Constructive criticism - Minimal facts method

[GioD]

Quite a lot actually! Caesar describes in his book “The Civil War” the journey from Ravenna to Ariminum and we know that they are directly connected by a major road which crosses the Rubicon. Unlike Jesus, we have Caesar’s actual words and writing about this and much else, plus multitudinous evidence of his deeds from independent historians plus archeological evidence plus coins, statures and busts etc. We have none of this for Jesus.

Fair enough.

It is demonstrably wrong to claim that the Jews were unique and did not lose their identity. The early success of Christianity was precisely because it appealed to Hellenized Jews. Even conservative scholar Martin Hengel claims that the Hellenistic and Jewish cultures had become so intertwined by the time of Jesus, that there really was no difference between the "Jewish" and the "Greek" cultures – certainly not among the educated class to which Paul belonged.

The evidence still suggests 1st century Jews believed in a physical resurrection. If you want I can expand on this.

Josephus clearly describes his views in his 'Jewish War', 'Jewish Antiquities' and elsewhere. Many Hellenized Jews like Josephus believed that the resurrection was when the earthly body of flesh is left behind and a new, superior body rises to eternal life. And it is evidently Paul's view as well.

Another naked assertion. You have to actually explain why my interpretation is forced, you know.

The evidence does not support the “enhancement theory”, or the notion that a physical body disappeared from the tomb or that there was an empty tomb – or even a tomb of any sort. The notion of an empty tomb and a fleshly resurrection is a late development.

You do a lot of asserting but not a lot of refuting...

Actually, Bishop Wright wrote the following referring to Moule’s exposition of Jesus’ spiritual resurrection: “Though Moule is no doubt right that Paul can envisage here the possibility of 'exchange' (i.e. losing one body, getting another one) rather than 'addition', as in 1 Corinthians 15, we should not lose sight of the fact that even if such an 'exchange' were to take place the new body would be more than the present one.” (N.T. Wright, The Resurrection of the Son of God).

Page please? I want to look at this in context.

In short, Wright admits that Moule's understanding of Paul in 1 Cor 15 can be validly interpreted that way, although it's not his favored interpretation. As for the “new body being “more than the present one” this is compatible with the new incorruptible spiritual body compared with the corruptible old body.

Saying something is "valid" by no means translates into it being more probable than another explanation. Also I note you haven't answered the actual argument on the meaning of pneumatika.

Everything Paul writes is compatible with Jesus’ corpse remaining on earth to decay. It cannot be maintained that Paul knew of, or believed in, a missing corpse.

How about his use of soma to mean body and anastasis for resurrection, both of which exclusively ment their physical versions at the time?

Also, no one is arguing that there was a cynical “switch to a physical resurrection”, merely that oral embellishments tend to be increasingly exaggerated as they pass from person-to-person, especially in an era when ‘miracles and magic’ were commonly accepted.

First of all that is not true. We have good reason to believe oral changes to the content are rare and small. Second of all the problem still applies: in a context where physical resurrection was viewed as worse than a spiritual one (at least amongst the gentiles), how would Christianity continue to gain converts (including educated men) after the switch?

[Juice]

Quite a lot actually! Caesar describes in his book “The Civil War” the journey from Ravenna to Ariminum and we know that they are directly connected by a major road which crosses the Rubicon. Unlike Jesus, we have Caesar’s actual words and writing about this and much else, plus multitudinous evidence of his deeds from independent historians plus archeological evidence plus coins, statures and busts etc. We have none of this for Jesus.

I think GioD is letting you off too easily here. If Caesar wrote the Civil Wars why is it written in the third person and anonymous? The Civil Wars never explicitly state Caesar crossed the Rubicon. At best you have an inductive argument that he crossed. Which independent historians document Caesar crossing the Rubicon by the way? Which coins depict the crossing? In the end, if we were to compare the evidence for Caesar’s crossing the Rubicon with the evidence for the resurrection we’d find the evidence for the resurrection is at least as good.

It is demonstrably wrong to claim that the Jews were unique and did not lose their identity. The early success of Christianity was precisely because it appealed to Hellenized Jews. Even conservative scholar Martin Hengel claims that the Hellenistic and Jewish cultures had become so intertwined by the time of Jesus, that there really was no difference between the "Jewish" and the "Greek" cultures – certainly not among the educated class to which Paul belonged.

There was ”no difference between the 'Jewish' and the 'Greek' cultures” by the time of Jesus? Are you serious? The Council of Jerusalem, as one example, would appear to blow that assertion right out of the water. Read Acts 15 where there is a clear “us” and “them” positioning between the Jews and Gentiles.

