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

[One Bad Pig]

Dear Readers: This is the typical pattern of fundamentalists: Attack the ex-cult member to distract from the massive holes in the cult's superstitious supernatural teachings. Watch this guy. As the evidence presented against his cult gets stronger, his rage and hatred for the "messenger" will intensify. His goal: Destroy the ex-cult member before the ex-cult member destroys his cult.

This man is full of hate and rage. There is NOTHING Jesus-like about him. You can feel his hate in his writings. Men like "Adrift" were first in line to light the kindling below the bonfire and stake to which his fellow supernaturalists tied millions of skeptics and dissenters to face a horrific, gruesome death...and enjoyed watching these people suffer. He is the epitome of what is evil about fundamentalist supernaturalist belief systems.

Wait, what? Oh, another "Dear Readers" followed by an absolute whopper.

If you had a good response to Adrift's accusations you'd give it. Instead, it is apparent that his accusations are right on the money, and all you've got is a wildly inept flailing attempt at a counterattack in response.

[Kbertsche]

It meant that Jesus was "brought back to life" in some sense but this does not necessarily entail that they thought his corpse left an empty tomb.

But 1 Cor 15:3-5 says a lot more than "Jesus was "brought back to life" in some sense". What are the claims that the creed makes? What is the Greek word used for "brought back to life" and what does it imply? What did the early church mean by this creed?

Paul equates his vision with the other appearances,

But Paul's comments (in 1 Cor 15:6ff) were tacked onto this creed some 15 or so years later. If you REALLY want to get back to the earliest claims of the resurrection, as you've been claiming, let's discuss the creed alone (1 Cor 15:3-5).

[psstein]

But 1 Cor 15:3-5 says a lot more than "Jesus was "brought back to life" in some sense". What are the claims that the creed makes? What is the Greek word used for "brought back to life" and what does it imply? What did the early church mean by this creed?

The word used in 1 Cor. 15:3-5 for "raised" is εγηγερται, which is the perfect middle indicative/passive indicative, 3rd person singular of εγειρε, which means "rise," often used as "rise from seated to a standing position" in both Greek literature and the LΧΧ.

In Koine Greek, the word for "Resurrection" is αναστασισ, which Paul uses later in 1 Cor. 15.

[Sparko]

The word used in 1 Cor. 15:3-5 for "raised" is εγηγερται, which is the perfect middle indicative/passive indicative, 3rd person singular of εγειρε, which means "rise," often used as "rise from seated to a standing position" in both Greek literature and the LΧΧ.

to arouse from the sleep of death, to recall the dead to life
to cause to rise from a seat or bed etc.

also since Paul says he was buried, then rose back to life and was seen by many, that pretty much means an empty tomb.

[RhinestoneCowboy]

But 1 Cor 15:3-5 says a lot more than "Jesus was "brought back to life" in some sense". What are the claims that the creed makes? What is the Greek word used for "brought back to life" and what does it imply? What did the early church mean by this creed?

Well, it certainly doesn't mention an empty tomb or that a corpse was physically revived, walked around on earth and was touched. Am I missing something?

But Paul's comments (in 1 Cor 15:6ff) were tacked onto this creed some 15 or so years later. If you REALLY want to get back to the earliest claims of the resurrection, as you've been claiming, let's discuss the creed alone (1 Cor 15:3-5).

And all the creed says is that Jesus was "raised" egēgertai (a word with a wide range of meaning) and that he "appeared" ὤφθη (Greek - ōphthē), a word that was commonly used to denote spiritual/supernatural apparitions. Why are you dodging Paul's firsthand testimony? It's the only eyewitness source we have in the whole NT! Sorry, but we just don't have any firsthand eyewitness testimony from Peter or James. Paul claims to have met with them for 15 days in Galatians 1. Surely, they would have made it known that the Resurrected Jesus left an empty tomb behind, ate fish, was touched then spent 40 days walking around on earth before his physical ascension into heaven while they watched (per Acts). However, no mention of anything even remotely resembling this in Paul's letters. All we have is Paul equating his "appearance" (vision) with that of the others in 1 Cor 15:5-8. Hmmm......

