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

[Meh Gerbil]

The stoning of Stephen narrative reads like mob "justice" rather than a judicial act. Jesus was too popular with the crowds for that to happen.

1: I don't believe that portion of the Bible is reliable.
2: Stephen probably wasn't his real name.
3: Evidence I read in a Terry Pratchett novel suggest that Jesus wasn't all that popular.
4: Referring to the Jews as a *mob* makes you a racist.
5: Can you find the stones used to kill Stephen? I didn't think so; therefore, they don't exist.

I thought I'd summarize the skeptic's arguments for you.
You're welcome.

[Juice]

Haha! "Last of all" and "untimely" are indicators of when the appearance occurred, not what it was like.

when and to whom Jesus appeared. It had nothing at all to do with asserting what the appearances were like. Is this sinking in yet? I sure hope so.

How could Paul be influenced by a source written late 1st century/early 2nd century? 2 Baruch only adds to the diversity of views which I've been arguing all along!

Well I could ask how could Paul be influencedinfluenced by Baruch. Baruch is a clear cut example of a source from around the same time period as Paul which demonstrates a physical resurrection involving a raising of the same body that went into the grave.

No doubt Paul was influenced by Isaiah though.

You're being unreasonable. In order to understand how the word was used we have to look at other sources, obviously.

The aorist passive ὤφθη is not used there. Oops...

Oops. horaō essentially means the same thing as optanomai. They are related words.

Did Paul write Acts? Notice how he doesn't give any evidence of the physical encounters that appear in the gospels. He just says "he appeared." Where does Paul say in his own letters that the Risen Jesus "appeared" and ate with the disciples and was touched then later flew to heaven? It's not there is it?

horaō

And there was more than one way this was thought to occur in 2nd Temple Judaism.

other than a physical resurrection?

1. Paul connects the idea of resurrection to Sheol.
2. Sheol is where spirits dwelled.
3. Therefore, Paul thought spirits would be resurrected/raised out of Sheol.

That's not circular at all actually. The conclusion follows directly from the premise. Jesus, after all, became a life giving "spirit" didn't he?

resurrection

Paul gives no reason to think that the resurrected Christ was interacted with physically or left an empty tomb behind.

This, combined with the other arguments, is enough to show that the story of the Resurrection developed over time and is not actual history. It's a legend growing in the telling.

post from me a few pages back

What I meant was try to interpret Paul without reading the later gospel accounts into his works. You obviously can't help doing that.

There was no consensus view in 2nd Temple Judaism that said resurrection required the revivification of the physical corpse.

Now a Red Herring. My original argument was that Paul did not adopt Hellenistic ideas.

Those verses give us more room for interpretation when analyzing what Paul says. I'm going by what the top scholars that study this stuff say - Alan Segal, John J. Collins, Adela Yarbro Collins, George Nicklesburg, H.C.C. Cavallin, etc. Being "raised from the dead" had no necessary connection to a person's tomb being empty.

We've already been over Daniel 12:2 and I've shown how the Hebrew refers to spirits being raised out of Sheol. Sorry to burst your bubble.

[Sparko]

this whole argument is idiotic.

If after you die you just turn into a ghost or spirit, then that is what is called, "normal death"

If you come back to life and rise from death, resurrected, you have to be in a body. Why would there even be a resurrection of the dead if it was just normal death? What would have Jesus done that anyone else had never done? If he just died and became a spirit, so what? Everyone does. How is that hope?



RC is just repeating himself over and over no matter what anyone says, just waiting for people to get tired and then he can say, "Is that all you got? I guess I win then."

Arguing with him on this matter is just a waste of time. He is being invincibly ignorant. Juice has trounced him over and over, and he is right, RC is the Black Knight, with all limbs removed.

[Juice]

Arguing with him on this matter is just a waste of time.

You are probably right Sparko.


But...

...it's so much darn fun destroying a Richard Carrier minion I just can't help myself.

