The Resurrection

You're entering Outer Brightness. This week we're talking about the resurrection. The resurrection of Jesus Christ is the most important event in human history. The book of Romans chapter 1 verse 4, Paul states that Jesus was, quote, declared to be the son of God with power, according to the spirit of holiness by the resurrection from the dead, end quote.

In other words, the resurrection was God's powerful declaration of Jesus as his son. As we celebrate resurrection day today, our topic is the risen Christ. Thank you for joining us.

All right, fireflies. Welcome back to this episode of the Outer Brightness Podcast. And no, that's not a special guest you see there. That is Brie the Christ Warrior Princess. She'll be joining us from now on on Outer Brightness Podcast. So welcome, Brianna. Happy to have you join us.

Thank you to be part of this. Okay. So love the love the nickname Brie the Christ Warrior Princess. It's kind of a play on Xena Warrior Princess for any listeners that remember that show from I think the 90s. Is it that far back? Yeah.

Right. But she's also what's that Michael? I'm surprised she knows what that is. That was way before her time. I'm surprised that wasn't a grandpa joke.

I thought it was. But Brianna has she's also got an altar that everyone needs to be aware of. My name is Brie Hulk and don't make me angry. So that's a recording I got this morning when I had to wake her up for a second. Yeah, so I guess Brie Hulk is going to be her altar like Mr. Pibb is Michael's altar.

Everyone in our family has an alter ego. All right, so welcome to Brianna. And so let me let me just ask a quick question of you, Brianna, put you on the spot.

Welcome. When you were a latter-day, latter-day saint was the resurrection, the ultimate event in the liturgical calendar. And I know that's kind of a weird way to to ask it, especially for for Mormons. But was it was it the most was it the ultimate event in in the year of worship or for you as a latter-day saint?

Yes and no, I guess. I mean, I think back when I was a latter-day saint and there was a production that I was part of one year where they it was called Savior of the World. And it was like basically the story of like Jesus but act one had to do with like his birth, like leading up to his birth and then his birth act two begins when Christ has already died on the cross and he's being buried in the tomb and it ends with this finale of him being risen and like he leaves but he's only there for a moment. So I don't know if it was really super significant, but they did emphasize that more than some of the other things when it came to Christ's life.

Yeah, that's my answer. All right, Michael, you look like you're getting ready to say something there. I was just gonna say I agree with my wife. You're gonna hear me probably say that a lot in the coming weeks. It was to me it was definitely the kind of the highlight of the year was Easter Sunday, you know Christ is risen and I did view it as being special, you know, it's like okay because of this we're all going to be physically resurrected now because Christ was resurrected and they'd always say in church like this is what gives us hope because since Christ is raised from the dead we can overcome whatever obstacles are in our path. So it would kind of come back to man, but I did think it was the the best part of the year.

All right, Matthew, what do you think? Yeah, it was pretty important time of year. Basically there was usually be like a primary program or there would be some kind of special guests and you had to play a special instrument like a violin or, or something else that would that would perform for us and so there's really big program every year for it.

So it's a pretty it's pretty important. So throw this one out to any one of you that would like to like to take it up and respond. Would you say that there were any other events that that got more love, so to speak, or more emphasis or were given more import than the resurrection in the in the year? If so, what would those be? I don't think that there was personally. I always kind of wondered, you know, why don't we celebrate, you know, Good Thursday and I wonder if you guys ever had this thought, you know, the what happened in the garden would have been on Thursday and why don't we celebrate that? But for whatever reason, the LDS Church doesn't really emphasize that day as far as I remember anyways. Or Good Friday for that matter, right?

Well, yeah, well, yeah, but the garden is so emphasized that I would have expected them to do something that Thursday night and they never did. It was it was all about Easter Sunday. Yeah, so yeah, I mean, that's an interesting thing, interesting topic that maybe we can take up at another time is, you know, why does, why is there not an emphasis on on Good Friday? Because there is such, I mean, if you think about the, and I didn't really even know about things like Lent, you know, the whole Christian liturgical calendar leading up to Resurrection Sunday, you know, Palm Sunday, Good Friday, none of that was really emphasized. And so I didn't really know about those things or learn about them until I was on my mission in an Eastern European country, you know, where Catholicism and Lutheranism were, were very prominent.

And so I'm really, yeah, it was just kind of interesting for me to learn those things. So and I remember, you know, fielding questions after I moved out here to the Cincinnati area fielding questions from my, from my kids, because they would go to school with lots of Catholics. And, you know, why don't why are we giving up anything for Lent, you know, and having to kind of go and look okay, what's Lent? You know, because it's just not emphasized. But yeah, any anyone else want to talk about a second question there? There was there were other events that maybe got more love? Well, I was kind of thinking about like, just coming to my head, like, well, during Christmas time, they like they celebrate like the birth of Jesus. But around that time, there's Joseph Smith's birthday. So they'll kind of bring that up to like, they'll insert that into that, or during Easter, like, general conferences coming around. Or like during the summer, I think it's during the summer where they'll have like Pioneer Day, and they'll have this big celebration for that.

