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

[RhinestoneCowboy]

"The fact that the mainstream church used gospels written by apostles or close companions of apostles"

Not a "fact" at all actually. That's an unsupported assumption that's only believed by people who know nothing about the actual history of the documents. I already explained some of the problems with this above. You just act like nothing was said in response to you. That's dishonest.

"while still retaining the letters of Paul which you CLAIM teach a nonphysical resurrection."

It's not me. Read the letters of Paul!

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 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 have conclusively shown that resurrection in 2nd Temple Judaism had no necessary connection with a person's tomb being empty. The sources are too few and too diverse to claim resurrection was always "physical." The spiritual/heavenly "body" was a new dwelling/habitation in heaven (not earth) that is contrasted with the earthly "tent" (body) - 2 Cor 5:1-5. This "spiritual/heavenly body" is of a different kind/substance or "glory" than the earthly/natural body - 1 Cor 15:40-44. Just show me one verse where Paul says the Risen Jesus was on earth as opposed to being raised/exalted 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. Paul says there are different types of bodies and Josephus implies it's a different/other body in heaven.

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.

Then stop responding. Why waste your time?

[37818]

Not a "fact" at all actually. That's an unsupported assumption that's only believed by people who know nothing about the actual history of the documents. I already explained some of the problems with this above. You just act like nothing was said in response to you. That's dishonest.



It's not me. Read the letters of Paul!

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"?

His first letter to the Corinthian church. You have likely have read it and not correctly understood it.

[RhinestoneCowboy]

His first letter to the Corinthian church. You have likely have read it and not correctly understood it.

Chapter and verse please?

[DesertBerean]

Chapter and verse please?

Pphhffffttttt.

[psstein]

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.

John isn't Gnostic. Gnostics used John in order to support their belief system, but calling it Gnostic is inaccurate. As for Luke: Luke is decidedly not a reaction to Marcionism unless you want to date Luke-Acts to the 2nd century, as Tyson does. That being said, Tyson's argument doesn't really hold up; nor does Pervo's. Arguments for a late date are dependent on faulty reasoning, just as arguments for an early date are. Luke may have some anti-docetic remarks, but there's a question as to how much of that is Luke and how much of it is a scribal interpolation (Ehrman's Orthodox Corruption of Scripture).

It is dubious to suggest that the original disciples were dead by the time of Mark's writing. Yes, some of them certainly were, like Peter and James the Just. Others were likely still alive. In terms of John not being historical: yes and no. John is certainly a much more stylized gospel and is likely not useful in the same way that the Synoptics are. That being said, if Dodd's work about historical tradition in John is correct, then there is historical information to be found. For example, the chronology of the ministry is more likely to resemble John's, rather than the Synoptics. The date of Jesus' death may be closer to John's.

You're also grossly oversimplifying the history of early Christianity. The sects didn't form simply because the Pauline literature is ambiguous- which I grant that it is in some places. The sects formed because of theological presuppositions on the part of their founders. For example, Marcion suggested that God the Father and YHWH couldn't be the same deity.

[RhinestoneCowboy]

John isn't Gnostic. Gnostics used John in order to support their belief system, but calling it Gnostic is inaccurate. As for Luke: Luke is decidedly not a reaction to Marcionism unless you want to date Luke-Acts to the 2nd century, as Tyson does. That being said, Tyson's argument doesn't really hold up; nor does Pervo's. Arguments for a late date are dependent on faulty reasoning, just as arguments for an early date are. Luke may have some anti-docetic remarks, but there's a question as to how much of that is Luke and how much of it is a scribal interpolation (Ehrman's Orthodox Corruption of Scripture).

It is dubious to suggest that the original disciples were dead by the time of Mark's writing. Yes, some of them certainly were, like Peter and James the Just. Others were likely still alive. In terms of John not being historical: yes and no. John is certainly a much more stylized gospel and is likely not useful in the same way that the Synoptics are. That being said, if Dodd's work about historical tradition in John is correct, then there is historical information to be found. For example, the chronology of the ministry is more likely to resemble John's, rather than the Synoptics. The date of Jesus' death may be closer to John's.

Why do you always butt in with something tangential to the main topic? I was responding to someone else's post there. This whole thread is dedicated to the growth in the story of the resurrection appearances over time. The earliest reports from Paul only contain a spiritual/mystical Christ while the later reports speak of an empty tomb and touching a physically resurrected corpse that walks around on earth for 40 days then floats to heaven. These reports are inconsistent and consistency is what we expect to find when determining historicity. My main interest here is the historicity of the resurrection narratives.

I said John has Gnostic "elements" and it can also be read as a response to gnosticism. I also said Luke "can be argued" to be a response to Marcionism. Could you pay a little more attention to what a write and be a little more charitable please?

You're also grossly oversimplifying the history of early Christianity. The sects didn't form simply because the Pauline literature is ambiguous- which I grant that it is in some places.

I said it's "one of the main reasons" and I still stand by that assessment. Just look at how the phrase "Flesh and blood cannot inherit the Kingdom of God" was interpreted by the gnostics. Why did Irenaeus and Tertullian spend so much time arguing against these "heretics" on this issue?

[RhinestoneCowboy]

Pphhffffttttt.

Do you need to borrow a Bible?

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"?

[37818]

Do you need to borrow a Bible?

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"?

