lend themselves to a 'dematerializing' of Christ's body are 'swma pneumatikon' and 'flesh and blood can not inherit the kingdom of God.' But virtually all modern commentators agree that these expressions have nothing to do with substantiality or anatomy, as we have seen. Rather the first speaks of the orientation of the resurrection body, while the second refers to the mortality and feebleness of the natural body in contrast to God.



So it is very difficult to understand how theologians can persist in describing Christ's resurrection body in terms of an invisible, intangible spirit; there seems to be a great lacuna here between exegesis and theology. I can only agree with O'Collins when he asserts in this context, 'Platonism may be hardier than we suspect.'{32} With all the best will in the world, it is extremely difficult to see what is the difference between an immaterial, unextended, spiritual 'body' and the immortality of the soul. And this again is certainly not Paul's doctrine! Therefore, the second supporting argument for Jesus's having a purely spiritual resurrection body also fails.



We have seen, therefore, that the traditions of the appearance of Jesus to Paul do not describe that event as a purely visionary experience; on the contrary extra-mental accompaniments were involved. Paul gives no firm clue as to the nature of that appearance; from his doctrine of the nature of the resurrection body, it could theoretically have been as physical as any gospel appearance. And Paul does insist that it was an appearance, not a vision. Luke regarded the mode of Jesus's appearance to Paul as unique because it was a post-ascension encounter. Paul himself gives no hint that he considered the appearance to him to be in any way normative for the other appearances or determinative for a doctrine of the resurrection body. On the contrary, Paul also recognized that the appearance to him was an anomaly and was exercised to bring it up to the level of objectivity and reality of the other appearances. Furthermore, Paul conceived of the resurrection body as a powerful, glorious, imperishable, Spirit-directed body, created through a transformation of the earthly body or the remains thereof, and made to inhabit the new universe in the eschaton. The upshot of all this is the startling conclusion that Paul's doctrine of the resurrection body is potentially more physical than that of the gospels, and if Christ's resurrection body is to be conceived in any less than a physical way, that qualification must come from the side of the gospels, not of Paul.



So although many theologians try to play off the 'massiven Realismus' of the gospels against a Pauline doctrine of a spiritual resurrection body, such reasoning rests on a fundamental and drastic misunderstanding of Paul's doctrine. One cannot but suspect that the real reason for scholarly scepticism concerning the historicity of the gospel appearances is that, as Bultmann openly stated, this is offensive to 'modern man,' and that Paul has been made an unwilling accomplice in critics' attempts to find reasons to support a conclusion already dictated by a priori philosophical assumptions. But Paul will not allow himself to be put to this use; a careful exegesis of Pauline doctrine fully supports a physical resurrection body. And, it must be said, this was how first century Christians apparently understood him, for the letters of Clement and Ignatius prove early wide acceptance of the doctrine of physical resurrection in first century churches, including the very churches where Paul himself had taught. The ground is thus cut from beneath those scholars who object to the historicity of the gospel resurrection narratives because of their physicalism.



But more than that: given the temporal and personal proximity of Paul to the original witnesses of the resurrection appearances, the historicity of the bodily resurrection of Jesus can scarcely be denied. For the physicalism of the gospels cannot now be explained away as a late legendary or theological development; on the contrary, what we see from Paul is that it was there from the beginning. And if it was there from the beginning, then it must have been historically well- founded--otherwise, one is at a loss how to explain that the earliest witnesses should believe in it. Though it is constantly repeated that the physicalism of the gospels is an anti-docetic apologetic, scarcely a single piece of evidence is ever produced in favor of this assertion--and mere assertion is not proof. We have seen that both Paul's personal contact and temporal proximity with the original disciples precludes a late development of the notion of physical resurrection, which is implied by the anti-docetic hypothesis. And Paul's doctrine can hardly be explained away as an anti-docetic apologetic, for it was the crass materialism of the Jewish doctrine of resurrection that Paul's Corinthian opponents probably gagged at (I Cor 15.35), so that Paul found it necessary to emphasize the transformation of the earthly body into a supernatural body. An anti-docetic apologetic would have been counter-productive. Hence, the evidence of Paul precludes that the physical resurrection was an apologetic development of the gospels aimed at Docetism.



But this consideration aside, there are other reasons to think that in the gospel narratives Docetism is not in view: (1) For a Jew the very term 'resurrection' entailed a physical resurrection of the dead man in the tomb. The notion of a 'spiritual resurrection' was not merely unknown; it was a contradiction in terms. Therefore, in saying that Jesus was raised and appeared, the early believers must have understood this in physical terms. It was Docetism which was the response to this physicalism, not the other way around. The physical resurrection is thus primitive and prior, Docetism being the later reaction of theological and philosophical reflection. (2) Moreover, had purely 'spiritual appearances' been original, then it is difficult to see how physical appearances could have developed. For (a) the offense of Docetism would then be removed, since the Christians, too, believed in purely spiritual appearances, and (b) the doctrine of physical appearances would have been counter-productive as an apologetic, both to Jews and pagans; to Jews because they did not accept an individual resurrection within history and to pagans because their belief in the immortality of the soul could not accommodate the crudity of physical resurrection. The church would therefore have retained its purely spiritual appearances. (3) Besides, Docetism was mainly aimed at denying the reality of the incarnation of Christ (I John 4.2-3; III John 7), not the physical resurrection. Docetists were not so interested in denying the physical resurrection as in denying that the divine Son perished on the cross; hence, some held the Spirit deserted the human Jesus at the crucifixion, leaving the human Jesus to die and be physically raised (Irenaeus Against Heresies 1.26. 1). An anti-docetic apologetic aimed at proving a physical resurrection therefore misses the point entirely. (4) The demonstrations of corporeality and continuity in the gospels, as well as the other physical appearances, were not redactional additions of Luke or John, as is evident from a comparison of Luke 24.36-43 with John 20.19-23 (it is thus incorrect to speak, for example, of 'Luke's apologetic against Gnosticism'), but were part of the traditions received by the evangelists. Docetism, however, was a later theological development, attested in John's letters. Therefore, the gospel accounts of the physical resurrection tend to ante-date the rise and threat of Docetism. In fact, not even all later Gnostics denied the physical resurrection (cf. Gospel of Philip, Letter of James, and Epistle of Rheginus). It is interesting that in the ending added to Mark there is actually a switch from material proofs of the resurrection to verbal rebuke by Jesus for the disciples' unbelief. (5) The demonstrations themselves do not evince the rigorousness of an apologetic against Docetism. In both Luke and John it is not said that either the disciples or Thomas actually accepted Jesus's invitation to touch him and prove that he was not a Spirit. Contrast the statements of Ignatius that the disciples did physically touch Jesus (Ignatius Ad Smyrnaeans 3.2; cf. Epistula Apostolorum 11-12). As Schnackenburg has said, if an anti-docetic apology were involved in the gospel accounts, more would have to have been done than Jesus's merely showing the wounds.{33} (6) The incidental, off-hand character of the physical resurrection in most of the accounts shows that the physicalism was a natural assumption or presupposition of the accounts, not an apologetic point consciously being made. For example, the women's grasping Jesus's feet is not a polemical point, but just their response of worship. Similarly, Jesus says, 'Do not hold me,' though Mary is not explicitly said to have done so; this is no conscious effort to prove a physical resurrection. The appearances on the mountain and by the Sea of Tiberias just naturally presuppose a physical Jesus; no points are trying to be scored against Docetism. Together these considerations strongly suggest that the physical appearances were not an apologetic to Docetism, but always part of the church's tradition; there is no good reason to doubt that Jesus did, in fact, show his disciples that he had been physically raised.



And it must be said that despite the disdain of some theologians for the gospels' conception of the nature of the resurrection body, it is nonetheless true that like Paul the evangelists steer a careful course between gross materialism and the immortality of the soul. On the one hand, every gospel appearance of Jesus that is narrated is a physical appearance. {34} The gospels' unanimity on this score is very impressive, especially in view of the fact that the appearance stories represent largely independent traditions; they confirm Paul's doctrine that it is the earthly body that is resurrected. On the other hand, the gospels insist that Jesus's resurrection was not simply the resuscitation of a corpse. Lazarus would die again some day, but Jesus rose to everlasting life (Matt 28. 18-20; Luke 24.26; John 20.17). And his resurrection body was possessed of powers that no normal human body possesses. Thus, in Matthew when the angel opens the tomb, Jesus does not come forth; rather he is already gone. Similarly, in Luke when the Emmaus disciples recognize him at bread-breaking he disappears. The same afternoon Jesus appears to Peter, miles away in Jerusalem. When the Emmaus disciples finally join the disciples in Jerusalem that evening, Jesus suddenly appears in their midst. John says the doors were shut, but Jesus stood among them. A week later Jesus did the same thing. Very often commentators make the error of stating that Jesus came through the closed doors, but neither John nor Luke says this. Rather Jesus simply appeared in the room; contrast the pagan myths of gods entering rooms like fog through the keyhole (Homer Odyssey 6. 19-20; Homeric Hymns 3. 145)! According to the gospels, Jesus in his resurrection body had the ability to appear and vanish at will, without regard to spatial limitations.



Many scholars have stumbled at Luke's 'a spirit has not flesh and bones as you see that I have,' claiming this is a direct contradiction to Paul. In fact, Paul speaks of 'flesh and blood', not 'flesh and bones.' Is the difference significant? It certainly is! 'Flesh and blood,' as we have seen, is a Semitic expression for mortal human nature and has nothing to do with anatomy. Paul agrees with Luke on the physicality of the resurrection body. But furthermore, neither is 'flesh and bones' meant to be an anatomical description. Rather, proceeding from the Jewish idea that it is the bones that are preserved and raised (Gen R 28.3; Lev R 18.1; Eccl R 12.5), the expression connotes the physical reality of Jesus's resurrection. Michaelis writes,



Wenn nach Lukas ein Geist weder Fleisch noch Knochen hat, der Auferstandene aber kein Geist ist, so besagt das nicht, dass der Auferstandene, mit der paulinischen Terminologie zu reden, kein "pneumatisches (verklärtes, himmlisches) Soma," sondern ein "psychisches (natürliches, irdisches) Soma" habe. Mit Fleisch und Knochen in der lukanischen Aussage ist vielmehr (wie zugeben werden muss, in einem kräftigen Ausdruck, den Paulus aber nicht unbedingt als "lästerlich" empfunden haben müsste) das ausgedrückt, was Paulus mit dem Begriff "Soma" (Leib, Leiblichkeit) ausdrückt. Durch den Hinweis auf Fleisch und Knochen soll nicht der pneumatische Charakter dieses Soma bestritten, sondern die Realität des Somatischen bezeugt werden. Auch Lukas steht, wie sich zudem aus der Gesamtheit der bei ihm sich findenen Hinweise ergibt (vgl. 24.13ff; Apg. 1.3), unter den Voraussetzung, dass es sich bei den Erscheinungen nur um Begegnungen mit dem Auferstandenen in seiner verklärten Leiblichkeit handeln kann.{35}

T he point of Jesus's utterance is to assure the disciples that this is a real resurrection, in the proper, Jewish sense of that word, not an appearance of a bodiless pneuma. Though it stresses corporeality, its primary emphasis is not on the constituents of the body. Thus, neither Paul nor Luke are talking about anatomy, and both agree on the physicality and the supernaturalness of Jesus's resurrection body.

