A question for atheists . . .

[tabibito]

I don't understand your point.

Just trying to establish whether these scholars of yours have any claim to credibility.

The tradition, which you should be aware of as a Christian, is that the Jonah story prefigures Jesus death and resurrection after three days and nights.

Given that the churches had no part in my acceptance of Christ as Lord, assuming I know what the churches accept and teach is not a safe assumption



So "always" now becomes "almost exclusively"

refers to the Old Testament writings when used by New Testament authors.

And "almost exclusively" (if 2 Peter is not admitted as evidence) would force the question "which references are exceptions"?

Google it, there are numerous references to this fact. Why is this a problem for you?

It would seem that a claim which can be verified incorrect would be more a problem for the one making the claim.



So why did you make an issue of the "spiritual body" vs "fleshly body"?
The logical expectation for a person who was dead and yet got revived (there are after all, both Old Testament and New Testament precedents) would be that the person who got revived was fully revived: not transformed, neither revived in part.

[Tassman]

The logical expectation for a person who was dead and yet got revived (there are after all, both Old Testament and New Testament precedents) would be that the person who got revived was fully revived: not transformed, neither revived in part.

[tabibito]

natural body, it is raised a spiritual body. If there is a natural body, there is also a spiritual body

This "natural body" that gets sown is not the body of flesh. This "spiritual body" that gets raised is not the person's spirit. psuchikos is not sarkos and pneumatikos is not pneuma. The wresting possible to the English text is not possible to the Greek text.

No indication here of Jesus' peripatetic fleshly body as per the gospels here! What we have is a visional, spiritual experience of Jesus of the sort Christians claim to have had through the ages and give endless personal testimonies about.

No Old Testament text that I am aware of refers to the resurrection of the messiah after three days in the tomb - but we have a claim in 1 Corinthians 3 (he rose again the third day according to the scriptures) that the scriptures attest that he rose again after three days. The only extant records of Jesus rising from the dead are found in the gospels - the conclusion is that a written record of some kind attesting to the resurrection of Christ existed before Paul wrote 1 Corinthians. Maybe one of the gospels, maybe this "Q document" that scholars make mention of.
While your scholars claim that the use of "scriptures" in the New Testament invariably refers to the Old Testament, that claim has been demonstrated false. If that is changed to "almost always" no challenge can be mounted with regard to any individual text.
Absent evidence from the scriptures themselves, any claim that Paul did not consider Christ to have risen bodily from the grave is wholly unsupported.

[Kbertsche]

Some questions for you:
Q: When was the creed in 1 Cor 15:3-5 formulated? (Even critics like Bart Ehrman concede that this was within five years of the events, so in the mid-30's AD.)
Q: When and where did Paul write about his "vision"? (In 1 Cor 15, about 20 years after the creed, Paul uses the wording "he was seen". But where does he identify this appearance of Christ to him as a non-physical "vision"??)
Q: Where and when do we read about Saul/Paul's conversion, which you questionably claim involved seeing Jesus in a non-physical "vision"? (This is in Acts, written by Luke, which you date to 20-30 years after 1 Cor.)

Now, try to step back and think about this. Do you see the glaring problem with your argument? Your argument is highly anachronistic and very weak.
1) You start with later writings which you claim have been embellished (Luke/Acts),
2) you draw a questionable interpretation from these writings (that Paul saw Jesus in a non-physical vision),
3) you force this interpretation back on 1 Cor 15:6ff, which you claim was written some 20-30 years earlier (a clear anachronism),
4) you then force THIS interpretation back on the creed of 1 Cor 15:3-5, which was written 20 years earlier (another clear anachronism).

Instead, I recommend that you FIRST try to understand the early creed on its own, in its own language and grammar. THEN ask why Paul piggy-backs 20 years later with similar wording. Instead of using the similarities to anachronistically twist the CREED into saying something foreign, ask what PAUL is trying to communicate by piggy-backing on the earlier wording.

[Tassman]

This "natural body" that gets sown is not the body of flesh. This "spiritual body" that gets raised is not the person's spirit. psuchikos is not sarkos and pneumatikos is not pneuma. The wresting possible to the English text is not possible to the Greek text.

No Old Testament text that I am aware of refers to the resurrection of the messiah after three days in the tomb - but we have a claim in 1 Corinthians 3 (he rose again the third day according to the scriptures) that the scriptures attest that he rose again after three days. The only extant records of Jesus rising from the dead are found in the gospels - the conclusion is that a written record of some kind attesting to the resurrection of Christ existed before Paul wrote 1 Corinthians. Maybe one of the gospels, maybe this "Q document" that scholars make mention of.
While your scholars claim that the use of "scriptures" in the New Testament invariably refers to the Old Testament, that claim has been demonstrated false. If that is changed to "almost always" no challenge can be mounted with regard to any individual text.
Absent evidence from the scriptures themselves, any claim that Paul did not consider Christ to have risen bodily from the grave is wholly unsupported.