Josephus clearly describes his views in his 'Jewish War', 'Jewish Antiquities' and elsewhere. Many Hellenized Jews like Josephus believed that the resurrection was when the earthly body of flesh is left behind and a new, superior body rises to eternal life. And it is evidently Paul's view as well.

You haven't provided any specific passages from Josephus so it is hard to comment on him. But it certainly was not Paul’s view.

The evidence does not support the “enhancement theory”, or the notion that a physical body disappeared from the tomb or that there was an empty tomb – or even a tomb of any sort. The notion of an empty tomb and a fleshly resurrection is a late development.

To the Philippians Paul wrote, “But our citizenship is in heaven. And we eagerly await a Savior from there, the Lord Jesus Christ, who, by the power that enables him to bring everything under his control, will transform our lowly bodies so that they will be like his glorious body.” (Philippians 3:20-21). This clearly states Paul’s belief that our bodies will be transformed – that is, for the believer the “new” body will have continuity with the “old” one.

Paul also implies the empty tomb...

”For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, and that he appeared to Cephas, and then to the Twelve.” (1Corintians 15:3-5)

By stating that Jesus died and was buried Paul implies a tomb in line with Jewish burial customs. If Jesus was raised from the dead, it is implied the tomb is empty. Let me put this way...

1. My daughter went to bed last night (buried).
2. The next morning she woke up and I saw here in the kitchen (raised and seen).

Is it necessary that I also state her bed was empty (empty tomb) for us to understand that her bed was empty? No it isn’t. It is implied by statements (1) and (2) that here bed is empty (empty tomb). It’s basic reasoning.

Actually, Bishop Wright wrote the following referring to Moule’s exposition of Jesus’ spiritual resurrection: “Though Moule is no doubt right that Paul can envisage here the possibility of 'exchange' (i.e. losing one body, getting another one) rather than 'addition', as in 1 Corinthians 15, we should not lose sight of the fact that even if such an 'exchange' were to take place the new body would be more than the present one.” (N.T. Wright, The Resurrection of the Son of God).

This is funny because Richard Carrier quotes the exact same thing from Wright in Carrier’s FAQ found here (scroll down to the fourth question). You need to expand your reading beyond Carrier. At least if you are going to cut and paste his sound bites you should give Carrier the credit and not try to come off as though you’ve actually read the work of Wright you’ve cited. We all know you haven’t.

In short, Wright admits that Moule's understanding of Paul in 1 Cor 15 can be validly interpreted that way, although it's not his favored interpretation. As for the “new body being “more than the present one” this is compatible with the new incorruptible spiritual body compared with the corruptible old body.

I read Carrier’s analysis in the link above. Carrier is as baffled as you are. Carried seems to think that because Wright argues from the position of a possibility where “even if” that possibility were assumed true that this means Wright has conceded Carrier’s argument. Strange reasoning to say the least.

What Carrier (and you) can’t seem to get his head around is the concept of continuity between the old body and the new one. That is what Paul meant and is perfectly compatible with the Gospels. Paul does not imply a spiritual resurrection but rather a physical one. Take for instance Romans 1…

”Paul, a servant of Christ Jesus, called to be an apostle and set apart for the gospel of God— the gospel he promised beforehand through his prophets in the Holy Scriptures regarding his Son, who as to his earthly life was a descendant of David, and who through the Spirit of holiness was appointed the Son of God in power by his resurrection from the dead: Jesus Christ our Lord.” (Romans 1:1-4)

As already mentioned by GioD the Greek word used for resurrection is anastasis which means raised to life again. It is derived from the word anistēmi which means to raise up as in stand up again. To interpret it as anything other than a physical resurrection is strained. You really need to deal with this and stop ignoring it.

Additionally we have neutral testimony from Festus, as recorded by Luke, that Paul claimed Jesus was alive after being dead.

”When [Paul’s] accusers got up to speak, they did not charge him with any of the crimes I had expected. Instead, they had some points of dispute with him about their own religion and about a dead man named Jesus who Paul claimed was alive.” (Acts 25:18-19)

Everything Paul writes is compatible with Jesus’ corpse remaining on earth to decay. It cannot be maintained that Paul knew of, or believed in, a missing corpse. There is insufficient evidence to support this notion and no reason to think it likely given the prevailing Hellenized culture at the time.

Pharisees held to the resurrection of the dead (Acts 23:8). Paul was a Pharisee (Acts 23:6, Philippians 3:5). Therefore Paul held to the resurrection of the dead.

So far we have three lines of evidence to support Paul’s belief in a bodily resurrection of Jesus.

1. Formerly being a Pharisee Paul likely held to a physical resurrection.
2. Paul’s references to Jesus physical resurrection (Romans 1, etc).
3. Festus, a neutral party, reporting Paul’s claims that Jesus was alive after being dead.

[sp1ke0kill3r]

Quote Originally posted by sp1ke0kill3r
if Price is right First Corinthian 15;3-11 is full of interpolations and I would add useless data: the mysterious 500.
Price is blatantly wrong.

How so?


As William O. Walker points out: Walker just showed he had no idea what he was talking about. Let's see the problems:

1) There is not one iota of reliable textual or paleographic evidence that Paul taught something unorthodox.

I see you've been to Sunday school. It's telling you use the word "reliable". Good way to dismiss what you don't like.


2) "Historical winners" is nothing but a term neo-Gnostics and skeptics like to use to whine when something they don't like is in the Canon. It doesn't matter who won, it matters who is true, and there is no evidence whatsoever that the unorthodox interpretations were correct.

Certainly it's more than a term. It's a recognition of the fact that winners rarely write a fair history, if only because they view the events from a unique vantage point. What unorthodox interpretations? Do you believe Paul wrote the 14 letters attributed to him? If so, so much for scholarly consensus!

3) The Catholic Church didn't destroy any manuscripts. They ordered the destruction of Arius' works but that is it. The lack of 1st century
manuscripts is simply due to wear and tear

Let's see how does not destroying "any manuscripts" fit with ordering the destruction of certain manuscript? A desperately thin distinction. Kind of like the Nazi's didn't kill any Jews they just ordered it. Who do you think carried out those orders? Was it "neo-Gnostics and skeptics"? And how would you be capable of making such a definitive statement? Why only order the destruction of one set of purportedly heretical works and not others?

Lets look at what the Catholic Encyclopedia has to say on the matter:

Heresy, being a deadly poison generated within the organism of the Church, must be ejected if she is to live and perform her task of continuing Christ's work of salvation. ….The power, then, of expelling heresy is an essential factor in the constitution of the Church. Like other powers and rights, the power of rejecting heresy adapts itself in practice to circumstances of time and place, and, especially, of social and political conditions. At the beginning it worked without special organization. The ancient discipline charged the bishops with the duty of searching out the heresies in their diocese and checking the progress of error by any means at their command. When erroneous doctrines gathered volume and threatened disruption of the Church, the bishops assembled in councils, provincial, metropolitan, national, or ecumenical. There the combined weight of their authority was brought to bear upon the false doctrines"

4) The idea that we need the text of the first century manuscripts to tell what the letters actually said is asinine.

Someone forgot to let Dan Wallace in on that. Concerning the discovery of a first century section of Mark, Wallace writes "How do these manuscripts change what we believe the original New Testament to say? We will have to wait until they are published next year..." While he believes it will confirm what is already in the NT, he doesn't confuse his religious sentiments, unlike SOME people- with what the facts might tell him and dismiss the prospect of some problem out of hand.
5) Walker cries "conspiracy" to explain that every 2nd and 3rd century Pauline letter teaches orthodox views of Christianity. Such a conspiracy, however, would be impossible to enact by any means of the time.

You have the question exactly backwards. It's not whether the "Pauline letters teach orthodox views" but whether Paul himself taught orthodox views. Considering that three to six of the letters attributed to Paul are considered forgeries and contain views
contradicting his genuine writings- it's... what's the word...., asinine to think he did.

[sp1ke0kill3r]

I don't know what you mean when you (1) assign truth values to them and then (2) assert that they constitute a contradiction.

Do we need to assign truth values to them? Are their status as facts in doubt?

[sp1ke0kill3r]

What is your evidence for that?

Evidence for what? Don't think I made any claim requiring evidence. The clue is that I said "if Price is right" this means Price presented evidence and argument for the proposition that First Corinthian 15;3-11 is full of interpolations. So the evidence is Prices. You do understand that, don't you?

[sp1ke0kill3r]

What is your evidence for that?

Now if you're asking what is Price's evidence for that, try this http://lmgtfy.com/?q=robert+price+first+corinthians

[GioD]

How so?

I am not conceding this point, but I will answer it separately because I do not have access to my library right now.

I see you've been to Sunday school. It's telling you use the word "reliable". Good way to dismiss what you don't like.

In other words, you're willing to use admittedly non-reliable sources because they support your agenda.

Certainly it's more than a term. It's a recognition of the fact that winners rarely write a fair history, if only because they view the events from a unique vantage point. What unorthodox interpretations? Do you believe Paul wrote the 14 letters attributed to him? If so, so much for scholarly consensus!

