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

[RhinestoneCowboy]

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

Actually, Jewish criminals (especially crucifixion victims) weren't typically buried in "new" "empty" tombs where "no one had ever been laid" like the Gospels describe. All Paul says is that Jesus "was buried" - which he gets from scripture (according to the scriptures), not from an eyewitness report. Being "buried" doesn't necessarily mean buried in a tomb as there were different methods of ground burials in those days.

And "being raised from the dead" in 1st century Judaism had no necessary connection to a person's tomb being empty. See here for the sources: http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...l=1#post330164

[Sparko]

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!

It is your idiotic interpretation that says he shows no knowledge of an empty tomb and physical resurrection. Not anyone else's. We all believe his words clearly show in context that "resurrection" means by definition "rising from being dead back to life again in a BODY" - only by redefining such basic terms can your theory even exist. And even then it is nothing but a "maybe, if we redefine it to mean something else, and ignore the context, and any other contemporary sources, and squint really hard, then because Paul didn't use the word "physical" or mention the tomb, then he must not have believed in a physical resurrection"

Unless you can show us a plain statement by Paul saying the resurrection was not physical, and the tomb was not empty, then sorry but your theory is nothing but a joke, no better than "Jesus was an alien time traveler"

[RhinestoneCowboy]

It is your idiotic interpretation that says he shows no knowledge of an empty tomb and physical resurrection. Not anyone else's.

No, this is actually necessitated by the evidence Paul gives us.

Fact #1. Paul does not mention an empty tomb.
Fact #2. Paul does not indicate that the Risen Jesus is even on earth.
Fact #3. Paul does not say that the Risen Jesus was experienced in a "physical" way i.e. in a way that was not a "vision" or a "revelation."

Therefore, you have precisely ZERO evidence that the resurrection was "physical."

We all believe his words clearly show in context that "resurrection" means by definition "rising from being dead back to life again in a BODY" - only by redefining such basic terms can your theory even exist.

Paul says it's a "spiritual body" which is contrasted with the natural/earthly corpse body - 1 Cor 15:40-44. The "natural body" is terrestrial while the "spiritual body" is celestial. Again, since Paul nowhere indicates this "spiritual body" was on earth or experienced in a "physical" way, then the evidence necessitates that this entity was located in heaven. That's why Paul only tells us that the Risen Jesus was experienced through "visions" and "revelations" and also equates his visionary experience with those of the other apostles in 1 Cor 15:5-8.

[Adrift]

Actually, Jewish criminals (especially crucifixion victims) weren't typically buried in "new" "empty" tombs where "no one had ever been laid" like the Gospels describe. All Paul says is that Jesus "was buried" - which he gets from scripture (according to the scriptures), not from an eyewitness report. Being "buried" doesn't necessarily mean buried in a tomb as there were different methods of ground burials in those days.

And "being raised from the dead" in 1st century Judaism had no necessary connection to a person's tomb being empty. See here for the sources: http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...l=1#post330164

We know he was buried in a tomb for reasons specified in that other thread you were a member of.

[Sparko]

No, this is actually necessitated by the evidence Paul gives us.

Fact #1. Paul does not mention an empty tomb.
Fact #2. Paul does not indicate that the Risen Jesus is even on earth.
Fact #3. Paul does not say that the Risen Jesus was experienced in a "physical" way i.e. in a way that was not a "vision" or a "revelation."

Therefore, you have precisely ZERO evidence that the resurrection was "physical."



Paul says it's a "spiritual body" which is contrasted with the natural/earthly corpse body - 1 Cor 15:40-44. The "natural body" is terrestrial while the "spiritual body" is celestial. Again, since Paul nowhere indicates this "spiritual body" was on earth or experienced in a "physical" way, then the evidence necessitates that this entity was located in heaven. That's why Paul only tells us that the Risen Jesus was experienced through "visions" and "revelations."

Fact #1, Paul does not mention Jesus is human
Fact #2, Paul does not mention the middle east
Fact #3, Paul does not mention that Jesus was even dry.

