Resurrected or Resuscitated?

[A Person]

I have been asked "what proof would I accept that Jesus was the Son of God?" The miracles that surround Jesus are often presented as 'proof'. The virgin birth is one miracle that doesn't need much explaining, but the miracle of Jesus death and resurrection is central to Christianity. Was it in fact a miracle? If someone today claimed such a miracle we would be justified in being skeptical, should we not apply the same standards to the Bible?

What does the Bible say about the crucifixion of Jesus:

Pilate did not want to crucify Jesus. He found no fault with Jesus and three times suggested to simply chastise him and release him. He reluctantly allowed the crucifixion to proceed.

The actual crucifixion was supervised by a Centurion who was apparently also sympathetic towards Jesus – perhaps even a follower.

After Jesus had been on the cross for about six hours he cried "My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?" (which some interpreted as ‘he calleth Elias’) At this point a mystery person ran up with a sponge soaked in "vinegar" on a reed which Jesus drank. Shortly after he "gave up the ghost"

The Romans wanted to speed the death of the crucified and so broke the legs of the robbers (crucifixion is a slow death, breaking the legs cases rapid death by asphyxiation) A Roman soldier stuck a spear into the side of Jesus and seeing bleeding but getting no reaction, declared him already dead, so they did not break his legs.

Joseph of Arimathea petitioned Pilate for the body of Jesus. Pilate was surprised, "marveled", that he was dead so soon, so he questioned the Centurion who confirmed his death.

So Joseph was permitted to take the body away and place it in his personal "tomb". Shortly after Nicodemus went to the tomb with healing herbs -myrrh and aloe.

Three days later Jesus was seen alive.

What else do we know about crucifixion?

It is survivable:

"I was sent by Titus Caesar with Ceralius and a thousand riders to a certain town by the name of Thecoa to find out whether a camp could be set up at this place. On my return I saw many prisoners who had been crucified, and recognized three of them as my former companions. I was inwardly very sad about this and went with tears in my eyes to Titus and told him about them. He at once gave the order that they should be taken down and given the best treatment so they could get better. However two of them died while being attended to by the doctor; the third recovered."

While unusual this is not an isolated incident: St. Andrew apparently survived for two days, preaching all the while.

What conclusions can be drawn?

You don’t have to be very skeptical to question whether Jesus in fact did actually die on the cross. The sponge drink did not refresh Jesus - if anything it seemed to hasten his death. The sponge could easily have contained drugs such as opium, belladonna and hashish - all known then and easily available. Both the Centurion and Pilate were sympathetic to Jesus and the Centurion was the only person to actually confirm his death – shortly after having said "Truly this man was the Son of God" or "Certainly this was a righteous man" - how unbiased can he be thought to be.

Would this miracle convince you today? Chriss Angel can apparently stop his heart beating, a miracle or just a trick?

[Questioner]

I have been asked "what proof would I accept that Jesus was the Son of God?" The miracles that surround Jesus are often presented as 'proof'. The virgin birth is one miracle that doesn't need much explaining, but the miracle of Jesus death and resurrection is central to Christianity. Was it in fact a miracle? If someone today claimed such a miracle we would be justified in being skeptical, should we not apply the same standards to the Bible?.....a miracle or just a trick?

Interesting theory. But why did he then disappear completely shortly thereafter? Are you thinking he ultimately succumed to his wounds a few weeks after the crucifiction? Or are you suggesting he left Palestine forever and is lost to history?

[BecauseHeLives]

I have been asked "what proof would I accept that Jesus was the Son of God?" The miracles that surround Jesus are often presented as 'proof'. The virgin birth is one miracle that doesn't need much explaining, but the miracle of Jesus death and resurrection is central to Christianity. Was it in fact a miracle? If someone today claimed such a miracle we would be justified in being skeptical, should we not apply the same standards to the Bible?

What does the Bible say about the crucifixion of Jesus:

Pilate did not want to crucify Jesus. He found no fault with Jesus and three times suggested to simply chastise him and release him. He reluctantly allowed the crucifixion to proceed.

