Who raised Christ from the dead?

[shad]

John 2:19 Jesus answered and said unto them, Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.
John 2:20 Then said the Jews, Forty and six years was this temple in building, and wilt thou rear it up in three days?
John 2:21 But he spake of the temple of his body.

Jesus was given power to do anything from His Father. He cannot do anything own His own.

John 10:17 Therefore doth my Father love me, because I lay down my life, that I might take it again.
John 10:18 No man taketh it from me, but I lay it down of myself. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again. This commandment have I received of my Father.

There you go, Jesus is only obeing His Father's command to please Him.

Christ said He will raise His body and says He has the power to do so.
So He did.

Jesus did not have His own power to raise Himself, He was given power by His Father as clealy this verse is showing. What you are doing is very immature twisting of the verse. You know very well that no dead can do anything. It is just illogical.

Do you believe He raised it up like He said He would or not?
There's just no way around it Shad. He said and He did.

Your interpretation is clearly out of context unless you can find the verse that Jesus was alive when He died on the cross. :crazy :crazy :crazy

Ok, Rick where does the Bible say that dead can raise themselves? Where does it say that dead have power to do anything?

 

[shad]

Shad,
Did Christ raise His body as He said He would? And with the power to do so?

As usual, your questions are out of context. Dead cannot do anything or he is not dead. Come on, let's talk English.

Was Jesus alive when He died on the Cross???

 

[shad]

BTW Rick,

We are talking about Jesus being Given power by His Father but you cannot find any verse that says Jesus is giving power to His Father. Do you still not see this consistency of Jesus and His Father's identities and relationship between them?

 

[Free]

shad,

Rick has a valid point, and it is in English. Jesus clearly said that he would raise himself from the dead. Either he did or he didn't. Which is it?

 

[shad]

shad,

Rick has a valid point, and it is in English. Jesus clearly said that he would raise himself from the dead. Either he did or he didn't. Which is it?

So you ignore the rest of Jesus' testimony? You know that translation is not perfect. Your interpretation is out of context with the rest of Jesus' testimonies. I already showed plenty of His testimony about Him and His Father's relationship. It seems that you are just trying to win the argument instead of seeking the truth. You are only talking about one sentence, and I am showing many contradicted verses.

 

[shad]

Free,

Rick has been showing only one verse without anything else to backup his interpretation. Can you bring up anything to back up beside repeating the same verse over and over?

 

[Free]

The verses in the OP are clear. Jesus said that he would raise up the temple, which is his body. There is nothing that needs to be added to back that up.

 

[shad]

The verses in the OP are clear. Jesus said that he would raise up the temple, which is his body. There is nothing that needs to be added to back that up.

If interpretation is correct, there is always something else to back up or it is clealy out of context. That's how the Bible works.

I have to go for a while. Mean time, I let the readers decide who is in line with the context.

 

[Paidion]

There are dozens of verses which state that God raised Christ from the dead. But those who think He raised Himself rely on two verses which may not lend themselves to the interpretation given them by those people. Contrary to what has been written in this thread, they are not perfectly clear in declaring that He raised Himself.

John 2:19 Jesus answered and said unto them, Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.

What IS clear is that the "temple" spoken of here was His body. John stated this directly two verses later. What is NOT clear is that Jesus would be doing the raising. Is it not possible that Jesus was prophesying, and that the Father was speaking through Him, saying that He (the Father) would raise up that body in three days?

Because of this the Father loves me, because I lay down my life that I may receive it again.
No one takes it from me, but I lay it down of myself. I have authority to lay it down, and I have authority to receive it again. This charge I have received from my Father. John 10:17,18

In spite of the fact that many translators render "lambanO" as "take" in the first two occurrences and "receive" in the third, it's the same Greek word and could mean "receive" in all three cases as I've translated the passage above. To receive His life back from the Father is a passive act, not an active one. Jesus may simply be saying that He has the authority from His Father to lay his life down, and the authority from His Father to receive his life back from His Father.

