What happens next?

[eider]

I can't take anything you say seriously at this point. Go play in your sandbox. Rather than try to actually have a discussion, you attempt to drive me away with insults. Well it worked. Not because I am insulted but because it shows you to be childish and ignorant about the entire topic. No actual responses, just quips. Great job.

Oh dear, at least two insults from you in that post.

You need to look in a mirror.

[Sparko]

Oh dear, at least two insults from you in that post.

You need to look in a mirror.

Pointing out your bad behavior is not insulting you. It is calling attention to it so you can do better. Do better eider.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

Pointing out your bad behavior is not insulting you. It is calling attention to it so you can do better. Do better eider.

Take your own advice.

[Sparko]

Take your own advice.

You first.

[tabibito]

Those narratives on a physical resurrection also differ from the earliest reference on the resurrection that we have and which is from Paul . That refers to a spiritual event. In that text Paul makes no reference to:

Despite various attempts to redefine words so as to make it seem otherwise, Paul wrote of a bodily, physical resurrection. Contemporaneous with Paul, Hebrews also indicates bodily, physical resurrection.

1Cor 15:4 and that he was buried, and that he was raised on the third day according to the scriptures

There is no hint of the messiah being raised anywhere in the Old Testament. The HEBREW scriptures contain no reference to resurrection. What do you consider to be the scriptures to which Paul is referring as making reference to the resurrection?

[rogue06]

Francesca Stavrakopoulou sums up the deity of the Hebrew texts in the opening pages of her book God: An Anatomy:

Written in about the fifth century BCE, but drawing on older mythologies, the creation story that now begins the Bible reflects a time when Yahweh – the deity of Jerusalem, now better known as God – had yet to be imagined as the only divine being in the universe. Like the Babylonian deity Marduk, or the Greek god Zeus, this ancient deity had long been cast as the king of the cosmos, but like them, he was far from alone in the heavens. Above all, he was still several centuries away from becoming the immaterial, incorporeal abstraction of later Jewish and Christian theologies. Instead, he was just like any other deity in the ancient world. He had a head, hair and a face; eyes, ears, a nose and a mouth. He had arms, hands, legs and feet, and a chest and a back. He was equipped with a heart, a tongue, teeth and genitals. He was a god who breathed, in and out. This was a deity who not only looked like a human – albeit on a far more impressive, glamourous scale – but who very often behaved like a human. He enjoyed evening strolls and hearty meals; he listened to music, wrote books and made lists. He was a god who not only spoke, but whistled, laughed, shouted, wept and talked to himself. He was a god who fell in love and into fights; a god who squabbled with his worshippers and grappled with his enemies; a god who made friends, raised children, took wives and had sex.

This portrait of God has not been lifted from obscure myths inscribed on long-abandoned clay tablets. It is drawn from the Bible itself – a book as complex as the deity it promotes, not least because the Bible is not a book at all, but a collection of books, falling into two parts. The first is the Hebrew Bible, known in Judaism as Tanakh, and in Christianity as the Old Testament, and it is an anthology of ancient texts, originally crafted as scrolls. Most of these texts are themselves complex compilations of diverse literary traditions, and the majority were composed between the eighth and second centuries BCE in Judah, a small southern polity in the ancient Levant - the region we know today as Palestine, Israel, Jordan, Lebanon and western Syria. [pp. 11-12]

Anthropomorphic references are hardly narrowly confined to the Genesis creation account. There are examples found throughout the text.

Personally, I find Genesis 1 to be best read and understood as a "polemic" (using a somewhat archaic definition) against the religion and cultures of the surrounding peoples and cultures where it is made clear that God isn't just a god, He is God.

[eider]

Pointing out your bad behavior is not insulting you. It is calling attention to it so you can do better. Do better eider.

Setting yourself up as a polite and most proper debator doesn't wash with me, Sparko.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

Despite various attempts to redefine words so as to make it seem otherwise,

Hallucinations may appear physical. Something in "the mind's eye" can appear real. People are not unknown to have seen a recently deceased relative in their favourite location, garden, arm-chair and such.

Paul wrote of a bodily, physical resurrection. Contemporaneous with Paul, Hebrews also indicates bodily, physical resurrection.

My emphasis. Your unsubstantiated and emphatic assertions never cease to amuse.

1Cor 15:4 and that he was buried, and that he was raised on the third day according to the scriptures

There is no hint of the messiah being raised anywhere in the Old Testament. The HEBREW scriptures contain no reference to resurrection. What do you consider to be the scriptures to which Paul is referring as making reference to the resurrection?

Certainly there is mention of any Messiah being resurrected in the Hebrew texts, and no resurrections at all in the Pentateuch.

However, there are textual references to "resurrection" depending of course on how that is defined.

Nor, given that Paul is our earliest textual source for this event, can we rule out the influence of other religious ideas. Paul came from the Hellenised world, spoke and wrote in Greek, and would appear to have had some acquaintance with certain ideas that may be found in Stoicism.

Furthermore, if we accept what Acts tells us and Paul did indeed came Tarsus/Tarsos, then he was from a region of the world that was hardly lacking for gods including the Great Mother Kybele as well as Baal. Nor can the influences of Canaanite religion be ignored in the Hebrew biblical texts as well as aspects of the Ugaritic Baal Cycle. From where did the Jewish idea of resurrection originate? Did it begin sometime during the mid second century BCE or was it derived from Zorastrianism? Scholarly debate continues on how much and what the Israelites believed prior to the Babylonian exile, including the importance, or not, of the soul.

