Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
No, not semantics. Again, 1 Corinthians 15:23 states that Jesus Christ was the first person to be resurrected. That means that no one was resurrected prior to Jesus Christ. Jesus had to be the first person resurrected in order for resurrection to be possible for anyone else. Resurrection refers to the body being raised in immortality and incorruption. Not to being restored in a mortal body which will die again. No matter how long a person has been dead, four days in the case of Lazarus, if his soul rejoins his mortal body it is not a resurrection. It is a resuscitation.
As for Jesus, He WAS resurrected. After He was resurrected, His resurrection body was seen and touched. But no one prior to Christ was resurrected. And no one will be resurrected until the pre-tribulational rapture of the Church. At this point in human history Jesus Christ is the only one who has so far been resurrected. When a person is brought back to life it is a resuscitation. Not a resurrection.
I guess we will have to be at odds on this idea, too.
Some say the spirit of man will be given this new incorruptible body at the end of time, at the coming of Christ. And the giving of this new body, which has no connection whatever with the one buried, is a resurrection. Holding this view, they can believe in something future, but is it a resurrection?
It is NOT a resurrection. Something which has had no previous existence cannot be resurrected. God did not bring Adam into the world by a resurrection; it was a creation. If another body is given the spirit at the coming of Christ, that body will have to be created, not resurrected.
It is NOT a resurrection of the dead if the new body which some say is resurrected is not a resurrection of the dead, for that body not having a previous existence, could not be viewed as dead.
If some view the resurrection as the spirit coming into a fuller life, it is still not a resurrection of the dead, for the spirit has not been dead. So the man who denies the resurrection of the body, which is the only part of man that dies, simply does not believe in the resurrection of the dead. Only that which dies can be resurrected. The spirit of man does not die. Therefore, the spirit cannot be resurrected.
And if we are given a new body which has no connection whatever with this earthy body, we could not speak of it as a resurrected body, since it has never died.
And if casual readers think this debate is strange, take a look at the 2009 thread entitled Resurrection or Resuscitation, also about Lazarus. One person went so far afield as to say Jesus who claimed his father was Abba would then be Bar-Abbas, and Pilate worked a deal with Jesus to release Bar-Abbas (Jesus) who was then seen alive and well because He never died!!!
But another poster said this in response to the question of whether Lazarus was resurrected or resuscitated, and I like it a lot:
Quote:
Resurrectedas a miracle given by God to Jesus to prove he was a true prophet;
such a thing had been done by God as an answer of the prayer of Prophet Elia or Elijah a long time before the coming of Jesus: a widow had her only son died, and Prophet Elia or Elijah prayed God to revive her boy; God revived the boy as an answer of the prayer or Eia.
eannasir post #8
Quote:
Theologians Moloney and Harrington view the raising of Lazarus as a "pivotal miracle" which starts the chain of events that leads to the Crucifixion of Jesus. They consider it as a "resurrection that will lead to death",in that the raising of Lazarus will lead to the death of Jesus, the Son of God, in Jerusalem which will reveal the Glory of God.
But the most interesting intra-biblical problem in looking at Paul's verses is trying to reconcile those with the report of Matthew in chapter 27:52-53 which states--
"And the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints which slept rose, And came out of the graves after his resurrection, and went into the holy city, and appeared unto many."
Quote:
It is uncertain whether these resurrected saints died again or were caught up to God. If they were resurrected at Christ's death, then they would have had to die again, just as Lazarus or Jairus' daughter or the widow's son at Nain or anyone else whom Jesus had raised from the dead during His ministry. This was because Jesus was "the firstfruits of them that slept" (1Co 15:20, see also Ac 26:23). Jesus was not the first person physically raised from the dead, but He was the first person begotten from the dead never to die again.
The real difference between Jesus' resurrection and that of any other person ever resurrected, whether they died again or not, is that Jesus was the only one who didn't need someone else's power to bring life back to Him.
