Constructive criticism - Minimal facts method

[Tassman]

I've been paging through Juice and my's debate with Tassman, and while I have tired sufficiently to not answer whole posts of his anymore, I find this a good proof of Tassman's idiocy.

No, it’s proof that you can’t rebut the arguments. I you could you would.

Here Tassman claims I got my information from Holding. However, I actually got this information directly from NT Wright, in The Resurrection of the Son of God. Not only does the fact that Tassman tries to sweep me under the rug with people who cite Holding (nothing is wrong with this by the way - I guarantee Tassman's arguments would not hold in a debate with him) show his desperation and dishonesty, but, if he has indeed read Wright's study, as he means to imply in posts 89 and 101, he should have known these argument originated with Wright, who is far more competent (and honest!) than Carrier in terms of linguistic capability, among other things. I take this blatant ignorance of Wright's study as further proof he has not read it, and is only plagiarizing Carrier on it. 0 points for honesty, 0 points for effort, 0 points for arguments.

Nope, I don’t. You never named your sources and I said that they reminded me of JP Holding’s rather tortuous harmonizations. Perhaps he borrowed them from Bishop NT Wright just as you say you have. After all, Holding is not qualified himself, so he presumably gets his arguments from someone else.

[Juice]

Already answered!

No. Not answered. Dodged. AGAIN!

Maybe if I make the type bigger for you?

Do you really think a seed exchanges its body for the body of a plant? Is the plant a continuation of the seed or not?

You have isolated an analogy you think supports your case.

I’m not merely isolating some obscure analogy because it supports my case. It is the first and primary analogy Paul uses to answer the question under discussion, namely, ”But someone will say, How are the dead raised up, and with what body do they come?” - (1 Corinthians 15:35). The seed analogy is the most logical place to begin because it is intended by Paul to answer the question of what body will we be resurrected in. Once we understand what Paul means by the seed analogy, by looking at the analogy itself, we then have the proper lens through which to view his other analogies in 1 Corinthians 15 (and elsewhere) regarding the resurrected body. The fact you continue to dance around this tells us something about your argument.

But even if the seed was sown bare its husk still had to be removed and discarded first. And so the overall point remains, namely Paul’s constant theme of the inner and outer man, and our seen and unseen bodies.

If the husk is discarded first before planting (planting being analogous to burial) it cannot represent the discarded corpse in the ground as you (or Carrier I should say) has ridiculously argued as the husk (or corpse) would not be planted (buried) with the seed (or the “inner man” as you call it) in that case. Your interpretation would force us to see Paul as saying the "inner man" is buried in the ground after the corpse is discarded somewhere else - clearly nonsensical. Thus your pirated version of Carrier’s argument fails miserably.

”And what you sow, you do not sow the body that is going to be, but a bare grain (perhaps of wheat or of some of the rest).” - (1 Corinthians 15:37)

In Paul’s analogy the “bare seed” represents the body which is buried - there is no husk representing the corpse. The plant, which is a continuation of the seed, emerges and is analogous to the glorious incorruptible resurrected body. Thus we have a proper understanding for Paul’s infamous words, ”it is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body” (1 Cor 15:44). Paul isn’t speaking of two entirely different bodies at 15:44 in the sense there is no continuity between them. The natural body (the bare seed) and the raised spiritual body (the plant that emerges out of the ground from the seed) are different in the same sense the seed is different from the plant. But the spiritual body is very much a continuation of the natural body just as the plant is very much a continuation of the seed. It’s an inescapable conclusion unless you wish to absurdly argue the plant is not a continuation of the seed. Thus the “two body” hypothesis fails.

[Juice]

Okay I'll make this a seperate post so we can keep it from derailing the main points of contention.

Off topic misrepresentations, false accusations and attempted character assignation in lieu of discussion, i.e. typical Juice tactics.

False accusations you say? Let’s review the evidence and allow the readers to decide if my accustaion is false shall we.

In response to the question of whether N.T. Wright almost concedes Carrier’s interpretation, Carrier quotes N.T. Wright:

Though Moule is no doubt right that Paul can envisage here the possibility of 'exchange' (losing one body, getting another one) rather than 'addition', as in 1 Corinthians 15, we should not lose sight of the fact that even if such an 'exchange' were to take place the new body would be more than the present one. (N.T. Wright, The Resurrection of the Son of God, 2003: p. 367)

http://www.richardcarrier.info/Spiri...#wrightsupport

In post 74 GioD appealed to N.T. Wright’s The Resurrection of the Son of God. In response Tassman appears to have plagiarized Richard Carrier and tires to make it seem he has read N.T. Wright's book when Tassman wrote:

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

Tassman’s quote from N.T. Wright’s The Resurrection of the Son of God just happens to be the identical quote Carrier gave in answering a similar question. The only difference is Tassman left out the year of publication and page number.

Coincidence you say?

Let’s see…

Immediately after the N.T. Wright quote Carrier continues, "Wright thus admits that Moule's understanding of what Paul could mean (which corresponds to mine) is no doubt right, and then fully allows that 1 Corinthians 15 can indeed be interpreted that way, though he does not assert it should be."

Immediately after the N.T. Wright quote Tassman continues: "In short, Wright admits that Moule's understanding of Paul in 1 Cor 15 can be validly interpreted that way, although it's not his favored interpretation"

The wording is almost verbatim at the bolded points! Even the placement of punctuation is similar. The thoughts, ideas, and message being conveyed were certainly Carrier’s but no citation or credit given by Tassman. All this before I pointed out from who Tassman had ripped off his ideas.

I stand by my accusation that you, Tassman, plagiarized Richard Carrier and tried to pass of his research (and thoughts) as your own. You’ve been caught red handed.

trying to deny it.



By the way, your mom wants you take down that life sized poster of Richard Carrier hanging over your bed.

Er, so does Richard Carrier.

[GioD]

No, it’s proof that you can’t rebut the arguments. I you could you would.

Oh look, projection!

Nope, I don’t. You never named your sources and I said that they reminded me of JP Holding’s rather tortuous harmonizations. Perhaps he borrowed them from Bishop NT Wright just as you say you have. After all, Holding is not qualified himself, so he presumably gets his arguments from someone else.

Oh so much to work from! First of all, you explicitly said my source was Holding:

your source, namely Mr. JP Holding, has no relevant qualifications at all.

You didn't say it "reminded you" of Holding or that Holding happened to "borrow them", you explicitly said my information came directly from Holding - patently false!

Second, the fact that you said you thought "Holding!" when you read my argument is essentially a concession that you uncharitably assume people get their information from the least credible source (in your eyes). So let me ask you:

1) Have you read Wright's study?

1.1) If so, why didn't you know this information originated with Wright?
1.2) If not, then why did you imply you were familiar with his study in other posts, and do you admit you plagiarized that information from Carrier?

2) Since my source's credentials on the original claim have outweighed your sources, do you concede the claim?

2.1) If not, do you have a counterargument to my argument against your position besides Carrier holding it and knowing Koine Greek?

You've got yourself into an intellectual sinkhole. Good luck getting out.

[Tassman]

No. Not answered. Dodged. AGAIN!

Maybe if I make the type bigger for you?

Do you really think a seed exchanges its body for the body of a plant? Is the plant a continuation of the seed or not?


I’m not merely isolating some obscure analogy because it supports my case. It is the first and primary analogy Paul uses to answer the question under discussion, namely, ”But someone will say, How are the dead raised up, and with what body do they come?” - (1 Corinthians 15:35). The seed analogy is the most logical place to begin because it is intended by Paul to answer the question of what body will we be resurrected in. Once we understand what Paul means by the seed analogy, by looking at the analogy itself, we then have the proper lens through which to view his other analogies in 1 Corinthians 15 (and elsewhere) regarding the resurrected body. The fact you continue to dance around this tells us something about your argument.

If the husk is discarded first before planting (planting being analogous to burial) it cannot represent the discarded corpse in the ground as you (or Carrier I should say) has ridiculously argued as the husk (or corpse) would not be planted (buried) with the seed (or the “inner man” as you call it) in that case. Your interpretation would force us to see Paul as saying the "inner man" is buried in the ground after the corpse is discarded somewhere else - clearly nonsensical. Thus your pirated version of Carrier’s argument fails miserably.

