Most frequently Trintarians use John 2:19 as the primary text to demonstrate Christ's participation in His own resurrection. I believe this in and of itself is enough. I also think there are other passaages to support this, however. Feel free to add your comments.

-God bless-

It is enough, but also in Romans 8 the spirit of Christ and the spirit of God (Father) are used interchangeably as the resurrection force.

Did Jesus Christ raise Himself from the dead?


In the second person.

H

What do we do then with?

Acts 5: 29 But Peter and the apostles answered, "We must obey God rather than men. 30 The God of our fathers raised Jesus whom you killed by hanging him on a tree. 31 God exalted him at his right hand as Leader and Savior, to give repentance to Israel and forgiveness of sins.

Acts 10:

39: They put him to death by hanging him on a tree; 40 but God raised him on the third day and made him manifest; 41 not to all the people but to us who were chosen by God as witnesses, who ate and drank with him after he rose from the dead.

Acts 13:

29 And when they had fulfilled all that was written of him, they took him down from the tree, and laid him in a tomb. 30 But God raised him from the dead;

Romans 4:

24: It will be reckoned to us who believe in him that raised from the dead Jesus our Lord, 25 who was put to death for our trespasses and raised for our justification.

1st Corinthians 6:

The body is not meant for immorality, but for the Lord, and the Lord for the body. 14 And God raised the Lord and will also raise us up by his power.

1 Corinthians 15:

15 We are even found to be misrepresenting God, because we testified of God that he raised Christ, whom he did not raise if it is true that the dead are not raised.

2 Corinthians 4:

14 knowing that he who raised the Lord Jesus will raise us also with Jesus and bring us with you into his presence.

All quotes from the RSV

Certainly Paul & the other apostles believed Christ to be really dead and that God the Father raised him to life again. Even the creed says " suffered under Pontius Pilates, was crucified, died and was buried, he was raised on the third day, triumphant over death! ..."

Kiwimac

Kiwimac states:

All quotes from the RSV

Certainly Paul & the other apostles believed Christ to be really dead and that God the Father raised him to life again. Even the creed says " suffered under Pontius Pilates, was crucified, died and was buried, he was raised on the third day, triumphant over death! ..."

And yet I am certain that the authors of the 'creed' believed our Lord to have participated in His own resurrection, am I correct?

Now I must ask who it is that denies that God raised Him [Christ] from the dead? No Trinitarian denies the fact that the Father raised Christ anymore than they deny the participation of Christ Himself and the Spirit of God. It was an accomplishment made through a cooperative effort such as in the act of creation (Jn1:1-3,10..cf..Gen1:2..cf..Acts4:24 etc,.). Citing verses which are silent concerning Christ is an ineffective method of proving one's point. In fact, nothing more than an argument from silence. One could use this same line of reasoning in citing Jn5:24 in order to demonstrate a view that the belief in the Father is the sole requirement for eternal life. However, in harmonizing with Jn17:3 we find that this is not the case. Both the Father and His Son factor in.

I think John 2:19 is rather explicit in it's meaning. In fact, one can only bring in their presuppositions in order to let it imply differently than what it conveys when read literally. IMHO, Jn2:19 is best paralleled to Jn6:39 where the "it" is in reference to the body of Christ which He [Christ] will raise at the last day as He did with Himself.

Secondly, what do you mean when you say "really dead"? As opposed to what? I think that asserting what "death really is" is another objection based on presupposition.

You are a Trinitarian as you previously claimed, aren't you Kiwimac? I know you don't have to believe that Christ raised Himself in order to hold the Trinitarian view of God's natrue, but it's certainly not common amongst Trins to deny His participation in His own resurrection.

-God bless-

I stated previously:

You are a Trinitarian as you previously claimed, aren't you Kiwimac?

If you have it, give me the link to your beliefs that you provided me at Christian Forums. That would most likely help more than you could inform me in a single post.

Well, to say God raised him from the dead is technically correct. What died? Jesus' flesh. Was His flesh God? or was it Man? I think what made Jesus fully human was His flesh and what made Him fully God was His spirit.So His Spirit raised His flesh from the dead, so technically, both are correct. If I am dipping into heresy, someone please correct me. It's the most plausible explaination I can come up with.

Today @ 06:16 AM post located here
Bill the Cat:

Well, to say God raised him from the dead is technically correct. What died? Jesus' flesh. Was His flesh God? or was it Man? I think what made Jesus fully human was His flesh and what made Him fully God was His spirit.So His Spirit raised His flesh from the dead, so technically, both are correct. If I am dipping into heresy, someone please correct me. It's the most plausible explaination I can come up with.

