Are there credible witnesses to the resurrection?

[Anguspure]

Don't stop there. How are the dead raised up? With what body do they come? Fortunately Paul anticipated my questions. Read on, starting at I Cor 15:35

But some man will say, How are the dead raised up? and with what body do they come?
Thou fool, that which thou sowest is not quickened, except it die:
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:
But God giveth it a body as it hath pleased him, and to every seed his own body.
All flesh is not the same flesh: but there is one kind of flesh of men, another flesh of beasts, another of fishes, andanother of birds.
There are also celestial bodies, and bodies terrestrial: but the glory of the celestial is one, and the glory of the terrestrial is another.
There is one glory of the sun, and another glory of the moon, and another glory of the stars: for one star differeth fromanother star in glory.
So also is the resurrection of the dead. It is sown in corruption; it is raised in incorruption:
1Co 15:35-43​

So he make it very clear that the resurrection body he is talking about is something very different from a physical body. He speaks of a new body coming up, just like when a seed is planted and a new plant springs up. Likewise Paul sees a body being planted, and a spiritual body coming up. This is about spiritual resurrection, not physical resurrection.

Remember that Paul was a Jewish Rabbi writing about Jewish concepts.

The Jews of the 1st century, and before that, did not have a concept of disembodied Human spirits in the sense that they would be confused by your idea. The whole disembodied post death people floating around like ghosts concept comes to us from Greek dualism and probably with thanks to Augustine (although the apochraphyl Gospels written in the 2nd century seem to go down this track as well).

So your interpretation here does not reflect the idea of the writer of the letter to the Corinthians. A "spiritual body" may well exhibit characteristics that make it able to do strange things such as walk on water or travel instantly between physical locations, but the body is also more physical in the physical realm, not less physical as your thinking may suggest.

The story of the Apostle Thomas demonstrates this ably, and is probably why the story was recalled by John:
Now Thomas (also known as Didymusa), one of the Twelve, was not with the disciples when Jesus came. So the other disciples told him, “We have seen the Lord!”

But he said to them, “Unless I see the nail marks in his hands and put my finger where the nails were, and put my hand into his side, I will not believe.”

A week later his disciples were in the house again, and Thomas was with them. Though the doors were locked, Jesus came and stood among them and said, “Peace be with you!” Then he said to Thomas, “Put your finger here; see my hands. Reach out your hand and put it into my side. Stop doubting and believe.”

Thomas said to him, “My Lord and my God!”

Then Jesus told him, “Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed.” (John 20)

 

[doubtingmerle]

The Jews of the 1st century, and before that, did not have a concept of disembodied Human spirits in the sense that they would be confused by your idea. The whole disembodied post death people floating around like ghosts concept comes to us from Greek dualism

Are you aware that the Jews of the first century were fractured into many different group? How do you know that, in all that confusion of varying religious beliefs, there was not a single group that believed in spiritual resurrection? There were many Hellenized Jews who were open to a wide range of Greek ideas. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hellenistic_Judaism .
There is no reason to believe that many Hellenized Jews did not accept a spiritual resurrection. Paul's writings are more compatible with a spiritual resurrection than a physical one.

 

[doubtingmerle]

You are not making any sense. Why even mention an empty tomb if the resurrection was spiritual and not physical?

You are mixing up authors.

Paul came first and spoke of a spiritual resurrection. He nowhere refers to a physical body, an empty tomb, Jesus before Pilate, any of that. Personally I think that is because he saw Jesus always as a spirit, never as a man, but that is a different topic. If Paul did see Jesus as a man before his death, then he saw the resurrection as only a spirit resurrection, as far as I can tell.

Then we come to Mark. Mark appears to know of Paul and the 12, or at least of people who shared their views. But he writes the story on earth, something no former writer had done. Again, I think Mark probably made this story up ( see http://www.christianforums.com/thre...city-of-jesus-a-community-discussion.7939658/ ). If Mark did think the story was true, then the original Mark (up to 16:8) goes only so far as to say the grave was empty with the claim that he was risen, without any attempt to explain where Jesus went, or that he had remained on earth in bodily form. That gets added later. So Mark (up to 16:8) has no witness to seeing a risen Jesus on earth.

 

[ChetSinger]

Absolutely. The epistles came first. The gospels and Acts do not come until later, probably after 70 AD. The epistles never mention anybody seeing a physical body of a resurrected Jesus. It is all a spirit Jesus.

Later we have Mark implying the body was missing, and the gospels declaring a physical Jesus seen after death.

