What happened to the body?

[seer]

He is saying here that when the end times come he will not die (sleep), but in that instant he will be changed. His body will change from the perishable one it currently had, to a new imperishable body. At the same time, the dead will be raise in similar non-perishable bodies.

Right, his old body is changed not completely destroyed or lost. There is something of the old that is reconstituted, saved.

Or do you think he was imagining the dead being raised in their existing bodies? It was Jewish practice to allow the flesh to rot away, and to later collect the bones in an ossuary. Did Paul believe people would be raised from their ossuaries as just bones? Think this through. This is a process that he was saying would happen to everyone (or all Christians at least). Does it make sense that all Christians will be raised in their original bodies, given the way corpses decompose?

Well this is a miraculous event. I suspect that God could re-create our original DNA if necessary. But my point is that it is not a merely spiritual resurrection, but a physical/spiritual one.

[The Pixie]

Right, his old body is changed not completely destroyed or lost. There is something of the old that is reconstituted, saved.

Okay, but that could be your identity in some sense, rather than any physical matter. That would seem more likely, given Paul states "1 Cor 15:50 I declare to you, brothers and sisters, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God."

Actually, I suppose you could read that to mean that bones will survive, and it is only the flesh that is replaced. This would be consistent with the Jewish practice of keeping the bones in an ossuary. Is that what Paul mwant, do you think?

Well this is a miraculous event. I suspect that God could re-create our original DNA if necessary. But my point is that it is not a merely spiritual resurrection, but a physical/spiritual one.

Can you explain what you mean? Are you saying Paul believed people will be resurrected in exact copies of their original bodies? Why then does he say that those who are a live at that time will be changed? Changed from flesh and blood bodies into exact copies of those flesh and blood copies?

If you are saying the resurrected body is physical, rather than insubstantial, then I accept that that is consistent with what Paul said.

[seer]

Okay, but that could be your identity in some sense, rather than any physical matter. That would seem more likely, given Paul states "1 Cor 15:50 I declare to you, brothers and sisters, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God."

Right, flesh and blood as we know it now, or it could be a metaphor for the sinful nature. But it makes no sense to talk about the body that is sown being raised, unless something of the old came with the new, was actually raised.

If you are saying the resurrected body is physical, rather than insubstantial, then I accept that that is consistent with what Paul said.

I'm saying that there is a spiritual aspect added to the physical. A hybrid so to speak.

[The Pixie]

Right, flesh and blood as we know it now, or it could be a metaphor for the sinful nature. But it makes no sense to talk about the body that is sown being raised, unless something of the old came with the new, was actually raised.

Well, it is not a resurrection unless something is retained. That would be like being replaced by someone else. There must be something that is you that is resurrected. Whether Paul believed that is a physical thing, a part of the original physical body is not clear. However, he does specifically state that flesh and blood cannot enter heaven. And there is the clear fact that most dead people no long have flesh and blood; Paul was certainly describing a process that he anticipated happening to all people, with the implication it would apply to people who had been dead for years, and so already had no flesh and bones. I think that is enough to show Paul was not speaking of metaphorical flesh and blood.

I'm saying that there is a spiritual aspect added to the physical. A hybrid so to speak.

Paul says changed, not added to.

[seer]

Well, it is not a resurrection unless something is retained. That would be like being replaced by someone else. There must be something that is you that is resurrected. Whether Paul believed that is a physical thing, a part of the original physical body is not clear. However, he does specifically state that flesh and blood cannot enter heaven. And there is the clear fact that most dead people no long have flesh and blood; Paul was certainly describing a process that he anticipated happening to all people, with the implication it would apply to people who had been dead for years, and so already had no flesh and bones. I think that is enough to show Paul was not speaking of metaphorical flesh and blood.

Not quite, since it is the physical body (soma) that is raised, but I think we agree that something of the old is retained.

Paul says changed, not added to.

"The mortal must put on immortality" Vs.53,54. Put on, added to.

