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

[RhinestoneCowboy]

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.

Show me a good reason to think that Paul believed in:

(a) a physical resurrection which involved corpse revival on earth
(b) an empty tomb

Physical resurrection doesn't stand without good reason as I've obviously called that hypothesis into question. Feel free to actually deal with the arguments and evidence at your leisure. One more troll post from you and you're getting blocked.

[JonathanL]

Show me a good reason to think that Paul believed in:

(a) a physical resurrection which involved corpse revival on earth
(b) an empty tomb

Physical resurrection doesn't stand without good reason as I've obviously called that hypothesis into question. Feel free to actually deal with the arguments and evidence at your leisure. One more troll post from you and you're getting blocked.

I've not followed along in this thread, but on what in the epistles are you basing your argument that Paul is talking about a body made up of some kind of spiritual "stuff" when he's talking about the resurrection body?

[RhinestoneCowboy]

I've not followed along in this thread, but on what in the epistles are you basing your argument that Paul is talking about a body made up of some kind of spiritual "stuff" when he's talking about the resurrection body?

It's deduced mainly from 1 Cor 15:35-54 and 2 Cor 5:1-4. It doesn't really make sense for Paul to only use the words "appeared" ὤφθη - 1 Cor 15:5-8, "visions" and "revelations" - Gal. 1:12-16, 2 Cor 12:1 if he actually knew of an empty tomb and a corpse that was physically touched. Those words in no way provide support for an empty tomb or a physically resurrected body. He's asserting that he saw the exact same thing the others did in 1 Cor 15:5-8 or at least, since he provides no distinction, that conclusion is just as likely as the opposite.

[JonathanL]

It's deduced mainly from 1 Cor 15:35-54 . . .

Ignoring the other reference for now, is it your contention that when Paul talks about a "spiritual" body, he's literally talking about a body made up of some kind of spiritual material?

[Sparko]

Show me a good reason to think that Paul believed in:

(a) a physical resurrection which involved corpse revival on earth
(b) an empty tomb

Physical resurrection doesn't stand without good reason as I've obviously called that hypothesis into question. Feel free to actually deal with the arguments and evidence at your leisure. One more troll post from you and you're getting blocked.

I told you, that your argument is one from silence. Not only that but you toss out any evidence that goes against your theory (like the gospels and acts, and the very history of the church itself) so to show you how disingenuous that is, I am using your own tactic against you. So if you want to get answers from me, answer my challenge first, or admit that you can't.

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

[RhinestoneCowboy]

I told you, that your argument is one from silence.

To which I responded with my cumulative case, proving you wrong and yet you still fail to acknowledge this fact but instead double down on your original assertion. Who's the "insane" one again?

Not only that but you toss out any evidence that goes against your theory (like the gospels and acts, and the very history of the church itself) so to show you how disingenuous that is, I am using your own tactic against you. So if you want to get answers from me, answer my challenge first, or admit that you can't.

Paul is the earliest Christian source and reflects the earliest Christian preaching. I'm using the Gospels and Acts to show how the story reflects legendary accretion when compared to the earliest reports. You must realize and acknowledge the fact that Paul is the only eyewitness account we have in the entire New Testament where someone says "The Risen Jesus appeared to me." We don't have firsthand reports from Peter, James or anyone else.

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

1 Cor 15:50 is about as clear as it gets and since Paul shows no knowledge of an empty tomb then it's disingenuous to claim that he knew about one. You literally have no evidence in the earliest Christian report that the resurrection was "physical" insofar as that it involved a corpse returning to life, getting up and leaving an empty tomb behind, gets touched then floats to heaven while people watch. So your assertion that it was a "physical resurrection" is unfounded. Assertions aren't arguments. Are you unable to provide any?

[RhinestoneCowboy]

Ignoring the other reference for now, is it your contention that when Paul talks about a "spiritual" body, he's literally talking about a body made up of some kind of spiritual material?

Pages 124-126 explain what I'm trying to say from a scholarly viewpoint: https://books.google.com/books?id=xa...page&q&f=false

Moderator Notice

Argument by web link is not acceptable.

***If you wish to take issue with this notice DO NOT do so in this thread.***
Contact the forum moderator or an administrator in Private Message or email instead. If you feel you must publicly complain or whine, please take it to the Psychotherapy Room unless told otherwise.

[Sparko]

To which I responded with my cumulative case, proving you wrong and yet you still fail to acknowledge this fact but instead double down on your original assertion. Who's the "insane" one again?



