JESUS RESURRECTION : AN EVIDENCE FOR AFTER LIFE

JESUS RESURRECTION : AN EVIDENCE FOR AFTER LIFE

The Gospel of God appears in Galilee: but in the end it is clear that Calvary and the Resurrection are its centre. Jesus came not only to preach a Gospel but to be a Gospel, and He is the Gospel of God in all that He did for the deliverance of humankind. The resurrection of Jesus had been a serious issue that whether the resurrection really happens or not. As per the natural science, the resurrection of the death body is impossible, as what is decay already cannot be resurrected in to a new form of like the old being itself or so. Almost every religion have these kind of new transformation but unlike the Christian belief, e.g., Hindu beliefs is that they will transformed or resurrect again in to an animal according to their deeds. This paper will attempt to highlight the resurrection of Jesus from the Bible and as well as according to some theologians.  

1.   Meaning of Resurrection

            The reviving of something that once had life and it’s become lifeless, without power and inanimate. The rising of the dead to life. Physical resurrection is a person’s restoration from physical death to life in a body.   Christ resurrection is an issue on which the church stands or fall. The bodily resurrection of Jesus was the central to the early church’s proclamation. It provided a hope for the future bodily resurrection, and it promised a foretaste of aspects of that “eternal life” now. Belief in a resurrection of person from the dead finds expression in at least eight Old Testament passages (Job 19: 26; Psalms 17:15, 49: 15, 73, 24; Isa 26: 19, 53: 10-12, Dn 12:2,13), while resurrection terminology is borrowed on two notable occasion (Ezk 37:1-14; Hosea 6:2) to portray future national and a spiritual restoration brought about by a return from exile.The early Christian believers, confronted with the risen Christ, understood what had happen in the beliefs of first century Judaism. Several aspects of their interpretation of Jesus’ resurrection are in direct continuity. Firstly, Christ’s resurrection is understood to be the vindication of his righteousness and faithfulness, and his exaltation as the Messiah and representative of Israel by God, in contrast to his rejection, trial and crucifixion. Secondly, Jesus’ resurrection, his ‘exodus’ (Luke 9:31), is a sure sign of the inauguration of the new age, the promised Kingdom of God, in which Jesus ruled as Lord and Savior (Luke 20:35-36; Acts 5: 30-31; Rev 11:15). Five types of resurrection may be distinguished in the New Testament usage:

i)        The Past physical resurrection of certain individuals to renewed mortal life (Lk 7:14-15; Jn 11: 13, 43-44; Heb 11:35).

ii)      The past bodily resurrection of Christ to immortality (Rom 6:9).

iii)    The past spiritual resurrection of believers to new life in Christ (Col 2:12).

iv)    The further bodily resurrection of believers to immortality (I Cor. 15:42, 52).

v)      The future personal resurrection of unbelievers to Judgement (Jn 5:29, Acts 24:15).

The New Testament understands and interprets Jesus’ Resurrection in a variety of ways. The Bible had testified that Christ was indeed risen, when He appeared to Peter (Luke 24:34). In I Corinthians 15:5ff, we see that Jesus appeared before Cephas and then to the twelve. And then He appeared to more than five hundred brothers and sisters at one time.  

2.   Evidence of Resurrection in the New Testament

i)  The empty Tomb

The Gospels present four separate narratives of the discovery of the empty tomb by the woman. To a great extent the narrative as it appears in the fourth gospel represents an independent tradition, and a significant change of emphasis. In Mark (16: 1-8), the words ‘He has been raised; he is not here. Look, there is the place they laid Him’ appears to indicate an increased interest in the actual site of Resurrection. Luke maintains roughly the same level of interest in the basic fact, adding the specific statement that ‘they did not find the body…He is not here but has risen’ (24: 1-11). In Matthew, we find a different sense of supernatural. It writes, “His appearance was like lightning, and His clothing white as snow…he has been raised” (Matthew 28: 1-8). In the fourth Gospel, we find the description of the appearance of the inside tomb (John 20:1-10). It did not mentions like the other Gospels that ‘he is raised’ but describe that the tomb is empty.

ii)   Appearance to Mary Magdalene

In the Gospel according to John, we find that, Mary Magdalene was weeping outside the tomb. “As she wept, she bent over to look into the tomb, and she saw two angels in white…they asked why are you weeping? She said to them ‘they have taken away my Lord’…she turned and saw Jesus standing there, but she did not know it was Jesus…I have not yet ascended to my Father to my God and your God” (John 20: 11-18).