Does this challenge what I said at all? You need to demonstrate that there is reason to believe the unorthodox interpretations have any historical merit. You can't just whine that they "lost" or whatever. Studying them may be useful for some reasons, but it is generally accepted they don't have anything to tell us about the historical Jesus or Paul.

Let's see how does not destroying "any manuscripts" fit with ordering the destruction of certain manuscript? A desperately thin distinction. Kind of like the Nazi's didn't kill any Jews they just ordered it. Who do you think carried out those orders? Was it "neo-Gnostics and skeptics"? And how would you be capable of making such a definitive statement? Why only order the destruction of one set of purportedly heretical works and not others?

The Church didn't even order it.

Lets look at what the Catholic Encyclopedia has to say on the matter:

Heresy, being a deadly poison generated within the organism of the Church, must be ejected if she is to live and perform her task of continuing Christ's work of salvation. ….The power, then, of expelling heresy is an essential factor in the constitution of the Church. Like other powers and rights, the power of rejecting heresy adapts itself in practice to circumstances of time and place, and, especially, of social and political conditions. At the beginning it worked without special organization. The ancient discipline charged the bishops with the duty of searching out the heresies in their diocese and checking the progress of error by any means at their command. When erroneous doctrines gathered volume and threatened disruption of the Church, the bishops assembled in councils, provincial, metropolitan, national, or ecumenical. There the combined weight of their authority was brought to bear upon the false doctrines"

How does this support you at all? Complete non-sequitur. Also, much of the Church's teaching on Heresy was developed after the Protestant Reformation. You would have to give evidence that radical measures were encouraged in the first 4 centuries of the Church's existence.

Someone forgot to let Dan Wallace in on that. Concerning the discovery of a first century section of Mark, Wallace writes "How do these manuscripts change what we believe the original New Testament to say? We will have to wait until they are published next year..." While he believes it will confirm what is already in the NT, he doesn't confuse his religious sentiments, unlike SOME people- with what the facts might tell him and dismiss the prospect of some problem out of hand.

Another case of not challenging what I had to say. Can you please try to comprehend what I'm saying?

You have the question exactly backwards. It's not whether the "Pauline letters teach orthodox views" but whether Paul himself taught orthodox views. Considering that three to six of the letters attributed to Paul are considered forgeries and contain views
contradicting his genuine writings- it's... what's the word...., asinine to think he did.

First of all I think there is good reason to believe a good many of Paul's letters are authentic. Regardless, even if we exclude our sources of doctrine to those that are confirmed authentic then we still see clear corroboration with orthodox views.

[sp1ke0kill3r]

I am not conceding this point, but I will answer it separately because I do not have access to my library right now.

But you've already anounced the conclusion of your consideration of the evidence.Why do you need a library to tell you
what you think?? unless your talking out of your ass.





In other words, you're willing to use admittedly non-reliable sources because they support your agenda.

Bit of a freudian slip, huh!My agenda ROTFL! sounds alot like your description of Walker's use of conspiracy.
You seem to have some strange compulsion to lable everything as if describing something as reliable or an agenda makes it so.
Do you lack that much confidence in the substance of what you claim that using "reliable" to describe it, magically makes it
so?



Does this challenge what I said at all?
You bet it does!

You need to demonstrate that there is reason to believe the unorthodox interpretations have any historical merit. You can't just whine that they "lost" or whatever. Studying them may be useful for some reasons, but it is generally accepted they don't have anything to tell us about the historical Jesus or Paul.

No I don't "need to demonstrate that there is reason to believe the unorthodox interpretations have any historical merit" Why? Because I never claimed they did. However, I do recognize that the absence of first century texts leaves plenty of
room for changes. Further, since the pseudograpic works attributed to Paul do contain orthodox views and those views do contradict
those in Paul's actual letters, I would surmise that Paul didn't those particular views.


"The Church didn't even order it."

Except you claimed they did. To wit,
" They ordered the destruction of Arius' works but that is it.'

Now while the US constitution protects a man from being a witness against himself, it does not apply here. So please explain
how the church "ordered the destruction of Arius' works" but didn't. We'll wait for you to access your library.

How does this support you at all? Complete non-sequitur. Also, much of the Church's teaching on Heresy was developed after the Protestant Reformation. You would have to give evidence that radical measures were encouraged in the first 4 centuries of the Church's existence.

Nope, all I need to do is acknowledge what the church says of itself:
"At the beginning it worked without special organization. The ancient discipline charged the bishops with the duty of searching out the heresies in their diocese and checking the progress of error by any means at their command.'

