Constructive criticism - Minimal facts method

[technomage]

then you make a vague appeal to the Midrash, without even backing yourself with a credible secondary interpretation, for the Pharisees being Hellenized on resurrection.

I DID cite my statement!

Aw, crap ... no, I didn't.

The passage is Sanhedrin 11 (you can find a good copy in English here). Look especially for the discussion with Caesar asking Gamaliel a question, and "the daughter of Caesar" answers the question.

Cæsar questioned Rabbon Gamaliel: You say that the dead will be restored. Does not the corpse become dust? How, then, can dust be restored? And the daughter of Cæsar said to R. Gamaliel: Leave the question to me and I myself shall answer it. And she said (to her father): If there were two potters in our city, of whom one should make a pot from water and the other from clay, to which of them would you give preference? And he said: Certainly to him who creates from water; for if he is able to create from water, he is undoubtedly able to create from clay. (And she said: This is an answer to your question.)

We see here, in the Midrash (and in several other places in this chapter) the Rabbis are arguing for a physical resurrection. Now, some of these passages cite the mainsream belief that the resurrection was physical, but some of the Rabbis dissented from that view. The dissenters lost in the end, but the Midrash shows that the debate did exist.

The fact of the matter is, they weren't.

There is a Boraitha: R. Sinai said: The hint of resurrection in the Torah is to be found in [Ex. vi. 4]: "And as I did also establish my covenant with them, to give unto them the land of Canaan." It does not read "to you" (as it should, the patriarchs of that time being already dead), but "to them"--hence this is a hint that they would be restored. The Minim questioned Rabban Gamaliel: Whence do you deduce that the Holy One, blessed be He, would restore the dead? And he answered: From the Pentateuch, Prophets, and Hagiographa. However, they did not accept it. From the Pentateuch--[Deut. xxxi. 16]: "Thou shalt sleep with thy parents 've-qom,'" "and arise." 1 And they answered: Perhaps this word ve-qom is connected with its succeeding words.

You have the primary text right there. I do not mean to argue that ALL pharisees believed in a Greek-style resurrection--merely that the belief existed in the community, and that there were difference of opinion on the matter. You will note that the questioners here are "minim"--the word means "outsider," and while it can refer to a Gentile who lives in the Jewish community, it usually means "heretic." These are Jews who did not hold to the party line ... but they are still Jews.

No offense intended (and I again apologize for the inconvenience on this) but unless you can give quotes I'm going to side with Wright on this one.

Wright is good--he's not perfect ... and occasionally, he pushes his thesis too hard. I have to go with the primary quotes on this.

[Juice]

Sorry to hear about your housing situation. Bummer! I hope things work out for you. Anywho...

The passage is Sanhedrin 11 (you can find a good copy in English here). Look especially for the discussion with Caesar asking Gamaliel a question, and "the daughter of Caesar" answers the question.

Cæsar questioned Rabbon Gamaliel: You say that the dead will be restored. Does not the corpse become dust? How, then, can dust be restored? And the daughter of Cæsar said to R. Gamaliel: Leave the question to me and I myself shall answer it. And she said (to her father): If there were two potters in our city, of whom one should make a pot from water and the other from clay, to which of them would you give preference? And he said: Certainly to him who creates from water; for if he is able to create from water, he is undoubtedly able to create from clay. (And she said: This is an answer to your question.)

We see here, in the Midrash (and in several other places in this chapter) the Rabbis are arguing for a physical resurrection. Now, some of these passages cite the mainsream belief that the resurrection was physical, but some of the Rabbis dissented from that view. The dissenters lost in the end, but the Midrash shows that the debate did exist.

As you say it assumes a physical resurrection by asking ”How, then, can dust be restored?". Where in this chapter is the dissent from that view though?

I read the link and unless I missed it I could not find anything about, as you put it earlier, a “Greek-style ‘spiritual body’” resurrection. The debate you speak of here seems to be over whether there will be a resurrection which is nothing new to us (cf. Acts 23:8). The debate does not appear to be over the nature of the resurrection body – i.e. whether it is material or immaterial. It seems the main question is ”Where is resurrection hinted at in the Torah?” as your next quote shows. Indeed, it seems to be assumed by both sides that if there will be a resurrection that it will be a physical one.

There is a Boraitha: R. Sinai said: The hint of resurrection in the Torah is to be found in [Ex. vi. 4]: "And as I did also establish my covenant with them, to give unto them the land of Canaan." It does not read "to you" (as it should, the patriarchs of that time being already dead), but "to them"--hence this is a hint that they would be restored. The Minim questioned Rabban Gamaliel: Whence do you deduce that the Holy One, blessed be He, would restore the dead? And he answered: From the Pentateuch, Prophets, and Hagiographa. However, they did not accept it. From the Pentateuch--[Deut. xxxi. 16]: "Thou shalt sleep with thy parents 've-qom,'" "and arise." 1 And they answered: Perhaps this word ve-qom is connected with its succeeding words.

You have the primary text right there. I do not mean to argue that ALL pharisees believed in a Greek-style resurrection--merely that the belief existed in the community, and that there were difference of opinion on the matter.

Some points about the texts you’ve cited:

1. They do not seem to show there was debate over the nature of the resurrected body – i.e. whether it was physical or spiritual. Indeed it seems to be assumed it will be physical.
2. These texts were written down in the second century and were based in oral tradition. According to your arguments earlier with GioD this gives us reason to think they may not be an accurate representation of 1st centery Jewish belief because there was enough time for the oral tradition to change. For you to argue otherwise would be a blatant case of Special Pleading.
3. Ultimately they are a Red Herring. To interpret Paul we need to turn to Paul first.

As a side note purely for the sake of interest I found the following quote from your link interesting:

”Queen Cleopatra questioned R. Mair thus: I am aware that the dead will be restored. As it reads [Ps. lxxii. 16]: "And (men) shall blossom out of the city like herbs of the earth." My question, however, is: When they shall be restored, will they be naked or dressed? And he answered: This may be drawn by an a fortiori conclusion from wheat. A grain of wheat which is buried naked comes out dressed in so many garments: the upright, who are buried in their dress, so much the more shall they come out dressed in many garments.”

Setting aside for the moment this again assumes a physical resurrection, it seems reminiscent of Paul...

”You fool! The seed you plant does not come to life unless it dies, and what you plant is not the form that it will be, but a bare kernel, whether it is wheat or something else.” (1 Corinthians

[technomage]

As you say it assumes a physical resurrection by asking ”How, then, can dust be restored?". Where in this chapter is the dissent from that view though?

Juice, why offer a counter-argument to an argument that does not exist?

In some ways, some of the discussions in the Midrash perform the same function as apologetics--that wasn't their primary function, of course, but it was one function (among many others). The Midrashic arguments are very careful to establish that (a) yes, there is a resurrection discussed in the Torah, and (b) this resurrection is physical. They rarely, if ever, give any of the arguments that these Midrash are responding to (though they frequently discuss differences of orthodox opinions where they exist).

Note that there are no direct arguments against Christians or Christian doctrines in the entire Talmud. (Well, take my word for it for the moment, as checking the entire Talmud would be the process of many years of study.) The editors of the Talmud do not list the arguments of their opponents--they simply state (for instance, and this is a paraphrase, not a quote) that people who believe that God has a partner (which would include the concept of a son), or that God ever took on flesh, have no portion in the Olam Ha-Ba. Of course you cannot argue, and would not attempt to argue, that the editors of the Talmud were unaware of Christian doctrine ... but the above paraphrase is the closes they get to discussing it directly.

[*]They do not seem to show there was debate over the nature of the resurrected body – i.e. whether it was physical or spiritual. Indeed it seems to be assumed it will be physical.

I hope the above will establish that my argument is reasonable. I of course cannot establish absolute proof, but I think we can consider the possibility.

[*]These texts were written down in the second century and were based in oral tradition. According to your arguments earlier with GioD this gives us reason to think they may not be an accurate representation of 1st centery Jewish belief because there was enough time for the oral tradition to change.

It certainly does, and in my argument, I am making the best case I can with the available evidence. (Though, as I told GioD, with the combination of written material and oral material, the Jewish tradition was a tradition with oral elements--it cannot be considered an "oral tradition" in the same sense the early Christians were.) If there was more extant writing available, I could make the argument more strongly, or seen any errors before I made it.

You've already voiced problems that you see with Philo and Josephus ... but I posit to you that excluding the two of them is not only premature, but in error. Philo and Josephus are good examples of "Hellenized Judaism"--they do not worship Greek Gods, but they do accept certain element of Greek philosophy and attempt to use that philosophy both as a method of understanding their scriptures, and as a method of explaining their beliefs to the Gentiles. The presence of the Septuagint should also stand as evidence that there was considerable influence of Hellenic thought in Jewish culture.

[*]Ultimately they are a Red Herring. To interpret Paul we need to turn to Paul first.

Actually, this part I never disagreed with ... I think it is important to be aware of the Greek influence on Jewish thinking of Paul's time, but it is not the primary source of information in interpreting Paul (or the rest of the New Testament).

As a side note purely for the sake of interest I found the following quote from your link interesting:

”Queen Cleopatra questioned R. Mair thus: I am aware that the dead will be restored. As it reads [Ps. lxxii. 16]: "And (men) shall blossom out of the city like herbs of the earth." My question, however, is: When they shall be restored, will they be naked or dressed? And he answered: This may be drawn by an a fortiori conclusion from wheat. A grain of wheat which is buried naked comes out dressed in so many garments: the upright, who are buried in their dress, so much the more shall they come out dressed in many garments.”

Setting aside for the moment this again assumes a physical resurrection, it seems reminiscent of Paul...

”You fool! The seed you plant does not come to life unless it dies, and what you plant is not the form that it will be, but a bare kernel, whether it is wheat or something else.” (1 Corinthians

I also noted that similarity, and it is quite interesting, but not surprising. Remember, Paul was a Pharisee--and it was the Pharisees who (after the fall of Jerusalem) largely survived to become the Rabbinical tradition that survives to this day.

[Juice]

In some ways, some of the discussions in the Midrash perform the same function as apologetics--that wasn't their primary function, of course, but it was one function (among many others). The Midrashic arguments are very careful to establish that (a) yes, there is a resurrection discussed in the Torah, and (b) this resurrection is physical. They rarely, if ever, give any of the arguments that these Midrash are responding to (though they frequently discuss differences of orthodox opinions where they exist).

Well, clearly you overstated your case earlier when you wrote:

We see here, in the Midrash (and in several other places in this chapter) the Rabbis are arguing for a physical resurrection. Now, some of these passages cite the mainsream belief that the resurrection was physical, but some of the Rabbis dissented from that view. The dissenters lost in the end, but the Midrash shows that the debate did exist.

And when you also argued that…

We know that the Pharisees accepted [the resurrection], but (according to the discussions in the Midrash) did not have a consensus on what it meant, with some of them arguing for a Greek-style "spiritual body."

Clearly that is not the case. It's not even close to being accurate. At least not in the source you linked to.

Note that there are no direct arguments against Christians or Christian doctrines in the entire Talmud. (Well, take my word for it for the moment, as checking the entire Talmud would be the process of many years of study.) The editors of the Talmud do not list the arguments of their opponents--they simply state (for instance, and this is a paraphrase, not a quote) that people who believe that God has a partner (which would include the concept of a son), or that God ever took on flesh, have no portion in the Olam Ha-Ba. Of course you cannot argue, and would not attempt to argue, that the editors of the Talmud were unaware of Christian doctrine ... but the above paraphrase is the closes they get to discussing it directly.

