Saw this question somewhere, anyone know the answer?

I don't get it. What is the exact question? Just because someone else doesn't understand or get the resurrection doesn't mean it didn't happen.... Either you believe Jesus made a sacrifice and was raised from the dead or you don't.

We should be able to give a answer of the hope we have in Christ Jesus to any one that asks. We are not guided by blind Faith.

What is your opinion of the thread did the OP seem like a question or an insertion. when I see statements like this, (yet it has never entered the mind of any Christian) makes me wonder what’s going on here.

The Reserection:

A)
Flawed Assumption:
Christianity takes for granted the assumption that if we indeed knew for sure that Jesus was in fact resurrected, then this would conclusively establish Jesus’ status as God/the Son of God, thereby validating everything Jesus said and taught, which would in turn set Christianity on a solid foundation – except that there’s a question as to whether or not Jesus actually arose from the dead. But the entire above-assumption is flawed! That is, even if we knew that Jesus was resurrected, and that he affected his own resurrection, it still would tell us absolutely nothing about whether or not Jesus had any special kinship to God or whether or not he was the long-awaited Messiah; and without proof for those specific claims, Christianity doesn’t get off the ground.

B) A logical point which even a Christian would need to agree too, considering its inherent logic.
That is, even according to Christians (who accept the “Old Testament”), death came into existence as a result of very specific circumstances – this being Adam’s primordial sin, the context of which was unrestrained indulgence in physical desires. It follows that anyone who manages to completely rectify this topic, training himself to engage in physical pleasure in complete accordance with God’s will, but not at all for selfish reasons, thereby repairs the damage caused by Adam’s sin – at least as far as what’s relevant to that individual, and he can thereby become exempt of the decree of death.

C)
There are two individuals that even the Christians agree had complete control over death, and yet it has never entered the mind of any Christian that either of those individuals had Divine kinship or were the long-awaited Mashiach. Eliyahu and Elisha. That is, we find that Eliyahu resurrected a child in Melachim Aleph 17:17-24 and that Elisha resurrected a child in Melachim Bet 4:32-36 – narratives that every believing Christian acknowledges happened. Although Eliyahu and Elisha resurrected someone, still, did it ever enter the thought of any Christian that because of this, either one of them is God/the Son of God or the Messiah?! Surely not. And why not? Because that’s just not the logical implication of being able to resurrect someone and having power over death.

D)
Even if the prevouis points are false. Prove it happend:
None of the resurrection accounts were definitively written by eyewitnesses. That is, the Gospel of Mark abruptly stops early-on in its resurrection narrative, and Luke’s author was, according to all opinions, not a direct disciple of Jesus who even claims to have himself seen Jesus in a resurrected state. As for the Gospels of Mathew and John that although there are those who believe that these works were written by the Apostles of those names, the mainstream opinion of scholars – even Christian ones (based on internal evidence) is that in both cases, Jesus’ own disciples who bore those names were not the ones who wrote these two volumes. And even if there are attempts to claim otherwise, still, when fighting the status quo, only definitive information is relevant. As such, since concerning Mathew and John there’s a significant scholarly belief that these Gospels were not authored by the Apostles – and thus not by direct witnesses to Jesus’ supposed arising from the dead, so this alone is enough to make any claims of “eyewitness testimony” to the resurrection inconclusive, and so useless in regards to the need for Christians to bring bonafide proof for their anti-Old Testament claims.

In any event, the open contradictions between the three Gospels that do discuss Jesus’ resurrection (whereby Mathew states that he met with his disciples in specifically the Galilee, Luke states that he met with them specifically in Jerusalem, and John says that he met with them in both), not to mention that at the point where the Gospel of Mark’s narrative ends, the Gospels of Mathew and Luke – which both built off of the text of Mark – significantly diverge, all show how vague the matter is. And here too, it should once again be emphasized that although Christians can theoretically reconcile the aforementioned
contradictions, still, as touched upon , such an “excuse for a discrepancy” is good in a vacuum, but not if you’re coming to argue on the status quo based on the supposed resurrection. In different words, the contradictions alone highlight that we’re dealing with a tradition that’s in-any-event-dubious-enough to not be usable against the status quo.

E)
When God first gave the Torah at Har Sinai (which is again, something that any believing Christian acknowledges happened), it was a nationally witnessed event, that hundreds of thousands, if not millions, saw. In contrast, Jesus’ resurrection was at most witnessed by relatively few individuals whose identity is generally not known. Logic dictates that a non-nationally-witnessed-event does not have the ability to cancel out a nationally-witnessed event – period.

F)
Another point to consider is that even if Jesus arose from the dead, this tells us nothing about Jesus’ own powers (as the Christian claim that it does), since maybe he was resurrected by God, and not that he engendered his own resurrection. You claim that in arising from the dead, it shows that Jesus himself had the power to overcome death. So regarding this detail we’re noting that simply getting resurrected doesn’t prove anything about the powers of the person who gets resurrected. This can be seen clearly from the story of the individuals in Tanach that were resurrected by Eliyahu (in Melachim Aleph 17:17-24) and Elisha (in Melachim Bet 4:32-36), whereby not the slightest claim is made that the individuals that got resurrected by them were in any way special, or possessing of special powers.