I think we may be at an impasse. I remember quoting to you some verses from Paul that are widely regarded to indicate his belief in the physical ministry of Christ (perhaps not in this thread, but another). But you rejected them. Unless you want me to repost them and discuss them again I'm not sure how we can proceed.

 

[Anguspure]

Are you aware that the Jews of the first century were fractured into many different group? How do you know that, in all that confusion of varying religious beliefs, there was not a single group that believed in spiritual resurrection? There were many Hellenized Jews who were open to a wide range of Greek ideas. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hellenistic_Judaism .
There is no reason to believe that many Hellenized Jews did not accept a spiritual resurrection. Paul's writings are more compatible with a spiritual resurrection than a physical one.

Its no good asking me.
You are the one making the assertion.

There were diverse and interesting groups, yes. But the Paul we are speaking of was an Orthodox Jewish Pharisee who trained under Gamaliel.

A person like this, who has been killing a whole lot of people for beleiving in the ressurection of their dead Messiah does not suddenly change his views because of some airy fairy ghost story.

But anyway you have failed to address my statement of what it means to be spiritual in the sense of a "spiritual body". If there are entities that have been created as floaty ghostly things, in the physical realm, that is for them but humans are not, and whatever the nature of a spiritual body it, for a human, certainly has a strong physical element, that is what we are created for and anyhting else is an abomination.

 

[Ed1wolf]

dm: Oh, please, I Corinthians 15 are Paul's words.

No, not verses 3-5, many scholars including liberal scholars agree that this was an ancient creed or hymn passed orally less than 10 years after Christs death. Such as John Dominic Crossan.

dm: I have agreed with you that three points Paul made there (the OT scriptures say Christ died;the OT scriptures say he rose; the 12 saw him) were the basic tenants of the faith that could well have been memorized as a creed.

But you left out the fact that 12 people cannot have the same subjective vision/halllucination at the same time, this has been proven by science. Also it refers to His burial which is irrelevant to a spiritual resurrection. Why would they mention something irrelevant unless it was extremely important because the resurrection was bodily. And there are multiple other verses that mention his burial and empty tomb which is also irrelevant if His resurrection was spiritual. This strongly implies a bodily resurrection.

dm: But the claims of Paul that 500 saw, that many of them are now dead, and that "I" saw were most likely not part of a creed. So we have one man saying 500 saw, not 500 witnesses. And Paul implies that the "seeing" they did was the same as the "seeing" he did, which likely did not involve a physical body. Or maybe Paul just made this up. We don't know.

Even if true, you have not dealt with most of the evidence I have provided such as Phillipians 3:21 and the issues above among others.

 

[Ed1wolf]

You are mixing up authors.

Paul came first and spoke of a spiritual resurrection. He nowhere refers to a physical body, an empty tomb, Jesus before Pilate, any of that. Personally I think that is because he saw Jesus always as a spirit, never as a man, but that is a different topic. If Paul did see Jesus as a man before his death, then he saw the resurrection as only a spirit resurrection, as far as I can tell.

Again you are ignoring all the strong evidence that Paul did believe that He rose bodily. Again Phil. 3:21. And the ancient hymn Paul quotes mentions His burial, if Paul believed that his resurrection was spiritual he would have no reason to mention His burial. Also Romans 8:11 plainly imply that just as Christs body was changed but not eliminated at the resurrection so will ours.

dm: Then we come to Mark. Mark appears to know of Paul and the 12, or at least of people who shared their views. But he writes the story on earth, something no former writer had done. Again, I think Mark probably made this story up ( see http://www.christianforums.com/thre...city-of-jesus-a-community-discussion.7939658/ ). If Mark did think the story was true, then the original Mark (up to 16:8) goes only so far as to say the grave was empty with the claim that he was risen, without any attempt to explain where Jesus went, or that he had remained on earth in bodily form. That gets added later. So Mark (up to 16:8) has no witness to seeing a risen Jesus on earth.

If Mark did not believe in a physical resurrection then mentioning the empty tomb is irrelevant and makes no sense otherwise. This is just one of the many serious problems with your view.

 

[doubtingmerle]

Its no good asking me.
You are the one making the assertion.

ROFL! You had made an assertion. I posted the assertion. And then I responded to it. Once more, this is the assertion that you made that I was responding to.

The Jews of the 1st century, and before that, did not have a concept of disembodied Human spirits in the sense that they would be confused by your idea. The whole disembodied post death people floating around like ghosts concept comes to us from Greek dualism​

So please do not come here and make assertions and claim you are not making assertions. It is too easy for us to post them back when you do that. Now do you have evidence for your assertion that no Jews of the first century would have any concept of disembodied spirits as the Greeks had?

