Resurrection of Christ - What's the evidence for and against a literal resurrection

[Dawnofhope]

The Book of Daniel is a fanciful book of selectively recorded historical details, Jewish mythology and failed restoration prophecies. There was no spiritual restoration after Daniel was written - the Jews just sank further and further into oppression and superstition and were finally destroyed after their treasured restoration prophecies had been appropriated by the outbreak of Christianity. "Jesus" simply transferred some the Seleucid "abominations" of the Maccabeean era and re-applied them to the Romans desolation of the temple in the 1st century. And those words of Jesus were recorded after the event but written "as prophecy" (i.e. as if they were prophecies written before the events) just as the events surrounding Antiochus IV Epiphanes persecution of the Jews and the Jewish revolt had been in Daniel 8.

Sounds like a harsh and dismissive view of one of the most important OT books. Jesus referred to the prophecy in Daniel 9:24-27 twice. The restoration of the temple was real.

Matthew 24:15
Matthew 18:21-22

Anyway, genuine textual and historical evidence aside (I know these are only welcome when they support the predetermined beliefs), what scriptural evidence is there that the Bible writers definitely intended to indicate a second, far future, fulfillment of these prophecies?

I suppose like most who study the bible I try to consider the work as a whole, not selected parts. I don't dismiss whole books or sections because it doesn't suit my world view. History and genuine textual analysis is really important to me. Why do you suggest it isn't?

 

[wizanda]

Why do you suggest it isn't?

Since I'm waiting for the same answer to @siti's question:

Show with evidence from scripture that there are two time periods prophesied, as based on the line, "this generation will not pass away, until all these things are accomplished", some read that to mean only one time period is being referenced.

In my opinion.

 

[Dawnofhope]

Since I'm waiting for the same answer to @siti's question:

Show with evidence from scripture that there are two time periods prophesied, as based on the line, "this generation will not pass away, until all these things are accomplished", some read that to mean only one time period is being referenced.

In my opinion.

Matthew 24:34 appears to be the preterists strongest argument. The most obvious answer, is it refers to the imminent fate that awaits the Temple, Jerusalem, and the Jewish people. However the text appears allegorical for events in the distant future too. For example:

And this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world for a witness unto all nations; and then shall the end come. (Matthew 24:14)

This does not happen in the first century, but much later.

Another example is reference to the time of the gentiles:

And they shall fall by the edge of the sword, and shall be led away captive into all nations: and Jerusalem shall be trodden down of the Gentiles, until the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled.
Luke 21:24

 

[siti]

Sounds like a harsh and dismissive view of one of the most important OT books. Jesus referred to the prophecy in Daniel 9:24-27 twice. The restoration of the temple was real.

Yes it was, but most scholars believe it had already happened BEFORE the Book of Daniel was compiled.

I suppose like most who study the bible I try to consider the work as a whole, not selected parts. I don't dismiss whole books or sections because it doesn't suit my world view. History and genuine textual analysis is really important to me. Why do you suggest it isn't?

Because you seem to be accepting the Book of Daniel as genuinely prophetic of Jewish restoration written during the Babylonian exile, whilst most scholars hold that it was written much later, well into the second temple era, and was - at least for the most part - a compilation of earlier Jewish mythology and post-exilic reinterpretations of history written in the apocalyptic literary style that was quite common in that period.

 

[siti]

The preterist view is popular amongst some modern bible scholars and rejected by most conservative Christians.

So truth is determined by popularity amongst conservative Christians? Hmmm! Not sure that will suit the Baha'i faith terribly well.

The problems with preterism are many.

