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.
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:
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.
Normally the resuscitated argument derives from the skeptics who reject Jesus as God and or mock the Bible to begin with.... neither of which Mike does.
But with that being said, there is something to be said that the word "resuscitated" is not occurred as we today clinically know as what "resuscitated" means when scriptures spoke of people being raised back to life.
None of these
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)
was a case of being "resuscitated" as what that term is implies today.
But also their resurrection is not in the same as the resurrection that occurs for every person who is a believer at the end of time.
It's that resurrection which Jesus is the first fruits of.
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:
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.
No, not my definition. I provided the Scripture which shows that the term 'resurrection' refers to the future resurrection of the body in a state of incorruptibility. I also provided Scripture which states that Jesus is the first fruits of those that are asleep. That Jesus was the first in order of those who are resurrected. This means that no one was resurrected before Jesus. 1 Corinthians 15:20-23 states this explicitly. To claim that anyone was resurrected before Jesus was resurrected is in direct contradiction of that passage.
The Pharisees had a problem with Jesus before Lazarus was resuscitated. Now, on account of Lazarus having been raised from the dead by being resuscitated people were believing on Christ and so the chief priests planned to put both Jesus and Lazarus to death as stated in John 12:10-11.
Normally the resuscitated argument derives from the skeptics who reject Jesus as God and or mock the Bible to begin with.... neither of which Mike does.
But with that being said, there is something to be said that the word "resuscitated" is not occurred as we today clinically know as what "resuscitated" means when scriptures spoke of people being raised back to life.
None of these
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)
was a case of being "resuscitated" as what that term is implies today.
But also their resurrection is not in the same as the resurrection that occurs for every person who is a believer at the end of time.
It's that resurrection which Jesus is the first fruits of.
I agree that Mike is not using "resuscitation" in the same fashion that Christian skeptics might do. But if you use that term on a public forum read by other than Christians, it plays right into the hands of some atheist or agnostic who might say, "My doctor resuscitated me on the operating table, so he is at least equal to your Jesus in that regard."
The term has problems in the "here and now" as well as how it was viewed by the early followers of Christ. If the Bible writers wanted to keep it clear for everyone, they would just have had Jesus say, "Lazarus, be resuscitated," instead of "come forth."
But Mike's literal view of scripture moves him to pen words not found in the scripture in order to make things "mesh." Since I'm not a literalist and conceptually try to find everything that Jesus did and said to be applicable to the here and now, he and I have had opposite views on a number of different issues just because what you believe matters.
I leave it to other readers to reach their own conclusions as to whether defense of literalism is a more important concept than promotion of living Christ in the now.
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.
My 'type-antitype' analogy is off. Upon further reading it seems 'types-antitypes' are OT representations of NT events, people, etc.. Since both Lazarus and Jesus were NT figures it doesn't meet the qualifications. I went back and found the source I read this in and though it was written by a ThM holder it was obviously not correct. I'll scratch that one off my 'type-antitype' list. I sometimes think we look for hidden meanings where there are none. Thanks for clearing this up for me Mike.
Did you have a chance to think about my other question? Were there two Lazaruses or one? Thanks again.
I agree that Mike is not using "resuscitation" in the same fashion that Christian skeptics might do. But if you use that term on a public forum read by other than Christians, it plays right into the hands of some atheist or agnostic who might say, "My doctor resuscitated me on the operating table, so he is at least equal to your Jesus in that regard."
The term has problems in the "here and now" as well as how it was viewed by the early followers of Christ. If the Bible writers wanted to keep it clear for everyone, they would just have had Jesus say, "Lazarus, be resuscitated," instead of "come forth."
But Mike's literal view of scripture moves him to pen words not found in the scripture in order to make things "mesh." Since I'm not a literalist and conceptually try to find everything that Jesus did and said to be applicable to the here and now, he and I have had opposite views on a number of different issues just because what you believe matters.
I leave it to other readers to reach their own conclusions as to whether defense of literalism is a more important concept than promotion of living Christ in the now.
Sum perfectus.
Once again . . . and yes, I am repeating . . . again, 1 Corinthians 15:20-23 is clear that no one was resurrected before Jesus Christ. He is the first in the order of resurrection. That means that those people who were restored to physical life before Jesus was resurrected but died again at a later time were not resurrected. The Bible uses the term resurrection in connection with those who have been raised in a body of incorruption and immortality.
The use of the word resuscitation does not play into the hands of athesists or agnostics. It is an accurate term for someone who is dead being restored to life in his mortal body. Nor am I the only one who makes the distinction between resurrection and resuscitation.
