Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!usc!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!stanford.edu!rutgers!aramis.rutgers.edu!athos.rutgers.edu!christian From: sandrock@aries.scs.uiuc.edu (Mark Sandrock) Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian Subject: Re: The missing body/Empty tomb Message-ID: Date: 7 May 91 04:45:13 GMT Sender: hedrick@athos.rutgers.edu Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana Lines: 164 Approved: christian@aramis.rutgers.edu grossg@patriot.rtp.dg.com (Gene Gross) writes: >In article sandrock@aries.scs.uiuc.edu (Mark Sandrock) writes: >> >>Yes, Jesus WAS seen by many following His death on the cross, but it was >>NOT the physical body of Jesus which was seen. It was His spiritual body, >>or better said, His soul, which naturally at that time still manifested >>the wounds that He had so recently been forced to suffer. It was given >>to those close to Jesus to be able to see and hear that which normally they >>would not see and hear for the sake of strengthening their faith in Jesus >>and the truth of His Message. >In 1 Cor. 15, Paul sets forth the Gospel that he was preaching to >others in very clear and plain terms. This is also the Gospel that >Paul received, namely "..how that Christ died for our sins...And that >he was buried, and that he rose again the third day..." Note: The fact is that Christ died *because* of our sins, that He indeed bore (the mark of) our sins, but that is another topic... Yes, Christ rose again on the third day. Indeed, He rose bodily. The only point of difference then is the notion that it was His non-physical body or soul, rather than His physical body. If it is still so difficult for us to grasp this point even today, 2000 years after the fact, it should come as no surprise that the people of that time also would not fully comprehend what had happened. But this in no way can alter the reality of what actually took place at that time. >When Ignatius, the bishop of Antioch, was being transported to Rome >for his execution, he wrote these words: "For I know that after His >resurrection also He was still possessed of flesh and I believe He is >so now...And thus was He, with flesh, received up in their sight unto >Him that sent Him, being with that same flesh to come again, >accompanied by glory and power." Since you raise the point, I would have to say that Ignatius was mistaken. >The conclusion of the Apostle's Creed (the Old Roman Creed) affirms >the "resurrection of the flesh" (sarkos anastasin) and the "life >evelasting." And what is a resurrection if that which dies is not >also that which is raised up? It is everything when people have no real knowledge of life after death. I think that Jesus meant to show mankind that nothing is really lost by undergoing physical death -- that the physcial body is but a covering, and that the real person is just as much there after death as before. What else are the soul and spirit if not also BODIES, but only of a finer substance than is the transient physical body. >In John 2:18-22, we find Jesus has just thrown the moneychangers out >of the temple. The Jews have said to him, "'What sign have you to >show us, since you are doing these things?' In answer Jesus said to >them, 'Break down this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.'" >In verse 21 we read, "But he was talking about the temple of his >body." Verse 22 reads, "When, though, he was raised up from the dead, >his disciples called to mind that he used to say this; and the >believed the Scripture and the saying Jesus said." >Please notice that Jesus Himself said that it would be His body, the >physical body, that He would raise up again. There is nothing in that >passage that causes anyone to believe otherwise. And the disciples >understood this. The term "body" does not necessarily refer to the physical body. It can also refer to the soul or to the spiritual body. Too fine a distinction for the people of that time perhaps, but surely one we can understand better today. >When Jesus appeared to the disciples, one time He ate with them. Can >a spirit eat? Another time Jesus is specific in saying that He is >eating to prove to them that He is physical for a spirit cannot eat. >Then Jesus appears before the disciples (Luke 24:39) and comforts them >saying, "See My hands and My feet, that it is I Myself; touch me and >see, for spirit does not have flesh and bones as you see that I have." >Jesus said it in the strongest way He could; He was risen from the >dead. He presented physical proof -- His human body. Yes, a spirit can eat spiritual food. Why not? If indeed the disciples were permitted to see the spiritual body (or soul) of Jesus, it would stand to reason that they would be able to see Him partake also of food. I feel that Jesus had to act and to speak as He did in order to combat the FALSE notion of spirit that appeared to prevail then, as it still does even today. He had to reassure them that He was just as *real* as He ever was, and therefore that all men could also hope for eternal life. He had no choice but to speak to men according to their limited understanding of things. There was much that He could not say, and He told us so Himself. As already said in previous postings, it seems evident from the accounts that there must have been something different about the body of Jesus, or else it should not have been so difficult to convince those who had been with Him for years that it was still Him. The difference was that they were seeing His soul or non-physical body. In order to refute the unhealthy conception of "spirit" as something which is "disembodied" and "unreal", I think that Jesus laid stress upon those things which would be "familiar" to His disciples, such as His wounds, (which the non-physical body also bore) as well as the act of sharing a meal together. >Paul, in the 1 Cor. 15 passage that I referred to previously, makes >this comment (this is verse 14 from the Amplified): "If Christ has not >risen, then our preaching is in vain (amounts to nothing) and your >faith is devoid of truth and is fruitless -- without efffect, >imaginary and unfounded." Did Paul really believe that Jesus had been >resurrected bodily; decide for yourself based upon what he wrote to >Timothy: "For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, >the *man* Christ Jesus" (1 Timothy 2:5, KJV). I have not yet heard anyone's reply to I Cor 15:50 "Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood can obtain no part in the kingdom of God, ..." It seems clear enough to me. >The Bible clearly states that Jesus was resurrected bodily from the >dead. It was not some disembodied spirit or soul that wandered about. Yes, it is clearly stated. As said before, the difference comes in the idea that the soul and the spirit are just as much BODIES as is the physical body. It is only natural that while on this earth we would tend to identify most closely with the physical body, but this attitude must change very quickly following physical death. What you have just said in fact demonstrates my point, for the notion of a "disembodied" spirit or soul arises from our bias in favor of the physical body and against the spirit or soul body. And it was against just this bias and ignorance that Jesus had to work. He had to do what He could to show that He was no less "real" than before. It was not easy! >The body was not found in the tomb because Jesus rose from the dead as >He said that He would. The body of Jesus Christ came alive again and >walked the face of the earth for another 40 days before ascending into >heaven. This is the truth of Scripture and is the assurance to us >that there will also be a resurrection for us at the return of our >Blessed Hope. Like returns to like in nature and everywhere in Creation. Jesus returned to the Father from whence He had come--in both instances without the need for a physical body. The human spirit ultimately must return to Paradise, to the spiritual realms, from whence it originated. And the physical body in every case must return into the physical substance from which it came. And nothing can go beyond its point of origin. Man cannot stand before God (except figuratively) and physical bodies cannot enter into Paradise. It is wonderful to hope and long for salvation, but it is not realistic to expect to bring the physical body along with. Nor is it at all necessary. >There is no reincarnation, only resurrection. I'm very glad you mentioned reincarnation at this point, since the concept of "resurrection of the flesh" actually has its fulfillment in the process of reincarnation, wherein the human spirit is gracefully permitted a further chance to live upon the earth and to develop itself through earthly life such that it can become worthy to ascend into the eternal realm of the spirit. Cheers, Mark Sandrock -- BITNET: sandrock@uiucscs Univ. of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign Internet: sandrock@aries.scs.uiuc.edu Chemical Sciences Computing Services Voice: 217-244-0561 505 S. Mathews Ave., Urbana, IL 61801