Morally Wrong Behavior vs. What the Civil Government Should Prohibit

[seer]

There's not really much primary evidence to think that Paul knew about any tomb, and none at all to suggest he knew about an empty tomb.

That said, even if he did, the transformation of the body from mortal and dead to pneuma and alive would be a perfectly reasonable explanation of an empty tomb for Paul.

Right, Paul never mentions the tomb but it would have logically followed from his beliefs.

[Tassman]

Tass, we are discussing the view of Paul via Ehrman and he is clear - the mortal body is not discarded. And why Paul would have believed the tomb was empty, if he knew about it.

Ehrman says that Paul stresses Jesus rose from the dead in a “spiritual body” i.e. a body that is neither fleshly nor insubstantial – but something different again. And, despite being the earliest recorded source (in 1 Cor 15) Paul makes no mention of the empty tomb. The first we hear of the empty tomb is “40 years after the fact, two decades after Paul wrote his Epistles, which in turn were written two decades after Jesus would have lived and died”. Ehrman, (2012). 'Did Jesus Exist?'

And Ehrman (in his 2014 lectures 'From Jesus to Constantine' dismisses the story of the empty tomb. According to him “the empty tomb was needed to underscore the physical resurrection of Jesus, but is it doubtful that Jesus was buried by Joseph of Arimathea. It is unlikely that a member of the Sanhedrin would have buried Jesus; crucifixion was meant "to torture and humiliate a person as fully as possible," and the body was left on the stake to be eaten by animals; criminals were usually buried in common graves; and Pilate had no concern for Jewish sensitivities, which makes it unlikely that he would have allowed for Jesus to be buried”

[Boxing Pythagoras]

Right, Paul never mentions the tomb but it would have logically followed from his beliefs.

How do you figure? Nothing Paul says in his epistles implies belief in a tomb, empty or otherwise. He says that Jesus was buried. That does not imply that Jesus was buried in a tomb. He may just as easily believed that Jesus was buried in a simple grave or even slung into a mass grave with other executed criminals.

[rogue06]

How do you figure? Nothing Paul says in his epistles implies belief in a tomb, empty or otherwise. He says that Jesus was buried. That does not imply that Jesus was buried in a tomb. He may just as easily believed that Jesus was buried in a simple grave or even slung into a mass grave with other executed criminals.

In his analysis of early formulas and creeds, James Ware (associate professor of religion at the University of Evansville) argues in The Resurrection of Jesus in the Pre-Pauline Formula of 1 Cor 15.3–5 that

For all ancient Christians for whom we have evidence, reference to the empty tomb was confined to full narratives of the resurrection event (such as we see in the canonical gospels), and was not considered appropriate or expected within confessional formulae regarding that event (such as we see in 1 Cor. 15:3-5).

So references to the empty tomb were reserved for the resurrection narratives and not creedal summaries which were intended to only cover the most important facts -- namely the death, burial, resurrection, and appearances of Jesus. Hence, Paul not mentioning the empty tomb I Cor. 15:3-5 should not only come as no surprise but is exactly what we should expect to see.

[seer]

How do you figure? Nothing Paul says in his epistles implies belief in a tomb, empty or otherwise. He says that Jesus was buried. That does not imply that Jesus was buried in a tomb. He may just as easily believed that Jesus was buried in a simple grave or even slung into a mass grave with other executed criminals.

I was going by what Ehrman was saying about Paul's belief. So the tomb or grave would have been empty, in other words the physical body is gone because it is transformed.

My guess it that Paul does not talk about any traditions that indicated that women went to the tomb and found it empty because he had not heard these tradition. Paul certainly thought, and would have said, if asked, that the tomb was empty, because he definitely thought Jesus was physically raised from the dead. That is his entire argument in 1 Corinthians 15. His Corinthian opponents maintained that the resurrection of believers was a past spiritual event, and they had already experienced it. Paul’s purpose in 1 Corinthians is NOT, decidedly not, to argue that Jesus really was raised from the dead physically. That is the view that he accepts as OBVIOUS and AGREED UPON between himself and the Corinthians. I say this because some people have claimed that 1 Corinthians 15 is the chapter where Paul tries to prove Jesus resurrection. That’s not true at all. He USES the belief in Jesus’ physical resurrection – a belief he shares with his readers – in order to argue a different point, about their OWN resurrection. His point is that since Jesus’ resurrection was a bodily resurrection (which the Corinthians agree on), then their own resurrection will as well be bodily. Which means it is not simply spiritual. Which means they have not experienced it yet, whatever they may be saying or thinking. The entire argument, in other words, is predicated on an understanding that Jesus was physically raised from the dead. So why doesn’t Paul mention the empty tomb? Probably because he doesn’t know of the stories later found in the Gospels about it. Would he have said the tomb was empty? Certainly yes. But that would have been out of logical necessity, not because he had heard stories about Mary Magdalene going there on the third day.

