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

[Sparko]

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?

I am playing your game now, Rhinestone.

Show me where Paul clearly and uncategorically states that the resurrection is not physical and that there was not an empty tomb.

If you can't do it then the resurrection was physical. Your logic, not mine.

[RhinestoneCowboy]

I am playing your game now, Rhinestone.

Show me where Paul clearly and uncategorically states that the resurrection is not physical and that there was not an empty tomb.

If you can't do it then the resurrection was physical. Your logic, not mine.

I already did! http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...l=1#post335725

Since Paul says all this and never indicates that the Risen Jesus was:

(a) on earth
(b) experienced in a way that was not a vision or a revelation
(c) left an empty tomb behind

then you can't claim that the resurrection was "physical" in that it involved the resuscitation of the corpse.

[RhinestoneCowboy]

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.

It says without flesh too...and a "body" does not necessarily mean it's a "body" like we have when we're alive. Paul says there are different types of bodies in 1 Cor 15:40-44.

". . . 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.

Luke's later source (not Paul) and contradicts 1 Cor 15:50.

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).

1 Tim says nothing about resurrection.

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

I see no reason from you that I "misunderstand the texts I cite." Assertions aren't evidence.

[Sparko]

I already did! http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...l=1#post335725

Since Paul says all this and never indicates that the Risen Jesus was:

(a) on earth
(b) experienced in a way that was not a vision or a revelation
(c) left an empty tomb behind

then you can't claim that the resurrection was "physical" in that it involved the resuscitation of the corpse.

See the underlined words:

Show me where Paul clearly and uncategorically states that the resurrection is not physical and that there was not an empty tomb.

Paul said neither of that the resurrection was not physical or that the tomb was not empty. The resurrection of our bodies doesn't happen when we die, but later after Christ's return. You can read about it in 1 Thessalonians 4.

So again, unless you can clearly and uncategorically produce a quote by Paul that the resurrection is not physical and Christ's tomb was not empty, then you have not proven your point. It is your own rules, dude. live by them.

[RhinestoneCowboy]

See the underlined words:

Show me where Paul clearly and uncategorically states that the resurrection is not physical and that there was not an empty tomb.

Paul said neither of that the resurrection was not physical or that the tomb was not empty. The resurrection of our bodies doesn't happen when we die, but later after Christ's return. You can read about it in 1 Thessalonians 4.

So again, unless you can clearly and uncategorically produce a quote by Paul that the resurrection is not physical and Christ's tomb was not empty, then you have not proven your point. It is your own rules, dude. live by them.

What exactly do you mean by "physical"?

[Sparko]

What exactly do you mean by "physical"?

coming back to life in a body.

[RhinestoneCowboy]

coming back to life in a body.

What "type" of body?

A physical flesh and blood corpse - 1 Cor 15:50?

A "heavenly" body - 1 Cor 15:40?

An angelic like genderless entity in heaven - Mark 12:25?

Is this "body" on earth?

[Sparko]

What "type" of body? A physical flesh and blood corpse - 1 Cor 15:50?

A "heavenly" body - 1 Cor 15:40?

An angelic like genderless entity in heaven - Mark 12:25?

Is this "body" on earth?

The physical resurrection body, as opposed to a spirit like you claim. Stop equivocating and get on with it. Apparently you are not happy when people use your own argument strategy against you.

Show me where Paul clearly and uncategorically states that the resurrection is not physical and that there was not an empty tomb.

[RhinestoneCowboy]

The physical resurrection body, as opposed to a spirit like you claim.

But what type of "body" is that? I can grant that Paul thought Jesus was raised in a "body" of some sort however that does not prove:

(a) the body was on earth
(b) that it was composed of flesh and blood
(c) that it could be touched or experienced in a physical way

A "spiritual body" could be some sort of angelic like entity in heaven. That's why Paul only says the Risen Christ was experienced through visions and revelations and equates his Damascus Road vision to the other appearances. He thought Jesus was in a "body" of some sort however it wasn't the same thing as the physical earthly body. Like the plant that sprouts from the seed - 1 Cor 15:36-37, the "spiritual body" no longer resembles the "natural body."