The actual crucifixion was supervised by a Centurion who was apparently also sympathetic towards Jesus – perhaps even a follower.

After Jesus had been on the cross for about six hours he cried "My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?" (which some interpreted as ‘he calleth Elias’) At this point a mystery person ran up with a sponge soaked in "vinegar" on a reed which Jesus drank. Shortly after he "gave up the ghost"

The Romans wanted to speed the death of the crucified and so broke the legs of the robbers (crucifixion is a slow death, breaking the legs cases rapid death by asphyxiation) A Roman soldier stuck a spear into the side of Jesus and seeing bleeding but getting no reaction, declared him already dead, so they did not break his legs.

Joseph of Arimathea petitioned Pilate for the body of Jesus. Pilate was surprised, "marveled", that he was dead so soon, so he questioned the Centurion who confirmed his death.

So Joseph was permitted to take the body away and place it in his personal "tomb". Shortly after Nicodemus went to the tomb with healing herbs -myrrh and aloe.

Three days later Jesus was seen alive.

What else do we know about crucifixion?

It is survivable:

"I was sent by Titus Caesar with Ceralius and a thousand riders to a certain town by the name of Thecoa to find out whether a camp could be set up at this place. On my return I saw many prisoners who had been crucified, and recognized three of them as my former companions. I was inwardly very sad about this and went with tears in my eyes to Titus and told him about them. He at once gave the order that they should be taken down and given the best treatment so they could get better. However two of them died while being attended to by the doctor; the third recovered."

While unusual this is not an isolated incident: St. Andrew apparently survived for two days, preaching all the while.

What conclusions can be drawn?

You don’t have to be very skeptical to question whether Jesus in fact did actually die on the cross. The sponge drink did not refresh Jesus - if anything it seemed to hasten his death. The sponge could easily have contained drugs such as opium, belladonna and hashish - all known then and easily available. Both the Centurion and Pilate were sympathetic to Jesus and the Centurion was the only person to actually confirm his death – shortly after having said "Truly this man was the Son of God" or "Certainly this was a righteous man" - how unbiased can he be thought to be.

Would this miracle convince you today? Chriss Angel can apparently stop his heart beating, a miracle or just a trick?

After all of that you still never answered the original question. What proof would you accept that Jesus is the Son of God and if you accepted the proof would you worship Jesus as savior?

[BecauseHeLives]

My apologies Person. I see you did attempt to answer in the previous thread.

[A Person]

Interesting theory. But why did he then disappear completely shortly thereafter? Are you thinking he ultimately succumed to his wounds a few weeks after the crucifiction? Or are you suggesting he left Palestine forever and is lost to history?

Now we have to look at the accounts of the Ascension.

Mark's account is very brief; Jesus approaches them at dinner, scolds them for not believing his resurrection, instructs them to evangelise and perform little miracles like immunity to snake bites, casting out demons, speaking in tongues and faith healing. Then he 'he was received up into heaven'.
Luke's account is even vaguer. They didn't recognise him at first and chatted with him for the best part of a day about the crucifixion and disappearance of the body. Only at mealtime when he blessed the bread did they recognise him whereupon "he vanished out of their sight."

Acts has a very different account. First there is the magical 40 days when Jesus teaches them and instructs them in evangelism, then Jesus disappears in a puff of smoke and two men in white appear to explain things.

So what happened to Jesus? Who knows. I certainly don't. Dan Brown has some ideas. I suspect Joseph and Nicodemus knew a lot more than they let on.

But if Jesus lived then he was careful not to attract attention. Why? Being nailed to a cross would be one hell of an incentive to keep quiet and out of the public eye.

[SouthernFriedInfidel]

Now we have to look at the accounts of the Ascension.

Mark's account is very brief; Jesus approaches them at dinner, scolds them for not believing his resurrection, instructs them to evangelise and perform little miracles like immunity to snake bites, casting out demons, speaking in tongues and faith healing. Then he 'he was received up into heaven'.