https://ehrmanblog.org/pauls-view-of...n-for-members/

[seer]

Ehrman says that Paul stresses Jesus rose from the dead in a “spiritual body” i.e. a body that is neither fleshly nor insubstantial – but something different again. And, despite being the earliest recorded source (in 1 Cor 15) Paul makes no mention of the empty tomb. The first we hear of the empty tomb is “40 years after the fact, two decades after Paul wrote his Epistles, which in turn were written two decades after Jesus would have lived and died”. Ehrman, (2012). 'Did Jesus Exist?'

And Ehrman (in his 2014 lectures 'From Jesus to Constantine' dismisses the story of the empty tomb. According to him “the empty tomb was needed to underscore the physical resurrection of Jesus, but is it doubtful that Jesus was buried by Joseph of Arimathea. It is unlikely that a member of the Sanhedrin would have buried Jesus; crucifixion was meant "to torture and humiliate a person as fully as possible," and the body was left on the stake to be eaten by animals; criminals were usually buried in common graves; and Pilate had no concern for Jewish sensitivities, which makes it unlikely that he would have allowed for Jesus to be buried”

Of course Ehrman, being an atheist, would not believe in the empty tomb, we are discussing what Paul and the early Christians believed.

My guess it that Paul does not talk about any traditions that indicated that women went to the tomb and found it empty because he had not heard these tradition. Paul certainly thought, and would have said, if asked, that the tomb was empty, because he definitely thought Jesus was physically raised from the dead. That is his entire argument in 1 Corinthians 15. His Corinthian opponents maintained that the resurrection of believers was a past spiritual event, and they had already experienced it. Paul’s purpose in 1 Corinthians is NOT, decidedly not, to argue that Jesus really was raised from the dead physically. That is the view that he accepts as OBVIOUS and AGREED UPON between himself and the Corinthians. I say this because some people have claimed that 1 Corinthians 15 is the chapter where Paul tries to prove Jesus resurrection. That’s not true at all. He USES the belief in Jesus’ physical resurrection – a belief he shares with his readers – in order to argue a different point, about their OWN resurrection. His point is that since Jesus’ resurrection was a bodily resurrection (which the Corinthians agree on), then their own resurrection will as well be bodily. Which means it is not simply spiritual. Which means they have not experienced it yet, whatever they may be saying or thinking. The entire argument, in other words, is predicated on an understanding that Jesus was physically raised from the dead. So why doesn’t Paul mention the empty tomb? Probably because he doesn’t know of the stories later found in the Gospels about it. Would he have said the tomb was empty? Certainly yes. But that would have been out of logical necessity, not because he had heard stories about Mary Magdalene going there on the third day.

https://ehrmanblog.org/pauls-view-of...n-for-members/

[Boxing Pythagoras]

In his analysis of early formulas and creeds, James Ware (associate professor of religion at the University of Evansville) argues in The Resurrection of Jesus in the Pre-Pauline Formula of 1 Cor 15.3–5 that

For all ancient Christians for whom we have evidence, reference to the empty tomb was confined to full narratives of the resurrection event (such as we see in the canonical gospels), and was not considered appropriate or expected within confessional formulae regarding that event (such as we see in 1 Cor. 15:3-5).

So references to the empty tomb were reserved for the resurrection narratives and not creedal summaries which were intended to only cover the most important facts -- namely the death, burial, resurrection, and appearances of Jesus. Hence, Paul not mentioning the empty tomb I Cor. 15:3-5 should not only come as no surprise but is exactly what we should expect to see.

I don't think I've ever claimed Paul necessarily DIDN'T believe there was an empty tomb. I just don't think we have enough evidence to conclude that he did.

Incidentally, I personally have no qualms with supposing the empty tomb for minimal facts approaches to arguments for the Resurrection. I just don't think Paul is a good support for that premise.

I was going by what Ehrman was saying about Paul's belief. So the tomb or grave would have been empty, in other words the physical body is gone because it is transformed.

I can agree to that. Wherever Jesus had been buried, I'm sure Paul believed Jesus' body was no longer there.