Stop equivocating and get on with it.

You're actually the one equivocating. Paul says there are different types of bodies in 1 Cor 15:40-44. He draws distinctions between them. Therefore, you can't claim that "the physical resurrection body" was a risen corpse on earth like the later gospels depict, unless you have good evidence of course.

[Sparko]

But what type of "body" is that? I can grant that Paul thought Jesus was raised in a "body" of some sort however that does not prove:

(a) the body was on earth
(b) that it was composed of flesh and blood
(c) that it could be touched or experienced in a physical way

A "spiritual body" could be some sort of angelic like entity in heaven. That's why Paul only says the Risen Christ was experienced through visions and revelations and equates his Damascus Road vision to the other appearances. He thought Jesus was in a "body" of some sort however it wasn't the same thing as the physical earthly body. Like the plant that sprouts from the seed - 1 Cor 15:36-37, the "spiritual body" no longer resembles the "natural body."



You're actually the one equivocating. Paul says there are different types of bodies in 1 Cor 15:40-44. He draws distinctions between them. Therefore, you can't claim that "the physical resurrection body" was a risen corpse on earth like the later gospels depict, unless you have good evidence of course.

If I said the pope is a spiritual person does that mean I think he is a ghost? a spirtual body doesn't mean a spirit body.

If the tomb was empty, it means that Jesus's resurrection body was the one he died in. It was raised back to life. resurrected.

So again,

Show me where Paul clearly and uncategorically states that the resurrection is not physical and that there was not an empty tomb.

Apparently you cannot do this, so you are trying to change the topic and place the onus back on me.

Do you now see why I said earlier that your entire strategy and argument in this thread is ridiculous? You are arguing from silence and saying if we can't produce some exact quote disproving your theory, then your theory must be true. So when I do the same to you, you get all upset and start equivocating because you realize I am doing exactly what you were doing, but from the opposite viewpoint. sucks, doesn't it?

I rest my case.

[RhinestoneCowboy]

If I said the pope is a spiritual person does that mean I think he is a ghost? a spirtual body doesn't mean a spirit body.

Ok, then where does Paul say the "body" of Jesus was on earth or experienced in a physical way?

So again,

Show me where Paul clearly and uncategorically states that the resurrection is not physical and that there was not an empty tomb.

Apparently you cannot do this, so you are trying to change the topic and place the onus back on me.

Paul shows no knowledge of an empty tomb so you're just reading that in. The onus is on you to prove the physical resurrection.

Do you now see why I said earlier that your entire strategy and argument in this thread is ridiculous? You are arguing from silence and saying if we can't produce some exact quote disproving your theory, then your theory must be true. So when I do the same to you, you get all upset and start equivocating because you realize I am doing exactly what you were doing, but from the opposite viewpoint. sucks, doesn't it?

I rest my case.

No, you have not shown my theory to be less plausible than it's negation. Therefore, it's still as good as any other theory. Now please go away.

[DesertBerean]

Ok, then where does Paul say the "body" of Jesus was on earth or experienced in a physical way?



Paul shows no knowledge of an empty tomb so you're just reading that in. The onus is on you to prove the physical resurrection.



No, you have not shown my theory to be less plausible than it's negation. Therefore, it's still as good as any other theory. Now please go away.

And you got it...a debate thread where you want no debate. Ok.

[Sparko]

Ok, then where does Paul say the "body" of Jesus was on earth or experienced in a physical way?

see you just want to go back to your argument from silence. We aren't buying that. Never did.