Now if there's doubt about what's, meant by "At the begining", TCE tells us
" The first council was a meeting of the Apostles at Jerusalem in order to put an end to the judaizing tendencies among the first Christians." It is the type of all succeeding councils: bishops in union with the head of the Church, and guided by the Holy Ghost, sit as judges in matters of faith and morals. The spirit which animates the dealings of the Church with heresy and heretics is one of extreme severity. "

'Another case of not challenging what I had to say. Can you please try to comprehend what I'm saying?"

Well if English is your second language, perhaps you need to return to your library. Becuase you said and I quote
"The idea that we need the text of the first century manuscripts to tell what the letters actually said is asinine."

I pointed out that Dan Wallace doesn't agree with that analysis since he argues These manuscripts might "change what we believe the original New Testament[had] to say" Now that is completely consonant with Walker's claim about No Pauline text before the third century.That is, there may very well be great differences




"First of all I think there is good reason to believe a good many of Paul's letters are authentic. Regardless, even if we exclude our sources of doctrine to those that are confirmed authentic then we still see clear corroboration with orthodox views."

Indeed! Except with orthodox view rooted in the inauthentic letters

[GioD]

I am not conceding this point, but I will answer it separately because I do not have access to my library right now.

But you've already anounced the conclusion of your consideration of the evidence.Why do you need a library to tell you
what you think?? unless your talking out of your ass.

I'm talking about my personal library. While I have read Price and an in-depth critique of him, I did not have access to it (I don't now either) and haven't memorized the argument against him.

Bit of a freudian slip, huh!My agenda ROTFL! sounds alot like your description of Walker's use of conspiracy.

He does appeal to a conspiracy.

Do you lack that much confidence in the substance of what you claim that using "reliable" to describe it, magically makes it
so?

I know my sources are reliable because they represent the mainstream of scholarship on most issues. Where they do diverge from the mainstream I have strong arguments in their favor.

You bet it does!

Explain, idiot.

No I don't "need to demonstrate that there is reason to believe the unorthodox interpretations have any historical merit" Why? Because I never claimed they did. However, I do recognize that the absence of first century texts leaves plenty of
room for changes. Further, since the pseudograpic works attributed to Paul do contain orthodox views and those views do contradict
those in Paul's actual letters, I would surmise that Paul didn't those particular views.

1) The statement "the absence of first century texts leaves plenty of room for changes" is completely false. Every credible textual scholar - including Bart Ehrman - agrees we can be fairly certain of major doctrinal teachings even though we don't have the originals.
2) The authentic letters of Paul do teach orthodox views
3) The idea that just because the "inauthentic" letters teach orthodoxy that we should be more on the lookout for interpolations on doctrine in Pauline letters is absurd, and shows conspiracy-level thinking again.

Now while the US constitution protects a man from being a witness against himself, it does not apply here. So please explain
how the church "ordered the destruction of Arius' works" but didn't. We'll wait for you to access your library.

They didn't order the destruction of manuscripts. You're confusing what I said.

Nope, all I need to do is acknowledge what the church says of itself:
"At the beginning it worked without special organization. The ancient discipline charged the bishops with the duty of searching out the heresies in their diocese and checking the progress of error by any means at their command.'

So? None of this is any indication they let the Bishops burn heretical manuscripts that were privately owned.

That is, there may very well be great differences

No, there may not. Even Bart Ehrman agrees there were no major doctrinal changes from the first century manuscripts to the third century ones. Wallace may be attributing the significance for finding other scribal changes and errors, or maybe the passage the fragment contains is more controversial.

Indeed! Except with orthodox view rooted in the inauthentic letters

Actually rooted in the authentic ones.

[Doug Shaver]

The only trouble is no naturalistic explanation can account for the combination of every fact. Each entails the denial of another fact.

That cannot happen. What can happen is, a statement purporting to be factual can deny another statement purporting to be factual, but then at least one of those statements has to be false. No actual fact can contradict another actual fact.

sure it can facts can contradict each other.: Night and day are both facts and they contradict each other. Perhaps you meant to say something else. Perhaps you mean a thing can't be both itself and not itself at the same time and in the same respect, but that is different than what you said.

OK. So, are day and night both true? Both false? One true and other false? Or none of the above?

Uhmm both true. Isn't that obvious?

Not to me, it isn't.

Why's that?

Because I don't know what you mean.

You don't know what night and day are ore are you not sure of their status as facts?

I don't know what you mean when you (1) assign truth values to them and then (2) assert that they constitute a contradiction.

Do we need to assign truth values to them? Are their status as facts in doubt?

