Physical resurrection

[outhouse]

I have always viewed the resurrection evolving from a spiritual resurrection. Rethinking that.


Now I have no reason to think that some people who heard others teaching and repeating what John and Jesus taught, had made claims based on quality of the repeated parables that he had been resurrected.


Much the same way we see claims Jesus was John resurrected as with Herods claim.


None of us are stupid enough to run with the apologetic crap, so how did this tradition evolve as we see it in different communities? [regardless of historicity of the man himself]

[Charles Wilson]

Much the same way we see claims Jesus was John resurrected as with Herods claim.

With that in mind look at Lazarus (Eleazar) in GJohn. By Hosea 6, even God cannot raise the dead after 4 days (The theological implications are staggering...). BUT JESUS WILL. 'N Herod's worried?!??

None of us are stupid enough to run with the apologetic crap, so how did this tradition evolve as we see it in different communities? [regardless of historicity of the man himself]

One Set-Up here is the belief that IT WAS POSSIBLE to raise someone from the dead. "Lazarus was dead..." Jesus is Unclean from this point on but it doesn't matter. "If Jesus can raise the dead, Ritual Cleanliness does not matter in the least".

Supersessionism.

CW

[outhouse]

Hosea 6, even God cannot raise the dead after 4 days

CW

Probably one of many reasons why we have the 3 day event.

I would also sharpen my statement with eliminating any possible Aramaic primacy here . Based on how long it took the resurrection mythology to become important.

One Set-Up here is the belief that IT WAS POSSIBLE to raise someone from the dead.

Obviously by the possible statement attributed to Herod.

Herod may not have, but the authors did writing it in.

[rakovsky]

I have always viewed the resurrection evolving from a spiritual resurrection. Rethinking that.


Now I have no reason to think that some people who heard others teaching and repeating what John and Jesus taught, had made claims based on quality of the repeated parables that he had been resurrected.


Much the same way we see claims Jesus was John resurrected as with Herods claim.


None of us are stupid enough to run with the apologetic crap, so how did this tradition evolve as we see it in different communities? [regardless of historicity of the man himself]

Yeah if you check Isaiah 26, their idea was physical resurrection.

[outhouse]

Yeah if you check Isaiah 26, their idea was physical resurrection.

Understood, but not all the communities adhered to this one line, nor can we pin it on some of the authors for such.

In Mark it obviously was so unimportant it was hardly mentioned at all, and had to be later redacted into the multiple endings to match the evolving tradition.

We do see an evolving tradition here.

[rakovsky]

Yeah if you check Isaiah 26, their idea was physical resurrection.

Understood, but not all the communities adhered to this one line, nor can we pin it on some of the authors for such.

I think it would be the default theological assumption of the 1st c. Jewish audience. Check out also Ezekiel 37 about physical resurrection.

And then when you get to the apocryphal Gospel of Peter, it's the same thing where Jesus literally is physically carried out of his tomb.

My own view of Mark is that it was written after Matthew and Luke and was silent where those two disagreed on big events like the virgin birth narrative or resurrection. It doesn't mean they were unimportant, just inconsistent in his sources.

[outhouse]

I think it would be the default theological assumption of the 1st c. Jewish audience. .

You cannot place the multiple many different versions of Judaism into such a narrow reference.

They as a whole agreed on little

[outhouse]

My own view of Mark is that it was written after Matthew and Luke .

That is just your personal wish list and not relevant either. We see the resurrection being added to in Mark in light of other texts despite any date you wish to throw at it willy nilly.

We see an evolution of tradition In Mark regardless of compilation date.

[rakovsky]

I think it would be the default theological assumption of the 1st c. Jewish audience. .

You cannot place the multiple many different versions of Judaism into such a narrow reference.

They as a whole agreed on little

You are right there was variation, but typically they accepted resurrection:
Sadducees only held to Torah and rejected resurrection. Pharisees are known to follow TANAKH, which has passages teaching physical resurrectio, like Is 26, Ezek 37 and Dan 12:2

“And many of them that sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to reproaches and everlasting abhorrence” (Daniel 12:2).

Maimonides even taught you have to accept resurrectio, or else you don't get an afterlife, or at least a nice one. Is 26 on resurrection is also in Talmud as a proof by the rabbis.

Christians held to Tanakh like the rabbis did and I think quoted from Daniel, Isaiah and Ezekiel, so they accepted this stuff as authority.

I guess nowadays the physical resurrection stuff has less currency, so some people start off to think by default that the NT isn't about physical resurrection.

Peace.

[Bernard Muller]

I think a spiritual resurrection was first wished for and then believed by the earliest proto-Christians.
gMark added up the empty tomb, a step in the direction of the physical resurrection.
But I think it was gLuke which started the physical resurrection (rather tentatively) at the end of the gospel.
Then the physical resurrection was added later in gJohn, gMatthew & gMark (after 16:8) to "prove" the resurrection.
The (hoped for) spiritual resurrection had nothing to do with the preaching of Jesus, but rather due to the circumstances of his welcome near Jerusalem and his crucifixion.
http://historical-jesus.info/digest.html

Then, from http://historical-jesus.info/hjes3.html, in the raw (but better presented on my webpage):
The "... king of the Jews ..." (Mk15:2,9,12,18,26; Mt2:2,27:11,29,37; Lk23:3,37,38; Jn18:33,39,19:3,19,21,21) was being crucified (1Co1:23,2:2,8; 2Co13:4; Gal2:20,6:14; Ro6:6).
The derisive words ("THE KING OF THE JEWS") were meant to cool off any expectation (and associated unruly behavior) about the coming of a kingdom of God and persuade people not to look for any "Messiah" (or pretend to be one): see what's happening to your "King", he is on a cross in "disgrace" (Heb13:13)!

Notes:
a) In Josephus' Wars (published 78 or 79C.E.), the expression "king of the Jews" is used for:
- Herod the Great, the Herodian king: I, XIV, 4 and I, XX, 1
- Jeconiah, the Davidian king: VI, II, 1
- Alexander Janneus, the Hasmonean king: VII, VI, 2
b) The gospels, starting by Mark's one (15:16-20,41-42), have Jesus, because of the charge of "king of the Jews", mocked during the Passion. That would be understandable and may have a historical basis.

The priests must have been appeased.
After his early blunder, the smartened Pilate was encouraged (Paul in 2Co13:4a "For to be sure, he [Jesus] was crucified in weakness ...") to reassert his authority (which he did!).
Most Jews were probably losing faith in the Kingdom and for many, the Jesus' incident had been plainly embarrassing:
Lk24:20-21a "and how the chief priests and our rulers delivered Him to be condemned to death, and crucified Him. But we [Cleopas (a Greek name!) and others] were hoping that it was He who was going to redeem Israel."
Opened in Cesarea one year and a few months ago, the short lived "window" of hope was closing, and later on, its very existence would be forgotten.
And the activist Jews, who kept believing in the Kingdom being near and with Jesus as its King, were likely devastated and utterly confused: soon after his "triumphal entry" in Jerusalem, their Jesus got officially confirmed as the King and, at the same time, put to death!

Solution: Jesus had gone to heaven spiritually but will come back as the King (because he had to rule!).

Cordially Bernard