The interesting thing about Mark's final scene is that it was added decades after the rest of the Gospel was written. Verses 9-20 of chapter 16 don't appear on many copies of the book, and most scolars agree they were most likely added only in the 2nd century, after the other Gospels were completed, probably to bring it in line with the more popular books of Matthew and Luke.

Just thought some folks would find this interesting...

[A Person]

I left Matthew out because he doesn't actually mention the ascension. His account merely states that when the disciples saw him, "they worshipped him: but some doubted"

If the eyewitness disciples, who knew Jesus intimately, were not convinced, why should we be?

[RebelSnake]

If jesus ascended into heaven, wouldn't that imply heaven is an actual physical place in our universe?

[SouthernFriedInfidel]

If jesus ascended into heaven, wouldn't that imply heaven is an actual physical place in our universe?

You know, that's a very interesting question. Nearly all Christians I know insist that Jesus had to have been resurrected as a physical body, and that at the end of things, all of the folks who ever died will also be raised as physical bodies -- never mind the fact that many bodies' atoms have long since been recycled into other animals, plants and even other human bodies.

Yet heaven is supposed to be a spiritual place... recall that one Gospel has Jesus promising a fellow prisoner that they'll both be "in paradise" that same day.

So if you accept the "Gospel Truth" -- assuming you can puzzle it out from all the internal contradictions of literal readings -- then you're left with a notion that is known to modern science as impossible: Jesus rose as a physical, resurrected human through the atmosphere into the vacuum of space, to wait beyond all possibility of human detection until the "end of days" to bring his special people away from Earth into ... what?

[BecauseHeLives]

You know, that's a very interesting question. Nearly all Christians I know insist that Jesus had to have been resurrected as a physical body, and that at the end of things, all of the folks who ever died will also be raised as physical bodies -- never mind the fact that many bodies' atoms have long since been recycled into other animals, plants and even other human bodies.

I thought about that as well and it confused me as well until I heard a sermon on that very subject one day. The body that believers will ascend in will be a perfected body and not necessarily the body we were born with. I think Jesus actually was resurrected in a physical body on purpose to show doubters that it was really He. His body was not perfected until He began to ascend into heaven. Just my 2 cents.

Yet heaven is supposed to be a spiritual place... recall that one Gospel has Jesus promising a fellow prisoner that they'll both be "in paradise" that same day.

I'm not sure how you equate spiritual to paradise but...

Paradise is not Heaven. Don't confuse the two. Paradise was the place that was where believers went before ther resurrection of Christ. After the resurection (Jesus paid the price for our sins) those people in paradise went to heaven to be with Jesus but without physical form. There is no longer a paradise. All believers who die after the resurrection are immediately in Heaven. When Jesus comes again those dead in Christ (those already in heaven) will be reunited with a physical perfected body.

So if you accept the "Gospel Truth" -- assuming you can puzzle it out from all the internal contradictions of literal readings -- then you're left with a notion that is known to modern science as impossible: Jesus rose as a physical, resurrected human through the atmosphere into the vacuum of space, to wait beyond all possibility of human detection until the "end of days" to bring his special people away from Earth into ... what?

Are you claiming that science knows all things? God invented science.

[Questioner]

That business about the disciples not recognizing Jesus is really interesting. Had He survived the crucifixion, It isn't surprising that His visage would be seriously changed. There would have been terrible scarring on His forehead and around his eyes from the crown of thorns. And probably infection. That would have led to some fairly extensive swelling and edema, which would have slipped down to the eyelids, nose and at least the upper cheek area if not the entire face and neck. So He might have looked quite different from the Jesus they knew. Remember, the apostles had run away when Jesus was arrested, and none of the male apostles had seen Him crucified.

Interestingly also, Mary Magdalene, to whom He appeared first, evidently had no trouble recognizing Him. But she and His mother had both stayed with Him throughout the crucifixion. And she would have seen the terrible bruising and swelling caused by the thorns.

[BecauseHeLives]

Interestingly also, Mary Magdalene, to whom He appeared first, evidently had no trouble recognizing Him. But she and His mother had both stayed with Him throughout the crucifixion. And she would have seen the terrible bruising and swelling caused by the thorns.

