The first to rise from the dead?

In Acts 26:23 Paul states that Jesus was the first to rise from the dead. However, 2 Kings 4:32-37 describes Eli'sha raising a boy from the dead and Jesus himself raises two people from the dead per Matthew 9:18-25 and John 11:38-44. Is this not a contradiction?

Why is it that when the dead rise in the Bible it's holy, but when they rise now, they're unholy zombies? This is a discrepancy that I would expect the bible to cover, because I would think Christians would hate the idea that they're worshipping an undead zombie messiah.

Now previous to the change into the incorruptible state which is promised in the resurrection of the saints, the body could be mortal (capable of dying), although not destined to die (MORITURUS). . . . In like manner was man's body then mortal; and this mortality was to have been superseded by an eternal incorruption, if man had persevered in righteousness, that is to say in obedience: but even what was mortal (MORTALE) was not made dead (MORTUUM) except on account of sin.
For the change which is to come in at the resurrection is, in truth, not only not to have death incidental to it, which has happened through sin, but neither is it to have mortality (or the very possibility of death) which the natural body had before it sinned.Augustine of Hippo. Merits and forgiveness of sins book 1 page 5Women recieved back their dead, raised to life again. Others were tortured and refused to be released , so that they might gain a better resurrection.Hebrews 11.35[This message has been edited by judge, 11-15-2003]

Hi,I have heard a few apologetics about this one.Here are some reality denying intennectual contortions.1. Jesus was first in importance of those who have been raised form the dead. This camp do not claim that Jesuswas first to be raised form the dead, but he is the most important of those that did.2.Jesus was the first to be raised from the dead never to die again! Yes this really is an apologetic, it ignores the problem of how a God can die in the first place but nevermind LOL3. Jesus was the first person to raise himself from the dead! Yes, people really do believe this, I know it is embarrassing but it doesn't seem to bother these guys.I am sure there are other excuses, but don't expect a xian to agree that this is a contradiction.Brian.

Could you decypher this McFallesque post for me please?Brian.

Those would seem to be tough stances to defend Devil's Child, considering that Acts 26:23 has Paul stating "that the Christ must suffer, and that, by being the first to rise from the dead, he would proclaim light both to the people and to the Gentiles." No such qualifiers in there. Probably why this is receiving such little attention.And Judge, I hope that you were being funny above, because I have no idea what you are talking about!

Hi,Apologists do not always need qualifiers. Apologetists will present any intellectual contortion at all that will seemingly smooth over a contradiction, they dont really care if it has support in the Bible.These are excuses that were posted to me, I personally am not interested in the New Testament, it is incredibly boring, I much prefer the OT.Brian.[This message has been edited by Brian, 11-17-2003]

I take it by the lack of response this is receiving that we are all in agreement that this is a contradiction?

Isaiah 26:19
"Thy dead men shall live, together with my dead body shall they arise. Awake and sing, ye that dwell in dust: for thy dew is as the dew of herbs, and the earth shall cast out the dead. "Simply put, Christ was the first of these men to rise from the death, into eternal life. Thus his ressurection is different from Lazarus's.cheers.

quote:

---

Simply put, Christ was the first of these men to rise from the death, into eternal life. Thus his ressurection is different from Lazarus's.

---

And is that how Paul described it? Paul said that he was first to rise from the dead. If I were to say, "I am the first woman to use an avatar of an evil blinking eye", and off in the far reaches of the internet, there was already another woman using such an avatar, would I be correct? Of course not, I'd be dead-on wrong. You can't just stick qualifiers wherever you want to change the meaning of clearly written text, to make the text as a whole not be contradictory.As I've mentioned in another post, what you're doing would be the equivalent of an author doing the following:--------------------
Reader: But you said Mr. Brown died in chapter 3! Why is he alive in chapter 8?Author: Clearly since he is alive in chapter 8, chapter 3 was referring to a "spiritual death". It's an idiom. Even though it wasn't mentioned in chapter 3, knowing the totality of the book, you should be able to imply that Mr. Brown didn't *physically* die in back then.
-------------------If you're allowed to do this, no book at all is ever fallable.------------------
"Illuminant light,
illuminate me."

Should it surprise me you assume Paul, the scholar (who knew about the resurrection of Lazarus), would still make the obvious blunder of literally saying Jesus was the first human to be resurrected, when he wasn't ?PS, your example sounds logical to me, unless your author was a dolt.[This message has been edited by Zealot, 11-19-2003]

quote:

---

Should it surprise me you assume Paul, the scholar (who knew about the resurrection of Lazarus), would still make the obvious blunder of literally saying Jesus was the first human to be resurrected, when he wasn't ?

---

Logical fallacy, my friend. Argument from incredulity. You're saying it's foolish to call this an error because Paul would surely never make such an error!To support this, you'd need to start with proof that Paul knew anything of Lazarus. After all, the earliest copies of his books and those that mention Lazarus all date well after the supposed events described, and are not at all conclusively proven to have been written by the authors whose names are attached to them.Even then, you haven't proven his intent is what you say it is. Paul could have been insane. He could have had Alzheimer's. His book could have been rewritten by someone else, even if it was written by him in the first place. When you have good evidence supporting your claim over the many other possibilities, then you'll have an interesting argument. Until, then you're making empty assertions.

