Announcement

Collapse

Apologetics 301 Guidelines

If you think this is the area where you tell everyone you are sorry for eating their lunch out of the fridge, it probably isn't the place for you


This forum is open discussion between atheists and all theists to defend and debate their views on religion or non-religion. Please respect that this is a Christian-owned forum and refrain from gratuitous blasphemy. VERY wide leeway is given in range of expression and allowable behavior as compared to other areas of the forum, and moderation is not overly involved unless necessary. Please keep this in mind. Atheists who wish to interact with theists in a way that does not seek to undermine theistic faith may participate in the World Religions Department. Non-debate question and answers and mild and less confrontational discussions can take place in General Theistics.


Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

Gary & Rhinestone's Thread on Burial and Resurrection of Christ

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by tabibito View Post
    That nonsense has been dealt with before, months since.
    Romans 10:9 uses "egeiro" with regard to Jesus' resurrection - the same word that is used of Lazarus' resurrection by Jesus. 1 Cor 6:14 uses exegeiro - which with regard to illness or death indicates recovery. anastasis (stand again) is used in 1 Cor 15:13, and is shown to be interchangeable with egeiro.
    And saying Jesus "was raised" is just a non-sequitur. Paul never says Jesus corpse was literally raised out of the ground. The verb had a much more wider range of meaning than that.

    Ephesians 5:14 uses ἀνίστημι (anistemi) in a figurative way to tell sleepers “rise from the dead.” It obviously doesn’t mean physical resurrection here!

    Hebrews 7:11 and 7:15 both use ἀνίστημι (anistemi) to say that a priest will “arise” to take the place of another.

    Romans 15:12 uses ἀνίστημι (anistemi) to denote a “rising” ruler.

    Romans 13:11 uses ἐγείρω (egeiro) in a figurative sense to “wake out of sleep.”

    Romans 9:17 uses ἐξεγείρω (exegeiro) to figuratively “raise up” Pharaoh.

    Philipians 1:17 uses ἐγείρω (egeiro) to mean “arouse” suffering.

    Matthew 3:9 uses ἐγείρω (egeiro) to mean “raise” children.

    According to our earliest Gospel of Mark, the disciples don't even know what "rising from the dead" could mean - Mark 9:9-10.

    Also, in Mk 6:14-29 it is claimed that some were saying John the Baptist had been "raised from the dead" and even that Jesus was the risen John in Mk. 8:27-28. Does this mean John was physically resurrected? Were they looking for his empty tomb too? It seems to be used here as a form of metempsychosis or reincarnation.

    The only thing Jesus ever says about resurrection is in Mk. 12:25 - "when the dead rise, they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels in heaven" which implies we will be some sort of genderless angelic entity in heaven.

    So obviously, those words *do not* necessarily imply a physical movement or a physical resurrection.
    Last edited by RhinestoneCowboy; 01-24-2018, 12:11 PM.

    Comment


    • And of course your other piece of nonsense - which was also dealt with months since.
      Originally posted by RhinestoneCowboy View Post
      I'm referring to 1 Cor 15:5-8 where he says Jesus "appeared" and uses a verb with the spiritual connotation while placing his vision in the same list as the other "appearances" without distinction. Have you discovered a passage in Paul's firsthand material where he says the Risen Jesus was experienced in a way that wasn't a vision? You'd be the first.
      Paul says his experience was an "inner revelation" in Gal. 1:12-16, tells us that the Risen Jesus was experienced through "visions and revelations" in 2 Cor 12:1, was "known through revelation and the scriptures" in Rom. 16:25-26, and his "mystery was made known through revelation" in Eph. 3:3-5. Paul's notion of the Risen Jesus seems to be purely spiritual/mystical. "Visions" and "revelations" are the only ways Paul says the Risen Jesus was experienced. The later author of Acts calls Paul's experience a "vision from heaven" involving a bright light and a voice - Acts 26:19.
      ophthe does not indicate that something is seen in a vision - that's why things seen in a vision include "in a vision" when a vision is involved.
      1Cor 15:34 Come to your senses as you ought and stop sinning; for I say to your shame, there are some who know not God.
      .
      ⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛
      Scripture before Tradition:
      but that won't prevent others from
      taking it upon themselves to deprive you
      of the right to call yourself Christian.

      ⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛

      Comment


      • Originally posted by tabibito View Post
        And of course your other piece of nonsense - which was also dealt with months since.
        No it wasn't and you're obviously having trouble coming up with a rebuttal here.

        ophthe does not indicate that something is seen in a vision - that's why things seen in a vision include "in a vision" when a vision is involved.
        Was the appearance to Paul a vision or is the New Testament wrong? Paul places the appearance to him (which was a vision) in the same list as the other "appearances"
        without making a distinction in nature, quality, or type. So it follows that if Paul can use the word ophthe for his vision then there is nothing restricting him from using
        it to mean the others had visions too.
        Last edited by RhinestoneCowboy; 01-24-2018, 12:52 PM.

        Comment


        • The precise definition of ανιστημι varies with context - When associated with illness or death it means to recover, or in the passive, to be given recovery.

          Ephesians 5:14 uses ἀνίστημι (anistemi) in a figurative way to tell sleepers “rise from the dead.” It obviously doesn’t mean physical resurrection here! ... Neither does is say the person addressed is actually dead.

          Hebrews 7:11 and 7:15 both use ἀνίστημι (anistemi) to say that a priest will “arise” to take the place of another. neither of whom are dead.

          Romans 15:12 uses ἀνίστημι (anistemi) to denote a “rising” ruler. who isn't said to be dead.

          Romans 13:11 uses ἐγείρω (egeiro) in a figurative sense to “wake out of sleep.” : figurative it is not, this is the literal use of the word in association with literal sleep, and the word is used for recovery (from illness or death) by way of simile.

          Romans 9:17 uses ἐξεγείρω (exegeiro) to figuratively “raise up” Pharaoh. - Pharaoh isn't said to be "raised from the dead."

          Philipians 1:17 uses ἐγείρω (egeiro) to mean “arouse” suffering.

          Matthew 3:9 uses ἐγείρω (egeiro) to mean “raise” children. -- God is able to raise children from rocks for Abraham - no raising from the dead mentioned.
          1Cor 15:34 Come to your senses as you ought and stop sinning; for I say to your shame, there are some who know not God.
          .
          ⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛
          Scripture before Tradition:
          but that won't prevent others from
          taking it upon themselves to deprive you
          of the right to call yourself Christian.

          ⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛

          Comment


          • Originally posted by RhinestoneCowboy View Post
            No it wasn't and you're obviously having trouble coming up with a rebuttal here.



            Was the appearance to Paul a vision or is the New Testament wrong? Paul places the appearance to him (which was a vision) in the same list as the other "appearances"
            without making a distinction in nature, quality, or type. So it follows that if Paul can use the word ophthe for his vision then there is nothing restricting him from using
            it to mean the others had visions too.
            This too has been dealt with, months since.
            But as Sparko points out - continuing to derail this thread with your nonsense isn't appropriate.
            1Cor 15:34 Come to your senses as you ought and stop sinning; for I say to your shame, there are some who know not God.
            .
            ⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛
            Scripture before Tradition:
            but that won't prevent others from
            taking it upon themselves to deprive you
            of the right to call yourself Christian.

            ⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛

            Comment


            • Originally posted by tabibito View Post
              The precise definition of ανιστημι varies with context - When associated with illness or death it means to recover, or in the passive, to be given recovery.

              Ephesians 5:14 uses ἀνίστημι (anistemi) in a figurative way to tell sleepers “rise from the dead.” It obviously doesn’t mean physical resurrection here! ... Neither does is say the person addressed is actually dead.
              Hebrews 7:11 and 7:15 both use ἀνίστημι (anistemi) to say that a priest will “arise” to take the place of another. neither of whom are dead.

              Romans 15:12 uses ἀνίστημι (anistemi) to denote a “rising” ruler. who isn't said to be dead.

              Romans 13:11 uses ἐγείρω (egeiro) in a figurative sense to “wake out of sleep.” : figurative it is not, this is the literal use of the word in association with literal sleep, and the word is used for recovery (from illness or death) by way of simile.

              Romans 9:17 uses ἐξεγείρω (exegeiro) to figuratively “raise up” Pharaoh. - Pharaoh isn't said to be "raised from the dead."

              Philipians 1:17 uses ἐγείρω (egeiro) to mean “arouse” suffering.

