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

[Sparko]

"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.

so now you are arguing AGAINST your own earlier source once it was shown you had cherry-picked yet again. Okaaaay.

[One Bad Pig]

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.

Yes, you've posited this like 20 times now. It's no more believable that it was the first time. For starters, the disciples and family of Jesus weren't dying.

[RhinestoneCowboy]

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.

No but rather that Paul gives no reason to assume that the appearances were "physical" i.e. that they were something other than "visions" or "revelations."

Hence, my question - why should we trust someone who claims to have visions only? Does that sound like reliable testimony to you?

[RhinestoneCowboy]

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.

Yeah, but that still leaves you with the same problem. Only Paul's account is firsthand. He doesn't ever mention anything "physical" as in touching a resurrected corpse that floats to heaven but rather only mentions visions and revelations and says the appearance to him was the same as the others. Mark's original account doesn't either. Matthew mentions appearances but it doesn't mention the amazing noteworthy episodes in Luke and John. So you see, typically, it's the earliest firsthand reports that reflect the most accurate history. You're trying to somehow argue that the later accounts reflect more accurate history than the earlier ones. This is unreasonable considering the extraordinary nature of the claims and I don't know any historian who works this way.

Matthew and Luke also contradict Mark by having the women run and immediately tell the disciples. Mark says they left and told no one. This is a contradiction. Can't have it both ways.

[Sparko]

When will gary and rc realize that just making up some "maybe" story or situation is not the same as "demonstrating" something or even showing it is likely?

They are just making up alternatives because they don't like the actual evidence and documents. That is no better than people who ignore the evidence we have for a moon landing and make up stories about it being staged in a secret base out in the desert.

People can make up anything to explain anything, but that doesn't make it true or even likely. It is just an imaginary story. And the ironic thing is that they think we should accept their entirely imaginary story instead of the real story with evidence, because they want to call THAT "imaginary"

[Sparko]

Yeah, but that still leaves you with the same problem. Only Paul's account is firsthand. He doesn't ever mention anything "physical" as in touching a resurrected corpse that floats to heaven but rather only mentions visions and revelations and says the appearance to him was the same as the others. Mark's original account doesn't either. Matthew mentions appearances but it doesn't mention the amazing noteworthy episodes in Luke and John. So you see, typically, it's the earliest firsthand reports that reflect the most accurate history. You're trying to somehow argue that the later accounts reflect more accurate history than the earlier ones. This is unreasonable and I don't know any historian who works this way.

Why wouldn't it be? Paul was not there for the events of the gospel, except maybe as an outsider. He probably wasn't even in town. He didn't see the crucifixion or the resurrection or ascension firsthand, so why wouldn't the gospels have more details and be more accurate? And why would Paul even mention things that every Christian already held as basic and true? Without a physical resurrection, there would have been no Christianity to begin with. The whole reason there is, is because they believed Jesus came back to life. Raised from the dead on the third day. Not "turned into a ghost on the third day"

Your entire argument is merely conjecture based on silence and a hyper-literal reading of the text to twist out what you want to believe. It is ridiculous and any serious bible scholar or commentator would laugh at your theory.

I eagerly await you ignoring this once again and repeating yourself.

[Gary]

Yes, you've posited this like 20 times now. It's no more believable that it was the first time. For starters, the disciples and family of Jesus weren't dying.

Both the dying patients and grieving loved ones are in an extreme emotional state. The researchers do not claim that their is a biochemical process involved in the dying process that produces these vivid dreams.

[RhinestoneCowboy]

Why wouldn't it be? Paul was not there for the events of the gospel, except maybe as an outsider. He probably wasn't even in town. He didn't see the crucifixion or the resurrection or ascension firsthand, so why wouldn't the gospels have more details and be more accurate?

Did Peter and James forget to tell him this stuff on his 15 day visit with them?

And why would Paul even mention things that every Christian already held as basic and true? Without a physical resurrection, there would have been no Christianity to begin with. The whole reason there is, is because they believed Jesus came back to life. Raised from the dead on the third day. Not "turned into a ghost on the third day"

Well since the Corinthians ask "with what type of body do they come?" - 1 Cor 15:35, evidently there was some confusion over the matter. "Being raised from the dead" as I've demonstrated and you keep willfully ignoring, had no necessary connection to a person's tomb being empty.

