The 'best' arguments for atheism and Christianity

[RhinestoneCowboy]

Paul does not distinguish a difference IN SIGNIFICANCE between seeing in the flesh and seeing in a vision - either way, seeing Christ is seeing Christ, nor does he claim that what he saw was the disembodied spirit of Christ. He claims to have seen Christ, he does not claim to have seen the spirit/ghost/whatever of Christ. Given that Paul claimed Christ was restored from the dead, that Christ lives, and that Christ was revived from the dead, there is no evidence of a story that evolved.

Yes there is.

Paul c. 50 CE says the Risen Jesus was experienced through visions and revelations. He had a chance to mention the empty tomb in 1 Cor 15 when it would have greatly helped his argument but doesn't.

Mark c. 70 CE introduces the empty tomb but has no appearance report. The original ends at 16:8 where the women leave and tell no one.

Matthew c. 80 CE has the women tell the disciples, contradicting Mark's ending, then has an appearance in Galilee which "some doubt" - Mt. 28:17. Matthew also adds a descending angel, great earthquake, and a zombie apocalypse to spice things up. If these things actually happened then it's hard to believe the other gospel authors left them out, let alone any other source from the time period.

Luke 85-95 CE has the women immediately tell the disciples, contradicting Mark. Jesus appears in Jerusalem, not Galilee, contradicting Matthew. This time Jesus is "not a spirit" but a "flesh and bone" body that gets inspected, eats fish, then floats to heaven while they all watch - conspicuously missing from all the earlier reports.

John 90-110 CE Jesus can now walk through walls and has the Doubting Thomas story where Jesus gets poked. Jesus is also basically God in this gospel which represents another astonishing development.

As you can see, these reports are inconsistent with one another and represent growth that's better explained as a legend that grew in the telling rather than actual history. None of the resurrection reports in the Gospels even match Paul's appearance chronology in 1 Cor 15:5-8 and the later sources have amazing stories that are nowhere even hinted at in the earliest ones. The story evolves from Paul's spiritual/mystical Christ all the way up to literally touching a resurrected corpse that flies to heaven! Yeah, this is not history.

[37818]

Yes there is.

Paul c. 50 CE says the Risen Jesus was experienced through visions and revelations. He had a chance to mention the empty tomb in 1 Cor 15 when it would have greatly helped his argument but doesn't.

Mark c. 70 CE introduces the empty tomb but has no appearance report. The original ends at 16:8 where the women leave and tell no one.

Matthew c. 80 CE has the women tell the disciples, contradicting Mark's ending, then has an appearance in Galilee which "some doubt" - Mt. 28:17. Matthew also adds a descending angel, great earthquake, and a zombie apocalypse to spice things up. If these things actually happened then it's hard to believe the other gospel authors left them out, let alone any other source from the time period.

Luke 85-95 CE has the women immediately tell the disciples, contradicting Mark. Jesus appears in Jerusalem, not Galilee, contradicting Matthew. This time Jesus is "not a spirit" but a "flesh and bone" body that gets inspected, eats fish, then floats to heaven while they all watch - conspicuously missing from all the earlier reports.

John 90-110 CE Jesus can now walk through walls and has the Doubting Thomas story where Jesus gets poked. Jesus is also basically God in this gospel which represents another astonishing development.

As you can see, these reports are inconsistent with one another and represent growth that's better explained as a legend that grew in the telling rather than actual history. None of the resurrection reports in the Gospels even match Paul's appearance chronology in 1 Cor 15:5-8 and the later sources have amazing stories that are nowhere even hinted at in the earliest ones. The story evolves from Paul's spiritual/mystical Christ all the way up to literally touching a resurrected corpse that flies to heaven! Yeah, this is not history.

Saying over again your error does not make it true. Paul only speaks of a physical Christ which he says he saw. Paul never claimed to touch Christ, BTW.

[seer]

Yes there is.

Paul c. 50 CE says the Risen Jesus was experienced through visions and revelations. He had a chance to mention the empty tomb in 1 Cor 15 when it would have greatly helped his argument but doesn't.