              Matthew 3:9 uses ἐγείρω (egeiro) to mean “raise” children. -- God is able to raise children from rocks for Abraham - no raising from the dead mentioned.
              Jewish people believed the "dead" were in Sheol. So when Paul says Jesus was "raised" from the "dead" he could mean that Jesus' spirit was raised out of Sheol (the realm of the dead) into heaven where he was given a new spiritual body - 1 Cor 15:40-44, 2 Cor 5:1-4. As demonstrated by the wide range of meaning of the word, it can mean things like "vindicate" or to "bring into power" so assuming your ultra literal reading isn't necessary.

              egeiro
              1) to arouse, cause to rise
              1a) to arouse from sleep, to awake
              1b) to arouse from the sleep of death, to recall the dead to life
              1c) to cause to rise from a seat or bed etc.
              1d) to raise up, produce, cause to appear
              1d1) to cause to appear, bring before the public
              1d2) to raise up, stir up, against one
              1d3) to raise up i.e. cause to be born
              1d4) of buildings, to raise up, construct, erect
              http://lexiconcordance.com/greek/1453.html

              Notice how definition 1b doesn't necessarily mean a physical resurrection because there were different ways the Jews thought people could be "recalled to life." A resurrection had no necessary connection to a person's tomb being empty. If you're saying that a resurrection necessarily entailed that a physical corpse be removed from a grave then you're saying it's impossible to interpret it otherwise. Claiming something is impossible is quite a bold claim which I don't think you can demonstrate due to the diversity of Jewish resurrection and afterlife beliefs that are represented in the few sources we actually have.
              Last edited by RhinestoneCowboy; 01-24-2018, 02:06 PM.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by tabibito View Post
                The precise definition of ανιστημι varies with context - When associated with illness or death it means to recover, or in the passive, to be given recovery.

                Ephesians 5:14 uses ἀνίστημι (anistemi) in a figurative way to tell sleepers “rise from the dead.” It obviously doesn’t mean physical resurrection here! ... Neither does is say the person addressed is actually dead.

                Hebrews 7:11 and 7:15 both use ἀνίστημι (anistemi) to say that a priest will “arise” to take the place of another. neither of whom are dead.

                Romans 15:12 uses ἀνίστημι (anistemi) to denote a “rising” ruler. who isn't said to be dead.

                Romans 13:11 uses ἐγείρω (egeiro) in a figurative sense to “wake out of sleep.” : figurative it is not, this is the literal use of the word in association with literal sleep, and the word is used for recovery (from illness or death) by way of simile.

                Romans 9:17 uses ἐξεγείρω (exegeiro) to figuratively “raise up” Pharaoh. - Pharaoh isn't said to be "raised from the dead."

                Philipians 1:17 uses ἐγείρω (egeiro) to mean “arouse” suffering.

                Matthew 3:9 uses ἐγείρω (egeiro) to mean “raise” children. -- God is able to raise children from rocks for Abraham - no raising from the dead mentioned.
                Responded in other thread.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by RhinestoneCowboy View Post
                  Jewish people believed the "dead" were in Sheol. So when Paul says Jesus was "raised" from the "dead" he could mean that Jesus' spirit was raised out of Sheol (the realm of the dead) into heaven where he was given a new spiritual body - 1 Cor 15:40-44, 2 Cor 5:1-4. As demonstrated by the wide range of meaning of the word, it can mean things like "vindicate" or to "bring into power" so assuming your ultra literal reading isn't necessary.

                  egeiro
                  1) to arouse, cause to rise
                  1a) to arouse from sleep, to awake
                  1b) to arouse from the sleep of death, to recall the dead to life
                  1c) to cause to rise from a seat or bed etc.
                  1d) to raise up, produce, cause to appear
                  1d1) to cause to appear, bring before the public
                  1d2) to raise up, stir up, against one
                  1d3) to raise up i.e. cause to be born
                  1d4) of buildings, to raise up, construct, erect
                  http://lexiconcordance.com/greek/1453.html

                  Notice how definition 1b doesn't necessarily mean a physical resurrection because there were different ways the Jews thought people could be "recalled to life." A resurrection had no necessary connection to a person's tomb being empty. If you're saying that a resurrection necessarily entailed that a physical corpse be removed from a grave then you're saying it's impossible to interpret it otherwise. Claiming something is impossible is quite a bold claim which I don't think you can demonstrate due to the diversity of Jewish resurrection and afterlife beliefs that are represented in the few sources we actually have.
                  Back banging your favorite drum, eh? Do you have a life outside of a monofocus on fringe theories of resurrection?
                  Enter the Church and wash away your sins. For here there is a hospital and not a court of law. Do not be ashamed to enter the Church; be ashamed when you sin, but not when you repent. – St. John Chrysostom

                  Veritas vos Liberabit<>< Learn Greek <>< Look here for an Orthodox Church in America<><Ancient Faith Radio
                  sigpic
                  I recommend you do not try too hard and ...research as little as possible. Such weighty things give me a headache. - Shunyadragon, Baha'i apologist

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by RhinestoneCowboy View Post
                    I'm referring to 1 Cor 15:5-8 where he says Jesus "appeared" and uses a verb with the spiritual connotation while placing his vision in the same list as the other "appearances" without distinction. Have you discovered a passage in Paul's firsthand material where he says the Risen Jesus was experienced in a way that wasn't a vision? You'd be the first.