By the way, just for interest's sake, some people claim that the "Third Person of the Trinity" raised Jesus from the dead. Here is their proof text:

Romans 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 give life to your mortal bodies also through his Spirit which dwells in you.

A song is built on this interpretation:

If the same Spirit that raised Christ from the dead dwell in you, dwell in you,
If the same Sprit that raised Christ from the dead dwell in you, dwell in you,
He shall quicken your mortal bodies, if the Spirit dwell in you.
He shall quicken your mortal bodies, if the Spirit dwell in you.

 

[Free]

What is NOT clear is that Jesus would be doing the raising. Is it not possible that Jesus was prophesying, and that the Father was speaking through Him, saying that He (the Father) would raise up that body in three days?

I see no reason to believe this to be the case. When Jesus says "I", he means himself, otherwise this would create all sorts of confusion and further difficulties.

 

[shad]

What is NOT clear is that Jesus would be doing the raising. Is it not possible that Jesus was prophesying, and that the Father was speaking through Him, saying that He (the Father) would raise up that body in three days?

I see no reason to believe this to be the case. When Jesus says "I", he means himself, otherwise this would create all sorts of confusion and further difficulties.

You are hanging onto just one verse.

 

[LostSoul]

There have been some decent arguements both ways in terms of who or how Jesus came to be ressurrected from the dead. From what I have seen it still leaves the door open. Then, as I have said before. I am young...my interpretation or understanding is not as advanced as some of the others here at Christian Forums.

In all likeliness God very well could have empowered Jesus with the ability to overcome death on His own.

At the same time, it is just as probable that God the Father brought Jesus back. Still....this makes me ponder a bit seeing as if I am not mistaken....there is a verse somewhere that says Jesus triumphs over death itself.

How does one do that?

Anyone have scriptural answer here...perhaps this can broaden this questioned topic a bit.

 

[francisdesales]

Paidion,

I finally got an opportunity to look over Justin. Admittedly, the Bible is not perfectly clear on the relationship between the Father and the Son, which explains some of the theological discussion that proceeded from further pondering the Scriptures and Apostolic Traditions. One can also find some interesting comments among the Fathers that point out this uncertainty as they explored further the full meaning of our Lord and Savior ALSO being our God.

Here is a passage I would like to point out...

{Justin} "Friends, I said, "I will give you another testimony, from the Scriptures, that God begot before all creatures a Beginning, who was a certain Rational Power from Himself, and whom the Holy Spirit calls the Glory of the Lord, or sometimes the Son, sometimes Wisdom, sometimes an Angel, sometimes God, sometimes Lord and Word. On another occasion, He calls Himself Commander in Chief (Jos 5:15 in Sept.), when He appeared in the form of a man to Jesus, the son of Nave (who is Josua, the son of Nun). He can be called by all these names, because He ministers to the Will of the Father and was begotten by the Father's will. We see things happen similiarly among ourselves; for whenever we utter some word, we beget a word - yet, not by any cutting off, which would diminish the word in us when we utter it. We see a similar occurence when one fire enkindles another. It is not diminished through the enkindling of the other, but remains as it was; and that which was enkindled by it appears to exist by itself, not diminshing that from which it was enkindled." Dialogue with Trypho the Jew, 61

I think we can see here an understanding that the Father and the Son had the same essence, as a fire that enkindles another has the same essence as the other. This became officially defined by Nicea, but we see this sort of understanding here by Justin, although not as clearly as Nicea will define the doctrine.

Not to argue with you, just pointing it out. Anyone with a basic understanding of Church history will realize that "Trinitarians" and "Arians" both went to the Scriptures to "prove" their points, so certainly, we can find verses that "prove" either side, if presented in a vacuum.

Christianity, of course, is not about proof-texting, but experiencing the Trinitarian God.

Regards

 

[Paidion]

I think we can see here an understanding that the Father and the Son had the same essence, as a fire that enkindles another has the same essence as the other.

I fully concur. The writer of Hebrews said the same thing when He called Jesus "the exact imprint of [God's] essence." When we beget a son, his essence is humanity, just as is ours. When God begat a Son, the essence of that Son was Deity just as is the Father's.

