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.
Christ's physical body was not resurrected while it was on the cross, it was resurrected three days later while it lay in the tomb.
When Jesus died (gave up His Spirit) he was reborn as Spirit . . . there is no physical resurrection. the obession with our physicality is understandable but misguided. John 3:6 (King James Version)
6That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit
When Jesus died (gave up His Spirit) he was reborn as Spirit . . . there is no physical resurrection. the obession with our physicality is understandable but misguided. John 3:6 (King James Version)
6That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit
That's one way to look at it. I see it as man being a dual creature, physical body and spirit body. When the physical dies, the spirit body abandons it until the two are reunited in the inevitable resurrection.
That which is born of the flesh (of human parents) is flesh (physical); and that which is born of Spirit (of Heavenly parent/s) is spirit, the spirit body that occupies our physical bodies until they pass through the process we call "death".
That's one way to look at it. I see it as man being a dual creature, physical body and spirit body. When the physical dies, the spirit body abandons it until the two are reunited in the inevitable resurrection.
That which is born of the flesh (of human parents) is flesh (physical); and that which is born of Spirit (of Heavenly parent/s) is spirit, the spirit body that occupies our physical bodies.
When we are born physically . . God plants the "seed" of our soul (spirit/consciousness) and it grows or not according to its circumstances and the genetic "ground" in which it is "planted" (based on our parents, grandparents spiritual development or stagnation . . . eg. "sins of the father"). We are mere spiritual embryos . . . not full spirits . . . UNTIL we are reborn at our death. There has to be a "birth" to be born of spirit . . . and that happens by a separation from the "womb" of our physical body . . . not while we are in it.
When we are born physically . . God plants the "seed" of our soul (spirit/consciousness) and it grows or not according to its circumstances and the genetic "ground" in which it is "planted" (based on our parents, grandparents spiritual development or stagnation . . . eg. "sins of the father"). We are mere spiritual embryos . . . not full spirits . . . UNTIL we are reborn at our death. There has to be a "birth" to be born of spirit . . . and that happens by a separation from the "womb" of our physical body . . . not while we are in it.
It is my belief that our spirit bodies are indeed "full spirits" in the sense that we lived a premortal existence that possibly went on for eons of time as time is viewed by man.
However, it's true that compared to our Heavenly Parent we are still just children with a whole lot of growing up to do. Earth life is part of that precious progression as by our choices we become more and more like God the Father, or further and further away from being like Him.
Being born of water and the spirit to me signifies baptism by water followed by baptism by 'fire' the latter being the laying on of hands of the authorized Melchizedek Priesthood during the ordinance commonly known as "confirmation" for the reception of the Holy Ghost.
Now, please don't ask me to dig out a bunch of scriptures to support my point of view, I know they exist, somewhere...
It is my belief that our spirit bodies are indeed "full spirits" in the sense that we lived a premortal existence that possibly went on for eons of time as time is viewed by man.
However, it's true that compared to our Heavenly Parent we are still just children with a whole lot of growing up to do. Earth life is part of that precious progression as by our choices we become more and more like God the Father, or further and further away from being like Him.
Being born of water and the spirit to me signifies baptism by water followed by baptism by 'fire' the latter being the laying on of hands of the authorized Melchizedek Priesthood during the ordinance commonly known as "confirmation" for the reception of the Holy Ghost.
Now, please don't ask me to dig out a bunch of scriptures to support my point of view, I know they exist, somewhere...
No need . . I am familiar with the LDS views . . . don't agree with them . . . but respect them and the kind of people they seem to produce. I believe God is far more interested in WHO we become than WHY we become.
The confusion is a typical example of running into problems when we limit the context to just the few documents that were placed by scholars into the volume we know as the Bible. (Some people tend to make the Bible an idol and worship it.) It is also, in my opinion a typical example of what scholars and others naturally do to twist/spin (I say that with respect) scriptures to fit their own package of beliefs.