                    Paul says his experience was an "inner revelation" in Gal. 1:12-16, tells us that the Risen Jesus was experienced through "visions and revelations" in 2 Cor 12:1, was "known through revelation and the scriptures" in Rom. 16:25-26, and his "mystery was made known through revelation" in Eph. 3:3-5. Paul's notion of the Risen Jesus seems to be purely spiritual/mystical. "Visions" and "revelations" are the only ways Paul says the Risen Jesus was experienced. The later author of Acts calls Paul's experience a "vision from heaven" involving a bright light and a voice - Acts 26:19.
                    Who cares? It wasn't the passage in question.
                    "He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to gain that which he cannot lose." - Jim Elliot

                    "Forgiveness is the way of love." Gary Chapman

                    My Personal Blog

                    My Novella blog (Current Novella Begins on 7/25/14)

                    Quill Sword

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by One Bad Pig View Post
                      Back banging your favorite drum, eh? Do you have a life outside of a monofocus on fringe theories of resurrection?
                      Yes, it's been quite a while since I posted. One could ask if you have a life outside this forum and why you feel so compelled to reply the same thing over and over? Pot meet kettle.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by RhinestoneCowboy View Post
                        Jewish people believed the "dead" were in Sheol. So when Paul says Jesus was "raised" from the "dead" he could mean that Jesus' spirit was raised out of Sheol (the realm of the dead) into heaven where he was given a new spiritual body - 1 Cor 15:40-44, 2 Cor 5:1-4. As demonstrated by the wide range of meaning of the word, it can mean things like "vindicate" or to "bring into power" so assuming your ultra literal reading isn't necessary.

                        egeiro
                        1) to arouse, cause to rise
                        1a) to arouse from sleep, to awake
                        1b) to arouse from the sleep of death, to recall the dead to life
                        1c) to cause to rise from a seat or bed etc.
                        1d) to raise up, produce, cause to appear
                        1d1) to cause to appear, bring before the public
                        1d2) to raise up, stir up, against one
                        1d3) to raise up i.e. cause to be born
                        1d4) of buildings, to raise up, construct, erect
                        http://lexiconcordance.com/greek/1453.html

                        Notice how definition 1b doesn't necessarily mean a physical resurrection because there were different ways the Jews thought people could be "recalled to life." A resurrection had no necessary connection to a person's tomb being empty. If you're saying that a resurrection necessarily entailed that a physical corpse be removed from a grave
                        Many of the references to the resurrection do have "from death" which shows that a contrast between the former condition (death) and the later condition. This change of condition is a matter of context, not a mere matter of the definition of a word taken in isolation.
                        then you're saying it's impossible to interpret it otherwise. Claiming something is impossible is quite a bold claim which I don't think you can demonstrate due to the diversity of Jewish resurrection and afterlife beliefs that are represented in the few sources we actually have.
                        Yet you have been claiming that (despite the exposition available through the gospels) it is impossible to interpret the resurrection as a bodily resurrection - and that claim is nonsense. Arousing the spirit or soul only is not recalling/restoration to life. In addition, many of the references to Christ's resurrection include the phrase "εκ του θανατου." Where απο might show a continuing association with death, ek shows departure with a strong nuance of dissociation - he is no longer one of the dead.

                        If someone today were to write "He was sick, but he got better" and 2000 years hence another someone were to say the statement means "his health improved but he did not recover completely," the latter person would be doing the same with "he got better" that you are doing with "he was raised from the dead."

                        So yes, it is impossible to interpret Paul's writing as saying other than Jesus' later condition was opposite/contrasted-with his prior condition (dead). The simple fact that an active spirit/soul has nothing to say about whether the person is alive or dead should make that clear enough, even without in-depth examination.
                        Last edited by tabibito; 01-24-2018, 11:24 PM.
                        1Cor 15:34 Come to your senses as you ought and stop sinning; for I say to your shame, there are some who know not God.
                        .
                        ⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛
                        Scripture before Tradition:
                        but that won't prevent others from
                        taking it upon themselves to deprive you
                        of the right to call yourself Christian.