Whilst there are variations, the standard exegesis regarding https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.c...o-in-1-cor-154

Instead, I recommend that you FIRST try to understand the early creed on its own, in its own language and grammar. THEN ask why Paul piggy-backs 20 years later with similar wording. Instead of using the similarities to anachronistically twist the CREED into saying something foreign, ask what PAUL is trying to communicate by piggy-backing on the earlier wording.

See above.

[tabibito]

N


Whilst there are variations, the standard exegesis regarding

Give me a reason to count the opinions of these scholars as reliable.
Does the scholar claim that all New Testament references to scripture mean the Old Testament record?
Does the account of Jonah have any internal identification as a prophecy with regard to the christ?
Does your scholar aver that the author of Mark did not know the geography of Judea?
Does your scholar aver that the account of Judas' death conflicts with the gospel accounts?
Does your scholar claim that the account of Judas' death in Acts refers to events subsequent to his hanging?

Now - your scholars seem to indicate (if your earlier post is to be believed) that Paul's comments refer to an Old Testament record. Which one is it? It cannot be Jonah.

[Tassman]

Give me a reason to count the opinions of these scholars as reliable.
Does the scholar claim that all New Testament references to scripture mean the Old Testament record?
Does the account of Jonah have any internal identification as a prophecy with regard to the christ?
Does your scholar aver that the author of Mark did not know the geography of Judea?
Does your scholar aver that the account of Judas' death conflicts with the gospel accounts?
Does your scholar claim that the account of Judas' death in Acts refers to events subsequent to his hanging?

Now - your scholars seem to indicate (if your earlier post is to be believed) that Paul's comments refer to an Old Testament record. Which one is it? It cannot be Jonah.

All covered in previous responses!

[tabibito]

All covered in previous responses!

Bulldust. I asked for reasons to be advanced that would give me confidence in the opinions of the scholars you refer to.
You provided a link that points to a treatise that uses a whole lot of surmises to underpin a pre-existing belief.

However, there is no quotation in Old Testament that the Messiah would be raised on the third day. This, then, must be an example of midrash

Hardly a compelling argument.

From Paul's usage of the word graphe and grapho elsewhere overwhelmingly being to the Old Testament, we may reasonably conclude that in 1 Cor 15:3 and 4, he is also making his basis on the Old Testament

"we may reasonably conclude" - really? "reasonably conclude" isn't exactly an assertion of an established fact.

Paul uses the word graphe 14 times in his letters. 8 of these are followed by direct quotations of the Old Testament. In the others (the author lists 3), he is clearly alluding to the Old Testament.

The specifics of those 3: scriptures from earlier times, holy scriptures, scriptures of the prophets.

From Paul's usage of the word graphe and grapho elsewhere overwhelmingly being to the Old Testament, we may reasonably conclude that in 1 Cor 15:3 and 4

The specifics of these: no explicit reference is made to long standing, holy, or prophetic, and "kata tas grafas" is used nowhere else in the New Testament: so - no, the author's case has not been made.

[Tassman]

"we may reasonably conclude" - really? "reasonably conclude" isn't exactly an assertion of an established fact.

in the Little Creed may refer to the gospels, or Q or some other post Jesus source as per your unsubstantiated speculations.

[tabibito]

What substantiates the claim that 1 Corinthians 15:4 points to the Old Testament?
Did I say that the reference necessarily points to post-resurrection accounts?
What I said was,

・ something to the effect that "the Christ recovers from death after three days" existed in writing prior to Paul penning (or causing to be penned) his letter.
・ no such references exist in the Old Testament
・ such references can be found in the Gospel accounts
・ these are two of only three occurrences of κατα "written material" in the New Testament. (James 2:8 being the other, and even that has the singular for "written material".)

And now I add: these are the only occurrences (1 Cor 15:3,4) where Paul uses the plural for "written material". And that should make it obvious that more than one such account existed when 1 Corinthians was written.

Has your scholar taken all relevant factors into account in his assessment? Hardly.

[Starlight]

Gotta side with Tass on this one. Few scholars would date the gospels as we have them prior to the writing of 1 Corinthians, so Paul can hardly have been referring to the gospels as we know them when he says "scriptures". And even if the gospels had been newly written, it's hard to believe that people alive at their time of writing would consider fresh-written documents to be 'scripture'. So it seems relatively self-evident to me that the 'scriptures' being referred to are Old Testament passages that were understood to be about the Messiah or were creatively interpreted as being about Jesus by the early Christians. As far as I know, most scholars think the same, but this is a bit outside my field of expertise.

Googling it, there's a decent discussion thread here that looks at which particular OT passages Paul might be referring to. e.g.