In conclusion, we have seen that the critical argument designed to drive a wedge between Paul and the gospels is fallacious. Neither the argument from the appearance to Paul nor the argument from Paul's doctrine of the resurrection body serves to set Paul against the gospels. Quite the opposite, we have seen that Paul's evidence serves to confirm the gospels' narratives of Jesus's bodily resurrection and that their physicalism is probably historically well-founded, that is to say, Jesus did rise bodily from the dead and appear physically to the disciples. And finally we have seen that the gospels present like Paul a balanced view of the nature of Jesus's resurrection body. On the one hand, Jesus has a body--he is not a disembodied soul. For the gospels and Paul alike the incarnation is an enduring state, not limited to the 30 some years of Jesus's earthly life. On the other hand, Jesus's body is a supernatural body. We must keep firmly in mind that for the gospels as well as Paul, Jesus rises glorified from the grave. The gospels and Paul agree that the appearances of Jesus ceased and that physically he has left this universe for an indeterminate time. During his physical absence he is present through the Holy Spirit who functions in his stead. But someday he will personally return to judge mankind and to establish his reign over all creation.



NOTES



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

{1} This research was made possible through a generous grant from the Alexander von Humboldt Foundation and was conducted at the Universität München and Cambridge University. The full results of this research will appear in two forthcoming volumes, The Historical Argument for the Resurrection of Jesus: Its Rise, Decline. and Contribution and The Historicity of the Resurrection of Jesus.

{2} Hans Grass, Ostergeschehen and Osterberichte (4th ed.; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1970).



{3} John E. Alsup, The Post-Resurrection Appearance Stories of the Gospel-Tradition (Stuttgart: Calwer Verlag, 1975), 32.



{4} Ibid., 34.



{5} Ibid., 54.



{6} Robin Scroggs, The Last Adam (Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1966), 92-3.



{7} Grass, Ostergeschehen, 222.



{8} Ibid., 219-20.



{9} See ibid., 189-207.



{10} Ibid., 229-32.



{11} The outstanding work on this concept, which I follow here, is Robert H. Gundry, Soma in Biblical Theology (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1976).



{12} C. Rolsten, Zum Evangelium des Paulus und des Petrus (Rostock: Stiller, 1868); Hermann Lüdemann, Die Anthropologie des Apostels Paulus und ihre Stellung innerhalb seiner Heilslehre (Kiel: Universitätsverlag, 1872); remarkably so also Hans Conzelmann, Der erste Brief en die Korinther (KEKNT 5; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1969), 335.



{13} See the six point refutation in Gundry, Soma, 161-2.



{14} See ibid., 122, 141. Most of Gundry's texts do not support dualism, but merely aspectivalism; but when he adduces texts that clearly contemplate the separation of soul or spirit and body at death, then his argument for dualism is strong and persuasive.



{15} Gundry, Soma, 50.



{16} Robert Jewett, Paul's Anthropological Terms (AGAJY 10; Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1971), 211.



{17} Gundry, Soma, 167.



{18} Ibid., 80.



{19} Paul's teaching is essentially the Jewish doctrine of glorified bodies, according to Johannes Weiss, Der erste Korintherbrief (9th ed.; KEKNT 5; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1910), 345: W. D. Davies, Paul and Rabbinic Judaism (2d ed; London: SPCK, 1965), 305-8; Ulrich Wilckens, Auferstehung (Stuttgart and Berlin: Kreuz Verlag, 1970), 128-31; Joseph L. Smith, 'Resurrection Faith Today,' TS 30 (1969): 406.



{20} On the different types of flesh, see Tractate Chullin 8. 1, where the author explains that one cannot cook flesh in milk, unless it is the flesh of fish or of grasshoppers; fowl may be set on the table with cheese, but not eaten with it. See also Davies, Paul, 306.



{21} Cf. II Bar 51.1-10 where the glory of the righteous seems to be a literal brightness like the stars'. For Paul the glory of the righteous seems to mean majesty, honor, exaltation, etc., not so much physical radiance, which is a mere analog. See Joseph Coppens, 'La glorification céleste du Christ dans la théologie neotestamentaire et l'attente de Jésus,' in Resurrexit (ed. Édouard Dhanis; Rome: Editrice Libreria Vaticana, 1974), 37-40.



{22} R. Clavier, 'Breves remarques sur la notion de swma pneumatikon,' in The background of the New Testament and Its Eschatology (ed. W. D. Davies and D. Daube; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1956), 361. Despite the philological evidence, Clavier goes for a substantial understanding of spiritual body on two grounds: (1) in the seed/plant analogy, the plant is not numerically identical with the seed, and (2) I Cor 15.50. The first reason is astounding, for the plant certainly is numerically identical with the seed! Pressing the analogy this far supports the continuity of the resurrection body with the earthly body. Clavier sadly misunderstands v 50, as evident from his remark that Paul should have mentioned bones along with flesh and blood.



{23} Jean Héring, La première épître de saint Paul aux Corinthiens (2d ed., CNT 7; Neuchatel, Switzerland: Delachaux et Niestlé, 1959), 147.



{24} Or alternatively, the first Adam is made of the dust of the earth; the second Adam is from heaven. The first speaks of constitution, the second of origin. See also TWNT, , s. v. pneuma,' by Kleinknecht, et. al.



{25} Joachim Jeremias, "'Flesh and Blood Cannot Inherit the Kingdom of God" (I Cor. XV. 50),' NTS 2 (1955-6): 151-9.



{26} Karl Bornhäuser, Die Gebeine der Toten (BFCT 26; Gütersloh: C. Bertelsmann, 1921), 37.



{27} It is found in Matt 16.17; Gal 1.16; Eph 6.12; Heb 2.14; see also Sir 14.18 and the references in Hermann L. Strack and Paul Billerbeck, eds., Kommentar zum Neuen Testament aus Talmud and Midrasch (5th ed., 6 vols.; München: C. H. Beck, 1969), 1: 730-1, 753. The Semitic word pair sarx kai aima is first attested in Eccelesiasticus 14.18; 17.31 and occurs frequently in Rabbinic texts, especially Rabbinic parables, as



{28} According to Baruch the old bodies are raised for the purpose of recognition, that the living may know that the dead have been raised. But for Paul, believers, like Christ, emerge glorified from the grave.



{29} Berthold Klappert, 'Einleitung,' in Diskussion um Kreus und Auferstehung (ed. idea; Wuppertal: Aussaat Verlag, 1971), 15.



{30} See Bornhäuser, Gebeine; C. F. Evans, Resurrection in the New Testament (SBT 2/12; London: SCM, 1970), 108; Walther Grundmann, Das Evangelium nach Lukas (8th ed., THKNT 3; Berlin: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, 1978), 451.



{31} Grass, Ostergeschehen, 154.



{32} Gerald O'Collins, The Easter Jesus (London: Darton, Longman & Todd, 1973), 94.



{33} Rudolf Schnackenburg, Das Johannesevangelium (3 vols., 2d ed., HTKNT 4; Freiburg: Herder, 1976), 3: 383. This goes for both the appearance to the Twelve and to Thomas, he argues.



{34} Although some critics have wanted to construe Matthew's mountaintop appearance as a heavenly vision similar to Paul's, this attempt seems futile. Matthew clearly considered Jesus's appearance to be physical, as is evident from his appearance to the women (Matt 28.9, 10) and his commissioning of the disciples. Even in the appearance itself, there are signs of physicality: the disciples' worshipping Jesus recalls the act of the women in v 9 and does not suit well a heavenly appearance; and Jesus's coming toward the disciples (proselqwn) seems to indicate decisively a physical appearance.



{35} Wilhelm Michaelis, Die Erscheinungen der Auferstandenen (Basel: Heinrich Majer, 1944), 96.
2007-05-06 13:52:12 UTC
Death and resurrection of Jesus

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

(Redirected from Death and Resurrection of Jesus)

Jump to: navigation, search



The Resurrection—Tischbein, 1778.Part of a series on the



Death and resurrection of Jesus

Hypothesis

Christian

Islamic

Jehovah's Witnesses

Vision hypothesis

Swoon hypothesis

Stolen body hypothesis



Miscellaneous

Empty tomb

Jesus did not come to die

Passion (Christianity)

The Passion of the Christ

Did Jesus Die?

Talpiot Tomb

Atonement

Resurrection appearances of Jesus

This box: view • talk • edit

The death and resurrection of Jesus are two events in the New Testament in which Jesus is crucified and resurrected three days later (John 19:30–31, Mark 16:1, Mark 16:6). The New Testament also mentions several resurrection appearances of Jesus on different occasions to his twelve apostles and disciples, including "more than five hundred brethren at once," (1Corinthians 15:6) before Jesus' Ascension. These two events are essential doctrines of the Christian faith, and are commemorated by Christians during the liturgical times of Passiontide and Eastertide, particularly during Holy Week.



