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

[RhinestoneCowboy]

This has already been refuted several times.

Where does Paul say the Risen Jesus is

(a) on Earth?

or

(b) experienced in a "physical" way i.e. a way that was not a vision?

If you cannot provide any evidence for the above then you have no right or reason to claim the "appearances" mentioned in 1 Cor 15:5-8 corroborate the gospel stories. Paul's appearance chronology doesn't even match any of the gospels.

No. I'm saying your reading of Paul in general is wrong.

So you're saying Paul makes a distinction between his vision and the other appearances? Paul met the physically resurrected Jesus on earth before he ascended to heaven? Where does Paul say that?

[Gary]

I'm not the one leaving out Acts. If something is seen by someone, however, it at least has to bear some resemblance to that with which it is identified. Duh.

What was identified? A supernatural/heavenly being or a human being?

[One Bad Pig]

Yes. Here's some scholarly support from Oxford.
- Tuckett, Corinthian Correspondence, pg. 255) https://books.google.com/books?id=hd...page&q&f=false

Thanks! From page 258:

Source: Christopher Tuckett

[I]t has been pointed out (above all by Wedderburn and Sellin) that "resurrection" was primarily a physical concept.

© Copyright Original Source

Oops. Cherry-pick much?

[One Bad Pig]

If you want to use Acts then there's no question the appearance to Paul was a vision. Now we're supposed to believe that Paul, Mark, and Matthew knew of the amazing events portrayed in Luke 24:36-53 yet make no mention of these things? They knew about the Risen Jesus being on earth for 40 days (Acts 1:3) then floating to heaven while people watched but just chose to leave that part out of their story?

Here's the thing - you guys can shout "argument from silence" all you want but you still have to show how this silence is best explained. My hypothesis is that we just have a legend that grew in the telling. Your hypothesis requires the earliest most reliable sources suppressing this amazing testimony. Good luck explaining that. I definitely have no shame being confident in the former camp.

Your POV apparently requires that you mischaracterize mine. You have no shame in that?

[RhinestoneCowboy]

Thanks! From page 258:

Source: Christopher Tuckett

[I]t has been pointed out (above all by Wedderburn and Sellin) that "resurrection" was primarily a physical concept.

© Copyright Original Source

Oops. Cherry-pick much?

"Physical" as in always involving the resuscitation of the physical corpse? Nope, sorry. The sources display much more diversity than that.

https://books.google.com/books?id=0u...page&q&f=false

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...l=1#post330164

By the way where does Paul say that Jesus's body walked around on earth and was touched? That surely would be an indication of a physical resurrection! As far as I'm aware Paul says the Risen Jesus was only experienced through "visions" and "revelations." This obviously makes more sense if Jesus was in heaven, not on earth.

[One Bad Pig]

What was identified? A supernatural/heavenly being or a human being?

Both.

[Gary]

Thanks! From page 258:

Source: Christopher Tuckett

[I]t has been pointed out (above all by Wedderburn and Sellin) that "resurrection" was primarily a physical concept.

© Copyright Original Source

Oops. Cherry-pick much?

[RhinestoneCowboy]

Your POV apparently requires that you mischaracterize mine. You have no shame in that?

Perhaps I rushed judgment. How do you explain the silence?

Possible options:

1. Peter and James forgot to tell Paul about the empty tomb and that they ate with Jesus, touched him, and watched him physically float to heaven.

2. Paul, Mark, Matthew just thought their readers wouldn't care about this information.

Can you think of any others?

[One Bad Pig]

"Physical" as in always involving the resuscitation of the physical corpse? Nope, sorry. The sources display much more diversity than that.

https://books.google.com/books?id=0u...page&q&f=false

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...l=1#post330164

Yawn. Oh, your favorite book again. Argue your point with Dr. Tuckett.

By the way where does Paul say that Jesus's body walked around on earth and was touched? That surely would be an indication of a physical resurrection! As far as I'm aware Paul says the Risen Jesus was only experienced through "visions" and "revelations." This obviously makes more sense if Jesus was in heaven, not on earth.

I don't artificially limit my sources to Paul.

[One Bad Pig]

Perhaps I rushed judgment. How do you explain the silence?

Possible options:

1. Peter and James forgot to tell Paul about the empty tomb and that they ate with Jesus, touched him, and watched him physically float to heaven.

2. Paul, Mark, Matthew just thought their readers wouldn't care about this information.

Can you think of any others?

