How was the "temple" raised?

[IncRus]

it's like arguing with a brick wall.

You should know by now that you CANNOT argue with the word of God.

[apostoli]

Hi All,

When trying to understand where the Jehovah’s Witnesses have gone off track doctrinally, I have found it useful to put myself in their shoes and view the scripture from their POV. As I try to consider how a text could possibly be harmonized with their teaching, certain details which defy all such attempts usually become apparent. The following passage is a case in point, and I have yet to come across a Witness who can explain it.

JOHN 2:13-22

Having just cleared the Temple of the sellers and money changers, Jesus is confronted by the Jews who demand He provide a miraculous sign to substantiate His authority in this matter. Jesus responded by saying, “Destroy this temple, and in 3 days I will raise it up.” John then tells us that by ”temple,” Jesus meant “his body.” Here is the text in the KJV (these same observations still apply to their own New World Translation):

John 2: 13 And the Jews' passover was at hand, and Jesus went up to Jerusalem. 14 And found in the temple those that sold oxen and sheep and doves, and the changers of money sitting: 15 And when he had made a scourge of small cords, he drove them all out of the temple, and the sheep, and the oxen; and poured out the changers' money, and overthrew the tables; 16 And said unto them that sold doves, Take these things hence; make not my Father's house an house of merchandise. 17 And his disciples remembered that it was written, The zeal of thine house hath eaten me up.

18 Then answered the Jews and said unto him, What sign shewest thou unto us, seeing that thou doest these things? 19 Jesus answered and said unto them, Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.

20 Then said the Jews, Forty and six years was this temple in building, and wilt thou rear it up in three days? 21 But he spake of the temple of his body. 22 When therefore he was risen from the dead, his disciples remembered that he had said this unto them; and they believed the scripture, and the word which Jesus had said.

The key is,

>>> "Destroy THIS TEMPLE, and in 3 days I will raise IT up."

The pronoun “IT” refers back to temple (basic grammar), so Jesus was saying:

>>> “Destroy THIS TEMPLE, and in 3 days I will raise THIS TEMPLE up.”

In verse 21, John (under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit) tells us that Jesus meant “his body,” so it becomes:

>>> “Destroy MY BODY and in 3 days I will raise MY BODY up”.

We should note several details about Christ’s statement that will make very clear what He meant.

1) He said the temple (body) He was referring to was something that the Jews could destroy.

2) He said "THIS" temple (body) - PRESENT TENSE - indicating it existed in the present at the time He spoke the words.

3) WHATEVER MEANING is given to “body,” it MUST BE:
a) something the Jews were able to destroy and
b) the meaning ( X - whatever it may be ) MUST BE the same in BOTH places. In other words:

“Destroy (THIS X), and in 3 days I will raise (THIS X) up.

What are our choices of definition for Christ’s “body”? The Bible speaks of:

A) His physical body (Col. 1:22 / 1 Pet. 2:24),
B) the Church as His corporate body (Rom. 12:5 / 1 Cor. 12:27 / Eph. 5:30),

and the Witnesses would say there is a third choice
C) a body made of spirit, like angels.

Which definition meets all the requirements?

A) The Greek word “soma” primarily refers to a physical body. It is an undeniable fact of history that the Jews did indeed destroy Christ’s physical body. Even the Pharisees - referring back specifically to this public event - understood that Jesus predicted His bodily resurrection (See Mat. 27: 62-66). Substituting “physical body” for temple in BOTH places makes it clear that Jesus foretold the resurrection of His PHYSICAL body. Paul also refers to our physical bodies as being a “temple” of the Holy Spirit (1 Cor. 6:19,20).

B) Could He have meant the Church as His body? This is not possible for 2 reasons. First, the Church did not officially begin until the Day of Pentecost after the ascension of Christ (Acts 1:4,5 / Acts 2:1-4), but in this passage Jesus used the present tense, indicating that the “body” He had in mind already existed. Since the Jews could hardly destroy something that did not yet exist, Jesus could not be referring to a “resurrection” of the Church – spiritual or otherwise. Secondly, in Mat. 16:15-19, Christ promised that even the gates of hell would not be able destroy the Church, much less the Jews.

C) What about the Society’s definition? They claim Jesus was raised as an “IMMORTAL SPIRIT CREATURE” with a body of spirit, so we can start there and work backwards. Remember the SAME meaning must apply to BOTH “temple” and “it” according to the rules of grammar. The passage would now read:

“Destroy this SPIRIT BODY, and in 3 days I will raise this SPIRIT BODY up.”

How could the Jews destroy a body of Spirit? And even if for the sake of argument they were able to develop a possible method, how could they destroy it until it came into existence? According to Watchtower teaching, prior to His death Jesus was just a man composed of a breathing physical body. There was NO indwelling spirit for the Jews to destroy.

The Watchtower actually teaches that what this verse MEANS is:

>>> "Destroy this PHYSICAL BODY, and in 3 days THE FATHER will raise it as a SPIRIT BODY. But of course, THIS IS NOT WHAT THE TEXT SAYS - OR MEANS.

The ONLY interpretation that fits all the facts is that Jesus meant His physical body, and therefore predicted His physical resurrection from the dead. The verse CANNOT be twisted to mean anything else.

When confronted with this information, a Witnesses’ typical response is to promise to look into the matter and return with the answer. Sadly, instead of pondering Christ’s words for themselves, They usually retreat, reread the Watchtower literature on their “spirit creature” theory, and conclude that what Jesus really “meant” by His words is that the Father would raise Him as a spirit – “all is as it should be.” When they return, it is as if the prior conversation had not taken place. This is why prayer is so important. Logic alone will not open their eyes.

One more observation. Who did Christ state would raise His body? He Himself! (Actually all 3 members of the Trinity were involved.)

The Witnesses refuse to accept this statement because they believe death is annihilation. They reason that since Christ was not conscious *** and no longer existed, He could not raise Himself in any form, and therefore COULD NOT MEAN WHAT HE SAID. Even though the Greek and English clearly say “I,” they have convinced themselves that Jesus MUST HAVE MEANT the Father. They don’t even believe their own New World “Translation” because it would clearly imply Christ’s Deity.

[ *** but see Luke 23:43 where Jesus promised the thief “Truly I say to you, Today you will be with me in paradise.” Jesus used the phrase “Truly I say to you” 73 times in the Gospels, equivalent to the OT “Thus saith the Lord”. This is the only place where the Watchtower version moves the comma over so it reads “Truly I say unto you today, You will be with me in Paradise.” Of course, this would make “today” redundant – when else was He going to say it?]

That Christ should raise Himself also suits the context perfectly. Since Jesus is, in fact, truly God, and has proven this by demonstrating His power over death itself, He has the right to clear out the merchants from the temple, because after all, IT IS ALSO HIS TEMPLE. He is also responding directly to their request that HE give them a sign (John 2:18)..

