The Meaning of Bodily Resurrection

The Meaning of Bodily Resurrection

Bodily resurrection is the return to life of someone who has died. It’s impossible for being against two kinds of laws: The first is natural laws. The second is Biblical laws.

God has established the natural laws, which have become the tools by which He governs the Universe. Any going against such laws, even by God Himself, would mean only weakness, for His having been unable to maintain order in the Universe.

Regarding Biblical laws, resurrection would only cause contradictions where Divine inspiration is claimed. Since God is not a God of confusion, resurrection must go and the Scriptures must be upheld.

The Scriptures are only too clear about dying and the impossibility to return. Some of the Biblical passages are: Job 7:9,10; 10:21; 14:12; II Samuel 12:23; Psalm 88:6; 146:4; Proverbs 2:19; Ezekiel 26:20. I am leaving Ecclesiastes out for being almost the whole book about the same issue: Against afterlife.

But then, what happened to Jesus that millions today believe he resurrected? He didn’t. What happened to him was resuscitation. Resurrection was made up much later by Paul, about 30 years after Jesus had been gone. If we read what he said to Timothy in his second Epistle 2:8, he connected the resurrection of Jesus to his own gospel. It means that there was another gospel at the time, which would not mention such a claim. It could only be the gospel of Jesus’ disciples, who at the first indication of resurrection by the women, had considered their report as an ildle tale and nonsense. (Luke 24:11)

Then, we have Luke in Acts 1:1-3, saying that when Jesus started appearing to his disciples, with many convincing evidences that he was alive in flesh and bone, Luke said, “after his passion or suffering,” not after death or resurrection. Therefore, it does not mean at all that Jesus had died and resurrected. True that Luke contradicts himself later, but that’s normal of the NT.

Ben

Hi Ben,

Let me start first by saying that I don’t think that Jewish persons believe in the Catholic Bible. I think they believe that Jesus was just a prophet and they are still waiting for the Messiah to come. So you resurrection argument is a moot point. Any way, let me start with:

2Tim.2:8 Be mindful that the Lord Jesus Christ is risen from the dead, of the seed of David according to my gospel(good news)
It is my understanding that Paul understood Jesus resurrection and was sharing the good news with Timothy.

Now Acts 1:1-3 The former treatise I made O Theophilus, of all things, which Jesus began to do and teach,
2 Until the day on which, giving the commandants by the Holy Spirit to the apostles whom he had chosen, he was taken up(how do you understand taken up?)
3 to whom also he showed himself ALIVE after his passion, by many proofs, for forty days appearing to them, and speaking of the kingdom of God.

If any one could think that Jesus was not DEAD after the scourging, crowing of thorns, being nailed to the cross, hanging there for 3 hours and being pierced in the side buried for 3 days and could have been resuscitated is preposterous to me.

On to Luke 24:11 And these words SEEMED to them as an idle tale: and they did not believe them. Peter must have believed them because he ran to the sepulchre and found that Jesus was not there.
There are no contradictions in the bible just persons that choose to misinterpret the scriptures.
.
Open you Catholic bible and read these verses
John 2:20, I guess you think that Jesus was lying here

In the books of Maccabees there are prayers for men who died in battle. If the Jews of the time did not believe in the after life why pray for them? I know that the Jewish bible does not considered Maccabees inspired and that amazes me because it is there were the celebration of chanukah originates.

1Sam28:15 Then Samuel said to Saul,'Why have you disturbed my rest…

The Pharisees believed in the existence of angels and spirits and the resurrection of the dead.

Again a moot point if you don’t beleive in the NT.
God Bless
Jeanne

So you don’t believe in the parting of the Red Sea, a bush burning yet not being consumed, the sun standing still for Joshua’s battle, etc., etc.?

You don’t believe Scripture when God worked through Elijah to bring back to life the widow’s son, etc., etc.?

