A question for atheists . . .

[shunyadragon]

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.

I am going to question whether γραφας refers to scripture or scriptures. I believe your translation insisting on the plural 'scriptureS' is an interpretation, and not a translation.

[Kbertsche]

I am going to question whether γραφας refers to scripture or scriptures. I believe your translation insisting on the plural 'scriptureS' is an interpretation, and not a translation.

The word "γραφας" is a plural noun (feminine plural accusative). "Scriptures" is correct.

[Kbertsche]

I think you guys may be "barking up the wrong tree" with your back-and-forth arguments about 1 Cor 15:3-5.

1) remember that this is a creed which dates very early, probably within five years of the events. So far as we know, NONE of the NT had been written yet. So "Scriptures" almost certainly refers to the OT here. ("Scriptures" is not Paul's word here; it comes from the early creed.)

2) take a careful look at the grammar of this early creed. I think both of you may be misreading the text. Here is its grammatical structure:
---------------------
A) Christ died (IC)
... for our sins (PP)
... according to the Scriptures (PP)
B) and he was buried (IC)

C) and he has been raised (IC)
... on the third day (PP)
... according to the Scriptures (PP)
D) and he was seen ... (IC)
----------
Where (IC) denotes an independent, main clause, and (PP) denotes a prepositional phrase. Each of the prepositional phrases (PP) above is adverbial, i.e. it acts like an adverb, modifying the verb in the preceding independent clause.

Thus, the creed claims that Christ died according to the OT Scriptures, and He has been raised according to the OT Scriptures. The creed is not necessarily claiming that the substitutionary sacrifice or the three days are found in the OT. (This is explained in much more detail by Anthony C. Thiselton in the New International Greek Testament Commentary, and is illustrated in William Rainey's Greek diagram, which I will try to attach.)

3) the phrase "according to the Scriptures" is general. It is not pointing to any one OT Scripture in particular, but to the general tenor of the OT, the Heilsgeschichte. (See Thiselton again.)

4) however, in spite of the above points, there are hints of the substitutionary sacrifice and three days in the OT. And these hints are stronger than "midrash", which is highly subjective.

The clearest hint of the "three days" is Jonah:

There also may be a hint in Hosea:

These hints are not very clear or unambiguous. But we shouldn't expect them to be, based on points 2 and 3 above.

[Tassman]

I think you guys may be "barking up the wrong tree" with your back-and-forth arguments about 1 Cor 15:3-5.

1) remember that this is a creed which dates very early, probably within five years of the events. So far as we know, NONE of the NT had been written yet. So "Scriptures" almost certainly refers to the OT here. ("Scriptures" is not Paul's word here; it comes from the early creed.)

Agreed!

2) take a careful look at the grammar of this early creed. I think both of you may be misreading the text.

[tabibito]

1 Tim 3:16 God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen (οφθη) of angels * optanomai conjugated for Aorist Passive Indicative, 3rd person singular

Acts 7:26 And the next day he shewed himself (οφθη) unto them as they strove...But he that did his neighbour wrong ... Wilt thou kill me, as thou diddest the Egyptian yesterday? 29 Then fled Moses at this saying

1Kgs 3:16 Then there appeared (ωφθησαν) two harlots before the king, and they stood before him * optanomai conjugated to Aorist Passive Indicative, 3rd person plural.

[Kbertsche]

We know your argument. As I said in post #259 earlier in this thread, your argument ignores the grammatical meaning of the creed itself, it assumes that Paul had a non-physical vision of Jesus, and then it anachronistically forces this assumption backward in time onto the creed, against the creed's own wording. Your argument is bogus.

[Tassman]

1 Tim 3:16 God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen (οφθη) of angels * optanomai conjugated for Aorist Passive Indicative, 3rd person singular

Acts 7:26 And the next day he shewed himself (οφθη) unto them as they strove...But he that did his neighbour wrong ... Wilt thou kill me, as thou diddest the Egyptian yesterday? 29 Then fled Moses at this saying

1Kgs 3:16 Then there appeared (ωφθησαν) two harlots before the king, and they stood before him * optanomai conjugated to Aorist Passive Indicative, 3rd person plural.

We know your argument. As I said in post #259 earlier in this thread, your argument ignores the grammatical meaning of the creed itself, it assumes that Paul had a non-physical vision of Jesus, and then it anachronistically forces this assumption backward in time onto the creed, against the creed's own wording. Your argument is bogus.

This is the common understanding of Paul's Damascene encounter.

The same Greek word is used for "seen" to speak of the appearance to Paul as is used for the appearances to Peter and the rest. The word is often used to speak of supernatural appearances, such as for the transfiguration. It is rendered as "appeared" a few times in the Markan appendix, a word indicating something non-physical.

[Kbertsche]

it assumes that Paul had a non-physical vision of Jesus

This is the common understanding of Paul's Damascene encounter.

Perhaps so. But "common understandings" are often wrong. Other than blindly following what you believe to be the "common understanding", what are your reasons for assuming that Paul had a non-physical vision of Jesus?

The same Greek word is used for "seen" to speak of the appearance to Paul as is used for the appearances to Peter and the rest. The word is often used to speak of supernatural appearances, such as for the transfiguration. It is rendered as "appeared" a few times in the Markan appendix, a word indicating something non-physical.