I don't know of really anything else. But it's just a few things that come to my mind. Yeah, yeah, that's good. It sparks a couple thoughts for me as well. So your comment on Pioneer Day, Brianna, you know, I grew up in Utah. So there, you know, of course, July 24, is a huge deal. You know, there's parades that actually kind of rival like Fourth of July parades, in terms of importance within the state. And, and yeah, kind of big celebrations and I remember, you know, after moving to Cincinnati, you know, kind of realizing that that was not a thing anywhere else, even among Latter Day Saints, it really wasn't as big of an emphasis that it was in Utah, which is kind of understandable, you know, Utah's where the pioneers ultimately settled.

So I guess that makes sense. But in relation to question two, I was really kind of thinking about, you know, like the restoration of the priesthood, got a lot of love and attention for, you know, sometimes several weeks leading up to the Sunday when we would kind of celebrate that. And it did seem kind of more, it got maybe a little bit more attention than an Easter. Easter was, it was a special Sunday, like like you guys have touched on, you know, there were usually special musical numbers and and talks focused on the resurrection.

But it kind of came and went whereas some other events were, it seemed to me clearly more important to the Latter Day Saint kind of bedrock core of their their beliefs and faith and reason for existence as opposed to other Christian Christian denominations. So really interesting, because I don't remember them, you know, at least in Texas, ever really celebrating the restoration of the priesthood, like you're talking about, like, what you just said is completely foreign to me. So that's pretty surprising.

Yeah, I never heard of that either. That's interesting. Yeah, because even here, after I moved here to Northern Kentucky, it was it was got a pretty heavy emphasis in May when it came around. I mean, yeah, obviously, to the same with the church being founded on was April 6, 1830. So they would always have a program that they would usually dedicate at least one talk to talking about that restoration of the church. And sometimes that would be on the same Sunday as Easter. So yeah, pretty crazy.

All right. So would you say that there was any messaging that you received as a Latter Day Saint that that maybe placed the resurrection of Jesus in sort of a second class position, or that distorted the message of the resurrection? For me, I thought it was strange that while looking back, so most of the time, Christians don't really see the resurrection as part of Christ's atony work. They see it as kind of like the culmination of Christ's life and the prophecies that he gave of himself and that others gave of him and how he said that he would give the sign of Jonah.

As Jonah was in the belly of the fish for three days and nights, and then he was spewed out of the well, that was a sign of him being in the grave for three days and three nights is being resurrected. But they don't Christians don't really talk about the resurrection of Jesus being part of the atonement between man and God. Whereas in the LDS Church, it's a very fundamental part of the resurrection.

And maybe they don't teach it this way anymore. But what they used to do is they used to focus a lot on how the sacrifice or the suffering in the Garden of Gethsemane was for our spiritual sins or a spiritual life. It's a spiritual aspect of the atonement. And the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus is kind of like the physical redemption of man.

So it's what allows you to come back to life. So those those two aspects, the spiritual and the physical are kind of represented in the sacrament, where you can have the water being like the blood, you know, that Jesus shed in the garden, and then the bread, which would represent his death, burial and resurrection. So that's how I at least I remember it, sometimes being taught that way, not always, but some people taught as kind of like, you know, spiritual and physical, and the resurrection, obviously, being something that's given to all people. So that's one difference I would see is that they would they see it as actually part of the atonement, whereas Christians typically focus on the cross is, is what is the atonement.

Michael and Brianna, any thoughts there? Okay, so a couple that come to my mind, I guess one just that, that we are the same species, you know, that, that really Christ is the same as us, just further down the path, when we are, I think that really dilutes the power of the resurrection, because it's just not as special when somebody who's exactly like you pull something off, you know, it's almost like not that huge of a leap that maybe I can do that as well, or do an atonement or something. It just doesn't put us in the same, the same position doesn't make it such a miracle, I think just trying to humanize everything. But another thought that came to my mind was that Latter Day Saints believe that all spirit is physical, you know, everything's created from this fine matter called intelligence. And if that's the case, then Christ, you know, he already, he already had a body, even when he was dead. And so being resurrected doesn't really mean anything, if he already had a physical body made out of really fine matter, if that makes sense. So I think there are a couple things like that, that kind of dilute the message.

Yeah, yeah, I think that's, that's a good point. And, you know, another another one I would say, and it's kind of related to what Matthew was talking about, too, is, you know, when when the atonement is talked about, within lessons, in the Latter Day Saint faith, gospel doctrine, etc. A lot of times, I would hear, you know, the statement made that, you know, you turn your everlasting life is a gift to everyone, right. And by that Latter Day Saints mean that because Christ was resurrected, all will be resurrected.