[Sparko]

Well, it is not a resurrection unless something is retained. That would be like being replaced by someone else. There must be something that is you that is resurrected. Whether Paul believed that is a physical thing, a part of the original physical body is not clear. However, he does specifically state that flesh and blood cannot enter heaven. And there is the clear fact that most dead people no long have flesh and blood; Paul was certainly describing a process that he anticipated happening to all people, with the implication it would apply to people who had been dead for years, and so already had no flesh and bones. I think that is enough to show Paul was not speaking of metaphorical flesh and blood.

Paul says changed, not added to.

when Paul is talking about "spiritual" he is talking about motivation and temperament, not material. Like me saying that the pope is a spiritual person. I am not saying he is a ghost. Paul is comparing and contrasting the type of body and mind we will have after the resurrection with what we have now. Now we are controlled by the flesh, tempted by the flesh. When we are resurrected we will not be, we will be controlled by the spirit.

[Adrift]

Well, it is not a resurrection unless something is retained. That would be like being replaced by someone else. There must be something that is you that is resurrected. Whether Paul believed that is a physical thing, a part of the original physical body is not clear.

According to your own confession, it must be at least partially physical. Why would 1st century Jews go through all of the labor of preserving bones if they had no significance? Why do even modern orthodox Jews have issues with cremation? The body is an important aspect of 1st century Jewish resurrection practices. They believed that the body, not just the spirit, but the body itself, would be taken/resurrected, and transformed at the end times.

However, he does specifically state that flesh and blood cannot enter heaven. And there is the clear fact that most dead people no long have flesh and blood; Paul was certainly describing a process that he anticipated happening to all people, with the implication it would apply to people who had been dead for years, and so already had no flesh and bones. I think that is enough to show Paul was not speaking of metaphorical flesh and blood.

You do agree though that there are MANY scholars (the majority of them) who assert that Paul did mean something metaphorical about flesh and blood, correct? So, for instance, NT professor Michael Licona writes in "Buried Hope Or Risen Savior: The Search for the Jesus Tomb"

Source: Buried Hope Or Risen Savior: The Search for the Jesus Tomb edited Charles L. Quarles, B&H Publishing Group, 2008, 191-192

"Flesh and Blood." The third point of contention in 1 Corinthians 15 is verse 50 in which Paul states that "flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God, nor does the perishable inherit the imperishable." Some scholars assert that Paul was contradicting Luke, who reported Jesus saying, "A spirit does not have flesh and bones as you see I have" (Luke 24:39). A significant minority of today's commentators interprets "flesh and blood" as a synonym for "physical."⁵⁷ Most scholars, however, agree that it is a figure of speech--and probably a Semitism--referring to man as a mortal being. Thus Paul meant "the living cannot inherit the kingdom of God."⁵⁸ It resembles North American "idioms that refer to a person as being cold-blooded, hot-blooded, or red-blooded. When referring to a "red-blooded male," North Americans are not contrasting him with one who is green-blooded. The color and temperature of one's blood are not relevant when these figures of speech are used. The term "flesh and blood" appears five times in the New Testament (three of these occurrences are in Paul's letters).⁵⁹ It appears twice in the Septuagint⁶⁰ and is common in the Rabbinic literature. In all of these instances, the term bears the primary sense of mortality rather than physicality.61 That "flesh and blood" is employed in this sense in 1 Cor 15:50 is confirmed by the fact that, elsewhere in 1 Corinthians 15 where the present body is described, its mortality rather than physicality is the issue.

If "flesh and blood" is understood with the majority of commentators as a figure of speech meaning "mortal," interpreting Paul as claiming in 1 Cor 15:20 that our future bodies will be "immaterial" is exegetically unfounded.⁶² He is saying that our mortal bodies in their weak state will not be what we have in the resurrection. They must be transformed. Since "flesh and blood" was a figure of speech and "flesh and bone" apparently was not, Paul is not at all contradicting Luke. Moreover, since Paul strongly hints at a resurrection of our mortal bodies elsewhere (e.g., Rom 8:11,23; 1 Cor 15:42; Phil 3:21), any interpretation of 1 Cor 15:50 that has Paul referring to an immaterial body proposes a Paul who contradicts not only Luke but also himself.