Actually even Mary did not recognize Jesus at first.

John 20:15

Jesus saith unto her, Woman, why weepest thou? whom seekest thou? She, supposing him to be the gardener, saith unto him, Sir, if thou have borne him hence, tell me where thou hast laid him, and I will take him away.

[RebelSnake]

Paradise is not Heaven. Don't confuse the two. Paradise was the place that was where believers went before ther resurrection of Christ. After the resurection (Jesus paid the price for our sins) those people in paradise went to heaven to be with Jesus but without physical form. There is no longer a paradise. All believers who die after the resurrection are immediately in Heaven. When Jesus comes again those dead in Christ (those already in heaven) will be reunited with a physical perfected body.

Chapter and verse please.

[BecauseHeLives]

Paradise is not Heaven. Don't confuse the two. Paradise was the place that was where believers went before ther resurrection of Christ. After the resurection (Jesus paid the price for our sins) those people in paradise went to heaven to be with Jesus but without physical form. There is no longer a paradise. All believers who die after the resurrection are immediately in Heaven. When Jesus comes again those dead in Christ (those already in heaven) will be reunited with a physical perfected body.

Chapter and verse please.

Which part?

[Questioner]

Interestingly also, Mary Magdalene, to whom He appeared first, evidently had no trouble recognizing Him. But she and His mother had both stayed with Him throughout the crucifixion. And she would have seen the terrible bruising and swelling caused by the thorns.

Actually even Mary did not recognize Jesus at first.

John 20:15

Jesus saith unto her, Woman, why weepest thou? whom seekest thou? She, supposing him to be the gardener, saith unto him, Sir, if thou have borne him hence, tell me where thou hast laid him, and I will take him away.

No, that isn't correct. She was weeping and at first, was not even looking in His direction--she was looking into the tomb and talking with the 2 angels. When he spoke, she turned and saw him, but remember, her eyes were filled with tears, so she didn't see Him clearly. And remember, she believed Him dead, so wouldn't expect to see Jesus. We know that people usually do not see things if they don't expect to see them. And who takes a good, clear look at a gardner anyway?

You must read the entire passage:

John 14-16 At this, she turned around and saw Jesus standing there, but she did not realize that it was Jesus.
"Woman," he said, "why are you crying? Who is it you are looking for?"
Thinking he was the gardener, she said, "Sir, if you have carried him away, tell me where you have put him, and I will get him."
Jesus said to her, "Mary."
She turned toward him and cried out in Aramaic, "Rabboni!" (which means Teacher).

She recognized Him immediately when she turned and took a good look at Him.

[BecauseHeLives]

Go back to verse 14.

14 And when she had thus said, she turned herself back, and saw Jesus standing, and knew not that it was Jesus.

Just what do you think was meant by the passage when it says Mary SAW Jesus? She wasn't looking past Him or to the side or into the tomb. She looked right at Him and SAW Him.

Its no biggie anyways. Lots of people didn't recognize Jesus and many refused to believer it was Jesus until there was physical evidence. Many people are like that even today.

[Questioner]

Go back to verse 14.

14 And when she had thus said, she turned herself back, and saw Jesus standing, and knew not that it was Jesus.

Just what do you think was meant by the passage when it says Mary SAW Jesus? She wasn't looking past Him or to the side or into the tomb. She looked right at Him and SAW Him.

Its no biggie anyways. Lots of people didn't recognize Jesus and many refused to believer it was Jesus until there was physical evidence. Many people are like that even today.

Have you never looked at (i.e. "seen") anybody you knew and didn't recognize the person because you weren't really looking at them? You are not considering Mary's state and her shock at the fact of the missing body, and then seeing and talking to two angels who were sitting in the tomb. Plus, you are forgetting that she was crying hard--so hard, Jesus recognized the situation with her back turned toward Him. She saw a male figure that she assumed was the gardner. But when she actually turned (note that it specifically states she had to turn toward Him--which means she wasn't really looking at Him before she turned) to look at Him, she recognized Him immediately.