You are dodging here. Where is the debate in the Midrash over the nature of the resurrected body that you claimed was there? It’s either there or it isn’t. As far as I can see, it isn't there. It isn't even kinda there.

I hope the above will establish that my argument is reasonable. I of course cannot establish absolute proof, but I think we can consider the possibility.

In other words, the Midrash doesn’t show a debate between the Pharisees over the nature of the resurrected body as you claimed. Instead, we must just “consider the possibility.” Sorry, that don’t fly.

It certainly does, and in my argument, I am making the best case I can with the available evidence. (Though, as I told GioD, with the combination of written material and oral material, the Jewish tradition was a tradition with oral elements--it cannot be considered an "oral tradition" in the same sense the early Christians were.) If there was more extant writing available, I could make the argument more strongly, or seen any errors before I made it.

Like I said, blatant Special Pleading. I’m simply amazed you don’t see it.

You've already voiced problems that you see with Philo and Josephus ... but I posit to you that excluding the two of them is not only premature, but in error. Philo and Josephus are good examples of "Hellenized Judaism"--they do not worship Greek Gods, but they do accept certain element of Greek philosophy and attempt to use that philosophy both as a method of understanding their scriptures, and as a method of explaining their beliefs to the Gentiles. The presence of the Septuagint should also stand as evidence that there was considerable influence of Hellenic thought in Jewish culture.

I looked at the works from Josephus where he allegedly speaks of his belief in a spiritual body resurrection in this post. And found once again the evidence did not even come close to supporting the assertion made that Josephus believed in a spiritual resurrection. No one has given anything from Philo yet so I can’t comment on him. But feel free to present the evidence if you have it.

As for the Septuagint. I’m not sure how its existence proves there was “considerable influence of Hellenic thought in Jewish culture.” Apparently it was originally translated for Jews living in Alexandria that primarily spoke Greek. If that was the case wouldn’t that be like translating a Quran into English for Muslims in the United Sates that may only read/write English? Would that be evidence that there is considerable influence of Western thought in Muslim culture? I don’t think so. Seems like a non-sequitur to me.

Actually, this part I never disagreed with ... I think it is important to be aware of the Greek influence on Jewish thinking of Paul's time, but it is not the primary source of information in interpreting Paul (or the rest of the New Testament).

Then why even argue the Greek influence on Jewish thinking if you do not wish to imply, in the case at hand, that Paul believed in a spiritual resurrection? What’s the point then? Is it just a grand diversion?

[technomage]

Well, clearly you overstated your case earlier when you wrote:

In combination with Josephus and Philo, I do not believe that it can be said that I "overstated my case." I believe I have a firm case for my arguments, though I agree it's not iron-clad.

You are dodging here. Where is the debate in the Midrash over the nature of the resurrected body that you claimed was there?

Where is the debate with Christianity that we know was there? The Midrash does not do what most Greek apologetes did--the Midrash does not give the dissenting arguments.

I've already pointed out some of the examples. This pattern is noted throughout the Midrash--they even call some of the teachers they argue against by an acronym that means "May his name be blotted out," and they give no parsing of the heretical teachings, just an affirmation of the orthodox ones.

Juice, it may not be a pattern you are familiar with, but go as a Rabbi who is familiar with the Talmud: the teachings of the Minim are not to be dwelt upon, and the Midrash frequently omits them while presenting the counter-arguments.

[Juice]

In combination with Josephus and Philo, I do not believe that it can be said that I "overstated my case." I believe I have a firm case for my arguments, though I agree it's not iron-clad.

Why? Does Josephus portray the Pharisees as debating over the nature of the resurrection body as you erroneously claimed the Midrash does? Not as far as I can tell.

Where is the debate with Christianity that we know was there? The Midrash does not do what most Greek apologetes did--the Midrash does not give the dissenting arguments.

Again without a quote and source we just have to take your word for it. Based upon what you have claimed regarding the Midrash, I’ve lost confidence in you in this respect. Also, you seem quite certain there was a debate with Christianity on this point but the Talmud is quite cryptic. Some think there was a debate, some think the Jews didn’t really care much about Christianity.

In either case, your argument fails anyway. Firstly, using your logic we would expect there to be at least one side of the argument in the Midrash – i.e. the side of the argument that argues for a physical resurrection. But that side isn’t argued at all. It’s just assumed the resurrection is physical. As though it wasn’t even a question, not even in the minds of those who dissent from the resurrection itself. That’s probably because there was no debate over the nature of the resurrection body among the Pharisees. The actual argument had to do with whether or not there is a resurrection at all.

Secondly, you assert the Midrash does not give the dissenting arguments. But it does clearly give the dissenting arguments for there not being a resurrection. Your assertion appears false.

I've already pointed out some of the examples. This pattern is noted throughout the Midrash--they even call some of the teachers they argue against by an acronym that means "May his name be blotted out," and they give no parsing of the heretical teachings, just an affirmation of the orthodox ones.

Assuming this is true it would make it difficult to know what the heretical views actually were.

Juice, it may not be a pattern you are familiar with, but go as a Rabbi who is familiar with the Talmud: the teachings of the Minim are not to be dwelt upon, and the Midrash frequently omits them while presenting the counter-arguments.

In addition to learning German, now you’ve got me travelling to see a Rabbi.

Maybe the evidence you are looking for just doesn't exist?

[Tassman]

I suppose in some sense some were Hellenized, the Septuagint is evidence enough of that. Just as I suppose we could say a person born into a Muslim family in the United States that reads an English version of the Quran is “Westernized” too. Does this mean the Muslim would no longer retain the unique identity of being Muslim though? Is the Muslim “thoroughly Westernized” because he wears blue-jeans, likes action movies, and speaks English even though he may pray five times a day, observe Ramadan, and go to a Mosque regularly? Does it mean the Muslim would view Mohammed’s status as a prophet through the lens of Westernized culture? Not at all. You seem to want us to believe that there was, in your words, “no difference” between Jewish and Greek cultures at the time of Christ. That’s utterly laughable.

You’re flogging a dead horse as is seen in your debate with Technomage where you are reduced to repetitious “what if’s...” and “how do you know’s…?” etc and little contribution of your own. In short, whining! There is no doubt that the Hellenization of the Roman Empire was ubiquitous, particularly among the educated. There is no indication that Paul was not among them as an educated Pharisee, and evidence in his own writings that he was.

http://religiousstudies.uncc.edu/peo...man-world.html

And there is simply no indication that Jesus, appearing to Paul on the road to Damascus, was necessarily an immaterial spirit. It is a grand non-sequitur to argue that a bright light, which was seen by Paul’s companions by the way, necessarily implies a spirit. We simply do not have enough data to infer anything concrete here.

But since you seem to accept Luke’s reporting of Paul’s experience on the road to Damascus I’ll, again, quote to you where Luke document Paul’s preaching...

“The people of Jerusalem and their rulers did not recognize Jesus, yet in condemning him they fulfilled the words of the prophets that are read every Sabbath. Though they found no proper ground for a death sentence, they asked Pilate to have him executed. When they had carried out all that was written about him, they took him down from the cross and laid him in a tomb. But God raised him from the dead, and for many days he was seen by those who had traveled with him from Galilee to Jerusalem. They are now his witnesses to our people.” – Paul, as recorded by Luke (Acts 13:27-30)

How much more unambiguous are you wanting?

Paul in his own writing merely describes his experience as having seen the risen Christ – nothing more than that. You assert that It was not “necessarily an immaterial spirit” but all indications are that it was. There is no evidence to the contrary.

By the time we get to the “blinding light” tradition of Acts we are into the second generation of Christian embellishment – but even then the author gives no more than a contradictory account and a reference to a bright light. No mention of a physical presence!

So yes, it’s pretty ambiguous. Why do you pretend otherwise?

Except Paul’s letters do imply a physical resurrection of Jesus. You’ve been given one example in Romans 1 which you’ve ignored. Here I’ll give you some more to chew on…

”For we know that since Christ was raised from the dead, he cannot die again; death no longer has mastery over him.” (Romans 6:9)

”And if the Spirit of him who raised Jesus from the dead is living in you, he who raised Christ from the dead will also give life to your mortal bodies because of his Spirit who lives in you.” (Romans 8:11)

”More than that, we are then found to be false witnesses about God, for we have testified about God that he raised Christ from the dead. But he did not raise him if in fact the dead are not raised.” (1 Corinthians 15:15)

”But Christ has indeed been raised from the dead, the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep.” (1 Corinthians 15:20)

”And [Jesus] died for all, that those who live should no longer live for themselves but for him who died for them and was raised again.” (2 Corinthians 5:15)

There is a big pink elephant in your room Tassman. It is all the references in his letter's where Paul implies a physical resurrection and his preaching found in Acts.

Your very best efforts can never find more than “implications”, NEVER explicit references. This alone speaks volumes. And even then such references cannot stand on their own merits but can only be seen as “implicit” when viewed through the lens of the later tradition - i.e. the gospels and the late forged epistles ALL written after Paul’s death. Paul never states a belief in a fleshly resurrection and he implies it only in your own mind and in the later tradition of the Church.

ALL the analogies, which you are offering as proof texts re a physical body, are better understood as referring to a spiritual body, according to those who are familiar with the Koine Greek. Neither JP Holding, nor you nor I are among them. I prefer to stick with experts not apologist hacks with an agenda.

You seem so certain the Gallic Wars was authored by Caesar but seem reluctant to explain your methodology for establishing the authorship of an ancient text. Could it be because you don’t have a coherent one?

A complete non sequitur which in no way relates to my comment, namely: "Re John, I know of no convincing argument (including Bauckhman's) of eyewitness reportage in the gospels sufficient to overturn the prevailing assumption of the accounts of Jesus being circulated and embellished as anonymous community traditions before being transcribed”.

Re the Gallic Wars authorship, there is no doubt among scholars that they were authored by Caesar. I don't have to justify established scholarly opinion.

The main purpose of Paul’s letters was to bring correction and encouragement to the churches under his care. Why would he also include details about Jesus’ life that the readers would have already known about?

And the basis of this bare assertion is………….?

Further, it ignores Paul’s central message being Jesus’ resurrection. It would make much more sense to include Jesus’ post-resurrection activities on earth and makes no sense to omit them. Preachers today don’t ignore the details of Jesus post mortem appearances; they reinforce the message of his triumph over death. This would apply even more so for Paul preaching a new, gospel.

Except Paul doesn’t imply a spiritual resurrection, he implies a physical one as the evidence I’ve given shows. So your theory is dead in the starting blocks as the beginning premise is false. That warm air you feel on the back of your neck is from that big pink elephant standing behind you.

The second Christian generation writes explicitly of a flesh and bone post resurrection Jesus but ALL you can come up with to support your assertion is that the first generation of writers (i.e. Paul and the other early epistle writers) merely “implies” it. What’s wrong with this picture? There are NO explicit references of fleshly, post-resurrection appearances among the first generation of writers because the tradition had not yet evolved - nor were there implied references.

Your opinion is noted. However, they don’t need to be reconciled to establish a resurrection any more than we need to reconcile the plethora of contradictions among the accounts of Caesar’s assassination to infer it.

Oh, back to your favorite mantra.