[Adrift]

this whole argument is idiotic.

If after you die you just turn into a ghost or spirit, then that is what is called, "normal death"

If you come back to life and rise from death, resurrected, you have to be in a body. Why would there even be a resurrection of the dead if it was just normal death? What would have Jesus done that anyone else had never done? If he just died and became a spirit, so what? Everyone does. How is that hope?



RC is just repeating himself over and over no matter what anyone says, just waiting for people to get tired and then he can say, "Is that all you got? I guess I win then."

Arguing with him on this matter is just a waste of time. He is being invincibly ignorant. Juice has trounced him over and over, and he is right, RC is the Black Knight, with all limbs removed.

It really does defy a rational reading of the text. It's overly complicated and requires the reader to eisegete all sorts of strange notions into the text. Sillier still is the implication that this "spiritual body" is not immaterial, but is material of some sort. It's basically Carrier and company's way of having their cake and eating it too by affirming that the New Testament really does refer to something like physicality while still denying bodily resurrection. It's all a big sham to undermine the resurrection's historicity. The evidence for the resurrection is basically an inconvenient truth for a lot of people, and for folks like Carrier who've made it their purpose in life to "publish as much as [he can] to help others like [him] and to defeat [what he considers] nonsense and lies", if applying a non-intuitive reading to the text will do that, then so be it.

You know, it's one thing if someone fundamentally disagrees with the NT message, or even disagrees with a standard interpretation of the text, but I have a hard time believing that's what goes on with things like the two-body theory. I honestly think that for most people who advance it, it's a non-historical, dishonest attempt to muddy the waters.

[Sparko]

It really does defy a rational reading of the text. It's overly complicated and requires the reader to eisegete all sorts of strange notions into the text. Sillier still is the implication that this "spiritual body" is not immaterial, but is material of some sort. It's basically Carrier and company's way of having their cake and eating it too by affirming that the New Testament really does refer to something like physicality while still denying bodily resurrection. It's all a big sham to undermine the resurrection's historicity. The evidence for the resurrection is basically an inconvenient truth for a lot of people, and for folks like Carrier who've made it their purpose in life to "publish as much as [he can] to help others like [him] and to defeat [what he considers] nonsense and lies", if applying a non-intuitive reading to the text will do that, then so be it.

You know, it's one thing if someone fundamentally disagrees with the NT message, or even disagrees with a standard interpretation of the text, but I have a hard time believing that's what goes on with things like the two-body theory. I honestly think that for most people who advance it, it's a non-historical, dishonest attempt to muddy the waters.

yeah. Jesus resurrected in an android body. That's the ticket.

[Meh Gerbil]

I dunno if it has been pointed out or not but the resurrection of Lazarus is instructive:

Jesus said to her,
Martha answered,

If Jesus' resurrection were only a spiritual resurrection His resurrection would have been no different than what was expected for everyone.
As such it certainly wouldn't have been considered extraordinary.
To say, "Jesus rose from the dead" and to only mean His spirit would be to say nothing meaningful whatsoever.

So the skeptic has to explain the point of declaring the resurrection of Jesus Christ if it was identical to the resurrection that was expected for everyone.

[DesertBerean]

Screenshot_2016-05-31-11-53-00-1.jpg

yeah. Jesus resurrected in an android body. That's the ticket.

[Juice]

I dunno if it has been pointed out or not but the resurrection of Lazarus is instructive:

Jesus said to her,
Martha answered,

If Jesus' resurrection were only a spiritual resurrection His resurrection would have been no different than what was expected for everyone.
As such it certainly wouldn't have been considered extraordinary.
To say, "Jesus rose from the dead" and to only mean His spirit would be to say nothing meaningful whatsoever.

So the skeptic has to explain the point of declaring the resurrection of Jesus Christ if it was identical to the resurrection that was expected for everyone.

