Did Jesus really rise from the dead?

Great Debates
41

[QUOTE=ragerdudeHowever, I think the “empty tomb belief” is implicit in Paul. Paul, as a Pharisee, already believed in the literal, physical, bodily resurrection at the end of time. In this context, “raising from the dead” already had a standardized meaning—a meaning inconsistent with a full tomb. Now, Paul claims that Jesus’ resurrection is the first installment (1 Cor 15:23) of the eschatological resurrection. How could Paul have claimed that God “raised” Jesus from the dead if Paul knew that his body was rotting in the grave?

Paul treats the resurrection as something extraordinary and unbelievable. It seems impossible that Paul could have meant something symbolic or spiritualized, like “Jesus was raised into the meaning of God” or “Jesus lives on in our liturgy.”

It seems clear that Paul’s statements require that he believed in and proclaimed an empty tomb.[/quote]

Paul speaks formulaically of “appearances” and what he means by that is unclear. Some, like Doherty and Mack argue that Paul believed the resurrection had occurred in Heaven not on earth- that it was an otherworldly event not a visible one. Therefore “appearances” to “Cephas and to the twelve” need not be physical ones could could be visions, dreams, etc.

In any case, even if Paul had believed in physical appearances, that does not imply any knowledge of an “empty tomb,” that anyone could have seen for themselves. Jesus’ burial site was unknown to his followers and the entire “Easter Sunday” scenario comes straight from Mark. Prior to Mark, we have only vague allusions to “appearances” by Paul (whose formula contradicts the gospels in some notable ways), nothing in Q and nothing in Thomas (the earliest Christian literature after Paul).

I’m giving a very shallow treatment to the empty tomb stuff but I would recommend reading this piece by Peter Kirby to get a more complete argument against historicity.

How do you define “Christian belief?”

I think there were various stages of Christian belief which evolved over time. The very earliest stage is almost impossible to discover by research. I think that Paul’s Christological theology was largely his own invention and the the gospels are attempts to reconstruct the life of an obscure Galilean preacher about whom virtually nothing was known by the authors except for a preserved sayings tradition and the fact that he had been crucified under Pilate. The gospels were constructed from the sayings traditions, from the Hebrew Bible, from Pauline Christological innovations, from their own imaginations, and in some cases, from each other.

Or they may be attempts to historicize a purely mythological Christ figure and there may never have been a historical Jesus at all.

I’ve been reading more mythicist arguments of late (I used to dismiss them as fringe) and my belief in HJ (to my own disappoinment) has become more wobbly as late. I’m not as sure as I once was. In some ways, I think Christian history is more explainable without HJ.

42

The existence of an early sincere belief is worth close to nothing.

Even assuming that the church traditions about the demise of the apostoles are truthful (and there’s no evidence they are), their alleged courage when facing death doesn’t prove anything.
Some years ago the members of a sect I can’t remember the name of killed themselves, believing that a passing by comet was going to pick up their souls. They showed as much determination and sincere belief Peter did (and in their case, we know their story is real). Should I, as a consequence, assume that their beliefs were build on solid ground too?
Shouldn’t someone arguing that the determination of the early christians is a strong evidence consider converting to this sect, and commit suicide next time a comet is coming close? Or for that matter converting to any religion that had, early in its history, members dying for their belief?

43

Heaven’s Gate Cult

44

From the Parallel Bible website

(Galatians 1:19, see also 2:9, 2:12, I Cor 15:7)

These are both “genuine” Pauline epistles, in most scholars’ reckoning.

45

yBeayf is so right on the Passover/Easter connection – which is an old, old tradition, quite likely dating back to the Apostles themselves. St. John of Damascus, around 710 A.D., wrote a hymn that picks up strongly on this, and should be required reading for any Jewish person wanting to understand the Christian perspective on the connection. Englished by John Mason Neale, here are the first three verses:

46

Thanks very much - I’ll check these out later.

47

From this statement, should it taken that you hold the more scriptural belief that peoples souls/spirits will not rise to heaven/an afterlife until the 2nd coming, as opposed to the often popular belief that we go to our afterlife more or less immediately when we die?

48

The only biblical account of someone besides Jesus rises from the dead is the story of Lazarus in the new testament, which was done by Jesus.

49

I direct you to the following sources:

Ezekiel 37
II Kings 4:8-37
I Kings 17:17-24

Zev Steinhardt

50

Zev, I thought that was a vision of both the national restoration of Israel (both from the Babylonian capitivity & from the Dispersion) and perhaps the future resurrection from the dead. Are you saying that God performed a mass raising of the dead for Ezekiel to behold?

