Hi everyone. Would appreciate your help as I’m struggling to confirm some things, so If you don’t mind, I will list down the couple of questions directly, so that I don’t create multiple posts and spam the forum. These questions are related to each other – if you don’t mind, I’d love if you could answer one by one and not overally as answering one by one often shows more understanding for me.
Question 1: Bart often speaks in his book about apocalyptic views which basically is that evil has some time appointed to it, but its time will end where god will intervene his sovereignty and bring his kingdom. What I am wondering is if apocalyptic views itself include the resurrection belief as well ? as in, if someone says that Jesus believed in apocalyptic views, that does not mean that Jesus would also believe in resurrection, right ? i know that Jesus also believed in resurrection, but I am just asking whether “apocalyptic view” itself also means resurrection. I hope it doesn’t, thoughts ?
Question 2: What makes evidence for the fact that Jesus believed in resurrection ? The verses that I found that confirm this are: Mark 12:24-27, Luke 14:14, John 5:28-29. As I understand, we must do our best to be most skeptical about John’s gospel and maybe Luke as well, but I will still use Luke as evidence. So all I have for confirmation is Mark 12:24-27, Luke 14:14. Are there any other good verses that I could use to make my mind believe more in the fact that Jesus believed in resurrection – i.e god would rise us all from the dead ?
Question 3: It’s also interesting if Jesus thought that the kingdom of god would be established on earth or somewhere else. Looking at the couple of verses, I do NOT think I am certain about it being on earth. The verses that I use are: Mark 9:1. In my opinion, Mark 9:1 doesn’t directly say it would be on earth, but logically, it still means that, because If disciples are still alive when kingdom of god comes and they can see it, that means kingdom must have come on earth as where the disciples are. Are there any other good verses that I can use for confirmation ?
Hi Robert, sorry for replying after such later time. I also work and then read Bart’s book, so wanted to finish something before I came here.
* Your example of Bart’s mentioned parable about sheep and goats really don’t say anything about resurrection. Bart just gave this example to prove that Jesus doesn’t mean eternal punishment, I don’t see any resurrection proof into it.
* As for the “Q” material, Just curious – did you copy/paste all things or just only those that talk about resurrection ? To be honest, I only read your pasted verses above and only in “Q 11,31-32 Something More than Solomon and Jonah” and Q 7,18-23 John’s Inquiry about the One to Come, I see “raised from the dead”. I think `Q` material is anyways included in the bible, so your answer really gave me 2 extra verses: Matthew 12:42 and Luke 7:22. So thank you for these.
Would you be able to answer question 3 ? I am looking for Jesus’s opinions about it and verses that confirm that kingdom of god would be on earth. As I said, mark 9:1 kind of confirms it, but not fully.
Hey Robert.
Thanks for such a detailed explanation. Here is my take on this:
You mentioned: “When Jesus is quoted as saying, “the one who‚ loses one’s life for my sake‚ will find it,” you don’t think that implies some kind of resurrection or life after death?” and my answer is, yes, I don’t think that implies resurrection. For sure, it implies life after death, but not necessarily resurrection of the body. I’m trying to prove whether Jesus believed in resurrection of the body of the individuals – i.e not trying to prove that there’s life after death as my mind already has it proved.
“the one who‚ loses one’s life for my sake‚ will find it” – can you tell me how this proves or even relates to the resurection of the body ? Also, final judgement doesn’t mean that bodies will be raised from dead – it just means that at some moment in timeline, god will punish the wicked and glorify the good. Saying that this verse relates to resurrection of the body is not proof, but subjective interpretation which we should be careful with.
So the verses where we can deduce that Jesus believed truly in resurrection of the body are: Mark 12:24-27, Luke 14:14, John 5:28-29 and I was wondering if there’re other verses I missed about this which you definitely pointed out(Matthew 12:42 and Luke 7:22) and thanks for this, but most of the Q-texts you pasted don’t really give me confidence about jesus believing in resurrection of the body.
Let’s define the terms.
In what you said about Paul’s view about resurrection, I still call it resurrection of the body, because he still mentions that it will be a glorified, spiritual body, but still a body. So this is still resurrection of the body in my definition.
> It is usually thought that, as a Palestinian apocalyptic Jew, he would have believed in a resurrected body, but good luck trying to prove or disprove this.
Yes, Bart has a whole book related to this subject, hahaha. I am trying to find an easier way and avoid reading that book – I will definitely read it but it’s gonna take time and I don’t want to just trust something blindly at this moment.
> Again, in your first two posts you said nothing at all about resurrection of the body:
When I say “resurrection”, I mean resurrection of the body, what else do people mean with “resurrection” ? I mean, you can mean that if souls exist after death, that can be also called “resurrection”, but most likely and how people interpret this word, it’s a ressurection of the body. So sorry for not being explicit.
> When you said, in your first post, “i know that Jesus also believed in resurrection,” were you using ‘resurrection’ here in a way that did not necessarily imply resurrection of the body?
I was implying with the word “resurrection of the body”.
So does “apocalyptic view” mean that it includes “resurrection of the body” belief or just “resurrection”? but answer to this will depend on how people interpret this word alone “resurrection”.
Ah, all good.
1. I don’t hope, this was a misleading word and I am again sorry for that.
2. So when you hear just a word “resurrection” without “body” after it, what does it mean ? does it mean that there’s life after death but it could be souls and not bodily ? or “resurrection” alone always imply “body resurrection” ? If the answer is that “resurrection” alone could mean many things, are we sure that every book uses it with the same definition ?
