Re: Resurrection - Lazarus's and Jesus'
<< I maintain that if "resurrection" is simply "raising the dead biological body" to "biological life," which was how the Sadducees understood resurrection, which Jesus said they were in ERROR, and which is also how all traditional churches and their theologians understood resurrection to be, then the resurrection of the Lazarus and others, who eventually died, must exemplify such type of resurrection and relevant to understanding Biblical resurrection. >>
First, the Sadducees were wrong because they denied resurrection, not because they understood the term to denote a human being returning to life in a human, material body. They were of course also wrong to caricature resurrection as merely a return to life under the same conditions as our mortal lives.
Second, if they were wrong to think that being "raised from the dead" meant to come back to life physically, then why would the NT use this language to describe coming back to life physically?
<< If on the other hand, as you insist, resurrection of the "dead biological body" to life is the "raising of that same biological body having 'immortality' as you claim Jesus's body to be - biological and immortal - then we get into contradiction because what is biological is, by its very nature, mortal as science understood it to be. >>
"Science" says that a man who has been dead for four days cannot be brought back to life. Jesus proved that what human beings cannot do, God can.
<< However, his eating, drinking, being touched physically, walking down the road, etc. are in no way incontrovertible proofs that such physical body was also biological considering that we are talking about God whose dwelling is heaven and not ordinary human beings. >>
This is a non sequitur. What is eating and drinking, if it is not taking physical food into a physical body?
Again, you are running to another book and not dealing with the evidence within the Gospel of John. To make matters worse, you are ignoring what Luke says. The wording in Luke 24:16 is quite specific: "their eyes were kept from recognizing him." What kept them from recognizing Jesus right away was not something different about his body, but something that kept their eyes from recognizing him. Thus, at the end of their encounter with Jesus, "their eyes were opened, and they recognized him" (Luke 24:31). This proves that what prevented the disciples from recognizing Jesus was something in them, not something in Jesus. You can try to make this sound ridiculous by calling it "hypnosis," or you can simply accept what the text says and understand in context that God had supernaturally kept them from recognizing him until the right moment.
<< May I know what you think was the reason that "God had supernaturally kept them from recognizing him until the right moment?" >>
The text does not say explicitly. It doesn't matter. The text does say that God did this.
<< Is it not easier to accept that the resurrected body of Jesus was a supernatural body capable of assuming any feature at the will of the resurrected Christ? >>
Apparently, it is easier for you to accept this, but the text does not say this.
You are begging the question (assuming what you should be trying to prove). "If biological, then mortal" is an assumption, not a biblical teaching. A better reasoning would be, "If Jesus' biological body could be risen with immortality, then being biological and immortal is not impossible after all."
<< Any claim by any of us that is contrary to common sense or scientific reality is driving reasonable people from the Christian Faith. If we insist that Jesus's resurrected body was natural and biological, then it must eventually die. >>
Again, you are confusing what is possible in nature apart from divine intervention, and what is possible if God does something miraculous. Skeptics will tell you that Lazarus's resurrection was scientifically impossible. They are wrong, because they leave the supernatural out of consideration. Your objection is really just an updated version of the objection that pagans issued against the Christian doctrine of the resurrection. You find this discussed repeatedly in the writings of the second and third century church fathers.
In Christ's service,
I'm so backlogged I didn't see this until after the other replies.
I'll tell you what. Considering I don't have a lot of time to read this (and I know enough to know that there are probably sites that say just the opposite), I'll read it only under one condition. That is if you read David Dolan's good book "Holy War for the Holy Land". Does your article agree or disagree with his suppositions? If it agrees, it may be worth reading.
--- In firstname.lastname@example.org, "Isa" <isalcordo@...> wrote:
> Hi, Jeff:
> This is an addendum to my latest post to you. Check this webpage: http://sites.google.com/site/911newworldorderfiles/quotesonzionism
> It got lost in that post.
> In Service to the Lay People of God