PROOF:

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
yet to remain on in the flesh

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 in heaven - 1 Cor 15:44, 2 Cor 5:1-5.

Support from other Jewish texts:

"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 fleshTake Enoch and extract (him) from his earthly clothing (2 En. 22.8, 10). - Finney, Resurrection..., pg. 50

(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: buried [Abraham] in the promised land [...] while the angels escorted his precious soul and ascended into heaven"Job 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."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."

No mention of a "body" or empty tomb there!

4 Ezra - the righteous souls rejoice that they have now escaped what is mortal (7.78, 95-96).

Your entire argument is merely conjecture based on silence and a hyper-literal reading of the text to twist out what you want to believe. It is ridiculous and any serious bible scholar or commentator would laugh at your theory.

I eagerly await you ignoring this once again and repeating yourself.

In light of the above can you honestly maintain the position that resurrection was always "physical"? Or that Christians would have only believed in physical resurrection?

[Sparko]

Did Peter and James forget to tell him this stuff on his 15 day visit with them?



Well since the Corinthians ask "with what type of body do they come?" - 1 Cor 15:35, evidently there was some confusion over the matter. "Being raised from the dead" as I've demonstrated and you keep willfully ignoring, had no necessary connection to a person's tomb being empty.

PROOF:

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
yet to remain on in the flesh

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 in heaven - 1 Cor 15:44, 2 Cor 5:1-5.

Support from other Jewish texts:

"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 fleshTake Enoch and extract (him) from his earthly clothing (2 En. 22.8, 10). - Finney, Resurrection..., pg. 50

(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: buried [Abraham] in the promised land [...] while the angels escorted his precious soul and ascended into heaven"Job 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."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."

No mention of a "body" or empty tomb there!

4 Ezra - the righteous souls rejoice that they have now escaped what is mortal (7.78, 95-96).



In light of the above can you honestly maintain the position that resurrection was always "physical"? Or that Christians would have only believed in physical resurrection?

So basically you are admitting you have no clue as to Christian theology at all then? I suspected as much.

When we die we are not instantly resurrected. We remain DEAD and our spirit goes to heaven. One day, we will be resurrected and reunited with our bodies. (see 1 thes 4)



So you see dying and rising have to do with the body. Our spirit instantly goes to heaven until the resurrection. That is what Paul teaches. So yes, he believes in a bodily resurrection. Since in 1 Thes 4 he says that we, the living and the raised dead will meet with Jesus in the air. Bodies and all. Not ghosts.

[Sparko]

actually you know what? I told you about 1 Thes 4 before in your last thread and so did others. It is obvious that nothing said to you actually gets through that impervious shell you call a skull. You will no doubt ignore or forget about it once again and repeat your nonsense ad nauseum. This is what makes you a useless time wasting troll and not a worthy debater.

[37818]

RC,

The only thing you need to be convinced of is that Christians believe Christ's resurrection is bodily of flesh and bone - without blood - by the power of the Spirit of God.

Your agreement or disagreement with Christians on that matter is your problem. Not the Christians.

[One Bad Pig]

Both the dying patients and grieving loved ones are in an extreme emotional state. The researchers do not claim that their is a biochemical process involved in the dying process that produces these vivid dreams.

Your snippet, at any rate, says that the participants in the study were the people dying, and people in hospice care tend to be on some pretty powerful drugs. You're reaching, as usual.

[rogue06]

Your snippet, at any rate, says that the participants in the study were the people dying, and people in hospice care tend to be on some pretty powerful drugs. You're reaching, as usual.

Real powerful. Stuff that they can't dispense in hospitals.

When I took care of my mother in in-home hospice the narcotics they gave me for her if her pain got unmanageable was a real eye opener. The nurse explained the reason why (essentially they aren't worried about potential addiction problems). When she passed one of the first things they did was take possession of the drugs. The nurse was quite surprised she got them all back (apparently family members tend to keep some before turning them over).

[Sparko]

Real powerful. Stuff that they can't dispense in hospitals.

When I took care of my mother in in-home hospice the narcotics they gave me for her if her pain got unmanageable was a real eye opener.

So they gave YOU the drugs? That explains a lot! The voices, the squirrels, the imaginary bacon you keep thinking you steal from me.

[rogue06]

So they gave YOU the drugs? That explains a lot! The voices, the squirrels, the imaginary bacon you keep thinking you steal from me.