Other groups such as Jews, Muslims and Irreligionists, have disputed the historical occurrence of the resurrection; hence, analysis of the death and resurrection claims occurs at many religious debates and interfaith dialogues.[1]



Contents [hide]

1 Significance

1.1 Atonement

2 Records

2.1 Early Creeds

2.2 Gospel narratives

2.3 Apostolic fathers

2.4 Non-Christian

3 Critical analysis

3.1 Prior events

3.2 Death of Jesus

3.3 Entombment

3.4 Resurrection of Jesus

3.5 Tomb discovery

3.5.1 Women

3.5.2 Men

3.6 Resurrection appearances of Jesus

3.7 Authorship of the story

3.8 Today

4 See also

5 Footnotes and references

6 Further reading

6.1 Pro-Resurrection

6.2 Sceptical

6.3 Dialogues







[edit] Significance

Major events in Jesus's life in the Gospels

Nativity

Baptism

Temptation

Commission of Disciples and Apostles

Sermon on the Mount

Miracles

Entering Jerusalem

Temple incident

Great Commandment

Anointing

Last Supper

Promise of the Paraclete

Arrest

Before the High Priest

Before Pilate

Death & Resurrection

Harrowing

Appearances

Great Commission

Ascension

Second Coming Prophecy



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



This box: view • talk • edit

As the first great front runner of Christianity contended, "If Christ was not raised, then all our preaching is useless, and your trust in God is useless" (1Corinthians 15:14)[2] The death and resurrection of Jesus are the most important events in Christian Theology, as they form the point in scripture where Jesus gives his ultimate demonstration that he has power over life and death, thus he has the ability to give people eternal life (John 3:16, John 6:47, John 10:10, John 11:25–26, John 17:3, John 5:24, and John 6:39–40). According to the Bible, "God raised him from the dead,"[3] he ascended to heaven, to the "right hand of God,"[4] and will return again[5] to fulfill the rest of Messianic prophecy such as the Resurrection of the dead, the Last Judgment and establishment of the Kingdom of God, see also Messianism and Messianic Age.[6]



The following passage describes the significance of the Resurrection of Christ to Christians or seekers:



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? If there is no resurrection of the dead, then not even Christ has been raised. And if Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith. More than that, we are then found to be false witnesses about God, for we have testified about God that he raised Christ from the dead. But he did not raise him if in fact the dead are not raised. For if the dead are not raised, then Christ has not been raised either. And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins. Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ are lost. If only for this life we have hope in Christ, we are to be pitied more than all men. But Christ has indeed been raised from the dead, the first fruits of those who have fallen asleep (1Corinthians 15:12–20).



A series of articles on



Jesus Christ and Christianity

Christology

Chronology

Ministry

Miracles

Parables

Names and titles

Relics



Non-religious aspects

Background

Historicity

Greek • Aramaic

Race



Perspectives on Jesus

New Testament view

Christian views

Religious perspectives

Jewish view

Islamic view

Historical Jesus

Jesus Seminar

Jesus as myth





Jesus in culture

Cultural depictions of Jesus

Images





This box: view • talk • edit

Most Christians accept the New Testament story as an historical account of some kind of resurrection, which is central to their faith. Some modern scholars use the belief of Jesus' followers in the resurrection as a point of departure for establishing the continuity of the historical Jesus and the proclamation of the early church.[7] Some liberal Christians do not accept a literal bodily resurrection,[8] seeing the story as richly symbolic and spiritually nourishing myth. Also, a group known as the Gnostics argued against its singular importance, as they had differing views as to how the passages should be interpreted, many believing Jesus was never a human and so could not have died (see: Docetism).



Almost all non-Christians do not accept the bodily resurrection of Jesus. They therefore deny the resurrection, considering it a form of myth. People can, however, still find a meaning in the text. For instance, Carl Jung suggests that the crucifixion-resurrection story was the forceful spiritual symbol of, literally, God-as-Yahweh becoming God-as-Job.[9]





[edit] Atonement

Main article: Atonement



Some believe that the Shroud of Turin was worn by Jesus when resurrected, his face imprinted into the cloth fibers. Disputed carbon-dated experiments on part of the Shroud propose a medieval origin for the cloth. No further dating experiments to settle the dispute have been permitted by the Holy See.Jesus' death and resurrection underpin a variety of theological interpretations as to how salvation is granted to humanity. A common feature of all these interpretations is that they place greater emphasis on the death and resurrection than on his words.[10]



The Roman Catholic view is that Jesus willingly sacrificed himself as an act of perfect obedience as a Substitutionary atonement, a sacrifice of love which pleased God.[11]



The Christus Victor view, which is more common among Lutherans and Eastern Orthodox Christians, holds that Jesus was sent by God to defeat death and Satan. Because of his perfection, voluntary death, and Resurrection, Jesus defeated Satan and death, and arose victorious. Therefore, humanity was no longer bound in sin, but was free to rejoin God through faith in Jesus.[12]



The Catholic view off-shoot titled the judicial view was held by Martin Luther, and a major cause of the Reformation. It is the perspective held by most Protestants. It emphasizes God as both lawmaker and judge. All humans have broken the rules that God has set (sin), and all deserve to be punished. The only exception to this was Jesus, who received the ultimate punishment despite not having sinned. This is seen as an act of Jesus accepting the punishment that was meant for humans, meaning humans can be restored to a right relationship with God. The difference between the Catholic and Protestant views was a major cause of the Reformation.[13]



The First Man view, held by a small minority of Christians, especially Pelagians and Semi-Pelagians, states that Jesus was a person just like the rest of humanity, but due to his remarkable faith, purity, sinlessness, and perfection, he earned eternal life, and was resurrected because Death could not hold him.[citation needed]





[edit] Records



[edit] Early Creeds

The earliest records of the death and resurrection of Jesus are early Christian creeds and creedal hymns, which were included in several of the New Testament texts. Scholars suppose that some of these creeds date to within a few years of Jesus' death, and were developed within the Christian community in Jerusalem.[14] Though embedded within the texts of the New Testament, these creeds are a distinct source for early Christianity.



1Corinthians 15:3–4 reads: "For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures." This contains a Christian creed of pre-Pauline origin.[15] The antiquity of the creed has been located by many biblical scholars to less than a decade after Jesus' death, originating from the Jerusalem apostolic community.[16] Concerning this creed, Campenhausen wrote, "This account meets all the demands of historical reliability that could possibly be made of such a text,"[17] whilst A. M. Hunter said, "The passage therefore preserves uniquely early and verifiable testimony. It meets every reasonable demand of historical reliability."[18]

Romans 1:3–4: ."..concerning his Son, who was descended from David according to the flesh and designated the Son of God in power according to the Spirit of holiness by his resurrection from the dead, Jesus Christ our Lord;"[19]

2Timothy 2:8: "Remember Jesus Christ, raised from the dead, this is my Gospel."[20]



[edit] Gospel narratives

The earliest detailed historical narrative accounts of the death and resurrection of Jesus are contained in the four canonical Gospels: Matthew 28, Mark 16, Luke 24, John 20–21. There are other, more laconic references in the New Testament epistles.





[edit] Apostolic fathers

The Apostolic Fathers, likewise, discussed the death and resurrection of Jesus, including Ignatius (50−115),[21] Polycarp (69−155), and Justin Martyr (100−165).





[edit] Non-Christian

Flavius Josephus (c. 37–c. 100), a Jew and Roman citizen who worked under the patronage of the Flavians, wrote the Antiquities of the Jews c. 93, which contains a passage known as the Testimonium Flavianum that mentions the death and resurrection of Jesus: "When Pilate, upon the accusation of the first men amongst us, condemned [Jesus] to be crucified, those who had formerly loved him did not cease [to follow him], for he appeared to them on the third day, living again, as the divine prophets foretold, along with a myriad of other marvelous things concerning him."[22] It is widely held by scholars that at least part of the Testimonium Flavianum is an interpolation, though a few scholars have supported the authenticity of the entire passage.[23] (See also Josephus on Jesus.)





[edit] Critical analysis

Historians use the historical method to study ancient history. In this process, the accounts of the witnesses are analyzed for their reliability, plausibility, and motive. Defending the historicity of the Biblical narrative, including that of the resurrection, is within the field of study known as Christian apologetics, and applying the historical method to the Bible (which may or may not conflict with defending historicity) is a field of study known as Biblical criticism.[24]





[edit] Prior events

Hundreds of years before the birth of Jesus, Jewish prophets promised that a messiah would come. Apologists claim that Jesus fulfilled these prophecies, which they claim are nearly impossible to fulfill by chance.[25] Judaism claims that Jesus did not fulfill these prophecies (see Jewish Messiah). Other skeptics usually claim that the prophecies are either vague or unfulfilled.[26] Most Christians anticipate the Second Coming of Jesus, when he will fulfill the rest of Messianic prophecy, such as the Last Judgement, the general resurrection, establishment of the Kingdom of God, and the Messianic Age. See the article on Preterism for contrasting views.





[edit] Death of Jesus



Crucifixion, Diego Velázquez, 17th c.The Gospel of John says that a soldier pierced Jesus' side, causing the flow of blood and water. Apologists claim that medical knowledge at the time would have only expected blood. Some scholars have hypothesized the 'water' as pericardial effusion and pleural effusion, and maintain that this medical anomaly would have been a fact that the author of the Gospel of John would have been tempted to leave out, had he not been interested in accurate reporting. This flow of water suggests fatal heart trauma required to release pericardial fluid. Without a functioning pericardial membrane, the pericardial fluid is not required for the heart to function; it merely acts as a lubricant between the heart may become bruised over time (due to friction between the heart and the pericardium). Roman soldiers were trained with such diligence that it is not logical to assume that someone could have survived a piercing in this region of the body. Patients undergoing invasive heart surgery have their pericardium cut open to access the heart.[27]



In the biblical narrative, following the death the sky is "darkened for 3 hours," from the sixth to the ninth hour (noon to mid-afternoon), but if this claim concerns anything more than a local phenomenon, it is backed up by no Roman historian. This could not have been a solar eclipse, as Jesus died during the time of the full moon, Nisan 14 or 15.[28]



The synoptic gospels state that the veil of the temple split at this point, and Matthew says that there were earthquakes, splitting rocks, and dead saints were resurrected.[29]



The synoptics report that the centurion in charge, seeing how Jesus had breathed his last (Mark) or seeing the events that followed (Matthew, Luke) said: "Truly this man was the Son of God" (Mark 15:39; or "Truly this was the Son of God" (Matthew 27:54); or "Surely this was a righteous man" (Luke 23:47).



For the sayings, traditionally called "The Seven Last Words," the Gospels say were given by the dying Jesus, see Sayings of Jesus on the cross.





[edit] Entombment

All four Gospels state that, on the evening of the crucifixion, Joseph of Arimathea asked Pilate for the body of Jesus, and that, after Pilate granted his request, he wrapped Jesus' body in a linen cloth and laid it in a tomb.[30] This was in accordance with Mosaic Law, which stated that a person hanged on a tree must not be allowed to remain there at night, but should be buried before sundown.[31] In Matthew, Joseph was identified as "also a disciple of Jesus"; in Mark he was identified as "a respected member of the council (Sanhedrin) who was also himself looking for the Kingdom of God"; in Luke he was identified as "a member of the council, good and righteous, who did not consent to their purpose or deed, and who was looking for the Kingdom of God"; and in John he was identified as "a disciple of Jesus." Mark stated that, when Joseph asked for Jesus' body, Pilate was surprised that Jesus was already dead, and he summoned a centurion to confirm this before dispatching the body to Joseph. John recorded that Joseph was assisted in the burial process by Nicodemus, who brought a mixture of myrrh and aloes and included these spices in the burial cloth as per Jewish customs.



