The resurrection of Jesus Christ

[Ahanu]

I have grown up in church all my life. They taught me that the resurrection was physical, and so has every other church I have been to. Also, there is a huge disagreement over it. The Case for Christ teaches that it was a physical resurrection, for instance.

1 Corinthians 9:1 Am I not an apostle? Have I not seen Jesus our Lord?

1 Corinthians 15:8 Last of all he appeared to me also.

However, the writer never discusses verse 44

1 Corinthians 15:44 it is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body.

So, if I were to agree solely with the interpretation that it was only a spiritual resurrection, how do I handle Acts chapter 2? Because it says God would not allow his holy one to see decay.

Acts 2:31 he was not abandoned to the grave, nor did his body see decay.

Was Peter talking about the physical body or the spiritual body here?

By insisting on the literal interpretations, does that kill the meaning of what the text is saying?

Does the text teach that Jesus was physically present? For example, eating and talking with him after the resurrection in the gospels.

I could really used some help on this.

[wil]

Originally Posted by Thabrownbaptist

I have grown up in church all my life. They taught me that the resurrection was physical, and so has every other church I have been to. Also, there is a huge disagreement over it.

I'm a little confused...where is the disagreement if this is what you've been taught and heard in every church. What does your church say about the discrepancy you read in the scripture.

I believe you are correct. If we insist on literal interpretations we quickly find there are many lines we sure don't wish to read literally. But even us metaphysician types find plenty we do wish to interpret literally much to the chagrin of literalists.

[bob x]

Paul speaks of a non-physical resurrection because he wants his purely visionary experience to be considered just as good as the encounters the original disciples had. I don't think Paul believes that the risen Jesus was the kind of being who could eat broiled fish with his old friends.

[okieinexile]

The Resurrection was physical. They could touch the wounds in his hands and side. However, His body was different. It could be in different places at the same time, sites separated by miles. It could enter and leave through closed doors.

[Sean H.]

Originally Posted by Thabrownbaptist

Acts 2:31 he was not abandoned to the grave, nor did his body see decay.

In my opinion, there's no reason that that can't refer to the spiritual body. I believe it refer's to the faith of christ and how it didn't die.

Also, there's what the Bible says, the literal words on the page that have been orally kept until they were written down and then translated, and there's people who say what the Bible says. I really want you to distinguish between the two, and look at all the evidence. Have an objective view and an open mind in all cases.

1. The original Gospel of Mark ended at Mark 16:8 with an empty tomb, later it was made to be like the other gospels.

2. The Bible is full of metaphoric language. It uses seeing and hearing as metaphors for knowing Christ and having faith in him. The same applies to the end of the gospels when the disciples did not at first see him.

3. Most churches like to teach the Bible literally. In my opinion, the spiritual and metaphoric meanings are far more important and make more sense. I believe that if you take the Bible literally, you will miss much of its message and meaning and will approach the word of God similar to how the Jews expected literal fulfillment of the Messiah prophecies.

4. As with many stories of the ancient world, in my opinion, Jesus's death and ressurection was magnified with time. I believe that the spirit of Jesus touched the disciples after his death and they were reminded that the cause of Christ was not dead and they began to put his principles into practice, dedicate their lives to Christ's cause, and spread his teachings across the world.

[earl]

Hi fellow Jayhawker. A couple of "supernatural' abilities you note for Jesus here are among the types of "siddhis" traditionally noted as possible for the spiritually adept of various traditions:

The Nine Main Siddhis Plus Eight Additional Siddhis

Of course, don't know that in these cases we have anything but a few purported eye witnesses and/or oral history to back the claims up, but interesting cross- traditional info I think. earl

[Ahanu]

Originally Posted by wil

I'm a little confused...where is the disagreement if this is what you've been taught and heard in every church. What does your church say about the discrepancy you read in the scripture.

I believe you are correct. If we insist on literal interpretations we quickly find there are many lines we sure don't wish to read literally. But even us metaphysician types find plenty we do wish to interpret literally much to the chagrin of literalists.

Hey Wil

The church I attend, and all the rest I have ever attended, taught that it is physical, but I want to believe that it is spiritual. Does Christ's physical body just float up into the clouds? LOL. You see, I have been reading the works of Karen Armstrong and William Blake. They teach great points about the resurrection. If you are teaching that it was a physical resurrection, then you totally miss the spiritual meaning of what the bible is saying. The problem is that you can not teach that at most churches. This is the problem William Blake encountered with the church. I am in a youth group, and I have been known to teach sometimes, so I need clarification on the matter. Sorry to bore you, but you asked for it!

