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

[The Pixie]

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?

That is a very odd perspective. Surely we should be asking what would lead that someone to say the person was alive, rather than how others might understand it.

Sure, if the person was now walking around in their original body. But what if that someone saw the previously dead person in a new body, whilst their old body was decaying in a grave? Would they say person was alive?

[RhinestoneCowboy]

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.

There are two ways to interpret what Paul says in 1 Cor 15:5-8. Either the appearances were understood to the be the same (or similar) or the appearances were understood to be different. By default, if you reject the premise that the appearances were the same then you must believe the appearances were different and be able to defend that notion. Paul says Jesus "appeared to them and he appeared to me, too" while including his own spiritual vision is parallel with the other appearances. He does not say "Jesus appeared to me differently than he appeared to the others" so I see no reason to think they were different.

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.

If the women didn't tell anyone then how did the Corinthians find out 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.

So you don't have any evidence that the Corinthians knew about it. Okay. That's what I thought.

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?

So they weren't wondering "with what type of body do they come?" as Paul tells us in 1 Cor 15:35? Sorry, but Paul's testimony refutes that anyone knew about the empty tomb or the "physical" details regarding the
resurrection body. If they already "knew" about those things then they'd have no need to ask the question!

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

Ok so I see no reason to distrust scholarly consensus dating or that there is demonstrable evolution in the story happening over time.

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

Okay so there's no evidence that Paul thought the Risen Jesus was on earth. Paul's notion of resurrection seems to involve his simultaneous exaltation to heaven - Rom. 8.34; 10.5-8; Eph. 1.19-23, 2.6-7, 4.7-10; Col. 3.1-4;
Phil. 2.8-9.

Irrelevant.

Haha! Yeah so that the appearance to Paul was a spiritual vision and whenever he talks about how Christ was experienced it's always in a spiritual way is just irrelevant. Sure. Well, you certainly have no reason from Paul to claim
the appearances were physical!

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.

Well, Paul gives us the earliest and most primitive Christian resurrection creed so it's strange that the gospel appearance reports diverge from the accuracy of Paul's preaching. That certainly doesn't support historicity!

Paul is not Josephus,

Paul and Josephus were both Pharisees. So was Josephus wrong that the Pharisees believed that their "souls" would be "removed" into "other" bodies? http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/...3A1999.01.0148

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

Yes, we all know that Paul thought the Resurrected Jesus had a "body" of some sort however he also says Jesus "became a spirit" in 1 Cor 15:45 and says the resurrection will involve "spiritual bodies" in heaven, not physically raised corpses that will walk the earth. So unless you can provide evidence that Paul thought the appearances were not spiritual and that the Resurrected Jesus wasn't raised straight to heaven then I have no reason to think otherwise.

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.

Paul says "no flesh (σάρξ sarx) shall glory before God" - 1 Cor 1:29

"flesh and blood shall not inherit the kingdom of God" - 1 Cor 15:50

we "put off the body of the flesh" in Col. 2:11

Luke, on the other hand says, "Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself: handle me, and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have." - Luke 24:39

Paul says the appearances were spiritual and has the Risen Christ exalted straight to Heaven wheres Acts says he spent 40 whole days on earth appearing to his followers before ascending to heaven!

Sounds pretty inconsistent to me! It's like you're pretending there's no growth in the story at all when it's plain to see just by comparing the resurrection reports! Affirming this is actual history is not rational.

How quick is "quickly" to you?

20-40 years. In any case, your earlier assertion that the Greco-Roman world found physical resurrection "crude" is clearly false. It doesn't make sense for them to join a religion that affirms a physical resurrection if they
thought that was nonsense.

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?

Some of the Corinthians probably did doubt a general resurrection but Paul could have squashed that by simply mentioning "The Lord has risen from the tomb! Behold the general resurrection has begun!"

Justin Martyr says that Jesus' resurrection was exactly the same as what the Romans believe about their gods!

"And when we say also that the Word, who is the first-birth of God, was produced without sexual union, and that He, Jesus Christ, our Teacher, was crucified and died, and rose again, and ascended into heaven, we propound NOTHING DIFFERENT from WHAT YOU BELIEVE regarding those whom you esteem sons of Jupiter." - 1st Apology, 21

[tabibito]

That is a very odd perspective. Surely we should be asking what would lead that someone to say the person was alive, rather than how others might understand it.

It is a matter of how statements, individually and in combination, are perceived in the ordinary course. Statements have a tendency to be phrased in a way that allows another person to understand the meaning.

Sure, if the person was now walking around in their original body. But what if that someone saw the previously dead person in a new body, whilst their old body was decaying in a grave? Would they say person was alive?

Certainly. But the bare statement wouldn't be understood that way unless some sort of qualifier was included in the information.
I wouldn't expect "recovered" to mean "has had his life essence transplanted to a new body."

