New AiR arcticle on Resurrections
Posted 05 January 2012 - 10:32 PM
It lays out the case that the Bible does not describe only one Resurrection, and does a good job of it. About the only point I would add would be to differentiate between the raising of people from the dead like Lazarus and Dorcas and the Resurrection. One is simply reanimating the dead body to its prior state while the other is not only restoring life but also making the body incorruptible in the process.
Posted 15 January 2012 - 08:03 AM
Posted 15 January 2012 - 01:53 PM
I agree that the point being made in that passage concerned sending Lazurus back from the dead, and that such would be useless. If the living brothers would not believe Moses and the prophets, they would not believe a resurrected Lazerus. My comment about Christ's resurrection was for comparison. The resurrection of Lazerus was only hypothetical (Abraham was indicating that even a resurrection of Lazerus would not convince them). I was only saying that since the Jews were not convinced by Jesus' own resurrection, it proves that Abraham's hypothetical statement was true.
Posted 16 January 2012 - 04:08 AM
Posted 16 January 2012 - 08:43 AM
i have no idea how you came to this conclusion... but I also just woke up(I'm on the west coast, not lazy).
Welcome to the forum,
Posted 16 January 2012 - 03:51 PM
Thanks for the welcome. I wasn't really up at 4 in the morning, I'm about 7 or 8 time zones distant from you I think, in NSW, Aust.
Perhaps "most likely" was not the best term, maybe I should have used "possibly". However, I think the Pharasees would have been quite clear of Jesus' meaning. My rationale for this thought:
The exiled Kingdom of Judah were the tribes of Judah and the half tribe of Benjamin. Upon their return from exile Ezra and Nehemiah (I think) only make reference to these two tribes as part of the return and rebuilding, Ezra 4:1, Ezra 10:9, Nehemiah 11:4 (however, this passage also mentions Levites). Now Levi and Judah were both children of Jacob and Leah. I am not aware of where in scripture it says otherwise that descendents of other tribes returned from the exile. I would guess some did but how identifiable they were as a group I am not sure.
I guess I should have said that the Pharasees were possibly of the tribe of Judah, however, even if they were not they would have immediately identified the imagery that Jesus used of the "five brethren". I had always wondered at why in this story why there were "five", was literal or was it just a number pulled out of the hat or did it have significance. I keep an open mind on the matter and am certainly not dogmatic about this. Just a consideration.
Posted 22 January 2012 - 02:09 PM
I appreciate your reply and clarification of your statements regarding this passage. But I have to say that I still don’t understand your point. I agree that Abraham was only speaking hypothetically of Lazarus coming back from the dead but I don’t understand how Christ’s actual resurrection proves this hypothetical statement is true. The reason the rich man wanted Lazarus to be sent to his five brothers was so that “he may testify to them, lest they also come to this place of torment.” He wanted his brothers to hear Lazarus preach about that place of torment so they would repent not end up there also: “if one goes to them from the dead, they will repent.” I can almost hear the rich man making excuse for his own lack of repentance during his life. He had heard Moses and the prophets (because he recognized Abraham and even called him “father”) but never came to repentance therefore he and his brothers must not have been given enough revelation. The whole point of sending Lazarus was so that these men would hear about the torments of hell from someone who had actually seen it, not so that their repentance would come by witnessing a dead person coming back to life.
Ironically, when you referred to “a resurrected Lazarus” you demonstrated the very thing Joel was arguing against when he started this thread. I agree with Joel that the word “resurrection” only applies to the body being raised to immortality, never to see corruption such as Christ’s and our future resurrection. I just don’t understand how Christ’s resurrection proves that if the rich man’s brothers would not listen to Moses and the prophets then they would not listen to a risen Lazarus testifying to them. You said “even a resurrection of Lazarus would not convince them.” But the focus is not on him being raised but rather on the message he was going to bring after he was raised.
Posted 22 January 2012 - 03:29 PM
Ironically, when you referred to “a resurrected Lazarus” you demonstrated the very thing Joel was arguing against when he started this thread. I agree with Joel that the word “resurrection” only applies to the body being raised to immortality, never to see corruption such as Christ’s and our future resurrection.
Is this true?
What about the 2nd resurrection, the resurrection of condemnation (the rest)? Can the second death be equated to immortality and never seeing corruption?
I understand the point that every use of resurrection has a physical body in mind but does resurrection further automatically equate to immortality?
Can the raising of Mary & Martha's brother Lazarus from the dead be considered a resurrection?
[sorry for all the questions ... just asking the same thing in slightly different ways]
Posted 22 January 2012 - 04:16 PM
There are actually two discussions going on. This is the second one that lasers in more specifically on the Greek work "anastasis" (resurrection) and is more on point to your question:
Thanks Joel, I knew I had read a more in-depth thread about this but I didn't find it by scanning the subject lines in the various forums. The reason I decided to post here was that specific quote ryno made.
I'm not really sure answers were given in the other thread that apply to my question(s) here, only thing for sure given there was regarding "THE resurrection" ... I have no problem with what Tim said about that.
I do have some other questions but may take them to the other thread since this one is specific to the AiR article (and my questions are not ;-)
Posted 23 January 2012 - 02:33 PM
The thing to keep in mind about being raised "incorruptible" is what that term means here. It really does denote immortality because such a body never sees corruption (it never decomposes) which is only possible if it never dies. Remember what occurs at the Second Death:
1) All those still dead are resurrected. We know this is a resurrection and not a simple raising from the dead (like Jesus did to Lazarus - he was restored to life but his body was still corruptible and such) because Jesus also referred to it in John 5:28-29 as the Ressurection to Condemnation.
2) The Great White Throne Judgment than occurs for these individuals. This aligns with the "resurrection of condemnation" perfectly. Both are judgments where those not in Christ are condemned - Revelation 20 merely provides more details.
Thus we have people in bodies that will not die being sentenced to the Lake of Fire for eternal punishment. This aligns with the wording in Mark 9:42-28:
m‘Their worm does not die
And the fire is not quenched.’
And if your foot causes you to sin, cut it off. It is better for you to enter life lame, rather than having two feet, to be cast into hell, nto the fire that shall never be quenched— 46 where
‘Their worm does not die
And the fire is not quenched.'
And if your eye causes you to sin, pluck it out. It is better for you to enter the kingdom of God with one eye, rather than having two eyes, to be cast into hell fire— 48 where
oTheir worm does not die
And the fire is not quenched.’
1 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users