”And what you sow, you do not sow the body that is going to be, but a bare grain (perhaps of wheat or of some of the rest).” - (1 Corinthians 15:37)

In Paul’s analogy the “bare seed” represents the body which is buried - there is no husk representing the corpse. The plant, which is a continuation of the seed, emerges and is analogous to the glorious incorruptible resurrected body. Thus we have a proper understanding for Paul’s infamous words, ”it is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body” (1 Cor 15:44). Paul isn’t speaking of two entirely different bodies at 15:44 in the sense there is no continuity between them. The natural body (the bare seed) and the raised spiritual body (the plant that emerges out of the ground from the seed) are different in the same sense the seed is different from the plant. But the spiritual body is very much a continuation of the natural body just as the plant is very much a continuation of the seed. It’s an inescapable conclusion unless you wish to absurdly argue the plant is not a continuation of the seed. Thus the “two body” hypothesis fails.

Get a grip you hysterical fool. Sheesh! You Christian’s are a laugh-a-minute.

No amount of screaming can disguise that fact that your entire argument is reduced to just one strained interpretation of the seed analogy and even then the surrounding text reinforces the two body hypothesis of Dr Carrier (et al), over and above that of the traditional one favored by the apologists.

Furthermore, the usual translation of 1 Cor 15.37 is: “When you sow, you do not plant the body that will be, but just a seed…. NIV (Not “bare seed”!) And your point is further demolished by Vs 36 preceding it, namely: What you sow does not come to life unless it first dies and the text succeeding it, namely: 1 Cor15.42: “So also is the resurrection of the dead. The body is sown in corruption, it is raised in incorruption. 43 It is sown in dishonor, it is raised in glory. It is sown in weakness, it is raised in power. 44 It is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body. There is a natural body (which decays) and there is a spiritual body (which is eternal)". My parentheses!

No analogy is ever completely accurate at every level. But when viewed in their totality ALL the analogies of Paul, including the seed analogy, clearly refer to the old body being changed or exchanged for a new and everlasting “spiritual body” with the old one being discarded.

As for your disgraceful post following, it seems that you (and GioD) have given up even the pretence of debating the topic order to concentrate on the joys of discrediting a hated atheist. Much more fun to shoot the messenger isn’t it.

But, for the record, I made it clear as far back as #72 that my argument was based on “The Empty Tomb” of Dr Richard Carrier. You have yet to acknowledge your sources (out of embarrassment??) but whoever he is I suggest you change him because he is clearly more concerned with apologetics than examining the evidence and he doesn't know what he is talking about.

[Juice]

Get a grip you hysterical fool. Sheesh! You Christian’s are a laugh-a-minute.

Still dodging the question I see.

Do you really think a seed exchanges its body for the body of a plant? Is the plant a continuation of the seed or not?

No amount of screaming can disguise that fact that your entire argument is reduced to just one strained interpretation of the seed analogy and even then the surrounding text reinforces the two body hypothesis of Dr Carrier (et al), over and above that of the traditional one favored by the apologists.

What will it take to get you to answer a simple question?

Further my argument is not reduced to one analogy. It begins with the most relevant and telling analogy – that is the seed analogy. It’s the most logical place to begin because it is the analogy Paul meant to answer the question of what body will we be resurrected in. You’re too thick to understand this salient point.

Furthermore, the usual translation of 1 Cor 15.37 is: “When you sow, you do not plant the body that will be, but just a seed…. NIV (Not “bare seed”!)

The usual translation? Don’t you mean one of the more popular translation today (i.e. the NIV)? The NIV not being a literal translation of course. But even in the NIV it carries the same intended meaning as “bare seed” hence the NIV translates it “just a seed” as opposed to the more ambiguous “seed.”

The more literal translations render 1 Corinthians 15:37 as:

and that which you sow, you do not sow the body which is to be, but a bare grain, perhaps of wheat or of something else. (NASB)

And that which thou sowest, thou sowest not that body that shall be, but bare grain, it may chance of wheat, or of some other grain: (KJV)

And what you sow, you do not sow the body that is going to be, but a bare grain (perhaps of wheat or of some of the rest). (MKJV)

And what you sow is not the body that is to be, but a bare kernel, perhaps of wheat or of some other grain. (ESV)

Other translations:

and what you plant is not the form that it will be, but a bare kernel, whether it is wheat or something else. (ISV)

καὶ ὃ σπείρεις, οὐ τὸ σῶμα τὸ γενησόμενον σπείρεις, ἀλλὰ γυμνὸν κόκκον, εἰ τύχοι σίτου ἤ τινος τῶν λοιπῶν· (GNT)

γυμνὸν κόκκον – gumnos kokkos – gumnos literally meaning naked and kokkos meaning grain/kernel.

No literal translation renders it as only “seed” or anything that would lead us to think the seed was planted with a husk on. The reason for this is gumnos (naked) precedes kokkos (grain/kernel).

And your point is further demolished by Vs 36 preceding it, namely: What you sow does not come to life unless it first dies and the text succeeding it, namely: 1 Cor15.42: “So also is the resurrection of the dead. The body is sown in corruption, it is raised in incorruption. 43 It is sown in dishonor, it is raised in glory. It is sown in weakness, it is raised in power. 44 It is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body. There is a natural body (which decays) and there is a spiritual body (which is eternal)". My parentheses!

I don’t see how any of this further demolishes my argument. Can you expand on this?

In fact, once we understand Paul’s intended meaning in the seed analogy, that the plant is a continuation of the seed, the following verses (1 Corinthians 15:38ff) make perfect sense if we understand the concept of what is sown (the seed, the natural corruptible body) comes up out of the ground (the plant, the incorruptible spiritual body) with a different glory and more powerful than what was sown.

No analogy is ever completely accurate at every level.

True. But analogies help us understand what are otherwise difficult concepts to grasp. The seed analogy tells us at least two undeniable things about the resurrected body.

1. The resurrected body is very much physical/material
2. The resurrected body is a continuation of the old body

But when viewed in their totality ALL the analogies of Paul, including the seed analogy, clearly refer to the old body being changed or exchanged for a new and everlasting “spiritual body” with the old one being discarded.

The analogy we are looking at, the seed analogy, falsifies the “two body” hypothesis. Further your (or I should say Carrier’s) interpretations of “exchanged” are strained anyway. For instance you wrote in post 193 that Carrier’s argument for translating metaschēmatizō (change/transform) in Philippians 3:21 was based upon Josephus’ use of the word to mean changing clothes. Setting aside there was conveniently no reference from Josephus for us to look at, why does Carrier appeal to Josephus and not the context at hand? It just shows how far Carrier has to reach to make his arguments work.

Also in the same post (193) you claim “allagêsometha (literally "we will be exchanged," i.e. "we will undergo an exchange")” at 1 Corinthians 15:51. But you provide no argument as to why when it’s allassō and it means to make different – change (Strong’s).

As for your disgraceful post following, it seems that you (and GioD) have given up even the pretence of debating the topic order to concentrate on the joys of discrediting a hated atheist. Much more fun to shoot the messenger isn’t it.

Are you going to cry now, Tassman?

It’s also hilarious that you see yourself as a “messenger.”

By the way, you discredited yourself by:

1. Pretending to be familiar with the basics of logic, when clearly you aren’t.
2. Pretending to have read N.T. Wright’s The Resurrection of the Son of God, when clearly you haven’t.
3. Plagiarizing Richard Carrier.
4. Trying to wiggle your way out of it all.

We’ve just made sure everyone was aware of your shenanigans. Not that those of us who are familiar with you weren’t already aware of them though.

But, for the record, I made it clear as far back as #72 that my argument was based on “The Empty Tomb” of Dr Richard Carrier.

The plagiarized quotes in question weren’t from Carrier’s The Empty Tomb. They were from Carrier’s FAQ (though I will grant those FAQs are in response to theThe Empty Tomb). The salient point, however, is you didn’t just base your argument on Carrier. You clearly plagiarized Carrier by trying to pass of his research and ideas as your own as I've shown. Why are you continuing to deny this? You've been caught here with your pants around your ankles. Deal with it.

You have yet to acknowledge your sources (out of embarrassment??) but whoever he is I suggest you change him because he is clearly more concerned with apologetics than examining the evidence and he doesn't know what he is talking about.

I gave you my “source.” Your response was, and I quote, “Yada! Yada! Yada!”

That you desperately want me to say JP Holding is my “source” here (when he isn’t), you somehow see Holding in every post (not only of mine but GioD’s as well) and seem to see Holding lurking around every corner leads me to think you are quite loony.

[Tassman]

Still dodging the question I see.

Do you really think a seed exchanges its body for the body of a plant? Is the plant a continuation of the seed or not?

