Announcement

Collapse

Apologetics 301 Guidelines

If you think this is the area where you tell everyone you are sorry for eating their lunch out of the fridge, it probably isn't the place for you


This forum is open discussion between atheists and all theists to defend and debate their views on religion or non-religion. Please respect that this is a Christian-owned forum and refrain from gratuitous blasphemy. VERY wide leeway is given in range of expression and allowable behavior as compared to other areas of the forum, and moderation is not overly involved unless necessary. Please keep this in mind. Atheists who wish to interact with theists in a way that does not seek to undermine theistic faith may participate in the World Religions Department. Non-debate question and answers and mild and less confrontational discussions can take place in General Theistics.


Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

A critical take on Inspiring Phiosophy's evidence for the Resurrection

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Another possibility I heard, though controversial, is that the last page of Mark's original gospel was somehow lost. What we have in Mark 16:8 is a broken sentence.

    "ἐφοβοῦντο γάρ", "they were afraid, however, ..." ends in mid-sentence. γάρ is a conjunction that appears as the second word in a Greek sentence. With the resurrection appearances missing, others have added one of several endings to Mark's Gospel. Meanwhile, Matthew and Luke, who borrowed heavily on Mark's Gospel, had to find other sources for their resurrection appearances.
    When I Survey....

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by Adam View Post
      I listened/watched about 30 minutes.
      Good apologetics. But's that's just what it is. It marshalls evidence for the truth of the Resurrection and downplays all the alternatives. It is not an impartial nor rigorous study.
      From my point of view several of the proofs fail. He assumes everyone agrees James was the natural brother of Jesus. All Roman Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, and others (like Lutheran me, following Martin Luther) regard him as a cousin or step-brother. I also believe that the writer of John 19:20 was a cousin of Jesus and thus his closest relative, so Jesus saying "here is your son" follows naturally and implies nothing about James, not a closer relative of Jesus.
      In spite of me being a fervent believer in the Resurrection, count me unimpressed.
      As for Mark 16:9-20, why would we want this snake-handling regarded as legitimate, anyway? No, John 21 was the original ending of GMark.
      I had always understood that Jesus presented His mother to John (John 19:26). Your take is interesting. That would mean that this relative who wrote "John" was also the one who beat Peter to the tomb (20:2, 4).

      As for the handling of snakes, see Acts 28:5. As that reference would then be the basis for that part of the longer ending. As for poison see Luke 10:19.
      Last edited by 37818; 01-24-2016, 08:26 PM.
      . . . the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; . . . -- Romans 1:16 KJV

      . . . that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures: . . . -- 1 Corinthians 15:3-4 KJV

      Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: . . . -- 1 John 5:1 KJV

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by 37818 View Post
        I had always understood that Jesus presented His mother to John (John 19:26). Your take is interesting. That would mean that this relative who wrote "John" was also the one who beat Peter to the tomb (20:2, 4).
        It would seem so, but the "Beloved Disciple"of John 19:26 does not match the "other disciple" of John 20. (I different word for "loved" is used.) Whereas Jesus's cousin John the Apostle was at the Cross with Jesus's mother Mary, the "other disciple" of John 20:2, 4 is more likely "the disciple known to the high priest" of John 18:15-16. I hold that he is John Mark, who wrote the original Passion Narrative underlying all four gospels.
        Near the Peoples' Republic of Davis, south of the State of Jefferson (Suspended between Left and Right)

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by RhinestoneCowboy View Post
          They would have known pigeon Greek at best but if they knew any Greek at all is highly speculative. In any case, we have no idea what shape or form the creed was in before Paul "received" it and it's clearly been altered.

          The creed only says "he was buried." It does not say he was "buried in a tomb." Also, if the "burial" was "according to the scriptures" (1 Cor 15:4) then this may be well within the range of midrash or pesher interpretation of Isaiah 53:9 or some other OT text and not a reference to an actual historical event. The creed is not an eyewitness report claiming "I saw Jesus buried."

          It's implied that he will "appear" in Galilee but in what shape or form is not given. If we run with the theory that the author of Mark thought that Jesus was the "Son of Man" then he could have believed Jesus would make his triumphant return in Galilee. It's not clear from Mark's ending that Jesus was still on earth or not. All Mark leaves us with is a missing body.

          To respond to your points in order:

          1. Calling it "speculative" is untrue. Several of the disciples were likely multilingual, and Greek was the lingua franca of the area anyway, not Latin. It also doesn't really matter. If you read the Gospel of Thomas (which is in Coptic), the Greek nature of the original text shines through. Casey was a good scholar, but Casey often overestimated how important Aramaic really was, calling people like Stanley Porter "fundamentalists" and "incompetent" for arguing that Jesus knew Greek (which he probably did).

          2. Unless you have compelling evidence, don't refer to anything as "midrash" or "pesher." Michael Goulder did that far too often, trying to explain away things he didn't like. You're reading suppositions that you have in the West into an ANE culture. Ours is a low-context culture; we have to mention everything. Theirs was not. Paul's silence really can't be used on this, much like Paul's silence about Jesus' birthplace or crucifixion site doesn't show anything.

          3. Assuming Mark ends at 16:8, yes, but Jesus has consistently been talking about appearing in Galilee. The appearances are being referred to, just not as explicitly as some would like. You also have to deal with the fact that all evidence seems to point to the fact that the disciples thought that Jesus himself was appearing to them, not some amorphous blob or some ghost. They were familiar with visions.

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by psstein View Post
            To respond to your points in order:

            1. Calling it "speculative" is untrue. Several of the disciples were likely multilingual, and Greek was the lingua franca of the area anyway, not Latin. It also doesn't really matter. If you read the Gospel of Thomas (which is in Coptic), the Greek nature of the original text shines through. Casey was a good scholar, but Casey often overestimated how important Aramaic really was, calling people like Stanley Porter "fundamentalists" and "incompetent" for arguing that Jesus knew Greek (which he probably did).
            I don't see what the point of arguing this is. The creed has been altered from its original form has it not?

            2. Unless you have compelling evidence, don't refer to anything as "midrash" or "pesher."
            The evidence is within the creed itself. It's kind of a dead giveaway when they say "in accordance with the scriptures" that they were looking for confirmation of their belief in the OT. Midrash is a well documented practice as evidenced by the Qumran corpus and the gospels themselves.

            Michael Goulder did that far too often, trying to explain away things he didn't like.
            Maybe Goulder was right.

            You're reading suppositions that you have in the West into an ANE culture. Ours is a low-context culture; we have to mention everything. Theirs was not. Paul's silence really can't be used on this, much like Paul's silence about Jesus' birthplace or crucifixion site doesn't show anything.
            Your original point was "the tradition Paul quotes knows of an empty tomb." I'd like you to point out exactly where it says "tomb" because all I can see is that it says "he was buried" which could imply a ground burial, a criminal burial as detailed in #4 of my OP, or a burial in a tomb/grave with other bodies in it. Obviously, just "being buried" can imply a whole plethora of scenarios.

            And on Paul's silence I would argue in response to the question "How are the dead raised? With what kind of body will they come?" (1 Cor 15:35), Paul could have easily replied "Ones that get up and leave an empty tomb behind! Duh!" It's suspicious that the empty tomb gets no mention from Paul.

            3. Assuming Mark ends at 16:8, yes, but Jesus has consistently been talking about appearing in Galilee. The appearances are being referred to, just not as explicitly as some would like. You also have to deal with the fact that all evidence seems to point to the fact that the disciples thought that Jesus himself was appearing to them, not some amorphous blob or some ghost. They were familiar with visions.
            The appearance to Paul was a vision and he makes no distinction between his vision and the appearances to the others in 1 Cor 15:5-8. It's quite clear that the original "appearances" were visions that evolved into something more corporeal as time went on.
            Last edited by RhinestoneCowboy; 01-25-2016, 11:03 PM.

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by RhinestoneCowboy View Post
              I don't see what the point of arguing this is. The creed has been altered from its original form has it not?
              Depends what you mean by "altered." The original creed may have read "to Paul," rather than "to me." So yes, that would be an alteration, albeit an insignificant one.

              The evidence is within the creed itself. It's kind of a dead giveaway when they say "in accordance with the scriptures" that they were looking for confirmation of their belief in the OT. Midrash is a well documented practice as evidenced by the Qumran corpus and the gospels themselves. Maybe Goulder was right.
              Except it's not that simple, and this is where Goulder (and Spong, from whom I assume you're taking this) fundamentally get it wrong. Midrash isn't simply making stories up, it's commentary on the text. In Goulder's haste to declare difficult passages "midrash," he fundamentally misunderstood what midrash is.
              Your original point was "the tradition Paul quotes knows of an empty tomb." I'd like you to point out exactly where it says "tomb" because all I can see is that it says "he was buried" which could imply a ground burial, a criminal burial as detailed in #4 of my OP, or a burial in a tomb/grave with other bodies in it. Obviously, just "being buried" can imply a whole plethora of scenarios.
              It's in the Greek. The verb for raised is "egeresthai," which means rising from a lying to a standing position. A reasonable inference from that is Paul believing in a bodily resurrection.


              The appearance to Paul was a vision and he makes no distinction between his vision and the appearances to the others in 1 Cor 15:5-8. It's quite clear that the original "appearances" were visions that evolved into something more corporeal as time went on.
              Not quite. Opthe, the verb being used, far more often refers to a physical appearance. There are also many other issues with the "vision hypothesis," but getting into them requires more time than I currently have.

              Comment


              • #22
                Part 3 - will respond to a 10 minute interval of the video this time.

                13. At 11:47 IP says "Expectation and excitement were definitely not present" but as mentioned earlier if they were applying the concept to Elijah and John the Baptist (Mark 6:14-16 and Mark 8:27-28) then obviously there was some sort of expectation of a single dying and rising prophet figure. Excitement or frenzied grief was surely experienced by Jesus' close followers which make up most of the "witnesses" in 1 Cor 15:5-7. This puts them in the prime position for having grief visions/hallucinations. Notice how we have no reports of any of the persons responsible for Jesus’ death having experiences or appearances of Jesus - which would be more convincing and, imo, make for a better story. All the "appearances", except for Paul and the 500, come from close followers whose visions/apparitions can be explained by bereavement.

                14. At 12:15 IP says “all report a bodily resurrection” but Paul’s resurrection involves a "spiritual body" and exactly what he means by that is unclear. We also know that the appearance to Paul was a vision - see #6 of my OP. Mark does not narrate any bodily appearances so we can't be sure if he wanted us to think Jesus' body was still on earth or that he would later appear to his followers in Galilee from heaven in some sort of immortalized bodily form (Son of Man). Matthew says “some doubted” and the exact nature of Jesus' body is unclear. Luke is the first gospel 85-90 to explicitly state that the body was composed of "flesh and bones." And John has Thomas physically touch Jesus’ wounds. These reports are inconsistent in the way they represent the resurrection with the earliest reports being spiritual encounters which evolve into physically touching a formerly dead corpse that had returned to life.

                15. At 12:36 IP says "Even if you discount the Gospels as unreliable, one still has to account for the earliest Christians preaching bodily resurrection and not a spiritual appearance."

                This is false.

                First of all, we don't know what the "earliest Christians" believed because our earliest source comes from around 20 years after the crucifixion. The early creed says "he was raised" but "being raised" does not necessarily mean that one would leave an empty tomb behind - see #6 in my OP.

                Second of all, Paul is our only eyewitness of the Risen Jesus in the entire NT and he makes it clear that what he saw was a vision, with later accounts of this vision talking about a blinding light and a voice from heaven. So contrary to what IP claims, the earliest Christian record we have was in fact professing a "spiritual appearance."

                16. At 13:03 IP says "they never interpreted the appearances of Christ as just spiritual visions."

                Acts 26:19 - “After that, King Agrippa, I was not disobedient to the heavenly vision"

                Lol!

                Oh and where does Paul say that he or the disciples saw Jesus in a way that was not a vision? It's quite clear from Paul's own hand (Gal. 1:12, 1 Cor 15:8, 2 Cor 12:1) that all he experienced were spiritual visions and he indicates no difference in regards to the appearances the others experienced in 1 Cor 15:5-7.

                17. At 14:58-17:25 - IP discusses the conversion of James but we have no firsthand material from him so we don’t know exactly what he saw or claimed to believe. What we do know is that having your own brother suddenly executed would make you susceptible to a grief hallucination or be influenced by others in the same circle of people that were having these sorts of apparitions.

                18. At 17:26 IP says a “dying and rising messiah was not part of second temple Judaism,” maybe not but again we can see from Mark 6:14-16 and Mark 8:27-28 that some Jews were claiming the exact same thing about John the Baptist and Elijah as they were for Jesus. Obviously the concept of a single prophet rising from the dead as a precursor to the coming kingdom of God was very much in the air around the time when Jesus was executed.

                19. At 17:49 IP says "the plausibility of Paul having a hallucination is even far lower than James" but I would ask exactly how does IP know what mental state Paul was in? The NT attests quite well to Paul having visions. He admits himself in 2 Cor 12:1 to having visions and revelations. In Acts 16:9-10 Paul has a vision of a Macedonian Man and in Acts 26:19 he says he was not disobedient to the "heavenly vision." Obviously, Paul was susceptible to having visions or “seeing things” that may not have really been there.

                20. At 18:00 - “nor would a mere vision have caused Paul's sudden conversion” - Evidently IP is not very familiar with the Book of Acts.
                Lol! Read Acts 9:3-8, 22:6-11, and 26:13-19.

                21. At 19:26 - “The Christians preached to the Gentiles” Well duh, they had to because most of the Jews weren’t buying what they were selling!

                22. At 19:45 - “preached physical resurrection to the Roman world which was detested by most pagans” - Where is the source for this claim? If this is true then why did Christianity largely become a gentile religion which accepted the resurrection of the flesh? Obviously it wasn’t as “detested” as IP might make it seem. I think once you survey the Greco-Roman sources, glorification or immortalization of a deified figure always required that the physical body was somehow preserved. https://books.google.com/books?id=PX...page&q&f=false
                This may help explain why later Christianity largely became a gentile religion that affirmed the resurrection of the flesh which strayed away from it's Jewish spiritual mystical origins.

                Stay tuned for more folks!
                Last edited by RhinestoneCowboy; 01-26-2016, 06:33 PM.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by psstein View Post
                  Depends what you mean by "altered." The original creed may have read "to Paul," rather than "to me." So yes, that would be an alteration, albeit an insignificant one.
                  What about the part where it says "Christ died for our sins" which was a product of the later gentile mission?

                  Except it's not that simple, and this is where Goulder (and Spong, from whom I assume you're taking this) fundamentally get it wrong. Midrash isn't simply making stories up, it's commentary on the text. In Goulder's haste to declare difficult passages "midrash," he fundamentally misunderstood what midrash is.
                  Ok well what exactly would you call it if the author of Mark or his conspirators read Isaiah 53:9 and fulfilled it as follows? "And they (Sanhedrin) made his grave with the wicked (criminal burial/crucified between two criminals) and with the rich (Joseph of Arimathea) in his death."

                  Or when Matthew composed verse 21:5 of his gospel in light of Zechariah 9:9 and has two donkeys?

                  Or when John 19:23-24 uses Psalm 22:18 to literally interprets two different treatments of clothing versus garments?


                  It's in the Greek. The verb for raised is "egeresthai," which means rising from a lying to a standing position. A reasonable inference from that is Paul believing in a bodily resurrection.
                  Actually the verb has a much more wide range of meaning than that.

                  1) to arouse, cause to rise
                  1a) to arouse from sleep, to awake
                  1b) to arouse from the sleep of death, to recall the dead to life
                  1c) to cause to rise from a seat or bed etc.
                  1d) to raise up, produce, cause to appear
                  1d1) to cause to appear, bring before the public
                  1d2) to raise up, stir up, against one
                  1d3) to raise up i.e. cause to be born
                  1d4) of buildings, to raise up, construct, erect
                  http://lexiconcordance.com/greek/1453.html

                  Being "raised" or being "brought back to life" did not necessarily mean that a bodily resurrection was implied. There were many ways this could be envisioned to take place as the sources represent a diversity of views. See #6 in my OP.

                  And this still doesn't show that Jesus was buried in a tomb. 1 Cor. 15:4 states that Jesus “was buried” (ἐτάφη) but this verb simply describes generic burial and can refer to ground burials as well as tomb burials.

                  Not quite. Opthe, the verb being used, far more often refers to a physical appearance. There are also many other issues with the "vision hypothesis," but getting into them requires more time than I currently have.
                  Where does Paul claim to see the Risen Jesus in a way that was not a vision? Where does he use the word ōphthē in a physical sense in regards to seeing the Risen Christ?

                  The Theological Dictionary of the New Testament (vol. 5, p. 358) points out that in this type of context the word is a technical term for being “in the presence of revelation as such, without reference to the nature of its perception.” In other words, the “seeing” may not refer to actual sensory or mental perception. “The dominant thought is that the appearances are revelations, an encounter with the risen Lord who reveals himself…they experienced his presence.”
                  Last edited by RhinestoneCowboy; 01-26-2016, 06:37 PM.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by RhinestoneCowboy View Post



                    15. At 12:36 IP says "Even if you discount the Gospels as unreliable, one still has to account for the earliest Christians preaching bodily resurrection and not a spiritual appearance."

                    This is false.

                    First of all, we don't know what the "earliest Christians" believed because our earliest source comes from around 20 years after the crucifixion. The early creed says "he was raised" but "being raised" does not necessarily mean that one would leave an empty tomb behind - see #6 in my OP.

                    Second of all, Paul is our only eyewitness of the Risen Jesus in the entire NT and he makes it clear that what he saw was a vision, with later accounts of this vision talking about a blinding light and a voice from heaven. So contrary to what IP claims, the earliest Christian record we have was in fact professing a "spiritual appearance."

                    16. At 13:03 IP says "they never interpreted the appearances of Christ as just spiritual visions."

                    Acts 26:19 - “After that, King Agrippa, I was not disobedient to the heavenly vision"

                    Lol!

                    Oh and where does Paul say that he or the disciples saw Jesus in a way that was not a vision? It's quite clear from Paul's own hand (Gal. 1:12, 1 Cor 15:8, 2 Cor 12:1) that all he experienced were spiritual visions and he indicates no difference in regards to the appearances the others experienced in 1 Cor 15:5-7.
                    Well the phrase translated "heavenly vision" is not taking about some spirit apparition. I can understand your thinking here. For you that translation is unfortunate. But that event was not just something Saul experienced all by his lonesome. It was a sight in the sky which Saul and his men with him experienced. Only Saul saw the man Jesus, the men only saw the light. Only Saul understood what Jesus spoke to him. The men only heard what was to them an unintelligible voice. Saul was blinded by the experience. His men having seen the light and hearing some kind of vioce had no reason to doubt what Saul said. So they took blinded Saul where he asked.
                    . . . the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; . . . -- Romans 1:16 KJV

                    . . . that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures: . . . -- 1 Corinthians 15:3-4 KJV

                    Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: . . . -- 1 John 5:1 KJV

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by RhinestoneCowboy View Post
                      What about the part where it says "Christ died for our sins" which was a product of the later gentile mission?
                      No. This is actually thought to be part of the original, at least by the majority. The areas of contention are the appearances to the 500 (which could simply mean something about many eyewitnesses still being alive) and where the tradition terminated. Did it terminate with appearances to James, or did Paul change it from "to Paul" to "to me?" There are good scholars on both sides of the arguments.

                      Ok well what exactly would you call it if the author of Mark or his conspirators read Isaiah 53:9 and fulfilled it as follows? "And they (Sanhedrin) made his grave with the wicked (criminal burial/crucified between two criminals) and with the rich (Joseph of Arimathea) in his death."

                      Or when Matthew composed verse 21:5 of his gospel in light of Zechariah 9:9 and has two donkeys?

                      Or when John 19:23-24 uses Psalm 22:18 to literally interprets two different treatments of clothing versus garments?
                      A combination of typology and supercessionism. It's not midrash. You also have to keep in mind that the early Christians often looked for passages they felt vaguely fit. There's also the issue that it's fairly commonly believed (among scholars, at least) that Jesus was aware of so-called "Messianic prophecies" and was actively attempting to fulfill them.

                      Being "raised" or being "brought back to life" did not necessarily mean that a bodily resurrection was implied. There were many ways this could be envisioned to take place as the sources represent a diversity of views. See #6 in my OP. And this still doesn't show that Jesus was buried in a tomb. 1 Cor. 15:4 states that Jesus “was buried” (ἐτάφη) but this verb simply describes generic burial and can refer to ground burials as well as tomb burials.
                      Yes, it doesn't necessarily mean that, but you have to look at its other uses in the Septuagint and the NT. You can't simply consider the item in question in a vacuum. The burial account should be held to. Raymond Brown's Death of the Messiah is still the best treatment of this topic around. It is fairly expensive and technical though. Alternatively, see Craig Evans' work.

                      Where does Paul claim to see the Risen Jesus in a way that was not a vision? Where does he use the word ōphthē in a physical sense in regards to seeing the Risen Christ?
                      He doesn't, but the issue is that you're treating the word "vision" in the Enlightenment sense of it. That is, something that isn't palpably there. Paul and the early disciples were aware of visions. This was something notably different.

                      I don't have much time to address your points, so just a few:

                      1. All early evidence suggests a bodily resurrection was preached. That doesn't come from "sources 20 years later." It comes from the fact that there's no "cult of the tomb," as it were, as well as what we know about early Christology. See Dunn on the tomb veneration and Hurtado on the Christology. There are sources within the gospels and the Pauline epistles that definitely pre-date the first Christian writings.

                      With regard to Acts, it's a little trickier. To my knowledge, nobody has done an analysis of the speeches to see whether or not they conform with Lukan vocabulary, etc. My personal hunch is that there's some sort of early tradition behind them, though Luke is putting words in the mouths of his speakers.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by 37818 View Post
                        Well the phrase translated "heavenly vision" is not taking about some spirit apparition. I can understand your thinking here. For you that translation is unfortunate. But that event was not just something Saul experienced all by his lonesome. It was a sight in the sky which Saul and his men with him experienced. Only Saul saw the man Jesus, the men only saw the light. Only Saul understood what Jesus spoke to him. The men only heard what was to them an unintelligible voice. Saul was blinded by the experience. His men having seen the light and hearing some kind of vioce had no reason to doubt what Saul said. So they took blinded Saul where he asked.
                        Yes, I'm very familiar with the account. But can you show in Paul's own letters where he hints at the appearances being "physical?" See #6 in my OP. It's quite clear that Paul only speaks of spiritual encounters not physically touching a formerly dead corpse that had returned to life.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by psstein View Post
                          No. This is actually thought to be part of the original, at least by the majority. The areas of contention are the appearances to the 500 (which could simply mean something about many eyewitnesses still being alive) and where the tradition terminated. Did it terminate with appearances to James, or did Paul change it from "to Paul" to "to me?" There are good scholars on both sides of the arguments.
                          Fair enough.

                          A combination of typology and supercessionism. It's not midrash. You also have to keep in mind that the early Christians often looked for passages they felt vaguely fit. There's also the issue that it's fairly commonly believed (among scholars, at least) that Jesus was aware of so-called "Messianic prophecies" and was actively attempting to fulfill them.
                          Ok what about "pesher" interpretation as explained here? https://www.quora.com/How-do-atheist...illed-by-Jesus

                          How do we know the Jesus sect wasn't the first to interpret these passages as "Messianic prophecies"? Most Jews today or since obviously didn't interpret these as prophecies.

                          Yes, it doesn't necessarily mean that, but you have to look at its other uses in the Septuagint and the NT. You can't simply consider the item in question in a vacuum. The burial account should be held to. Raymond Brown's Death of the Messiah is still the best treatment of this topic around. It is fairly expensive and technical though. Alternatively, see Craig Evans' work.
                          There's a quote from Raymond Brown here and he seems to share my skepticism in regards to the burial account though he may come to a different conclusion. http://infidels.org/library/modern/p...omb/roman.html

                          All the sources we have regarding Roman crucifixion seem to leave the impression that the bodies were left hanging for a considerable amount of time and were barred from a proper burial - see #4 in my OP. This was considered part of the punishment.

                          Josephus Jewish War 4.317 is often cited as if to completely throw out the fact that Judea was under Roman rule and that crucifixion victims were treated differently there but it can't be taken as direct evidence for a burial involving a convicted seditionist who claimed to be "King of the Jews" under Pilate c. 30 AD. There are numerous problems with accepting Josephus' testimony and interpreting it as evidence for Jesus' burial http://www.reasonablefaith.org/forum...#msg1275426509. Josephus also comments on anyone who has been stoned to death for blaspheming God (Jesus' original charge), ‘let him be hung during the day, and let him be buried dishonorably and secretly’ (Jos. Ant. IV, 202). The burial of Jesus in a tomb also contradicts what we know about Jewish criminal burial traditions as I detail in #4 of my OP. Also, the fact that the remains of only one buried crucified person has been recovered confirms the rarity of the occurrence.

                          There's also Mark's story which was copied or known by the other evangelists. So that's only 2 sources that go against all the others which give a different impression of crucifixion and what we know about the character of Pilate from the time period.

                          So in the end, it's improbable that Jesus was allowed to be buried considering he was crucified by the Romans. And it's even doubly improbable that he was granted a proper burial by the Jews.

                          He doesn't, but the issue is that you're treating the word "vision" in the Enlightenment sense of it. That is, something that isn't palpably there. Paul and the early disciples were aware of visions. This was something notably different.
                          If Paul doesn't mention anything more "physical" than visions or revelations then I'm not sure how we're supposed to discern the exact nature of the appearances other than they were spiritual encounters. The appearances are usually interpreted in light of the empty tomb and Luke's narrative but those are later developments according to most scholars.

                          1. All early evidence suggests a bodily resurrection was preached. That doesn't come from "sources 20 years later." It comes from the fact that there's no "cult of the tomb," as it were, as well as what we know about early Christology. See Dunn on the tomb veneration and Hurtado on the Christology. There are sources within the gospels and the Pauline epistles that definitely pre-date the first Christian writings.
                          The question is "what type of body?" Was a "spiritual body" composed of flesh and blood? Could it eat and be touched? Would it leave an empty tomb behind? In light of all the diversity in the sources (see #6 in OP) how do we know Paul wasn't thinking of some sort of a "spiritual body" that resided in heaven? The fact that there was no tomb veneration is good evidence that there was no such tomb. Jesus' remains would not be required for veneration (the Church of the Holy Sepulchre is venerated without his body) and this completely disregards the importance the site would have had considering its where the Resurrection actually took place. The site would have not been forgotten however there's no mention of its location until the 4th century.

                          With regard to Acts, it's a little trickier. To my knowledge, nobody has done an analysis of the speeches to see whether or not they conform with Lukan vocabulary, etc. My personal hunch is that there's some sort of early tradition behind them, though Luke is putting words in the mouths of his speakers.
                          I'm not sure anyone was taking notes back then. Thucydides in Peloponnesian War 1.22.1–2 tells us that authors made up the speeches of their main characters.
                          Last edited by RhinestoneCowboy; 01-27-2016, 11:24 AM.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Originally posted by RhinestoneCowboy View Post
                            Originally posted by 37818 View Post
                            Well the phrase translated "heavenly vision" is not taking about some spirit apparition. I can understand your thinking here. For you that translation is unfortunate. But that event was not just something Saul experienced all by his lonesome. It was a sight in the sky which Saul and his men with him experienced. Only Saul saw the man Jesus, the men only saw the light. Only Saul understood what Jesus spoke to him. The men only heard what was to them an unintelligible voice. Saul was blinded by the experience. His men having seen the light and hearing some kind of vioce had no reason to doubt what Saul said. So they took blinded Saul where he asked.
                            Yes, I'm very familiar with the account. But can you show in Paul's own letters where he hints at the appearances being "physical?" See #6 in my OP. It's quite clear that Paul only speaks of spiritual encounters not physically touching a formerly dead corpse that had returned to life.
                            A "body" is not a "spirit." Paul in Romans, Philippians and 1 Corinthians writes about "bodily" resurrection.
                            Romans 8:11, 23; Philippians 3:21; 1 Corinthians 15:35, 44.
                            . . . the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; . . . -- Romans 1:16 KJV