The bottom line is if you accept that the Risen Christ's appearance to Paul was a vision of some sort (as the NT unanimously attests) then you can't claim the other "appearances" in 1 Cor 15:5-7 were more "physical." You're just trying to have it both ways.

The word used in 1 Cor. 15:3-5 for "raised" is εγηγερται, which is the perfect middle indicative/passive indicative, 3rd person singular of εγειρε, which means "rise," often used as "rise from seated to a standing position" in both Greek literature and the LΧΧ.

In Koine Greek, the word for "Resurrection" is αναστασισ, which Paul uses later in 1 Cor. 15.

This is just a non-sequitur. I'm well aware of the wide range of meanings these words could have had in their 1st century Hellenistic-Jewish context. The word egēgertai can also mean "to arouse from the sleep of death, to recall the dead to life" http://lexiconcordance.com/greek/1453.html which does not necessarily mean that a corpse literally "rose" out of a grave. It could be used to refer to souls "rising up" out of Sheol and could also be interpreted theologically as being "raised/resurrected" straight to Heaven. This would make sense because Paul never says the Risen Jesus was on earth. He seems to imply Jesus was exalted straight to heaven - 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.

- Tuckett, Corinthian Correspondence, pg. 255) https://books.google.com/books?id=hd...page&q&f=false

There were different ways that "coming back to life" were envisioned during Second Temple Judaism as I documented here in this post - http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...l=1#post330164

Resurrection had no necessary connection to a person's tomb being empty. https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=...page&q&f=false

to arouse from the sleep of death, to recall the dead to life
to cause to rise from a seat or bed etc.

also since Paul says he was buried, then rose back to life and was seen by many, that pretty much means an empty tomb.

Only if you just read that in prematurely based on your knowledge of the empty tomb story from the later gospels. 1 Cor 15:3-5 provides a twofold proof, (a) from scripture and (b) from confirmatory fact and theological interpretation of said fact. Thus "he was buried" is connected with the dying and not the resurrection of Jesus. Verses 3-5 are to be read as follows:

(a) Christ died / for our sins / according to the scriptures / and he was buried;
(b) he was raised / on the third day / according to the scriptures / and he appeared (ophthe) to Cephas, then to the Twelve.

All this involves taking language very literally at a time when beliefs were not sufficiently fixed for us to do so. - Maurice Casey, Jesus of Nazareth, pg. 458-459 https://books.google.com/books?id=lX...page&q&f=false

[Sparko]

Well, it certainly doesn't mention an empty tomb or that a corpse was physically revived, walked around on earth and was touched. Am I missing something?



And all the creed says is that Jesus was "raised" egēgertai (a word with a wide range of meaning) and that he "appeared" ὤφθη (Greek - ōphthē), a word that was commonly used to denote spiritual/supernatural apparitions. Why are you dodging Paul's firsthand testimony? It's the only eyewitness source we have in the whole NT! Sorry, but we just don't have any firsthand eyewitness testimony from Peter or James. Paul claims to have met with them for 15 days in Galatians 1. Surely, they would have made it known that the Resurrected Jesus left an empty tomb behind, ate fish, was touched then spent 40 days walking around on earth before his physical ascension into heaven while they watched (per Acts). However, no mention of anything even remotely resembling this in Paul's letters. All we have is Paul equating his "appearance" (vision) with that of the others in 1 Cor 15:5-8. Hmmm......

The bottom line is if you accept that the Risen Christ's appearance to Paul was a vision of some sort (as the NT unanimously attests) then you can't claim the other "appearances" in 1 Cor 15:5-7 were more "physical." You're just trying to have it both ways.



This is just a non-sequitur. I'm well aware of the wide range of meanings these words could have had in their 1st century Hellenistic-Jewish context. The word egēgertai can also mean "to arouse from the sleep of death, to recall the dead to life" http://lexiconcordance.com/greek/1453.html which does not necessarily mean that a corpse literally "rose" out of a grave. It could be used to refer to souls "rising up" out of Sheol and could also be interpreted theologically as being "raised/resurrected" straight to Heaven. This would make sense because Paul never says the Risen Jesus was on earth. He seems to imply Jesus was exalted straight to heaven - 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.