Paul shows no knowledge of an empty tomb so you're just reading that in. The onus is on you to prove the physical resurrection.

no. The onus is on YOU to prove a non-physical resurrection. You are the one who came here making the claim. So far, your entire argument has been one from silence and a negative: That paul never clearly said there was a physical resurrection (at least according to your interpretation) so that means it was non physical. Wrong. The consensus of 2,000 years of theology say that Paul did believe in a physical resurrection as did the Christian church. It is up to YOU to PROVE otherwise by clearly showing where Paul says the resurrection was not physical and the tomb was not empty.

No, you have not shown my theory to be less plausible than it's negation. Therefore, it's still as good as any other theory. Now please go away.

Neither of us can prove that Jesus wasn't a time traveler from the year 3450 who went back in time to teach mankind about love, and then went back home, then appeared to Paul as a hologram. Paul never denies this theory, not even once! Just because someone can come up with a wacky theory based on silence doesn't make it more true than what the Christian church has believed for 2000 years.

Are we done here?

[RhinestoneCowboy]

see you just want to go back to your argument from silence. We aren't buying that. Never did.

I'm not just offering arguments from silence. I have a cumulative case.

1. Paul believed Jesus was exalted to heaven at the moment of his resurrection, not "raised" to earth. You have to actually provide positive evidence for the latter. In the earliest Christian preaching, resurrection and exaltation were two sides of the same coin - Rom. 8.34; 10.5-8; Eph. 1.19-23; 2.6-7; 4.7-10 Col. 3.1-4; Phil. 2.8-9; 1 Tim. 3.16.

2. Paul believed in a spiritual/mystical Christ that was only experienced through visions/revelations, not physical encounters involving touching a formerly dead resuscitated corpse. Paul equates the "appearances" without distinction in 1 Cor 9:1 and 15:5-8.

3. The diversity of Resurrection belief in 2nd temple Hellenistic-Judaism raises the prior probability of a "spiritual" resurrection actually being Paul's view. Being "raised from the dead" had no necessary connection with a person's grave being empty. See an overview of the sources on pages 31-40 that show some Jews believed spirits or souls could be "raised."
https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=...page&q&f=false
http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...l=1#post330164

4. Paul mentions no empty tomb or anything close to touching a formerly dead body that had literally gotten up and left a grave behind. (You'd think that would have really helped his argument in 1 Cor 15 when they ask "With what type of body do they come?") Instead, Paul uses ambiguous language and isn't even consistent in his usage of the terminology. Even still, the whole discourse in 1 Cor 15:35-54 can be plausibly interpreted to argue against a physical resurrection involving corpse resuscitation like the later gospels depict.

no. The onus is on YOU to prove a non-physical resurrection. You are the one who came here making the claim.

And I've clearly supported my claim. So far all you have to say is "nuh-uh" even when being proven wrong. http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...l=1#post335616

Instead of calling me names you should thank me for teaching you something new.

So far, your entire argument has been one from silence and a negative: That paul never clearly said there was a physical resurrection (at least according to your interpretation) so that means it was non physical. Wrong.

I've supported my claim with a ton of evidence showing that Paul believed there were different types of bodies 1 Cor 15:40-44 and that the "earthly body" is not what is resurrected. He equates his Damascus Road VISION

The consensus of 2,000 years of theology say that Paul did believe in a physical resurrection as did the Christian church.

Which mainly comes from the gospel tradition. Paul predates that and is speaking of something different.

It is up to YOU to PROVE otherwise by clearly showing where Paul says the resurrection was not physical and the tomb was not empty.

Paul shows no knowledge of an empty tomb, therefore he knew about it?

What kind of logic is that?

Are we done here?

Only if you want to stop being humiliated like the amateur you are. I'm sorry I know more about the history of your own religion than you do. Since I have no faith commitments that enables me to get a more objective read on the evidence. You should try it without your Christian blinders on.

[Sparko]

so if we are not done, then show me where Paul clearly and uncategorically states that the resurrection is not physical and that there was not an empty tomb.