Originally posted by Adrift
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
Apologetics 301 Guidelines
If you think this is the area where you tell everyone you are sorry for eating their lunch out of the fridge, it probably isn't the place for you
This forum is open discussion between atheists and all theists to defend and debate their views on religion or non-religion. Please respect that this is a Christian-owned forum and refrain from gratuitous blasphemy. VERY wide leeway is given in range of expression and allowable behavior as compared to other areas of the forum, and moderation is not overly involved unless necessary. Please keep this in mind. Atheists who wish to interact with theists in a way that does not seek to undermine theistic faith may participate in the World Religions Department. Non-debate question and answers and mild and less confrontational discussions can take place in General Theistics.
Forum Rules: Here
This forum is open discussion between atheists and all theists to defend and debate their views on religion or non-religion. Please respect that this is a Christian-owned forum and refrain from gratuitous blasphemy. VERY wide leeway is given in range of expression and allowable behavior as compared to other areas of the forum, and moderation is not overly involved unless necessary. Please keep this in mind. Atheists who wish to interact with theists in a way that does not seek to undermine theistic faith may participate in the World Religions Department. Non-debate question and answers and mild and less confrontational discussions can take place in General Theistics.
Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less
Gary & Rhinestone's Thread on Burial and Resurrection of Christ
Collapse
X
-
-
Originally posted by Meh Gerbil View PostI dunno if it has been pointed out or not but the resurrection of Lazarus is instructive:
Jesus said to her,
Martha answered,
If Jesus' resurrection were only a spiritual resurrection His resurrection would have been no different than what was expected for everyone.
As such it certainly wouldn't have been considered extraordinary.
To say, "Jesus rose from the dead" and to only mean His spirit would be to say nothing meaningful whatsoever.
So the skeptic has to explain the point of declaring the resurrection of Jesus Christ if it was identical to the resurrection that was expected for everyone.
Comment
-
Originally posted by RhinestoneCowboy View PostWhat source is that story located in? And was that a resuscitation or an immortal resurrection?
Evidently everyone got one of those.Actually YOU put Trump in the White House. He wouldn't have gotten 1% of the vote if it wasn't for the widespread spiritual and cultural devastation caused by progressive policies. There's no "this country" left with your immigration policies, your "allies" are worthless and even more suicidal than you are and democracy is a sick joke that I hope nobody ever thinks about repeating when the current order collapses. - Darth_Executor striking a conciliatory note in Civics 101
Comment
-
Originally posted by RhinestoneCowboy View PostHi Adrift, maybe you would like to take a shot at this? Where does Paul indicate that the appearance (vision) to him was different than the appearances to the others? What reason do we have to think he was not equating the appearances? So far no one's successfully taken up this challenge. I'm beginning to think no one actually can and the reason for that is because I may have a legitimate point.Last edited by Adrift; 05-31-2016, 09:41 PM.
Comment
-
Originally posted by RhinestoneCowboy View Post"When Paul classifies the Damascus appearance with the others in 1 Cor 15:5 this is not merely because he regards it as equivalent....It is also because he regards this appearance similar in kind. In all the appearances the presence of the risen Lord is a presence in transfigured corporeality, 1 Cor 15:42. It is the presence of the exalted Lord from heaven. This presence is in non-visionary reality; no category of human seeing is wholly adequate for it. On this ground, the appearances are to be described in the sense of revelation rather than making visible." - Theological Dictionary of the New Testament Vol. 5 pg. 359
The TDNT is saying all the appearances in 1 Cor 15, including Paul's, were corporeal and non-visionary,against you.Last edited by Juice; 05-31-2016, 10:44 PM.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Juice View PostReading comprehension fail.
The TDNT is saying all the appearances in 1 Cor 15, including Paul's, were corporeal and non-visionary,against you. Oops.
"When Paul classifies the Damascus appearance with the others in 1 Cor 15:5 this is not merely because he regards it as equivalent....It is also because he regards this appearance similar in kind.
And this part?
