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

[seer]

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?

I'm not sure what your point is, what does raised to earth mean? We know from the ascension that Christ resides in Heaven, not that he can't move between the two worlds.

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
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.

That is daft. He is not showing disdain, he is explaining. And again, our new body is a glorified body. When the seed dies the plant that is raised still has the material that was in the seed. And becomes something more. AND AGAIN why does Paul say that the MORTAL is CLOTHED instead of done away with. That makes no sense if you are correct.

Oh so Paul's visions wasn't a "vision" then?

You have to assume that visions only can include non-corporal things.

Is Paul's "revelation" another experience Paul had other than his Damascus Road encounter? Have you discovered some other source?

Well yes, when Christ revealed the Gospel to Paul, that obviously happened in Arabia in the context of Galatians one. There is no evidence that this gospel information was given in Damascus in the book of Acts.

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.

That is pure nonsense, and you again avoided the questions:

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.

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.


For the perishable must clothe itself with the imperishable, and the mortal with immortality

What does it mean that our bodies are "transformed?" That our bodies are "redeemed." That the mortal is clothed with immortality?

[Juice]

The body Paul was speaking of was not a physically revived corpse so that doesn't help you.

bodily, yes. But not merely as a "revived corpse."

I would argue that Jesus' resurrected body was like what Paul tells us our resurrected bodies will be. That is, they will be transformed (Philippians 3:20-21, 1Cor 15:51-52) into a glorious, powerful, and incorruptible body capable of inheriting the Kingdom of Heaven (1 Corinthians 15:42ff). Our fleshly bodies are not exchanged but are rather changed

[Gary]

[Cow Poke]

Gary, is this your original work? And, if so, is this, also?

[RhinestoneCowboy]

I'm not sure what your point is, what does raised to earth mean?

Risen physically from an empty tomb, walks around, eats fish, and lets the disciples touch his physical body. Where is that view found in Paul?

We know from the ascension that Christ resides in Heaven, not that he can't move between the two worlds.

And where is the physical bodily ascension (after 40 days on earth) mentioned in Paul, Mark, or Matthew? That view is nowhere found in the earliest sources but rather Paul's resurrection seems to involve a simultaneous exaltation 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 - without mentioning a Resurrected Jesus on earth.

"The important point is that, in the primitive preaching, resurrection and exaltation belong together as two sides of one coin and that it implies a geographical transfer from earth to heaven (hence it is possible to say that in the primitive kerygma resurrection is 'resurrection to heaven')". - Arie Zwiep, The Ascension of the Messiah in Lukan Christology, pg. 127

- ibid, pg. 130
https://books.google.com/books?id=QI...page&q&f=false

That is daft. He is not showing disdain, he is explaining. And again, our new body is a glorified body. When the seed dies the plant that is raised still has the material that was in the seed. And becomes something more. AND AGAIN why does Paul say that the MORTAL is CLOTHED instead of done away with.

1. You keep separating/isolating passages from their immediate and surrounding context.

2. 1 Cor 15:53 does not say "body." The last time a "body" is mentioned is verse 44.

3. Paul says immediately before this that "perishability cannot receive imperishability " 1 Cor 15:50 What is mortal is perishable. Flesh and blood are perishable and will not enter the Kingdom of God.

4. 1 Cor. 15:54 says "death is swallowed up in victory" and in 2 Cor. 5:4 he says "what is mortal shall be swallowed up by life." In both verses Paul uses the verb "to gulp down, swallow completely, devour, destory" http://lexiconcordance.com/greek/2666.html. This means Paul imagined the thing "swallowed" will disappear, it will be destroyed.

5. 1 Cor 15:51-52 Paul says The "last trumpet" signifies the end of the world. He's not talking about Jesus' resurrection body anymore. He's talking about when all mortal things will be destroyed.

That makes no sense if you are correct.

What makes no sense is if Jesus' actual physical body was literally walking around on earth and was touched, why does Paul only say the
Risen Jesus was experienced through visions and revelations? He obviously had a different idea of resurrection than the later gospel authors.

You have to assume that visions only can include non-corporal things.

No, all I have to assume is that visions are not as "physical" as a real life encounter that involved touching of a fully revivified corpse.
They're not the same thing and the progression of the story points in the direction of legendary accretion.

Well yes, when Christ revealed the Gospel to Paul, that obviously happened in Arabia in the context of Galatians one.

Where does Paul say that Jesus was "revealed" to him in Arabia. He implies his revelation happened before he went into Arabia - Gal. 1:17.
It then says he "later returned to Damascus", indicating that's where his revelation took place.

There is no evidence that this gospel information was given in Damascus in the book of Acts.

