Did Jesus really rise from the dead?

Great Debates
61

Diogenes, I was hoping to beat ya here & predict your response. I’ll add that only Matthew has the account of the guard posted at the tomb.

That said- my two cents is-
Believing that Jesus was interred in a known tomb, that of Joseph of Arimathea, and that indeed a guard was posted. I still challenge one common view. If there was a Roman guard posted & they claimed the disciples stole the body while they slept, they would indeed have been punished with death. However, when the Jewish authorities asked Pilate for a guard, I think his response “You have a guard” was referring to the Temple Police, which were then assigned to guard the tomb. There MAY have been a token Roman representation, especially during the Sabbath, but the guard was primarily Jewish, not Roman. This is indicated by the statement that they report to Caiaphas first, who assures them that IF Pilate hears about it, he’ll take care of it. No Roman soldier would report to the High Priest before going to his superior, being Pilate, nor would the High Priest’s attempt to handle the situation have any bearing with Pilate.

62

Ezekiel 37 - Is this not generally accepted as a vision? The New American Standard Bible actually includes a heading on verses 11-14 stating “the vision explained”. Otherwise one would have to assume that god raised the entire nation israel and that you now have a nation of zombie people walking around. I say this as the description given doesn’t make them sound pleasing to the eye. After god breathes life into them it says in verse 11 "They say, ‘Our bones are dried up and our hope is gone; we are cut off.’ " This gives me the impression of more of a tormented spirit than a healthy man and certainly not comparible to rising from the dead like what is ascribed of Jesus or Lazarus.

II Kings 4:8-37 I have to admitt to having forgotten this passage. One could debate here that the child may not have been dead however as the description given is consistant with someone passing out from heat exhaustion.

I Kings 17:17-24 This passage I am suprised that I forgot, and is the easiest one ascribe resurrection to. If one wanted to, they could still argue that the child only was at deaths door I Kings 17:17 “his sickness was so severe that there was no breath left in him” could be intepreted 2 ways.

Fair enough however, I did miss both those Kings passages. They do both seem a bit different than the story of Lararus, however and it is intriguing that both are children.

63

LOL Diogenes

I didn’t even consider the popular “Great Zombie Invasion of 31AD” story simply because to my knowledge most christians don’t intepret this story the way you do. Rather its is believed that Matthew was describing souls rising to heaven in a rather colorful way.

64

That’s not what Matthew says. He says dead bodies crawled out of the tombs and went and scared hell out of the the city folk.

He specifically says, [symbol]kai polla swmata twn kekoimhmenon agiwn hgerqhsan kai exeltqonteV ek twn mnhmhwn meta thn egersin autou eishlqon eiV thn agian polin kai enefanisqhsan pollois.[/symbol]

“And many bodies of the saints who were sleeping got up and came out of their graves after his resurrection and went into the holy city and appeared to many.”

Somata means “bodies,” physical bodies, not spirits.

65

WHY would you think the body of Jesus would have been guarded by Roman soldiers? To the Romans, Jesus was just a dangerous upstart Jew who was causing trouble. Roman soldiers weren’t in the habit of guarding the corpses of people they crucified. The Romans ordinarily just unceremoniously buried those who they crucified wherever they damn well pleased.

66

Yep jeffh3000. Christians don’t interpret this as the “Great Zombie Invasion of 31AD” because they found it aesthetically unpleasing. However, that isn’t how Matthew reported it.

67

I know you won’t see this till Shabbos is over, but…

Except Church tradition teaches that Enoch and Elijah will die, after they come back in the end days and are martyred. They’re not immortal yet. And according to traditional Christology, Jesus was as fully human as the rest of us; He just happened to be fully God as well, but in a way that did not diminish His humanity one whit.

68

For I know Matthew distraught by the death of Jesus took the first part of Genesis 1:29 to heart…

All of this may be true but it doesn’t change the general interpretation that is held by most christians. It seems to be believed that he was just being colorful, especially when taken in context with the other gospels which don’t seem to report such a holocost.

Have you ever met anyone that believes that zombies came to life and invaded judaea?

69

First, it’s “holocaust”, and second, the word doesn’t in any way apply here. :smiley:

I kinda take a middle-path between Diogenes’ “Day of the Easter Zombies” and your view of an ascent of souls into Heaven.

Assuming that the Matthew passage actually means the dead bodies came to life & went into the city (tho I’ve seen interepretations that the bodies were spilled out of their tombs & were seen by people who passed the tombs on the way to the city), it may well have been a raising of a few (Seventh-Day Adventist teaching is 24, the elders in Revelation) or momentary appearances in a beaming in&out style much like the Risen Jesus. Now ya seen them, now ya don’t!

70

The opposition to what?

