Resurrection

[Athetotheist]

As I understand Christian doctrine, it says that every human being who dies is to be physically resurrected with the bodies of the righteous being perfected for existence in paradise and the bodies of the unrighteous being cast into hell.

Suppose there is a pair of conjoined twins who share the same body from the neck down. When they die, one of them is a Christian and the other is not. Which of them gets the body in the resurrection?

[Clownboat]

That's supposed to be a big apologist "gotcha"----"If Jesus didn't rise from the dead, why didn't the authorities just bring out his body?" Since the fullness of the face was required to identify a body, there's a perfectly reasonable answer.

No need to bring out his body as they had placed a guard. When the tomb was inspected and found to be empty, they would have known that Jesus's body wasn't in there when the guard was set. Therefore the body had already been moved and there would be no need or ability to bring out a body.

If I'm not mistaken, 1st Corinthians would have been the first written source claiming a resurrection. This was claimed decades after the event in question by a person that was not there nor ever met the man.

It's far easier to believe the story that tells us about a guard being set then one from decades later claiming a dead body reanimated.

[DavidLeon]

If I'm not mistaken, 1st Corinthians would have been the first written source claiming a resurrection. This was claimed decades after the event in question by a person that was not there nor ever met the man.

And I myself well know that my redeemer is alive, and that, coming after [me], he will rise up over [the] dust. Job 19:25; See Job 14:13-15

[Clownboat]

If I'm not mistaken, 1st Corinthians would have been the first written source claiming a resurrection. This was claimed decades after the event in question by a person that was not there nor ever met the man.

And I myself well know that my redeemer is alive, and that, coming after [me], he will rise up over [the] dust. Job 19:25; See Job 14:13-15

A bit vague and not claiming a resurrection necessarily, but I don't want to get too far off topic as this was not the point.

You didn't comment on the guard that was set that would have confirmed that it was placed at an already empty tomb. Do you find any faults with this line of thought? It comes straight from the story itself, as does where the disciples took off to (with the body of Jesus perhaps that was according to the story laden with extremely fragrant frankincense and myrrh to hide a rotting corpse?) which would have been the natural location to place the body.

[DavidLeon]

A bit vague and not claiming a resurrection necessarily, but I don't want to get too far off topic as this was not the point.

Scholars often refer to chapter 12 (Daniel 12:2) as the first explicit reference to resurrection in the Hebrew scriptures. Two hundred years before that Isaiah had written Isaiah 26:19. years before Isaiah Elijah and Elisha were performing resurrections. . (1 Kings 17:17-24; 2 Kings 4:32-37) Before that Hannah expressed hope in the resurrection. (1 Samuel 2:6) and before that Job as I mentioned earlier. Jesus performed resurrection. To imply that Paul, who never knew Jesus while he was alive, invented the concept of resurrections is like dismissing Darwinism because Darwin didn't know Empedocles, Anaximander and Anaxagoras.

It sounds to me like you are trying to dismiss or you are unaware of the Jewish hope for resurrection. (Hosea 13:14) That doesn't sit well with me.

You didn't comment on the guard that was set that would have confirmed that it was placed at an already empty tomb. Do you find any faults with this line of thought?

I haven't been following the thread. I just stumbled upon the portion I responded to. I thought it would be unfair of me to comment on something I don't have time to get into as thoroughly as you and the subject deserve. I can give you a quick response to my limited estimation of the case you're presenting...

It comes straight from the story itself, as does where the disciples took off to (with the body of Jesus perhaps that was according to the story laden with extremely fragrant frankincense and myrrh to hide a rotting corpse?) which would have been the natural location to place the body.

There seems to be a great deal of confusion on the part of skeptics regarding the events surrounding the resurrection. Here is a copy and paste from a post I made years ago on the SAB forum. I don't mean for you to have to comb through this text dump and respond because I don't have time to get so involved, but for your consideration - the following:

2. At Matthew 28:2 there was an "earthquake" and an angel rolled back the stone slab that closed the tomb off. The other gospel writers don't
mention this. Some Bible defenders suggest past perfect, but as the author points out the passage is in the aorist (past) tense.

The Greek word seismos means quaking, shaking or trembling. (Matthew 27:51, 54; 28:4; Revelation 6:13) The earth quaking from the moving of a rather large stone, for example, might have been trivial enough for some not to mention it.

A Grammar of New Testament Greek, by James H. Moulton, Vol. I, 1908, p. 109, "the Aorist has a 'punctiliar' action, that is, it regards action as a point: it represents the point of entrance . . . or that of completion . . . or it looks at a whole action simply as having occurred, without distinguishing any steps in its progress."