Francis quoted:

{Justin} "Friends, I said, "I will give you another testimony, from the Scriptures, that God begot before all creatures a Beginning, who was a certain Rational Power from Himself, and whom the Holy Spirit calls the Glory of the Lord, or sometimes the Son, sometimes Wisdom, sometimes an Angel, sometimes God, sometimes Lord and Word.

Yes, Justin said, "sometimes God". But that does not necessarily imply that Justin considered the Son to either to be:

1. God the Father, or
2. Part of a compound God or Trinity

I rather think Justin meant that Jesus was Deity in essence. For the Greek word "θεοÂ" in the New Testament can mean either God the Father ("The Logos was with God) or it can mean Deity, the essence of God as in "and the Logos was God".

Even Arius said that Jesus was "fully God"!

In his letter in A.D. 321 to Eusebius, Bishop of Nicomedia, Arius wrote:

...Philogonius, Hellanicus, and Macarius, men who are heretics and unlearned in the faith; some of whom say that the Son is an effluence, others a projection, others that he is co-unbegotten.

To these impieties we cannot even listen, even though the heretics threaten us with a thousand deaths. But what we say and think we both have taught and continue to teach, that the Son is not unbegotten, nor part of the unbegotten in any way, nor is he derived from any substance; but that by his own will and counsel he existed before times and ages, fully God, only-begotten, unchangeable.

 

[shad]

There have been some decent arguements both ways in terms of who or how Jesus came to be ressurrected from the dead. From what I have seen it still leaves the door open. Then, as I have said before. I am young...my interpretation or understanding is not as advanced as some of the others here at Christian Forums.

In all likeliness God very well could have empowered Jesus with the ability to overcome death on His own.

At the same time, it is just as probable that God the Father brought Jesus back. Still....this makes me ponder a bit seeing as if I am not mistaken....there is a verse somewhere that says Jesus triumphs over death itself.

How does one do that?

Anyone have scriptural answer here...perhaps this can broaden this questioned topic a bit.

Hi danielle, here is what my friend explains:

That is a pretty good question. Yet the scripture tells us what Jesus was talking about. It mentions that he was talking about the temple of his "body". But what does the scriptures say is his "body"? Is it not his "anointed" underpriests, the Christian congregation? See, according to the scriptures, Jesus was the "foundation cornerstone" of YHWH's spiritual temple. But the spiritual temple was actually made up of more than the foundation cornerstone... there were many other stones involved to form the "whole temple". For the scriptures speak of the Christian congregation as both being the "temple" and "Christ's body".

Let's take a look:

Congregation as the "spiritual temple":

[quote:1vxrsqfu]"Certainly, therefore, YOU are no longer strangers and alien residents, but YOU are fellow citizens of the holy ones and are members of the household of God, and YOU have been built up upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, while Christ Jesus himself is the foundation cornerstone. IN union with him the whole building, being harmoniously joined together, is growing into a holy temple for Jehovah. In union with him YOU, too, are being built up together into a place for God to inhabit by spirit." -Eph 2:19-22

Congregation as the "body of Christ":

"so in Christ we who are many form one body, and each member belongs to all the others." - Romans 12:5 NIV

also

For just as the body is one but has many members, and all the members of that body, although being many, are one body, so also is the Christ. 13 For truly by one spirit we were all baptized into one body, whether Jews or Greeks, whether slaves or free, and we were all made to drink one spirit.

14 For the body, indeed, is not one member, but many. 15 If the foot should say: “Because I am not a hand, I am no part of the body,†it is not for this reason no part of the body. 16 And if the ear should say: “Because I am not an eye, I am no part of the body,†it is not for this reason no part of the body. 17 If the whole body were an eye, where would the [sense of] hearing be? If it were all hearing, where would the smelling be? 18 But now God has set the members in the body, each one of them, just as he pleased.

19 If they were all one member, where would the body be? 20 But now they are many members, yet one body. - 1 Cor 12:12-20

So as you can see, the bible speaks about "the congregation" as being the "spiritual temple" and also being the "body of Christ". See, Jesus himself was not the whole temple... he is the foundation cornerstone. Yet, other "stones" are built up upon the foundation cornerstone to form the "whole" temple.