And it is also often used to speak of natural, physical appearances as well. Tabibito has given you some examples.

[Tassman]

Perhaps so. But "common understandings" are often wrong.

No so. The scholarly consensus is usually arrived at for good reason.

Other than blindly following what you believe to be the "common understanding", what are your reasons for assuming that Paul had a non-physical vision of Jesus?

And it is also often used to speak of natural, physical appearances as well. Tabibito has given you some examples.

[Kbertsche]

No so. The scholarly consensus is usually arrived at for good reason.

But since you don't know the reasons in this case, you are just exercising "blind faith" in the scholars whose position you happen to like.


Translation: your mind is closed and you don't want to consider the issue.


Only based on your prior assumption (which you are unwilling to defend or reconsider) that Paul had a non-physical vision of Jesus.

Your argument is highly circular as well as being anachronistic. You assume the conclusion that you want re Paul seeing Jesus. Then you force this conclusion onto an earlier, non-Pauline creed. What you are doing has no relation to true scholarship. You are merely presenting an atheist apologetic, and a poor one at that.

[Tassman]

Only based on your prior assumption (which you are unwilling to defend or reconsider) that Paul had a non-physical vision of Jesus.

https://www.biblegateway.com/resourc...uls-Conversion

You assume the conclusion that you want re Paul seeing Jesus.

Isn't this what you are doing?

Then you force this conclusion onto an earlier, non-Pauline creed.

Paul claims to be equal in apostleship to the other apostles based upon an equal experience with the risen Jesus. Hence, the use of the same Greek word for "seen" regarding the appearance to Paul as for the appearances to Peter and the rest. The word is often used to speak of supernatural appearances, such as for the transfiguration. It is rendered as "appeared" a few times in the Markan appendix, a word indicating something non-physical.

[tabibito]

Way to miss a point: (the debate here is about the use of the word, not the authenticity of the source). The word used indicates that a person has an emotional response to what is seen, and says nothing about the nature of what is observed. According to the interpretation that you try to force on the word, Moses somehow spiritually appeared to the men who were fighting." Two harlots got seen: What, they weren't in the flesh, they were some sort of spiritual entities? Christ is seen in the flesh - οπατανομαι - direct evidence that the word can and does apply when viewing Christ in the flesh (as if such direct evidence was needed.)
Acts 1:2 - Christ showed himself (optanomai) alive (the date of the writing is not at issue, the significance of the word is). The overwhelming majority of uses in both Old and New Testament of optanomai relate to viewing something that has undisputed physical existence.
If the definition that you provide is something that your scholars claim to be correct, you are seriously in need of a change of scholars.

[Kbertsche]

Only based on your prior assumption (which you are unwilling to defend or reconsider) that Paul had a non-physical vision of Jesus.

Yes, you are free to appeal to the authority of any "experts" that you like and accept their word without question. Such an "appeal to authority" is a logical fallacy, and is much easier than an actual defense. I've noticed that you do this frequently.

https://www.biblegateway.com/resourc...uls-Conversion

Where, exactly, does this answer the question of whether what Paul saw was physical or non-physical?

[Tassman]

Yes, you are free to appeal to the authority of any "experts" that you like and accept their word without question. Such an "appeal to authority" is a logical fallacy, and is much easier than an actual defense.

Not if the conclusions of experts are a consensus view and supported by good evidence. They are better able that I of arriving at an authoritative conclusion.

Where, exactly, does this answer the question of whether what Paul saw was physical or non-physical?

[tabibito]

Not if the conclusions of experts are a consensus view and supported by good evidence. They are better able that I of arriving at an authoritative conclusion.

Experts won't be telling you that a word signifies what it does not. And clinging to assessments that have been demonstrated incorrect or inconclusive makes no good argument: nor does declaring to be fact, what your sources say is an opinion.

The text does not say that Paul saw anything - you are engaging in interpolation.

This speaks to a vision by Saul/Paul, not a physical fleshly presence.

Even if "vision" could be supported, lack of a "fleshly presence" doesn't mean there was not a fleshly existence. If you talk to someone on Skype, you have a vision: not a fleshly presence.

He sees it, his companions do not.

Where does the record show that Paul saw anything? It says that he heard a voice.

And when Paul writes about the appearances to the apostles he includes his own Damascene vision (as per 1 Cor 15.8)

the record there says nothing about the Damascene event: interpolation yet again.

hence the postmortem appearances of Christ appear to be of the same order. .

based on an incorrect assessment of the significance of οπτανομαι, already demonstrated. And of course an at best questionable interpretation of πνευματικος directly: "But the natural psuchikos man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know [them], because they are spiritually discerned. 15 But he that is spiritual (pneumatikos) judgeth all things, yet he himself is judged of no man. (1 Cor 2:14-15)", both pneumatikos and psuchikos, as used here, apply to a person who is alive in the conventional sense.

MICKELSON/STRONG'S LEXICON
G4152 πνευματικός pneumatikos (pnev-ma-tiy-kos') adj.
1. spiritual, pertaining to the spirit.
2. that which is motivated and controlled through the spirit.
3. (demonically) of evil spirits.
4. (divinely) of the Holy Spirit.


Your scholars have seemingly ignored the dictionary definition.