You seem to be conflating reality with what we may say about it. Reality just is; it makes no sense to attribute truth or falsity to it, because the notion of a false reality is incoherent. Truth and falsity are properties of statements, or of the propositions represented by statements. A statement is a declarative sentence uttered in a natural language. As such, it is simply an assertion about reality. If reality actually is as the statement reports it to be, then the statement is true, and otherwise it is false. A true statement reports a fact, but the statement itself is not a fact, and the fact itself is not a statement. That which is reported by a false statement is not a fact.

A contradiction is a statement affirming the conjunction of two statements such that one constitutes or entails the negation of the other.

[Tassman]

Fair enough.

Well yes, any reasonable person would think so. But to set straight those who question Caesar’s authorship of his books – including ‘The Civil Wars’. Caesar's authorship of the three volumes of ‘The Civil Wars” and the rest of Caesar’s voluminous writings (e.g. The Gallic Wars) is not disputed: “I will now say nothing concerning the absurd opinion of those who assert that the following Commentaries on the Civil War were not written by Caesar himself. Even without the authority of Suetonius, the diction itself would be sufficient to convince the most skeptical that Caesar and no other was the author…”

http://www.sacred-texts.com/cla/jcsr/civ1.htm

Re JP Holding’s questioning of the veracity of the Rubicon crossing, there is no reason to assume that the journey between the Ravenna to Ariminum would not be via the shortest route, i.e. the across the Rubicon. It’s not overtly stated but it’s the most probable explanation. And as there are no miraculous components as per the resurrection story there is no comparison of the sort JP Holding and his acolytes try to make between the Rubicon crossing and the resurrection in terms of historical veracity.

The evidence still suggests 1st century Jews believed in a physical resurrection. If you want I can expand on this.

Certainly many did. But the Hellenisation of the entire Roman world was ubiquitous. I’ve already quoted Martin Hengel, on the influences of Hellenism on Judaism and he is considered a leading authority on the subject. He argues that all Judaism in this period was Hellenistic Judaism. If you disagree then you need evidence and links. I only know of the likes of JP Holding who could support your position and he is unqualified to make authoritative comment.

Regardless, Paul specifically states in Galatians 1:11-24 that he was not taught the gospel by anyone in the flesh ("I did not consult with flesh and blood”) plus there is no indication that his Damascene encounter with the risen Jesus was a physical one – quite the reverse. Furthermore no eyewitness wrote anything about a physical resurrection or an empty tomb - not Jesus, not Peter, not Mary, not any of the Twelve. No-one! But we have Paul and he claims nothing more than 'revelation’ as do ALL the pre-gospel books including Hebrews.

Another naked assertion. You have to actually explain why my interpretation is forced, you know.

I didn’t say your interpretation was forced. I referred to the fact that many Hellenized Jews believed that the resurrection was when the earthly body of flesh is left behind and a new, superior body rises to eternal life. And it is evidently Paul's view as well. See above.

You do a lot of asserting but not a lot of refuting...

Majority scholarship agrees that the gospel accounts were written long after Paul died, i.e. a generation after Christianity began. There is no evidence of the gospels existing in written form before then. As well we know that none of the gospels were written by eyewitnesses of the events and nor were the events described in them validated by witnesses regarding their accuracy.

More to the point, they describe events not even hinted at by Paul such as an empty tomb plus flesh-and-bone post resurrection appearances (eating fish, walking through walls, being mistaken for a gardener, grasped by the ankles, wounds being poked etc) and furthermore they are contradictory concerning fundamental details. Paul never says the one body becomes the other. He speaks clearly of a resurrected spiritual body, i.e. an exchanging the old body for the new and uses the analogy of discarding an old garment and putting on a new one – among other similar analogies.

Page please? I want to look at this in context.

N.T. Wright, the Resurrection of the Son of God, 2003: p. 367

This is in response to C.F. Moule, "St. Paul and Dualism: The Pauline Conception of the Resurrection," New Testament Studies 12 (1966): 106-23. Dr Richard Carrier cites this in a list of other notable scholars who advocate the “spiritual body” interpretation of Paul. His full argument can be found in its most concise form in his: ‘The Empty Tomb’.

Saying something is "valid" by no means translates into it being more probable than another explanation. Also I note you haven't answered the actual argument on the meaning of pneumatika.

In the Empty Tomb Carrier argues that “psychikos and pneumatikos are adjectives, meaning something is made of, or is like, or shares the properties of the noun they are derived from, in this case psychê and pneuma respectively. Paul calls the resurrected a pneumatikos sôma (i.e. spiritual body) to distinguish this pneuma from "the" Pneuma, or Holy Spirit, which is not a sôma because it is everywhere, whereas a resurrected soul is not.”