iii)    Appearance at Emmaus

In Luke 24: 13ff, we find that Jesus was with the two disciples on the road to Emmaus. The two of them did not know that it was Jesus, but as the nightfall they invite him, and then when they surround the table, their eyes were opened and they recognized that it was Jesus.  

iv) The Upper Room: Easter Day

In Luke 24:36ff and in John 20: 19-23, we read that the appearance of Jesus Christ among his disciples was acknowledged. They were frightened and Jesus urged them to touch his body to show that he is not a ghost. It affirms that he has risen.  

v)   Appearance on the Lake-Side

            In John 21, we find that at day break while the disciples were casting their net on the sea of Tiberias, they saw Jesus standing on the beach…Peter cried out “It is the Lord,” this statement indicate that Jesus was resurrected.

vi) The Ascension

In Luke 24: 50ff and Acts 1:6-11, we find that after blessing them, he withdrew from them and carried up into heaven. Two men in white robes stood by them while he was lifted up, and the cloud took him out of their sight.

vii)  The Appearance to Paul

In Acts 9:3-9, 22:6-11 and 26:13-18, while Saul was on his was to Damascus, a light from heaven flashed him…why have you persecuted me. Then Saul asks: “who are you, Lord?” then reply came, “I am Jesus whom you are persecuting.” This statement proved the evidence that Jesus had indeed risen and ascended in heaven.

3.   Resurrection accounts in the New Testament

i)     The Markan Account (Mark 15-16):

            Joseph of Arimathae was the one who remove the body of Jesus. Mary Magdalene and Mary the mother of Joses was present that time. Joseph bought a linen cloth, and laid it in a tomb that had been hewn out of the rock, and rolled the stone against the door of the tomb. When the Sabbath was over, Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James, and Salome bought spices, so that they might go and anoint him. And they go early in the morning, but the stone was removed. They enter the tomd and saw a young man dressed in white robe, sitting on the right side, and they were alarmed. He told them not to be like that, and ask whether they were looking for Jesus who was crucified. He told them that he was raised. They went back to tell what had happen. Before Jesus’ death, he promise Peter that he will go to Galilee before him (Mk 14:28). So they went out from the tomb and said nothing because they were afraid. Here it ends abruptly. In the Markan account, the only material fact is the removal of the stone. The risen Christ was made known by the young man whose presence on the grave is not explained. It looks as if there were some text missing.

ii)   Matthaean Account (Matthew 27-28):

            The Matthaean account accepted some of the Markan account but adds some changes. The principal changes in the account of the burial are that the tomb where Jesus was buried was Joseph’s new tomb (Mat 27:60). Mary Magdalene and the other Mary were sitting opposite the tomb. Here we find that Pilate order the tomb to be guarded after the request of the Pharisees, if not his disciples might stole it, and proclaim that he was risen. There occurs an earthquake, the angels of the Lord rolled over the stone and sit on it. His appearance was like a lightning, and attire was white as snow. The guards shook in fear and become like dead men. The angels said to the women not to be afraid, and tell them that he is not here, he has been raised. After that, they met Jesus while returning back, and he greets them. And tell them to go to their brother that he is going to Galilee where he will be there. The earthquake which accompanied the death of Jesus, is the power that introduced him. The description of the angels in a white robe is also borrowed from Daniel apocalypse (Dan 10:6).

iii)    Lukan Account (23-24): 

Unlike Markan and Matthaean accounts, Luke omitted the appearance of the women. It seems all the disciples were present near the tomb. Luke also portray the inside drama of the tomb. Some of the events had share similar story, but adds the story of the Emmaus. Jesus appeared first to two of his disciples on the road to Emmaus, and disappeared after they notice him. There seems to be three main traditions despite the presence of minor variations in detail, which may be due to the writer’s imagination, or to floating oral traditions. There is the tradition of the women’s visit to the grave and their discovery that the tomb was empty, the latter point left vague by Mark and Matthew, is made definite by Luke. There is the Galilean tradition, implicit in Mark and made definite by Matthew. Finally, there is the Jerusalem tradition, represented by Luke’s two books, according to which the appearance of the risen Christ to his disciples, and his subsequent meeting with them for a specific period of time, all tale place near and in Jerusalem.