You seem to assume here that there was a significant chunk of the populace claiming, right after the death of Jesus, that his body was missing and that he had been raised from the deads. I see no reason to assume such a thing.
What evidences are there that :

-There was a tomb with a body at the first place?
-That soldiers were involved in any way?
-People claimed that the body was missing?
-Such claims were deemed important enough to deserve producing the body?
-The body wasn’t actually produced?

71

I did. The priest who taught us cathechism.

72

“Beam me up, Scotty”? :smack:

I’d welcome an interlinear word-for-word literal rendering of the Greek here – it sounds like there’s more nuance than any supposedly-literal translation or interpretation might offer us.

However, suppose we discount this bizarre little passage from Matthew. Is the point that Jesus supposedly rose from death, which seems to be the single principal central focus of the historical portions of the New Testament, affected?

Yes, it’s a singularly strange story – and very like other mythical and legendary bring-'em-back-to-life incidents scattered from India to Ireland. But I submit that (a) the Resurrection idea is a bit foreign to Jewish thought, as opposed to the various cults that are adduced to the suggestion that it’s mythical, and (b) the authors, and Paul in particular, while they write with an element of naivete, are at pains to distinguish what supposedly happened to Jesus from a physical resuscitation of a dead to a living human body. To me that’s the crux of the accounts – whatever it is they’re trying to convey is something quite different from the typical dead-hero-returns-to-life story.

That doesn’t mean anyone need subscribe to it. It does mean that they need to take that differentiation into account.

73

The above translation is my own and is as literal as I can make it but here is the word by word literal breakdown.

kai And
polla many
swmata bodies
twn [of] the
kekoimhmenon[ones who were] sleeping
hagiwn saints (holy ones)
hgerqhsan arose, got up
kai and
exeltqontes [they] came
ek out
twn [of] their
mnhmhwn graves
meta after
thn the
egersin resurrection (literally “raising up”)
autou of him ("his’)
eishlqon [and] they went
eis into
thn the
hagian holy
polin city
kai and
enefanisqhsan appeared (showed themselves)
pollois to many
I guess the key word would be swma (pl. swmata)

From Thayers’s and Smith’s Lexicon:

As you can see, the primary defintion of soma is for physical bodies, and especially for dead ones. You could very easily defend a transation that the “corpses” crawled out of their grave since primary definition and context would both support that. Even the figurative uses of soma do not include mere spirits.

I’m not trying to make a big issue out of this but in plain Greek, Matthew is definitely talking about dead bodies coming out of their graves. **FriarTed’s suggestion about bodies being disgorged by an earthquake might be slightly more defensible depending on how you interpret “they arose,” “they went out,” “they went into” and “they showed themselves.”

74

[symbol]kai[/symbol] and[symbol]polla[/symbol] many [symbol]swmata[/symbol] bodies [symbol]twn[/symbol] who (or which — definite article derivative) [symbol]kekoimhmenon[/symbol] slept [symbol]agiwn[/symbol] of saints [symbol]hgerqhsan[/symbol] arose [symbol]kai[/symbol] and [symbol]exeltqonteV[/symbol] having come (aorist tense) [symbol]ek[/symbol] out of (or from) [symbol]twn[/symbol] the (or those, etc.) [symbol]mnhmhwn[/symbol] graves [symbol]meta[/symbol] after (or beyond — our word “meta”) [symbol]thn[/symbol] the [symbol]egersin[/symbol] rising up [symbol]autou[/symbol] of his [symbol]eishlqon[/symbol] they went [symbol]eiV[/symbol] into [symbol]thn[/symbol] the [symbol]agian[/symbol] holy [symbol]polin[/symbol] city [symbol]kai[/symbol] and [symbol]enefanisqhsan[/symbol] they appeared [symbol]pollois[/symbol] to many

Damn, on preview, I see Dio beat me to it! :smiley: I’m posting mine anyway. :stuck_out_tongue:

I would note, however, that the same term for body is used by Jesus in Luke 22, when he tells the disciples that the piece of bread is His body. Obviously, the piece of bread is not His in the literal sense (otherwise, it would have two eyes and its name would be Jesus). Rather, it is metaphorical. There is no reason it could not be used the same way in Matthew.

75

I’m of mixed mind about this.

I like the idea of a multiple resurrection; it appeals to the mystic side of me. It also seems to be the most natural reading of the passage and is the historic reading of the Church. Indeed, the alternate view I never heard until finding that it is the basic view of the Jehovah’s Witnesses. Its only appeal is that it lessens the difficulties Diogenes raises. However, viewing it as a more limited raising & appearance of a few also lessens the difficulties.

76

You got me on the spelling, however I did mean to use the word, I was being facetious. I meant the meaning “an act of great destruction or loss of life” which I assumed would occur if zombies invaded the city. :wink:

77

The Messiah doesn’t even need to rise. Isn’t it believed from traditional jewish doctrine, that the messiah doesn’t necessarily resurrect?