Aorist is a peculiar tense in the koiné Greek which means "not bounded" as to time. Verbs in the aorist tense can be rendered in a variety of ways depending upon the context. They could mark a definite occurrence of something at an unstated time in the past, such as with
Matthew 28:2. An example of a similar case would be in Matthew 17:3 where the voice announced that the son had been approved. Many translations often miss the exact meaning of texts where the aorist tense is used. Matthew, understood correctly, indicates that the stone had been rolled back before the women arrived, he only mentioned that the stone had been moved and how it was moved whereas the other gospel writers do not.

The author [Dan Barker] considers the following as discrepancies. Each of them will be addressed below.

What time did the women visit the tomb?

They all convey the idea that it was dark and getting light. Dawn.

Matthew: "as it began to dawn" (28:1)
Mark: "very early in the morning . . . at the rising of the sun" (16:2, KJV); "when the sun had risen" (NRSV); "just after sunrise" (NIV)
Luke: "very early in the morning" (24:1, KJV) "at early dawn" (NRSV)
John: "when it was yet dark" (20:1)

Who were the Women?

Some Bible writers mentioned the names of certain women, others do not. The various accounts do not indicate any of the women were not present, they only vary in which names are given.

Matthew: Mary Magdalene and the other Mary (28:1)
Mark: Mary Magdalene, the mother of James, and Salome (16:1)
Luke: Mary Magdalene, Joanna, Mary the mother of James, and other women (24:10)
John: Mary Magdalene (20:1)

What was their purpose?

Mark 15:47 and Luke 23:55-56 clearly state that the women were there the night before and rested for the Sabbath, then the following morning
(the ancient Hebrew night was divided into "watches" each about 4 hours long. The third and final watch was from about 2:00 a.m. to sunrise.
Called the morning watch. By Jesus' time they had adopted the Roman division of 4 watches, the final one being from about 3:00 a.m. to sunrise, though the Hebrew day began at sunset or evening and ended the following sunset or evening.) These verses, as well as John 19:39-40 took place before the morning of Jesus' rising from the dead. They are considered here, even though outside the conditions of the [Dan Barker] challenge, because the author has confused them for having taken place that morning. At John 19:39-40 upon Jesus' burial it is mentioned that the body had been spiced, but since it was a Sabbath, and the burial was done in haste, the women had returned to do a more thorough job.

Matthew: to see the tomb (28:1)
Mark: had already seen the tomb (15:47), brought spices (16:1)
Luke: had already seen the tomb (23:55), brought spices (24:1)
John: the body had already been spiced before they arrived (19:39,40)

Was the tomb open when they arrived?

Matthew gives the account of the stone being moved before the women arrived where the others do not. See 2. above.

Matthew: No (28:2)
Mark: Yes (16:4)
Luke: Yes (24:2)
John: Yes (20:1)

Who was at the tomb when they arrived?

Angels are spirit form and so in order for them to be seen by humans they have to assume physical form, so some see them as men and others know that they are actually angels. They are, in a sense, both angels and men. (Genesis 29:1-5) Many of the details of the account given by the four writers of the gospel differ in a way that depends upon who is telling the account to them. There were people coming and going over an indeterminate amount of time, and where one person would see one thing another would see something different from their own perspective of where they fit in the stream of time.

For example, the guards were there during the night, and some of the women were there. The women left first and then the soldiers left sometime not long before the women returned. The soldiers left when the angels arrived and moved the stone. Mary arrived but left to tell the others what had happened; the apostles arrived - John being younger and faster arrived first, before Peter. The arrival of the others isn't specifically mentioned but they were there. If the Bible skeptic, who seems to expect all four of these accounts to be identical thus defeating the purpose of giving a varied witness account, was set down at any given point within my brief description of a part of what happened it would differ from any other point. Was Mary there or not? Depends upon when you got there. The same applies to Peter and John, and the angels and the guards and Jesus. And their positions.

Matthew: One angel (28:2-7)
Mark: One young man (16:5)
Luke: Two men (24:4)
John: Two angels (20:12)

Where were these messengers situated?

See the point directly above. In seeing these small details that differ among various witnesses one could either come to the conclusion that
these things didn't take place as the Bible says they did, or that there was an attempt to give accurate accounts from various perspectives in
the stream of time which must have been a tremendously exciting and confusing period. And they differed slightly. It would have been easy enough for four Christians to come together and create one account that didn't differ in any way, but what would have been the point? The skeptic would have to take the position that they were so similar they must be fraudulent, and in thinking this they would be right.

Matthew: Angel sitting on the stone (28:2)
Mark: Young man sitting inside, on the right (16:5)
Luke: Two men standing inside (24:4)
John: Two angels sitting on each end of the bed (20:12)

What did the messenger(s) say?

Each of the accounts that are given convey the same message. If one tells another what yet another says the words may become ones own but the message is the same. These quotes themselves change over time and translation but the message is the same.