iv)    Johannine Account (19-21):

Johannine’s account tells of us that Joseph of Arimathea was one of the disciples of Jesus. A new person Nicodemus appear on the scene bringing a mixture of myrrh and aloes weighing about hundred pounds. They laid in the garden where there is a new tomb in which no one has laid before. Here, the day after was portrayed in such a busy conditions. John also mention that after they all left, Mary stood weeping outside the tomb, she bent over to look into the tomb, and saw two angels. Here, the difference is conspicuous; with two angels which the other accounts mention one. John also mentioned that Mary was in doubt when Jesus was standing by her side. After knowing him, she called him ‘Rabbouni’ which was only found in Johannine account. John also mention about the aftermaths of Jesus’ resurrection that how Jesus will be, informing us that he will ascend to his Father. John also mentioned clearly that Jesus was really raised from the death, which we can know form Thomas’ encounter with Jesus. Unlike the other accounts, John was at its best in mentioning the reality of Jesus’ resurrection and the appearance with his disciples.

  

4.   Significance of Resurrection

            If Christ resurrection is not true:

i)              Preaching the Gospel is useless (I Cor 15:14).

ii)            Faith is worthless (I Cor 15:14, 17; Rom 10:9).

iii)          Witnesses of Christ’s resurrection are liar (I Cor 15:15).

iv)          Believers are still in their sins (I Cor 15:17; Rom 4:25; I Cor 15:54-57).

v)            Nothing was finished on the Cross (Jn 19:30).

vi)          Christ sacrifice was in vain (Acts 2:23-25; Rom 4:24-25).

vii)        Dead believers will not rise (I Cor 15:18; I Thess 4:13-17).

viii)      Living believers have no hope afterlife (I Cor 15:32).

Therefore, Christ’s resurrection power provides necessary spiritual power for believers (Eph 1:19-20; Phil 3:10; Rom 6:4-5), as well as God’s mean to regenerate believers to a living hope (I Peter 1:3-4). In his resurrection, Jesus earned for us a new life just like his. We do not receive all of that new ‘resurrection life’ when we become Christians, for our bodies remain as they were, still subject to weakness, aging and death. But in our spirit we are made alive with new resurrection power.

5.   Resurrection according to Gospel

The real resurrection of Jesus from the dead, the event itself, is not described in the New Testament. For it was the appearance of Jesus himself confirmed the notion that Jesus was risen. As already mention above about the evidences, the drama of the real events was omitted in the Gospels. The early apostles took seriously the fact that they had been commissioned to be the witnesses of these things (Lk 24:46-47) to the preaching of the resurrection. The New Testament scholar Joachim Jeremias remarks that the most striking literary problem in the texts about the resurrection is their differences in detail and their colorful multiplicity. One can talk of a basic framework at most in the sequence of empty tomb and appearance. The central theme of John is Life. The words and works of the Christ are manifestation of Life and they extend to the whole range of human needs, spiritual and bodily alike. The healing of the sick and impotent, the feeding of the hungry, the giving of sight to the blind, the raising of Lazarus from death, are all signs of the life giving mission of the Son of God. The Life is the life of the age to come; the life is realized already in the present age. It is received by believing on Christ. He is himself the Life. The synoptic Gospels talks about the kingdom of God, even here on earth. This could but can only mean the transformed life, which Johannine call Life. Jesus appear in the closed room is not demonstration against his flesh and blood existence. The point is that Jesus is physically among them as flesh and blood, yet resurrected being. This pictured the dialogue between Thomas and Jesus. But we have to know that unlike Paul, the Gospels does not define the afterlife, resurrected body.  

6.   Resurrection according to Paul

Paul believes in the literal resurrection of the Christ and that Paul’s sermon on the issue, I Corinthians 15, stresses both the bodily nature of Christ’s resurrection and its spiritual nature. Paul explicitly denies that flesh and blood can be resurrected (I Cor 15:44, 53-54). He says: “Flesh and Blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God, nor does the perishable inherit the imperishable” (I Cor 15:50). He is not merely denying mortality but suggesting that a transformation (I Cor 15:51) must take place before the spiritual body is manifest, which will be fully realized at the last trumpet, when death, sin, and the law shall be no more. Whether this spiritual body will be a newly created eschatological body or the same one transformed is doubtful. But the process itself is described as transformation of the believer into the body of Christ, which is already transformed by his death and resurrection. The process is progressive and will be realized only in the eschaton.