What will it take to get you to answer a simple question?

Further my argument is not reduced to one analogy. It begins with the most relevant and telling analogy – that is the seed analogy. It’s the most logical place to begin because it is the analogy Paul meant to answer the question of what body will we be resurrected in. You’re too thick to understand this salient point.

The usual translation? Don’t you mean one of the more popular translation today (i.e. the NIV)? The NIV not being a literal translation of course. But even in the NIV it carries the same intended meaning as “bare seed” hence the NIV translates it “just a seed” as opposed to the more ambiguous “seed.”

Still grandstanding, I see and now claiming to be sufficiently well versed in Koine Greek to compare "literal translations" with merely popular translations. So the popular translations are wrong, are they? You will have to exceuse me in that I don't have your implied expertise in the original language.

For my humble, non-Koine Greek-speaking purposes, ALL the numerous translations of 1 Cor 15.37 only vary slightly. And it should obvious to blind Freddy that the emphasis in the passage is NOT on a “bare grain” as some translate it, or “a mere grain” as others translate it, or even “just a grain” as still others’ translate it. You have read too much into the word “bare”, whereas the emphasis is on the need to die first.

1 Corinthians 15:37 Phillips New Testament: 35-38 "but perhaps someone will ask, “How is the resurrection achieved? With what sort of body do the dead arrive?” Now that is talking without using your minds! In your own experience you know that a seed does not germinate without itself “dying”. When you sow a seed you do not sow the “body” that will eventually be produced, but bare grain, of wheat, for example, or one of the other seeds. God gives the seed a “body” according to his laws—a different “body” to each kind of seed".

In actuality the germ of the seed does not die at all. It is the old husk that is removed and discarded which perishes. Thus, as I’ve argued all along, the seed analogy is all of a piece with the rest of Paul's analogies re the resurrection body, i.e. the old is discarded and exchanged for the new - whether garments or tabernacles etc. The old does not transform into the new; it is is discarded.

The more literal translations render 1 Corinthians 15:37 as:

and that which you sow, you do not sow the body which is to be, but a bare grain, perhaps of wheat or of something else. (NASB)

And that which thou sowest, thou sowest not that body that shall be, but bare grain, it may chance of wheat, or of some other grain: (KJV)

And what you sow, you do not sow the body that is going to be, but a bare grain (perhaps of wheat or of some of the rest). (MKJV)

And what you sow is not the body that is to be, but a bare kernel, perhaps of wheat or of some other grain. (ESV)

Other translations:

and what you plant is not the form that it will be, but a bare kernel, whether it is wheat or something else. (ISV)

καὶ ὃ σπείρεις, οὐ τὸ σῶμα τὸ γενησόμενον σπείρεις, ἀλλὰ γυμνὸν κόκκον, εἰ τύχοι σίτου ἤ τινος τῶν λοιπῶν· (GNT)

γυμνὸν κόκκον – gumnos kokkos – gumnos literally meaning naked and kokkos meaning grain/kernel.

No literal translation renders it as only “seed” or anything that would lead us to think the seed was planted with a husk on. The reason for this is gumnos (naked) precedes kokkos (grain/kernel).

I don’t see how any of this further demolishes my argument. Can you expand on this?

In fact, once we understand Paul’s intended meaning in the seed analogy, that the plant is a continuation of the seed, the following verses (1 Corinthians 15:38ff) make perfect sense if we understand the concept of what is sown (the seed, the natural corruptible body) comes up out of the ground (the plant, the incorruptible spiritual body) with a different glory and more powerful than what was sown.

True. But analogies help us understand what are otherwise difficult concepts to grasp. The seed analogy tells us at least two undeniable things about the resurrected body.

1. The resurrected body is very much physical/material
2. The resurrected body is a continuation of the old body

The analogy we are looking at, the seed analogy, falsifies the “two body” hypothesis. Further your (or I should say Carrier’s) interpretations of “exchanged” are strained anyway. For instance you wrote in post 193 that Carrier’s argument for translating metaschēmatizō (change/transform) in Philippians 3:21 was based upon Josephus’ use of the word to mean changing clothes. Setting aside there was conveniently no reference from Josephus for us to look at, why does Carrier appeal to Josephus and not the context at hand? It just shows how far Carrier has to reach to make his arguments work.

Also in the same post (193) you claim “allagêsometha (literally "we will be exchanged," i.e. "we will undergo an exchange")” at 1 Corinthians 15:51. But you provide no argument as to why when it’s allassō and it means to make different – change (Strong’s).

Are you going to cry now, Tassman?

No, I’m going to ask you if you are an authority on Koine Greek. If not why quote it above as though you knew what you were talking about? Do you? And if not who did you plagiarize the above rant from? I’ve been upfront naming my authority, Dr Richard Carrier, an expert in the language. Who is your authority in all of the above? I want direct links, their context and the background of the ‘scholars’ you’ve used. I note that you have acknowledged none of it. “What’s good for the goose is not good for the gander”, apparently.

BUT, despite the above pleading you STILL can’t say anything more than Paul only “IMPLIES” a fleshly body. He NEVER explicitly references a fleshly body of the sort found in the gospels. EVER! And the desperate attempts of apologists to massage the Pauline texts into line with the embellished gospel beliefs, written a generation later, are contrived and only convincing to those who want to believe it for reasons of faith.

Re your plaintive: “why does Carrier appeal to Josephus and not the context at hand…”? Because he was showing how the word metaschēmatizō was understood and used by contemporaries – that’s why. And there IS a reference re Josephus’s use of the word and I’ve provided it before as cited by Carrier. How you conveniently forget. Carrier: “Josephus describing two-body resurrection as his own view: Jewish War 2.163 and 3.372-75, Against Apion 2.218 (cf. Life 12 and Jewish Antiquities 18.14). On Jewish views and diversity: Empty Tomb pp. 107-13, 126, 137-38. On various pagan views of resurrection, see the relevant sections of Richard Carrier, Was Christianity Too Improbable to be False? (Secular Web: 2006).

And I’m still waiting for you to explain how Jesus’ fleshly resurrected body can walk through walls and yet eat fish as per the gospel accounts as anything more than a myth that arose in a superstitious age. Or are you arguing that Jesus’ digestive tract in the Lucan account of the resurrection body remained intact? How about giving us a Koine Greek sentence to elucidate your argument, like you have above re the Pauline notion of the resurrection body.

It’s also hilarious that you see yourself as a “messenger.”

This is as opposed to apologist ‘scholarship’, which begins with the required conclusions and then massages the ‘facts’ to fit them - as you’ve done above.

Gleason Archer would be proud of you. In his New International Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties he tells his readers that when looking at the Bible one must first assume God inspired the authors. Then you assume that a certain desired conclusion is already true (e.g. Paul’s resurrection body was the same as the fleshly body of the gospels). Then you simply have to examine the evidence through the lens of that conclusion and ask yourself, `What explanations or interpretations can I come up with that would allow me to maintain my belief that the texts are not contradictory?' If you can find any at all, no matter how tenuous, then you have succeeded in your task of removing biblical contradictions”.
That’s our Juice! More's the pity!

By the way, you discredited yourself by:

1. Pretending to be familiar with the basics of logic, when clearly you aren’t.
2. Pretending to have read N.T. Wright’s The Resurrection of the Son of God, when clearly you haven’t.
3. Plagiarizing Richard Carrier.
4. Trying to wiggle your way out of it all.

We’ve just made sure everyone was aware of your shenanigans. Not that those of us who are familiar with you weren’t already aware of them though.

The plagiarized quotes in question weren’t from Carrier’s The Empty Tomb. They were from Carrier’s FAQ (though I will grant those FAQs are in response to theThe Empty Tomb). The salient point, however, is you didn’t just base your argument on Carrier. You clearly plagiarized Carrier by trying to pass of his research and ideas as your own as I've shown. Why are you continuing to deny this? You've been caught here with your pants around your ankles. Deal with it.

No, you have engaged in the typical intellectually dishonest attempts of many apologists, who vindictively discredit opponents by personal insult and by indulging in the same “massaging” of facts with which you ‘study’ scriptural texts (see above). All this directed to the same selfish end of preserving an irrational belief system - scholarship and truth seem the last things on your mind. These are disreputable tactics and self defeating in that they discredit the very beliefs you claim to promote, as well as revealing what Christianity has done to you as a person and it isn’t pretty.

I gave you my “source.” Your response was, and I quote, “Yada! Yada! Yada!”

