PMPN: empty tomb written Mid first centiury

[metacrock]

Note: I have combined posts by OBP and metacrock as they are more-or-less the same.

Sure. But the new body does not have to drag around the old body with it.

1 Cor 15:40 There are also heavenly bodies and earthly bodies, but the glory of the heavenly is one, and the glory of the earthly is another. 41 There is one glory of the sun, and another glory of the moon, and another glory of the stars; for star differs from star in glory.
42 So also is the resurrection of the dead. It is sown [l]a perishable body, it is raised [m]an imperishable body; 43 it is sown in dishonor, it is raised in glory; it is sown in weakness, it is raised in power; 44 it is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body. If there is a natural body, there is also a spiritual body.

Jesus left his earthly body in the tomb, and was raised in a heavenly body. Remember how Paul saw Jesus:



Paul did not see an earthly body (or a heavenly body dragging around a corpse), he saw a heavenly body. Therefore it would seem reasonable that he would propose a resurrection where the earthly body was left behind like so much chaff.

I quoted James Tabor talking about how the Jews thought about after life, you are trying to read in your ideological anti Christians answers where you have no idea they apply the scholars say they don't

I said Paul did not care, I meant it was not significant to his understanding of how Jesus was resurrected. Sorry, I thought that was obvious. Sure, the Jews cared what happened to corpses, but it is quite a leap to conclude they must therefore have believed in a bodily resurrection.

resurrection with no body is a non-sense concept. it is nothing but a ghost. no one would get excited about Jesus becoming a ghost. he can only conquer death if his body is back too and that is what the Jews thought,

[The Pixie]

I quoted James Tabor talking about how the Jews thought about after life, you are trying to read in your ideological anti Christians answers where you have no idea they apply the scholars say they don't

Tabor is talking about what the Jews expected, not what they got. They expected a messiah who was a military leader that would lead them to greatness. What Paul got was a crucified saviour. The expected a bodily resurrection. What Paul got was a bright light.

Paul had to modify his beliefs to fit reality.

resurrection with no body is a non-sense concept. it is nothing but a ghost. no one would get excited about Jesus becoming a ghost. he can only conquer death if his body is back too and that is what the Jews thought,

And yet what Paul on the road to Damascus was not a physical body.

And yet Paul clearly states the resurrected get a brand new body.

It does not matter what the Jews in general though (some Jews rejected the resurrection altogether, so claiming their was a single monolithic system of Jewish thought is ludicrous). What is important is what Paul thought. We know he saw what he took to be Jesus as a bright light. We know he said Jesus was resurrected in a new heavenly body. Clearly Paul saw the heavenly body as something other than a ghost. Equally clearly later gospel writers introduced the bodily resurrection to counter claims it was just a ghost, and you have bought into this later embellishment at the expense of what actually happened.

[metacrock]

Pixie you are using circular reasoning to read in what Paul meant, of course it makes more sense to assume he meant what we know Jews meant, there's no justification for assuming Paul was coaming from a view point no one in his milieu had. That's like expecting him to know about your ideas and to like them. It's much more Parsimonious to assume he meant what we know people in his day meant,

[metacrock]

I knew you would do this, you can't answer the argument that the empty tomb was part of the early story from the very first. it was circulating in writing before mark was written. You have diverted us from that idea. this Paul thing is a diversion.

I included Paul in the mix because he proves there were pre Mark sources I how several passages he alludes to that are synoptic that's two decades before Mark. Koester thinks he had a copy of the synoptic saying source.

Pix I did not tailor that page for you. I put up parts of the page on my website it's written for a general audience, the role of Paul on that page is just to prove that some Gospel material existed before Mark.

[The Pixie]

Pixie you are using circular reasoning to read in what Paul meant, of course it makes more sense to assume he meant what we know Jews meant, there's no justification for assuming Paul was coaming from a view point no one in his milieu had. That's like expecting him to know about your ideas and to like them. It's much more Parsimonious to assume he meant what we know people in his day meant,

I am going by what he thought he saw and what he said. I think that that is more reasonable than assuming his thinking was in step with every other Jew of the era - especially when we know Jews were in disagreement over all sorts of theological issues.