And so everyone has that gift of everlasting life, but eternal life is earned, right, that there was often that that distinction made, you get this gift of resurrection, but eternal life, you've got to earn it. And I think that I think that too, you can kind of dilute the resurrection, in addition to diluting what Christ did on the cross. And I, you know, someone might challenge me and say, Well, how can that dilute the resurrection, if everyone's going to be resurrected, everyone gets that, that everlasting life? Well, I think it, I think it dilutes the resurrection in that the resurrection is is God's stamp on what Christ did on the cross. And in the way that the Latter Day Saints present, it almost makes it seem like it's just it's just this thing that everybody's going to get. And I think it kind of dilutes what the biblical message message of the resurrection is, which is why, you know, I kind of pointed to Romans, that Romans passage in the introduction. Yeah, and another thing that comes to my mind, too, is, in Mormonism, the resurrection is part of Christ's progression. It is one of the things that he had to do to become complete. And so just it's just a slap in the face where it's saying that, you know, this is like Christ was not perfect before he was not complete. And now he is. And it goes completely against Christianity, which, you know, it's like Christ was always complete. He was always perfect. He was always fully divine. Yeah.

And that kind of to that point, Michael, it kind of goes against, you know, what Christ prayed. Right. Glorify thou me with the glory which I had with you before the foundation of the world. Right. He already had that back where he was already fully God. So it wasn't him becoming complete. So, yeah, it definitely kind of swerved sideways from from what the biblical messages.

Yeah. And what it does is it means that the person who rose from the grave is a different person than the one who went into the grave. Expound on that. What do you mean?

What do you mean? I'm saying that before he went into the grave, he was, you know, an incomplete person. He was not a perfect being. And then when he comes out, suddenly he is he's infinite.

He's perfect, just like the father is. Okay, gotcha. Gotcha. So as a Christian now, how is your view of the resurrection different than when you were LDS? Anyone Bueller Bueller?

I feel like I've kind of tipped my hand on this one already. But I mean, probably the biggest difference is just who was it that came out of the grave? Was it my spirit brother? And now the answer is no, it was not my spirit brother. It was it was the son of God. It was it was God. It was a he was a divine being that came out.

And it's not someone who's on my level by any means. Probably the biggest difference. Yeah, it just changes everything fundamentally, I think, because if you don't know who he was and why he came and what it was for, like it completely undermines like why he came in the first place. So like in Mormonism, you have to like they had the plan of happiness, and you come to earth to get a body and you need that so that you can progress to become your own become like God. And really, it's just all about this really shallow thing, when it was about Christ coming to save us from our sins. Yeah, and it kind of makes the resurrection mean sort of feel like a selfish act, because it's, it's part of his progression. It's not, you know, completely just something for us.

It's, it's part of his progression. And therefore it's part of our progression. In a way, you know, like, we can look at that as a Latter Day Saints say, I'm going to be able to do things that are even greater than this someday when I become a God. And I think when you think that way, it just totally undermines the power of the resurrection. Yeah, you almost at least I almost see the resurrection when I was a Latter Day Saint as something that was owed to us by virtue of the fact that we are literal offspring of God.

And since God had a body, just like we do, it seemed like, well, it's natural, you know, he needs to give me a glorified body because he has one. But in Christianity, we see it as not something that's owed to us, but something that's given entirely by grace and Christ being the first to be resurrected. We see a glimpse of that kind of existence that we will have in glory when we live with the Lord.

And he'll sit us down on, you know, with him on his throne with crowns of glory. And so it gives us something hopeful to look to, and it should humble us to recognize that we, we aren't owed anything by God, but this is something that he's done completely out of grace and love for, for us, for, for his children that he's saved by his sovereign grace. So it's, it's a lot to think about. It's kind of like, that's been said, it's just a different perspective. It's a different understanding of what, what the end is for, what the purpose of everything is and what, what our purpose is. And so when you have a biblical understanding, it shifts everything to be focused not on us, but on Christ.

Yeah. I really appreciate what you said there, Matthew. Let's see if I can, can get this into words. I remember studying early, kind of some early Christian father's thoughts on the incarnation. And the idea is that if, if there's anything about human nature that Jesus did not take on, then that part of human nature is not, is not risen, is not, what's the word I'm looking for? So death is, death is one of those aspects of human nature that Christ had to take on. And to Michael's point and Brianna's point, you know, if, if, if Jesus is of the same species as us, right. And, and, and to be clear, Christian theology says that he was fully human, but that he is also by nature fully God. And so, and we are not in any way or sense divine.

We are created beings. And so if there's any aspect of human nature that, that Christ did not take upon himself and raise up, then that, then humanity is not saved. And so death is part of that. Whereas you know, it almost sounds like in some of the things we've said about the way Mormons talk about resurrection that it is that, right.

Okay. So he's, he's, he's provided a cure for death and he's provided a cure for spiritual, physical death and spiritual death cures for both of those. But I don't know that Mormon theology or anthropology specifically really allows for that theology to play out, so to speak. Does it make sense where I'm going with that? Yeah, I was going to add, I think I was reading the quote you were talking about earlier.

What is not assumed is not redeemed. Exactly. Yep.

Yeah. That's Gregory of Nazianzus. That was in response to Apollinarianism where they said that Jesus didn't have a human spirit or human soul or mind. He just had like the God, like the mind part of Jesus was God and the body part of Jesus was human. And so Gregory was basically saying, like you were saying Paul, that if Jesus was not fully man, that he could not have redeemed mankind. So he had to be truly man and truly God. And that's the problem with LDS theology is they don't see the divine nature and the human nature as separate or distinct things. They see it, they see the divine nature as just the human nature brought to completion, brought to perfection. So the fact that Jesus came down as the God-man where he had the divine nature that was now united to the human nature in one person, not divided or separate, but united in the same person, that's the miracle of Jesus, of the God-man. But in LDS theology, they don't really have that concept. They just see him as the perfect man.