With established historical figures like Caesar we have multiple pieces of evidence, multiple types of evidence, multiple sources of evidence, independence of sources, contemporary evidence and the internal consistency of the available evidence – i.e. the essentials for verifying beyond doubt the existence of an historical figure. It is established beyond a shadow of doubt that Caesar existed; it is not established beyond a shadow of doubt that the miracle-working god/man Jesus existed (as opposed to the mortal man) let alone that a supernatural event occurred.

Conversely, with Caesar’s assassination there is no reason to doubt the accepted view of his death – just as there is no reason to doubt that Hannibal crossed the Alps, even though there is no evidence as to how. We are not alleging miracles as per the Jesus story so there is no reason to doubt the accepted version of events.

You’re a one trick pony Tassman - using Carrier again. You rely too much on him. Clearly you have not read Josephus yourself as he is not necessarily describing this as his view per se. In Wars of the Jews 2.163 he is describing the varying views of the Essenes, Pharisees, and Sadducees.

More to the point, the passages in Wars of the Jews Carrier cites is contrasting the views of the Pharisees and Sadducees regarding the soul, not the resurrected body. In fact, the passages say absolutely nothing about a “spiritual body resurrection” contrary to your assertion that they do.

”[The Pharisees] say that all souls are incorruptible, but that the souls of good men only are removed into other bodies,—but that the souls of bad men are subject to eternal punishment” (Wars of the Jews 2.163)

“ The bodies of all men are indeed mortal, and are created out of corruptible matter; but the soul is ever immortal, and is a portion of the divinity that inhabits our bodies. Besides, if anyone destroys or abuses a depositum he hath received from a mere man, he is esteemed a wicked and perfidious person; but then if anyone cast out of his body this Divine depositum, can we imagine that he who is thereby affronted does not know of it. 373Moreover, our law justly ordains that slaves which run away from their masters shall be punished, though the masters they run away from may have been wicked masters to them. And shall we endeavor to run away from God, who is the best of all masters, and not think ourselves highly guilty of impiety? 374Do not you know that those who depart out of this life, according to the law of nature, and pay that debt which was received from God, when he that lent it us is pleased to require it back again, enjoy eternal fame? that their houses and their posterity are sure, that their souls are pure and obedient, and obtain a most holy place in heaven, from whence, in the revolution of ages, they are again sent into pure bodies; 375while the souls of those whose hands have acted madly against themselves are received by the darkest place in Hades, and while God, who is their Father, punishes those that offend against either of them in their posterity?” (Wars of the Jews 3.372-375)

”…but every good man hath his own conscience bearing witness to himself, and by virtue of our legislator’s prophetic spirit, and of the firm security God himself affords such a one, he believes that God hath made this grant to those that observe these laws, even though they be obliged readily to die for them, that they shall come into being again, and at a certain revolution of things shall receive a better life than they had enjoyed before.” (Against Apion 2.218)

Source of quotes above[/url]

I can’t see anything in those passages from Josephus that explicitly supports Carrier’s argument. Certainly there is nothing there that supports a spiritual resurrection. In fact, I think we could interpret those passages from Josephus to support a bodily resurrection.

And let’s not forget Josephus wrote under the employ of the Romans as a Roman citizen. It is therefore not inconceivable that he may have purposefully conveyed Jewish views on the soul in such a way as to make them appear homogeneous with the Hellenized Roman world.

Carrier’s qualifications in Greek do not preclude him from poor Biblical hermeneutics - something he clearly struggles with.

I prefer the views of a qualified expert like Dr Richard Carrier and his qualified historian colleagues rather than your self serving amateur interpretations or those of an unqualified, self-appointed historian like JP Holding who makes a living by creatively defending a literalist interpretation of scripture.

Tell me why Paul didn’t just say, “it is sown a body (soma), it is raised a spirit (pneuma)” in 1 Corinthians 15:44 if what he meant was the resurrected body was a spirit? Especially when we consider Paul uses that same terminology (soma/pneuma) elsewhere such as 1 Thessalonians 5:23 to differentiate between body and spirit?

Tell me why Paul uses an analogy of a seed dying and rising in 1 Corinthians 15:37-38 to answer the question of what the resurrected body will be like and then goes on to use the sown/raised metaphor four times in v. 42-44? Why are ALL the metaphorical examples Paul uses such as people, animals, birds, fish, the sun, the moon, the stars material objects?

Paul is not referring to the resurrected “spirit” or “soul’, he consistently refers to the resurrection of a “spiritual body”. This is clear in the very example you use of the planted seed – it doesn’t die and then rise as you argue. Paul makes the point in (1 Corinthians 15:36-44) that it discards its outer shell or husk and the inner germ rises to glory, i.e. the outer husk is analogous to the earthly corpse and the inner germ to the essence within which is renewed at death. 44 It is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body. There is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body. In short Paul is referring to two different types of bodies.

What did Carrier prove other than giving us a rough idea how many times anastasis appears in Pagan literature? How on earth you reckon Carrier has “proven his case” here is beyond me. Care to elaborate?

What he proved was that anastasis as found in the literature of the period refers to any form of resurrection. Holding is wrong; it does not refer to a specific type of resurrection as he tries to argue.

[Juice]

You’re flogging a dead horse as is seen in your debate with Technomage where you are reduced to repetitious “what if’s...” and “how do you know’s…?” etc and little contribution of your own. In short, whining! There is no doubt that the Hellenization of the Roman Empire was ubiquitous, particularly among the educated. There is no indication that Paul was not among them as an educated Pharisee, and evidence in his own writings that he was.

What evidence is there that Paul had adopted Hellenistic thought/culture as his world view? That is the key question.

Look, if you mean Paul was “Hellenized” in the sense that he spoke/read Greek, may have used the Septuagint at times, and was probably familiar with Greek philosophy/culture then yes I would agree he was “Hellenized.” If by “Hellenized” you mean Paul had adopted Hellenistic views and in so doing abandoned his Jewish beliefs, specifically (in relation to this debate) the nature of the resurrected body, then no I would not agree he was “Hellenized.” By his own admission he was a “Hebrew of Hebrews” (Philippians 3:5). I think that is a firm affirmation of his adherence to his orthodox Jewish beliefs.

Paul in his own writing merely describes his experience as having seen the risen Christ – nothing more than that. You assert that It was not “necessarily an immaterial spirit” but all indications are that it was. There is no evidence to the contrary.

What indications are those? That there was a bright light? That he said he received his gospel by revelation from Jesus? What are the indicators that you think are so convincing to draw such a certain conclusion that Paul’s resurrected Jesus had to be a spirit? It’s really amazing because you seem to read into the texts a spirit (when there is no mention of a spirit whatsoever in relation to Jesus) but won’t acknowledge that Paul refers to the resurrection of the dead (when he does mention it) as physical. It’s quite astonishing to watch this unfold. Well, on second thought, considering who I’m debating it’s not so astonishing.

By the time we get to the “blinding light” tradition of Acts we are into the second generation of Christian embellishment – but even then the author gives no more than a contradictory account and a reference to a bright light. No mention of a physical presence!

You argue against yourself now. If you wish to dismiss the reliability of Acts because it is into “the second generation of Christian embellishment” then you have no grounds to use it in your argument that Paul’s experience on the road to Damascus was with a spirit Jesus. You don’t get it both ways here, Tassman.

By the way, we have evidence that Paul and Luke travelled together (the “we” and “us” passages in Acts). So although Luke’s recording of events is not an eyewitness account it likely comes straight from the proverbial horse’s mouth. That’s pretty good evidence for antiquity. Just as good, if not better, as the evidence for other ancient figures.

Your very best efforts can never find more than “implications”, NEVER explicit references. This alone speaks volumes. And even then such references cannot stand on their own merits but can only be seen as “implicit” when viewed through the lens of the later tradition - i.e. the gospels and the late forged epistles ALL written after Paul’s death. Paul never states a belief in a fleshly resurrection and he implies it only in your own mind and in the later tradition of the Church.

It’s simply amazing to watch you hand wave the abundance of evidence from Paul on the grounds that you don’t find it explicit when Paul’s repeated statements that Jesus died and was raised from the dead are quite explicit in fact.

What’s particularly fascinating is that you say that Paul only implies a physical resurrection in my mind. But somehow you read into Paul’s experience on the road to Damascus a spirit Jesus when that isn’t even close to being explicit (or implicit for that matter). There’s no description whatsoever of the nature of Jesus’ body in Acts either yet you see a spirit Jesus. On the other hand, when Paul explicitly tells us Jesus died and was raised from the dead you say it isn’t explicit enough. Just astonishing. Absolutely astonishing…

ALL the analogies, which you are offering as proof texts re a physical body, are better understood as referring to a spiritual body, according to those who are familiar with the Koine Greek.

Don’t you mean according to Richard Carrier, your favorite skeptic?

A complete non sequitur which in no way relates to my comment, namely: "Re John, I know of no convincing argument (including Bauckhman's) of eyewitness reportage in the gospels sufficient to overturn the prevailing assumption of the accounts of Jesus being circulated and embellished as anonymous community traditions before being transcribed”.

Firstly, if my introduction of the Gallic Wars was a fallacy (which it isn’t in this case) it would be a Red Herring fallacy, not a non-sequitur. Don’t pretend like you understand logic and fallacies, we’ve been down that road before.

Secondly, it is appropriate here and not a diversion because 1) you have argued there is no eyewitness reportage in the gospels and 2) the Civil Wars is certainly authored by Caesar himself. I want to know the methodology you use to be so certain of (2) because I think we’ll find if we use that methodology on the Gospels we will be as equally certain that (1) is false – that contrary to your assertion there is eyewitness reportage in the gospels.

Re the Gallic Wars authorship, there is no doubt among scholars that they were authored by Caesar. I don't have to justify established scholarly opinion.

I’m not asking you to justify scholarly opinion. I’m asking for the methodology those scholars (or you) use to determine the authorship of the Gallic Wars (and other ancient texts) with such certainty.

And the basis of this bare assertion is………….?

The content of his letters. Take for instance the first letter to the church in Corinth (the letter from which the primary text we are disputing, ch. 15, is taken). Paul begins the letter with his usual greeting and thanking God for them and for what God has done in them (1:1-9). Then Paul delves right in to the problem in the Corinthian church of sectarianism that has come to his attention and addresses the issue of pursuing Godly wisdom vs. fleshly wisdom (ch. 1:10-4:21). Before addressing the issue of sexual immorality (ch. 5) in the Corinthian church that has come to Paul’s attention he gives an insight into the purpose of his letter when he says, ”I do not write these things to shame you, but as my beloved children I warn you.” (4:14). After the issue of sexual immorality in the Corinthian church is addressed the issue of taking your brother to the law (ch.6) is tackled. He addresses the principles of marriage as they had wrote to Paul concerning these things (ch. 7). Things concerning idols (ch 8), head coverings (ch 11) , instituting the Lord’s supper (ch. 11 – where incidentally Paul quotes Jesus), spiritual gifts (ch 12), prophecy and speaking in tongues, and keeping order in church meetings (ch 14) are also addressed. Chapter 15 of course addresses the resurrection and the nature of the resurrected body. Finally, Paul finishes the letter with an encouragement to collect money for the saints, his travel itinerary, final encouragement, and salutation (ch. 16).