7.   Resurrection according to Thinkers in the light of NT

a)      Augustine

Augustine not only affirmed that ‘the resurrection of the Lord Jesus Christ is the distinctive mark of the Christian faith- indeed that Christian faith consists in believing in His resurrection.’ But further asserts that the whole of Christ’s work, including the incarnation, was in the service of the resurrection, and that his death would have profited us nothing had the resurrection not occurred. He repeated continually that Christ took on in the incarnation what he was not; he did not give up what he had, so you have Christ coming into the world, and yet he was already there, he rose again and ascended into heaven, and yet he had ever left it. He also asserts that that who acknowledges God is almighty, then resurrection is possible. Hence to Augustine, the culmination of the person and work of Christ is towards the resurrection, and it was his central theme of his theological approached.

b)  Justin Martyr

He trenchantly expound his beliefs in the bodily resurrection, over againdt some who claim to be Christian but disbelieve it, hold simply instead that their soul will go to heaven after they die. Justin again expounds Psalms 22 to the effect that Christ knew his father would raise him from dead. He speaks of Joshua giving the people a temporary inheritance, but declares that Christ, ‘after the holy resurrection,’ will give us eternal possession. Justin stands foursquare with the New Testament, not only on the continuity between the present and future bodies, but also on the difference between them. He offers no theory about an intermediate state, but from his cautions treatment of the question of the soul we may assume he would think in terms of continuity of the soul while awaiting renewal of body. He has no doubts that Jesus himself was bodily raised. Like the Apostolic Fathers, he does not use ‘resurrection’ language in the metaphorical way, though he stresses the continuity between present ethical life and the future resurrection.

c)   Origen

He provides a convenient chronological terminus for our study of early Christianity. his massive learning and speculative theology, much of it sadly lost, gained him a special place not only in his life-time, but also in succeeding centuries, and in theological debates to the present day. Origen’s view seems to have been that the human body is in a continual state of flux. He said that the body is like a river; the actual matter does not remain the same from one day to the next. He want to affirms bodily resurrection, and over against Gnostic, hellenizers, or no0nonsense pagans like Celsus. He says that if it is a body that dies, it will be the body that rises. When Paul speaks of a spiritual bodily, he certainly means a body; Origen here clearly means ‘body’ in what we would call a physical sense. He also said that body will rise in order that we may be clothed with them a second time at the resurrection. The word ‘spiritual’ here has to do with the casting off of corruption and mortality. This will involve a transmutation of the earlier, ‘animal’ body, but it seems not an abandonment of it. This transformation becomes the key to Origen’s view of the resurrection body.

  

d)  Luther

            Luther struggled against the Church itself in its understanding of the relationship of faith and works. He said: “When one wants to preach the gospel, one must treat only of the resurrection of Christ. For this is the chief article of our faith…the greatest power of faith is bound up in this article of faith. For if there were no resurrection, we would have no consolation or hope, and everything else Christ did or suffer would be futile (I Cor 15:17).” He further said that, Christ had overcome and taken away all misery…the Gospel is nothing else than preaching the resurrection of Christ. He affirms Christ as the Father’s agency in the resurrection emphasizes that an indivisible being, at the same time a Son of the virgin of the house of David and of God…cannot remain in death. He further affirms that if Christ be not risen, then sin has overcome him; and we too are helpless before sin. Therefore to Luther, resurrection is the foundation of our faith which is the vehicle of our believes that we can stands on the facts of Christianity. 

e)   Karl Barth

            In approaching Barth’s view on Christ’s resurrection, seven points can be mentioned:

i)  The Centrality of the Resurrection: It can seem that Christ’s resurrection forms the central theme for the Barth of the 1920s. In his book ‘The Resurrection of the Dead,’ he said that the resurrection of the dead “as such is only to be grasped in the category of revelation and none other.” It expresses miracle which God performs in revealing himself to man (sic).

ii)      The Resurrection as Historical Events: Barth admits that the resurrection may be called ‘historical’ in the sense that certain persons at a particular time and place came to know it and proclaim it. He writes, “The resurrection is…an occurrence in history, which took place outside the gate of Jerusalem in the year A.D. 30.” Even though there were different narratives, what is important to Barth is that of the decision of faith.

