Tuesday, July 30, 2013

What did the first Christians mean by the word "resurrection?"

In my blog post on resurrection I got carried away with the post on the physical resurrection of Jesus (as opposed to some other kind of resurrection that isn't physical, even though that would seem to be an oxymoron). But here is the short summary of my blog post. For more details and back up for the stuff here go to the long post at:


The apostles believed in bodily resurrection of Jesus for several reasons:

1) The empty tomb - if the scholarly majority (70%) is right about the empty tomb, then the disciples would have necessarily believed in bodily resurrection.

2) The meaning of "raised" in Greek is often the same word for to "stand up" or to "wake up" or to "arise" to a certain occasion. Greek for "resurrection" also has the root for "to stand up." The word itself corresponds with the traditional view of resurrection.

3) The Old Testament portrays resurrection as dead people waking up from the dust of the earth. Since the disciples frequently cite the Old Testament as such a high authority, one would think they would share the Old Testament view of resurrection.

4) Second Temple Jews had many sub-groups including Pharisees, Sadduccees, and Essenes. However, it was known that the Pharisees disagreed with the Sadducees, not on the nature of the resurrection, but on whether or not it actually happened. So Jews in 1st Century Palestine who affirmed resurrection were affirming a bodily notion. We shouldn't expect any different from a Pharisee like Paul or Jews like the disciples.

5) Greco-Roman revulsion at resurrection. Many pagan beliefs actually repeatedly repudiate the notion that a dead person can return to life. This is often due to their Platonic view of afterlife. So resurrection is a bodily notion for the Greeks as well. The only difference is that they disagree with it.

6) Proclaiming Jesus as raised from the dead is like shouting "fire" in a movie theater. The disciples would know how people would interpret the phrase "raised from the dead," but chose to use that phrase anyway, despite the negative (and positive) reactions.

7) "Resurrection" in New Testament writings other than Paul clearly affirm a bodily notion, especially because the Gospels report an empty tomb and Acts strongly implies one.

8) Resurrection and "raised from the dead" in Paul (outside Corinthians) very clearly enunciate the traditional Christian belief of bodily resurrection.

9) Resurrection and "raised from the dead" concepts in Paul (in 1 & 2 Corinthians) work strongly against alternate interpretations but work best with the traditional resurrection. Furthermore, only an anachronistic reading of these passages would lead us to believe in a non-bodily resurrection.

10) Resurrection belief in apostolic fathers is very consistent with the traditional Christian view of bodily resurrection. This is significant because many of these people are purported to have spoken with or learned under the apostles.

11) Most arguments against a non-bodily resurrection depend on the idea that every single one of the traditional authorships for the Gospels is false. However, in many cases good arguments can be made for traditional authorship. Furthermore, arguments against Paul believing in a non-bodily resurrection collapse with an early dating of Acts, which is very likely.

Wednesday, July 10, 2013

Did Paul Think Jesus Was God?

Here's a good video from the Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry:


Here is the accompanying article that quotes the verses he is referring to:

http://carm.org/paul-think-jesus-was-god

This is significant because Paul is supposedly the earliest Christian writer, writing about 50 A.D. or so.


Tuesday, July 9, 2013

Why Did The Disciples of Jesus Come To Believe He Resurrected?

A Dead Messiah Is No Messiah

To summarize, at the very very minimum, the earliest Christians believed that Jesus was the Messiah (Christ) predicted in the Old Testament. However, the Messiah was not a metaphorical concept in 1st Century Judaism.

There was controversy about his exact role. However, everyone seemed to agree that he was a human king who would 1) conquer Israel's enemies, 2) become king of the world, 3) lead the whole world to worship Yahweh. This was such a literal belief at the time that it caused a degree of political upheaval in 1st Century Palestine.

As you can see, it is pretty hard to vanquish Israel's enemies and rule the world when you are dead. This is why the concept of a "dead Messiah" is absolutely contradictory. It's about as contradictory as saying "Barack Obama is President but is also dead."

