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

[One Bad Pig]

Right, so a link to a thread with over 2000 posts. I am going to take that as a no then.

Right, so you didn't even bother to read it.

[The Pixie]

Right, so you didn't even bother to read it.

Read over 2000 posts on the off-chance Sparko is right? No, I really could not be bothered.

Frankly, given Sparko's responses on this thread, it looks like it would be a waste of time.

[RhinestoneCowboy]

The honest truth is there never was a refutation. The spiritual vision and legendary growth hypothesis still remains one of the strongest arguments against Orthodox Christianity.

[The Pixie]

Here is an updated version of the argument along with responses to common objections:

In the earliest witness to the Resurrection, 1 Cor 15:5-8, Paul basically says "Jesus appeared to them and he appeared to me, too." No distinction in nature is provided. Paul's is just last in sequence. The verb for "appeared" Paul uses is ὤφθη Greek ōphthē which was commonly used in the Septuagint and other Greek writings to refer to "spiritually" seeing/experiencing something. It did not necessarily denote a physical sighting with the eyes.

Interestingly enough, Paul says his experience was an "inner revelation" in Gal. 1:12-16, implies that the Risen Jesus was experienced through "visions and revelations" in 2 Cor 12:1, was "known through revelation and the scriptures" - Rom. 16:25-26, and his "mystery was made known through revelation" - Eph. 3:3-5. Paul's notion of the Risen Jesus seems to be purely spiritual/mystical. "Visions" and "revelations" are the only ways Paul says the Risen Jesus was experienced. The later author of Acts calls Paul's experience a "vision from heaven" involving a bright light and a voice - Acts 26:19.

So since the appearance to Paul was some sort of a "spiritual vision" and he places it in the same list as the other "appearances" without a distinction in 1 Cor 15:5-8, it can be inferred the others had spiritual visions as well. These were not the physical encounters that the later Gospels describe. Paul nowhere corroborates an empty tomb or anything like what Luke and John depict in their resurrection reports. Since Paul is trying to convince the Corinthians that there was "a resurrection of the dead" - 1 Cor 15:12-13 and explain "with what type of body do they come?" - v. 35, it's significant that he doesn't mention the empty tomb as that would have greatly helped his argument. This is striking because Paul is the earliest and only firsthand source so any attempt to read in the later physical appearances from the Gospels into Paul's letters is necessarily anachronistic and thus a fallacious way to reconstruct history. The gospels are not firsthand reports nor do they contain eyewitness testimony.

To provide a good overview of the majority opinion about the Gospels, the Oxford Annotated Bible (a compilation of multiple scholars summarizing dominant scholarly trends for the last 150 years) states (pg. 1744):

https://celsus.blog/2013/12/17/why-s...f-the-gospels/

Now let's compare the earliest and only firsthand source (Paul) with how the story evolves over time. Here are the sources in order according to consensus dating:

Paul c. 50 CE says the Risen Jesus was experienced through visions and revelations. He had a chance to mention the empty tomb in 1 Cor 15 when it would have greatly helped his argument but doesn't.

Mark c. 70 CE introduces the empty tomb but has no appearance report. The original ends at 16:8 where the women leave and tell no one.

Matthew c. 80 CE has the women tell the disciples, contradicting Mark's ending, then has an appearance in Galilee which "some doubt" - Mt. 28:17. Matthew also adds a descending angel, great earthquake, and a zombie apocalypse to spice things up. If these things actually happened then it's hard to believe the other gospel authors left them out, let alone any other source from the time period.

Luke 85-95 CE has the women immediately tell the disciples, contradicting Mark. Jesus appears in Jerusalem, not Galilee, contradicting Matthew. This time Jesus is "not a spirit" but a "flesh and bone" body that gets inspected, eats fish, then floats to heaven while they all watch - conspicuously missing from all the earlier reports.

John 90-110 CE Jesus can now walk through walls and has the Doubting Thomas story where Jesus gets poked. Jesus is also basically God in this gospel which represents another astonishing development.

