I recently did read a book by Mbungu a Nini : « the Enigma of the resurrection of Jesus » (www.kianamaz.com), that shows many current presumptions on the resurrection of Jesus are false. At the core of the resurrection of Jesus there is the issue of the definition of the resurrection itself. Mbungu a Nini shows in his book that there are two kinds of resurrection:
o the resurrection in this plan
o the resurrection in the beyond;
The later is the key to the understanding of the resurrection of the Master.
In Luke 20:37 Jesus shows that Abraham, Isaac and Jacob are alive, because “the dead are raised”. But if the patriarchs are raised it can be only in the beyond. Paul alludes to this resurrection in I Cor. 15: 42-44. The resurrection in the beyond was a big theological theme in Jesus time. In Luke 20:37 Jesus is answering the Sadducees questioning of this resurrection.

The second point is the verb “to appear” which “in the Bible comes from the Greek: Phaino. It means: to make manifest or visible or known what has been hidden or unknown; to become manifest, be made known; expose to view; make manifest, to show one's self, appear”. From Genesis to Revelation, when applied to a raised person this verb alludes to supernatural beings. Since Jesus was appearing, his was in the beyond. He was not the first to appear in this way after the resurrection in the beyond; since he himself said the dead are raised, thus Moses and Elias was appeared to him were also raised from the dead in the beyond. One should note that after is resurrection on the plan of existence (which was not the case for Jesus) Lazarus wasn’t appearing, because people could decide, go and see him. Nobody could do the same for Jesus; he was the one who did determine to whom he would appear.

The point therefore is the resurrection of Lazarus and the resurrection of Jesus happened in two different plans of existence. The first came back to live here, while the second resumed living but in the beyond so he could only appear to the living.

On of the other issues Mbungu a Nini tackles is the issue of the physical appearances of Jesus. And he shows that they are not an argument that Jesus’ resurrection happened in this plan because: The angels can appear with physical bodies (see Gen19:1-3)

Even the appearance with wounds to Thomas doesn’t disprove the resurrection in the beyond, because, after his death Jesus became able to change his form (Marc 16:12) so he chose to appear to Thomas in a form he could accept.

If the apparitions of Jesus were a proof of a resurrection on this plan, then the ascension would have put and end to them, but it didn’t, he appeared afterward to Paul (see Acts 23: 11) and to John to whom he gave the message of the Revelation..

That explains everything. Thanks, dude.

It does make a lot more sense now.

Kinda embarrasing that we could be so wrong for so long.

Thanks kwama

I don't know how to respond to that . . . so I won't.

(I guess I just did ).

..... Read the excerpt about the book from that site, and cannot say that it lines up with Orthodoxy. However, such questioning, etc. add to the overall conversation/dialogue in the Christian community.

So, where is the " beyond " again?

LOLOLOLOLOLOLOL


You believe a two thousand year old dude is still walkin around breathin and you are making fun of the OP's belief?

Gotta love the altruistic emotions that flow from christians

I think you are confusing me with someone who isn't an athiest

Remember, Canada, most people on this board have little to no ability to comprehend irony.

ditto

kwama, you need to kick that jujuweed and get with the program girlfriend. most people from your country are building careers for themselves as internet scammers and here you are babbling all this bs.