I usually ask the JW to write out the "Destroy... 3 days" on paper, and then again with each substitution as explained above ( >>> ). This should help them see for themselves that no linguistic slight of hand or double-talk is involved.

Regards,
xcav8tor

xcav8tor, you seem to have missed an obvious teaching of scripture = at most Jesus was dead for part of an afternoon, a whole day and two nights. Thus, whilst he may have been talking about his body, the "three days" is not literal and so nor is the "body" - what we seem to have is allegory (according to A.Paul we will be raised a spiritual body, not a fleshly body = 1 Cor 15:44).

Also, if A.John's naration had any particular significance to understanding the physical ressurection one would have assumed the other gospel writers would have alluded to it. However, what we find elsewhere is the Jews asking for a sign and Jesus alluding to Jonah. In the Jonah tale, it is God who rescued Jonah. Similarly, according to A.Paul it was the father of jesus Christ who raised him from the dead.

A theological take on the matter is that Jesus could not raise himself from the dead because he had become sin for us (also if he had ,he would have reneged on the kin repurchase making his sacrafice invalid). Thus he had to wait for his Father's cleansing/forgiveness which is demonstrated by the Father resurrecting him - rebirthing him - the firstborn from the dead.

Nothing above negates the trinitarian doctrine, though it is a thorn in the side of sabellianisers (oneness pentecostals).

Peace

[xcav8tor]

Hi apostoli,

I really must stop looking at the forums so late at night...

xcav8tor, with all the smoke and mirrors you have missed the most obvious teaching of scripture = at most Jesus was dead for part of an afternoon, a whole day and two nights. Thus, whilst he may have been talking about his body, the "three days" is not literal and so nor is the "body".

Smoke and mirrors? Moi? How do you equate delving into the grammar and the implications of the specific details set forth in the passage with a magician's attempt to pull the wool over someone's eyes by distracting their attention?

You correctly say that Jesus' body was in the tomb less than three 24 hour days, but then you incorrectly assume the "in 3 days" is not a literal truth. In Jewish thinking (supported by the OT and Rabbinical writings), even a part of a day can be counted as a day. Bearing this in mind, part of Friday (1 day), all of Saturday (1 day) and part of Sunday morning (1 day) is literally "in 3 days" from the first century Jewish perspective. This was clearly understood by the Pharisees when they asked Pilate to put a guard on the tomb "until the 3rd day." Mat. 26:63-65 NIV

And as the inspired apostle told us that Jesus was referring to "His body," AND history shows the Jews destroyed it by having Jesus crucified, AND the tomb was empty on the third day, you have no valid grounds to deny that Christ's literal body was what Jesus meant. ALSO the fact that He offered His wounds to Thomas in direct answer to his demand to see the hole marks from the original Roman nails proves that the same body that hung on the cross was literally raised (otherwise Jesus fabricated false evidence - you really don't want to go there).

You said, "the 'three days' is not literal and so nor is the 'body'." Are you saying you do not believe in Christ's tangible, physical, bodily resurrection? This is absolute prerequisite for becoming a genuine Christian.

Also, if A.John's tale had any particular relavance to the physical ressurection one would have assumed the other gospel writers would have alluded to it. However, what we find elsewhere is the Jews asking for a sign and Jesus alluding to Jonah. In the Jonah tale, it is God who rescued Jonah. Similarly, according to A.Paul it was the father of jesus Christ who raised him from the dead.

John's "tale"? Are you implying chapter 2 is a fiction? Matthew "alludes" to this very speech of Jesus because the Pharisees mentioned it to Pilate as I stated above (not that any truth in the Bible has to be repeated in order to be true). Isn't that sufficient for you?

Yes, God resurrected Jonah. So what? God is a Trinity - right? All 3 persons co-created the universe. All 3 persons are involved in our salvation. All 3 persons inspired the Bible. Are you trying to say that only 2 were involved in Christ's resurrection? Yes, the Bible says the Father raised Jesus from the dead (Gal. 1:1 NIV). The Bible also says the Holy Spirit raised Jesus from the dead (Rom. 8:11 NIV). John chapters 2 and 10 tell us that Jesus ALSO raised His body from the dead. The fact that God the Father participated does not rule out the participation of the other 2 members of the Trinity. Note that none of the verses say that the Father acted ALONE, just that He acted. God - the Triune God - raised Jesus from the dead.

A theological take on the matter is that Jesus could not raise himself from the dead because he had become sin for us (also if he had ,he would have reneged on the kin repurchase making his sacrafice invalid). Thus he had to wait for his Father's cleansing/forgiveness which is demonstrated by the Father resurrecting him - rebirthing him - the firstborn from the dead.

That's one theological take on the matter. It would just be incorrect.

Yes, Jesus did become sin for us, and He did experience separation from the Father (Mat. 27:46 NIV), but before He gave up His spirit, He proclaimed His victory over sin - "It is finished!" (John 19:30 NIV). Since Christ's sacrifice was completed and accepted, there was no reason Jesus could not take part in raising His body as the Father commanded Him to (John 10:17-18 NIV) and as He Himself predicted He would - "In 3 days I WILL RAISE IT UP." How many more times does Jesus have to say it before you believe Him?

Let's also not forget the fact that Jesus assured the thief next to Him on the cross that he would be with Jesus in paradise that very day (Luke 23:43 NIV) - a place that He had earlier described as Abraham's bosom, a place of consciousness and peace (Luke 16:22-26 NIV). While some claim this is merely a parable, the fact that Jesus used personal names (Lazarus and Abraham) indicates otherwise. Since Jesus (as a spirit) would still be conscious after the death of His body, He would be able to actively participate in raising it.

Jesus being the "firstborn from the dead" simply means He holds the highest place of honour or preeminence with regard to the resurrection because not only was He the first raised to immortality, but He is also the giver and author of eternal life (John 10:27-28 NIV, Acts 3:15 NIV). How appropriate that He should inaugurate the "First Resurrection" by first raising His own body which which had never committed sin.

You argue that if Jesus had raised Himself from the dead, "he would have reneged on the kin repurchase making his sacrafice invalid." Says who? What scripture even suggests a scenario where someone could raise themselves from the dead thereby invalidating their sacrifice? I've heard this kind of twaddle from JWs in the past (not inferring you are one), but they have yet to produce anything but their "say-so" backed up by the petulant stamping of their feet.

The fact remains that once the sacrifice has been offered and the debt paid in full - which it was - then there is no further legal obligation left.

Peace

To you as well.

Regards,
xcav8tor

I see you have added "what we seem to have is allegory (according to A.Paul we will be raised a spiritual body, not a fleshly body = 1 Cor 15:44)" after I had submitted my post. I hope I have time to reply.