Apparently, there were some questions in the church regarding the resurrection as Paul writes, ”But if Christ is proclaimed, that He was raised from the dead, how do some among you say that there is no resurrection of the dead?” (15:12). Paul spends the rest of chapter 15 on this topic including answering the question (15:35) of what will the resurrected body be like. It’s important to note Paul is not addressing a question of what Jesus’ resurrected body was like, but whether or not there is a resurrection of the dead (15:12) and with what body will the believer be raised in (15:35). So his answer will of course be understood in that context. We shouldn’t necessarily expect Paul to speak of the nature of Jesus’ resurrected body specifically though he may very well be in a non specific way if our lowly bodies will transformed and made like Jesus’ glorious body (Philippians 3:21).

In short, Paul is addressing the issues in the church, not writing a biography about Jesus.

Further, it ignores Paul’s central message being Jesus’ resurrection. It would make much more sense to include Jesus’ post-resurrection activities on earth and makes no sense to omit them. Preachers today don’t ignore the details of Jesus post mortem appearances; they reinforce the message of his triumph over death. This would apply even more so for Paul preaching a new, gospel.

What? Paul does give details of post resurrection appearances (1 Corinthians 15:5-8). Seriously Tassman, what are smoking?

Oh, and don’t forget when Paul preaches to potential converts he does speak of Jesus’ post-resurrection appearances (Acts 13:28-31). So I’m not sure what your problem is here considering you apparently accept Acts as reliable in its reporting of Paul’s life. Or what a minute, my mistake, I forgot you reject Acts when it works against your argument and accept it only when it helps you.

With established historical figures like Caesar we have multiple pieces of evidence, multiple types of evidence, multiple sources of evidence, independence of sources, contemporary evidence and the internal consistency of the available evidence – i.e. the essentials for verifying beyond doubt the existence of an historical figure. It is established beyond a shadow of doubt that Caesar existed; it is not established beyond a shadow of doubt that the miracle-working god/man Jesus existed (as opposed to the mortal man) let alone that a supernatural event occurred.

Those “multiple pieces of evidence” that we have for the assassination of Caesar are contradictory on some important details in regards to Caesar’s assassination. Either contradictions in accounts are suggestive of non-historicity of the core event or they are not. Which is it?

Conversely, with Caesar’s assassination there is no reason to doubt the accepted view of his death – just as there is no reason to doubt that Hannibal crossed the Alps, even though there is no evidence as to how. We are not alleging miracles as per the Jesus story so there is no reason to doubt the accepted version of events.

Okay, so apparent contradictions in the accounts are not suggestive of non-historicity of the core even then. Thank you. Glad we got that settled.

I prefer the views of a qualified expert like Dr Richard Carrier and his qualified historian colleagues rather than your self serving amateur interpretations or those of an unqualified, self-appointed historian like JP Holding who makes a living by creatively defending a literalist interpretation of scripture.

Is that your rebuttal? And what the frig does Holding have to do with anything? Your personal preference for you favorite skeptic, Carrier, is noted and not surprising in the least. But I’ll note you haven’t addressed the evidence or arguments that have shown your assertion (or was it Carrier’s and you copied and pasted it?) blatantly false. I don’t think you have the intellectual capacity to anyway so maybe my expectations of you are too high. My bad.

Paul is not referring to the resurrected “spirit” or “soul’, he consistently refers to the resurrection of a “spiritual body”. This is clear in the very example you use of the planted seed – it doesn’t die and then rise as you argue. Paul makes the point in (1 Corinthians 15:36-44) that it discards its outer shell or husk and the inner germ rises to glory, i.e. the outer husk is analogous to the earthly corpse and the inner germ to the essence within which is renewed at death. 44 It is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body. There is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body. In short Paul is referring to two different types of bodies.

This utterly ridiculous counter argument demonstrates how inept your ability to interpret Paul really is. Or was this another one of Carrier’s goofy arguments? Yikes! if it was.

To be used the outer shell or chaff/husk is discarded BEFORE it is planted not while in the ground! That’s why Paul writes, ”and what you plant is not the form that it will be, but a bare kernel, whether it is wheat or something else.” (1 Cor 15:37). The outer shell isn’t even mentioned in Paul’s analogy as it assumed that the reader understands that the shell must be removed first before planting. So in Paul’s analogy of the seed there was no outer shell representing the earthly corpse as you (or is it Carrier?) erroneously argue.

Rather the “naked” seed (symbolic of a dead person) is planted (buried), then it germinates (is “changed” or “transformed”), and then comes up out of the ground (raised from the dead) as a new body with a different “splendor” (the new transformed/changed body) than the seed. The plant is physical, not spiritual. Unless you think Paul thought seeds sprouted into spirits? The plant is a continuation of the seed just as our new bodies will be a continuation of the old body. It’s a great analogy and used also in the Midrash which assumes a physical resurrection. (see my previous posts to technomage).

If Paul had meant that a spirit rises he could have simply said the body (soma) is buried and the spirit (pneuma) is raised as he uses this terminology elsewhere to distinguish between body and spirit (1 Thess 5:23). Paul was writing to an audience in Corinth that contained both Jews and Greeks (Acts 18:4). Probably there was some dispute between the Jews (who would likely held to a physical resurrection if to a resurrection at all) and the Greeks (who may have held to spirit resurrection). This is why Paul probably had to take the time to explain with analogies and metaphors that the new body which will be raised was not a spirit, but rather a new body changed but still a continuation of the old body and very much material in nature.

What [Carrier] proved was that anastasis as found in the literature of the period refers to any form of resurrection. Holding is wrong; it does not refer to a specific type of resurrection as he tries to argue.

No. That’s exactly what Carried did NOT prove but rather assumed. Carrier stated how many times anastasis is found in pagan literature and then asks the question, ”Are we to believe these are all in reference to "what is conceptually Jewish resurrection"? As though that question alone settles the issue and proves his assertion: ”There simply was no terminological distinction between "kinds" of resurrection in antiquity.” Carrier royally Begs the Question by assuming his conclusion is true without even so much as offering one example (although maybe he does elsewhere?). No argumentation or analysis. Just a bare assertion.

And even if Carrier were correct on this point he would be committing yet another fallacy by interpreting the Christian use of anastasis through the lens of pagan literature. But never mind, carry on with Carrier. Arguing by fallacy doesn’t seem to bother you or your mentor…

[Tassman]

What evidence is there that Paul had adopted Hellenistic thought/culture as his world view? That is the key question.

Look, if you mean Paul was “Hellenized” in the sense that he spoke/read Greek, may have used the Septuagint at times, and was probably familiar with Greek philosophy/culture then yes I would agree he was “Hellenized.” If by “Hellenized” you mean Paul had adopted Hellenistic views and in so doing abandoned his Jewish beliefs, specifically (in relation to this debate) the nature of the resurrected body, then no I would not agree he was “Hellenized.” By his own admission he was a “Hebrew of Hebrews” (Philippians 3:5). I think that is a firm affirmation of his adherence to his orthodox Jewish beliefs.

It’s not a question of “adopting” Hellenism; it was pervasive throughout the Roman Empire. Nobody was unaffected by it, especially among the well educated - including the likes of Paul. This is not doubted by qualified historians. You're flogging a dead horse.

As for your “Hebrew of Hebrews” – you’ve typically taken it out of context to make a point. Paul goes on to say in the very same passage that he counts his Judaism as “rubbish” so that he may gain Christ.

What indications are those? That there was a bright light? That he said he received his gospel by revelation from Jesus? What are the indicators that you think are so convincing to draw such a certain conclusion that Paul’s resurrected Jesus had to be a spirit? It’s really amazing because you seem to read into the texts a spirit (when there is no mention of a spirit whatsoever in relation to Jesus) but won’t acknowledge that Paul refers to the resurrection of the dead (when he does mention it) as physical. It’s quite astonishing to watch this unfold. Well, on second thought, considering who I’m debating it’s not so astonishing.

You argue against yourself now. If you wish to dismiss the reliability of Acts because it is into “the second generation of Christian embellishment” then you have no grounds to use it in your argument that Paul’s experience on the road to Damascus was with a spirit Jesus. You don’t get it both ways here, Tassman.

By the way, we have evidence that Paul and Luke travelled together (the “we” and “us” passages in Acts). So although Luke’s recording of events is not an eyewitness account it likely comes straight from the proverbial horse’s mouth. That’s pretty good evidence for antiquity. Just as good, if not better, as the evidence for other ancient figures.

Paul’s letters are full of references of a “spiritual body”. NOTE: A “spiritual body”, NOT a “spirit” – get it right. Just one example among many e.g. 1 Cor15.44 “…there is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body…” OTOH there is NO reference, ANYWHERE in Paul to a fleshly body.

And as for Luke’s contradiction-laden account of Paul’s conversion in ACTS coming “straight from the proverbial horse’s mouth”. This is not possible given that it was composed a generation later even if the “I/we” passages do refer to Paul, which is not conclusive by any means. Even so what we do NOT get is a specific reference to fleshly post-resurrected body.

It’s simply amazing to watch you hand wave the abundance of evidence from Paul on the grounds that you don’t find it explicit when Paul’s repeated statements that Jesus died and was raised from the dead are quite explicit in fact.

What’s particularly fascinating is that you say that Paul only implies a physical resurrection in my mind. But somehow you read into Paul’s experience on the road to Damascus a spirit Jesus when that isn’t even close to being explicit (or implicit for that matter). There’s no description whatsoever of the nature of Jesus’ body in Acts either yet you see a spirit Jesus. On the other hand, when Paul explicitly tells us Jesus died and was raised from the dead you say it isn’t explicit enough. Just astonishing. Absolutely astonishing…

But they are NOT explicit at all, this is the point. Fleshly resurrection IS explicit in the evolving gospel accounts and gets ever more explicit the later the gospel was transcribed. By the time we get to the non-canonical Gospel of Peter, we get an eyewitness to Jesus actually resurrecting as it occurred.

But in the early stuff there are no such explicit references - NOT in Paul’s resurrection references nor in ANY of the early non-Pauline epistles either. It’s not explicit in ACTS, surprisingly enough – given the source - but in any event, Paul’s own writing takes precedence over material written after his death.

Oh, and spare us your synthetic shock/horror.

Don’t you mean according to Richard Carrier, your favorite skeptic?

Yes I mean Dr Richard Carrier and many other qualified scholars as well.

In Carrier’s FAQ Sheet re the Spiritual Body’ he list many scholars who have reached the same conclusion as he has: “These include: James Tabor, "Leaving the Bones Behind: A Resurrected Jesus Tradition with an Intact Tomb" in Sources of the Jesus Tradition: An Inquiry (forthcoming); Bruce Chilton, Rabbi Paul: An Intellectual Biography (2005), pp. 57-58; Peter Lampe, "Paul's Concept of a Spiritual Body" in Resurrection: Theological and Scientific Assessments (2002), edited by Ted Peters et al.: pp. 103-14; Gregory Riley, Resurrection Reconsidered: Thomas and John in Controversy (1995); Dale Martin, The Corinthian Body (1995); Adela Collins, "The Empty Tomb in the Gospel According to Mark" in Hermes and Athena: Biblical Exegesis and Philosophical Theology (1993), edited by Eleonore Stump & Thomas Flint: pp. 107-40; and C.F. Moule, "St. Paul and Dualism: The Pauline Conception of the Resurrection," New Testament Studies 12 (1966): 106-23. Many others think it's likely or at least possible”.

Btw: “Skepticism”, which you sneer at, is an advantage for a rigorous historian, as opposed to Apologists who merely seek to buttress their faith.