Are they? Let's look at the problems with the problems you have highlighted:

For one thing, God’s covenant with Israel is everlasting (Jeremiah 31:33–36),

But that is a covenant that involves the law being written "on their hearts" - this is a prophecy about a spiritual condition - not a national identity. In any case, it does not say it is everlasting, it says it will cease when the "fixed order" - of days following nights, the procession of the stars across the sky and the daily ebb and flow of the tides - ends. If that is symbolic of a spiritual change, then it ends at least when "the present heavens and earth" pass away (2 Peter 3; Revelation 21:1-4). There is nothing in any of these passages that suggests anything other than this being symbolic of the passage of divine favour from the natural to the spiritual "Israelites" - from the written code with its old physical temple in the old earthly Jerusalem under the "old heavens" to the heavenly "New Jerusalem" and the law written on the hearts of the faithful.

...and there will be a future restoration of Israel (Isaiah 11:12).

There is no way that this prophecy is about anything later than a post-Babylonian exile restoration - read the chapter in context and it is obvious that it talking about the Jews returning from Assyria as - it compares - they had come out of Egypt. Without a preconceived notion of a far later eschatological interpretation, there is no way this could be read as referring to anything other than the restoration of the 5th century BC.

The apostle Paul warned against those who, like Hymenaeus and Philetus, teach falsely “that the resurrection has already taken place, and they destroy the faith of some” (2 Timothy 2:17–18).

I don't think anyone argues that Paul's letters were not written in the mid-1st century - before the destruction of the Temple in 70CE - indeed it is almost certain that Paul was dead by the mid 60s so, on that interpretation, the 'spiritual resurrection' that was symbolized by the final destruction of the Jewish temple had not happened when he wrote this. Does that mean it must still not have happened 1800+ years later? How so?

And Jesus’ mention of “this generation” should be taken to mean the generation that is alive to see the beginning of the events described in Matthew 24.

If that is correct then how are we to interpret the "generation" addressed by Jesus in the following verses:

Matthew 12:39, Matthew 17:17, Matthew 23:33-36, Mark 8:38, Luke 11:29, Luke 11:50-51

To be consistent, if you are insisting that when Jesus referred to "this generation" in Matthew 24, he meant people who would be alive in the 19th/20th centuries - he also meant that the blood of the faithful prophets of old would be avenged on the people who were alive in the 19th/20th centuries. Obviously that makes no sense, but having 'this generation' - of the Jews - witness all these signs and bear guilt for their unfaithfulness in "this generation" of contemporaneous 1st century Jews is both consistent and makes sense (whether it is true or not).

So far, there seem to be more problems with the futurist interpretation than the preterist one - wouldn't you say?

 

[siti]

And this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world for a witness unto all nations; and then shall the end come. (Matthew 24:14)

This does not happen in the first century, but much later.

Not according the Bible - Acts of the Apostles 2:5, Acts of the Apostles 17:6, Romans 1:8, Romans 10:18, Colossians 1:5-6, Colossians 1:23, 1 Thessalonians 1:8

Another example is reference to the time of the gentiles:

And they shall fall by the edge of the sword, and shall be led away captive into all nations: and Jerusalem shall be trodden down of the Gentiles, until the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled.
Luke 21:24

Objection your Honor! Asked and answered

 

[CG Didymus]

It establishes victory over death. Without that we're still in fear of death and thus enslaved to satan who must still have power of death. If Jesus did not rise from the dead then satan's power is not broken.

Jesus raised Lazarus physically from the dead. It's no surprise that He raised Himself.

It also was the victory over sin. This was foreshadowed in the brazen serpent who was "lifted up" in the wilderness. When the people were bitten by a serpent in the wilderness they needed to look at the brazen serpent and they would live. The symbolism here is that the serpents biting the people were their sins which cause death. By looking on Jesus on the cross we admit we're in need of Him being there. Therefore we see our own sins on the cross just as they saw the form of the brazen serpent on the pole in the wilderness. Thus, we repent and are saved through Him. As He said "look unto me all the ends of the earth and be saved" and He said "If I be lifted up, will draw all men unto me".