It is important to understand what is meant by resurrection. Jesus was the first person who was resurrected from the dead (1 Corinthians 15.20). His resurrection was the rising from the dead from an earthly body into a new kind of body. His resurrection body appeared to be like our present bodies but with dramatically different properties. These properties include eternal life and the ability the transcend normal space. Several persons were raised, i.e., resuscitated in the Scriptures. Elijah resuscitated the widow of Zarephath’s son. Jesus raised (i.e. resuscitated) Lazarus, the brother of Mary and Martha. These individuals were given new life but they eventually died again. A resurrected body cannot experience death. [bolding mine] The Resurrection | doctrine.org
I did not get the term 'resuscitation' from this site. Nor do I agree with this site that some saints were resurrected shortly after Christ was.
I. Resurrection is the union of the soul with a new body following physical death. The new body is not subject to time or space. Resurrection must be distinguished from resuscitation. Resuscitation involves returning the soul to the same old temporal body that died physically. [bolding mine]Doctrine of Resurrection
Nor did I get the term 'resuscitation' from this site. But I do agree with its use of the term 'resuscitation' in contrast to the term 'resurrection' regarding those who did again.
But it is not an issue of how many agree or disagree with the distinction between the two terms. The issue is that the Bible applies the term resurrection to those who will, having been resurrected, never experience physical death again.
My 'type-antitype' analogy is off. Upon further reading it seems 'types-antitypes' are OT representations of NT events, people, etc.. Since both Lazarus and Jesus were NT figures it doesn't meet the qualifications. I went back and found the source I read this in and though it was written by a ThM holder it was obviously not correct. I'll scratch that one off my 'type-antitype' list. I sometimes think we look for hidden meanings where there are none. Thanks for clearing this up for me Mike.
Did you have a chance to think about my other question? Were there two Lazaruses or one? Thanks again.
Lazarus the beggar in Jesus' parable was not Lazarus of Bethany who lived with his sisters Martha and Mary in their own home (Luke 10:38) and seemed to be pretty well off. It was Lazarus' sister Mary who anointed Jesus with the very costly perfume (John 11:2; 12:1-3).
It is interesting however that Jesus used the name Lazarus in His story about the rich man and Lazarus. For just as the parable said in Luke 16:31 - 'If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, they will not be persuaded even if someone rises from the dead.' And the Pharisees did not believe on Jesus even when He raised Lazarus of Bethany from the dead, but instead sought to kill both Jesus and Lazarus.
I agree that Mike is not using "resuscitation" in the same fashion that Christian skeptics might do. But if you use that term on a public forum read by other than Christians, it plays right into the hands of some atheist or agnostic who might say, "My doctor resuscitated me on the operating table, so he is at least equal to your Jesus in that regard."
I can see your point Wardendresden. Referring to Lazarus's rising as resuscitation could be used by non-believers as a way to attempt to remove the supernatural element from the event. Resucitation by its very definition is not only coming back from death but from unconciousness. (Merriam-Webster). Mike's link The Resurrection | doctrine.org makes mention of Bible critics attempting to remove the supernatural element from Jesus's resurrection. It isn't a quantum leap to assume they would do the same with Lazarus.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike555
Once again . . . and yes, I am repeating . . . again, 1 Corinthians 15:20-23 is clear that no one was resurrected before Jesus Christ. He is the first in the order of resurrection. That means that those people who were restored to physical life before Jesus was resurrected but died again at a later time were not resurrected. The Bible uses the term resurrection in connection with those who have been raised in a body of incorruption and immortality.
The use of the word resuscitation does not play into the hands of athesists or agnostics. It is an accurate term for someone who is dead being restored to life in his mortal body. Nor am I the only one who makes the distinction between resurrection and resuscitation.
I see your side too Mike. There is a dictinction between the events, their meanings, and their implications.
The debate, correct me if I'm wrong, is in the choice of words to call Lazarus's event. Maybe what we need is a new word to describe Lazarus's event that can be agreed upon and defined as being temporal, yet nonetheless spiritual.
The debate, correct me if I'm wrong, is in the choice of words to call Lazarus's event. Maybe what we need is a new word to describe Lazarus's event that can be agreed upon and defined as being temporal, yet nonetheless spiritual.
Whatever word we choose to use, I don't believe it can be "resurrected." If we use the word "resurrected," it clearly implies that the state of the body after being resurrected is not a permanent one. I think we can all agree that when we are resurrected, we will never again be subject to death. If Lazarus was again subject to death after Christ miraculously brought him back from the dead, the whole concept of our eventually receiving resurrected bodies loses its meaning.
(I believe, that covers everything in this thread?)
No, this does.
If you can change what you believe, you can change your life.
Believe in God's love for you.
Learn to see what God sees.
Receive God's complete forgiveness.
Win the battle for your mind.
Be free from self-occupation.
Have a confident expectation of good.
Find rest in the Father's love.
These seven keys are easy and highly effective Bible based principles that will calibrate your mind to develop positive habits for right believing. Start believing right and experience freedom from from every fear, guilt and addiction in your life.
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.
