GYM DEBATE: Was Jesus physically resurrected according to the Bible? (Apologia Phoenix vs. Ahmed_Deedat82)

[Bill the Cat]

Gym Debate Notice:

This debate thread is opened to debate the following issue:

Was Jesus physically resurrected according to the Bible?

Apologia Phoenix will be defending the affirmative and Ahmed_Deedat82 will be defending the negative. This debate will begin as soon as Ahmed_Deedat82 makes his first post. The debate will last four rounds.

From this point on, the only posts allowed in this thread are to be made by the participants and Moderators. All others will be deleted.

Spectator commentary is welcomed here.

If you are up and unable to meet your deadline please contact a moderator ASAP.
Please do not edit your post after this notice is posted.
If you are not a participant please feel free to participate in the commentary thread noted in the first post of this debate.

[Ahmed_Deedat82]

The test of the resurrection body is NOT DYING ANYMORE according to Jesus in Luke 20:36 "Neither they can die anymore for they are equal unto angels"

So please prove to us from the actions of Jesus after he rose that Jesus was not subject to death anymore after he rose.

[ApologiaPhoenix]

Ahmed has to win the award for shortest post ever in a wrestling ring debate. Normally, we begin with these long OPs (And people who have seen me debate here have noticed I'm sure that I can be long-winded.) and then after that, we go straight to tearing apart each other's posts. Unfortuantely, it looks like I won't be able to keep such a standard as Ahmed has given me very little to critique and if I say nothing, well, he'll have nothing to say most likely.

So let me start my positive case first.

When I was told this topic, I considered it quite simple, and I still think it is. It's almost like asking the question, "According to the Bible, does God exist?" While the Bible never goes into Aquinas's five proofs for God's existence, it does assume God exists. We could argue that some evidence is presented in Romans 1 and 2, but the main point of Scripture is not to prove God's existence. It more speaks of YHWH's exclusiveness as the only God and of his attributes and nature.

The question then is if Jesus was resurrected according to Scripture and that Scripture being the OT and the NT of the Christian faith. It was also agreed upon between Ahmed and myself that this would be referring to a physical resurrection. We are not getting into any JW stuff about having a spiritual resurrection. When Jesus was resurrected then, a body got up and walked out of that tomb.

In Matthew 28, we read in verses 5-6 that the women are looking for Jesus who was to be in the tomb. The angels tell them that they are looking for Jesus who was crucified, but that he's not there. He has risen, just like he said he would. The chapter ends with the first Jewish polemic against the empty tomb (The disciples stole the body, an idea laden with holes, which even assumes that the tomb is empty.) and Jesus appearing to his disciples and giving the Great Commission.

Notice what is pointed out in this text though. According to the text, Jesus was crucified, a point which Islam denies. The second point is that we can easily infer that the crucifixion killed him. While Strauss, I believe, dealt the death blow to the swoon theory a long time ago, there are many who still hold it today such as Dan Brown of the Da Vinci Code. However, the chapter tells the good news that he is risen. He is risen indeed!

Mark is the only gospel that in the original ending does not mention the appearances. However, it does predict them. Why? That's another topic, but it could be Mark is the writer of awe and trembling. Mark wants to leave someone wondering "What happened next?" However, it is clear from Mark that Jesus did rise.

In Mark 15:39, we are told that Jesus breathed his last. Technically, that means he died.

In Mark 15:44, we are told that Pilate checked to see if he was dead, which he was. The Romans were experts at death. They would surely know.

In Mark 15:46-47, Jesus is buried and the women see where it was. (So much for Lake's wrong tomb theory.)

In Mark 16:6, the women are told again by an angel that Jesus was crucified and that he was risen.

In Mark 16:7, we are told that Jesus would appear to his disciples.

How do we know that someone talked later about the resurrection? It's quite simple. We wouldn't be talking about it today if everyone had kept silent about it.

In Luke 23:46, we read again that Jesus breathed his last.

In Luke 23:53, he is buried.

In Luke 24:5-7, the angels tell the women not to seek the living among the dead, for Jesus had risen. This was to fulfill prophecy.

In Luke 24:13-35, we get one of our first looks at the resurrected body in the appearances to the two on the road to Emmaus. Jesus is apparently able to be unrecognizable somehow at times and can vanish away from a room.

In the rest of the chapter, Jesus appears to the disciples and tells them that he is not a ghost for a ghost does not possess flesh and bone. He then eats in front of the disciples showing that the resurrected body can take in food.

In John 19:30-37, we read that Jesus gave up his spirit (In technical language again, this means he died) and that the Romans pierced him to make sure that he was dead.

In John 19:38-44, we read that Jesus was buried in a tomb.

In John 20:14-17, we read of an appearance of Jesus to Mary.

In John 20:18-20, Jesus appears in a locked room with his disciples there and shows them his hands side, obviously the scars of crucifixion.

In John 20:26-28, the disciples are again in a locked room and Jesus appears in their midst and Thomas believes as well and declares that Jesus is "The Lord of me and the God of me."

In Acts 1, we read of the last appearance of Jesus en masse to his disciples and of his ascension.

In Acts 7, we read of Jesus appearing to Stephen.

In Acts 9, we read of him appearing to Paul. (Both of these show no signs of him being dead but quite alive and quite in the status of deity.)

In Revelation 1, we read of Jesus appearing to John on the Isle of Patmos.

So what about Paul? Probably, the best passage to use and the only one I want to use for brevity's sake is 1 Cor. 15. The first part, verses 3-7, have historically been seen as Paul repeating an early Christian creed. The language indicates received pieces of data and there is the use of terminology that is not normally Pauline. This material is dated extremely early, usually to within 3-8 years of the resurrection event, and has been dated by some to be within 1 year of the event.

The facts in it are simple. Jesus was crucified. Jesus was buried. Jesus rose again. He then appeared to the disciples and then to the 500. Paul says this almost as if it's a challenge. Go ahead. Speak to them. They'll tel you he saw them. Paul then adds that Jesus appeared to him last.

He then gets to Ahmed's question. Let me say first off that Ahmed's question I consider a misnomer. First off, the question is if Jesus was resurrected according to Scripture. The answer is yes. Then we can get into the nature of the resurrection.

However, I do believe that Ahmed is asking for too much. How would he suggest I "prove" that Jesus's body was immortal? Would he prefer that I get a gun and have Jesus come and stand before me and I shoot at him a bunch of times to see if he dies? Would he like me to get a sword and try to cut off his head and see if he's stronger than the Highlander?

Such requests are ridiculous. We must take the word of Scripture on the points that we have no way of verifying empirically. I have my reasons for thinking Scriptural authority to be sound and valid. That is not the point of this debate though. If Ahmed wishes to question their authority, then I can simply say "Then why should I accept Luke 20:36 as authoritative?"

I think if we applied such a standard to any text on some grounds, it would be ridiculous. Consider if we did the same with the Qu'ran. The Qu'ran states that those who are faithful to Allah will live in gardens of bliss with numerous women and other great luxuries for the happiness of the faithful.

I could say, "Can you prove that such things are there?" How would he go about doing it? I think it's unreasonable of me to ask him to trick Allah into allowing him to sneak into Heaven and somehow get photographic evidence (Which I could say was doctored) or bring back fruits from that world for me to check.

What do I see then? I see if I think Mohammad is trustworthy. I do the same with Jesus and with the writers of the NT. Can I believe their claims. The claim of the NT about Jesus is the following:

Jesus was in the beginning and shared the nature of God. (John 1:1)
Jesus took on a body of flesh. (John 1:14.)
He was born of a virgin. (Matthew 1:25)
He performed many miracles. (Various passages and even in the Qu'ran.)
He was sinless. (Same as above.)
He was crucified. (References given earlier.)
He was buried. (References given earlier.)
He rose again. (Same as above.)
He appeared to many. (Same as above.)
He was and is God. (John 1:1, John 1:18, John 8:58, John 10:30, John 20:28, Romans 9:5, Titus 2:13, 2 Peter 1:1.) Those, for the record, are passages that just say so explicitly. There are many implicit claims of deity as well.
He was the Messiah. (Various passages again and the Qu'ran.)