How about his use of soma to mean body and anastasis for resurrection, both of which exclusively ment their physical versions at the time?

This is Holding’s contention but he is wrong. “According to the Thesaurus Linguae Graecae, the word anastasis is used over thirty times in extant pagan literature before the time of Christ. Are we to believe these are all in reference to "what is conceptually Jewish resurrection"? Holding's bluff has been called. There simply was no terminological distinction between "kinds" of resurrection in antiquity.” - Carrier, from his rebuttal of Holding’s argument that ‘Christianity Was Too Improbable to be False.’

First of all that is not true. We have good reason to believe oral changes to the content are rare and small. Second of all the problem still applies: in a context where physical resurrection was viewed as worse than a spiritual one (at least amongst the gentiles), how would Christianity continue to gain converts (including educated men) after the switch?

We have no reason to believe that the oral changes in the tradition, as it passed from person to person, were small. Quite the contrary! We know elaborate legends and embellishments can easily evolve in mere decades. There are numerous examples in history.

The only evidence Paul considers necessary for belief in the resurrection are OT references and personal visions such as he himself experienced. At NO point does he refer to fleshly appearances as depicted in the later gospel accounts. This is perfectly consistent with there being no missing body from the tomb and the gospel accounts being embellished versions of the Pauline resurrection appearances of a 'spiritual body'.

[GioD]

Certainly many did. But the Hellenisation of the entire Roman world was ubiquitous. I’ve already quoted Martin Hengel, on the influences of Hellenism on Judaism and he is considered a leading authority on the subject. He argues that all Judaism in this period was Hellenistic Judaism. If you disagree then you need evidence and links.

I was never disputing that Judaism was Hellenized in some respects, simply not with their views on resurrection.

Regardless, Paul specifically states in Galatians 1:11-24 that he was not taught the gospel by anyone in the flesh ("I did not consult with flesh and blood”) plus there is no indication that his Damascene encounter with the risen Jesus was a physical one – quite the reverse.

Damascus can at best (for you) be interpreted both ways equally. Second nowhere in that passage (according to the NIV) is the term "flesh and blood" used. He is saying he didn't receive it from mortal men, interpreting it to mean no physical man and ergo Jesus being a spirit is forced.

Furthermore no eyewitness wrote anything about a physical resurrection or an empty tomb - not Jesus, not Peter, not Mary, not any of the Twelve. No-one!

Argument from silence. By the way a case can be made for John being by John.

More to the point, they describe events not even hinted at by Paul such as an empty tomb plus flesh-and-bone post resurrection appearances (eating fish, walking through walls, being mistaken for a gardener, grasped by the ankles, wounds being poked etc) and furthermore they are contradictory concerning fundamental details.

1) It's honestly just stupid to expect Paul to write about all this
2) Attributing the physicality of Jesus in the Gospels to oral embellishments is letting the conclusion drive the "evidence"
3) Focus on the "fundamental [they weren't so fundamental!] details" was not relevant at the time (besides, most or all of it can be reconciled).

Paul never says the one body becomes the other. He speaks clearly of a resurrected spiritual body, i.e. an exchanging the old body for the new and uses the analogy of discarding an old garment and putting on a new one – among other similar analogies.

Another assertion.

In the Empty Tomb Carrier argues that “psychikos and pneumatikos are adjectives, meaning something is made of, or is like, or shares the properties of the noun they are derived from, in this case psychê and pneuma respectively. Paul calls the resurrected a pneumatikos sôma (i.e. spiritual body) to distinguish this pneuma from "the" Pneuma, or Holy Spirit, which is not a sôma because it is everywhere, whereas a resurrected soul is not.”

Carrier has shown himself largely non-credible in my eyes, and this further proves it. First of all, soma psychikos is used to describe the pre-Resurrection body! How does that make sense? Are both immaterial, but in different senses? Second, adjectives ending in -ikos describe functions, supporting my interpretation!

This is Holding’s contention but he is wrong. “According to the Thesaurus Linguae Graecae, the word anastasis is used over thirty times in extant pagan literature before the time of Christ. Are we to believe these are all in reference to "what is conceptually Jewish resurrection"? Holding's bluff has been called. There simply was no terminological distinction between "kinds" of resurrection in antiquity.” - Carrier, from his rebuttal of Holding’s argument that ‘Christianity Was Too Improbable to be False.’

Carrier as usual provides no details of the appearance of anastasis. I'm not trusting him here. Also Holding was appealing to anastasis' use in the early Christian community, not necessarily the whole Mediterranean.

We have no reason to believe that the oral changes in the tradition, as it passed from person to person, were small.