They point out that early Christian tradition puts the Jonah reference in Jesus' mouth:

For just as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of the great fish, so will the Son of Man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth. - Matt 12:38-42

And that Paul's preaching recorded in Acts is full of similar OT references:

we bring you the good news that what God promised to the fathers, this he has fulfilled to us their children by raising Jesus, as also it is written in the second Psalm, "' You are my Son, today I have begotten you.' And as for the fact that he raised him from the dead, no more to return to corruption, he has spoken in this way, "' I will give you the holy and sure blessings of David.' Therefore he says also in another psalm, "' You will not let your Holy One see corruption.' -Acts 13:32-35

and Peter likewise:

God raised him up, loosing the pangs of death, because it was not possible for him to be held by it. For David says concerning him, "' I saw the Lord always before me, for he is at my right hand that I may not be shaken; therefore my heart was glad, and my tongue rejoiced; my flesh also will dwell in hope. For you will not abandon my soul to Hades, or let your Holy One see corruption. You have made known to me the paths of life; you will make me full of gladness with your presence.' -Acts 2:24-28

The fact that the early Christian preaching recorded in Acts continually cites the events in Jesus' life as fulfillment of Old Testament scriptural passages, seems fairly decisive to me in showing that that is what the "according to the scriptures" of the early Christian creed in 1 Cor 15 is about.

[Tassman]

Gotta side with Tass on this one. Few scholars would date the gospels as we have them prior to the writing of 1 Corinthians, so Paul can hardly have been referring to the gospels as we know them when he says "scriptures". And even if the gospels had been newly written, it's hard to believe that people alive at their time of writing would consider fresh-written documents to be 'scripture'. So it seems relatively self-evident to me that the 'scriptures' being referred to are Old Testament passages that were understood to be about the Messiah or were creatively interpreted as being about Jesus by the early Christians. As far as I know, most scholars think the same, but this is a bit outside my field of expertise.

The fact that the early Christian preaching recorded in Acts continually cites the events in Jesus' life as fulfillment of Old Testament scriptural passages, seems fairly decisive to me in showing that that is what the "according to the scriptures" of the early Christian creed in 1 Cor 15 is about.

https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.c...o-in-1-cor-154

Tabito is anxious because the early NT texts make no reference to fleshly, post resurrection body re Jesus, as do the much later gospels. Hence his desperation to tie the later material to the Little Creed of 1 Cor 15, which by all accounts is the earliest stuff in the NT.

[tabibito]

As indeed is POSSIBLE: There are other references to scriptures in the New Testament that can't be found in the Old Testament. It is understood that that New Testament authors had access to writings that they regarded as scripture which were not part of the Tanakh, and for which there are no extant copies. However, with regard to the statements by Paul - "He was buried three days, according to the scriptureS. He recovered, according to the scriptureS" - There was more than one source for each of those statements. We do have written records ... those records are to be found in the gospels. Where those records might have been when Paul wrote that letter is a matter for conjecture, and nothing better than conjecture.

There is no direct application ... so it must be something else. .... And you think I'm the one engaging in speculation?

something applied to the Messiah that on the surface speaks of something else. For example, Matthew (2:15) applies a statement in Hosea (11:1) to Jesus, "Out of Egypt I have called my son...."

Assuming that this reference is based in the Tanakh and not some source external to the Tanakh.

Tabito is anxious because the early NT texts make no reference to fleshly, post resurrection body re Jesus, as do the much later gospels. Hence his desperation to tie the later material to the Little Creed of 1 Cor 15, which by all accounts is the earliest stuff in the NT.

Look again at the statementS by Paul. "He was buried three days, as per the recordS. He recovered, as per the recordS."
"John was hospitalised for three days, as per the recordS. He recovered, as per the recordS." It would take some rather powerful mental prestidigitation to think that there was only one record attesting to those events. It would take some rather powerful mental prestidigitation to think that John was hospitalised for more than three days.

[Tassman]

As indeed is POSSIBLE: There are other references to scriptures in the New Testament that can't be found in the Old Testament.

There is no direct application ... so it must be something else. .... And you think I'm the one engaging in speculation?

Assuming that this reference is based in the Tanakh and not some source external to the Tanakh.

Correct! But see above.

Look again at the statementS by Paul. "He was buried three days, as per the recordS. He recovered, as per the recordS."

raised on the third day

[tabibito]

Yep - I got the wording wrong.

χριστος απεθανεν υπερ των αμαρτιων ημων κατα τας γραφας
Christ ... he died .. for .. the ... sins ... of us...according ... to the scriptures
4 και οτι εταφη
and ... that ... he was buried
και οτι εγηγερται τη τριτη ημερα
and ... that ... he got awakened* ... the ... third ... day
κατα τας γραφας
according... to the ... scriptures
*awakened is of course the correct word when a person has been sleeping: it does however mean "recover" when someone has been ill.

The correct wording doesn't lend support to your case though -
particularly given that Paul on two occasions refers to Christ's resurrection as αναστασεως (Romans 1:4, 6:5,). The attempt to draw that artificial distinction between the two words for resurrection lacks credibility.