The Meaning of Bodily Resurrection

[JMJ_coder]

Ben, you believe God governs by laws. Both laws of nature and laws of conduct. God requests we do not break them and God reciprocates in kind.The concept of resurrection breaks the laws of nature therefore did not happen?

That is what Ben maintains, though you will find Jews who do not agree with him (like the Pharisees of the first century in opposition to the Sadducees who would agree with Ben).

Christians; you believe God can do anything God wishes to do. Man’s understanding of God is limited and although you don’t fully comprehend His ways you rely on faith? The resurrection happened.

More-or-less. God is omnipotent to be sure, but He cannot deny His nature. Therefore He cannot hate, or deceive, etc. To further explore why and how this doesn’t negate omnipotence, peruse the Philosophy sub-forum.

We cannot fully understand God – He is incomprehensible. And we do walk by faith and not by sight. But, we also have witnesses to the Resurrection. All of the Apostles and hundreds of disciples saw the resurrected Lord. And all but one Apostle (John died of old age, but the Romans did attempt to kill him, unsuccessfully) and many of the disciples died rather than deny that witness.

Questions; When Moses requested to see God’s face, Moses was denied for it would kill him. Ben did this happen? Christians, if God can do anything why would Jesus not let Moses see God’s face and save him from death, or better yet if Jesus is in the resurrection business why not let Moses see God’s face, let Moses die and then bring him back to life?

Viewing God’s face is to see His divine essence – something mortal man cannot do and live. When we are in heaven, we will be elevated in grace to behold God’s divine countenance in what the Church calls the Beatific Vision. But, why would God rush things (in His soteriological plans) – He doesn’t bend to the human desire to have it all and have it now.

 

[Ben_Masada]

Amen, brother! I don’t disagree – I was just pointing out that the Jewish people (and NOT ALL, there are always many who remain faithful to God no matter what – e.g., Elijah, Elisha, Isaiah, the three children in Daniel, the mother and her seven sons in Maccabees, etc.) are not innocent in the blood of the prophets.

They are all innocent of this antisemitic accusation. If Ahab or Jezabel killed a few prophets, it doesn’t mean the people killed the prophets. To use such a reasoning, I would be justified to say that the American people killed several of their Presidents.

Nor do I place the Catholic Church on a pedestal as doing much better. We have also been lovingly chastised by God for failing in our Christian duty of love.

You can say that again.

I have studied the Jewish faith quite a bit – well, up to the time of the Council of Jamnia in the first century. This is because our faith is the fulfillment of yours. Salvation comes from the Jews!

Your faith does not come from Judaism but Hellenism. Salvation does come from the Jews but not of a Jew in particular.

As for modern Judaism – I have seen Fiddler on the Roof.

**That’s funny. **

Surprised that you consider it a metaphor – not really. Surprised that you honestly think I would buy into your weak exegesis – a little bit.

At least, admit, I make you think.

Jesus is Emmanuel (Matthew 1:23). He is ‘God among us’ because He – God (John 1:1) – has become flesh and dwelt among us (John 1:14).

And how can you say that such a faith comes from Judaism? Am I not vindicated to claim that your faith comes from Hellenism?

Actually Christianity is very Jewish. It is the fulfillment of Judaism. And yes, Jesus and all the Apostles (including Paul) were very devout and religious Jews.

**How can religious Jews teach their fellow Jews to abandon Moses, to stop circumcizing their children and to renounce the Jewish customs? (Acts 21:21) **

Yes he is different from you. He doesn’t believe that his Jewish faith is a bunch of made up metaphors. And he does know what is in the New Testament – he leads the area Jewish-Christian dialogue (along with a Catholic Priest).

Poor fella!

Nope, I mean yours. I know fully what the New Testament (and the Old, by the way) says. I am quite aware of what the Church teaches (and why). Of course, there is a big difference – I consider it real and not mere metaphor (though there are a few places where metaphors are used).

Wow! As I can see, you are not totally beyond repair.

 

[Lapell]

The Meaning of Bodily Resurrection

Bodily resurrection is the return to life of someone who has died. It’s impossible for being against two kinds of laws: The first is natural laws. The second is Biblical laws.

God has established the natural laws, which have become the tools by which He governs the Universe. Any going against such laws, even by God Himself, would mean only weakness, for His having been unable to maintain order in the Universe.

Regarding Biblical laws, resurrection would only cause contradictions where Divine inspiration is claimed. Since God is not a God of confusion, resurrection must go and the Scriptures must be upheld.