[Sparko]

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

You asked where you could find the rebuttals. I told you where. You expect ME to dig through the thread for something you want to see? His argument is so bad it is not even worth thinking about. He might as well have been arguing that Jesus was a hologram projected by time travelers from the 23rd Century. It has no teeth. It is dumb. I was refuted over and over and instead of admitting it, he just kept going on and starting new threads. We eventually combined them all into one huge thread. Now he is trying to start up again. I am not going to oblige him by rehashing arguments here that have been done to death in the other thread. If you want to post in that thread, be my guest. If you think it is not worth your time, then welcome to the club.

But don't whine that you didn't get what you asked for. You are just too lazy to do your own research.

[Sparko]

If this turns into another Rhinestone thread, guess what? It will be combined with the other thread. Head's up RC.

[The Pixie]

You asked where you could find the rebuttals. I told you where. You expect ME to dig through the thread for something you want to see? His argument is so bad it is not even worth thinking about. He might as well have been arguing that Jesus was a hologram projected by time travelers from the 23rd Century. It has no teeth. It is dumb. I was refuted over and over and instead of admitting it, he just kept going on and starting new threads. We eventually combined them all into one huge thread. Now he is trying to start up again. I am not going to oblige him by rehashing arguments here that have been done to death in the other thread. If you want to post in that thread, be my guest. If you think it is not worth your time, then welcome to the club.

But don't whine that you didn't get what you asked for. You are just too lazy to do your own research.

All I see from you is you asserting his argument is bad, and asserting his argument has been refuted. I have yet to see any evidence from you that either is true.

If you are too lazy to support your claims, then sure, I am too lazy to as well.

Let's just agree neither of us can be bother to verify your asserrtions, and move on from there.

[Sparko]

All I see from you is you asserting his argument is bad, and asserting his argument has been refuted. I have yet to see any evidence from you that either is true.

If you are too lazy to support your claims, then sure, I am too lazy to as well.

Let's just agree neither of us can be bother to verify your asserrtions, and move on from there.

The reason I won't give you more information is:

1. If I do, he will take it as an opportunity to start arguing it here again. I am trying to get him to stop.
2. He was refuted numerous times on various points. If you want to get the context, you would have to read the thread.


If I recall correctly, Juice soundly defeated his arguments point by point in several places. You can easily do a search on his name in the thread and read his posts.

Also, if you think his argument is a good one, then why should I even bother trying to show you it isn't? You obviously have no sense.

[RhinestoneCowboy]

I forgot to touch on this in my last post.

1 Cor 15:53
"For this perishable body must put on the imperishable, and this mortal body must put on immortality."

Unfortunately, for English literalists, the Greek word for "body" σῶμα sṓma is not found in the passage so this is a misleading translation. http://qbible.com/greek-new-testamen...ans/15.html#53

A more accurate translation is the NIV: "For the perishable must clothe itself with the imperishable, and the mortal with immortality."

Another one bites the dust!

[tabibito]

In short: (and I haven't checked the Koine Greek - so I'll take your word for it) ... the passage doesn't say replace in either of the translations: which would tend to indicate that Paul perhaps isn't even talking about the resurrected body, or circumstances that follow death.

[37818]

I forgot to touch on this in my last post.

1 Cor 15:53
"For this perishable body must put on the imperishable, and this mortal body must put on immortality."

Unfortunately, for English literalists, the Greek word for "body" σῶμα sṓma is not found in the passage so this is a misleading translation. http://qbible.com/greek-new-testamen...ans/15.html#53

A more accurate translation is the NIV: "For the perishable must clothe itself with the imperishable, and the mortal with immortality."

Another one bites the dust!

Ah, you need to restate the problem that you think is there.

[37818]

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.

No it is not. And if perchance it somehow was, you have nothing valid.

[tabibito]

Ah, you need to restate the problem that you think is there.

If that's the best they've got ...

[Sparko]

I have a better one. Judas was behind it all. Judas was a hypnotist. He hypnotized people into seeing Jesus instead of himself. Judas faked HIS OWN death. Then when Jesus died, Judas went around pretending to be Jesus. After he fooled everyone, he ran away to India where he became Buddha.

[tabibito]

I have a better one. Judas was behind it all. Judas was a hypnotist. He hypnotized people into seeing Jesus instead of himself. Judas faked HIS OWN death. Then when Jesus died, Judas went around pretending to be Jesus. After he fooled everyone, he ran away to India where he became Buddha.

Well - it IS more logically consistent than is all this redefining the words that Paul used ... but




no

[Sparko]

Well - it IS more logically consistent than is all this redefining the words that Paul used ... but




no

But I have PROOF!!! I found it on google!

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=%22judas+was+a+hypnotist%22