IP finally got around to addressing a common argument in critical scholarship about Christian origins.
I have reproduced my reply on YouTube here on the forum for reference and critique. IP's quotes are in italics while my responses are in bold and I use a few scholars quotes in red.
- 1:43 "Even if the appearance Paul received was just an internal vision, this doesn't necessitate the other appearances to the apostles were internal visions as well"
Where's the evidence that Paul thought they were different? Where does he make a distinction?
- 1:52 "Paul never actually says all the appearances were the same."
- 2:19 "Just because Paul lists appearances that does not mean all the appearances happened the same way."
If Paul makes no distinction then we have no reason to think they were any different.
- 2:41 "They could have been different. Some could have been longer, more detailed, more physical interaction"
Ok, well have you discovered another firsthand source from Peter or James? As far as the New Testament goes, only Paul's account is firsthand and he makes it clear that what he had was a vision which is equated without distinction to the other appearances in 1 Cor 15:5-8.
- 2:57 "Skeptics are trying to tell us they are getting back to the earliest Christian beliefs."
Yup. Paul's firsthand records indicate that the appearance to him was a vision or some type of spiritual appearance. In fact Paul admits to having *"visions"* and *"revelations"* (plural) of the Lord in 2 Cor 12:1. He nowhere indicates that the Risen Jesus was physically touched as a resuscitated corpse. Surely, Peter and James would have told him had that actually been the case.
Gal 1:11-12
"For I want you to know, brothers and sisters, that the gospel that was proclaimed by me is not of human origin; for I did not receive it from a human source, nor was I taught it, but I received it through a *revelation* of Jesus Christ."
Gal 1:16
"But when God, who had set me apart before I was born and called me through his grace, was pleased to *reveal his Son in me* so that I might proclaim him among the Gentiles, I did not confer with any human being,"
1 Cor 15:8
"Last of all, as to one untimely born, he *appeared* also to me."
- 3:02 "But they are relying heavily on Acts which was not written by Paul."
Oh, so are you saying Paul did not have a heavenly vision per Acts now? Lol! Actually, we don't need Acts because Paul on his own admits to having visions and the "appearance" to him was a spiritual revelation. The complete ignorance of the empty tomb type resurrection and physical encounters from Paul is enough to conclude that he had a different idea of the resurrection than the later gospels authors did.
The bottom line is that you must accept the appearance to Paul was a vision *because* that's what Acts describes. You can't have it both ways by accepting the Acts vision report then try to claim the other appearances in 1 Cor 15:5-7 were more "physical." Paul makes no distinction. The other physical appearances to the disciples in Acts are not corroborated by Paul or any other firsthand source. Heck, they're not even mentioned by Mark or Matthew!
- 3:35 "All we really have is Paul saying that Jesus appeared to him which doesn't teach Jesus appeared to him in a vision."
Haha! Ok, so Paul's vision wasn't a vision? Got it. Have fun explaining that to all the evangelicals and changing 2,000 years of church Orthodox tradition.
- 4:05 "This is nothing more than circular reasoning."
1. Paul says Jesus "appeared" to him.
2. The NT is unanimous in that the "appearance" of Jesus to Paul was a vision.
3. Therefore, Jesus "appeared" to Paul in a vision.
Not circular at all actually. The conclusion follows directly from the premises.
- 4:27 "Then why are not the other accounts of Jesus' appearances early as well"
Well, are they mentioned by any other early firsthand source? Nope. Okay well there's your answer. Each part of Acts must be examined on a case by case basis. It's not as simple as take all or nothing like you want to make it seem. When you have these amazing physical appearances pop out of nowhere with no early corroboration whatsoever then it's reasonable to conclude that these were likely later legendary embellishments. Since Luke contradicts Mark and Matthew by having the appearances in Jerusalem instead of Galilee, then right off the bat we must be skeptical of Luke's uncorroborated appearances. If he's ok with changing history to suit his needs then what's to keep him from making up new appearances of Jesus that didn't happen in reality?
- 4:47 "If Luke/Acts have reliable parts...then why are all the parts which teach a very obvious physical resurrection not reliable?"
It's very simple. It's clear that the author of Luke believed in the empty tomb and physical corpse revivification/resurrection. With Paul, that view is nowhere found within his preaching so you can't say it was his view without reading later Christian beliefs into Paul. This is anachronistic and leads to poor historical conclusions.