Firstly, if my introduction of the Gallic Wars was a fallacy (which it isn’t in this case) it would be a Red Herring fallacy, not a non-sequitur. Don’t pretend like you understand logic and fallacies, we’ve been down that road before.

Secondly, it is appropriate here and not a diversion because 1) you have argued there is no eyewitness reportage in the gospels and 2) the Civil Wars is certainly authored by Caesar himself. I want to know the methodology you use to be so certain of (2) because I think we’ll find if we use that methodology on the Gospels we will be as equally certain that (1) is false – that contrary to your assertion there is eyewitness reportage in the gospels.

I’m not asking you to justify scholarly opinion. I’m asking for the methodology those scholars (or you) use to determine the authorship of the Gallic Wars (and other ancient texts) with such certainty.

Unsubstantiated opinion!

As well, there is no eyewitness reportage for ANY aspect of Jesus’ life including the alleged miraculous occurrences. Conversely, there is a bucket-load of eyewitness evidence supporting the existence of figures like Caesar and NO alleged supernatural miracles concerning his assassination. Thus there is good reason to doubt the resurrection but no good reason to doubt Caesar’s assassination.

The content of his letters. Take for instance the first letter to the church in Corinth (the letter from which the primary text we are disputing, ch. 15, is taken). Paul begins the letter with his usual greeting and thanking God for them and for what God has done in them (1:1-9). Then Paul delves right in to the problem in the Corinthian church of sectarianism that has come to his attention and addresses the issue of pursuing Godly wisdom vs. fleshly wisdom (ch. 1:10-4:21). Before addressing the issue of sexual immorality (ch. 5) in the Corinthian church that has come to Paul’s attention he gives an insight into the purpose of his letter when he says, ”I do not write these things to shame you, but as my beloved children I warn you.” (4:14). After the issue of sexual immorality in the Corinthian church is addressed the issue of taking your brother to the law (ch.6) is tackled. He addresses the principles of marriage as they had wrote to Paul concerning these things (ch. 7). Things concerning idols (ch 8), head coverings (ch 11) , instituting the Lord’s supper (ch. 11 – where incidentally Paul quotes Jesus), spiritual gifts (ch 12), prophecy and speaking in tongues, and keeping order in church meetings (ch 14) are also addressed. Chapter 15 of course addresses the resurrection and the nature of the resurrected body. Finally, Paul finishes the letter with an encouragement to collect money for the saints, his travel itinerary, final encouragement, and salutation (ch. 16).

Apparently, there were some questions in the church regarding the resurrection as Paul writes, ”But if Christ is proclaimed, that He was raised from the dead, how do some among you say that there is no resurrection of the dead?” (15:12). Paul spends the rest of chapter 15 on this topic including answering the question (15:35) of what will the resurrected body be like. It’s important to note Paul is not addressing a question of what Jesus’ resurrected body was like, but whether or not there is a resurrection of the dead (15:12) and with what body will the believer be raised in (15:35). So his answer will of course be understood in that context. We shouldn’t necessarily expect Paul to speak of the nature of Jesus’ resurrected body specifically though he may very well be in a non specific way if our lowly bodies will transformed and made like Jesus’ glorious body (Philippians 3:21).
In short, Paul is addressing the issues in the church, not writing a biography about Jesus.

For Paul “addressing issues in the Church” is secondary to his primary intention of proclaiming the good news that: “our lowly bodies will be transformed and made like Jesus’ glorious body…” remembering that for Paul Jesus’ glorious body is a ‘spiritual body’.

Never in his letters does Paul refer to Jesus’ body as fleshly; the many analogies he offers throughout are along the lines of changing a coat, i.e. leaving the old coat behind (i.e. the old body in the grave) and putting on a new garment of glory fit for heaven. There are many such analogies, e.g. He refers to our current bodies as earthen vessels and impermanent – as per our mortal bodies: 2 Corinthians 4:7

Hence the implication that in the resurrection everyone will get "a body of his own"1 Corinthians 15:38 and this is probably what he means by your quotes from Philippians 3:21, where he says our bodies will be changed. There are numerous quotes throughout Paul’s authentic letters which make similar references.

What? Paul does give details of post resurrection appearances (1 Corinthians 15:5-8). Seriously Tassman, what are smoking?

No he doesn’t; this is the point.

Oh, and don’t forget when Paul preaches to potential converts he does speak of Jesus’ post-resurrection appearances (Acts 13:28-31). So I’m not sure what your problem is here considering you apparently accept Acts as reliable in its reporting of Paul’s life. Or what a minute, my mistake, I forgot you reject Acts when it works against your argument and accept it only when it helps you.

You are putting words in my mouth. I have never I have never said that the embellished second generation writings, including ACTS, are of use in understanding what Paul means by resurrection. Even the ACTS “bright light’ account of his conversion - but this is not necessary to the argument other than to note that even then (despite the graphic flesh-and-bone descriptions of Jesus in the same author’s gospel) the ACTS’ conversion passage does not refer to a physical body by Paul either.

Those “multiple pieces of evidence” that we have for the assassination of Caesar are contradictory on some important details in regards to Caesar’s assassination. Either contradictions in accounts are suggestive of non-historicity of the core event or they are not. Which is it?

Okay, so apparent contradictions in the accounts are not suggestive of non-historicity of the core even then. Thank you. Glad we got that settled.

There is no point to make here. There is no reason to doubt the accepted view of Caesar’s death – just as there is no reason to doubt that Hannibal crossed the Alps, even though there is no record of how he did it.

It is assumed that both occurrences were natural occurrences. Nobody claims that Hannibal, his army and his elephants floated across the Alps as the consequence of a miracle. If somebody made such a claim then, and only then, would we have an analogy of the sort you are failing miserably to establish with Jesus’ miraculous resurrection.

Is that your rebuttal? And what the frig does Holding have to do with anything? Your personal preference for you favorite skeptic, Carrier, is noted and not surprising in the least. But I’ll note you haven’t addressed the evidence or arguments that have shown your assertion (or was it Carrier’s and you copied and pasted it?) blatantly false. I don’t think you have the intellectual capacity to anyway so maybe my expectations of you are too high. My bad.

I was commenting on Gio’s low opinion of Carriers’ credibility viz-a-vis his support of Holding. My point was that Dr Carrier is suitably qualified whereas Mr. Holding is not.

This utterly ridiculous counter argument demonstrates how inept your ability to interpret Paul really is. Or was this another one of Carrier’s goofy arguments? Yikes! if it was.

To be used the outer shell or chaff/husk is discarded BEFORE it is planted not while in the ground! That’s why Paul writes, ”and what you plant is not the form that it will be, but a bare kernel, whether it is wheat or something else.” (1 Cor 15:37). The outer shell isn’t even mentioned in Paul’s analogy as it assumed that the reader understands that the shell must be removed first before planting. So in Paul’s analogy of the seed there was no outer shell representing the earthly corpse as you (or is it Carrier?) erroneously argue.

Rather the “naked” seed (symbolic of a dead person) is planted (buried), then it germinates (is “changed” or “transformed”), and then comes up out of the ground (raised from the dead) as a new body with a different “splendor” (the new transformed/changed body) than the seed. The plant is physical, not spiritual. Unless you think Paul thought seeds sprouted into spirits? The plant is a continuation of the seed just as our new bodies will be a continuation of the old body. It’s a great analogy and used also in the Midrash which assumes a physical resurrection. (see my previous posts to technomage).

If Paul had meant that a spirit rises he could have simply said the body (soma) is buried and the spirit (pneuma) is raised as he uses this terminology elsewhere to distinguish between body and spirit (1 Thess 5:23). Paul was writing to an audience in Corinth that contained both Jews and Greeks (Acts 18:4). Probably there was some dispute between the Jews (who would likely held to a physical resurrection if to a resurrection at all) and the Greeks (who may have held to spirit resurrection). This is why Paul probably had to take the time to explain with analogies and metaphors that the new body which will be raised was not a spirit, but rather a new body changed but still a continuation of the old body and very much material in nature.

But, for the umpteenth time, Paul does not say that the “spirit rises”. Try to get it right. He refers to the “spiritual body”, NOT “spirit”. NEVER does he argue that it is a “continuation of the old body and very much material in nature”. These are your words and can only be based on your Evangelical presuppositions; they are not supported by the evidence.

Oh and I saw technomage’s response to your posts and amened them.

No. That’s exactly what Carried did NOT prove but rather assumed. Carrier stated how many times anastasis is found in pagan literature and then asks the question, ”Are we to believe these are all in reference to "what is conceptually Jewish resurrection"? As though that question alone settles the issue and proves his assertion: ”There simply was no terminological distinction between "kinds" of resurrection in antiquity.” Carrier royally Begs the Question by assuming his conclusion is true without even so much as offering one example (although maybe he does elsewhere?). No argumentation or analysis. Just a bare assertion.

And even if Carrier were correct on this point he would be committing yet another fallacy by interpreting the Christian use of anastasis through the lens of pagan literature. But never mind, carry on with Carrier. Arguing by fallacy doesn’t seem to bother you or your mentor…

The issue is what was meant in antiquity by anastasis, i.e. “resurrection”. Specialist historian Dr Richard Carrier makes the point that in antiquity there was no terminological distinction between different "kinds" of resurrection. That’s it. End of argument. To claim that the Jews had a specific use for the word, as the non-qualified, non-Koine Greek-speaking Mr. JP Holding asserts, is to beg the question.

[Juice]

Well, I’ve realized I’m not really debating Tassman, but rather I’m debating Richard Carrier via his Spiritual Body FAQ. Tassman has been parroting his mentor and cutting and pasting from that link all along. So I’ll link to Carrier when appropriate.

It’s not a question of “adopting” Hellenism; it was pervasive throughout the Roman Empire. Nobody was unaffected by it, especially among the well educated - including the likes of Paul. This is not doubted by qualified historians. You're flogging a dead horse.

If anything is being flogged to death it is by you and technomage flogging a Red Herring in repeatedly arguing some Jews were Hellenized. No one is denying that some were depending on what we mean by “Hellenized.” But it absolutely is a question of adopting Hellenistic thought in regards to Paul. That is the essence of your (or is it Carrier’s?) whole argument after all – essentially Paul viewed the resurrected body through the lens of Hellenistic thought where the resurrected body was an immaterial spirit. To simply argue that some Jews were influenced by Hellenism falls short of actually establishing your argument. It actually becomes a Red Herring.

As for your “Hebrew of Hebrews” – you’ve typically taken it out of context to make a point. Paul goes on to say in the very same passage that he counts his Judaism as “rubbish” so that he may gain Christ.

Taken from Carrier’s FAQ here.

Actually, the context is that Paul thought the Lawwas rubbish, not his Jewish heritage:

”What is more, I continue to consider all these things as a loss for the sake of the surpassing value of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord. It is because of him that I have experienced the loss of all those things. Indeed, I consider them rubbish in order to gain Christ and be found in him, not having a righteousness of my own that comes from the law, but one that comes through the faithfulness of Christ, the righteousness that comes from God and that depends on faith.” (Philippians 3:8-9)

Paul goes on in the next verses to say he hopes he can experience the resurrection from the dead (Philippians 3:10-11). Obviously he didn’t think that Jewish belief was rubbish. If Paul thought his Jewish heritage was rubbish why does he quote from or allude to the OT at least fifteen times in 1 Corinthians alone (1:19,31; 2:9; 13:19,20; 6:16; 9:9; 10:7; 14:21; 15:22; 15:27; 15:32; 15:45; 15:54,55)? If Paul thought his Jewish heritage was rubbish why does he quote one of the Ten Commandments when admonishing children to obey their parents (Ephesians 6:1-2)? If Paul thought Judaism was rubbish why does he say: ”Circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing, but obeying God's commandments is everything.” (1 Corinthians 7:19)? And that is just a small sampling. All on need do is read Paul’s letters and it becomes more than clear that he interpreted his new faith in Christ through the framework of his orthodox Jewish heritage.