We have been through that before RC. What did Paul believe would happen to our bodies after death?

Phil. 3:20-21

But our citizenship is in heaven, and from it we wait a Savior, the Lord Jesus Christ, who will transform our lowly body to be like his glorious body, by the power that enables him even to subject all things to himself.


Romans 8:23

And not only the creation, but we ourselves, who have the firstfruits of the Spirit, groan inwardly as we wait eagerly for adoption as sons, the redemption of our bodies.

[RhinestoneCowboy]

Saying over again your error does not make it true. Paul only speaks of a physical Christ which he says he saw. Paul never claimed to touch Christ, BTW.

Exactly. Paul merely says Jesus "appeared" and was experienced through visions and revelations which is consistent with a spiritual being in heaven. The verb Paul uses for "appeared" was ophthe. This verb didn't necessarily denote "physical seeing" with the eyes but could be used to just mean that they "spiritually experienced" his presence. Since the appearance to Paul was a vision and he uses the same verb in the same list for the "appearances" to the others without distinction, we can infer the others had spiritual visions as well. Saying Jesus appeared and was experienced through visions and revelations provides no direct support for a physically raised corpse or an empty tomb. This is not the kind of testimony we would expect if the later Gospel accounts were true. Paul surely couldn't have failed to know about them since he met with Peter and James. Unfortunately, his testimony does not do justice to the amazing physical encounters attested in the later legendary Gospels. Paul is the earliest and only firsthand source so his testimony is preferred over secondhand or worse testimony.

[RhinestoneCowboy]

We have been through that before RC. What did Paul believe would happen to our bodies after death?

There are two ways to interpret Paul. Either he was talking about a literal exchange of bodies whereby the natural/earthly body dies, rots in the ground and we receive a new spiritual body in heaven - (this would make sense from the Romans 8:23 passage. When you "redeem" something an exchange takes place cf. 2 Cor 5:1-4.)

Or

Paul was talking about a transformation of the natural body into a spiritual one.

However, even if the latter case was true it still doesn't follow that this "spiritual body" was raised "to earth" and experienced physically like Luke and John describe. It could have been "raised/exalted" straight to heaven. In fact, that makes more sense since Paul says the appearances were spiritual visions and says that Jesus was in heaven at the Right Hand of God. The whole earthly physical appearance tradition doesn't appear until 30 or so years after Paul.

[37818]

RC,

Dead bodies are raised incorruptible and immortal. Afterwords the living saints bodies are changed to be incorruptible and to be immortal. (1 Corinthians 15:52; 1 Thessalonians 4:13-18; Philippians 3:20-21; etc.)

[RhinestoneCowboy]

RC,

Dead bodies are raised incorruptible and immortal. Afterwords the living saints bodies are changed to be incorruptible and to be immortal. (1 Corinthians 15:52; 1 Thessalonians 4:13-18; Philippians 3:20-21; etc.)

Paul says there are different "types" of bodies and he gives no evidence that spiritual bodies will be on earth. Now show me where Paul says the Risen Jesus was experienced in a way that was not a vision.

[seer]

There are two ways to interpret Paul. Either he was talking about a literal exchange of bodies whereby the natural/earthly body dies, rots in the ground and we receive a new spiritual body in heaven - (this would make sense from the Romans 8:23 passage. When you "redeem" something an exchange takes place cf. 2 Cor 5:1-4.)

That makes zero sense. There would be no need to redeem our bodies, if our bodies were destroyed, and there would be no need to transform our bodies if those bodies were destroyed. And redeem literally means to buy back. He is not saying in this context that God is exchanging bodies - and you know it.

Or

Paul was talking about a transformation of the natural body into a spiritual one.

However, even if the latter case was true it still doesn't follow that this "spiritual body" was raised "to earth" and experienced physically like Luke and John describe. It could have been "raised/exalted" straight to heaven. In fact, that makes more sense since Paul says the appearances were spiritual visions and says that Jesus was in heaven at the Right Hand of God. The whole earthly physical appearance tradition doesn't appear until 30 or so years after Paul.

