Skip to comments.Are There Discrepancies in the Resurrection Accounts? If so, Can They be Resolved?
Posted on 04/09/2012 8:42:59 AM PDT by marshmallow
click here to read article
No dear, those were biblical FACTS presented. It's silly for anyone to go spouting their 'opinion' about what God says. The bible either means what it says, or it does not and our faith is a fraud.
As an Atheist, Christians made it easy pickings for us to tear apart their beliefs as inconsistent and not even matching what the Bible itself says.
Or are you saying God's inspired Word is simply an 'opinion' however we decide to interpret it? If that is the case, you illustrate the reason why there are THOUSANDS of denominations all claiming Christ is their Lord. Jesus established a CHURCH, NOT a denomination.
Three days and three nights means exactly what it says, or your belief in Jesus as Messiah is a fraud. Not parts of a day or including the days before He died as part of some pretzel logic calculation in order to absolve a tradition that does not jive with Jesus' own Words. Jesus stated Himself what the sign of His Messiahship was. The Friday crucifixion to Sunday morning resurrection tradition is always the first and easily exploitable tradition the Atheists will illustrate as proof Christianity is a fraud.
You of course are free to discount and ignore biblical facts in favor of traditions, which is in keeping what Jesus had to say about the nature of men, whether His followers or not. This rebuke is as applicable to the church today as it was to the religious leaders of Jesus' day:
"And answering, He said to them, Well did Isaiah prophesy concerning you, hypocrites; as it has been written: "This people honors Me with the lips, but their heart is far away from Me; and in vain they worship Me, teaching as doctrines the commandments of men." Mark 7:6-7 /Isaiah 29:13.
Can you not read the given scriptures yourself and decide?
The Bible tells us to "Prove all things; hold fast that which is good" - 1 Thes. 5:21
I'm not intending to argue with you for the sake of argument. My remarks to you should at minimum spur you to study this issue yourself based on what the bible itself has to say (and a little bit of historical study as well) apart from what preachers and traditions teach. I marvel at how many Christians cannot explain the WHY of their faith to anyone questioning them as to why they hold to a particular belief or tradition. I am often replied to with "Your opinion, and I have my own" - as if that somehow is how God establishes Truth. At best, if looking into what I have said and proving against the words in the Bible, you will be sharper in the faith and enhance your understanding of what Jesus did for all mankind.
That cannot be such a bad thing now, can it?
This NOW the last time I will respond. What I have read is a persoanl interpitation as well as the others that you have posted as well. Please do not respond again. Thank-you.
My sandals are dusted off for you dear.
Why do you say that Jesus was crucifield on a Wednesday? The Jewish sabbath was and is on a Saturday, and Passover back then as it is this year, started on a Friday at sundown.
NOW I am done. No more posts from me or from you.
Thanks again for taking the time to lay your explanation out so well. I can’t tell you how long I have wondered about this passage. I would be only too eager to believe that by ‘three days’ Jesus meant ‘from Friday afternoon to very early Sunday morning’ ... IF He had only left it at that. But why deliberately add “three nights”, if in fact what He meant was ‘three days’? Why???
I had read your explanation about seven years ago, and thought it was interesting but not dispositive. You, however, made a much stronger case for that scenario. You’ve given me so much to ponder; thank you very much!
You are most welcome. Secularists want to denounce and make you doubt your faith. I want Christians to be able to defend it with logic and unassailable proofs beyond resting on traditions or because of what some man or institution of men say.
The war for our faith is just getting heated up on these shores. Scripture tells us to have an answer ready when questioned about it.
At the same time, I don't disparage those who hold otherwise. This is a vexing passage, and good Christians can and do disagree on what it means. I have myself gone back and forth for years, and am still not 100 percent persuaded. After this discussion, though, I'd call it 99.9 percent. It has been very enlightening.
Del Rapier, I did read and understand what you were saying. For convenience, here is your post:
“The fact that he was raised back on Earth is a discrepancy but for different reasons,I have no problem believing he was raised from the dead.....just why he came back here.
It is not a form of damnation when that happens but it can
speak of a certain distance between the Lazarus(the raisee) and God.Essentially it speaks of unfinished work not of the world but of the individual.
Otherwise I am not unfamiliar to this subject,just have never experienced it from a first-hand perspective.Jesus could have experienced it face to face with people whod died and then decided to try it for himself.
As if any of this could make any sense to anyone here.......”
Actually the Scriptures are quite clear on why Lazarus was raised. Here is the explanation from the mouth of the Lord Himself, from the eleventh chapter of the Gospel of John:
‘40 Then Jesus said, Did I not tell you that if you believe, you will see the glory of God?
41 So they took away the stone. Then Jesus looked up and said, Father, I thank you that you have heard me. 42 I knew that you always hear me, but I said this for the benefit of the people standing here, that they may believe that you sent me.’
Iow, Lazarus was raised not because of unfinished personal issues, but for the glory of God, so that the disciples could/would believe that Jesus was sent from God. I.e: Jesus raised a man who had lain four days in a hot tomb (1) to glorify God by showing beyond the shadow of a doubt that God has dominion over death, and (2) to establish and strengthen the faith of the disciples. That faith was about to be tested by the death of the Messiah. It would shake the disciples to the core. For any who opted to remember, the resurrection of Lazarus would provide a ray of hope in an otherwise dismal and shattering time.
