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

[DesertBerean]

So, Jesus transferred himself into another body complete with nail prints and spear wound. This has been discussed before and you still think this ludicrous idea is probable.

Ridiculous.

[RhinestoneCowboy]

So, Jesus transferred himself into another body complete with nail prints and spear wound. This has been discussed before and you still think this ludicrous idea is probable.

Ridiculous.

Where does Paul say that?

[DesertBerean]

Well now, I'm not sure you're not being deliberately obtuse.

You claim the two body theory. You believe Paul is saying the resurrection is actually the act of the person removing from the dead body into a spiritual one. I conclude from that you believe Paul thinks Jesus was showing a new body complete with nail prints and spear wound.

[RhinestoneCowboy]

Well now, I'm not sure you're not being deliberately obtuse.

You claim the two body theory. You believe Paul is saying the resurrection is actually the act of the person removing from the dead body into a spiritual one. I conclude from that you believe Paul thinks Jesus was showing a new body complete with nail prints and spear wound.

Obtuse? Where does Paul say anything about "showing a new body complete with nail prints and spear wound."?

[DesertBerean]

Paul certainly knew the details of the resurrection from the other apostles. Why are you ignoring this?

[RhinestoneCowboy]

Paul certainly knew the details of the resurrection from the other apostles. Why are you ignoring this?

He knew the details? Where does he say Jesus' body was "complete with nail prints and spear wound" then?

[DesertBerean]

I could cite Gal 6:17, but I won't since that passage is more likely referring to the trials Paul endured (stoning, rejection, beatings, etc.)

I will only point out the likelihood of the apostles shared their experiences of the resurrected Jesus. This is not such a greater leap of faith than your assertion that Paul considered his vision of Jesus to be of a spiritual body, except you are speculating a whole lot more "what-ifs" than I am.

[RhinestoneCowboy]

I will only point out the likelihood of the apostles shared their experiences of the resurrected Jesus.

Then I will point out the likelihood that the apostles had "visions" just like Paul's considering he makes no distinction between the appearances or gives any reason to think they're different, more physical.

This is not such a greater leap of faith than your assertion that Paul considered his vision of Jesus to be of a spiritual body, except you are speculating a whole lot more "what-ifs" than I am.

Where does Paul indicate the Risen Jesus was -

1. On earth?

2. Experienced in a "physical" way, i.e. not in a "vision" or "revelation"?

The problem you're having is that you're citing later secondary (or worse) accounts while Paul is our only firsthand eyewitness account to the Risen Christ in the whole New Testament. The NT is unanimous in that the appearance to Paul was a "vision/revelation" and he does not indicate the apostles experienced anything different. The fact that you cited the body with "nail prints and spear wound" from Luke/John only proves my point. These are later legends that developed with no corroboration in the earliest sources.

Consensus dating places the documents as follows:

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.

This should make the development of the story apparent. It's consistent with legendary growth.

[DesertBerean]

Since you do not consider the Gospels as reliable as the epistles, there can be no meaningful discussion then.

[RhinestoneCowboy]

Since you do not consider the Gospels as reliable as the epistles, there can be no meaningful discussion then.

Why should I? They're not firsthand sources. Historians prefer eyewitness testimony don't they? I'm not saying they don't have anything historical in them at all but as far as the empty tomb and appearances go, the story exhibits demonstrable legendary growth over time.

[DesertBerean]

Historians work with less than firsthand accounts all the time, as many others on this thread have repeatedly pointed out and, IIRC, even provided examples.

[Sparko]

Why should I? They're not firsthand sources. Historians prefer eyewitness testimony don't they? The gospels can be used to show how the story developed over time at least.

even assuming that was true... if the Jews and Early Christians did not believe in a bodily resurrection, and Jesus did not actually resurrect bodily, and Paul and the other Apostles never taught that he did... then why would the gospels all of a sudden say the exact opposite and claim to be accurate accounts of Jesus' life on earth? Hmmm? Just out of the blue, these 4 gospels appear, written by the church, basically claiming the exact opposite than what the church had been teaching and believing up till then. Yeah, good theory.

Your desperation to hold on to your pet theory in the face of overwhelming evidence, even to tossing AWAY evidence that doesn't suit you, is telling. Very telling. You are a nutter. Arguing with you on this is a waste of everyone's time. You will just continue on and on, repeating yourself ad nauseum, ignoring ever bit of evidence and logic against you, and when everyone is tired of arguing with a brick wall, you want to do your little victory dance and claim that you have defeated all takers so you must be right.