It is a spiritUAL body, not an intangible body. Paul is saying that the resurrection body is dominated by the spirit as opposed to the old fleshly or sinful nature. It is also a body that is no longer subject to death and decay. It is now powerful instead of weak. Nonetheless, just as the seed from which the plant comes is physical, so also our physical bodies are the tangible seed of our resurrection bodies. That's why Christ's body was not left in the tomb. It was raised to life and immortality. Paul was IN NO WAY denying the physical nature of our resurrection bodies. In the resurrection, Jesus said believers would attend a banquet with Abraham, and we know Abraham, Daniel and Job were all promised to have physical bodies in the resurrection.

1 Cor. 15:53 says, "For this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality." We must all be changed because our present mortal bodies are not fit for eternity. Our current bodies cannot inherit the eternal kingdom AS THEY NOW ARE, but they will after they have undergone resurrection.

[apostoli]

Hi xcav8tor,

I really must stop looking at the forums so late at night...

I know what you mean ;-}

I must apologise for my previous post, as the JWs seem not to be participating in your discussion, I attempted to put forward what I could remember of their counter arguments (my ex-wife was once very vigorous in that group). With your permission I'll continue to play devils advocate.

As a personal observation, your opinion does seem to be at odds with A.Paul's teaching. A.Paul consistantly equates God as the Father of Jesus Christ. So, imu, you'll find no support in the assertions you make below regarding the identity of God in his letters (and apart from disputed scriptures taken in isolation, from the other inspired writers).

In the following article "DID JESUS CHRIST RAISE HIMSELF FROM THE DEAD?" the author notes that "The New American Standard correctly and clearly translates the verb tense used [at John 2:22], and reveals a critical truth: John himself, in the very passage we are discussing testified that Jesus did not raise himself from the dead!

22 So when He was raised from the dead, His disciples remembered that He said this; and they believed the Scripture and the word which Jesus had spoken."
http://userwww.service.emory.edu/~cmadd01/raisdead.html

Whether, the author has a valid argument I need to investigate, but to the extent I have read the article it corresponds to the teaching I received in the RCC (Marist Brothers).

John's "tale"? Are you implying chapter 2 is a fiction?...

No.

Somewhere I encountered a poster who more or less argued that A.John wrote as a fallible man, giving from memory, some sixty years after the event, his recollection of the facts. Given that for a significant period in church history the gospel was rejected and considered gnostic, I think such opinion needs to be investigated.

Though it is evident that from Matthew the Jewish religous leaders understood Jesus as predicting he would raise himself from the dead, it seems (as usual) it escaped the attention of the apostles (see: John chapter 20). The question arises, did the Jewish leaders also misunderstand him?

Yes, God resurrected Jonah. So what?

Jesus didn't preach a Trinity but identified the God of the OT (the one the Jews identified as God) as his Father. Thus the sign of Jonah is that the God of the OT (Jesus' Father) would raise him from the dead. This is in harmony with Jesus' teaching that that he does nothing of himself.

God is a Trinity - right?

Which Trinity do you mean? The one advocated by oneness pentecostal = three manifestations of the one person/being. Or that advocated by the Niceans, three persons who in being are God.

All 3 persons co-created the universe.

Which is exclusively implied by Genesis 1.

All 3 persons are involved in our salvation..

Thats true. But not at the same time (ie: the economy)

All 3 persons inspired the Bible...

Can you demonstrate that statement scripturally or is it just a theological inference?

Are you trying to say that only 2 were involved in Christ's resurrection?...

According to A.Paul and Luke only one person is given credit for the physical resurrection of Jesus.

Yes, the Bible says the Father raised Jesus from the dead (Gal. 1:1 NIV).

Such is not limited to a single verse but textually is the majority witness.

The Bible also says the Holy Spirit raised Jesus from the dead (Rom. 8:11 NIV).

Actually Romans 8:11 doesn't identify "the Spirit of him who raised up Jesus from the dead" as the paraclete, the intercessor. Is there more than one Spirit mentioned in Romans 8? The answer is yes! Verse 9 mentions three: the Spirit, the Spirit of God and the Spirit of Christ.

John chapters 2 and 10 tell us that Jesus ALSO raised His body from the dead.

John 10:17-18 would indicate such. But is it to be understood in a spritual or physical sense? Or is Jesus' ability to raise himself from the dead, solely attributable to the Father? (ie: the Father is the source and cause of Jesus' power)

The fact that God the Father participated does not rule out the participation of the other 2 members of the Trinity.

Except, it is not the witness of scripture.

Note that none of the verses say that the Father acted ALONE, just that He acted. God - the Triune God - raised Jesus from the dead..

A.Paul identifies the Father as exclusively God, and has him raising Jesus from the dead eg Eph 1:3,7,17,20 and many others.

That's one theological take on the matter. It would just be incorrect.

Yes, Jesus did become sin for us, and He did experience separation from the Father (Mat. 27:46 NIV), but before He gave up His spirit, He proclaimed His victory over sin - "It is finished!" (John 19:30 NIV). Since Christ's sacrifice was completed and accepted

The sacrifice wasn't complete until he died when "he bowed his head, and gave up the spirit".

there was no reason Jesus could not take part in raising His body as the Father commanded Him to (John 10:17-18 NIV)

Pointedly, unless you accept the idea of phantasm, as he had given up the spirit, he was in no position to participate.

and as He Himself predicted He would - "In 3 days I WILL RAISE IT UP." How many more times does Jesus have to say it before you believe Him?

He made the statement only once. The apostles didn't understand him (as usual), and there is good probability that (as usual) the religious leaders misunderstood him.

Let's also not forget the fact that Jesus assured the thief next to Him on the cross that he would be with Jesus in paradise that very day (Luke 23:43 NIV) - a place that He had earlier described as Abraham's bosom, a place of consciousness and peace (Luke 16:22-26 NIV). While some claim this is merely a parable, the fact that Jesus used personal names (Lazarus and Abraham) indicates otherwise. Since Jesus (as a spirit) would still be conscious after the death of His body, He would be able to actively participate in raising it.

Except, according to A.John Jesus when he died gave up the spirit (his active force, which in OT terms returns to God).

Jesus being the "firstborn from the dead" simply means He holds the highest place of honour or preeminence with regard to the resurrection because not only was He the first raised to immortality

According to A.Paul it was the Father's will that Jesus have pre-eminence in all things.

but He is also the giver and author of eternal life (John 10:27-28 NIV, Acts 3:15 NIV).

According to A.Paul the author of all things is Jesus' Father. In fact Jesus makes this evident when he states that it is the Father that has given him all things.

How appropriate that He should inaugurate the "First Resurrection" by first raising His own body which which had never committed sin.

A possibility, but as far as I'm aware not one taught by A.Paul, Matthew, Mark, Luke, Peter or even John in his letters or in his Revelation.