Resurrection can apply to spirit and soul joined with an immortal body or joined back with a mortal body. Jesus said, "I am the resurrection." even before He was resurrected bodily. He didn't say, I will be the resurrection on the last day but of coarse He will be. The point is, that He is even now the resurrection and the life because it is His life that has resurrected us. Him being the resurrection was in response to Martha's statement that Lazarus would rise in the last day resurrection. Jesus therefor proved He is the resurrection by resurrecting Lazarus.
Jesus did not say, I am the resuscitation to demonstrate that He is the resurrection. That would be ludicrous. He resurrected Lazarus, however into his mortal body which is a resurrection. It is just not the one referred to as the last day resurrection. Those who have already gone on before are already in immortal bodies. They are the spirits of just men made perfect that Hebrews writes about.
1COR 15:44 "It [the body] is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body. There is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body." They are already resurrected into Paradise with a spiritual body and when Christ returns, they together with those who are alive at the time will be resurrected/caught up to the Throne Room of God and then be given the mission to minister to a New Creation much like the Angels in spirit form [some times seen but mostly not] minister to this earth.
Moreover because Christ is the resurrection we are already resurrected in spirit and soul from being dead to God and though we die in body yet shall we live and never die as Jesus said. The first resurrection is the resurrection in Christ now because our resurrection is now and continues forever.
Therefor we can refer to resurrection both now in Christ or on the last day depending on the context of ones meaning and as Scriptures demonstrate.
How do you know Lazarus/Eleazer isn't still alive?....
Lazarus was not resurrected. He was resuscitated in his mortal body and died again at a later time. Resurrection refers to the body being raised in a state of immortality and incorruptibility. Jesus was the first fruits of those who are asleep (1 Corinthians 15:20-23).
But now Christ has been raised from the dead, the first fruits of those who are asleep. For since by a man came death, by a man also came the resurrection of the dead. For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ all will be made alive. But each in his own order; Christ the first fruits, after that those who are Christ's at His coming,
Jesus had to be the first to be resurrected in order for anyone else to be raised in a body like His.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike555
No one was bodily resurrected before Jesus. He was the first to have been bodily resurrected never to die again. Lazarus was not resurrected in a body of immortality. He was resuscitated in his mortal body and died again.
Jesus is the first fruits in the order of the resurrection. And then AFTER Him those who are Christ's at His coming as per 1 Corinthians 15:23.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike555
No one was bodily resurrected prior to the resurrection of Jesus Christ. People were restored to physical life (that means their souls were returned to their bodies) prior to the resurrection of Jesus, only to die again at a later time. Jesus Christ was the first to be resurrected in a body of immortality which was never again subject to physical death.
Again, as 1 Corinthians 15:23 states, Jesus was the first fruits of those who are His at His coming. AFTER Jesus' resurrection comes the resurrection of those at His coming.
The word 'AFTER' precludes anyone being resurrected before Jesus was resurrected.
People were raised from the dead prior to the resurrection of Jesus, but their being raised was not a resurrection, but a resuscitation into their mortal bodies.
And, you know, the thing is, I said in the other post that Lazarus was resuscitated INTO HIS MORTAL BODY. That means that he was not walking around as a spirit. It means just what it says. Lazarus' body was resuscitated and died again at a later time. So how is it that you think I implied that he was walking around as a spirit?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike555
No, not semantics. Again, 1 Corinthians 15:23 states that Jesus Christ was the first person to be resurrected. That means that no one was resurrected prior to Jesus Christ. Jesus had to be the first person resurrected in order for resurrection to be possible for anyone else. Resurrection refers to the body being raised in immortality and incorruption. Not to being restored in a mortal body which will die again. No matter how long a person has been dead, four days in the case of Lazarus, if his soul rejoins his mortal body it is not a resurrection. It is a resuscitation.
