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

  • #31
    Originally posted by seanD View Post
    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.
    Part in bold - Really? Where does he say that? He implies that they have spiritual "visions" which could encompass a whole array of subjective phenomena.

    As a nonbeliever I don't believe in the literal truth of these reports. I think the whole thing started with a belief that Jesus was "raised from the dead" as a martyr (evidently this concept was even applied to John the Baptist - Mk. 6:14, it can't be a coincidence that two apocalyptic Jewish leaders who were both recently executed were then claimed to have been raised from the dead. Obviously, this was an established concept for righteous individuals in the Jewish world.) This belief then evolved into subjective claims of "visions" which evolved into an empty tomb story which then evolved into claims of touching a physically resurrected corpse that flew to heaven. It's a story that grew in the telling.
    Last edited by RhinestoneCowboy; 05-10-2016, 08:13 PM.

    Comment


    • #32
      Originally posted by RhinestoneCowboy View Post
      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.
      No, sown in corruption; raised in incorruption: The thing that is sown in corruption is the physical body, the thing that is raised is the physical glorified body. It makes no sense saying that you raised something that was never sown in the first place. And again, the spiritual body (soma). Can you point to anywhere where soma is not used for something physical?



      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?
      Paul said he was taught his Gospel by Christ Gal.1. During the three years in Arabia - where those merely visions? How do you know?


      I realize Acts teaches a physical resurrection. It was written 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.
      Yes the same book that speaks about Paul's vision speaks of Christ's physical resurrection. So why wouldn't they assume that Paul met the living resurrected Christ?
      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


      • #33
        Originally posted by RhinestoneCowboy View Post
        Part in bold - Really? Where does he say that? He implies that they have spiritual "visions" which could encompass a whole array of subjective phenomena.
        Where does Paul in 1 Cor. say that they only had "spirtual" visions?
        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


        • #34
          Originally posted by seer View Post
          No, sown in corruption; raised in incorruption: The thing that is sown in corruption is the physical body, the thing that is raised is the physical glorified body.
          We're just playing tennis with Paul and arguing in circles. Paul says "body" twice and typically in Greek grammar when you mention a noun twice it's a change in subject. He does not say "a body is sown and raised." Instead, he says "a body is sown, a body is raised." Paul is speaking of two different bodies or at least that is a reasonable interpretation I gave based on all the other evidence I've presented. The concept of two different bodies is first established in 1 Cor 15:40. It helps to not isolate these passages or separate them from their immediate context.

          It makes no sense saying that you raised something that was never sown in the first place. And again, the spiritual body (soma). Can you point to anywhere where soma is not used for something physical?
          I'm not saying the body was not physical. I'm saying it was a spiritual body in heaven made of different "material", devoid of "flesh and blood" - 1 Cor 15:50

          Paul said he was taught his Gospel by Christ Gal.1. During the three years in Arabia - where those merely visions? How do you know?
          Was the appearance to Paul a vision or not? Read my original post for the evidence.

          Yes the same book that speaks about Paul's vision speaks of Christ's physical resurrection. So why wouldn't they assume that Paul met the living resurrected Christ?
          The whole formerly dead revivified corpse that walks around and is touched then floats to heaven story is nowhere found in Paul's letters. It only comes later after the resurrection
          had turned into a wholly physical revivification with an empty tomb.

          Consensus dating places the sources in this order:

          1. Paul c. 50 CE- visions only, no empty tomb, the interpretation of 1 Cor 15:35-54 is disputed but a plausible case can be made for a spiritual "two body" exchange view.
          2. Mark c. 70 - introduces the empty tomb but has no appearances in the earliest manuscripts
          3. Matthew c. 80 CE - has appearances which "some doubt" - Mt. 28:17. The exact nature of Jesus' resurrection body is not made clear.
          4. Luke/Acts 85-95 CE - first explicit mention of a "flesh and bone" Jesus that eats fish, is touched and physically ascends to heaven while the disciples watch. Acts says that
          Jesus was on earth for 40 days providing "many proofs." (How did these amazing events go unnoticed/unmentioned by the earlier sources if they're actual history?)
          5. John 90-110 CE - has the Doubting Thomas story and puts forth the view that Jesus is basically God - a view nowhere found in the synoptics.