I have no idea what you mean. If the natural body is transformed then it did not rot in the ground.

[37818]

Paul says there are different "types" of bodies and he gives no evidence that spiritual bodies will be on earth. Now show me where Paul says the Risen Jesus was experienced in a way that was not a vision.

You are confused. There are two types of bodies. The bodies we have now and for the saints/the believers a resurrection body in the resurrection. It just that.

[37818]

That makes zero sense. There would be no need to redeem our bodies, if our bodies were destroyed, and there would be no need to transform our bodies if those bodies were destroyed. And redeem literally means to buy back. He is not saying in this context that God is exchanging bodies - and you know it.

The resurrection and change to the body is called the yet future adoption (Romans 8:23). Only the Apostle Paul refers to the yet future resurrection and rapture as the adoption. The Greek means to be placed as a son (see 1 John 3:2; compare Acts 13:33; Romans 8:29; Colossians 1;18).

[Tassman]

Paul says there are different "types" of bodies and he gives no evidence that spiritual bodies will be on earth.

Yes, in 1 Cor 15 Paul clearly describes Jesus' Resurrection as spiritual body as seen in a vision, not a reanimated corpse: "the body you sow is not the body that will rise", for "a natural body is sown, but a spiritual body is raised". This is reinforced later in the passage when he makes the distinction between "perishable" and "imperishable" bodies and that "flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God"

Now show me where Paul says the Risen Jesus was experienced in a way that was not a vision.

He doesn't. Paul makes no distinction between his vision and appearances to the others. This makes it clear that all the appearances in the Pauline literature were understood as visions and not literally physical in the sense portrayed by the Gospels of Luke and John.

[tabibito]

Yes, in 1 Cor 15 Paul clearly describes Jesus' Resurrection as spiritual body as seen in a vision, not a reanimated corpse:

Miiiy my.
Paul makes no claim to have seen the "spiritual body" - as has been demonstrated before.


The fact that

Source: 1 Cor 14:37

If any man think himself to be a prophet, or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things that I write unto you are the commandments of the Lord

© Copyright Original Source

and

Source: 1 Cor 2:15

But he that is spiritualjudgeth all things, yet he himself is judged of no man.

© Copyright Original Source

demonstrate what πνευματικος (pneumatikos) means has been pointed out before.

The fact that ψυχικος (psuchikos) refers to the soul, not to the flesh has been pointed out before

Source: 1 Cor 15:44

It is sown a natural (psuchikos) body.

© Copyright Original Source

To put it simply, in 1 Cor 15:44, the body of the flesh (sarkikos) is never in the frame.

In your argument, Tassman, you seem to deem facts irrelevant and dispensable.

[37818]

Miiiy my.
Paul makes no claim to have seen the "spiritual body" - as has been demonstrated before.

Then Paul never saw the resurrected Jesus. Because that is the nature of the resurrected "body."

[RhinestoneCowboy]

That makes zero sense. There would be no need to redeem our bodies, if our bodies were destroyed, and there would be no need to transform our bodies if those bodies were destroyed. And redeem literally means to buy back. He is not saying in this context that God is exchanging bodies - and you know it.

It actually makes perfect sense. We "redeem" or exchange our earthly body for a heavenly one. When you "redeem" something you give one thing for another.

I have no idea what you mean. If the natural body is transformed then it did not rot in the ground.

What to keep it from going straight to heaven? Does Paul indicate that the transformed body was on earth first before floating up to heaven?

[RhinestoneCowboy]

You are confused. There are two types of bodies. The bodies we have now and for the saints/the believers a resurrection body in the resurrection. It just that.

Exactly. There are bodies on earth and bodies that are in heaven - 1 Cor 15:40-44, 2 Cor 5:1-4. Paul does not say spiritual bodies will walk around the earth and be touched. No, Paul's conception of the Risen Jesus has him in heaven at the moment of his resurrection. This is why you're unable to find a passage where Paul gives any evidence of Jesus being experienced in a way that was not spiritual.