57. For an exception, see Borg, Jesus: Uncovering the Life, 289; Donald Wayne Viney, "Grave Doubts about the Resurrection," Encounter 50 (1989): 130; Watson, First Epistle to the Corinthians, 179.

58. Although a few of the following do not note a figure of speech, they all agree on the meaning of the phrase "flesh and blood": Paul Barnett, "The Apostle Paul, the Bishop of Newark, and the Resurrection of Jesus," Crux 30: (1994), 9; D.A. Carson, Matthew, Expositor's Bible Commentary on CD-Rom, ed. Frank Gaebelein (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1998), comments on Matthew 16:17; Collins, First Corinthians, 579; Conzelmann, 1 Corinthians, 289-90; Craig, Assessing the New Testament, 141; Anders Eriksson, Tradition as Rhetorical Proof: Pauline Argumentation in 1 Corinthians, Coniectanea Biblica NT 29 (Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell, 1998), 273; David E. Garland, 1 Corinthians, Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2003), 739-41; Gundry, Soma in Biblical Theology, 166; Johnson, 1 Corinthians, 306; Keener, 1-2 Corinthians, 133; Kistemaker, Exposition of the First Epistle, 580-581; Lockwood, 1 Corinthians, 596; William F. Orr and James Arthur Walther, 1 Corinthians, Anchor Bible (New York: Doubleday, 1976), 359; Thiselton, The First Epistle to the Corinthians, 1291.

59. Matthew 16:17; 1 Cor 15:50; Gal 1:16; Eph 6:12; Heb2:14.

60. Sirach 14:18; 17:31.

61. Rudolf Meyer, TDNT, 7:116.

62. Ben F. Meyer, "Did Paul's View of the Resurrection of the Dead Undergo Development?" Theological Studies 47 (1986); "Jeremias' 1955 essay all but put an end to the idea that 'flesh and blood' (interpreted as the corporeal principle itself) had no part in final salvation. After 1955 that particular reading of the text of 1 Cor 15:50 was largely abandoned, few today being ready to follow Teichmann in suppressing the prima-facie sense of 'change' ('we shall all be changed') in favor of making it mean annihilation and new creation" (110).

© Copyright Original Source

[Bisto]

Two cents that may be relevant:

I remember reading somewhere (maybe Deeper Waters) of a study of the word Soma affirming it pretty much always entailed a physical body.

Likewise I remember reading that in light of Semitic Totality the body is an essential of who man is in ancient Judaism and therefore Christianity.

I also remember that Wright said in TRotSoG that the words "natural" and "spiritual" used in 1 Cor 15 to speak about the present and the Resurrection body, as adjectives, do not entail composition, but rather what the body is filled of or inspired by. Something like Sparko's last post. This point was based, I believe, on the ending of the relevant Greek words and comparing them to other adjectives with the corresponding endings. I think the natural and spiritual persons mentioned previously in the letter (was it 1 Cor too?) serve as an example.

And in my opinion, Paul's metaphor of the seed and the plant in 1 Cor 15 kind of establishes that he means the risen body is based on the buried one, transformed for sure, but nonetheless similar. It brings to mind Lewis's metaphor of our bodies as a river stream: though the elements we are composed of constantly change, we remain.


Am I remembering right? Are these things so? Are they controversial? Are they relevant? :)

[element771]

I agree completely, that's why I don't support hacks.

If you think that Paul meant spiritual resurrection or that Jesus didn't exist, then you do support hacks.

Christians do the same thing when they ignore historians, and that is my point. There is a lot of stuff in the Bible that is nonsense, historically. The Gospel of John, Adam & Eve, Noah, Abraham, Moses, the Exodus (basically the whole Pentateuch), Joshua and the Conquest of Canaan, Jonah.

Well, I can't speak with much knowledge regarding most of these as far as historicity. However, I do not hold the idea that some of these events are meant to be historical. For example, the story of Adam and Eve. This idea of hyperliteralism did not take hold until more recently (I believe the 1800's). So the idea that the story of Adam and Even "ignores historians" is missing the point of the story.

