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

[RhinestoneCowboy]

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.

And there were different ways people were thought to "come back to life" in Second Temple Judaism. Resurrection had no necessary connection to a person's tomb being empty. I think you've been watching too many zombie movies. Paul shows no concern over Jesus' physical dead corpse, shows no knowledge of an empty tomb tomb, and actually contrasts the natural/earthly body that is sown and buried with a spiritual/heavenly "body" that is raised. Since Paul mentions there are different types of "bodies" then I think we should be reserved when we say "it was the same body." That's actually not made clear by the text.

[RhinestoneCowboy]

If being "raised" can have the figurative meaning of "arousing from the sleep of death" or "recalling the dead to life" and these two ways of coming back from the dead did not require revivification of the corpse (see my numerous posts showing the diversity of Jewish resurrection belief) then using "He was raised" is just a non-sequitur. Evidently, according to Paul, Jesus was "raised" to a position where he was only experienced through visions and revelations. This makes more sense as being "raised" to heaven rather than earth. That's why Paul equates the appearances in 1 Cor 15:5-8 and shows no knowledge of any of the amazing physical claims that end up in the Gospels.

[Sparko]

If being "raised" can have the figurative meaning of "arousing from the sleep of death" or "recalling the dead to life" and these two ways of coming back from the dead did not require revivification of the corpse (see my numerous posts showing the diversity of Jewish resurrection belief) then using "He was raised" is just a non-sequitur. Evidently, according to Paul, Jesus was "raised" to a position where he was only experienced through visions and revelations. This makes more sense as being "raised" to heaven rather than earth. That's why Paul equates the appearances in 1 Cor 15:5-8 and shows no knowledge of any of the amazing physical claims that end up in the Gospels.

how can you come BACK to life without your body? you would still be dead. a ghost is not "raised back to life"

you are not convincing anyone (except that you are a nutcase) so why beat a dead horse (pun intended)?

[Kbertsche]

If being "raised" can have the figurative meaning of "arousing from the sleep of death" or "recalling the dead to life" and these two ways of coming back from the dead did not require revivification of the corpse (see my numerous posts showing the diversity of Jewish resurrection belief) then using "He was raised" is just a non-sequitur. Evidently, according to Paul, Jesus was "raised" to a position where he was only experienced through visions and revelations. This makes more sense as being "raised" to heaven rather than earth. That's why Paul equates the appearances in 1 Cor 15:5-8 and shows no knowledge of any of the amazing physical claims that end up in the Gospels.

To make your case, you have to pull the words out of context. Look again at the words in the context of the early creed (1 Cor 15:3-5). The creed says that Christ died, and then He was raised. This is presented as a contrast, a reversal of condition. (He died, was laid down in a tomb, and then "got up", reversing His prior condition.). This is an un-doing of physical death, a return to physical life.

What is the evidence for his being raised? He was seen (ὁράω) by numerous people. This makes no sense if he were "raised to heaven". (How would a vision provide any objective evidence of Him being raised?) The logic and structure of this early creed only makes sense if He were raised physically and seen physically.

[RhinestoneCowboy]

how can you come BACK to life without your body? you would still be dead. a ghost is not "raised back to life"

you are not convincing anyone (except that you are a nutcase) so why beat a dead horse (pun intended)?

Why don't you educate yourself on the diversity of Jewish views instead of repeatedly exposing your ignorance of the matter?

I've collected a lot of the sources here: http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...l=1#post330164

There's a good overview here on pages 31-40. https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=...page&q&f=false

[RhinestoneCowboy]

To make your case, you have to pull the words out of context. Look again at the words in the context of the early creed (1 Cor 15:3-5). The creed says that Christ died, and then He was raised. This is presented as a contrast, a reversal of condition. (He died, was laid down in a tomb, and then "got up", reversing His prior condition.). This is an un-doing of physical death, a return to physical life.

You're just reading in the empty tomb. Paul doesn't mention it. You're also interpreting the texts in ultra literal English instead of their original Greek language which has a wider range of meaning than you're willing to admit. Jesus being "raised" is a non-sequitur due to the wide range of meaning of the word and the diversity of Jewish resurrection belief. Have you read the sources I've linked above? Will you finally be honest and admit that being "raised from the dead" or resurrected did not necessarily mean that your physical corpse got up and left an empty grave?

What is the evidence for his being raised? He was seen (ὁράω) by numerous people. This makes no sense if he were "raised to heaven". (How would a vision provide any objective evidence of Him being raised?) The logic and structure of this early creed only makes sense if He were raised physically and seen physically.

Where does Paul say the Risen Jesus was on earth? If Paul thought Jesus was raised physically he sure provides no evidence for it. No details surrounding the empty tomb story are provided. No mention of any of the disciples touching Jesus. No mention of the 40 day period where Jesus was providing "many proofs." No mention of a physical ascension into heaven while the disciples watched. Nothing. Did Peter and James just forget to tell Paul that on his 15 day visit or did Paul just think those amazing details weren't pertinent enough to mention? Lol!

The word used in 1 Cor 15 is the aorist passive form ophthe which was used almost exclusively to denote supernatural/spiritual apparitions. Since Paul includes his vision in the same list without distinction, the correct interpretation of the passage is that Jesus "appeared in visions" to everyone. This does not support the physical resurrection which you're desperately trying to maintain.

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

[Kbertsche]

You're just reading in the empty tomb. Paul doesn't mention it. You're also interpreting the texts in ultra literal English instead of their original Greek language which has a wider range of meaning than you're willing to admit.

I'm willing to discuss the Greek text with you if you prefer. Here's the Greek of the early creed in 1 Cor 15:3-5:

Jesus being "raised" is a non-sequitur due to the wide range of meaning of the word and the diversity of Jewish resurrection belief.

What do you mean that it is a "non-sequitur"? It is not presented as a logical conclusion to anything (so cannot be a non-sequitur), but as a claim. It is the second major claim of the two-part early creed in 1 Cor 15:3-5.

Are you trying to say that the word has such a wide range of meaning that the second half of this early creed is meaningless? If so, why did the early church put this word in their creed? And why did they make it one of the two major claims of the creed? What did THEY mean by it?

The word used in 1 Cor 15 is the aorist passive form ophthe which was used almost exclusively to denote supernatural/spiritual apparitions.

I have three questions for you about this claim:

1) Where is your evidence that the aorist passive "was used almost exclusively to denote supernatural/spiritual apparitions"?
2) Why would you think the basic meaning of ὁράω (the normal Greek word for "to see", with a very broad semantic domain) would become so much more restrictive in its meaning just by virtue of being in the aorist passive?!?
3) How would a "supernatural/spiritual apparition" provide evidence for the claim that Jesus "has been raised"? (Remember, the literary structure of this creed is that the claim that Jesus has been raised is evidenced by the fact that He was seen by a number of people.)

[stfoskey15]

Nope. You have NOT eliminated the empty tomb. He is risen.

Just because the tomb was found empty doesn't mean Jesus rose from the dead. I was reading through the resurrection experiences in my Bible, and they seem different depending on which book you read. Mark just mentions women seeing an empty tomb and being scared.

[RhinestoneCowboy]

I'm willing to discuss the Greek text with you if you prefer. Here's the Greek of the early creed in 1 Cor 15:3-5:

The burial is connected with the death and not the resurrection of Jesus. Saying Jesus was "dead and buried" is more forceful than just "Jesus died." The Greek word for "raised" need not refer to the literal raising of a physical object. If you really want to get back to the earliest strain of tradition, Jesus' followers would have used the Aramaic word qum which has an even wider range of meaning than egēgertai.

What do you mean that it is a "non-sequitur"? It is not presented as a logical conclusion to anything (so cannot be a non-sequitur), but as a claim. It is the second major claim of the two-part early creed in 1 Cor 15:3-5.

Oh I thought you were concluding that the phrase "He was raised" must mean physical resurrection or must only pertain to the physical revivification of the corpse. You sure are making it seem that way. As shown by the wide range of definitions of the word and the diversity of Jewish resurrection belief (which you keep ignoring) this conclusion is a non-sequitur.

Are you trying to say that the word has such a wide range of meaning that the second half of this early creed is meaningless? If so, why did the early church put this word in their creed? And why did they make it one of the two major claims of the creed? What did THEY mean by it?

My original point is that it meant Jesus was brought back to life "in some sense." Due to the diversity of Jewish belief in the afterlife, Jesus' resurrection could be interpreted in many different ways after his death. Have you read the sources I've linked yet? It should give you an idea of what could be potentially meant by "raised."

1) Where is your evidence that the aorist passive "was used almost exclusively to denote supernatural/spiritual apparitions"?

2) Why would you think the basic meaning of ὁράω (the normal Greek word for "to see", with a very broad semantic domain) would become so much more restrictive in its meaning just by virtue of being in the aorist passive?!?

Just look at how it's used in the LXX, NT, and other Greek literature. Also, Paul uses the verb to equate his vision with the other appearances. It's pretty obvious.

3) How would a "supernatural/spiritual apparition" provide evidence for the claim that Jesus "has been raised"? (Remember, the literary structure of this creed is that the claim that Jesus has been raised is evidenced by the fact that He was seen by a number of people.)

We're talking about pre-scientific superstitious Jews that thought visions were a real phenomena from God. Do you think they were very particular about evidence?

[Abigail]

3. Paul uses the same verb "ophthe" for each appearance. He says "Jesus ophthe (appeared) to them and he ophthe (appeared) to me, also." He does not say "Jesus appeared to me in a vision only whereas the appearances to the others involved touching his resurrected corpse that walked around on earth then later flew to heaven." That distinction is never made. The word ophthe was almost exclusively used to denote supernatural/spiritual apparitions.

Since when? The word "ophthe" or ώψθη is just the aorist passive tense of the verb "to see" όραώ so I highly doubt it was " almost exclusively used to denote supernatural/spiritual apparitions" . And for the umpteenth time the only reason you are trying to wring a vision out of this is because of your groundless assumption that Paul's experience of Christ was just a vision.

