Jesus not raised physically?

[heresyhunter]

Brothers and sisters of the faith,

Below is an argument I recently came across which essentially denies the literal, physical resurrection of our Lord and Saviour. I have included the full text in hopes of hearing how the folks here would go about refuting the argument. In the days before we celebrate the resurrection of Jesus Christ, I think it expedient for us to consider and dismantle this damnable heresy which is as dangerous as the Universalist and unitarian heresies.

In what kind of body was Christ raised? Paul addressed this very question here:

1Cr 15:43 It is sown in dishonour; it is raised in glory: it is sown in weakness; it is raised in power

1Cr 15:44 It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body. There is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body.

1Cr 15:45 And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam [was made] a quickening spirit.

1Cr 15:46 Howbeit that [was] not first which is spiritual, but that which is natural; and afterward that which is spiritual.

Christ is raised in a body that is opposite of the one that He was born with. The first body, the one that we presently have, is corrupt, earthy and natural. What is an earthy/natural/corrupt body? It is simply a flesh and blood body. What did Paul say about flesh and blood bodies? He said this:

1Cr 15:50 Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; neither doth corruption inherit incorruption.

The natural body must be completely changed in order to inherit the Kingdom of God. It must be changed into a spiritual/heavenly/incorrupt body. What, then, is a spiritual body? It is, as noted already, not a flesh and blood body. It is, quite simply, made of Spirit. Spirit, of course, is incorporeal. Thus, Christ was not raised in a physical body. Rather, He was raised a Spirit, just as v.45 says.

If Paul is right, and I believe He is, how do we reconcile this with the Gospel accounts of the resuurection of Christ? According to the Gospel of Luke, Jesus told Thomas that He is not a spirit. Assuming that the Bible does not contradict itself, which I believe, how do we explain this apparent discrepancy?

What I want to know is if the Gospel accounts of Jesus' resurrection are to be taken literally or if they were intended as symbolic narratives. I want to know if Paul's allusions to Christ's resurrection are meant to be understood literally, as the physical restoration of Jesus' corpse, or if Paul was alluding to a spiritual resurrection which is represented in physical terms.

1Cr 15:5 And that he was seen of Cephas, then of the twelve:

1Cr 15:6 After that, he was seen of above five hundred brethren at once; of whom the greater part remain unto this present, but some are fallen asleep.

1Cr 15:7 After that, he was seen of James; then of all the apostles.

1Cr 15:8 And last of all he was seen of me also, as of one born out of due time.

Now, if Paul "saw" the risen Jesus in the same sense that the others saw him, then does this not mean that the post-resurrection visions of Jesus are spiritual in nature?

[heresyhunter]

Bump...

Brothers and sisters of the faith,

Below is an argument I recently came across which essentially denies the literal, physical resurrection of our Lord and Saviour. I have included the full text in hopes of hearing how the folks here would go about refuting the argument. In the days before we celebrate the resurrection of Jesus Christ, I think it expedient for us to consider and dismantle this damnable heresy which is as dangerous as the Universalist and unitarian heresies.

In what kind of body was Christ raised? Paul addressed this very question here:

1Cr 15:43 It is sown in dishonour; it is raised in glory: it is sown in weakness; it is raised in power

1Cr 15:44 It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body. There is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body.

1Cr 15:45 And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam [was made] a quickening spirit.

1Cr 15:46 Howbeit that [was] not first which is spiritual, but that which is natural; and afterward that which is spiritual.

Christ is raised in a body that is opposite of the one that He was born with. The first body, the one that we presently have, is corrupt, earthy and natural. What is an earthy/natural/corrupt body? It is simply a flesh and blood body. What did Paul say about flesh and blood bodies? He said this:

1Cr 15:50 Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; neither doth corruption inherit incorruption.

The natural body must be completely changed in order to inherit the Kingdom of God. It must be changed into a spiritual/heavenly/incorrupt body. What, then, is a spiritual body? It is, as noted already, not a flesh and blood body. It is, quite simply, made of Spirit. Spirit, of course, is incorporeal. Thus, Christ was not raised in a physical body. Rather, He was raised a Spirit, just as v.45 says.