There were diverse and interesting groups, yes. But the Paul we are speaking of was an Orthodox Jewish Pharisee who trained under Gamaliel.

A person like this, who has been killing a whole lot of people for beleiving in the ressurection of their dead Messiah does not suddenly change his views because of some airy fairy ghost story.

Oh please. The front page of the Philadelphia Inquirer yesterday had a story about a former nun who had been raised all her life as a Catholic and is now a devout Muslim. These things happen. One does not need a resurrection to explain how some would become devoted to a different religion.

But anyway you have failed to address my statement of what it means to be spiritual in the sense of a "spiritual body". If there are entities that have been created as floaty ghostly things, in the physical realm, that is for them but humans are not, and whatever the nature of a spiritual body it, for a human, certainly has a strong physical element, that is what we are created for and anyhting else is an abomination.

The whole idea of spirits, of angels, of demons, of heavenly beings doing things in the heavens was common in those days. Read for instance, The Ascension of Isaiah or Revelation 12.

 

[doubtingmerle]

No, not verses 3-5, many scholars including liberal scholars agree that this was an ancient creed or hymn passed orally less than 10 years after Christs death. Such as John Dominic Crossan.

Again, Paul wrote I Cor 15. Nobody seriously disputes that. He may have been quoting another source for parts of I Cor 15:3-5, but Paul is the author of the chapter. Now let's look at what these verses say:

For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the scriptures,
that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the scriptures,
and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve.​

I have agreed that the three main points here are probably the fundamental points of what the early Christians believed. You claim that Paul is repeating a creed he heard from the other apostles. Paul specifically tells us that this is not where he received his gospel. Paul tells us he was not taught his gospel by other men. (Gal 1:11-12) So the ideas repeated here probably actually go back to the 12, but Paul specifically tells us he did not learn it from them.

But you left out the fact that 12 people cannot have the same subjective vision/halllucination at the same time, this has been proven by science.

I don't see it mentioned in those verses that the 12 people saw him all at once. Why do I need to respond to I Cor 12:5 saying all 12 saw him at once, when it does not say that?

Also it refers to His burial which is irrelevant to a spiritual resurrection. Why would they mention something irrelevant unless it was extremely important because the resurrection was bodily.

Explained before. Verse 4 says they thought the Old Testament scriptures taught he was buried and rose again.

There is no mention even that they thought this referred to an earthly Jesus. As argued in the Historical Jesus thread, they may well have been referring to a spirit Jesus who died in a spirit realm and was buried and resurrected in a spirit realm. If however, Paul in I Cor thinks Jesus really lived and really resurrected on earth, then the rest of the chapter makes it clear that it was not the flesh and blood that resurrected, but the spirit.

And there are multiple other verses that mention his burial and empty tomb which is also irrelevant if His resurrection was spiritual. This strongly implies a bodily resurrection.

In the gospels and Acts, yes. But these are later writings. Paul does not refer to any details that put anything about his resurrection and post-resurrection life on earth in a physical body.

Even if true, you have not dealt with most of the evidence I have provided such as Phillipians 3:21 and the issues above among others.

Oh yes I have, several times. Perhaps a little repetition will help.

Phillipians 3:21 nowhere states that "his glorious body" is a physical body. I & II Corinthians indicate it is not.
Phillipians 3:21 nowhere states that "his glorious body" is a physical body. I & II Corinthians indicate it is not.
Phillipians 3:21 nowhere states that "his glorious body" is a physical body. I & II Corinthians indicate it is not.

So please don't tell me I did not respond to Phillipians 3:21, when I have done so multiple times in previous posts, and you have ignored my responses.

 

[AV1611VET]

Romans 1:4 And declared to be the Son of God with power, according to the spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the dead:

Acts 13:37 But he, whom God raised again, saw no corruption.

 

[Anguspure]

ROFL! You had made an assertion. I posted the assertion. And then I responded to it. Once more, this is the assertion that you made that I was responding to.

The Jews of the 1st century, and before that, did not have a concept of disembodied Human spirits in the sense that they would be confused by your idea. The whole disembodied post death people floating around like ghosts concept comes to us from Greek dualism​

​

You are asking me for evidence of something that does not exist.

The OT passages of the Bible that are used to promote dualism are all mistranslated or misinterpreted, or both. For example the word Nephesh is variously used (870 odd times), and according to the translators changes in meaning according to whether it used for an animal or a human. When it's used for a human it is generally (but not always) translated to implying some sort of floaty spirit meaning but when used of animals it is the life of the animal that dies with the animal. None of this is warranted in the text.

