What “Resurrection” Actually Means (4 Common Misconceptions)
There are some common misunderstandings about what “resurrection” means. It is not simply rising from the dead, nor is it the same as reincarnation, resuscitation, or translation of the soul. This brief video is part of the grad class I teach at Talbot School of Theology (Biola University): “In Defense of the Resurrection.” To hear an in-depth case for the Resurrection, which includes responses to leading naturalistic objections, consider joining me at Talbot for an M.A. in Apologetics!
*Get a MASTERS IN APOLOGETICS or SCIENCE AND RELIGION at BIOLA (https://bit.ly/3LdNqKf)
*USE Discount Code [SMDCERTDISC] for $100 off the BIOLA APOLOGETICS CERTIFICATE program (https://bit.ly/3AzfPFM)
*See our fully online UNDERGRAD DEGREE in Bible, Theology, and Apologetics: (https://bit.ly/448STKK)
READ: Evidence that Demands a Verdict (https://amzn.to/3unIZU0)
FOLLOW ME ON SOCIAL MEDIA:
Twitter: @sean_mcdowell
TikTok: @sean_mcdowell
Instagram: @seanmcdowell
source
Is the screenshot for this video your Catholicism WOW/Buddy Christ pose?
If Jesus' resurrection was not revivication, why did he still have the holes in his hands? Should we assume that the holes will be in his hands in heaven and forevermore? So he kept his body but was given a new soul? Or did he keep both his soul and his body and was just resuscitated? Can you explain why this piece of evidence suggests that Jesus in the same body was brought to life, even though it is "new"?
I had to dislike it. I want to hear more about resurrection vs 'revivication' because 1. I take a different view from that presented here, and, 2. I have heard many pastors preach a different view. Starting from 2 – many pastors would say Lazarus was resurrected. In addition, we can't use the criteria of 'a revivified person will die again' because some humans other than Jesus never did die, for example, Enoch and Elijah. Some eschatologies include Christians on the earth during the end of days not needing to face a physical death. So the idea that resurrection is defined by not later dying is suspect.
To the first point, I have encountered many more skeptics claiming 'resurrection is impossible' rather than 'resurrection is routine' as the video indicates. My counter to 'resurrection is impossible' is that 'resurrection is routine.' That is, the medical evidence of medical resurrection happening makes the resurrection of Jesus far more plausible. We also dramatically complicate the definitions of life and death if we define death as other than medical death, and I think it's to our disservice as Christians. Resurrection is exceedingly rare, and it is a sign of the divinity of Christ, but I don't think we need to make the resurrection of Jesus a different kind of resurrection; that only seems to take away from its credibility.
Jesus is special, and I think his resurrection is special, but I think it's most important that: 1) His resurrection fulfills prophecy, 2) Jesus didn't just resurrect himself but he could miraculously resurrect others, 3) Jesus lived a perfect and sinless life, and 4) Jesus ascended into heaven after his resurrection and he has not died since; that is, he is already participating in eternal life. Those four things already make his resurrection special; we don't need to deny that resurrection has happened in other cases in order to make his resurrection extra meaningful. In fact, I think we take away from the credibility of his historic resurrection – which I am firmly convinced would count as a medical resurrection. More than that, sure, but certainly no less, and made more plausible to the skeptic by keeping the medical aspect of it in a shared, relatable context.
"Die once, than get judge"
Well, yeah you die "once" in this life. Who's to say you still don't get judge before been reincarnated?? There's more to this world than the biblical "world view"
Also neither Enoch nor Elijah are with the Lord God in heaven. Enoch is included by Paul (in Hebrews 11) among the fathers who obtained a good report through faith; but "ALL these, having obtained a good report through faith, received not the promise" (Heb. 11:39). What promise? The "hope of eternal life, which God, that cannot lie, promised before the world began (Titus 1:2).So if he wasn't made immortal then could he how could this man of sin be in the presence of God. The text doesn't say that God took him up to heaven but that He translated him or moved him elsewhere possibly to avoid the an inevitable death at the hands of his and God's enemies. This is similar to the way Philip was translated or moved to another place by God after speaking to the Ethiopian eunuch. We do know that ' "all the days of Enoch were three hundred sixty-five years" (Gen. 5:23). The Scripture says that Enoch WALKED with God for three hundred years when he was already 65 – if he was still alive in heaven they surely he would still be walking with God. And don't forgot God took Moses from the people after which he died and was buried by God. "But no man knoweth his sepulcher unto this day." God removed Moses—God translated him—and he was not found either! As for Elijah he was also moved from the scene because his work was finished, to be continued by Elisha. The fact that a letter later came from Elijah to Jehoram, the son-in-law of Ahab, makes it clear Elijah was still somewhere on the earth (see 2 Chron.21 v.12). Logic dictates that Elijah was taken up into the heaven of earth's atmosphere and not the third heaven of God's throne.
