Jane H

SC- No, I know you’re not “stupid“. Unhelpful. What I have to say about C1 Jewish beliefs on resurrection comes as much from sources external to the NT; sources such as Qumran, Josephus and the Apocrypha. Together with other sources, they provide a consistent battery of information that can be used as a series of fixed points for historical evaluation. Indeed, these beliefs remain in very similar forms in modern Judaist thought.

On the whole the NT works within these traditions, with the obvious change being the leap forward in understanding caused by Jesus resurrection. The passages you refer to are interesting, but e.g. a suggested belief that Elijah has been reborn as John the Baptist is not about resurrection (as John’s gospel is keen to point out). In brief, it’s about symbolism- John as the Elijah preparing the way.


Thanks for your first post. I was half expecting Matthew 27 to make an appearance.

That the disciples didn’t understand what Jesus was saying is a constant theme throughout the gospels, and can again be taken as a fixed point. How the authorities got to hear about the three day return can only be speculated, as the teaching by Jesus on this was in private. Possibly Judas, or the teaching of destroying and rebuilding the Temple in three days? And if we don’t know where it came from, we don’t know what they heard, or what they made of it. Whatever their speculations lead them to suspect Jesus meant by rising from the dead, the one thing they could be sure is that if they had the body, the disciples were going to be unable to make any great claims.

Another point which applies to much of the thread, and which I haven’t stressed enough, is the different types of return from the dead. Jesus makes it explicit, after another outbreak of stupidity by the disciples, that Lazarus is no scheintot. At the same time, there is a massive qualitative difference between Lazarus return (only a temporary reprieve from death), and Jesus (a return in the resurrection body). The resurrection body was, in C1 Jewish thought, not supposed to be present before the general resurrection.

The authorities could have considered the scenario that the disciples would steal the body, and claim a Lazarus style return. This doesn’t contradict the disciples not understanding at all what Jesus said.

What is quite remarkable is that the disciples believed the form of Jesus resurrection completely broke the rules about when the resurrection body was to appear. This presents an unsolved historical problem, which remains irritatingly insistent.

Johnny Skeptic

But this is my thread, not your thread. Since you have not responded to my points, I see no point in adding further material. You have made many evasive off-topic comments in this thread. The following is from the opening post:

Those are the main issues in this thread, not a host of other issues that you brought up.

Following is my previous post:

I have posted that last paragraph before, and as far as I recall, you have not commented on it.

You have not reasonably refuted the arguments from my previous post that I quoted in this post. You are being evasive. Please do not claim that I have not responded to your points when in fact you have not adequately responded to my points that relate to the opening post in this thread. For your information, opening posts start threads, not off-topic comments. If you want to discuss off-topic issues, please start your own thread. Would you like for me to list some of the off-topic comments that you have made in this thread?

Irritating to whom? In the opinions of most first century Jews, it is exactly because New Testament writers broke Old Testament rules that they rejected Jesus. They knew that Jesus did not fulfill any Old Testament prophecies. Micah 5:2 says that the messiah would become ruler of Israel. No mention was made of a heavenly kingdom. Jesus did not become ruler of Israel.

The bottom line is this: If a God inspired the Bible, it would be easy for him to provide additional evidence that would convince more people to accept him with unfairly interfering with their free will.

Toto

It is "unsolved" amd "irritatingly insistent" only if you insist that there must be a significant historical basis to the gospel stories. If you read the stories as stories, based on allegory and themes borrowed from various traditions, you can accept that the disciples are playing their role as foil to Jesus, and that the entire story is just that - a story.

Amaleq13

Yes and it is clearly insufficient for your conclusion.

Agreed but none of these require or even suggest that the story is historical.

There is no apparent connection between those observations and your conclusion. :huh:

Steven Carr

I don't think Jane can hear herself, let alone listen to other people

She claims first century Jews did not believe anybody could be resurrected before the end of the world.

She claims a first century Jew (Jesus) prophesied that he would be resurrected before the end of the world.

Little wonder Jane can see nothing wrong with the Bible accounts, when she can believe two contradictory things.

And she simply repeats her claim that the disciples were baffled by the idea of Jesus rising from the grave, while the enemies of Jesus knew exactly what had been prophesied.

Why did the disciples see Moses return from the grave, never to die again, and still think nobody could return from the grave? After all, the disciples had been given the power to raise the dead in Matthew 10.

I'm sure that if Jane had the power to raise the dead, like the disciples had, she would not be baffled by the concept of the dead rising.

Johnny Skeptic

John says "For as yet they knew not the scripture, that he must rise again from the dead." Luke says "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. And they remembered his words,......." Is that a contradiction?