That you desperately want me to say JP Holding is my “source” here (when he isn’t), you somehow see Holding in every post (not only of mine but GioD’s as well) and seem to see Holding lurking around every corner leads me to think you are quite loony. :lolo

Nope! You did not. What you said was: “By the way my “source” is evidence, reason and logic. I use scholarship as a guide and help to formulating my positions but not as an absolute as you seem to do. Admittedly scholarship does influence me to some degree……………………………………and lots more of the same platitudinous palaver! I’m still waiting for you to reveal your primary source. I've asked you many times.

[Juice]

No, you have engaged in the typical intellectually dishonest attempts of many apologists...

Yeah, I catch you blatantly plagiarizing Richard Carrier but I’m the intellectually dishonest one.

What a strange little man you are Tassman.

I’ll get to the rest of your post later (probably tomorrow), after I’ve stopped laughing.

[Juice]

Take deep breaths and settle down Spassman. Your last post was packed with off topic rants which are making you look loonier than ever. I’m trimming them out because they are just, well, loony.

Still grandstanding, I see and now claiming to be sufficiently well versed in Koine Greek to compare "literal translations" with merely popular translations. So the popular translations are wrong, are they? You will have to exceuse me in that I don't have your implied expertise in the original language.

And still avoiding the question I see.

Do you really think a seed exchanges its body for the body of a plant? Is the plant a continuation of the seed or not?

To your inept point. I have not claimed the NIV is “wrong,” I’ve only claimed it is not literal. In fact I argued the NIV had the same intended meaning as the literal translations. Man you are thick!

Further, one does not need to be well versed or be an expert in Greek to know that the NIV is not a literal translation and one of the most popular versions. According to this Bible Translation Chart the NIV has a 42.62% market share and is, “The best-selling translation, widely accepted by evangelical Christians.”. Also according to that chart the NIV is a ”Balance between word-for-word and thought-for-thought” translation as opposed to the NASB, KJV, ESV versions, as examples, which are “word-for-word” translations – i.e. literal translations. But you would know all this if you knew anything about the different Bible translations. Which you seem to be as clueless about as the basics of logic.

For my humble, non-Koine Greek-speaking purposes, ALL the numerous translations of 1 Cor 15.37 only vary slightly. And it should obvious to blind Freddy that the emphasis in the passage is NOT on a “bare grain” as some translate it, or “a mere grain” as others translate it, or even “just a grain” as still others’ translate it. You have read too much into the word “bare”, whereas the emphasis is on the need to die first.

Regardless of where you think the emphasis in the verse is the literal translations render it “bare seed” and the less than literal translations such as the NIV still render it with a similar meaning such as “just a seed.”

Even if we take Paul’s meaning to be that it is merely a seed which is planted and not the plant that the seed will become that is planted it does not change the argument that the “seed” which is planted had NO husk. Have you ever heard of a farmer planting a whole ear of corn, husk and all, for example? No, they plant the kernels which have had the husk removed. Famers typically don’t plant a grain of wheat with the husk still on either. The husk is removed prior to use. Paul’s audience would have understood this (cf. Matthew 3:12). No matter how you slice it or where you place the emphasis there was no husk being planted with the seed thus Carrier’s interpretation fails.

1 Corinthians 15:37 Phillips New Testament: 35-38 "but perhaps someone will ask, “How is the resurrection achieved? With what sort of body do the dead arrive?” Now that is talking without using your minds! In your own experience you know that a seed does not germinate without itself “dying”. When you sow a seed you do not sow the “body” that will eventually be produced, but bare grain, of wheat, for example, or one of the other seeds. God gives the seed a “body” according to his laws—a different “body” to each kind of seed".

In actuality the germ of the seed does not die at all. It is the old husk that is removed and discarded which perishes. Thus, as I’ve argued all along, the seed analogy is all of a piece with the rest of Paul's analogies re the resurrection body, i.e. the old is discarded and exchanged for the new - whether garments or tabernacles etc. The old does not transform into the new; it is is discarded.

Whatever Paul’s understanding of the germination process may have been or whatever he may have meant by the seed must die first the fact remains that he takes the time to say that a “bare seed” is sown. A “seed” even without the disclaimer of being “bare” by definition does not have a husk. The husk as you have argued is removed and discarded. It is removed prior to planting and therefore cannot logically represent the corpse in Paul’s analogy. You’ve, in fact, falsified Carrier’s argument.

No, I’m going to ask you if you are an authority on Koine Greek.

Which of course is a Red Herring. If you have a cogent counter argument you should present it. But to answer your question, no, I’m not an “authority” in Greek.

If not why quote it above as though you knew what you were talking about? Do you?

Why don’t you show me I don’t know what I’m talking about. Are you capable of that? Or is quoting and plagiarizing Richard Carrier the best you can do.

Further, I don’t need to be an “authority” in Greek to claim that the text says “bare seed” when I quoted multiple versions of the Bible all readily available online (including the Greek versions) that render 1 Cor 15:37 as “bare seed.”

I’ve been upfront naming my authority, Dr Richard Carrier, an expert in the language.

Uh, no you weren’t. You plagiarized Carrier and got caught. Then you denied it. Even now you lie through your teeth about it.

Further, I wonder if you are overstating things just a tad regarding Carrier. Not even on Carrier’s own website About Dr. Carrier does he claim to be an “expert” in Greek. I had a look at his CV from that page as well. There is no special training or educational background in Greek listed as far as I could see and certainly no claim to be an “exper.” The closest he comes to claiming anything of himself is a somewhat ambiguous “translation competency” in Greek. I’m not sure that is sufficient for you to claim he is an “expert” when he doesn’t appear to even claim that of himself.

Even if we grant your claim that Carrier is an “expert” in Greek certainly Carrier’s knowledge of Greek, however good it may be, is not enough to overturn the weight of the hundreds of scholars that have translated the various versions of the Bible.

Who is your authority in all of the above? I want direct links, their context and the background of the ‘scholars’ you’ve used. I note that you have acknowledged none of it. “What’s good for the goose is not good for the gander”, apparently.

I cited every version of the Bible I quoted. So I don’t know what your problem is. The authorities I rest my argument on are:

1. The hundreds of scholars who have translated the various versions of the Bible I quoted.
2. The Interlinear NASB-NIV Parallel New Testament In Greek and English (I don’t have a direct link to this as I own the book).
3. The Westcott & Hort GNT - Literal Translation Greek-English Interlinear with Strong's.

Your authority, on the other hand, seems to be only Richard Carrier.

Re your plaintive: “why does Carrier appeal to Josephus and not the context at hand…”? Because he was showing how the word metaschēmatizō was understood and used by contemporaries – that’s why.

First off, Josephus wrote approximately 40-50 years after Paul and was not a contemporary of Paul. Then again, if Josephus was a contemporary of Paul then Paul was a contemporary of Jesus and the Gospel writers were contemporaries of Paul and Jesus as well. Are you sure that is really where you (or should I say Carrier) want to go with this? Didn’t think that one through did you.

Secondly, it would be more logical, accurate and honest to translate the word based upon the immediate context of the author using the word and/or the context of how the author uses the word elsewhere. Again, having to reach to Josephus serves to demonstrate just how far Carrier must stretch to make his argument work.

And there IS a reference re Josephus’s use of the word and I’ve provided it before as cited by Carrier. How you conveniently forget. Carrier: “Josephus describing two-body resurrection as his own view: Jewish War 2.163 and 3.372-75, Against Apion 2.218 (cf. Life 12 and Jewish Antiquities 18.14). On Jewish views and diversity: Empty Tomb pp. 107-13, 126, 137-38. On various pagan views of resurrection, see the relevant sections of Richard Carrier, Was Christianity Too Improbable to be False? (Secular Web: 2006).

I pulled those quotes and looked at them in post 169 (your inept response to this was to merely rant about Holding by the way). I can’t seem to find the word metaschēmatizō (transform) or any reference to change, exchange, exchanging bodies or changing clothes in any of those quotes from Josephus. Can you?

And I’m still waiting for you to explain how Jesus’ fleshly resurrected body can walk through walls and yet eat fish as per the gospel accounts as anything more than a myth that arose in a superstitious age.

