Gary & Rhinestone's Thread on Burial and Resurrection of Christ

[RhinestoneCowboy]

No, what you did was acknowledge, unwittingly, the intent

Wow, you're really trying hard to wriggle your way out of the implications of Paul placing his own vision in the same list of the other appearances. Even if Paul didn't "intend" to describe the nature of the appearances, that doesn't mean that they were not understood to be the same or similar in nature. Spot the difference. The equation of the appearances is implied by the statements "He appeared (ὤφθη) to Peter, James, etc" and "He appeared (ὤφθη) to me, also." That's the straightforward reading of the passage. Paul's appearance was just the last in sequence of the same or "similar in kind" type of appearances. Since Paul makes no distinction and gives no evidence (in any of his letters) that the Risen Christ was experienced in a way other than a "vision" or a "revelation," you have no basis for claiming the other appearances were different. That goes beyond the evidence Paul actually gives us which shows you're just reading in your own unwarranted assumptions.

You wrote in post #107:

Well, how do you know that? Where does Paul say that? It seems to me, if Paul indicates no difference, or gives no reason to think otherwise, then that points in the direction that they were understood to be equated or at least that's the best supported inference.

The source you linked to says the verb was used for supernatural appearances, not spiritual

Ok, your point?

"In the New Testament, eighteen of its nineteen occurrences are of supernatural appearances. These include various angelic appearances - Luke 1.11; 22.43; Acts 7.30, 35; the presence of Moses and Elijah at the Transfiguration- Mark 9.4; Matt 17.3; Luke 9.31 (an experience specifically called a "vision" in Matt. 17:9 - Were Moses' and Elijah's physical bodies actually there?)(Was the man's body actually standing there?) - Mark Finney, Resurrection..., pg. 107, 118. https://books.google.com/books?id=1F...page&q&f=false

- https://books.google.com/books?id=1F...page&q&f=false

By the way, how do you know the appearance to Paul was a vision? He never calls it a vision in his primary material. Or are you reading Acts into it? Oops.

So Paul's vision wasn't a vision? That sure is a radical new interpretation of the road to Damascus story! Have you told your pastor that you've decided Paul met the physically resurrected Jesus before his ascension in heaven and didn't see a vision on his way to Damascus? He might have to take Juicy aside and have a stern word about contradicting the Word of God.

By the way, Luke has Paul say the same word for "vision" optasia in Acts 26:19 that Paul says himself in 2 Cor 12:1 for "visions of the Lord."

It was to emphasize what Paul means. I noticed you don't actually have a rebuttal to that. He's claiming to be just as much of an apostle as the others because he has "seen" Jesus. How does Paul "see" Jesus again? And where does he indicate the others "saw" anything different?

- Tuckett, Corinthian Correspondence, pg. 255)
https://books.google.com/books?id=hd...page&q&f=false

It seems to you and other uninformed posters here that the vague phrase "raised from the dead" necessarily entailed a physical resurrection which involved the resuscitation of the earthly corpse. Of course, no evidence is provided for this but instead it's just simply asserted as if that's always the case. When prodding for a reason why, I get the sense that this assumption relies on circular reasoning.

Me: "How do you know 'raised from the dead' always meant physical resurrection?"

You: "Because that's what Paul and the gospel authors say happened to Jesus."

Me: "Ok, but how do you know Paul meant it in the same way as the later gospel authors?"

You: "Uh.....Because the Bible says so, all the accounts must harmonize somehow and my cognitive dissonance won't let me see it any other way."

Although, that's a caricature, it's still quite an appropriate description of what I see going on here.

Let's settle this once and for all, shall we?

First of all, by the phrase "raised from the dead," the word for "raised" egēgertai, need not refer to the literal "raising of a physical object" but also takes on the figurative meaning "to arouse from the sleep of death, to recall the dead to life"
http://lexiconcordance.com/greek/1453.html Paul never says Jesus was "raised" to earth. He only indicates that Jesus had been exalted to heaven. Moreover, the probable Aramaic vorlage of egēgertai - qum, has an even wider range of meaning.