iii)    Cross and Resurrection: He said, “Only in the Cross of Christ we can comprehend the truth and meaning of Resurrection.” In his book ‘Church Dogmatic’ he writes, “One cannot understand the Cross of Christ otherwise than from his resurrection, the whole life and death of Jesus are undoubtedly interpreted in the light of the resurrection.”

iv)    The Empty Tomb: He does not bother about the empty tomb whether it is close or open. He said, “Christians do not believe in the empty tomb, but in the living Christ. But this does not mean that we can believe in the living Christ without believing the empty tomb.”

v)      Resurrection and Second Coming: Barth’s tendency to disengage the resurrection from time and place naturally involves a readiness to identify it with Christ second coming. According to Barth, parousia cannot happen without the resurrection. Resurrection is the initial stage of the second coming.

vi)    Reconciliation: According to Barth, Jesus’ act of obedience God acquitted and justified him by raising him from the death. God reorganized Jesus’ suffering death for us as our conversion, so that we were rescued from death to life. Through resurrection, the verdict of the Father, the reconciling will of God has been both effective and expressed.

vii)  Revelation: Barth points to the resurrection as the event in which Christ stands “wholly and unequivocally and irrevocably manifest.” The Easter time is simply the time of revelation of the mystery of the preceding time of the life and death of the man Jesus. In the resurrection this man stands “manifested in the form of God.”

f)    Wolfhart Pannenberg

His theology is called ‘Theology of Resurrection.’ His thought on Christ’s resurrection is very much in opposite to the authoritarian approach of Barth and Bultmann. Pannenberg writes: “the splitting up of historical consciousness into a detection of facts and an evaluation of them…is intolerable to Christian faith, not only because the message of the resurrection of Jesus and of God’s revelation in him necessarily becomes a merely subjective interpretation, but also because it is the reflection of an outmoded and questionable historical method. It is based on the futile aim of the positivist historians to ascertain bare facts without meaning in history…against this we must reinstate today the original unity of facts and their meaning.” He maintains that to accept Jesus’ resurrection is to make a judgement on the basis of historical evidence. Pannenberg emphasizes the necessity of the historicity of events of scripture for a valid faith. According to Pannenberg, Jesus rose from the dead is a powerful place from which to consider the relationship between faith and historical research. To him, it is impossible to proclaim the gospel without having it rooted in history. He understands all history to be revelation. Revelation comes through the events of history on the horizontal level, not on a vertical level from God. Thus he investigates the life of Christ from the historical perspective and not in terms of direct revelation from God. He further said that the climax of revelation is in the past- the resurrection of Christ. In contrast with Bultmann, Pannenberg does not understand the resurrection as myth but as a historical event.

g)   Rudolf Bultman

Three pairs of words gather together the main lines of Bultmann’s approach to Christ’s resurrection: history and faith, science and myth, kerygma and eschatology.

i)  History and Faith: To Bultmann, resurrection is partly determined by his view that facts of past history as such cannot and should not contribute to the decision of faith. No matter what our historical conclusions about the past happenings prove to be, they do not touch the resurrection and the decision of Easter Faith: “the Historical problem is not of interest to Christian belief in the resurrection.” He insists that when the resurrection is proclaimed, we are not asked to accept something- namely, a miracle- once happened but that new life can happen for us now. It is a reality that concerns our own existence here and now.

ii)   Science and Myth: Bultmann has certain presuppositions about what Jesus’ resurrection can or cannot be. He writes, “The impossibility of establishing the objective historicity of the resurrection no matter how many witnesses are cited.” He dismisses the historical fact which involves a resurrection from the dead. Bultmann is convinced that corpses cannot come back to life or rose from the grave. So he speaks of “the incredibility of a mythical event like the return of the dead person into the life of this world.” He based his certainty on the notion of natural sciences which postulate a rigid uniformity in the laws of the universe.

iii) Kerygma and Eschatology: Faith in the resurrection is for Bultmann really the same thing as faith in the saving efficacy of the cross that is to say that the same thing as believing in the cross as eschatological event. The resurrection of Jesus has no independent status as a further event. Christ is present only in the kergyma and in no other way, he meet us in the word of preaching and nowhere else. The risen Christ is only to be found in the Church.