- 5:05 "If you look at the actual descriptions of what Paul experienced in Acts it doesn't really imply Paul just experienced an internal vision."
Since the companions don't see or hear the vision properly, this by definition, makes the full experience of the vision subjective to Paul. Which in turn actually supports an internal vision, unique to Paul, while the others experienced periphery elements. However, the only physical details mentioned are a bright light and a voice from Heaven. It says they "saw no one" Acts 9:7.
- 5:36 "Acts also says Paul was blinded for 3 days afterwards."
If Paul was blinded, how did he see Jesus? This actually backfires on you and supports an internal vision. Oops.
- 6:16 "Luke/Acts narrative: then he ascended into heaven."
Funny how there's no mention of this seemingly important event in Paul, Mark, or Matthew. Keep in Mind Luke narrates that the Risen Jesus was on earth for 40 days providing "many proofs." Why do none of the earliest sources make mention of this momentous occasion? Legendary growth perhaps? That does not seem improbable given the data. From reading the Pauline letters it's clear that Jesus was exalted straight to heaven without an intermediate period on earth - 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. Those that want to argue otherwise must provide actual evidence that Paul thought Jesus was on earth for 40 days. Since this in nowhere found in Paul, Mark, or Matthew it seems the task will be quite difficult!
- 7:04 "It is obvious that what was buried is also what was raised."
Reading the text in literal English is fallacious. It helps to put Greek words with a wide range of meaning back into their diverse 1st century Hellenistic-Jewish context - http://lexiconcordance.com/greek/1453.html. Being "raised from the dead" or "recalling the dead to life" took more than one form in this time period. The beliefs on afterlife and resurrection were very diverse - https://books.google.com/books?id=z-...page&q&f=false
Considering the diversity of the sources, being "raised from the dead" need not entail that a body literally left an empty grave behind. There was no necessary connection. Paul does not say Jesus' *physical corpse* was raised out of a tomb. He only says "Jesus was raised." It's important to understand the distinction and the plethora of meanings this could have had to a 1st century Hellenistic-Jewish audience. Moreover, if a literal "raising" of the body was meant by Paul or the earlier composers of the creed how do we know that they meant raised to earth as opposed to raised to heaven? According to Paul, an earthly resurrection isn't even spoken of. However, in its place is a simple one step resurrection/exaltation 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.
- 7:26 "This Greek word for resurrection directly means a bodily event of coming back to life."
A few problems with this. First, the meaning of anastasis in its 1st century context is disputed.
"Resurrection terminology in these sources is diverse and inconsistent; it is not possible to claim that resurrection always meant embodied life after death, a second state after the sate of being dead. In the light of the available sources, resurrection may involve the body, but many texts remain ambivalent and at least some of them seem rather to depict resurrection of the spirit or soul. Moreover, bodily resurrection can be described by using expressions other than anastasis and the like. All this shows that there is no certainty that whenever we encounter the word anastasis in early Christian source, it means bodily resurrection." - Outi Lehtipuu, Debates Over the Resurrection of the Dead: Constructing Early Christian Identity, pg. 40.
https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=...page&q&f=false
Second, the early creed in 1 Cor 15:3-5 does not use the word anastasis. It only says "he was raised" which, as I demonstrated above, is ambiguous.
Third, it depends on what you mean by "bodily" event. Paul thought the resurrection would involve a "body" but it was not a flesh and blood corpse on earth like the later gospels describe. He thought it was a spiritual/pneumatic body in heaven. This is made clear by Paul in 1 Cor 15:35-54 which actually argues against a physical corpse resurrection (he clearly distinguishes between two different type of bodies in 1 Cor 15:40, 44). This type of heavenly "two body exchange" is supported by what Josephus says of the Pharisees in Jewish War 2.162 and 3.374. He says they believed that the souls of good men are "removed into *other* bodies." The word "other" implies it is not the same one.
At 9:26 your translation of 1 Cor 15:53 is misleading because σῶμα, the word for "body", is not even in the Greek there. http://qbible.com/greek-new-testamen...ans/15.html#53
- 10:41 "Mike Licona documents 846 occurrences of psuchikos..."
Okay but where does Licona demonstrate that a "spiritual body" was a resurrected flesh and blood corpse like the gospels describe? That's what you and Licona have to prove.
- 10:54 "It is simply not a word that is meant to mean a material body."
