The real jesus

[fatboys]

As many of you know LDS believe that after three days Jesus was resurrected into his physical body. And that he still has this body today. What are your thoughts about whether or not Jesus did resurrect.

 

[Jane_the_Bane]

I consider it possible (but not absolutely certain) that there was a historical Jesus whose followers held on to their beliefs even after he was executed by the authorities.
That was not the last time such a thing happened in history, after all: The Manichaeans kept on believing in their prophet even after his mutilated body was displayed on the ramparts, for example. And Jehova's Witnesses still gain new members even though their predicted Judgment Day came and went not once, but at least THRICE.
Naturally, I do not believe that this historical Jesus rose from the dead, nor that the gospels are factual reports instead of religious writings.
In the context of the text, however, it is clear that the resurrected Bible-Jesus was not a disembodied ghost: he still bears the wounds of his ordeal, and Thomas even touches these. At the same time, he can apparently disguise his appearance, walk through walls and fly into the sky/heavens. Scores of warring theological schools debated the exact nature of this body for hundreds of years, and I am not even entirely sure what the mainstream Christian consensus is these days, given that the "Christian at the bus stop" rarely believes in a bodily resurrection of the dead on judgment day, but instead believes that disembodied souls are instantly transported to either heaven or hell.

 

[single eye]

As many of you know LDS believe that after three days Jesus was resurrected into his physical body. And that he still has this body today. What are your thoughts about whether or not Jesus did resurrect.

Being revived from a snake venom induced coma does not qualify as a resurrection, so no.

 

[Arthra]

As many of you know LDS believe that after three days Jesus was resurrected into his physical body. And that he still has this body today. What are your thoughts about whether or not Jesus did resurrect.

Baha'is believe the body of Jesus was crucified and that His resurrection was spiritual ...

"...the meaning of Christ's resurrection is as follows: the disciples were troubled and agitated after the martyrdom of Christ. The Reality of Christ, which signifies His teachings, His bounties, His perfections and His spiritual power, was hidden and concealed for two or three days after His martyrdom, and was not resplendent and manifest. No, rather it was lost, for the believers were few in number and were troubled and agitated. The Cause of Christ was like a lifeless body; and when after three days the disciples became assured and steadfast, and began to serve the Cause of Christ, and resolved to spread the divine teachings, putting His counsels into practice, and arising to serve Him, the Reality of Christ became resplendent and His bounty appeared; His religion found life; His teachings and His admonitions became evident and visible. In other words, the Cause of Christ was like a lifeless body until the life and the bounty of the Holy Spirit surrounded it."

Such is the meaning of the resurrection of Christ, and this was a true resurrection.

~ Abdu'l-Baha, Some Answered Questions, p. 103

 

[fatboys]

Baha'is believe the body of Jesus was crucified and that His resurrection was spiritual ...

"...the meaning of Christ's resurrection is as follows: the disciples were troubled and agitated after the martyrdom of Christ. The Reality of Christ, which signifies His teachings, His bounties, His perfections and His spiritual power, was hidden and concealed for two or three days after His martyrdom, and was not resplendent and manifest. No, rather it was lost, for the believers were few in number and were troubled and agitated. The Cause of Christ was like a lifeless body; and when after three days the disciples became assured and steadfast, and began to serve the Cause of Christ, and resolved to spread the divine teachings, putting His counsels into practice, and arising to serve Him, the Reality of Christ became resplendent and His bounty appeared; His religion found life; His teachings and His admonitions became evident and visible. In other words, the Cause of Christ was like a lifeless body until the life and the bounty of the Holy Spirit surrounded it."

Such is the meaning of the resurrection of Christ, and this was a true resurrection.

~ Abdu'l-Baha, Some Answered Questions, p. 103

So you not. Relieve in a physical resurrection for anyone? What do you believe we are in a body now?

 

[fatboys]

I consider it possible (but not absolutely certain) that there was a historical Jesus whose followers held on to their beliefs even after he was executed by the authorities.
That was not the last time such a thing happened in history, after all: The Manichaeans kept on believing in their prophet even after his mutilated body was displayed on the ramparts, for example. And Jehova's Witnesses still gain new members even though their predicted Judgment Day came and went not once, but at least THRICE.
Naturally, I do not believe that this historical Jesus rose from the dead, nor that the gospels are factual reports instead of religious writings.
In the context of the text, however, it is clear that the resurrected Bible-Jesus was not a disembodied ghost: he still bears the wounds of his ordeal, and Thomas even touches these. At the same time, he can apparently disguise his appearance, walk through walls and fly into the sky/heavens. Scores of warring theological schools debated the exact nature of this body for hundreds of years, and I am not even entirely sure what the mainstream Christian consensus is these days, given that the "Christian at the bus stop" rarely believes in a bodily resurrection of the dead on judgment day, but instead believes that disembodied souls are instantly transported to either heaven or hell.

That is my conclusion as well about what many Christians believe. This is why I asked the question to see what the consensus is.

 

[fatboys]

Being revived from a snake venom induced coma does not qualify as a resurrection, so no.

Never heard of that one. Why do you believe it was snake venom

 

[single eye]

Never heard of that one. Why do you believe it was snake venom

Jesus was given "gall" before He gave up the ghost or passed out. Gall is snake venom.

 

[Arthra]

So you not. Relieve in a physical resurrection for anyone? What do you believe we are in a body now?

Thanks for your post... That's correct.. Baha'is do not believe in a "physical resurrection" for anyone... The body which is composed of elements returns to those elements and the immortal soul of man ascends to the spiritual worlds.

"....you who literally believe that the human body will return to dust and will be raised from it again, and therefore attach so much importance to this mortal world, how then can you wax so proud, and boast over things which are but perishable and consequently void of any true and lasting value."

