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

  • #16
    Originally posted by seanD View Post
    Not really because that logic doesn't make sense to me. So your argument goes like this: since Paul wasn't specific about the appearances they all had, they therefore must have all had the same appearances as Paul did?
    The same or similar in nature, yes. If Paul makes no distinction or gives any reason to think they're different then why are you assuming that they must be?
    Are you perhaps committed to the later gospel depictions instead of reading Paul on his own? Paul's letters, were in fact written, before any of the gospel stories
    and don't contain any of the amazing physical details found in them.

    1. Paul equates the appearances with the same verb for "appeared" ὤφθη (Greek – ōphthē) which was commonly used throughout the Septuagint to describe spiritual visionary appearances. There are other Greek words Paul could have used for "physically seeing" such as θεάομαι (theaomai) or θεωρέω (theoreo) but he does not do that in the passage. The Theological Dictionary of the New Testament (vol. V, p. 358) points out that in this type of context the word is a technical term for being “in the presence of revelation as such, without reference to the nature of its perception.” In other words, the “seeing” may not refer to actual sensory or mental perception. “The dominant thought is that the appearances are revelations, an encounter with the risen Lord who reveals himself…they experienced his presence.”

    2. He includes his appearance in the same list as the others while giving no distinction between them.

    3. Paul's vision is used in order to claim apostleship in 1 Cor 9:1, arguing that he saw the exact same thing the other apostles did. The passage implies that "seeing" Jesus is a requirement for being an apostle. But Paul only "sees" Jesus in a vision implying that the other apostles must have "seen" Jesus in a similar way. Basically, he's saying "I saw Jesus just like you guys did! Can I join the apostles now?!"

    4. Throughout the entire Pauline corpus he only says that the Risen Jesus was experienced in "visions" and "revelations" so we have no reason to think that the disciples experienced Jesus in a way more physical than that.

    Is there a reason you feel Paul would have been specific if we assume the appearances were in fact different?
    Yeah. If Jesus' physical revivified corpse was actually touched, why no mention from Paul about this? Why instead do we only hear about "visions" and "revelations" of the Lord
    and never anything more physical than that? Paul does not say "Jesus appeared to me in a vision only whereas the appearances to the others involved touching a physically
    revived corpse that later flew to heaven"
    - that distinction is never made.
    Last edited by RhinestoneCowboy; 05-10-2016, 09:02 AM.

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by RhinestoneCowboy View Post
      Simply restating your original assertion doesn't address what I just said. Paul believed there were different types of bodies, therefore what I'm arguing is completely
      plausible given what he speaks of is corroborated by what Josephus says of the Pharisees.
      Again, I'm not just restating, I offered you a different scripture to make my point. I will have another one later. The "our body" that will be redeemed is not some future body since there is no reason for that immortal body to be redeemed.
      Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by seer View Post
        Again, I'm not just restating, I offered you a different scripture to make my point. I will have another one later. The "our body" that will be redeemed is not some future body since there is no reason for that immortal body to be redeemed.
        Right, but we can play tennis with differing Pauline interpretations all day long. What exactly do you find implausible about my proposal in post #10?
        And why does all the evidence point to the earliest beliefs being "visions" of Jesus instead of actual physical encounters which are only found in the latest
        sources - Luke/John?

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by RhinestoneCowboy View Post
          Right, but we can play tennis with differing Pauline interpretations all day long. What exactly do you find implausible about my proposal in post #10?
          And why does all the evidence point to the earliest beliefs being "visions" of Jesus instead of actual physical encounters which are only found in the latest
          sources - Luke/John?
          I'm not arguing about the visions, I'm pointing to the fact that Paul believed in a physical resurrection of our body.

          Again: Rom. 8:22 We know that the whole creation has been groaning as in the pains of childbirth right up to the present time. 23 Not only so, but we ourselves, who have the firstfruits of the Spirit, groan inwardly as we wait eagerly for our adoption to sonship, the redemption of our bodies.