A better translation is "soulish" but it means the natural or earthly body, as mentioned previously in 1 Cor 15:40, which is distinguished from the spiritual/heavenly body. https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=...page&q&f=false
- 12:19 "No author has ever used these words to contrast physical and immaterial."
Strawman. We're not saying the spiritual body was "immaterial." We're just saying it was a different body in heaven, not a formerly dead revivified corpse on earth.
"Flesh, blood, and pneuma are all parts of the body - or rather, different forms of substance that together make up a body. When Paul says that the resurrected body will be a pneumatic body rather than simply a psychic body or a flesh-and-blood body, he is saying that the immortal and incorruptible part of the human body will be resurrected- or, to put it more accurately, that the body will be raised, constituted (due to divine transformation) only by its immortal and incorruptible aspects, without its corruptible aspects such as sarx (flesh). No physical/spiritual dichotomy is involved here, much less a material/immaterial one...Paul would have thought of all of it as "material" - if, that is, he had been able to think in such a category without a material/immaterial dichotomy. At any rate, all the "stuff" here talked about is indeed stuff." - "Dale Martin's The Corinthian Body, pg. 128.
- 12:44 "A small number of scholars believe "flesh and blood" means a physical body."
There are more scholars than that who adhere to the literal rendering. Since Paul uses the literal Greek words for "flesh and blood", (not the words for "sinful mortal nature"), then the literal rendering cannot be ruled out. It doesn't matter if the phrase is used metaphorically in other passages. What matters is what Paul actually meant to say and literal "flesh and blood" makes perfect sense in the context in which he is speaking.
13:59 Again, your translation of 1 Cor 15:53 is misleading. The word for "body" is not in the original Greek.
15:05 Possible quote mine of Gerd Ludemann. What exactly does he mean by "symbolic interpretation?" Did you ask him?
- 15:16 "You have to jump through some pretty crazy hoops to try to interpret Paul to be claiming he believed in a spiritual vision only."
Lol! No you don't. All you have to do is read all the accounts that describe Paul's experience and it's clear that it was a vision. This isn't even controversial. It's what the New Testament actually says and has been the standard Orthodox position for around 2,000 years! Where does Paul indicate that he or the disciples experienced the Risen Jesus in a more physical way? That's your burden to prove.
I have reproduced my reply on YouTube here on the forum for reference and critique. IP's quotes are in italics while my responses are in bold and I use a few scholars quotes in red.
- 1:43 "Even if the appearance Paul received was just an internal vision, this doesn't necessitate the other appearances to the apostles were internal visions as well"
Where's the evidence that Paul thought they were different? Where does he make a distinction?
- 1:52 "Paul never actually says all the appearances were the same."
- 2:19 "Just because Paul lists appearances that does not mean all the appearances happened the same way."
If Paul makes no distinction then we have no reason to think they were any different.
- 2:41 "They could have been different. Some could have been longer, more detailed, more physical interaction"
Ok, well have you discovered another firsthand source from Peter or James? As far as the New Testament goes, only Paul's account is firsthand and he makes it clear that what he had was a vision which is equated without distinction to the other appearances in 1 Cor 15:5-8.
- 2:57 "Skeptics are trying to tell us they are getting back to the earliest Christian beliefs."
Yup. Paul's firsthand records indicate that the appearance to him was a vision or some type of spiritual appearance. In fact Paul admits to having *"visions"* and *"revelations"* (plural) of the Lord in 2 Cor 12:1. He nowhere indicates that the Risen Jesus was physically touched as a resuscitated corpse. Surely, Peter and James would have told him had that actually been the case.
Gal 1:11-12
"For I want you to know, brothers and sisters, that the gospel that was proclaimed by me is not of human origin; for I did not receive it from a human source, nor was I taught it, but I received it through a *revelation* of Jesus Christ."
Gal 1:16
"But when God, who had set me apart before I was born and called me through his grace, was pleased to *reveal his Son in me* so that I might proclaim him among the Gentiles, I did not confer with any human being,"
1 Cor 15:8
"Last of all, as to one untimely born, he *appeared* also to me."
- 3:02 "But they are relying heavily on Acts which was not written by Paul."
Oh, so are you saying Paul did not have a heavenly vision per Acts now? Lol! Actually, we don't need Acts because Paul on his own admits to having visions and the "appearance" to him was a spiritual revelation. The complete ignorance of the empty tomb type resurrection and physical encounters from Paul is enough to conclude that he had a different idea of the resurrection than the later gospels authors did.