This is why Christianity didn't start when Jesus died. The death of Jesus was immensely disappointing to his followers, who believed he was the Messiah. It pretty much smashed all the hope they had of him rescuing their nation from Roman occupation, or anything else associated with being the Messiah.

Christianity didn't actually start until Jesus rose from the dead. The resurrection of Jesus was a very unexpected surprise which reversed this disappointment.

Stop Right There...

Most people (including myself) don't appreciate the full weight of this fact I just said.

Let it sink in for a moment...

All of Jesus disciples were obviously hugely discouraged from the death of their best friend. Who wouldn't be?! Furthermore, he wasn't just their best friend, he was their king and rescuer. His death would be a pretty tough emotional blow to take.

But for some odd reason. All of this disappointment just vanished 3 days after he died. It reversed into absolute excitement that Jesus was now alive. This led to very enthusiastic preaching of his resurrection throughout the Roman world.

Let me ask you. What would it take to convince you that your best friend rose from the dead, after being depressed about it for a day and a half or so? What would it take to convince ten of your other friends of the same thing at the same time?

Quite a lot I might imagine. Which is what makes this situation so peculiar...and a strong evidence for the resurrection as well.

Second Coming Predictions: An Important Comparison

Lots and lots of Christians have become convinced that Jesus was going to come back within a certain time frame. When this prediction failed, extreme disappointment ensued. This resulted in them twisting the meaning of their predictions to fit the uneventful situation they were facing.

We do find them adjusting the meaning of the prophecy to fit their circumstances. However, we do not find them adjusting their circumstances to fit the prophecy. Meaning, they did not come to believe that Jesus actually descended from heaven in flaming fire to judge His enemies.

Extreme anticipation of the Second Coming of Jesus does not cause hallucinations of his descent from heaven, nor does it develop the belief that he actually did come back. It only causes them to readjust their interpretation of the prophecies.

This is analogous to the resurrection of Jesus. Even if the disciples had an extreme anticipation of his resurrection (they actually didn't), this would not be enough to convince them he actually did rise from the dead. You can't believe so hard you start seeing things like they are real.

This is why it's so unusual, and so powerful, that all the disciples came to believe Jesus rose from the dead after he had died.

Chabad Messianism

There is a group of Orthodox Jews who hold that Rabbi Menachem Mendel Schneerson is the Messiah. The problem is that Rabbi Schneerson died in 1994. However, orthodox Jews are keenly aware that he cannot actually perform the functions of the Messiah while dead. This is why many of them anticipate his future resurrection, in which he will be revealed as the Messiah.

The interesting thing is that their mere heartfelt anticipation did not engender a seismic change in belief 3 days after his death that he was somehow alive once again.

To Summarize...

The fact that the disciples came to believe Jesus was the Messiah who resurrected, despite their grieving, is strong evidence for the resurrection. While it's not a "knock down" argument, one needs an explanation for how 11 men suddenly came to believe that their best friend who had been executed by the Romans had conquered death itself.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chabad_messianism#Death

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/When_Prophecy_Fails







33% of Mainline Pastors Deny the Resurrection of Jesus

33% of Mainline Pastors Deny the Resurrection of Jesus

A 2001 study shows that 33% of mainline Christian pastors deny the physical resurrection of Jesus. Here is the breakdown by denomination:
  • American Lutherans: 13%
  • Presbyterians: 30%
  • American Baptists: 33%
  • Episcopalians: 35%
  • Methodists: 51%

The word "Christian" doesn't just mean whatever we want it to mean. Like the words "atheist" and "Hindu" the word "Christian" has clear boundaries. The fact that "Christian" pastors explicitly deny the resurrection of Jesus doesn't mean they are "open minded." It means they aren't Christians at all.

As I will demonstrate below, Christians have always believed Jesus is the Messiah predicted in the Old Testament. But I will quickly show that a "dead Messiah" is a blatantly contradictory concept. Furthermore, the idea has been rejected by thousands of years of Christian theologians. We will soon see that to call oneself a "Christian" but deny the resurrection is both dishonest and corrupt. 