The synoptics (Matthew, Mark, and Luke) described the burial as occurring on the "Day of Preparation," with Mark providing the explanation of this as the day before the Sabbath. The synoptics described the tomb as "hewn out of the rock," i.e., a sepulture, with Matthew, Luke, and John stating that it was new (i.e., no one else had been buried there before), and with Matthew stating that the tomb belonged to Joseph. John stated that the tomb was located in a garden near the site of the crucifixion.



The synoptics stated that women saw where Jesus was buried; Matthew named "Mary Magdalene and the other Mary," Mark named "Mary Magdalene and Mary the mother of Joses," and Luke simply gave "the women who had come with him from Galilee." Matthew gave an account of the chief priests and Pharisees requesting that Pilate secure the tomb, lest Jesus' disciples should steal the body and proclaim Jesus to be risen from the dead, whereupon Pilate said, "you have a guard of soldiers, go, make it as secure as you can"—after which they secured the sepulture by sealing the stone and setting a guard.



W. L. Craig argued that the guard placed at the tomb was a Jewish guard, and that Pilate's words to the chief priests and Pharisees recorded in Matthew, "You have a guard; go, make it as secure as you can," were are rebuff. In support, he observed that Roman guards would have been subject to execution if they slept during watch, and that the Jewish authorities probably could not have provided protection for Roman guards from Pilate, like they could have if the guard was Jewish; thus, he wrote, "if one were to give the story the benefit of the doubt, one would assume the guards were Jewish."[32]





[edit] Resurrection of Jesus

For more details on this topic, see Empty Tomb.

The resurrection of Jesus is foundational to New Testament faith. The act of Jesus rising to life from a state of death is not narrated at all in scripture. Rather the first sign of the resurrection of Jesus is simply the tomb being found empty by the women—which may be the most significant affirmation of women in the New Testament.[33]



Some skeptics claim that the corpse of Jesus was either reburied or stolen. A number of instances of argument from silence arise here. No ancient sources argue against the tomb being empty. No ancient sources claim that the Jewish and Roman authorities disproved the belief by publicly presenting the corpse of Jesus. There is no record of soldiers being punished for any reason relating to the resurrection.[citation needed]



The Gospel accounts of the resurrection have been the subject of contemporary scholarship using tools of historical and literary analysis. Issues of those accounts include:



comparisons with other New Testament accounts of restored life

differences in the resurrection narratives

the antiquity and continuity of memories on which the accounts rely

the reality of the resurrection.[34]



[edit] Tomb discovery

When compared, the accounts of the discovery of the empty tomb are difficult to reconcile into a single sequence of events, though this article attempts to do so. This does not necessarily make these accounts less reliable, as even in modern times, multiple eyewitnesses to any event tend to give differing accounts.[35]



Although no single Gospel gives an inclusive or definitive account of the resurrection of Jesus or his appearances, there are two points at which all four Gospels converge: (Mark 16:1–8, Matthew 28:1–8, Luke 24:1–12, and John 20:1–13) (1) the linking of the empty tomb tradition and the visit of the women on "the first day of the week," and (2) that the risen Jesus chose first to appear to women (or a woman) and to commission them (her) to proclaim this most important fact to the disciples, including Peter and the other apostles.[33][36]





[edit] Women

All four Gospels make it prominent that women were the ones to find the tomb of Jesus empty. According to Mark and Luke, the announcement of Jesus' resurrection was first made to women. According to Matthew and John, Jesus actually appeared first to women (in John to Mary Magdalene alone). All four Gospels report that women were commissioned to inform Peter and the other apostles as to what has been called "the most fundamental tenet of the Christian faith"—that Jesus is not dead but risen.[33]



In the Gospels, especially the synoptics, women play a central role as eyewitness at Jesus' death, entombment, and in the discovery of the empty tomb. All three synoptics repeatedly make women the subject of verbs of seeing,[37] clearly presenting them as eyewitnesses.[38]



The presence of women as the key witnesses who discover the empty tomb has been seen as increasing the credibility of the testimony, since, in the contemporary culture (Jewish and Greco-Roman), one would expect a fabrication to place men, and especially numerous and important men, at this critical place, rather than just "some grieving women."[39] C. H. Dodd considered the narrative in John to be "self-authenticating" since no one would make up the notion that Jesus had appeared to the "little known woman" Mary Magdalene.[40]



All three synoptics name two or three women on each occasion in the passion-resurrection narratives where they are cited as eyewitnesses: the Torah's required two or three witnesses (Deuteronomy 19:15) in a statute that had exerted influence beyond legal courts and into situations in everyday life where accurate evidence was needed.[41] Among the named women (and some are left anonymous), Mary Magdalene is present in all four Gospel accounts, and Mary the mother of James is present in all three synoptics; however, variations exist in the lists of each Gospel concerning the women present at the death, entombment, and discovery. For example, Mark names three women at the cross and the same three who go to the tomb, but only two are observed to be witnesses at the burial. Based on this, and similar examples in Matthew and Luke, Richard Bauckham argued that the evangelists showed "scrupulous care" and "were careful to name precisely the women who were known to them as witnesses to these crucial events" since there would be no other reason, besides interest in historical accuracy, not to simply use the same set of characters from one scene to another.[42]



Despite the unanimity of the Gospels that Jesus appeared first to women after his resurrection, Paul does not mention the women being the first witnesses to the resurrection (1 Corinthians 15:3–7). It can only be surmised that the most likely reason was that Paul, along with the rest of the church, stressed only the appearances to men as the "official" witness of the early church. The witness of a woman was not recognized in Jewish courts of the time. "Whereas others found woman not qualified or authorized to teach, the four Gospels have it that the risen Christ commissioned women to teach men, including Peter and the other apostles, the resurrection, foundation of Christianity.[33]



Mark's account (which in the earliest extant manuscripts) ends abruptly and claims that the women told no one. The Gospels of Matthew and Mark do not present any further involvement at the tomb. Luke describes Peter as running to the tomb to check for himself, and John adds that the Beloved Disciple did so too, the beloved disciple outrunning Peter.[43]



There is some scriptural variation as to whom the women told and in what order.[44] Curiously, Mary also addresses Jesus as “Lord.”[45]





[edit] Men



William Hole's interpretation of the Beloved Disciple joining Peter in the tombLuke merely states that after seeing the vacancy of the tomb, Peter was wondering what had happened, John gives a detailed account. (20:2–10)



John describes the beloved disciple only as making a cursory glance at the linen, Peter is described as carefully examining the scene. After making their examination, the Beloved Disciple apparently draws a conclusion. (John 20:8–9)



Once Peter has entered, John describes the Beloved Disciple as entering the tomb whereupon he believed as they knew not about the scripture. What exactly the Beloved Disciple believed, and who exactly they are, and what scripture exactly is being referenced, is not explained. The word used to mean scripture is singular and most of the time this form is used to refer to single quotations. Several passages from the Old Testament have been proposed as likely candidates for this source such as Psalm 16, Hosea 6:2, and Jonah 1:17. Since most of the New Testament was written before the Gospel of John, candidates have also been suggested from these texts. John only indicates that Peter and the Beloved Disciple were present, but it is possible that one or both of the people named Mary may also have been there, and thus Hartmann[citation needed] believes they refers to Peter and Mary being in ignorance about a resurrection.



Since the only mention in John of the tomb having any content describes it only as having grave clothes, this paucity of evidence for anything more than the body being stolen would make the Beloved Disciple rather gullible if it was a resurrection he suddenly believed in. A question also arises as to why, according to John, the Beloved Disciple doesn't tell Peter and them about this. A long line of major scholars including Augustine of Hippo and John Calvin have thus argued that the Beloved Disciple simply came to believe Mary Magdalene's story that the body was gone. Unlike Hartmann, and those sharing his view, most scholars[citation needed] regard they as referring to Peter and the Beloved Disciple, pointing to them both being ignorant about any resurrection, and pointing to the conclusion that the Beloved Disciple had come to believe some other issue.



Scholars of textual criticism, however, have in modern times argued that the passage does actually refer to belief in a resurrection, but that the reason it seems odd in light of the surrounding narrative, especially that it isn't mentioned again, is because the reference to him believing is a later addition to the text, a view expounded for example by Schnackenberg. The version of John in the ancient Codex Bezae has the passage reading that he saw and did not believe, which seems a more logically in keeping with the rest of the chapter, and may indicate that most modern texts are derived from an ancient scribal error, much like the typographic error in the Wicked Bible. Bultmann has called John 20:9 a gloss of the ecclesiastical redaction, also arguing that the verse is a later addition, particularly since it references scripture as indicating that Jesus must rise from the dead, which is out of character in John, since John almost always prefers instead to use the wording ascend from the dead. A few scholars,[citation needed] however, believe that the statement is original but misplaced, feeling it should follow John 20:11, though Bruce[citation needed] disagrees, arguing that since it presents itself as an explanation of a prior passage, it makes the link to the currently preceding text clear.



Luke and John both have the disciple(s) return home, which probably refers to Jerusalem, but possibly also Galilee.[46]







[edit] Resurrection appearances of Jesus



In the Supper at Emmaus, Caravaggio depicted the moment the disciples recognise their risen lordMain article: Resurrection appearances of Jesus

After the discovery of the empty tomb, the Gospels indicate that Jesus made a series of appearances to the disciples, with the most notable being to the disciples in the upper room, where Thomas did not believe until he was invited to put his finger into the holes in Jesus' hands and side (20:24–29); along the road to Emmaus, where people talked about their failed hopes that Jesus would be the messiah before recognising Jesus (24:13–32); and beside the Sea of Galilee to encourage Peter to serve his followers (21:1–23). His final appearance is reported as being forty days after the resurrection when he ascended into heaven,[47] where he remains.