Secondly, the "dead" (νεκρός) was used in the Hebrew Bible/LXX to refer to souls (ψυχή) in Sheol/Hades. Sheol was located under the earth so the souls that come out are said to rise up like the soul of Samuel that Saul has conjured up in 1 Sam 28 - (άνάγω "to bring or lift up", v. 11; άναβαίνω "ascend, go up", vv. 13, 15).

Psalm 30:3 - brought up my soul from Sheol; You have kept me alive, that I would not go down to the pit."

Psalm 88:10 - "Do you show your wonders to the dead? Do their spirits rise up and praise you?"
Hence, the common term for the ψνχή in Sheol is νεκρός.

Deuteronomy 18:11 warns against necromancers consulting dead spirits.

In Sirach 51.6, we see the collocation of a number of terms discussed above: Sirach 38.23 speaks of the departure of the spirit at death, i.e., the end of life: Especially noteworthy is Sirach 48.5, which speaks of the νεκρός being raised from Sheol: where the Greek expression is similar to that found of Jesus in the New Testament (Rom 6.4, 9, ό έγεί ρας νεκρόν εκ θανάτον καί εξ αδον). The common verbs employed to describe the raising of the ψνχή, i.e., the νεκρός from Sheol are, as seen above, άναγω, άναβαινω, έγειρω, and άνίστημι. - Finney, Resurrection..., pg. 27-28

"I thank you O Lord, for you have redeemed my soul from the Pit, and from the Hell of Abaddon. You have raised me up to an everlasting height." - 1QH 3.20f.

Similar passages are found throughout the Hebrew Bible and Apocrypha - Ps 17.6 (the cords of Sheol entangled me; the snares of death confronted me); Pss 48.14; 54.15; 88.48; 116.3; Prov 2.18; 5.5; 7.27; 9.18; Job 33.22; 38.17; Sir 14.12; Hos 13.14 (Shall I ransom them from the power of Sheol? Shall I redeem them from Death?); Isa 14.19; 28.15-18; 38.18; Bar 2.17 (open your eyes, O Lord, and see, for the dead who are in Hades, whose spirit has been taken from their bodies, will not ascribe glory or justice to the Lord); Dan 3.88.
https://books.google.com/books?id=1F...page&q&f=false

All this shows that the "dead" need not refer to dead bodies or corpses buried in the ground but instead could refer to souls/sprits being "raised up" out of Sheol. Therefore, the phrase "raised from the dead" is a non-sequitur as it may not always denote a physical resurrection.

///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

Now, onto the priority of the soul in relation to the body in Jewish thought:

"death gives liberty to the soul and permits it to depart to its own pure abode, there to be free from all calamity; but [being] imprisoned in a mortal body and tainted with all its miseries [...] ill befits that which is divine [...] it is not until, freed from the weight that drags it down to earth and clings about it, the soul is restored to its proper sphere [...] remaining, like God himself [...] abundant in a wealth of immortality."(War 7.343-48)

In the Ascension of Isaiah, the author describes a glorious vision of the seventh heaven at the end times, glorious because all there, including Enoch, are stripped of (their) robes of the fleshextract (him) from his earthly clothing [...] and put (him) into the clothes of glory (Pseudo-Phocylides, 103-15).

As the soul is spoken of as belonging to, and being borrowed from God, on its release from the body, it is naturally said to return to God and in many texts there is a strong emphasis on the security of the righteous soul after death (4 Ezra 7.75-101) and in 1 Enoch 22:3, "All of the souls of the dead are gathered until the day of judgment."

If 1 Enoch notes that the soul of the righteous goes down into Sheol, other texts speak of the righteous soul rising up into heaven. The doctrine of the Essenes (articulated by Josephus), affirms that when they are set free from the bonds of the flesh they then rejoice and mount upward (War 2.155). In the Apocalypse of Moses the soul of Adam is taken up to heaven (13.3-6; 37ff). The same is said of Abraham in the Testament of Abraham, a text which is illuminating: while the angels escorted his precious soul and ascended into heaven singingJob fell ill [...] after three days he saw those who had come for his soul. Gleaming chariots came for his soul [...] the one who sat on the chariot got off and greeted Job [...] And taking the soul he flew up, embracing it, and mounted the chariot and set off for the east. But his body, prepared for burial, was home to the tomb [...] After three days they laid him in the tomb in a beautiful sleep. - Finney, Resurrection, pg. 51

On 1 Enoch, Nickelsburg argues:

1 Enoch: Chapters 1-36, 81-108; pgs. 519, 523.

The Epistle of Enoch predicts resurrection at the end of history; elsewhere however it asserts future vindication of the righteous in terms that do not suggest the bodily resurrection but the transformation of the spirit after death (103-104). The reward of the righteous is to share the eternal, spiritual life of the angels in heaven. This is not the Greek idea of immortality of the soul, but neither is it the resurrection of the body. Rather it is the resurrection, or exaltation, of the spirit from Sheol to heaven. The bodies of the righteous will presumably continue to rest in the earth. - J.J Collins, pg. 124 https://books.google.com/books?id=ie...page&q&f=false

Testament of Asher 6:5-6
"For when the soul departs troubled, it is tormented by the evil spirit which also it served in lusts and evil works. But if he is peaceful with joy he meeteth the angel of peace, and he leadeth him into eternal life."

Testament of Dan 5:11-12
"And the captivity shall he take from Beliar [the souls of the saints], And turn disobedient hearts unto the Lord, And give to them that call upon him eternal peace. And the saints shall rest in Eden, And in the New Jerusalem shall the righteous rejoice, And it shall be unto the glory of God for ever."

4 Ezra - (4.35, 41); and later, (7.78, 95-96).

[RhinestoneCowboy]

- https://books.google.com/books?id=1F...page&q&f=false

"Paul's appearance chronology does not match Luke's (or any other Gospel). Acts has Paul going right to Jerusalem after his conversion, but Paul says he waited three years. Acts has Paul going to Jerusalem five times, Paul says he went three times. Paul says he had only been to Jerusalem once prior to appearing before the council, Acts says he had been there twice. Acts has Paul present at the stoning of Stephen, but Paul says his face was still unknown in Judea until after his conversion. Acts has Paul still observing Jewish law, sacrificing at the Temple and condoning circumcision for conversion, all of which contradict everything Paul says he stands for in his own letters. Paul says in Acts that the Pagans don't know there is only one God, in Romans, he says they've always known it." - https://www.reddit.com/r/AcademicBib...hew_mark_luke/

But where does Paul quote them? You are speculating otherwise. And what about the book of Jubilee?

Where does Paul quote Daniel 12 or Isaiah 26:19 or 2 Baruch? Where does the Hebrew Bible make a distinction between a natural/spiritual body like Paul does? How are we supposed to take Paul when he says "putting off the body of the flesh" in Col. 2:11? Why does Paul say he would prefer to be away from the body and at home with the Lord - 2 Cor 5:8? - 2 Cor 5:10, by which Paul assumes that we will not be judged in the earthly body. Parallel what Josephus says of the Pharisees (War 2.162-164, 3.374) with what Paul says in 2 Cor 5:1-5.

Caroline Bynum notes of this section, - The Resurrection of the Body in Western Christianity, pg. 4).

2 Cor 5:16
"So from now on we regard no one according to the flesh. Although we once regarded Christ in this way, we do so no longer."

Philippians 1:23-24


1 Cor 15:50
"flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God"

Thus, Paul believed Jesus' earthly body rotted in the grave while he was resurrected as a spirit - 1 Cor 15:45, 2 Cor 3:17, Rom 8:9-11, and raised/housed in a new spiritual body/entity - 1 Cor 15:44, 2 Cor 5:1-5.
https://books.google.com/books?id=1F...page&q&f=false

Most scholars date 2 Baruch around 100 CE which would have been closer to when Luke and John were writing but the text might not even say what you think it does.