See, when Jesus was killed, it was YHWH his Father that resurrected him. Yet, before Jesus ascended to heaven, he told his disciples that he was given "all authority on heaven and on earth"(Matt 28:18). As a matter of fact, when we look in the book of Revelation, we see that Jesus is even given the keys to death and hades. Therefore, he was given this authority by his Father, YHWH. (Rev 1:18) Why was he given this authority? Because he did the will of his Father. He tasted death and became dead to redeem mankind from their forsaken state. For doing this, he was exalted by his Father, and given all authority in heaven and on earth. This is why he says in Rev 1:18 "I became dead, but, look! I am living forever and ever, and I have the keys of death and of Ha´des." So this scripture bears witness of the fact that Jesus was actually dead. When you're actually dead, there is NO life. Therefore, he had to be resurrected by YHWH his father. He could not raise himself up. Yet, since he was given the keys to death and hades, who is it that he could now raise up? That's right... his congregation. For it is to Jesus that we must go to gain everlasting life. (John 14:6)

So what Jesus was saying in that scripture above was actually a prophecy that would happen to his congregation at a FUTURE time. They were the "temple" he was speaking about that would be thrown down and that "HE" would raise. They were his "body" that would be killed, and that "HE" would raise up in 3 days. Where is this prophecy also found? In the book of Revelation, where it talks about the "two witnesses" who are killed and then raised up. For we read:

And when they have finished their witnessing, the wild beast that ascends out of the abyss will make war with them and conquer them and kill them. 8 And their corpses will be on the broad way of the great city which is in a spiritual sense called Sod´om and Egypt, where their Lord was also impaled. 9 And those of the peoples and tribes and tongues and nations will look at their corpses for three and a half days, and they do not let their corpses be laid in a tomb. 10 And those dwelling on the earth rejoice over them and enjoy themselves, and they will send gifts to one another, because these two prophets tormented those dwelling on the earth.

11 And after the three and a half days spirit of life from God entered into them, and they stood upon their feet, and great fear fell upon those beholding them. - Rev 11:7-11

YHWH himself handed Jesus the keys to death and hades. Therefore, he will be using those keys that are from his Father YHWH, and using them to raise up those who are of the "spiritual temple" who are killed. Remember, these ones too are baptized into Christ's death, and will experience a death similar to his. Yet, since he already holds the keys to death and hades that were given to him by his Father, he is able to also raise those ones up in his own likeness. Yet, since that "spirit of life" actually came from YHWH his father, that is why the scripture says that "spirit of life from God entered into them".

Why did the disciples "believe" after Jesus was raised from the dead? Because they realized that since YHWH had raised Jesus from the dead and had given him ALL authority in heaven and on earth (Matt 28:18), this also meant that YHWH had given him all authority even over death and hades. Therefore he now possessed the power and authority to raise them up also.

I hope this explanation is sufficient for you. There is many more things to say about it... but I've tried to keep it as straight to the point as I could.

with love,

littleone[/quote:1vxrsqfu]

 

[francisdesales]

The writer of Hebrews said the same thing when He called Jesus "the exact imprint of [God's] essence." When we beget a son, his essence is humanity, just as is ours. When God begat a Son, the essence of that Son was Deity just as is the Father's.

Ignatius (c. 110), in the spirit of the book of Wisdom, calls Jesus the "thought of the Father". I think the personification of the Wisdom of God the Father within Hellenized Judaism made it easier for Christians to define the Christ, the Word, in the same way. I have no doubt that the "Word made flesh" presented an immense theological problem for those wishing to ponder more deeply into the meaning of John's words. To a Hebrew (and Greeks), God was impassible. How could God enter time and take on flesh? "No one can see God and live..." No doubt, a cognitive dissonance existed between what they had been taught before and what they had experience with the Christ...

I think the Hellenization of Judaism presented a framework to help to explain the relationship between the Father and the Son. I believe it was providentially provided from above.