As for Jesus, He WAS resurrected. After He was resurrected, His resurrection body was seen and touched. But no one prior to Christ was resurrected. And no one will be resurrected until the pre-tribulational rapture of the Church. At this point in human history Jesus Christ is the only one who has so far been resurrected. When a person is brought back to life it is a resuscitation. Not a resurrection.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wardendresden
I guess we will have to be at odds on this idea, too.
Some say the spirit of man will be given this new incorruptible body at the end of time, at the coming of Christ. And the giving of this new body, which has no connection whatever with the one buried, is a resurrection. Holding this view, they can believe in something future, but is it a resurrection?
It is NOT a resurrection. Something which has had no previous existence cannot be resurrected. God did not bring Adam into the world by a resurrection; it was a creation. If another body is given the spirit at the coming of Christ, that body will have to be created, not resurrected.
It is NOT a resurrection of the dead if the new body which some say is resurrected is not a resurrection of the dead, for that body not having a previous existence, could not be viewed as dead.
If some view the resurrection as the spirit coming into a fuller life, it is still not a resurrection of the dead, for the spirit has not been dead. So the man who denies the resurrection of the body, which is the only part of man that dies, simply does not believe in the resurrection of the dead. Only that which dies can be resurrected. The spirit of man does not die. Therefore, the spirit cannot be resurrected.
And if we are given a new body which has no connection whatever with this earthy body, we could not speak of it as a resurrected body, since it has never died.
And if casual readers think this debate is strange, take a look at the 2009 thread entitled Resurrection or Resuscitation, also about Lazarus. One person went so far afield as to say Jesus who claimed his father was Abba would then be Bar-Abbas, and Pilate worked a deal with Jesus to release Bar-Abbas (Jesus) who was then seen alive and well because He never died!!!
But another poster said this in response to the question of whether Lazarus was resurrected or resuscitated, and I like it a lot:
But the most interesting intra-biblical problem in looking at Paul's verses is trying to reconcile those with the report of Matthew in chapter 27:52-53 which states--
"And the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints which slept rose, And came out of the graves after his resurrection, and went into the holy city, and appeared unto many."
The real difference between Jesus' resurrection and that of any other person ever resurrected, whether they died again or not, is that Jesus was the only one who didn't need someone else's power to bring life back to Him.
Nowhere in any of my posts addressing the subject of resurrection did I say the resurrection body has no connection with the body that died and was buried.
The body that died is resurrected, but not as a body of mortality and corruptibility. It is resurrected as a body of immortality and incorruptibility. 1 Corinthians 15: 42-43 explains what the resurrection of the body is. Starting with verse 35;
1 Corinthians 15:35 But someone will say, ''How are the dead raised? And with what kind of body do they come?'' 36] You fool! That which you sow does not come to life unless it dies; 37] and that which you sow, you do not sow the body which is to be, but a bare grain, perhaps of wheat or of something else. 38] But God gives it a body just as He wished, and to each of the seeds a body of its own. 39] All flesh is not the same flesh, but there is one flesh of men, and another flesh of beasts, and another flesh of birds, and another of fish. 40] There are also heavenly bodies and earthly bodies, but the glory of the heavenly is one, and the glory of the earthly is another. 41] There is one glory of the sun, and another glory of the moon, and another glory of the stars; for star differs from star in glory. 42]So also is the resurrection of the dead. It is sown a perishable body, it is raised an imperishable body;43]it is sown in dishonor, it is raised a spiritual body. If there is a natural body, there is also a spiritual body.
The Bible uses the term 'resurrection' with regard to the body which died being raised as in incorruptible body. It does not use the term 'resurrection' with regard to a body which has died being restored in its corruptible state. Those of you on this thread who are applying the term 'resurrection' to a body which has been restored to life but which will die again are using the term in a way in which the Bible does not.
Jesus Christ had to be the first member of the human race to be resurrected in an incorruptible and immortal body in order for anyone else to be resurrected in an incorruptible and immortal body.
1 Corinthians 15 then goes on to speak of both the resurrection of those who have died, and the changing of the bodies of those who have not died, but are physically alive at the rapture of the Church.
