Jesus is Fun

In my opinion, between His death and resurrection, Jesus went and made a proclamation of His victory on the cross to those fallen angels who were being held in prison. But since there is no definitive answer on this, I am open to further discussion on it.
Verse 18 does not require the interpretation that Jesus did not rise physically. In fact, logically speaking, if we held to the "spirit only" idea of His resurrection, we would have a contradiction with other verses in the Bible; namely, John 2:19-21 and Luke 24:39 cited above. Since John 2:19 clearly teaches that the temple of Christ's body was raised, 1 Pet. 3:18, which has different interpretations among scholars, cannot be held in a way that would contradict other, clearer scriptures such as John 2:19-21 and Luke 24:39).
Furthermore, different Bibles translate verse 18 differently. Some say Jesus was "made alive by the Spirit" (KJV, NKJV, NIV, MLB) while others say "...made alive in the spirit" (NASB, NEB, RSV, JB, and the 1901 ASV). It is certainly possible that Jesus was made alive by the Holy Spirit which is consistent with the Trinitarian aspect of Jesus' resurrection where God raised Jesus (1 Thess. 1:10), the Father raised Jesus (Gal. 1:1), and Jesus raised Himself (John 2:19-21), and the Holy Spirit was also involved in His resurrection (Rom. 8:11). It is also accurate to say that Jesus was raised in the spirit in that His spiritual body, which is His physical glorified body, was quickened, made alive, became real as the first fruits of all creation (1 Cor. 15:20).

Finally, it is our bodies that are redeemed as well, not just our spirits. "And not only this, but also we ourselves, having the first fruits of the Spirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves, waiting eagerly for our adoption as sons, the redemption of our body," (Rom. 9:23). The body here spoken of is the physical one, not a "spiritual" non-flesh body.
To summarize about this verse: 1 Pet. 3:18 does not say that Jesus was raised a spirit creature. It says that He was "made alive in the spirit." What does that mean? Quite simply, it means that Jesus was raised in an imperishable body. This is what 1 Cor. 15:35-45 says when it refers to the body as being sown perishable, but raised imperishable; sown in dishonor and raised in glory; sown a natural body and raised a spiritual body, etc. Jesus was the "Last Adam" a life giving spirit. Paul is typifying the resurrection body. In this passage Paul is talking about the resurrection of all people. All Christians will be raised in physical bodies. It is the same with Jesus.

Objection 2: The Bible says that "flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God" (1 Cor. 15:50), therefore, Jesus could not have been raised from the dead in the same body He died in.
The problem with this objection is that it fails to recognize the fact that after the resurrection, Jesus said, "See My hands and My feet, that it is I Myself; touch Me and see, for a spirit does not have flesh and bones as you see that I have," (Luke 24:39), not "flesh and blood." This is not simply a play on words. Every word in the Bible is inspired and this phrase was used by Jesus on purpose.
The term "flesh and blood" is a phrase used in scripture in different contexts, but denotes the natural order.
"And Jesus answered and said to him, "Blessed are you, Simon Barjona, because flesh and blood did not reveal this to you, but My Father who is in heaven," (Matt. 16:17).
"For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the powers, against the world forces of this darkness, against the spiritual forces of wickedness in the heavenly places," (Eph. 6:12).
"Since then the children share in flesh and blood, He Himself likewise also partook of the same, that through death He might render powerless him who had the power of death, that is, the devil," (Heb. 2:14).

Jesus had shed His blood on the cross. It quite literally had drained out of His body. We see that when Jesus rose from the dead, He still had the holes in His hands and feet (Luke 24:39). Since He retained the characteristics of His bodily ordeal, it is logical to state that His blood, which was literally drained from His body, was likewise still shed. Therefore, His body could be raised and the blood remained shed as the thing that "makes atonement": "For the life of the flesh is in the blood, and I have given it to you on the altar to make atonement for your souls; for it is the blood by reason of the life that makes atonement," (Lev. 17:11).
That is why after the resurrection, to prove that He had risen in the same body He died in, Jesus told people to touch His hands and feet because it was the hands and feet that had the holes in them. What more proof do you need to but see and touch the very same hands and feet that had the holes in them from the nails on the cross! Furthermore, in the same statement Jesus said that He possessed flesh and bones, not flesh and blood. He had risen!

Objection 3: The sacrificial offering was the body of Christ, therefore, it could not rise lest the sacrifice be made invalid by "being taken back."
The answer to this objection is similar to the one above.
Jesus' resurrection is the proof that His sacrifice was accepted by the Father who had promised, "For Thou wilt not abandon my soul to Sheol; Neither wilt Thou allow Thy Holy One to undergo decay," (Psalm 16:10). Because Jesus offered a perfect sacrifice for sin, He was guaranteed a physical resurrection. You see, physical death is the result of sin. But, Jesus successfully took care of the sin problem and, in the process, conquered death which is the result of sin (Rom. 5:12; 1 Cor. 15:56). The proof is found in the fact that He rose from the dead in the same body He died in.
Furthermore, the truth is that Jesus bore our sins in His body on the cross (1 Pet. 2:24) and took our place (2 Cor. 5:21). His body was used as the means to shed the blood that cleanses of sin.

"For the life of the flesh is in the blood, and I have given it to you on the altar to make atonement for your souls; for it is the blood by reason of the life that makes atonement," (Lev. 17:11).
"And according to the Law, one may almost say, all things are cleansed with blood, and without shedding of blood there is no forgiveness," (Heb. 9:22).
So, the blood of Christ is what removes our sin and the physical resurrection of Christ is proof that the sacrifice was accepted by the Father.

and you couldnt fit this into one post in stead of a bunch of nada posts

Objection 4: Jesus manifested different physical forms in order to convince the disciples that He had been raised.
This is faulty for several reasons. First, it would mean that Jesus was tricking His disciples into believing that His body had been raised when it hadn’t. Second, it disregards the clear teaching of Jesus Himself who said His very body would be raised: "Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up." 20Then the Jews said, "It has taken forty-six years to build this temple, and will You raise it up in three days?" 21But He was speaking of the temple of His body," (John 2:19-21). Jesus said that His body would be raised. Third, 1 Tim. 2:5 says, "For there is one mediator between God and man, the man Christ Jesus." Jesus is said to be a man. If He was not raised physically, then how could he be a man without a body of flesh and bones?

Objection 5: The Father raised Jesus; He didn't do it Himself, therefore John 2:19-21 cannot be literal because Jesus didn't raise Himself.
This objection simply fails to take into account the Trinitarian nature of God and the resurrection. We see that each of the member of the Godhead was involved in the resurrection of Christ.

Father - "Paul, an apostle (not sent from men, nor through the agency of man, but through Jesus Christ, and God the Father, who raised Him from the dead)," (Gal. 1:1).
Son - "Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up." 20Then the Jews said, "It has taken forty-six years to build this temple, and will You raise it up in three days?" 21But He was speaking of the temple of His body," (John 2:19-21).
The Holy Spirit - "But if the Spirit of Him who raised Jesus from the dead dwells in you, He who raised Christ Jesus from the dead will also give life to your mortal bodies through His Spirit who indwells you," (Rom. 8:11).
Likewise for further clarification, we see that other Trinitarian aspects are observed throughout scripture on different subjects: Each is called God: Father (Phil. 1:2), the Son (John 1:1,14; Col. 2:9) and the Holy Spirit (Acts 5:3-4). Each is the Creator: Father (Isaiah 64:8; 44:24), the Son (John 1:3; Col. 1:15-17), and the Holy Spirit (Job 33:4; 26:13). Each indwells (Father (2 Cor. 6:16), the Son (Col. 1:27), and the Holy Spirit (John 14:17). . . etc.
When looking at the whole of scripture we see no contradiction dealing with Jesus' resurrection. Instead, we see an affirmation of the truth that Jesus did, in fact, raise His body just as He said He would in John 2:19-21.

again you may see this at www.carm.org

Im still not done.

copy pasting well here I see

Jesus is TONS of fun!

He's everyone's buddy, and even a powerful Magic card!

Jesus owes me 5 bucks. 🙁

When someone says that it is improbable that Jesus rose from the dead, he is speaking logically. The fact is that probability strongly works against Jesus rising from the dead. After all, how many people have risen from the dead in this century? If it had happened, would not the news have reported it? Would not the doctors have known about it? Anyone rising from the dead would be a noteworthy event. So, on one hand, it is true that it is improbable that Jesus rose from the dead. However, on the other hand is not.
If there were no God in the universe and if all things followed the natural laws that we know and universe then indeed it would be highly improbable that anyone would rise from the dead. But if there were a God who controls the natural laws and is in fact the author of those laws, then it would be easy for him to raise someone from the dead. The issue of improbability cannot be examined without examining the concept of whether or not God exists. After all, if he does exist the resurrection of Christ is certainly possible. So we see that someone's presuppositions about the existence of God will affect whether or not he or she can accept the idea that Jesus can rise from the dead. Even though statistically it is not normal that anyone would rise from the dead, the statistical improbability does not mean that it is impossible.
But we see in the New Testament eyewitness accounts of people seeing Jesus after He was crucified, died, and buried. Take, for example, the following accounts of Jesus appearing after His death and burial.

John 20:25-28, "The other disciples therefore were saying to him, “We have seen the Lord!” But he said to them, “Unless I shall see in His hands the imprint of the nails, and put my finger into the place of the nails, and put my hand into His side, I will not believe.” 26And after eight days again His disciples were inside, and Thomas with them. Jesus came, the doors having been shut, and stood in their midst, and said, “Peace be with you.” 27Then He *said to Thomas, “Reach here your finger, and see My hands; and reach here your hand, and put it into My side; and be not unbelieving, but believing.” 28Thomas answered and said to Him, “My Lord and my God!”
Luke 24:39, "See My hands and My feet, that it is I Myself; touch Me and see, for a spirit does not have flesh and bones as you see that I have."
Of course, simply quoting the Bible is not sufficient for skeptics who cannot or will not believe in the resurrection of Christ. But it is difficult to blame them because someone rising from the dead is indeed improbable. In fact, they would say that such an extraordinary claim would require extraordinary evidence. This is not unreasonable if applied fairly and consistently to the context of history. I have written on this in the paper "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."

Does the New Testament provide extraordinary evidence for the resurrection of Christ? Quite frankly, yes it does. It does in that the eyewitness accounts which were written down by the apostles of Christ, were preserved on an extraordinary good level. There is absolutely no comparable ancient document or documents that even approaches the accuracy and reliability of the New Testament documents. This is indeed extraordinary. To see more on this, please read "Does the Bible provide extraordinary evidence for Jesus' resurrection?"
Just because something is improbable, does not mean that it is impossible. Given that God exists in that he is involved in human history, and that Jesus performed many miracles, walked on water, and raised others from the dead, it is not improbable to conclude that he has risen from the dead. In fact, in light of the eyewitness accounts that have been accurately transmitted to us, it is perfectly reasonable to trust in his resurrection.

Sometimes critics of Christianity say that Jesus' disciples were mistaken about His resurrection. They say that because no one can rise from the dead, then the disciples were wrong when they said that Jesus rose from the dead. First of all, they are assuming something that may not be true. After all, if there is a God, then why can't a resurrection happen? But, when I ask them to explain how it was possible to be mistaken about something like a person rising from the dead according to the gospel accounts, I don't get any answers except, "Well, they were wrong."
It is true that the disciples made mistakes. After all, they were only human. But, how could they be mistaken about something as serious and as monumental as Jesus rising from the dead? Is it likely that they simply goofed, that somehow after seeing Jesus die on the cross, and after fleeing and going into hiding, that the figure that appeared before them in the closed room that looked like Jesus and sounded like Jesus and had holes in His hands and feet really wasn't Jesus? Were the women who saw the empty tomb also mistaken when they looked into it and saw that the body wasn't there? Was the apostle John mistaken when he said that Jesus appeared before Thomas and said, "Reach here your finger, and see My hands; and reach here your hand, and put it into My side; and be not unbelieving, but believing," (John 20:27). Was it Jesus or not? If not, then who was it? Did the disciples make up the story? Did the apostle John lie when he wrote the account? If so, where are the records refuting this preposterous notion? There aren't any.

Is it possible that all the disciples were mistaken about the same thing at the same time especially when they were believing that Jesus had died and was still dead? What would cause them all to switch from believing that when you're dead you're dead to believing that Jesus died and rose from the dead? Was Paul the apostle also mistaken when he was riding along the road to Damascus and claims to have encountered Jesus? Remember, Paul was a persecutor the Christians. He had authority to arrest the Christians and imprison them. He was a devout Jew and quite powerful in the Jewish religious system. How is it that he changed his mind so drastically and claims to have seen the risen Jesus (1 Cor. 9:1)? Was he also simply mistaken? If so, how? What did he see on the road to Damascas that changed his life if not something incredible?
Is all of Christianity a big "oops"? Might we meet the disciples in the afterlife and have them say to us, "Uh, remember that resurrection thing about Jesus we wrote about? Well, we goofed. It really didn't happen. We mistook the empty tomb -- never did find His body -- the prophecies of the Old Testament about Him rising (Psalm 16:10), the prophecy of Jesus saying He'd rise (John 2:19-21), the accounts of the women saying that they had seen Him risen, the appearances of a man who looked like Jesus and who had holes in his hands and feet and appeared to us in closed rooms, the conversion of Paul -- that was weird -- oh, and all those miracles He did and those that we then did afterwards, too, well, that was all a big mistake. Also, it was a big mistake going around Israel and all of the Mediterranean proclaiming Jesus had risen from the dead while we suffered persecution and death...yeah, it was all a big mistake. Hope there are no hard feelings."
Is it rational to think that the disciples were simply mistaken about something as serious as stating that Jesus had risen from the dead? How do you mistake someone rising from the dead? What would have to happen for numerous people to change their minds about someone coming back to life? Or is it more rational to simply conclude that the disciples weren't mistaken and that Jesus actually did rise from the dead?