Jesus is the Messiah...But What Is a Messiah?

At very absolute minimum, all Christians throughout history have believed that Jesus is the Messiah predicted in the Old Testament.

In 1st Century A.D. "Messiah" wasn't some metaphorical loose meaning for "Messiah in all of us" or "heaven in our hearts." It was a very concrete term that caused a degree of political upheaval in 1st Century Palestine. While there were disagreements on his exact role and identity, there was virtually unanimous agreement on these points:

  1. he would be a human man who would defeat Israel's enemies
  2. he would become king of the whole world
  3. he would guide the world to worship Yahweh
This is why you couldn't say that a dead guy is the Messiah. It just doesn't work. You pretty much have to be living to vanquish Israel's enemies and become king of the world. Saying that someone is the Messiah but also dead is as ridiculous as saying that "Barack Obama is President but he's also currently dead." 

This is why Christianity absolutely did not start when Jesus died. The death of Jesus was obviously very discouraging to Jesus' followers. It pretty much ruined any possibility that Jesus would be the Messiah. 

There Are No Dead Messiahs 

Only after Jesus awoke from death did Christianity actually start. The resurrection of Jesus was a shocking and very unexpected surprise to Jesus' followers. It re-instated their belief that he was actually the Messiah. 

Without a very literal resurrection, Jesus is utterly disqualified from being the Messiah. Remember: Messiah is a very human king who is supposed to rule the world. So anything less than a real, live, tangible resurrection is not going to make the cut. 

Of course, just because he came back from death does not make him "off the hook" from fulfilling the end time prophecies about the Messiah. This is why early Christians had a very literal belief in the Second Coming of Jesus.  Again, a "spiritual second coming" is not going to cut it here, for reasons described above. 

For Thousands of Years...

This is why you have quote after quote of early Christian writings (inside and outside the New Testament) affirming all of these beliefs in very literal terms....very early on. Early writers made a special point to enumerate the literal nature of these teachings, and refute "heretics" who would distort these teachings. Verbally speaking, they weren't too polite about it either. 

The Bible is full of metaphors, but early Christians made quite clear that these beliefs were nothing of the sort. These were core beliefs that gave them the hope of eternal life that they had. Such a strong hope that they underwent lots of persecution because of it. 

These literal beliefs have been considered core beliefs of Christians for thousands of years. Historically, anyone who called themselves a Christian but distorted these beliefs was considered an impostor. Theologian after theologian affirm these beliefs up until the present day. Since the very earliest Christian apologists, Christians have painstakingly contrasted their views with those they consider to be heretical.

Don't get me wrong. The above 3 beliefs are not sufficient to become a Christian. But the first two are absolutely necessary to be one in any meaningful sense of the word. 

Wolves: 33%

Back to the 33% of pastors who deny the resurrection. 

My question is, why are they still "Christian" pastors?!?!?

Can we say they are just ignorant of Christian theology? No we cannot. Most pastors have seminary degrees!

Can we say they are just struggling with doubts like we all do? No we cannot. The survey seems to entail an explicit denial of the resurrection. And besides, if they changed their mind about the resurrection, they had plenty of time to quit seminary. 

Can we say they are being dishonest about their views? Yes, yes absolutely. Every Easter they go to church, read the empty tomb story, and talk about the resurrection in their liturgical presentation. Yet, it seems they don't clarify for the congregation that what they mean by resurrection is TOTALLY DIFFERENT than what everyone else means by it.

They also use the pulpit to advocate their agenda (whatever that may be). Whatever their "agenda" is, it seems pretty dependent on keeping a pretty important secret from us....their beliefs about Jesus resurrection.

It seems we have some "wolves" on our hands. 

“Watch out for false prophets. They come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ferocious wolves." - Jesus Christ (Matthew 7:15)