Why did you include the Gospel of John in here?

As far as the Synoptic gospels go, they are not particularly reliable accounts of "history" either. They inform us about the teachings of Jesus, but they are written about 50-60 years after the death of Jesus. There are sections within them that are clearly wrong, such as the Jews having influence over Roman rule to have Jesus crucified. Or the ancient Egyptians having slaves do forced-labour in the Exodus (in reality, only the lowest class of criminally-convicted slaves could be made to do forced labour in Egypt). The issue is most Christians are not aware of this, and if they are they actively choose to ignore it.

1. You keep mixing up the OT and NT in your examples.

2. How are these accounts not particularly reliable? What basis do you have to say that? Much of what is reported in the NT is viewed as being historical unless you are hyper-skeptical in which case you don't trust any written history. If this is the case, then how can anyone say anything about history during this time period.

Let us take one example. Can you elaborate on Jews having influence over Roman rule to have Jesus crucified?

The issue is most Christians are not aware of this, and if they are they actively choose to ignore it.

In a lot of these cases, Christians are aware of these issues but realize that they have been dealt with on a scholarly level to their satisfaction (and to the satisfaction of the majority of secular historians if you are nervous about bias).

[The Pixie]

Not quite, since it is the physical body (soma) that is raised, but I think we agree that something of the old is retained.

Paul was writing within the limititations of Koine Greek. Did they have a word for bodies made of celestial material? If not, he may just have been using the best word available. In English, we are saying that a body of some sort is raised, not a spirit.

"The mortal must put on immortality" Vs.53,54. Put on, added to.

But he may be refering to the kernal that is the essence of you, rather than the entire body. Again, he says the bodies of the living will be changed, and again I will point out that he was expecting people whose flesh had long since rotted away to be raised too.

[The Pixie]

when Paul is talking about "spiritual" he is talking about motivation and temperament, not material. Like me saying that the pope is a spiritual person. I am not saying he is a ghost. Paul is comparing and contrasting the type of body and mind we will have after the resurrection with what we have now. Now we are controlled by the flesh, tempted by the flesh. When we are resurrected we will not be, we will be controlled by the spirit.

You know this how? This looks to me like modern Christianity projecting its beliefs on to Paul, and not reading what Paul actually said. The context of 1 Corinthians 15 is a discussion of how resurrection will work, and in that context he is talking about the types of bodies. Not spirituallike a ghost necessarily; I agree he means spiritual more in the way we might say the pope is spiritual, but he says considerably more than that. He states clearly that the bodies of the living will be changed, and he states clearly that flesh and blood will not get to heaven.

[The Pixie]

According to your own confession, it must be at least partially physical.

I said it could be. But okay, let us say that it is. The issue is whether it is in the original body or not.

Why would 1st century Jews go through all of the labor of preserving bones if they had no significance? Why do even modern orthodox Jews have issues with cremation? The body is an important aspect of 1st century Jewish resurrection practices. They believed that the body, not just the spirit, but the body itself, would be taken/resurrected, and transformed at the end times.

Presumably they believe the bones are significant. Would you be happy to say that Jesus was resurrected with his own bones but with a new, spiritual body on them? That would fit with these Jewish beliefs, including the idea that they will be transformed at the end times. However, I have never heard a Christian say that before, so I wonderif that is your position.

You do agree though that there are MANY scholars (the majority of them) who assert that Paul did mean something metaphorical about flesh and blood, correct? So, for instance, NT professor Michael Licona writes in "Buried Hope Or Risen Savior: The Search for the Jesus Tomb"

I do not doubt that many do. Many Biblical scholars are Christians, including Licona. In fact, Licona is not just a Christian, he is a Christian apologist who runs his own ministry. That does not mean these scholars are necessarily wrong, but it does suggest some bias on issues like this. If you start from the position that a bodily resurrection was a historical fact, and you see your mission in life as promoting that claim, you are going to read Paul differently, and report Paul differently to a scholar who comes at it with an open mind.

