Who Buried Jesus - Derail

[RhinestoneCowboy]

Your failure to acknowledge Paul's claims that "Christ lives" "he recovered" "he was raised" mean what they say doesn't hold water.

There are different ways to interpret what Paul says other than the ultra literal "his body left a tomb behind."

"In the kerygmatic formulas, the preferred expression is that Christ "was raised" (from the dead). The slightly narrative, reportorial nature of these expressions corresponds exactly to the way in which Christ's death or crucifixion was imagined. The function of the motif is the same as the affirmations of vindication in the martyrologies. To be raised means to have overcome, been vindicated, granted divine reward, status and destiny in spite of death......Because the notion was mythic, "raised from the dead" meant the same thing as "vindicated," "exalted," "ascended," "enthroned," and could be elaborated by calling upon other myths of cosmic destiny (Wisdom, Son of God) or cultic sovereignty and presence (Lord)." - Burton Mack, A Myth of Innocence: Mark and Christian Origins, pgs. 112-113. https://books.google.com/books?id=fN...page&q&f=false

- Maurice Casey, Jesus of Nazareth, pg. 458-459 https://books.google.com/books?id=lX...page&q&f=false

[One Bad Pig]

Looking forward to your refutation. http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...l=1#post449602

What part of "I'm not arguing this (yet again) here" do you not understand?

[Teallaura]

I know they don't agree. It's because it refutes their orthodox view. No surprise there!

And because you're completely wrong. But don't let facts get in the way.

[Teallaura]

What part of "I'm not arguing this (yet again) here" do you not understand?

The same part that says demonstrating an argument is fallacious IS a refutation.

[RhinestoneCowboy]

What part of "I'm not arguing this (yet again) here" do you not understand?

I understand that you're dodging it just like everyone else around here...

[Sparko]

I understand that you're dodging it just like everyone else around here...

no. we just see through your transparent attempts to drag people into discussing your pet topic and won't play along. Your idea is well, stupid, and doesn't even deserve a rebuttal. It is there for anyone to see and reject without needing anyone to defeat it. It defeats itself.

[RhinestoneCowboy]

no. we just see through your transparent attempts to drag people into discussing your pet topic and won't play along. Your idea is well, stupid, and doesn't even deserve a rebuttal. It is there for anyone to see and reject without needing anyone to defeat it. It defeats itself.

My idea is stupid? Wow, quite an insightful refutation you got there...

[One Bad Pig]

My idea is stupid? Wow, quite an insightful refutation you got there...

Truth does not have to be complicated.

[Tassman]

No it wasn't. Jesus had a physical body.

He even said he was not a ghost to the apostles when he came back and ate food with them and had thomas touch his wounds. A resurrection without a body is an oxymoron.

[37818]

Paul did not deny that the resurrection body was a physical body of flesh. But affirmed that is a body without blood (1 Corinthians 15:50). One not of flesh and blood.

[One Bad Pig]

You need to throw in a few more exclamation points. They're so persuasive!

[RhinestoneCowboy]

Truth does not have to be complicated.

The truth is that Paul says Jesus was experienced spiritually i.e. through visions and revelations. If that's true and the "appearances" in 1 Cor 15:5-8 were mere
"visions" then the orthodox version of Christianity is false.

You're right. It's not that complicated.

[One Bad Pig]

The truth is that Paul says Jesus was experienced spiritually i.e. through visions and revelations. If that's true and the "appearances" in 1 Cor 15:5-8 were mere
"visions" then the orthodox version of Christianity is false.

You're right. It's not that complicated.

Derp. As if assuming that pretty much everyone involved in early Christianity lied with abandon while pretending to uphold the truth isn't complicated. Your hypothesis requires an insane amount of cherry-picking and reinterpretation of the text. It's hilarious that you pretend it isn't complicated.

[Kbertsche]

Unfortunately, for Paul, the earliest and only firsthand source, the "body" was a "spiritual one" in heaven experienced through visions/revelations. It was not a resurrected human body on earth. This renders the later developed orthodox version of Christianity false.

Repeating a falsehood doesn't make it true, no matter how many times you do it. Paul used the word "resurrection" (anastasis) at least four times in 1 Cor 15. He used this as a synonym for "raised" (egeiro). He was speaking of a physical, bodily resurrection which had an added spiritual dimension to it.

[Sparko]

Repeating a falsehood doesn't make it true, no matter how many times you do it. Paul used the word "resurrection" (anastasis) at least four times in 1 Cor 15. He used this as a synonym for "raised" (egeiro). He was speaking of a physical, bodily resurrection which had an added spiritual dimension to it.

he thinks that nobody noticed that Paul was only talking about ghosts until he came along. 2000 years of ignorance solved by his insight.