          Now ask yourself why these amazing stories found in the later accounts get no mention in the earliest sources? It's because we have a legend that grew over time.
          Last edited by RhinestoneCowboy; 05-10-2016, 08:10 PM.

          Comment


          • #35
            Originally posted by seer View Post
            Where does Paul in 1 Cor. say that they only had "spirtual" visions?
            1. Paul equates the appearances with the same verb for "appeared" ὤφθη (Greek – ōphthē) in 1 Cor 15:5-8 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 (Damascus Road vision) in the same list as the others while giving no distinction between them - 1 Cor 15:5-8.

            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" - Gal. 1:11-16, 2 Cor 12:1 so we have no reason to think that the disciples experienced Jesus in a way more physical than that.
            Last edited by RhinestoneCowboy; 05-10-2016, 08:12 PM.

            Comment


            • #36
              Originally posted by RhinestoneCowboy View Post
              Part in bold - Really? Where does he say that? He implies that they have spiritual "visions" which could encompass a whole array of subjective phenomena.

              As a nonbeliever I don't believe in the literal truth of these reports. I think the whole thing started with a belief that Jesus was "raised from the dead" as a martyr (evidently this concept was even applied to John the Baptist - Mk. 6:14, it can't be a coincidence that two apocalyptic Jewish leaders who were both recently executed were then claimed to have been raised from the dead. Obviously, this was an established concept for righteous individuals in the Jewish world.) This belief then evolved into subjective claims of "visions" which evolved into an empty tomb story which then evolved into claims of touching a physically resurrected corpse that flew to heaven. It's a story that grew in the telling.
              I"m assuming Paul is correlating what they saw with the theology about resurrected bodies he was espousing. How do you synchronize what Paul is teaching about the resurrected body, which you agree is material, with what he claims they saw if what they saw was just a spree of hallucinations? If Paul didn't believe they saw Jesus' material resurrected body in these appearances, why did he believe this theology of resurrected bodies and why are they both in the same context? And many scholars date this resurrection creed much earlier than even Paul's letter, possibly even within a decade. Not much time for an evolution, wouldn't you agree? The other problem with that is that it reflects more of a creedal statement, like a hymn, than a legend. Legends evolve, but this was a statement. In other words, if I'm involved in an accident, and I'm giving you a list of eyewitnesses and what they saw, you wouldn't perceive that as a legend would you?

              Comment


              • #37
                Originally posted by seanD View Post
                I"m assuming Paul is correlating what they saw with the theology about resurrected bodies he was espousing. How do you synchronize what Paul is teaching about the resurrected body, which you agree is material, with what he claims they saw if what they saw was just a spree of hallucinations? If Paul didn't believe they saw Jesus' material resurrected body in these appearances, why did he believe this theology of resurrected bodies and why are they both in the same context? And many scholars date this resurrection creed much earlier than even Paul's letter, possibly even within a decade. Not much time for an evolution, wouldn't you agree? The other problem with that is that it reflects more of a creedal statement, like a hymn, than a legend. Legends evolve, but this was a statement. In other words, if I'm involved in an accident, and I'm giving you a list of eyewitnesses and what they saw, you wouldn't perceive that as a legend would you?
                I think you're missing the point of the entire argument which is to show the legendary embellishment of the story over time
                within the whole NT. Obviously, as a nonbeliever, I don't think Paul or anyone actually saw a vision of Jesus or touched a
                resurrected corpse. They most likely interpreted these events as "visions", 2nd Temple Hellenistic-Judaism was a visionary
                culture (they thought visions were real and came from God or whatever).

                And many scholars date this resurrection creed much earlier than even Paul's letter, possibly even within a decade. Not much time for an evolution, wouldn't you agree?
                I'm looking at the New Testament as a whole. Scholarly consensus dating puts the sources in this order:

                1. Paul c. 50 CE- visions only, no empty tomb, no Risen Jesus on earth (only in heaven), the interpretation of 1 Cor 15:35-54 is disputed but a plausible case can be made for a spiritual "two body" exchange view.
                2. Mark c. 70 - introduces the empty tomb but has no appearances in the earliest manuscripts.
                3. Matthew c. 80 CE - has appearances which "some doubt" - Mt. 28:17. The exact nature of Jesus' resurrection body is not made clear.
                4. Luke/Acts 85-95 CE - first explicit mention of a "flesh and bones" Jesus that eats fish, is touched and physically ascends to heaven while the disciples watch. Acts says that
                Jesus was on earth for 40 days providing "many proofs." (How did these amazing events go unnoticed/unmentioned by the earlier sources if they're actual history?)
                5. John 90-110 CE - has the Doubting Thomas story and puts forth the view that Jesus is basically God - a view nowhere found in the synoptics.