"It is the presence of the exalted Lord from heaven." - So if the appearance to Paul was "equivalent" or "similar in kind" to the other appearances then they experienced the exalted Lord from heaven as well.
And this?
"On this ground, the appearances are to be described in the sense of revelation rather than making visible." - Theological Dictionary of the New Testament Vol. 5 pg. 359
The TDNT is saying all the appearances in 1 Cor 15, including Paul's, were corporeal and non-visionary,against you. Oops.
Don't bother unless you can provide a distinction between the appearances. As it stands, you have no justification for assuming the other appearances were more "physical" than Paul's vision.Last edited by RhinestoneCowboy; 05-31-2016, 11:19 PM.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Meh Gerbil View PostThe point is that if Christ's resurrection was only a spiritual resurrection then it appears it wouldn't be considered newsworthy.
Evidently everyone got one of those.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Adrift View PostTake a shot at what? There is no challenge here. It's a totally bizarre and strained reading of the text to assume that Paul is saying that the others have seen Jesus in precisely the same fashion that he has.
"The remark that Jesus appeared "last of all" is not evidence that he distinguished the type of appearance he was granted from those of Peter and the twelve. On the contrary, it marks his experience as the last in a series of the same type of experiences. The remark that Jesus appeared to him "as to one prematurely born" (v. 8) does not imply that the nature of the appearance was any different. It was Paul who was different - he was not even a disciple yet. This interpretation is supported by the remark in the following verse that he was persecuting the church of God (i.e. even at the time that Jesus appeared to him)." - Adela Yarbro Collins, The Beginning of the Gospel, pg. 124. https://books.google.com/books?id=xa...page&q&f=false
- Maurice Casey, Jesus of Nazareth, pg. 458 https://books.google.com/books?id=nO...page&q&f=false
Did you hear that? That's the sound of terrible apologetics getting destroyed.Last edited by RhinestoneCowboy; 05-31-2016, 11:38 PM.
Comment
-
As for the possible Sheol reference in Daniel 12, the "land of dust" rendering is a mainstream scholarly view judging by the number of commentators. http://www.google.com/search?q=danie...HT-JBKEQ_AUICg
"Dust" is used as a synonym for Sheol in Job 17:16 and is connected with Sheol in Psalm 7:5; 22:15, 22:29; 30:9; 44:25; 4 Ezra 7:32, Isa 29:4.
Since Sheol was where souls dwelled, the passage would be excluding any type of physical resurrection of the body. Some souls are said to "rise up" out of Sheol -
https://books.google.com/books?id=1F...page&q&f=false
"This then coheres with the reference in 12:3 towards ancient understandings of astral immortality, in which it was believed that on death the soul ascended into the heavens to reside eternally as a star in the night sky. Collins claims that Daniel expresses a "notion of resurrection in terms of astral immortality," not physical immortality in the ordinary sense and Segal agrees, maintaining that this "can only mean to the Jews that they shall become angels, something that did not exclude astral immortality. For stars had been identified as angelic creatures from earliest times. This seems at the same time to rule out any possible future of the flesh, as angels were usually considered fleshless."
https://books.google.com/books?id=1F...page&q&f=false
Moreover, Daniel 12 says "many" will awake, not "all" so this cannot be a reference to the general resurrection.
So just as people here are reading the resurrection stories of Jesus from the gospels into Paul, you're doing the same by reading them into the Old Testament. Yeah, you should stop doing that.Last edited by RhinestoneCowboy; 06-01-2016, 12:28 AM.
Comment
-
Originally posted by RhinestoneCowboy View PostRead 1 Cor 15:45-47. Paul says Jesus became a "spirit" and contrasts him with the physical Adam. Moreover, you still have to explain why Paul only says Jesus was experienced in "visions" while equating his own vision to the other appearances in 1 Cor 15:5-8. This doesn't make sense if Paul knew about the physical resurrection stories that appear in the later gospels.