Your version of the Bible apparently adds the words "at that moment" to what is written in the King James version which is by far my preference and the preference of the vast majority of people in the USA according to polls. (No modern day political corrections!)
Let's look at how the King James version reads:
50 Jesus, when he had cried again with a loud voice, yielded up the ghost.
51 And, behold, the veil of the temple was rent in twain from the top to the bottom; and the earth did quake, and the rocks rent;
(take a breath right here)
52 And the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints which slept arose,
53 And came out of the graves after his resurrection, and went into the holy city, and appeared unto many.
50 Jesus gives up his life, his physical body dies.
51 In witness that a god has died, the temple veil rips, there's a massive earthquake (it was much greater in the Americas - many cities were destroyed by fire, sunk, immersed etc. and huge numbers of people were killed.)
52 Many saints of old who had completed their mortal mission and died are resurrected. They did not come out of the graves (i.e. were not resurrected) until sometime AFTER the Lord's resurrection (it's plainly spelled out in verse 53.)
53 The resurrected saints go into Jerusalem and appear to many people as a further witness that the resurrection is real.
You still have to take a time of something happening and split it in two times. One where the veil splits, the graves open.. then after the resurrection the bodies raise and go into the city. There seems to be little cause for that to have been the case.
Here is yet another translation:
Matthew 27:50-53 (Young's Literal Translation) 50And Jesus having again cried with a great voice, yielded the spirit;
51and lo, the vail of the sanctuary was rent in two from top unto bottom, and the earth did quake, and the rocks were rent,
52and the tombs were opened, and many bodies of the saints who have fallen asleep, arose,
53and having come forth out of the tombs after his rising, they went into the holy city, and appeared to many.
There is still no indication that there is a break between verse 52 and 53. There is no reason to think that they arose before but only came out of their tombs three days later. The problem is still there in any version you use.
Quote:
But, that's arbitrary, we must keep in mind that almost two thousand years of time has passed since the original authors of the books of the bible wrote what they had to say, and much of it was written a long time after the event as I understand it. And, many fallible possibly (with respect for the work they did) conniving human hands were involved with translations, publishings, etc. before we get to read the words in our time.
That's another reason why it's wise to get the best possible CONTEXT available, and that includes for me the extrabiblical books of scripture found in the canon of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
Here's what is recorded about that event in The Book of Mormon: Another Testament of Jesus Christ, a record of Joseph that was prophesied to be placed side by side with a record of Judah (the Bible) in these the fulness of times:
"And many graves shall be opened, and shall yield up many of their dead; and many saints shall appear unto many." Helaman 14: 25 (prophecy recorded about 6 B.C.)
"Verily I say unto you, I commanded my servant Samuel, the Lamanite, that he should testify unto this people, that at the day that the Father should glorify his name in me that there were many saints who should arise from the dead, and should appear unto many, and should minister unto them. And he said unto them: Was it not so?
And his disciples answered him and said: Yea, Lord, Samuel did prophesy according to thy words, and they were all fulfilled. And Jesus said unto them: How be it that ye have not written this thing, that many saints did arise and appear unto many and did minister unto them?
And it came to pass that Nephi remembered that this thing had not been written. And it came to pass that Jesus commanded that it should be written; therefore it was written according as he commanded." 3 Nephi 23: 9-13 (recorded about 34 A.D.)
I conclude that in and around Jerusalem and also in the Americas very soon after the resurrection of Jesus Christ, which took place three days after his death on the cross, many people who were dead but had lived righteous lives during their mortal years were resurrected and appeared to witnesses.
This is your conclusion but it still is not clear to me how they are said to have been raised but did not go anywhere for three days.
In Acts 7:60 Stephen is stoned and "falls asleep" so there was obviously no immediate resurrection until after Christ came back (the second coming). Right?
Also in Hebrews 9:15, it seems to be that it was Christ's death that provided the blood for sins. Something grand happened in the verses in Matt 27 as we see the curtain torn and rocks split, but you are saying it couldn't be his resurrection because his body still hung on the cross.