Source: Buried Hope Or Risen Savior: The Search for the Jesus Tomb edited Charles L. Quarles, B&H Publishing Group, 2008, 191-192

"Flesh and Blood." The third point of contention in 1 Corinthians 15 is verse 50 in which Paul states that "flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God, nor does the perishable inherit the imperishable." Some scholars assert that Paul was contradicting Luke, who reported Jesus saying, "A spirit does not have flesh and bones as you see I have" (Luke 24:39).

© Copyright Original Source

Really? Most scholars date 1 Corinthians to AD 53-54, and Luke to 80-90 AD. Why would Paul contradict a text that would be written forty years later?

Source: ibid.

A significant minority of today's commentators interprets "flesh and blood" as a synonym for "physical."⁵⁷ Most scholars, however, agree that it is a figure of speech--and probably a Semitism--referring to man as a mortal being. Thus Paul meant "the living cannot inherit the kingdom of God."⁵⁸ It resembles North American "idioms that refer to a person as being cold-blooded, hot-blooded, or red-blooded. When referring to a "red-blooded male," North Americans are not contrasting him with one who is green-blooded. The color and temperature of one's blood are not relevant when these figures of speech are used. The term "flesh and blood" appears five times in the New Testament (three of these occurrences are in Paul's letters).⁵⁹ It appears twice in the Septuagint⁶⁰ and is common in the Rabbinic literature. In all of these instances, the term bears the primary sense of mortality rather than physicality.61 That "flesh and blood" is employed in this sense in 1 Cor 15:50 is confirmed by the fact that, elsewhere in 1 Corinthians 15 where the present body is described, its mortality rather than physicality is the issue.

© Copyright Original Source

Hmm. Paul makes a big deal about the perishable versus the imperishable, so I kind of agree. But think about the implications. Flesh and blood represent mortality specifically because they were not expected to last into the afterlife. Of course flesh and blood rot away, so of course the resurrected body will not be composed of flesh and blood, because that is something that will rot away. Our mortality will be shed when our flesh and blood are shed, the two being deeply connected.

Also, the author here is talking about physicality. I will grant a physical body. What we are discussing is whether resurrection is in the original body. This is clear in the next paragraph:

Source: ibid.

If "flesh and blood" is understood with the majority of commentators as a figure of speech meaning "mortal," interpreting Paul as claiming in 1 Cor 15:20 that our future bodies will be "immaterial" is exegetically unfounded.⁶² He is saying that our mortal bodies in their weak state will not be what we have in the resurrection. They must be transformed. Since "flesh and blood" was a figure of speech and "flesh and bone" apparently was not, Paul is not at all contradicting Luke. Moreover, since Paul strongly hints at a resurrection of our mortal bodies elsewhere (e.g., Rom 8:11,23; 1 Cor 15:42; Phil 3:21), any interpretation of 1 Cor 15:50 that has Paul referring to an immaterial body proposes a Paul who contradicts not only Luke but also himself.

© Copyright Original Source

[Adrift]

I said it could be. But okay, let us say that it is. The issue is whether it is in the original body or not.

Presumably they believe the bones are significant. Would you be happy to say that Jesus was resurrected with his own bones but with a new, spiritual body on them? That would fit with these Jewish beliefs, including the idea that they will be transformed at the end times. However, I have never heard a Christian say that before, so I wonderif that is your position.

I think that's probably unlikely, and more likely that 1st century Jews thought the body itself was significant, and found that it was easier to preserve at least the bones since flesh has a tendency to rot away with time. The Jews may have known about mummification, but perhaps they found it too complicated, or that God only needed to work with the bare minimum, which are the bones, at the end times. We see something like this in Ezekiel 37. Now, I, as a modern Gentile Christian, personally don't think that preservation of the bones are required. I believe that cremated individuals, for instance, will still see their physical body resurrected, and glorified. I believe Jesus knows this as well, but Jesus didn't bury himself, and it was the tradition of the day, so...

I do not doubt that many do.

Oh good.