As you can see, these reports are inconsistent with one another and represent growth that's better explained as a legend that grew in the telling rather than actual history. None of the resurrection reports in the Gospels even match Paul's appearance chronology in 1 Cor 15:5-8 and the later sources have amazing stories that are nowhere even hinted at in the earliest ones. The story evolves from Paul's spiritual/mystical Christ all the way up to literally touching a resurrected corpse that flies to heaven! So upon critically examining the evidence we should conclude that Christianity started with spiritual visionary experiences and not the ever changing stories in the gospels.

I would argue that the tendency of depicting Jesus more "physical" can be explained by Greco-Roman influence. After Paul's mystical/spiritual Jewish Jesus made it's way to the gentiles, they took the story and ran with it, turning him into an immortal Greco-Roman god over time. Pages 141-181 give a good overview https://books.google.com/books?id=tQ...page&q&f=false

Common objections:

1. "Hallucinations don't explain the resurrection."

It's important to note here that the word "hallucination" isn't found in our Biblical texts. That is a modern word that we import on ancient culture. The Biblical texts use the words "vision" and "revelation." "Second Temple Judaism was a visionary culture, in which people believed that people saw appearances of God and angels, and had visions and dreams in which God and angels appeared to them." https://bulletin.equinoxpub.com/2011...-resurrection/ There are famous visions in Ezekiel, Isaiah, Daniel, 1 Enoch, etc that would have been well known to the Jews in Jesus' day so calling the appearances of Jesus "visions" would not be foreign considering the cultural background. Even in the NT there are plenty of visions mentioned. Of course, these days it's quite difficult to take anyone's spiritual visionary experience seriously. This becomes immediately obvious when apologists vehemently argue against the notion that the appearances of Jesus were just mere visions (obviously they don't take visions seriously either which is ironic considering both the OT and NT have numerous passages where people experience "visions"). Unfortunately, that's what the earliest source for Jesus' resurrection says they were and the Jewish background provides a foundation for these type of beliefs to arise.

2. "Resurrection was always physical, meaning it involved bringing corpses back to life."

This is false. Jewish belief in resurrection was actually quite diverse. A resurrection had no necessary connection to a person's tomb being empty. Upon actually investigating the Jewish sources that mention resurrection it becomes immediately apparent that:

(a) There are very few sources that even mention it.

and

(b) There are some sources which exclude the resurrection of the body - Jubilees 23:31, 1 Enoch 103-104 and some that are ambiguous in regards to what happens to the physical body - Daniel 12.

See pages 31-40 for an overview of the sources.
https://books.google.com/books?id=z-...page&q&f=false

3. "Paul says Jesus had a body."

Paul says there are different "types" of bodies in 1 Cor 15:40-44, 2 Cor 5:1-4. There are those that are earthly/natural and those that are heavenly/spiritual. Josephus tells us that the Pharisees believed their souls would be "removed" into "other" bodies Jewish War 2.162. These "other/spiritual bodies" were in heaven which would explain why Paul says Jesus was experienced through visions and not physical interactions with a formerly dead corpse that had returned to life on earth. So even if the Resurrected Jesus "had a body" of some sort it does not follow that this body was believed to have been on earth at all. When Paul says "Jesus was raised" he meant "raised straight to heaven" regardless of bodily form.

Two additional points. Mark indicated that the disciples would see Jesus is Galilee, which disagrees with the later Jerusalem appearances, and the sequence of sightings Paul reports does not agree with those later Jerusalem appearances, both of which suggest the Jerusalem appearances were later additions.

Also, Josephus gives us excellent evidence that it was a general Pharisee belief that the resurrected would be given new bodies, in perfect agreement with Paul in 1 Cor 15, but at odds with the empty tomb, and evenb more so with Jesus coming back to life in his original body, as the Jerusalem appearances would have us believe. That said, this new body could be physical, I would not like to say where Paul stood on that, but it was a heavenly body, not an earthly body.

[One Bad Pig]

Read over 2000 posts on the off-chance Sparko is right? No, I really could not be bothered.

Frankly, given Sparko's responses on this thread, it looks like it would be a waste of time.

Frankly, given your responses on this thread, dialogue with you would be a waste of time.

[One Bad Pig]

The honest truth is there never was a refutation. The spiritual vision and legendary growth hypothesis still remains one of the strongest arguments against Orthodox Christianity.

A legend in your own mind, you are.

[The Pixie]

Frankly, given your responses on this thread, dialogue with you would be a waste of time.

That's fine with me.