If Paul is right, and I believe He is, how do we reconcile this with the Gospel accounts of the resuurection of Christ? According to the Gospel of Luke, Jesus told Thomas that He is not a spirit. Assuming that the Bible does not contradict itself, which I believe, how do we explain this apparent discrepancy?

What I want to know is if the Gospel accounts of Jesus' resurrection are to be taken literally or if they were intended as symbolic narratives. I want to know if Paul's allusions to Christ's resurrection are meant to be understood literally, as the physical restoration of Jesus' corpse, or if Paul was alluding to a spiritual resurrection which is represented in physical terms.

1Cr 15:5 And that he was seen of Cephas, then of the twelve:

1Cr 15:6 After that, he was seen of above five hundred brethren at once; of whom the greater part remain unto this present, but some are fallen asleep.

1Cr 15:7 After that, he was seen of James; then of all the apostles.

1Cr 15:8 And last of all he was seen of me also, as of one born out of due time.

Now, if Paul "saw" the risen Jesus in the same sense that the others saw him, then does this not mean that the post-resurrection visions of Jesus are spiritual in nature?

[Ovedya]

Please don't "bump."

[Matthitjah]

Grace to you,

I believe you could settle this pretty quickly.

Joh

[Lekcit]

The problem with using Paul to say that is that Paul himself saw the risen Christ. Jessus appeared to Saul on the road to Damascus so Paul would have known that Jesus was in fact raised as a body. Also this argument fails to take into consideration the fact that all the disciples saw the risen Lord in a physical body, Mary, Martha, the two on the road to Emmaus, etc, etc. Thomas even put his hand in the wound in his side and touched his nail pierced hands (actually wrists but you understand). This was a common argument in Paul's time and he would have been very familiar with it.

Hope this helps.

[Ovedya]

Heresy Hunter,

Along with Matthitjah's answer above I would also add that when the disciples saw Jesus and thought He was a "spirit," they were referring to disembodied spirits - like ghosts. They were not expecting a flesh and blood man. The resurrected Christ is flesh and blood; although transformed, it is nevertheless the same flesh and blood with which He was born. In resurrection Jesus picked up and ate a piece of broiled fish. He also ate with Peter and the other disciples. That is further evidence that Jesus was not merely an incorporeal "spirit" in resurrection, but a glorified man; not a third class of being, but a glorified man.

[stan4257]

Brothers and sisters of the faith,

Below is an argument I recently came across which essentially denies the literal, physical resurrection of our Lord and Saviour.

I think it expedient for us to consider and dismantle this damnable heresy which is as dangerous as the Universalist and unitarian heresies.

I am very naive when it comes to motives, trusting far beyond what more astute minds will do and think, but the answer to your question is so obvious to anybody who claims to be a brother in the faith that it seems possible it is asked and detailed in full more as propaganda for disbelief than encouragement for those who do believe.

There is nothing expedient about spreading obvious and easily disproved falsehoods about the resurrection of Jesus Christ, declared to be the Son of God by his resurrection in the flesh.

Nor does it fool those who are in Christ when others attempt to spread anti-Christ propaganda under the pretext that to know the answer will be useful when having to disprove alternatives.

There is only one resurrection from the dead in the physical body, and that is made blindingly clear in the witness of those who were there at the time when it happened to Jesus Christ.

And any genuine Christian knows the answers and the proofs of the physical resurrection of Jesus Christ without needing to ask.

[stan4257]

Thomas even put his hand in the wound in his side and touched his nail pierced hands.

The implication in Holy Scripture is that when faced with the opportunity Thomas had no need to do so.

[heresyhunter]

Please don't "bump."

10-4!

[heresyhunter]

I believe you could settle this pretty quickly.

Joh 20:25

The other disciples therefore said unto him, We have seen the Lord. But he said unto them, Except I shall see in his hands the print of the nails, and put my finger into the print of the nails, and thrust my hand into his side, I will not believe.

Joh 20:26