**As natural events made ledgend throughout History to hyperbolize the Jewish epic of achievements.

Regarding the son of the widow, what Elijah did was resuscitation and not resurrection. She thought he had died, but he hadn’t. It had been just a sun stroke.**

:rolleyes:

Hi Ben,
You need to check your Hebrew. The son was actually dead. Elijah can do nothing on his own. It was God who raised the son.

Old Testament Hebrew Definition:
04191 muwth {mooth}
a primitive root; TWOT - 1169; v
AV - die 424, dead 130, slay 100, death 83, surely 50, kill 31,
dead man 3, dead body 2, in no wise 2, misc 10; 835

  1. to die, kill, have one executed
    1a) (Qal)
    1a1) to die
    1a2) to die (as penalty), be put to death
    1a3) to die, perish (of a nation)
    1a4) to die prematurely (by neglect of wise moral conduct)
    1b) (Polel) to kill, put to death, dispatch
    1c) (Hiphil) to kill, put to death
    1d) (Hophal)
    1d1) to be killed, be put to death
    1d1a) to die prematurely

I guess you don’t think that God can bring some one back to life.
The verse is 1Kings 17:20And he cried to the Lord, and said: O Lord, my God, hast thou afflicted also the widow , with whom I am after a short maintained, so as to kill her son? from the DR bible
Kill does not mean heat stroke.
God Bless
Jeanne

1Sam28:15 Then Samuel said to Saul,'Why have you disturbed my rest.

That was not Samuel but the Witch cheating on Saul. Read the text more carefully. Only the Witch would allegedly see and hear. She had to make something up for fear that Saul was trying to catch her on the act.

The Pharisees believed in the existence of angels and spirits and the resurrection of the dead.

Who says so, the NT? But of course! What did you expect?
The resurrection Jews believe, including the Pharisees, is the one described by Ezekiel 37:12.

**
[/quote]

All in the interpretation. I prefer the true one as taught by the Catholic Church.,

**

Bear in mind that Luke said “all things that Jesus did and taught.” Where did Matthew get the idea that Jesus went to Egypt to escape from the slaughter of the children?

[quote]

[/quote]

**

Where do think any of the gospel writers got some of their information about Jesus from if not his mother Mary.

**

Why preposterous? Have you read Josephus?

[quote]

[/quote]

**
I am working on it.

**

Of the thousands of Jews crucified by the Romans, many would endure even up to 4 days on the crosses till death came for them. After only three hours, we have more than 90 percent that Jesus was still alive when Joseph of Arimathea took him off the cross. Besides, he was not spear-pierced on his side because the Romans did not have that custom to spear-pierce crucified. Their custom was to let them rot on the crosses.

[quote]

[/quote]

**

Again open your Catholic bible and start reading from John19;31+ It will tell you that His side was pierced.

And read John 20:24+ read where Thomas put his hand in Jesus side.

**

So, Peter saw the empty tomb and believed what, that Jesus had resurrected? He believed that the tomb was indeed empty. Who could have taken Jesus from there? Somebody who decided to come ahead of Mary Magdalene and removed him first. Do you remember what Mary Magdalene said to the man she thought was the Gardner? “If you are the one who took him off the tomb, tell me where did you lay him and I will take him away.” (John 20:15) As you can see, when she saw the empty tomb, she didn’t think of resurrection but that someone had removed Jesus from there. Why didn’t she think of resurrection? Because Jews don’t believe in bodily resurrection and because Jesus had never told his disciples anything about such a thing. Sometimes the use of some Logic helps to find the truth.

[quote]

[/quote]

**

.Read you bible. There are many instances where Jesus appeared to the eleven, and Mary.

**

In fact, I do have a Catholic Bible with me. And to tell you the truth, I believe 101 percent that Jesus never said that. The statement is not Jewish, therefore, not true.

[quote]

[/quote]

**

Jesus apostles and Jesus himself were ALL Jewish. Again if you do not believe in the NT this is all a moot point.