I'm quite positive that Paul spoke about much, much, more than he put in his letters, which were occasional pieces responding to particular issues rather than any sort of complete exposition of the gospel. Mark either deliberately ended his account on a cliff-hanger (16:8), or his ending is lost. Matthew (28:9) certainly tells of a physical resurrection. Matthew ends his account with Jesus' commissioning of the disciples, which would've occurred before the Ascension. Like Mark, he had the prerogative to end his account where he chose to.

[RhinestoneCowboy]

Yawn. Oh, your favorite book again. Argue your point with Dr. Tuckett.

Wedderburn and Sellin's scholarship is outdated. A more current and thorough look as Jewish resurrection views was done by H.C.C Cavallin in "Life After Death."

He concludes: "Statements on an immortality of the soul which excludes the resurrection of the body are almost as common as those which explicitly state the resurrection of the body..." pg. 200 courtesy of David Aune: https://books.google.com/books?id=XT...page&q&f=false

I also provided a link to a work published by Oxford in 2015 which you only scoffed at. Despite your willful ignorance, the link concisely demonstrates the diversity of Jewish resurrection belief.

Dr. Tuckett does not expound on exactly what he means by "physical" as that could just as well mean some sort of "physical" entity in heaven, not a resurrected corpse on earth.

I don't artificially limit my sources to Paul.

So you're ok with anachronistically reading in other secondhand or worse accounts and claiming that was Paul's view? Have you discovered some other firsthand source?

[RhinestoneCowboy]

I'm quite positive that Paul spoke about much, much, more than he put in his letters, which were occasional pieces responding to particular issues rather than any sort of complete exposition of the gospel. Mark either deliberately ended his account on a cliff-hanger (16:8), or his ending is lost. Matthew (28:9) certainly tells of a physical resurrection. Matthew ends his account with Jesus' commissioning of the disciples, which would've occurred before the Ascension. Like Mark, he had the prerogative to end his account where he chose to.

But you can see how a rational person can conclude that the story obviously grows over time, right? Each account gets more and more elaborate with amazing developments not mentioned in the previous accounts. This seems very inconsistent and consistency is what we look for in historical records.

[Gary]

Even if the disciples and Paul claimed to have seen a "body", BELIEVING that one has seen a talking/walking dead body is a known, very human, very natural experience. It is NOT proof that the person really saw a walking/talking dead body. Look at this research:

Researchers at Daemen College and at Hospice Buffalo, an agency of the Center for Hospice & Palliative Care, studied 63 patients admitted to the hospice over a period of 18 months. Investigators interviewed patients daily, asking them about any dreams and visions and taking down detailed descriptions of them. Most participants reported experiencing at least one dream or vision, memorable in much more clarity than other dreams or delirious episodes and characterized by an impression of realism often participants saw deceased loved ones waiting for them, for example. As patients approached death, they tended to transition from dreaming about living people to dreaming about the dead, which the patients described as more comforting.

Source: http://www.scientificamerican.com/ar...ort-the-dying/

The disciples and family of Jesus were emotionally devastated/distraught by the unexpected death of their leader, friend, and family member. In this extreme emotional state, we should not be surprised that they experienced the same sightings of dead loved ones that the people in the study above felt.

As for Paul, we know he was prone to visions. He may have had a mental breakdown regarding his persecution of fellow Jews.

[Sparko]

But he admits to having multiple "visions" and "revelations" in the plural and indicates nothing different or more "physical". The word for vision here is optasia which is the same word used in Acts 26:19 to describe his vision involving a bright light and a disembodied voice.



So you've discovered some other source that narrates the appearance to Paul? We can deduce from Paul's own testimony and Acts that the appearance to Paul was some sort of vision.

LOL
NOW you want to "deduce" but when your idea is challenged, your criteria is that Paul has to mention a PHYSICAL resurrection or it didn't happen.

[One Bad Pig]

But you can see how a rational person can conclude that the story obviously grows over time, right? Each account gets more and more elaborate with amazing developments not mentioned in the previous accounts. This seems very inconsistent and consistency is what we look for in historical records.

No, I do not see that as a very accurate or rational description of what happened. What we have in the canonical gospels is without parallel in the ancient world, where accounts are typically written up rather more remotely in time from the events themselves. Assuming Markan priority, a more charitable view is that Matthew and Luke took a look at Mark and decided that, while they accepted more or less what Mark had written as accurate, he hadn't included some things that they thought should be a part of the account. Like good ancient historians, they consulted the sources they had available (which Luke does explicitly) and combined them as they saw fit to make new accounts. It's no stretch to posit that other sources may have had other details.