"And it will happen after these things when the time of the appearance of the Anointed One has been fulfilled and he returns with glory, that then all who sleep in hope of him will rise. And it will happen at that time that those treasuries will be opened in which the number of the souls of the righteous were kept, and they will go out and the multitudes of the souls will appear together, in one assemblage, of one mind. And the souls of the wicked will know that their torment has come and that perditions have arrived."
(2 Bar 30.1-5)

need (1998: 281, italics his).
https://books.google.com/books?id=MK...page&q&f=false

Stanley Porter says:
"there is little here regarding a bodily resurrection - Resurrection, the Greeks and the New Testament. JSNTSS 186, pg. 65

What's wrong with appealing to authorities with more than qualified credentials in the relevant fields? I mean, they've only been studying this stuff their entire lives right? What could they possibly have to add to the discussion?

First of all, the original Hebrew of Psalm 16:10 has the words "Sheol" and the "Pit", not corruption/decay. Secondly, it was Luke who put that speech on Paul and Peter's lips. Third, there isn't a mention of an empty tomb in the so-called "early speeches of Acts" or even in the rest of Acts at all.

- Maurice Casey, Jesus of Nazareth, pg. 460.

On a side note, how can Luke depict Jesus with a stomach eating fish when Paul says in 1 Cor 6:13 that God will destroy both food and the stomach?

In the end we have Luke quoting Paul use of the same word for appeared that Paul uses in 1 Cor 15 in the context of a physical resurrection.

While we are looking at Acts and Paul. Festus asserts Paul believed Jesus was alive.

who ate and drank with Him after He arose from the dead.

You're just reading in Luke's view and claiming that it's Paul's and Peter's. While on the subject of Acts, it's clear that both Peter and Paul were susceptible to having visions. Peter has "visions in a trance" Acts 10-11, and a vision of an angel in Acts 12.9. Paul has a vision of a Macedonian man in Acts 16:9. Ananias and Paul have experiences of visions before the divine healing of Paul in Damascus - Acts 9:10-12, and Paul has a further vision of the lord in Acts 18:9. Therefore, we have a pattern of the two earliest witnesses of the Risen Christ having "visions."

not say it. And hardly a reference to spirits rising from Sheol.

An instruction "not to say it" isn't the same thing as "believing that's what happened." The passage, in conjunction with the others, can still be used as evidence for Christ's descent/ascent into/out of Sheol/Hades.

Except it says nothing at all nothing about the resurrection. The context of the whole chapter has to do with spiritual gifting for crying out loud.

Are you kidding me? This places Jesus in the "lower earthly regions" i.e. Sheol/Hades. Sorry bud, game over.

Death where is your victory? O Death

The original text says "Sheol" and the LXX uses ᾅδης "Hades" (same thing), which is the same word Paul uses in 1 Cor 15:55. The same idea can be found in Acts 2:27-31 (abandoned means "not left" in Sheol); 1 Pet 3:18-20, 4:6; and the Apostles Creed - "he descended to hell". Now it's really game over.

2 Macc is also considered a Greek inspired text and it says that the appearances of the martyrs came from heaven - 2 Macc 2:21.

Yeah, but he says it's a different "other" pure/chaste "body."

- Alan Segal, Life After Death, pg. 381).

Josephus himself asserts that he has studied first-century CE Pharisaism and lived his life by their rules.

"So when I had accomplished my desires, I returned back to the city, being now nineteen years old, and began to conduct myself according to the rules of the sect of the Pharisees, which is of kin to the sect of the Stoics, as the Greeks call them." - Life 10-12.

"...when I abode among the high priests and the chief of the Pharisees." - Life 21

here and you ignored it entirely. Your next post was just another hollow declaration of wishful victory. You seem to think that an appeal to Markan priority allows you to just wave aside a ton of external evidence. Evidence which is just as good as the evidence for other secular works not questioned. Man up Cowboy.

I'm sorry? Last time I checked Markan priority is the consensus view. So to argue something else automatically puts you in the fringe. Do you have another hypothesis that better explains the verbatim Greek copying that's shared between Mark, Mt, Lk? What, Mark copied Matthew or Luke but just decided to leave out the virgin birth, Sermon on the Mount, resurrection appearances, and the ascension? You know, all that not so important stuff...