Silly me, but I just think that with that kind of witness, he's got some credibility. Thus, if he speaks about the resurrection body in that way in Luke 20:36, then I will say that that is the body he has as he is the firstfruits of the resurrection. (Col. 1:18)

What does the Bible say though? 1 Cor. 15 tells us that we are to be buried mortal and raised immortal. This is the biblical promise. I have been given on reason to doubt it. I cannot empirically verify it, but so what? The Bible has shown itself to be reliable and I believe it.

It does fit in with the nature of God though. God is not going to allow death to ruin his creation. He did not create this world and see it all and then say "hmmmm. I'd better go to plan B." No. God's plan is to save the creation and not eliminate it. The creation was said to be good. God will not allow Satan to make his creation irredeemable. In fact, he will make it better than before.

Thus, God will not allow death to have the final say. God will keep his word so that death will no longer be a threat as is shown in Rev. 20-22. He has promised to restore the cosmos to what it should be. Romans 8 tells us of the new creation coming and the birth pangs going on now. It is coming indeed. Come Lord Jesus!

In conclusion, I think Ahmed has not stated a case, which is bad for his side, but also if the standards he seems to require were applied to everything else, there would be very little we could believe in. (I have applied it to religious texts. The same could apply to such basic beliefs as the existence of the material world so as we are not in the Matrix or the validity of memory.)

Maybe next time Ahmed will say something substantial. Let's hope so.

[Ahmed_Deedat82]

Dear Sir,

Jesus said "Neither can they die anymore for they are equal unto angels" Luke 20:36 confirming what Paul said in 1 Corinthians 15:52 saying "the dead will be raised imperishable."

You failed to prove from Jesus actions after he rose that Jesus was not subject to death anymore though Jesus had 40 days to prove he was immortal or not subject to death.

All you said in this regard "it was ridiculous" without proving us actions of Jesus after he rose that he was immortal.

Jesus after he rose he proved to us he could eat by consuming honey comb and fish and he was physical by letting others touch him, but never proved to us he was not subject to death.

No need for you to shoot Jesus with a gun or to behead Jesus with a sword, because Jesus was for forty days after he rose on earth and he would have proved to us he was not subject to death anymore by appearing to his killers of the Jews, whom he was sent to according to Matthew 15:24. But Jesus did not appear according to Acts 10:41 because he was mortal therefore he asked Mary to ask the disciple to meet in Galilee not in Judea because he did not die according to John 7:1 "Jesus went around in Galilee. He stayed away from Judea on purpose. He knew that the Jews there were waiting to kill him."

If Jesus had been resurrected and immortalized, he would have appeared to his killers of the Jews to prove he was immortal; therefore, resurrected. Otherwise, how can we know from the actions of Jesus after he rose Jesus was immortal?

But Jesus did not appear to his killers of the Jews and the Romans according to Acts 10:41 which reads "He was not seen by all the people, but by witnesses whom God had already chosen—by us who ate and drank with him after he rose from the dead."

The Bible does not mention that Jesus proved he was immortal. Since Jesus did not prove he was immortal, Jesus eating and being touched prove he was mortal even after he rose unless you prove from the actions of Jesus after he rose Jesus was not subject to death anymore.

I would like to comment on some of what you said;

1) Crucifixion is a slow lingering death on the cross.

2) Islam rejects that Jesus died by any manner including crucifixion.

3) You saying "Notice what is pointed out in this text though. According to the text, Jesus was crucified" is true because Luke 23: 33 says "They crucified him." After Jesus had been crucified in Luke 23:33, Jesus was able to speak in Luke 23:43 as Jesus said to the criminal "Today you will be with me in paradise." So he was crucified but he continued to live as he was speaking after he was crucified.

4) You saying " the chapter tells the good news that he is risen. He is risen indeed" is true but rising does not mean resurrection unless Jesus proved to from his actions after he rose that Jesus was not subject to death because Jesus said in Luke 20: 36 "Neither they (the resurrected) can die anymore"

5) You saying "Jesus appears to the disciples and tells them that he is not a ghost for a ghost does not possess flesh and bone" is true in Luke 24:39 to prove Jesus was physical. So Jesus proving to the disciples he was physical does not prove he was immortal unless it is proved by Jesus.

6) In the Bible, many rose from the dead such as Lazarus in John 12:1, but they were not resurrected because they were not IMMORTAL.

7) You saying "Jesus breathed his last. Technically, that means he died" is assumption because since Jesus death was concluded by eye-observation according to John 19:32 which is not enough to determine one death no matter how the doctor is well-experienced and strict the penalty if wrong diagnoses happens.

8) You saying " we are told that Pilate checked to see if he was dead, which he was" is assumption because the Greek text of Mark 15:45 says " And when he knew of the centurion, he gave the body to Joseph", so we do not know what Pilate knew of the centurion till Luke, Paul disciple, uses the Greek word "SOMA" which means a living body in Luke 23: 55 "His (Jesus) body (soma) was laid in the tomb." Therefore, Jesus body did not decay according to Acts 2: 30 & 31 "his body did not decay." It is only living body that does not decay for 48 hours period.

9) You saying "we are told that Jesus would appear to his disciples", who were Jews, is true but Jesus did not appear to his killers of the Jews because he did not die therefore he asked Mary to ask the disciple to meet in Galilee not in Judea because he did not die according to John 7:1 "Jesus went around in Galilee. He stayed away from Judea on purpose. He knew that the Jews there were waiting to kill him."

10) You quoting "the angels tell the women not to seek the living among the dead, for Jesus had risen" is true that Jesus was alive not because Jesus was alive after he DIED but after he SUFFERED according to Jesus in Luke 24:46 "It was necessary for the Messiah to SUFFER (NOT DIE) and will rise from the dead on the third day"

11) Jesus performing miracles such as Jesus vanishing does not mean Jesus was resurrected because Jesus performed miracle before he rose and when he was mortal such as walking on the water according to John 6:19.

12) Saying "He then eats in front of the disciples showing that the resurrected body can take in food" is wrong as long as Jesus did not prove from his actions after rising that he was not subject to death anymore after he rose.

13) You saying "The Romans were experts at death" is true, but knowing that Pilate was sympathized with Jesus and was also determined to release him, so was the Centurion sympathized with Jesus according to Luke 23:20 and Luke 23:47 which say "Pilate therefore, willing to release Jesus, spake again to them" and "The centurion, seeing what had happened, praised God and said, "Surely this was a righteous man." Therefore, the Roman soldiers were not to be worried about their lives to let Jesus go alive.

14) If Jesus did not appear to his killers of the Jews and the Romans, how else can we know from the actions of Jesus after he rose that Jesus was not subject to death?

15) Jesus appearing to his disciples after he rose does not prove Jesus was resurrected because Even though Moses appeared and was seen physically by the disciples, Moses was not resurrected according to Luke 9:30, 31, 32 which read "Two men, Moses and Elijah, 31appeared in glorious splendor, talking with Jesus. They spoke about his departure, which he was about to bring to fulfillment at Jerusalem. Peter and his companions were very sleepy, but when they became fully awake, they saw his glory and the two men standing with him." Moses appeared physically; therefore, "Peter said to him, "Master, it is good for us to be here. Let us put up three shelters—one for you, one for Moses and one for Elijah" according to Luke 9:33.

[ApologiaPhoenix]

Let's notice something. Ahmed has not disproven the topic of this debate, did Jesus physically rise according to the Bible? He wants to switch the goalposts, but it just won't work.

Dear Sir,

Jesus said "Neither can they die anymore for they are equal unto angels" Luke 20:36 confirming what Paul said in 1 Corinthians 15:52 saying "the dead will be raised imperishable."

You failed to prove from Jesus actions after he rose that Jesus was not subject to death anymore though Jesus had 40 days to prove he was immortal or not subject to death.

All you said in this regard "it was ridiculous" without proving us actions of Jesus after he rose that he was immortal.