What Paul believed to be the resurrected Jesus was a bright light, not a physical body. Or do you reject the account in Acts? It seems entirely reasonable to suppose Paul though Jesus was resurrected in a form that resembled a bright light, rather than a physical body.

What you seem to be arguing is that Paul saw a bright, heavenly light and heard a sacred voice, and so he had a religious conversion, and believed Jesus was resurrected in his old body.

What I am arguing is that Paul saw a bright, heavenly light and heard a holy voice, and so he had a religious conversion, and believed Jesus was resurrected in a heavenly body that appeared to be a bright, heavenly light with a holy voice.

I think it is much more parsimonious to assume he believed what he saw with his own eyes.

I knew you would do this, you can't answer the argument that the empty tomb was part of the early story from the very first. it was circulating in writing before mark was written. You have diverted us from that idea. this Paul thing is a diversion.

I included Paul in the mix because he proves there were pre Mark sources I how several passages he alludes to that are synoptic that's two decades before Mark. Koester thinks he had a copy of the synoptic saying source.

Pix I did not tailor that page for you. I put up parts of the page on my website it's written for a general audience, the role of Paul on that page is just to prove that some Gospel material existed before Mark.

So forget Paul. We are not going to get any further on that discussion, you are clearly convinced that after seeing Jesus as a bright light, Paul was convinced Jesus was a physical body, because that fits what you have been told to think.

It was not me who brought up Paul, it was you. If you wanted to discuss only the Gospel of Peter and the Diatessaron, it might have been a good idea to not mention the other texts in the OP. And yet, here you are throwing a hissy fit because I mentioned them too!

Why don't you clean your own act up? You have spent three posts on what you say is a diversion, rather than answer my post #30. Drop the discussion of Paul, drop the accusations, and respond to what I said about the Gospel of Peter and explain - if you are capable of it - how the Diatessaron supports your argument.

[One Bad Pig]

Note: I have combined posts by OBP and metacrock as they are more-or-less the same.

Sure. But the new body does not have to drag around the old body with it.

1 Cor 15:40 There are also heavenly bodies and earthly bodies, but the glory of the heavenly is one, and the glory of the earthly is another. 41 There is one glory of the sun, and another glory of the moon, and another glory of the stars; for star differs from star in glory.
42 So also is the resurrection of the dead. It is sown [l]a perishable body, it is raised [m]an imperishable body; 43 it is sown in dishonor, it is raised in glory; it is sown in weakness, it is raised in power; 44 it is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body. If there is a natural body, there is also a spiritual body.

Jesus left his earthly body in the tomb, and was raised in a heavenly body. Remember how Paul saw Jesus:



Paul did not see an earthly body (or a heavenly body dragging around a corpse), he saw a heavenly body. Therefore it would seem reasonable that he would propose a resurrection where the earthly body was left behind like so much chaff.

Paul saw the same light seen at the Transfiguration. And the old body is changed, not discarded (1 Cor. 15:52). The Jews certainly believed in a physical resurrection (Ez. 37).

[Meh Gerbil]

What I am arguing is that Paul saw a bright, heavenly light and heard a holy voice, and so he had a religious conversion, and believed Jesus was resurrected in a heavenly body that appeared to be a bright, heavenly light with a holy voice.

The Jehovah's Witnesses believe Christ was raised as a Spirit Creature and that the old body remained in the grave.
The problem with that belief is the Greek word for resurrection is defined as the original being reanimated, not recreated or replaced. (1)

In short, anytime Paul used the word 'resurrection' by definition he was affirming the physical resurrection of Jesus Christ's original body.

Let's say I crash my Jeep and totally destroy it.
Let's say I run off and buy a new Range Rover to replace it.
If I were to drag you out into the parking lot, point at the Range Rover and declare that it's my resurrected Jeep you'd wonder about my use of the word 'resurrected'.