**Read 2Maccabees12:43-45 —They did pray for the dead **

**

That was not Samuel but the Witch cheating on Saul. Read the text more carefully. Only the Witch would allegedly see and hear. She had to make something up for fear that Saul was trying to catch her on the act.

[quote]

[/quote]

**

It is you who need to re-read Samuel is talking to Saul and not through the “witch”

**

Who says so, the NT? But of course! What did you expect?

**

The resurrection Jews believe, including the Pharisees, is the one described by Ezekiel 37:12.

Again. Why are you bothering with this discussion if you don’t believe the NT?

Jeanne
[/quote]

Ben-Sorry, I have to seriously disagree with you here. I’ve been teaching apologetics for some time. The evidence overwhelming that Jesus was in fact dead. If you are interested in the various arguments, you can go to my outline here:
geocities.com/stevelohr2001/jesus-factorfiction06242008.html
And start looking for the information around footnote 413

As far as the Resurrection is concerned, start around footnote 444.

Regards,

Sorry Steve, but the subject of resurrection itself is a contradiction to the Scriptures. Then, there was not a single eyewitness of such a thing. Then, read Luke 24:11. When the women brought the news of resurrection the disciples considered their report nonsense and an idle tale. How come? Didn’t Jesus ever tell them about it? No, he didn’t. Then, Jesus’ disciples were headquartered for about 30 years in Jerusalem when Paul showed up with that message and was nearly killed for preaching apostasy. How about Jesus’ disciples in Jerusalem coexisting peacefully with the local Jews? Something is wrong here. Why don’t you use your NT to prove it to me if you are so sure? I am all ears.

I think I have told you before that I believe in 20 percent of the NT. The other 80 percent are non-Jewish interpolations. Since we are dealing wlth a religious Jew that Jesus was, anything non-Jewish about him was not true.
[/quote]

Jesus raised people from the dead… Lazarus was 4 days GONE when Jesus performed the miracle of his resurrection…

You either believe the Scirptures or you don’t… They are not sometimes true and sometimes not…

If Jesus said he was resurrected, He was resurrected… and he said, before the Crucifixion, that he would be raised up in three days…

are you a mormon or something?

good point…

In the books of Maccabees there are prayers for men who died in battle. If the Jews of the time did not believe in the after life why pray for them? I know that the Jewish bible does not considered Maccabees inspired and that amazes me because it is there were the celebration of chanukah originates.

i heard one or two sects of the Jews DO accept them… but that M. Luther took the side of the ones who did not… probably because he didn’t want to believe in Purgatory…

Greetings Ben Masada! I’m glad to meet you. I hope you are well today! :slight_smile:

Interesting point that you bring up. As a Mormon, I believe in the literal, bodily, and physical resurrection of Jesus Christ and that all of mankind will eventually be literally and physically resurrected with immortal, physical bodies.

You promote a few premises to support your conclusion. Just because I’m interested to understand your perspective on this, if you don’t mind, can you explain to me why I should accept your premises?

Kind Regards,
Finrock

if you studied history… way back to Day One … you would no longer be Mormon…

Hello distracted! Good to meet you.

What an exceedingly random and vague comment! I don’t know if I would or wouldn’t based on the conditions given. Not…enough…data! :slight_smile:

But, hey, lets not get distracted from the original intent of this thread. Hehe. :stuck_out_tongue:

Kind Regards,
Finrock

It doesn’t even seem that you believe 100% of the Old Testament either.

Ben-I thought when I gave you the references to my outline, I was trying to prove it to you. What we have here is a failure to communicate :wink:

With that said, I will briefly go over the evidence. To shorten the argument, I will assume that everyone agrees that Jesus was dead when he was taken off the cross, that he was placed in a guarded tomb, and that the tomb was empty three days later. If you disagree with these points, we can discuss your disagreements in another post.