You argue that if Jesus had raised Himself from the dead, "he would have reneged on the kin repurchase making his sacrafice invalid." Says who? What scripture even suggests a scenario where someone could raise themselves from the dead thereby invalidating their sacrifice? I've heard this kind of twaddle from JWs in the past (not inferring you are one), but they have yet to produce anything but their "say-so" backed up by the petulant stamping of their feet.

Yes it would be twaddle if I had advocated that scripture allowed "a scenario where someone could raise themselves from the dead". The point in scripture is that Jesus repurchased us from the slavery of death. The implication is that Jesus freed us by allowing himself to be enslaved by death. Thus his freedom has to be granted, it cannot be taken. Pure OT law.

The fact remains that once the sacrifice has been offered and the debt paid in full - which it was - then there is no further legal obligation left.

Thats partially true. Though it has implications. If the penalty for sin is death only, then why, in the last days, isn't everyone risen to life?

I see you have added "what we seem to have is allegory (according to A.Paul we will be raised a spiritual body, not a fleshly body = 1 Cor 15:44)" after I had submitted my post. I hope I have time to reply.

It is a spiritUAL body, not an intangible body. Paul is saying that the resurrection body is dominated by the spirit as opposed to the old fleshly or sinful nature. It is also a body that is no longer subject to death and decay. It is now powerful instead of weak. Nonetheless, just as the seed from which the plant comes is physical, so also our physical bodies are the tangible seed of our resurrection bodies. That's why Christ's body was not left in the tomb. It was raised to life and immortality. Paul was IN NO WAY denying the physical nature of our resurrection bodies. In the resurrection, Jesus said believers would attend a banquet with Abraham, and we know Abraham, Daniel and Job were all promised to have physical bodies in the resurrection.

1 Cor. 15:53 says, "For this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality." We must all be changed because our present mortal bodies are not fit for eternity. Our current bodies cannot inherit the eternal kingdom AS THEY NOW ARE, but they will after they have undergone resurrection.

I'll have to think on your interpretation. At this stage it doesn't ring true to me (albeit, I'm ready for some sleep).

The questions A.Paul addresses were "Some will say, How are the dead raised up? And with what body do they come?" (vs 35) His conclusion at vs50n is the resurrected body is not "flesh and blood". Also note vs 50 where "we shall all be changed". Also see Phil 3:21. 2 Cor 5:2-4 would indicate that A.Paul held there is a distinction between our earthly and heavenly body. (nb: If I recall correctly the JWs have this sown up, the elect who go to heaven get a spiritual body, while those who remain in paradise earth get a earthly body).

Peace

[xcav8tor]

Hi apostoli,

I must apologise for my previous post, as the JWs seem not to be participating in your discussion, I attempted to put forward what I could remember of their counter arguments (my ex-wife was once very vigorous in that group). With your permission I'll continue to play devils advocate.

Actually apostoli, I really don't have the time to debate someone playing devil's advocate. I will make time if someone is genuinely looking for an answer and I feel I have something of value to contribute, but to just argue for the sake of arguing - thanks but no thanks. As you have raised some issues that may cause others to stumble, I will respond, but do not expect this to go on ad nauseum. I've "been there, done that" with IncRus.

As a personal observation, your opinion does seem to be at odds with A.Paul's teaching. A.Paul consistantly equates God as the Father of Jesus Christ. So, imo, you'll find no support in the assertions you make below regarding the identity of God in his letters (and apart from disputed scriptures taken in isolation, from the other inspired writers).

Of course, the term "God" is mainly reserved for the Father. If Jesus were also to be called "God" all the time, it would become impossible to know whether the Father or the Son were being referred to. Also, such common application of the title "God" to Jesus would tend to cause problems in a monotheistic culture which is just being introduced to the concept of the Trinity (though there are clues about this throughout the OT). Nonetheless, the New Testament's testimony to Christ's full deity is there for all who are WILLING to accept it.

In the following article "DID JESUS CHRIST RAISE HIMSELF FROM THE DEAD?" the author notes that "The New American Standard correctly and clearly translates the verb tense used [at John 2:22], and reveals a critical truth: John himself, in the very passage we are discussing testified that Jesus did not raise himself from the dead!

22 So when He was raised from the dead, His disciples remembered that He said this; and they believed the Scripture and the word which Jesus had spoken."
http://userwww.service.emory.edu/~cmadd01/raisdead.html

Two things about the article: First, the author presents no credentials to prove his opinion is a scholarly one, neither does he provide any background as to which group he is representing, which in itself a red flag. Second, it is obvious from the introductory wording that he has an axe to grind about Christ's deity, so he is hardly presenting an objective argument... After some further checking, I discovered that the author is a member of "The Way International" cult which denies the trinity and the deity of Christ. So much for his alleged unbiased interpretation. The fact that I had to dig in order to find out who they were indicates a total lack of integrity and honesty on their part.

Even so, think through his objection again. The bolded part states that "when He was raised from the dead" or "When therefore he was risen from the dead" as the KJV renders it. If - as Jesus said - He indeed raised His own body, it is still true after the fact to say "He was raised (or risen) from the dead." The translation IS correct and this phrase does NOT SAY who raised Jesus' body. The immediate context argues that it was Christ Himself.

It is also not a sound or logical argument. To repeat a prior example, if I and my wife both go to the store together, and I later tell a friend that "I went to the store," I would be telling the truth. It would also be true if I told him, "My wife went to the store." Neither can the statement that "I went to the store" be used to PROVE that my wife DID NOT go to the store because I said I did. In the same way, just because several passages state one truth (that the Father raised Jesus from the dead), it does not disallow the witness of Christ that He ALSO raised Himself from the dead. The truth is, the Father and Son BOTH raised Christ's body from the dead. The author of the article is simply insisting it must be either/or instead of both, which is rubbish.

Jesus didn't preach a Trinity but identified the God of the OT (the one the Jews identified as God) as his Father. Thus the sign of Jonah is that the God of the OT (Jesus' Father) would raise him from the dead. This is in harmony with Jesus' teaching that that he does nothing of himself.

Not bluntly, but He DID present the dots for us to connect. He stressed that there was only one God (Mark 12:29 NIV, John 5:44 NIV), that He was God (uncreated and eternal - John 8:58, John 17:5 NIV / equal to the Father - John 5:17- 18 / One in nature w. God - John 10:28-33 / He can only do what God does - John 5:19-23 NIV / forgives sin - Luke 5:20-21 NIV / grants eternal life - John 10:27-28 NIV, etc), that the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are distinct individuals (John 14:16-17 NIV, John 14:23 NIV, John 16:16 NIV), and He presented the first Trinitarian formula in that we are to be baptized in the NAME - SINGULAR - of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit (Mat. 28:19 NIV).