Well, Rhinestone, merely being a brick wall and repeating yourself is NOT "winning" by a long shot. Your idea has be thoroughly trounced, trampled, smashed, picked back up and smashed again, torn, ripped to shreds, and defeated. There is nothing left.

[RhinestoneCowboy]

even assuming that was true... if the Jews and Early Christians did not believe in a bodily resurrection, and Jesus did not actually resurrect bodily, and Paul and the other Apostles never taught that he did... then why would the gospels all of a sudden say the exact opposite and claim to be accurate accounts of Jesus' life on earth? Hmmm? Just out of the blue, these 4 gospels appear, written by the church, basically claiming the exact opposite than what the church had been teaching and believing up till then. Yeah, good theory.

The first Gospel of Mark was written in Rome for a gentile audience around the year 70. By then, the story of Jesus was far removed from the original events, locations and all the original disciples were dead. There was no one left to fact check the story. Then along come the authors of Matthew 80 CE and Luke 85-95 CE who copy Mark's gospel almost verbatim and add their own legends to it. John was written so late 90-110 for another gentile audience and is not historical at all. We know the early history of Christianity was quite complex. There were different sects that composed their own gospels, the gnostics and the docetists, and each one had their own view of the Risen Christ. In fact, Luke can be argued to be a response to docetism or Marcionism while John even has some gnostic elements to it. One of the main reasons these different sects developed is because the Pauline literature is so ambiguous that it can be interpreted all sorts of different ways. The Church finally settled on the Orthodox view, obviously, but by no means was that the only view around.

Your desperation to hold on to your pet theory in the face of overwhelming evidence, even to tossing AWAY evidence that doesn't suit you, is telling. Very telling. You are a nutter. Arguing with you on this is a waste of everyone's time. You will just continue on and on, repeating yourself ad nauseum, ignoring ever bit of evidence and logic against you, and when everyone is tired of arguing with a brick wall, you want to do your little victory dance and claim that you have defeated all takers so you must be right.

Well, Rhinestone, merely being a brick wall and repeating yourself is NOT "winning" by a long shot. Your idea has be thoroughly trounced, trampled, smashed, picked back up and smashed again, torn, ripped to shreds, and defeated. There is nothing left.

In the face of overwhelming evidence? Well, where is it homeboy? No need to get disrespectful. How about you provide an argument instead of a childish rant?

[RhinestoneCowboy]

Historians work with less than firsthand accounts all the time, as many others on this thread have repeatedly pointed out and, IIRC, even provided examples.

Then answer why none of the amazing claims in the later sources are in the earliest ones and show how legendary development is not a plausible solution to this problem.

[Sparko]

The first Gospel of Mark was written in Rome for a gentile audience around the year 70. By then, the story of Jesus was far removed from the original events, locations and all the original disciples were dead. There was no one left to fact check the story. Then along come the authors of Matthew 80 CE and Luke 85-95 CE who copy Mark's gospel almost verbatim and add their own legends to it. John was written so late 90-110 for another gentile audience and is not historical at all. We know the early history of Christianity was quite complex. There were different sects that composed their own gospels, the gnostics and the docetists, and each one had their own view of the Risen Christ. In fact, Luke can be argued to be a response to docetism or Marcionism while John even has some gnostic elements to it. One of the main reasons these different sects developed is because the Pauline literature is so ambiguous that it can be interpreted all sorts of different ways. The Church finally settled on the Orthodox view, obviously, but by no means was that the only view around.



In the face of overwhelming evidence? Well, where is it homeboy? No need to get disrespectful. How about you provide an argument instead of a childish rant?

The fact that the mainstream church used gospels written by apostles or close companions of apostles and they were written close to the event when everyone was agreeing on the facts, it is completely ridiculous that they would suddenly abandon their previous teachings of a nonphysical resurrection and suddenly switch to a physical resurrection in the gospels, while still retaining the letters of Paul which you CLAIM teach a nonphysical resurrection. And you don't see anything wrong with that?

The evidence against your completely nonsensical and illogical view is here in the last 20 pages which you have ignored. The very idea of calling something a resurrection without a body is just illogical. Stupid in fact. I have no idea why anyone even bothered to correct you on that idiocy in the first place. The very word means to be brought back to life. LIFE, not "ghost".

I am not about to get dragged into this nonsense. I just wanted to point out that when everyone else stops responding to you, it is not because you 'won', it is because they finally realized that nobody can reason with your insanity.