A question for atheists . . .

[Kbertsche]

Good, then let's stick to this issue.

Indications are that Paul believed in the resurrection of a spiritual body, i.e. a real body, but not a fleshly body...a superior body. Paul specifically presents the resurrection as that of a spiritual body, not the rising of a corpse: "the body you sow is not the body that will rise"

So you argue, along with other agenda-driven non-scholars. Your arguments disagree with Ehrman, Luedemann, and most scholars who are trained and work in the field. They agree that the early Christians believed in a physical resurrection. This is the point of 1 Cor 15:3-5.

Both the early creed and Paul use the word "egeiro": "to waken, to raise up". Yes, Paul argues (15:12 ff) that the resurrection body is different from the pre-resurrection body. But he does not imply that it is non-physical. Rather, he implies that it is physical, as Ehrman and others recognize.

[Tassman]

So you argue, along with other agenda-driven non-scholars. Your arguments disagree with Ehrman, Luedemann, and most scholars who are trained and work in the field. They agree that the early Christians believed in a physical resurrection. This is the point of 1 Cor 15:3-5.

Both the early creed and Paul use the word "egeiro": "to waken, to raise up". Yes, Paul argues (15:12 ff) that the resurrection body is different from the pre-resurrection body. But he does not imply that it is non-physical. Rather, he implies that it is physical, as Ehrman and others recognize.

[Kbertsche]

I understand the atheist argument; it denies a physical resurrection. It ignores the meanings and implications of the Greek wording (e.g. "egeiro" referring to physical acts of getting up). It ignores the context (physical death followed by physical resurrection).

[37818]

Present your proof.

Here is something that can be tested:

John 7:17,
. . . If any man will do his will, he shall know of the doctrine, whether it be of God, . . .

What do you understand it to say?

It claims that "he shall know of the teaching, whether it be of God."

If a person comes to know said teaching is from God, they know the teaching is true and that there is God from whom they now know it is from.

Now what is the will of God to know to do? To get that you need to read the overall context.

You would have to be willing to do it if you come to know it is from God.

Wrong, that there is an uncaused existence tells you nothing about the nature of that existence. The material world, the greater cosmos, may be the uncaused existence, the fundamental substance and cause of all the effects that arise from it, and within it. The cause is in the effect, the effect is in the cause. There is no evidence of a deity, distinct from the material world, nor is there any evidence that something/the material world, could be created out of nothing.

You suppose what you think the uncaused existence to be.
And you seem to supposing cause and effect to be one fundamental substance and vice versa. You need to step through this for me if not for everyone else. Your argument. I am not following it.

I make a distinction between uncaused existence and caused things in existence.

[Tassman]

I understand the atheist argument; it denies a physical resurrection. It ignores the meanings and implications of the Greek wording (e.g. "egeiro" referring to physical acts of getting up). It ignores the context (physical death followed by physical resurrection).

[Tassman]

Here is something that can be tested:

John 7:17,
. . . If any man will do his will, he shall know of the doctrine, whether it be of God, . . .

What do you understand it to say?

It claims that "he shall know of the teaching, whether it be of God."

If a person comes to know said teaching is from God, they know the teaching is true and that there is God from whom they now know it is from.

Now what is the will of God to know to do? To get that you need to read the overall context.

You would have to be willing to do it if you come to know it is from God.

Begging the question! You're assuming, without credible evidence, that there's a god with a will that one can know. One cannot "know" what doesn't exist.

[JimL]

Here is something that can be tested:

John 7:17,
. . . If any man will do his will, he shall know of the doctrine, whether it be of God, . . .

What do you understand it to say?

Yes, and of course we know that to be false, since many have known the doctrine and rejected it.

It claims that "he shall know of the teaching, whether it be of God."

Yes I know, but as above we know that to be false. Nobody knew or followed the teaching more than Mother Teresa and she didn't know whether it be of god or not.

If a person comes to know said teaching is from God, they know the teaching is true and that there is God from whom they now know it is from.

Rubbish.

Now what is the will of God to know to do? To get that you need to read the overall context.

Stop kidding yourself, you believe, but you have no knowledge.

You would have to be willing to do it if you come to know it is from God.

See above.