The Resurrection was physical. They could touch the wounds in his hands and side. However, His body was different. It could be in different places at the same time, sites separated by miles. It could enter and leave through closed doors.

Sounds spiritual to me. . .How does your argument stand with 1 Cor. chapter 15 by Paul? He clearly says that the material body dies, whereas the spiritual body is raised, yet church has built doctrines around a physical resurrection. I leave the pews baffled and confused.

1. The original Gospel of Mark ended at Mark 16:8 with an empty tomb, later it was made to be like the other gospels.

I did not know that. I will check into it. Uh, where did you get this information? I would like to read it.

2. The Bible is full of metaphoric language. It uses seeing and hearing as metaphors for knowing Christ and having faith in him. The same applies to the end of the gospels when the disciples did not at first see him.

OK

3. Most churches like to teach the Bible literally. In my opinion, the spiritual and metaphoric meanings are far more important and make more sense. I believe that if you take the Bible literally, you will miss much of its message and meaning and will approach the word of God similar to how the Jews expected literal fulfillment of the Messiah prophecies.

That makes things clearer. In fact, you are saying that to interpret the resurrection as a physical resurrection of Jesus is to be mislead. This makes sense to me, because I was thinking that if it was physical, it would make the ascension into heaven a complete mystery. I mean, if a person is going to defend the physical resurrection, how does he/she make sense of that? Never heard anyone put up a good defense for that one yet. I did not find it in the Case for Christ.

4. As with many stories of the ancient world, in my opinion, Jesus's death and ressurection was magnified with time. I believe that the spirit of Jesus touched the disciples after his death and they were reminded that the cause of Christ was not dead and they began to put his principles into practice, dedicate their lives to Christ's cause, and spread his teachings across the world.

Thanks for the information.

[AndrewX]

Originally Posted by earl

Hi fellow Jayhawker. A couple of "supernatural' abilities you note for Jesus here are among the types of "siddhis" traditionally noted as possible for the spiritually adept of various traditions:

The Nine Main Siddhis Plus Eight Additional Siddhis

Of course, don't know that in these cases we have anything but a few purported eye witnesses and/or oral history to back the claims up, but interesting cross- traditional info I think. earl

How's that, earl, you mean in the case of Christianity, right? Because I'd say the numbers of other adepts (saints, yogis, etc.), who have undergone the translation (or Annunciation, or Resurrection experience) as did Christ Jesus, far outweigh the Christian example any way you slice it ... easily by a factor of say, 100 to 1? No no, I'm being far too conservative!

It's not just a few, scattered souls here & there, or at least, it wasn't like the case of Jesus of Nazareth was the first recorded instance of this - you know: crucified, died, rose in three days, made himself (or herself) manifest in the flesh for all to see & hear & touch thing. This happened thousands of years before Christ Jesus, in the Egyptian Mysteries, as in those of other traditions (Chaldean, Hellenic, Indian, etc.) ... and of course, as with so much else, Christianity took this prototype, or motif, and grafted onto it a unique interpretation, or presentation of the Initiation experience.

Not that Christianity didn't have its own unique contribution, nor am I saying the Jesus was just another adept (though in one sense, this is certainly true). But there have been Initiates since Jesus who have undergone the Resurrection, including St. Paul after him ...

... and the Theosophical tradition, as well as esoteric contributions since then, cast much light on the mystery of the translation of the flesh - or the Resurrection & Ascension experience. One can trace, in the lives of specific adepts, approximately when & even where this experience occurred. But my point is that we have eyewitness testimony in many of these cases, much more recent, and even better attended than the mythical Crucifixion of Christ Jesus and the Resurrection that followed.

Again, I do not mean `mythical' in the sense that there was no Jesus, or that the events of his life were pure legend, or contrived. The Gospel account has clearly been altered to emphasize certain key points, including the Initiation experience itself, but I essentially accept the broad brushstrokes of the Gospel story at face value.

Let us remember, the phenomenon of bi-location has been attested to in perhaps dozens of saints and gurus down through the ages. Immediately the accounts of Appollonius of Tyana will come to mind. And although historians place him as a contemporary of Jesus, the esoteric record makes it clear: Jesus of Nazareth lived and died a FULL CENTURY prior to the dates that are commonly accepted. Curiously, then, the link between Jesus and Appollonius is that between one incarnation and the next, of the SAME SOUL.