NOBODY is buying your argument. It is completely ridiculous. We are all sitting here wondering why someone would be so invested in such a theory that is so easily disproven. Which it has been over and over to you. Yet you merely continue on as if nothing were said. You cherry pick information while ignoring the context, and entire reams of other writings by Paul and other contemporary authors. Why? Why is it so important for you to promote this dumbass theory?
Resurrection means nothing if it doesn't involve coming back to life. Remaining a spirit is just "death" and so there would not be a special word for coming back to life if you just remained dead. Your claims are patently ridiculous. I hope that doesn't make you butthurt or anything, but those are the facts.
So just wait around till everyone is tired of repeating themselves to you, so you can again post your silly victory gif, claiming there are no more challengers.Last edited by Sparko; 06-01-2016, 07:26 AM.
Comment
-
Originally posted by RhinestoneCowboy View PostNot so fast. First of all, you tried to use that weak argument as a distinction in the nature of appearances. I showed how that utterly fails to serve as a reason. So you're still left with nothing in the end that provides a distinction between the appearances.Secondly, was the appearance to Paul a "vision/revelation" or not? What reason do you have (from Paul) to conclude that the appearances to the others WERE NOT visions as well? As of now, every bit of evidence supports he was saying they were the same.
1. He puts his vision in the same list of the other appearances without distinction. He says Jesus "appeared to Peter, James, etc" and "he 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 physical corpse that got up and flew to heaven." That distinction is never made.
2. He uses the same verb for each which was used to indicate spiritual appearances (the appearance to Paul was a vision so we know the way Paul was using the word.)
3. In 1 Cor 9:1 Paul uses his vision to claim apostleship. Evidently, "seeing" Jesus was a requirement for apostleship in the early church - he's basically saying "Am I not an apostle (like you guys)? Have I not seen Jesus our Lord (just like you guys did)?" And we all know, Paul only "sees" Jesus in a vision, nothing more.4. No physical earthly resurrected Jesus in Paul at all but instead Jesus is raised to heaven to be at God's right hand. Jesus is never depicted in Paul as being experienced in a more "physical" way. Did Peter and James forget to tell Paul how they ate and drank with the Lord then how Thomas poked his fingers in him and watched as he physically ascended to heaven right before their eyes? Or did Paul just not feel like that stuff was very important?So tell me where are you getting the idea of these physical appearances from?
Can you see how that is fallacious to assume? Later accounts by other authors may not necessarily reflect Paul's view. Especially considering the time gaps, obvious inconsistencies, contradictions and legendary growth that's taken place between the accounts.So what? They were books written by Jews. Therefore, the represent the views of Jews! Just because they didn't make the cut of the Septuagint doesn't make them any less widely read or influential.
Both 2 Enoch 8:1-6 and Paul reference the "third heaven" (2 Cor 12) and the idea of "corruptibility and incorruptibility". 1 Enoch 71 gives a description of astral transformation like in Dan. 12:2-3 and which Paul seems to use in his resurrection language - 1 Cor 15:40-41. So it seems that Paul may have at least been familiar with some of the same ideas expressed in Enoch. https://books.google.com/books?id=4z...page&q&f=false
As for the third heaven in 2 Enoch. You are grasping at straws here. Firstly, even if we grant that Paul was influenced by 2 Enoch 1Enochand hell. Not to mention 2 Enoch actually has 10 heavensAnd there are plenty of sources which emphasize the continued existence of souls rather than any resurrection of the physical body. The sources represent diversity. The Essenes believed one thing, the Pharisees believed another, the Sadducees rejected resurrection, etc, etc, etc. Hence, Jesus' resurrection could be interpreted different ways after his death. 2 Baruch was written around the time the gospels were written.https://books.google.com/books?id=PX...page&q&f=false
"The Hebrew Bible includes passages that have been interpreted as speaking about the resurrection of the dead but that, according to the majority of scholarly opinion, did not originally contain the idea. Footnote: Scholars disagree whether Isa. 26:19 is about literal resurrection or the metaphorical restoration of Israel as in Ezekiel 37." - Outi Lehtipuu, Debates Over the Resurrection of the Dead: Constructing Early Christian Identity, p. 32
https://books.google.com/books?id=0u...page&q&f=falsePaul uses the verb to equate his vision with the other appearances. The overwhelming attestation shows that this particular form of the verb was used for supernatural/spiritual apparitions[appearances]. In fact, 18 out of 19 total times it's used this way in the NT. https://books.google.com/books?id=r1...page&q&f=falsePaul references Jesus' resurrection as "physical" in Acts 13:31 or does he just say Jesus "appeared" like he does in 1 Cor 15:5-8? Does he describe the encounters in any detail there or are you letting Luke's own view color your interpretation of Paul again?Since spirits or souls are depicted as "having much joy" while their "bones rest in the earth" it can be assumed that the souls continue existing and are "raised" out of the underworld. The idea is that the righteous are "raised" from the dead while the wicked are not. This shows that being "raised from the dead" does not necessarily imply a physical resurrection.1. "Raised from the dead" meant physical resurrection.