~ Baha'u'llah

(Cited by Shoghi Effendi, Directives from the Guardian, p. 65)

 

[Zstar]

As many of you know LDS believe that after three days Jesus was resurrected into his physical body. And that he still has this body today. What are your thoughts about whether or not Jesus did resurrect.

Yes, Jesus did raise from the dead in the same body.

 

[Robban]

Jesus was given "gall" before He gave up the ghost or passed out. Gall is snake venom.

In Mathew he tasted it but did not drink it.
In Mark he refused it.
In Luke he was offered the sourwine/vinegar/gall or whatever, maybe for benumbing purposes.
In John he drank it.

 

[cloudyday2]

Prior to the rise of Protestantism, Christians believed in the bodily resurrection of the Virgin Mary too.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assumption_of_Mary
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dormition_of_the_Mother_of_God

 

[Albion]

That is my conclusion as well about what many Christians believe. This is why I asked the question to see what the consensus is.

That is my conclusion as well about what many Christians believe. This is why I asked the question to see what the consensus is.

You've quoted a lengthy post there which contains a number of different ideas, but if the main point to which you're replying here is this:

I am not even entirely sure what the mainstream Christian consensus is these days, given that the "Christian at the bus stop" rarely believes in a bodily resurrection of the dead on judgment day, but instead believes that disembodied souls are instantly transported to either heaven or hell.

I'd have to say, no, that's a misunderstanding of the standard Christian belief.

 

[Albion]

Prior to the rise of Protestantism, Christians believed in the bodily resurrection of the Virgin Mary too.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assumption_of_Mary
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dormition_of_the_Mother_of_God

Those Wikipedia entries are sufficiently vaguely worded as to give a false impression of what the doctrine was and is. It's not that she went to heaven in bodily form but that her corpse was taken to heaven.

The legend arose from the claims that some of the many places which were believed to have been the Virgin's grave sites were later found to be empty (which of course most readily would prove that they were NOT her graves). The legend followed that her body must have been "assumed" into heaven. Similar but not identical stories were told of Muhammad and Alexander the Great.

 

[Jane_the_Bane]

Those Wikipedia entries are sufficiently vaguely worded as to give a false impression of what the doctrine was and is. It's not that she went to heaven in bodily form but that her corpse was taken to heaven.

Ah, but it was hardly assumed that she STAYED a corpse in heaven, no? What would heaven want with a lifeless body?

 

[Albion]

Ah, but it was hardly assumed that she STAYED a corpse in heaven, no? What would heaven want with a lifeless body?

No, that wouldn't follow. But it was her dead body that was supposed to have been taken to heaven, unlike the "Ascension" of Christ. Mary's spirit was and is believed to have previously gone to heaven, like any other saint.

 

[cloudyday2]

Those Wikipedia entries are sufficiently vaguely worded as to give a false impression of what the doctrine was and is. It's not that she went to heaven in bodily form but that her corpse was taken to heaven.

The legend arose from the claims that some of the many places which were believed to have been the Virgin's grave sites were later found to be empty (which of course most readily would prove that they were NOT her graves). The legend followed that her body must have been "assumed" into heaven. Similar but not identical stories were told of Muhammad and Alexander the Great.

You might be right, but here are a couple of quotes.

This feast, which is also sometimes called the Assumption, commemorates the death, resurrection and glorification of Christ's mother. It proclaims that Mary has been "assumed" by God into the heavenly kingdom of Christ in the fullness of her spiritual and bodily existence.

http://orthodoxwiki.org/Dormition

The doctrine of the Assumption says that at the end of her life on earth Mary was assumed, body and soul, into heaven, just as Enoch, Elijah, and perhaps others had been before her.

http://www.catholic.com/tracts/immaculate-conception-and-assumption

 

[Albion]

You might be right, but here are a couple of quotes.


http://orthodoxwiki.org/Dormition

"...and all were present except Thomas when Mary passed from this life. She was then buried."

Thomas arrived a few days later, and desiring to see her one more time, convinced the others to open her tomb. Upon doing so, the Apostles discovered that her body was no longer present."

http://www.catholic.com/tracts/immaculate-conception-and-assumption

"The Church has never formally defined whether she died or not, and the integrity of the doctrine of the Assumption would not be impaired if she did not in fact die, but the almost universal consensus is that she did die. Pope Pius XII, in Munificentissimus Deus (1950), defined that Mary, "after the completion of her earthly life" (note the silence regarding her death), "was assumed body and soul into the glory of heaven."

 

[cloudyday2]

"...and all were present except Thomas when Mary passed from this life. She was then buried."

Thomas arrived a few days later, and desiring to see her one more time, convinced the others to open her tomb. Upon doing so, the Apostles discovered that her body was no longer present."

"The Church has never formally defined whether she died or not, and the integrity of the doctrine of the Assumption would not be impaired if she did not in fact die, but the almost universal consensus is that she did die. Pope Pius XII, in Munificentissimus Deus (1950), defined that Mary, "after the completion of her earthly life" (note the silence regarding her death), "was assumed body and soul into the glory of heaven."

But don't Christians believe that Jesus also died and was buried before His bodily resurrection? Where the Catholic website made the distinction between Mary and Jesus was that Jesus used His own power to ascend whereas Mary was assumed by God's power.

 

[cloudyday2]

A few more distinctions I see between the resurrections of Jesus and Mary is that Jesus appeared to his followers for 40 days before ascending.

Another issue is the appearance of saints. Appearances of Mary on Earth make sense if she was already resurrected like Jesus. Appearances of St. Nobody seem a little trickier when St. Nobody's incorrupt corpse might be preserved at a shrine somewhere. It becomes murky.