I would say that is dipping more into the hypostatic union. It doesn't really take much more on our part than to simply say "God raised Him from the dead." The common AT objection is to point out the delineation of Christ from the *word* "God." However, this "delineation" no more excludes the Son from being "God" than does 1Cor8:6 exclude the Father as being our "Lord" [Cf..Acts4:24 - (they'll take this as a ref. to the Father); Rev11:15] etc,.

In regards to the above, If you have multiple players in view in these regards, then it is appropriate to attribute the act to each. I can factually state that the Son raised Himself [John 2:19 ], an act wrought also by the Father [Gal1:1], in addition to the Spirit [Rom8:11].

-God bless-

AVmetro,

http://www.cofchrist.org/seek/beliefs.asp

Yes I am a trinitarian but I am not a believer that Jesus was just "play-acting" at being dead, he was REALLY DEAD. As such I consider that the resurrection was a thing that happened "to" him.

Kiwimac

Kiwi, A trin, but quoting the BOM? that's kind of an oxymoron, isn't it?

Nope Bill,

Nothing Anti-trinitarian in the Book of Mormon.

2 Nephi 13:32 And now behold, this is the doctrine of Christ, and the only and true doctrine of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, which is one God, without end. Amen.

Mormon 3:29 And he hath brought to pass the redemption of the world, whereby he that is found guiltless before him at the judgment day, hath it given unto him to dwell in the presence of God in his kingdom, to sing ceaseless praises with the choirs above, unto the Father, and unto the Son, and unto the Holy Ghost, which are one God, in a state of happiness which hath no end.

Kiwimac

Bill if you will follow Kiwi's link and see his church's history under who we are, yo will see that Kiwi is a member of the Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ od Later Day Saints, which will explain his use of the BOM. But let us return to the subject of this thread.

Kiwi, I agree it is a heresy to say that Jesus was not fully dead, but that is as to his human nature, what happened to His divine nature during the three days between the crucifixion and the resurrection?

http://www.cofchrist.org/seek/beliefs.asp

That's it. Thanks.

Yes I am a trinitarian but I am not a believer that Jesus was just "play-acting" at being dead, he was REALLY DEAD. As such I consider that the resurrection was a thing that happened "to" him.

On a very basic level, the biblical definition of "death" is merely the seperation of the spirit from the flesh. The divorcement of the two. As long as this occured in the case of Christ [e.g. Lk23:46], He died. Period. It is the detail surrounding this (con. vs uncon., sprt of mn vs act. frce, etc,.) where many are divided. Habakkuk stated that "God cannot die" why? Because elsewhere, in context, within the OT, God stated that He was not a "man." When we come to John1:1-18 we see the "Word" who "..was God" now "..became flesh.." [i.e. 'man'].

I agree with Gray Pilgrim.

And of course considering that the scriptures speak emphatically of Christ participating in His own resurrection, this only serves to further demonstrate His existence after death.

Nothing Anti-trinitarian in the Book of Mormon.

2 Nephi 13:32 And now behold, this is the doctrine of Christ, and the only and true doctrine of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, which is one God, without end. Amen.

Ask Kevin if this passage supports a Triune nature of God and tell us what he says .

Oneness people use this as a classic prooftext to show that God is one person in three manifestations.

I can't say I'm convinced by the Romans passage though. It doesn't say that the Spirit raised Jesus.

04-07-2003 @ 06:57 AM post located here
AVmetro:
And yet I am certain that the authors of the 'creed' believed our Lord to have participated in His own resurrection, am I correct?

The 'Apostles' Creed'? Probably not. It is so simple that it clearly predates a Nicene Christology.

Citing verses which are silent concerning Christ is an ineffective method of proving one's point. In fact, nothing more than an argument from silence.

I don't think it's an argument from silence to appeal to the statements of the apostles to prove who raised Jesus from the dead. They should have known. Why don't they ever say that Jesus raised himself from the dead?

I think this line of reasoning is invalid for anyone who isn't a Oneness person. The Trinitarian 'harmonisation' of the passage which says 'I amd my Father are one' is to say that it doesn't really mean they are one person, it means that they are united in purpose or something. So that's taken figuratively, on the basis that it is explained explicity elsewhere (where Jesus says that his disciples and he may be one as he is one with the Father).

So when the apostles explain what happened to Jesus, and the preponderance of verses insists that the Father raised Jesus, what is the problem? We already know that Jesus was speaking figuratively about his body, and we know that elsewhere he said o fhis resurrection 'I have authority to receive it back' (his life).