          There would be no need for the future redemption of our physical body, (soma) if we were getting completely new or different bodies,

          And: Phi. 3:21 God, who will transform our lowly body (soma) that it may be conformed to His glorious body, according to the working by which He is able even to subdue all things to Himself.

          And why would our physical body (soma) need to be "transformed" if we were getting completely new or different bodies?
          Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by seer View Post
            I'm not arguing about the visions, I'm pointing to the fact that Paul believed in a physical resurrection of our body.

            Again: Rom. 8:22 We know that the whole creation has been groaning as in the pains of childbirth right up to the present time. 23 Not only so, but we ourselves, who have the firstfruits of the Spirit, groan inwardly as we wait eagerly for our adoption to sonship, the redemption of our bodies.

            There would be no need for the future redemption of our physical body, (soma) if we were getting completely new or different bodies,

            And: Phi. 3:21 God, who will transform our lowly body (soma) that it may be conformed to His glorious body, according to the working by which He is able even to subdue all things to Himself.

            And why would our physical body (soma) need to be "transformed" if we were getting completely new or different bodies?
            How do you explain Paul saying there are different types of bodies in 1 Cor 15:40 and 15:44? Also, how do you interpret 2 Cor 5:1-4 in
            light of being "naked" meaning the soul has been separated from the body? What's you take on Josephus when he says the Pharisees
            believe souls are "removed into other bodies" in heaven? Paul was a Pharisee, right?

            The visions are important and a strong piece of evidence because it doesn't really support the notion of a physical resurrection but
            rather supports that the disciples experienced the Risen Christ in visions from Heaven like Paul did.
            Last edited by RhinestoneCowboy; 05-10-2016, 01:28 PM.

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by RhinestoneCowboy View Post
              The same or similar in nature, yes. If Paul makes no distinction or gives any reason to think they're different then why are you assuming that they must be?
              Are you perhaps committed to the later gospel depictions instead of reading Paul on his own? Paul's letters, were in fact written, before any of the gospel stories
              and don't contain any of the amazing physical details found in them.

              1. Paul equates the appearances with the same verb for "appeared" ὤφθη (Greek – ōphthē) which was commonly used throughout the Septuagint to describe spiritual visionary appearances. There are other Greek words Paul could have used for "physically seeing" such as θεάομαι (theaomai) or θεωρέω (theoreo) but he does not do that in the passage. The Theological Dictionary of the New Testament (vol. V, p. 358) points out that in this type of context the word is a technical term for being “in the presence of revelation as such, without reference to the nature of its perception.” In other words, the “seeing” may not refer to actual sensory or mental perception. “The dominant thought is that the appearances are revelations, an encounter with the risen Lord who reveals himself…they experienced his presence.”

              2. He includes his appearance in the same list as the others while giving no distinction between them.

              3. Paul's vision is used in order to claim apostleship in 1 Cor 9:1, arguing that he saw the exact same thing the other apostles did. The passage implies that "seeing" Jesus is a requirement for being an apostle. But Paul only "sees" Jesus in a vision implying that the other apostles must have "seen" Jesus in a similar way. Basically, he's saying "I saw Jesus just like you guys did! Can I join the apostles now?!"

              4. Throughout the entire Pauline corpus he only says that the Risen Jesus was experienced in "visions" and "revelations" so we have no reason to think that the disciples experienced Jesus in a way more physical than that.



              Yeah. If Jesus' physical revivified corpse was actually touched, why no mention from Paul about this? Why instead do we only hear about "visions" and "revelations" of the Lord
              and never anything more physical than that? Paul does not say "Jesus appeared to me in a vision only whereas the appearances to the others involved touching a physically
              revived corpse that later flew to heaven"
              - that distinction is never made.
              Before I answer your question in bold, let me ask you you this; do you believe Paul is teaching a spiritual material body resurrection in 1 Cor 15 or an immaterial body resurrection?