1 Cor. 15:51 Behold, I tell you a mystery; we will not all sleep (reference to physical death), but we will all be changed (reference to the corruptible body being changed into an incorruptible body), 52] in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet; for the trumpet will sound, and the dead will be raised imperishable, and we will be changed. 53] For this perishable must put on the imperishable, and this mortal must put on immortality, 54] But when this perishable will have put on the imperishable, and this mortal will have put on immortality, then will come about the saying that is written, ''Death is swallowed up in victory. 55] 'O Death, where is your victory? O Death, where is your sting?''
The Bible uses the term 'resurrection' with regard to the body which is to be. A body which will be incorruptible and immortal. It does not use the term 'resurrection' with regard to the mortal body being restored to life as a mortal body which will die again. Resurrection defeats physical death forever.
Now in keeping with the topic of this thread, 'What you believes matters', misusing the term 'resurrection' is certainly not a salvific issue, but in the interest of truth, one would think that one would wish to understand the difference between a body being restored to life but which will die again, and a body which will be raised never to die again.
Last edited by Michael Way; 10-24-2013 at 08:46 AM..
I guess we will have to be at odds on this idea, too.
Some say the spirit of man will be given this new incorruptible body at the end of time, at the coming of Christ. And the giving of this new body, which has no connection whatever with the one buried, is a resurrection. Holding this view, they can believe in something future, but is it a resurrection?
It is NOT a resurrection. Something which has had no previous existence cannot be resurrected. God did not bring Adam into the world by a resurrection; it was a creation. If another body is given the spirit at the coming of Christ, that body will have to be created, not resurrected.
It is NOT a resurrection of the dead if the new body which some say is resurrected is not a resurrection of the dead, for that body not having a previous existence, could not be viewed as dead.
If some view the resurrection as the spirit coming into a fuller life, it is still not a resurrection of the dead, for the spirit has not been dead. So the man who denies the resurrection of the body, which is the only part of man that dies, simply does not believe in the resurrection of the dead. Only that which dies can be resurrected. The spirit of man does not die. Therefore, the spirit cannot be resurrected.
And if we are given a new body which has no connection whatever with this earthy body, we could not speak of it as a resurrected body, since it has never died.
And if casual readers think this debate is strange, take a look at the 2009 thread entitled Resurrection or Resuscitation, also about Lazarus. One person went so far afield as to say Jesus who claimed his father was Abba would then be Bar-Abbas, and Pilate worked a deal with Jesus to release Bar-Abbas (Jesus) who was then seen alive and well because He never died!!!
But another poster said this in response to the question of whether Lazarus was resurrected or resuscitated, and I like it a lot:
But the most interesting intra-biblical problem in looking at Paul's verses is trying to reconcile those with the report of Matthew in chapter 27:52-53 which states--
"And the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints which slept rose, And came out of the graves after his resurrection, and went into the holy city, and appeared unto many."
The real difference between Jesus' resurrection and that of any other person ever resurrected, whether they died again or not, is that Jesus was the only one who didn't need someone else's power to bring life back to Him.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike555
No one was bodily resurrected prior to the resurrection of Jesus Christ. People were restored to physical life (that means their souls were returned to their bodies) prior to the resurrection of Jesus, only to die again at a later time. Jesus Christ was the first to be resurrected in a body of immortality which was never again subject to physical death.
Again, as 1 Corinthians 15:23 states, Jesus was the first fruits of those who are His at His coming. AFTER Jesus' resurrection comes the resurrection of those at His coming.
The word 'AFTER' precludes anyone being resurrected before Jesus was resurrected.
People were raised from the dead prior to the resurrection of Jesus, but their being raised was not a resurrection, but a resuscitation into their mortal bodies.
And, you know, the thing is, I said in the other post that Lazarus was resuscitated INTO HIS MORTAL BODY. That means that he was not walking around as a spirit. It means just what it says. Lazarus' body was resuscitated and died again at a later time. So how is it that you think I implied that he was walking around as a spirit?