Jesus after he rose he proved to us he could eat by consuming honey comb and fish and he was physical by letting others touch him, but never proved to us he was not subject to death.

And proving you can eat is something different. Again, though Ahmed addresses this, I would simply ask "What method would be used?" All Jesus had to do was prove he was physically resurrected. Here's why.

Jesus claimed deity. He was put to death for claiming such and since he was hanged on a tree, he was seen as being under God's curse. The resurrection of him is God's vindication. Since that has happened and he has conquered death as 1 Cor. 15 says, we can safely believe he is not subject to what he has conquered.

No need for you to shoot Jesus with a gun or to behead Jesus with a sword, because Jesus was for forty days after he rose on earth and he would have proved to us he was not subject to death anymore by appearing to his killers of the Jews, whom he was sent to according to Matthew 15:24. But Jesus did not appear according to Acts 10:41 because he was mortal therefore he asked Mary to ask the disciple to meet in Galilee not in Judea because he did not die according to John 7:1 "Jesus went around in Galilee. He stayed away from Judea on purpose. He knew that the Jews there were waiting to kill him."

Now there is some huge misinformation here. Ahmed says Jesus did not appear according to Acts 10:41 because he was mortal. That is in no way what the text says. Now Ahmed may want to make his case another way, but it seems he is simply not reading the text or is ignorant of exegeting it. Now we have him tying in Mary being told to go to the disciples because of John 7:1. I don't see any tie-in with those verses though. This is biblical hopscotch.

If Jesus had been resurrected and immortalized, he would have appeared to his killers of the Jews to prove he was immortal; therefore, resurrected. Otherwise, how can we know from the actions of Jesus after he rose Jesus was immortal?

But this means that if he was resurrected, he would have been made immortal. How do we know he is immortal? Because we know that he is the firstfruits of the resurrection as we shall be and our bodies will put on immortality. If we are to follow Jesus in this way, then surely Jesus is immortal.

But Jesus did not appear to his killers of the Jews and the Romans according to Acts 10:41 which reads "He was not seen by all the people, but by witnesses whom God had already chosen—by us who ate and drank with him after he rose from the dead."

Notice Ahmed uses this verse but it does NOT say what he says it said. There is no mention of him not appearing because he was mortal. Now I have a reason why I believe Jesus didn't appear to his opponents. (At least not all of them. He appeared to a select few.) However, Ahmed has not asked that.

The Bible does not mention that Jesus proved he was immortal. Since Jesus did not prove he was immortal, Jesus eating and being touched prove he was mortal even after he rose unless you prove from the actions of Jesus after he rose Jesus was not subject to death anymore.

And this is a nonsense claim. We might as well say "Since Jesus did not swim after the disciples in John 21, that proves that he couldn't swim."

1) Crucifixion is a slow lingering death on the cross.

2) Islam rejects that Jesus died by any manner including crucifixion.

3) You saying "Notice what is pointed out in this text though. According to the text, Jesus was crucified" is true because Luke 23: 33 says "They crucified him." After Jesus had been crucified in Luke 23:33, Jesus was able to speak in Luke 23:43 as Jesus said to the criminal "Today you will be with me in paradise." So he was crucified but he continued to live as he was speaking after he was crucified.

Yes. He did speak after he was crucified. Why? Because crucifixion was a slow death and one could speak after being hung on the cross. It is after this in verse 46 that Jesus breathes his last. Thus, he did continue to live until verse 46. There is no problem with that and it's sad argumentation to think this counts as an argument against my view.

4) You saying " the chapter tells the good news that he is risen. He is risen indeed" is true but rising does not mean resurrection unless Jesus proved to from his actions after he rose that Jesus was not subject to death because Jesus said in Luke 20: 36 "Neither they (the resurrected) can die anymore"

And Jesus is seen as the firstfruits of that resurrection. I could ask Ahmed to prove to me that all men are mortal. Why should I believe that? Sure. Every man so far has been mortal, but maybe someone is the exception. You would think I'm crazy to think someone here would naturally live forever, but can you prove otherwise?

5) You saying "Jesus appears to the disciples and tells them that he is not a ghost for a ghost does not possess flesh and bone" is true in Luke 24:39 to prove Jesus was physical. So Jesus proving to the disciples he was physical does not prove he was immortal unless it is proved by Jesus.

Since death could not hold Jesus by his own power, it would mean that he has conquered death. Again, Ahmed sets up a ridiculous criteria.

6) In the Bible, many rose from the dead such as Lazarus in John 12:1, but they were not resurrected because they were not IMMORTAL.

They were not raised to immortality either. Jesus is said by Paul in Col. 1 to be the firstfruits of the resurrection. Which one? The one coming in 1 Cor. 15. To Paul's understanding, Jesus was raised immortal. Why should I think otherwise?

7) You saying "Jesus breathed his last. Technically, that means he died" is assumption because since Jesus death was concluded by eye-observation according to John 19:32 which is not enough to determine one death no matter how the doctor is well-experienced and strict the penalty if wrong diagnoses happens.

This is simply nonsense. I suggest he read the accounts from medical experts today who will verify that Jesus was dead. This is also noteworthy since Romans were experts on death. They would have made absolutely certain Jesus was dead. Finally, assuming somehow Jesus survived the cross, massive blood loss, being in a cold tomb, being buried in a shroud, weighed down with spices, and yet rolled aside a 1.5 ton stone, overcame Roman guards, and walked on pierced feet to see the disciples, they would not call him the Lord who conquered death. They would have called him a doctor!

8) You saying " we are told that Pilate checked to see if he was dead, which he was" is assumption because the Greek text of Mark 15:45 says " And when he knew of the centurion, he gave the body to Joseph", so we do not know what Pilate knew of the centurion till Luke, Paul disciple, uses the Greek word "SOMA" which means a living body in Luke 23: 55 "His (Jesus) body (soma) was laid in the tomb." Therefore, Jesus body did not decay according to Acts 2: 30 & 31 "his body did not decay." It is only living body that does not decay for 48 hours period.

This simply means that Jesus did not decay because he did not stay dead long enough.

9) You saying "we are told that Jesus would appear to his disciples", who were Jews, is true but Jesus did not appear to his killers of the Jews because he did not die therefore he asked Mary to ask the disciple to meet in Galilee not in Judea because he did not die according to John 7:1 "Jesus went around in Galilee. He stayed away from Judea on purpose. He knew that the Jews there were waiting to kill him."

What John 7:1 has to do with the post-resurrection events is beyond me. I don't see the leap that Ahmed is making.

10) You quoting "the angels tell the women not to seek the living among the dead, for Jesus had risen" is true that Jesus was alive not because Jesus was alive after he DIED but after he SUFFERED according to Jesus in Luke 24:46 "It was necessary for the Messiah to SUFFER (NOT DIE) and will rise from the dead on the third day"

Suffer and rise from the dead! What does that mean? Only certain people rise from the dead. That's right! Dead ones.

11) Jesus performing miracles such as Jesus vanishing does not mean Jesus was resurrected because Jesus performed miracle before he rose and when he was mortal such as walking on the water according to John 6:19.

The question again though is not if Jesus was resurrected. It's if the Bible teaches it, and it does. Still, I would gladly defend that Jesus rose from the dead.

12) Saying "He then eats in front of the disciples showing that the resurrected body can take in food" is wrong as long as Jesus did not prove from his actions after rising that he was not subject to death anymore after he rose.

What? Because Jesus did not take a sword to the neck that means he couldn't eat food?

13) You saying "The Romans were experts at death" is true, but knowing that Pilate was sympathized with Jesus and was also determined to release him, so was the Centurion sympathized with Jesus according to Luke 23:20 and Luke 23:47 which say "Pilate therefore, willing to release Jesus, spake again to them" and "The centurion, seeing what had happened, praised God and said, "Surely this was a righteous man." Therefore, the Roman soldiers were not to be worried about their lives to let Jesus go alive.

Answered above.

14) If Jesus did not appear to his killers of the Jews and the Romans, how else can we know from the actions of Jesus after he rose that Jesus was not subject to death?