Yes, Justin said, "sometimes God". But that does not necessarily imply that Justin considered the Son to either to be:

1. God the Father, or
2. Part of a compound God or Trinity

No, Justin did not consider the Son to be the Father. I don't see modalism in Justin's writings. Of course, Trinitarians do not see #1, either.

Trinitarians will see evidence of their point of view, others will see their point of view expressed in Justin's writings. As I said before, this period of time saw great flexibility on the definition of the relationship between Jesus and the Father.

Adoptionists taught that a man became divine. That Jesus was ordinary and became divine, usually at the baptism when the Spirit comes upon Him. Intertestamental literature points to 4 others who were glorified (if you take the adoptionist course): Ezra, Isaiah, Levi, and Moses. Our own Sacred Scriptures (Jude 9 quotes the now-lost "Assumption of Moses") appears to point to the possibility that Moses was assumed (see 2 Esd 8). The term "Christ" had the connotations of a human leader who had divine connections. There are numerous Jewish writings, including OT writings, that can be used to support the idea that the Messiah was not necessarily God in essence.

Another option was Arianism, the "angel who revealed salvation". The very idea of Christian Gnosticism (which predates Arianism) is an attempt to explain how the Christ was somehow "above angels" but maintain the monotheistic concept of One. It was not a great leap for Greek Christians (Middle Platonism and Stoicism) to see that divine POWERS had created the cosmos and then guide people. Again, there is Scriptural support for such an idea, such as the angel who comforted Hagar, saved Isaac, and guided Israel. The title "Son of Man" has a variety of meanings, some of which point to an angelic figure. "... Valentinians, for example, insisted that Jesus was an angelic emanation from the Pleroma who summoned pneumatikoi to their heavenly places and offered psychikoi salvation as escape from the Demiurge's world" (After the Apostles, Wagner, p. 109 - excellent book on the first four main writers following the bible). Thus, some Christians saw Jesus as a superior heavenly being or as a king of angels. This made sense given some of the popular cosmologies of the Roman empire.

The final option, of course, is "God who came into the world". We know about it...

Justin acknowledged the legitimacy of an adoptionist Christology, admitting to Trypho that some Christians held an adoptionist view with Judaizing tendencies. He himself, however, regarded the incarnationalist-angelic identity for Jesus as standard among Christians (1st Apology 63). He refers to the Logos in 61, as I have related previously. It does appear, to Justin, that his concept of Jesus lacks the "flesh and blood verve" of an Ignatius. As such, I continue to see an acceptable variety of who the Christ was as the Church attempted to identify more deeply who He was/is. There are a number of studies that I find quite interesting (I have had an interest in the development of doctrine - how what we believe came to be what we believe...)

Even Arius said that Jesus was "fully God"!

In his letter in A.D. 321 to Eusebius, Bishop of Nicomedia, Arius wrote:

...Philogonius, Hellanicus, and Macarius, men who are heretics and unlearned in the faith; some of whom say that the Son is an effluence, others a projection, others that he is co-unbegotten.

To these impieties we cannot even listen, even though the heretics threaten us with a thousand deaths. But what we say and think we both have taught and continue to teach, that the Son is not unbegotten, nor part of the unbegotten in any way, nor is he derived from any substance; but that by his own will and counsel he existed before times and ages, fully God, only-begotten, unchangeable.

It would be interesting to see what he meant by "fully God" by looking to how he was questioned by "orthodox" catholics and his explanation of the use of "HOMOIOUSIOUS" rather than "HOMOOUSIOUS". Arius has Christ of a SIMILAR substance of God, but not the same. All that trouble over a dipthong...!

Also, it might be instructive to read what the historian Eusebius wrote regarding Arianism, who details the charge against Arius. http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/26011.htm

Take care

 

[LostSoul]

Shad,

Thank you for a rather insightful answer. I will reflect upon it and do some reading of my own.

May God Bless You

Danielle

 

[Imagican]

shad,

Rick has a valid point, and it is in English. Jesus clearly said that he would raise himself from the dead. Either he did or he didn't. Which is it?