                Now ask yourself why these amazing stories found in the later accounts get no mention in the earliest sources? It's because we have a legend that grew over time
                or, at least, the data is consistent with the legend hypothesis.
                Last edited by RhinestoneCowboy; 05-10-2016, 10:51 PM.

                Comment


                • #38
                  Originally posted by RhinestoneCowboy View Post
                  I think you're missing the point of the entire argument which is to show the legendary embellishment of the story over time
                  within the whole NT. Obviously, as a nonbeliever, I don't think Paul or anyone actually saw a vision of Jesus or touched a
                  resurrected corpse. They most likely interpreted these events as "visions", 2nd Temple Hellenistic-Judaism was a visionary
                  culture (they thought visions were real and came from God or whatever).



                  I'm looking at the New Testament as a whole. Scholarly consensus dating puts the sources in this order:

                  1. Paul c. 50 CE- visions only, no empty tomb, no Risen Jesus on earth (only in heaven), the interpretation of 1 Cor 15:35-54 is disputed but a plausible case can be made for a spiritual "two body" exchange view.
                  2. Mark c. 70 - introduces the empty tomb but has no appearances in the earliest manuscripts.
                  3. Matthew c. 80 CE - has appearances which "some doubt" - Mt. 28:17. The exact nature of Jesus' resurrection body is not made clear.
                  4. Luke/Acts 85-95 CE - first explicit mention of a "flesh and bones" Jesus that eats fish, is touched and physically ascends to heaven while the disciples watch. Acts says that
                  Jesus was on earth for 40 days providing "many proofs." (How did these amazing events go unnoticed/unmentioned by the earlier sources if they're actual history?)
                  5. John 90-110 CE - has the Doubting Thomas story and puts forth the view that Jesus is basically God - a view nowhere found in the synoptics.

                  Now ask yourself why these amazing stories found in the later accounts get no mention in the earliest sources? It's because we have a legend that grew over time
                  or, at least, the data is consistent with the legend hypothesis.
                  You're confusing what I mean by scholarly analysis of 1 Cor 15:3-8. I'm not talking about a theory of how legends may have successively evolved from Paul to the gospels. I'm saying that Paul was making a creedal statement that scholars date to the earliest beginnings of the movement. If you want to believe the gospel stories themselves are an evolution of legend within the Christian movement that's fine, but that's really a moot point because we're focusing on what Paul is saying and what he believed. The fact is, Paul believed a material body resurrection theology that dates to the earliest time of the movement. So my question to you is, if Paul was not correlating the appearances of the resurrected Christ with his body resurrection theology that he was asserting to the Greeks, why did he put this theology in the same context of those resurrection appearances and why did he believe this theology if it was not connected to the resurrection appearances?

                  The question in bold I promise I'll answer in the next post.

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Originally posted by seanD View Post
                    You're confusing what I mean by scholarly analysis of 1 Cor 15:3-8. I'm not talking about a theory of how legends may have successively evolved from Paul to the gospels. I'm saying that Paul was making a creedal statement that scholars date to the earliest beginnings of the movement. If you want to believe the gospel stories themselves are an evolution of legend within the Christian movement that's fine, but that's really a moot point because we're focusing on what Paul is saying and what he believed. The fact is, Paul believed a material body resurrection theology that dates to the earliest time of the movement. So my question to you is, if Paul was not correlating the appearances of the resurrected Christ with his body resurrection theology that he was asserting to the Greeks, why did he put this theology in the same context of those resurrection appearances and why did he believe this theology if it was not connected to the resurrection appearances?