[RhinestoneCowboy]

Two additional points. Mark indicated that the disciples would see Jesus is Galilee, which disagrees with the later Jerusalem appearances, and the sequence of sightings Paul reports does not agree with those later Jerusalem appearances, both of which suggest the Jerusalem appearances were later additions.

Also, Josephus gives us excellent evidence that it was a general Pharisee belief that the resurrected would be given new bodies, in perfect agreement with Paul in 1 Cor 15, but at odds with the empty tomb, and evenb more so with Jesus coming back to life in his original body, as the Jerusalem appearances would have us believe. That said, this new body could be physical, I would not like to say where Paul stood on that, but it was a heavenly body, not an earthly body.

Yes, I touched on the fact that none of the gospel resurrection reports match Paul's appearance chronology in 1 Cor 15:5-8 and that Josephus says they were "other" bodies in my response to the "But Jesus had a body" objection.

Moreover, we can tell Luke is deliberately altering what Mark wrote when he changes what the angels say at the tomb. We know from Markan priority that Luke's main source was Mark. Mark has the young man (angel?) say "go to Galilee, there you will see him." Luke deliberately alters this to "remember what Jesus said while he was still in Galilee?" This is because Luke replaces the tradition of Galilean appearances with those only occurring in Jerusalem. Also, since Mark does not actually depict an appearance report, what did he think those appearances would actually be like? Some scholars argue that he thought Jesus would appear as the returning "Son of Man" in the clouds. Was this thought of a "spiritual" appearance too? Mark is ambiguous. Anyway, once you line up all the sources in chronological order it becomes clear that we have a story that grew in the telling. Orthodox Christianity can not longer be rationally affirmed.

[JonathanL]

Here is an updated version of the argument along with responses to common objections:

In the earliest witness to the Resurrection, 1 Cor 15:5-8, Paul basically says "Jesus appeared to them and he appeared to me, too." No distinction in nature is provided. Paul's is just last in sequence. The verb for "appeared" Paul uses is ὤφθη Greek ōphthē which was commonly used in the Septuagint and other Greek writings to refer to "spiritually" seeing/experiencing something. It did not necessarily denote a physical sighting with the eyes.

Neither does it preclude it.

Interestingly enough, Paul says his experience was an "inner revelation" in Gal. 1:12-16, implies that the Risen Jesus was experienced through "visions and revelations" in 2 Cor 12:1, was "known through revelation and the scriptures" - Rom. 16:25-26, and his "mystery was made known through revelation" - Eph. 3:3-5. Paul's notion of the Risen Jesus seems to be purely spiritual/mystical. "Visions" and "revelations" are the only ways Paul says the Risen Jesus was experienced. The later author of Acts calls Paul's experience a "vision from heaven" involving a bright light and a voice - Acts 26:19.

So since the appearance to Paul was some sort of a "spiritual vision" and he places it in the same list as the other "appearances" without a distinction in 1 Cor 15:5-8, it can be inferred the others had spiritual visions as well.

No it can't. There's nothing in the text that indicates that the appearances are of the same nature, you simply want it to be that way because your "argument" doesn't work otherwise.

These were not the physical encounters that the later Gospels describe.

Needs to be demonstrated.

Paul nowhere corroborates an empty tomb or anything like what Luke and John depict in their resurrection reports.

Irrelevant.

Since Paul is trying to convince the Corinthians that there was "a resurrection of the dead" - 1 Cor 15:12-13 and explain "with what type of body do they come?" - v. 35, it's significant that he doesn't mention the empty tomb as that would have greatly helped his argument.

It would not have been significant if the Corinthians were already familiar with the accounts of the empty tomb. There's no need to waste ink on something that is already common knowledge.

This is striking because Paul is the earliest and only firsthand source so any attempt to read in the later physical appearances from the Gospels into Paul's letters is necessarily anachronistic and thus a fallacious way to reconstruct history. The gospels are not firsthand reports nor do they contain eyewitness testimony.