One author commented: "So carefully has the translation of nehphesh been guarded in relation to animals as 'souls,' that we can't help but wonder if it were not done intentionally to conceal the fact that animals are
souls as well as men." (David J. Heinizman, "Man Became A Living Soul).

And another wrote:
"Can one word be rightly translated this way? Can a word that is not a pronoun be rightly translated
into a pronoun as it is in the King James Version? How could the translators know when to
change the noun into a pronoun? NO ONE READING MANY OF THE ENGLISH TRANSLATIONS
OF THE BIBLE WOULD HAVE ANY WAY OF KNOWING THAT ALL
THESE WORDS ARE TRANSLATIONS (OR MISTRANSLATIONS) OF ONLY ONE
WORD. Did the translators do so because they wanted to make a person be an "immortal being,"
and more than a "living creatures?" In almost one half of the times nehphesh is used in the Old
Testament, even the King James translators could not translate it "soul." When the all-knowing
God used just one word, why did the translators use many words and change it as they wish to
from a noun to a pronoun? Did they think that for all the years from Adam unto Christ, God
thought people could understand just one word; but now about forty words are needed to translate
one word? If one word were all that was needed from Adam to the King James Version, why
would God's one word not be enough today? Do the translators think they have improved the
Hebrew Old Testament? The use of many words came when the Catholic Church brought in unconditional
immortality, and they had to get it into the Bible. The Hebrew manuscripts still have
just one word - nehphesh, which was the one word God inspired. Were the translators inspired to
change it to many words?"
"In about thirty-two passages souls [nehpheshs] are spoken of as being able to be
killed by man [See Joshua 10:28; 30; 32; 35; 37; 39; Deuteronomy 27:25; Leviticus
24:17-18].
. In about thirteen passages souls [nehpheshs] of men are said to be actually dead
[see Numbers 6:6; Leviticus 21:11]. In many of these passages, the King James Version
and others translated nehphesh as life or body; and the English reader cannot see animals
are souls [are living creatures], and souls of both men and animals can be killed by
man and are actually dead.
. Most of the times when it is translated "soul," even those who believe in a part of a
person that lives after death and before the resurrection says it is not used to mean
an immortal part of a person. The whole person dies unto the resurrection [Ezekiel
18:20; Psalms 22:29; 33:18-19; Matthew 10:28; Matthew 16:26; James 5:20]. Not just
the person's body.
This clearly shows that the meaning of the Hebrew word nehphesh is something that is not immortal
and that it can die or that it already is dead. There is no other word in the Bible which
could be translated into Plato's immortal soul; therefore, the translators had to use this one and
hide, the best they could, the fact that nehphesh can and does die.(W R West, UNCONDITIONAL IMMORTALITY OR RESURRECTION OF THE DEAD)

So please do not come here and make assertions and claim you are not making assertions. It is too easy for us to post them back when you do that. Now do you have evidence for your assertion that no Jews of the first century would have any concept of disembodied spirits as the Greeks had?

Not no Jews, this is not the claim I am making, surely there were all sorts of ideas floating around Judea in the first century.

The claim I am making is that Orthodox Pharisaic Judaism did not have the concept (as opposed to the Sadducees who held that there was no life after death, period). The general concept for Judaism was, and is, that there will be a physical ressurection of the dead at the end of time. Paul was an Orthodox Pharisee who toed this line and was up for promotion to the highest position because of it.

"It was not until the Pharisees (c. 100 B.C.E.) that the notion of a spiritual life after death developed in any meaningful way in Jewish thought. The Pharisees, who were the forerunners of the rabbis, taught that when the Torah spoke of reward for following God's ways, the reward would be forthcoming in an afterlife, Olam Ha-Ba (world to come), as they called it.

They further taught that there would be an end of time as we know it, ushered in by the Messiah, and at that time, bodily resurrection would occur (Hebrew, T'chiyat Ha-Metim). While this teaching was an innovation, they insisted that it was rooted in Torah, and quoted extensive proof-texts to make their case." (Rabbi Howard Jaffe)

"Most Jewish ideas about the afterlife developed in post-biblical times.

The Bible itself has very few references to life after death. Sheol, the bowels of the earth, is portrayed as the place of the dead, but in most instances Sheol seems to be more a metaphor for oblivion than an actual place where the dead “live” and retain consciousness.

The notion of resurrection appears in two late biblical sources, Daniel 12 and Isaiah 25-26.