3. Yes, I was referring to that book. In Heaven and Hell, Bart says the following:
“Jesus subscribed to the Jewish apocalyptic views we discussed in the previous chapter. Evidence for this view is abundant and discussed in a number of other studies, so there is no need to detail it here.” and he puts a number like a footnote and when I click, it shows: “I marshal the evidence in Apocalyptic Prophet of the New Millennium”. Then what evidence is he talking about ? Basically bart says that Jesus subscribed to apocalyptic view and as you said, this view generally includes “resurrection” belief. Now, the question to you is: “does it include resurection of the body belief” or just “resurrection” and again answer to this depends on if “resurrection” alone doesn’t imply “bodily resurrection”.
I think, I understand now Robert.
Resurrection could be anything – it just means life after death, so we must use the term “bodily resurrection” to mean that bodies are raised. Bart uses this term specifically(just looked into his book once more), so thank you for that.
My question to you would be: in some verses, we read these words: “will be raised from the dead” – should we interpret these words as “bodily resurrection” or not ?
So many information to digest.
1. So that’s why I asked the very first question in the original question: “does apocalyptic view” include the belief in “bodily resurrection of the dead” which you answered: “generally it does”. Now I understand why you said the word: “generally”.
2. If bart is referring to Jesus being apocalyptic and provide evidence, then for sure this can be proved, but the main question is if he also believed in the bodily resurrection of the dead which as you point out is really hard to prove – Bart also can NOT fully prove it.
3. In some verses, we read these words: “will be raised from the dead” – should we interpret these words as “bodily resurrection” or not ? What’s your thoughts on this ?
4. Would you be able to explain what you meant by 4Q521,12 ? The reason I am asking is because I am lost. Are you saying that in the original manuscript of Isiah:61 that we found doesn’t include the “revive the dead” words and these were inserted by Qumran scholars in 20-21st century ? if so, why are we sure these scholars of 20-21st century inserted these ? Would appreciate the history of this insertion or where I can read about it ?
Ah, all clear.
1. So basically the Qumran scribes in ancient time were copying/pasting the Isaiah’s scripture directly to spread/preserve it. Then either They added “revive the dead” because they interpreted Isaiah’s scripture like that or it was the belief of these Qumran scribes and they just added it there, but If we believe Josephus, then these scribes believed in soul immortality, so they wouldn’t add it because of their belief. So what’s interesting is why they added it:
a. Either because they also had Matthew and Luke and used it from there – this is not possible as Matthew and Luke were written after 70CE.
b. Either these scribes had `Q` and they copied/pasted that `revive the dead` because they thought that this was the correct interpretation of Isaiah.
c. Either they just interpreted like that and didn’t even need to have `Q`.
(b) and (c) are both probable.
2. `revive the dead` still doesn’t mean “bodily resurrection” though hahaha and it could mean anything. What makes you think it’s “bodily resurrection” ? what’s your context that confirms this ?
3. I didn’t truly expect when I started learning christianity that it would be this hard and I have been into physics + blockchain programming, so I know what “hard” means. To be honest, If God really existed and it made this subject this hard to be understood(I’m struggling truly due to so many interpretations), here is the best argument that either “God” doesn’t exist or is not that “kind” at all in which case, worshipping him is just crazy. I am already an atheist, but curiosity of this knowledge doesn’t let me leave this, so I am gonna keep pushing hard. Thanks so much. If you don’t mind me asking, How much time have you spent learning into this subject ?
Piecing together Bible verse, I will explain a non literal meaning of the resurrection of the dead and kingdom of heaven. Literal interpretations are a bit extreme.
Resurrection of the dead was a figure of speech that meant people would remain celibate and not have children. Marriage then is defined as the opposite. How then will the kingdom of heaven survive? Resurrection of the dead. Matthew 22:30
The kingdom of heaven is wherever God’s will is done. If it is in your heart, that’s where the kingdom of heaven exists. May your will be done. On earth as it is in heaven. Luke 17:21
Pseudo history 101. Create a myth. The meanings change throughout time. I have no evidence of anything first century because all the texts are destroyed and returned to dust.
There is evidence. Traditionally a Catholic priest in training cannot marry once he is officially ordained as a priest. They are allowed to marry before becoming a priest. But once you’re ordained as a priest you are not stuck with whatever you had beforehand.
That was the early church tradition and the teaching of Jesus. It was then applied to only being enforced only upon the priesthood and not the entire church. Jesus enforced it upon the disciples. To be a disciple of Jesus meant they were being trained to become priests in the understanding of what a priest in the church was. To become a disciple (a follower of Jesus) accepted by Jesus meant they had succeeded by leaving their families behind when they were a follower of Jesus. Nobody was allowed to change their marriage status at that time. If they succeed they had been resurrected from the dead and achieved eternal life in the kingdom of heaven.
This was all before the crucifixion. After the crucifixion this was changed by the apostles in order to establish the Church. The layman were considered to be dead in sin. After reaching the higher orders within the Church they had then been resurrected from the dead and are then alive in Christ. After the crucifixion the Church became Christ. The Church was the living sacrifice for sin.
After 70AD this all changed again because the Temple in Jerusalem was destroyed as the living sacrifices for sin instead of the Church. That means the Church was not the acceptable sacrifice for in God. Oh no, defeat. The Church had not succeeded at being more righteous and pure than the Temple in Jerusalem.
The Jews and Christians fight amongst themselves for the next three centuries until Christianity gains the favor of the Roman Empire, and the Nicene Creed is drafted to update the meanings once again about the resurrection of the dead and Church. John 8 is also inserted into the gospel to justify that man/women could divorce a pagan and remarry someone in the Church.
BDEhrman
FreedomBen
evgendob
Robert
1 Guest(s)