Did the Apostle Paul teach and believe in the "bodily reserrection of Christ" doctrine?

by booker-t 23 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

  • Cold Steel
    Cold Steel

    The Jehovah’s Witnesses have long blamed any doctrine it didn’t like on the Greeks or later Roman “pagan” practices and beliefs. Specifically, they blamed the bodily resurrection doctrine on Greek incursion into the early Christian beliefs. But in this they are sorely mistaken, and of course, with the Society forbidding their members to take non-JW religious instruction, how would they know any different?

    Dr. Richard Draper writes:

    The Hellenistic mind-set found the idea of a resurrection strange indeed. Many a Greek or Roman would have had little difficulty believing that a god had sired a son, for their mythologies supported the idea. Also, belief in prophecy and portents was widespread,1 as were reports of miracles and those who performed miracles.2 The idea that a mortal could become as the gods was not difficult for many to accept,3 and there were precedents for both men and gods dying and coming back to life.4

    But the idea that a mortal could rise from the dead and enter eternal life with a physical body had little precedent. Much of the Hellenistic world denied the reality of any kind of resurrection, let alone a physical one. The Greek rejection of the physical body made the idea of a resurrection of that body abhorrent. Some believed that mortals had been resuscitated from death, but these isolated incidents were a mere postponing of eventual death.5 There simply was no room in the Hellenistic world view for belief in any kind of a general resurrection at the end of world history.6

    In view of this cultural setting, it is easy to understand the Athenian reaction to the Apostle Paul when “he preached unto them Jesus, and the resurrection” (Acts 17:18). The crowd responded by calling him “a babbler” who set forth “strange gods” (v. 18). When Paul later gave his “unknown god” sermon (17:22—31), the people listened intently until he spoke of the Resurrection, at which point “some mocked: and others said, We will hear thee again on this matter” (v. 32). In the end, the doctrine of the Resurrection found few Greek adherents. (Source)

    Notes

    1. For examples from the Hellenistic culture, see Ovid, Metamorphoses, 1.589—94; 5.301—519.

    2. Examples of the Roman view of the times are found in Cicero, De Divinationa, 1.1—38; 2.64,70; Tacitus, Histories, 1.3, 18, 86; 4.81; for the Jewish view, see Josephus, Jewish Wars, 6.285—95.

    3. For reports of healings, see Tacitus, Histories, 4.81; Suetonius, Lives of the Caesars, “Vespasian,” 7; Dio Cassius, 65.271.

    4. See, for example, Metamorphoses, 14.800—28.

    5. In Oriental belief a number of death-defying savior-gods such as Tammuz, Bel-Marduk, Adonis, Sandan-Heracles, Attis, Osiris, the Cretan Zeus, and Dionysus were never really mortal and thus had no bearing on the New Testament witness.

    6. A number of Greek authors (see, for example, Homer, Iliad, 24.551; Herodotus, 3.62; Aeschylus, Agamemnon, 1360 ff.) simply state that resurrection is impossible. Others accepted the idea only as an isolated miracle (see, for example, Plato, Symposium, 179; Lucian, De Saltatione, 45).

    As stated previously, the resurrection of Jesus couldn't be spelled out better than the 40-day ministry (Acts 1:2-3) The JWs need to wake up to the fact that the early Christians not only believed that people have spirits, many believed that we all lived previously before coming to the earth. If man does have a spirit, of what use would resurrection back to a spirit serve? You die, return to God as a spirit and later receive a bodily resurrection. This is indisputably what the early church believed.

    Cofty: So according to you Jesus has no blood.

    That’s correct. How resurrection works is not something that’s spelled out in scripture. All we know is that the body is changed from a corruptible to an incorruptible state, that it’s perfected, glorified and changed to accommodate its new environment.

  • mP
    mP

    @barry

    Our Lord came to this earth with all the physical defects of sin. He wasn't like adam 9 ft tall and as broard as a door. When the bible speaks of flesh it is refering to the effects of sin in many cases.

    mP:

    You do realise that people 200 years ago were a whole foot shorter than today. If there was an Adam he would have been probably 4 or 5 foot tall. No where in the Bible deos it say Adam was 9 foot.