Well what other source have you discovered that explains where Paul gets his information from Jesus? New Testament scholars would love to know! The only other place I know of is 2 Cor 12:1 which, coincidentally, happens to be a vision as well. Gosh, this Paul guy sure had a lot of "visions" didn't he?

What does it mean that our bodies are "transformed?" That our bodies are "redeemed." That the mortal is clothed with immortality?

You've avoided numerous points of mine in our past conversations and now this point has been utterly refuted above in numbers 1-5.

• Edited by a Moderator •

In Romans 8:11 Paul does not say "our mortal bodies will be raised" He doesn't even connect "mortal bodies" with resurrection at all in 8:23

Moderated By: DesertBerean

RhinestoneCowboy, You were warned to include attribution. This is a repeat of http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...l=1#post318708.

***If you wish to take issue with this notice DO NOT do so in this thread.***
Contact the forum moderator or an administrator in Private Message or email instead. If you feel you must publicly complain or whine, please take it to the Padded Room unless told otherwise.

[RhinestoneCowboy]

bodily, yes. But not merely as a "revived corpse."

I would argue that Jesus' resurrected body was like what Paul tells us our resurrected bodies will be. That is, they will be transformed (Philippians 3:20-21, 1Cor 15:51-52) into a glorious, powerful, and incorruptible body capable of inheriting the Kingdom of Heaven (1 Corinthians 15:42ff). Our fleshly bodies are not exchanged but are rather changed

Unfortunately, the discrepancies and inconsistencies between the accounts still point towards legendary accretion. The risen body of Christ in Luke and John is physically touched. It physically ascends to heaven while the disciples watch. Paul's "visions" and "revelations" give no indication of this earthly Jesus but instead are consistent with the Risen Jesus only being experienced spiritually from heaven. Hence why Paul's letters are full of exaltation Christology instead of a resurrected Jesus that was on earth before he ascended to heaven.

Luke 24:39 says

Paul says "flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God." He means literal "flesh and blood" there as it makes perfect sense in the context. He also says Jesus is a spirit in 1 Cor 15:45.

This flat out contradicts Luke's representation of the Risen Christ.

[Boxing Pythagoras]

I am an outspoken atheist, and a consummate skeptic. While I remain agnostic on the historicity of the Empty Tomb pericopes, I certainly find it plausible that the narratives which we have might find their origin in an actual, historical discovery of an empty tomb.

In fact, it seems to me that a spreading tale of women discovering Jesus of Nazareth's tomb to be empty would have been precisely the sort of catalyst we would expect to jumpstart a grieving community's belief that its teacher had been raised from the dead.

We don't even have to look too far back in history to find analogous sorts of legends accruing about religious leaders. On January 27th, 1986, the founder of the Church of Scientology, L. Ron Hubbard, died. Now, while you and I realize that everyone is destined to die, someday, the idea that LRH might expire like a normal person was complete anathema to true believers in Scientology. So, when the CoS issued a statement that LRH had "causitively dropped his body" because he had exhausted all the research which could be done in the physical realm, Scientologists believed it wholeheartedly. To this day, even though the coroner's reports are freely available on the Internet, there are still Scientologists who believe that LRH is spiritually alive and that his body remains preserved and strong, awaiting his return so that he might spread his newest discoveries from the spiritual realm to the CoS.

In my mind, if some women really did go to a tomb expecting to find Jesus' corpse, but found nothing there instead, this would be some rather powerful fuel awaiting just a small spark. For example, two guys walking to Emmaus, meeting a cryptic stranger, and later thinking, "That must have been Jesus!"

[RhinestoneCowboy]

Yes, Google "9 arguments against the empty tomb"

The empty tomb was a later legend.

[seanD]

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.

Here's the answer again, the part you omitted...

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.

[Adrift]

I am an outspoken atheist, and a consummate skeptic. While I remain agnostic on the historicity of the Empty Tomb pericopes, I certainly find it plausible that the narratives which we have might find their origin in an actual, historical discovery of an empty tomb.

In fact, it seems to me that a spreading tale of women discovering Jesus of Nazareth's tomb to be empty would have been precisely the sort of catalyst we would expect to jumpstart a grieving community's belief that its teacher had been raised from the dead.

We don't even have to look too far back in history to find analogous sorts of legends accruing about religious leaders. On January 27th, 1986, the founder of the Church of Scientology, L. Ron Hubbard, died. Now, while you and I realize that everyone is destined to die, someday, the idea that LRH might expire like a normal person was complete anathema to true believers in Scientology. So, when the CoS issued a statement that LRH had "causitively dropped his body" because he had exhausted all the research which could be done in the physical realm, Scientologists believed it wholeheartedly. To this day, even though the coroner's reports are freely available on the Internet, there are still Scientologists who believe that LRH is spiritually alive and that his body remains preserved and strong, awaiting his return so that he might spread his newest discoveries from the spiritual realm to the CoS.

