Cege

I also think most Christians credit God answering prayer to explain the resurrections in the OT and to the resurrections in the NT, except for those in the Jerusalem tombs who seem to have spontaneously come back to life when an earthquake triggered by Jesus' death opened their tombs, and the resurrection of Jesus.

Probably, though, most Christians would credit God for creating the earthquake and for raising those dead, and for raising Jesus from the dead, rather than Jesus himself.

Then the question rises, what does the NT say: did Jesus raise himself or did God raise Jesus? Did it matter to the apostles which way it happened? Was it necessary to believe that Jesus raised himself in order to believe he was equal with God, was in fact God?

The gospels say that the original 12 disciples saw the results of Jesus 'raising the dead' several times, including Lazaruz who had been dead 4 days. Why then would they doubt that he'd raise himself or that God/Father would raise him after his death? Why wouldn't they be expecting to see him raised from the dead, just as others had been right before their eyes? Wouldn't they be praying to God to raise Jesus and expect those prayers to be answered?

I know I only asked questions, but I'd appreciate some help in discovering those answers.

John Kesler

I wouldn't say that the resurrection of Jesus can't be verified, but that nothing offered so far is of sufficient probative weight. It would take more than people saying it happened to count as evidence for something like raising the dead--something more tangible than written reports. After all, there are reports that Pythagoras performed miracles, but no one believes them.

EarlOfLade

It's not a secret that the catholic church is working overtime on making him a saint and we all know that this church will not shy away from anything it has set it's mind on. And this seems to fit right into this stupidity.

Scam organized by the church.

LeonMire

I think you raised (ha ha) a really interesting question here. Did the authors of the New Testament believe this issue was important? Perhaps it didn't occur to them that there had to be a crucial difference between the resurrection of OT prophets and people like Lazarus and the Resurrection of Christ. I decided to try to look at the different uses of rise, raise, raised, and risen in the Gospels. However, it was mostly unhelpful. Matthew usually said that Jesus will BE RAISED from the dead, implying that it was done by somebody else. However, Mark usually said that Jesus will RISE from the dead, which could be taken either way. Luke and John didn't use either very consistently, it doesn't seem. By the way, I used e-Sword, a free software program that includes dozens of versions of the Bible with full text search. I highly recommend it. But if you don't have that, you can also use the Gutenberg.org website, and search for those key words (make sure you put a space before "rise" so that it looks like " rise" or else you'll get Pharisee a billion times).

So then I moved on to the Epistles of Paul, and actually found some stuff of interest. There Paul makes it clear that God (and/or the Spirit) raised Jesus from the dead, and that Jesus did not raise himself from the dead. Here are a few good examples from the ESV, the most scholarly translation on e-Sword:

Rom 6:4 We were buried therefore with him by baptism into death, in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, we too might walk in newness of life.

Rom 8:11 If the Spirit of him who raised Jesus from the dead dwells in you, he who raised Christ Jesus from the dead will also give life to your mortal bodies through his Spirit who dwells in you.

Rom 10:9 because, if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.

1Co 15:15 We are even found to be misrepresenting God, because we testified about God that he raised Christ, whom he did not raise if it is true that the dead are not raised.

Gal 1:1 Paul, an apostle--not from men nor through man, but through Jesus Christ and God the Father, who raised him from the dead--

Col 2:12 having been buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised with him through faith in the powerful working of God, who raised him from the dead.

1Th 1:10 and to wait for his Son from heaven, whom he raised from the dead, Jesus who delivers us from the wrath to come.

Although there were 27 hits for the word "raised" there were no more than a handful for raise, rise, and risen (The word "resurrection" had several hits, but none were significant). About half said specifically that Jesus was raised by God or the Spirit. Outside of Paul's letters, there is only one occasion where it says that Jesus was raised by God.

1Pe 1:21 who through him are believers in God, who raised him from the dead and gave him glory, so that your faith and hope are in God.

I made sure in the ambiguous cases that I wasn't taking it out of context. I don't have the breadth of New Testament knowledge to be able to analyze these verses and conclusively show that this is the viewpoint of "the" New Testament. It would be interesting if I knew of a real scholar who'd analyzed this issue. Still, it seems evident from these verses that Paul at least believed that God had raised Jesus from the dead, NOT that Jesus had risen himself from the dead. And for most Christians, if Paul says it, it's true.