Therefore Jesus was Shamu the killer whale at Seaworld in Orlando.

[RhinestoneCowboy]

We know he was buried in a tomb for reasons specified in that other thread you were a member of.

Actually, we don't "know" that at all. There is considerable doubt about that and many reasons to reject the empty tomb. One of the main reasons is that the resurrection for Paul was clearly some sort of spiritual/mystical belief involving visions and revelations, not physical encounters with a risen corpse. This, prima facie, rules out any sort of empty tomb type physical resurrection. We don't get the first report of an "empty tomb" until Mark which most scholars date to around 70 CE.

[Sparko]

Actually, we don't "know" that at all. There is considerable doubt about that and many reasons to reject the empty tomb. One of the main reasons is that the resurrection for Paul was clearly some sort of spiritual/mystical belief involving visions and revelations, not physical encounters with a risen corpse. This, prima facie, rules out any sort of empty tomb type physical resurrection. We don't get the first report of an "empty tomb" until Mark which most scholars date to around 70 CE.

You assume the conclusion then bootstrap it upon itself and declare victory. Hurrah!!!

PS You do realize that Paul's letters were written between 52 AD and 67 AD, right? So you think an entirely new theology popped up in a couple of years and completely took over the "true theology" of the Christians during Paul's writing period?

So again, please show us where Paul clearly says the resurrection was not physical and the tomb was not empty.

[RhinestoneCowboy]

You assume the conclusion then bootstrap it upon itself and declare victory. Hurrah!!!

Actually, that's what you're doing.

"The gospels and the church say the resurrection was physical, therefore Paul and the earliest Christians believed the same thing."

That's just a circular non-sequitur.

I'm not saying "Paul does not say the resurrection was physical, therefore it wasn't physical."

I'm saying there's no evidence in the earliest sources to even warrant the assumption that the resurrection was "physical" which thereby prevents you from making the assertion "the resurrection was physical." I'm also providing a ton of arguments and evidence for my conclusions rather than just bare assertions.

PS You do realize that Paul's letters were written between 52 AD and 67 AD, right? So you think an entirely new theology popped up in a couple of years and completely took over the "true theology" of the Christians during Paul's writing period?

Stories can be written overnight and circulate within communities very quickly. 1 Cor is typically dated early to mid 50's. Most scholars think Mark was written in Rome for a gentile audience (not to Paul's Corinthian audience). Mark's understanding of Jewish culture and Judean geography is not always accurate. The empty tomb story is not a written eyewitness account. It ends with "the women told no one" in the original version which explains why no one in Mark's community had ever heard the story before.

So again, please show us where Paul clearly says the resurrection was not physical and the tomb was not empty.

Why don't we start with what reasons you have from Paul to argue that the resurrection was physical? Because so far, your other arguments don't cut it.
http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...l=1#post336486

[Abigail]

The context of the passage isn't speaking of the future resurrection but of our current state of grace in the spirit that gives (and will continue to give) "life" to our sinful mortal bodies. It's a figurative expression. Read Romans 8:1-13 then read my interpretation again.

It is not a figuarative expression and you really need to explain why he uses the future tense in verse 11.

" But if the Spirit of Him who raised Jesus from the dead dwells in you, He who raised Christ Jesus from the dead will also give life to your mortal bodies through His Spirit who indwells you" (Romans 8:11)

And note how he uses "Jesus" in the first part of the verse and then "Christ Jesus" (messiah) in the second - to emphasize the fact that Christ is the messiah who sets us free from slavery to corruption (verses 20-21).

"For the creation was subjected to futility, not of its own will, but because of Him who subjected it in hope that the creation itself also will be set free from its slavery to corruption into the freedom of the glory of the children of God. (Romans 8:20-21)

In Romans Paul himself links us back to Adam and the transgression which resulted in his body returning to dust. IOW when Paul is speaking of the creation he is speaking of the physical creation account in Genesis and it is the creation that is going to be freed from corruption meaning that he is saying there will come a time when physical things do not necessarily run down and deteriorate.