Carrier argues that Paul’s new faith in Christ “involved adopting several beliefs exactly contrary to Pharisaic doctrines (such as that the oral law no longer applies to him and that one can gain resurrection without being circumcised: Galatians 2:1-20).”

We’ll set aside for the moment that in his letter to the Galatians Paul does not claim the Law did not apply to him and says absolutely nothing about gaining the resurrection without circumcision at 2:1-20. Paul tells the Galatians in 2:1-10 that he shared with the boys in Jerusalem (Peter, John, and James) the gospel he had received and they “added nothing” (2:6), gave him the “right hand of fellowship” (2:9) and commissioned him to preach to the gentiles (2:9). If Paul’s gospel had been wrong, certainly the boys in Jerusalem would have corrected Paul. What Paul does say later in chapter 2 regarding the law and Christ is:

”We ourselves are Jews by birth, and not gentile sinners, yet we know that a person is not justified by the works of the law but by the faithfulness of Jesus Christ. We, too, have believed in Christ Jesus so that we might be justified by the faith of Christ and not by the works of the law, for no human being will be justified by the works of the law.” (Galatians 2:15-16).

Paul isn’t saying the Law doesn’t apply to him but that we are not justified by the works of the Law. We are justified by faith in Christ. Certainly Paul understands justification and righteousness through the lens of his Jewish heritage. Hardly a Hellenistic view at all.

Paul’s letters are full of references of a “spiritual body”. NOTE: A “spiritual body”, NOT a “spirit” – get it right. Just one example among many e.g. 1 Cor15.44 “…there is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body…” OTOH there is NO reference, ANYWHERE in Paul to a fleshly body.

Paul is talking about the difference between a spiritual body meaning a spiritually oriented body and a natural or carnal body. Earlier in 1 Corinthians 2:14-15 Paul makes the same distinction using identical terminology (psuchikos – natural; pneumatikos – spiritual) to distinguish between the natural man who is not oriented to spiritual things and the spiritual man who is. The natural oriented man does not understand spiritual things whereas the spiritually oriented man does.

If Paul had meant the risen body was a spirit he could have just avoided any confusion and said that. He could have said, [i]”it is planted a body (soma) but raised a spirit (pneuma).” But he doesn’t do that. Instead he writes, ”it is planted a physical body but raised a spiritual body” to distinguish between the natural body that is not prepared in its current state (like the seed) to inherent the Kingdom and the spiritual body (the plant) that can enter the Kingdom because it has undergone the necessary “change” to do so.

And as for Luke’s contradiction-laden account of Paul’s conversion in ACTS coming “straight from the proverbial horse’s mouth”. This is not possible given that it was composed a generation later even if the “I/we” passages do refer to Paul, which is not conclusive by any means. Even so what we do NOT get is a specific reference to fleshly post-resurrected body.

Why does being written later make it “not possible” for Luke to have recorded Paul’s words? I don’t follow. The salient point here, anyway, is that you forfeit the use of Acts to establish Paul experienced a spirit Jesus on the road to Damascus by denigrating Act’s reliability.

But they are NOT explicit at all, this is the point. Fleshly resurrection IS explicit in the evolving gospel accounts and gets ever more explicit the later the gospel was transcribed. By the time we get to the non-canonical Gospel of Peter, we get an eyewitness to Jesus actually resurrecting as it occurred.

But in the early stuff there are no such explicit references - NOT in Paul’s resurrection references nor in ANY of the early non-Pauline epistles either. It’s not explicit in ACTS, surprisingly enough – given the source - but in any event, Paul’s own writing takes precedence over material written after his death.

Three things.

1. I’ve already mentioned that you argue a blatant double standard when you argue the Jesus Paul encountered on the road to Damascus was a spirit when there is absolutely nothing explicitly stating Jesus was a spirit in Acts or Paul’s letters. There isn’t even anything that could be seen as implicit.
2. You conflate the meaning of explicit with detailed. This is simply wrong. For instance, consider the two propositions:
   
   i. Steve died and was raised from the dead.
   ii. Steve died and was raised from the dead. He was then seen by his friends who ate and drank with him.
   
   Both (i) and (ii) are equally explicit in their confession that Steve died and rose again though (ii) is certainly more detailed than (i). Further, it’s understood that both of these refer to the physical resurrection of Steve. No one would think that (i) referred to the spiritual resurrection of Steve unless they a priori wanted Steve’s resurrection to be understood as spiritual.
3. You expect there to be more detail pertaining to the fleshly nature of Jesus’ resurrected body in Acts even though it was written by the same author as the GoLuke and after the GoLuke. Where Luke’s gospel is as you have argued (wrongly, I might add, as (1) shows) more explicit in portraying the resurrection as physical. But this leaves us with two options:
   a. The tradition is de-evolving from physical in the GoLuke to spiritual in Acts.
   b. Acts, even though it is not as explicit as you argue, still assumes a physical resurrection in line with the GoLuke.

If (a) is the case then you cannot properly infer the tradition has been evolving without Special Pleading. If (b) is the case we need not have references to a “fleshly” resurrection to infer that when it is claimed Jesus died and was raised from the dead it is meant he was raised physically.

Yes I mean Dr Richard Carrier and many other qualified scholars as well.

In Carrier’s FAQ Sheet re the Spiritual Body’ he list many scholars who have reached the same conclusion as he has: “These include: James Tabor, "Leaving the Bones Behind: A Resurrected Jesus Tradition with an Intact Tomb" in Sources of the Jesus Tradition: An Inquiry (forthcoming); Bruce Chilton, Rabbi Paul: An Intellectual Biography (2005), pp. 57-58; Peter Lampe, "Paul's Concept of a Spiritual Body" in Resurrection: Theological and Scientific Assessments (2002), edited by Ted Peters et al.: pp. 103-14; Gregory Riley, Resurrection Reconsidered: Thomas and John in Controversy (1995); Dale Martin, The Corinthian Body (1995); Adela Collins, "The Empty Tomb in the Gospel According to Mark" in Hermes and Athena: Biblical Exegesis and Philosophical Theology (1993), edited by Eleonore Stump & Thomas Flint: pp. 107-40; and C.F. Moule, "St. Paul and Dualism: The Pauline Conception of the Resurrection," New Testament Studies 12 (1966): 106-23. Many others think it's likely or at least possible”.

Carrier’s listing of these people is an answer to the question: ”Is it true that many other scholars agree with you that the earliest Christians believed Jesus rose from the dead by switching to a new body and leaving the old one behind?”. From his FAQ here. Which is a different question than your assertion which was: ”ALL the analogies, which you are offering as proof texts re a physical body, are better understood as referring to a spiritual body, according to those who are familiar with the Koine Greek.”

In other words “those who are familiar with Greek” would interpret the passages I cited from Paul as a spiritual resurrection. Are you saying folks like G. Habermas, W.L. Craig, M. Licona, and so on (who are also “familiar” with Greek) would interpret it that way too? Do you even stop for three seconds to think about the stuff you type?

As well, there is no eyewitness reportage for ANY aspect of Jesus’ life including the alleged miraculous occurrences. Conversely, there is a bucket-load of eyewitness evidence supporting the existence of figures like Caesar and NO alleged supernatural miracles concerning his assassination. Thus there is good reason to doubt the resurrection but no good reason to doubt Caesar’s assassination.

You are dodging here. Let’s set aside for the moment there is no eyewitness testimony of Caesar’s assassination. I’ll ask you one more time and if you don’t answer I’ll be left to assume you haven’t got the foggiest. What is the methodology that either you or scholars use to determine the authorship of ancient text? Let’s have it Tassy.

For Paul “addressing issues in the Church” is secondary to his primary intention of proclaiming the good news that: “our lowly bodies will be transformed and made like Jesus’ glorious body…” remembering that for Paul Jesus’ glorious body is a ‘spiritual body’.

The evidence I gave, which you didn’t even touch, suggests you are wrong. By the way, the “good news” was the Gospel message something Paul had already delivered to the Corinthians, “And, brothers, I declare to you the gospel which I preached to you, which also you have received, and in which you stand.” (1 Corinthians 15:1). So, yes, delivering the gospel message was important to Paul (and the disciples and Jesus) and may have even included things like our lowly bodies will be transformed. But declaring such things to existing believers wasn’t Paul’s primary reason for writing his letters as I’ve shown. They had already heard the gospel and accepted it. So why would believers need to hear it again unless they were perhaps falling away from it like the Galatians apparently were (Galatians 1:6)? The young churches needed leadership, direction, and encouragement from Paul which is the primary reason for his writing ministry. They didn’t need a biography of Jesus. Your expectation of the details concerning Jesus in Paul’s letters is misplaced not to mention self serving.

Never in his letters does Paul refer to Jesus’ body as fleshly; the many analogies he offers throughout are along the lines of changing a coat, i.e. leaving the old coat behind (i.e. the old body in the grave) and putting on a new garment of glory fit for heaven. There are many such analogies, e.g. He refers to our current bodies as earthen vessels and impermanent – as per our mortal bodies: 2 Corinthians 4:7

Hence the implication that in the resurrection everyone will get "a body of his own"1 Corinthians 15:38 and this is probably what he means by your quotes from Philippians 3:21, where he says our bodies will be changed. There are numerous quotes throughout Paul’s authentic letters which make similar references.

Carrier again. He argues, ” As I explain there, the key verb (metaschêmatizô) was also used to refer to changing clothes, which is not a transformation but an exchange, so this verse alone is inconclusive.”

Firstly, the analogy implies a material person changing clothes as everyone knows a spirit cannot put on clothing. The only thing changing is the outer garments and appearance. Which makes sense in light of Paul’s statements that we “put on” immortality:

”For what is decaying must put on what cannot decay, and what is dying must put on what cannot die. Now, when what is decaying puts on what cannot decay, and what is dying puts on what cannot die, then the saying that is written will be fulfilled: "Death has been swallowed up in victory!" “ (1 Cor 15:53-54).

Secondly in regards to Philippians 3:21 it clearly states “[Jesus] will change our humble bodies and make them like his glorious body.” It’s our lowly bodies that will be changed, not exchanged. It says nothing about changing clothes or changing/exchanging bodies.

No [Paul] doesn’t [give details of post resurrection appearances ]; this is the point.

I give the reference (a well known one) where he does (1 Cor 15:5-8) and all you can do is stomp your feet and say “no he doesn’t.” You da man!

You are putting words in my mouth. I have never I have never said that the embellished second generation writings, including ACTS, are of use in understanding what Paul means by resurrection. Even the ACTS “bright light’ account of his conversion - but this is not necessary to the argument other than to note that even then (despite the graphic flesh-and-bone descriptions of Jesus in the same author’s gospel) the ACTS’ conversion passage does not refer to a physical body by Paul either.