[quote[Secondly, what do you mean when you say "really dead"? As opposed to what? I think that asserting what "death really is" is another objection based on presupposition.[/quote]

If Jesus was like us, then he was dead like us. This is where the confusion lies, because if we have immortal souls, then we are simply immortal spirit beings who are inhabiting a shell of flesh. And that is what Jesus was - an immortal spirit being inhabiting a shell of flesh. So what difference is there between him and us, in that respect? None. We are immortal, and so is he.

So I think we have a problem with the word 'immortal'. The word 'immortal' literally means 'unable to die'. Yet we believe that we all die, and we belive that Jesus died (even if we have differing views on what constitutes 'death'). So we can't say that either Jesus or us are immortal, because we insist that we all die, and that he died too.

Oneness people use this as a classic prooftext to show that God is one person in three manifestations.

I don't believe it necessitates this. I take it to be likened unto the creation where Jesus is more accurately the "means through" which creation was wrought. Although He is not the direct means of creation, He is just as much a part of the process as the Father and the Spirit. Same goes for the resurrection etc. See 2Cor4:14, see other passages cited below.

I can't say I'm convinced by the Romans passage though. It doesn't say that the Spirit raised Jesus.

Depends on how one reads it I suppose. I hardly doubt that anyone (Unitarian, Trinitarian alike) will doubt that God's "spirit" played a role in the resurrection. I'll spend more time on this, I suppose, after Christ's role in His resurrection is covered.

The 'Apostles' Creed'? Probably not. It is so simple that it clearly predates a Nicene Christology.

Your are, of course, merely assuming that a "Nicene Christology" is not a "biblical Christology" in making the above statement of "probably not" in regards to the authors theological stance.

I'll leave that area up to you and the others like PS.

I don't think it's an argument from silence to appeal to the statements of the apostles to prove who raised Jesus from the dead. They should have known. Why don't they ever say that Jesus raised himself from the dead?

What does the following emphatically imply?

What did the Apostle John say in Jn2:22?:

Joh 2:22 Then when He was raised from the dead, His disciples recalled that He said this to them. And they believed the Scripture, even the Word that Jesus spoke.

What was this "word" He spoke?:

Joh 2:19 Jesus said to them, Destroy this sanctuary, and in three days *I* will raise *it* up.

HE will raise the temple. When was this word fulfilled? Let us read here at the end of the Apostle John's gospel:

Joh 20:25-29 Then the other disciples said to him, We have seen the Lord. But he said to them, Unless I see the mark of the nails in His hands, and thrust my finger into the mark of the nails, and thrust my hand into His side, I will not believe, never!
And after eight days, His disciples were inside again, and Thomas was with them. The door having been locked, Jesus came and stood in the midst, and said, Peace to you. Then He said to Thomas, Bring your finger here and see My hands, and bring your
hand and thrust into My side, and be not unbelieving, but believing. And Thomas answered and said to Him, My Lord and my God! [ho theos] Jesus said to him, Because you have seen Me, Thomas, you have believed. Blessed
are the ones not seeing, and believing.

Thomas' unbelief turned belief specifically on account of the *resurrection* causes him to come to the conclusion that Christ is indeed the Almighty God i.e. HIS God, MY God, THE God OF me.

I believe the above to be at least one example in scripture which uses the resurrection of Christ to portray a declaration of His deity to the readers of the gospel.

Don't accept this as a valid example? Then:

That in and of itself is still an argument from silence. "They don't say it, so therefore it didn't happen." According to Jaltus, the apostles do make the statment that Jesus raised Himself from the dead. However, you may want to shoot him a PM and have him explain to us in detail "how" (concerns lingusitics which are not my area).

As for citing a passage which is silent on one member while emphasizing another see Eph3:9. In citing this passage alone one could say "See, Jesus isn't mentioned therefore He wasn't involved in the creation of things." Of course we know this to be patently false from such passages as John1:1-3 etc.

Similarly, Jn2:19 emphatically states that Jesus played a role in the resurrection of Himself as He will also play a part in raising the believers in the coming resurrection (Jn6:39; 1Th4:16 etc.).

I believe I have cited more examples in my previous post.

I think this line of reasoning is invalid for anyone who isn't a Oneness person.

You seem to be emphasizing "Oneness" here and there, yet as far as I can see, you are making attempts (or at least putting forth the arguments used) to disprove the deity of Christ. Which theological view do you hold? It would save a great deal of my time if I knew what and what not you hold as biblical.