The bottom line is that you must accept the appearance to Paul was a vision *because* that's what Acts describes. You can't have it both ways by accepting the Acts vision report then try to claim the other appearances in 1 Cor 15:5-7 were more "physical." Paul makes no distinction. The other physical appearances to the disciples in Acts are not corroborated by Paul or any other firsthand source. Heck, they're not even mentioned by Mark or Matthew!
- 3:35 "All we really have is Paul saying that Jesus appeared to him which doesn't teach Jesus appeared to him in a vision."
Haha! Ok, so Paul's vision wasn't a vision? Got it. Have fun explaining that to all the evangelicals and changing 2,000 years of church Orthodox tradition.
- 4:05 "This is nothing more than circular reasoning."
1. Paul says Jesus "appeared" to him.
2. The NT is unanimous in that the "appearance" of Jesus to Paul was a vision.
3. Therefore, Jesus "appeared" to Paul in a vision.
Not circular at all actually. The conclusion follows directly from the premises.
- 4:27 "Then why are not the other accounts of Jesus' appearances early as well"
Well, are they mentioned by any other early firsthand source? Nope. Okay well there's your answer. Each part of Acts must be examined on a case by case basis. It's not as simple as take all or nothing like you want to make it seem. When you have these amazing physical appearances pop out of nowhere with no early corroboration whatsoever then it's reasonable to conclude that these were likely later legendary embellishments. Since Luke contradicts Mark and Matthew by having the appearances in Jerusalem instead of Galilee, then right off the bat we must be skeptical of Luke's uncorroborated appearances. If he's ok with changing history to suit his needs then what's to keep him from making up new appearances of Jesus that didn't happen in reality?
- 4:47 "If Luke/Acts have reliable parts...then why are all the parts which teach a very obvious physical resurrection not reliable?"
It's very simple. It's clear that the author of Luke believed in the empty tomb and physical corpse revivification/resurrection. With Paul, that view is nowhere found within his preaching so you can't say it was his view without reading later Christian beliefs into Paul. This is anachronistic and leads to poor historical conclusions.
- 5:05 "If you look at the actual descriptions of what Paul experienced in Acts it doesn't really imply Paul just experienced an internal vision."
Since the companions don't see or hear the vision properly, this by definition, makes the full experience of the vision subjective to Paul. Which in turn actually supports an internal vision, unique to Paul, while the others experienced periphery elements. However, the only physical details mentioned are a bright light and a voice from Heaven. It says they "saw no one" Acts 9:7.
- 5:36 "Acts also says Paul was blinded for 3 days afterwards."
If Paul was blinded, how did he see Jesus? This actually backfires on you and supports an internal vision. Oops.
- 6:16 "Luke/Acts narrative: then he ascended into heaven."
Funny how there's no mention of this seemingly important event in Paul, Mark, or Matthew. Keep in Mind Luke narrates that the Risen Jesus was on earth for 40 days providing "many proofs." Why do none of the earliest sources make mention of this momentous occasion? Legendary growth perhaps? That does not seem improbable given the data. From reading the Pauline letters it's clear that Jesus was exalted straight to heaven without an intermediate period on earth - 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. Those that want to argue otherwise must provide actual evidence that Paul thought Jesus was on earth for 40 days. Since this in nowhere found in Paul, Mark, or Matthew it seems the task will be quite difficult!
- 7:04 "It is obvious that what was buried is also what was raised."
Reading the text in literal English is fallacious. It helps to put Greek words with a wide range of meaning back into their diverse 1st century Hellenistic-Jewish context - http://lexiconcordance.com/greek/1453.html. Being "raised from the dead" or "recalling the dead to life" took more than one form in this time period. The beliefs on afterlife and resurrection were very diverse - https://books.google.com/books?id=z-...page&q&f=false
Considering the diversity of the sources, being "raised from the dead" need not entail that a body literally left an empty grave behind. There was no necessary connection. Paul does not say Jesus' *physical corpse* was raised out of a tomb. He only says "Jesus was raised." It's important to understand the distinction and the plethora of meanings this could have had to a 1st century Hellenistic-Jewish audience. Moreover, if a literal "raising" of the body was meant by Paul or the earlier composers of the creed how do we know that they meant raised to earth as opposed to raised to heaven? According to Paul, an earthly resurrection isn't even spoken of. However, in its place is a simple one step resurrection/exaltation 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.