By his word and the word of his apostles and by realizing God has vindicated his claims by raising him from the dead.

15) Jesus appearing to his disciples after he rose does not prove Jesus was resurrected because Even though Moses appeared and was seen physically by the disciples, Moses was not resurrected according to Luke 9:30, 31, 32 which read "Two men, Moses and Elijah, 31appeared in glorious splendor, talking with Jesus. They spoke about his departure, which he was about to bring to fulfillment at Jerusalem. Peter and his companions were very sleepy, but when they became fully awake, they saw his glory and the two men standing with him." Moses appeared physically; therefore, "Peter said to him, "Master, it is good for us to be here. Let us put up three shelters—one for you, one for Moses and one for Elijah" according to Luke 9:33.

But Jesus is different for his tomb was found empty as well. The appearances alone don't cut it. I agree! The empty tomb in conjunction does!

In closing, Ahmed has yet to put forth a substantial argument in defense of his view. It takes two to tango. I hope Ahmed will actually make an argument, for I have little interest in one who can only go against another worldview but not defend his own.

[Ahmed_Deedat82]

Dear Sir,

You really have continued to fail to prove to us from the actions of Jesus after he rose that Jesus was not subject to death anymore. Jesus said "neither (the resurrected) can die anymore" but did not prove to us from his actions that he was immortal.

Jesus eating without proving he was immortal does not prove he was resurrected as Lazarus eating according to John 12: 1 & 2 does not prove he was resurrected without proving to us he was immortal

Quoting Paul to prove Jesus was resurrected does not prove Jesus was resurrected because according to Paul in 1 Corinthians 15:45 Jesus after he rose was "an everlasting spirit", which is contradicting the physical Jesus after he rose as Jesus said "For a spirit has no flesh and bones as you see me have" in Luke 24:39. So Jesus was not resurrected according to Paul resurrection that the resurrected will be a spirit.

While you quoted Paul and I quoted you Christ who said after he rose "it was necessary for the Messiah to suffer" (not to die) in Luke 24:46, so Jesus did not die but suffered.

Yes the tomb of Jesus was empty when the angel according to Matthew 28:2 removed the stone then the angel declared Jesus to be risen according to Matthew 28:7. The angel moving the stone not Jesus proves Jesus was not resurrected because the resurrected will be raised with power according to 1 Corinthians 15:43 "It is raised in power." Therefore, when the women saw the stone rolled back, they went back and said "They have taken the lord" according to John 20:2 proving Jesus was not resurrected because Jesus-was-taken is not sign of power; therefore, Jesus was not resurrected.

[ApologiaPhoenix]

Dear Sir,

You really have continued to fail to prove to us from the actions of Jesus after he rose that Jesus was not subject to death anymore.

Let's notice something in this.

Ahmed says that Jesus rose.

The debate challenge was if the Bible teaches that Jesus rose from the dead. Look at the challenge. Does it say anything about Jesus being immortal? Not a thing. It seems like Ahmed has conceded my point already.

Jesus said "neither (the resurrected) can die anymore" but did not prove to us from his actions that he was immortal.

Actually, this is not talking about resurrections. This is talking about the resurrection at the end. Lazarus, we can be sure, did die later. Will anyone deny though that he was dead and that he was alive again? However, notice that Paul says Jesus is the firstfruits of that resurrection. It would logically follow that Jesus is immortal. The ascension as has been pointed out would also show this as surely Jesus would not die in the very presence of the Father as the claim of Christ in Rev. 1 that he lives forever even though he was dead.

Jesus eating without proving he was immortal does not prove he was resurrected as Lazarus eating according to John 12: 1 & 2 does not prove he was resurrected without proving to us he was immortal

A prize if someone can translate this.

My guess is that he's saying Jesus was not resurrected as Lazarus was. I don't think he was. I think Jesus was resurrected in a state he could never die in. However, if Lazarus was resurrected, then it would follow that by the same standard, Jesus was.

Quoting Paul to prove Jesus was resurrected does not prove Jesus was resurrected because according to Paul in 1 Corinthians 15:45 Jesus after he rose was "an everlasting spirit", which is contradicting the physical Jesus after he rose as Jesus said "For a spirit has no flesh and bones as you see me have" in Luke 24:39. So Jesus was not resurrected according to Paul resurrection that the resurrected will be a spirit.

And now Ahmed plays what he thinks will be his trump card. Unfortunately, this is what happens when you just rip a verse or two here and there and forget the surrounding context. Ahmed should realize that writers like N.T. Wright have dealt with such attempts and I am one who has read them. Let's look at the broader context.

First off, the passage begins with the creed that Ahmed has NOT responded to. This creed states that Jesus was raised and that he appeared to his followers. If Ahmed is correct and Jesus was not physical, then we must only say that Jesus is a deceiver as he made all of his followers think he was and insisted that he was. Paul would also know well about these accounts. He speaks of the 500 saying that most are still alive though some have fallen asleep, indicating he invites others to find them and ask them.

Now the question asked later on is "How are they raised? What kind of body?" Notice that the question of a body is already there. He then takes us through a re-creation based on Genesis 1 and 2. (See N.T. Wright's "The Resurrection of the Son of God.") Our main focus will be on verses 42-46.

42So will it be with the resurrection of the dead. The body that is sown is perishable, it is raised imperishable; 43it is sown in dishonor, it is raised in glory; it is sown in weakness, it is raised in power; 44it is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body.
If there is a natural body, there is also a spiritual body. 45So it is written: "The first man Adam became a living being"; the last Adam, a life-giving spirit. 46The spiritual did not come first, but the natural, and after that the spiritual.

Notice the constant contrast Paul is making.
It is sown perishable. It is raised imperishable. It is sown in dishonor. It is raised in glory. It is sown in weakness. It is raised in power. It is sown natural. It is raised spiritual.

Now Ahmed will want to jump on spiritual. Spiritual does not mean non-physical! How do I know? Look earlier in the epistle at 1 Cor. 2:15. The spiritual man makes judgments about all things. What is the spiritual man? The non-physical man? Not at all.

Now Paul says this explains Genesis 2:7. the first Adam became a living soul. The second was a life-giving spirit. (I have several translations. I have no idea which one says "everlasting Spirit" although everlasting things are immortal so if Jesus rose and he was raised everlasting then he was raised immortal....)

What does it mean then? It means that which is dominated by the Spirit. As the Spirit breathes life in Genesis 1 and 2, so Christ becomes the source of life for all who believe in him.

Had Ahmed done some research, he would have found this passage does not argue his case. (In fact, it argues mine.) Indeed, this is the problem when others suspect they will take us Christians off guard as if we've never read or studied our Bibles. We have, and we are ready to defend the truth therein.

While you quoted Paul and I quoted you Christ who said after he rose "it was necessary for the Messiah to suffer" (not to die) in Luke 24:46, so Jesus did not die but suffered.

But Luke does say he died as I showed. Does Ahmed really think Luke was that ignorant? Does he think the disciples heard that and said "Wow! We thought you had died Jesus! Boy were we wrong!" Could he have actually said suffer instead because he was pointing to his role as the suffering servant in Isaiah 53?

For Ahmed's case to have any merit, we must take the writers of the gospels and the disciples to be stupid. We may think them foolish at times, but let us not think that they were as stupid as Ahmed portrays them to be!

Yes the tomb of Jesus was empty when the angel according to Matthew 28:2 removed the stone then the angel declared Jesus to be risen according to Matthew 28:7. The angel moving the stone not Jesus proves Jesus was not resurrected because the resurrected will be raised with power according to 1 Corinthians 15:43 "It is raised in power."

non sequitur. Considering Jesus could enter a locked room without using a door or window, I don't think exiting a tomb would be a problem. Ahmed seems to assume it was done so Jesus could get out. My stance is that the stone was rolled away so others could see in. By Ahmed's argument, one might as well say Jesus isn't all-powerful since he sends his followers to preach the gospel or that God isn't all-powerful since he had to send Mohammad supposedly with a message instead of giving it himself.