Yeah, good. You are listening to Outer Brightness, a podcast for post Mormons who are drawn by God to walk with Jesus rather than turn away. Outer Brightness, Outer Brightness, Outer Brightness.

There's no weeping and wailing and mashing of teeth here, except when Michael's hangry that is, hangry that is, hangry that is. We were all born and raised in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, headquartered in Salt Lake City, Utah, more commonly referred to as the Mormon faith. All of us have left that religion and have been drawn to faith in Jesus Christ based on biblical teachings. The name of our podcast, Outer Brightness, reflects John 1-9, which calls Jesus the true light, which gives light to everyone. We have found life beyond Mormonism to be brighter than we were told it would be. And the light we have is not our own. It comes to us from without.

Thus, Outer Brightness. Our purpose is to share our journeys of faith and what God has done in drawing us to His Son. We have conversations about all aspects of that transition, the fears, challenges, joys, and everything in between.

We're glad you found us and we hope you'll stick around. I'm going to throw this out to anyone who wants to take it up. Sometimes Latter-day Saints will argue that the eyewitness evidence for the Book of Mormon plates is just as strong as the evidence for the resurrection. How would you respond to that argument?

I guess I'll take it up. I guess the difference between them is that there is evidence for the resurrection and the Bible that is verifiable and you can go back and look for it. Whereas in the Book of Mormon, you can't really go back to it.

There's no transcripts for the Book of Mormon that you can go back to. You have to just go on blind faith based on what some people said. But in the Bible, you don't have to go by blind faith. God does give evidence to show Himself to you. I guess one of the things that come to my mind is like the case for Christ. It talks a lot about that. And so if you're really interested in looking about the evidence to back it up for Christ and the resurrection, all that stuff, you can look that up. And that's a book, right?

Least Trouble? Yeah. So I guess my thought on this would be I was actually looking at the testimony of the three witnesses. And so here's a quote that they wrote down. It says, And we also testify that we have seen the engravings which are upon the plates, and they have been shown unto us by the power of God and not of man, meaning that they didn't see them. Normally they saw them with their spiritual eyes. And I guess the question that I would ask Latter-day Saints is what's the difference between that and people who claim that they've seen aliens? You know, I mean, when I was a Latter-day Saint, I would say, oh, there's 11 witnesses. No court on earth could dismiss such a strong testimony. But, you know, going back to my alien analogy, there's there's a lot more than 11 people who claim that they've been abducted by aliens. So based on that, that logic, aliens must be real. And so I guess that's that's where I kind of have issue with it, because then the angel Moroni takes the gold plates and there's just no way to verify anything. Whereas Breanna was saying, we have, you know, we have thousands and thousands of manuscripts for the Bible that we can actually look at.

We don't need to take somebody's word for it because you can actually look at them. Yeah, good. Thank you both for your thoughts there. Matthew, anything to add? We do have extra biblical accounts, too, of stating that Christians did believe and worship Jesus, that he was an actual historical figure, which is something that we don't have of any of the figures of the Book of Mormon. All we have for the existence of Moroni or Nephi or any of these people is the witness of Joseph Smith.

And that's about it. I mean, I think correct me if I'm wrong. Did Oliver Cowdery? No, he didn't see Moroni. I can't remember what other colleagues of Smith's claim to see these people. I mean, Cowdery, he claimed to see Moses and Elias and Elijah in the temple. But I don't think he ever claimed to ever see Moroni, right?

There was a vision where Martin Harris and maybe others saw the Hill Cumorah open up and they saw the Sword of Laban and they claimed to see other things on the table. But in terms of actually seeing the people from the Book of Mormon, we basically have to trust Joseph Smith's testimony. But we have witnesses that Jesus was an actual historical figure that was followed and worshiped by Christians in the first century. And we have nothing about that for the Book of Mormon. So even if you don't even if you don't want to count the biblical account as accurate, we still have other witnesses, extra biblical witnesses of Jesus's existence. We can't go and dig up something and find Zarahemla and show that Nephi was an actual person.

We can't do that for Moroni. We can't do that for Mormon. So it's really it's really no comparison. Yeah. Yeah.

Thank you all for your thoughts. There's a there's a famous LDS apologist who makes this case and I can't remember if it is Daniel Peterson or if it's Robert Millet. But the case is made that, you know, for the resurrection you have witnesses, eyewitnesses, right, who are giving their testimony recorded in the Bible for the idea that Christ rose from the dead and that for the Book of Mormon you also have witnesses who are giving their testimony of the existence of the plates. And then the analogy is continued in the argument to say, well, today we cannot view Christ's living body just as we cannot view the golden plates. And so in both cases, you're relying on witness testimony. And so it's kind of like trying to bolster the case for the Book of Mormon by the strength of the case for the resurrection. And my response to it would be just that, you know, the witnesses for the resurrection, not all of them, but the apostles themselves went to their deaths preaching the resurrection of Christ, went to martyrs deaths preaching the resurrection resurrection of Christ. The three witnesses, nor any of the eight witnesses, went to martyrs deaths.

They did not. So there's a pretty large difference there in my mind. All right.

Moving on. Do you think that it matters if the resurrection was a historical event? Why or why not? Yeah, absolutely. I was just going to quote from 1 Corinthians 15 because Paul makes it pretty clear that the resurrection is incredibly important for our faith. Let's see if I can find the verse. Okay, now if Christ, so this is starting from verse 12. Now if Christ has preached that he has been raised from the dead, how do some among you say that there is no resurrection of the dead? But if there is no resurrection of the dead, then not even Christ has been raised. And if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is in vain.

Your faith also is in vain. Moreover, we are even found to be false witnesses of God because we testified against God that he raised Christ whom he did not raise if in fact the dead are not raised. For if the dead are not raised, then not even Christ has been raised. And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is worthless. You are still in your sins. Then also those who have fallen asleep in Christ have perished.

If we hoped in Christ only in this life, we are of all people most to be pitied. So I don't think I can put it any better than Paul did, but it's absolutely crucial to our faith. And that's why the resurrection is so important. I don't think it's necessarily because we needed it to be reconciled to God for our sins. But it's, it's as you've talked about, as we've talked about earlier, is that it's a stamp from God that is certifying that everything that Jesus said, everything that was said about Jesus is true. And so when Jesus promises that those who believe in him will have forgiveness of sins and eternal life, we can trust those words because Christ's resurrection is a validation of the person and work of Jesus. Yeah. Yeah.

Very powerful. When Paul says, if Christ is not raised, you're still in your sins. Why is that? Like I said, I personally think it's because he's saying that all the promises that Jesus made for salvation were not true. They're false because if he lied about him coming back from the dead and he didn't, well then how can we really trust any of his words about us being saved or have eternal life? There's if we can't trust Jesus in everything, then we can't trust him in anything. Yeah. Yeah. And also you know, the, the atonement the, the sacrifice that he wrote on the cross on our behalf is it's contingent upon him being God. And so the resurrection is, as you said, and we said earlier is, is the, it's the stamp on Christ as the son of God, as God. Right. And so if, if Christ is not raised, then, then the sacrifice that was brought wasn't actually wrought in any kind of way that was effective.

So Michael, Brianna, anything to add here? I was just looking at Acts 3 15 too. It says you killed the author of life, but God raised him from the dead. And we are witnesses of this fact. And I was just, it's so powerful for their preaching to be able to say, we are witnesses of the risen Christ.

We've, we've witnessed this, we've seen it. And you know what Matthew was talking about too, where Christ rose and it was a stamp. And as a Latter-day Saint, I said it hundreds of times, you know, do not seek for a sign, you know, but just have faith. And, and here Paul is saying the exact opposite of that in the verse that Matthew quoted, where he says, your faith is in vain if Christ is not raised. In other words, you know, and Christ even said it too, you know, this is a sign, just as Jonah was three days in the belly of the whale. And so he, he rose to be a sign that this atonement really happened. And it's not a blind faith, like I would have said as a Latter-day Saint. And so it has to be a historical event. If it's not a historical event, then we, our faith is vain.

We have nothing to look at and no valid reason to have that faith. Yeah. I don't think I have anything extra to add to that, but yeah.

Yeah, I, I agree. The only, the only thing I might add is just to kind of, kind of come full circle on the, the, the comparison between the Book of Mormon and the resurrection. Latter-day Saint scholars more and more are moving away from a historical Book of Mormon, moving towards it being more of an allegory.

And that's, that's the direction that the Maxwell Institute is taking. It's a direction that is opposed by kind of the old guard of Mormon apologists at the Book of Mormon Central. And so for Latter-day Saints listening, I would just say, you know, your, your, your scholars and your, your apologists are moving away from a historical Book of Mormon. And it is the keystone of your religion according to Joseph Smith. If that keystone is removed, the arch crumbles. Christians agree that the resurrection is like the keystone of the Christian faith. If it is removed as a historical event, the arch crumbles. So I would just challenge Latter-day Saints to think about that in relation to the comparison that's made between the Book of Mormon and the resurrection.

All right. Next question. Some people use the resurrection to argue that the doctrine of the Trinity is false. This was a new one to me, you know, as a, as a kind of a new Christian, but some people argue it. The reasoning they give is that, quote, Jesus could not raise himself from the dead, end quote, that he required the father to raise him from the dead. So how would you respond to that argument?

I would respond and ask where they got this idea. It's kind of strange. I've never heard that myself.

Yeah. When we look at scripture as a whole, and that's one thing that we're really not taught to do as Latter-day Saints. We're not really taught to look at scripture as a whole and, and follow the analogy of faith, the analogy of scripture, these hermeneutical techniques, just basically techniques to understand scripture completely. We have to look at all of scripture and see what the witnesses. And if we look at all of scripture, we not only see that God raised God, the father raised Christ from the dead, but we see that it was actually an act by all three persons of the Godhead. So when we look at scripture, we see, as Michael quoted from excerpt 315, we see, we see Peter's, excuse me, that's weird. So we see Peter's witness that he says, you killed the author of life whom God raised from the dead.