Get real. Your external "evidence" takes a backseat to the internal evidence of verbatim subject-verb copying in the Greek.

Go back and address my post properly rather than just simply reasserting your debunked arguments.

Debunked? As it stands, the sources represent legendary growth in chronological order. You have not shown this to be improbable nor have you offered an explanation as to why the appearance reports are so inconsistent or why they seem to get more "physical" as time goes on. Legendary growth is the most probable hypothesis as it explains the data without any ad hoc nonsense.

This is my whole point about resurrection views. They were diverse. In the oldest parts of the Hebrew Bible there's no reference to the afterlife or resurrection, it even seems to be rejected by Job. Then we have references to spirits/souls in Sheol. We don't get an explicit reference to resurrection until around 167 BCE when Daniel was written and even then, the interpretation/translation is disputed. Coincidentally, this was a time when Hellenization was occurring which means resurrection may not originally be a Jewish idea.

[RhinestoneCowboy]

So when the TDNT say the appearances were corporeal and non-visionary reality where no category of human seeing is wholly adequate you agree, right?

Since the appearances are understood to be "visions" or "revelations" then this could encompass a whole array of subjective human phenomena. Were these visions induced by grief at the death of a loved one - Peter, James? Were they simply hallucinations? Were they induced by drugs or other mystical means? Did some experience visions in a dream?

It would be helpful to put Paul and these words back into a 1st Century Jewish apocalyptic context.

"any attempt to understand Paul must also be cognizant of the fact that he stands within the traditions of early Jewish mysticism as an apocalyptic visionary, prone to what can be best described as an altered state of consciousness (ASC)"https://books.google.com/books?id=1F...page&q&f=false

"The plurality of visions and revelations in 2 Cor 12.1 and the abundance of revelations in 12.7 indicate multiple experiences outside of that narrated here." (1993: 283). And note the comment by Peerbolte that, merkabah mysticism (2008: 170).

Interestingly, Coleen Shantz, in her analysis of the link between peristasis catalogues and authority, notes, (2008: 194).
https://books.google.com/books?id=1F...page&q&f=false

You have a strange notion of mainstream. On the first page alone two of the books are written by John J. Collins. One by his wife Adela Yarbro Collins (who have co-written a book together). One by Outi Lehtipuu (we all know about her) who references Nickelsburg and Adela Yarbro Collins. The rest are other writers who references Collins or Nickelsburg. It's quite a small circle actually. I wonder if they all get together for potlucks?

Anyone can see just by clicking on the link that there are way more commentators than just Nickelsburg and Collins. And did you ever think that the reason they get cited so much is because they are well respected authorities in the field and subject matter? Duh! I mean, it's not like they both have doctorates from Harvard or anything........Oh wait....

You were the one who first introduced Daniel 12 as some kind of evidence for a spiritual resurrection. I just showed you it doesn't say what you want it to say and can actually be interpreted to support a physical resurrection. The whole argument here is a long shot. I mean if that's all you got, yikes.

You asked for evidence and justification. I gave both. You just don't like it. The Hebrew literally renders to "land of dust" and I provided several instances where "dust" is connected to Sheol.

[RhinestoneCowboy]

Interestingly enough, according to our earliest Gospel of Mark, the disciples don't even know what "rising from the dead" could mean - Mark 9:9-10. The only thing Mark tells us about resurrection is "when the dead rise, they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels in heaven" which implies we will be some sort of genderless angelic entity in heaven. Also, in Mark 6:14-29 it is claimed that some were saying John the Baptist had been "raised from the dead." This cannot mean a physical resurrection since John the Baptist was beheaded and buried - were they looking for his empty tomb too? It seems to be used here as a form of metempsychosis or reincarnation. Obviously, there were multiple ways "raised from the dead" could be interpreted and it need not necessarily entail a physical resurrection.

[Abigail]

Interestingly enough, according to our earliest Gospel of Mark, the disciples don't even know what "rising from the dead" could mean - Mark 9:9-10.