He was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities. Jesus had to die to put sin to death in Himself. "All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way; and the Lord hath laid on him the iniquity of us all." The resurrection was just as important because by rising again from the dead He rises; but free. The power of sin is broken. It remains put to death. So we, when we are baptized into the body of Christ we are joined with this freedom and are raised a new creation. So He said "Remember ye not the former things, neither consider the things of old. Behold, I will do a new thing; now it shall spring forth; shall ye not know it? I will even make a way in the wilderness, and rivers in the desert." The rivers in the desert is obviously the holy Spirit and it makes our desert into a garden. The "way" in the wilderness is clearly the Way. Which is Jesus who said "I am the way, the truth and the Life".

So the resurrection is the foundation and the power behind the "new birth"(John 3) of the new Covenant.

Hey Adrian, another great thread, but this post is your answer. Why is the resurrection so important? It's the climax and whole point to the story. What good is a story where the hero only symbolically conquers his adversary.

 

[CG Didymus]

Adrian, I thought you said the Olivet discourse was symbolic? Revelation certainly is - so is Daniel...

...in that case, on what basis do you interpret the "times of the Gentiles" to be a literal passage of time during which the natural Jews were prevented from returning to their "Holy Land"?

This is the key problem I have with Baha'i interpretations of the Bible - you guys often speak with forked tongue trying to have the same passage as entirely spiritual/symbolic for one argument and physical/literal for another.

Anyway, what I personally believe about the resurrection is not nearly as relevant to the current topic as what I (and you and others) believe the Gospel writers intended it to mean.

I am pretty sure that they intended it to be taken as a literal physical resurrection to life (signifying the conquest of the 'last enemy') and a spiritual ascension into heaven which was marked by his faithful followers witnessing a vision - much as a few of them had previously at the transfiguration. So in that sense, the ascension was a mystic experience of the disciples, but the resurrection was real. There are precedents for God taking physical humans and making them disappear without trace - so no problem about what happened to Jesus' resurrected body after the ascension.

Seriously, ALL the rest of the 'prophetic' features - including things like 1260 days etc. can easily be interpreted as being connected with Jesus ministry, death, resurrection and the subsequent establishment of the Christian Church as the focus of divine favour - the "Jerusalem above" was declared "free" very shortly after Jesus departed the earth. Anyway, as you say, that is wandering a bit off topic - but my opinion is that the writers of the accounts interpreted Jesus resurrection as a very real and physical part of the process that brought the functions of the natural temple to an end and opened up the spiritual temple to human access - all in the 1st century. I personally don't believe any of it, but I am pretty sure that's what they meant and the physical death and resurrection of Christ was a necessary part of it.

PS - there are no prophecies in the "Sermon on the Mount" - I presume you were still referring to the Olivet discourse, but if you are attempting to overturn 2000 years of Christian understanding of scripture, you really ought to be careful with your references and terminology.

"I am pretty sure that they intended it to be taken as a literal physical resurrection..." That's the thing. Baha'is have to prove that the gospel writers intended it to be symbolic.

 

[CG Didymus]

"I am pretty sure that they intended it to be taken as a literal physical resurrection..." That's the thing. Baha'is have to prove that the gospel writers intended it to be symbolic.

Adrian where are you? Any I'll add to this. Even though it's piggy backed off of Siti's post, it was meant for you to answer.

It sure seems like the gospel writers intended to write the story as if Jesus had come back to life. Something easily believable to non-scientific ancient people. Jesus appears and disappears, no problem. If he was dead and now alive, why not the added bonus of being able to materialize from some other dimension. And, if he could do that, why not float off to space. Crazy? Absolutely. So forget if it is scientifically possible. Forget if it really happened. Did the writers believe it, and did the early Church believe it?

That's the problem facing the Baha'is. You say the body was taken and buried elsewhere. If so the appearances never happened as reported. Jesus cannot say to touch him and see that it is truly him, alive and well and with scars to prove it. The gospel writers would have to be perpetuating a hoax to have written the story as they did.