You suppose what you think the uncaused existence to be.
And you seem to supposing cause and effect to be one fundamental substance and vice versa. You need to step through this for me if not for everyone else. Your argument. I am not following it.

Every effect is in its cause, and every cause is in its effect. The substance of the acorn is in the oak tree from out of which it emerged. Ex nihilo nihil fit.

I make a distinction between uncaused existence and caused things in existence.

I understand the distinction that you are making, but you have no basis for making it. You, for no good reason, believe that something can be created from out of absolutely nothing. So why do you believe that? There is only one logical answer to that question, you believe it because that is what you've heard, what you've read in a pre-scientific book. Ya know people wondered about existence back then as well, and like many people even today they couldn't believe that the world of their observation could have come into existence without being created, ergo a creator was created, created by man in his own image. Now I can't prove that of course, just as you can't prove that a real creator exists, but you have no evidence for your claim, and I do. Ex nihilo nihil fit.

[Kbertsche]

Paul used the noun "anastasis" in vv 12 and 13 of 1 Cor 15. He used forms of the verb "egeiro" in many other places in the chapter. You can see by the context that he uses the words almost interchangeably (except that one is a noun and the other a verb).

[Tassman]

Paul used the noun "anastasis" in vv 12 and 13 of 1 Cor 15. He used forms of the verb "egeiro" in many other places in the chapter. You can see by the context that he uses the words almost interchangeably (except that one is a noun and the other a verb).

[Kbertsche]

No, you have the context backwards. The theme of 1Cor 15 is resurrection, primarily the resurrection of Jesus. Paul doesn't mention the "spiritual body" until verse 44, more than halfway through the chapter. Paul contrasts the "spiritual body" with the "natural body". He uses synonyms for each; the natural is earthly, mortal, perishable; the spiritual is heavenly, immortal, imperishable.

Note that Paul contrasts "spiritual" with "natural", not with "physical". He does not rule out the possibility that a "spiritual" body cannot also be physical.

Paul also contrasts Adam and Jesus in this chapter:

Paul is saying here that Adam had a "natural body", but Jesus had a "spiritual body". Paul implies that Jesus had this "spiritual body" for His entire time on earth, not only after His Resurrection.

[Tassman]

No, you have the context backwards. The theme of 1Cor 15 is resurrection, primarily the resurrection of Jesus. Paul doesn't mention the "spiritual body" until verse 44, more than halfway through the chapter. Paul contrasts the "spiritual body" with the "natural body". He uses synonyms for each; the natural is earthly, mortal, perishable; the spiritual is heavenly, immortal, imperishable.

[tabibito]

ωφθη (oefthay) doesn't distinguish between "got seen" in a vision, in a dream, or irl. Therefore, when the word is used, it obviously means "got seen in a vision."
The logic is ineffable.

Meanwhile, "ηγερθη χριστος εκ νεκρων" Christ got awakened from out of the dead (masculine plural) still shows that Paul considered Christ to have been no longer numbered among the dead. That statement would be invalid if his body had not been restored to life (restored in Paul's opinion, admittedly) - the mere raising of soul or spirit would not remove a person from being among the dead.

[37818]

Begging the question! You're assuming, without credible evidence, that there's a god with a will that one can know.

No. You refuse to do the experiment. The gospel account of John makes some claims. Which should be testable. What I find remarkable is the refusal to do the experiment.

One cannot "know" what doesn't exist.

Yeah. One cannot "know" about something real that one refuses to learn about.

[Tassman]

ωφθη (oefthay) doesn't distinguish between "got seen" in a vision, in a dream, or irl. Therefore, when the word is used, it obviously means "got seen in a vision."
The logic is ineffable.

Meanwhile, "ηγερθη χριστος εκ νεκρων" Christ got awakened from out of the dead (masculine plural) still shows that Paul considered Christ to have been no longer numbered among the dead. That statement would be invalid if his body had not been restored to life (restored in Paul's opinion, admittedly) - the mere raising of soul or spirit would not remove a person from being among the dead.

[Tassman]

No. You refuse to do the experiment. The gospel account of John makes some claims. Which should be testable. What I find remarkable is the refusal to do the experiment.

And this "experiment" will provide empirically verifiable evidence of God; or merely a warm fuzzy feeling.