5. The words "ophthe" - appeared, "optasia" - vision, and "revelation" in no way support an empty tomb or a physically resurrected body.

We have been over this: ωφθη is aorist passive of the verb όραώ - to see. Further 'optasia' (vision) can have a range of translations and the context tells us how it should be translated. Incidently in the verses you quote from the creed in 1 Corinthians 15, the KJV for instance just uses 'was seen' and not 'appeared' as translated in NIV where perhaps 'appeared' was used to convey the control Christ kept over who saw Him and the places where he could be seen. When you have been pulled over by cops and tell your friends about it saying you were going along as normal when a police car appeared alongside you, they dont automatically conclude you must have had some sort of a vision. Also if a person 'appears' at your door it just means they have come unexpectedly and not that you had a vision.

[psstein]

Just because the tomb was found empty doesn't mean Jesus rose from the dead. I was reading through the resurrection experiences in my Bible, and they seem different depending on which book you read. Mark just mentions women seeing an empty tomb and being scared.

I agree, but the empty tomb wasn't what convinced the disciples that Jesus had risen from the dead. It was a combination of the appearances and the empty tomb. An empty tomb would be a puzzle, sure, but the disciples wouldn't automatically conclude that Jesus had risen from the dead. After all, the disciples knew that men don't usually rise from the dead. The appearances, which occurred to many people in at least two different places, convinced the disciples that Jesus had risen.

[Doug Shaver]

The appearances, which occurred to many people in at least two different places, convinced the disciples that Jesus had risen.

That's what the stories say.

[Gary]

I agree, but the empty tomb wasn't what convinced the disciples that Jesus had risen from the dead. It was a combination of the appearances and the empty tomb. An empty tomb would be a puzzle, sure, but the disciples wouldn't automatically conclude that Jesus had risen from the dead. After all, the disciples knew that men don't usually rise from the dead. The appearances, which occurred to many people in at least two different places, convinced the disciples that Jesus had risen.

What proof do you have that the original disciples of Jesus based their belief in the bodily resurrection of Jesus on an Empty Tomb?

[RhinestoneCowboy]

Since when? The word "ophthe" or ώψθη is just the aorist passive tense of the verb "to see" όραώ so I highly doubt it was " almost exclusively used to denote supernatural/spiritual apparitions".

I'm getting really tired of posting the same stuff over and over. Can you guys please stop ignoring my posts as if they don't exist?

My commentary in bold.

"In the New Testament, eighteen of its nineteen occurrences are of supernatural appearances. These include various angelic appearances - Luke 1.11; 22.43; Acts 7.30, 35; the presence of Moses and Elijah at the Transfiguration- Mark 9.4; Matt 17.3; Luke 9.31 (an experience specifically called a "vision" in Matt. 17:9 - Were Moses' and Elijah's physical bodies actually there?)(Was the man's body actually standing there?) - Mark Finney, Resurrection..., pg. 107. https://books.google.com/books?id=1F...page&q&f=false

And for the umpteenth time the only reason you are trying to wring a vision out of this is because of your groundless assumption that Paul's experience of Christ was just a vision.

Groundless? Where does Paul say the Risen Jesus was experienced in a way that was not a "vision" or a "revelation"? Since Paul places his own "vision" in the same list as the other appearances without distinction and gives no evidence that the Risen Jesus was experienced in a "physical" way, then it should be inferred that these were spiritual (not physical) appearances. It seems you have it the wrong way around. You're the one who has no grounds for claiming the appearances were physical.

We have been over this: ωφθη is aorist passive of the verb όραώ - to see. Further 'optasia' (vision) can have a range of translations and the context tells us how it should be translated.

Optasia is used 4 times in the NT. It's used to refer to a "vision" in the temple - Luke 1:22, a "vision" of angels - Luke 24:23, Paul's "heavenly vision" involving a bright light and a disembodied voice - Acts 26:19, and Paul's own admission to having "visions" and "revelations" of the Lord 2 Cor 12:1 where he proceeds to describe some sort of ecstasy vision in the "third heaven" wherever that is. Sorry, but you don't get to claim these were actual physical occurrences in reality.

Incidently in the verses you quote from the creed in 1 Corinthians 15, the KJV for instance just uses 'was seen' and not 'appeared' as translated in NIV where perhaps 'appeared' was used to convey the control Christ kept over who saw Him and the places where he could be seen. When you have been pulled over by cops and tell your friends about it saying you were going along as normal when a police car appeared alongside you, they dont automatically conclude you must have had some sort of a vision. Also if a person 'appears' at your door it just means they have come unexpectedly and not that you had a vision.

The bottom line is if you accept the Risen Christ's appearance to Paul was some sort of "vision" then you don't get to claim the other "appearances" in 1 Cor 15:5-7 were more physical. No distinction is made between the nature of the appearances. You're just trying to have it both ways when you have no right or reason to claim the nature of the appearances was physical.

[Sparko]

I'm getting really tired of posting the same stuff over and over.

yeah so are we. (getting tired of you posting the same stuff over and over)

so stop.