The Scriptures are only too clear about dying and the impossibility to return. Some of the Biblical passages are: Job 7:9,10; 10:21; 14:12; II Samuel 12:23; Psalm 88:6; 146:4; Proverbs 2:19; Ezekiel 26:20. I am leaving Ecclesiastes out for being almost the whole book about the same issue: Against afterlife.

But then, what happened to Jesus that millions today believe he resurrected? He didn’t. What happened to him was resuscitation. Resurrection was made up much later by Paul, about 30 years after Jesus had been gone. If we read what he said to Timothy in his second Epistle 2:8, he connected the resurrection of Jesus to his own gospel. It means that there was another gospel at the time, which would not mention such a claim. It could only be the gospel of Jesus’ disciples, who at the first indication of resurrection by the women, had considered their report as an ildle tale and nonsense. (Luke 24:11)

Then, we have Luke in Acts 1:1-3, saying that when Jesus started appearing to his disciples, with many convincing evidences that he was alive in flesh and bone, Luke said, “after his passion or suffering,” not after death or resurrection. Therefore, it does not mean at all that Jesus had died and resurrected. True that Luke contradicts himself later, but that’s normal of the NT.

Ben

And what about the resurrection at the latter day? And what about the Pharisees who believed in an afterlife?
I don’t think you are in tune with mainstream Judaism, sir. You already said you are not a scholar, that you were in many different branches of Judaism one after another and that you presently are “non-denominational”…
How come you never were able to stick very long with any one denomination? And how how come you never quote any important rabbi in the History of the Jewish people past the destruction of the Temple in 70 A.D. (or C.E.)?

 

[Lapell]

The Scriptures are only too clear about dying and the impossibility to return. Some of the Biblical passages are: Job 7:9,10; 10:21; 14:12; II Samuel 12:23; Psalm 88:6; 146:4; Proverbs 2:19; Ezekiel 26:20. I am leaving Ecclesiastes out for being almost the whole book about the same issue: Against afterlife.

You must not have read the passage where Elijah brings back to life the son of the widow of Sarepta (I think the English Bibles spell this differently, this is the spelling found in my French Bible) (1 Kings) and the coming back to life of a dead body thrown into Elisha’s tomb that touched Elisha’s bones, shortly after Elisha’s death (2 Kings).
Why would it be included in the Bible, mister Ben?

 

[Lapell]

Ben, you don’t need to kill a prophet for other people to say you didn’t obey or listen! Where did you get the notion that to disobey God’s word through a prophet you would necessarily have to murder the prophet?

 

[Lapell]

Ben, you don’t need to kill a prophet for other people to say you didn’t obey or listen! Where did you get the notion that to disobey God’s word through a prophet you would necessarily have to murder the prophet?

It’s not the 1st time you say this.

 

[Lapell]

**That you don’t think that Paul misrepresented Jesus, I don;'t blame you. But when you say that Mark is the most authentic of the gospels, what do you mean, that the other gospels were not authentic? That’s a change. **

I think she meant that the way Mark writes he uses very concrete ways to mean what happens. You could almost see it with your eyes.

 

[Lapell]

JMJ_coder;5274998:

How can religious Jews teach their fellow Jews to abandon Moses, to stop circumcizing their children and to renounce the Jewish customs? (Acts 21:21)

Where did you see Paul do just that, Ben? As for circumcision, you are dead foul ball, that was for the Gentiles not needing to do that to become full Christians, and as for the Jewish customs, the Gentiles were not forced to adopt all them to become full Christians. Those who accused Paul jumped at conclusions because of the Gentiles not having these obligations.

 

[Lapell]

This thing you have come with over and over, too. Which does not necessarily means you are right! Certainly not in this case, Ben!

 

[Lapell]

It says whenever your name appear, after “Location” : “I live in Israel” and I am wondering, do you actually live in Eretz Yisroel, or is it for you a symbolic way of speaking without actually physically over there?

 

[Lapell]

Mark was first. The other Gospels which were written later were less and less authentic. Matthew is known for trying to fit Jewish Old Testament scripture into the Jesus’ birth and life. Luke adds a lot of new details many to appease the Romans, and John is in it’s own category.

I don’t know if Ezekiel died and went to heaven, but he certainly was transported by the chariot and he certainly saw God. I read a book that said Jesus was very much influenced by the vision of Ezekiel and the chariot.