[A Person]

I think there may be a teeny bit of rationalization going on there. Mary didn't recognize him at first, but did on closer look. I'm sure he was in a bad state after the physical abuse.

Infection may not have been as much of a problem as we think. Myrrh is a pretty good antiseptic - and Nicodemus had a hundredweight of it. Aloe also is still useful for treating wounds and burns.

I wonder who those mysterious angels were - Nicodemus and Joseph after a hard weekend of medical care perhaps?

[SouthernFriedInfidel]

Yet heaven is supposed to be a spiritual place... recall that one Gospel has Jesus promising a fellow prisoner that they'll both be "in paradise" that same day.

I'm not sure how you equate spiritual to paradise but...

Well, there's this -- I think it's the Nicene Creed that says that Jesus died and descended into Hell. There's also some NT passage that says as much. Yet we also know that Jesus said he'd be "in paradise" the day he died.

So you claim that "paradise" and "heaven" are two separate places. And "paradise" must be a spiritual place, since the Bible tells us Jesus was placed in a grave after death. So -- care to back up your claim that paradise <> heaven with Bible references? And would you mind getting the Greek text for the passages used? Just wondering...

[RebelSnake]

RebelSnake wrote: BecauseHeLives wrote:


Chapter and verse please.



Which part?

So -- care to back up your claim that paradise <> heaven with Bible references?

Exactly. You're the one claiming paradise and heaven are two distinct and seperate places. Back up your claim with the appropriate scripture please.

[SouthernFriedInfidel]

Exactly. You're the one claiming paradise and heaven are two distinct and seperate places. Back up your claim with the appropriate scripture please.

Well, knowing that our friend has something of an aversion to posting his own research, I did a little looking around myself. Seems that the word "paradise" is used only 3 times in the Bible, all in the NT. Pretty much a literal copy of the Greek word "paradeisos," I believe it's spelled.

The last use of the word is in the last book of the Bible:

Rev 2:7 He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches; To him that overcometh will I give to eat of the tree of life, which is in the midst of the paradise of God.

Now, if the "tree of life" is in "the paradise of God," how can that not be heaven, I wonder?

I also wonder what the good Christian writers of the NT were doing, using the word for the Greek idea of "paradise" (loosely translated as the pagan Greeks' Happy Hunting Ground) at all?

As always, interesting stuff to be found in the Bible, if you look hard enough.

[SouthernFriedInfidel]

How can he satisfactorily back it up with scripture to you? You don't think they are valid.

We're asking for internal verification here. I have no problem debating the continuity of the Bible. It's when you start asking whether its claims about reality are true that we have to exercise our skepticism.

[RebelSnake]

How can he satisfactorily back it up with scripture to you? You don't think they are valid.

We're asking for internal verification here. I have no problem debating the continuity of the Bible. It's when you start asking whether its claims about reality are true that we have to exercise our skepticism.

He's the one making the claim. I'm merely asking him to back up his claim. Whether or not I consider them valid is irrelevant to the subject under discussion.

[RebelSnake]

Just because it doesn't make sense to you means we shouldn't be discussing it? Isn't the whole idea of this forum to discuss and debate matters such as this? My personal views on religion do not enter into this as long as we remain civil and level headed, right? I was under the impression we were here to learn and maybe appreciate a different perspective we may not get from another venue. Am I wrong to think this?

[A Person]

Why are you not discussing the spear they put into his side?

Surely that's enough to be a mortal wound.

Matthew, Mark, Luke didn't mention it.

John 19:34 But one of the soldiers with a spear pierced his side, and forthwith came there out blood and water.

Why would such a wound necessarily be fatal? I personally know people that have been stabbed or wounded in their torso enough for considerable blood flow - they're not dead. It's far more common to survive a stabbing than a crucifixion.
DM teen expected to survive stabbing Monday
Man stabbed on bus in Southeast Portland. Victim is expected to survive

I've tried to stay with features noted by more than one account because we do need to remember that Mark has noted earlier (15:50) that when Jesus was arrested, "all of his disciples forsook him and fled". So presumably all the accounts are hearsay.