Jesus’ resurrection is similar. If He had rose and ascended immediately to heaven, w’out appearing to even a single disciple, who would believe it? Humans tend more naturally toward doubt than belief. Being told Jesus had arisen and gone to heaven would only inflame that natural tendency. That He appeared over and over to the disciples—at one time to 500 of them—provided a firm foundation for the faith of millions down through the ages. We have not believed cleverly devised stories [i.e.: fibs] but eyewitnesses—eyewitnesses who died horrible deaths rather than recant what they knew to be true.
Does that make sense?
had rose = risen
More caffeine, please.
And yet he waited for several hours before abandoning him? Possible, but strange.
"If any man come to Me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea and his own life also, he cannot be My disciple." - Luke 14:26
'it is clear from the Gospels that Jesus was crucified on Friday, the day of Preparation, that is, the day before the sabbath (Mark 15:42) and raised on Sunday, the first day of the week (Mark 16:2). If the temporal designation of Matthew 12:40 is taken literally, a conflict does exist between the time indicated in this verse and the time indicated in the accounts of the passion story.'
There could be any number of explanations that would account for the slave not having eaten or drunk for three days and three nights; I mentioned only one, but it may or may not be the correct one. The point is, the Bible says the slave hadn’t eaten or drunk for three days and three nights, so we know it is true. The exact reason isn’t at issue; we simply don’t need to know every detail of the reason or reasons. The fact that the Bible says it is true is sufficient.
Meanwhile, you still haven't explained why you doubt the Word of God, when it plainly says the Egyptian slave hadn't eaten or drunk for three days. Why would you doubt God's word over such a simple straightforward and uncontroversial statement?
In Luke 16 (:19-31) Jesus talks about the rich man and Lazarus the beggar. When Lazarus dies he is immediately in heaven with Abraham. When the rich man dies he immediately discovers himself in hell (hades), a place of torments, as hell is always described.
Those who believe in God (the Lord Jesus Christ) will never die. Their flesh will die, but their spirits will not. And God is not a God of the dead, but the living.
(Mark 12) 26 And as touching the dead, that they rise: have ye not read in the book of Moses, how in the bush God spake unto him, saying, I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob? 27* He is not the God of the dead, but the God of the living: ye therefore do greatly err.
(John 11) 25* Jesus said unto her, I am the resurrection, and the life: he that believeth in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live: 26* And whosoever liveth and believeth in me shall never die. Believest thou this?
As a believer I shall never spend one second in hell. I have this as a promise from Jesus Christ himself. Those who go to hell are the unbelieving.
The Greek word Hades in this usage (11 times to be exact) is "ᾅδης" (Hades). The Greek word to denote the underworld of Greek myth is: ᾍδου, Haidou. Christians wrongly assume that the term 'hades' in the New Testament is a reference to the Greek underworld. The location of 'Hades' (or underworld) to follow tradition, the Greek words are ᾍδου, Haidou, an elision to denote locality: "[the house/dominion] of Hades, the Greek God of the dead.
None of this is germane. It might be interesting phonologically--The contraction from two syllables [a.i] to a diphthong [ai] and then [a] (with subscript iota) is a natural linguistic process. [hades] and [haides] are the same word. When a Christians uses the word it doesn't (or shouldn't) denote the Greek underworld. (Just as Hell should not denote the old norse underworld). We let the Bible define what these words in fact mean. Hell is a place of torment where the unsaved go. Christians will never die--that is, their souls will never be in hell. To be absent from the body is to be present with the Lord (2 Corinthians 5:8):
(2 Corinthians) 5* Now he that hath wrought us for the selfsame thing is God, who also hath given unto us the earnest of the Spirit. 6* Therefore we are always confident, knowing that, whilst we are at home in the body, we are absent from the Lord: 7* (For we walk by faith, not by sight:) 8* We are confident, I say, and willing rather to be absent from the body, and to be present with the Lord.
Christians will go to be with the Lord (awaiting the resurrection of the body). The dead go to hell (1st death) and will be resurrected to damnation and will be cast into the lake of fire, the second death:
(Revelation 20) 12* And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the books were opened: and another book was opened, which is the book of life: and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works. 13* And the sea gave up the dead which were in it; and death and hell delivered up the dead which were in them: and they were judged every man according to their works. 14* And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death. 15* And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire.
..and myself, whenever I come to Christ. He is true, just, and righteous. All those others and myself are very heinous. I still live Him though and seek to remain obedient to Him.
Wrong - the subject is biblical interpretation, and your insistence on doing it with the "plain words." Do you apply your interpretive methods to the verse I quoted?
There are countless excellent treatments/commentaries on the vs you keep quoting.
Which one(s) do you subscribe to? What do they say?
as if the concept of three nights is so deep, esoteric and confusing that mere mortals are incapable of comprehending the plain words
The verse I quoted is no more deep, esoteric and confusing. Why won't you tell us what you think it means?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.