I don't get it. What is the exact question? Just because someone else doesn't understand or get the resurrection doesn't mean it didn't happen.... Either you believe Jesus made a sacrifice and was raised from the dead or you don't.

True, but the stone tables contained more than just the Ten Commandments. On the backside were written the statutues and judgments of the LORD.

And the LORD said unto Moses, Come up to me into the mount, and be there: and I will give thee tables of stone, and a law, and commandments which I have written; that thou mayest teach them.
Ex 24:12

And Moses turned, and went down from the mount, and the two tables of the testimony were in his hand: the tables were written on both their sides; on the one side and on the other were they written. And the tables were the work of God, and the writing was the writing of God, graven upon the tables.
Ex 32:15-16

And he declared unto you his covenant, which he commanded you to perform, even ten commandments; and he wrote them upon two tables of stone.
Deut 4:13

So I turned and came down from the mount, and the mount burned with fire: and the two tables of the covenant were in my two hands.
Deut 9:15

But as a side note:
Luke 16:31
And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead.

Insertion and question... I guess direction follows reaction. I don't like to miss a opportunity to witness or explain.
Was kinda baffled myself so I just entered knee deep.

The author has read the comments and has responded as follows: The comments, by large, argue of points B,C,D,E,F. These points were intended as merely additions to the point A, which if point A cannot be refuted, resurrection does not get off the ground.
May it also be pointed out that sources from the NT, bare no significance as in order for them to be true, Jesus has to be the Messiah, resulting in a circular argument.
Also, I have many refutations to those who argue of point B,C,D,E,F. However, as said previously, without refuting A, those points are redundant.

... and I didn't even get to the point about how the OT Scripture DOES SO provide a VERY SPECIFIC "time-prophecy" concerning "FROM _____ UNTO the Messiah the prince" is/shall be [such and such VERY SPECIFIC TIME-amount provided], which HE INDEED FULFILLED *to the day* ON Palm Sunday, when He DID the Zech9:9 thing, and He SAID the Lk19:41-44 thing.

I have no clue why the writer of the OP article says otherwise.


[I've posted on that about a billion times, lol]

To me, resurrection is a spiritual and not necessarily a fleshly matter; spiritual matters are to be received by faith, that's why we believe and hope. If Christ did not resurrect, then we are hopeless because resurrection means life eternal and continued existence, that's what we hope for.

But there's two kinds of resurrection, the one you pointed out is not what Christ demonstrated. It is not resurrection unto eternal life. It is more like someone getting better from sickness.
Christ is called the first born from the dead, because His resurrection is different:

Col 1:18And He is the head of the body, the church; He is the beginning and firstborn from among the dead, so that in all things He may have preeminence.

Thomas was Leary about a physical resurrection also

No, why do you think so? resurrection is spiritual and never physical. Sin is confined in the flesh so that the spirit is liberated.

Rom 8: 3For what the Law was powerless to do in that it was weakened by the flesh, God did by sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful man, as an offering for sin. He thus condemned sin in the flesh, 4so that the righteous standard of the law might be fulfilled in us, who do not walk according to the flesh but according to the Spirit.

Then I guess Thomas sticking his fingers in the side of Jesus was something else, what is your thoughts on that.

About the meeting with the disciples i think it was three times, first on the mountain, second week later in a house, third on a beach

True but still, resurrection is spiritual and not physical. You see, Jesus had to resurrect physically so that the gospel may be preached, otherwise, how would anyone dare say "...our Lord died and resurrected..." when people would confirm His rotting body in the tomb?!, it wouldn't make any sense, would it?
Even Jesus Himself said the sign of Jonah was for a perverse generation who are always after a sign instead of receiving these things by faith.

This below, was the real resurrection of Jesus:

Matt 27:50When Jesus had cried out again in a loud voice, He yielded up His spirit. 51At that moment the veil of the temple was torn in two from top to bottom. The earth quaked and the rocks were split. 52The tombs broke open, and the bodies of many saints who had fallen asleep were raised. 53After Jesus’ resurrection, when they had come out of the tombs, they entered the holy city and appeared to many people.

If it true then resurrection can be of two one of the physical and another of the spiritual,

when Lazarus was raised from the dead was it just spiritual and not physical or just physical and not spiritual or both??

That was physical and it meant nothing other than signs and wonders that were meant to verify an Apostle or the one sent by God.
The real resurrection has its timeline (when it was to start and when it ends). The meaningful resurrection to life eternal happens during the church era and Christ being the chief corner stone of the Church and leads by example, had to resurrect first to be the first born from the dead otherwise that title 'first born from the dead' is errenous.

Lazarus death meant nothing hmm I see very well then.

dirt/dust is the byproduct of living things like trees and grass and animals that die and decay along with erosion of rocks and other things, and man was formed from these things.

He says:

Prove it.