51

RE the raising of others besides Jesus (the widow’s son & the man thrown onto Elisha’s tomb in the OT, and Jairus’s daughter, the widow of Nain’s son, Lazarus, Tabitha & Eutychus in the NT)- the difference is that all these people were raised back to mortal life & are thought to have died later. JC instead is said to have ascended into Heaven in His Resurrection body, where He reigns as the first immortal human as well as the Eternal Divine Son.

52

It’s actually a matter of a Rabbinical dispute as to whether Ezekiel 37 really happened or if it was a vision. But in any event, the other two instances I gave are real, definite resurrections.

Zev Steinhardt

53

I would think (based on my own humble opinion) that the one who goes to heaven alive without having died in the first place (and then being resurrected) has accomplished more than the one who had to die first to do so.

Elijah, by all accounts, preceeded Jesus in immortality and was (using the Trinitarian definition of Jesus) more human than Jesus, thus, I think, better qualifying him as “the first immortal human.”

The same could also be said of Enoch, who preceeded Elijah.

Zev Steinhardt

54

Of course, this brings up the differences between our faiths, but there is some dispute in Christian circles as to whether or not Enoch & Elijah never died at all or just had rather extraordinary deaths or whether they may return to Earth to stand against the Antichrist, be killed by him & then rise into immortality (Revelation 11). Also, while I am not sold on reincarnation, certain C’tian Scriptures may indicate the John the Baptizer was a reincarnate Elijah.

55

I’m certainly no NT scholar, but I’m pretty sure John was asked outright if he was Elijah and denied it. Isn’t that correct?

Zev Steinhardt

56

yeah, in John 1. However, in one or two of the synoptics, when Jesus is asked about Elijah preceding Messiah, Jesus indicates that John indeed was the fulfillment of Malachi’s prophecy. Of course, as I believe JC was correct, that could mean either that JohnTB was Elijah reincarnate but was not aware or that JTB fulfiilled the Elijah role in Malachi’s prophecy but knew that he was not Elijah himself (Luke records that JTB was to come “in the spirit & power of Elijah”).

57

In addition to Zev’s cites, also check out Matthew 27:52-53. Dead people crawl out of their tombs and run into the city.
Zev, I believe these are the verses you’re referring to:

(John 1:19-21)
*20He did not fail to confess, but confessed freely, “I am not the Christ [Annointed]”
21They asked him, “Then who are you? Are you Elijah?”

He said, “I am not.”

“Are you the Prophet?”

He answered, “No.”*

58

Ragerdude, somehow I missed reading post #38 until now. Sorry.

Yes, you’re quite correct. The extra-Biblical traditions about the apostles, though, are quite early and well-founded, though of course not contemporary. I might point out that the background on my namesake was written contemporary to his martyrdom, and emphasizes his having been taught by John the Beloved Disciple, so that we do have one absolutely solid bit of non-Scriptural second-hand evidence of the effect on one apostle. Not quite the absolute stands-up-in-a-court-of-law stuff we might like, but at least it’s not third century rescension of late-first-century account of earlier-in-the-first-century events with enough debatable oral tradition and pseudonymity thrown in to confuse the most diligent scholar.

I believe because “I recognize the signs” – what happened inwardly to the Apostles is, ceteris paribus, similar in effects to what happened to me – and that is, of course, purely a subjective effect which I know within myself, expressed as who I was and who I am (but there are only a handful of people, none of them Dopers, who knew me “before and after,” so even that objective expression of personality change is hardly evidential). I don’t say this evangelistically – you ought to believe because of what happened to me! – but testimonially – I had the same sort of experience, in terms of theophany and consequent character change, that is alleged to have happened to them. That’s my witness; make of it what you feel to be proper.

59

Why didn’t the opposition produce the body then? I assume it was guarded with the soldiers lives, were they killed when the body was “missing”?

60

There was no “missing body.” There was no tomb at all. That’s a story from 40 years later. Jesus was probably buried in a common criminals’ grave and his followers never knew the whereabouts of his body.

There is no conclusive evidence that any of Jesus’ followers claimed to have witnessed a physical resurrection. The first unambiguous claim for that doesn’t come until Matthew, 50 years after the crucifixion.

Paul claims that Jesus had “risen” and “appeared to Cephas and then the twelve” but he is quoting a preexisting hymn that is very unclear as to the nature of the “rising” and the “appearing.” Paul also seems to know nothing about an empty tomb.