Paul is the earliest Christian source and reflects the earliest Christian preaching. I'm using the Gospels and Acts to show how the story reflects legendary accretion when compared to the earliest reports. You must realize and acknowledge the fact that Paul is the only eyewitness account we have in the entire New Testament where someone says "The Risen Jesus appeared to me." We don't have firsthand reports from Peter, James or anyone else.



1 Cor 15:50 is about as clear as it gets and since Paul shows no knowledge of an empty tomb then it's disingenuous to claim that he knew about one. You literally have no evidence in the earliest Christian report that the resurrection was "physical" insofar as that it involved a corpse returning to life, getting up and leaving an empty tomb behind, gets touched then floats to heaven while people watch. So your assertion that it was a "physical resurrection" is unfounded. Assertions aren't arguments. Are you unable to provide any?

So in other words you cannot provide a clear statement that Paul did not believe in a physical resurrection or an empty tomb.

I guess you lose then. Sorry.

[RhinestoneCowboy]

So in other words you cannot provide a clear statement that Paul did not believe in a physical resurrection or an empty tomb.

I guess you lose then. Sorry.

No, that's not how reasoned argumentation works. You have yet to provide any evidence for your case and keep ignoring everything I say. Assertions aren't arguments.

[Sparko]

No, that's not how reasoned argumentation works. You have yet to provide any evidence for your case and keep ignoring everything I say. Assertions aren't arguments.

I am not actually asserting anything. I am merely putting the burden on you to prove your claims clearly by quoting Paul proving YOUR assertions.

Your entire case rests on Paul not clearly saying that the resurrection is physical. That's it. You claim to support it by posting various verses that can be interpreted either way and claiming it proves that Paul didn't believe in a physical resurrection. And you argue that since he didn't mention an empty tomb that means he didn't believe in one. That is your entire argument in a nutshell. An argument from silence.

So basically I turned the tables on you and used your own idiotic strategy against you. You don't seem to like that. Good. Now you know how ridiculous we think your arguments are.

So either show me a clear statement that Paul did NOT believe in a physical resurrection and an empty tomb, or admit defeat.

[RhinestoneCowboy]

I am not actually asserting anything. I am merely putting the burden on you to prove your claims clearly by quoting Paul proving YOUR assertions.

Which I've done to the point of ad nauseam. How about responding with a positive case of your own?

Your entire case rests on Paul not clearly saying that the resurrection is physical. That's it. You claim to support it by posting various verses that can be interpreted either way and claiming it proves that Paul didn't believe in a physical resurrection. And you argue that since he didn't mention an empty tomb that means he didn't believe in one. That is your entire argument in a nutshell. An argument from silence.

This has been shown as false. See my cumulative case above. Paul is asserting that the others had "visions" like he did and places the Resurrected Christ in heaven (not on earth).

Since when do trolls get to become mods?

So basically I turned the tables on you and used your own idiotic strategy against you. You don't seem to like that. Good. Now you know how ridiculous we think your arguments are.

So either show me a clear statement that Paul did NOT believe in a physical resurrection and an empty tomb, or admit defeat.

I think you misunderstand and misrepresent my position. A more precise description is that you have no good reason from Paul to conclude that the resurrection was "physical" whereas there are many good reasons to conclude that it was some sort of "spiritual" resurrection. Spot the difference. If you have no good reason for your case then you can't claim that is the best take on the evidence. You're also mistaken when you say you're "using the exact same strategy that I am" because I've actually presented evidence and argument while you haven't. SPOT THE BIG DIFFERENCE.

[Sparko]

Which I've done to the point of ad nauseam. How about responding with a positive case of your own?



This has been shown as false. See my cumulative case above. Paul is asserting that the others had "visions" like he did and places the Resurrected Christ in heaven (not on earth).

Since when do trolls get to become mods?



I think you misunderstand and misrepresent my position. A more precise description is that you have no good reason from Paul to conclude that the resurrection was "physical" whereas there are many reasons to conclude that it was some sort of "spiritual" resurrection. Spot the difference. If you have no good reason for your case then you can't claim that is the best take on the evidence. You're also mistaken in the fact that you're "using the exact same strategy that I am" because I've actually presented evidence and argument, you haven't. SPOT THE BIG DIFFERENCE.

we have lots of good reasons to believe the resurrection is physical. The history of the church, the gospels, all of Paul's words are consistent with a physical resurrection despite your attempts to claim they are not. The standing consensus of Christianity for 2000 years is that the resurrection is physical. Without a physical resurrection Christianity makes NO sense whatsoever. What did it prove if all that happens after you die is you become a ghost? How is that hope? What would Christianity have changed especially if, as you claim, the Jews believed the same thing?