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by seanD View Post
                Before I answer your question in bold, let me ask you you this; do you believe Paul is teaching a spiritual material body resurrection in 1 Cor 15 or an immaterial body resurrection?
                See post #10. I think the "body" Paul was speaking about was thought to be made of some sort of "material"
                (pneuma?), but it was located in heaven, not earth. This corresponds to other Hellenistic-Jewish beliefs at the
                time and is even corroborated by what Josephus says of the Pharisees beliefs.

                This sure would explain why Paul only references "visions" and "revelations" of Jesus instead of anything resembling
                touching a formerly dead revivified corpse that was up and walking around. Assuming Paul was actually speaking of
                a fully resuscitated corpse creates problems due to his silence of such an amazing noteworthy episode. This is why
                Paul's equating of the appearances/visions in 1 Cor 15:5-8 is such a strong point of the argument. It also explains
                the exaltation Christology throughout Paul's letters - Rom. 8.34; 10.5-8; Eph. 1.19-23; 2.6-7; 4.7-10 Col. 3.1-4;
                Phil. 2.8-9; 1 Tim. 3.16. That is, the view where Christ's resurrection seemed to involve a simultaneous exaltation
                to heaven rather than being resurrected to earth.

                However, I'd like to clarify for discussing the "resurrection body," (and this is for seer too), that Paul seems to change his
                anthropological terminology based on who he's talking to throughout his letters. This makes it difficult to pin down a
                consistent view from Paul.

                "In part this is because he evinces no concern to develop a consistent view of human nature. Even though he uses a
                variety of Greek anthropological terms to explain aspects of human behavior in sections of his letters, he often does
                so on an ad hoc basis with the result that there is little overall consistency evident when these passages are compared.
                Paul was an eclectic who drew upon a variety of anthropological conceptions in a manner subsidiary or tangential to the
                more immediate concerns he addresses in his extant letters."
                - David Aune
                https://books.google.com/books?id=XT...page&q&f=false

                "Paul was neither systematic nor completely consistent in his (admittedly random) statements about human nature."
                ibid pg. 386
                Last edited by RhinestoneCowboy; 05-10-2016, 05:24 PM.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by RhinestoneCowboy View Post
                  See post #10. I think the "body" Paul was speaking about was thought to be made of some sort of "material"
                  (pneuma?), but it was located in heaven, not earth. This corresponds to other Hellenistic-Jewish beliefs at the
                  time and is even corroborated by what Josephus says of the Pharisees beliefs.

                  This sure would explain why Paul only references "visions" and "revelations" of Jesus instead of anything resembling
                  touching a formerly dead revivified corpse that was up and walking around. Assuming Paul was actually speaking of
                  a fully resuscitated corpse creates problems due to his silence of such an amazing noteworthy episode. This is why
                  Paul's equating of the appearances/visions in 1 Cor 15:5-8 is such a strong point of the argument. It also explains
                  the exaltation Christology throughout Paul's letters - Rom. 8.34; 10.5-8; Eph. 1.19-23; 2.6-7; 4.7-10 Col. 3.1-4;
                  Phil. 2.8-9; 1 Tim. 3.16. That is, the view where Christ's resurrection seemed to involve a simultaneous exaltation
                  to heaven rather than being resurrected to earth.

                  However, I'd like to clarify for discussing the "resurrection body," (and this is for seer too), that Paul seems to change his
                  anthropological terminology based on who he's talking to throughout his letters. This makes it difficult to pin down a
                  consistent view from Paul.

                  "In part this is because he evinces no concern to develop a consistent view of human nature. Even though he uses a
                  variety of Greek anthropological terms to explain aspects of human behavior in sections of his letters, he often does
                  so on an ad hoc basis with the result that there is little overall consistency evident when these passages are compared.
                  Paul was an eclectic who drew upon a variety of anthropological conceptions in a manner subsidiary or tangential to the
                  more immediate concerns he addresses in his extant letters."
                  - David Aune
                  https://books.google.com/books?id=XT...page&q&f=false

                  "Paul was neither systematic nor completely consistent in his (admittedly random) statements about human nature."
                  ibid pg. 386
                  So, your premise is that Paul was correlating the type of material body he's going to great pains to describe to the Greeks with the body Jesus had during his encounter near Damascus, but not the resurrected body we read about in the gospels?