                        ⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by RhinestoneCowboy View Post
                          Yes, it's been quite a while since I posted.
                          I'm quite certain this isn't the only forum you grace with your presence.
                          One could ask if you have a life outside this forum and why you feel so compelled to reply the same thing over and over? Pot meet kettle.
                          One could, if one were ignorant of all the other posts I make on this forum.
                          Enter the Church and wash away your sins. For here there is a hospital and not a court of law. Do not be ashamed to enter the Church; be ashamed when you sin, but not when you repent. – St. John Chrysostom

                          Veritas vos Liberabit<>< Learn Greek <>< Look here for an Orthodox Church in America<><Ancient Faith Radio
                          sigpic
                          I recommend you do not try too hard and ...research as little as possible. Such weighty things give me a headache. - Shunyadragon, Baha'i apologist

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by tabibito View Post
                            Many of the references to the resurrection do have "from death" which shows that a contrast between the former condition (death) and the later condition. This change of condition is a matter of context, not a mere matter of the definition of a word taken in isolation.
                            Non-sequitur. It does not necessarily mean that your physical corpse would be resurrected. Jews had a diversity of views.

                            Yet you have been claiming that (despite the exposition available through the gospels) it is impossible to interpret the resurrection as a bodily resurrection - and that claim is nonsense.
                            No, what I'm claiming is that you have no grounds in Paul, the earliest and only firsthand source, to claim that the resurrection was "physical" in that it involved a physical corpse coming back to life because Paul only gives evidence of spiritual visions. That's not what we would expect if Paul believed in a physical resurrection. Remember, the burden of proof is on you to demonstrate that Paul is necessarily talking about physical corpse revivification. You have to show it is IMPOSSIBLE to interpret him otherwise. Good luck doing that when the sources we have display a diversity of views and what Paul actually says is quite ambiguous.

                            Arousing the spirit or soul only is not recalling/restoration to life.
                            Demonstrate your claim. Jews had a diversity of views.

                            Josephus tells us on the beliefs of the Pharisees:

                            "They say that all souls are incorruptible, but that the souls of good men only are removed into other bodies, — but that the souls of bad men are subject to eternal punishment." (Jewish War 2.162)

                            “their souls are pure and obedient, and obtain a most holy place in heaven, from whence, in the revolution of ages, they are again sent into pure bodies" – Josephus, (Jewish War 3. 374)

                            So both Josephus and Paul say there are different "types" of bodies - 1 Cor 15:40-44, 2 Cor 5:1-4. Therefore, it doesn't necessarily follow that Paul meant this "body" was a physically resurrected corpse on earth that could be physically interacted with. No, they were "spiritual bodies" in heaven.

                            There is another passage from Josephus that does not mention a "body" at all but rather emphasizes the immortality of souls.

                            "It is their belief that souls have power to survive death, and under the earth there are rewards and punishments for those who have led lives of virtue or wickedness. Some receive eternal imprisonment, while others pass easily to live again." Josephus on the Pharisees (Ant. XVIII, 14)

                            On the beliefs of the Essenes:

                            “For their doctrine is this: That bodies are corruptible, and that the matter they are made of is not permanent; but that the souls are immortal, and continue forever; and that they come out of the most subtile air, and are united to their bodies as to prisons, into which they are drawn by a certain natural enticement; but that when they are set free from the bonds of the flesh, they then, as released from a long bondage, rejoice and mount” upward. (War 2.154-155)

                            Wisdom 9:15
                            “for a corruptible/perishable body weighs down the soul, and this earthy tent burdens the thoughtful mind.”

                            4 Ezra 2:45
                            “He answered and said unto me, These be they that have put off the mortal clothing, and put on the immortal, and have confessed the name of God: now are they crowned, and receive palms.”

                            In the Ascension of Isaiah, the author describes a glorious vision of the seventh heaven at the end times, glorious because all there, including Enoch, are “stripped of (their) robes of the flesh; and I saw them in their robes of above, and they were like the angels who stand there in great glory” (9.7-8)

                            A similar idea is found in 2 Enoch when the author notes: “The Lord said to Michael, ‘Take Enoch and extract (him) from his earthly clothing [...] and put (him) into the clothes of glory [...] And I gazed at myself, and I had become like one of the glorious ones” (2 En. 22.8, 10).

                            Jubilees 23:31
                            "And their bones shall rest in the earth, And their spirits shall have much joy, And they shall know that it is the Lord who executes judgment, And shows mercy to hundreds and thousands and to all that love Him"

                            1 Enoch 103:4
                            The souls of the pious who have died will come to life,
                            and they will rejoice and be glad;
                            their spirits will not perish,
                            not their memory from the presence of the Great One
                            for all the generations of eternity.


                            On 1 Enoch, George Nickelsburg argues:

                            “Nowhere do these chapters indicate that their authors anticipated a resurrection of the body and hence that they constructed the human being as a totality of body and soul. It is the soul [...] that receives reward and punishment [...] For this author eschatological blessing and curse will be granted to the soul or spirit and not the body” 1 Enoch: Chapters 1-36, 81-108; pgs. 519, 523.