                            . . . that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures: . . . -- 1 Corinthians 15:3-4 KJV

                            Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: . . . -- 1 John 5:1 KJV

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Originally posted by 37818 View Post
                              A "body" is not a "spirit." Paul in Romans, Philippians and 1 Corinthians writes about "bodily" resurrection.
                              Romans 8:11, 23; Philippians 3:21; 1 Corinthians 15:35, 44.
                              The word to describe the resurrection body is πνευματικός:

                              1) relating to the human spirit, or rational soul, as part of the man
                              which is akin to God and serves as his instrument or organ
                              1a) that which possesses the nature of the rational soul
                              2) belonging to a spirit, or a being higher than man but inferior to God
                              3) belonging to the Divine Spirit
                              3a) of God the Holy Spirit
                              3b) one who is filled with and governed by the Spirit of God
                              4) pertaining to the wind or breath; windy, exposed to the wind, blowing
                              http://lexiconcordance.com/greek/4152.html

                              Josephus when he speaks of the beliefs of the Pharisees says in (Jewish War 3. 374), "their souls are pure and obedient, and obtain a most holy place in heaven, from whence, in the revolution of ages, they are again sent into pure bodies." And in another record (Jewish War 2.162), he says "the souls of good men only are removed into other bodies.” Both passages seem to imply that the Pharisees believed that they get a new "body" in heaven.

                              So you need to show that "spiritual bodies" (1 Cor 15:44) could be physically touched, were thought to be composed of flesh and bones (Luke 24:39), and would walk around on earth rather than some sort of "spiritual body" that only existed in heaven.

                              And again, this does not change the fact that Paul nowhere mentions the appearances were any more "physical" than a vision or revelation.
                              Last edited by RhinestoneCowboy; 01-28-2016, 09:48 AM.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                I wish I had some time to address Rhinestone Cowboy's points more thoroughly.

                                Just a few comments though:

                                1. John and the synoptics are independent. The handful of scholars who still hold to a dependence are wrong. See especially D. Moody Smith's work John Among the Gospels.

                                2. Pesher is also different than the burial accounts. Pesher is primarily found at Qumran. Again, this is something that Spong and Goulder were so grossly wrong on that it barely is worth mentioning. Please don't use Quora as a source; it's about as reliable as Wikipedia.

                                3. Brown disagrees with Kirby, this is why it's of critical importance to actually read the books and not simply use quotations in an article. Brown also makes a far better case than Kirby attributes to him. Again, The Death of the Messiah, while not cheap, is an excellent resource.

                                4. Jesus wasn't really executed for blasphemy, this has to do with the sitz im leben of the gospels. The Sanhedrin was perfectly capable of executing people on its own. The Romans executed Jesus.

                                5. Please don't confuse what 1st century Christians did with what 4th century Christians did. There is a world of difference between the two of them, some of which are due to theology, but others of which are due to historical events/necessity.

                                6. With Acts, what I meant is that (to my knowledge), nobody has done a literary analysis of the speeches in Acts and seen how the Greek used in the speeches matches with the Greek in the rest of Luke-Acts.
                                Last edited by psstein; 01-28-2016, 05:54 PM.

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by whag, Yesterday, 03:01 PM
                                33 responses
                                113 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Sparko
                                by Sparko
                                 
                                Started by whag, 03-17-2024, 04:55 PM
                                21 responses
                                129 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Hypatia_Alexandria  
                                Started by whag, 03-14-2024, 06:04 PM
                                80 responses
                                421 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post tabibito  
                                Started by whag, 03-13-2024, 12:06 PM
                                45 responses
                                303 views
                                1 like
                                Last Post Hypatia_Alexandria  
                                Working...
                                X