So we're again back to this same question: what's special about Jesus' resurrection? If it was God that raised Jesus from the dead, how is this any different from the resurrections of the OT? The only difference I can see is that in the OT resurrections, you've got someone (like Elijah) specifically praying for someone else to be raised from the dead, whereas I don't think Jesus ever specifically asks God to raise HIM from the dead (though he does ask God to raise Lazarus). Here's an example, with Elijah raising the widow's child:

1Ki 17:21 Then he stretched himself upon the child three times and cried to the LORD, "O LORD my God, let this child's life come into him again."
1Ki 17:22 And the LORD listened to the voice of Elijah. And the life of the child came into him again, and he revived.

Here's Elisha raising a dead child:

2Ki 4:32 When Elisha came into the house, he saw the child lying dead on his bed.
2Ki 4:33 So he went in and shut the door behind the two of them and prayed to the LORD.
2Ki 4:34 Then he went up and lay on the child, putting his mouth on his mouth, his eyes on his eyes, and his hands on his hands. And as he stretched himself upon him, the flesh of the child became warm.

So in both instances, we've got God raising people from the dead when another person requests it. In the case of Jesus, we've just got God raising from the dead, with no one requesting it. That's the ONLY difference I can think of between Jesus' resurrection and the resurrections recorded in the OT. But I don't see the connection. Why would it be theologically significant that nobody asked for God to raise Jesus from the dead - because he did it "of his own free will"? That doesn't really make any sense; they were all of his own free will. And like you mentioned, it doesn't address the dead who were spontaneously raised during Jesus' crucifixion. Nobody prayed for them to come back to life either. So again, we're left wondering: what is significant about Jesus' resurrection?

mountainman

Pagan and Christian Historiography
in the Fourth Century A.D
--- ARNALDO MOMIGLIANO (1959/60)

Here is Momigliano's opening paragraph ...

On 28 October 312 the Christians
suddenly and unexpectedly
found themselves victorious.
The victory was

a miracle -

though opinions differed
as to the nature of the sign
vouchsafed to Constantine.

The winners became conscious of their victory
in a mood of resentment and vengeance.
A voice shrill with implacable hatred
announced to the world
the victory of the Milvian Bridge:
Lactatius' De mortibus persecutorum.

In this horrible pamphlet by the author of De ira dei
there is something of the violence of the
prophets without the redeeming sense of tragedy
that inspired Nahum's song for the the fall of
Nineveh.

Why does such a man as Momigliano
use the word "miracle"? He knew only
too well that the victory, as described
by Gibbon, for example, was certainly
no miracle.

And as if to highlight this, on the following page (p.80)
of the work, Momigliano makes a second reference to
this "miracle". This only serves to highlight something
about what Momigliano is saying, or not saying. The
expanded context of this quote is as follows:

If there were men who recommended
tolerance and peaceful coexistence
of Christians and pagans,
they were rapidly crowded out.

The Christians were ready
to take over the Roman empire,
as Eusebius made clear
in the introduction of the Preparatio evangelica
where he emphasises the correlation
between pax romana and the Christian message:
the thought indeed was not even new.

The Christians were also determined
to make impossible a return to the conditions
of inferiority and persecution for the Church.
The problems and conflicts inside the Church
which all this implied
may be left aside for the moment.

“The revolution of the fourth century,
carrying with it a new historiography
will not be understood if we underrate
the determination, almost the fierceness,
with which the Christians appreciated and exploited

the miracle

that had transformed Constantine
into a supporter, a protector, and later a legislator
of the Christian church.”

One fact is eloquent enough. All the pioneer works
in the field of Christian historiography are earlier
than what we may call their opposite numbers in
pagan historiography."

END QUOTAGE —
Arnaldo Momigliano

If you are serious about whether miracles can be historically
verifiable then I suggest you have a very close look at those
things which eminent ancient historians classify as miracles.

Why does one of the foremost ancient historians
of the 20th century talk about the rise of christianity
in the fourth century, with effect from 312 CE, in
terms of a miracle?