Resurrection question

[Feivel]

I have a question about the resurrection that may not be the type of question usually asked. The atoning sacrifice was Jesus crucifixion by which Christians attain salvation. Why did Paul write in 1 Corinthians 15:14

And if Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith.

I can understand how Christianity is "useless" if there was no crucifixion (with the atoning sacrifice) but nowhere is the bible that I can see where Paul explained his reasoning. It seems to me that whether Jesus was risen or not the atoning sacrifice was already made. Afterall, he said as he died

It is finished

So someone please explain the importance of the resurrection. Someone once told me that it serves as an evidence of Christian faith but that just seems to raise more problems to me since evidence means faith is not necessary.

Thanks in advance for your answers.

 

[LWB]

The way I take that verse, is that if we aren't raised to life again, what's the point of being atoned for? We just go back to dust and that's that.

The point of the resurrection is that our flesh will be perfected without a taint of sin, incorruptible, and with this new body we shall dwell with God face to face.

 

[Feivel]

The way I take that verse, is that if we aren't raised to life again, what's the point of being atoned for? We just go back to dust and that's that.

The point of the resurrection is that our flesh will be perfected without a taint of sin, incorruptible, and with this new body we shall dwell with God face to face.

I guess you mean this as a personal interpretation or is this reason given in the bible? If not, how did Paul justify his writing the verse I quoted? I really have trouble understanding this concept.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Someone once told me that it serves as an evidence of Christian faith but that just seems to raise more problems to me since evidence means faith is not necessary.

'Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.' (Hebrews 11:1) Notice the words 'hoped for'; a big part of faith. Many Christians 'believe' clear down to their toenails. Others are more 'hopeful' than believing. Lot's of room in that verse for everyone.

 

[drich0150]

I have a question about the resurrection that may not be the type of question usually asked. The atoning sacrifice was Jesus crucifixion by which Christians attain salvation. Why did Paul write in 1 Corinthians 15:14

Because Christ claimed to be God, if a "God" succumbs to death then "He" is not much of a God is He?

Subsequently if Christ did not rise, then He would not have been God. If He was not God then nothing He said would be true. Which would make everything meaningless.

I can understand how Christianity is "useless" if there was no crucifixion (with the atoning sacrifice) but nowhere is the bible that I can see where Paul explained his reasoning. It seems to me that whether Jesus was risen or not the atoning sacrifice was already made. After all, he said as he died

But if he did not rise from the dead how would His death be any different than the deaths of any other "prophet?"
This key element is what separated Christ from people like Muhammad.

 

[Feivel]

Because Christ claimed to be God, if a "God" succumbs to death then "He" is not much of a God is He?

Does this mean his sacrifice wasn't a sacrifice?

Subsequently if Christ did not rise, then He would not have been God. If He was not God then nothing He said would be true. Which would make everything meaningless.

What he said and taught would still be the same regardless of the resurrection wouldn't it? Or does it say somewhere in the bible that Jesus words are false unless he was resurrected?

But if he did not rise from the dead how would His death be any different than the deaths of any other "prophet?"

Did any other prophet in the bible claim to atone for man by his death?

This key element is what separated Christ from people like Muhammad.

Where does it say or even hint to that in the bible?

All the answers I'm getting seem to be no more than personal interpretations (or wants). I really would like a scripturally based answer or even an honest "I am not sure" which would be much better than the interpretations I am getting. This isn't a setup nor am I trying to bait someone into an argument.

 

[solarwave]

I have a question about the resurrection that may not be the type of question usually asked. The atoning sacrifice was Jesus crucifixion by which Christians attain salvation. Why did Paul write in 1 Corinthians 15:14 :And if Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith.

You say later on in the thread that you want a scripturally based answer, why is this?