2. Paul says Jesus was "raised from the dead."
3. Therefore, Paul meant Jesus was physically resurrected.
How is that not circular?Where is the phrase "raised from the dead" used to denote a physical resurrection other than the gospels?
Where does "raised from the dead" mean resurrection of the flesh?
Romans 10:7
or, 'Who will descend into the abyss?' (that is, to bring Christ up from the dead)."
The "abyss" was a euphemism for Sheol, obviously. This proves Paul thought Jesus was in Sheol and resurrected from there.
Except it says nothing at all nothing about the resurrection. The context of the whole chapter has to do with spiritual gifting for crying out loud.
Since Hosea 13:14 explicitly states Sheol, and Paul cites the verse, it is probably a good indicator that Paul was connecting the idea of conquering death and being raised out of Sheol. And the Greek in 1 Cor 15:53 does not say mortal "bodies." The Greek word for "body" is not in the passage. That's a misleading translation.Where's your evidence for premise 2? The only place I know of that speaks about the specific beliefs of Pharisees and the afterlife is Josephus and we both know what he says.You're also equivocating "bodily resurrection" with a "wholly physical bodily resurrection that involved the resuscitation of the fleshly corpse." That's an important distinction to be made here because neither Paul or Josephus make that view clear.
The legendary growth becomes apparent when you compare the appearance stories side by side in chronological order.
Well, for one, Paul and the gospel authors were writing in Greek.
"Paul's "body language" follows Hellenistic anthropological thinking and is in debt especially to Stoic ideas that understood both psyche and pneuma as material." - Outi Lehtipuu, Debates Over the Resurrection of the Dead: Constructing Early Christian Identity, pg. 56, citing Engberg-Pedersen, Cosmology and Self pp. 8-38 and Litwa, We are Being Transformed, 127-139.
In 1 Cor 15:38-41 Paul describes the different types of flesh and varieties of terrestrial and celestial bodies. This list corresponds to descriptions found in ancient Greek philosophical sources such as Hesiod's Works and Days 276-278. Similar lists can be found in Sophocles and Virgil. - Seim, Metamorphoses, pg. 31; citing Asher, Polarity and Change, pg. 140.I've already provided a well supported inference. What Jewish source explains what a raised "spiritual body" is then contrasts it with the "natural body" like Paul does in 1 Cor 15?Aren't you simply asserting just the opposite? The Hebrew literally translates to "land of dust."
It's literally used as a euphemism for Sheol there.By the way, Job says resurrection is impossible.
a human being, he dies and dead he remains (Job 14:10)
a human being, once laid to rest will never rise again (Job 14:12)And evidently, it was also used to refer to Sheol. In your own words, how does the traditional rendering imply a physical corpse involved resurrection?