                            "The Epistle of Enoch predicts resurrection at the end of history; elsewhere however it asserts future vindication of the righteous in terms that do not suggest the bodily resurrection but the transformation of the spirit after death (103-104). The reward of the righteous is to share the eternal, spiritual life of the angels in heaven. This is not the Greek idea of immortality of the soul, but neither is it the resurrection of the body. Rather it is the resurrection, or exaltation, of the spirit from Sheol to heaven. The bodies of the righteous will presumably continue to rest in the earth." - J.J Collins, Judaism in Late Antiquity pg. 124

                            On Daniel 12:

                            "According to the passage, at least some ("many") of the dead will be awakened to life, some to be rewarded, others to be punished, but the more precise meaning of this awakening remains ambiguous. Several commentators take the reference to the "dust of the earth" to indicate bodily resurrection - bodies that have turned to dust are brought back to life again. However, the Hebrew expression 'admit `āpār can also be rendered as the "land of dust," which is "surely Sheol," as George Nickelsburg has argued (dust is used as a synonym for Sheol in Job 17:16). But Sheol, according to Hebrew thinking, was the underworld abode of the bodiless shades of the dead; those who sleep in it are spirits without bodies. Understood this way, the Danielic passage says nothing about the resurrection of buried bodies: it is the spirits of the dead that are awakened and brought out of Sheol." Outi Lehtipuu, Debates Over the Resurrection of the Dead, pg. 33

                            "...Neither does he (Daniel) say that the resurrection will involve a body of flesh and blood. Daniel 12:2, which is usually taken to refer to "the dust of the earth," can actually be translated as "the land of dust," or Sheol. The idea then is that the wise, at least, are lifted up from Sheol to heaven." - John J. Collins, A Short Introduction to the Hebrew Bible, pg. 347

                            In addition, many of the references to Christ's resurrection include the phrase "εκ του θανατου." Where απο might show a continuing association with death, ek shows departure with a strong nuance of dissociation - he is no longer one of the dead.
                            Non-sequitur. Show that this necessarily demonstrates physical corpse revivification.

                            If someone today were to write "He was sick, but he got better" and 2000 years hence another someone were to say the statement means "his health improved but he did not recover completely," the latter person would be doing the same with "he got better" that you are doing with "he was raised from the dead."
                            What does this do with Paul necessarily believing that Jesus' corpse literally left an empty tomb behind?

                            So yes, it is impossible to interpret Paul's writing as saying other than Jesus' later condition was opposite/contrasted-with his prior condition (dead).
                            That's not the claim that must be demonstrated.

                            The simple fact that an active spirit/soul has nothing to say about whether the person is alive or dead should make that clear enough, even without in-depth examination.
                            Well, according to the diversity of sources above you're just wrong.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by RhinestoneCowboy View Post
                              Non-sequitur. It does not necessarily mean that your physical corpse would be resurrected. Jews had a diversity of views.
                              Non-sequitur indeed - the variety of views held by Judaistic sects doesn't mean that there were a variety of views within the sect of the Nazarene.



                              No, what I'm claiming is that you have no grounds in Paul ... to claim that the resurrection was "physical" in that it involved a physical corpse coming back to life
                              Paul declared that Christ lives. That "lives" is unmodified and unqualified - he doesn't say "lives in a manner of speaking," nor "lives on in memory," nor that "he lives as a spirit" - and "lives" would need a qualifier to make it mean other than "lives" in the conventional sense. The first-century readers would not have understood "lives" to mean anything other than what it says - the body is functioning.

                              Paul uses at least four different terms to describe Christ's recovery from death - ανιστημι, εξιστημι, αναστασις, εγειρω. You're not wresting the definition of just one word, but four.

                              Paul's declaration is clear and unmistakable - Christ died, and recovered, and lived. Attempts to declare that he did not recover and live are therefore futile.



                              As for your oft-repeated claim of a late date for the writing of the gospels, I'll take it with a grain of salt. The claim ignores the (admittedly paltry) internal evidence of Luke's writing for an early date, and for the most part (or perhaps, entirely) is based on the rejection of the reality of prophecy.
                              Last edited by tabibito; 01-29-2018, 11:17 PM.
                              1Cor 15:34 Come to your senses as you ought and stop sinning; for I say to your shame, there are some who know not God.
                              .
                              ⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛
                              Scripture before Tradition:
                              but that won't prevent others from
                              taking it upon themselves to deprive you
                              of the right to call yourself Christian.