. They are only confused because Jesus' talk seems to be implying that His rising from the dead is going to be something very significant.

The only thing Mark tells us about resurrection is "when the dead rise, they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels in heaven" which implies we will be some sort of genderless angelic entity in heaven.

Marriage between man and women was because man needed a helper. After the resurrection we will be with Christ and He will provide for our needs.

Also, in Mark 6:14-29 it is claimed that some were saying John the Baptist had been "raised from the dead." This cannot mean a physical resurrection since John the Baptist was beheaded and buried - were they looking for his empty tomb too? It seems to be used here as a form of metempsychosis or reincarnation. Obviously, there were multiple ways "raised from the dead" could be interpreted and it need not necessarily entail a physical resurrection.

Since Jesus and John were contemporary how could anyone who knew them both think He was John. Jesus did not actively break onto the scene until after John and so many probably did not know both. Therefore the most likely thing is that people who did not know both really were thinking that perhaps He was John raised from the dead. This debate seems to be centered in the court of Herod where having heard of the things Jesus was doing, and feeling guilty about murdering John who by Herod's own estimation was a holy man, they were scared that judgement was coming.

[RhinestoneCowboy]

. They are only confused because Jesus' talk seems to be implying that His rising from the dead is going to be something very significant. Marriage between man and women was because man needed a helper. After the resurrection we will be with Christ and He will provide for our needs. Since Jesus and John were contemporary how could anyone who knew them both think He was John. Jesus did not actively break onto the scene until after John and so many probably did not know both. Therefore the most likely thing is that people who did not know both really were thinking that perhaps He was John raised from the dead. This debate seems to be centered in the court of Herod where having heard of the things Jesus was doing, and feeling guilty about murdering John who by Herod's own estimation was a holy man, they were scared that judgement was coming.

You miss the overall point which is the phrase "raised from the dead" does not necessarily mean a physical resurrection. Another poster was asserting that it did and my last few posts have shown the phrase could have a wider range of meaning than that.

[DesertBerean]

You miss the overall point which is the phrase "raised from the dead" does not necessarily mean a physical resurrection. Another poster was asserting that it did and my last few posts have shown the phrase could have a wider range of meaning than that.

Could have, yes, but within the context of his words there was only one clear meaning. He meant a physical resurrection.

[RhinestoneCowboy]

Could have, yes, but within the context of his words there was only one clear meaning. He meant a physical resurrection.

Then why does Paul only let us know this "physically resurrected" Jesus was only experienced through "visions" and "revelations"? Why does he equate his Damascus Road vision with the other "appearances" in 1 Cor 15:5-8? Did Peter and James forget to tell Paul that they touched Jesus and watched him eat?

Keep in mind, the earliest manuscripts of Mark don't have any resurrection appearances. All the original version of Mark leaves us with is a missing body. This leaves it open to interpretation if Mark thought the same thing as Luke and John did by portraying that Jesus would be physically touched. Mark's story is consistent with an assumption into heaven. He only says they will "see" Jesus in Galilee but doesn't tell us how this takes place or what exactly would be "seen."

[DesertBerean]

All those points have been answered by others at least a dozen times by others in this thread. I'm convinced, but it appears you're not. I'm afraid you're repeating the same behavior with expectations of different results. Isn't that a definition of insanity?

[RhinestoneCowboy]

All those points have been answered by others at least a dozen times by others in this thread. I'm convinced, but it appears you're not. I'm afraid you're repeating the same behavior with expectations of different results. Isn't that a definition of insanity?

The problem is they haven't been answered. They've only been evaded.

[DesertBerean]

The problem is they haven't been answered. They've only been evaded.

Oh? Really? Ok.

[Abigail]

You miss the overall point which is the phrase "raised from the dead" does not necessarily mean a physical resurrection. Another poster was asserting that it did and my last few posts have shown the phrase could have a wider range of meaning than that.

I think you have been shown by other posters in this thread why you are wrong. You are the one making assertions. You haven't addressed any of the pushbacks.