Many Biblical scholars are Christians, including Licona. In fact, Licona is not just a Christian, he is a Christian apologist who runs his own ministry. That does not mean these scholars are necessarily wrong, but it does suggest some bias on issues like this. If you start from the position that a bodily resurrection was a historical fact, and you see your mission in life as promoting that claim, you are going to read Paul differently, and report Paul differently to a scholar who comes at it with an open mind.

What you've just now done is commit a type of fallacy called the "genetic fallacy". This is a fallacy where you assert that a claim is suspect based on a person's origin or history rather than on the merit of their argument. Yes, Licona is a Christian, and an apologist, but he's also an esteemed NT scholar. He did lots of hard work to get where he got, and he specializes in the subject he's speaking on. Furthermore, Licona cited his work, and those he noted that agree with this view are themselves considered by non-Christian NT scholars to be giants in the field of NT scholarship. They are regularly cited in the works of people like Crossan, Ehrman, Crossley, and the like. Also, every scholar, absolutely every one of them, comes to the topic of the NT with some sort of bias. I'm sure you agree with me that it'd be silly to disregard every scholar because of whatever bias they may have for or against the NT. I say let their work speak for itself, and let their fellow peers do the judging. Would it surprise you to learn that there are a number of non-Christian scholars who also support the view that Paul meant "flesh and blood" as a figure of speech?

Source: Buried Hope Or Risen Savior: The Search for the Jesus Tomb edited Charles L. Quarles, B&H Publishing Group, 2008, 191-192

"Flesh and Blood." The third point of contention in 1 Corinthians 15 is verse 50 in which Paul states that "flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God, nor does the perishable inherit the imperishable." Some scholars assert that Paul was contradicting Luke, who reported Jesus saying, "A spirit does not have flesh and bones as you see I have" (Luke 24:39).

© Copyright Original Source

Really? Most scholars date 1 Corinthians to AD 53-54, and Luke to 80-90 AD. Why would Paul contradict a text that would be written forty years later?

There's a number of ways to read this. 1.) By "contradicting", Licona means something like "conflicts", as in, Paul's view conflicts/contradicts Luke's, not anachronistically, but in general. 2.) Licona is referring to a pre-Lukan tradition that Luke later wrote down, that Paul is arguing against. 3.) Licona really does believe that Luke wrote before Paul. This seems unlikely though, because elsewhere (Resurrection of Jesus: A New Historiographical Approach, pg. 205) he seems to accept a date of approx. 85 CE for Luke. I think it's most likely he's referring to #1, since this is the view of folks like Robert Price.

Source: ibid.

A significant minority of today's commentators interprets "flesh and blood" as a synonym for "physical."⁵⁷ Most scholars, however, agree that it is a figure of speech--and probably a Semitism--referring to man as a mortal being. Thus Paul meant "the living cannot inherit the kingdom of God."⁵⁸ It resembles North American "idioms that refer to a person as being cold-blooded, hot-blooded, or red-blooded. When referring to a "red-blooded male," North Americans are not contrasting him with one who is green-blooded. The color and temperature of one's blood are not relevant when these figures of speech are used. The term "flesh and blood" appears five times in the New Testament (three of these occurrences are in Paul's letters).⁵⁹ It appears twice in the Septuagint⁶⁰ and is common in the Rabbinic literature. In all of these instances, the term bears the primary sense of mortality rather than physicality.61 That "flesh and blood" is employed in this sense in 1 Cor 15:50 is confirmed by the fact that, elsewhere in 1 Corinthians 15 where the present body is described, its mortality rather than physicality is the issue.

© Copyright Original Source

Hmm. Paul makes a big deal about the perishable versus the imperishable, so I kind of agree. But think about the implications. Flesh and blood represent mortality specifically because they were not expected to last into the afterlife. Of course flesh and blood rot away, so of course the resurrected body will not be composed of flesh and blood, because that is something that will rot away. Our mortality will be shed when our flesh and blood are shed, the two being deeply connected.

That's where the whole concept of "transforming" into a "glorified" body comes into play. None of these scholars (and no Christian that I know of) thinks that the body one will have at the resurrection will be exactly like the body we have now. It will certainly remain a physical body, one that can be touched, and that can do things like eat if it so desires, but it will be transformed, and do things that our current bodies cannot do.