It was not Ezechiel, Christine, but Elijah (in 2 Kings).
As for Luke adding details to “appease” the Romans, where did you take it? I think it’s rather to inform those not really acquainted with the Jewish customs. That’s all.

 

[JMJ_coder]

They are all innocent of this antisemitic accusation. If Ahab or Jezabel killed a few prophets, it doesn’t mean the people killed the prophets. To use such a reasoning, I would be justified to say that the American people killed several of their Presidents.

And so the circle comes round. We’ve been at this spot a couple pages ago. Lets recap:

Would a Jewish answer help you why? We obey God’s Law because it is a Jewish thing to do so. No need of afterlife, or resurrection or Heavens.

Not historically it isn’t. The entire history of Israel (as recorded in the Old Testament) is one of idolatry, stubbornness (being stiff-necked), sinfulness, being called back by God through a prophet (if the Jews didn’t kill them), and then sliding back into idolatry, stubbornness, sinfulness, etc.

The Jewish People never killed a single Prophet. If Ahab or Jezabell killed some of our Porphets, it doesn’t mean the Jewish People killed the Prophets. As I can see, you are too ready with your false accusations agranst the Jews as a People. Then, you guys get upset when I charge you with Antisemitism.

But they [the Jewish people] mocked the messengers of God, and despised his words, and misused the prophets, until the wrath of the Lord arose against his people, and there was no remedy. (2 Chronicles 36:16)​

I was going to quote from the New Testament, but I figured that would probably be in the 80% you claim not to believe in. Hopefully this isn’t part of the Old Testament you don’t believe in or consider metaphorical.
​

There is always remedy in God for Israel. He knows the world would not survive without Israel. No wonder of the other nations God will eventually make an end of them. But of Israel, He will only chastise as we deserve. (Jer. 46:28)

But it does seem that historically you’ve had to take massive doses of God’s medicine.

Thanks God. The Father usually punishes the son he loves.

Amen, brother! I don’t disagree – I was just pointing out that the Jewish people (and NOT ALL, there are always many who remain faithful to God no matter what – e.g., Elijah, Elisha, Isaiah, the three children in Daniel, the mother and her seven sons in Maccabees, etc.) are not innocent in the blood of the prophets.

They are all innocent of this antisemitic accusation. If Ahab or Jezabel killed a few prophets, it doesn’t mean the people killed the prophets. To use such a reasoning, I would be justified to say that the American people killed several of their Presidents.

Do you have anything new to add?

 

[JMJ_coder]

Your faith does not come from Judaism but Hellenism. Salvation does come from the Jews but not of a Jew in particular.

And how can you say that such a faith comes from Judaism? Am I not vindicated to claim that your faith comes from Hellenism?

So you claim. I know different. And no, you haven’t been vindicated in the least. Have you ever been to the Jews for Jesus site – a decent reference. And also Y’shua: The Jewish Way to Say Jesus – a fair and at times entertaining survey of the Old Testament prophecies. My personal favorite is a three part series from EWTN called Jewish Roots of Catholicism.

The Catholic Faith is very much Jewish in origin (a charge anti-Catholics who are also anti-Semites sometimes make against the Church). The Old Testament is entirely Jewish. The Mass has two essential parts – Liturgy of the Word and the Liturgy of the Eucharist. The Liturgy of the Word is very similar to a Jewish synagogue service. The Liturgy of the Eucharist is similar to a seder meal (in fact the Sacrament of the Eucharist has its type and basis in the Passover Meal). One of my favorites is that by studying Jewish marriage ritual from the before the first century, a lot of New Testament passages, parables, etc. start to make real sense.

At least, admit, I make you think.

I did have to look up the verses mentioned to see ‘what is this guy talking about ’

How can religious Jews teach their fellow Jews to abandon Moses, to stop circumcizing their children and to renounce the Jewish customs? (Acts 21:21)

Jesus, nor Saint Paul required that Jews give up such things. What was being decided was whether or not Gentile converts (not Jews) to the faith would be required to be circumcised or have to follow the Jewish dietary laws, etc.

Poor fella!

Maybe he just has a different perspective than you do.

 

[Lapell]

** Regarding the son of the widow, what Elijah did was resuscitation and not resurrection. She thought he had died, but he hadn’t. It had been just a sun stroke.**

I guess you already witnessed somebody experiencing a sun stroke?
You surely don’t see that ressuscitation can point out to at least the final resurrection at the end of times… that certain things in the TaNaKH point out to bigger things in the NT! You don’t believe in development of doctrine, it seems…

 

[robsully]

Hello again folks. I didn’t plan on posting again so soon, but here I am.