                    The question in bold I promise I'll answer in the next post.
                    I don't think I ever denied that he was doing this. Perhaps I misunderstood you before. If we're just talking about the context of 1 Cor 15 then yes Paul is equating his
                    spiritual visionary experience with that of the others. Based on his resurrection body language it seems that he thought the Risen Jesus was in heaven in a new "spiritual
                    body" but the former earthly body would be left back on earth. That's why the earliest appearances are better understood as "visions" rather than physical encounters
                    with a resuscitated corpse like in Luke and John.

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Originally posted by RhinestoneCowboy View Post
                      We're just playing tennis with Paul and arguing in circles. Paul says "body" twice and typically in Greek grammar when you mention a noun twice it's a change in subject. He does not say "a body is sown and raised." Instead, he says "a body is sown, a body is raised." Paul is speaking of two different bodies or at least that is a reasonable interpretation I gave based on all the other evidence I've presented. The concept of two different bodies is first established in 1 Cor 15:40. It helps to not isolate these passages or separate them from their immediate context.

                      I'm not saying the body was not physical. I'm saying it was a spiritual body in heaven made of different "material", devoid of "flesh and blood" - 1 Cor 15:50
                      OK, so now you are agreeing that the resurrected Christ had a physical body. And no, it is not the most reasonable explanation since Paul is clear that the mortal is CLOTHED, not destroyed or lost. And when a seed is sown it is the genetic material in that seed that comes to life - is raised.



                      Was the appearance to Paul a vision or not? Read my original post for the evidence.
                      Well there is no evidence that it was merely a vision, he certainly does not call it a vision in the Galatians passage. Nor does your OP prove otherwise. And since you now agree that Christ had a physical body, was Paul's vision in Acts of a physical Christ?



                      The whole formerly dead revivified corpse that walks around and is touched then floats to heaven story is nowhere found in Paul's letters. It only comes later after the resurrection
                      had turned into a wholly physical revivification with an empty tomb.
                      That is just nonsense, I gave you two separate sources of Paul where he clearly states that our present bodies are reconstituted.

                      who will transform our lowly body to be like his glorious body, by the power that enables him even to subject all things to himself.

                      Transformed, not destroyed or lost. Just like the 1 Cor. passage where it says that the mortal will be clothed, not destroyed or lost.

                      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.

                      If we are getting a completely new body why are our preset bodies redeemed?
                      Last edited by seer; 05-11-2016, 08:12 AM.
                      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


                      • #41
                        Originally posted by RhinestoneCowboy View Post
                        I don't think I ever denied that he was doing this. Perhaps I misunderstood you before. If we're just talking about the context of 1 Cor 15 then yes Paul is equating his
                        spiritual visionary experience with that of the others. Based on his resurrection body language it seems that he thought the Risen Jesus was in heaven in a new "spiritual
                        body" but the former earthly body would be left back on earth. That's why the earliest appearances are better understood as "visions" rather than physical encounters
                        with a resuscitated corpse like in Luke and John.
                        Okay, but your problem is that you're assuming they all had the same experience as Paul did. Thus, you must explain why Paul believed Jesus had a body when his vision -- a light and a voice -- required no body. This is further complicated by the fact that the Greeks repudiated the body in the afterlife, thus makes it exceptionally strange why Paul insisted Jesus have a body to these Greeks when his particular vision was void of a body. The gospel traditions provide continuity to this problem.

                        So, moving on to the question you asked earlier…


                        Originally posted by RhinestoneCowboy View Post
                        If Paul makes no distinction or gives any reason to think they're different then why are you assuming that they must be?

                        Okay, here's my logic: Paul wasn't specific about the details of the appearances because they WERE in fact different. Paul being specific about the differences just would have added an unwanted necessity of explanation as to why his experience would have no more or less disqualified him as an apostle from the others that Paul wanted to avoid. That Paul's experience came many years after Jesus' crucifixion and burial was bad enough, as he points out ("as to one untimely born"), so he didn't need to further complicate it by having to explain why his experience should be equal or better. The fact he communicated with the risen Lord at some point was all he needed for the occasion to establish his authority as an apostle on the subject. Moreover, the void of Paul's glorified resurrected body theology he's espousing to the Greeks in the exact same context is filled if we assume he was referring to a material body resurrection the others saw, contrary to what Paul saw near Damascus which was just a light and a voice with no body.