The Trinitarian 'harmonisation' of the passage which says 'I amd my Father are one' is to say that it doesn't really mean they are one person, it means that they are united in purpose or something. So that's taken figuratively, on the basis that it is explained explicity elsewhere (where Jesus says that his disciples and he may be one as he is one with the Father).

Actually that is not how the majority of Trinitarians (as far as I know) interpret this passage. Not truly grasping your point at this hour of the night, but I'm sure I addressed the basic point being conveyed in an earlier post.

So when the apostles explain what happened to Jesus, and the preponderance of verses insists that the Father raised Jesus, what is the problem?

So you are saying that Jn2:19 does not imply what it clearly says? Wouldn't this then have been the perfect opportunity to have stated "The Father will raise this temple in three days?" Rather He states, "*I* will raise this temple (i.e. His body)."

I'm not seeing the validity of the objection. "Stacking the deck" with passages which state one person played a role in the resurrection in order to negate a passage which states that another also played a role is poor exegesis. Simply compare 2Sam24:1 with 1Chron21:1 and you'll see what I'm getting at. It is utterly ludicrus to assert that "2Sam states that God moved David whereas 1Chron makes it clear that it was Satan. Therefore Satan must have simply moved David in a "figurative" sense."

We already know that Jesus was speaking figuratively about his body, and we know that elsewhere he said o fhis resurrection 'I have authority to receive it back' (his life).

And precisely what is the problem? How does this negate the possiblility that He raised Himself? It only serves to agree with us. Jn10:17-18 (which you cite) clearly tells us that Jesus has recieved the authroity to "take it (His life) again" after "laying it (His life) down." In this He is following the command of His Father as He has done elsewhere. See Jn12:49 Note again and pay attention to the wording:

Joh 6:38-40 For I have come down out of Heaven, not that I should do My will, but the will of Him who sent Me. And this is the will of the Father sending Me, that of all that He has given Me, I shall not lose any of it, but shall raise it
up in the last day. And this is the will of the One sending Me, that everyone seeing the Son and believing into Him should have everlasting life; and I will raise him up at the last day. (Cf.Jn10:17-18 i.e. the will of the Father)

Almost parallels in principle to Jn10:17-18. The consistency is unavoidable. Christ states "*I* will raise this temple". Later he says "*I* will raise it up at the last day (the believers). Lastly, He states "I take my life again." Simple.

If Jesus was like us, then he was dead like us.

Nothing here to disagree with. Note also, GPs post above.

This is where the confusion lies, because if we have immortal souls, then we are simply immortal spirit beings who are inhabiting a shell of flesh.

That is a very Mormon-esque statement. Essentially, a "soul" is that person. When the spirit is divorced from the flesh (the biblical definition for "death"), where it spends it's time is not an important factor. Some even believe Christ to have spend His three days of death in Hades or Sheol (a place described often in the OT), others with the Father in heaven. As long as He technically dies by biblical standards, the details do not concern me at this present time. Even if you take Luke16 as not representative of real world possibilities, you can still note that they considered the Rich man and Lazarus to be "really dead" despite the fact that they were conscious.

And that is what Jesus was - an immortal spirit being inhabiting a shell of flesh. So what difference is there between him and us, in that respect? None. We are immortal, and so is he.

I don't believe the above is wholly accurate nor can I immediately see it's relevance to either point. After we establish certain points regarding the topic at hand, perhaps we can bring this up subsequently.

So I think we have a problem with the word 'immortal'. The word 'immortal' literally means 'unable to die'. Yet we believe that we all die, and we belive that Jesus died (even if we have differing views on what constitutes 'death'). So we can't say that either Jesus or us are immortal, because we insist that we all die, and that he died too.

If you attribute the word "immortal" to the word "soul" then it is the word "soul" you are modifying by the word "immortal", as opposed to the whole of man himself. Secondly, I am not too sure the word "soul" is wholly appropriate in accurately discussing what is in view here. Better would be 'spirit' although many use the word "soul" to denote the "spirit."

..anyhow..

In arguing this somewhat tangent issue - First I would have to establish to the detractor that we have a ''soul'' to start. Next, I would have to demonstrate whether or not that "soul" lived on after the process of death had transpired. I believe that equivocating the soul of man to that of Christ is a tangent issue when discussing His participation in His own resurrection. If I establish that Christ raised Himself, then I have established His existence after death. Period. Gray Pilgrim made a good point in the above as well.

-God bless-