Therefore, when the women saw the stone rolled back, they went back and said "They have taken the lord" according to John 20:2 proving Jesus was not resurrected because Jesus-was-taken is not sign of power; therefore, Jesus was not resurrected.

If anyone thinks any of this follows, then I simply say logic 101 has been failed. For one thing, they say Jesus was taken, but he was not! The first assumption of the women was not "The Lord is risen!" It is that the body was stolen. It is when the angels and even Jesus confront them that they learn this is not the case.

It seems Ahmed just has not really read the gospel accounts. Had he kept them within the proper context, he would not use such poor arguments. I hope he does better on his final post and remembers that he is not to present new arguments in the last round but sum up his argument. (Which sadly, he never gave)

I will gladly conclude my point at that time. I am certain Ahmed will go out spouting that I failed. I, however, do not believe that is his call. I will leave it for the readers to decide. Has Ahmed convinced the reader that the Bible does not teach that Jesus rose from the dead? Finally, have I convinced the reader that the Bible does teach this. Let the reader decide.

[Ahmed_Deedat82]

Dear Sir,

It is not that I like to go out spouting that you failed. Rather, it is a fact that you really failed. Each time, I asked you failed you to prove to us from the actions of Jesus after he rose that Jesus was not subject to death.

Jesus saying in Luke 11:30 'Just as Jonah became a miraculous sign to the people of Nineveh, so the Son of Man will be a miraculous sign to the people living today' proves Jesus miracle will be surviving death because Jonah's miracle, which Jesus promised to performing, is surviving death. Therefore, Jesus must survive death as Jesus promised in Luke 11:30. It is evident Jesus survived death as Jesus never appeared to his killers of the Jews, whom Jesus gave the miracle of Jonah in Luke 11:30 though he was sent to all the Jews in Matthew 15:24 because he was mortal.

REFUTATIONS YOUR CLAIMS;

1) Though Jesus rose, but rising alone is not enough to believe that the risen person is resurrected unless it is proved that the risen person was immortal from his actions after he rose.

2) Not only Luke 20:36 says the resurrected will be immortal, but also 1 Corinthians 15: 52 says "the dead will be raised imperishable."

3) According to Paul, Jesus was a spirit with no flesh and bone as Paul said " "The first man Adam became a living being"; the last Adam, a life-giving spirit" in 1 Corinthians 15: 45 because "Flesh and blood cannot inherit the Kingdom of God" according to 1 Corinthians 15:50. By Paul signs of the resurrection body in 1 Corinthians 15, Jesus was not resurrected because Jesus was in reality physical as Jesus said after he rose "Behold my hands and my feet" after he rose in Luke 24:39.

4) Unless Jesus proved to us he was immortal from his actions after rose, Jesus eating food just proves he was mortal.

5) Jesus asking to give food to the daughter of Jairus after she rose in Luke 8:55 proves that Jesus was mortal when he asked the disciples to give him food in John 12: 4 & 5 after he rose.

6) You saying "Lazarus, we can be sure, did die later" is biblically wrong according to Hebrews 9:27 "it is appointed for man to die once"; therefore, Lazarus could not die twice.

7) You saying " Paul says Jesus is the firstfruits of that resurrection" is biblically wrong because as I mentioned above according to Paul, Jesus was a spirit with no flesh and bone as Paul said " "The first man Adam became a living being"; the last Adam, a life-giving spirit" in 1 Corinthians 15: 45 because "Flesh and blood cannot inherit the Kingdom of God" according to 1 Corinthians 15:50. By Paul signs of the resurrection body in 1 Corinthians 15, Jesus was not resurrected because Jesus was in reality physical as Jesus said after he rose "Behold my hands and my feet" after he rose in Luke 24:39.

8) Jesus appearing after he rose was not physical according to Paul after he rose because Jesus appearing to Paul was in a vision according to Paul.

9) To Paul according to 1 Corinthians 15, the spiritual body is a spirit because Paul said "It is sown a physical body and it is raised in a spiritual body" in 1 Corinthians 15:44 then Paul said that Jesus was "an everlasting spirit" in 1 Corinthians 15:45.

10) To Paul, the physical body is the opposite of the spiritual body because Paul contrasted between the Physical body and the spiritual body as Paul said "It is sown a physical body and it is raised in a spiritual body" in 1 Corinthians 15:44.

11) After he rose, Luke never mentioned Jesus died. Rather Luke states in Luke 24:46 that Jesus said "It was necessary for the Christ to suffer." Likewise, Luke said in Luke 23:43 that Jesus said to the criminal "Today you will be with me in Paradise", but Luke mentioned in Luke 23:55 that "his body was laid in a tomb", which is opposite to what Jesus said in Luke 23:43.

12) The stone removal FIRST Sunday when it was still dark according to John 20:2 THEN Jesus coming out the tomb Sunday morning according to Mark 16:9 prove Jesus was raised with power; there, Jesus was not resurrected because the resurrected will be raised with power according to Paul 1 Corinthians 15:43 'It is raised in power.'

13) The angel according to Matthew 28:2 removed FIRST the stone THEN Jesus was declared to be risen according to Matthew 28:7 proving Jesus was not resurrected because had Jesus been resurrected, Jesus would have been FIRST declared to be risen THEN the stone would have been removed.

14) The women did not believe Jesus body was stolen, they believed it was taken and carried because in John 20:2 the women said to the disciples "They have taken the Lord out of the tomb, and we do not know where they have laid him."

15) When the women said "They have taken the Lord out of the tomb" in John 20:2, they were not assuming because they were really eyewitnesses when Jesus was on the cross and when Jesus was laid in his tomb.

16) Had the women been assuming when saying Jesus was taken, the Gospels writer of John would have stated it clearly that they were wrong because John 11:11-13 mentioned how the disciples misunderstood the words of Jesus. But John in the case of Jesus-was-taken did not mention the women were wrong at all.

17) Before the angel said to the women "he is risen" the women knew that Jesus would rise according to Luke 24:7. However, the women went and said that Jesus was taken.

18) You saying 'Jesus did not decay because he did not stay dead long enough' is not wrong because had Jesus been dead when buried, his body would have decayed right away as buried because ' Rigor mortis (the stiffening of muscles) and livor mortis (pooling of blood) take place within 12 hours of death' According to Jamie Downs, Chief Medical Examiner of the Alabama Department of Forensic Sciences.

19) Using John's words in Revelation 1 to prove Jesus was dead and now alive is refuted by Jesus himself ,who said 'it was necessary for the Christ to SUFFER' only in Luke 24:46 after he rose.

[ApologiaPhoenix]

Dear Sir,

It is not that I like to go out spouting that you failed. Rather, it is a fact that you really failed. Each time, I asked you failed you to prove to us from the actions of Jesus after he rose that Jesus was not subject to death.

After Jesus rose? Hear that everyone. That means that Jesus rose. What is the challenge of the debate? Did Jesus physically rise according to the Bible? Thanks for conceding it.

And if you think I failed at what the debate challenge is, then the problem is you entirely.

Jesus saying in Luke 11:30 'Just as Jonah became a miraculous sign to the people of Nineveh, so the Son of Man will be a miraculous sign to the people living today' proves Jesus miracle will be surviving death because Jonah's miracle, which Jesus promised to performing, is surviving death. Therefore, Jesus must survive death as Jesus promised in Luke 11:30. It is evident Jesus survived death as Jesus never appeared to his killers of the Jews, whom Jesus gave the miracle of Jonah in Luke 11:30 though he was sent to all the Jews in Matthew 15:24 because he was mortal.

Actually, it is not evident. Because Jesus did not appear to the Jews, it does not follow that he did not overcome death. The AMA again signed Jesus's death certificate in examining the gospel accounts of the crucifixion. Jesus was dead. Your exegesis is simply horrendous. I offered to tell you why I think Jesus didn't appear to large groups of enemies. You never asked for it. Don't say I have no basis for my belief when you never asked for it.

1) Though Jesus rose, but rising alone is not enough to believe that the risen person is resurrected unless it is proved that the risen person was immortal from his actions after he rose.