To provide a good overview of the majority opinion about the Gospels, the Oxford Annotated Bible (a compilation of multiple scholars summarizing dominant scholarly trends for the last 150 years) states (pg. 1744):

https://celsus.blog/2013/12/17/why-s...f-the-gospels/

The argument that simply because the accounts were written down 40-60 years after the death of Jesus they cannot be eyewitness, or contemporary accounts is fallacious. Oral tradition can still contain eyewitness and contemporary elements if the original source of that tradition were eyewitnesses. It is also not at all unlikely that Jesus words and actions were written down. His group of disciples was probably big enough that it included at least some people who were literate.

Now let's compare the earliest and only firsthand source (Paul) with how the story evolves over time. Here are the sources in order according to consensus dating:

Paul c. 50 CE says the Risen Jesus was experienced through visions and revelations. He had a chance to mention the empty tomb in 1 Cor 15 when it would have greatly helped his argument but doesn't.

Mark c. 70 CE introduces the empty tomb but has no appearance report. The original ends at 16:8 where the women leave and tell no one.

Matthew c. 80 CE has the women tell the disciples, contradicting Mark's ending, then has an appearance in Galilee which "some doubt" - Mt. 28:17. Matthew also adds a descending angel, great earthquake, and a zombie apocalypse to spice things up. If these things actually happened then it's hard to believe the other gospel authors left them out, let alone any other source from the time period.

Luke 85-95 CE has the women immediately tell the disciples, contradicting Mark. Jesus appears in Jerusalem, not Galilee, contradicting Matthew. This time Jesus is "not a spirit" but a "flesh and bone" body that gets inspected, eats fish, then floats to heaven while they all watch - conspicuously missing from all the earlier reports.

John 90-110 CE Jesus can now walk through walls and has the Doubting Thomas story where Jesus gets poked. Jesus is also basically God in this gospel which represents another astonishing development.

As you can see, these reports are inconsistent with one another and represent growth that's better explained as a legend that grew in the telling rather than actual history. None of the resurrection reports in the Gospels even match Paul's appearance chronology in 1 Cor 15:5-8 and the later sources have amazing stories that are nowhere even hinted at in the earliest ones. The story evolves from Paul's spiritual/mystical Christ all the way up to literally touching a resurrected corpse that flies to heaven! So upon critically examining the evidence we should conclude that Christianity started with spiritual visionary experiences and not the ever changing stories in the gospels.

I didn't see any critical examination of the evidence here. You're simply assuming that an evolution has taken place and then ordered the accounts in a way that fits your preconceived notions.

I would argue that the tendency of depicting Jesus more "physical" can be explained by Greco-Roman influence. After Paul's mystical/spiritual Jewish Jesus made it's way to the gentiles, they took the story and ran with it, turning him into an immortal Greco-Roman god over time. Pages 141-181 give a good overview https://books.google.com/books?id=tQ...page&q&f=false

Except Greco-Roman influence would more likely have led to the opposite development. In Greco-Roman thought the body was a prison to the immortal soul, and something that should be escaped, not something you want to stay in for all eternity. Your imaginary Paul with his notion of a spiritual resurrection would have been far more enticing to the Greco-Roman world than a crude physical resurrection.

Common objections:

1. "Hallucinations don't explain the resurrection."

It's important to note here that the word "hallucination" isn't found in our Biblical texts. That is a modern word that we import on ancient culture. The Biblical texts use the words "vision" and "revelation." "Second Temple Judaism was a visionary culture, in which people believed that people saw appearances of God and angels, and had visions and dreams in which God and angels appeared to them." https://bulletin.equinoxpub.com/2011...-resurrection/ There are famous visions in Ezekiel, Isaiah, Daniel, 1 Enoch, etc that would have been well known to the Jews in Jesus' day so calling the appearances of Jesus "visions" would not be foreign considering the cultural background. Even in the NT there are plenty of visions mentioned. Of course, these days it's quite difficult to take anyone's spiritual visionary experience seriously. This becomes immediately obvious when apologists vehemently argue against the notion that the appearances of Jesus were just mere visions (obviously they don't take visions seriously either which is ironic considering both the OT and NT have numerous passages where people experience "visions"). Unfortunately, that's what the earliest source for Jesus' resurrection says they were and the Jewish background provides a foundation for these type of beliefs to arise.

You still haven't demonstrated that "the earliest source for Jesus' resurrection say they were [spiritual visionary experiences]", or that they were exclusively so.

3. "Paul says Jesus had a body."