Jane H

SC- Yes, Jesus prophesied and enacted a specific exception to C1 Jewish belief about resurrection. Far from seeing it as a contradiction, it is a major argument in favour of the resurrection. Why did an eclectic group of people suddenly announce this bizarre conclusion, that something that was only supposed to happen at the end of time, had in fact happened in a unique occurrence?


The disciples were baffled by what Jesus said (that’s such a theme throughout the gospels that any interpretation has to factor it in). The authorities would likewise have been baffled- but their concern was entirely what the disciples might be planning. It made sense to keep a guard on the body, so that no deception was possible. They were concerned with what the disciples might do, not what Jesus had said.

Jesus teaching was eschatological in nature- the sign of Jonah and rebuilding of the Temple type of teaching. The authorities were preparing more for a theft of Jesus body as part of a deception, followed (for instance) by the claim of a Lazarus style return (LSR) from the dead. They knew no more than the disciples did, but they were taking sensible precautions against what they thought might happen.

Moses transfiguration was not a resurrection or LSR. It is a different category entirely to the other post-mortem returns. The post resurrection Jesus had none of the brilliant mood lighting. It must have been very tempting for the gospellers to add some, given the Jewish apocalyptic tradition, the wish to portray Jesus exultation, and the ones who “shine like the brightness of the sky” in Daniel 12. But Jesus doesn’t shine like the stars. He eats fish. A serious failure of creativity on the part of the gospellers.

The power to bring back the dead was, again, referring to LSR temporary reprieve from death. It was never a general power to be used on all occasions whenever someone died. It would probably have been used once or twice in the mission at the start of which it is introduced.

I hardly know where to begin with the evidence about C1 Jewish views on resurrection as only occurring at the end of time. There’s just so much of it. I suggest if any of those reading are unsure about what I regard as a pretty uncontroversial position, a little research should do the trick.

Jane H

JS- The two passages in the NRSV

John 20:8-9 “Then the other disciple, who reached the tomb first, also went in, and he saw and believed; for as yet they did not understand the scripture, that he must rise from the dead. “

This appears to be further support for my statement that the disciples didn’t know what to expect. That the scriptures were interpreted differently after the resurrection than before is not controversial.


Luke 24: 4-12 “While they were perplexed about this, suddenly two men in dazzling clothes stood beside them. The women were terrified and bowed their faces to the ground, but the men said to them, ‘Why do you look for the living among the dead? He is not here, but has risen. Remember how he told you, while he was still in Galilee, that the Son of Man must be handed over to sinners, and be crucified, and on the third day rise again.’ Then they remembered his words, and returning from the tomb, they told all this to the eleven and to all the rest. Now it was Mary Magdalene, Joanna, Mary the mother of James, and the other women with them who told this to the apostles. But these words seemed to them an idle tale, and they did not believe them. But Peter got up and ran to the tomb; stooping and looking in, he saw the linen cloths by themselves; then he went home, amazed at what had happened.”

Again, it’s all ‘perplexed’ ‘idle tale’ ‘amazed’. They weren’t expecting what happened (which, as you’re no doubt aware, is a constant theme in Luke). It’s Jesus words this time which are understood after the resurrection rather than before. See also the various posts to SC recently.

Steven Carr

Wait a minute. You just claimed it has been shown that no first century Jews believed in resurrection before the end of time, and now you claim to have found a first century Jew who *did* believe in such a resurrection.

'I hardly know where to begin with the evidence about C1 Jewish views on resurrection as only occurring at the end of time. There’s just so much of it. '

That is what you write and yet you are adamant that there is excellent evidence that the leader of a religious group of 1st century Jews believed in resurrections before them, but you deny that the followers of this leader had the faintest idea what it was that they were being taught by this teacher who taught with 'great authority





Yes, if I had been given the secret of the kingdom of God and had been given the power to raise the dead, I would be baffled if the man I followed said he would rise from the dead.

After all, I had seen Lazarus rise from the dead, just a few days before, so I would definitely be bewildered by claims that Jesus would be just as alive as Lazarus was.

They were not concerned with what Jesus had said?

'The next day, the one after Preparation Day, the chief priests and the Pharisees went to Pilate. "Sir," they said, "we remember that while he was still alive that deceiver said, 'After three days I will rise again.'So give the order for the tomb to be made secure until the third day. Otherwise, his disciples may come and steal the body and tell the people that he has been raised from the dead.'

How come the enemies of Jesus understood the words of Jesus better than his followers?

After all, had they seen Moses return from the grave (something you claim is not a resurrection!!)

Amaleq13

If Paul is any indication, they thought the resurrection of Jesus was a signal (ie "first fruits) of the End Times.