That is not in the challenge and for you to want to switch gears in the very first post is not a good way to debate. I also think I have shown my case well and shown yours to be ludicrous.

2) Not only Luke 20:36 says the resurrected will be immortal, but also 1 Corinthians 15: 52 says "the dead will be raised imperishable."

And Jesus is seen as the firstfruits of that resurrection. See 1 Cor. 15:20 and 23.

3) According to Paul, Jesus was a spirit with no flesh and bone as Paul said " "The first man Adam became a living being"; the last Adam, a life-giving spirit" in 1 Corinthians 15: 45 because "Flesh and blood cannot inherit the Kingdom of God" according to 1 Corinthians 15:50. By Paul signs of the resurrection body in 1 Corinthians 15, Jesus was not resurrected because Jesus was in reality physical as Jesus said after he rose "Behold my hands and my feet" after he rose in Luke 24:39.

And this assumes the Descartian dichotomy between physical and spiritual. My source is N.T. Wright on the interpretation of the passage. Let Ahmed give his better source.

4) Unless Jesus proved to us he was immortal from his actions after rose, Jesus eating food just proves he was mortal.

Non sequitur.

5) Jesus asking to give food to the daughter of Jairus after she rose in Luke 8:55 proves that Jesus was mortal when he asked the disciples to give him food in John 12: 4 & 5 after he rose.

Colossians tells us that Jesus was the firstborn from the dead. He is a new type of resurrection. This examples makes about as much sense as saying that because we have eyes to see in our new body, and our old body can see, then it is not a resurrection.

6) You saying "Lazarus, we can be sure, did die later" is biblically wrong according to Hebrews 9:27 "it is appointed for man to die once"; therefore, Lazarus could not die twice.

You think the Hebrews writer was ignorant? A resurrection does not disprove this. Lazarus only appeared once before the judgment seat. You think Lazarus is still walking around today? (If so, he is immortal and if Jesus rose and he is still walking around, then he is immortal as well.)

7) You saying " Paul says Jesus is the firstfruits of that resurrection" is biblically wrong because as I mentioned above according to Paul, Jesus was a spirit with no flesh and bone as Paul said " "The first man Adam became a living being"; the last Adam, a life-giving spirit" in 1 Corinthians 15: 45 because "Flesh and blood cannot inherit the Kingdom of God" according to 1 Corinthians 15:50. By Paul signs of the resurrection body in 1 Corinthians 15, Jesus was not resurrected because Jesus was in reality physical as Jesus said after he rose "Behold my hands and my feet" after he rose in Luke 24:39.

Wow. You must think Paul was really ignorant. Flesh and blood was terminology of the time referring to sinful nature.

8) Jesus appearing after he rose was not physical according to Paul after he rose because Jesus appearing to Paul was in a vision according to Paul.

9) To Paul according to 1 Corinthians 15, the spiritual body is a spirit because Paul said "It is sown a physical body and it is raised in a spiritual body" in 1 Corinthians 15:44 then Paul said that Jesus was "an everlasting spirit" in 1 Corinthians 15:45.

My source is N.T. Wright again. "The Resurrection of the Son of God." I'm eager to hear Ahmed write a paper and send it to N.T. on why he's wrong.

10) To Paul, the physical body is the opposite of the spiritual body because Paul contrasted between the Physical body and the spiritual body as Paul said "It is sown a physical body and it is raised in a spiritual body" in 1 Corinthians 15:44.

Contrast does not mean opposite. That is contradictory instead. Paul said that a spiritual man judges all things. Did he mean the non-physical man? Nope.

11) After he rose, Luke never mentioned Jesus died. Rather Luke states in Luke 24:46 that Jesus said "It was necessary for the Christ to suffer." Likewise, Luke said in Luke 23:43 that Jesus said to the criminal "Today you will be with me in Paradise", but Luke mentioned in Luke 23:55 that "his body was laid in a tomb", which is opposite to what Jesus said in Luke 23:43.

Not at all. Jesus went to paradise. His body went to a tomb. He is not his body. Also, I consider death a form of suffering. Don't you?

12) The stone removal FIRST Sunday when it was still dark according to John 20:2 THEN Jesus coming out the tomb Sunday morning according to Mark 16:9 prove Jesus was raised with power; there, Jesus was not resurrected because the resurrected will be raised with power according to Paul 1 Corinthians 15:43 'It is raised in power.'

A prize if anyone can even translate this into anything meaningful.

13) The angel according to Matthew 28:2 removed FIRST the stone THEN Jesus was declared to be risen according to Matthew 28:7 proving Jesus was not resurrected because had Jesus been resurrected, Jesus would have been FIRST declared to be risen THEN the stone would have been removed.

Non sequitur

14) The women did not believe Jesus body was stolen, they believed it was taken and carried because in John 20:2 the women said to the disciples "They have taken the Lord out of the tomb, and we do not know where they have laid him."

Irrelevant. This is simply their reaction before the appearance. An empty tomb alone would not convince anyone Jesus rose. The appearances did that.

15) When the women said "They have taken the Lord out of the tomb" in John 20:2, they were not assuming because they were really eyewitnesses when Jesus was on the cross and when Jesus was laid in his tomb.

Another prize if someone can translate this.

16) Had the women been assuming when saying Jesus was taken, the Gospels writer of John would have stated it clearly that they were wrong because John 11:11-13 mentioned how the disciples misunderstood the words of Jesus. But John in the case of Jesus-was-taken did not mention the women were wrong at all.

Nah. He only has the proclamation of the risen Christ later on.....

17) Before the angel said to the women "he is risen" the women knew that Jesus would rise according to Luke 24:7. However, the women went and said that Jesus was taken.

No. The women simply knew what he had told them. Even the disciples did not understand what the term "rise again" meant at the Transfiguration. Jews had no place for a dying and resurrecting messiah in the middle of time in their worldview.

18) You saying 'Jesus did not decay because he did not stay dead long enough' is not wrong because had Jesus been dead when buried, his body would have decayed right away as buried because ' Rigor mortis (the stiffening of muscles) and livor mortis (pooling of blood) take place within 12 hours of death' According to Jamie Downs, Chief Medical Examiner of the Alabama Department of Forensic Sciences.

Yes it does, and for this, you should see comments on the Shroud as well. While some decay can set in, I do not believe that is what David was saying. David's body is dust now. Jesus's isn't.

19) Using John's words in Revelation 1 to prove Jesus was dead and now alive is refuted by Jesus himself ,who said 'it was necessary for the Christ to SUFFER' only in Luke 24:46 after he rose.

I consider death by crucifixion suffering.

I must say I have been quite shocked by this so-called debate. My opponent has not been able to put a dent in the claim that Jesus rose according to the Bible and has instead changed tactics from the first post and followed it with bad exegesis and logical fallacies.

I know better. The Bible does teach this and as the evidence shows also, history teaches this.

This is why I also encourage you, the reader, to compare how both sides did in this debate. Then consider what I am saying. The Bible teaches Jesus rose from the dead. What if it is true? What if he really did die and rise on the third day and is the way, the truth, and the life? You can begin that search now by reading your NT and seeing for yourself. I'd also recommend reading "The Case for Christ" by Lee Strobel as well as "The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus Christ" by Gary Habermas and Mike Licona.

If you agree with me then that Jesus is who he claimed to be and he did rise again, then I invite you to contact me or another member of the TWeb staff and let us help you begin a new life in Christ and support you in the adventure that follows.

He is risen!
He is risen indeed!

[Ahmed_Deedat82]

1) My debate-request dated back August 14th, 2007 states "I would like to debate the most learned person of Christians in this forum. So can you nominate the person to debate me please? It has to be one person debating only. The topic is : WAS JESUS RESURRECTED ACCORDING TO THE BIBLE?" at the following link to which you agreed with your replying words "I think I could be the one" as follows http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...d.php?t=100639

2) You writing "Non sequitur" to some of my arguments without giving us the reasons(s) is unscientific. You should have told us why it is non sequitur.

3) Jesus must have survived the death because Jesus promised his killers of the Jews to perform the miracle of Jonah in Luke 11:30, which is Jonah surviving death according to the Book of Jonah where Jonah remained alive when thrown into the sea, inside the whale, and when thrown out the whale.

4) If the disciples, who were the closest to Jesus, did not believe Jesus rose (Mark 16:11, John 20:25-27) till Jesus appeared to them face-to-face, then Jesus would have made sure to appear to the Jews to prove to them he rose immortally as said to them "after three days I will rise" in Matthew 27:63.

5) As I said before, though Jesus rose, but rising alone is not enough to believe that the risen person is resurrected unless it is proved that the risen person was immortal from his actions after he rose.

6) In reality Jesus was not resurrected because Jesus was physical, which is opposite to what Paul taught in 1 Corinthians 15 in which Paul taught Jesus was a spirit with no flesh and bone as Paul said " "The first man Adam became a living being; the last Adam, a life-giving spirit" in 1 Corinthians 15: 45 because "flesh and blood cannot inherit the Kingdom of God" according to 1 Corinthians 15:50. By Paul signs of the resurrection body in 1 Corinthians 15, Jesus was not resurrected because Jesus was in reality physical as Jesus said after he rose "Behold my hands and my feet" after he rose in Luke 24:39.

7) My sources are the Bible, so each time I try to prove something I quoted the Bible repeatedly.

8) Jesus using the phrase "flesh and bone" in Luke 24:39 after he rose proves Jesus was still mortal because the phrase "flesh and bone" in the Bible is used for mortal beings. For instance, When God used the phrase "strike his flesh and bones" of Job, Job was mortal; therefore, Jesus was mortal when Jesus used the phrase "flesh and bones" in Luke 24:39 after he rose.

9) "Flesh and blood" is a term that refers to sinful nature in Hebrew/Jewish culture. However, in Corinthians 15, the term "flesh and blood' means literally 'flesh and blood" because Paul was speaking to non-Jewish audience.

10) Paul said Jesus was "a life-giving spirit" after he rose because "flesh and blood cannot inherit the Kingdom of God" ; therefore, "flesh and blood" means literally "flesh and blood."

11) My source is the Bible specifically when I said, to Paul according to 1 Corinthians 15,the spiritual body is a spirit because Paul said "It is sown a physical body and it is raised in a spiritual body" in 1 Corinthians 15:44 then Paul said that Jesus was "a life-giving spirit" in 1 Corinthians 15:45.

12) You are correct when you said "Paul said that a spiritual man judges all things, he meant a physical man. However, after Paul had used the phrase "spiritual body" in 1 Corinthians 15:44, Paul went on to say Jesus, after he had risen, was "a life-giving spirit" in Corinthians 15:45 "for flesh and blood cannot inherit the Kingdom of God" in Corinthians 15:50 proving that the term "spiritual body" in 1 Corinthians 15:44 means a spirit according to 1 Corinthians 15:45 because "for flesh and blood cannot inherit the Kingdom of God."

13) Concerning the resurrection body, to Paul, the physical body is the opposite of the spiritual body because Paul contrasted between the Physical body and the spiritual body as Paul said "It is sown a physical body and it is raised in a spiritual body" in 1 Corinthians 15:44 in RSV because the New Living Translation uses "BUT" to contrast between the physical body and the spiritual body which renders 1 Corinthians 15:44 " They are natural human bodies now, but when they are raised, they will be spiritual bodies."

14) As I said before, after Jesus rose, Luke never mentioned Jesus died. Rather Luke states in Luke 24:46that Jesus said "It was necessary for the Christ to suffer." Likewise, Luke said in Luke 23:43that Jesus said to the criminal "Today you will be with me in Paradise", but Luke mentioned in Luke 23:55that "his body was laid in a tomb", which is opposite to what Jesus said in Luke 23:43.

15) You saying "Jesus went to tomb" is biblically wrong because Jesus said in Matthew 12:40 " Just as Jonah was in the belly of a huge fish for three days and three nights, so the Son of Man will be in the heart of the earth for three days and three nights." Therefore, Jesus was in the tomb with soul and body because Jonah, whom Jesus was like according to Matthew 12:40, was in the belly of the whale with soul and body.

16) Jesus was in the tomb with his body and soul because Acts 2:31 says " his soul was not left in hell."

17) The angel removing the stone not Jesus in Matthew 28:2 proves Jesus was not resurrected because the resurrected will be raised with power according to Paul 1 Corinthians 15:43 "it is raised in power." However, Jesus not moving the stone proves Jesus was still weak.

18) Jesus not moving the stone proves Jesus was not equal unto angels; therefore, Jesus was nether resurrected nor immortal because Jesus in Luke 20:36 "Nor they can die anymore for they are equal unto angels" which are spirits according to Hebrews 1:14.

19) Jesus saying after he rose "For a spirit has no flesh and bone as you see me have" in Luke 24:39 proves Jesus was not equal unto angels, which are spirits according to Hebrews 1:14. Therefore, Jesus ,who was not equal unto angels, was not resurrected because Jesus in Luke 20:36 "Nor they can die anymore for they are equal unto angels"

20) The stone removal FIRST was on Sunday when it was still dark according to John 20:1 THEN Jesus came out of the tomb on Sunday morning according to Mark 16:9 proving Jesus needed the stone to be removed first to come out ; therefore, Jesus was not resurrected because the resurrected will be raised with power according to Paul 1 Corinthians 15:43 "it is raised in power."

21) The women went and told the disciples "they have taken the Lord" in John 20:2 after the women had been told "he is risen" according to Matthew 28:7 and after Jesus had appeared to them in Matthew 28:9. Otherwise, the gospels' accounts after Jesus rose are contradictory.

22) Therefore, as I said before, when the women said "They have taken the Lord out of the tomb" in John 20:2, they were not assuming because they were really eyewitnesses when Jesus was on the cross and when Jesus was laid in his tomb.

23) Before the angel said to the women "he is risen" the women knew that Jesus would rise according to Luke 24:7. However, the women went and said "They have taken the Lord" according to John 20:2. Therefore, Jesus rising according to Luke 24:6 does not mean Jesus was resurrected because Jesus was taken, which is a sign of the resurrection.

24) You saying "I consider death by crucifixion suffering" is biblically wrong because the Greek word of "suffering" is " Pascho" which is used by Jesus in Luke 24:46 means " to be affected or have been affected" according to the KJV New Testament Greek Lexicon. Therefore, "suffering" or "Pascho" means only undergoing pain not death the KJV New Testament Greek Lexicon.

[Bill the Cat]

Gym Debate Notice:

Ahmed, that was your last post in the debate. Phoenix has one more and the debate is over. At that time, you may continue the discussion in the commentary thread.

If you are up and unable to meet your deadline please contact a moderator ASAP.
Please do not edit your post after this notice is posted.
If you are not a participant please feel free to participate in the commentary thread noted in the first post of this debate.

[Ahmed_Deedat82]

Dear Moderator,

Phonix has not yet replied while I honestly want to respont to comments by other in the commentary, but I cannot reply till Moderator does reply first.

Regards,

Ahmed Deedat

[ApologiaPhoenix]

1) My debate-request dated back August 14th, 2007 states "I would like to debate the most learned person of Christians in this forum. So can you nominate the person to debate me please? It has to be one person debating only. The topic is : WAS JESUS RESURRECTED ACCORDING TO THE BIBLE?" at the following link to which you agreed with your replying words "I think I could be the one" as follows http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...d.php?t=100639

And we all know this...

2) You writing "Non sequitur" to some of my arguments without giving us the reasons(s) is unscientific. You should have told us why it is non sequitur.

I only didn't due to saving space for that which is self-evident.

3) Jesus must have survived the death because Jesus promised his killers of the Jews to perform the miracle of Jonah in Luke 11:30, which is Jonah surviving death according to the Book of Jonah where Jonah remained alive when thrown into the sea, inside the whale, and when thrown out the whale.