As per Jonah, the fact that Jesus indeed raises the dead - just as He sees the Father doing - lays the precedent for Him to raise His own body (John 5:19-21 NIV).

Which Trinity do you mean? The one advocated by oneness pentecostal = three manifestations of the one person/being. Or that advocated by the Niceans, three persons who in being are God.

The Orthodox Trinity represented by the Apostolic, Athanasian and Nicene creeds.

According to A.Paul and Luke only one person is given credit for the physical resurrection of Jesus.

The key word is "credit." The Son and Spirit seek to glorify the Father. This does not change the truthfulness of Christ's statement, "In 3 days I WILL RAISE IT UP." If Jesus had nothing whatsoever to do with raising His body, why wouldn't He just say "In 3 days THE FATHER will raise it up"? That would have avoided this entire controversy, and it would still have answered the Jews as to His authority to clear the temple. But "Father" is clearly NOT in the text, and I believe Jesus ALWAYS chose His words carefully.

Actually Romans 8:11 doesn't identify "the Spirit of him who raised up Jesus from the dead" as the paraclete, the intercessor. Is there more than one Spirit mentioned in Romans 8? The answer is yes! Verse 9 mentions three: the Spirit, the Spirit of God and the Spirit of Christ.

Granted it is ambiguous. I have always taken this verse to refer to the Holy Spirit, but it could be justifiably argued that the Father's Spirit as distinct from the Holy Spirit is meant. It would, however, appear to me to be a rather unusual application as the Holy Spirit seems more often spoken of as the one taking action, and just as He took part in creation with the Father and the Son, I see no reason to exclude Him on this auspicious occasion. If it is the Father Who is in view in verse 11, why use the clumsy phrase "Spirit of Him" at all? Seems to me just saying, "And if (the Father) who raised Jesus from the dead is living in you, (the Father) will also give life to your mortal bodies through his Spirit, who lives in you." would have been far more direct and to the point.

Compare with the actual text: "And if (the Spirit of him) who raised Jesus from the dead is living in you, (he who raised Christ from the dead) will also give life to your mortal bodies through his Spirit, who lives in you." (NIV) - MY BRACKETS If you read this with the thought that the HOLY SPIRIT is the one here who raises Jesus from the dead, then the excess wording makes perfect sense.

John 10:17-18 would indicate such. But is it to be understood in a spritual or physical sense? Or is Jesus' ability to raise himself from the dead, solely attributable to the Father? (ie: the Father is the source and cause of Jesus' power)

Since we are talking about a command given to Jesus by the Father, it would seem that Jesus had to be directly involved - otherwise what purpose is there in Jesus being given the command in the first place? It's not as if Jesus hadn't raised the dead before. I find no valid reason not to take the passage at face value - especially in light of Christ's direct claim in John 2 that He would do so.

Except, it is not the witness of scripture.

Only if you ignore John 2 and 10. These 2 texts are witness enough for me.

A.Paul identifies the Father as exclusively God

That's not quite true. The apostle Paul calls Jesus "Our Great God and Saviour" (Titus 2:13 NIV), in keeping with the testimony of Peter (2 Pet. 1:1 NIV) John (John 1:1-3 NIV) and Thomas (John 20:28 NIV). Paul is also clear about Christ's deity in other passages like Col. 2:9 NIV and Phil. 2:5-11NIV.

The sacrifice wasn't complete until he died when "he bowed his head, and gave up the spirit".

You seem to be splitting hairs. He died physically moments after proclaiming "it is finished!" and dismissed His spirit.

Pointedly, unless you accept the idea of phantasm, as he had given up the spirit, he was in no position to participate.

If you want to argue that the soul/spirit does not survive the death of the body, you are free to open a new thread to have that discussion. I am not going to open that can of worms here.

He made the statement only once. The apostles didn't understand him (as usual), and there is good probability that (as usual) the religious leaders misunderstood him.

I was referring to two claims - the one in John 2, and the one in John 10. That's saying twice that He would raise Himself from the dead. It is clear that the religious leaders DID understand Him correctly, because He DID rise on the 3rd day. The disciples were just (understandably) in denial.

When I said, "Let's also not forget the fact that Jesus assured the thief next to Him on the cross that he would be with Jesus in paradise that very day (Luke 23:43 NIV) - a place that He had earlier described as Abraham's bosom, a place of consciousness and peace (Luke 16:22-26 NIV). While some claim this is merely a parable, the fact that Jesus used personal names (Lazarus and Abraham) indicates otherwise. Since Jesus (as a spirit) would still be conscious after the death of His body, He would be able to actively participate in raising it" you replied:

Except, according to A.John Jesus when he died gave up the spirit (his active force, which in OT terms returns to God).

That is not an answer. Jesus assured the thief He would be with him in paradise that very day, demonstrating conscious existence of the soul/spirit after death. If this is not what Jesus meant, you have to come up with a plausible explanation of His words to the thief and their implications.

Yes it would be twaddle if I had advocated that scripture allowed "a scenario where someone could raise themselves from the dead". The point in scripture is that Jesus repurchased us from the slavery of death. The implication is that Jesus freed us by allowing himself to be enslaved by death. Thus his freedom has to be granted, it cannot be taken. Pure OT law.

There was a price to be paid. It WAS paid - in full (Col. 2:13-15 NIV). Jesus tasted death for each and every one of us. It was because He was both God and Man that His life had the value to atone for the sins of all mankind throughout all of time. The horror of Christ's separation from the Father (which is what death is) is something we will never be able to comprehend. As a completely Holy and Infinite Being, suddenly drenched with the totality of the filth of the world's sin, while at the same time being separated from the eternal fellowship He had with the Father - this was an infinite level of gut-wrenching sorrow and anguish which we will never be able to appreciate! Nonetheless, it was not intended to be of eternal duration or Jesus would never be allowed to be resurrected at all - no matter Who was directly responsible.

You say this freedom had to be granted. It was. The Father commanded Jesus to take up His life again. Having been granted this freedom and commanded to raise Himself, Jesus actively participated in His own resurrection. I don't see any problem here.

Thats partially true. Though it has implications. If the penalty for sin is death only, then why, in the last days, isn't everyone risen to life?

Physical death was not the ultimate penalty for sin - separation from God was - first spiritually, then physically, and finally eternally. Physical death was just separation of the inner man from the outer man, the soul/spirit from the body. If physical death was all there was to it, then everyone would be saved the moment their body died. We are born spiritually dead, and need to be born of the Spirit through faith in Christ. When we accept Him as our Saviour and Lord, we are born again with a new spiritual life, Christ's death is put to our account, we are pardoned by God and are granted eternal life. Those who do not accept God's pardon have to pay for their own sin - not by their physical death because the wicked will be resurrected prior to judgment - but by being separated from God, and since there is no remedy for their condition, they will be isolated from God for all eternity.

Btw, everyone will be raised - even unbelievers (John 5:28-29 NIV).

The questions A.Paul addresses were "Some will say, How are the dead raised up? And with what body do they come?" (vs 35) His conclusion at vs50 is the resurrected body is not "flesh and blood". Also note vs 50 where "we shall all be changed".

"Flesh and Blood" is an idiom for "common humanity," or "a mortal human nature." It only occurs only 3 other times in the NT - Mat. 16:17 ("Flesh and blood" hath not revealed it), Gal. 1:16 (I conferred not with "flesh and blood") and Heb. 2:14 (as the children are partakers of flesh and blood). In Corinthians 15 Paul says, "I declare to you, brothers, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God, nor does the perishable inherit the imperishable. (NIV) IOW, our present frail human natures are neither fit or durable enough to partake of an eternal kingdom. That is why "the perishable must clothe itself with the imperishable, and the mortal with immortality. (NIV)

Also see Phil 3:21. 2 Cor 5:2-4 would indicate that A.Paul held there is a distinction between our earthly and heavenly body. (nb: If I recall correctly the JWs have this sown up, the elect who go to heaven get a spiritual body, while those who remain in paradise earth get a earthly body).

In Phil. 3:21 NIV, Paul confirms what I have been telling you, that Christ "will transform our lowly bodies so that they will be like his glorious body." Our resurrection bodies are patterned after His. Since He was raised in a tangible, physical, glorified body, this is what believers have to look forward to. Same with 2 Cor. 5:1-4 NIV. There is a difference between our present frail, mortal and corruptible bodies, and the immortal, glorified, resurrection versions. Like a butterfly that has come out of its cocoon, we will be just as physical as before, but without the prior earthly limitations. Jesus, for example, was able to suddenly appear in a closed room yet still able to be touched and eat solid food.

As for what the JWs have "sown up," it's okay as long as you aren't worried about truth. They get the number of 144,000 from the 12,000 of each Jewish tribe mentioned in Revelation 7. The fact that they take the number literally but the tribe right beside it figuratively should be enough for anyone to realize there is something "not quite right" about their theology. How they can peddle this with a straight face is beyond me.

Anyway, that's it - for now at least.

Regards,
xcav8tor

[apostoli]

Hi xcav8tor,

Actually apostoli, I really don't have the time to debate someone playing devil's advocate. I will make time if someone is genuinely looking for an answer and I feel I have something of value to contribute, but to just argue for the sake of arguing - thanks but no thanks. As you have raised some issues that may cause others to stumble, I will respond, but do not expect this to go on ad nauseum. I've "been there, done that" with IncRus.

I understand completely. At times I find it useful to take an opposing view to enhance my own understanding of scripture. Especially, by seeking other opinion or explanation of things I may not be 100% on. My intention was not arguing for the sake of arguing.

There are some good remarks in your previous post and some remarks I'd dispute but for now I won't pursue them.

Our short discussion prompted me to think on a particular question: "If Jesus did not raise himself from the dead, how is it that he conquered death?"

Peace

[xcav8tor]

Hi apostoli,

I also find discussions with those of different or opposing views of great value. I am often presented with thoughts I had not considered which make me dig deeper (hence my pseudonym) and I usually come away having learned something new. Your last comment being a case in point:

Our short discussion prompted me to think on a particular question: "If Jesus did not raise himself from the dead, how is it that he conquered death?"

Excellent question!

Btw, I'm sorry for misconstruing your "devil's advocate" comment as "arguing for the sake of arguing." It's sometimes difficult to correctly perceive the point someone is trying to get across through words alone without benefit of tone of voice or body language clues. Thank you for clarifying.

Regards,
xcav8tor

PS - You seem to have overlooked a question I asked earlier. Would you mind answering it now?:

You said, "the 'three days' is not literal and so nor is the 'body'." Are you saying you do not believe in Christ's tangible, physical, bodily resurrection?

[apostoli]

Hi xcav8tor,

You seem to have overlooked a question I asked earlier. Would you mind answering it now?:

You said, "the 'three days' is not literal and so nor is the 'body'." Are you saying you do not believe in Christ's tangible, physical, bodily resurrection?

I do believe in a bodily resurrection. However, I do not accept that we will be raised (or that Jesus was raised) in the same body in which we (he) died. ie: Is a thalidomide child born into this life with no arms or legs, raised in the next life with no arms or legs? Jesus' appearance to Thomas, in some persons minds, would indicate so. However, I hold Jesus assumed the piercings for Thomas' benefit.

Ultimately my thoughts revolve around two teachings: Jesus says the flesh profits us nothing (John 6:63) and A.Paul saying that we will not be found naked having been "clothed upon with our house, which is from heaven" (2 Cor 5:2-3) .

Peace

ps: I'm open on the three day question. I've read various reconciliations. Some counting from the last supper and the scattering of the disciples = the destruction of the temple. Personally, I take the teaching as allegory pointing to fact. That is: there is no direct significance in Jesus raising himself. He had done so to others, why not himself? Imo, the significance is that in doing so he sanctified the new temple in which his father is taught and worshipped (his body = the bread of life). In this regard I contemplate John 6:39-40.

pss: John 10:18 - the word "command" in the KJV imo, doesn't express the underlying idea of the Greek and, imo, has bad connotations regarding Jesus' free will. The BLB lexicon amplifies the meaning for me. see meaning 1a
http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/...gs=G1785&t=KJV

[IncRus]

Let's also not forget the fact that Jesus assured the thief next to Him on the cross that he would be with Jesus in paradise that very day (Luke 23:43 NIV) - a place that He had earlier described as Abraham's bosom, a place of consciousness and peace (Luke 16:22-26 NIV). While some claim this is merely a parable, the fact that Jesus used personal names (Lazarus and Abraham) indicates otherwise. Since Jesus (as a spirit) would still be conscious after the death of His body, He would be able to actively participate in raising it.

Luke 23:43 does not support the idea that "Jesus (as a spirit) would still be conscious after the death of his body." That's pure speculation!

We CANNOT read anywhere in the Bible that Jesus and the thief were somewhere other than the tomb on the day they both died, which Jesus referred to as "today."

We also CANNOT read anywhere in the Bible that Jesus and the thief ascended to heaven together. Jesus ascended to heaven ALONE (Acts 1:11).

We also CANNOT read anywhere in the Bible that the thief ascended to heaven alone after Jesus had ascended.

The dictionary defines "paradise" as a place of rest or a state of bliss. On the day both Jesus and the thief died, the only "paradise" that the thief could have been with Jesus is the grave - among the dead.