Quote:
My views on a couple of your other points:
1. Prophets of God do, of course predict the future, that's part of their job description.
Not sure you can call Matthew a prophet... He records this happening but Mark 15:38-40 leaves it out but nearly everything else is the same. It is also absent from the Luke 23 version.
Quote:
2. Christ's resurrection did not take place in "the twinkling of an eye" it took place three days after his death. As I understand the matter, during the Millennium resurrection will literally take place in "the twinkling of an eye" with the matter concluded even before the physical body which has died falls to the ground.
There is still the problem that no one anywhere also recorded the living dead walking around and appearing to many. No outside sources, neither in the whole of the NT. Can we trust that this is an actual historical event?
Quote:
3. Christ's physical body was not resurrected while it was on the cross, it was resurrected three days later while it lay in the tomb. (If you ever get a chance to go inside the "Garden Tomb" in Jerusalem (not the usual place they take tourists) do so, it's an absolutely incredible experience - especially when someone closes the door on you and leaves you inside. I am totally convinced that the Garden Tomb in Jerusalem is the place of the very first resurrection on this planet. The sign on the door of that tomb reads "He is not here, for he is risen." But sometimes he returns and visits!
I can say that I do not care for the passage in any translation because it is the only account of the raising of people and makes it sound as if they were running around like zombies yet Mark, Luke, and John make no mention of the people seen by many from the graves.
In a blog by a minister it is written:
"It might likely be the case that Matthew is attempting to connect the presence of God with the events of Jesus. Note that the raising of the saints occurs, not at Jesus' resurrection, but at his crucifixion. This could be Matthew utilizing apocalyptic language to describe the significance of Jesus' death and the newness of life that springs forth from it. But this would not prima facie preclude the account from being historical; it would only suggest that Matthean redaction is interested in explaining the theological significance of such an event. If it is not historical, it neither adds nor detracts from the symbolism it is meant to represent - eternal life through Jesus' death." Question of the Week: Is Matthew 27:50-53 Historical?
But if we take it as symbolism then did the curtain really tear? All of the gospels record the curtain (well except for John who describes nothing extraordinary during that time). Supposedly Matthew was written second and John last but both are purported to have been eyewitnesses to the event, yet Matthew takes all sorts of liberties! It is odd to say the least.
Most commentaries that I have read believe that literal people waited 3 days after the tombs were opened to actually get out of them.
Again there is no reason to think that Matthew is referring to three days later in that whole passage. So what to make of it?
No need . . I am familiar with the LDS views . . . don't agree with them . . . but respect them and the kind of people they seem to produce. I believe God is far more interested in WHO we become than WHY we become.
Just had to repeat this because it deserves repeating.
1. You still have to take a time of something happening and split it in two times. One where the veil splits, the graves open.. then after the resurrection the bodies raise and go into the city. There seems to be little cause for that to have been the case.
Here is yet another translation:
Matthew 27:50-53 (Young's Literal Translation) 50And Jesus having again cried with a great voice, yielded the spirit;
51and lo, the vail of the sanctuary was rent in two from top unto bottom, and the earth did quake, and the rocks were rent,
52and the tombs were opened, and many bodies of the saints who have fallen asleep, arose,
53and having come forth out of the tombs after his rising, they went into the holy city, and appeared to many.
There is still no indication that there is a break between verse 52 and 53. There is no reason to think that they arose before but only came out of their tombs three days later. The problem is still there in any version you use.
2. This is your conclusion but it still is not clear to me how they are said to have been raised but did not go anywhere for three days.
In Acts 7:60 Stephen is stoned and "falls asleep" so there was obviously no immediate resurrection until after Christ came back (the second coming). Right?
3. Also in Hebrews 9:15, it seems to be that it was Christ's death that provided the blood for sins. Something grand happened in the verses in Matt 27 as we see the curtain torn and rocks split, but you are saying it couldn't be his resurrection because his body still hung on the cross.
4. Not sure you can call Matthew a prophet... He records this happening but Mark 15:38-40 leaves it out but nearly everything else is the same. It is also absent from the Luke 23 version.