”So when it was evening on that day, the first day of the week, and when the doors were shut where the disciples were, for fear of the Jews, Jesus came and stood in their midst and said to them, “Peace be with you.”” - (John 20:19)

Where does it claim Jesus walked through walls? It’s funny because you complain greatly that Paul never explicitly states Jesus rose in the flesh (in fact your argument hinges on this Argument from Silence). You complain that all I seem to be able to do is “imply” a corporeal resurrection in Paul. But you seem to have no problem implying things like Jesus walked through walls and Jesus appeared to Paul as a spirit when the text doesn’t explicitly say anything of the sort. Can anyone say double standard?

In further regards to John 20:19 apparently Jesus had the ability to appear and disappear. Which fits in with the idea that the resurrected body will be glorious and may even have special powers as Paul could be alluding to in 1 Corinthians 15:43 - ”it is sown in dishonor, it is raised in glory; it is sown in weakness, it is raised in power.”

Or are you arguing that Jesus’ digestive tract in the Lucan account of the resurrection body remained intact? How about giving us a Koine Greek sentence to elucidate your argument, like you have above re the Pauline notion of the resurrection body.

Whatever changes Jesus’ physiological make up may have undergone it is clear that his post resurrection body was quite corporeal and material in nature. Even though you have asserted Paul did not believe Jesus was physical you have yet to overturn the conclusion that Paul believed Jesus’ resurrected body was corporeal. Essentially your argument amounts to a weak and strained Argument from Silence in Paul’s writings and strained interpretations.

[Tassman]

Take deep breaths and settle down Spassman. Your last post was packed with off topic rants which are making you look loonier than ever. I’m trimming them out because they are just, well, loony.

The sneering and name calling of schoolyard bully types is of no account; it merely reveals the inadequacies of the perpetrator, not the victim.

And still avoiding the question I see.

Do you really think a seed exchanges its body for the body of a plant? Is the plant a continuation of the seed or not?

To your inept point. I have not claimed the NIV is “wrong,” I’ve only claimed it is not literal. In fact I argued the NIV had the same intended meaning as the literal translations. Man you are thick!

Further, one does not need to be well versed or be an expert in Greek to know that the NIV is not a literal translation and one of the most popular versions. According to this Bible Translation Chart the NIV has a 42.62% market share and is, “The best-selling translation, widely accepted by evangelical Christians.”. Also according to that chart the NIV is a ”Balance between word-for-word and thought-for-thought” translation as opposed to the NASB, KJV, ESV versions, as examples, which are “word-for-word” translations – i.e. literal translations. But you would know all this if you knew anything about the different Bible translations. Which you seem to be as clueless about as the basics of logic.

Regardless of where you think the emphasis in the verse is the literal translations render it “bare seed” and the less than literal translations such as the NIV still render it with a similar meaning such as “just a seed.”

Even if we take Paul’s meaning to be that it is merely a seed which is planted and not the plant that the seed will become that is planted it does not change the argument that the “seed” which is planted had NO husk. Have you ever heard of a farmer planting a whole ear of corn, husk and all, for example? No, they plant the kernels which have had the husk removed. Famers typically don’t plant a grain of wheat with the husk still on either. The husk is removed prior to use. Paul’s audience would have understood this (cf. Matthew 3:12). No matter how you slice it or where you place the emphasis there was no husk being planted with the seed thus Carrier’s interpretation fails.

Whatever Paul’s understanding of the germination process may have been or whatever he may have meant by the seed must die first the fact remains that he takes the time to say that a “bare seed” is sown. A “seed” even without the disclaimer of being “bare” by definition does not have a husk. The husk as you have argued is removed and discarded. It is removed prior to planting and therefore cannot logically represent the corpse in Paul’s analogy. You’ve, in fact, falsified Carrier’s argument.

For the umpteenth time, the entire point of the analogy – as with ALL Paul’s analogies – is that the old must die in order to be reborn as new and glorious. The bare seed does not die, merely the husk surrounding it. One does not plant a dead “bare seed” in the ground and expect it to grow because it won't. And to plant a live “bare seed” destroys the whole analogous point about dying first in order to be reborn.

Further, I wonder if you are overstating things just a tad regarding Carrier. Not even on Carrier’s own website About Dr. Carrier does he claim to be an “expert” in Greek. I had a look at his CV from that page as well. There is no special training or educational background in Greek listed as far as I could see and certainly no claim to be an “exper.” The closest he comes to claiming anything of himself is a somewhat ambiguous “translation competency” in Greek. I’m not sure that is sufficient for you to claim he is an “expert” when he doesn’t appear to even claim that of himself.

Even if we grant your claim that Carrier is an “expert” in Greek certainly Carrier’s knowledge of Greek, however good it may be, is not enough to overturn the weight of the hundreds of scholars that have translated the various versions of the Bible.

Are you arguing that as a qualified historian, Dr Carrier’s knowledge of Koine Greek is insufficient to enable him to practice his profession in his chosen area of interest, namely the texts and culture of the ancient Near East? What is the basis of this claim?

Re your fatuous “Hundreds of scholars” ad populum fallacy! The view of “hundreds of scholars” has been wrong before and in this instance it is increasingly the case given the development of the Historical/Critical Method and ongoing manuscript discoveries (e.g. the Nag Hammadi library) - as well as biblical criticism itself being a relatively recent phenomenon.

I cited every version of the Bible I quoted. So I don’t know what your problem is. The authorities I rest my argument on are:

1. The hundreds of scholars who have translated the various versions of the Bible I quoted.
2. The Interlinear NASB-NIV Parallel New Testament In Greek and English (I don’t have a direct link to this as I own the book).
3. The Westcott & Hort GNT - Literal Translation Greek-English Interlinear with Strong's.

Your authority, on the other hand, seems to be only Richard Carrier.

See above re the irrelevance of the "bare seed" argument. More to the point, you quoted Koine Greek texts with the deceitful implication that you understood them. But now you admit that you don’t understand Koine Greek. So the question stands: “who did you plagiarize your argument from”. I.e. who is your primary source given that you don’t have the requisite language skills or training in historical methodology to do your own primary research? Please provide the context and links so that we can all see where your argument originates.

First off, Josephus wrote approximately 40-50 years after Paul and was not a contemporary of Paul. Then again, if Josephus was a contemporary of Paul then Paul was a contemporary of Jesus and the Gospel writers were contemporaries of Paul and Jesus as well. Are you sure that is really where you (or should I say Carrier) want to go with this? Didn’t think that one through did you.

Secondly, it would be more logical, accurate and honest to translate the word based upon the immediate context of the author using the word and/or the context of how the author uses the word elsewhere. Again, having to reach to Josephus serves to demonstrate just how far Carrier must stretch to make his argument work.

Firstly, are you arguing that the common usage of metaschēmatizō changed over that period? Is there good reason to think it did? What is this “good reason”?

Secondly, even though I’m focused on Carrier’s argument, many other biblical scholars don’t regard the accounts of Jesus’ life as historically accurate - especially re the resurrection – and this includes the likes of Bart Ehrman, Michael Goulder, John Dominic Crossan, Gerd Lüdemann, and many others. And most non-apologist scholars dismiss the Joseph of Arimathea tomb story on the basis that there is no external evidence he OR his tomb ever existed. They ALL tend to view the post mortem experiences of Paul and the other early, pre-gospel Christians as visions of some sort – just as I am arguing.

Furthermore, even the few that do accept the empty tomb legend as possibly true regard a natural explanation (e.g. theft) as a more probable explanation than a miraculous resurrection of a “glorified” corpse as found in the gospels (but not the early Christian writers like Paul).

I pulled those quotes and looked at them in post 169 (your inept response to this was to merely rant about Holding by the way). I can’t seem to find the word metaschēmatizō (transform) or any reference to change, exchange, exchanging bodies or changing clothes in any of those quotes from Josephus. Can you?

Did you now! But you are not in a position to understand the original text. You admit that you cannot understand Koine Greek so your opinion is irrelevant. I prefer to trust qualified historians, such as Dr. Carrier, that don’t have a Christian apologetic agenda to flog. And, given that you are not qualified to make a valid historical judgment I am waiting to find out who is the “qualified historian” you are basing your arguments on - with links please. I have asked many times.

”So when it was evening on that day, the first day of the week, and when the doors were shut where the disciples were, for fear of the Jews, Jesus came and stood in their midst and said to them, “Peace be with you.”” - (John 20:19)

Where does it claim Jesus walked through walls? It’s funny because you complain greatly that Paul never explicitly states Jesus rose in the flesh (in fact your argument hinges on this Argument from Silence). You complain that all I seem to be able to do is “imply” a corporeal resurrection in Paul. But you seem to have no problem implying things like Jesus walked through walls and Jesus appeared to Paul as a spirit when the text doesn’t explicitly say anything of the sort. Can anyone say double standard?