- Tuckett, Corinthian Correspondence, pg. 255) https://books.google.com/books?id=hd...page&q&f=false

There were different ways that "coming back to life" were envisioned during Second Temple Judaism as I documented here in this post - http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...l=1#post330164

Resurrection had no necessary connection to a person's tomb being empty. https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=...page&q&f=false



Only if you just read that in prematurely based on your knowledge of the empty tomb story from the later gospels. 1 Cor 15:3-5 provides a twofold proof, (a) from scripture and (b) from confirmatory fact and theological interpretation of said fact. Thus "he was buried" is connected with the dying and not the resurrection of Jesus. Verses 3-5 are to be read as follows:

(a) Christ died / for our sins / according to the scriptures / and he was buried;
(b) he was raised / on the third day / according to the scriptures / and he appeared (ophthe) to Cephas, then to the Twelve.

All this involves taking language very literally at a time when beliefs were not sufficiently fixed for us to do so. - Maurice Casey, Jesus of Nazareth, pg. 458-459 https://books.google.com/books?id=lX...page&q&f=false

If you have a dead body, which you bury, and then it comes back to life, then it means an empty tomb (or grave) since it would be idiotic for a live person to stay in a grave. Turning into a ghost is not coming back to life. Not in any context. If there is still a dead body laying around then it did not come back to life. Everything regarding this in Paul's writings is consistent with a dead body coming to life and walking around so people could witness it. And nothing you have shown, as I said before, shows that Paul believed that there was no empty tomb or that Jesus did not rise from the dead in the same body he died in. You are desperately trying to play silly semantic games that nobody is buying. You haven't even gotten one person to say "yeah well maybe you are right" - nobody. It is freaking embarrassing for you.

[RhinestoneCowboy]

If you have a dead body, which you bury, and then it comes back to life, then it means an empty tomb (or grave) since it would be idiotic for a live person to stay in a grave. Turning into a ghost is not coming back to life. Not in any context. If there is still a dead body laying around then it did not come back to life. Everything regarding this in Paul's writings is consistent with a dead body coming to life and walking around so people could witness it. And nothing you have shown, as I said before, shows that Paul believed that there was no empty tomb or that Jesus did not rise from the dead in the same body he died in. You are desperately trying to play silly semantic games that nobody is buying. You haven't even gotten one person to say "yeah well maybe you are right" - nobody. It is freaking embarrassing for you.

Where does Paul say a "dead body" or "corpse" came back to life?

[DesertBerean]

[One Bad Pig]

Where does Paul say a "dead body" or "corpse" came back to life?

Why does he have to in order to get the message across?

[Kbertsche]

Well, it certainly doesn't mention an empty tomb or that a corpse was physically revived, walked around on earth and was touched. Am I missing something?

You seem to have a hard time explaining what the early creed in 1 Cor 15:3-5 actually says! This is not meant to be a trick question in any way, I'm just asking you to think about what the early church said and meant by this creed.

And all the creed says is that Jesus was "raised" egēgertai (a word with a wide range of meaning) and that he "appeared" ὤφθη (Greek - ōphthē), a word that was commonly used to denote spiritual/supernatural apparitions.

No, this is definitely not "all" that the creed says. There are three verses in this creed. You are focusing on only two words near the end, and ignoring the rest.

Why are you dodging Paul's firsthand testimony?

I'm not "dodging" it at all. I'm just noting that it was written some 15 or so years after the creed.

You have argued that we should not read Paul in the light of the gospels, which were written later. I disagree, but I see your point. So I am extending your point to this early creed. Following your logic, we should try to understand the creed (vv. 3-5) on its own, without Paul's later commentary (vv. 6ff).

It's the only eyewitness source we have in the whole NT! Sorry, but we just don't have any firsthand eyewitness testimony from Peter or James.

Really? Have you forgotten that John was an eyewitness? Have you forgotten that both James and Peter wrote letters that are included in the NT?

Paul claims to have met with them for 15 days in Galatians 1.