I did use the example of Lazarus back in post #112 to bring context to the use of "raised [egeirō] from the dead." But of course in Rhinestone's weird little world that's an anachronistic fallacy to appeal to the Gospels.

Unless of course it's Rhinestone linking to a source which appeals to the Gospels/Acts where horaō is used as a word in the context of supernatural events. Then that's okay to appeal to them.

[Meh Gerbil]

I did use the example of Lazarus back in post #112. But of course in Rhinestone's weird little world that's an anachronistic fallacy to appeal to the Gospels.

I noticed that cherry-picking the gospels seems to be fashionable.
While I understand that when weeding out miraculous events from non-miraculous events (at least there is a criteria) the current practice seems to be discarding mundane details 'just because'.

Unless of course it's Rhinestone linking to a source which appeals to the Gospels/Acts. Then that's okay to appeal to them.

Now we know the rules!

[Juice]

I noticed that cherry-picking the gospels seems to be fashionable.
While I understand that when weeding out miraculous events from non-miraculous events (at least there is a criteria) the current practice seems to be discarding mundane details 'just because'.

Now we know the rules!

We know the rules for today. But they may change tomorrow.

[Sparko]

I did use the example of Lazarus back in post #112 to bring context to the use of "raised [egeirō] from the dead." But of course in Rhinestone's weird little world that's an anachronistic fallacy to appeal to the Gospels.

Unless of course it's Rhinestone linking to a source which appeals to the Gospels/Acts where horaō is used as a word in the context of supernatural events. Then that's okay to appeal to them.

Did you mention 1 Thes 4? Where Paul describes the Resurrection of the dead and the rapture? If resurrection were just turning into a spirit body, then that happened when they died, right? So what is being raised later in 1 Thes 4? The bodies.

But after reading most of this thread, I think that nothing will change RC's mind, he will just ignore anything presented and repeat himself. Anything you present is corrupted and not valid, but he is free to use any source he wishes, even to accepting it one time and rejecting it in the next paragraph. There is no debating with someone like that. Shake of the dust.

[Raphael]

1: I don't believe that portion of the Bible is reliable.
2: Stephen probably wasn't his real name.
3: Evidence I read in a Terry Pratchett novel suggest that Jesus wasn't all that popular.
4: Referring to the Jews as a *mob* makes you a racist.
5: Can you find the stones used to kill Stephen? I didn't think so; therefore, they don't exist.

I thought I'd summarize the skeptic's arguments for you.
You're welcome.

I really need to see if I can get the PotD working again......

[RhinestoneCowboy]

when and to whom Jesus appeared. It had nothing at all to do with asserting what the appearances were like. Is this sinking in yet? I sure hope so.

Not so fast. First of all, you tried to use that weak argument as a distinction in the nature of appearances. I showed how that utterly fails to serve as a reason. So you're still left with nothing in the end that provides a distinction between the appearances.

Secondly, was the appearance to Paul a "vision/revelation" or not? What reason do you have (from Paul) to conclude that the appearances to the others WERE NOT visions as well? As of now, every bit of evidence supports he was saying they were the same.

1. He puts his vision in the same list of the other appearances without distinction. He says Jesus "appeared to Peter, James, etc" and "he appeared to me also." He does not say "Jesus appeared to me in a vision only, whereas the appearances to the others involved touching his physical corpse that got up and flew to heaven." That distinction is never made.

2. He uses the same verb for each which was used to indicate spiritual appearances (the appearance to Paul was a vision so we know the way Paul was using the word.)

3. In 1 Cor 9:1 Paul uses his vision to claim apostleship. Evidently, "seeing" Jesus was a requirement for apostleship in the early church - he's basically saying "Am I not an apostle (like you guys)? Have I not seen Jesus our Lord (just like you guys did)?" And we all know, Paul only "sees" Jesus in a vision, nothing more.