5. There is still the problem that no one anywhere also recorded the living dead walking around and appearing to many. No outside sources, neither in the whole of the NT. Can we trust that this is an actual historical event?
I can say that I do not care for the passage in any translation because it is the only account of the raising of people and makes it sound as if they were running around like zombies yet Mark, Luke, and John make no mention of the people seen by many from the graves.
In a blog by a minister it is written:...
6. But if we take it as symbolism then did the curtain really tear? All of the gospels record the curtain (well except for John who describes nothing extraordinary during that time). Supposedly Matthew was written second and John last but both are purported to have been eyewitnesses to the event, yet Matthew takes all sorts of liberties! It is odd to say the least.
Most commentaries that I have read believe that literal people waited 3 days after the tombs were opened to actually get out of them. Again there is no reason to think that Matthew is referring to three days later in that whole passage. So what to make of it?
1. I think that you are too closely connecting in time the events reported in those four verses of scripture. It is clear and plain to me from verse 53 that the dead did not come out of the grave until after the resurrection of Jesus Christ - that's what it says!
In addition to that I provided a logical explanation of why those verses can appear to be confusing, and how you can eliminate the confusion by simply connecting verses 50 and 51 together and verses 52 and 53 together separately. It's just as logical that and much less confusing if we make those connections that way as the way you are choosing to do it. (Remove the arbitrary connection in time between verses 51 and 52, accept as literal what is plainly stated in verse 53, and as I see it the dust very quickly settles on this needless 'issue'.)
2. As explained above it is my belief that it is NOT said in those four verses that the dead arose before the resurrection of Christ. In fact it plainly and clearly states: "And came out of the graves after his resurrection..."(verse 53) Why create an issue when that verse is so plain and clear, unless, with respect to everyone's right to do so, it's to spin/twist to fit the verses into a package of beliefs? It is obvious from verse 53 that the dead did not come out of their graves until after the resurrection of Jesus Christ. Prior to that they were just lying around dead.
It is my belief that Christ was the "first fruits" of the resurrection, the very first on this planet to be resurrected. It was he who broke the bonds of death. Without his atoning sacrifice our physical bodies would indeed, as some still believe, go into the grave and stay there forever. We could not look forward to the bright promise of immortality and hope for eternal life as many Christians do now.
"But now is Christ risen from the dead, and become the firstfruits of them that slept. But every man in his own order: Christ the firstfruits; afterward they that are Christ’s at his coming." 1 Corinthians 15: 20,23
Also pertinent as Bible evidence that death of the physical body must come before resurrection:
"Awake to righteousness, and sin not; for some have not the knowledge of God: I speak this to your shame. But some man will say, How are the dead raised up? and with what body do they come? Thou fool, that which thou sowest (physical body) is not quickened, except it die:" 1 Corinthians 15: 34-36
After the resurrection of Jesus Christ it is witnessed that many others were resurrected. It is my understanding that the "morning of the first resurrection" began right after the resurrection of Christ and will continue to and possibly through the Millennium. Those who choose primarily wicked mortal lives will have to wait until sometime after the Millennium to be resurrected, but they will be.
3. Blood sacrifice of animals from the time of Adam was symbolic of the coming sacrifice of Jesus Christ. Most of the atonement was worked through in Gethsemane where he took upon himself in a manner we are not capable of understanding all the sins and illnesses that ever would occur among God's children on this earth and possibly on others as well. The pain he felt was so great that blood oozed from every pore of his body. Yes, there was even more blood shed on the cross, but by then his sacrifice was almost finished.
"And being in an agony he prayed more earnestly: and his sweat was as it were great drops of blood falling down to the ground." Luke 22: 44
"And lo, he shall suffer temptations, and pain of body, hunger, thirst, and fatigue, even more than man can suffer, except it be unto death; for behold, blood cometh from every pore, so great shall be his anguish for the wickedness and the abominations of his people." Mosiah 3: 7
Indeed, something "grand" happened on the cross but it was not the resurrection, it was the DEATH of Jesus Christ, the first begotten of God the Father in the spirit, His only begotten in the flesh!
