Resurrection question

[razeontherock]

Please note that is flaming, and against the rules here. If you wish to consider rock-solid exposition of Scripture to be "idiotic baloney," that is your right; but it does undermine the sincerity of you asking for answers from Scripture.

 

[Feivel]

.

Unless an apology for your false accusation is forthcoming, you have no need to say anything to me nor do I find it desirable to listen to you.

 

[Feivel]

Please note that is flaming, and against the rules here. If you wish to consider rock-solid exposition of Scripture to be "idiotic baloney," that is your right; but it does undermine the sincerity of you asking for answers from Scripture.

Are you for real? What I called idiotic baloney was your stupid accusation of what I was doing and his question as to my motives. If you want to claim I called the bible idiotic baloney you can report it but personally I say you will look foolish.

 

[ElijahW]

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

Two totally different things going on in both areas. With the sacrifice, he is establishing the ideal king, for the ideal kingdom they were (we are)trying to establish. With his appearance, after his death, it was seen as proof that the resurrection was possible. Him being made king is part of getting rid of the earthly kings which are in the way of establishing God's kingdom on earth. God's kingdom includes the resurrection of the dead.

[FONT=&quot]1 Cor 15:21 [/FONT]For as by a man came death, by a man has come also the resurrection of the dead. For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive. But each in his own order: Christ the first fruits, then at his coming those who belong to Christ. Then comes the end, when he delivers the kingdom to God the Father after destroying every rule and every authority and power. For he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet. The last enemy to be destroyed is death.

 

[razeontherock]

Are you for real? What I called idiotic baloney was

You did not clarify, but were responding to rock-solid Biblical exegesis. It is reasonable to conclude this is what you were referring to.

Also, you are indeed questioning if Paul made stuff up out of the blue. If you see no foundation for it in Scripture, this is reasonable. There is no need for you to be defensive about it.

I directed you to such foundation, which you have yet to address ...

 

[Feivel]

[FONT=&quot]1 Cor 15:21 [/FONT]For as by a man came death, by a man has come also the resurrection of the dead. For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive. But each in his own order: Christ the first fruits, then at his coming those who belong to Christ. Then comes the end, when he delivers the kingdom to God the Father after destroying every rule and every authority and power. For he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet. The last enemy to be destroyed is death.

I understand that ElijahW but it doesn't tell me why Paul was able to say unless Jesus was resurrected that faith is useless. Funny thing is the only real answers given that were based on the bible were both from newbie posters. Guess they don't have the bias of some of the others here.

 

[ElijahW]

I understand that ElijahW but it doesn't tell me why Paul was able to say unless Jesus was resurrected that faith is useless. Funny thing is the only real answers given that were based on the bible were both from newbie posters. Guess they don't have the bias of some of the others here.

Because the faith is based on being resurrected in the future. I'm unsure of the difficulty you are having with the verse.

 

[Feivel]

Because the faith is based on being resurrected in the future. I'm unsure of the difficulty you are having with the verse.

You mean that Christian faith has nothing to do with his atoning sacrifice? That seems to be a radically new and different way of looking at it. I'll bite, how does the bible justify faith not in the crucifixion and it's atonement but in the resurrection only?

 

[ElijahW]

You mean that Christian faith has nothing to do with his atoning sacrifice? That seems to be a radically new and different way of looking at it. I'll bite, how does the bible justify faith not in the crucifixion and it's atonement but in the resurrection only?

It's not that Christianity doesn't have anything to do with a sacrifice. (I'm unsure of how you understand atonement coming about so I don't why you view my understanding as radical.) The point is that verse is dealing with their faith relying on the resurrection being possible. That's it. I don't know how you think that that statement gets rid of the need to believe in his sacrifice or him being the messiah or whatever else you consider essential to being a Christian.

 

[razeontherock]

The point is that verse is dealing with their faith relying on the resurrection being possible.

Also that the Resurrection proves Jesus' claims. But per our OP, that's not a "real answer."

 

[Feivel]

I'm unsure of how you understand atonement coming about

Your kidding me aren't you? How many times in this thread did I write that atonement came through Jesus sacrifice? And you still are unclear as to what I said? Did you read my posts?

The point is that verse is dealing with their faith relying on the resurrection being possible

Fine, show that based on the bible but from what I see that verse (and the surrounding context) makes no distinction between faith in the resurrection and faith in the atoning sacrifice.

 

[ElijahW]

Also that the Resurrection proves Jesus claims. But per our OP, that's not a "real answer."

I'd have to agree with the OP. I don't think that is a point Paul is trying to make there. You can make that point about Jesus' resurrection validating his claims but Paul isn't... that I can see there. Maybe someplace else he does so, but I can't think of where, off the cuff.

 

[razeontherock]

No, Paul doesn't make that point there. It is already established, and he is building on it.

 

[ElijahW]

Your kidding me aren't you? How many times in this thread did I write that atonement came through Jesus sacrifice? And you still are unclear as to what I said? Did you read my posts?

I looked at the posts but maybe I missed where you explained how atonement comes from his sacrifice. Which post did you go into how his sacrifice relates to any kind of atonement?

Fine, show that based on the bible but from what I see that verse (and the surrounding context) makes no distinction between faith in the resurrection and faith in the atoning sacrifice.

Totally confused. The whole chapter is about the resurrection of Jesus validating their faith in the own future resurrection. Where are you getting this atonement issues from?

 

[drich0150]

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 resurrection (Per Paul in Romans 1) tells us that Christ was, who He said He was, this is also proven in 1 Co 15. The resurrection is also important because Our atonement has bought our eternal resurrection (also in 1Co15) and that if Christ was not resurrected then nothing he did mattered. Because the atonement bought because Christ's sacrifice was to secure our eternal life/future resurrection.

Why wouldn't I understand the bible says that?

I can not speak to the nature of what you do or do not understand.
Or what you will admit or will not admit.

Didn't I say his sacrifice atoned for man or is it just your assumption that I am a deceitful atheist?

You seemed to have little difficulty blowing past a precept simply to state your underlining message. this would indicate that you are issuing challenges despite the actual answers given. Which is a form of deceit.

In that you misrepresented your intentions with a question, when in reality you are issuing challenges in question form. the difference being is what you do with the answers given. In this case you blew past them with out a second glance to get to a point you have already predetermined.

1. Your self righteous taunt about "Christians" unjustly labeling you a deceitful atheist.

2. Your post concerning the quality of content the "we" are able to provide.

So in short, yes i believe you to be deceitful, (Because you have already established this with your actions/words) as to the nature of your true belief i know you claim to be an atheist, but as of yet i do not know the nature of your actual faith.

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.

... Am I missing something? If you wanted a direct response from Paul then you should have asked Paul, Or at the very least if you wanted a scriptural representation of Paul's works you should have posted in a section of the site that deals with the actual exegesis of scripture... If you ask an open ended question on a primarily commentary section of a Christian web site how do you not expect to get commentary? (unless you otherwise ask for scripture)

Please do. If it's in 1 Corinthians 15 just show it.

The Resurrection of Christ

1 Now, brothers and sisters, I want to remind you of the gospel I preached to you, which you received and on which you have taken your stand. 2 By this gospel you are saved, if you hold firmly to the word I preached to you. Otherwise, you have believed in vain.

3 For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance[a]: 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, 5 and that he appeared to Cephas,[b] and then to the Twelve. 6 After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers and sisters at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep. 7 Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles, 8 and last of all he appeared to me also, as to one abnormally born.
9 For I am the least of the apostles and do not even deserve to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God. 10 But by the grace of God I am what I am, and his grace to me was not without effect. No, I worked harder than all of them—yet not I, but the grace of God that was with me. 11 Whether, then, it is I or they, this is what we preach, and this is what you believed. The Resurrection of the Dead

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.

20 But Christ has indeed been raised from the dead, the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep. 21 For since death came through a man, the resurrection of the dead comes also through a man. 22 For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive. 23 But each in turn: Christ, the firstfruits; then, when he comes, those who belong to him. 24 Then the end will come, when he hands over the kingdom to God the Father after he has destroyed all dominion, authority and power. 25 For he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet. 26 The last enemy to be destroyed is death. 27 For he “has put everything under his feet.”[c] Now when it says that “everything” has been put under him, it is clear that this does not include God himself, who put everything under Christ. 28 When he has done this, then the Son himself will be made subject to him who put everything under him, so that God may be all in all.
29 Now if there is no resurrection, what will those do who are baptized for the dead? If the dead are not raised at all, why are people baptized for them? 30 And as for us, why do we endanger ourselves every hour? 31 I face death every day—yes, just as surely as I boast about you in Christ Jesus our Lord. 32 If I fought wild beasts in Ephesus with no more than human hopes, what have I gained? If the dead are not raised,
“Let us eat and drink,
for tomorrow we die.”[d]
33 Do not be misled: “Bad company corrupts good character.”[e] 34 Come back to your senses as you ought, and stop sinning; for there are some who are ignorant of God—I say this to your shame. The Resurrection Body

35 But someone will ask, “How are the dead raised? With what kind of body will they come?” 36 How foolish! What you sow does not come to life unless it dies. 37 When you sow, you do not plant the body that will be, but just a seed, perhaps of wheat or of something else. 38 But God gives it a body as he has determined, and to each kind of seed he gives its own body. 39 Not all flesh is the same: People have one kind of flesh, animals have another, birds another and fish another. 40 There are also heavenly bodies and there are earthly bodies; but the splendor of the heavenly bodies is one kind, and the splendor of the earthly bodies is another. 41 The sun has one kind of splendor, the moon another and the stars another; and star differs from star in splendor.

42 So will it be with the resurrection of the dead. The body that is sown is perishable, it is raised imperishable; 43 it is sown in dishonor, it is raised in glory; it is sown in weakness, it is raised in power; 44 it is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body.
If there is a natural body, there is also a spiritual body. 45 So it is written: “The first man Adam became a living being”[f]; the last Adam, a life-giving spirit. 46 The spiritual did not come first, but the natural, and after that the spiritual. 47 The first man was of the dust of the earth; the second man is of heaven. 48 As was the earthly man, so are those who are of the earth; and as is the heavenly man, so also are those who are of heaven. 49 And just as we have borne the image of the earthly man, so shall we[g] bear the image of the heavenly man.
50 I declare to you, brothers and sisters, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God, nor does the perishable inherit the imperishable. 51 Listen, I tell you a mystery: We will not all sleep, but we will all be changed— 52 in a flash, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, the dead will be raised imperishable, and we will be changed. 53 For the perishable must clothe itself with the imperishable, and the mortal with immortality. 54 When the perishable has been clothed with the imperishable, and the mortal with immortality, then the saying that is written will come true: “Death has been swallowed up in victory.”[h]
55 “Where, O death, is your victory?
Where, O death, is your sting?”[i]
56 The sting of death is sin, and the power of sin is the law. 57 But thanks be to God! He gives us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ. 58 Therefore, my dear brothers and sisters, stand firm. Let nothing move you. Always give yourselves fully to the work of the Lord, because you know that your labor in the Lord is not in vain.

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.

a study in the Greek is not in the bible either but is just as important because it is indeed the word recorded.

To assume that the English texts hold all of the nuances the Greek did, is Naive at best. Likewise to not understand the history or the nature of the people these letters were written to, and why they were written, is only setting oneself up for a theology in legalism. which is covered in the works of Christ and frowned upon. Greatly.

So the avenue or purity of the word you claim to be holding out for, can only provide you with a toxic understanding of our faith. It is like the brothers who mistakenly think that there is only one reliable translation of the bible. that God spoketh in the Old Kings English. And if thy translation didith not represent the old Kings English to a tee then you had the work of the devil in your hands.

This is your position as well, whether you know it or not. to most of us it seems foolish to think some people honestly think that God, moses and Christ all spoke according to the old king's English. That Mathew's name was Mathew, The Mark's was Mark, That Mary was call Mary by Her mother and that She Call Jesus, Jesus. Yet believe it or not some people think this way still. Never even wondering why people like Zachkesis and Cephas and the "bad guys" of the bible all got to keep their given names while all of the good people got good white "Christian" names.. In either case do you think the everything from the Greek gets accurately represented in the bible in the English? Would you know the difference between Yeshiva Yeshua Yeosiph? Without my note i honestly could say no.

Bottom line:
You asked a question beyond the scope of the English text, to only look for an answer in the English texts is a fools errand.

It would not be if you would yield yourself to the other texts people (including myself) have already provided for you answering your questions completely.

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.
That would certainly be helpful but it isn't going to answer my question with the bible.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.As long as it is from the bible, more specifically from Paul, it would help answer my question.

Here again you are misrepresenting your intentions. You claim to want a biblical answer, but you are not willing to look beyond the surface of the English translation to get it. The bible was not written in English therefore a critical examination of it has to take place in the original language. Otherwise you will be subject to the very commentary you claim to be avoiding.

Your attempt here to dismiss the original text also would indicate that again you are not being truthful. In that only a troll would not want to look at scripture in a complete way, through a proclamation of purity.

 

[drich0150]

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?

Then why not address the scripture given? Why do you still deflect?

 

[Feivel]

I looked at the posts but maybe I missed where you explained how atonement comes from his sacrifice. Which post did you go into how his sacrifice relates to any kind of atonement?

Totally confused. The whole chapter is about the resurrection of Jesus validating their faith in the own future resurrection. Where are you getting this atonement issues from?

This is Christianity? You mean the crucifixion did nothing as far as atoning for the sins of man? You really sure you meant to say that?

In either case, this is a sideline that is not doing anything whatsoever to answer (or even attempt to answer) the original question I asked.

 

[Feivel]

Then why not address the scripture given? Why do you still deflect?

Let me spell it out for you since you and "Raze" are apparently to stubborn and arrogant to understand. Unless you both apologize for your arrogance and your idiotic and immature questioning of my motives I want nothing further to do with either of you or anything either of you two say. Is that clear enough for you?

 

[ElijahW]

This is Christianity? You mean the crucifixion did nothing as far as atoning for the sins of man? You really sure you meant to say that?

In either case, this is a sideline that is not doing anything whatsoever to answer (or even attempt to answer) the original question I asked.

No one here has any idea of the understanding of Christianity you are working with if you don't tell us.

I'm asking you your understanding of the atonement, not that he didn't atone for the sins of man with his sacrifice. How do you not see the resurrection as integral to atoning for the sins of man? And why does the sacrifice need to be mentioned at all times or it becomes an issue for some reason? Why you are confused by the sacrifice and the resurrection being a part of the faith is really baffling me.

 

[Dorothea]

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



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.

I believe one has to understand Christ's Redemption and thus Salvation of the world first, through understanding the Fall and original sin. That Christ came to save us from the imprisonment of death and sin. Because Adam and Eve chose to disobey God through pride and disobedience, they were subject to death, which hadn't been there before, and sin(s).

Christ came to save us from the perpetuality of our sins which inevitably ended the human race in death - death is the separation of us and God. Christ came to reconcile us with the Father through His voluntary going to the Cross for us, and through his obedience to His Father. His Father neither demanded it nor wished to have some kind of wrath satisfied by punishing the human race, by punishing His own Son. Think of the story of the Prodigal Son. The Prodigal Son is us, and the father in the Story is God the Father.

We were created because God so loved us that he wanted each and every one of us to partake of the life of the Trinity - which is perfect union of love. He wants a relationship with all of us. He loves us so.

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.

The Resurrection is important because no longer are we separated from God. After Christ's dying on the Cross, He descended into hades where all the people who died before His coming Incarnate where there waiting in their tombs - souls with their bodies, although, separated to a certain extent because of death. All the righteous and those who did not know Him but then accepted Him when He preached there in hades were released from their tombs and gone to Paradise - the place the faithful go until His Second Coming.

Christ tore the veil in the Temple from top to bottom, which represent the separation of God from human beings. There is no longer this separation. When we part from this life physically (die physically), our bodies await in the tombs while our souls are with Christ God because we are no longer separated from Him. It says in the Bible that not even death can separate us from Him. So, our bodies are lifeless without our souls/spirits and will await in the ground, returning to dust as our souls/spirits are with God, glorifying Him and await the Final Resurrection where our souls and bodies with reunite in a glorified state. Christ's resurrection shows us what our bodies and such will look like at this time of Final Resurrection and therefore, gives us hope - this to look forward to.

Physical death used to be total separation from God. Now, as a believer, death is the passage to uniting with God.

HTH