- 7:26 "This Greek word for resurrection directly means a bodily event of coming back to life."
A few problems with this. First, the meaning of anastasis in its 1st century context is disputed.
"Resurrection terminology in these sources is diverse and inconsistent; it is not possible to claim that resurrection always meant embodied life after death, a second state after the sate of being dead. In the light of the available sources, resurrection may involve the body, but many texts remain ambivalent and at least some of them seem rather to depict resurrection of the spirit or soul. Moreover, bodily resurrection can be described by using expressions other than anastasis and the like. All this shows that there is no certainty that whenever we encounter the word anastasis in early Christian source, it means bodily resurrection." - Outi Lehtipuu, Debates Over the Resurrection of the Dead: Constructing Early Christian Identity, pg. 40.
https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=...page&q&f=false
Second, the early creed in 1 Cor 15:3-5 does not use the word anastasis. It only says "he was raised" which, as I demonstrated above, is ambiguous.
Third, it depends on what you mean by "bodily" event. Paul thought the resurrection would involve a "body" but it was not a flesh and blood corpse on earth like the later gospels describe. He thought it was a spiritual/pneumatic body in heaven. This is made clear by Paul in 1 Cor 15:35-54 which actually argues against a physical corpse resurrection (he clearly distinguishes between two different type of bodies in 1 Cor 15:40, 44). This type of heavenly "two body exchange" is supported by what Josephus says of the Pharisees in Jewish War 2.162 and 3.374. He says they believed that the souls of good men are "removed into *other* bodies." The word "other" implies it is not the same one.
At 9:26 your translation of 1 Cor 15:53 is misleading because σῶμα, the word for "body", is not even in the Greek there. http://qbible.com/greek-new-testamen...ans/15.html#53
- 10:41 "Mike Licona documents 846 occurrences of psuchikos..."
Okay but where does Licona demonstrate that a "spiritual body" was a resurrected flesh and blood corpse like the gospels describe? That's what you and Licona have to prove.
- 10:54 "It is simply not a word that is meant to mean a material body."
A better translation is "soulish" but it means the natural or earthly body, as mentioned previously in 1 Cor 15:40, which is distinguished from the spiritual/heavenly body. https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=...page&q&f=false
- 12:19 "No author has ever used these words to contrast physical and immaterial."
Strawman. We're not saying the spiritual body was "immaterial." We're just saying it was a different body in heaven, not a formerly dead revivified corpse on earth.
"Flesh, blood, and pneuma are all parts of the body - or rather, different forms of substance that together make up a body. When Paul says that the resurrected body will be a pneumatic body rather than simply a psychic body or a flesh-and-blood body, he is saying that the immortal and incorruptible part of the human body will be resurrected- or, to put it more accurately, that the body will be raised, constituted (due to divine transformation) only by its immortal and incorruptible aspects, without its corruptible aspects such as sarx (flesh). No physical/spiritual dichotomy is involved here, much less a material/immaterial one...Paul would have thought of all of it as "material" - if, that is, he had been able to think in such a category without a material/immaterial dichotomy. At any rate, all the "stuff" here talked about is indeed stuff." - "Dale Martin's The Corinthian Body, pg. 128.
- 12:44 "A small number of scholars believe "flesh and blood" means a physical body."
There are more scholars than that who adhere to the literal rendering. Since Paul uses the literal Greek words for "flesh and blood", (not the words for "sinful mortal nature"), then the literal rendering cannot be ruled out. It doesn't matter if the phrase is used metaphorically in other passages. What matters is what Paul actually meant to say and literal "flesh and blood" makes perfect sense in the context in which he is speaking.
13:59 Again, your translation of 1 Cor 15:53 is misleading. The word for "body" is not in the original Greek.
15:05 Possible quote mine of Gerd Ludemann. What exactly does he mean by "symbolic interpretation?" Did you ask him?
- 15:16 "You have to jump through some pretty crazy hoops to try to interpret Paul to be claiming he believed in a spiritual vision only."
Lol! No you don't. All you have to do is read all the accounts that describe Paul's experience and it's clear that it was a vision. This isn't even controversial. It's what the New Testament actually says and has been the standard Orthodox position for around 2,000 years! Where does Paul indicate that he or the disciples experienced the Risen Jesus in a more physical way? That's your burden to prove.
Comment