Paul says there are different "types" of bodies in 1 Cor 15:40-44, 2 Cor 5:1-4. There are those that are earthly/natural and those that are heavenly/spiritual. Josephus tells us that the Pharisees believed their souls would be "removed" into "other" bodies Jewish War 2.162. These "other/spiritual bodies" were in heaven which would explain why Paul says Jesus was experienced through visions and not physical interactions with a formerly dead corpse that had returned to life on earth. So even if the Resurrected Jesus "had a body" of some sort it does not follow that this body was believed to have been on earth at all. When Paul says "Jesus was raised" he meant "raised straight to heaven" regardless of bodily form.

Paul isn't making a distinction between the nature of the bodies in 1 Cor 15 as much as he is making a distinction of their "mode of operation". A natural (psychikos) body would denote being governed by base natural instincts, while a spiritual (pneumatikos) body would denote a body being filled and governed by (the) Spirit. I do agree that Paul seems to be saying that there shall be differences between our old bodies and our resurrection bodies (perishable vs imperishable for example), but nothing he says gives the impression that they will be significantly different in their actual makeup. The resurrected body will be immortal and imperishable, not because it's qualitatively different from the old body, but because it will be permeated and governed by the Spirit of God, a spiritual (pneumatikos) body, so to speak.

And in any case, it is the same body that is sown and raised. Regardless of whether not it changes it's nature it is still not left lying in where it was initially laid down.

[JonathanL]

also, Josephus gives us excellent evidence that it was a general Pharisee belief that the resurrected would be given new bodies, in perfect agreement with Paul in 1 Cor 15, but at odds with the empty tomb, and evenb more so with Jesus coming back to life in his original body, as the Jerusalem appearances would have us believe. That said, this new body could be physical, I would not like to say where Paul stood on that, but it was a heavenly body, not an earthly body.

A new body with no continuation with the old one would definitely be at odds with Paul's view in 1 Cor 15. Nothing in 1 Cor 15 precludes a shared identity between the old imperishable body that is sown/buried and the new imperishable body that is raised, quite the opposite in fact: "It (the body) is sown a natural body, it (still the same body) is raised a spiritual body".

[RhinestoneCowboy]

Hi Chrawnus, thanks for your response. I have several questions for you before I respond to your points.

1. Why is it more probable than not, that Paul meant the "appearances" were different than his own experience in 1 Cor 15:5-8 even when he makes no distinction in nature between them?
Can you answer that question without appealing to sources other than Paul?

2. Why do you assume that the Corinthians already had "common knowledge" of the empty tomb when neither the earliest source nor Mark indicate that was the case? Mark says no one even knew
about the empty tomb until he told it to his readers since his original gospel ends with the women leaving and "telling no one" - Mk. 16:8. Most scholars date Mark around 70 CE which makes that about
20 years after Paul so I'll need to see actual evidence for the assumption that the Corinthians knew about it. If Paul really thought the appearances were physical encounters then don't you think mentioning
the empty tomb, people touching Jesus, discarded grave clothes, Jesus eating, and his physical form flying up to heaven would have been really easy for him to mention in order to convince the Corinthians?
Obviously, since they're asking "with what type of body do they come?" - 1 Cor 15:35 there was some confusion on the matter which Paul could have clarified by a simple mention of any one of those things.
Why would they even ask that question if they knew about the empty tomb story and the physical details mentioned in Luke or John?

3. What reasons do you have to reject scholarly consensus dating as accurately reflected in my argument? By definition, a scholarly consensus position means it has the most scholarly support (90-95%) and that
should be relevant in any discussion regarding history. I'm unsure why you're so confident in basically saying "most the experts that have studied this material their entire lives are wrong." Perhaps you could
clarify?

4. Where does Paul give any evidence that the Risen Jesus was on earth first (as opposed to being exalted straight to heaven)?

5. Where does Paul give any evidence that the Risen Jesus was experienced in a "physical" way i.e in a way that was not a "vision" or a "revelation?"