Earlier you argued…

There is simply no indication that Paul’s conversion experience of Jesus involved a physical appearance; the only description we have is of a bright light.

You appeal to Acts here as though its recording of Paul were accurate. It wasn’t until I pointed out your blatant double standard you began to back pedal towards Acts being unreliable because it is a second generation embellishment.

There is no point to make here. There is no reason to doubt the accepted view of Caesar’s death – just as there is no reason to doubt that Hannibal crossed the Alps, even though there is no record of how he did it.

The point that I made, which you did not challenge, is apparent contradictions in the secondary details of accounts are not necessarily suggestive of non-historicity of the core event. So don’t bother trying to argue the gospels apparently contradict each other again.

I was commenting on Gio’s low opinion of Carriers’ credibility viz-a-vis his support of Holding. My point was that Dr Carrier is suitably qualified whereas Mr. Holding is not.

And my point, which has still not been challenged, is the evidence and arguments I gave show your assertion (or was it Carrier’s) that Josephus documents a belief in a spiritual resurrection to be false.

But, for the umpteenth time, Paul does not say that the “spirit rises”. Try to get it right. He refers to the “spiritual body”, NOT “spirit”. NEVER does he argue that it is a “continuation of the old body and very much material in nature”. These are your words and can only be based on your Evangelical presuppositions; they are not supported by the evidence.

Your parroting of Carrier’s FAQ here regarding the outer shell (or chaff) representing the corpse has been shown blatantly false.

Carrier argues, ”The shell you see (and sow) is thus the "outer man" while the hidden kernel inside it is the invisible "inner man" that rises to new life. The shell itself dies and is cast off. It does not become the new plant, so there was no continuity between them.”. But Paul makes it clear the kernel is “bare” and the outer shell (or chaff) is not buried with the seed. Carrier is so inept at interpreting Paul he doesn’t notice this. Further the kernel inside is hardly “invisible” as Carrier ridiculously suggests. The fact Carrier can’t escape is that the seed and plant that emerges are very much material. The other fact Carrier can’t escape is that there is very much a continuity between the seed and the plant that emerges contrary to what Carrier argues.

This rather obvious oversight makes me question Carrier’s ability to interpret any text. That you put so much stock in Carrier despite these blatant and frankly basic errors speaks volumes in itself.

The issue is what was meant in antiquity by anastasis, i.e. “resurrection”. Specialist historian Dr Richard Carrier makes the point that in antiquity there was no terminological distinction between different "kinds" of resurrection. That’s it. End of argument. To claim that the Jews had a specific use for the word, as the non-qualified, non-Koine Greek-speaking Mr. JP Holding asserts, is to beg the question.

Carrier’s argument regarding the use of anastasis can be found here. What is absolutely priceless is that because Carrier is caught up ranting about Holding and proving his assertion false he seems to fail to realized the predominant use of anastasis in the examples Carrier gives, even in pagan texts, was referring to a physical return to life after death!

By the way, you have an unhealthy preoccupation with Holding. Have you noticed I haven’t referenced Holding’s work once? Yet you drag him into every post. One word…


…THERAPY! Lots of therapy.

[Cerebrum123]

One word…


…THERAPY! Lots of therapy

That is 4 words.
I think that a LOT of skeptics have problems with Holding, not only because he knows what he is talking about for the most part(I don't agree with everything he says, but his site has been very helpful for me), and for his use of riposte, and that just drives them crazy. Take Lazy Agnostic/ SarahB/ JPTill (three profiles all ONE person who stalk Holding on this site, and on others) for example.

[Doug Shaver]

I think that a LOT of skeptics have problems with Holding, not only because he knows what he is talking about for the most part(I don't agree with everything he says, but his site has been very helpful for me), and for his use of riposte, and that just drives them crazy.

I have no problem with what he knows. I have a problem with how he reasons. His arguments are mostly a mix of question-begging and ad hominems -- the latter being what you're calling "riposte."

[Tassman]

Well, I’ve realized I’m not really debating Tassman, but rather I’m debating Richard Carrier via his Spiritual Body FAQ. Tassman has been parroting his mentor and cutting and pasting from that link all along. So I’ll link to Carrier when appropriate.

Playing to the gallery are we?

You are debating the argument of qualified scholars, which I'm presenting, including Dr Richard Carrier. Carrier’s argument is conveniently summarized in his FAQ’s but it can be found throughout his scholarly writings (most of which I have read) and excellently detailed in ‘The Empty Tomb’, as I have several times stated.

If anything is being flogged to death it is by you and technomage flogging a Red Herring in repeatedly arguing some Jews were Hellenized. No one is denying that some were depending on what we mean by “Hellenized.” But it absolutely is a question of adopting Hellenistic thought in regards to Paul. That is the essence of your (or is it Carrier’s?) whole argument after all – essentially Paul viewed the resurrected body through the lens of Hellenistic thought where the resurrected body was an immaterial spirit. To simply argue that some Jews were influenced by Hellenism falls short of actually establishing your argument. It actually becomes a Red Herring.

References have been provided and arguments made. Outside of mere “denial” you have made no response other than bare assertions e.g.: “some Jews were influenced by Hellenism”.

IN fact Paul was a Jew in a Hellenistic society.

Once again I refer you to:

http://religiousstudies.uncc.edu/peo...man-world.html But there is a welter of informed scholarship dealing with this topic as you should have known if you're claiming to be informed on the topic.

Taken from Carrier’s FAQ here.

Actually, the context is that Paul thought the Lawwas rubbish, not his Jewish heritage:

”What is more, I continue to consider all these things as a loss for the sake of the surpassing value of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord. It is because of him that I have experienced the loss of all those things. Indeed, I consider them rubbish in order to gain Christ and be found in him, not having a righteousness of my own that comes from the law, but one that comes through the faithfulness of Christ, the righteousness that comes from God and that depends on faith.” (Philippians 3:8-9)

Paul goes on in the next verses to say he hopes he can experience the resurrection from the dead (Philippians 3:10-11). Obviously he didn’t think that Jewish belief was rubbish. If Paul thought his Jewish heritage was rubbish why does he quote from or allude to the OT at least fifteen times in 1 Corinthians alone (1:19,31; 2:9; 13:19,20; 6:16; 9:9; 10:7; 14:21; 15:22; 15:27; 15:32; 15:45; 15:54,55)? If Paul thought his Jewish heritage was rubbish why does he quote one of the Ten Commandments when admonishing children to obey their parents (Ephesians 6:1-2)? If Paul thought Judaism was rubbish why does he say: ”Circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing, but obeying God's commandments is everything.” (1 Corinthians 7:19)? And that is just a small sampling. All on need do is read Paul’s letters and it becomes more than clear that he interpreted his new faith in Christ through the framework of his orthodox Jewish heritage.

Carrier argues that Paul’s new faith in Christ “involved adopting several beliefs exactly contrary to Pharisaic doctrines (such as that the oral law no longer applies to him and that one can gain resurrection without being circumcised: Galatians 2:1-20).”

We’ll set aside for the moment that in his letter to the Galatians Paul does not claim the Law did not apply to him and says absolutely nothing about gaining the resurrection without circumcision at 2:1-20. Paul tells the Galatians in 2:1-10 that he shared with the boys in Jerusalem (Peter, John, and James) the gospel he had received and they “added nothing” (2:6), gave him the “right hand of fellowship” (2:9) and commissioned him to preach to the gentiles (2:9). If Paul’s gospel had been wrong, certainly the boys in Jerusalem would have corrected Paul. What Paul does say later in chapter 2 regarding the law and Christ is:

”We ourselves are Jews by birth, and not gentile sinners, yet we know that a person is not justified by the works of the law but by the faithfulness of Jesus Christ. We, too, have believed in Christ Jesus so that we might be justified by the faith of Christ and not by the works of the law, for no human being will be justified by the works of the law.” (Galatians 2:15-16).

Paul isn’t saying the Law doesn’t apply to him but that we are not justified by the works of the Law. We are justified by faith in Christ. Certainly Paul understands justification and righteousness through the lens of his Jewish heritage. Hardly a Hellenistic view at all.

Re the bolded: But he does say that the Law does not apply to him. Explicitly! In dispensing with the Mosaic Law Paul is repudiating Judaism and for your source to assert that he “understands justification and righteousness through the lens of his Jewish heritage” is meaningless for a Jew. This is evidenced by the many early Jewish Christians who regarded him as an apostate - your borrowed rationalizing arguments above notwithstanding. Whose are they btw, JP Holding?

Paul is talking about the difference between a spiritual body meaning a spiritually oriented body and a natural or carnal body. Earlier in 1 Corinthians 2:14-15 Paul makes the same distinction using identical terminology (psuchikos – natural; pneumatikos – spiritual) to distinguish between the natural man who is not oriented to spiritual things and the spiritual man who is. The natural oriented man does not understand spiritual things whereas the spiritually oriented man does.

If Paul had meant the risen body was a spirit he could have just avoided any confusion and said that. He could have said, [i]”it is planted a body (soma) but raised a spirit (pneuma).” But he doesn’t do that. Instead he writes, ”it is planted a physical body but raised a spiritual body” to distinguish between the natural body that is not prepared in its current state (like the seed) to inherent the Kingdom and the spiritual body (the plant) that can enter the Kingdom because it has undergone the necessary “change” to do so.

Paul did NOT mean that the risen body was a spirit Are you in a position to argue from the Koine Greek? I’m not; I rely on qualified scholars. Who do you rely upon?

Paul NEVER refers to a risen ‘spirit’. Invariably he refers to the “spiritual body”, i.e. Jesus left his corpse behind and rose from the dead in an entirely new body. "Our earthly house of a tabernacle" will be "destroyed," and instead of God rebuilding that one, we'll get "a house from God, eternal in the heavens" 2 Corinthians 5:1.

Unlike the gospels and late forged epistles, Paul never says the risen body is the same body as the dead, mortal body; this is the demonstrable fact you cannot rationalize away.

Why does being written later make it “not possible” for Luke to have recorded Paul’s words? I don’t follow. The salient point here, anyway, is that you forfeit the use of Acts to establish Paul experienced a spirit Jesus on the road to Damascus by denigrating Act’s reliability.

I was referring to your “straight from the horse’s mouth” comment re the author of ACT’s quoting of Paul. Given it was transcribed a generation later, i.e. after Paul’s death, in a climate of textual embellishments it is improbable that they were – especially in view of the contradictions of the Damascene account in ACTS overall.

But, inasmuch as you want to use ACTS it does not appear to refer to a fleshly body, but merely a “bright light”. Paul himself in his own writings makes no comment re the nature of his conversion experience, let alone that it was via an encounter with a fleshly Jesus.

Three things.[*]I’ve already mentioned that you argue a blatant double standard when you argue the Jesus Paul encountered on the road to Damascus was a spirit when there is absolutely nothing explicitly stating Jesus was a spirit in Acts or Paul’s letters. There isn’t even anything that could be seen as implicit. [*] [*]You conflate the meaning of explicit with detailed. This is simply wrong. For instance, consider the two propositions:

i. Steve died and was raised from the dead.
ii. Steve died and was raised from the dead. He was then seen by his friends who ate and drank with him.
Both (i) and (ii) are equally explicit in their confession that Steve died and rose again though (ii) is certainly more detailed than (i). Further, it’s understood that both of these refer to the physical resurrection of Steve. No one would think that (i) referred to the spiritual resurrection of Steve unless they a priori wanted Steve’s resurrection to be understood as spiritual.