The fact is, we do. The stories were memorized based around repetition and elements to aid memorizing. There are several points of textual evidence that suggests the stories were told containing these elements. Jesus himself sets a precedent for this. These elements also indicate that the stories were memorized, and in oral traditions memorized storys = less embellishment.

Quite the contrary! We know elaborate legends and embellishments can easily evolve in mere decades. There are numerous examples in history.

So? There are also numerous examples of an oral tradition remaining completely sound. You're using an argument from weak analogy here.

The only evidence Paul considers necessary for belief in the resurrection are OT references and personal visions such as he himself experienced. At NO point does he refer to fleshly appearances as depicted in the later gospel accounts. This is perfectly consistent with there being no missing body from the tomb and the gospel accounts being embellished versions of the Pauline resurrection appearances of a 'spiritual body'.

Why would we expect Paul to write that? The community would have known about it and paper was scarce.

[technomage]

The only trouble is no naturalistic explanation can account for the combination of every fact. Each entails the denial of another fact.

That's not accurate, Giod. An accurate way to state your complaint is "no naturalistic explanation that I accept (or that I can accept) can account for the combination of every fact."

It's my biggest objection to Holding's "The Impossible Faith" argument--his entire argument is an argument from incredulity. He (and you) assert that the things mentioned in the Gospel are "facts" ... well, some of them are, in the sense that most naturalists can accept--but some of the events you cite are not facts: they are assertions.

One big assertion that is difficult to accept as a "fact"--the tomb, empty or not. Victims of crucifixion were normally not buried in a tomb at all: we do have the one instance from Jerusalem (Yehohanan, son of Hagakol), but of the hundreds of thousands, perhaps even millions, of crucified victims in and before Rome's use of the practice, we have never, to my knowledge, found another victim of crucifixion. That's because they were normally left for a period of time pour l'encouragement d'autres, and when they were eventually taken down, they were dumped somewhere.

But then the argument comes in "But why were the apostles and early Christians willing to die for a lie?" You know as well as I do that people are willing to die for sincere but false beliefs.

But then it's one argument stacked on another to the point where, in the mind of the believer, the case should be established, and the skeptics are "denying facts."

Giod, we do not deny facts. We deny unprovable assertions. That you believe these assertions cannot be helped.

[GioD]

That's not accurate, Giod. An accurate way to state your complaint is "no naturalistic explanation that I accept (or that I can accept) can account for the combination of every fact."

It is accurate, to the extent of what I've seen. No explanation - not one I've accepted or rejected - has been able to account for every fact. Now, does that mean they are false? Not in and of itself. But my point was that it simply has not been done. An explanation could entail the denial of some facts the MFM uses and turn out to be true, but so far I haven't seen any that accounts for all the facts of the MFM.

It's my biggest objection to Holding's "The Impossible Faith" argument--his entire argument is an argument from incredulity.

It's more than that. It's based around legitimate information about the society of the time.

He (and you) assert that the things mentioned in the Gospel are "facts" ... well, some of them are, in the sense that most naturalists can accept--but some of the events you cite are not facts: they are assertions.

...Assertions that can be historically justified.

One big assertion that is difficult to accept as a "fact"--the tomb, empty or not. Victims of crucifixion were normally not buried in a tomb at all

Philo and Josephus both report Roman authorities handing over the body to Jewish families for a burial.

we do have the one instance from Jerusalem (Yehohanan, son of Hagakol),

This alone is enough for a strong possibility of Jesus having a tomb.

but of the hundreds of thousands, perhaps even millions, of crucified victims in and before Rome's use of the practice, we have never, to my knowledge, found another victim of crucifixion.

Argument from silence.

That's because they were normally left for a period of time pour l'encouragement d'autres, and when they were eventually taken down, they were dumped somewhere.

The only evidence for this is during periods of military uprising and riots. Not applicable to the time of Christ.

But then the argument comes in "But why were the apostles and early Christians willing to die for a lie?" You know as well as I do that people are willing to die for sincere but false beliefs.

Yes, but it still means they weren't lying. They could have still been wrong, just not lying. By the way this doesn't actually answer your objection - why did you treat it as if Christians used it to?

[Cerebrum123]

But then the argument comes in "But why were the apostles and early Christians willing to die for a lie?" You know as well as I do that people are willing to die for sincere but false beliefs.

I only wanted to respond to this part. The Apostle's are often accused of making Christianity up entirely, why would they die for something they KNEW to be false? This isn't the same as a Muslim today going to the extreme of suicide bombing, because they do sincerely believe that stuff to be true. It's not the same situation.