6. Why do none of the gospel resurrection appearance reports match Paul's appearance chronology in 1 Cor 15:5-8?

7. If Paul, in 1 Cor 15:40-44, says there are different "types" of bodies and Josephus says they were "other" bodies in Jewish War 2.162 then why are you saying it was the "same" body that was raised? Were these
Jews just wrong about their own Jewish beliefs? The English rendering of "it" in 1 Cor 15:44 is not necessitated by the Greek text. A much more suitable subject is "[one of] the dead" since the previous subject
in verse 42 is "the dead." Please see Adela Yarbro Collins here on page 125 for her take on the Greek: http://imgur.com/a/8gyHO

8. Even if you dispute scholarly consensus dating, why are the resurrection reports more "physical" in Luke and John than in Paul, Mark, or Matthew and why are they so inconsistent with each other? Why can this
not be plausibly construed as evidence of a legend growing?

9. If, as you say, "in Greco-Roman thought the body was a prison to the immortal soul," why did Christianity quickly and largely become a gentile (Greco-Roman) religion, one which preached a physical resurrection
of the body? Obviously, they weren't so opposed to the idea of bodily resurrection as much as you make it seem. Why, in this Greek story c. 2nd century BCE, is it said that Asclepius "raised the dead." - http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/...3A1999.01.0022
The Greek word used here is anastasis which is the same word used for Jesus' resurrection in the New Testament. Is the Greek author using this word to mean a "spiritual resurrection" or is this a sign that the Greeks
believed in bodily resurrection as well?

Thank you for cooperation in answering these questions.

[JonathanL]

Hi Chrawnus, thanks for your response. I have several questions for you before I respond to your points.

1. Why is it more probable than not, that Paul meant the "appearances" were different than his own experience in 1 Cor 15:5-8 even when he makes no distinction in nature between them?
Can you answer that question without appealing to sources other than Paul?

I'm not making the claim that the appearances were different, I'm making the claim that your argument doesn't give you enough justification to claim that they are the same. The conclusion doesn't follow from the premises even slightly.

2. Why do you assume that the Corinthians already had "common knowledge" of the empty tomb when neither the earliest source nor Mark indicate that was the case? Mark says no one even knew
about the empty tomb until he told it to his readers since his original gospel ends with the women leaving and "telling no one" - Mk. 16:8.

What on earth are you on about? Mark says nothing of the sort. The shorter ending ends with the women initially not telling anyone, but nowhere in the text does Mark indicate that the empty tomb was some sort of tradition that had never before been revealed until Mark put it in writing.

Most scholars date Mark around 70 CE which makes that about
20 years after Paul so I'll need to see actual evidence for the assumption that the Corinthians knew about it.

No you don't. You need to provide a good enough reason as to why they wouldn't know about it, without presupposing that your position is the correct one.

If Paul really thought the appearances were physical encounters then don't you think mentioning
the empty tomb, people touching Jesus, discarded grave clothes, Jesus eating, and his physical form flying up to heaven would have been really easy for him to mention in order to convince the Corinthians?
Obviously, since they're asking "with what type of body do they come?" - 1 Cor 15:35 there was some confusion on the matter which Paul could have clarified by a simple mention of any one of those things.
Why would they even ask that question if they knew about the empty tomb story and the physical details mentioned in Luke or John?

Or perhaps the Corinthians weren't wondering about the physicality/non-physicality of the new body, but of something else, which means that Paul mentioning all those things would have been pointless?

3. What reasons do you have to reject scholarly consensus dating as accurately reflected in my argument? By definition, a scholarly consensus position means it has the most scholarly support (90-95%) and that
should be relevant in any discussion regarding history. I'm unsure why you're so confident in basically saying "most the experts that have studied this material their entire lives are wrong." Perhaps you could
clarify?

I don't feel the need to clarify anything, seeing as I'm not doing anything of what you're claiming I'm doing.

4. Where does Paul give any evidence that the Risen Jesus was on earth first (as opposed to being exalted straight to heaven)?

Where does he give any evidence that he was exalted straight to heaven?

5. Where does Paul give any evidence that the Risen Jesus was experienced in a "physical" way i.e in a way that was not a "vision" or a "revelation?"

Irrelevant.

6. Why do none of the gospel resurrection appearance reports match Paul's appearance chronology in 1 Cor 15:5-8?

I don't know, and it doesn't matter. It doesn't make your already fallacious argument any stronger whether or not there's a contradiction here, so I'm not sure why you're making a such a big deal out of it.