Daniel 12:2–“Many of those that sleep in the dust of the earth will awake, some to eternal life, others to reproaches, to everlasting abhorrence”–implies that resurrection will be followed by a day of judgment. Those judged favorably will live forever and those judged to be wicked will be punished." (http://www.myjewishlearning.com/article/life-after-death/)

Oh please. The front page of the Philadelphia Inquirer yesterday had a story about a former nun who had been raised all her life as a Catholic and is now a devout Muslim. These things happen. One does not need a resurrection to explain how some would become devoted to a different religion.

This is a bit different. The Nun, for example, was not in line to become the next Pope and nor had she demonstrated her utter loyalty to the cause by running around destroying the lives of thousands of people in the name of it. Saul of Tarsus was demonstrably very highly motivated for the cause of Judaism and it took a very significant encounter with the risen Lord to bring him to his knees.

The whole idea of spirits, of angels, of demons, of heavenly beings doing things in the heavens was common in those days. Read for instance, The Ascension of Isaiah or Revelation 12.

None of these involve floaty ghostly disembodied human beings.

 

[doubtingmerle]

The claim I am making is that Orthodox Pharisaic Judaism did not have the concept (as opposed to the Sadducees who held that there was no life after death, period). The general concept for Judaism was, and is, that there will be a physical ressurection of the dead at the end of time. Paul was an Orthodox Pharisee who towed this line and was up for promotion to the highest position because of it.

Paul, after his conversion to Christianity, believed a lot of things that Orthodox Pharisees did not believe. So one can hardly say that Paul would not believe things that were not in his Orthodox heritage.

This is a bit different. The Nun, for example, was not in line to become the next Pope and nor had she demonstrated her utter loyalty to the cause by running around destroying the lives of thousands of people in the name of it. Saul of Tarsus was demonstrably very highly motivated for the cause of Judaism and it took a very significant encounter with the risen Lord to bring him to his knees.

I disagree. Many people with power and influence in one religion have switched to another.

None of these involve floaty ghostly disembodied human beings.

They involve floaty disembodied angels, demons, and other creatures. As Paul believed in Jesus as God, it's not a stretch at all to believe he thought Jesus resurrected as a spirit God.

 

[Anguspure]

Paul, after his conversion to Christianity, believed a lot of things that Orthodox Pharisees did not believe. So one can hardly say that Paul would not believe things that were not in his Orthodox heritage.

He did not start beleiving things that were unscriptural however. He used the OT Scriptures (With a full understanding of Hebrew) as authority and confirmation of his beleifs, and did not at any time insert things that were not there.
The same cannot be said of subsequent translators.

They involve floaty disembodied angels, demons, and other creatures. As Paul believed in Jesus as God, it's not a stretch at all to believe he thought Jesus resurrected as a spirit God.

So you say, but regardless, these things are created in the state that they are observed. Humans are created in a physical state that in the ressurected "Spiritual body" exhibits transdimensional qualities.

What you are suggesting in fact demeans the nature of the Ressurected Christ in that you are suggesting that He is now less able to interact with the physical world, when in fact He, in His ressurection state is the very image of God in this physical world, and all worlds. That is why He had to go away, so that the Holy Spirit could come and live in us, so that He wasn't restricted to one physical location.

 

[doubtingmerle]

He did not start beleiving things that were unscriptural however. He used the OT Scriptures (With a full understanding of Hebrew) as authority and confirmation of his beleifs, and did not at any time insert things that were not there.

Have you ever looked up the quotes that Paul makes in the OT? Almost without fail, when you look at the OT in context, it says something different than what Paul says that he said.

Ideas like the communion meal and baptism certainly are not taught in the OT, but are popular in paganism. So I have no problem understanding that Paul spoke of Christ as a resurrected spirit, not a resurrected body.

Whenever Paul describes the body of Christ, he is speaking of the church. That is the only "body" he seems to tie to his spirit Christ.

What you are suggesting in fact demeans the nature of the Ressurected Christ in that you are suggesting that He is now less able to interact with the physical world, when in fact He, in His ressurection state is the very image of God in this physical world, and all worlds.

Not trying to demean, but simply trying to understand what Paul says.

Personally I don't think Paul ever thought a physical Jesus walked on earth. I discuss this in the Historical Jesus thread. But certainly, the resurrected Jesus Paul referred to was a spirit Jesus.

 

[Anguspure]

Have you ever looked up the quotes that Paul makes in the OT? Almost without fail, when you look at the OT in context, it says something different than what Paul says that he said.

Ideas like the communion meal and baptism certainly are not taught in the OT, but are popular in paganism. So I have no problem understanding that Paul spoke of Christ as a resurrected spirit, not a resurrected body.

Whenever Paul describes the body of Christ, he is speaking of the church. That is the only "body" he seems to tie to his spirit Christ.

Translation differences between Hebrew, Greek and English account for this. It just goes to show that we should not be dogmatic on our understanding of difficult parts of the Bible based upon English translations and modern western cultural ideas. We should rather take the time to delve into the text and let it speak from the original voice that penned it and inspired it.

Not trying to demean, but simply trying to understand what Paul says.

Personally I don't think Paul ever thought a physical Jesus walked on earth. I discuss this in the Historical Jesus thread. But certainly, the resurrected Jesus Paul referred to was a spirit Jesus.

I appreciate that you are not being malicious but this is a serious matter that puts lives at risk.

Any interpretation that literal and actual truth of the ressurection of Christ Jesus does damage to the validity of His death and so removes the Salvation.

The idea that you are putting forward is not new by any means and was opposed by the early Church from its first appearance for this reason.

IMO You are correct that Paul said Christ was a Spirit Jesus in that He proclaimed a Spiritual Post Ressurection Body, the first fruits of the dead.

But the way in which you appear to understand what it is to have a Spiritual Body seems to negate the whole story, that provides context and understanding for any understanding that Paul had.

The Post Ressurection Spiritual Body of Jesus interacts fully and seamlessly with the physical world. He eats, walks, talks, embraces, can be touched, has scars and He has the recognisable features of a man.
If a person exhibits these traits and then can also do things that are what we might term "Spiritual", such as walking through walls or flying etc, such as is the case for Christ Jesus, we should not deny the physical as if it is something less but rather recognise the the Superhuman with the Spiritual Body, who's image we are created in, before us.

 

[doubtingmerle]

Translation differences between Hebrew, Greek and English account for this. It just goes to show that we should not be dogmatic on our understanding of difficult parts of the Bible based upon English translations and modern western cultural ideas. We should rather take the time to delve into the text and let it speak from the original voice that penned it and inspired it.

I disagree. Almost every time I look up a quote that Paul makes from the Old Testament, I find that he is taking the Old Testament completely out of context. Would you be interested in discussing this in another thread, and you could show me how the original languages solve the problem?

Any interpretation that literal and actual truth of the ressurection of Christ Jesus does damage to the validity of His death and so removes the Salvation.

I don't understand why God would require the death of a body in order to provide salvation, but that is a different topic.

If the Christian story is true, than Christ existed without a body of flesh and blood for ages before he was born in earth. They teach that somehow this spirit Jesus took on a body of flesh and blood, but it sure is not clear to me how that could happen. Anyway, Paul says that flesh and blood cannot enter heaven, so I cannot see why Jesus would need to bring along his body of flesh and blood after his time on earth was done. Just leave that shell to rot in the grave while the spirit moves back to the state it was in before the incarnation. Why not?

The Post Ressurection Spiritual Body of Jesus interacts fully and seamlessly with the physical world. He eats, walks, talks, embraces, can be touched, has scars and He has the recognisable features of a man.
If a person exhibits these traits and then can also do things that are what we might term "Spiritual", such as walking through walls or flying etc, such as is the case for Christ Jesus, we should not deny the physical as if it is something less but rather recognise the the Superhuman with the Spiritual Body, who's image we are created in, before us.

That is the Jesus of the gospels, written probably well after 70 AD. The earliest record, the epistles, say nothing about a resurrected man in a physical world eating, walking, talking, embracing, being touchable, or having scars or recognizable features. None of that can be found in Paul's writings.

 

[Anguspure]

I disagree. Almost every time I look up a quote that Paul makes from the Old Testament, I find that he is taking the Old Testament completely out of context. Would you be interested in discussing this in another thread, and you could show me how the original languages solve the problem?

Would love to have a go at this one.

I don't understand why God would require the death of a body in order to provide salvation, but that is a different topic.

If the Christian story is true, than Christ existed without a body of flesh and blood for ages before he was born in earth. They teach that somehow this spirit Jesus took on a body of flesh and blood, but it sure is not clear to me how that could happen. Anyway, Paul says that flesh and blood cannot enter heaven, so I cannot see why Jesus would need to bring along his body of flesh and blood after his time on earth was done. Just leave that shell to rot in the grave while the spirit moves back to the state it was in before the incarnation. Why not?

I have thought about this one and also think that it is strange. I personally think that the time line loops on itself, that the point at which God first enters His creation is actually when Jesus is conceived in Mary. This means that perhaps the Christ of Creation and the Angel of the Lord and whatever other OT manifestation of YHWH is in fact our risen Lord.