So this is while preaching the Jews at, yeah, in that, in that chapter. So it's affirming both that, that Christ was raised from the dead. And so, so it was, it's affirming that he was raised from the dead by the father, but it also says that Jesus is the author of life. And I don't think we think about that too much, too deeply a lot of times, but that's also affirming that Christ is also God, being the author of life, being the one who has the power to raise from the dead, one who created all things. He is also God.

So in, in his essence and in the status. So he's not secondary to God. He's not a second God.

He's truly an eternally God. We also see that Christ himself would promise that he would raise himself from the dead. He says, so this is in John chapter 10. So that's a really great sermon. Well, not really sermon, but in his, in his rebuttal against those who were, who were doubting him, he says, for this reason, the father loves me because I lay down my life that I may take it up again. No one takes it from me, but I lay it down of my own accord.

I have authority to lay it down and I have authority to take it up again. And he also promised earlier in John's gospel, he said, destroy this temple and in three days, I will raise it up. And the Jews said, it has been 46 years to build this temple and you'll raise it up in three days. But he was speaking about the temple of his body. And that was John chapter two, verses 19 to 21. So the father raised Jesus from the dead, the son Christ himself said that he has, he has the authority to lay his life down and to raise it up again. But there are also passages that seem to indicate that the spirit was also involved in the trend, in the, in the resurrection, making it a Trinitarian miracle in Romans chapter one, Paul wrote that Jesus was declared to be the son of God in power, according to the spirit of holiness by his resurrection from the dead. So this seems to also indicate that he was declared that Jesus was declared to be the son of God in power, according to the spirit of holiness by his resurrection from the dead. So the spirit of holiness also affirms and was also involved in Christ's resurrection. So it was a Trinitarian act, Jesus's resurrection and how all that works exactly. You know, it's not, I don't think there was 33% father, 33% son, 33% spirit, you know, we're not going to get into that. We'll have to show that video from Lutheran satire, you know, all the, all the bad Trinitarian examples, but you know, we don't exactly know who was involved in what aspect, but we just know that the entire Godhead was involved in Christ's resurrection from the dead. Yeah, really, really well said. I was going to quote John chapter 10 too.

And now I don't have to, you stole my thunder. But it's, it's kind of funny because I was like, who makes these, these arguments anyway, and have they not read the Bible, but it kind of, it just gave me a flashback from being LDS and attacking the Trinity all the time. And one of my, what I thought was my best argument against, against the Trinity is that since they share a hypostatic union, Jesus couldn't have actually died because the father was still alive. And so therefore there was no resurrection. So take that. Yeah, it's a similar kind of kind of argument.

Yes. So there's, there's definitely some similarity in the way that like oneness Pentecostals handle the text of scripture in the way that Latter-day Saints handled the text of scripture. And so this one is, you know, this one is probably playing off of Romans one and ignoring all of the rest of the biblical data.

I mean, you can look at, for example, you can look at John 5 26, right? Where, and this is the, this is the passage where I'm going to use a fancy theological term, where the aseity of God is kind of declared a scripture, aseity being a term that means having, having being from oneself, right? You're not contingent upon another for your existence. You exist within yourself. And so we are not, we do not have a aseity as Latter-day Saint doctrine teaches. We are contingent beings. We are created beings. God alone has a aseity and John 5 26 says in the New King James version for the, for as the father has life in himself. So he is granted the son to have life in himself. And so both the father and the son has a aseity.

So yeah, that's kind of, that would be where I would go. Matthew, you did a great job. Brianna, any thoughts here? I don't know. I guess the one thing that comes, that came to my mind when I read this question was like John one, one, because it establishes that Jesus, the word was with God and he was God. So if he's not divine, then how could he not?

I mean, that's, that's, I could really add to it. Yeah. Good. So do you mean like if Jesus were not truly divine, then he couldn't raise himself from the dead? Is that what you're saying? Yeah, I guess that's, I guess, but if he is divine, then why couldn't he raise himself? Yeah. If he's, yeah, if he was God, but he couldn't, then it would kind of make you ask, it would ask you questions if he was truly God, if he couldn't do something that the father could.

Yeah, exactly. I mean, didn't, didn't Latter-day Saints, I mean, have you guys ever heard them say that the resurrection was an ordinance and I mean, with every other ordinance that exists, you need somebody else to perform that ordinance for you on your behalf. I distinctly remember though, there's like a passage in the doctrine of covenants that talks about how Jesus grew from grace to grace or something like that. And I remember that being quoted in priesthood meetings where they would say, well, Jesus even had to grow in grace and perfection and by his own efforts, he was able to resurrect himself kind of a thing. That's what I remember hearing. But, yeah, I have also heard too that resurrection is kind of an ordinance and I think that has also something to do with the temple ceremony, temple marriage. Maybe Paul can enlighten us as long as we don't trigger somebody about it. Yeah. I mean, the only thing I can think of there is that in Latter-day Saint teaching, husbands will call forth their wives in the resurrection.