4. No physical earthly resurrected Jesus in Paul at all but instead Jesus is raised to heaven to be at God's right hand. Jesus is never depicted in Paul as being experienced in a more "physical" way. Did Peter and James forget to tell Paul how they ate and drank with the Lord then how Thomas poked his fingers in him and watched as he physically ascended to heaven right before their eyes? Or did Paul just not feel like that stuff was very important?

"When Paul classifies the Damascus appearance with the others in 1 Cor 15:5 this is not merely because he regards it as equivalent....It is also because he regards this appearance similar in kind. In all the appearances the presence of the risen Lord is a presence in transfigured corporeality, 1 Cor 15:42. It is the presence of the exalted Lord from heaven. This presence is in non-visionary reality; no category of human seeing is wholly adequate for it. On this ground, the appearances are to be described in the sense of revelation rather than making visible." - Theological Dictionary of the New Testament Vol. 5 pg. 359

So tell me where are you getting the idea of these physical appearances from? Could it be from other accounts that weren't written by Paul?

Is your argument "the appearances were physical because the later gospels say so?"

Can you see how that is fallacious to assume? Later accounts by other authors may not necessarily reflect Paul's view. Especially considering the time gaps, obvious inconsistencies, contradictions and legendary growth that's taken place between the accounts.

Well I could ask how could Paul be influenced by 1 Enoch and the Book of Jubilee?
Two books not in the Septuagint.

So what? They were books written by Jews. Therefore, the represent the views of Jews! Just because they didn't make the cut of the Septuagint doesn't make them any less widely read or influential.

Where does Paul ever quote them?

Both 2 Enoch 8:1-6 and Paul reference the "third heaven" (2 Cor 12) and the idea of "corruptibility and incorruptibility". 1 Enoch 71 gives a description of astral transformation like in Dan. 12:2-3 and which Paul seems to use in his resurrection language - 1 Cor 15:40-41. So it seems that Paul may have at least been familiar with some of the same ideas expressed in Enoch. https://books.google.com/books?id=4z...page&q&f=false

influenced by Baruch. Baruch is a clear cut example of a source from around the same time period as Paul which demonstrates a physical resurrection involving a raising of the same body that went into the grave.

And there are plenty of sources which emphasize the continued existence of souls rather than any resurrection of the physical body. The sources represent diversity. The Essenes believed one thing, the Pharisees believed another, the Sadducees rejected resurrection, etc, etc, etc. Hence, Jesus' resurrection could be interpreted different ways after his death. 2 Baruch was written around the time the gospels were written.

No doubt Paul was influenced by Isaiah though.

Isa 26:19 may be the earliest reference to literal resurrection but scholars disagree on the meaning the passage would have had in its original context.

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

"The Hebrew Bible includes passages that have been interpreted as speaking about the resurrection of the dead but that, according to the majority of scholarly opinion, did not originally contain the idea. Footnote: Scholars disagree whether Isa. 26:19 is about literal resurrection or the metaphorical restoration of Israel as in Ezekiel 37." - Outi Lehtipuu, Debates Over the Resurrection of the Dead: Constructing Early Christian Identity, p. 32
https://books.google.com/books?id=0u...page&q&f=false

Paul uses the verb to equate his vision with the other appearances. The overwhelming attestation shows that this particular form of the verb was used for supernatural/spiritual apparitions. In fact, 18 out of 19 total times it's used this way in the NT. https://books.google.com/books?id=r1...page&q&f=false

Oops. horaō essentially means the same thing as optanomai. They are related words.

And Paul uses the aorist passive form (ōphthē) which was mostly used to denote spiritual visions of things. This makes sense considering Paul saw a vision and indicates no difference in what the others saw.

The Theological Dictionary of the New Testament (vol. 5, p. 358) points out that in this type of context the word is a technical term for being

horaō

Paul references Jesus' resurrection as "physical" in Acts 13:31 or does he just say Jesus "appeared" like he does in 1 Cor 15:5-8? Does he describe the encounters in any detail there or are you letting Luke's own view color your interpretation of Paul again?

other than a physical resurrection?

Since spirits or souls are depicted as "having much joy" while their "bones rest in the earth" it can be assumed that the souls continue existing and are "raised" out of the underworld. The idea is that the righteous are "raised" from the dead while the wicked are not. This shows that being "raised from the dead" does not necessarily imply a physical resurrection.

1. "Raised from the dead" meant physical resurrection.
2. Paul says Jesus was "raised from the dead."
3. Therefore, Paul meant Jesus was physically resurrected.

How is that not circular?

Where is the phrase "raised from the dead" used to denote a physical resurrection other than the gospels? Where does "raised from the dead" mean resurrection of the flesh? Since when does "raised from the dead" necessitate that the person was "raised to earth" as opposed to being "raised straight to heaven"? Paul only gives the latter view. Why are you trusting Luke over Paul? Who was the eyewitness again?

resurrection

Romans 10:7
or, 'Who will descend into the abyss?' (that is, to bring Christ up from the dead)."

The "abyss" was a euphemism for Sheol, obviously. This proves Paul thought Jesus was in Sheol and resurrected from there.

Eph. 4:8-10 has no reference to the resurrection at all.

This could mean the captives (souls) were brought out of Sheol. In the very least this supports the idea that Jesus was in Sheol and resurrected from there.

Since Hosea 13:14 explicitly states Sheol, and Paul cites the verse, it is probably a good indicator that Paul was connecting the idea of conquering death and being raised out of Sheol. And the Greek in 1 Cor 15:53 does not say mortal "bodies." The Greek word for "body" is not in the passage. That's a misleading translation.

You first premise is very questionable.

Not anymore.

But since we are inferring things.

1. Paul was a Pharisee
2. Pharisees held to a bodily resurrection
3. Therefore, Paul held to a bodily resurrection

Where's your evidence for premise 2? The only place I know of that speaks about the specific beliefs of Pharisees and the afterlife is Josephus and we both know what he says. You're also equivocating "bodily resurrection" with a "wholly physical bodily resurrection that involved the resuscitation of the fleshly corpse." That's an important distinction to be made here because neither Paul or Josephus make that view clear.

"Raised" how? To earth? To Heaven? In the flesh? Paul distinguishes between the "spiritual body" (soma pneumatikon) that is raised and the natural body that is sown. If Paul thought that Jesus was physically resurrected but immediately exalted to heaven and thus, only experienced through "heavenly visions," then that would still be different from the earthly encounters that the gospels depict.

post from me a few pages back

No, you refused to answer my previous questions and failed to acknowledge the fact that both Matthew and Luke copied Mark (non-eyewitness material) for the bulk of their gospels. I also showed how we can't trust Papias' testimony when it comes to him claiming Mark was Peter's secretary. This severely impeaches the "evidence" you present. Most scholars don't accept traditional authorship anyway. The church father testimony is merely what they believed, not a reliable transmission of actual history.


https://bible.org/article/synoptic-problem

The legendary growth becomes apparent when you compare the appearance stories side by side in chronological order.

1. Paul c. 50 CE- visions only, no empty tomb, resurrection/exaltation straight to heaven, the interpretation of 1 Cor 15:35-54 is disputed but a plausible case can be made that Paul was arguing against the physical resurrection of the corpse.
2. Mark c. 70 - introduces the empty tomb but has no appearances in the earliest manuscripts. He predicts that Jesus will appear in Galilee.
3. Matthew c. 80 CE - has appearances in Galilee which "some doubt" - Mt. 28:17. The exact nature of Jesus' resurrection body is not made clear.
4. Luke/Acts 85-95 CE - appearances are in Jerusalem, not Galilee. first explicit mention of a "flesh and bone" Jesus that eats fish, is touched and physically ascends to heaven while the disciples watch. Acts says that Jesus was on earth for 40 days providing "many proofs." (How did these amazing events go unnoticed/unmentioned by the earlier sources if they're actual history?)
5. John 90-110 CE - has the Doubting Thomas story and puts forth the view that Jesus is basically God - a view nowhere found in the synoptics.

What I mean is to actually read what Paul says about the appearances without reading the later gospel stories into Paul. Try that and you should see Paul was speaking of something entirely different.

Now a Red Herring.

Oh really? You seem to be quite keen on the notion that being "raised from the dead" always implied a physical resurrection that involved an empty tomb.

My original argument was that Paul did not adopt Hellenistic ideas.

Well, for one, Paul and the gospel authors were writing in Greek.

"Paul's "body language" follows Hellenistic anthropological thinking and is in debt especially to Stoic ideas that understood both psyche and pneuma as material." - Outi Lehtipuu, Debates Over the Resurrection of the Dead: Constructing Early Christian Identity, pg. 56, citing Engberg-Pedersen, Cosmology and Self pp. 8-38 and Litwa, We are Being Transformed, 127-139.

In 1 Cor 15:38-41 Paul describes the different types of flesh and varieties of terrestrial and celestial bodies. This list corresponds to descriptions found in ancient Greek philosophical sources such as Hesiod's Works and Days 276-278. Similar lists can be found in Sophocles and Virgil. - Seim, Metamorphoses, pg. 31; citing Asher, Polarity and Change, pg. 140.

I've already provided a well supported inference. What Jewish source explains what a raised "spiritual body" is then contrasts it with the "natural body" like Paul does in 1 Cor 15?

I missed where any of those scholars actually provides any justification for their translation.

I missed where the scholars you're advocating for, debate the issue. Surely, they've found problems with the rendering "land of dust." Well, what are they? What are their reasons for not rendering it that way? In any case, the translation and meaning remain disputed.

It's simply asserted "land of dust" is better rendering.

Aren't you simply asserting just the opposite? The Hebrew literally translates to "land of dust."

It's literally used as a euphemism for Sheol there. By the way, Job says resurrection is impossible.

a human being, he dies and dead he remains (Job 14:10)
a human being, once laid to rest will never rise again (Job 14:12)

I showed that "dust" is also used in Job to refer to the ground in which the body lays.

And evidently, it was also used to refer to Sheol. In your own words, how does the traditional rendering imply a physical corpse involved resurrection?

"...Neither does he (Daniel) say that the resurrection will involve a body of flesh and blood. Daniel 12:2, which is usually taken to refer to "the dust of the earth," can actually be translated as "the land of dust," or Sheol. The idea then is that the wise, at least, are lifted up from Sheol to heaven." - John J. Collins, A Short Introduction to the Hebrew Bible, pg. 347 https://books.google.com/books?id=ZI...page&q&f=false

It's pretty obvious by now you are clinging for dear life to a very thin thread.

Speak for yourself. Have fun reconciling Paul's "visions" and "revelations" with a physically resurrected corpse that walks the earth, eats and gets touched later on in the gospels.

[RhinestoneCowboy]

this whole argument is idiotic.

If after you die you just turn into a ghost or spirit, then that is what is called, "normal death"

If you come back to life and rise from death, resurrected, you have to be in a body. Why would there even be a resurrection of the dead if it was just normal death? What would have Jesus done that anyone else had never done? If he just died and became a spirit, so what? Everyone does. How is that hope?



RC is just repeating himself over and over no matter what anyone says, just waiting for people to get tired and then he can say, "Is that all you got? I guess I win then."

Arguing with him on this matter is just a waste of time. He is being invincibly ignorant. Juice has trounced him over and over, and he is right, RC is the Black Knight, with all limbs removed.

Read 1 Cor 15:45-47. Paul says Jesus became a "spirit" and contrasts him with the physical Adam. Moreover, you still have to explain why Paul only says Jesus was experienced in "visions" while equating his own vision to the other appearances in 1 Cor 15:5-8. This doesn't make sense if Paul knew about the physical resurrection stories that appear in the later gospels.