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by seanD View Post
                    So, your premise is that Paul was correlating the type of material body he's going to great pains to describe to the Greeks with the body Jesus had during his encounter near Damascus, but not the resurrected body we read about in the gospels?
                    I would say yes but the Acts account doesn't actually describe anyone "seeing" a "body" anywhere. I agree that Paul's idea of the
                    resurrected body was not the type of body that we read about in the gospels. It was a spiritual/heavenly body - 1 Cor 15:40,
                    15:44, not a flesh and blood formerly dead corpse. Moreover, the 40 day period followed by physical ascension into heaven isn't
                    mentioned until Luke/Acts which was written after the resurrection had become a wholly physical empty tomb type revivification.
                    The 40 day period followed by ascension is nowhere found in Paul, Mark or Matthew.
                    Last edited by RhinestoneCowboy; 05-10-2016, 05:36 PM.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by RhinestoneCowboy View Post
                      How do you explain Paul saying there are different types of bodies in 1 Cor 15:40 and 15:44?
                      That our present physical body takes on a new dimension (so it is different, just more). It is added to (clothed in immortality) but not destroyed or lost.

                      Also, how do you interpret 2 Cor 5:1-4 in
                      light of being "naked" meaning the soul has been separated from the body? What's you take on Josephus when he says the Pharisees
                      believe souls are "removed into other bodies" in heaven? Paul was a Pharisee, right?
                      I have no idea if Paul believed the same things as Josephus, but Christians do generally believe that the spirit is separated from the physical body at death. And that someday our spirit will be reunited with our new, glorified, physical body. That our lowly bodies (soma) will be transformed be like the glorified body of Christ. I don't think that there is any question that Paul believed that our physical body (soma) is present in the future resurrection. And it is interesting that when Paul speaks of Christ's glorified body, in Phil. 3:21 he again uses the term soma. And as far as I know soma is only used in the N.T. for a physical body.
                      Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

                      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by seer View Post
                        That our present physical body takes on a new dimension (so it is different, just more). It is added to (clothed in immortality) but not destroyed or lost.
                        Paul seems to imply that the earthly body can be destroyed.

                        "For we know that if the earthly tent we live in is destroyed" - 2 Cor 5:1

                        In 1 Cor 15:37 Paul uses a seed plant metaphor which can be interpreted as the seed (earthly body) dies or goes away and from it sprouts a plant (spiritual body).
                        There is continuity in that it is the same person but also discontinuity in that the plant no longer resembles the seed - "you do not plant the body that will be."

                        We know at least, that the verse was interpreted this way among certain Christians.

                        "For consider, if you please, the dying of seasons, and days, and nights, how these also die and rise again. And what? Is there not a resurrection going on of seeds and fruits, and this, too, for the use of men? A seed of wheat, for example, or of the other grains, when it is cast into the earth, first dies and rots away, then is raised, and becomes a stalk of corn."
                        - Theophilus of Antioch to Autolycus

                        I have no idea if Paul believed the same things as Josephus, but Christians do generally believe that the spirit is separated from the physical body at death. And that someday our spirit will be reunited with our new, glorified, physical body. That our lowly bodies (soma) will be transformed be like the glorified body of Christ. I don't think that there is any question that Paul believed that our physical body (soma) is present in the future resurrection. And it is interesting that when Paul speaks of Christ's glorified body, in Phil. 3:21 he again uses the term soma. And as far as I know soma is only used in the N.T. for a physical body.
                        So if Paul knew that Peter and James actually saw and touched the physical resurrected body of Jesus on earth then watched him physically ascend to heaven, why does he only
                        mention that the Risen Jesus was experienced in a spiritual/mystical way?
                        Last edited by RhinestoneCowboy; 05-10-2016, 05:57 PM.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by RhinestoneCowboy View Post
                          Paul seems to imply that the earthly body can be destroyed.