In further regards to John 20:19 apparently Jesus had the ability to appear and disappear. Which fits in with the idea that the resurrected body will be glorious and may even have special powers as Paul could be alluding to in 1 Corinthians 15:43 - ”it is sown in dishonor, it is raised in glory; it is sown in weakness, it is raised in power.”

Whatever changes Jesus’ physiological make up may have undergone it is clear that his post resurrection body was quite corporeal and material in nature. Even though you have asserted Paul did not believe Jesus was physical you have yet to overturn the conclusion that Paul believed Jesus’ resurrected body was corporeal. Essentially your argument amounts to a weak and strained Argument from Silence in Paul’s writings and strained interpretations

It is not at all clear just what Jesus’ post mortem body was supposed to be. But, in a superstitious age such issues did not demand the empirical certainly of the sort we require today. You acknowledge above that the resurrected body was not like our fleshly body but was a glorified body (whatever that might mean). So that puts it into a unique category for starters plus the fact that there is no independent verification that a resurrection of any sort occurred.

As well, whereas the gospels make a point of emphasizing the fleshliness of such a body – poking wounds, eating fish etc - there is no equivalent evidence for a corporeal body in Paul’s writing – quite the opposite. The very best you can come up with is that it’s implied. Well, it’s not implied! Nor is stated or implied in ANY other pre-gospel epistle.

The best argument to the available facts is that the flesh and bone body was a later, embellished version of the original “spiritual body” of Paul and the other early Christians.

[Juice]

The sneering and name calling of schoolyard bully types is of no account; it merely reveals the inadequacies of the perpetrator, not the victim.

Poor little Tassman the victim. Getting beaten up by the big ol' bad Christians.

It’s become clear you’ve virtually abandoned this debate and have nothing more meaningful to offer, Tassman. You appear to be responding for the sake of responding now - repeating yourself, glossing over entire arguments, demanding links when I’ve already given them and now seem desperately preoccupied with trying to imply I’m deceitful and have plagiarized someone, when I haven’t. I guess you hope that will make you feel better after having been caught plagiarizing Carrier yourself? You are a sad little man, Tassman. Where you do happen to respond to the arguments given you are responding with bizarre off topic rants now. This will be my last post to you in this thread unless you have something of substance to offer.

For the umpteenth time, the entire point of the analogy – as with ALL Paul’s analogies – is that the old must die in order to be reborn as new and glorious. The bare seed does not die, merely the husk surrounding it. One does not plant a dead “bare seed” in the ground and expect it to grow because it won't. And to plant a live “bare seed” destroys the whole analogous point about dying first in order to be reborn.

And for the umpteenth time, the husk is not buried with the seed and cannot therefore logically represent the corpse. Therefore Carrier’s argument fails. You just don’t seem to be able to cogently rebut this.

Are you arguing that as a qualified historian, Dr Carrier’s knowledge of Koine Greek is insufficient to enable him to practice his profession in his chosen area of interest, namely the texts and culture of the ancient Near East? What is the basis of this claim?

Re your fatuous “Hundreds of scholars” ad populum fallacy! The view of “hundreds of scholars” has been wrong before and in this instance it is increasingly the case given the development of the Historical/Critical Method and ongoing manuscript discoveries (e.g. the Nag Hammadi library) - as well as biblical criticism itself being a relatively recent phenomenon.

I'm not denigarating Carrier's knowledge in Greek because frankly I don't know his specific training. He doesn't seem to give it but rather claims to be "translation competent." I’m arguing two things.

1. You appear to overstate your case when you claim Carrier is an “expert” in Greek when he doesn’t appear to claim that of himself as far as I can tell.
2. Whatever Carrier’s abilities in Greek are and however good they may be he alone is not sufficient to overturn the weight of hundreds of scholars that have translated the Bible. (By the way , this isn’t an ad populum fallacy as I’m not appealing to what is merely a popular belief among people. Stop pretending you understand logic and fallacies.)

See above re the irrelevance of the "bare seed" argument. More to the point, you quoted Koine Greek texts with the deceitful implication that you understood them. But now you admit that you don’t understand Koine Greek. So the question stands: “who did you plagiarize your argument from”. I.e. who is your primary source given that you don’t have the requisite language skills or training in historical methodology to do your own primary research? Please provide the context and links so that we can all see where your argument originates.

I’ve given you an argument and provided the links, as you requested, upon which I’ve grounded that argument. For instance The Westcott & Hort GNT - Literal Translation Greek-English Interlinear with Strong's. Did you even bother to look at it? If there is something wrong with my argument or analysis of the texts you should show me. Or is all you can do imply that I’m deceitful?

Firstly, are you arguing that the common usage of metaschēmatizō changed over that period? Is there good reason to think it did? What is this “good reason”?

Is there good reason to think it could not have? Words can take on different meanings in a similar time frame. A modern example is the word “gay.” In the 1920’s it meant one thing but by the 1970’s it had taken on quite a different meaning. Another more relevant example is the word logos. Whatever John may have meant by logos, writing about 50 years after Philo, it is clear John had a different intended meaning than that of Philo as John clearly assigns logos to Jesus. I doubt that was the meaning Philo had in mind for logos. Immediate context of how the author uses a word is of the utmost importance and should be the primary consideration for interpreting the intended meaning of any word. That Carrier must appeal to Josephus reveals the tremendous weakness in his argument.

Secondly, even though I’m focused on Carrier’s argument…

So focused on Carrier, you plagiarized him, got caught, then lied about it.

Did you now! But you are not in a position to understand the original text. You admit that you cannot understand Koine Greek so your opinion is irrelevant. I prefer to trust qualified historians, such as Dr. Carrier, that don’t have a Christian apologetic agenda to flog. And, given that you are not qualified to make a valid historical judgment I am waiting to find out who is the “qualified historian” you are basing your arguments on - with links please. I have asked many times.

See for yourself. Here is Wars of the Jews 2.163, 3.372-3.375 and Against Apion 2.218. in Greek. You can hold your cursor over each Greek word to get the meaning. Over to the right you can also open a side window by clicking “load” to get Whiston’s English translation. I can’t find μετασχηματίζω (metaschēmatizō - transfrom) anywhere in Wars of Jews 2.163, 3.372-3.375 or Against Apion 2.218. Show me I'm wrong and show me you are capable of thinking for yourself. Show me where Josephus uses metaschēmatizō in the references Carrier gives.

[Tassman]

Poor little Tassman the victim. Getting beaten up by the big ol' bad Christians.

No problem! One recognizes the underlying emotional need of apologists to lash out. It must be very frustrating believing nonsense.

It’s become clear you’ve virtually abandoned this debate and have nothing more meaningful to offer, Tassman. You appear to be responding for the sake of responding now - repeating yourself, glossing over entire arguments, demanding links when I’ve already given them and now seem desperately preoccupied with trying to imply I’m deceitful and have plagiarized someone, when I haven’t. I guess you hope that will make you feel better after having been caught plagiarizing Carrier yourself? You are a sad little man, Tassman. Where you do happen to respond to the arguments given you are responding with bizarre off topic rants now. This will be my last post to you in this thread unless you have something of substance to offer.

It is you, not I reduced to just one argument, i.e. the seed analogy.

You must have used somebody’s arguments. They can’t be yours because don’t understand Koine Greek despite your arguments being based on knowledge of it. And, despite many requests for your primary source you continue to present the argument as your own. I call that plagiarism, what do you call it.

And for the umpteenth time, the husk is not buried with the seed and cannot therefore logically represent the corpse. Therefore Carrier’s argument fails. You just don’t seem to be able to cogently rebut this

Already rebutted! Without the dying component, namely the discarded husk, the analogy fails. More to the point, you (i.e. your source) cannot make an analogy for a transformed “one body” resurrection, as per the gospels, because the removal of the kernel’s husk renders the analogy inexact.

Conversely, Carrier’s argument is that Paul perceives the future “spiritual body” as being already within us like the kernel of a seed (our "inner man") with the husk of the seed (our mortal body) to be discarded at death to rot, just as our as our fleshly bodies decay. As Paul says elsewhere, “flesh and blood (i.e. our mortal bodies) cannot inherit eternal life”.