NO Free, you and others have INTERPRETED Christ's words to BE what you have offered. But the words ACTUALLY Offered say NOTHING of the sort.

His alluding to a 'temple' is NOT of necessity refering to HIS PHYSICAL or SPIRITUAL BODY. What He is refering to is FULFILLMENT of His purpose.

That 'some' have used this scripture to SHOW that Christ 'raised Himself' is NO PROOF that this is what is offered in truth. Christ DIDN'T raise Himself OR He WASN'T REALLY DEAD.

The words that Christ offered concerning the destruction of and raising again was a symbolic offering directed AT THE TEMPLE. He is NOT the TEMPLE. The temple is NOW the HEARTS of those that accept Him and follow HIs commandments. No longer a BUILDING made by the hands of men, but existing and evidenced AS a circumcised heart of them that LOVE HIM.

So, it is CLEAR that Christ makes NO MENTION of 'raising HIMSELF'. That it symbolically matches the death and ressurection does NOT make these words MEAN what you have offered.

God raised Christ from the 'grave'. ONLY if He had NOT truly died would Christ have been able to DO 'anything'. He was RAISED and returned the glory that He possessed PREVIOUS to becoming flesh. And now sits, (not of His OWN POWER, but that GIVEN HIM OF THE FATHER), at the Right Hand of God.

Over and over this 'Christ raised Himself', has been thrown into the mix as an attempt to PROVE something. Not only does it not 'stand up', or 'hold water', but the interpretation is skewed to the point that the TRUE meaning of HIs words is lost.

Blessings,

MEC

 

[oneisgod]

John 2:19 Jesus answered and said unto them, Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.
John 2:20 Then said the Jews, Forty and six years was this temple in building, and wilt thou rear it up in three days?
John 2:21 But he spake of the temple of his body.

John 10:17 Therefore doth my Father love me, because I lay down my life, that I might take it again.
John 10:18 No man taketh it from me, but I lay it down of myself. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again. This commandment have I received of my Father.



Acts 2:32 This Jesus hath God raised up, whereof we all are witnesses.

Acts 10:40 Him God raised up the third day, and shewed him openly;

The Father as Jesus was dead:-

Acts 2:24-27
But God resurrected him by loosing the pangs of death, because it was not possible for him** to continue to be held fast by it. 25 For David says respecting him, ‘I** had Jehovah constantly before my** eyes; because he* is at my right hand that I may never be shaken. 26 On this account my** heart became cheerful and my** tongue rejoiced greatly. Moreover, even my** flesh will reside in hope; 27 because you* will not leave my** soul in Ha′des, neither will you* allow your* loyal one to see corruption.
*Jehovah('s)
**Jesus

Acts 2:32-35
This Jesus God resurrected, of which fact we are all witnesses. 33 Therefore because he was exalted to the right hand of God and received the promised holy spirit from the Father, he has poured out this which YOU see and hear. 34 Actually David did not ascend to the heavens, but he himself says, ‘Jehovah said to my Lord: “Sit at my right hand, 35 until I place your enemies as a stool for your feet.â€Â’



X-ref:-

Psalm 16:10
For you will not leave my soul in She′ol. You will not allow your loyal one to see the pit.


Acts 3:15
whereas YOU killed the Chief Agent of life. But God raised him up from the dead, of which fact we are witnesses.


Romans 4:24
but also for the sake of us to whom it is destined to be counted, because we believe on him* who raised Jesus our Lord up from the dead.
*God

1 Corinthians 6:14
But God both raised up the Lord and will raise us up out of [death] through his power.

Colossians 2:12
for YOU were buried with him in [his] baptism, and by relationship with him YOU were also raised up together through [YOUR] faith in the operation of God, who raised him* up from the dead.
*Jesus


Hebrews 13:20
Now may the God of peace, who brought up from the dead the great shepherd of the sheep with the blood of an everlasting covenant, our Lord Jesus,

 

[Free]

The Father as Jesus was dead:-

So what about when Jesus said he would raise himself from the dead?

John 2:19 Jesus answered and said unto them, Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.