In my mind, if some women really did go to a tomb expecting to find Jesus' corpse, but found nothing there instead, this would be some rather powerful fuel awaiting just a small spark. For example, two guys walking to Emmaus, meeting a cryptic stranger, and later thinking, "That must have been Jesus!"

Yep (as I pointed out to him all the way back in January in the "Does Jesus's Prayer Show Christianity Is False?"), critical Jewish scholar Geza Vermes put it best when he said,

Source: Jesus the Jew by Geza Vermes

When every argument has been considered and weighed, the only conclusion acceptable to the historian must be that the opinions of the orthodox, the liberal sympathizer, and the critical agnostic alike--and even perhaps of the disciples themselves--are simply interpretations of the one disconcerting fact: namely that the women who set out to pay their last respects to Jesus found to their consternation, not a body, but an empty tomb.

© Copyright Original Source

[seanD]

I am an outspoken atheist, and a consummate skeptic. While I remain agnostic on the historicity of the Empty Tomb pericopes, I certainly find it plausible that the narratives which we have might find their origin in an actual, historical discovery of an empty tomb.

In fact, it seems to me that a spreading tale of women discovering Jesus of Nazareth's tomb to be empty would have been precisely the sort of catalyst we would expect to jumpstart a grieving community's belief that its teacher had been raised from the dead.

We don't even have to look too far back in history to find analogous sorts of legends accruing about religious leaders. On January 27th, 1986, the founder of the Church of Scientology, L. Ron Hubbard, died. Now, while you and I realize that everyone is destined to die, someday, the idea that LRH might expire like a normal person was complete anathema to true believers in Scientology. So, when the CoS issued a statement that LRH had "causitively dropped his body" because he had exhausted all the research which could be done in the physical realm, Scientologists believed it wholeheartedly. To this day, even though the coroner's reports are freely available on the Internet, there are still Scientologists who believe that LRH is spiritually alive and that his body remains preserved and strong, awaiting his return so that he might spread his newest discoveries from the spiritual realm to the CoS.

In my mind, if some women really did go to a tomb expecting to find Jesus' corpse, but found nothing there instead, this would be some rather powerful fuel awaiting just a small spark. For example, two guys walking to Emmaus, meeting a cryptic stranger, and later thinking, "That must have been Jesus!"

Sure, if it started in our western culture. Not a NE patriarchal culture. How well do you think a splinter cult of Islam would do in Saudi Arabia if they started a legend in a similar way?

[Adrift]

Sure, if it started in our western culture. Not a NE patriarchal culture. How well do you think a splinter cult of Islam would do in Saudi Arabia if they started a legend in a similar way?

That's a good point. Vermes of course was referring to modern historians accepting the criterion of embarrassment of women testifying in that cultural context.

[RhinestoneCowboy]

Here's the answer again, the part you omitted...

Yup, I saw that already. Where does Paul indicate the appearances were "different?"

And how does that evidence compare to the 4 arguments I gave which demonstrate
Paul equates the appearances?

And if you go back throughout this thread you'll notice that you've failed to respond to the majority of my arguments. You instead cherry pick one part while ignoring the rest of my points. Pot meet kettle.

[seanD]

That's a good point. Vermes of course was referring to modern historians accepting the criterion of embarrassment of women testifying in that cultural context.

Skeptics love to downplay that because that's probably the greatest, or at least one of the greatest, black eyes to the suggestion of an invented legend -- women heroically venturing to the tomb; male pillars of the church cowering behind locked doors. Yeah, they invented it that way lol.

[mikewhitney]

In response to a quick look at the conclusion of the original post ...

In many ways, from the perspective of the Romans, was crucified for the appeasement of the Jewish religious leaders. To this purpose, the Romans may have also felt it was sufficient to bring forth Jesus' death but didn't feel it was required to take all the actions related to crucifixion for rebellion, for example. I shall continue on this element of rebellion against the Roman Empire.

The circumstances were strongly against this situation being interpreted as rebellion by the Jews. In fact there is very little to even suggest that a mob of Jews were following Jesus in a political movement to overthrow the government. Attesting to the lack of political support behind Jesus, the Jewish leaders themselves had brought up the charges against Jesus. The Romans then could have readily seen the whole situation as just internal bickering among the Jews.

This is just a quick assessment from memory. But we get a glimpse into a situation that was not typical and does not promote the conclusion found in the original post.