But Baha'is can't have them lying either. So, for the Baha'is, they need the writers to have known Jesus was dead and stayed dead physically, but that they meant on a symbolic level he came back to life. But, if Christians and Baha'is believe in a soul or spirit that lives on after the body dies, what is so strange and mysterious about that? Of course his soul lives on.

 

[Dawnofhope]

Adrian where are you?

I'm working 6 days a week so haven't had too much time for RF.

It sure seems like the gospel writers intended to write the story as if Jesus had come back to life. Something easily believable to non-scientific ancient people. Jesus appears and disappears, no problem. If he was dead and now alive, why not the added bonus of being able to materialize from some other dimension. And, if he could do that, why not float off to space. Crazy? Absolutely. So forget if it is scientifically possible. Forget if it really happened. Did the writers believe it, and did the early Church believe it?

Its hard for us to step into the midset of the gospel writers. We can't even be certain who wrote any of them were. I wonder if they were so enamoured and intoxicated by the Spirit of Christ that historic accurancy was not a central concern.

That's the problem facing the Baha'is. You say the body was taken and buried elsewhere. If so the appearances never happened as reported. Jesus cannot say to touch him and see that it is truly him, alive and well and with scars to prove it. The gospel writers would have to be perpetuating a hoax to have written the story as they did.

I understand your concern, but I doubt if the early Christians set out to create a hoax and decieve people. The apostles were busy preachng about Christ and spreading the word. Its just the way the story of Christ unfolded.

But Baha'is can't have them lying either. So, for the Baha'is, they need the writers to have known Jesus was dead and stayed dead physically, but that they meant on a symbolic level he came back to life. But, if Christians and Baha'is believe in a soul or spirit that lives on after the body dies, what is so strange and mysterious about that? Of course his soul lives on.

The life of the spirit after death is a key message of the resurrection. More important is the life of the spirit in this world and the effect the Teachings of Christ could have on His followers. The most potent symbol to descibe the difference between unbelief and belief is the resurrection.

Do you really believe the apostles of Christ were busy deliberately masterminding a hoax?

 

[Dawnofhope]

Yes it was, but most scholars believe it had already happened BEFORE the Book of Daniel was compiled.

As a starting point I'm aligned with conservation Christian belief.

The book implies that Daniel was its author in several passages, such as 9:2; 10:2. That Jesus concurred is clear from his reference to “ ‘the abomination that causes desolation,’ spoken of through the prophet Daniel” (Mt 24:15; see note there), quoting 9:27 (see note there); 11:31; 12:11. The book was probably completed c. 530 b.c., shortly after Cyrus the Great, king of Persia, captured the city of Babylon in 539.


The widely held view that the book of Daniel is largely fictional rests mainly on the modern philosophical assumption that long-range predictive prophecy is impossible. Therefore all fulfilled predictions in Daniel, it is claimed, had to have been composed no earlier than the Maccabean period (second century b.c.), after the fulfillments had taken place. But objective evidence excludes this hypothesis on several counts:

1. To avoid fulfillment of long-range predictive prophecy in the book, the adherents of the late-date view usually maintain that the four empires of chs. 2 and 7 are Babylon, Media, Persia and Greece. But in the mind of the author, “the Medes and Persians” (5:28; see note there) together constituted the second in the series of four kingdoms (2:32–43; see note there). Thus it becomes clear that the four empires are the Babylonian, Medo-Persian, Greek and Roman. See chart, p. 1777.
2. The language itself argues for a date earlier than the second century. Linguistic evidence from the Dead Sea Scrolls (which furnish authentic samples of Hebrew and Aramaic writing from the third and second centuries b.c.; see essay, p. 1939) demonstrates that the Hebrew and Aramaic chapters of Daniel must have been composed centuries earlier. Furthermore, as recently demonstrated, the Persian and Greek words in Daniel do not require a late date. Some of the technical terms appearing in ch. 3 were already so obsolete by the second century b.c. that translators of the Septuagint (the pre-Christian Greek translation of the OT) translated them incorrectly.
3. Several of the fulfillments of prophecies in Daniel could not have taken place by the second century anyway, so the prophetic element cannot be dismissed. The symbolism connected with the fourth kingdom makes it unmistakably predictive of the Roman empire (see 2:33; 7:7,19), which did not take control of Syro-Palestine until 63 b.c. Also, a plausible interpretation of the prophecy concerning the coming of “the Anointed One, the ruler,” approximately 483 years after “the issuing of the decree to restore and rebuild Jerusalem” (9:25; see note on 9:25–27), works out to the time of Jesus’ ministry.