Replacement? Sure.
Resurrected? Nope.

I think it can be argued that Paul's use of the word 'resurrected' (or similar) make his stance on the topic pretty clear.
Again, I'm not a Greek scholar - you appear to have more expertise than myself on that point.







NOTES
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1: I'm not a Greek scholar, this is just a rebuttal I've read to the Jehovah's Witness position which doesn't sound far off from what you're proposing.

[metacrock]

I am going by what he thought he saw and what he said. I think that that is more reasonable than assuming his thinking was in step with every other Jew of the era - especially when we know Jews were in disagreement over all sorts of theological issues.

He did not say "I saw Jesus being bodiless." It's pretty obvious a bright light is not a complete description.

What Paul believed to be the resurrected Jesus was a bright light, not a physical body. Or do you reject the account in Acts? It seems entirely reasonable to suppose Paul though Jesus was resurrected in a form that resembled a bright light, rather than a physical body.

that is exceedingly foolish There is no reason at all to read what he says as definitive of what Jesus is. for example I have always assumed that Jesus' body transformed when he ascended, I have never thought of Jesus as incarnate now. But he was after the res. So that is proof of nothing.

What you seem to be arguing is that Paul saw a bright, heavenly light and heard a sacred voice, and so he had a religious conversion, and believed Jesus was resurrected in his old body.

I assume he believed in the bodily resurrection because there is no such thing as bodiless res. That is a ghost. ghosts do not conquer death, they are dead, Paul says Jesus overcame death s he could nit have been a ghost. The Jews expected Messiah to raise all of Israel bodily and that's why Paul calls him first fruits of the dad, If he was just a ghost he would be dead.

What I am arguing is that Paul saw a bright, heavenly light and heard a holy voice, and so he had a religious conversion, and believed Jesus was resurrected in a heavenly body that appeared to be a bright, heavenly light with a holy voice.

Jews believed that messiah was pre mundane he was created before the world and surrounded by super bright white light (see Edersheim). So that could easily have been what Paul thought he saw.

I think it is much more parsimonious to assume he believed what he saw with his own eyes.

nope that is where you start reading in your own assumption.

So forget Paul. We are not going to get any further on that discussion, you are clearly convinced that after seeing Jesus as a bright light, Paul was convinced Jesus was a physical body, because that fits what you have been told to think.

I already explained why Paul was in the OP and I said he's not the point he's detracting from the point.

It was not me who brought up Paul, it was you. If you wanted to discuss only the Gospel of Peter and the Diatessaron, it might have been a good idea to not mention the other texts in the OP. And yet, here you are throwing a hissy fit because I mentioned them to

don't you ever read? I just covered that

Why don't you clean your own act up? You have spent three posts on what you say is a diversion, rather than answer my post #30. Drop the discussion of Paul, drop the accusations, and respond to what I said about the Gospel of Peter and explain - if you are capable of it - how the Diatessaron supports your argument.

O brother how stupid. you make the diversion then blame me because it diverted me.

[metacrock]

The Jehovah's Witnesses believe Christ was raised as a Spirit Creature and that the old body remained in the grave.
The problem with that belief is the Greek word for resurrection is defined as the original being reanimated, not recreated or replaced. (1)

In short, anytime Paul used the word 'resurrection' by definition he was affirming the physical resurrection of Jesus Christ's original body.

Let's say I crash my Jeep and totally destroy it.
Let's say I run off and buy a new Range Rover to replace it.
If I were to drag you out into the parking lot, point at the Range Rover and declare that it's my resurrected Jeep you'd wonder about my use of the word 'resurrected'.

Replacement? Sure.
Resurrected? Nope.

I think it can be argued that Paul's use of the word 'resurrected' (or similar) make his stance on the topic pretty clear.
Again, I'm not a Greek scholar - you appear to have more expertise than myself on that point.







NOTES
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1: I'm not a Greek scholar, this is just a rebuttal I've read to the Jehovah's Witness position which doesn't sound far off from what you're proposing.

the empty tomb was in writing mid first century, Mark did not invent it.