h)  Jurgen Moltmann

Jurgen Moltmann came to be prominence in 1960s. His theology is called ‘Theology of Hope.’ One of Moltmann’s primary concerns in theology is to employ eschatological or ‘messianic’ theology to overcome the conflict between God’s immanence and transcendence through a creative reconstruction of the doctrine of God. He believes the concept of God as the ‘power of the future’ will also help overcome the modern conflict between classical theism and atheism. Moltmann theology may be summarized as follows. God is a part of the process of time, moving toward the future, where His promised will be fulfilled. Future is the essential nature of God. The resurrection of Jesus Christ as a historical event is unimportant. The importance of Christ’s resurrection is eschatological and should be viewed from the future because it gives a hope of a general resurrection in the future. Instead of looking from the empty tomb to the future, Moltmann suggests looking to the future that legitimizes the resurrection of Christ. Human being also is to be viewed from the future. He said, “Man (sic) can be understood only with reference to a restless, constantly unfolding history in relation to the future of God.” He also said that the church must look beyond ‘personal’ salvation and challenge all barriers and structures between different people. He rejects the significance of the historicity of Christ’s resurrection. In his concepts of God, Moltmann denies the immutability of God and suggests God is not absolute but ‘moving to the future.’

i)     Karl Rahner

Like Bultmann, Moltmann and Pannenberg, he knows that the human situation rightly enters into the making of a resurrection theology. In Rahner’s case, this means elaborating of understanding of death- of death itself and not just of all the painful sufferings which might precede death. He says, “The correct starting point for a genuine theology of Easter is a true theology of death.” This might mean that the reflection on death is needed to grasps the inner link between Jesus’ crucifixion and resurrection. To elements intertwine in bringing people to believe in Jesus as risen from the dead: the witness of the first disciples and our own primordial orientation toward a risen existence beyond death. Unlike Pannenberg, Rahner does not take it upon himself to establish the sheer historicity either of the Easter appearances or of the empty tomb. He leaves these matters to exegetes. Yet he is concerned to explore the disciples’ experience of the risen Lord and to stress its peculiar nature. Regarding glorified Christ, he says that glorified being cannot enter our world. If the risen Christ enter our world in that way, that will mean that he can be known, and subjected to laboratory tests. That would mean that he was an ordinary, earthly being, and no longer a glorified and eschatologically transformed being. By definition a solid sense experience of the risen Christ was and is excluded. He remarks that the resurrection can be adequately understood only in reference to the absolute mystery of the incarnation. Here the principle is that: “in my beginning was my end.” And he alleges that the successive phases of Christ’s life, death and resurrection were truly, if latently, already present and presently and operative in the primary event of the incarnation. Therefore, to Rahner, incarnation already represent the resurrection of Jesus.    

Evaluation and Conclusion

            The resurrection of Jesus is the central tenet of historic Christian belief and for that reason alone, a matter of great historical significance. The New Testament talks of the resurrection of Jesus Christ with different notions and ideas. The gospels and in the letters of Paul, we find different expression of how resurrection will be. The Gospels talks of it in regards to the Kingdom of God and Jesus’ is the life itself. Paul mentions about the bodily resurrection and of spiritual resurrections. Different theologians from the Church fathers to the contemporary thinkers have different values and expressions about the resurrection of Jesus. As Martin Luther had said that resurrection is the confirmation of Christian faith, which is very acceptable. The richness of Christianity lies on the faith that we have a risen Lord which no other religions have. It is a historical event which there is no other sources or proofs that Jesus really was resurrected apart from the Bible. It is our faiths that propels us to keep this miracle as truth but not known. At the same time, the resurrection had lots of things that it bore, the birth of the Church, the hope for the believers, etc. Without resurrection there is no point of saying that the Christian God is the true and powerful God. Resurrection confirms what kind of God he is, even death cannot defeat him. To human, dead is the most powerful force which no one will overcome, but Jesus overcome it. If Jesus’ promise is true, that we will rise again, and that’s hope is like an ember which keeps alive the Christian faith.

            From scientific point of view, resurrection is impossible. Which Moltmann believes in science facts that dead body cannot come to live again. As a norms of believes it might prove true. Knowing God is possible, but understanding God is impossible. Like the Hindu philosophy, God is beyond our knowledge and consciences. It will be wise to say that as God is incomprehensible, the best and the only thing that we can do is to belief that Jesus was resurrected, and he is still with us now. We can feel his presence through the Holy Spirit.      

---