Yes, and this is possibly where he got the creed that he faithfully passed along in 1 Cor 15:3-5.

...1 Cor 15:3-5 provides a twofold proof, (a) from scripture and (b) from confirmatory fact and theological interpretation of said fact. Thus "he was buried" is connected with the dying and not the resurrection of Jesus. Verses 3-5 are to be read as follows:

(a) Christ died / for our sins / according to the scriptures / and he was buried;
(b) he was raised / on the third day / according to the scriptures / and he appeared (ophthe) to Cephas, then to the Twelve.

Good, FINALLY you address the early creed! This creed has a highly symmetric structure. I see two claims in the creed, as you have noted. For each claim, there is an additional detail, a statement that this is a fulfillment of the Scriptures, and evidence for the claim. Thus:

Claim: Christ died (ἀποθνῄσκω, aorist tense)
Detail: for our sins
Fulfillment: according to the Scriptures
Evidence: and He was buried

Claim: He has been raised (ἐγείρω, perfect tense)
Detail: on the third day
Fulfillment: according to the Scriptures
Evidence: and He appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve.

Now the question is, "what did this mean to the early church (15 or so years before Paul included it in 1 Cor)?" Specifically, what did it mean that Christ "died" and then "was raised"? How did the early church understand the word ἐγείρω? I think this would be worth some study and some discussion.

[RhinestoneCowboy]

Why does he have to in order to get the message across?

Due to the diversity of Jewish belief regarding resurrection and the afterlife, the fact that "He was raised" can be interpreted different ways, the lack of any earthly physical interactions in Paul's writings, and Paul putting his own vision in the same list of appearances as to equate them - I'd say you still have a lot of work to do in order to show Paul and the earliest Christians thought Jesus' resurrection involved the resuscitation of his corpse.

[RhinestoneCowboy]

James, Peter, and John are pseudepigraphical. The phrase "He was raised" does not necessarily mean his corpse was revived then walked around and said hi to everyone. If that were the case then we would expect more from Paul than just the words "appeared" ophthe, "vision" optasia, and "revelation." Those words do not provide evidence for an empty tomb or a physical resurrection involving the revivification of the corpse.

[Kbertsche]

James, Peter, and John are pseudepigraphical.

Says you (and numerous liberal modern scholars).

The phrase "He was raised" does not necessarily mean his corpse was revived then walked around and said hi to everyone. If that were the case then we would expect more from Paul than just the words "appeared" ophthe, "vision" optasia, and "revelation." Those words do not provide evidence for an empty tomb or a physical resurrection involving the revivification of the corpse.

You still don't seem to get the point that this was an early creed which Paul has faithfully passed along. Paul didn't choose or change the wording of the creed; he just added his own comments at the end, using the same word, ὁράω, that was in the creed. So your complaint should not be directed at Paul, but at the early church and why THEY chose the wording that they did.

What is your support for your claim that ἐγείρω in this early creed did NOT mean to the early church that "his corpse was revived then walked around"? So far as I can tell, the basic meaning of the word ἐγείρω is "to get up" and it refers to physical, bodily existence. Here are the entries for ἐγείρω from Louw & Nida:

[Sparko]

Where does Paul say a "dead body" or "corpse" came back to life?

in the previously mentioned 1 cor 15. derp. keep up.

[Sparko]

James, Peter, and John are pseudepigraphical. The phrase "He was raised" does not necessarily mean his corpse was revived then walked around and said hi to everyone. If that were the case then we would expect more from Paul than just the words "appeared" ophthe, "vision" optasia, and "revelation." Those words do not provide evidence for an empty tomb or a physical resurrection involving the revivification of the corpse.

actually it exactly means he came back to life. he was dead (a corpse) and then rose back to life and then walked around and said "hi" to everyone,

Also even if Paul saw a "vision" that doesnt mean that Jesus had not rose back to life. It just means at that instance Jesus projected a vision to Paul. If I sent you a video or hologram of me, would you argue that I didnt have a body? of course not. so if Jesus sent Paul a vision, it doesn't mean he did not have a body. Your argument still fails.