you may find all the above at www.carm.org

im still not done

This possibility has been raised by critics ever since Jesus rose from the dead. But it has never taken root except in some Jewish circles because the New Testament account does not support a faked resurrection theory. Nevertheless, in order for the disciples to have faked the resurrection of Jesus, several conditions must have been met. Let's take a look at them and analyze them.

The disciples would need to concoct an elaborate plan.
The disciples would have to have a plan. You can't just walk to a tomb guarded by Roman soldiers and ask for Jesus' body. So, in order to fake Jesus' resurrection the disciples would have to obtain and dispose of the body of Jesus without any hostile witnesses seeing them do this. This would mean that the guards in front of Jesus' tomb would need to be bribed (discussed later). It would further mean that several people would have to be involved in carrying the body of Jesus to an area where it could be disposed of. A single person would not be able to carry another human body a long distance. Therefore, these several people would have to agree to steal the body of Jesus and risk arrest by the guards and the Jewish leaders.
Furthermore, this plan would also have to include other people outside the circle of the disciples since such an "impossible" occurrence as a resurrection would be more convincing if others who were not biased followers of Jesus said that they saw Jesus after the crucifixion. This means that the disciples would have to convince a lot of people to go against the Jewish religious leaders, thereby risking their own economic and social security, as well as risk bringing conflict into the region since the Jews who sent Jesus to the cross, could easily persecute these new apparent converts. Additionally, this would bring further attention of the Romans to the issue thereby escalating tension which was not something the Jewish people wanted.
One more thing, it would be very obvious to the disciples that to continue claiming Jesus rose from the dead, would bring the harsh attention of the religious leaders upon them. Remember, the Jewish leaders knew who Jesus' disciples were. Therefore, easy attention could be focused on them in the form of persecution. Unlike others, the disciples would be easy targets. Since the Jewish leaders had just sentenced Jesus to die a horrible death on the cross, what would stop them from continuing with the disciples who would then start proclaiming Jesus had risen from the dead? The disciples had to know what they were getting into. They were risking their families and their own lives.

In all, concocting an elaborate plan to deceive many people has too many difficult variables in it to overcome. It would simply make more sense to assert that the reason the disciples proclaimed the resurrection of Jesus is because they actually saw the resurrected Jesus.
A sufficient motive would have to be offered to account for the disciples' intended deception?
Remember, we have many people in the Bible who said that Jesus rose from the dead. Did these people all agree to lie? If so, why would they do that? What would motivate various people, who have differences of opinions, differences in needs and desires, to all agree to testify to something false? Could it be that they were dissatisfied with the Roman Empire ruling over the Jewish nation? But what would they accomplish by proclaiming Jesus' resurrection? Did they think that the Roman Empire would suddenly leave Israel because of that? Not a chance.
Or perhaps the people were tired of the hypocrisy of the Jewish religious leaders and it motivated them to claim Jesus rose from the dead in order to undermine their authority. But if this is the case then we have an inconsistency between motive and behavior because people who would be upset with someone else's hypocrisy are not likely to proclaim such an incredible lie as a resurrection -- thereby being even bigger hypocrites than the leaders. Does this make sense? Also, since Jesus taught love, truth, and self sacrifice, such deceptive actions would be in direct contradiction with the teachings of the One they were following.
At best all anyone can do is guess about what the disciples may have been thinking or what might have motivated them to devise an elaborate deception. Guessing is all that can be done. But we would need to ask if any proposed motives of the disciples could be harmonized with the facts of their preaching and teaching about truth, long-suffering, patience, kindness, and love. No one can read their hearts or their minds and insert into a scenario 2000 years old the motivations of people long gone. It is best to simply let the facts speak for themselves. They lived, suffered, proclaimed, and died for the truth of the resurrection.