But presumably, St. Paul, after his own Resurrection experience, would have been able to bi-locate, as can the adepts of the East (and of every tradition). And this has been witnessed, by a whole roomful of onlookers, in the 20th Century, if not more recent ... right here in the West. I would refer anyone interested to a series of books called, The Initiate (especially Vols. II & III).

On a more practical and relevant note, it might be worth looking at Ch. 7 of Annie Besant's `Esoteric Christianity,' which can be found online, here. This chapter is on the Atonement, and I was reading it just earlier today. The focus is on the Sacrifice of Deity and of Christ, and on the significance of pain as we experience it ... relative to God's Plan for his Creatures and His Creation.

This has everything to do with the Sacrifice of Christ Jesus & the Resurrection, and I especially appreciate the treatment that Annie Besant has given to the subject.

~Andrew

[Sean H.]

Originally Posted by Thabrownbaptist

I did not know that. I will check into it. Uh, where did you get this information? I would like to read it.

Mark 16 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The article goes in a few directions, but it's fairly good in my opinion.

That makes things clearer. In fact, you are saying that to interpret the resurrection as a physical resurrection of Jesus is to be mislead. This makes sense to me, because I was thinking that if it was physical, it would make the ascension into heaven a complete mystery. I mean, if a person is going to defend the physical resurrection, how does he/she make sense of that? Never heard anyone put up a good defense for that one yet. I did not find it in the Case for Christ.

There are a lot of complications that involve a physical resurrection. There's a bounty of evidence to support the idea that it was a spiritual one.

I don't have a lot of time, but for the moment take a look at the end of the Gospels and read about Paul's vision (can't remember where it is).

Originally Posted by bob x

Paul speaks of a non-physical resurrection because he wants his purely visionary experience to be considered just as good as the encounters the original disciples had. I don't think Paul believes that the risen Jesus was the kind of being who could eat broiled fish with his old friends.

Actually at the end of John where the disciples are fishing and Jesus meets them, Jesus asks them if they have found any fish, when they tell him no, he tells them to throw their net on the right side of the boat and they will catch some. When they did, they caught a great number of fish. Jesus then told his disciples to love him and to take care of his sheep.

This event doesn't happen in the other Gospels. Moreover in the story, neither Jesus nor the disciples eat any fish, the story ends there. Paul's vision is a telling example, in my opinion, as to what actually occurred after Jesus's death. I see no reason why to suggest Paul has some kind of ego. In my opinion, it's quite the opposite.

In my opinion, the most important symbolism is that after hearing Jesus the disciples were able to catch a large net of fish. Note the similarity between the events and....

Matthew 4:19 And he said to them, "Follow me, and I will make you fishers of men."

[BlaznFattyz]

he is the first man to be raised to glory both spiritually and bodily.

[AndrewX]

Originally Posted by BlaznFattyz

he is the first man to be raised to glory both spiritually and bodily.

Hmmm ...

[Ahanu]

Let's hear from both sides.

Here is the Christian view I would expect from an hardcore preacher.

From John MacArthur:

Jude 3-4 says, "Beloved, when I gave all diligence to write unto you of the common salvation, it was needful for me to write unto you, and exhort you that ye should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints. For there are certain men crept in unawares, who were before of old ordained to this condemnation, ungodly men, turning the grace of our God into lasciviousness, and denying the only Lord God, and our Lord Jesus Christ."

A. The Survey of Apostasy in the New Testament
1. APOSTASY EXPLAINED
Those two verses state the reason that Jude's letter was written and give a definition of apostasy. That evil has been around since the beginning of time, and it's still here. It is the abandoning of truth. It is not to be confused with mere indifference to the Word, for it involves an intellectual acceptance of the Scriptures. Neither is apostasy to be confused with error. It is not necessarily believing false doctrine. An apostate can acknowledge that certain doctrines are true, but fail to believe them in his heart. An apostate can acknowledge Christ without accepting Him. On the other hand, a true Christian could fall into doctrinal error, but that's not apostasy. Apostates have received light but not life. They have known and accepted the written Word, but have never met Christ, the Living Word. You probably know some people like that. There are people in the church who come all the time and know the truth, but have never acted upon it. Apostasy is a deliberate rejection of the the truth after it is known. Hence, it is the most damnable sin of all. The writer of Hebrews said, "Of how much sorer punishment, suppose ye, shall he be thought worthy, who hath trodden under foot the Son of God, and hath counted the blood of the covenant, with which he was sanctified, an unholy thing...? (10:29). Somebody who knows the truth and stomps across it deserves more severe punishment than others who didn't know as much.