Next, there are a few resurrection appearances of Jesus. One notable appearance is to the apostle Thomas, who did not believe until he stuck his fingers in the nail holes in Jesus' hands and spear-hole in his side. Thomas' experience would mutually exclude the vision hypothesis, that Jesus appeared as a vision to various followers as either a divine vision or a hallucination. (See the article on Gary Habermas' work.)[citation needed]



Six months later, on the road to Damascus, a one time rabbi and persecutor of the early church named Paul of Tarsus converted to Christianity. A few years later, Paul became Christianity's foremost missionary, converting hundreds of people, planting dozens of churches throughout Southeastern Europe, and writing letters that would become part of Christian scripture. On one missionary journey, Paul travels to Athens and speaks at the Areopagus, where he claims that over 500 people were witnesses of the resurrected Jesus, many still alive at the time.[48]



One point on which some consensus is reached by Apologist and Skeptical factions of biblical scholars and historians is that the disciples would have thought they had met the resurrected Jesus.[citation needed]





[edit] Authorship of the story

The poor educational level that would be expected of the early disciples of Jesus, according to their descriptions in the New Testament, and the comparatively early timeframe in which they recorded the events, is argued by apologists to reduce their likelihood of being able to devise an elaborate account.[49]



In Mark's account, the earliest manuscripts of Mark 16 break off abruptly at 16:8, where the men at the empty tomb announce Jesus' resurrection, lacking post-resurrection appearances of Jesus. The modern text of Mark 9–20 does not appear in the earliest manuscripts. Many modern translations of Mark 16 end at Mark 16:8 with for they were afraid, sometimes adding 16:8–20 in italics, or in a foot note; the New Revised Standard Version gives both the "long ending," i.e., 16:8–20, and another variant "short ending" after Mark 16:8.



Those who think Paul was a Gnostic Christian hold the belief that Paul talks of the resurrection as an allegory or that Paul thought that Jesus was never a human.[50]





[edit] Today



The Church of the Holy Sepulchre now occupies a possible location of where Jesus died and was buriedThe Jewish perspective is that the body of Jesus was removed in the same night, see also Stolen body hypothesis.[51] Apologists see this an acknowledgment that the tomb was empty, with an attempt to explain it away.[52] The Toledoth Yeshu, however, dates from mediaeval times, and is not an early source. It was a conflation of the Talmud accounts of multiple people named Yeshu. None of the Talmudic Yeshu accounts are in any way flattering, or refer to any supernatural abilities, and many refer to people named Yeshu who lived in time periods significantly before or after the lifetime of Jesus.[citation needed]



The Islamic perspective is that Jesus was not crucified, but someone who looked like Jesus died in his place.[53] This view is also given in the uncanonical Gospel of Barnabas which identifies Judas as the one crucified. The fate of Judas Iscariot recorded in the Bible can be considered contradictory on some details, although both writers state he died an untimely death.(Matthew 27:5, Acts 1:18). The Gospel of Barnabus generally conforms to the Islamic interpretation of Christian origins and is considered by the majority of academics to be late, pseudepigraphical and a pious fraud.[citation needed]



Documents found by Russian historian Nicolai Notovitch claim that Jesus was resuscitated and lived the remainder of his life in Kashmir, where there exists a possible tomb for Jesus, under the name Yuz Asaf. This is also the belief of the Lahore Ahmadiyya Movement.[citation needed]





[edit] See also

Christianity

Death of Jesus

Jesus

Talpiot Tomb

The Lost Tomb of Jesus

Islamic view of Jesus' death



[edit] Footnotes and references

^ Lorenzen, Thorwald. Resurrection, Discipleship, Justice: Affirming the Resurrection Jesus Christ Today. Macon, Georgia: Smyth & Helwys, 2003, p. 13.

^ David Marshall. He is risen indeed! http://dialogue.adventist.org/articles/15_3_marshall_e.htm

^ Acts 2:24, Romans 10:9, 1 Cor 15:15, Acts 2:31–32, 3:15, 3:26, 4:10, 5:30, 10:40–41, 13:30, 13:34, 13:37, 17:30–31, 1 Cor 6:14, 2 Cor 4:14, Gal 1:1, Eph 1:20, Col 2:12, 1 Thess 1:10, Heb 13:20, 1 Pet 1:3, 1:21

^ Mark 16:19, Luke 22:69, Acts 2:33, 5:31, 7:55–56, Romans 8:34, Eph 1:20, Col 3:1, Hebrews 1:3, 1:13, 10:12, 12:2, 1 Peter 3:22

^ Acts 1:9–11

^ The Parousia is the term used in the Bible, see Strong's G3952 for details, which includes the Thayer's Lexicon definition: "In the N.T. especially of the advent, i.e.,the future, visible, return from heaven of Jesus, the Messiah, to raise the dead, hold the last judgment, and set up formally and gloriously the kingdom of God." According to the Bauer lexicon: "of Christ, and nearly always of his Messianic Advent in glory to judge the world at the end of this age."

^ Reginald H. Fuller, The Foundations of New Testament Christology (New York: Scribners, 1965), p. 11.

^ A Jesus Seminar conclusion: "in the view of the Seminar, he did not rise bodily from the dead; the resurrection is based instead on visionary experiences of Peter, Paul, and Mary." The Acts of Jesus: What Did Jesus Really Do?

^ Jung, Carl, The Answer to Job online excerpt

^ For example, see Matthew 6:14–15). See also Sermon on the Mount

^ "Doctrine of the Atonement." Catholic Encyclopedia." http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02055a.htm

^ Johnson Alan F., and Robert E. Webber. What Christians Believe: A Biblical and Historical Summary. Zondervan, 1993, pp. 261–263.

^ Schwarz, Hans. Theology in a Global Context: The Last Two Hundred Years. Eerdmans Books for Young Readers, 2005, pp. 255ff.

^ A basic text is that of Oscar Cullmann, available in English in a translation by J. K. S. Reid titled, The Earliest Christian Confessions (London: Lutterworth, 1949)

^ Neufeld, The Earliest Christian Confessions (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1964) p. 47; Reginald Fuller, The Formation of the Resurrection Narratives (New York: Macmillan, 1971) p. 10; Wolfhart Pannenberg, Jesus—God and Man translated Lewis Wilkins and Duane Pribe (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1968) p. 90; Oscar Cullmann, The Earlychurch: Studies in Early Christian History and Theology, ed. A. J. B. Higgins (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1966) p. 64; Hans Conzelmann, 1 Corinthians, translated James W. Leitch (Philadelphia: Fortress 1969) p. 251; Bultmann, Theology of the New Testament vol. 1 pp. 45, 80–82, 293; R. E. Brown, The Virginal Conception and Bodily Resurrection of Jesus (New York: Paulist Press, 1973) pp. 81, 92

^ see Wolfhart Pannenberg, Jesus—God and Man translated Lewis Wilkins and Duane Pribe (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1968) p. 90; Oscar Cullmann, The Early church: Studies in Early Christian History and Theology, ed. A. J. B. Higgins (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1966) p. 66–66; R. E. Brown, The Virginal Conception and Bodily Resurrection of Jesus (New York: Paulist Press, 1973) pp. 81; Thomas Sheehan, First Coming: How the Kingdom of God Became Christianity (New York: Random House, 1986 pp. 110, 118; Ulrich Wilckens, Resurrection translated A. M. Stewart (Edinburgh: Saint Andrew, 1977) p. 2; Hans Grass, Ostergeschen und Osterberichte, Second Edition (Gottingen: Vandenhoeck und Ruprecht, 1962) p. 96; Grass favors the origin in Damascus.

^ Hans von Campenhausen, "The Events of Easter and the Empty Tomb," in Tradition and Life in the Church (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1968) p. 44

^ Archibald Hunter, Works and Words of Jesus (1973) p. 100

^ Wolfhart Pannenberg, Jesus—God and Man translated Lewis Wilkins and Duane Pribe (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1968) pp. 118, 283, 367; Neufeld, The Earliest Christian Confessions (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1964) pp. 7, 50; C. H. Dodd, The Apostolic Preaching and its Developments (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1980), p. 14

^ Bultmann, Theology of the New Testament vol 1, pp. 49, 81; Joachim Jeremias, The Eucharistic Words of Jesus translated Norman Perrin (London: SCM Press, 1966) p. 102

^ Ignatius makes many passing references, but two extended discussions are found in the Letter to the Trallians and the Letter to the Smyrnaeans.

^ Josephus Antiquities 18.3.3

^ Daniel-Rops, Silence of Jesus' Contemporaries p. 21.

^ www.newadvent.org/cathen/04497a.htm

^ Peter W. Stoner, Science Speaks, Moody Pr, 1958, ISBN 0–8024–7630–9

^ Till, Farrell (1991). Prophecies: Imaginary and Unfulfilled. Internet Infidels. Retrieved on 2007–01–16.

^ Edwards, William D.; Gabel, Wesley J.; Hosmer, Floyd E;On the Physical Death of Jesus, 1986, JAMA March 21, Vol 255, No. 11, pp 1455–1463

^ Carpenter, Glen. Connections. Xulon Press, 2004, pp. 13ff.

^ Matthew 27:51–53

^ Matthew 57–61, Mark 15:42–47, Luke 23:50–56, John 19:38–42

^ R. E. Brown, The Virginal Conception and Bodily Resurrection of Jesus (New York: Paulist Press, 1973) pp. 147; cf. Deuteronomy 21:22–23.

^ W. L. Craig "The Guard at the Tomb. New Testament Studies 30 (1984), 273–81.

^ a b c d Stagg, Evalyn and Frank. Woman in the World of Jesus." Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1978, p. 144–150.

^ Raymond E. Brown, 1990. "The Resurrection of Jesus," in Raymond E. Brown et al., The New Jerome Biblical Commentary, Prentice Hall, pp. 1373–77, with references.

^ Eyewitness Evidence Improving Its Probative Value. http://www.psychology.iastate.edu/faculty/gwells/Wells_articles_pdf/pspi_7_2_article[1].pdf

^ Setzer, Claudia. "Excellent Women: Female Witness to the Resurrection." Journal of Biblical Literature, Vol. 116, No. 2 (Summer, 1997), pp. 259–272

^ Richard Bauckham, Jesus and the Eyewitnesses (Eerdmans Publishing Company: Cambridge, 2006), p. 48.

^ B. Gerhardsson, 'Mark and the Female Witnesses', in H. Behrens, D. Loding, and M. T. Roth, eds., Dumu-E2-Dub-Ba-A (A. W. Sjöberg FS; Occasional Papers of the Samuel Noah Kramer Fund 11; Philadelphia: The University Museum, 1989), pp. 219–220, 222–223; S. Byrskog, Story as History—History as Story (Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament Jerusalem Talmud 123; Tübingen: Mohr, 2000; remprinted Leiden: Brill, 2002), pp. 75–78; Richard Bauckham, Jesus and the Eyewitnesses (Eerdmans Publishing Company: Cambridge, 2006), p. 48.

