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

[RhinestoneCowboy]

The problem for your interpretation is that the 'quickening' is in future tense. So the Spirit that dwells in us believers will quicken our mortal bodies. It is something future rather than present as you depict.

Further:

RSC: How do we know he is talking about dead mortal bodies?
A: Why even mention them if spiritual resurrection is the real nub of what he is saying.

RSC: How do we know he's talking about raising or resurrection when he does not mention they will be raised?
A: Did you even read the verse? He that raised Christ will do the same for you if his Spirit lives in you.

RSC: How do we know he's not just talking about the same spirit (that raised Jesus) giving life (figuratively) to the already living mortal bodies?
A: Again why even mention mortal bodies if mortal bodies are not important and are never intended to enter the kingdom of God. Your interpretation just results in confusion.

RSC: How do we know the "mortal body" will still be composed of flesh and blood? What about the people who have been buried for years and decomposed? What about all the passages in 1 Cor 15?
A: Why even make the analogies he does in 1 Cor 15 if he does not intend people to understand physical bodies. he talks about seeds and fleshly bodies. He uses 'heavenly' bodies as opposed to 'earthly' bodies in the sense of differing glories. In the creation account the heavenly bodies were for governing the earth with signs and seasons and ruling over day and night.

Yeah, and where does Paul say the Risen Jesus was on earth or experienced in a physical way i.e. not a "vision" or a "revelation"? If Paul met Peter and James (Gal. 1) then surely he knew about the physical encounters right?

Or, he's asserting they all had visions like he did. That's why he places his own vision in the list of appearances without distinction in 1 Cor 15:5-8.

[Abigail]

Yeah, and where does Paul say the Risen Jesus was on earth or experienced in a physical way i.e. not a "vision" or a "revelation"? If Paul met Peter and James (Gal. 1) then surely he knew about the physical encounters right?

Or, he's asserting they all had visions like he did. That's why he places his own vision in the list of appearances without distinction in 1 Cor 15:5-8.

You still havent answered as to why Paul even mentions a future quickening of mortal bodies in that Romans 9:11 verse if that is not what he meant. Also he draws direct parallels to Christ. Iow he is saying that Christ rose physically from the dead. Why would he say such things if he didn't mean people to understand it that way.

Why in 2 Corinthians 12 when Paul goes "on to [his] visions and revelations" does he not mention the Damascus road appearance again if it was just such a vision. He doesn't and yet it would surely have featured as the jewel in the crown of his visions. Seems like that experience was something different.

[RhinestoneCowboy]

You still havent answered as to why Paul even mentions a future quickening of mortal bodies in that Romans 9:11 verse if that is not what he meant.

The context of the passage isn't speaking of the future resurrection but of our current state of grace in the spirit that gives (and will continue to give) "life" to our sinful mortal bodies. It's a figurative expression. Read Romans 8:1-13 then read my interpretation again.

And you still haven't answered my question....

Also he draws direct parallels to Christ. Iow he is saying that Christ rose physically from the dead. Why would he say such things if he didn't mean people to understand it that way.

Why doesn't Paul ever mention this "physically resurrected Christ" was on earth or experienced in a physical way?

Why in 2 Corinthians 12 when Paul goes "on to [his] visions and revelations" does he not mention the Damascus road appearance again if it was just such a vision. He doesn't and yet it would surely have featured as the jewel in the crown of his visions.

Luke has Paul say the exact same word for "vision" optasia in Acts 26:19 that Paul says himself in 2 Cor 12:1 for "visions" of the Lord. If the word optasia was used to describe a vision involving a bright light and a disembodied voice then that gives us a pretty strong indicator of what Paul was talking about when he mentions "visions" and "revelations" of the Lord.

Seems like that experience was something different.

Where does Paul say that?

[Sparko]

[RhinestoneCowboy]

"The eye that beholds me will see me no more;
while your eyes are upon me, I shall be gone.
As the cloud fades and vanishes,
so those who go down to Sheol do not come up" (Job 7:9)

"a human being, he dies and dead he remains" (Job 14:10)

"a human being, once laid to rest will never rise again" (Job 14:12)
http://contradictionsinthebible.com/...e-resurrected/

[Sparko]

"The eye that beholds me will see me no more;
while your eyes are upon me, I shall be gone.
As the cloud fades and vanishes,
so those who go down to Sheol do not come up" (Job 7:9)

"a human being, he dies and dead he remains" (Job 14:10)

"a human being, once laid to rest will never rise again" (Job 14:12)
http://contradictionsinthebible.com/...e-resurrected/

words said by those who were trying to convince Job to give up and kill himself. derp.

Job showed that instead, he believed in a physical resurrection. And that he would be face to face with God in his FLESH. So your argument that the Jews did not believe in a bodily resurrection are wrong. From LONG before Paul.

But then again, there is no point in arguing with you because there is NOTHING that can convince you to change your mind. You are desperate for some reason to believe that the Jews and Christians did not believe in a physical resurrection. I have no idea why this is so important to you, but it is, and nothing anyone can say will change your mind. You are invincibly ignorant.

Your arguments are hilariously transparent and illogical.

[RhinestoneCowboy]

words said by those who were trying to convince Job to give up and kill himself. derp.

Oh really? Where does it say that?

Job showed that instead, he believed in a physical resurrection. And that he would be face to face with God in his FLESH.

Actually, the ancient versions of Job 19:26 all differ. The Hebrew can actually be rendered "without the flesh" or "free from the flesh" so the physical resurrection has to actually be read into the English translations which you're relying upon.