2. APOSTASY EXPRESSED
a. 2 Thessalonians 2:10--"...they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved." They received the truth, but never acquired a love for it, so they fell away.


b. Acts 8:13-14. 18-23--Here we are introduced to a strange character by the name of Simon, who was a sorcerer: "Then Simon himself believed also; and when he was baptized, he continued with Philip, and was amazed, beholding the miracles and signs which were done. Now when the apostles who were at Jerusalem heard that Samaria had received the word of God, they sent unto them Peter and John" (vv. 13-14) The account goes on to say that the Apostles laid their hands on some Samarian believers who then received the Holy Spirit. Simon realized that was better than any trick he could do: "And when Simon saw that through laying on of the apostles' hands the Holy Spirit was given, he offered them money, saying, Give me also this power, that on whomsoever I lay hands, he may receive the Holy Spirit. But Peter said unto him, Thy money perish with thee, because thou hast thought that the gift of God could be purchased with money. Thou hast neither part nor lot in this matter; for thy heart is not right in the sight of God. Repent, therefore, of this thy wickedness, and pray God, if perhaps the thought of thine heart may be forgiven thee; for I perceive that thou art in the gall of bitterness, and in the bond of iniquity" (vv. 18-23). Peter was saying, "You're not a Christian at all. Doing what you did indicates that you have no part with us. Your heart is not right, so you better pray for forgiveness." Every Christian has forgiveness, so Simon was obviously not a Christian. Simon exercized some sort of belief and was baptized, but he never personally accepted Christ. He merely gave intellectual assent.


Now that is apostasy, a very common subject in the Bible. The Greek word for apostasy (apostasia) is only used two times in the New Testament. The first place is in...


c. Acts 21:21--"And they are informed of thee, that thou teachest all the Jews who are among the Gentiles to forsake [apostatize from] Moses...." Here was a report of an accusation that Paul had been teaching the Jewish people to forsake the teachings of Moses. The other occurance of apostasia is in...


d. 2 Thessalonians 2:3--"...for that day shall not come, except there come the falling away [apostasy] first...."
The idea of apostasy appears in many New Testament passages without the use of the word that specifically means "to fall away." For example:


e. John 6:66--"From that time many of His disciples went back, and walked no more with Him." There you have a forsaking of Christ. Many of His disciples (those who followed Him), turned their backs and said, "That's enough for us; we don't want to hear anymore. We're bailing out."


f. 2 Peter 2:20-22--"For if, after they have escaped the pollutions of the world through the knowledge of the Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ, they are again entangled in it, and overcome, the latter end is worse with them than the beginning. For it had been better for them not to have known the way of righteousness than, after they had known it, to turn from the holy commandment delivered unto them" (vv. 20-21). Having an intellectual knowledge of Jesus Christ and rejecting Him constitues apostasy, the severest sin there is. Peter pictured its ugliness in two proverbs: "...The dog is turned to his own vomit again; and the sow that was washed, to her wallowing in the mire" (v. 22)


g. 1 Timothy 4:1--"Now the Spirit speaketh expressly that, in the latter times, some shall depart from the faith...." Apostasy is a departing from the faith-- turning your back on what you know to be the truth.


h. 2 Timothy 4:3--"For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine but, after their own lusts, shall they heap to themselves [false] teachers...." it. Turning away from the truth, people will seek that which is false.


Paul warned Timothy of apostasy coming from the pulpit in the last days. False preachers will turn people from the faith as they follow "seducing spirits, and doctrines of demons" (1 Tim. 4:1). There have always been false prophets, and there will be false prophets as long as Satan is active. Paul calls them "hypocritical liars" in 1 Timothy 4:2--they use religious language and talk about love but they are really phonies. Not only are there false preachers, but there are false congregations as well. Such congregations want teachers that will teach them after their own lusts (2 Tim. 4:3). There is apostasy in the pulpit and apostasy in the pew. It includes everybody who has understood the gospel and turned their backs on the revelation of God.


People have asked me why so many churches are denying the faith: they don't believe in the inspiration of Scripture, the virgin birth of Christ, His literal resurrection, or His literal return. The reason is that the pastor and the people are often apostates, controlled by Satan. We can't expect anything else from them.

This is what I am having trouble with.