7. If Paul, in 1 Cor 15:40-44, says there are different "types" of bodies and Josephus says they were "other" bodies in Jewish War 2.162 then why are you saying it was the "same" body that was raised? Were these
Jews just wrong about their own Jewish beliefs? The English rendering of "it" in 1 Cor 15:44 is not necessitated by the Greek text. A much more suitable subject is "[one of] the dead" since the previous subject
in verse 42 is "the dead." Please see Adela Yarbro Collins here on page 125 for her take on the Greek: http://imgur.com/a/8gyHO

Paul is not Josephus, and his beliefs about whether or not people were resurrected in the same or other bodies can't be forced on to Paul without reason. And if you'd have continued reading 1 Cor 15 maybe you would have realized that Paul does indeed believe that there is a continuation between the old and new body:

Source: 1 Cor 15:50-54, ESV

50 I tell you this, brothers: flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God, nor does the perishable inherit the imperishable. 51 Behold! I tell you a mystery. We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed, 52 in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, and the dead will be raised imperishable, and we shall be changed. 53 For this perishable body must put on the imperishable, and this mortal body must put on immortality. 54 When the perishable puts on the imperishable, and the mortal puts on immortality, then shall come to pass the saying that is written:

© Copyright Original Source

8. Even if you dispute scholarly consensus dating, why are the resurrection reports more "physical" in Luke and John than in Paul, Mark, or Matthew and why are they so inconsistent with each other? Why can this
not be plausibly construed as evidence of a legend growing?

It doesn't matter if they're inconsistent or not, unless it can be shown that the nature of the resurrection is one of these inconsistences. And you haven't managed to do that yet.

9. If, as you say, "in Greco-Roman thought the body was a prison to the immortal soul," why did Christianity quickly and largely become a gentile (Greco-Roman) religion, one which preached a physical resurrection
of the body?

How quick is "quickly" to you?

Obviously, they weren't so opposed to the idea of bodily resurrection as much as you make it seem. Why, in this Greek story c. 2nd century BCE, is it said that Asclepius "raised the dead." - http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/...3A1999.01.0022
The Greek word used here is anastasis which is the same word used for Jesus' resurrection in the New Testament. Is the Greek author using this word to mean a "spiritual resurrection" or is this a sign that the Greeks
believed in bodily resurrection as well?

It means that Greeks and Romans believed in physical resurrection for a select few, but denied a general resurrection of the dead. If the pagans believed in a general resurrection of the dead, why did Justin Martyr feel the need to defend the Christian belief in a resurrection of the body in his First Apology?

Thank you for cooperation in answering these questions.

[Tassman]

I'm not making the claim that the appearances were different, I'm making the claim that your argument doesn't give you enough justification to claim that they are the same. The conclusion doesn't follow from the premises even slightly.

[The Pixie]

A new body with no continuation with the old one would definitely be at odds with Paul's view in 1 Cor 15. Nothing in 1 Cor 15 precludes a shared identity between the old imperishable body that is sown/buried and the new imperishable body that is raised, quite the opposite in fact: "It (the body) is sown a natural body, it (still the same body) is raised a spiritual body".

Of course there is continuation, but what is continuing?

The Pharisees believed the dead existed pretty much as shades, waiting for their new bodies at the resurrection, and it was well known that the bodies of the dead rotten away to leave nothing but bones, as they were collected for second burial. At most, the Pharisees believed you got new flesh and blood to go over your own bones. Far more likely, they believed you got a completely new body. That is what Paul is describing in 1 Cor 15.

The continuity is the shade - the soul or spirit - which leaves the old body and gets a new one.

42 So also is the resurrection of the dead. It (the soul) is sown [l]a perishable body, it (the soul) is raised [m]an imperishable body; 43 it (the soul) is sown in dishonor, it (the soul) is raised in glory; it (the soul) is sown in weakness, it (the soul) is raised in power; 44 it (the soul) is sown a natural body, it (the soul) is raised a spiritual body. If there is a natural body, there is also a spiritual body.

The "it" here would seem to refer to the dead being resurrected. Not just Jesus, but everyone, including those long dead, hanging around as shades.

[tabibito]

The question here is: If someone told you that a person was dead, but he was raised again, he recovered, he's alive. Whether you believed him or not, would you think he was saying that the dead person's body was still mouldering in the grave?