Also, the author here is talking about physicality. I will grant a physical body. What we are discussing is whether resurrection is in the original body. This is clear in the next paragraph:

Source: ibid.

If "flesh and blood" is understood with the majority of commentators as a figure of speech meaning "mortal," interpreting Paul as claiming in 1 Cor 15:20 that our future bodies will be "immaterial" is exegetically unfounded.⁶² He is saying that our mortal bodies in their weak state will not be what we have in the resurrection. They must be transformed. Since "flesh and blood" was a figure of speech and "flesh and bone" apparently was not, Paul is not at all contradicting Luke. Moreover, since Paul strongly hints at a resurrection of our mortal bodies elsewhere (e.g., Rom 8:11,23; 1 Cor 15:42; Phil 3:21), any interpretation of 1 Cor 15:50 that has Paul referring to an immaterial body proposes a Paul who contradicts not only Luke but also himself.

© Copyright Original Source

I'm not certain what you think this paragraph proves. Licona is not saying anything different here than any of the Christians are saying in this thread. It is the original body transformed. Glorified. Not made out of spirit (which is immaterial), but is itself material.

[Aractus]

If you think that Paul meant spiritual resurrection or that Jesus didn't exist, then you do support hacks.

You are conflating two different issues here. Firstly, I've already pointed this out, there are some Christians who believe in Mythicism. This is something you have ignored, and not even bothered to respond to. Thomas Brodie is a scholar and a Roman Catholic Priest who believes in Mythicism. Secondly, your use of the word "hacks" in this instances is completely wrong. A hack is not a scholar with a minority view - those are scholars with a minority view. It's also not someone like Richard Carrier who's view is outside the usual scope of scholarly thought - he's an outlier. An outlier is not a hack. And thirdly why bother bringing up a theory which none of us are arguing for anyway?

On your second issue, "what Paul meant", you are again incorrect in your characterisation of what constitutes a "hack". Paul spends the whole of Chapter 15 of 1 Corinthians going on and on about how Resurrection is spiritual, how we leave our terrestrial bodies behind, and are given new celestial ones. He says specifically that the terrestrial cannot enter the celestial (1 Cor 15:50).

2. How are these accounts not particularly reliable? What basis do you have to say that? Much of what is reported in the NT is viewed as being historical unless you are hyper-skeptical in which case you don't trust any written history. If this is the case, then how can anyone say anything about history during this time period.

Let us take one example. Can you elaborate on Jews having influence over Roman rule to have Jesus crucified?

I will elaborate this far: Classicists say it ain't so.

As far as "reliability" goes, let's propose a thought experiment. It's 75 AD, and there are three different sectarian groups calling themselves Christians. The first group are the Jewish Christians. The second group are the Pauline Christians. The third group is the Gnostic or proto-Gnostic Christians. All three groups believe they are the true branch of Christianity. During this time, they all write gospels about Jesus.

Do you believe all three first century Christian sects would give you the same gospels? Remember, they're writing about Jesus - the guy that went around teaching stuff and performing healings in 30AD - 45 years prior. If we could trust all of these people to be objective in their recollection of history, then why is it that certain gospels were later rejected by the later second-century Pauline Christians? If the Pauline Christians couldn't trust gospels written by the Gnostic and Jewish Christians then why should they trust gospels written by them? Why should we today trust gospels written by one group any more than by another group?

In a lot of these cases, Christians are aware of these issues but realize that they have been dealt with on a scholarly level to their satisfaction (and to the satisfaction of the majority of secular historians if you are nervous about bias).

Then why do they continue to celibate the nativity?

[Abigail]

Not just a great leader, but THE great leader that God has said, via two angels, will lead the Jews to freedom.

And when did Jesus say he was the equal of God?

His actions spoke that he was either equal or someone extremely special - better than Moses, better than David etc. Read the account in Mark 2:1-13, noting especially verse 7 "Why does this man speak this way?. He is blaspheming; who can forgive sins but God alone?"