    @barry

    Jesus said himself he would be a sacrifice and in three days he would be ressurected.

    @MP

    But he was resurrected after 2 days and nights. Died on Friday up by Sunday morning.

    @Barray

    What about the empty tomb?

    MP:

    If you read Mark there is no resurrection. The resurrection only appears after Mk 16:8 which all Bibles acknowledge is not found in the oldest texts and is an addition. Thers right theres no resurrection in Mark!

    @barry

    As Jesus body was changed into a spiritual body so we will be changed at the second comming it says in revelation our bodies will be changed into an incorruptual body.

    @MP

    Really, where does it say all this ?

  • mP
    mP

    @band

    The bodily resurrection of Jesus is accepted as valid Christianity by members of other religfions.

    mP:

    Thats not true, muslims believe somebody got switched and not the real jesus died on the cross.

    Even Mark doesnt believe in the resurrection, check 16:8+.

  • Cold Steel
    Cold Steel

    MP: You do realise that people 200 years ago were a whole foot shorter than today. If there was an Adam he would have been probably 4 or 5 foot tall. Nowhere in the Bible does it say Adam was 9 foot.

    Correct. But...before the flood, people lived much longer lives. Some believe that people were naturally larger during those days and that after the flood, people weren’t as large. Who knows?

    MP: But he was resurrected after 2 days and nights. Died on Friday up by Sunday morning.

    Not necessarily. Many people believe he died on a Jewish Sabbath that took place on Thursday, not Friday.

    MP: If you read Mark there is no resurrection. The resurrection only appears after Mk 16:8 which all Bibles acknowledge is not found in the oldest texts and is an addition. Thers (sic) right there’s no resurrection in Mark!

    We don’t have the originals of any of these texts. Just because the oldest texts don’t have the resurrection story does not prove that what comes after Mark 16:8 is an interpolation, or addition. Mark 16:8 reads: “ And they went out quickly, and fled from the sepulcher; for they trembled and were amazed: neither said they any thing to any man; for they were afraid. ”

    Why do you think they fled from the sepulcher? And why do you suppose they “trembled” and were “amazed” and “went out quickly”? Did they just look at the body and flee? Doesn’t make sense. It’s entirely possible that the rest of that chapter was removed from the older texts by scribes who didn’t believe in Jesus’ physical resurrection. To abruptly end the 16th chapter at verse 8 simply doesn’t make sense. There’s no continuity. And why would Mark, of all the witnesses of the resurrection, not believe it?

    MP: That the bodily resurrection of Jesus is accepted as valid Christianity by members of other religions isn’t true. Muslims believe somebody got switched and not the real Jesus died on the cross. Even Mark doesn’t believe in the resurrection, check 16:8+.

    Oh, it’s true. Band didn’t say that all religions accepted the bodily resurrection of Jesus as valid Christianity; he just made a general statement. And just because Muslims don’t believe in the death and resurrection of Jesus, they can, and do, accept that Christians believe it. And your point about Mark 16:8+ you say is an interpolation, I want to hear your views about why you don’t think Mark, of all those who witnessed the resurrection of Jesus would later say he didn’t believe it?

    .

  • barry
    barry

    mp, If I said on friday I would be traveling to your place and I would be returning on sunday to my place I could say I was spending three days with you. We would both agree I would spend the whole of saturday with you but what about the other two days? If I spent 1 hour on friday with you and two hours on saturday with you haven't I still been with you for three days?

    Mp , Rea 1 corinthians 15 verse 50 -55 it says there we 'will be changed in a flash , in the twinkling of an eye'

  • mP
    mP

    @barry

    "Then some of the scribes and Pharisees answered, saying, 'Master, we desire to see a sign from You.' And He answered and said to them, 'A wicked and adulterous generation seeks after a sign, but no sign shall be given to it except the sign of Jonah the prophet. For just as Jonah was in the belly of the whale three days and three nights, in like manner the Son of man shall be in the heart of the earth three days and three nights.'" (Matthew 21:38-40, Holy Bible in Its Original Order - A Faithful Version (HBFV))

    Im sorry no matter how you count it jesus was not dead 3 days and 3 nights. At most he was dead 2 nights.