Anyway I think you answer is in the passage you quoted:

"12 But if it is preached that Christ has been raised from the dead, how can some of you say that there is no resurrection of the dead? 13 If there is no resurrection of the dead, then not even Christ has been raised. 14 And if Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith. 15 More than that, we are then found to be false witnesses about God, for we have testified about God that he raised Christ from the dead. But he did not raise him if in fact the dead are not raised. 16 For if the dead are not raised, then Christ has not been raised either. 17 And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins. 18 Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ are lost. 19 If only for this life we have hope in Christ, we are of all people most to be pitied." - 1 Corinthians 15: 12-19

It seems to me that if there was no resurrection then there is no reason to think that Jesus was anything more than a prophet who got it a bit wrong and was killed. There is no reason to have a hope in life beyond death and no reason to think Jesus' death had any sacrifical power in it. That being said some forms of Christianity focus more on the incarnation or resurrection more than the sacrifice for the means of salvation.

So if there is no resurrection it is more probable that Jesus was just a man who died with no atoning sacrifice in his death. It is the resurrection that shows this to be true. Hope that helps

 

[Cuddles333]

It was a fulfillment of prophesy that Jesus be raised from the dead:

Acts 2:22-36

22. Ye men of Israel, hear these words; Jesus of Nazareth, a man approved of God among you by miracles and wonders and signs, which God did by him in the midst of you, as ye yourselves also know: 23. Him, being delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, ye have taken, and by wicked hands have crucified and slain: 24. Whom God hath raised up, having loosed the pains of death: because it was not possible that he should be holden of it. 25. For David speaketh concerning him, I foresaw the Lord always before my face, for he is on my right hand, that I should not be moved: 26. Therefore did my heart rejoice, and my tongue was glad; moreover also my flesh shall rest in hope: 27. Because thou wilt not leave my soul in hell, neither wilt thou suffer thine Holy One to see corruption. 28. Thou hast made known to me the ways of life; thou shalt make me full of joy with thy countenance. 29. Men [and] brethren, let me freely speak unto you of the patriarch David, that he is both dead and buried, and his sepulchre is with us unto this day. 30. Therefore being a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him, that of the fruit of his loins, according to the flesh, he would raise up Christ to sit on his throne; 31. He seeing this before spake of the resurrection of Christ, that his soul was not left in hell, neither his flesh did see corruption. 32. This Jesus hath God raised up, whereof we all are witnesses. 33. Therefore being by the right hand of God exalted, and having received of the Father the promise of the Holy Ghost, he hath shed forth this, which ye now see and hear. 34. For David is not ascended into the heavens: but he saith himself, The Lord said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand, 35. Until I make thy foes thy footstool. 36. Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly, that God hath made that same Jesus, whom ye have crucified, both Lord and Christ.

 

[Feivel]

You say later on in the thread that you want a scripturally based answer, why is this?

Isn't it obvious that I want to understand this? Why do you ask as if I have some sort of ulterior motive?

So if there is no resurrection it is more probable that Jesus was just a man who died with no atoning sacrifice in his death. It is the resurrection that shows this to be true. Hope that helps

No more than the first reply I received. I ask for scripturally based answers yet you give me interpretation once again? Why is that? Will someone just give an answer based on the bible....PLEASE.

 

[Feivel]

It was a fulfillment of prophesy that Jesus be raised from the dead:

Acts 2:22-36

22. Ye men of Israel, hear these words; Jesus of Nazareth, a man approved of God among you by miracles and wonders and signs, which God did by him in the midst of you, as ye yourselves also know: 23. Him, being delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, ye have taken, and by wicked hands have crucified and slain: 24. Whom God hath raised up, having loosed the pains of death: because it was not possible that he should be holden of it. 25. For David speaketh concerning him, I foresaw the Lord always before my face, for he is on my right hand, that I should not be moved: 26. Therefore did my heart rejoice, and my tongue was glad; moreover also my flesh shall rest in hope: 27. Because thou wilt not leave my soul in hell, neither wilt thou suffer thine Holy One to see corruption. 28. Thou hast made known to me the ways of life; thou shalt make me full of joy with thy countenance. 29. Men [and] brethren, let me freely speak unto you of the patriarch David, that he is both dead and buried, and his sepulchre is with us unto this day. 30. Therefore being a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him, that of the fruit of his loins, according to the flesh, he would raise up Christ to sit on his throne; 31. He seeing this before spake of the resurrection of Christ, that his soul was not left in hell, neither his flesh did see corruption. 32. This Jesus hath God raised up, whereof we all are witnesses. 33. Therefore being by the right hand of God exalted, and having received of the Father the promise of the Holy Ghost, he hath shed forth this, which ye now see and hear. 34. For David is not ascended into the heavens: but he saith himself, The Lord said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand, 35. Until I make thy foes thy footstool. 36. Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly, that God hath made that same Jesus, whom ye have crucified, both Lord and Christ.

Thanks Cuddles. Doesn't fully answer my question but it is close.

 

[razeontherock]

Good questions from our OP, and welcome to CF!

Your line of questioning is actually quite popular today. What you're doing is asking if Paul invented stuff out of the blue. The answer is a loud and clear "NO," from Scripture. To understand that foundation takes a LOT of work! Paul studied under the best teacher in his day, and excelled above his peers, who were all zealots. I've got a thorough study of one obscure part of the OT that is enough to prove all this to me; it's posted in another section.

Does this mean his sacrifice wasn't a sacrifice?

Funny enough, Orthodox Christians teach exactly this! They say His death is not to be understood as substitutionary atonement, but rather as "Christus Victor." Personally I still find all the available angles to be valid, and that Jesus certainly underwent extreme personal sacrifice. I mention this so you might be able to read up on Christus Victor, as this may provide a missing perspective for you ...

Or does it say somewhere in the Bible that Jesus words are false unless he was resurrected?

This goes along with comparison to important figures of other religions. The empty tomb is unique within Christianity. Others have legends, but no details of place, etc. More direct to your question:

Psalm 16:10 "For thou wilt not leave my soul in hell; neither wilt thou suffer thine Holy One to see corruption."

Again, this concept is all through the law of Moses. And as a concept, the legends in other religions also come from G-d, to prepare people for Christ, IMHO.

Did any other prophet in the Bible claim to atone for man by his death?

No! We do have the kinsman redeemer though, and also the story of David and Goliath is based upon an underlying principle here. (Why would one from each army fight, determining the overall winner?)

Where does it say or even hint to that in the Bible?

In the law of Moses it is indeed hints, that require more than a surface reading. In the first 5 books accredited to Moses, we see clearer hints than we are given within the law. (Types and shadows) By the time we move up to the Prophets, we get much more than hints. Especially Isaiah 53, Psalm 22, and other remarkable passages.

Here's another from the NT:

Romans 1:4 "And declared [to be] the Son of God with power, according to the spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the dead:"

Notice this is in the intro, and it is Paul's last work, meaning he's gotten his act together much better than when he started.

 

[Feivel]

What you're doing is asking if Paul invented stuff out of the blue.

Now I understand the motivation for some of the answers I'm getting. I'm an atheist so I must have some ulterior motive, apparently to "disprove" Paul. Thanks for the great welcome but from this answer I am pretty sure I am not going to get any real answers here.

 

[drich0150]

Does this mean his sacrifice wasn't a sacrifice?

Only if you limit the actual "sacrifice" to the physical death of the body Christ indwelt.

What he said and taught would still be the same regardless of the resurrection wouldn't it? Or does it say somewhere in the bible that Jesus words are false unless he was resurrected?

No, it would not be the same, because as I have already pointed out Jesus' primary message was that He was indeed God, and that His sacrifice would atone for the world's sin.

Did any other prophet in the bible claim to atone for man by his death?

No

Where does it say or even hint to that in the bible?

It does not say that no other man/prophet claim to atone for sin. Why would it if no other prophet made this claim in the bible?

If you mean where does the bible say Christ died for the sins of the world then look no further than 1Cor 15:3 For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, 4 that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures,

All the answers I'm getting seem to be no more than personal interpretations (or wants).

Not really, you just have not asked for bible verses. Most people like you do not have the same desire as you claim to have to sort through scripture. I will go back and put them in for you. (let me know if you change your mind)

I really would like a scripturally based answer or even an honest "I am not sure" which would be much better than the interpretations I am getting. This isn't a setup nor am I trying to bait someone into an argument.

The original answer you seek is contained with in the actual chapter you pull your question from. However to understand what Paul is speak about, and the line of logic He is using to defeat the Sadducee argument that there is no resurrection, You must be willing to research the different religious influences, that were on the church at Corinth, The climate in which the church was established, and to whom Paul was speaking/writing to. All of these factors went into the way he wrote this letter.

This is something beyond what I am able to do on a forum. i have tried a few times, but in the end the person was not looking for answers, He was simply looking to challenge anyone willing to take the time and good faith to respond.

If you want I can pool some resources that detail, document and explain the history of the church at Corinth. This will give you some Idea to the nature and logic of Paul's efforts, and the reason for the answers given in the 1st letter to Corinthians. From their we can build on your understanding on your specific question.

If this would be too much work simply know that the translation from the Greek to the English has lost some of the same finality or authority the Paul originally called upon, when he first made this case to the Church at Corinth. Because of this, we can to look at other books chapter and verses that support the claims being asserted about Paul's work here. Rather than take in a first century history of this church.

Meaning There are other sources that we can reference Like Romans 1 That establish the nature of Christ and His sacrifice as made in Corinthians 15.

 

[drich0150]

Now I understand the motivation for some of the answers I'm getting. I'm an atheist so I must have some ulterior motive, apparently to "disprove" Paul. Thanks for the great welcome but from this answer I am pretty sure I am not going to get any real answers here.

By "Real answers' do you mean answers you can easily defeat?

Because Raze did answer quite a few of your questions with the scripture you requested, and yet you still elected to ignore them in favor of a quick bail out, by attacking a question he ask.

Why did you ignore the answers to the challenges you presented?

 

[razeontherock]

Now I understand the motivation for some of the answers I'm getting. I'm an atheist so I must have some ulterior motive, apparently to "disprove" Paul. Thanks for the great welcome but from this answer I am pretty sure I am not going to get any real answers here.

Au contraire, you find many "real answers" in my single post, as well as from others. If you dissect your own questions, you will see I am right. You will also find a large number of professing Christians doing the same thing. And questioning is not the same as "trying to disprove."

 

[ElijahW]

Paul is preaching a future resurrection of the dead, with Jesus' resurrection given as proof that it is possible. If Jesus' resurrection didn't happen because it is impossible for the dead to be raised, then the kingdom they are trying to establish isn't going to bring anyone there any kind of salvation.

 

[solarwave]

Isn't it obvious that I want to understand this? Why do you ask as if I have some sort of ulterior motive?

I ask because I want to know why you want it directly from the Bible (as if such a thing were possible for all things) rather than based on reason.

No more than the first reply I received. I ask for scripturally based answers yet you give me interpretation once again? Why is that? Will someone just give an answer based on the bible....PLEASE.

I gave you a section of the Bible and told you thought it meant. What do you mean by an answer based on the Bible if not that. If you are asking for Scripture without interpretation, but that is completely meaningless. Its like asking for scientific data, looking at it but not asking what it means. There is no scripture without interpretation.

Either way, read 1 Corinthians 15, as I said, there is your answer.

 

[Feivel]

No, it would not be the same, because as I have already pointed out Jesus' primary message was that He was indeed God, and that His sacrifice would atone for the world's sin.

Right, that is EXACTLY what I am questioning. If it was his sacrifice (crucifixion) that made the atonement, what was the resurrection's importance?

If you mean where does the bible say Christ died for the sins of the world then look no further than 1Cor 15:3

Why wouldn't I understand the bible says that? Didn't I say his sacrifice atoned for man or is it just your assumption that I am a deceitful atheist?

Not really, you just have not asked for bible verses.

Forgive me for thinking on a Christian forum that when asking for why Paul was justified for writing something in the bible, I should have specifically said I want that justification from the only writing we have from Paul.

Most people like you do not have the same desire as you claim to have to sort through scripture. I will go back and put them in for you.

Please do.

The original answer you seek is contained with in the actual chapter you pull your question from. However to understand what Paul is speak about, and the line of logic He is using to defeat the Sadducee argument that there is no resurrection, You must be willing to research the different religious influences, that were on the church at Corinth, The climate in which the church was established, and to whom Paul was speaking/writing to. All of these factors went into the way he wrote this letter.

If it's in 1 Corinthians 15 just show it. A study of any background isn't from the bible so I don't understand why you bring it into the discussion when you are aware that what I want is something from the bible.

This is something beyond what I am able to do on a forum. i have tried a few times, but in the end the person was not looking for answers, He was simply looking to challenge anyone willing to take the time and good faith to respond.

Rest assured that I asked for an answer and an answer is what I want. I am neither a "dishonest atheist" (which some here apparently think) or a troll.

If you want I can pool some resources that detail, document and explain the history of the church at Corinth. This will give you some Idea to the nature and logic of Paul's efforts, and the reason for the answers given in the 1st letter to Corinthians. From their we can build on your understanding on your specific question.

That would certainly be helpful but it isn't going to answer my question with the bible.

If this would be too much work simply know that the translation from the Greek to the English has lost some of the same finality or authority the Paul originally called upon, when he first made this case to the Church at Corinth. Because of this, we can to look at other books chapter and verses that support the claims being asserted about Paul's work here. Rather than take in a first century history of this church.

i really don't think this is a matter of translation. For that matter I don't really think it is a good idea to bring this topic up.

Meaning There are other sources that we can reference Like Romans 1 That establish the nature of Christ and His sacrifice as made in Corinthians 15.

As long as it is from the bible, more specifically from Paul, it would help answer my question.

 

[razeontherock]

Right, that is EXACTLY what I am questioning. If it was his sacrifice (crucifixion) that made the atonement, what was the resurrection's importance?

The fact that it was accepted by G-d.

This is firmly established in Scripture in countless places, but 2 that come to mind are:

1) All the OT sacrifices first became sin, then were later eaten by the Priest, signifying fellowship w/ G-d Himself, despite sin. This was not yet fully available to the individual Jew, but foreshadowed Christianity.

2) The first to see Jesus post-resurrection was told "touch me not, for I have not yet ascended to the Father." Then later (before His final ascension) we see Him imploring (at least) Thomas to touch Him, to see He was flesh and blood. Why the difference? Because the sacrifice was not yet complete! The blood had to be brought "into the Holy Place," and this part of the story tells us that is Heaven itself, fleshing out yet more details of OT sacrifices. All of which Jesus fulfilled.

Forgive me for thinking on a Christian forum that when asking for why Paul was justified for writing something in the bible, I should have specifically said I want that justification from the only writing we have from Paul.Please do. If it's in 1 Corinthians 15 just show it. A study of any background isn't from the bible so I don't understand why you bring it into the discussion when you are aware that what I want is something from the bible.

You display a complete unawareness of what hermeneutics is. When you learn that you will revise your views expressed in this quote. Also, recognize that things explained by Scripture are not necessary for Paul to explain.

In other words, if you refuse to admit the culture and language of what the original audience would have understood, much will remain outside of your grasp. And if you limit answers to Paul's writings, you likewise ignore most of the insight of Scripture.

 

[Feivel]

By "Real answers' do you mean answers you can easily defeat?

No, by real answers I do not mean the terse idiotic baloney I got from you and "Raze". Now are you through embarrassing other Christians with your terse and immature answers?