^ Ben Witherington III, What have they done with Jesus (San Francisco: Harper Collins, 2006), p. 50.

^ C. H. Dodd, The Interpretation of the Fourth Gospel (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1953)

^ B. Gerhardsson, “Mark and the Female Witnesses,” in H. Behrens, D. Loding, and M. T. Roth, eds., Dumu-E2-Dub-Ba-A (A. W. Sjöberg FS; Occasional Papers of the Samuel Noah Kramer Fund 11; Philadelphia: The University Museum, 1989), p. 218; Richard Bauckham, Jesus and the Eyewitnesses (Eerdmans Publishing Company: Cambridge, 2006), p. 49.

^ Richard Bauckham, Jesus and the Eyewitnesses (Eerdmans Publishing Company: Cambridge, 2006), pp. 50–51.

^ To answer the question of running speed: It is never explained why the disciple(s) move(s) from merely traveling to running, and it has often been speculated that running only occurred on the last stretch once the tomb had come within sight. John Calvin instead speculated that the rush was due to religious zeal. In particular, John describes the Beloved Disciple as outracing Peter, though waiting for Peter to arrive before entering the tomb, with some scholars seeing the out-racing as a metaphoric elevation of the Beloved Disciple above Peter. However, many Christian scholars object to this interpretation, instead arguing that since the Beloved Disciple is usually interpreted as a reference to the author of John, it would be necessary for him to be considerably younger than Peter, and hence his speed could be due simply to youthful vigour. Another question is why John the Beloved Disciple pauses outside the tomb. While many view it as being due to his not wanting to violate death ritual by entering a tomb, in contrast to Peter who has no such qualm and instead enters immediately, most scholars believe John is simply deferring to Peter, particularly since the Beloved Disciple enters the tomb once Peter is inside. [1]

^ What happens once Mary (and Mary) has seen the occupier(s)/empty tomb is again one of the more variant parts of this narrative. According to Mark, even though the man in the tomb instructs Mary and Mary to inform the disciples and Peter, they flee in fear and do not tell anything to any man. Like Mark, Matthew presents Mary and Mary as being instructed by the tomb's occupant to inform the disciples, but unlike Mark's account they happily do so, and Peter has no special status amongst the others. Luke, again, merely presents Mary and Mary as telling the eleven and the rest, but presents them as doing so apparently without being instructed. John's account is quite different: John only describes Mary as informing two people—Peter and the Beloved Disciple, an individual that is usually considered to be a self-reference by the author of the gospel John.

^ John had not previously described any of the followers as using this title, and Mary also states that we don't know where they put him, even though at this point only Mary is described as having been to the tomb. To those who believe in inerrancy, lord is used here because Jesus only gained the title on dying, and that we is evidence that John actually agrees with the synoptics and merely didn't regard the other women as worth mentioning. However, most textual scholars see this as a typical contradiction by John of the synoptic gospels, arguing that we is a later modification to hide the discrepancy, as evidenced by some ancient manuscripts of John which have I instead of we at this point. Brown, on the other hand, has proposed that as the remainder of the passage wasn't subjected to such harmonising, the speech by Mary must have been written by a different author from the rest of the gospel.

^ Raymond E. Brown claims that the majority of scholars interpret home as the location that the disciple(s) had been staying in Jerusalem, and hence a substantially briefer journey.

^ Luke 24:44–49

^ 1Corinthians 15:6

^ ChristianAnswers.net, Resurrection: a Myth

^ Pagels, Elaine, The Gnostic Paul: Gnostic Exegesis of the Pauline Letters, 1992, ISBN 0–8006–0403–2

^ Found in the Toledoth Yeshu (text), Justin Martyr's Dialogue with Trypho the Jew chapter CVII: "his disciples stole him by night from the tomb, where he was laid when unfastened from the cross, and now deceive men by asserting that he has risen from the dead and ascended to heaven," Matthew 27:64,28:13–15

^ Perman, Matt Evidence for the Resurrection

^ Qur'an, Sura 4:156



[edit] Further reading

Wikimedia Commons has media related to:

Resurrection of Christ

[edit] Pro-Resurrection

Articles:



Bruce, FF, The New Testament Documents: Are They Reliable?, 1985, Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press

Catholic Encyclopedia, The resurrection of Jesus Christ

David Marshall (Ph.D.). "The Risen Jesus" an essay in Essential Jesus, edited by Bryan Ball and William Johnsson, and published by Pacific Press in 2002.

Craig, William Lane, Contemporary Scholarship and the Historical Evidence for the Resurrection of Jesus Christ, 1985, Truth 1 89–95

Yamauchi, Edwin, Easter: Myth, Hallucination, or History?, 1974, Christianity Today

Books:



Habermas, Gary, The Historical Jesus: Ancient Evidence for the Life of Christ (College Press: Joplin, MI 1996).

Habermas, Gary and Licona, Michael, The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus, Kregel Publications, 2004.

McDowell, Josh, New Evidence that Demands a Verdict, Thomas Nelson, Inc, Publishers, 1999

Strobel, Lee, The Case for Easter, Zondervan Publishing Company, 2004.

Wenham, John. Easter Enigma: Do the Resurrection Stories Contradict One Another? Cambridge University Press, 1993.

Wright, N.T., The Resurrection of the Son of God. Fortress Press. 2003 Online excerpt



[edit] Sceptical

Articles:



Carrier, Richard, Why I Don't Buy the Resurrection Story, 2006 (6th ed.)

Lowder, Jeffery Jay, The Historicity of Jesus' Resurrection, 1995

Lowder, Jeffery Jay, Historical Evidence and the Empty Tomb Story: A Reply to William Lane Craig, 2001

Tobin, Paul, The Pagan Origins of the Resurrection Myth, 2000

Price, Robert M., By This Time He Stinketh: The Attempts of William Lane Craig to Exhume Jesus. 1997.

Rethinking the resurrection.(of Jesus Christ)(Cover Story) Newsweek, April 8th 1996, Woodward, Kenneth L.

Books:



Robert M. Price and Jeffery Jay Lowder, The Empty Tomb: Jesus Beyond the Grave (ISBN 1–59102–286-X), 2005

Paine, Thomas, The Age of Reason, 1795

Spong, John Shelby, Resurrection : Myth or Reality? , 1995



[edit] Dialogues

Craig, William Lane, Jesus' Resurrection: Fact or Figment?: A Debate Between William Lane Craig and Gerd Ludemann

Stewart, Robert B. The Resurrection of Jesus: John Dominic Crossan And N.T. Wright in Dialogue, 2006

Major events in Jesus' life in the Gospels

Nativity| Childhood| Baptism| Temptation| Sermon on the Mount| Transfiguration| Last Supper| Passion| Crucifixion| Resurrection| Hell| Ascension





Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_and_resurrection_of_Jesus"

Categories: Jesus | Articles with unsourced statements since April 2007 | All articles with unsourced statements | Articles with unsourced statements since March 2007 | Articles with unsourced statements | Christian miracle narrative | Christian theology | Christology | Deaths by person | Glorious Mysteries | Gospel episodes | Resurrection of Jesus

ViewsArticle Discussion Edit this page History Personal toolsSign in / create account Navigation

Main page

Contents

Featured content

Current events

Random article

interaction

About Wikipedia

Community portal

Recent changes

Contact us

Make a donation

Help

Search

Toolbox

What links here

Related changes

Upload file

Special pages

Printable version

Permanent link

Cite this article

In other languages

العربية

Bosanski

Deutsch

Dansk

Hrvatski

Bahasa Indonesia

Italiano

Slovenščina

Srpskohrvatski / Српскохрватски

Suomi

Svenska

Tiếng Việt



This page was last modified 16:47, 2 May 2007. All text is available under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License. (See Copyrights for details.)

Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., a US-registered 501(c)(3) tax-deductible nonprofit charity.

Privacy policy About Wikipedia Disclaimers
wernerslave
2007-05-06 12:48:09 UTC
On the Resurrection of the Dead



1 Cor. 15:35.

The Apostle having, in the beginning of this chapter, firmly settled the truth of our Saviour’s resurrection, adds, “Now if Christ be preached that he rose from the dead, how say some among you, that there is no resurrection of the dead?” It cannot now any longer seem impossible to you that God should raise the dead; since you have so plain an example of it in our Lord, who was dead and is alive; and the same power which raised Christ must also be able to quicken our mortal bodies.



“But some man will say, How are the dead raised up? And with what body do they come?” How can these things be? How is it possible that these bodies should be raised again, and joined to their several souls, which many thousands of years ago were either buried in the earth, or swallowed up in the sea, or devoured by fire? — which have mouldered into the finest dust, —that dust scattered over the face of the earth, dispersed as far as the heavens are wide; — nay, which has undergone ten thousand changes, has fattened the earth, become the food of other creatures, and these again the food of other men? How is it possible that all these little parts, which made up the body of Abraham, should be again ranged together, and, unmixed with the dust of other bodies, be all placed in the same order and posture that they were before, so as to make up the very self-same body which his soul at his death forsook? Ezekiel was indeed, in a vision, set down in a valley full of dry bones, “and he heard a noise, and behold a shaking, and the bones came together, bone to his bone; the sinews and the flesh came upon them, and the skin covered them above, and breath came into them, and they lived, and stood upon their feet.” This might be in a vision. But that all this, and much more, should in time come to pass; that our bones, after they are crumbled into dust, should really become living men; that all the little parts whereof our bodies were made, should immediately, at a general summons, meet again, and every one challenge and possess its own place, till at last the whole be perfectly rebuilt; that this, I say, should be done, is so incredible a thing, that we cannot so much as have any notion of it. And we may observe, that the Gentiles were most displeased with this article of the Christian faith; it was one of the last things the Heathens believed; and it is to this day the chief objection to Christianity, “How are the dead raised up? With what body do they come?” In my discourse on these words, I shall do three things: —



I. I shall show, that the resurrection of the self-same body that died and was buried, contains nothing in it incredible or impossible.



II. I shall describe the difference which the Scripture makes between the qualities of a glorified and a mortal body.



III.



I shall draw some inferences from the whole.



I. I shall show, that the resurrection of the self-same body that died, contains nothing in it incredible or impossible.



But before I do this, it may be proper to mention some of the reasons upon which this article of our faith is built.