  • mP
    mP

    MP: You do realise that people 200 years ago were a whole foot shorter than today. If there was an Adam he would have been probably 4 or 5 foot tall. Nowhere in the Bible does it say Adam was 9 foot.

    COLD

    Correct. But...before the flood, people lived much longer lives. Some believe that people were naturally larger during those days and that after the flood, people weren’t as large. Who knows?

    MP:

    If everybody back then was 9 foot with some 10 foot giants archeologists should have found entire communities of them. All skeletons from the past are of smaller people. Just last century everybody was nearly a foot shorter. Just look at your parents and their parents, they were much smaller.

    People are just making stuff up there is no archeological or even text in the bible that says anything remotely to match this belief. Check waht a dictionary gives for belief, its accepting something as true with any facts.

  • mP
    mP

    MP: But he was resurrected after 2 days and nights. Died on Friday up by Sunday morning.

    Cold:

    Not necessarily. Many people believe he died on a Jewish Sabbath that took place on Thursday, not Friday.

    mP:

    People can believe what they wish the fact is the jewish sabbath has never been celebrated on our Thursday.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sabbath

    Jewish Shabbat ( Shabbath , Shabbes , Shobos , etc.) is a weekly day of rest, observed from sundown on Friday until the appearance of three stars in the sky on Saturday night;

    This is basic stuff i dont know why people lie and say such rediculous things. I dont understand why people would stick to stupid lies, when the text clearly says he died on friday and was gone by sunday. Its just rediculous.

    I dont mean to be rude, but I would suggest that you do some basic research before making such nonsense up.

  • DATA-DOG
    DATA-DOG

    I don't get the problem with a bodily resurrection. He had a body, the apostles felt it, especially Thomas. The JW's hen-peck any imperfection in another faith they don't like, all to make themselves look better. I am not even going to look up anything in the CD-library about it because I know it will be a circuitous mess.

    So Jesus had a body, big deal. He was raised up and obscured by clouds. Where did his body go? Who knows? Who cares? If he created all life then making a body for himself to visit Earth is no biggie.. You would think dubbies would accept that more than most.

  • mP
    mP

    MP: If you read Mark there is no resurrection. The resurrection only appears after Mk 16:8 which all Bibles acknowledge is not found in the oldest texts and is an addition. Thers (sic) right there’s no resurrection in Mark!

    COLD

    We don’t have the originals of any of these texts. Just because the oldest texts don’t have the resurrection story does not prove that what comes after Mark 16:8 is an interpolation, or addition. Mark 16:8 reads: “ And they went out quickly, and fled from the sepulcher; for they trembled and were amazed: neither said they any thing to any man; for they were afraid. ”

    Why do you think they fled from the sepulcher? And why do you suppose they “trembled” and were “amazed” and “went out quickly”? Did they just look at the body and flee? Doesn’t make sense. It’s entirely possible that the rest of that chapter was removed from the older texts by scribes who didn’t believe in Jesus’ physical resurrection. To abruptly end the 16th chapter at verse 8 simply doesn’t make sense. There’s no continuity.

    MP:

    im sorry the abrupt end is a poor finish, i wont argue with that. We cant however just make stuff up, we can only accept what mark gave us and acknowledge anything after 16:8 is not his message.

    How does one explain that Mark writes an entire story, people copy the mundane, but the most important and remarkable portion is lost ? How can such a fantastic story get lost ?

    COLD

    And why would Mark, of all the witnesses of the resurrection, not believe it?

    mP:

    The simple answer is when Mark wrote his gospel, the element of resurrection had not been invented. Thats why we dont have any copies with it and the copies with t he part that we do have is an adddition from a much later stage when the idea had evolved.

    A lot has been fabricated in xianity, the RCC for example eventually promoted Mary into a goddess.

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit