Exactly how did Christ win the resurrection argument in Matthew 22

BobRyan said:

In John 11 - Lazarus dies. When Jesus goes to Mary to comfort her about Lazarus living again - she reports the teaching of Jesus that the saints come to life at the 2nd coming.. Paul says 1 Thess 4 that at that event "the dead in Christ rise first"... John says in Rev 20 that it is "the first resurrection".

the Sadducees denied both the resurrection AND the idea of "life-after-death as in the living dead etc" -

Jesus specifically points to "the resurrection" as the point being proven. His explicit doctrine named -- is what people on both sides.. deny most.

Here is the elephant in the living room. The Sadducees railed against the doctrine and Christians today in many cases deny Christ's proof of that doctrine by arguing that even though He said He was proving it -- He did not prove it but rather proved some other doctrine that would totally undermine the point.

.


That is KEY to the solution popular today. That Jesus in fact DID NOT prove what He stated He was proving.

Click to expand...

BobRyan said:

In John 11 - Lazarus dies. When Jesus goes to Mary to comfort her about Lazarus living again - she reports the teaching of Jesus that the saints come to life at the 2nd coming.. Paul says 1 Thess 4 that at that event "the dead in Christ rise first"... John says in Rev 20 that it is "the first resurrection".

the Sadducees denied both the resurrection AND the idea of "life-after-death as in the living dead etc" -

Jesus specifically points to "the resurrection" as the point being proven. His explicit doctrine named -- is what people on both sides.. deny most.

Here is the elephant in the living room. The Sadducees railed against the doctrine and Christians today in many cases deny Christ's proof of that doctrine by arguing that even though He said He was proving it -- He did not prove it but rather proved some other doctrine that would totally undermine the point.

.


That is KEY to the solution popular today. That Jesus in fact DID NOT prove what He stated He was proving.

Click to expand...

BobRyan said:

"34 But when the Pharisees heard that Jesus had silenced the Sadducees, they gathered themselves together. " NASB

34 But when the Pharisees had heard that he had put the Sadducees to silence, they were gathered together. KJV

So then just how did Christ "win the argument" in Matthew 22? In that chapter the Pharisees admit that "Jesus put them to silence" -- put the Sadducees to silence meaning that they had nothing to counter-with.... they had no counter argument left to them and thus before all the onlookers they were forced to be "silent" having no answer available.

How is that?

What was the "irrefutable logic" that Christ used that the Sadducees found so silencing??

On this and many other Christian discussion boards you will occasionally find someone who merely "quotes themselves" as if that "proves" something to the opposing side.. and as we all know.. that never does.

Sometimes Jesus would contrast his position by saying "you say this.. but I say something else" -- but that is not the solution given in Matthew 22. In Matthew 22 he points to scripture and essentially says "there look at that we both agree with 'A' and we both agree with 'B' and that means you have a problem".

What exactly was the logic that He used? How did He "put them to silence"

==================

BTW for the sake of focus for this thread we are talking specifically about this --

Suppose as stated in the text Christ is actually debating the topic of the resurrection of the dead -- the future resurrection of the saints -- and actually did put the Sadducees to silence on that very topic... not some other subject.

Matt 22: And as for the resurrection of the dead, have you not read what was said to you by God: "I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob"? He is not God of the dead, but of the living."

As someone has already posted
Luke 20:37) Now that the dead are raised, even Moses shewed at the bush, when he calleth the Lord the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob.

Click to expand...

BobRyan said:

Both Christ and the Sadducees agreed that God could not be the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob while they were dead -- as it was spoken to Moses in Ex 3:6 - for God is not the God of the dead.

This is the very point that demanded a future resurrection.

The misguided effort to "avoid" the point Christ said He is proving -- does not survive the details in the chapter.

Click to expand...

BobRyan said:

That is KEY to the solution popular today. The wild claim that Jesus in fact DID NOT prove what He stated He was proving.

But that poorly thought out knee-jerk solution fails right out of the gate in Matthew 22 because the Sadducees start off with the problem of the woman with 7 husbands and last of all she dies -- then ask about that future resurrection... asking whose wife she would be in that future resurrection.

Jesus responds that in that future resurrection they will be like the Angels neither marrying nor giving in marriage.

It is all the same subject - of the future resurrection.

Click to expand...

BobRyan said:

"34 But when the Pharisees heard that Jesus had silenced the Sadducees, they gathered themselves together. " NASB

34 But when the Pharisees had heard that he had put the Sadducees to silence, they were gathered together. KJV

So then just how did Christ "win the argument" in Matthew 22? In that chapter the Pharisees admit that "Jesus put them to silence" -- put the Sadducees to silence meaning that they had nothing to counter-with.... they had no counter argument left to them and thus before all the onlookers they were forced to be "silent" having no answer available.

How is that?

What was the "irrefutable logic" that Christ used that the Sadducees found so silencing??

On this and many other Christian discussion boards you will occasionally find someone who merely "quotes themselves" as if that "proves" something to the opposing side.. and as we all know.. that never does.

Sometimes Jesus would contrast his position by saying "you say this.. but I say something else" -- but that is not the solution given in Matthew 22. In Matthew 22 he points to scripture and essentially says "there look at that we both agree with 'A' and we both agree with 'B' and that means you have a problem".

What exactly was the logic that He used? How did He "put them to silence"

==================

BTW for the sake of focus for this thread we are talking specifically about this --

Suppose as stated in the text Christ is actually debating the topic of the resurrection of the dead -- the future resurrection of the saints -- and actually did put the Sadducees to silence on that very topic... not some other subject.

Matt 22: And as for the resurrection of the dead, have you not read what was said to you by God: "I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob"? He is not God of the dead, but of the living."

As someone has already posted
Luke 20:37) Now that the dead are raised, even Moses shewed at the bush, when he calleth the Lord the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob.



The question is about the logic used to put the Sadducees in a position where they themselves felt they had no answer for the Puzzle - the box Christ had put them in.

First they tried putting Christ's doctrine in a box with the question about the woman with 7 husbands arguing that if there was a future resurrection it would be faced with insurmountable problems.

Then Christ not only answers how the problem would be solved in that singular future resurrection scenario -- but also returns the favor and offers a puzzle back to them. Puzzle where the only answer is the future resurrection doctrine.

Click to expand...

BobRyan said:

"34 But when the Pharisees heard that Jesus had silenced the Sadducees, they gathered themselves together. " NASB

34 But when the Pharisees had heard that he had put the Sadducees to silence, they were gathered together. KJV

So then just how did Christ "win the argument" in Matthew 22? In that chapter the Pharisees admit that "Jesus put them to silence" -- put the Sadducees to silence meaning that they had nothing to counter-with.... they had no counter argument left to them and thus before all the onlookers they were forced to be "silent" having no answer available.

How is that?

What was the "irrefutable logic" that Christ used that the Sadducees found so silencing??

On this and many other Christian discussion boards you will occasionally find someone who merely "quotes themselves" as if that "proves" something to the opposing side.. and as we all know.. that never does.

Sometimes Jesus would contrast his position by saying "you say this.. but I say something else" -- but that is not the solution given in Matthew 22. In Matthew 22 he points to scripture and essentially says "there look at that we both agree with 'A' and we both agree with 'B' and that means you have a problem".

What exactly was the logic that He used? How did He "put them to silence"

==================

BTW for the sake of focus for this thread we are talking specifically about this --

Suppose as stated in the text Christ is actually debating the topic of the resurrection of the dead -- the future resurrection of the saints -- and actually did put the Sadducees to silence on that very topic... not some other subject.

Matt 22: And as for the resurrection of the dead, have you not read what was said to you by God: "I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob"? He is not God of the dead, but of the living."

As someone has already posted
Luke 20:37) Now that the dead are raised, even Moses shewed at the bush, when he calleth the Lord the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob.

Click to expand...

BobRyan said:

Which can be the case if in the future they will be raised from the dead AND if as we see in Romans 4 -- God calls those things that do not yet exist - as though they did.

Click to expand...

BobRyan said:

-snip-Until you read the actual text.

23 On that day some Sadducees (who say there is no resurrection) came to Jesus and questioned Him, 24 asking, “Teacher, Moses said, ‘If a man dies having no children, his brother as next of kin shall marry his wife, and raise up children for his brother.’ 25 Now there were seven brothers with us; and the first married and died, and having no children left his wife to his brother; 26 so also the second, and the third, down to the seventh. 27 Last of all, the woman died. 28 In the resurrection, therefore, whose wife of the seven will she be? For they all had married her.”


8 In the resurrection, therefore, whose wife of the seven will she be? Future EVENT being denied.
Future event being challenged.

Click to expand...

29 But Jesus answered and said to them, “You are mistaken, not understanding the Scriptures nor the power of God. 30 For in the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels in heaven.

Jesus does not say "When they WERE resurrected" but rather keeps the future context of the question and answers what the future would be like.

Click to expand...

Then Christ takes that SAME context and hands the puzzle back to the Sadducees.

31 But regarding the resurrection of the dead, have you not read what was spoken to you by God: 32 ‘I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob’? He is not the God of the dead but of the living.” 33 When the crowds heard this, they were astonished at His teaching.

34 But when the Pharisees heard that Jesus had silenced the Sadducees, they gathered themselves together. 35 One of them, a lawyer, asked Him a question, testing Him,

Instead of saying "forget that future resurrection of the dead subject -- I want to prove another doctrine instead" - Jesus said ... "But regarding the resurrection of the dead, have you not read"

Click to expand...

BobRyan said:

Because Christ's logic is irrefutable even to the Sadducees on the very point Christ said he was proving.

Because as you demonstrated there are people today that have a problem with their doctrine and it is "exposed" by the fact that in the model they use - Christ did not prove his stated objective at all not even to them as Christians much less to Sadducees.

And "that" should be a wake up call.

Click to expand...

BobRyan said:

the Sadducees denied both the resurrection AND the idea of "life-after-death as in the living dead etc" -

Jesus specifically points to "the resurrection" as the point being proven. His explicit doctrine named -- is what people on both sides.. deny most.

Here is the elephant in the living room. The Sadducees railed against Christ's doctrine of the future resurrection -- and yet Christians today in many cases join in denying Christ's proof of that doctrine by arguing that even though He said He was proving His doctrine with an irrefutable argument -- yet in fact He did not prove it but rather proved some other doctrine that would totally undermine the point He was making about the future resurrection.

And that of course ... is nonsense.




You are welcome -- the details are right there on the page.




Until you read the actual text.

23 On that day some Sadducees (who say there is no resurrection) came to Jesus and questioned Him, 24 asking, “Teacher, Moses said, ‘If a man dies having no children, his brother as next of kin shall marry his wife, and raise up children for his brother.’ 25 Now there were seven brothers with us; and the first married and died, and having no children left his wife to his brother; 26 so also the second, and the third, down to the seventh. 27 Last of all, the woman died. 28 In the resurrection, therefore, whose wife of the seven will she be? For they all had married her.”


8 In the resurrection, therefore, whose wife of the seven will she be? Future EVENT being denied.
Future event being challenged.

obviously



29 But Jesus answered and said to them, “You are mistaken, not understanding the Scriptures nor the power of God. 30 For in the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels in heaven.

Jesus does not say "When they WERE resurrected" but rather keeps the future context of the question and answers what the future would be like.

obviously.


Then Christ takes that SAME context and hands the puzzle back to the Sadducees.

31 But regarding the resurrection of the dead, have you not read what was spoken to you by God: 32 ‘I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob’? He is not the God of the dead but of the living.” 33 When the crowds heard this, they were astonished at His teaching.

34 But when the Pharisees heard that Jesus had silenced the Sadducees, they gathered themselves together. 35 One of them, a lawyer, asked Him a question, testing Him,

Instead of saying "forget that future resurrection of the dead subject -- I want to prove another doctrine instead" - Jesus said ... "But regarding the resurrection of the dead, have you not read"

Click to expand...

BobRyan said:

Jesus said ... "But regarding the resurrection of the dead, have you not read"

Click to expand...

BobRyan said:

I am saying it left them with no alternative but to accept that the future resurrection that Christ said He was proving -- was the only solution to the puzzle given them. Thus "silence" their only option since they are entrenched in rejection of Christ's teaching and have no Bible or logic argument to respond with in that example.

Click to expand...