[Cow Poke]

....

Nor, given that Paul is our earliest textual source for this event, can we rule out the influence of other religious ideas. Paul came from the Hellenised world, spoke and wrote in Greek, and would appear to have had some acquaintance with certain ideas that may be found in Stoicism.

Aren't you the one who insisted Paul was not a Jew?

Furthermore, if we accept what Acts tells us and Paul did indeed came Tarsus/Tarsos, then he was from a region of the world that was hardly lacking for gods including the Great Mother Kybele as well as Baal. Nor can the influences of Canaanite religion be ignored in the Hebrew biblical texts as well as aspects of the Ugaritic Baal Cycle. From where did the Jewish idea of resurrection originate? Did it begin sometime during the mid second century BCE or was it derived from Zorastrianism? Scholarly debate continues on how much and what the Israelites believed prior to the Babylonian exile, including the importance, or not, of the soul.

Yet Paul wrote very clearly, and rephrased it numerous ways, that Christ rose from the dead.
The first part of 1 Corinthians (verses 1-11) is Paul making a case for actual witnesses who actually saw Jesus alive after he was dead.
He made it, in effect, the gatepost upon which the gate of Salvation swings (a favorite saying of one of my professors ).

In the second section (verses 12-34) he drives this home, clearly talking about a physical resurrection, as he had just laid the groundwork for Christ having been seen alive after His death.

You are arguing a whole bunch of suppositions against what Paul actual claims in 1 Corinthians.

[rogue06]

My emphasis. Your unsubstantiated and emphatic assertions never cease to amuse.

A strong case can be made that it dates from the end of Paul's ministry. In fact, I think that is the consensus view.

[tabibito]

My emphasis. Your unsubstantiated and emphatic assertions ...

Assuming there was any truth to the allegation, it would make us equal when it comes to such assertions. On the matter of the date of authorship of Hebrews, my opinion actually aligns with majority scholarship. I would not be surprised to find, once the implications of the content wrt the so called late development of Christology penetrate, that scholars suddenly decide that Hebrews was a later composition after all.

Certainly there is mention of any Messiah being resurrected in the Hebrew texts, and no resurrections at all in the Pentateuch.

Yet Paul clearly states that the resurrection is a matter of scriptural record, as also "the labourer is worthy of his hire:" declared scripture by Paul, despite the fact that it is not an Old Testament reference.

However, there are textual references to "resurrection" depending of course on how that is defined.

In Biblical terms, and as it is applied to people, it means a full recovery from death. But there is no mention of the messiah being resurrected - Paul claims that the resurrection of the messiah is a matter of scriptural record (the claim is not that it is prophesied in scripture).

Nor, given that Paul is our earliest textual source for this event, can we rule out the influence of other religious ideas. Paul came from the Hellenised world, spoke and wrote in Greek, and would appear to have had some acquaintance with certain ideas that may be found in Stoicism.

Such as? Claims of that sort are often made, but seldom is any attempt made to substantiate them. Nor is it a given that Paul provides the earliest textual evidence for the event.

Scholarly debate continues on how much and what the Israelites believed prior to the Babylonian exile, including the importance, or not, of the soul.

Different Hebrew sects had competing beliefs - there doesn't seem to be cause for debate about what was commonly believed among the people of the time.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

Aren't you the one who insisted Paul was not a Jew?

I simply noted that in his epistles, i.e. those that are accepted as being authentic he never uses the term Ἰουδαῖος when referring to himself. So if he was a Jew he never writes that he was..

Yet Paul wrote very clearly, and rephrased it numerous ways, that Christ rose from the dead.
The first part of 1 Corinthians (verses 1-11) is Paul making a case for actual witnesses who actually saw Jesus alive after he was dead.
He made it, in effect, the gatepost upon which the gate of Salvation swings (a favorite saying of one of my professors ).

In the second section (verses 12-34) he drives this home, clearly talking about a physical resurrection, as he had just laid the groundwork for Christ having been seen alive after His death.

You are arguing a whole bunch of suppositions against what Paul actual claims in 1 Corinthians.

I suspect Paul did have a hallucination of the risen Christ Jesus/Lord of Glory given that he had various mystical moments including his divinely revealed gospel.

However, none of the others he mentions in that chapter of I Corinthians have left us their testimonial. All we have about their experience is what he tells us.

[Cow Poke]

I simply noted that in his epistles, i.e. those that are accepted as being authentic he never uses the term Ἰουδαῖος when referring to himself. So if he was a Jew he never writes that he was..

Actually, we dealt with that, and Paul clearly made the case that he was a Jew.

I suspect Paul did have a hallucination of the risen Christ Jesus/Lord of Glory given that he had various mystical moments including his divinely revealed gospel.

However, none of the others he mentions in that chapter of I Corinthians have left us their testimonial. All we have about their experience is what he tells us.

laughing

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

Actually, we dealt with that, and Paul clearly made the case that he was a Jew.

Textual fact he never uses that particular word in reference to himself. Of course that does not automatically imply he was not a Jew it is simply an observation on his use of language.

laughing

If someone today wrote that they had seen Jesus, what would you call it?

[Cow Poke]

Textual fact he never uses that particular word in reference to himself.

Ah, the argument from silence, and a technicality you created.

Absolutely devastating to Christianity!