And, 1. The plain notion of a resurrection requires, that the self-same body that died should rise again. Nothing can be said to be raised again, but that very body that died. If God give to our souls at the last day a new body, this cannot be called the resurrection of our body; because that word plainly implies the fresh production of what was before.



2. There are many places of Scripture that plainly declare it. St. Paul, in the 53d verse of this chapter, tells us that “this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality.” [1 Cor. 15:53] Now, by this mortal, and this corruptible, can only be meant, that body which we now carry about with us, and shall one day lay down in the dust.



The mention which the Scripture makes of the places where the dead shall rise, further shows, that the same body which died shall rise. Thus we read in Daniel: “Those that sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake; some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt.” And, we may likewise observe, that the very phrase, of sleep and awake, implies, that when we rise again from the dead, our bodies will be as much the same as they are when we awake from sleep. Thus, again, our Lord affirms, (John 5:28, 29, ) “The hour is coming in which all that are in the graves shall hear his voice, and shall come forth; they that have done good to the resurrection of life, and they that have done evil to the resurrection of damnation.” Now, if the same body do not rise again, what need is there of opening the graves at the end of the world? The graves can give up no bodies but those which were laid in them. If we were not to rise with the very same bodies that died, then they might rest for ever. To this we need only add that of St. Paul: “The Lord shall change this vile body, that it may be fashioned like unto his glorious body. Now, this vile body can be no other than that with which we are flow clothed, which must be restored to life again.



That in all this there is nothing incredible or impossible, I shall show by proving these three things: — 1. That it is possible for God to keep and preserve unmixed, from all other bodies, the particular dust into which our several bodies are dissolved, and can gather and join it again, how far soever dispersed asunder. 2. That God can form that dust so gathered together, into the same body as it was before. 3. That when he hath formed this body, he can enliven it with the same soul that before inhabited it.



1. God can distinguish and keep unmixed from all other bodies the particular dust into which our several bodies are dissolved, and can gather it together and join it again, how far soever dispersed asunder. God is infinite both in knowledge and power. He knoweth the number of the stars, and calleth them all by their names; he can tell the number of the sands on the sea-shore: And is it at all incredible, that He should distinctly know the several particles of dust into which the bodies of men are mouldered, and plainly discern to whom they belong, and the various changes they have undergone? Why should it be thought strange, that He, who at the first formed us, whose eyes saw our substance yet being imperfect, from whom we were not hid when we were made in secret, and curiously wrought in the lowest parts of the earth, should know every part of our bodies, and every particle of dust whereof we were composed? The artist knows every part of the watch which he frames; and if it should fall in pieces, and the various parts of it lie in the greatest disorder and confusion, yet he can soon gather them together, and as easily distinguish one from another, as if every one had its particular mark. He knows the use of each, and can readily give it its proper place, and put them all exactly in the same figure and order they were before. And can we think that the Almighty Builder of the world, whose workmanship we are, does not know whereof we are made, or is not acquainted with the several parts of which this earthly tabernacle is composed? All these lay in one vast heap at the creation, till he separated them one from another, and framed them into those distinct bodies whereof this beautiful world consists. And why may not the same Power collect the ruins of our corrupted bodies, and restore them to their former condition? All the parts into which men’s bodies are dissolved, however they seem to us carelessly scattered over the face of the earth, are yet carefully laid up by God’s wise disposal till the day of the restoration of all things. They are preserved in the waters and fires, in the birds and beasts, till the last trumpet shall summon them to their former habitation.



“But,” say they, “it may sometimes happen that several men’s bodies may consist of the self-same matter. For the bodies of men are often devoured by other animals, which are eaten by other men. Nay, there are nations which feed upon human flesh; consequently, they borrow a great part of their bodies from other men. And if that which was part of one man’s body becomes afterwards part of another man’s, how can both rise at the last day with the same bodies they had before?” To this it may easily be replied, that a very small part of what is eaten turns to nourishment, the far greater part goes away according to the order of nature. So that it is not at all impossible for God, who watches over and governs all this, so to order things, that what is part of one man’s body, though eaten by another, shall never turn to his nourishment; or, if it does, that it shall wear off again, and, some time before his death, be separated from him, so that it may remain in a capacity of being restored at the last day to its former owner.



2. God can form this dust, so gathered together, into the same body it was before. And that it is possible, all must own who believe that God made Adam out of the dust of the earth. Therefore, the bodies of men being dust after death, it is no other than it was before; and the same power that at the first made it of dust, may as easily re-make it, when it is turned into dust again. Nay, it is no more wonderful than the forming a human body in the womb, which is a thing we have daily experience of; and is doubtless as strange an instance of divine power as the resurrection of it can possibly be. And were it not so common a thing, we should be as hardly brought to think it possible that such a beautiful fabric as the body of man is, with nerves and bones, flesh and veins, blood, and the several other parts whereof it consists, should be formed as we know it is; as now we are, that hereafter it should be rebuilt when it has been crumbled into dust. Had we only heard of the wonderful production of the bodies of men, we should have been as ready to ask, “How are men made, and with what bodies are they born?” as now, when we hear of the resurrection, “How are the dead raised up, and with what bodies do they come?”



3. When God hath raised this body, he can enliven it with the same soul that inhabited it before. And his we cannot pretend to say is impossible to be done; for it has been done already. Our Saviour himself was dead, rose again, and appeared alive to his disciples and others, who had lived with him many years, and were then fully convinced that he was the same person they had seen die upon the cross.



Thus have I shown that the resurrection of the same body is by no means impossible to God; that what he hath promised he is able also to perform, by that “mighty power by which he is able to subdue all things to himself.” Though, therefore, we cannot exactly tell the manner how it shall be done, yet this ought not in the least to weaken our belief of this important article of our faith. It is enough, that He to whom all things are possible hath passed his word that he will raise us again. Let those who presume to mock at the glorious hope of all good men, and are constantly raising objections against it, first try their skill upon the various appearances of nature. Let them explain everything which they see happen in this world, before they talk of the difficulties of explaining the resurrection. Can they tell me how their own bodies were fashioned and curiously wrought? Can they give me a plain account, by what orderly steps this glorious stately structure, which discovers so much workmanship and rare contrivance, was at first created? How was the first drop of blood made; and how came the heart, and veins, and arteries to receive it? Of what, and by what means, were the nerves and fibres made? What fixed the little springs in their due places, and fitted them for the several uses for which they now serve? How was the brain distinguished from the other parts of the body, and filled with spirits to move and animate the whole? How came the body to be fenced with bones and sinews, to be clothed with skin and flesh, distinguished into various muscles? Let them but answer these few questions about the mechanism of our own bodies, and I will answer all the difficulties concerning the resurrection of them. But if they cannot do this without having recourse to the infinite power and wisdom of the FIRST CAUSE, let them know that the same power and wisdom can re-animate it, after it is turned into dust; and that there is no reason for our doubting concerning the thing because there are some circumstances belonging to it which we cannot perfectly comprehend or give a distinct account of.



II. I now proceed to the Second thing I proposed; which was, to describe the difference the Scripture makes between the qualities of a mortal and of a glorified body.



The change which shall be made in our bodies at the resurrection, according to the Scripture account, will consist chiefly in these four things: — 1. That our bodies shall be raised immortal and incorruptible. 2. That they shall be raised in glory. 3. That they shall be raised in power. 4. That they shall be raised spiritual bodies.



1. The body that we shall have at the resurrection shall be immortal and incorruptible: “For this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality.” Now, these words, immortal and incorruptible, not only signify that we shall die no more, (for in that sense the damned are immortal and incorruptible,) but that we shall be perfectly free from all the bodily evils which sin brought into the world; that our bodies shall not be subject to sickness, or pain, or any other inconveniences we are daily exposed to. This the Scripture calls “the redemption of our bodies,” — the freeing them from all their maladies. Were we to receive them again, subject to all the frailties and miseries which we are forced to wrestle with, I much doubt whether a wise man, were he left to his choice, would willingly take his again; — whether he would not choose to let his still lie rotting in the grave, rather than to be again chained to such a cumbersome clod of earth. Such a resurrection would be, as a wise Heathen calls it, “a resurrection to another sheep.” It would look more like a redemption to death again, than a resurrection to life.



The best thing we can say of this house of earth, is, that it is a ruinous building, and will not be long before it tumbles into dust; that it is not our home, — we look for another “house, eternal in the heavens;” that we shall not always be confined here, but that in a little time we shall be delivered from the bondage of corruption, from this burden of flesh, into the glorious liberty of the sons of God. What frail things these bodies of ours are! How soon are they disordered! To what a troop of diseases, pains, and other infirmities are they constantly subject! And how does the least distemper disturb our minds, and make life itself a burden! Of how many parts do our bodies consist! and if one of these be disordered, the whole man suffers. If but one of these slender threads, whereof our flesh is made up be stretched beyond its due proportion, or fretted by any sharp humour, or broken, what torment does it create! Nay, when our bodies are at the best, what pains do we take to answer their necessities, to provide for their sustenance, to preserve them in health, and to keep them tenantable, in some tolerable fitness for our souls’ use! And what time we can spare from our labour is taken up in rest, and refreshing our jaded bodies, and fitting them for work again. How are we forced, even naturally, into the confines of death; even to cease to be; — at least to pass so many hours without any useful or reasonable thoughts, merely to keep them in repair! But our hope and comfort are, that we shall shortly be delivered from this burden of flesh: When “God shall wipe away all tears from our eyes, and there shall be no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain; for the former things are passed away.” O when shall we arrive at that happy hand where no complaints were ever heard, where we shall all enjoy uninterrupted health both of body and mind, and never more be exposed to any of those inconveniences that disturb our present pilgrimage. When we shall have once passed from death unto life, we shall be eased of all the troublesome care of our bodies, which now takes up so much of our time and thoughts. We shall be set, now undergo to support our lives. Yon robes of light, with which we shall be clothed at the resurrection of the just will not stand in need of those careful provisions which it is so troublesome to us here either to procure or to be without. But then, as our Lord tells us, those who shall be accounted worthy to obtain that world “neither marry nor are given in marriage, neither can they die any more, but they are equal to the angels.” Their bodies are neither subject to disease, nor want that daily sustenance which these mortal bodies cannot be without. “Meats for the belly, and the belly for meats; but God will destroy both it and them.” This is that perfect happiness which all good men shall enjoy in the other world, — a mind free from all trouble and guilt, in a body free from all pains and diseases. Thus our mortal bodies shall he raised immortal. They shall not only be always preserved from death, (for so these might be, if God pleased,) but the nature of them shall be wholly changed, so that they shall not retain the same seeds of mortality; — they cannot die any more.