Objective evidence, therefore, appears to exclude the late-date hypothesis and indicates that there is insufficient reason to deny Daniel’s authorship.

Intro to Daniel

Because you seem to be accepting the Book of Daniel as genuinely prophetic of Jewish restoration written during the Babylonian exile, whilst most scholars hold that it was written much later, well into the second temple era, and was - at least for the most part - a compilation of earlier Jewish mythology and post-exilic reinterpretations of history written in the apocalyptic literary style that was quite common in that period.

I don't know for certain who wrote the book of Daniel. However I do believe in the God of Abraham who is concerned for His creation, has sent great and inspired and Teachers throughout history, and prophets whom God communicated to humanity for guidance and to provide hope for the future.

The book of Daniel as you know is important to Baha'is from a Christian background, and both Abdu'l-Baha and Shoghi Effendi referred to Daniel on numerous occasions.

 

[Dawnofhope]

So truth is determined by popularity amongst conservative Christians? Hmmm! Not sure that will suit the Baha'i faith terribly well.

Baha'is believe share many beliefs with Christians.

But that is a covenant that involves the law being written "on their hearts" - this is a prophecy about a spiritual condition - not a national identity.

Agreed. The fulfillment of this prophecy was only partial though Christ and needs completion through the Returned Christ for this to be accomplished.

In any case, it does not say it is everlasting, it says it will cease when the "fixed order" - of days following nights, the procession of the stars across the sky and the daily ebb and flow of the tides - ends.

There is more to the Eternal Covenant in the OT than Jeremiah 31:21-24

If that is symbolic of a spiritual change, then it ends at least when "the present heavens and earth" pass away (2 Peter 3; Revelation 21:1-4). There is nothing in any of these passages that suggests anything other than this being symbolic of the passage of divine favour from the natural to the spiritual "Israelites" - from the written code with its old physical temple in the old earthly Jerusalem under the "old heavens" to the heavenly "New Jerusalem" and the law written on the hearts of the faithful.

These verses in Peter and Revelation are clear use symbols to describe the end of one religious dispensation that accompanys the beginning of a new one. The old world order is rolled up and a new one brought forward in its stead. This is a continuation of God's grace to man and fulfilling His pledge that His Covenant is Eternal. God will never leave humanity, no matter how much humanity turns its back on God.

 

[Dawnofhope]

There is no way that this prophecy is about anything later than a post-Babylonian exile restoration - read the chapter in context and it is obvious that it talking about the Jews returning from Assyria as - it compares - they had come out of Egypt. Without a preconceived notion of a far later eschatological interpretation, there is no way this could be read as referring to anything other than the restoration of the 5th century BC.

If that were true how would we explain the following verses later in Isaiah 11 ?

The wolf also shall dwell with the lamb, and the leopard shall lie down with the kid; and the calf and the young lion and the fatling together; and a little child shall lead them.
And the cow and the bear shall feed; their young ones shall lie down together: and the lion shall eat straw like the ox.
And the sucking child shall play on the hole of the asp, and the weaned child shall put his hand on the cockatrice' den.
They shall not hurt nor destroy in all my holy mountain: for the earth shall be full of the knowledge of the Lord, as the waters cover the sea.
Isaiah 11:6-9

The Jews see many of the verses in Isaiah as Messianic as well.

