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

[RhinestoneCowboy]

Do you think he will tell?

His entire line of reasoning is based on an argument from silence "Well Paul didn't actually SAY the resurrection was physical or not so it must not be" while tossing out every bit of evidence that the resurrection is physical (the very word and concept means to bring back to life!)

He sounds like a conspiracy nut. I bet he thinks 911 was a government plot.

Arguments from silence can be valid under certain circumstances. In this case, Paul was in the position to know of the amazing physical encounters due to to his visit with Peter and James (Gal. 1) and due to the extraordinary nature of these claims it's reasonable to expect some sort of a mention. However, all Paul tells us is that the Risen Jesus was in heaven and only experienced through visions and revelations. He does not indicate any difference between his own vision and the appearances to the others in 1 Cor 15:5-8. The silence is deafening, indeed!

while tossing out every bit of evidence that the resurrection is physical (the very word and concept means to bring back to life!

You obviously haven't been keeping up with the thread. Resurrection did not always involve the resuscitation of the physical corpse. I settled this here:
http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...l=1#post330164

[Sparko]

I don't deny the evidence. My whole point from the start is there was no mainstream view about resurrection in Jewish history. I've conclusively shown that. You can't just cherry pick a verse from Job and claim that Paul believed in resurrection of the flesh. That's a textbook non-sequitur.

Just show me where Paul says the Risen Jesus was:

(a) on earth?
(b) experienced in a "physical" way i.e. not in a vision or a revelation?

If you cannot do so, then you can't claim that Paul adhered to a physical resurrection that involved the revivification of the corpse.

This is what I mean, people have given you a ton of evidence when taken as a whole shows conclusively that the resurrection is bodily, yet in your attempt to dismiss it, you pretend like each bit of evidence only exists in isolation so you can toss it away. And the evidence you do have is in the form of a negative "you can't show me where Paul says the resurrection is physical" so therefore it isn't. Yet the passages CAN mean it is a physical resurrection and you cannot provide any definitive proof that Paul did NOT believe in a physical resurrection. Your entire argument is a logical fallacy: an argument from silence.

an aside: Do you believe that 911 was a conspiracy?

[Sparko]

Arguments from silence can be valid under certain circumstances. In this case, Paul was in the position to know of the amazing physical encounters due to to his visit with Peter and James (Gal. 1) and due to the extraordinary nature of these claims it's reasonable to expect some sort of a mention. However, all Paul tells us is that the Risen Jesus was in heaven and only experienced through visions and revelations. He does not indicate any difference between his own vision and the appearances to the others in 1 Cor 15:5-8. The silence is deafening, indeed!

LOL! Except the passages CAN mean a physical resurrection. You just deny it. So not only are you arguing from silence, you are cherry picking your interpretation. It is obvious to anyone reading this thread. If you tried to present this line of evidence in a court of law, you would be laughed out of the courtroom.

[RhinestoneCowboy]

This is what I mean, people have given you a ton of evidence when taken as a whole shows conclusively that the resurrection is bodily, yet in your attempt to dismiss it, you pretend like each bit of evidence only exists in isolation so you can toss it away. And the evidence you do have is in the form of a negative "you can't show me where Paul says the resurrection is physical" so therefore it isn't. Yet the passages CAN mean it is a physical resurrection and you cannot provide any definitive proof that Paul did NOT believe in a physical resurrection. Your entire argument is a logical fallacy: an argument from silence.

an aside: Do you believe that 911 was a conspiracy?

"Ton of evidence"? Haha! Where? Paul nowhere provides any evidence for an empty tomb type physical resuscitation. You're just imagining it! Your last attempt was an utter failure (absolutely humiliating I might add) as it was nothing but a non-sequitur.

[Sparko]

so? 911?

[RhinestoneCowboy]

nope

[Sparko]

nope

nope what?

[RhinestoneCowboy]

LOL! Except the passages CAN mean a physical resurrection. You just deny it. So not only are you arguing from silence, you are cherry picking your interpretation. It is obvious to anyone reading this thread. If you tried to present this line of evidence in a court of law, you would be laughed out of the courtroom.

Which passages? Are you sure you're not referring to passages that can be interpreted different ways? And trying to convince someone's testimony is reliable when it comes to "visions" and "revelations" would get laughed out of a courtroom methinks.

[Sparko]

Which passages? Are you sure you're not referring to passages that can be interpreted different ways?

let's play it your way. Show me where Paul clearly and uncategorically states that the resurrection is not physical and that there was not an empty tomb.

[RhinestoneCowboy]

let's play it your way. Show me where Paul clearly and uncategorically states that the resurrection is not physical and that there was not an empty tomb.

Answer my questions first or go away, troll!

Where does Paul say the Risen Jesus was:

(a) on earth?
(b) experienced in a "physical" way i.e. not in a vision or a revelation?
(c) placed in a tomb which was found empty?

[Adrift]

Just beat him at his own game Sparko.

[RhinestoneCowboy]

Just beat him at his own game Sparko.

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...l=1#post335616

.

[37818]

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.

As I stated there are exceptions to your claim.

While that Greek word is used in such instances it is not limited in that way.

No where does the Apostle Paul say Jesus' resurrection was not physical.

[RhinestoneCowboy]

As I stated there are exceptions to your claim.

Not in Paul's usage of the word ὤφθη or the rest of the NT when it comes to Jesus' appearances.

No where does the Apostle Paul say Jesus' resurrection was not physical.

He calls the Corinthians "foolish" for believing the resurrection would involve physical bodies - 1 Cor 15:35, says Jesus became a "spirit" in 1 Cor 15:45 and says physical resurrection is impossible in 1 Cor 15:50. It's important to note that by "physical" I mean involving the resuscitation of the earthly corpse. Paul nowhere advocates for that view but in fact, explicitly rejects it in other passages.

Col. 2:11
"putting off the body of the flesh..."

2 Cor 5:1-4


2 Cor 5:8-10
"Yes, we do have confidence, and we would rather be away from the body and at home with the Lord. So whether we are at home or away, we make it our aim to please him. For all of us must appear before the judgment seat of Christ, so that each may receive recompense for what has been done in the body, whether good or evil." - by which Paul means that we will not be judged in the earthly body.

2 Cor 5:16
"So from now on we regard no one according to the flesh. Although we once regarded Christ in this way, we do so no longer."

Philippians 1:23-24
depart and be with Christ, for [that] is very much better; yet to remain on in the flesh

[37818]

Not in Paul's usage of the word ὤφθη or the rest of the NT when it comes to Jesus' appearances.



He calls the Corinthians "foolish" for believing the resurrection would involve physical bodies - 1 Cor 15:35, says Jesus became a "spirit" in 1 Cor 15:45 and says physical resurrection is impossible in 1 Cor 15:50. It's important to note that by "physical" I mean involving the resuscitation of the earthly corpse. Paul nowhere advocates for that view but in fact, explicitly rejects it in other passages.

No. It does not say anything of the sort. Nor does any of that mean what you make claims that it means. Jesus body was raised without blood - in a body, not as a spirit.

". . . 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. . . ." -- Says Jesus the resurrected Man.

Christians understand the texts to explicitly teach a bodily resurrection and as such, qll of Christ's appeances from the right hand of God, being that Man (1 Timothy 2:5).

You misunderstand the texts you cite. At this point correcting you is of little value to you.