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

[Sparko]

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.



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

You still have not provided any clear evidence of Paul saying the resurrection was not physical.


I am not a mod. I am an owner.

[Sea of red]

You still have not provided any clear evidence of Paul saying the resurrection was not physical.


I am not a mod. I am an owner.

[JonathanL]

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.

Even if I wanted to read the book you linked to I can't do it (when I click the link it says the work is not available as an e-book). You'll have to give me the argument in your own words, or link to somewhere in the thread where you've already made the argument.

[RhinestoneCowboy]

You still have not provided any clear evidence of Paul saying the resurrection was not physical.


I am not a mod. I am an owner.

Since you admit that the verses can be interpreted either way, I've done my job here. Thanks!

[37818]

Since you admit that the verses can be interpreted either way, I've done my job here. Thanks!

OK. You do understand a Christian only needs to provide the reason for what is believed. Your agreement is never required. And making arguments contrary to how Christians understand the plain meaning of the texts does not make you misunderstanding true.

[One Bad Pig]

Since you admit that the verses can be interpreted either way, I've done my job here. Thanks!

Sparko has admitted no such thing. At best, you can take some verses out of their immediate and Jewish context and spin them to support your POV. No one here (or in any other forum you've propounded this, AFAICS) considers your argument in any way persuasive.

[Sparko]

Since you admit that the verses can be interpreted either way, I've done my job here. Thanks!

You are welcome to interpret them however you want. but you have not convinced anyone else you are correct. Because you have not shown any clear statements from Paul saying he did not believe in a physical resurrection or empty tomb. You are right back where you started, a person with a fringe theory that nobody believes. Congratulations.

[RhinestoneCowboy]

Has anyone found the verses where Paul says the Risen Jesus was on earth or experienced in a physical way? Because if not, you have no grounds for claiming the "appearances" in 1 Cor 15:5-8 were understood to be more physical than "visions" or "revelatory" experiences. Paul's testimony in no way supports an empty tomb or a physically resurrected corpse like Luke and John describe 30-40 years later. Since Paul claims to have met with Peter and James - Gal. 1-2, this is quite baffling. The only way to interpret this is that Peter and James had "visions" too, not physical encounters that involved touching a once dead corpse that literally rose from the grave. I have sufficiently proven my point despite what the naysayers here are posting.

[Sparko]

Has anyone found the verses where Paul says the Risen Jesus was on earth or experienced in a physical way? Because if not, you have no grounds for claiming the "appearances" in 1 Cor 15:5-8 were understood to be more physical than "visions" or "revelatory" experiences. Paul's testimony in no way supports an empty tomb or a physically resurrected corpse like Luke and John describe 30-40 years later. Since Paul claims to have met with Peter and James - Gal. 1-2, this is quite baffling. The only way to interpret this is that Peter and James had "visions" too, not physical encounters that involved touching a once dead corpse that literally rose from the grave. I have sufficiently proven my point despite what the naysayers here are posting.

Please provide any clear verses where Paul says Jesus was not resurrected physically and the tomb was not empty.

[RhinestoneCowboy]

Please provide any clear verses where Paul says Jesus was not resurrected physically and the tomb was not empty.

1 Cor 15:50 and Paul MENTIONS NO EMPTY TOMB. This whole thread is full of additional arguments and evidence. Where's your evidence of a "physical resurrection" in Paul? As it stands, you're still left holding an empty sack.

[RhinestoneCowboy]

Sparko has admitted no such thing.

"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."

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...l=1#post336457

At best, you can take some verses out of their immediate and Jewish context and spin them to support your POV.

Actually, I've proven that the "immediate and Jewish context" was much more diverse than apologists are willing to assert. Need proof? Read my posts.

No one here (or in any other forum you've propounded this, AFAICS) considers your argument in any way persuasive.

That's fine but it's funny how no one can offer a valid counter argument to what I'm posting. Every objection has failed thus far.

[RhinestoneCowboy]

OK. You do understand a Christian only needs to provide the reason for what is believed.

I need a good reason. So far, there's no good reason to believe that Paul was speaking about an empty tomb type physical resurrection in his letters.

Your agreement is never required. And making arguments contrary to how Christians understand the plain meaning of the texts does not make you misunderstanding true.

What exactly am I misunderstanding? Aren't you the one reading in later sources and claiming it was Paul's view? That's fallacious.

[Sparko]

1 Cor 15:50 and Paul MENTIONS NO EMPTY TOMB. This whole thread is full of additional arguments and evidence. Where's your evidence of a "physical resurrection" in Paul? As it stands, you're still left holding an empty sack.

He also didn't mention any time machines. Therefore Jesus was a time traveler!



Please provide any clear verses where Paul says Jesus was not resurrected physically and the tomb was not empty.

[RhinestoneCowboy]

He also didn't mention any time machines. Therefore Jesus was a time traveler!



Please provide any clear verses where Paul says Jesus was not resurrected physically and the tomb was not empty.

Paul shows no knowledge of an empty tomb or physical appearances of Jesus, therefore he knew about those things?

What kind of reasoning is that?

So yes, according to your exact logic and reasoning - since Paul nowhere indicates he knows about time machines, he did know about time travel!

Hahahahahahahahahaha!

[Adrift]

He also didn't mention any time machines. Therefore Jesus was a time traveler!



Please provide any clear verses where Paul says Jesus was not resurrected physically and the tomb was not empty.

And he does mention a tomb by implication. People don't raise from the dead after being buried without leaving a tomb behind.