4. I think it is commonly understood that prophets sometimes prophesy.
5. I provided you with a second witness. But that second witness comes from the record of Joseph, not the record of Judah.
"Moreover, thou son of man, take thee one stick, and write upon it, For Judah, and for the children of Israel his companions: then take another stick, and write upon it, For Joseph, the stick of Ephraim, and for all the house of Israel his companions: And join them one to another into one stick; and they shall become one in thine hand. Say unto them, Thus saith the Lord God; Behold, I will take the stick of Joseph, which is in the hand of Ephraim, and the tribes of Israel his fellows, and will put them with him, even with the stick of Judah, and make them one stick, and they shall be one in mine hand." Ezekiel 37: 16,17,19
Latter-day Saints testify that the stick/scroll/record of Joseph is available today in these the Fulness of Times. It is titled "The Book of Mormon: Another Testament of Jesus Christ".
Every Sunday millions of Latter-day Saints all over the world go to meetings, many of them carrying in one hand a single book that contains both ancient records joined in one volume, the record of Judah and the record of Joseph, as prophesied anciently.
6. Yes, I do believe that the veil of the temple in Jerusalem really did tear at the death of Jesus Christ. The veil in modern temples represents the separation between our world and the celestial world where God the Father dwells, and perhaps the veil of forgetting our former existence with our Heavenly Parent that is drawn over our minds so that we can fulfill the purpose of having a mortal experience. The resurrected Christ would soon pass through the veil and return from where he came. There are probably many other ways to consider the tearing of the veil symbolic of, but ripping the veil apart to allow passage through it is an interesting one to ponder.
1. I think that you are too closely connecting in time the events reported in those four verses of scripture. It is clear and plain to me from verse 53 that the dead did not come out of the grave until after the resurrection of Jesus Christ - that's what it says!
In addition to that I provided a logical explanation of why those verses can appear to be confusing, and how you can eliminate the confusion by simply connecting verses 50 and 51 together and verses 52 and 53 together separately. It's just as logical that and much less confusing if we make those connections that way as the way you are choosing to do it. (Remove the arbitrary connection in time between verses 51 and 52, accept as literal what is plainly stated in verse 53, and as I see it the dust very quickly settles on this needless 'issue'.)
2. As explained above it is my belief that it is NOT said in those four verses that the dead arose before the resurrection of Christ. In fact it plainly and clearly states: "And came out of the graves after his resurrection..."(verse 53) Why create an issue when that verse is so plain and clear, unless, with respect to everyone's right to do so, it's to spin/twist to fit the verses into a package of beliefs? It is obvious from verse 53 that the dead did not come out of their graves until after the resurrection of Jesus Christ. Prior to that they were just lying around dead.
It is my belief that Christ was the "first fruits" of the resurrection, the very first on this planet to be resurrected. It was he who broke the bonds of death. Without his atoning sacrifice our physical bodies would indeed, as some still believe, go into the grave and stay there forever. We could not look forward to the bright promise of immortality and hope for eternal life as many Christians do now.
"But now is Christ risen from the dead, and become the firstfruits of them that slept. But every man in his own order: Christ the firstfruits; afterward they that are Christ’s at his coming." 1 Corinthians 15: 20,23
Also pertinent as Bible evidence that death of the physical body must come before resurrection:
"Awake to righteousness, and sin not; for some have not the knowledge of God: I speak this to your shame. But some man will say, How are the dead raised up? and with what body do they come? Thou fool, that which thou sowest (physical body) is not quickened, except it die:" 1 Corinthians 15: 34-36
After the resurrection of Jesus Christ it is witnessed that many others were resurrected. It is my understanding that the "morning of the first resurrection" began right after the resurrection of Christ and will continue to and possibly through the Millennium. Those who choose primarily wicked mortal lives will have to wait until sometime after the Millennium to be resurrected, but they will be.