Okay, now that I have two of the great forum minds I have a question about Lazarus. Whether it was resuscitation, temporal resurrection, spiritual resurrection, whatever Lazarus' and Jesus' events are called, my question is isn't Lazarus a type of Christ? I think this ties into Wardendresden's quote of how Lazarus being brought back to temporal life was necessary for Christ's death and resurrection.
Also, while I have the opportunity to ask, though this is a bit off topic, was Lazarus the beggar and Lazarus of Bethany two different men or the same person? Read it both ways over the years. Funny, the things we Christians find to debate!
Okay, now that I have two of the great forum minds I have a question about Lazarus. Whether it was resuscitation, temporal resurrection, spiritual resurrection, whatever Lazarus' and Jesus' events are called, my question is isn't Lazarus a type of Christ? I think this ties into Wardendresden's quote of how Lazarus being brought back to temporal life was necessary for Christ's death and resurrection.
Also, while I have the opportunity to ask, though this is a bit off topic, was Lazarus the beggar and Lazarus of Bethany two different men or the same person? Read it both ways over the years. Funny, the things we Christians find to debate!
If Lazarus had been an exact type of Jesus then he would have been dead for only three days as Jesus was, instead of four days. Lazarus' being raised from the dead was not necessary for Jesus to be resurrected. What was necessary for Jesus to be resurrected was God the Father's acceptance of what Christ accomplished on the Cross. While Lazarus' being restored to life was not a resurrection, but a resuscitation, it was nevertheless a public declaration of Jesus' claim to be the Resurrection and the Life. It showed Jesus' power over death. That was the reason for Lazarus' death and resuscitation. But resurrection refers to the raising of the body in a state of incorruptibility and immortality. It does not refer to the raising of the body in its mortal state.
Okay, now that I have two of the great forum minds I have a question about Lazarus. Whether it was resuscitation, temporal resurrection, spiritual resurrection, whatever Lazarus' and Jesus' events are called, my question is isn't Lazarus a type of Christ? I think this ties into Wardendresden's quote of how Lazarus being brought back to temporal life was necessary for Christ's death and resurrection.
Also, while I have the opportunity to ask, though this is a bit off topic, was Lazarus the beggar and Lazarus of Bethany two different men or the same person? Read it both ways over the years. Funny, the things we Christians find to debate!
for what it's worth ... Lazarus was not the only one who was brought physically back to life.
There was:
Elijah and the Widow at Zarephath (1 Kings 17) This widow's son was brought back to life.
Elisha and the Shunammite’s son restored to life (2 Kings 4)
Jesus raises a dead girl (Matthew 9:25)
Jesus raised the dead son of a widow in the funeral procession (Luke 7)
"Many came out of the tombs after Jesus’ resurrection and went into the holy city and appeared to many people " (Matthew 27:53)
Peter and the dead girl Tabitha who was brought back to life (Acts 9)
Eutychus Raised From the Dead at Troas (Acts 20)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Priscilla Martin
isn't Lazarus a type of Christ
No.
Jesus was not subject to another physical death after his resurrection
Jesus resurrected himself, while all other accounts the dead person was resurrected by someone other than themselves
Jesus' resurrected body was in a glorified \ perfect existence, while other's were still infected by sin
Quote:
Originally Posted by Priscilla Martin
was Lazarus the beggar and Lazarus of Bethany two different men or the same person?
Different men.
Lazarus of Bethany was the brother of Mary and Martha
Okay, now that I have two of the great forum minds I have a question about Lazarus. Whether it was resuscitation, temporal resurrection, spiritual resurrection, whatever Lazarus' and Jesus' events are called, my question is isn't Lazarus a type of Christ? I think this ties into Wardendresden's quote of how Lazarus being brought back to temporal life was necessary for Christ's death and resurrection.