                          "For we know that if the earthly tent we live in is destroyed" - 2 Cor 5:1

                          In 1 Cor 15:37 Paul uses a seed plant metaphor which can be interpreted as the seed (earthly body) dies or goes away and from it sprouts a plant (spiritual body).
                          There is continuity in that it is the same person but also discontinuity in that the plant no longer resembles the seed - "you do not plant the body that will be."
                          So also is the resurrection of the dead. It is sown in corruption; it is raised in incorruption: It is sown in dishonour; it is raised in glory: it is sown in weakness; it is raised in power:It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body. There is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body.
                          Rhinestone, what is the IT in these passages? The physical body?

                          So if Paul knew that Peter and James actually saw and touched the physical resurrected body of Jesus on earth then watched him physically ascend to heaven, why does he only mention experiencing Jesus in a spiritual/mystical way?
                          Why do you say that?
                          Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

                          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Originally posted by RhinestoneCowboy View Post
                            I would say yes but the Acts account doesn't actually describe anyone "seeing" a "body" anywhere. I agree that Paul's idea of the
                            resurrected body was not the type of body that we read about in the gospels. It was a spiritual/heavenly body - 1 Cor 15:40,
                            15:44, not a flesh and blood formerly dead corpse. Moreover, the 40 day period followed by physical ascension into heaven isn't
                            mentioned until Luke/Acts which was written after the resurrection had become a wholly physical empty tomb type revivification.
                            The 40 day period followed by ascension is nowhere found in Paul, Mark or Matthew.
                            But how can you correlate a material body Paul is asserting in 1 Cor 15 with his encounter in Acts since, as you admit, Paul didn't see a body, nor did the men that were with him? Paul saw a light and heard a voice. The only ones that encountered a material body were the disciples he lists in that group and we know this only from the gospels. So without the gospels, there's no tradition to fill that void. Also, I again don't see how this works for you as a nonbeliever. Paul acknowledges that all these eyewitnesses saw something they believed was a material body so how does that work for you as a nonbeliever? It's pretty absurd to assume they were all hallucinating the same thing at different times.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Originally posted by RhinestoneCowboy View Post
                              I would say yes but the Acts account doesn't actually describe anyone "seeing" a "body" anywhere.
                              Except Acts does teach a physical resurrection: Acts 13:

                              33. this he has fulfilled to us their children by raising Jesus, as also it is written in the second Psalm,

                              o“‘You are my Son,today I have begotten you.’

                              34 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.’

                              35 Therefore he says also in another psalm,

                              s“‘You will not let your Holy One see corruption.’

                              36 For David, after he had served the purpose of God in his own generation, fell asleep and was laid with his fathers and saw corruption, 37 but he whom God raised up did not see corruption.

                              So David's body did see corruption, Jesus' body did not.
                              Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

                              https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Originally posted by seer View Post
                                Rhinestone, what is the IT in these passages? The physical body?
                                You're reading an English translation. The Greek word for "IT" is not actually in the passage.
                                The natural/earthly body is sown while the heavenly/spiritual body is raised. Paul differentiates
                                the two bodies.

                                Why do you say that?
                                Does Paul mention that he or the disciples experienced the Risen Christ in a way more physical than a vision?
                                Have you discovered a new source?

                                Originally posted by seer View Post
                                Except Acts does teach a physical resurrection: Acts 13:




                                So David's body did see corruption, Jesus' body did not.
                                I realize Acts teaches a physical resurrection. It was written later c. 85 CE by Luke who believed in the empty tomb.
                                My point was that the account does not describe what Paul actually "saw." It only says that he heard a voice from
                                heaven and saw a bright light.
                                Last edited by RhinestoneCowboy; 05-10-2016, 07:36 PM.

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by whag, Yesterday, 03:01 PM
                                14 responses
                                48 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post rogue06
                                by rogue06
                                 
                                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
                                78 responses
                                414 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