"...Neither does he (Daniel) say that the resurrection will involve a body of flesh and blood. Daniel 12:2, which is usually taken to refer to "the dust of the earth," can actually be translated as "the land of dust," or Sheol. The idea then is that the wise, at least, are lifted up from Sheol to heaven." - John J. Collins, A Short Introduction to the Hebrew Bible, pg. 347 https://books.google.com/books?id=ZI...page&q&f=false
Comment
-
Originally posted by RhinestoneCowboy View PostWhat about the parts you ignored?
"When Paul classifies the Damascus appearance with the others in 1 Cor 15:5 this is not merely because he regards it as equivalent....It is also because he regards this appearance similar in kind.
And this part?
"It is the presence of the exalted Lord from heaven." - So if the appearance to Paul was "equivalent" or "similar in kind" to the other appearances then they experienced the exalted Lord from heaven as well.
And this?
"On this ground, the appearances are to be described in the sense of revelation rather than making visible." - Theological Dictionary of the New Testament Vol. 5 pg. 359
No problem there. Paul thought Jesus had a "spiritual body" in heaven. "Non-visionary" means not seeing/perceiving with the eyes - "the appearances are to be described in the sense of revelation rather than making visible". It can't mean "non-visionary" as in the appearances were not "visions" because that's exactly how the appearance to Paul is described. This appearance is what he regards "equivalent" or "similar in kind" to the others.
Don't bother unless you can provide a distinction between the appearances. As it stands, you have no justification for assuming the other appearances were more "physical" than Paul's vision.
Comment
-
Originally posted by RhinestoneCowboy View PostAs for the possible Sheol reference in Daniel 12, the "land of dust" rendering is a mainstream scholarly view judging by the number of commentators. http://www.google.com/search?q=danie...HT-JBKEQ_AUICg
"Dust" is used as a synonym for Sheol in Job 17:16 and is connected with Sheol in Psalm 7:5; 22:15, 22:29; 30:9; 44:25; 4 Ezra 7:32, Isa 29:4.
Since Sheol was where souls dwelled, the passage would be excluding any type of physical resurrection of the body. Some souls are said to "rise up" out of Sheol -
https://books.google.com/books?id=1F...page&q&f=false
"This then coheres with the reference in 12:3 towards ancient understandings of astral immortality, in which it was believed that on death the soul ascended into the heavens to reside eternally as a star in the night sky. Collins claims that Daniel expresses a "notion of resurrection in terms of astral immortality," not physical immortality in the ordinary sense and Segal agrees, maintaining that this "can only mean to the Jews that they shall become angels, something that did not exclude astral immortality. For stars had been identified as angelic creatures from earliest times. This seems at the same time to rule out any possible future of the flesh, as angels were usually considered fleshless."
https://books.google.com/books?id=1F...page&q&f=false
Moreover, Daniel 12 says "many" will awake, not "all" so this cannot be a reference to the general resurrection.
So just as people here are reading the resurrection stories of Jesus from the gospels into Paul, you're doing the same by reading them into the Old Testament. Yeah, you should stop doing that.Last edited by Juice; 06-01-2016, 12:46 PM.
Comment
-
They should obviously be judged by their work, but it's probably no great coincidence that most of the scholars Rhinestone has named/linked just so happen to be mentioned by Robert Price and Jeffrey Lowder in their skeptical works like The Empty Tomb: Jesus Beyond the Grave, and elsewhere.
Comment
Related Threads
Collapse
Topics | Statistics | Last Post | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
Started by Sparko, 06-25-2024, 03:03 PM
|
38 responses
204 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by whag
Today, 03:26 PM
|
||
Started by Cow Poke, 06-20-2024, 10:04 AM
|
27 responses
147 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by Cow Poke
06-27-2024, 01:35 PM
|
||
Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 06-18-2024, 08:18 AM
|
82 responses
485 views
0 likes
|
Last Post 06-28-2024, 03:48 AM | ||
Started by whag, 06-15-2024, 09:43 AM
|
156 responses
648 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by tabibito
06-29-2024, 06:38 AM
|
||
Started by whag, 04-09-2024, 01:04 PM
|
468 responses
2,143 views
0 likes
|
Last Post 06-05-2024, 04:09 AM |
Comment