Also, while I have the opportunity to ask, though this is a bit off topic, was Lazarus the beggar and Lazarus of Bethany two different men or the same person? Read it both ways over the years. Funny, the things we Christians find to debate!
Mike and I have conceptual differences because, imo, his view is entirely about the future. My view is about the here and now. A body that is incorruptible is a "future" view, not a "now" view. The importance of this conceptual difference is that in the one it is an emphasis on what will be, and in the other it is an emphasis on what is---and that should be VERY important about what you believe matters.
Here is a lengthy excerpt from an exposition on the resurrection of Lazarus and WHY IT HAD TO BE a resurrection to 1. identify Jesus' power, 2. to put Him at odds with the Sanhedrin who would ultimately become angry at him because they did not believe in the RESURRECTION of the dead, and 3. to demonstrate He is Lord in the here and now. I have highlighted and underlined salient points.
Quote:
Jesus obviously retained absolute control of His ministry. He had a plan, followed its self-imposed timetable and implemented its procedures as He determined-because He had absolute confidence in His death-defying sovereignty.
Second, in the nexus between Jesus and Lazarus, the Master demonstrated His power over death by arriving in Bethany four days after Lazarus was buried. (Burials occurred the day of death. According to Jewish legend, the spirit hovered over the corpse three days before departing for Sheol. To everyone in Bethany, all hope of resurrecting Lazarus had vanished by the time Jesus arrived. Lazarus had disappeared beyond recall.)
Which explains the Lord's return only after all hope of recovering Lazarus was past. Christ's power over death couldn't have been expressed as it was if He had been present even hours or a day after His friend's departure.
Third, in the nexus between Jesus and Lazarus, the Master demonstrated His power over death by correcting Martha's faulty perception of His nature. Her faith in Him as God's Son remained true and unabated, but it lacked any immediacy of meaning. At least Martha didn't say, "if you had been here . . . but it's too late now." She knew "even now God will give you what you ask." So far, so good.
When Jesus promised Lazarus' resurrection, however, she continued thinking in terms of Christ's previous teaching-God will raise His people in the end. Jesus immediately enlarged her understanding.Eternal life was REAL NOW, not a FUTURE PROMISE. Where Martha said God would give Jesus whatever He asked, Jesus countered that eternal life isn't something He acquired for being obedient to God. Eternal life is Christ's nature and essence. Therefore, since HE presently IS eternal life, not merely GIVES eternal life, belief in Him brings eternal life. The conjunction of verses 23 and 25 is very powerful. Lazarus would rise whenever Jesus pleased to raise him, because Jesus, even as He stood before Martha, IS the resurrection. The tense indicates a present fact with continuing implications.
Fourth, in the nexus between Jesus and Lazarus, the Master demonstrated His power over death by precipitating the crisis that brought His ministry to His self-chosen goal. This resurrection decided the Sanhedrin: Jesus had to die. Indeed, so immensely did the miracle impact Jerusalem and all Judea, the Sanhedrin determined that Lazarus had to die, since his resurrection had convinced many people of Christ's power. The resurrected life is always an offense to unbelievers, who sometimes viciously attack it.
Fifth, in the nexus between Jesus and Lazarus, the Master demonstrated His power over death by making the resurrection a public event. He ordered the stone removed, which frightened and offended Martha. She certainly didn't appropriate the meaning of Christ's I AM THE RESURRECTION claim, but thought in Old Covenant terms or, at best, in the future state of God's people. Which is very true to life; what is too far beyond our comprehension is filtered through previous constructs. Her reference to the body's decomposition was certainly true to physical laws. They buried bodies the same day death occurred for just that reason.
By ordering the stone removed, Jesus guaranteed it would be an actual physical body rising from the grave. It wouldn't be a "spiritual" resurrection - anymore than Christ's personal bodily resurrection was a "spiritual" experience in the hearts of His believers. For Jesus, an actual bodily resurrection; for Lazarus, the same. Only if Jesus could produce the body of Lazarus from the corpse inside the tomb would Jesus actually BE the RESURRECTION He claimed.