So yeah, in that sense, I guess it would be an ordinance, a priesthood ordinance that would be performed to call your wife forth for resurrection, which, wow, I hadn't thought about that in quite a while, but man, that's another instance of kind of inserting yourself in the place of Christ. I was just going to quote from that section that I was referring to. I found it.

It's in D&C 93. I think this is John the Beloved. It's like some kind of revelation that he supposedly had. And it says, I, John, bear record, starting with verse 11, that I beheld his glory as the glory of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth, even the spirit of truth, which came and dwelt in the flesh and dwelt among us. And I, John, saw that he received not of the fullness at the first, but received grace for grace. And he received not of the fullness at first, but continued from grace to grace until he received a fullness. And thus he was called the Son of God because he received not of the fullness at the first. That's something I haven't really thought about. So they're saying he was the Son because he was not truly and completely God originally, grew from grace to grace. I don't know. I'm not quite sure what that verse is saying.

I'd have to think more about that, but that's kind of weird. Well, we know from the Book of Mormon, too, that it says that he's the Son. He's the Father because of the power of God or because of the power of God in him and the Son because of the flesh. So that's even an alternative explanation for what it means for Jesus to be the Son. And that almost sounds modalistic, but that's another discussion. Yeah. Yeah.

Interesting. All right. Let's close this out with our last question.

Well, maybe two more questions, but we'll go to this one first. As a Christian now, how is your celebration of the resurrection different than when you were a Latter-day Saint? One thing that's really cool for Breanna and I is that Easter is the time when we both came to Christ. And so I think it has special meaning to us. And it makes sense because we were already teetering on the edge. And then this time of year comes around and we're thinking about the atonement and the resurrection and just thinking about Jesus himself.

And that was enough to pull us both off the fence. And so to us it has significance because it's also the time when we were born again. Of course, we were saved over 2,000 years ago. I hear Christians say that a lot and I'm like that. When were you saved? Over 2,000 years ago when Christ died on the cross is when I was saved.

So as far as the celebration, I don't do a lot differently. I think it's just more about how I feel is what's different because as a Latter-day Saint, everything always pointed back to me. Okay, Christ was resurrected.

And so that puts the pressure on me. I have no excuse because Christ was resurrected. And so that gives me the hope, the ability to overcome whatever sins I'm struggling with right now. And now it's more of an appreciation, a gratitude, a reverence where everything has been taken out of my hands. Christ has done the impossible.

Not something that's further down my path, but something that is absolutely impossible for a human being to do. So I'm just more in awe of the whole thing than I was before. Good. Thank you for those thoughts.

Brianna? I guess, yeah, I don't really have that much of a different way of celebrating it per se, but I do definitely appreciate what Jesus did a lot more. And it has a lot more meaning, a lot more depth. Before it was just a day when I was LDS, it just didn't really matter as much to me.

I'm like, oh, I get to live again someday. And it was not even important to me as much. And I honestly felt very bored going to church when they would talk about the resurrection because I didn't really understand it or care until I was saved. Okay.

Yeah. Matthew, what about you? Well, yeah, so as Latter-day Saints, we worshiped on Sunday and we called it the Sabbath. And so the Reformed view is that the Sabbath is a moral command from creation. And so as a Latter-day Saint, I kind of more believe that we worshiped on Sunday because, well, that's what modern revelation says. We worship on Sunday to remember Jesus's resurrection. But now that I understand scripture and coming to a Reformed understanding of scripture, we see that it's not just because we worship on Sunday to remember the resurrection, that Jesus as the Lord of the Sabbath, when he was resurrected as the Lord of the Sabbath, he actually changed the day of worship from the seventh day to the first day. So he actually, by the power in him and being raised from the dead, he actually changed that day of worship to be on the first day. So that's why Reformed also have a similar kind of view of the Lord's day as Latter-day Saints in the sense that we shouldn't work, we shouldn't do a lot of recreational things. So there's some disagreement about that amongst Christians, but it's just a different perspective of what the Lord's day means. And we don't call it the Sabbath, we don't call it Sunday. We call it the Lord's day and that's a day that belongs to the Lord and it's to always remember Christ. And every week we should be thinking or remembering the reason why we're worshiping that day is because of Christ's resurrection. And like I said earlier, it's more of a perspective thing. So I celebrate the resurrection as a reminder of Christ's glory and the magnificence and the grace and the sovereign power and plan of God in all things, rather than seeing it as like, oh, here's something that I'm going to get someday.

Here's my inheritance. As a Latter-day Saint, I always thought of it as in terms of like, what am I going to get out of it? Kind of a thing.

But it's more of pointing to just how glorious and magnificent God is. So that's how I see it more now than I did before. Can you hear me? Okay. Yeah. So kind of going back to what, sorry, I'm having technical difficulties on my end. Like everything is taking longer than it should.

Apologies. So kind of going back to what Brianna said about like as a Latter-day Saint, just kind of viewing the resurrection as like, yeah, Christ was raised and so I'll be raised too. I would say that kind of the main difference for me is actually that it's a celebration now. As a Latter-day Saint, it was kind of a special Sunday. There were musical numbers, but aside from there being special musical numbers and the talks, the speeches given in sacrament meeting being focused on the resurrection, it wasn't any different than any other Sunday.

