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

[RhinestoneCowboy]

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.

Paul is obviously talking about people who are still alive there. Where does Paul say that resurrected physical bodies will walk the earth? And physical corpses decay so obviously our spirits can't just be "reunited" with a pile of bones.

Paul is careful to make a distinction between the "bodies" on earth and the "bodies" in heaven.

1 Cor 15:40-49
There are both heavenly bodies and earthly bodies, but the glory of the heavenly is one thing, and that 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; indeed, star differs from star in glory.

42 So it is with the resurrection of the dead. What is sown is perishable, what is raised is imperishable. 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 physical body, it is raised a spiritual body. If there is a physical body, there is also a spiritual bodythe last Adam became a life-giving spirit. 46 But it is not the spiritual that is first, but the physical, and then the spiritual. 47 The first man was from the earth, a man of dust; the second man is[j] from heaven. 48 As was the man of dust, so are those who are of the dust; and as is the man of heaven, so are those who are of heaven. 49 Just as we have borne the image of the man of dust, we will[k] also bear the image of the man of heaven.

Why should we conclude that this "spiritual body" was a resurrected corpse?

2 Cor 5:1-4


Caroline Bynum notes of this section, - The Resurrection of the Body in Western Christianity, pg. 4).

[RhinestoneCowboy]

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.

Unfortunately, this is unsupported by the earliest source and only eyewitness Paul. There were many different sects of Christianity that disagreed with your assertion.

[RhinestoneCowboy]

So back on topic now, since there is no reason in the earliest Christian sources to conclude the "appearances" were anything other than "visions" why should we trust Paul as a reliable source? When was the last time someone's "vision" was taken seriously in court?

[One Bad Pig]

So back on topic now, since there is no reason in the earliest Christian sources to conclude the "appearances" were anything other than "visions" why should we trust Paul as a reliable source? When was the last time someone's "vision" was taken seriously in court?

There are manifold reasons to conclude that the appearances were physical bodies (with the possible exception of Paul). It takes rejecting the input of later sources and tendentious reading of the earliest sources in order to conclude otherwise. You're banging your drum for all you're worth, but no one's buying it.

[Cow Poke]

When Jesus told Mary to stop clinging to him, was she clinging to a vision?

[One Bad Pig]

When Jesus told Mary to stop clinging to him, was she clinging to a vision?

According to your fellow Cowboy, that's obviously a later embellishment.

[Cow Poke]

According to your fellow Cowboy, that's obviously a later embellishment.

My bad for not seeing such an obvious problem.


(REAL cowboys don't wear rhinestones - those are reserved for ... um... men who .. 'manage' .. women who....)

[Sparko]

so ignoring everything everyone has said showing me wrong, let me repeat myself yet again

fify

[DesertBerean]

Moderated By: DesertBerean

RhinestoneCowboy, it has been reported to the mods that you have a possible plagiarism in Post 368 of this thread. One Department Head (CowPoke) has already asked you if it is your own work, since we see no attribution. If a mod has already PM'd you asking to verify this source, please provide the mod with the information so we can verify that it is not plagiarism. If we get no response (at all*), points will be assessed.

*asterisked words added for clarification)

***If you wish to take issue with this notice DO NOT do so in this thread.***
Contact the forum moderator or an administrator in Private Message or email instead. If you feel you must publicly complain or whine, please take it to the Padded Room unless told otherwise.

[RhinestoneCowboy]

There are manifold reasons to conclude that the appearances were physical bodies (with the possible exception of Paul). It takes rejecting the input of later sources and tendentious reading of the earliest sources in order to conclude otherwise. You're banging your drum for all you're worth, but no one's buying it.

Oh yeah? Where does Paul say that? It seems to me he puts his vision in the same category as the other appearances without distinction. Therefore, a valid inference is that he's saying they had the same type of experience. Only Paul's account is firsthand and like most historians, I prefer firsthand eyewitness sources.

And just think about it for a moment. If Paul knew these "appearances" were actual physical interactions with a risen corpse why does he only use the words "appeared" "visions" and "revelations"? Those words do not convey what we would expect if these were actual physical encounters. They are much more in line with belief in some sort of heavenly spiritual being.

[RhinestoneCowboy]

According to your fellow Cowboy, that's obviously a later embellishment.

Does it show up in the earlier sources? Quite an amazing claim to go unnoticed by Paul and the synoptic authors. Also, seems to contradict Matthew 28:8-9. Therefore, yes, later embellishment is highly likely. There's nothing like this in Paul or Mark - the two earliest sources closest to the events.

[Sparko]

Does it show up in the earlier sources? Quite an amazing claim to go unnoticed by Paul and the synoptic authors. Also, seems to contradict Matthew 28:8-9. Therefore, yes, later embellishment is highly likely. There's nothing like this in Paul or Mark - the two earliest sources closest to the events.

db451cc550126738b8f31033ede9591fbfe31aaf7c45c9a5775c40e0e871d554.jpg

[rogue06]

In another thread I responded to the claim that the Jewish authorities would have left the body on the cross and forbade burying it and was subsequently asked if I would also post what I wrote here so I'm re-posting it:

From the 1906 Jewish Encyclopedia, the very first sentence of which demonstrates that the idea that the Sanhedrin would have forbidden Jesus' burial is nonsense:

Source: BURIAL:

Duty of Burialet seqSource

© Copyright Original Source

I should note that here the *** appears in this quote the Hebrew word is placed which I couldn't copy.

A bit further down in the section on the Time of Burial it states

Source:

l.c.).

© Copyright Original Source

Further as New Testament scholar Craig A. Evans points out in Jewish Burial Traditions and the Resurrection of Jesus:



He points out how in 1:18 of the Book of Tobit (regarded as canonical by Roman Catholic and Orthodox Christians), Tobit would make sure that even those who were executed on the authority of the Assyrian king were still buried. This is reiterated in 2:3 where he buries a man who had been executed.

Evans points out that "This Jewish sense of obligation that Jews executed by gentile authorities must be buried, even at personal risk, is very significant for the present study" and follows by noting that in Against Apion Josephus takes a similar view.

He also observes that this tradition continued to be held beyond Christ's time:

Source:

b. MegSipre Num

© Copyright Original Source

Finally, Evans brings up the importance of burying the dead "to avoid defilement of the land of Israel." So regardless of what personal feelings the Jewish authorities may have toward Jesus, for the sake of Israel they would have made sure he was buried.

Sorry for the slight derail.

[Tassman]

[ATTACH=CONFIG]17488[/ATTACH]

Not "convenience", probability, i.e. it's probable

[Sparko]

do you guys even understand what a contemporary document is when discussing history? apparently not.