Incidentally, it is NOT true that one of the thief repented. According to Matthew, BOTH the robbers who were crucified with Jesus "REVILED him with the same thing" (Matt. 27:44). Mark also said that "THOSE (plural) who were crucified with him (there were only two robbers who were crucified with Jesus) REVILED him" (Mark 15:32).

These are writings of apostles that were given by inspiration of God (2 Tim. 3:16). Therefore, I have no rason to throw these away in favor of the popular belief, albeit FALSE, that one of the thieves repented and went to heaven with Jesus.

[xcav8tor]

Hi apostoli,

I do believe in a bodily resurrection. However, I do not accept that we will be raised (or that Jesus was raised) in the same body in which we (he) died. ie: Is a thalidomide child born into this life with no arms or legs, raised in the next life with no arms or legs?

When I said that our present bodies provide the tangible seed from which our resurrection bodies are formed, this does not at all require that they be raised up with their present genetic defects or show the toll that life's traumas or aging has taken on the body. Does the seed that is sown look like the plant it turns into? Of course not. BUT THERE IS CONTINUITY between the two. This is PART of our victory over the grave - that though our bodies are temporarily overcome by death, death does not have the final say. God takes what death has destroyed and raises it to immortality.

Paul tells us in 1 Cor. 15:42-44 NIV that our resurrection bodies will go from perishable to imperishable, from weakness to power, from dishonour to glory, from natural to spiritUAL (ie super-natural). We know that these are tangible, physical bodies because 1) every resurrection recorded of a person in the Bible was a physical one, and 2) OT and NT saints (even unbelievers) are assured a bodily resurrection (Job 19:26 NIV / Daniel 12:2 NIV / Isa. 26:19 NIV / Mat. 27:52 NIV / John 5:24-29 NIV / Rom. 6:5 NIV / Rom. 8:11, 23 NIV / Phil. 3:20-21NIV).

Col. 2:9 NASB states: For in Him all the fullness of Deity DWELLS (present tense) in bodily form. Note that Paul wrote this about 30 years AFTER Christ's resurrection, and Jesus was STILL in BODILY FORM.

Regarding the physical nature of Christ's bodily resurrection, we also have the support of the Church Fathers:

IRENAEUS in AGAINST HERESIES (Chap. 10, pg 330, under “Unity of the Faith of the Church throughout the Whole World”) states: “1. The Church…has received from the apostles and their disciples this faith; [ She believes] in one God, the Father Almighty…and in one Christ Jesus, the Son of God, who became INCARNATE for our salvation; and in the Holy Spirit…the resurrection from the dead, and the ASCENSION INTO HEAVEN IN THE FLESH of the beloved Jesus Christ, our Lord…CHRIST JESUS, OUR LORD, AND GOD, AND SAVIOUR, and King.”

JUSTIN MARTYR (1st Century) in FRAGMENTS OF THE LOST WORKS, Chap. 9 wrote, “If the resurrection were only spiritual, it was requisite that He, in raising the dead, should show the body lying apart by itself, and the soul living apart by itself. But now He did not do so, but RAISED THE BODY, confirming in it the promise of life. Why did He RISE IN THE FLESH IN WHICH HE SUFFERED, unless to show the resurrection of the flesh? And wishing to confirm this, when His disciples did not know whether to believe HE HAD TRULY RISEN IN THE BODY, and were looking upon Him and doubting, He said to them, “Ye have not yet faith, see that it is I;” and He let them handle Him, and showed them the prints of the nails in His hands. And when they were by every kind of proof persuaded that it was HIMSELF, and IN THE BODY, they asked Him to eat with them, that they might thus more accurately ascertain that HE HAD IN VERITY RISEN BODILY; and He did eat honey-comb and fish. And when He had thus shown them that there is truly a resurrection of the flesh, wishing to show them this also, that it is not impossible for flesh to ascend into heaven…”HE WAS TAKEN UP INTO HEAVEN WHILE THEY BEHELD,” AS HE WAS IN THE FLESH.”

IGNATIUS (also 1st Century) in his EPISTLE TO THE SMYRNAENS, Chap. 3 writes, “He was possessed of a body…after His resurrection…He (Christ) said to them, “Lay hold, handle Me, and see that I AM NOT AN INCOPOREAL SPIRIT. For a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see Me have,” …After He had shown Himself to them, that HE HAD RISEN INDEED, AND NOT IN APPEARANCE ONLY, He both ate and drank with them during forty entire days. And thus was HE, WITH THE FLESH, RECEIVED UP IN THEIR SIGHT UNTO HIM THAT SENT HIM, BEING WITH THAT SAME FLESH TO COME AGAIN, accompanied by great power.

Jesus' appearance to Thomas, in some persons minds, would indicate so. However, I hold Jesus assumed the piercings for Thomas' benefit.

Let's assume for the moment that the body that died on the cross was NOT His resurrection body. Have you thought of the implications? Here is the text:

Now Thomas (called Didymus), one of the Twelve, was not with the disciples when Jesus came. So the other disciples told him, "We have seen the Lord!" But he said to them, "Unless I see the nail marks in his hands and put my finger where the nails were, and put my hand into his side, I will not believe it." A week later his disciples were in the house again, and Thomas was with them. Though the doors were locked, Jesus came and stood among them and said, "Peace be with you!" Then he said to Thomas, "Put your finger here; see my hands. Reach out your hand and put it into my side. Stop doubting and believe." Thomas said to him, "My Lord and my God!" (John 20:24-29 NIV)

If this was not the very same body which hung on the cross, what made the wounds? IF NOT THE ORIGINAL WOUNDS made by the Roman soldiers, wouldn’t the evidence offered by Jesus be FRADULENT, like being shown glass when asked for a diamond? After all, Thomas made quite clear what his expectations were. For Jesus to show Thomas fabricated markings WITHOUT CLARIFYING that the holes were just for demo purposes would be nothing short of DISHONEST. I for one am not convinced that Jesus believed the ends justifies the means.

Regards,
xcav8tor

[xcav8tor]

Luke 23:43 does not... that one of the thieves repented and went to heaven with Jesus.

I am confident that anyone reading IncRus' post can see for themselves that it has no merit. I will therefore not waste any time specifically refuting it.

xcav8tor

[IncRus]

Luke 23:43does not... that one of the thieves repented and went to heaven with Jesus

I am confident that anyone reading IncRus' post can see for themselves that it has no merit. I will therefore not waste any time specifically refuting it.

xcav8tor

Why don't you admit that you CANNOT refute what is written in the Bible? Do you think Matthew and Mark were mistaken in writing that BOTH the robbers (John 19:18) who were crucified with Jesus REVILED Jesus with the SAME thing?

When the thief said to Jesus, "Remember me when you get into your KINGDOM," that was a SARCASTIC statement that was meant to REVILE Jesus about his being "King of the Jews." In fact, that was Jesus' title that Pilate put on the cross (John 19:19-22).