If this is the case, why would Jesus rise from the dead and why wasn’t there more prophecies of this happening as well as that of braingluttons points?

I have sometimes have a hard time understanding why the resurrection itself is such a core part of christian belief. As there were not predictions requiring that the messiah must rise from the dead, whether or not Jesus rose need not change any christian beliefs of Jesus as the savior (or messiah).

78

But the resurrection of Christ is the defining moment of Christianity, and the entire point of His incarnation and crucifixion. Christ is the Savior – but what do we need saving from? Death, which as a result of the fall had infected humanity like a disease. Christ God became man, and as a man suffered death, and as God resurrected Himself, thus destroying death for all men. We still taste of it at the end of our earthly life, but shall be resurrected at the end of time, and death that is not eternal is no death at all, but only a temporary separation of soul and body. Without the resurrection, the crucifixion would be pointless, and that is why it is so central – without the resurrection, there is no Christianity.

79

Jesus was not the Davidic Warrior Messiah of Jewish expectation. However, there did exist another tradition that Messiah Son of Joseph would die (in battle). Thus, the idea was there would be Messiah of Joseph -the Battle-Slain, and Messiah of David- the Conquering King. Jesus saw Himself as both, thus Resurrection was necessary.

While Isaiah’s Suffering Servant was not widely interpreted as a Messianic figure, even the Jewish Study Bible admits there have been Rabbis who have regarded him as such. Isaiah 53:9-13 speak of the Servant achieving long life & victory, even through death- hence, resurrection.

A definite Jewish expectation is the Messiah would bring about the Resurrection of the Dead. We personalize this in Messiah, who we regard as the Prototype of Redeemed Humanity & therefore the Firstborn from the Dead. Some Christian theologies hold that the General Resurrection now does occur at each persons death as they enter Eternity in their full risen identity, with that fact to be revealed either at the Second Coming, OR with the eventual passing of all humanity into Eternity.

Finally, taking Bible scholar & Anglican bishop N.T. Wright’s view that as Messiah, Jesus is the recapitulation of all Israel- every hero in Israel experienced symbolic death & resurrection in his/her defeat & victory- Adam fell but was covered by God, Noah presided over the survival of humanity through the end of his world,
Abraham’s lineage in Isaac emerged out of Sarah’s dead womb, Joseph endured fraternal betrayal, slavery & false imprisonment to become PM of Egypt, Moses was cast in the Nile & rescued, exiled & brought back as Prophet, etc. Jesus experienced defeat in the fullest- actual physical death, and thus victory in the fullest- actual physical resurrection.

80

Thank you very much for your replies yBeayf and FriarTed

I certainly understand the christian beliefs and traditions surrounding the resurrection, it is just my comment that it doesn’t seem like these beliefs and the belief in an actual resurrection need to be mutually inclusive. Why could not one belief exist without the other?

FriarTed, I like your comments. You have given me a different perspective to think on with your discussion of the combined son of david and son of joseph messiahs. I appreciate what you say. I must admit to limited knowledge of the messiah son of joseph tradition, however it is my understanding that in jewish tradition these would have been 2 different people, because the great jewish scholar Rashi believed that there would be 2 messiahs, each coming once. This holding true, there should have been no reason for Jesus needing to be both. It has always seemed to me that christian tradition thinks of Jesus as the Messiah, son of david, which is referenced in the NT, as well as how Jesus is referred to in doctrine of different christian faiths. If you were a christian holding this true, then one could argue it seems resurrection is still not necessary(whether you believe it or not) for christian faith.

My issue is the extremity of that importance, which is as yBeayf put “without resurrection there is no Christianity.” It is exactly this belief in this statement that causes my concern. Certainly most christian beliefs can still be held without saying if the resurrection happened or not. Without personally giving a specific opinion on whether it happened or not, I personally disagree with the level importance ascribed to it.

I say this not in disrespect of anyone’s personal faith or beliefs, but more so based on the physical realities of our world. I think that many christians would agree that their definition and belief in god allow for him to operate within the physical laws of the universe as he would have created it. Whether or not the resurrection happened, it still certainly seems at least possible that the resurrection may not have happened, at least in the fashion that it is often believed.

Maybe it is the exact nature of the resurrection that should also be part of the argument in this thread Polycarp, as this is your thread?

Polycarp offered a good christian point of view dealing with a slightly more spiritual body based resurrection, allowing it to solidify as necessary as opposed to a zombified body. (I apologize if I did not explain that correctly) Another point of view which I recently heard that may be gaining support among some christians in the scientific community is the belief that Jesus was simply extremely near death and somehow recovered, which they are still considering a resurrection. I make this comment based off of recent studies conducted by Columbia University and Oxford University (in these studies they believe that Jesus reached a near death state through one of a variety of reasons or methods, and then later revived)