Page 236 of 236 FirstFirst ... 136186226234235236
Results 2,351 to 2,356 of 2356

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

  1. #2351
    tWebber tabibito's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    DownUnder
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    3,658
    Amen (Given)
    151
    Amen (Received)
    548
    Quote 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; 01-25-2018 at 04:24 AM.
    και εκζητησατε με και ευρησετε με οτι ζητησετε με εν ολη καρδία υμων

  2. #2352
    Must...have...caffeine One Bad Pig's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Inside the beltway
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    16,732
    Amen (Given)
    5140
    Amen (Received)
    9644
    Quote 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

    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

  3. #2353
    tWebber RhinestoneCowboy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Faith
    Agnostic
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    590
    Amen (Given)
    13
    Amen (Received)
    80
    Quote 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.

  4. #2354
    tWebber tabibito's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    DownUnder
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    3,658
    Amen (Given)
    151
    Amen (Received)
    548
    Quote 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; 01-30-2018 at 04:17 AM.
    και εκζητησατε με και ευρησετε με οτι ζητησετε με εν ολη καρδία υμων

  5. Amen lee_merrill amen'd this post.
  6. #2355
    tWebber RhinestoneCowboy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Faith
    Agnostic
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    590
    Amen (Given)
    13
    Amen (Received)
    80
    Quote 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 at 04:49 PM.

  7. #2356
    tWebber
    Join Date
    Aug 2015
    Faith
    Roman Catholic
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    1,575
    Amen (Given)
    235
    Amen (Received)
    620
    giphy.gif

    This is about all I have to say about this thread. It's evidence of resurrection.

  8. Amen One Bad Pig, tabibito amen'd this post.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •