Morally Wrong Behavior vs. What the Civil Government Should Prohibit

[shunyadragon]

No freaking kidding! That is what we are arguing about - what Paul believed. Ehrman doesn't believe in any kind of resurrection. Try and keep up Shuny...

Then why do you keep describing what Ehrman believes . . . and problematically selectively citing him to support your agenda. For example:

According to Erhman the BODY is not abandoned it is TRANSFORMED. It is not REPLACED. WE do NOT shed our bodies.

As far as I know there is no place in his writings that he claimed to believe in any kind of Resurrection, or what Paul believed. Ehrman's books and writings were about what the people and Paul believed at the time the Bible was written compiled, and edited.

I have most of his books, listened to his talks, and even meet him. I live 20 minutes from UNC where he teaches.

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bart_D._Ehrman

In Misquoting Jesus Ehrman tells how he was a born-again, fundamentalist Christian as a teenager.[1][4] He recounts being certain in his youthful enthusiasm that God had inspired the wording of the Bible and protected its texts from all error.[1][4] His desire to understand the original words of the Bible led him to the study of ancient languages, particularly Koine Greek, and to textual criticism. During his graduate studies, however, he became convinced that there are contradictions and discrepancies in the biblical manuscripts that could not be harmonized or reconciled:[1]

I did my very best to hold on to my faith that the Bible was the inspired word of God with no mistakes and that lasted for about two years … I realized that at the time we had over 5,000 manuscripts of the New Testament, and no two of them are exactly alike. The scribes were changing them, sometimes in big ways, but lots of times in little ways. And it finally occurred to me that if I really thought that God had inspired this text … If he went to the trouble of inspiring the text, why didn’t he go to the trouble of preserving the text? Why did he allow scribes to change it?[1]

He remained a liberal Christian for 15 years but later became an agnostic atheist after struggling with the philosophical problems of evil and suffering.[1][2][5]

Ehrman has taught at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill since 1988, after four years of teaching at Rutgers University. At UNC he has served as both the Director of Graduate Studies and the Chair of the Department of Religious Studies. He was the recipient of the 2009 J. W. Pope "Spirit of Inquiry" Teaching Award, the 1993 UNC Undergraduate Student Teaching Award, the 1994 Phillip and Ruth Hettleman Prize for Artistic and Scholarly Achievement, and the Bowman and Gordon Gray Award for excellence in teaching.

Ehrman currently serves as co-editor of the series New Testament Tools, Studies, and Documents (E. J. Brill), co-editor-in-chief for the journal Vigiliae Christianae, and on several other editorial boards for journals and monographs. Ehrman formerly served as President of the Southeast Region of the Society of Biblical Literature, chair of the New Testament textual criticism section of the Society, book review editor of the Journal of Biblical Literature, and editor of the monograph series The New Testament in the Greek Fathers (Scholars Press).

© Copyright Original Source

[Boxing Pythagoras]

Then in what manner did the witnesses see him if it wasn't a material body?

I literally said it in the post that you were replying to. Paul believed that they witnessed Jesus' resurrected body of pneuma rather than the mortal body which had died.

[LostSheep]

I’m confused why you’re convinced regarding that BP. Acts, which has Paul’s story on the road to Damascus, was written after 1 Corinthians, which has Paul writing (in Chapter 15) that we will, along with Christ, be raised in better bodies, not purely spiritual bodies, but material and yet enhanced/better than the bodies we died in. 1 Corinthians 15 shows Paul thought this would happen and not a pneuma body upon resurrection.

[Boxing Pythagoras]

I’m confused why you’re convinced regarding that BP. Acts, which has Paul’s story on the road to Damascus, was written after 1 Corinthians, which has Paul writing (in Chapter 15) that we will, along with Christ, be raised in better bodies, not purely spiritual bodies, but material and yet enhanced/better than the bodies we died in. 1 Corinthians 15 shows Paul thought this would happen and not a pneuma body upon resurrection.

We've been discussing this for several pages now. Paul describes the resurrected body as a σῶμα πνευματικόν or "body of pneuma" in 1 Corinthians 15. Paul indeed thought that this body of pneuma was a material body and of a better quality than the mortal body. Though it is often translated as "spirit" in modern English, the word πνεῦμα did not have the same connotation of "immaterial" or "non-physical" that the word "spirit" has.

I am personally of the opinion that "spirit" is a rather poor choice for translating πνεῦμα, but that's just my humblest of opinions...

[JimL]

I literally said it in the post that you were replying to. Paul believed that they witnessed Jesus' resurrected body of pneuma rather than the mortal body which had died.

But am I wrong, or didn't you say that you thought the resurrected spirit body which Paul speaks of was of the same nature as that of the spirit that animates the material body. How could the witnesses see Jesus resurrected spirit body, if that spirit body is of the same nature as the spirit that animates the natural body? If I recall the witnesses were walking down the road and saw Jesus passing by in the flesh, Thomas touched the wound in Jesus gut etc.