                        This is apparently your logic: Paul would have spent time and papyrus space distinguishing the differences of the appearances or excluded himself as an apostle from the others if his appearance was in fact different, therefore they must have all had the same no-body vision he had.

                        But I don't see a reason to accept this logic. Since Paul wanted to maintain his authority on the subject as an eyewitness, why would he bother distinguishing the appearances? So you're left with: a) no explanation why Paul believed in a bodily resurrection when we know his particular experience with the risen Lord was but a light and a voice that required no body: b) an assumption that Paul would have bothered to explain the differences in the appearances if they were in fact different, which makes no sense since he wanted to establish his authority as an apostle equal with the other apostles

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Originally posted by seer View Post
                          OK, so now you are agreeing that the resurrected Christ had a physical body.
                          The body Paul was speaking of was not a physically revived corpse so that doesn't help you. Does Paul mention anything
                          about Jesus being "raised" to earth or does he only speak about Jesus being exalted to heaven - 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?

                          And no, it is not the most reasonable explanation since Paul is clear that the mortal is CLOTHED, not destroyed or lost. And when a seed is sown it is the genetic material in that seed that comes to life - is raised.
                          You keep asserting the same thing over and over while ignoring the points I've made against this. If you disagree that's fine but don't just keep posting the same thing
                          as we're just arguing in a circle.

                          Starting in 1 Cor 15:35, Paul's audience asks “How are the dead raised? With what kind of body will they come?”
                          The question is asking "what type of physical bodies will the dead have?" Paul immediately responds "How foolish!"
                          which shows his disdain for them thinking that the resurrection will involve physically revived corpses. He then says "What you
                          sow does not come to life unless it dies"
                          implying that the earthly body must die in order for the spiritual body
                          to be raised as he explains in the following verses. Therefore, Paul says physical resurrection is impossible, that is, the revivification
                          of the physical corpse will not happen.

                          Well there is no evidence that it was merely a vision,
                          Oh so Paul's visions wasn't a "vision" then?

                          he certainly does not call it a vision in the Galatians passage. Nor does your OP prove otherwise.
                          Is Paul's "revelation" another experience Paul had other than his Damascus Road encounter? Have you discovered some other source?

                          And since you now agree that Christ had a physical body, was Paul's vision in Acts of a physical Christ?
                          Are you equating "physical body" with the flesh and bones resurrected corpse that Luke and John present? If so, you're not
                          responding to my actual position but instead creating a strawman.

                          That is just nonsense, I gave you two separate sources of Paul where he clearly states that our present bodies are reconstituted.
                          The verses don't explicitly say that. You're just reading it in. Paul says there are different types of bodies and that's sufficient enough for my argument.

                          Interpreting Paul is difficult because he doesn't stay consistent with his anthropological terms. Did you see where I posted this?

                          "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

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Originally posted by seanD View Post
                            Okay, but your problem is that you're assuming they all had the same experience as Paul did.
                            The same or similar type of vision yes. Does he make a distinction between the appearances?

                            Thus, you must explain why Paul believed Jesus had a body when his vision -- a light and a voice -- required no body.
                            I don't understand why you keep bringing up this red herring. My point was to demonstrate that the "appearances" in 1 Cor 15:5-8 are best understood as
                            "visions," not physical interactions with a formerly dead revivified corpse on earth like the later gospels describe. This has severe implications for Christian
                            origins because the Orthodox position is that Jesus was resurrected "physically" or "in the flesh." However, when a critical examination is conducted, that
                            view is nowhere found (actually contradicted by a mass amount of evidence) in the earliest sources.

                            This is further complicated by the fact that the Greeks repudiated the body in the afterlife, thus makes it exceptionally strange why Paul insisted Jesus have a body to these Greeks when his particular vision was void of a body.
                            If the Greeks "repudiated the body" so much, how come Christianity largely became a Gentile religion? A religion which affirmed the resurrection of the "flesh" of Christ? Obviously, Greeks weren't so "repudiated" by that notion at all. Endsjų's study has overturned this mistaken view - https://books.google.com/books?id=PX...page&q&f=false

                            The gospel traditions provide continuity to this problem.
                            The gospels represent the resurrection in an entirely different way than Paul. Both gnostic interpreters and what became the Orthodox view, used Paul to support their theology. In the end, the Orthodox view won out, obviously.

                            Okay, here's my logic: Paul wasn't specific about the details of the appearances because they WERE in fact different.
                            Okay but that's called into question by a mass of evidence. Paul seems to equate the appearances with the same verb in 1 Cor 15:5-8 and claims
                            to have "seen" the exact same thing the apostles saw in 1 Cor 9:1.

                            This is apparently your logic: Paul would have spent time and papyrus space distinguishing the differences of the appearances or excluded himself as an apostle from the others if his appearance was in fact different, therefore they must have all had the same no-body vision he had.

                            But I don't see a reason to accept this logic. Since Paul wanted to maintain his authority on the subject as an eyewitness, why would he bother distinguishing the appearances? So you're left with: a) no explanation why Paul believed in a bodily resurrection when we know his particular experience with the risen Lord was but a light and a voice that required no body: b) an assumption that Paul would have bothered to explain the differences in the appearances if they were in fact different, which makes no sense since he wanted to establish his authority as an apostle equal with the other apostles
                            I gave 4 arguments supporting that Paul was equating the appearances without distinction. He gives no reason to think the appearances were any different while giving no clues at all that the resurrected Christ was experienced in a more "physical" way. You have yet to respond to those arguments or show why they are less probable than their negations. Your logic seems to be "Paul indicates no difference. Therefore, they were different." Sorry but that is just not going to cut it. You actually have to give reasons why we should think the appearances were different.
                            Last edited by RhinestoneCowboy; 05-11-2016, 11:47 AM.

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Originally posted by RhinestoneCowboy View Post
                              The same or similar type of vision yes. Does he make a distinction between the appearances?



                              I don't understand why you keep bringing up this red herring. My point was to demonstrate that the "appearances" in 1 Cor 15:5-8 are best understood as
                              "visions," not physical interactions with a formerly dead revivified corpse on earth like the later gospels describe. This has severe implications for Christian
                              origins because the Orthodox position is that Jesus was resurrected "physically" or "in the flesh." However, when a critical examination is conducted, that
                              view is nowhere found (actually contradicted by a mass amount of evidence) in the earliest sources.



                              If the Greeks "repudiated the body" so much, how come Christianity largely became a Gentile religion? A religion which affirmed the resurrection of the "flesh" of Christ? Obviously, Greeks weren't so "repudiated" by that notion at all. Endsjų's study has overturned this mistaken view - https://books.google.com/books?id=PX...page&q&f=false



                              The gospels represent the resurrection in an entirely different way than Paul. Both gnostic interpreters and what became the Orthodox view, used Paul to support their theology. In the end, the Orthodox view won out, obviously.



                              Okay but that's called into question by a mass of evidence. Paul seems to equate the appearances with the same verb in 1 Cor 15:5-8 and claims
                              to have "seen" the exact same thing the apostles saw in 1 Cor 9:1.



                              I gave 4 arguments supporting that Paul was equating the appearances without distinction. He gives no reason to think the appearances were any different while giving no clues at all that the resurrected Christ was experienced in a more "physical" way. You have yet to respond to those arguments or show why they are less probable than their negations. Your logic seems to be "Paul indicates no difference. Therefore, they were different." Sorry but that is just not going to cut it. You actually have to give reasons why we should think the appearances were different.
                              Wow, you say I gave no argument as to why Paul didn't distinguish the differences of the appearances and actually omitted the part of my post where I did lol. Damn, dude, that's heavy. I've experienced by posts broken up and scattered, but I don't think I've ever encountered that tactic here before.

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Originally posted by seanD View Post
                                Wow, you say I gave no argument as to why Paul didn't distinguish the differences of the appearances and actually omitted the part of my post where I did lol. Damn, dude, that's heavy. I've experienced by posts broken up and scattered, but I don't think I've ever encountered that tactic here before.
                                Saying there were "differences" in the appearances is question begging that there were in fact, differences. You still have yet to demonstrate that they were different so your argument hasn't even gotten off the ground yet.

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by whag, Yesterday, 03:01 PM
                                30 responses
                                103 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
                                79 responses
                                417 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post alaskazimm  
                                Started by whag, 03-13-2024, 12:06 PM
                                45 responses
                                303 views
                                1 like
                                Last Post Hypatia_Alexandria  
                                Working...
                                X