The thought of Enoch and/or Elijah being in heaven with God as men contradicts:
Psalm 5:4 "For thou art not a God that hath pleasure in wickedness: neither shall evil dwell with thee."
John 3:13 "And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven"
"In Adam ALL DIE" (I Corinthians 15:22).
And they cannot now have been judged and made immortal because the bible clearly states that
1.judgement happens at the return of Jesus
2. Jesus is the 'firstfruits of them that slept' (1 Cor 15:20) In other words the first of those subject to the resurrection to life (immortalised)
Eternal life and being changed to God's nature are granted to the faithful after the judgment. Christ will firstly resurrect those responsible to his judgment, and then judge them after they have been gathered to him. Seeing that the reward of immortal nature is given at the judgment, it follows that all those who are resurrected have mortal nature first of all. If they are resurrected with immortal bodies, then there is no reason for a judgment seat at which to dispense the rewards.
We enter the Kingdom of God straight after the judgment seat (Matt. 25:34); the faithful are therefore not in God's Kingdom before the judgment. "Flesh and blood cannot inherit the Kingdom of God (so)…we shall all be changed…For this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality" (1 Cor. 15:50,51,53). It follows that this change of nature, from mortal to immortal, occurs at the judgment seat, seeing that is where we enter the Kingdom.
The soul is not immortal
Need resurrection
Resurrection, reincarnation, etc ,all 100% human inventions/ideas.
heard a women being interviewed ,the interviewer said ,'you believe you've been reincarnated''
she said,what do you mean BELIEVE,
I don't believe,
I KNOW,she was quite irritated by anyone doubting her,
they are all so certain about what they have no (good) evidence for, except maybe their ancient books,
like the bible.
The New testament points to there being a resurrection and rapture at 70 AD.
The God of Peace of shall bruise Satan under your feet shortly.
Amen thank you so very much amen
Jonah was also resuscitated
175 likes and zero dislikes. Good video. Mission accomplished. Here's one more. That's 176.
Good stuff.
i thought Jesus was not the first chronological ressurection but is still the firstfruit because he is eldest, first, as in the same way jacob was first before Esau though he was not, among many brothers.
so are there 2 resurrections in total? Rev 20:5 The rest of the dead did not come to life until the thousand years were ended. This is the first resurrection.
Joh 5:29 and come out, those who have done good to the resurrection of life, and those who have done evil to the resurrection of judgment.
Lazarus was resurrected from death. He was dead. How dare you suggest it was "resuscitation". You want to resuscitate bodies in Ezekiel 37 which were jut "Very dry"bones – you skipped over that. There is a resurrection from death and a resurrection to everlasting life. There is also a resurrection to eternal death. They are all different. Rev 20 (again, which you completely overlooked in your list) even speaks of first and second resurrections. But you need to understand prophecy for the millennium reign and 100 year great white thrown judgement.
Today morning i read 1 Cor 15th chapter then i followed your video, truly clear some of my questions regarding resurrection, thanks Dr Sean
JESUS: “I am the resurrection and the life: he that believeth in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live: And whosoever liveth and believeth in me shall never die. Believest thou this?” (John 11: 25-26)
Amen this is amazing
I’m a bit confused about Lazarus. wasn’t he dead? Didn’t his sister say he stunk being in the tomb for four days? So that was a resuscitation like what they do in hospitals with technology? I had never seen it that way
These are the sorts of contortions you must put yourself through to be a Christian. The easier, simpler, more obvious explanation of reality is that there is no resurrection, of Jesus or anyone else. I don't see how you can call the Zombie Apocalypse in Matthew 27:51-53 a resuscitation. I read that passage as people who were long dead (the KJV refers to them as "saints") being "raised to life." This absurd story directly contradicts Paul's understanding of the concept of resurrection. The most obvious reconciliation of this contradiction is that Paul had never heard of the Matthew 27:51-53 story when he wrote 1 Corinthians 15, and therefore could not incorporate that knowledge into his worldview, and that both authors were wrong. Even WLC doesn't take a literal view of Matthew 27:51-53.