[Boxing Pythagoras]

But am I wrong, or didn't you say that you thought the resurrected spirit body which Paul speaks of was of the same nature as that of the spirit that animates the material body. How could the witnesses see Jesus resurrected spirit body, if that spirit body is of the same nature as the spirit that animates the natural body? If I recall the witnesses were walking down the road and saw Jesus passing by in the flesh, Thomas touched the wound in Jesus gut etc.

Not in Paul's descriptions, they weren't. The men on the road to Emmaus are from Luke. The Doubting Thomas story is from John.

Paul does say that Jesus "appeared" to the witnesses which he described, but he doesn't tell us what these appearances entailed. I don't think it is beyond the pale to presume they were visual appearances. While it may seem paradoxical to a modern thinker, there are various other ancient Greek writings which describe the visual appearance of a pneumatic body (if anyone is interested, Ehrman discusses several of these in his latest book, Heaven and Hell).

[seer]

Then why do you keep describing what Ehrman believes . . . and problematically selectively citing him to support your agenda. For example:

As far as I know there is no place in his writings that he claimed to believe in any kind of Resurrection, or what Paul believed. Ehrman's books and writings were about what the people and Paul believed at the time the Bible was written compiled, and edited.

What the hell are you talking about? I said Ehman doesn't believe in the Resurrection, but he does claim to know what Paul believed. And I'm only quoting Ehrman because Tass seems to respect him.

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

[seer]

Read literally and without the wider context of the discussion this seems to be saying that it is Ehrman who believes that the body is transformed. Anyone who's been following along in the discussion would realize there's an implied Paul believes after "According to Erhman", so it's not really an issue, except for when someone like shuny misunderstands you because they jump in to the discussion without having paid attention to the arguments.

Right, that is why one should go to the link I provided where Ehrman is answering questions on this.

https://ehrmanblog.org/did-paul-thin...-july-14-2017/

[JimL]

Not in Paul's descriptions, they weren't. The men on the road to Emmaus are from Luke. The Doubting Thomas story is from John.

Paul does say that Jesus "appeared" to the witnesses which he described, but he doesn't tell us what these appearances entailed. I don't think it is beyond the pale to presume they were visual appearances. While it may seem paradoxical to a modern thinker, there are various other ancient Greek writings which describe the visual appearance of a pneumatic body (if anyone is interested, Ehrman discusses several of these in his latest book, Heaven and Hell).

But Thomas is said to have touched the wound of Jesus and Jesus ate with the disciples post resurrection. That doesn't seem to be the pneumatic spirit body that you attribute to Pauls understanding.

[Boxing Pythagoras]

But Thomas is said to have touched the wound of Jesus and Jesus ate with the disciples post resurrection. That doesn't seem to be the pneumatic spirit body that you attribute to Pauls understanding.

I agree! But neither of those stories come from Paul's writings. They have nothing to do with what Paul believed.

[seer]

I agree! But neither of those stories come from Paul's writings. They have nothing to do with what Paul believed.

Well no, Paul is not saying that the mortal body is discarded, but that it is incorporated into the spiritual. "The mortal puts on immortality."

[Boxing Pythagoras]

Well no, Paul is not saying that the mortal body is discarded, but that it is incorporated into the spiritual. "The mortal puts on immortality."

As you have already stated yourself, it's not that the mortal body is discarded. Rather, the mortal body is transformed. When 1 Cor 15:53 says, "τὸ θνητὸν τοῦτο ἐνδύσασθαι ἀθανασίαν" (ie, "the mortal clothes itself in immortality"), I think we both agree that he is not saying that the mortal body is literally sheathed by a second, immortal one. Paul goes to great lengths, earlier in the chapter, to illustrate that the bodies are of very different types despite the fact that one transforms into the other. That's his entire point when he raises the analogy of the seed: a seed has an entirely different body than a stalk of wheat, despite the fact that the seed transforms into the wheat.

[Tassman]

Tass, that is utter nonsense.



According to Erhman the BODY is not abandoned it is TRANSFORMED. It is not REPLACED. WE do NOT shed our bodies.

It depends what you mean by "transformed". Christian teaching traditionally contrasts the resurrection body with the mortal body, saying that it will be a different kind of body; a "spiritual body", meaning an immortal body, or incorruptible body (1 Cor 15:53—54). So, it's unlikely that the fleshly body is merely given a ‘makeover’ (like the plain girl in a teen movie). Much more likely the body is changed in composition and structure resulting in the the original fleshly body being of little account.

[seer]

It depends what you mean by "transformed". Christian teaching traditionally contrasts the resurrection body with the mortal body, saying that it will be a different kind of body; a "spiritual body", meaning an immortal body, or incorruptible body (1 Cor 15:53—54). So, it's unlikely that the fleshly body is merely given a ‘makeover’ (like the plain girl in a teen movie). Much more likely the body is changed in composition and structure resulting in the the original fleshly body being of little account.

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.

[Boxing Pythagoras]

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.

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.