[Dondi]

If I may clear up some things. It seems there is some confusion over the term "spiritual body" in I Corinthians 15, as if only the spirit was resurrected. But that is not what it says. Through out this text, it speaks of a body being changed from an natural body to a spiritual body, and it gives the example of a grain of wheat. The implication here is that the grain of wheat falls to ground and dies, but in sowing that grain, it brings forth life from itself, in other words, out of the same substance. It is the same for the human body when it dies in a natural body it is sown to earth for a time, but resurrects to a spiritual body.

When speaking of a spiritual body, let's get away from the idea that "spirit" mean a non-physical etheral form. All it is saying here it that the body will be raised in a better form than the natural form we have now. And we only have to look to Jesus as proof of this.

After Jesus' resurrection, it is true that He possessed a body that could do all kinds of unusual things. It could be disguised as in the case of the two disciples on the road to Emmaus, and a gardener to Mary at the tomb (which also begs the question of where is the body if it were only a spiritual resurrection). Jesus was also able to disappear and appear in a locked room at will. And He had the ability to rise in the air at His ascension.

All these things might appear that He was in a spirit, etheral form. But even He in Luke 24 denies this:

"And as they thus spake, Jesus himself stood in the midst of them, and saith unto them, Peace be unto you.
But they were terrified and affrighted, and supposed that they had seen a spirit.
And he said unto them, Why are ye troubled? and why do thoughts arise in your hearts?
Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself: handle me, and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have. And when he had thus spoken, he shewed them his hands and his feet." - Luke 24:36-40

But even this wasn't able to convince them, so what does Jesus do? He eats:

"And while they yet believed not for joy, and wondered, he said unto them, Have ye here any meat?
And they gave him a piece of a broiled fish, and of an honeycomb. And he took it, and did eat before them." - Luke 24:41-43

Now if Jesus didn't have a body with some kind of physicality to it, I don't think He would be able to eat physical food. I envision something along the line of that Casper movie where the one ghost is trying to eat and all the food passes through him and falls to the ground.

The body Jesus had is not like ours now, but still a body, one that will never see corruption, nor pain, nor sorrow, nor death. Somewhere, somehow, Jesus is at the right hand of the Father in real form, perhaps in some other dimension we don't know about, but it is physical. A physical, spiritual body.

[Ahanu]

Thanks for the info Dondi. Did you check out that link Andrew posted up?

Skip down to page 200 and read from there.

The mental body is similarly being built now in this case by thoughts. It will be the vehicle of consciousness in the heavenly world, but is being built now by aspirations, by imagination, reason, judgment, artistic faculties, by the use of all the mental powers. Such as the man makes it, so must he wear it, and the length and richness of his heavenly state depend on the kind of mental body he has built during his life on earth.

As a man enters the higher evolution, this body comes into independent activity on this side of death, and he gradually becomes conscious of his heavenly life, even amid the whirl of mundane [Page 212] existence. Then he becomes "the Son of man which is in heaven", [S.John, iii, 13.] who can speak with the authority of knowledge on heavenly things. When the man begins to live the life of the Son, having passed on to the Path of Holiness, he lives in heaven while remaining on earth, coming into conscious possession and use of this heavenly body. And inasmuch as heaven is not far away from us, but surrounds us on every side, and we are only shut out from it by our incapacity to feel its vibrations, not by their absence; inasmuch as those vibrations are playing upon us at every moment of our lives; all that is needed to be in Heaven is to become conscious of those vibrations. We become conscious of them with the vitalising, the organising, the evolution of this heavenly body, which, being builded out of the heavenly materials, answers to the vibrations of the matter of the heavenly world. Hence the "Son of man" is ever in heaven. But we know that the "Son of man" is a term applied to the Initiate, not to the Christ risen and glorified but to the Son while he is yet "being made perfect". [Heb. v, 9]

[Ahanu]

I apologize for quoting those back-to-back, because I was reacting on emotion. If a person believes in the resurrection, they would have to choose either a spiritual or material resurrection. Sean, the link you sent me blew me away! However, most Christians believe in the material resurrection, and this does bring in many complications. I have one question. It is for anybody.

Matthew said: "While the women were on their way, some of the guards went into the city and reported to the chief priests everything that had happened. When the chief priests had met with the elders and devised a plan, they gave the soldiers a large sum of money, telling them, "You are to say, 'His disciples came during the night and stole him away while we were asleep.' If this report gets to the governer, we will satisfy him and keep you out of trouble." So the soldiers took the money and did as they were instructed. And this story has been widely circulated among the Jews to this very day.

OK. I know that the Pharisees believed in the resurrection, but how could one still interpret it as a spiritual one? They ordered the tomb to be secure. Why would they do that?