I'm not denigarating Carrier's knowledge in Greek because frankly I don't know his specific training. He doesn't seem to give it but rather claims to be "translation competent." I’m arguing two things.
[LIST=1][*]You appear to overstate your case when you claim Carrier is an “expert” in Greek when he doesn’t appear to claim that of himself as far as I can tell.[*]Whatever Carrier’s abilities in Greek are and however good they may be he alone is not sufficient to overturn the weight of hundreds of scholars that have translated the Bible. (By the way , this isn’t an ad populum fallacy as I’m not appealing to what is merely a popular belief among people. Stop pretending you understand logic and fallacies.)

Yes it is for the reasons already given, namely: “The view of “hundreds of scholars” has been wrong before and in this instance it is increasingly the case given the development of the Historical/Critical Method and ongoing manuscript discoveries (e.g. the Nag Hammadi library). As well, biblical criticism itself is a relatively recent phenomenon.

I’ve given you an argument and provided the links, as you requested, upon which I’ve grounded that argument. For instance The Westcott & Hort GNT - Literal Translation Greek-English Interlinear with Strong's. Did you even bother to look at it? If there is something wrong with my argument or analysis of the texts you should show me. Or is all you can do imply that I’m deceitful?

Stop whining.

You cannot base an argument on the analysis of the texts because you cannot understand Koine Greek.

More to the point translating texts is more than just the literal translation of the words. Such texts can only be properly translated in the context of the cultural mores of the period they derive from. In the case of ancient texts they sometimes can only be understood by informed, educated guesses. Dr Carrier is in a position to do this (see CV below) as are the other scholars I’ve named. You are not. Neither am I, which is why I rely upon those that are.

Dr. Richard Carrier:

http://www.richardcarrier.info/about.html

Columbia University (New York, NY)

Ph.D. (Ancient History) October 2008
Dissertation: “Attitudes toward the Natural Philosopher in the
Early Roman Empire (100 B.C. to 313 A.D.)”

M.Phil. (Ancient History) May 2000
Majors: Greco-Roman Philosophy, Religion, and Historiography

M.A. (Ancient History) June 1998

University of California Berkeley (Berkeley, CA)

B.A. (major in History with a minor in Classical Civilization) June 1997

Is there good reason to think it could not have? Words can take on different meanings in a similar time frame. A modern example is the word “gay.” In the 1920’s it meant one thing but by the 1970’s it had taken on quite a different meaning. Another more relevant example is the word logos. Whatever John may have meant by logos, writing about 50 years after Philo, it is clear John had a different intended meaning than that of Philo as John clearly assigns logos to Jesus. I doubt that was the meaning Philo had in mind for logos. Immediate context of how the author uses a word is of the utmost importance and should be the primary consideration for interpreting the intended meaning of any word. That Carrier must appeal to Josephus reveals the tremendous weakness in his argument.

The only “tremendous weakness” of argumentation is yours. It is based on surmise and speculation. The Philo/John use of Logos is a different argument, but as an aside a strong case can be made that John represents the final process in the Hellenization of the Jesus tradition. “The Hellenization of Jesus is complete in John. Jesus' eschatological, or end of the world, message is removed and Jesus instead comforts those who have vigilantly awaited his second coming”.

http://www.infidels.org/library/mode...spel_john.html

So focused on Carrier, you plagiarized him, got caught, then lied about it.

More whining! You like to think so “little man”, to use your endearing terminology; I disagree but have resisted the temptation to derail the thread over it, which is often the intention of certain TWebbers when losing the debate. As well, you are hardly in a position to talk; who is your primary source again?

See for yourself. Here is Wars of the Jews 2.163, 3.372-3.375 and Against Apion 2.218. in Greek. You can hold your cursor over each Greek word to get the meaning. Over to the right you can also open a side window by clicking “load” to get Whiston’s English translation. I can’t find μετασχηματίζω (metaschēmatizō - transfrom) anywhere in Wars of Jews 2.163, 3.372-3.375 or Against Apion 2.218. Show me I'm wrong and show me you are capable of thinking for yourself. Show me where Josephus uses metaschēmatizō in the references Carrier gives.

See above re translating texts being more than just the literal translation of the words.

[Juice]

Been away for a few days but I did want to address a couple points that were left hanging.

Already rebutted! Without the dying component, namely the discarded husk, the analogy fails. More to the point, you (i.e. your source) cannot make an analogy for a transformed “one body” resurrection, as per the gospels, because the removal of the kernel’s husk renders the analogy inexact.

In Paul’s analogy he says, for whatever reason, the seed itself dies. So I don’t see how your objection holds here. The husk isn’t a factor at all in Paul’s seed analogy as the husk is removed prior to planting. The only reason you continue to harp on the husk is because you desperately want to defend Carrier’s falsified interpretation. There was NO husk. Get over it.

Conversely, Carrier’s argument is that Paul perceives the future “spiritual body” as being already within us like the kernel of a seed (our "inner man") with the husk of the seed (our mortal body) to be discarded at death to rot, just as our as our fleshly bodies decay.

You just keep repeating this nonsense. In Carrier’s FAQ he equates the “outer man” to the husk and argues the husk is buried with the seed. This is not only simply false as the husk is removed prior to planting (cf. Matthew 3:12) but Paul takes the time to explicitly say the seed is “bare” - that is NO husk! Carrier’s argument forces us to think the “outer man” (the corpse) is removed and discarded then the “inner man” (the seed) is buried with no corpse. This is clearly nonsensical.

Okay I do want to address this next part because it is clearly mistaken.

As Paul says elsewhere, “flesh and blood (i.e. our mortal bodies) cannot inherit eternal life”.

Not exactly.

“I declare to you, brothers and sisters, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God, nor does the perishable inherit the imperishable.” (1 Corinthians 15:50)

“Flesh and blood” appears a total of five times in the NT (three of which are by Paul, four if we allow Hebrews to have been written by Paul). It is a euphemism for man as is in mankind – that is fallen, fallible, weak, and corruptible man. It does not mean the literal flesh and blood of our mortal bodies.

In the following verses insert “mortal bodies” where you see “flesh and blood.” Then insert “man” for “flesh and blood” and see which makes more sense.

Jesus replied, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by flesh and blood, but by my Father in heaven. (Matthew 16:17)

“For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of this dark world and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms.” (Ephesians 6:12)

“Since then the children are sharers in flesh and blood, he also himself in like manner partook of the same; that through death he might bring to nought him that had the power of death, that is, the devil;“ (Hebrews 2:14)

“But when it pleased God, who separated me from my mother’s womb and called me through His grace, 16 to reveal His Son in me, that I might preach Him among the Gentiles, I did not immediately confer with flesh and blood, 17 nor did I go up to Jerusalem to those who were apostles before me; but I went to Arabia, and returned again to Damascus.” (Galatians 1:16)

Did Jesus literally mean that something could be revealed by the flesh and blood of some animal or person? Of course not, that’s ridiculous. Jesus was contrasting man against God. Did Paul mean that we literally do not struggle against the flesh and blood of mortal bodies? Was Paul accustomed to literally conferring with the flesh and blood of animals and/or men? Were some children literally sharing the flesh and blood of others and thereby engaging in cannibalism?

Did Paul literally mean here in 1 Corinthians 15:50 that the flesh and blood of our body cannot enter heaven? No, not exactly. What Paul meant was our bodies in their present state of weakness, fallibility and corruptibility cannot enter heaven. Our bodies in their current state must undergo the necessary change/transformation before they can inherit the Kingdom of God. That’s what Paul meant.

[Tassman]

Been away for a few days but I did want to address a couple points that were left hanging.

Not as far as I was concerned they weren't.

In Paul’s analogy he says, for whatever reason, the seed itself dies. So I don’t see how your objection holds here. The husk isn’t a factor at all in Paul’s seed analogy as the husk is removed prior to planting. The only reason you continue to harp on the husk is because you desperately want to defend Carrier’s falsified interpretation. There was NO husk. Get over it.

You just keep repeating this nonsense. In Carrier’s FAQ he equates the “outer man” to the husk and argues the husk is buried with the seed. This is not only simply false as the husk is removed prior to planting (cf. Matthew 3:12) but Paul takes the time to explicitly say the seed is “bare” - that is NO husk! Carrier’s argument forces us to think the “outer man” (the corpse) is removed and discarded then the “inner man” (the seed) is buried with no corpse. This is clearly nonsensical.