Messiah in Judaism - Wikipedia

If that is correct then how are we to interpret the "generation" addressed by Jesus in the following verses:

Matthew 12:39, Matthew 17:17, Matthew 23:33-36, Mark 8:38, Luke 11:29, Luke 11:50-51

To be consistent, if you are insisting that when Jesus referred to "this generation" in Matthew 24, he meant people who would be alive in the 19th/20th centuries - he also meant that the blood of the faithful prophets of old would be avenged on the people who were alive in the 19th/20th centuries. Obviously that makes no sense, but having 'this generation' - of the Jews - witness all these signs and bear guilt for their unfaithfulness in "this generation" of contemporaneous 1st century Jews is both consistent and makes sense (whether it is true or not).

So far, there seem to be more problems with the futurist interpretation than the preterist one - wouldn't you say?

I think you are making my argument for me. Jesus in all the scripture you have provided uses generation in a negative sense. He is referring to the Jewish people and so in the Olivet discourse He is making reference to their plight, climaxing in the destruction of the temple. That need not destract at all from references to far off future events. I don't have a problem with it, but then I'm reading the text more allegorically, whereas you seem to be much more literal.

 

[CG Didymus]

I'm working 6 days a week so haven't had too much time for RF.



Its hard for us to step into the midset of the gospel writers. We can't even be certain who wrote any of them were. I wonder if they were so enamoured and intoxicated by the Spirit of Christ that historic accurancy was not a central concern.



I understand your concern, but I doubt if the early Christians set out to create a hoax and decieve people. The apostles were busy preachng about Christ and spreading the word. Its just the way the story of Christ unfolded.



The life of the spirit after death is a key message of the resurrection. More important is the life of the spirit in this world and the effect the Teachings of Christ could have on His followers. The most potent symbol to descibe the difference between unbelief and belief is the resurrection.

Do you really believe the apostles of Christ were busy deliberately masterminding a hoax?

The important question is... Do Baha'is believe that the writers believed that Jesus had risen from the dead?

 

[Dawnofhope]

The important question is... Do Baha'is believe that the writers believed that Jesus had risen from the dead?

Like many specific questions about the Bible, Baha'is are free to form their own conclusions.

As you know, Baha'is don't believe in the physical resurrection really happened, instead it was the body of Christ (the church) that was raised.

I found a letter from Abdu'l-Baha to an individual believer about the resurrection I thought might be of interest to you.

Bahá'í Reference Library - Tablets of Abdul-Baha Abbas, Pages 191-193

 

[syo]

An empty tomb and the appearance of Jesus before many

this. also, the enemies of christianity would definately use christ's dead body as evidence against christians. but there is no body, so...

 

[Rough Beast Sloucher]

this. also, the enemies of christianity would definately use christ's dead body as evidence against christians. but there is no body, so...

So maybe some followers of Jesus took the body.

 

[syo]

So maybe some followers of Jesus took the body.

no. he appeared alive.

 

[Rough Beast Sloucher]

no. he appeared alive.

There are multiple narratives about Jesus being seen alive that disagree substantially from each other.

 

[Dawnofhope]

this. also, the enemies of christianity would definately use christ's dead body as evidence against christians. but there is no body, so...

According to the gospel of John the Christians took Jesus's body.

And after this Joseph of Arimathaea, being a disciple of Jesus, but secretly for fear of the Jews, besought Pilate that he might take away the body of Jesus: and Pilate gave him leave. He came therefore, and took the body of Jesus.
And there came also Nicodemus, which at the first came to Jesus by night, and brought a mixture of myrrh and aloes, about an hundred pound weight.
Then took they the body of Jesus, and wound it in linen clothes with the spices, as the manner of the Jews is to bury.
Now in the place where he was crucified there was a garden; and in the garden a new sepulchre, wherein was never man yet laid.
There laid they Jesus therefore because of the Jews' preparation day; for the sepulchre was nigh at hand.

John 19:38-42