And you still haven't answered my question....

Your question is silly since, even figuratively (verse 11) your interpretation that God "continues to give life to our physical bodies" doesn't make sense since how would that have applied to Christ of whom the parallel is being made.

Why doesn't Paul ever mention this "physically resurrected Christ" was on earth or experienced in a physical way?

when Paul referred people to the witnesses of the risen Christ in 1 Cor 15, he is doing exactly that. It is just you who refuses to accept it.

Luke has Paul say the exact same word for "vision" optasia in Acts 26:19 that Paul says himself in 2 Cor 12:1 for "visions" of the Lord. If the word optasia was used to describe a vision involving a bright light and a disembodied voice then that gives us a pretty strong indicator of what Paul was talking about when he mentions "visions" and "revelations" of the Lord.

Acts 26:19 refers back to Acts 26:16 where Jesus appears to Paul and then tells him he is to be a witness of Jesus and the things he (Jesus)will show him. So in Acts 26:19 Paul is most likely referring to things Jesus showed him of the mission he was to embark on and indeed we see something of this in Acts 9:12 where Paul is shown Ananias coming in to lay hands on him.

Where does Paul say that?

Why doesn't Paul mention the 'vision' of seeing Christ if it was just a vision. Why would he not have added that into the list of visions he was mentioning.

[Kbertsche]

Actually, we don't "know" that at all. There is considerable doubt about that and many reasons to reject the empty tomb. One of the main reasons is that the resurrection for Paul was clearly some sort of spiritual/mystical belief involving visions and revelations, not physical encounters with a risen corpse. This, prima facie, rules out any sort of empty tomb type physical resurrection. We don't get the first report of an "empty tomb" until Mark which most scholars date to around 70 CE.

Bart Ehrman is not a great defender of orthodox Christianity. But he is a good historian, and sees that the sort of revisionism that you are pushing is pure nonsense. You might find this entry from his blog of interest:

[Sparko]

Actually, that's what you're doing.

"The gospels and the church say the resurrection was physical, therefore Paul and the earliest Christians believed the same thing."

That's just a circular non-sequitur.

I'm not saying "Paul does not say the resurrection was physical, therefore it wasn't physical."

That is exactly what your argument is. You want to dress it up a bit, but at the core, that is exactly what it is, an argument from silence. Otherwise you would give us a clear passage where Paul says the resurrection was not physical and the tomb was not empty.

Stories can be written overnight and circulate within communities very quickly. 1 Cor is typically dated early to mid 50's. Most scholars think Mark was written in Rome for a gentile audience (not to Paul's Corinthian audience). Mark's understanding of Jewish culture and Judean geography is not always accurate. The empty tomb story is not a written eyewitness account. It ends with "the women told no one" in the original version which explains why no one in Mark's community had ever heard the story before.

And again, what you are doing is hand-waving away ANY evidence that disagrees with your argument for a nonphysical resurrection. How convenient! You are trying SO hard to control the story, Rhinestone, that it makes your claims seem even more unlikely and ridiculous. If you have to deny documents written within 3 years of Paul's letters, then it makes you look like the dishonest and desperate person that you are. Your claims have no teeth.

So either show us clear verses that show Paul saying the resurrection was nonphysical, or admit that you are a desperate, and dishonest troll.

[RhinestoneCowboy]

Bart Ehrman is not a great defender of orthodox Christianity. But he is a good historian, and sees that the sort of revisionism that you are pushing is pure nonsense. You might find this entry from his blog of interest:

Well, that sure is one interpretation. Ehrman does not think the empty tomb is historical and he also makes these comments on that post:



"It appears that it was commonly thought that the resurrection and ascension were two parts of the same event. Some may well have thought that Jesus did not stop off, first, here on earth."

[RhinestoneCowboy]

That is exactly what your argument is. You want to dress it up a bit, but at the core, that is exactly what it is, an argument from silence. Otherwise you would give us a clear passage where Paul says the resurrection was not physical and the tomb was not empty.

Wow, way to intentionally and dishonestly leave out my explanation.