If the seed dies then the analogy fails as an analogy. Dead seeds do not return to life. ALL Paul‘s analogies have the component of discarding the old for the new – garments, tabernacles etc. There is no reason to think that the seed analogy is an exception. it is his theme. As Carrier argues (from the Greek) this is clearly intended in 1 Corinthians 15:46 - "the spiritual body is not first. The natural one comes first and then the spiritual one". Thus, in the seed analogy the old that is discarded to die can only be the husk. This would be understood by anyone familiar with agriculture.

Okay I do want to address this next part because it is clearly mistaken.

Not exactly.

“I declare to you, brothers and sisters, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God, nor does the perishable inherit the imperishable.” (1 Corinthians 15:50)

“Flesh and blood” appears a total of five times in the NT (three of which are by Paul, four if we allow Hebrews to have been written by Paul). It is a euphemism for man as is in mankind – that is fallen, fallible, weak, and corruptible man. It does not mean the literal flesh and blood of our mortal bodies.

In the following verses insert “mortal bodies” where you see “flesh and blood.” Then insert “man” for “flesh and blood” and see which makes more sense.

Jesus replied, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by flesh and blood, but by my Father in heaven. (Matthew 16:17)

“For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of this dark world and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms.” (Ephesians 6:12)

“Since then the children are sharers in flesh and blood, he also himself in like manner partook of the same; that through death he might bring to nought him that had the power of death, that is, the devil;“ (Hebrews 2:14)

“But when it pleased God, who separated me from my mother’s womb and called me through His grace, 16 to reveal His Son in me, that I might preach Him among the Gentiles, I did not immediately confer with flesh and blood, 17 nor did I go up to Jerusalem to those who were apostles before me; but I went to Arabia, and returned again to Damascus.” (Galatians 1:16)

Did Jesus literally mean that something could be revealed by the flesh and blood of some animal or person? Of course not, that’s ridiculous. Jesus was contrasting man against God. Did Paul mean that we literally do not struggle against the flesh and blood of mortal bodies? Was Paul accustomed to literally conferring with the flesh and blood of animals and/or men? Were some children literally sharing the flesh and blood of others and thereby engaging in cannibalism?

Please disclose where you have plagiarized this material from. Who is your source? I have asked many times. Obviously not a creditable source! Nobody who can utter a sentence like “if we allow Hebrews to have been written by Paul”, even in passing, can be taken seriously as a scholar.

Did Paul literally mean here in 1 Corinthians 15:50 that the flesh and blood of our body cannot enter heaven? No, not exactly. What Paul meant was our bodies in their present state of weakness, fallibility and corruptibility cannot enter heaven. Our bodies in their current state must undergo the necessary change/transformation before they can inherit the Kingdom of God. That’s what Paul meant.

It is reasonable to assume that “what Paul meant” is what Paul said, NOT what your source thinks Paul meant. And what Paul said, in 1 Corinthians 15:50, is quite straightforward. He says that no flesh or blood will "inherit" that kingdom, in fact nothing that decays will”. The mortal body decays and the spiritual body growing within will inherit the kingdom of god. In Carrier’s literal translation of 1 Corinthians 15:44 he says: "a natural body is sown, then a spiritual body is raised" and "if there is a natural body, there is also a spiritual body”. Paul never says these are the same body, i.e. he never says the one body becomes the other. And neither do any of the non-Pauline pre-gospel epistles say this. It is a relatively late concept. The first mention of it is in Mark c70 CE.

[Juice]

If the seed dies then the analogy fails as an analogy. Dead seeds do not return to life.

Well, typically dead people do not return to life either so I don’t see how a “dead” seed makes the analogy fail. In fact, I think it strengthens the analogy by removing any doubt as to whether Paul believed Jesus was actually dead and may be why Paul takes the time to say the seed dies.

ALL Paul‘s analogies have the component of discarding the old for the new – garments, tabernacles etc. There is no reason to think that the seed analogy is an exception. it is his theme. As Carrier argues (from the Greek) this is clearly intended in 1 Corinthians 15:46 - "the spiritual body is not first. The natural one comes first and then the spiritual one". Thus, in the seed analogy the old that is discarded to die can only be the husk. This would be understood by anyone familiar with agriculture.

Paul’s audience understood the husk was removed and destroyed prior to use (cf. Matthew 3:12). Again, under Carrier’s interpretation we are forced to understand the husk (the corpse, the “outer man”) as being discarded and destroyed then the seed (the “inner man”) is buried without a corpse. It’s nonsensical. That you continue to dance around this fact speaks with same volume as when you repeatedly refuse to answer the question:

Do you really think a seed exchanges its body for the body of a plant? Is the plant a continuation of the seed or not?

Let’s look at those analogies you mention. In these analogies Paul speaks of the corruptible body “putting on” that which is incorruptible. He says nothing about the “inner man” exchanging/discarding the “outer man” for a new body.

”For this perishable must put on the imperishable, and this mortal must put on immortality. But when this perishable will have put on the imperishable, and this mortal will have put on immortality, then will come about the saying that is written, “DEATH IS SWALLOWED UP in victory. O DEATH, WHERE IS YOUR VICTORY? O DEATH, WHERE IS YOUR STING?”” – (1 Corinthians 15:53-55, NASB)

The context here is very clear in 1 Cor 15:53-55. It’s the perishable/corruptible/mortal body that must “put on” the imperishable/incorruptible/immortality. That is, the state of our current bodies must undergo some type of change to become immortal and inherit eternal life. It says nothing about, nor implies, the “inner man” as exchanging the “outer” corruptible body for the incorruptible “spiritual body.” The context doesn’t allow for that interpretation. Further, if we understand this through Carrier’s interpretation of “exchanging” then Paul is implying the “inner man” is perishable/corruptible/mortal – which is again clearly nonsensical.

”For we know that if the earthly tent which is our house is torn down, we have a building from God, a house not made with hands, eternal in the heavens. For indeed in this house we groan, longing to be clothed with our dwelling from heaven, inasmuch as we, having put it on, will not be found naked. For indeed while we are in this tent, we groan, being burdened, because we do not want to be unclothed but to be clothed, so that what is mortal will be swallowed up by life. Now He who prepared us for this very purpose is God, who gave to us the Spirit as a pledge.” – (2 Corinthians 5:1-5, NASB)

The same arguments for 1Corinthians 15:53-55 applies to 2 Corinthians 5:1-5.

Please disclose where you have plagiarized this material from. Who is your source? I have asked many times. Obviously not a creditable source! Nobody who can utter a sentence like “if we allow Hebrews to have been written by Paul”, even in passing, can be taken seriously as a scholar.

Okay, we get it. You were stupid enough to plagiarize Carrier. You got caught and you’re upset so you want to imply I’ve plagiarized someone to make yourself feel better. Time for a new strategy, this is getting old now.

It is reasonable to assume that “what Paul meant” is what Paul said, NOT what your source thinks Paul meant.

As usual you haven’t addressed the evidence or arguments. Paul did not literally mean the “flesh and blood” of our bodies cannot inherit the Kingdom unless you believe Paul meant he was also accustomed to literally conferring with the flesh and blood of animals and/or men (Galatians 1:16). Do you believe he was? Do you believe Paul literally thought that we wrestle with flesh and blood in some sort of gruesome blood bath (Ephesians 6:12)? Do you honestly believe that is what Paul meant when he said “flesh and blood”? It’s obvious that “flesh and blood” was a euphemism for man.

And what Paul said, in 1 Corinthians 15:50, is quite straightforward. He says that no flesh or blood will "inherit" that kingdom, in fact nothing that decays will”. The mortal body decays and the spiritual body growing within will inherit the kingdom of god. In Carrier’s literal translation of 1 Corinthians 15:44 he says: "a natural body is sown, then a spiritual body is raised" and "if there is a natural body, there is also a spiritual body”.

The context is that Paul meant “man” (that is the corruptibility of man) will not inherit eternal life. In other words, our bodies in their current corruptible state cannot inherent the Kingdom. They must undergo change/transformation in order to inherit eternal life.

Paul never says these are the same body, i.e. he never says the one body becomes the other. And neither do any of the non-Pauline pre-gospel epistles say this. It is a relatively late concept. The first mention of it is in Mark c70 CE.

False. We’ve been over this.

”[Jesus] will transform the body of our humble state into conformity with the body of His glory, by the exertion of the power that He has even to subject all things to Himself.” – (Philippians 3:21, NASB)

”Behold, I tell you a mystery; we will not all sleep, but we will all be changed, in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet; for the trumpet will sound, and the dead will be raised imperishable, and we will be changed.” - (1 Corinthians 15:52-53, NASB)