Resurrection?

Paul says in 1 Corinthians:
       "For I handed on to you as of first importance what I also received: that Christ died for your sins in accordance with the scriptures; that he was buried; that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the scriptures...." 15:3-4.

He then cites the witnesses to the resurrection. Then he says:

"And if Christ has not been raised, then empty too is our preaching; empty, too, your faith." 15:14.

Paul makes this issue the key one and challenges us to either have faith in not only Yeshua's resurrection, but also in the future resurrection of all people or to reject his teaching.

However, it is right to discuss what kind of resurrection Paul is talking about. Today, we are use to reviving people whose hearts have stopped and restoring them to life. So the idea of reviving the dead is not so miraculous or awe-inspiring as it was in the first century of the common era. Paul says that the body is "sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body." 1 Cor. 15:44. Paul says unequivocably that we shall all be changed. 1 Cor. 15:52.

The resurrection therefore is not a physical, but a spiritual, resurrection for Paul. He denies that there will be a physical resurrection as the Prophet Job says: "And in my flesh I shall see G-d;..." Job 19:26. So what kind of resurrection did Yeshua have?

There are three possibilities: first, he could have been revived. We have all heard about the conspiracy to falsify his death with drugs that even today would still the heart to the point that he would seem dead. Counter drugs could be used to restart his body along with chest massage. Matthew addresses this issue when it says that the Sanhedrin ordered the guards to say that his disciples came by night and stole him while we were asleep. Matt. 28:13. Matthew could be the one falsifying the event or the Sanhedrin, but there is other evidence for the claim that Yeshua was revived. Suzanne Olsson in her book Jesus in Kashmir argues that he went to India after his rising. The Ainu have a strong tradition of Yeshua having come to Japan after the resurrection. In both of these cases, Yeshua was flesh and blood and died again. He was not taken up in the clouds as Luke claims. Acts 1:9.

Second, Yeshua could have risen in a spiritual body. While we do not know a lot about spiritual bodies, angels and elementals have spiritual bodies. John and Paul make this argument. I have just set forth the Pauline argument. John says: "Jesus said to her (Mary Magdalene), 'Stop holding on to me, for I have not yet ascended to the Father.'" John 20:17.The nature of a spiritual body is such that it can eat just as Luke argues Yeshua did, it is more than capable of walking through doors and walls, and can disappear as Yeshua did on the road to Emmaus.

Third, Yeshua did not rise at all. This position is supported by archaeological evidence, the Muslims, and those who do not believe in the resurrection. Archaeological evidence exists that there is a family tomb in Talpiot, Israel which contains sarcophagi that belonged to a family with many of the family names of Yeshua's relatives and of Yeshua himself. There is additional evidence that indicates that one of the sarcophagi, now in the custody of the Israel Antiquities Authority, was stolen before it was transferred into their care. That sarcaphogus is the one belonging to Ya'akov ha Tzaddik, James the Just. The patina in the engraved name matches that of the engravings in the tomb. Under this theory Yeshua died a death, whether natural or otherwise, and was buried and not resurrected.

The Muslim position is that it was not Yeshua who was crucified, but rather someone that looked like him. We know that there was someone who looked like Yeshua and that was Yehudah, his brother, called Thomas or the twin. Yeshua could have exchanged places with his brother and lived on. We know that Thomas was the most important of the Apostles in that he established the churches in Adiabene, Armenia, Chaldea, Persia, Afghanistan, and India. It is not beyond belief that Yeshua merely assumed his brother's name and continued on this ministry in exile.

Lastly, there are many scholars who claim that the whole story is a myth. There is no evidence except in the Bible, which is self-serving, to show that Yeshua ever existed. Josephus acknowledges the existence of James, but not Jesus. None of the other historians of the period acknowledge Jesus.

The Nasoreans have no opinion as a body on this subject. We believe that Yeshua suffered on the cross, that he bled, and that his blood was sufficient to change the covenant with G-d that every Jew takes at circumcision so that the bloody sacrifice was ended. We believe that this was the purpose of his suffering and that it caused the more universal sacrifice of bread and wine as offered by Melchizedek to be restored. Whether he died or not is irrelevant. All the theology that Paul puts forth is irrelevant as he is irrelevant.

One thing for sure. Paul as the earliest person to argue for the resurrection of Yeshua would not be allowed to testify as he had no personal knowledge of the event. Luke, his secretary, likewise was not present at any of the events and is not a credible witness. The traditions of Mark are based upon the simple statement made by the angel that Yeshua had been raised without any explanation as to the form of his resurrection which could be either one or two. Matthew's school follows Mark but elaborates. The Hebrew Matthew makes clear that the angel said that Yeshua had arisen and then they meet a spiritual person whom they recognize as Yeshua, but some of the disciples do not recognize him in Galilee. Matthew 28:17. Matthews position is in favor of a spiritual resurrection.

Two other sources must be considered, that of John and that of the Didache. John argues for a spiritual resurrection as well. Not even Mary Magdalene knew who he was. John 20:14. The spiritual body is not the same as the physical body and is changed. All the Johannine witnesses speak of seeing someone who did not look like Yeshua. The author of the Didache, Shimon ha Tzaddik, the brother of Yeshua, seems not to have known about the resurrection either as he does not mention it.

The only credible traditions, that is, apostolic traditions, therefore, support the idea of a spiritual resurrection. None support the physical resurrection of Yeshua. Therefore, we can assume that Jesus was not resurrected as is argued by the Job, in such a way that he would see G-d in his flesh. The so-called miracle of the Resurrection of Yeshua is insufficient for rational people to believe in the story of Yeshua. Like the disciples, we must recognize Yeshua in the breaking of the bread, in our personal experiences, in our personal presence at the cross. Any other form of belief is faulty and based upon supposition and lie.

I believe that Yeshua was executed, was taken down from the cross and laid in the tomb for a rest. I believe that the intent was to revive him some 38 hours later. I believe that the purchase of the materials necessary to revive him was accomplished before dawn. See Mark 16:1. I believe that they failed to revive him, but that his spiritual body appeared to them and stayed with them for fifty days and then disappeared. There were no witnesses that could say to a court of law, "I have seen his body." In fact, the most that they could say was I saw someone that did not look like him which I became convinced was him and believed that he was risen. I have encountered this resurrected Christ and I know Him and declare Him real, but I cannot prove him and cannot witness past my own experience.

You are left with Paul's conundrum. If Jesus was not resurrected, then your faith is false.