Matthew: "Fear not ye: for I know that ye seek Jesus, which was crucified. He is not here for he is risen, as he said. Come, see the place where the Lord lay. And go quickly, and tell his disciples that he is risen from the dead: and, behold, he goeth before you into Galilee; there shall ye
see him: lo, I have told you." (28:5-7)

Mark: "Be not afrighted: Ye seek Jesus of Nazareth, which was crucified: he is risen; he is not here: behold the place where they laid
him. But go your way, tell his disciples and Peter that he goeth before you into Galilee: there shall ye see him, as he said unto you." (16:6-7)

Luke: "Why seek ye the living among the dead? He is not here, but is risen: remember how he spake unto you when he was yet in Galilee, Saying, The Son of man must be delivered into the hands of sinful men, and be crucified, and the third day rise again." (24:5-7)

John: "Woman, why weepest thou?" (20:13)

Did the women tell what happened?

There are two things to consider here. First of all, the possibility that since Mary had left to tell the apostles what she had seen, these
other women are the ones that Mark is referring to. Mark's account of the events that took place are somewhat more limited than the others and he doesn't mention Mary having left, but the others do. That doesn't mean that he meant to imply that she hadn't, but only that he didn't mention it. Also note that the second half of verse 8 it seems to contradict itself saying that the women did tell Peter. This brings us to the
second point of consideration. The second half of verse 8 of Mark chapter 16 to the conclusion of the book is spurious. It was added on later.

The Codex Regius of the eighth century includes both the short and the long ending adding that they are current in some quarters while not
recognizing either as authoritative.

The Greek Codex Alexandrinus, and Ephraemi rescriptus from the fifth century C.E., as well as the Greek and Latin Bezae Codices from the fifth and sixth centuries C.E., Jerome's Latin Vulgate c. 400 C.E., Curetonian Syriac, Old Syriac and Syriac Peshitta, Christian Aramaic both from the fifth century C.E. add the long conclusion, but the Greek Codex Sinaiticus and Vatican ms 1209, both from the fourth century C.E. as well as the Cinaitic Syriac codex from the fourth and fifth century C.E., and Armenian Version from the fourth to thirteenth century C.E. omits them. It would seem, especially when examining the context, that these verses were added sometime during this period.

Matthew: Yes (28:8)
Mark: No. "Neither said they any thing to any man." (16:8)
Luke: Yes. "And they returned from the tomb and told all these things to the eleven, and to all the rest." (24:9, 22-24)
John: Yes (20:18)

When Mary returned from the tomb, did she know Jesus had been resurrected?

During the confusion of the events at the tomb Mary may have had, at any given point, some confusion about what was going on. That is completely understandable. Another point to consider is the body of Jesus itself. Jesus had one body which was sacrificed for all time. That
body was now lifeless and taken away by angels, because, what is the point of sacrificing the body only to bring it back 3 days later? The man Jesus had died and was no more, but the spirit form that had existed before that man, Jesus, was born was alive again and had to take on another body in a similar way as all of the angels that were there at the tomb. This is why Mary and others didn't recognize him at first; she thought that he was the gardener. Jesus was raised from the dead in another body just as we will be resurrected with new bodies. The body had been taken away by angels just as had been done with Moses.

Matthew: Yes (28:7-8)
Mark: Yes (16:10,11)
Luke: Yes (24:6-9,23)
John: No (20:2)

When did Mary first see Jesus?

Notice that Mathew 28:9 doesn't mention Mary, only the women, and John mentions that Mary had left to tell Peter what had happened. Mark
16:9-10 are spurious. (See above "Did the women tell what happened?")

Matthew: Before she returned to the disciples (28:9)
Mark: Before she returned to the disciples (16:9,10)
John: After she returned to the disciples (20:2,14)

Could Jesus be touched after the resurrection?

In some older translations the Greek hapto which can mean "touch," but also "cling to, lay hold of" in English. Since Jesus allowed others to touch him it appears that in the case of Mary, she had been clinging to Jesus. She no doubt had been upset that he had died and didn't want to let him go, not understanding that he was going to go to Heaven with his Father to fulfill the purpose he had told them about, which is why
he explained to her that that is what he needed to do. The German Elberfelder and Luther translations, the French Crampon and Liénar Bibles, Italian Riveduta and Diodati and Spanish Moderna, Valera and Nácar-Colunga translations all use the term "touching" as well. The New English Bible, Catholic La Bible de Jérusalem (The Jerusalem Bible) in French and English use the more contextually accurate "stop clinging" or "let go of" terminology which agrees with An Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words, by W. E. Vine, Vol. IV, p. 145. The Spanish Ediciones Paulinas uses "Suéltame," meaning "Let go of me."

Matthew: Yes (28:9)
John: No (20:17), Yes (20:27)

[Clownboat]

Scholars often refer to chapter 12 (Daniel 12:2) as the first explicit reference to resurrection in the Hebrew scriptures.

I haven't been following the thread.

That explains it. I was talking about the resurrection of Jesus, not the concept of resurrections.

There seems to be a great deal of confusion on the part of skeptics regarding the events surrounding the resurrection.

Not this again!