[rogue06]

BP, it appears you are offering little more than an argument from silence when it appears that a reference of a tomb in I Cor. 15:3-5 shouldn't be expected in the first place.

[carpedm9587]

I don't think I've ever claimed Paul necessarily DIDN'T believe there was an empty tomb. I just don't think we have enough evidence to conclude that he did.

Incidentally, I personally have no qualms with supposing the empty tomb for minimal facts approaches to arguments for the Resurrection. I just don't think Paul is a good support for that premise.

I can agree to that. Wherever Jesus had been buried, I'm sure Paul believed Jesus' body was no longer there.

You may have missed the earlier discussion. Seer's default position is that he accepts what is written in the NT "at face value" until there is cause to disbelieve it. Ergo, it is always a requirement placed on someone who says "that's not true" to prove him wrong (which is pretty much impossible, thereby Seer is protected in his belief system) and rendering any "we do not have enough evidence" claim moot because of course there is enough evidence: the words of the NT accepted at face value.

It's pretty much the definition of a self-perpetuating belief system, rendering any discussion about it essentially pointless, AFAICT.

[seer]

You may have missed the earlier discussion. Seer's default position is that he accepts what is written in the NT "at face value" until there is cause to disbelieve it. Ergo, it is always a requirement placed on someone who says "that's not true" to prove him wrong (which is pretty much impossible, thereby Seer is protected in his belief system) and rendering any "we do not have enough evidence" claim moot because of course there is enough evidence: the words of the NT accepted at face value.

It's pretty much the definition of a self-perpetuating belief system, rendering any discussion about it essentially pointless, AFAICT.

Not to bring up this old saw, but as far as the resurrection you have no ground to say "that is not true." You can and did say that you believed that there wasn't enough evidence to accept it as historical fact, but even there you could not provide a non-arbitrary criterion for what it would take for the average historian to accept it as historical fact (because one does not exist). And thus your skeptical belief system is protected.

[Boxing Pythagoras]

BP, it appears you are offering little more than an argument from silence when it appears that a reference of a tomb in I Cor. 15:3-5 shouldn't be expected in the first place.

I'm definitely not making an argument from silence.

If I said, "Paul never mentions an empty tomb, therefore Paul did not believe there was an empty tomb," that would be an argument from silence.

If I said, "Paul never denies the empty tomb, therefore he believes there was an empty tomb," that would be an argument from silence.

It is not an argument from silence to acknowledge that we do not have enough evidence to reach any conclusion.

[carpedm9587]

Not to bring up this old saw, but as far as the resurrection you have no ground to say "that is not true."

I never made that argument - that is the argument YOU keep trying to force on me so you can make this argument. Since it's not my argument, I have no response beyond this one.

You can and did say that you believed that there wasn't enough evidence to accept it as historical fact, but even there you could not provide a non-arbitrary criterion for what it would take for the average historian to accept it as historical fact (because one does not exist).

I have already responded to your misuse of the term "arbitrary," so I have no further response to this either.

And thus your skeptical belief system is protected.

Since your first two sentences fail, this conclusion falls with it.

[carpedm9587]

I'm definitely not making an argument from silence.

If I said, "Paul never mentions an empty tomb, therefore Paul did not believe there was an empty tomb," that would be an argument from silence.

If I said, "Paul never denies the empty tomb, therefore he believes there was an empty tomb," that would be an argument from silence.

It is not an argument from silence to acknowledge that we do not have enough evidence to reach any conclusion.

Good luck with this. I have made this argument repeatedly, only to have it fall on deaf ears. I'll be surprised if you are any more successful.

[seer]

I never made that argument - that is the argument YOU keep trying to force on me so you can make this argument. Since it's not my argument, I have no response beyond this one.

I'm going by what you just said: Ergo, it is always a requirement placed on someone who says "that's not true" to prove him wrong... Who is the someone?

I have already responded to your misuse of the term "arbitrary," so I have no further response to this either.

Except you could not provide a standard that would be acceptable to historians - primarily because it deals with a supernatural event. So there is literally no evidence that the Christian could provide to justify his position. It is a rigged game from the start.

Since your first two sentences fail, this conclusion falls with it.

Of course it does - to the narrow minded...

[JimL]

i'm going by what you just said: ergo, it is always a requirement placed on someone who says "that's not true" to prove him wrong... Who is the someone?



Except you could not provide a standard that would be acceptable to historians - primarily because it deals with a supernatural event. So there is literally no evidence that the christian could provide to justify his position. It is a rigged game from the start.




Of course it does - to the narrow minded...

Ecree.