I'm saying there's no evidence in the earliest sources to even warrant the assumption that the resurrection was "physical" which thereby prevents you from making the assertion "the resurrection was physical." I'm also providing a ton of arguments and evidence for my conclusions rather than just bare assertions.

If you're going to continue to straw man my position while being corrected numerous times, there's no point in arguing with you.

And again, what you are doing is hand-waving away ANY evidence that disagrees with your argument for a nonphysical resurrection. How convenient! You are trying SO hard to control the story, Rhinestone, that it makes your claims seem even more unlikely and ridiculous. If you have to deny documents written within 3 years of Paul's letters, then it makes you look like the dishonest and desperate person that you are. Your claims have no teeth.

3 years? No. It was perhaps 15 or so to a different audience. The empty tomb is a myth.

So either show us clear verses that show Paul saying the resurrection was nonphysical, or admit that you are a desperate, and dishonest troll.

Intentionally leaving out my comments to you now. Nice. Why don't we start with what reasons you have from Paul to argue that the resurrection was physical? Because so far, your other arguments don't cut it.

[Sparko]

Wow, way to intentionally and dishonestly leave out my explanation.

I'm saying there's no evidence in the earliest sources to even warrant the assumption that the resurrection was "physical" which thereby prevents you from making the assertion "the resurrection was physical." I'm also providing a ton of arguments and evidence for my conclusions rather than just bare assertions.

If you're going to continue to straw man my position while being corrected numerous times, there's no point in arguing with you.




3 years? No. It was perhaps 15 or so to a different audience. The empty tomb is a myth.



Intentionally leaving out my comments to you now. Nice. Why don't we start with what reasons you have from Paul to argue that the resurrection was physical? Because so far, your other arguments don't cut it.

Either show us clear verses that show Paul saying the resurrection was nonphysical, or admit that you are a desperate, and dishonest troll.

[RhinestoneCowboy]

It is not a figuarative expression and you really need to explain why he uses the future tense in verse 11.

In Romans Paul himself links us back to Adam and the transgression which resulted in his body returning to dust. IOW when Paul is speaking of the creation he is speaking of the physical creation account in Genesis and it is the creation that is going to be freed from corruption meaning that he is saying there will come a time when physical things do not necessarily run down and deteriorate.

Romans 8 is not a resurrection passage. Read the context. I was asking for clear passages where Paul says the Risen Jesus was on earth and experienced in a physical way. These passages fail to show that.

Your question is silly since, even figuratively (verse 11) your interpretation that God "continues to give life to our physical bodies" doesn't make sense since how would that have applied to Christ of whom the parallel is being made.

It doesn't say anything about raising mortal bodies from the dead. You're just trying to read that in when it's not there. The emphasis is on the "spirit," not Jesus' dead body.

when Paul referred people to the witnesses of the risen Christ in 1 Cor 15, he is doing exactly that. It is just you who refuses to accept it.

No, Paul is asserting he had a "vision" like everyone else had 1 Cor 15:5-8. You're just refusing to accept it. He makes no distinction between the appearances and uses the same verb.

Acts 26:19 refers back to Acts 26:16 where Jesus appears to Paul and then tells him he is to be a witness of Jesus and the things he (Jesus)will show him. So in Acts 26:19 Paul is most likely referring to things Jesus showed him of the mission he was to embark on and indeed we see something of this in Acts 9:12 where Paul is shown Ananias coming in to lay hands on him.

You're missing the entire point! The only ways Paul says that the Risen Jesus is experienced are through "visions" and "revelations". You can't claim these were physical occurrences.

Why doesn't Paul mention the 'vision' of seeing Christ if it was just a vision. Why would he not have added that into the list of visions he was mentioning.

Is the appearance Paul mentions in 1 Cor 15:8 his Damascus Road "vision" or have you discovered some other source that narrates the appearance to Paul? He himself admits that to having multiple "visions" and "revelations" of the Lord in 2 Cor 12:1. He says he had an internal "revelation" in Gal. 1:12-16.