So no, if you want people to believe YOUR claims, you have to do more than merely say that if you ignore all of history, the gospels and read Paul out of context, you MIGHT be able to read it as a non-physical resurrection. No, if you want to convince anyone, you need a POSITIVE case with POSITIVE evidence. You need to show clear and uncontested quotes by Paul saying the resurrection is not physical and the tomb was not empty. You have not done that.

So I ask you again.

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

[RhinestoneCowboy]

we have lots of good reasons to believe the resurrection is physical.

Lol! This oughta be good.

The history of the church

Non-sequitur. Maybe the later church believed that but did Paul? What about the other churches of Valentinus and Marcion? Gnosticism, doectism?

, the gospels,

Come later and are inconsistent with Paul's own firsthand reports. Are consistent with legendary growth. Ultimately, another non-sequitur.

all of Paul's words are consistent with a physical resurrection despite your attempts to claim they are not.

Then show me how my interpretations of Paul are less plausible than yours. It should be very easy to demonstrate since you seem pretty confident in making this assertion.

The standing consensus of Christianity for 2000 years is that the resurrection is physical.

Argument from authority and the "consensus" didn't start until the 4th century or later, yet another non-sequitur.

Without a physical resurrection Christianity makes NO sense whatsoever.

Even with a physical resurrection, Christianity still makes no sense.

What did it prove if all that happens after you die is you become a ghost? How is that hope? What would Christianity have changed especially if, as you claim, the Jews believed the same thing?

That's one big fat argument from ignorance you got there.

So no, if you want people to believe YOUR claims, you have to do more than merely say that if you ignore all of history, the gospels and read Paul out of context, you MIGHT be able to read it as a non-physical resurrection.

How do I know you're not "reading" Paul out of context and that his words haven't been distorted by nearly 2,000 years of Christian dogma which may not necessarily reflect the apostle's views accurately?

No, if you want to convince anyone, you need a POSITIVE case with POSITIVE evidence. You need to show clear and uncontested quotes by Paul saying the resurrection is not physical and the tomb was not empty. You have not done that.

I don't need to convince anyone. The fact that no one has been able to refute my arguments and that you've resorted to trolling this thread tells me that I'm on the right track.

So I ask you again.

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

You show me where Paul clearly and uncategorically states that the resurrection IS physical and that there WAS an empty tomb.

Two can play this game, troll.

[Sparko]

You are right, you don't have to convince anyone. Yet you keep trying. and failing. Not ONE person in this thread has thought you had any valid points.

So sure, if you don't want to convince anyone, then just close the thread. But if you DO want to convince anyone, you have to show us where Paul clearly and uncategorically states that the resurrection is not physical and that there was not an empty tomb.

Because despite your beliefs, our beliefs are already that the resurrection was physical and the tomb was empty. You can either show us positive evidence of Paul clearly saying the contrary, or we will continue to believe as we always have.

So no, you don't have to convince anyone.

I am not a troll. I am just showing you how ridiculous your argument has been so far by using the same strategy that you have been using. If that makes me a troll, then it is only because you are one also. I am only a troll magnet.

[RhinestoneCowboy]

I am just showing you how ridiculous your argument has been so far by using the same strategy that you have been using.

Wrong. You're giving yourself too much credit and i think you think you're more clever than you actually are.

A more precise description of my position is that no one has shown a good reason from Paul to conclude that the resurrection was "physical" whereas there are many good reasons to conclude that it was some sort of "spiritual" resurrection. Spot the difference. If you have no good reason for your case then you can't claim that is the best take on the evidence. You're also mistaken when you say you're "using the exact same strategy that I am" because I've actually presented evidence and argument while you haven't. SPOT THE BIG DIFFERENCE.

I then showed how the "good reasons" that you claim you have aren't so "good" after all. http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...l=1#post336486

Once again, you fail to interact with any of the dialogue and keep asserting the same thing over and over.

If that makes me a troll, then it is only because you are one also. I am only a troll magnet.

You are clearly a troll. Since when do trolls get to become mods?