                              ⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by tabibito View Post
                                Non-sequitur indeed - the variety of views held by Judaistic sects doesn't mean that there were a variety of views within the sect of the Nazarene.
                                Do you believe Paul wrote the Pastoral epistles? Because they are chock-full of references to "false teachings" - 1 Tim 1:3-7, 18-20; 4:1-3; 6:3-10, 20-21; 2 Tim 2:14-18, 23-26; 3:1-9; 4:3-4; Titus 1:10-16; 3:9-11.
                                Obviously, if that's the case, then there was a variety of views and disagreements early on.

                                Paul declared that Christ lives. That "lives" is unmodified and unqualified - he doesn't say "lives in a manner of speaking," nor "lives on in memory," nor that "he lives as a spirit" - and "lives" would need a qualifier to make it mean other than "lives" in the conventional sense. The first-century readers would not have understood "lives" to mean anything other than what it says - the body is functioning.
                                Paul calls it a "spiritual body" and seems to locate it in heaven - 1 Cor 15:40-45, 2 Cor 5:1-4. Josephus says that they were "other" bodies which rules out the notion that the same body that went into the grave rose up again. Please demonstrate that this "spiritual body" was necessarily a physically risen corpse on earth other than just repeating what you've already said.

                                Paul uses at least four different terms to describe Christ's recovery from death - ανιστημι, εξιστημι, αναστασις, εγειρω. You're not wresting the definition of just one word, but four.
                                None of which necessitate that a formerly dead corpse was brought back to life.

                                Paul's declaration is clear and unmistakable - Christ died, and recovered, and lived. Attempts to declare that he did not recover and live are therefore futile.
                                Paul says Jesus was exalted straight to heaven - Phil. 2:8-9, Romans 8:34. He never says "Jesus was raised to earth first then floated to heaven." The logical sequence in Paul is that Jesus' resurrection involved a simultaneous exaltation to heaven - Jesus died -------> was raised to heaven. If you want to claim that Jesus' physical corpse literally came back to life then show me where Paul says that the Risen Jesus was on earth or experienced in a way that wasn't a vision?

                                It's important to look at the terminology Paul actually uses here. When Paul says Jesus "appeared" he uses the aorist passive form of the word horáō which is ὤφθη (ōphthē).
                                This word did not necessarily denote a physical appearance.

                                horáō – properly, see, often with metaphorical meaning: "to see with the mind" (i.e. spiritually see), i.e. perceive (with inward spiritual perception).

                                As you are well aware, the appearance to Paul was a spiritual vision from heaven (Gal. 1:12-16, Acts 26:19), not a physical encounter with a physically resurrected corpse on earth. Paul does not distinguish the nature of the appearance to him from the appearances to the others in 1 Cor 15:5-8. He uses the same verb for each which is ὤφθη. Let's take a look at how it was actually used in the New Testament:

                                Matthew 17:3 V-AIP-3S
                                GRK: καὶ ἰδοὺ ὤφθη αὐτοῖς Μωυσῆς
                                INT: and behold appeared to them Moses - Called a "vision" in Mt. 17:9.

                                Mark 9:4 V-AIP-3S
                                GRK: καὶ ὤφθη αὐτοῖς Ἠλίας
                                INT: And appeared to them Elijah - Same Transfiguration appearance described in Matthew

                                Luke 1:11 V-AIP-3S
                                GRK: ὤφθη δὲ αὐτῷ
                                INT: appeared moreover to him - "an angel appeared"

                                Luke 22:43 V-AIP-3S
                                GRK: ὤφθη δὲ αὐτῷ
                                INT: appeared moreover to him - "an angel from heaven appeared"

                                Luke 24:34 V-AIP-3S
                                GRK: κύριος καὶ ὤφθη Σίμωνι
                                INT: Lord and appeared to Simon - taken directly from 1 Cor 15:5 where Paul equates the appearance to his vision with the same verb

                                Acts 7:2 V-AIP-3S
                                GRK: τῆς δόξης ὤφθη τῷ πατρὶ
                                INT: of glory appeared to the father - "The God of glory appeared to our father Abraham"

                                Acts 7:26 V-AIP-3S
                                GRK: ἐπιούσῃ ἡμέρᾳ ὤφθη αὐτοῖς μαχομένοις
                                NAS: day he appeared to them as they were fighting together,
                                INT: following day he appeared to those who were contending

                                Acts 7:30 V-AIP-3S
                                GRK: ἐτῶν τεσσεράκοντα ὤφθη αὐτῷ ἐν
                                INT: years forty appeared to him in - "an angel appeared to Moses in the flames of a burning bush"

                                Acts 13:31 V-AIP-3S
                                GRK: ὃς ὤφθη ἐπὶ ἡμέρας
                                INT: who appeared for days - compare this to Acts 10:40-41 "but God raised him from the dead on the third day and caused him to be seen. He was not seen by all the people, but by witnesses whom God had already chosen—by us who ate and drank with him after he rose from the dead." If they were physical appearances then why wasn't he seen by everyone? Why does the author go out of his way to restrict the appearances to a choice few? Saying God "caused him to be seen" is an odd way of saying they were physical appearances. It sounds more like he was flipping a switch.