It didn't feel different anyway. But as a Christian at the church I attend, it's very much a celebration. And it's a celebration of all that, kind of like the culmination of all that Christ has done for us. Because as we've said, it's God's stamp, right?

Christ was raised in power. And just the way that it's celebrated, I don't want to sound crass. It's not like it's a party.

But everyone's excited. It's a reality that I never kind of felt or grasped that within the Latter-day Saint worship of Easter. So I appreciate that about how it's different. All right, so we've covered a lot of ground today, experiential aspects of celebrating Easter as a Latter-day Saint and now as a Christian. We've also gone into some apologetic questions between Latter-day Saints and Christians and also between skeptics and Christians regarding the resurrection. Are there any resources that you would recommend to a former Latter-day Saint who's a new Christian who really wants to dig into the reliability of the resurrection as a historical event?

So like I said earlier, there's the Case for Christ. That's a really good resource. That was one of those things earlier on when I was a new ex-Mormon and new Christian that I really delved into the archaeology and understanding the history. And you can also get an archaeological Bible.

Those are useful for just general studying of some of the history and all of that. It's really interesting. All right, good.

Thank you. Michael, what about you? Any resources?

On that topic, I don't have any really. Matthew? Yeah, I don't have any specific books related to the resurrection. I probably should, but I think everyone should have access to some kind of systematic theology or some kind of study Bible. So the ones that I always recommend are either the ESV study Bible or the Reformation study Bible. That's obviously a more reformed kind of perspective, but they both have great notes on the resurrection and articles in the back that are really helpful to new Christians. I felt like the ESV study Bible really helped me as a new Christian. And there's also another book about the study notes for the ESV systematic theology, something, study Bible.

I don't know what it was. It was just the study notes. And I've been reading those and those are really fascinating, but those are also from a reformed perspective. So if that kind of turns you off, then I'm sure that there are systematic theologies out there that are from a non-reformed perspective. But from a reformed perspective, there's the body of divinity from John Gill that I really like or Calvin's institutes. So yeah, any one of those will talk about pretty much every important doctrine for Christianity, including the resurrection.

All right, good. Yeah, there's a couple of resources I would recommend. One is a kind of an older Christian apologetic work called Who Moved the Stone? It's by Frank Morrison.

That's a good one. Dr. Gary Habermas is probably the foremost Christian scholar doing work on the resurrection right now. And he's got a lot of really good resources. And then Mike Licona is also a Christian scholar who has written and published. It's an expansion of his doctoral thesis and it's called The Resurrection A New Historiographical Approach. And so he applies the tools of historiography to the resurrection. That's a well over 700-page book. I got to see him lecture at an apologetics conference a few years back and shake his hand and get him to sign my book. But yeah, those are some I would recommend. William Lane Craig, he has a good podcast episode that I'm going to try to find and put in our notes for this episode, where he kind of works through the case for the resurrection in about, I think it's about 40 minutes long. And it'll give you a really good, tight understanding of the historiographical approach to the resurrection.

So yeah, some good resources there. Thanks, Fireflies, for listening in. Hope you're enjoying your resurrection day and celebrating all that Christ has done for us. Talk to you soon. We thank you for tuning into this episode of the Outer Brightness podcast. We'd love to hear from you. Please visit the Outer Brightness podcast page on Facebook. Feel free to send us a message there with comments or questions by clicking send a message at the top of the page, and we would appreciate it if you give the page a like. We also have an Outer Brightness group on Facebook, where you can join and interact with us and others as we discuss the podcast, past episodes, and suggestions for future episodes, etc. You can also send us an email at outerbrightness at gmail.com.

We hope to hear from you soon. You can subscribe to the Outer Brightness podcast on Apple podcasts, Cast Box, Google podcasts, Pocket Cast, PodBeam, Spotify, and Stitcher. Also, you can check out our new YouTube channel, and if you like it, be sure to lay hands on that subscribe button and confirm it. If you like what you hear, please give us a rating and review wherever you listen and help spread the word. You can also connect with Michael the Ex-Mormon apologist at fromwater2wine.org, where he blogs, and sometimes Paul and Matthew do as well. Music for the Outer Brightness podcast is graciously provided by the talented Brianna Flournoy and by Adams Road.

Learn more about Adams Road by visiting their ministry page at adamsroadministry.com. Stay Bright, Flyer Flies! The Holy One of God, the Word made French, the Risen Son. Heaven and earth will pass away, but the Word of God, Lord, endures forever. All this world is in decay, but the Word of our God through ages remains. Lord, you promised that we, as your church, would remain upon this rock, and the gates of hell will not prevail against us, cause you have power to keep your word unspoiled in purity. Heaven and earth will pass away, but the Word of our God through ages remains. As the rain falls down from heaven, and waters need earth, bringing it life, so the Word that goes out from your mouth will not return empty, but does what you desire. Lord, we hear your word and believe in you. Heaven and earth will pass away, but the Word of our Lord endures forever. All this world is in decay, but the Word of our God through ages remains. The Word of God remains.