How would Christianity have been different from other religions if it was just a spiritual resurrection? Why did it become more attractive than the Caesar cults when they had allegedly become gods after death. And yet we see Christianity portrayed as something different and new.

Paul was a Pharisee and the Pharisees believed in bodily resurrection.

Why would Paul engage in the dialogue he did in 1 Corinthians 15 referring to seeds and kinds of flesh and differing glories of physical things and terminology such as 'bear the imsge' (v.49) if he were not talking about physical bodies?

Look at his speech in verses 50-53 where basically he is saying "listen brethren flesh and blood cannot inherit the KoG and the perishible does not inherit tge imperishable, but I tell you a mystery this impossible thing is going to happen because this perishable is going to put on the imperishable. Surely since the verses include some who are still alive at the time of the resurrection, then if those were to become spirits they would need to take off their flesh and so the language would not be 'put on' but rather something like 'take off'
Etc etc.

[RhinestoneCowboy]

I think you have been shown by other posters in this thread why you are wrong. You are the one making assertions. You haven't addressed any of the pushbacks.

How would Christianity have been different from other religions if it was just a spiritual resurrection? Why did it become more attractive than the Caesar cults when they had allegedly become gods after death. And yet we see Christianity portrayed as something different and new.

Paul was a Pharisee and the Pharisees believed in bodily resurrection.

Why would Paul engage in the dialogue he did in 1 Corinthians 15 referring to seeds and kinds of flesh and differing glories of physical things and terminology such as 'bear the imsge' (v.49) if he were not talking about physical bodies?

Look at his speech in verses 50-53 where basically he is saying "listen brethren flesh and blood cannot inherit the KoG and the perishible does not inherit tge imperishable, but I tell you a mystery this impossible thing is going to happen because this perishable is going to put on the imperishable. Surely since the verses include some who are still alive at the time of the resurrection, then if those were to become spirits they would need to take off their flesh and so the language would not be 'put on' but rather something like 'take off'
Etc etc.

We've already been over all this. Read the thread and see what Josephus says about the beliefs of the Pharisees. You can't claim the other "appearances" in 1 Cor 15:5-8 were understood to be more "physical" than visions like Paul's.

[Abigail]

We've already been over all this. Read the thread and see what Josephus says about the beliefs of the Pharisees. You can't claim the other "appearances" in 1 Cor 15:5-8 were understood to be more "physical" than visions like Paul's.

I am not sure why you think the Josephus passages show that Pharisees did not believe in bodily resurrection since they seem clear to me, especially Wars 2.162

They say that souls are incorruptible; but that the souls of good men are only removed into other bodies, but that the souls of bad men are subject to eternal punishment

Wars 3.374 writes that in "the revolution of the ages the pure are sent again into pure bodies". This 'revolution of the ages' seems is pretty much compatible with Jewish 'end of the age or last day' and the resurrection (John 11:24)

[RhinestoneCowboy]

I am not sure why you think the Josephus passages show that Pharisees did not believe in bodily resurrection since they seem clear to me, especially Wars 2.162

Wars 3.374 writes that in "the revolution of the ages the pure are sent again into pure bodies". This 'revolution of the ages' seems is pretty much compatible with Jewish 'end of the age or last day' and the resurrection (John 11:24)

"Other" bodies implies it's not the same one. The gospels depict Jesus resurrected in his physical form on earth. Where does Paul say the Risen Jesus was on earth? Paul says there are different types of bodies. The spiritual/heavenly "body" was a new dwelling/habitation in heaven (not earth) that is contrasted with the earthly "tent" (body) - 2 Cor 5:1-5. This "spiritual/heavenly body" is of a different kind/substance or "glory" than the earthly/natural body - 1 Cor 15:40-44. The earthly body or (seed) that's buried in the ground does not resemble the plant (spiritual body) that sprouts from it.

How do you reconcile that this "spiritual body" was only experienced through "visions" and "revelations" according to Paul? These words in no way give support for an empty tomb or physical resurrection and he equates his vision without distinction to the other "appearances" in 1 Cor 15:5-8.