                                Acts 16:9 V-AIP-3S
                                GRK: τῷ Παύλῳ ὤφθη ἀνὴρ Μακεδών
                                INT: to Paul appeared A man of Macedonia - (in a vision)

                                1 Corinthians 15:5 V-AIP-3S
                                GRK: καὶ ὅτι ὤφθη Κηφᾷ εἶτα
                                INT: and that he appeared to Cephas then - the same verb is used for Paul's vision in the same list.

                                1 Corinthians 15:6 V-AIP-3S
                                GRK: ἔπειτα ὤφθη ἐπάνω πεντακοσίοις
                                INT: Then he appeared to more than five hundred - the same verb is used for Paul's vision in the same list.

                                1 Corinthians 15:7 V-AIP-3S
                                GRK: ἔπειτα ὤφθη Ἰακώβῳ εἶτα
                                INT: Then he appeared to James then - the same verb is used for Paul's vision in the same list.

                                1 Corinthians 15:8 V-AIP-3S
                                GRK: τῷ ἐκτρώματι ὤφθη κἀμοί
                                INT: the untimely birth he appeared also to me - which was a vision

                                1 Timothy 3:16 V-AIP-3S
                                GRK: ἐν πνεύματι ὤφθη ἀγγέλοις ἐκηρύχθη
                                INT: in [the] Spirit was seen by angels was proclaimed

                                Revelation 11:19 V-AIP-3S
                                GRK: οὐρανῷ καὶ ὤφθη ἡ κιβωτὸς
                                INT: heaven and was seen the ark - takes place in heaven

                                Revelation 12:1 V-AIP-3S
                                GRK: σημεῖον μέγα ὤφθη ἐν τῷ
                                INT: a sign great was seen in - heaven

                                Revelation 12:3 V-AIP-3S
                                GRK: καὶ ὤφθη ἄλλο σημεῖον
                                INT: And was seen another sign - in heaven


                                The only occurrence where the word can plausibly be argued to clearly mean a physical appearance indicating normal seeing is in Acts 7:26 but it seems Luke is just using the word there to compare Moses to Jesus. All the other instances are in reference to spiritual visionary seeing, angels appearing, things being "seen" in heaven. So it's quite clear, or at least more probable than not, that when Paul uses this word for the resurrection appearances he is making a declaration that these were spiritual visionary encounters. Once you combine this with the fact that he seemed to believe in a spiritual exaltation to heaven and gives no evidence for anything other than "visions and revelations" of the Lord then you should ask yourself is this what we would expect if Paul thought the physically resurrected was actually on earth and touched by the disciples like the later gospels say? Obviously, there is quite the inconsistency which points in the direction that the story grew over time.

                                As for your oft-repeated claim of a late date for the writing of the gospels, I'll take it with a grain of salt. The claim ignores the (admittedly paltry) internal evidence of Luke's writing for an early date, and for the most part (or perhaps, entirely) is based on the rejection of the reality of prophecy.
                                Luke alludes to the destruction of the temple in Luke 21 and we know that Luke copied Mark which dates to around 70 CE. Luke 19:43-44 and 21:24 alters the ambiguous reference to a desecration of the temple in Mark 13:14 to the explicit actions of the Roman siege indicating that he had knowledge of the event. Ireneaus says that Mark wrote "after" Peter and Paul's death in Rome which would have been in the mid 60's. Therefore, it follows that both Luke/Acts were written after 70 CE.
                                Last edited by RhinestoneCowboy; 02-01-2018, 11:49 AM.

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by whag, Yesterday, 03:01 PM
                                39 responses
                                157 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post whag
                                by whag
                                 
                                Started by whag, 03-17-2024, 04:55 PM
                                21 responses
                                129 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Hypatia_Alexandria  
                                Started by whag, 03-14-2024, 06:04 PM
                                80 responses
                                426 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post tabibito  
                                Started by whag, 03-13-2024, 12:06 PM
                                45 responses
                                303 views
                                1 like
                                Last Post Hypatia_Alexandria  
                                Working...
                                X