"If the present Hebrew text were to be interpreted as a statement on life after death, it would, on the contrary, indicate a non-bodily form of after-life: "Free from my flesh I shall see God." - H.C.C Cavallin, Life After Death, pg. 106.

Look, it says or "without."
Screen Shot 2016-06-22 at 12.31.23 PM.jpg
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage...6&version=NRSV

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/faithpr...ction-passage/

https://books.google.com/books?id=wg...0flesh&f=false

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

Most modern scholars reject that resurrection is presupposed by the Hebrew text - #18, Cavallin, Life After Death, pg. 109.
E1h0A7m.jpg

"So your argument that the Jews did not believe in a bodily resurrection are wrong. From LONG before Paul."

That's irrelevant as I've clearly shown that there were many different ways that resurrection was envisioned in 2nd Temple Judaism and Paul rejects the resurrection of the flesh - 1 Cor 15:50, so there. https://books.google.com/books?id=0u...page&q&f=false

Your arguments are hilariously transparent and illogical.

I know more about this than you do, obviously. Need proof? See above.

[Sparko]

Oh really? Where does it say that?



Actually, the ancient versions of Job 19:26 all differ. The Hebrew can actually be rendered "without the flesh" or "free from the flesh" so the physical resurrection has to actually be read into the English translations which you're relying upon.

"If the present Hebrew text were to be interpreted as a statement on life after death, it would, on the contrary, indicate a non-bodily form of after-life: "Free from my flesh I shall see God." - H.C.C Cavallin, Life After Death, pg. 106.

Look, it says or "without."
[ATTACH=CONFIG]16551[/ATTACH]
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage...6&version=NRSV

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/faithpr...ction-passage/

https://books.google.com/books?id=wg...0flesh&f=false

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

Most modern scholars reject that resurrection is presupposed by the Hebrew text - #18, Cavallin, Life After Death, pg. 109.
[ATTACH=CONFIG]16550[/ATTACH]



That's irrelevant as I've clearly shown that there were many different ways that resurrection was envisioned in 2nd Temple Judaism and Paul rejects the resurrection of the flesh - 1 Cor 15:50, so there. https://books.google.com/books?id=0u...page&q&f=false



I know more about this than you do, obviously. Need proof? See above.

My goodness, you really ARE acting insane, Rhinestone.

So what is your motivation? Why do you care so much about if the resurrection is physical or not? To the point that you will twist and turn anything presented into either evidence for your view, or dismiss it as not saying what it actually says? Please. Explain. To me that is much more interesting than your view on the resurrection itself.

[RhinestoneCowboy]

My goodness, you really ARE acting insane, Rhinestone.

So what is your motivation? Why do you care so much about if the resurrection is physical or not? To the point that you will twist and turn anything presented into either evidence for your view, or dismiss it as not saying what it actually says? Please. Explain. To me that is much more interesting than your view on the resurrection itself.

If being right is "insane" then I guess I'm ok with that. Will there be anything else?

[Sparko]

If being right is "insane" then I guess I'm ok with that. Will there be anything else?

So what is your motivation? Why do you care so much about if the resurrection is physical or not?

[RhinestoneCowboy]

So what is your motivation? Why do you care so much about if the resurrection is physical or not?

Because I'm interested in the origins of Christianity. The earliest beliefs were obviously different than what appears in the later gospels. This has severe implications for those that adhere to the Christian faith.

[Sparko]

Because I'm interested in the origins of Christianity. The earliest beliefs were obviously different than what appears in the later gospels. This has severe implications for those that adhere to the Christian faith.

except you deny any evidence that says the resurrection is bodily while accepting any hint of evidence that says it is not. Even you admitted that the passages you are using as evidence can be read either way, yet you choose to only believe they mean a non-bodily resurrection, and in the context of other scriptures, which you toss out, they do lean toward a physical resurrection. So you are completely biased and show it. So what is your agenda? It is obvious you have one.

[Adrift]

except you deny any evidence that says the resurrection is bodily while accepting any hint of evidence that says it is not. Even you admitted that the passages you are using as evidence can be read either way, yet you choose to only believe they mean a non-bodily resurrection, and in the context of other scriptures, which you toss out, they do lean toward a physical resurrection. So you are completely biased and show it. So what is your agenda? It is obvious you have one.

I think if you want to figure out his agenda, all you have to do is question what he believes those severe implications are, and what they mean for Christianity.

[Sparko]

I think if you want to figure out his agenda, all you have to do is question what he believes those severe implications are, and what they mean for Christianity.

Do you think he will tell?

His entire line of reasoning is based on an argument from silence "Well Paul didn't actually SAY the resurrection was physical or not so it must not be" while tossing out every bit of evidence that the resurrection is physical (the very word and concept means to bring back to life!)

He sounds like a conspiracy nut. I bet he thinks 911 was a government plot.

[RhinestoneCowboy]

except you deny any evidence that says the resurrection is bodily while accepting any hint of evidence that says it is not. Even you admitted that the passages you are using as evidence can be read either way, yet you choose to only believe they mean a non-bodily resurrection, and in the context of other scriptures, which you toss out, they do lean toward a physical resurrection. So you are completely biased and show it. So what is your agenda? It is obvious you have one.

I don't deny the evidence. My whole point from the start is there was no mainstream view about resurrection in Jewish history. I've conclusively shown that. You can't just cherry pick a verse from Job and claim that Paul believed in resurrection of the flesh. That's a textbook non-sequitur.

Just show me where Paul says the Risen Jesus was:

(a) on earth?
(b) experienced in a "physical" way i.e. not in a vision or a revelation?

If you cannot do so, then you can't claim that Paul adhered to a physical resurrection that involved the revivification of the corpse.