[*]

Re the bolded, Paul never states that he (Jesus) was then seen by his friends "who ate and drank with him". The gospels and late forgeries do; Paul and the early non-Pauline epistles do not

You expect there to be more detail pertaining to the fleshly nature of Jesus’ resurrected body in Acts even though it was written by the same author as the GoLuke and after the GoLuke. Where Luke’s gospel is as you have argued (wrongly, I might add, as (1) shows) more explicit in portraying the resurrection as physical. But this leaves us with two options:
a. The tradition is de-evolving from physical in the GoLuke to spiritual in Acts.
b. Acts, even though it is not as explicit as you argue, still assumes a physical resurrection in line with the GoLuke.
If (a) is the case then you cannot properly infer the tradition has been evolving without Special Pleading. If (b) is the case we need not have references to a “fleshly” resurrection to infer that when it is claimed Jesus died and was raised from the dead it is meant he was raised physically.

This last is not supported by the evidence; it’s an assumption.

The lack of reference to a fleshly body in ACTS, while vividly described in Luke, could have several explanations - the remembrance of an earlier tradition perhaps. But this is not germane to the argument that the early Christian writings make no reference to a fleshly body at all.

Carrier’s listing of these people is an answer to the question: ”Is it true that many other scholars agree with you that the earliest Christians believed Jesus rose from the dead by switching to a new body and leaving the old one behind?”. From his FAQ here. Which is a different question than your assertion which was: ”ALL the analogies, which you are offering as proof texts re a physical body, are better understood as referring to a spiritual body, according to those who are familiar with the Koine Greek.”

In other words “those who are familiar with Greek” would interpret the passages I cited from Paul as a spiritual resurrection. Are you saying folks like G. Habermas, W.L. Craig, M. Licona, and so on (who are also “familiar” with Greek) would interpret it that way too? Do you even stop for three seconds to think about the stuff you type?

That’s not what I said.

Understanding Koine Greek is merely the basic requirement; it does not mean that the interpretations will all be the same. The likes of apologist scholars like Habermas may have the required language skills, but unlike secular scholars use them for promoting the “word of god”, which is their publically stated agenda. Holding does the same but without the necessary language skills.

You are dodging here. Let’s set aside for the moment there is no eyewitness testimony of Caesar’s assassination. I’ll ask you one more time and if you don’t answer I’ll be left to assume you haven’t got the foggiest. What is the methodology that either you or scholars use to determine the authorship of ancient text? Let’s have it Tassy.

Please cease snipping my quotes in your responses.

Historians employ the Historical/Critical Method which, btw rules out the likelihood of a supernatural explanation of an occurrence.

You have yet to deal with the fact that, unlike Caesar, there is no eyewitness reportage for ANY aspect of Jesus’ life including the alleged miraculous occurrences. Conversely, there is a bucket-load of eyewitness evidence supporting the existence of figures like Caesar and NO alleged supernatural miracles concerning his assassination. Thus there is good reason to doubt the resurrection but no good reason to doubt Caesar’s assassination.

The evidence I gave, which you didn’t even touch, suggests you are wrong. By the way, the “good news” was the Gospel message something Paul had already delivered to the Corinthians, “And, brothers, I declare to you the gospel which I preached to you, which also you have received, and in which you stand.” (1 Corinthians 15:1). So, yes, delivering the gospel message was important to Paul (and the disciples and Jesus) and may have even included things like our lowly bodies will be transformed. But declaring such things to existing believers wasn’t Paul’s primary reason for writing his letters as I’ve shown. They had already heard the gospel and accepted it. So why would believers need to hear it again unless they were perhaps falling away from it like the Galatians apparently were (Galatians 1:6)? The young churches needed leadership, direction, and encouragement from Paul which is the primary reason for his writing ministry. They didn’t need a biography of Jesus. Your expectation of the details concerning Jesus in Paul’s letters is misplaced not to mention self serving.

This is JP Holding’s argument and it doesn’t hold up. Any decent Preacher knows that repetition is the key. Believers need "the word” to be reinforced over and over. A modern preacher will proclaim the “good news” repeatedly, no matter how familiar, to indoctrinate his flock with the essentials of the faith. Attending to the nuts-and-bolts of Parish organization is important but secondary. Yet, this is what you are claiming Paul was doing.

Carrier again. He argues, ” As I explain there, the key verb (metaschêmatizô) was also used to refer to changing clothes, which is not a transformation but an exchange, so this verse alone is inconclusive.”

Firstly, the analogy implies a material person changing clothes as everyone knows a spirit cannot put on clothing. The only thing changing is the outer garments and appearance. Which makes sense in light of Paul’s statements that we “put on” immortality:

Correct, but you have misunderstood it. Indeed it is our outer garment, i.e. our fleshly corruptible bodies, which is being exchanged for a new eternal spiritual body. It makes no sense to place a new garment over the old garment. First one must discard the old garment.

”For what is decaying must put on what cannot decay, and what is dying must put on what cannot die. Now, when what is decaying puts on what cannot decay, and what is dying puts on what cannot die, then the saying that is written will be fulfilled: "Death has been swallowed up in victory!" “ (1 Cor 15:53-54).

Secondly in regards to Philippians 3:21 it clearly states “[Jesus] will change our humble bodies and make them like his glorious body.” It’s our lowly bodies that will be changed, not exchanged. It says nothing about changing clothes or changing/exchanging bodies.

Yes it does according to Carrier et al. Philippians 3:21 uses the same verb for “change” that Josephus does to mean changing clothes (metaschêmatizô). Thus changing bodies here does not mean transformation, but the same thing as changing old clothes for new clothes.

And the same applies to your first example where Paul says: “We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed….” The verb allagêsometha (literally "we will be exchanged," i.e. "we will undergo an exchange") and this is the sort of terminology Paul uses throughout his letters.

I give the reference (a well known one) where he does (1 Cor 15:5-8) and all you can do is stomp your feet and say “no he doesn’t.” You da man!

“Stomp my feet”? Come now precious.

You said “Paul does give details of post resurrection appearances in 1 Cor 15.5-8…” My response was that no, he doesn’t. There are NO details, merely a list of “seeings”, better understood as visions of some sort - not physical appearances.

Earlier you argued… You appeal to Acts here as though its recording of Paul were accurate. It wasn’t until I pointed out your blatant double standard you began to back pedal towards Acts being unreliable because it is a second generation embellishment.

Show exactly where I said ACTS account of Paul’s conversion is accurate.

The point that I made, which you did not challenge, is apparent contradictions in the secondary details of accounts are not necessarily suggestive of non-historicity of the core event. So don’t bother trying to argue the gospels apparently contradict each other again.

You have distorted my argument by snipping. I said:

“There is no point to make here. There is no reason to doubt the accepted view of Caesar’s death – just as there is no reason to doubt that Hannibal crossed the Alps, even though there is no record of how he did it.

It is assumed that both occurrences were natural occurrences. Nobody claims that Hannibal, his army and his elephants floated across the Alps as the consequence of a miracle. If somebody made such a claim then, and only then, would we have an analogy of the sort you are failing miserably to establish regarding Jesus’ miraculous resurrection?”

You are comparing apples with oranges.

And my point, which has still not been challenged, is the evidence and arguments I gave show your assertion (or was it Carrier’s) that Josephus documents a belief in a spiritual resurrection to be false.

See above re Josephus’s understanding of metaschêmatizô as exchanging old clothes for new, i.e. the same as Paul’s understanding.

Your parroting of Carrier’s FAQ here regarding the outer shell (or chaff) representing the corpse has been shown blatantly false.

Carrier argues, ”The shell you see (and sow) is thus the "outer man" while the hidden kernel inside it is the invisible "inner man" that rises to new life. The shell itself dies and is cast off. It does not become the new plant, so there was no continuity between them.”. But Paul makes it clear the kernel is “bare” and the outer shell (or chaff) is not buried with the seed. Carrier is so inept at interpreting Paul he doesn’t notice this. Further the kernel inside is hardly “invisible” as Carrier ridiculously suggests. The fact Carrier can’t escape is that the seed and plant that emerges are very much material. The other fact Carrier can’t escape is that there is very much a continuity between the seed and the plant that emerges contrary to what Carrier argues.

This rather obvious oversight makes me question Carrier’s ability to interpret any text. That you put so much stock in Carrier despite these blatant and frankly basic errors speaks volumes in itself.

Your ongoing ad hominems, à la Holding, are tiresome.

You assume your interpretation, based I think on Holding, is correct when neither you nor he possess the required Koine Greek to accurately translate. I will place my trust in scholars that have the wherewithal to know what they are talking about.

“Paul frequently speaks of our inner and outer man, or our seen and unseen bodies, and specifically uses the analogy of planted seeds 1 Corinthians 15:36-44, which evokes the notion that the outer shell, or the husk, is sloughed off and the inner germ rises to glory ‘The Empty Tomb pp. 150-51’. Carrier goes on: "a natural body is sown, then a spiritual body is raised" and "if there is a natural body, there is also a spiritual one".

Paul conspicuously omits saying these are the same body - anywhere in his writings. Paul NEVER says, as the gospels do, that one body becomes the other.

Carrier’s argument regarding the use of anastasis can be found here. What is absolutely priceless is that because Carrier is caught up ranting about Holding and proving his assertion false he seems to fail to realized the predominant use of anastasis in the examples Carrier gives, even in pagan texts, was referring to a physical return to life after death!

Indeed it can and it is a convincing argument, although you unsurprisingly missed the point:

http://www.infidels.org/library/mode...html#anastasis

“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”.
This was in response to Holding’s erroneous claim: “…the word-form anastasis I have yet to see any evidence of being used of anything but what is conceptually Jewish resurrection”. Carrier’s wry comment re this blunder was: “He has not seen any evidence of this because he never bothered to look”.

By the way, you have an unhealthy preoccupation with Holding. Have you noticed I haven’t referenced Holding’s work once? Yet you drag him into every post. One word…


…THERAPY! Lots of therapy.

Having ploughed through Holding’s highly creative exegesis’s some time back I recognize many of his arguments being used by you – although unacknowledged. Am I wrong?

[Juice]

Before I address the rest of your post we better clear this up...

Paul did NOT mean that the risen body was a spirit

Huh?

If Paul did NOT mean the risen body was a spirit then why do argue for Paul's belief in a spiritual resurrection? What exactly are you arguing? Do even know?

[Adrift]

Before I address the rest of your post we better clear this up...

Huh?

If Paul did NOT mean the risen body was a spirit then why do argue for Paul's belief in a spiritual resurrection? What exactly are you arguing? Do even know?

If I had to guess its probably some strange equivocation over the nature of a pure "spirit" and a "spirit body". Tassman's arguments on this subject are heavily based on fringe theories from folks like Carrier, Robert Price, and Earl Doherty.

As I mentioned to GioD in PM the spiritual body resurrection is a favorite subject of Tassman's and he's been arguing it on this forum for years and years (originally under the handle "Amnouy"). He's had this same lengthy debate with a number of posters, including a few with advanced degrees in theology and Roman classical religions like Jaltus and Glenn Peoples, and laymen like the poster GakuseiDon, who's proved to be a constant thorn in the side of Doherty himself and has a website devoted to examining these claims in detail here.

Eventually most people just stop arguing when they realize the goal of the discussion devolves into winning the conversation.