This is the SAME thing that the thieves REVILED Jesus with when the thief said to Jesus, "Remrmber me when you get into your 'kingdom.'"

Maybe you should do more excav8ting, my friend.

[apostoli]

Hello Incrus,

Incidentally, it is NOT true that one of the thief repented. According to Matthew, BOTH the robbers who were crucified with Jesus "REVILED him with the same thing" (Matt. 27:44). Mark also said that "THOSE (plural) who were crucified with him (there were only two robbers who were crucified with Jesus) REVILED him" (Mark 15:32).

These are writings of apostles that were given by inspiration of God (2 Tim. 3:16). Therefore, I have no reason to throw these away in favor of the popular belief, albeit FALSE, that one of the thieves repented and went to heaven with Jesus.

Is it your contention that Luke's Gospel is uninspired by God and not part of the Christian scriptures?

It is from him that we get the "popular belief" that one of theives repented (Luke 23:39-43)

Luke says one of the thieves reviled Jesus, and the other theif chastised this one. Mark says that 'those crucified with [Jesus] also reviled him" (Mark 15:32). Matthew says "And the robbers who were crucified with [Jesus] also reviled him." The apostle John, who is the only one of the four that was actually there, is completely silent on the matter.

Peace

[apostoli]

Hi xcav8tor,

When I said that our present bodies provide the tangible seed from which our resurrection bodies are formed, this does not at all require that they be raised up with their present genetic defects or show the toll that life's traumas or aging has taken on the body. Does the seed that is sown look like the plant it turns into? Of course not. BUT THERE IS CONTINUITY between the two. This is PART of our victory over the grave - that though our bodies are temporarily overcome by death, death does not have the final say. God takes what death has destroyed and raises it to immortality...

I can live with that teaching ;-)

Let's assume for the moment that the body that died on the cross was NOT His resurrection body. Have you thought of the implications?.

Well there is the buzz. If you believe in what you say above. Then it is evident that the body raised was not the same body that that died on the cross. Same person definitely, but not necessarily the same body. According to scripture the risen Christ was not immediately recognisable as Jesus by the disciples (eg: John 20:14-15).

Now Thomas (called Didymus), one of the Twelve, was not with the disciples when Jesus came. So the other disciples told him, "We have seen the Lord!" But he said to them, "Unless I see the nail marks in his hands and put my finger where the nails were, and put my hand into his side, I will not believe it." A week later his disciples were in the house again, and Thomas was with them. "Though the doors were locked, Jesus came and stood among them" and said, "Peace be with you!" Then he said to Thomas, "Put your finger here; see my hands. Reach out your hand and put it into my side. Stop doubting and believe." Thomas said to him, "My Lord and my God!" (John 20:24-29 NIV)

You could have simply used John 20:19-20. In anycase a question arises: why was it necessary for Jesus to show the apostles his wounds? It seems to me that there are two options: he was not physically recognisable otherwise or the legend that Jesus had a twin brother is true.

If this was not the very same body which hung on the cross, what made the wounds? IF NOT THE ORIGINAL WOUNDS made by the Roman soldiers, wouldn’t the evidence offered by Jesus be FRADULENT, like being shown glass when asked for a diamond? After all, Thomas made quite clear what his expectations were. For Jesus to show Thomas fabricated markings WITHOUT CLARIFYING that the holes were just for demo purposes would be nothing short of DISHONEST. I for one am not convinced that Jesus believed the ends justifies the means.

Why would the markings need to be fabricated? They could simply be made manifest.

I presume you have heard of stigmata.

Peace

[xcav8tor]

Hi apostoli,

Well there is the buzz. If you believe in what you say above. Then it is evident that the body raised was not the same body that that died on the cross. Same person definitely, but not necessarily the same body. According to scripture the risen Christ was not immediately recognizable as Jesus by the disciples (eg: John 20:14-15).

There were three instances where Jesus was not immediately recognized, each of which I feel can be harmonized with the raising of the body that was on the cross:

The disciples on the road to Emmaus - We are told the eyes of the 2 disciples were prevented from recognizing Jesus (Luke 24:16 NASB). Later their eyes were opened (verse 31). This would only be necessary if Christ's resurrection body WAS recognizable but He wanted to conceal his identity temporarily. The scars from His hands would certainly have drawn their attention otherwise so He altered His visual appearance (or at least their perception of it). The purpose of this was so they would be able to speak freely about their true feelings about Christ's death.

Mary in the garden - Aside from being grief stricken and shaken by the presence of the angels, we are told that when Jesus called her name she had to turn towards him (John 20:16 NIV). I think we can excuse her for momentarily mistaking the master she believed to be dead for a gardener through her tear-filled peripheral vision.

The disciples by the sea - This event has Jesus on the shore with the disciples fishing on a boat about a hundred yards out in the water. As it was early morning, the light may have been dim, or the rising sun may have obscured their view. He also addressed them in general non-familiar terms instead of calling them by name.

None of these make a strong case for Christ being raised in anything other than the body which hung on the cross - especially considering the fact that the grave cloths He was wrapped in were lying empty. What was done with the body that hung on the cross if Jesus was raised in another one? Occam's razor would suggest it was the same body that was raised - though glorified.

Again, you would need to address the question as to why Jesus did not clarify to Thomas that the crucified body he asked to see was NOT the one being presented to him, but a new one with holes for demo purposes only. Thomas' demand was based on what the others had told him about Christ being raised from the tomb. The nail prints he demanded to see were from Roman nails. Christ's failure to explain otherwise would have definitely left Thomas with the false impression that the body he was being shown was the same one that had been crucified, and I refuse to accept that Jesus could condone deceiving Thomas in this manner. It would need to be explained at some point, and no other time would be as appropriate.

You could have simply used John 20:19-20. In any case a question arises: why was it necessary for Jesus to show the apostles his wounds? It seems to me that there are two options: he was not physically recognizable otherwise or the legend that Jesus had a twin brother is true.

It was to verify His identity - that the same Jesus they followed for the last 3 1/2 years was the same person who now stood before them - the same one who gave His life for them - the one who had power over death itself. I believe the wounds were preserved not only for them, but as reminders for all of us throughout eternity of the price He paid for our salvation, and the infinite capacity of His love.

Identical twin brother! Never heard that one before.

Why would the markings need to be fabricated? They could simply be made manifest.

If the marks shown to Thomas were anything other than the marks made by the Roman nails, they are not the proof Thomas demanded. Anything else - even a "manifestation" - would morally require a clarification on Jesus' part. IMO

I presume you have heard of stigmata.

Yes, I have. But those are never intended to be the actual wounds of Christ - only tangible symbols of identification with Christ's sufferings. To suggest the wounds in Christ's resurrection body were merely stigmata would not resolve the issue - to my satisfaction anyway.

Regards,
xcav8tor