Thank you Ben for starting a new thread, but my query is more to find an understanding in God and His dealing with mankind’s life, death and resurrection than Moses’s request to see God’s face.
Thank you Ben for your answer. but where did you find it.
JMJ coder, thank you for responding but you left me feeling that the questions are still pending.
The only reason God denied Moses’s request is that it would cause his death. Not a matter of rushing things.
Was Jesus not capable of protecting Moses from death?
If death was to take Moses why not resurrect him? He resurrected Lazarus why not Moses?
New question- Why not appear to Moses as Jesus in the flesh as He did in the N.T. ?
Thank you for taking time to answer my earlier post

 

[Ben_Masada]

Hello again folks. I didn’t plan on posting again so soon, but here I am.

Thank you Ben for starting a new thread, but my query is more to find an understanding in God and His dealing with mankind’s life, death and resurrection than Moses’s request to see God’s face.
Thank you Ben for your answer. but where did you find it.
JMJ coder, thank you for responding but you left me feeling that the questions are still pending.
The only reason God denied Moses’s request is that it would cause his death. Not a matter of rushing things.
Was Jesus not capable of protecting Moses from death?
If death was to take Moses why not resurrect him? He resurrected Lazarus why not Moses?
New question- Why not appear to Moses as Jesus in the flesh as He did in the N.T. ?
Thank you for taking time to answer my earlier post

Where did I find my answer! What do you mean? From my understanding of Jewish thought. If the Jews wrote the Bible, I think we have the best method to interpret it. If you expected me to quote someone else, it would be only the opinion of another man. All I had to do was to think.

 

[Ben_Masada]

I guess you already witnessed somebody experiencing a sun stroke?
You surely don’t see that ressuscitation can point out to at least the final resurrection at the end of times… that certain things in the TaNaKH point out to bigger things in the NT! You don’t believe in development of doctrine, it seems…

** I work in the Medical field. The Tanach does not point to anything in the NT. How about some examples to illustrate what you claim? They must be the result of pure assumptions.**

 

[Ben_Masada]

The Catholic Faith is very much Jewish in origin (a charge anti-Catholics who are also anti-Semites sometimes make against the Church). The Old Testament is entirely Jewish. The Mass has two essential parts – Liturgy of the Word and the Liturgy of the Eucharist. The Liturgy of the Word is very similar to a Jewish synagogue service. The Liturgy of the Eucharist is similar to a seder meal (in fact the Sacrament of the Eucharist has its type and basis in the Passover Meal). One of my favorites is that by studying Jewish marriage ritual from the before the first century, a lot of New Testament passages, parables, etc. start to make real sense.

To begin with, there is no such a thing as Old Testament. This is an antisemitic misnomer, which has given rise to Replacement Theology. Then, it does not matter how much you guys plagiarize from the Tanach. You will never legally be able to claim Jewish origin. Too Hellenistic to be Jewish.

Jesus, nor Saint Paul required that Jews give up such things. What was being decided was whether or not Gentile converts (not Jews) to the faith would be required to be circumcised or have to follow the Jewish dietary laws, etc.

The Gentile converts to the Jewish Sect of the Nazarenes would become fully Jewish with all the requirements of circumcision and dietary laws. But as Paul robbed the Nazarenes of their converts, he would persuade them that they didn’t have to become Jewish to be disciples. Then, the Apostles gave those converts up and reverted them to their condition of Gentiles if they wanted to go after Paul.

 

[Ben_Masada]

And so the circle comes round. We’ve been at this spot a couple pages ago. Lets recap:

Do you have any new question to ask? If you repeat the same comments over and over again, what do you expect if not the same reply over?

 

[Ben_Masada]

Ben Masada;5275116:

Where did you see Paul do just that, Ben? As for circumcision, you are dead foul ball, that was for the Gentiles not needing to do that to become full Christians, and as for the Jewish customs, the Gentiles were not forced to adopt all them to become full Christians. Those who accused Paul jumped at conclusions because of the Gentiles not having these obligations.

Did you read Acts 21:21? Perhaps you did. Did you understand it? Not sure. It says in there that Paul was teaching the Jews among the Gentiles. It means, the Jews in the Diaspora, to abandon Moses, not to circumcise their children and to renounce the Jewish customs. Perhaps you don’t believe what is written. But to understand, I am sure you do.