[Meh Gerbil]

the empty tomb was in writing mid first century, Mark did not invent it.

You need to ask Pixie this question:

Which document best substantiates the resurrection of Jesus Christ?
A. A pre-50 text fragment that is an eye witness account of an empty tomb
B. A description of an empty tomb as found as a prize in a box of Cracker Jack.

Once you realize that in Pixie's mind both of those documents have the exact same level of reliability in establishing the resurrection of Jesus Christ you'll be free to move onto a discussion that isn't a complete and total waste of your valuable time.

[The Pixie]

He did not say "I saw Jesus being bodiless." It's pretty obvious a bright light is not a complete description.

that is exceedingly foolish There is no reason at all to read what he says as definitive of what Jesus is. for example I have always assumed that Jesus' body transformed when he ascended, I have never thought of Jesus as incarnate now. But he was after the res. So that is proof of nothing.

I assume he believed in the bodily resurrection because there is no such thing as bodiless res. That is a ghost. ghosts do not conquer death, they are dead, Paul says Jesus overcame death s he could nit have been a ghost. The Jews expected Messiah to raise all of Israel bodily and that's why Paul calls him first fruits of the dad, If he was just a ghost he would be dead.

Jews believed that messiah was pre mundane he was created before the world and surrounded by super bright white light (see Edersheim). So that could easily have been what Paul thought he saw.

nope that is where you start reading in your own assumption.

I already explained why Paul was in the OP and I said he's not the point he's detracting from the point.

don't you ever read? I just covered that

O brother how stupid. you make the diversion then blame me because it diverted me.

And you are perpetuating it.

You could answer my post #30. Instead you are choosing to address what you call a "diversion", and you have the audacity to blame me for it. It is your choice, metacrock. You can respond to the topic, or to the "diversion". If you choose to respond to the "diversion", that is you who is diverting the thread.

I will throw you a bone here. I will not respond to any posts on Paul. Now you can address my post #30, and we can get back on track.

[Trout]

Let's say I crash my Jeep and totally destroy it.
Let's say I run off and buy a new Range Rover to replace it.

Let's pray for that.

[metacrock]

And you are perpetuating it.

You could answer my post #30. Instead you are choosing to address what you call a "diversion", and you have the audacity to blame me for it. It is your choice, metacrock. You can respond to the topic, or to the "diversion". If you choose to respond to the "diversion", that is you who is diverting the thread.

I will throw you a bone here. I will not respond to any posts on Paul. Now you can address my post #30, and we can get back on track.

if you want to stop talk about Paul then stop answering me on it. you said nothing in 30 that I didn't disprove.

I don't think there's anything left. I proved the empty tomb circulated in writing mid first century and that's all I claimed.

[The Pixie]

if you want to stop talk about Paul then stop answering me on it. you said nothing in 30 that I didn't disprove.

I don't think there's anything left. I proved the empty tomb circulated in writing mid first century and that's all I claimed.

You proved two scholars who believe the empty tomb was made up believe the empty tomb was in the PMPN.

It does not follow that the empty tomb was already in the PMPN by 50 AD.

You have not responded to my post #30. If you think you have already answered it, then we have nothing left to say.

[metacrock]

You proved two scholars who believe the empty tomb was made up believe the empty tomb was in the PMPN.

It does not follow that the empty tomb was already in the PMPN by 50 AD.

You have not responded to my post #30. If you think you have already answered it, then we have nothing left to say.

I don't believe koester thinks that. The book you quoted from says things that contradict ACG so there's a problem I don't accept your source. There is absolutely no question that Koester says empty tomb was in PMPN. he says it point blank and I quoted him.


Crosson does not say they made up the empty tomb. I' e read two books on it by him and he says the women where made up. He argues against Doherty based upon the testimony of the community so he values that.

Even if it was true it wouldn't matter. I would say they are not consistent with their own view but they do get the tomb into the early lit.
Koester and Crosson did not think up the PMPN. They get that from Danker who did tye real work. Brown also. Koester names eight scholars.