2.



Our bodies shall he raised in glory. “Then shall the righteous shine as the sun in the kingdom of their Father.” A resemblance of this we have in the lustre of Moses’s face, when he had conversed with God on the mount. His face shone so bright, that the children of Israel were afraid to come near him, till he threw a veil over it. And that extraordinary majesty of Stephen’s face seemed to be an earnest of his glory. “All that sat in the council, looking steadfastly on him, saw his face as it had been the face of an angel.” How then, if it shone so gloriously even on earth, will it shine in the other world, when his, and the bodies of all the saints, are made like unto Christ’s glorious body! How glorious the body of Christ is, we may guess from his transfiguration. St. Peter, when he saw this, when our Lord’s face shone as the sun, and his raiment became shining and white as snow, was so transported with joy and admiration, that he knew not what he said. When our Saviour discovered but a little of that glory which he now possesses, and which in due time he will impart to his followers, yet that little of it made the place seem a paradise; and the disciples thought that they could wish for nothing better than always to live in such pure light, and enjoy so beautiful a sight. “It is good for us to be here: Let us make three tabernacles;” — here let us fix our abode for ever. And if they thought it so happy only to be present with such heavenly bodies, and to behold them with their eyes, how much happier must it be to dwell in such glorious mansions, and to be themselves clothed with so much brightness!



This excellency of our heavenly bodies will probably arise, in great measure, from the happiness of our souls. The unspeakable joy that we then shall feel will break through our bodies, and shine forth in our countenances; as the joy of the soul, even in this life, has some influence upon the countenance, by rendering it more open and cheerful: So Solomon tells us, “A man’s wisdom makes his face to shine.” Virtue, as it refines a man’s heart, so it makes his very looks more cheerful and lively.



3. Our bodies shall be raised in power. This expresses the sprightliness of our heavenly bodies, the nimbleness of their motion, by which they shall be obedient and able instruments of the soul. In this state, our bodies are no better than clogs and fetters, which confine and restrain the freedom of the soul. The corruptible body presses down the soul, and the earthly tabernacle weighs down the mind. Our dull, sluggish, inactive bodies are often unable, or backward, to obey the commands of the soul. But in the other life, “they that wait upon the Lord shall renew their strength; they shall mount up with wings as eagles; they shall run, and not be weary; they shall walk, and not faint:” Or, as another expresses it, “they shall run to and fro like sparks among the stubble.” The speed of their motion shall be like that of devouring fire in stubble; and the height of it, above the towering of an eagle; for they shall meet the Lord in the air when he comes to judgment, and mount up with him into the highest heaven. This earthly body is slow and heavy in all its motions, listless and soon tired with action. But our heavenly bodies shall be as fire; as active and as nimble as our thoughts are.



4. Our bodies shall be raised spiritual bodies. Our spirits are now forced to serve our bodies, and to attend their leisure, and do greatly depend upon them for most of their actions. But our bodies shall then wholly serve our spirits, and minister to them, and depend upon them. So that, as by “a natural body” we understand one fitted for this lower, sensible world for this earthly state; so “a spiritual body” is one that is suited to a spiritual state, to an invisible world, to the life of angels. And, indeed, this is the principal difference between a mortal and a glorified body. This flesh is the most dangerous enemy we have: We therefore deny and renounce it in our baptism. It constantly tempts us to evil. Every sense is a snare to us. All its lusts and appetites are inordinate. It is ungovernable, and often rebels against reason. The law in our members wars against the law of our mind. When the spirit is willing, the flesh is weak; so that the best of men are forced to keep it under, and use it hardly, lest it should betray them into folly and misery. And how does it hinder us in all our devotions! How soon does it jade our minds when employed on holy things! How easily, by its enchanting pleasures, does it divert them from those noble exercises! But when we have obtained the resurrection unto life, our bodies will be spiritualized, purified, and refined from their earthly grossness; then they will be fit instruments for the soul in all its divine and heavenly employment; we shall not be weary of singing praises to God through infinite ages.



Thus, after what little we have been able to conceive of it, it sufficiently appears, that a glorified body is infinitely more excellent and desirable than this vile body. The only thing that remains is,



III. To draw some inferences from the whole. And, First, from what has been said, we may learn the best way of preparing ourselves to live in those heavenly bodies; which is, by cleansing ourselves more and more from all earthly affections, and weaning ourselves from this body, and all the pleasures that are peculiar to it. We should begin in this life to loosen the knot between our souls and this mortal flesh; to refine our affections, and raise them from things below to things above; to take ‘off our thoughts, and disengage them from present and sensible things, and accustom ourselves to think of, and converse with, things future and invisible; that so our souls, when they leave this earthly body, may be prepared for a spiritual one, as having beforehand tasted spiritual delights, and being in some degree acquainted with the things which we then shall meet with. A soul wholly taken up with this earthly body is not fit for the glorious mansions above. A sensual mind is so wedded to bodily pleasures, that it cannot enjoy itself without them; and it is not able to relish any other, though infinitely to be preferred before them. Nay, such as follow the inclinations of their fleshly appetites, are so far unfit for heavenly joys, that they would, esteem it the greatest unhappiness to he clothed with a spiritual body. It would be like clothing a beggar in the robes of a king. Such glorious bodies would be uneasy to them, they would not know what to do in them, they would be glad to retire and put on their rags again. But when we are washed from the guilt of our sins, and cleansed from all filthiness of flesh and spirit, by faith in the Lord Jesus Christ, then we shall long to be dissolved, and to be with our exalted Saviour; we shall be always ready to take wing for the other world, where we shall at last have a body suited to our spiritual appetites.



2. From hence we may see how to account for the different degrees of glory in the heavenly world. For although all the children of God shall have glorious bodies, yet the glory of them all shall not be equal. “As one star differeth from another star in glory, so also is the resurrection of the dead.” They shall all shine as stars; but those who, by a constant diligence in well-doing, have attained to a higher measure of purity than others, shall shine more bright than others. They shall appear as more glorious stars. It is certain that the most heavenly bodies will be given to the most heavenly souls; so that this is no little encouragement to us to make the greatest progress we possibly can in the knowledge and love of God, since the more we are weaned from the things of the earth now, the more glorious will our bodies be at the resurrection.



3. Let this consideration engage us patiently to bear whatever troubles we may be exercised with in the present life. The time of our eternal redemption draweth nigh. Let us hold out a little longer, and all tears hall be wiped from our eyes, and we shall never sigh nor sorrow any more. And how soon shall we forget all we endured in this earthly tabernacle, when once we are clothed with that house which is from above! We are now but on our journey towards home, and so must expect to struggle with many difficulties; but it will not he long ere we come to our journey’s end, and that will make amends for all. We shall then be in a quiet and safe harbour, out of the reach of all storms and dangers. We shall then be at home in our Father’s house, no longer exposed to the inconveniences which, so long as we abide abroad in these tents, we are subject to. And let us not forfeit all this happiness, for want of a little more patience. Only let us hold out to the end, and we shall receive an abundant recompence for all the trouble arid uneasiness of our passage which shall be endless rest and peace.



Let this especially, fortify us against the fear of death: It is now disarmed, and can do us no hurt. It divides us, indeed, from this body awhile; but it is only that we may receive it again more glorious. As God, therefore, said once to Jacob, “Fear not to go down into Egypt, for I will go down with thee, and will surely bring thee up again;” so may I say to all who are born of God, “Fear not to go down into the grave; lay down your heads in the dust; for God will certainly bring you up again, and that in a much more glorious manner.” Only “be ye steadfast and unmovable, always abounding in the work of the Lord;” and then let death prevail over, and pull down, this house of clay; since God hath undertaken to rear it up again, infinitely more beautiful, strong, and useful.



The resurrection demonstrates the truth of Christianity

It is no exaggeration to say that the Christian faith rests on the fact of Jesus' resurrection. Paul, who wrote much of the New Testament, said that his entire ministry would be worthless if the resurrection had not taken place. "If Christ has not been raised," he wrote, "then our preaching is vain, your faith also is vain. . . . If Christ has not been raised, your faith is worthless; you are still in your sins" (1 Cor. 15:14, 17). On the other hand, if Jesus Christ has been raised from the dead, then Paul's message is true, faith has meaning, and we can be freed from our sins.



That's essentially what we have been arguing. It makes good sense to believe in the teachings of Christianity, because those teachings are based on a simple historical fact the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead.





If Jesus was raised from the dead, then what He said about himself must have been true. When the religious leaders of His day asked for some proof of His authority, Jesus told them that the only proof they would be given would be His resurrection from the dead (John 2:18 19; Matt. 12:38 40). When He was raised from the dead, that proof was provided.



What was proven through Jesus' resurrection? Here are some of the things that Jesus said about Himself, all of which were affirmed by His resurrection from the dead:



"I am the bread of life; he who comes to me shall not hunger, and he who believes in me shall never thirst" (John 6:35).





"I am the light of the world; he who follows me shall not walk in the darkness, but shall have the light of life" (John 8:12).





"Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was born, I AM" [a claim to be God himself] (John 8:58).





"I am the door; if anyone enters through me, he shall be saved, and shall go in and out, and find pasture" (John 10:9).





"I am the good shepherd; the good shepherd lays down his life for the sheep" (John 10:11).





"I am the resurrection and the life; he who believes in me shall live even if he dies" (John 11:25).





"I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father, but through me" (John 14:6).





If these statements are true, then anything that contradicts them cannot also be true. In other words, if it is true that Jesus is God, then anyone who says Jesus is not God must be wrong. If it is true that Jesus gives eternal life to those who believe in Him and that He is the only way to the Father, then anyone who says that there are other ways to salvation must be wrong.





How do we know that what Jesus said about Himself is true? We know by His resurrection, which He offered as definitive proof for all that He did and said.





What this means is that the statements quoted above demonstrate the uniqueness of Jesus, but they also demonstrate the uniqueness of Christianity. If what Jesus said about Himself is true, then Christianity is true, and any contradictory religious belief must be false.





That's not a very popular message in today's pluralistic culture, but the fact is that there are genuine differences between world views. Only one can really be correct. If Jesus Christ was actually raised from the dead, there's little need for further debate. He alone is the way, the truth, and the life.


This content was originally posted on Y! Answers, a Q&A website that shut down in 2021.
Loading...