Then you are in disagreement with medical knowledge of our time and Roman knowledge of the time. You might as well say Jesus had to go underwater to fulfill the prophecy.

4) If the disciples, who were the closest to Jesus, did not believe Jesus rose (Mark 16:11, John 20:25-27) till Jesus appeared to them face-to-face, then Jesus would have made sure to appear to the Jews to prove to them he rose immortally as said to them "after three days I will rise" in Matthew 27:63.

But why should he? No reason was ever given nor a request for a reason.

5) As I said before, though Jesus rose, but rising alone is not enough to believe that the risen person is resurrected unless it is proved that the risen person was immortal from his actions after he rose.

Which I think I've already demonstrated.

6) In reality Jesus was not resurrected because Jesus was physical, which is opposite to what Paul taught in 1 Corinthians 15 in which Paul taught Jesus was a spirit with no flesh and bone as Paul said " "The first man Adam became a living being; the last Adam, a life-giving spirit" in 1 Corinthians 15: 45 because "flesh and blood cannot inherit the Kingdom of God" according to 1 Corinthians 15:50. By Paul signs of the resurrection body in 1 Corinthians 15, Jesus was not resurrected because Jesus was in reality physical as Jesus said after he rose "Behold my hands and my feet" after he rose in Luke 24:39.

And no response to N.T. Wright's exegesis of this passage. I've already answered this in saying that flesh and blood is a metaphor for sinful flesh. Dialogue says you are to listen to what I say.

7) My sources are the Bible, so each time I try to prove something I quoted the Bible repeatedly.

And I could do such a butchering of the Qu'ran if I wanted to as well.

8) Jesus using the phrase "flesh and bone" in Luke 24:39 after he rose proves Jesus was still mortal because the phrase "flesh and bone" in the Bible is used for mortal beings. For instance, When God used the phrase "strike his flesh and bones" of Job, Job was mortal; therefore, Jesus was mortal when Jesus used the phrase "flesh and bones" in Luke 24:39 after he rose.

Or it could mean something like, Oh, I don't know, he had flesh and bones?

9) "Flesh and blood" is a term that refers to sinful nature in Hebrew/Jewish culture. However, in Corinthians 15, the term "flesh and blood' means literally 'flesh and blood" because Paul was speaking to non-Jewish audience.

Can you give any evidence of this other than a blind assertion?

10) Paul said Jesus was "a life-giving spirit" after he rose because "flesh and blood cannot inherit the Kingdom of God" ; therefore, "flesh and blood" means literally "flesh and blood."

Or it could mean he had the nature of life instead of the nature of sin.

11) My source is the Bible specifically when I said, to Paul according to 1 Corinthians 15,the spiritual body is a spirit because Paul said "It is sown a physical body and it is raised in a spiritual body" in 1 Corinthians 15:44 then Paul said that Jesus was "a life-giving spirit" in 1 Corinthians 15:45.

Your response to the quote from N.T. Wright?

12) You are correct when you said "Paul said that a spiritual man judges all things, he meant a physical man. However, after Paul had used the phrase "spiritual body" in 1 Corinthians 15:44, Paul went on to say Jesus, after he had risen, was "a life-giving spirit" in Corinthians 15:45 "for flesh and blood cannot inherit the Kingdom of God" in Corinthians 15:50 proving that the term "spiritual body" in 1 Corinthians 15:44 means a spirit according to 1 Corinthians 15:45 because "for flesh and blood cannot inherit the Kingdom of God."

Do you just constantly repeat the same thing over and over?

13) Concerning the resurrection body, to Paul, the physical body is the opposite of the spiritual body because Paul contrasted between the Physical body and the spiritual body as Paul said "It is sown a physical body and it is raised in a spiritual body" in 1 Corinthians 15:44 in RSV because the New Living Translation uses "BUT" to contrast between the physical body and the spiritual body which renders 1 Corinthians 15:44 " They are natural human bodies now, but when they are raised, they will be spiritual bodies."

Paging N.T. Wright....

14) As I said before, after Jesus rose, Luke never mentioned Jesus died. Rather Luke states in Luke 24:46that Jesus said "It was necessary for the Christ to suffer." Likewise, Luke said in Luke 23:43that Jesus said to the criminal "Today you will be with me in Paradise", but Luke mentioned in Luke 23:55that "his body was laid in a tomb", which is opposite to what Jesus said in Luke 23:43.

His body was laid in a tomb. His soul went to paradise. Is it that difficult to grasp?

15) You saying "Jesus went to tomb" is biblically wrong because Jesus said in Matthew 12:40 " Just as Jonah was in the belly of a huge fish for three days and three nights, so the Son of Man will be in the heart of the earth for three days and three nights." Therefore, Jesus was in the tomb with soul and body because Jonah, whom Jesus was like according to Matthew 12:40, was in the belly of the whale with soul and body.

And therefore, Jesus had to be underwater also.....

16) Jesus was in the tomb with his body and soul because Acts 2:31 says " his soul was not left in hell."

Then would that not mean his body was in Hell?

17) The angel removing the stone not Jesus in Matthew 28:2 proves Jesus was not resurrected because the resurrected will be raised with power according to Paul 1 Corinthians 15:43 "it is raised in power." However, Jesus not moving the stone proves Jesus was still weak.

Or it could be just passed out without having to remove the stone since he could move through walls. The stone was not moved so that Jesus could get out but so the women could get in.

18) Jesus not moving the stone proves Jesus was not equal unto angels; therefore, Jesus was nether resurrected nor immortal because Jesus in Luke 20:36 "Nor they can die anymore for they are equal unto angels" which are spirits according to Hebrews 1:14.

Speculation upon speculation...

19) Jesus saying after he rose "For a spirit has no flesh and bone as you see me have" in Luke 24:39 proves Jesus was not equal unto angels, which are spirits according to Hebrews 1:14. Therefore, Jesus ,who was not equal unto angels, was not resurrected because Jesus in Luke 20:36 "Nor they can die anymore for they are equal unto angels"

Equal in that they do not die.

20) The stone removal FIRST was on Sunday when it was still dark according to John 20:1 THEN Jesus came out of the tomb on Sunday morning according to Mark 16:9 proving Jesus needed the stone to be removed first to come out ; therefore, Jesus was not resurrected because the resurrected will be raised with power according to Paul 1 Corinthians 15:43 "it is raised in power."

Answered already

21) The women went and told the disciples "they have taken the Lord" in John 20:2 after the women had been told "he is risen" according to Matthew 28:7 and after Jesus had appeared to them in Matthew 28:9. Otherwise, the gospels' accounts after Jesus rose are contradictory.

Do you have indication that John 20:2 comes after Matthew 28:7?

22) Therefore, as I said before, when the women said "They have taken the Lord out of the tomb" in John 20:2, they were not assuming because they were really eyewitnesses when Jesus was on the cross and when Jesus was laid in his tomb.

A prize to anyone who can translate this.

23) Before the angel said to the women "he is risen" the women knew that Jesus would rise according to Luke 24:7. However, the women went and said "They have taken the Lord" according to John 20:2. Therefore, Jesus rising according to Luke 24:6 does not mean Jesus was resurrected because Jesus was taken, which is a sign of the resurrection.

And to anyone who can make sense of this.

[/QUOTE]24) You saying "I consider death by crucifixion suffering" is biblically wrong because the Greek word of "suffering" is " Pascho" which is used by Jesus in Luke 24:46 means " to be affected or have been affected" according to the KJV New Testament Greek Lexicon. Therefore, "suffering" or "Pascho" means only undergoing pain not death the KJV New Testament Greek Lexicon.[/QUOTE]

So death by crucifixion isn't suffering?

Overall Ahmed, all you have is nonsense really. Do yourself a favor and go read some real work on the NT such as N.T. Wright.

[Kelp]

Moderated By: Kelp

This debate is over. Thread closed.

***If you wish to take issue with this notice DO NOT do so in this thread.***
Contact the forum moderator or an administrator in Private Message or email instead. If you feel you must publically complain or whine, please take it to the Psychotherapy Room unless told otherwise.