With the issue thusly framed, we have a dead man, and a body that is missing. Typically, the assumption would be that a human agency has moved the body. The Jewish leaders appear to have attempted to argue that the body was stolen. However, this explanation does not appear to have been convincing to the Jews at the time. Note that the resurrection was being preached in Jerusalem 50 days later. Acts 2:2-43. If the stolen body hypothesis was believable to the Jews at the time, Christianity would have never succeeded. Further, the stolen body hypothesis was apparently unconvincing to dedicated and Pharisees, such as Saul, later Paul. If he had found the hypothesis believable, it is highly unlikely he would have ever converted.

The missing body hypothesis also leaves open the question of who took it. Most of Jesus’ disciples had fled. It is hard to imagine that the few disciples that remained in Jerusalem would have had the equipment, training, and audacity to take on a Roman guard and steal the body. Further, there is no indication that the disciples had any to steal the body, for Jesus’ disciples didn’t understand His statements concerning the resurrection before His crucifixion. Although there was a belief in the general resurrection at the end of history (see Acts 23:6; Mark 12:18-27; Dan. 12:2), there is no indication that the Jews believed in a single man being resurrected before the end of history. Therefore, they would have had no incentive to steal the body. Further, tradition states that the disciples all had violent deaths (with the exception of John) for the belief in the resurrected Christ. It is hard to imagine they would have undergone such trials for what they knew to be a lie (if they had stolen the body). Moreover, the physical evidence is inconsistent with the stolen body hypothesis. John reports that Peter “saw the strips of linen lying there, as well as the burial cloth that had been around Jesus’ head. The cloth was folded up by itself, separate from the linen.” John 20:6-7 If the body had been stolen, it is unlikely that grave robbers would have taken the time to unwrap the body or to fold the wrappings. We are therefore left with a missing body, with no suspects with either the motive to steal it, nor behavior after the body was stolen that is consistent with the theory of the body being stolen. Further, aside from the accusation, there is no evidence that the body was stolen.

The hypothesis that the body was stolen by someone other than the disciples does not explain post-resurrection appearances.  After the tomb was discovered empty, Jesus was later seen by numerous people.  These sightings included detection by more than one of the senses, and frequently ate with the disciples, establishing that these were sightings, and not visions.  Further, if they were visions, then Jesus’ body was still in the tomb.  See John 20:14-17 (Mary saw, heard and touched Jesus); Matthew 28:9-10; By the other women see Jesus; John 21:15-19 (Peter heard and saw Jesus); Luke 24:13-31 By two disciples; Luke 24:24: 36-49 (By ten apostles); John 20:26-30 (Thomas and the other apostles); John 21: 5-15 (To seven apostles); Matthew 28:16-20 (To all the apostles) ; Acts 1:4-9 (To all Apostles  at the Ascension); 1 Cor. 15:6 (To 500 brethren); 1 Cor. 15:7 (to James); 1 Cor. 15:8; Acts 9:1-9 (to Paul).  

Regarding your point about Luke 24:11. It is hardly surprising that the women were initially not believed. That actually argues for the resurrection. Consider: what sort of evidence would it take to move an individual from the common-sense proposition that someone had not resurrected to bodly proclaiming, at risk to life and limb, that the resurrection had occurred.

Ben-I’ll try to answer the rest of your points later, but I have to get ready for work now.
Best,

I don’t know…it seems that posters who come on here trying to dispute the Resurrection actually WANT to be convinced, and are secretly hoping that someone here will actually do so.

There are countless posts on this board that outline the fact that the Romans were in the business of death, and if they messed up were risking their OWN death. Nobody can doubt that Jesus was actually dead.

It is also beating a dead horse to repeat over and over again that the Apostles were living witnesses of the Ressurection, and did not deny what they knew to be the truth under the threat of their own torture and death.

In addition, what is the point of coming over to a forum to deny the forum’s beliefs?
Would I go to a Flat Earth forum and start trying to convince everyone that the earth is round?
What do I care?

I again re-state that I think Ben secretly WANTS to be convinced of the Ressurection.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.