That is the Jesus of the gospels, written probably well after 70 AD. The earliest record, the epistles, say nothing about a resurrected man in a physical world eating, walking, talking, embracing, being touchable, or having scars or recognizable features. None of that can be found in Paul's writings.

I don't think anything in the gospels, and most certainly in Luke was written after 70 CE for 2 main reasons:
- The Temple was destroyed in this year, as Jesus predicted and commenting on this would have been irresistable to the Gospel writers as further evidence of Jesus prophetic credibility.
- James the brother of Jesus, who was the Bishop of Jerusalem, was martyred in either 62 or 69 CE and there is no record of this very important event in the New Testament.

 

[doubtingmerle]

Would love to have a go at this one.

Join me at http://www.christianforums.com/threads/does-paul-quote-scripture-out-of-context.7970861/ .

I have thought about this one and also think that it is strange. I personally think that the time line loops on itself, that the point at which God first enters His creation is actually when Jesus is conceived in Mary. This means that perhaps the Christ of Creation and the Angel of the Lord and whatever other OT manifestation of YHWH is in fact our risen Lord.

OK, So Jesus was walking around in a body in the Old Testament, then somehow this body of a grown man got stuffed into a fertilized egg (whose sperm?) and the egg grew out as another man of flesh and blood, who then died and the same body transformed into a ghost-like body. How exactly can a body made of chemicals turn into a ghost like body?

Beam me up, Scotty, there is no intelligent argument here.

I don't think anything in the gospels, and most certainly in Luke was written after 70 CE for 2 main reasons:
- The Temple was destroyed in this year, as Jesus predicted and commenting on this would have been irresistable to the Gospel writers as further evidence of Jesus prophetic credibility.
- James the brother of Jesus, who was the Bishop of Jerusalem, was martyred in either 62 or 69 CE and there is no record of this very important event in the New Testament.

Their hearers would have been well aware of the destruction of Jerusalem. Had it really been predicted, there would be no need to remind people that it happened. Rather, it seems to me that Mark, the first writer, writes after 70 AD and makes it look like Jesus predicted something that Mark knew about in hindsight. We know Mark was not getting this "prophecy" from a miraculous source, because immediately following Mark records prophesies of the end of the world and the moon turning to blood. None of this happened. That is because Mark was not a good predictor. He got the destruction of the temple right because he was speaking after the event, but failed on events shortly after 70 AD.

And there would have been no need to record every event. The New Testament writers write to prove their point. Their required story line ends at the end of Acts, when the Christian message has been spread all the way to Rome.

 

[Ed1wolf]

Again, Paul wrote I Cor 15. Nobody seriously disputes that. He may have been quoting another source for parts of I Cor 15:3-5, but Paul is the author of the chapter. Now let's look at what these verses say:

For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the scriptures,
that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the scriptures,
and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve.​

Actually the creed goes to verse 7. So it includes the 500 who saw him all at the same time and science has proven that multiple people cannot have the same subjective vision all at the same time. Also, it includes James the skeptical devout jew many of whom did not believe in any type of resurrection and the rest believed that the resurrection would not occur until the end of the world and then it would be all good jews not one individual. But James the skeptic suddenly converted to Christianity after his brothers death. This has been confirmed by extrabiblical sources. And this source was composed less than 10 years after His death, so people who were skeptical could be refuted by people who were alive at the time of His resurrection.

​

dm: I have agreed that the three main points here are probably the fundamental points of what the early Christians believed. You claim that Paul is repeating a creed he heard from the other apostles.

Not just the apostles but all the entire early church that had seen him alive and some who had heard about Him from first person testimony.

dm: Paul specifically tells us that this is not where he received his gospel. Paul tells us he was not taught his gospel by other men. (Gal 1:11-12) So the ideas repeated here probably actually go back to the 12, but Paul specifically tells us he did not learn it from them.

No, the actual Greek says that THE gospel did not COME FROM MAN. IOW, it's source is not Man but rather God. He is not referring to how he learned the gospel. However it is correct that he learned it from the risen Christ on the road to Damascus and not from the disciples.

dm: I don't see it mentioned in those verses that the 12 people saw him all at once. Why do I need to respond to I Cor 12:5 saying all 12 saw him at once, when it does not say that?

Actually that was a typo, I meant to say that the 500 saw Him all at one time.

dm: Explained before. Verse 4 says they thought the Old Testament scriptures taught he was buried and rose again.

That still does not make any sense, why would a spirit need to be buried? Your interpretation makes no sense. Obviously the common sense interpretation is that His body was buried and then He in bodily form rose again from the grave.

dm: There is no mention even that they thought this referred to an earthly Jesus. As argued in the Historical Jesus thread, they may well have been referring to a spirit Jesus who died in a spirit realm and was buried and resurrected in a spirit realm.

Evidence that jews believed that spirits could die, be buried, and then resurrect? Nowhere in the OT testament does it refer to spirits dying. This goes against most jewish and ancient Hebrew belief.

dm: If however, Paul in I Cor thinks Jesus really lived and really resurrected on earth, then the rest of the chapter makes it clear that it was not the flesh and blood that resurrected, but the spirit.

No, actually he uses the analogy of a physical living seed being planted (buried) and then a physically living plant rising again out of that seed. This plainly implies that Jesus had physically living body that was then transformed PHYSICALLY just as a plant is a physically transformed seed. No mention of spirit seeds.

dm: In the gospels and Acts, yes. But these are later writings.

Only about 10 years after Pauls writings as I demonstrated earlier in this thread.

dm: Paul does not refer to any details that put anything about his resurrection and post-resurrection life on earth in a physical body.

Yes, he did see above about the seed analogy.

dm: Oh yes I have, several times. Perhaps a little repetition will help.

Phillipians 3:21 nowhere states that "his glorious body" is a physical body. I & II Corinthians indicate it is not.
Phillipians 3:21 nowhere states that "his glorious body" is a physical body. I & II Corinthians indicate it is not.
Phillipians 3:21 nowhere states that "his glorious body" is a physical body. I & II Corinthians indicate it is not.

So please don't tell me I did not respond to Phillipians 3:21, when I have done so multiple times in previous posts, and you have ignored my responses.

No, all those verses plainly refer to a body NOT a spirit and he analogizes it to our obviously physical bodies and says that they will be transformed NOT eliminated.

 

[doubtingmerle]

Actually the creed goes to verse 7. So it includes the 500 who saw him all at the same time and science has proven that multiple people cannot have the same subjective vision all at the same time.
​

Huh? People memorized a creed that said most of the 500 had died?!?! They memorized a creed that said "I saw Jesus"?!?! I don't think so.

What is your evidence that this is a creed? So far all you have come up with is that people think so.

As we discussed, it is somewhat clear that verses 3-5 represent what the general church believed. Whether this was a written creed or not, nobody could prove.

But even if it was a memorized creed, so what? People memorize creeds that are wrong.

Also, it includes James the skeptical devout jew many of whom did not believe in any type of resurrection and the rest believed that the resurrection would not occur until the end of the world and then it would be all good jews not one individual. But James the skeptic suddenly converted to Christianity after his brothers death. This has been confirmed by extrabiblical sources. And this source was composed less than 10 years after His death, so people who were skeptical could be refuted by people who were alive at the time of His resurrection.

No, you don't have early extrabiblical sources for James being suddenly converted. And even if he was? There have been many sudden conversions. This doesn't mean anything.
​

No, the actual Greek says that THE gospel did not COME FROM MAN. IOW, it's source is not Man but rather God. He is not referring to how he learned the gospel.

Read Galatians 1:11-12

But I certify you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached of me is not after man. For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ.​

So yes, Paul does say he did not learn the gospel from men.

That still does not make any sense, why would a spirit need to be buried? Your interpretation makes no sense.

Stories of mythical spirit creatures was all over the region in those days. Mythical creatures were thought to do all kinds of things, including dying and being buried. But that is a topic for another thread. You can read the historical Jesus thread if you want to see my opinions on that.

Only about 10 years after Pauls writings as I demonstrated earlier in this thread.

And I explained to you why your early dating of the gospel was not valid. You just going to ignore my counterargument and repeat your statement again?

Yes, he did see above about the seed analogy.

The seed analogy says specifically that the body that resurrects is different from the body that dies, and is not of flesh and blood. When a seed is planted, the seed stays in the ground, and something else comes up.

In no sense does the seed analogy imply that the body of flesh and blood came out of the grave.

No, all those verses plainly refer to a body NOT a spirit and he analogizes it to our obviously physical bodies and says that they will be transformed NOT eliminated.

Does it refer to a physical body? I have said it over and over. You just ignore it. Nowhere does Phillipians 3:21 say it was a physical body.

And please, please, don't come back with yet another post saying body without recognizing that the argument is that it does not refer to a physical body. Why do you just ignore what people say?

II Corinthians tells us what the body of Christ is--the church. You just ignore that.