Wasn't my argument Zyphur. Just that I showed surprise at the idea of Paul (an avid Jew) making what others believe (not me) an obvious mistake. That those doctoring church leaders didn't pick up on it surprises me too.I would be more surprised that Paul didn't pick up on Elisha's resurrection than the resurrection of Lazarus. Paul, a user of the Septuagint, would not have known about Elisha's resurrection ? I think not. Zyp, you're making assertions.. see above. My argument is based on a belief that the Bible being 100% accurate. The question is how could Jesus be the 1st to be resurrected and did Paul thus make a mistake ?Another example of resurrection...2 Kings 13:21"And it came to pass, as they were burying a man, that, behold, they spied a band of men; and they cast the man into the sepulchre of Elisha: and when the man was let down, and touched the bones of Elisha, he revived, and stood up on his feet."Resurrection was nothing new to the Jews. Paul was an highly devoted Jew. Paul was not talking about dead come alive, only to die again eventually (as in all the other Biblical cases) , he was talking about the 1st dead man to be resurrected back to God. Jesus was the first.Remember we have to die first before we can be with God. We have to be resurrected through Christ.You could have a point had this been said of anyone else, but not Jesus.cheers.Z

Z, Paul does not add any such qualifiers in, he simply states, "26:22: Having therefore obtained help of God, I continue unto this day, witnessing both to small and great, saying none other things than those which the prophets and Moses did say should come: 23: That Christ should suffer, and that he should be the first that should rise from the dead, and should shew light unto the people, and to the Gentiles."He just states that he passes on what Moses and the prophets said, and they said that Christ should be the first that should rise from the dead. There is no mention at all of the assention to God.And as far as Paul knowing of the resurrection of Lazarus and still making this obvious blunder of saying Jesus was the first human to be resurrected...we don't know who wrote Acts. I say most likely it wasn't Paul, considering that it was originally claimed by Christians that Moses wrote Genesis, Exodus, Deuteronomy and Numbers. And yet now we know that he did not. It was also claimed that Joshua wrote Joshua and that Samuel wrote Samuel 1 and 2, and it is now known that they did not. So I say, being that Christians were so dishonest about the authorship of those other books, why should we beleive them when they say Paul authored Acts?. So obviously the person who wrote these suppossed words of Paul's had no idea of anyone else ever being raised from the dead.

RoR, listen carefully. I probably might not explain it clearly so if you don't get my point just read it again.Paul statement was based on the various prophecies of Prophets. Isiah, Moses and Hosea (and likely others too).His statement was 3 part.1. Christ would suffer
2. He would be the first to rise from the dead
3. He will shew light unto the people and Gentiles.I asssume you are satisfied with 1 and 3 ?So lets move onto 2.
He will be the first to rise from the dead.Lets look at Hosea 6 vs 2."After two days will he revive us: in the third day he will raise us up, and we shall live in his sight. ""After two days will he revive us:" -> Who will 'revive us' ? This is a reference to Jesus (the Lord) who will revive them all from the death."in the third day he will raise us up, and we shall live in his sight." Who will 'raise us up' ? Jesus.3rd Day refers to Jesus back from the dead (as you will know from the Gospel). Jesus does the 'raising up' and the crucial part here is
and we shall live in his sight This is how we know it refers to JESUS reviving people and raise them up. This is not an ordinary revival, it refers to a being revived and raised from the dead where you live in 'his sight'.No-one that had been revived/raised (before Jesus's death and resurrection) could have 'lived in His sight'. Living in His sight refers to UNION with God, not normal living on Earth. We thus know Hosea was not talking about an every day revival and resurrection indeed he was talking about Jesus's.By now I hope you will already know the answer, but I will continue.When is this 'revival + resurrection' happening ? (Notice the 3 days). The 3 days refer to the 3 days Jesus was in the tomb. Jesus was dead. But how can he revive people if he's not revived himself ? Ans.. He's would have to be the first to be revived and resurrected. Jesus was the first to "truely" rise from the dead.Paul realised this. Indeed it was probably a revelation to him ! Remember not all Jew's would even know what Hosea was on about. " 3 days, live in God's sight ect..".Paul realised the significance of Hosea's words and relevance to Christ, THUS made what you would perceive to be an 'erroneous statement', but to anyone well versed in the old text a much more profound statement than simply 'Rise from the dead' .Paul was not simply 'sloppy'. You're wrong. Seems you have been reading too many "biblical scholars proves the Bible as junk" books. If you want to learn about the Bible, start with those that believe in it. Then ask questions you dont understand. Starting with the assumption that guilty until proven innocent is a silly way to go about it.[This message has been edited by Zealot, 11-20-2003]