" . . . And that he was seen of Cephas, then of the twelve: After that, he was seen of above five hundred brethren at once; of whom the greater part remain unto this present, . . . And last of all he was seen of me . . . ," The Apostle Paul in his letter to the Corinthian church -- 1 Corinthians 15:5-8.

[DesertBerean]

Do you need to borrow a Bible?

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"?

it means I'm not playing your game. The pertinent verses have already been offered up and discussed throughly. Go back and review them.

Any more than that would be casting pearls before swine.

[RhinestoneCowboy]

" . . . And that he was seen of Cephas, then of the twelve: After that, he was seen of above five hundred brethren at once; of whom the greater part remain unto this present, . . . And last of all he was seen of me . . . ," The Apostle Paul in his letter to the Corinthian church -- 1 Corinthians 15:5-8.

Nope. Paul uses the aorist passive ὤφθη (Greek - ōphthē) for "appeared/was seen" which was almost exclusively used to denote supernatural/spiritual apparitions as shown here - https://books.google.com/books?id=1F...page&q&f=false

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

In verse 15:8 he puts his own vision in parallel with the other appearances so he's asserting they were of the same type. He makes no distinction between them.

[RhinestoneCowboy]

it means I'm not playing your game. The pertinent verses have already been offered up and discussed throughly. Go back and review them.

Any more than that would be casting pearls before swine.

Correction. There are no "pertinent verses." How about you guys be honest and admit that Paul nowhere indicates the Risen Jesus was on earth or experienced in a way that was not a vision or a revelation?

[37818]

Nope. Paul uses the aorist passive ὤφθη (Greek - ōphthē) for "appeared/was seen" which was almost exclusively used to denote supernatural/spiritual apparitions as shown here - https://books.google.com/books?id=1F...page&q&f=false .

While that Greek word is used in such instances it is not limited in that way. LXX ". . . and the dry [land] appeard." -- Gensis 1:9.

Moses shows himself, ". . . And the next day he shewed himself unto them as they strove, . . ." -- Acts 7:26.

[Abigail]

Correction. There are no "pertinent verses." How about you guys be honest and admit that Paul nowhere indicates the Risen Jesus was on earth or experienced in a way that was not a vision or a revelation?

Romans 8:11 'But if the Spirit of him that raised up Jesus from the dead dwell in you, He that raised up Christ from the dead shall also quicken your mortal bodies by his Spirit that dwelleth in you.'

[Abigail]

Romans 8:11 'But if the Spirit of him that raised up Jesus from the dead dwell in you, He that raised up Christ from the dead shall also quicken your mortal bodies by his Spirit that dwelleth in you.'

Again, this depends on interpretation and context. It says "will give life to your mortal bodies." How do we know he's talking about dead mortal bodies? How do we know he's talking about raising or resurrection when he does not mention they will be raised? How do we know he's not just talking about the same spirit (that raised Jesus) giving life (figuratively) to the already living mortal bodies? How do we know the "mortal body" will still be composed of flesh and blood? What about the people who have been buried for years and decomposed? What about all the passages in 1 Cor 15? Etc, etc, etc...

Paul is basically saying that their mortal bodies are "dead" because of sin even though they are still living. The Spirit gives life to these mortal bodies because "...by the Spirit you put to death the deeds of the body, you will live (v.13)". Paul explains that there is a need to put to death the deeds of the body, so that they might "live." And the only way to accomplish that is to have the Spirit dwell in the believer, thus, the Spirit gives life to the mortal body (people that are still living).

The problem for your interpretation is that the 'quickening' is in future tense. So the Spirit that dwells in us believers will quicken our mortal bodies. It is something future rather than present as you depict.

Further:

RSC: How do we know he is talking about dead mortal bodies?
A: Why even mention them if spiritual resurrection is the real nub of what he is saying.

RSC: How do we know he's talking about raising or resurrection when he does not mention they will be raised?
A: Did you even read the verse? He that raised Christ will do the same for you if his Spirit lives in you.

RSC: How do we know he's not just talking about the same spirit (that raised Jesus) giving life (figuratively) to the already living mortal bodies?
A: Again why even mention mortal bodies if mortal bodies are not important and are never intended to enter the kingdom of God. Your interpretation just results in confusion.

RSC: How do we know the "mortal body" will still be composed of flesh and blood? What about the people who have been buried for years and decomposed? What about all the passages in 1 Cor 15?
A: Why even make the analogies he does in 1 Cor 15 if he does not intend people to understand physical bodies. he talks about seeds and fleshly bodies. He uses 'heavenly' bodies as opposed to 'earthly' bodies in the sense of differing glories. In the creation account the heavenly bodies were for governing the earth with signs and seasons and ruling over day and night.

[RhinestoneCowboy]

While that Greek word is used in such instances it is not limited in that way. LXX ". . . and the dry [land] appeard." -- Gensis 1:9.

Moses shows himself, ". . . And the next day he shewed himself unto them as they strove, . . ." -- Acts 7:26.

Haha! I noticed you picked the only clear instance in the NT of it being used in a physical sense. 18 out of 19 times it's not. The fact that Paul puts his own vision in the list is enough evidence to conclude he's using ὤφθη in the spiritual sense. He says "Jesus appeared ὤφθη to them and he appeared ὤφθη to me, also." No distinction is made.

So where does Paul indicate that Jesus "appeared" in a "physical" way? In a way that was not a vision or a revelation? If you cannot provide any evidence for this then you cannot claim the appearances were physical.