3. Blood sacrifice of animals from the time of Adam was symbolic of the coming sacrifice of Jesus Christ. Most of the atonement was worked through in Gethsemane where he took upon himself in a manner we are not capable of understanding all the sins and illnesses that ever would occur among God's children on this earth and possibly on others as well. The pain he felt was so great that blood oozed from every pore of his body. Yes, there was even more blood shed on the cross, but by then his sacrifice was almost finished.
"And being in an agony he prayed more earnestly: and his sweat was as it were great drops of blood falling down to the ground." Luke 22: 44
"And lo, he shall suffer temptations, and pain of body, hunger, thirst, and fatigue, even more than man can suffer, except it be unto death; for behold, blood cometh from every pore, so great shall be his anguish for the wickedness and the abominations of his people." Mosiah 3: 7
Indeed, something "grand" happened on the cross but it was not the resurrection, it was the DEATH of Jesus Christ, the first begotten of God the Father in the spirit, His only begotten in the flesh!
4. I think it is commonly understood that prophets sometimes prophesy.
5. I provided you with a second witness. But that second witness comes from the record of Joseph, not the record of Judah.
"Moreover, thou son of man, take thee one stick, and write upon it, For Judah, and for the children of Israel his companions: then take another stick, and write upon it, For Joseph, the stick of Ephraim, and for all the house of Israel his companions: And join them one to another into one stick; and they shall become one in thine hand. Say unto them, Thus saith the Lord God; Behold, I will take the stick of Joseph, which is in the hand of Ephraim, and the tribes of Israel his fellows, and will put them with him, even with the stick of Judah, and make them one stick, and they shall be one in mine hand." Ezekiel 37: 16,17,19
Latter-day Saints testify that the stick/scroll/record of Joseph is available today in these the Fulness of Times. It is titled "The Book of Mormon: Another Testament of Jesus Christ".
Every Sunday millions of Latter-day Saints all over the world go to meetings, many of them carrying in one hand a single book that contains both ancient records joined in one volume, the record of Judah and the record of Joseph, as prophesied anciently.
6. Yes, I do believe that the veil of the temple in Jerusalem really did tear at the death of Jesus Christ. The veil in modern temples represents the separation between our world and the celestial world where God the Father dwells, and perhaps the veil of forgetting our former existence with our Heavenly Parent that is drawn over our minds so that we can fulfill the purpose of having a mortal experience. The resurrected Christ would soon pass through the veil and return from where he came. There are probably many other ways to consider the tearing of the veil symbolic of, but ripping the veil apart to allow passage through it is an interesting one to ponder.
It is a funky passage in and of itself. Suppose that the spirit leaving Jesus' body was the resurrection of the spiritual body... can that be why Matthew connected the two? Does our body stay intact after we die? Do we need an intact human body to be resurrected? Or is it raised a spiritual body and therefore the flesh and blood is not required?
I have no doubt that Christ was resurrected first. My question is relating to the physical and literal aspect of the resurrected. If it is a physical resurrection requiring a physical body then most of our ancestors are doomed for they are nothing but the dirt of the earth now or bones without form. But if it is simply a spiritual resurrection then Christ's body being still on the cross is not a problem because his spirit is resurrected in that he gave it up.
Now I know that this brings up more questions as to why his body disappeared and he tells Thomas that he is flesh and bone...not just spirit. but Jesus is also said to have appeared and disappeared after his resurrection so it was hardly the same as the body he had before his spirit was given up.
So you see it is not that I think the dead were raised BEFORE Christ but that his resurrection came before the body was put in the tomb. Meaning that it is a spiritual resurrection and not related to our physical bodies.
Verse 50 confirms that resurrected beings are flesh and bone, no blood, blood is corruptible.
Where?
Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; neither doth corruption inherit incorruption.
Good grief...are you going to tell me because it deosn't say "bone" that it isn't implied in that "flesh and blood" aren't a natural human body like you have now?
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.