To be fair there are points in the above excerpt that I have problems with, but not with regard to resurrection.
If Lazarus' resurrection were only a resuscitation, the Sanhedrin would not have been angry that their beliefs had been shown false. If it had not been a resurrection Martha's view that resurrection would have left Jesus' followers in Old Covenant terms or, like Mike, looking to a future state of God's people. Jesus knew that He needed an actual physical body rising from the grave to prove the only point that had not yet come about---that HE indeed would BE the Resurrection. The fact that Jesus was in the tomb only THREE days would indicate to some Jews that His spirit had not yet departed and that HE could be resuscitated--His spirit rejoined to His body with no concerns about whether that was power over death. But that is NOT true of Lazarus' resurrection. So Lazarus' resurrection was to demonstrate again, to those who might doubt, that Jesus had already proved power over death.
There are many, many Christians that hold to the "resuscitation" concept, but when considered carefully, it lessens the power of Christ in the here and now. He provides RESURRECTION now---the body itself is important only to house the soul--and to demonstrate that Christ is greater than death itself.
In some respects, however, I still think our disagreement is primarily in semantics. I don't doubt there will be an incorruptible body eventually. I just don't think it means anything in the here and now.
Mike and I have conceptual differences because, imo, his view is entirely about the future. My view is about the here and now. A body that is incorruptible is a "future" view, not a "now" view. The importance of this conceptual difference is that in the one it is an emphasis on what will be, and in the other it is an emphasis on what is---and that should be VERY important about what you believe matters.
Here is a lengthy excerpt from exposition on the resurrection of Lazarus and WHY IT HAD TO BE a resurrection to 1. identify Jesus' power, 2. to put Him at odds with the Sanhedrin who would ultimately become angry at him because they did not believe in the RESURRECTION of the dead, and 3. to demonstrate He is Lord in the here and now. I have highlighted and underlined salient points.
To be fair there are points in the above excerpt that I have problems with, but not with regard to resurrection.
If Lazarus' resurrection were only a resuscitation, the Sanhedrin would not have been angry that their beliefs had been shown false. If it had not been a resurrection Martha's view that resurrection would have left Jesus' followers in Old Covenant terms or, like Mike, looking to a future state of God's people. Jesus knew that He needed an actual physical body rising from the grave to prove the only point that had not yet come about---that HE indeed would BE the Resurrection.
There are many, many Christians that hold to the "resuscitation" concept, but when considered carefully, it lessens the power of Christ in the here and now. He provides RESURRECTION now---the body itself is important only to house the soul--and to demonstrate that Christ is greater than death itself.
As has been clearly shown, the Bible does not apply the term resurrection to the raising of a body in a mortal and corrupt form. It applies the term to the future resurrection of the body in a state of immortality and incorruptibility. A person who has been restored to physical life only to die again has not been resurrected but has been resuscitated.
As has been shown clearly, the Bible does not apply the term resurrection to the raising of a body in a mortal and corrupt form. It applies the term to the future resurrection of the body in a state of immortality and incorruptibility. A body which has been raised only to die again is not a resurrection. It is a resuscitation.
Your definition, imo, lessens Christ's power in the here and now. I prefer life under a Christ who IS the RESURRECTION, not one who will be the resurrection.
As has been shown clearly post #118. In fact, as the same excerpt referenced above further points out:
Quote:
Interestingly, when the centurion requested healing for his servant (Matthew 8:5-7) and Jairus brought news of his daughter's imminent demise (Mark 5:22-24), Jesus immediately went to their homes. Yet, with one of His dearest friends deathly-ill, He deliberately stayed away.
If Lazarus had not been resurrected, the Sanhedrin would have had no problem with Jesus. They would have kissed Him on both cheeks and sent Him merrily on His way.
That didn't happen when He performed a RESURRECTION.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Conceptual differences
