Are there credible witnesses to the resurrection?

[ewq1938]

In another thread it was claimed that there are multiple credible witnesses to the resurrection. I disagree. Basically we have the author of Mark, and he wrote many years after the supposed event. We don't even know who he was, and don't know what his intention was. Matthew, Luke and John come even later. They closely follow Mark's story, indeed they often just copy it, but diverge sharply on the resurrection. Paul writes earlier, but he appears to be talking about a spiritual resurrection. So no, I don't see any credible witnesses to the resurrection. If you think otherwise, who do you think was a credible witness to it?

No one was there when he resurrected but he did show himself to many people later that same day. All the gospels speak of this and those such as Paul reference it as well so it was well known that Jesus died and was later alive again.

 

[ewq1938]

This is about spiritual resurrection, not physical resurrection.

Everything Paul said relates to a physical resurrection not a spiritual resurrection. That this resurrection happens after dying proves that because spiritual resurrection happens when one is still alive...which is what being born again is about...going froma dead spirit to a living spirit metaphorically.

That he also speaks of bodies also proves it is physical.

 

[doubtingmerle]

No one was there when he resurrected but he did show himself to many people later that same day. All the gospels speak of this and those such as Paul reference it as well so it was well known that Jesus died and was later alive again.

Uh, no it wasn't well known. The gospels were not written in Paul's day, and most likely were not written until after 70 AD. And in Paul we hear nothing of an empty tomb, a missing body, or the physical body of Jesus now in heaven. Paul says only "he was seen of me" and that is all the personal testimony he gives to the resurrection. Most likely he is referring to a vision, perhaps the one he references in 2 Corinthians.

And when you consider that it is very rare for a person who was dead 3 days to rise again--if it ever happens--and Paul, living in a time where people believed in visions, says only "he was seen of me", this could hardly be the evidence we need to overcome our natural skepticism when we hear a claim that one rose bodily from the dead.

And the later gospels? Yes, they do speak of people seeing these things, but they contradict each other, and not one of the gospels identifies the writer. Who wrote them? Were they reliable? How can we say the gospels are reliable if we don't even know who wrote them?

 

[ewq1938]

Uh, no it wasn't well known.

It was well known. Paul knew of it. All the disciples knew of it and shared it with others.

The gospels were not written in Paul's day, and most likely were not written until after 70 AD.

No one knows when they were written and it doesn't even matter. That Paul knows of it means it was common knowledge among Christians.

1Co_11:24 And when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me.

Here Paul quotes Christ. He couldn't do this if he hadn't heard the gospel wherein this statement was made just prior to the day he went to the cross.

And in Paul we hear nothing of an empty tomb, a missing body, or the physical body of Jesus now in heaven. Paul says only "he was seen of me" and that is all the personal testimony he gives to the resurrection. Most likely he is referring to a vision, perhaps the one he references in 2 Corinthians.

Paul speaks of the resurrection of Christ and even speaks of his bones and flesh in one verse.

And when you consider that it is very rare for a person who was dead 3 days to rise again--if it ever happens--and Paul, living in a time where people believed in visions, says only "he was seen of me", this could hardly be the evidence we need to overcome our natural skepticism when we hear a claim that one rose bodily from the dead.

It wasn't all that rare to the Apostles....having seen these things and accomplishing it themselves.

And the later gospels? Yes, they do speak of people seeing these things, but they contradict each other, and not one of the gospels identifies the writer. Who wrote them? Were they reliable? How can we say the gospels are reliable if we don't even know who wrote them?

Because whenever they were written, Christians of the time agreed with what they said having orally heard of these things from those that were witnesses. There is no historic controversy over whether or not Christ rose from the dead physically and literally which BTW is the only biblically known type of resurrection.

1Co 15:20 But now is Christ risen from the dead, and become the firstfruits of them that slept.
1Co 15:21 For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead.
1Co 15:22 For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.
1Co 15:23 But every man in his own order: Christ the firstfruits; afterward they that are Christ's at his coming.


If the dead in Christ rise physically, then so did Christ.

 

[doubtingmerle]

It was well known. Paul knew of it.

How do you know that Paul knew of a bodily resurrection of Jesus? He never mentions an empty grave,a missing body, or seeing a bodily resurrected Jesus. If you think he ever mentions any of these things, please show us where he does.

All the disciples knew of it and shared it with others.

That is the point in question. You can't just simply state it as true. Paul seems to say they saw a spirit Jesus in a vision, just as he did.

And the gospels were written later by unknown writers, who may not have been telling what happened.

No one knows when they were written and it doesn't even matter.

It sure does matter when the gospels were written. If they were written after 70 AD, there would have been few if any eyewitnesses to talk to about it.

That Paul knows of it means it was common knowledge among Christians.

You have not yet shown me a verse which proves Paul knew of a bodily resurrected Jesus.

1Co_11:24 And when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me.

Here Paul quotes Christ. He couldn't do this if he hadn't heard the gospel wherein this statement was made just prior to the day he went to the cross.

It makes more sense that Mark and the later gospel writers borrowed it from Paul. Mark probably knew of Paul's message or others with a similar message.

Since the story is very similar to stories of Greek savior gods, Paul could have borrowed it from them. It might not have ever happened.

Paul speaks of the resurrection of Christ and even speaks of his bones and flesh in one verse.

Please show me where Paul speaks of the resurrected bones and flesh of Jesus. I challenge this claim.

It wasn't all that rare to the Apostles....having seen these things and accomplishing it themselves.

You write this in response to my claim that resurrections are rare.

Uh, I beg to differ. Resurrections of the dead were surely rare. And no, the apostles did not resurrect themselves.

Because whenever they were written, Christians of the time agreed with what they said having orally heard of these things from those that were witnesses.

How do you know Christians orally heard about a resurrection from witnesses? That is the whole point. What reliable witnesses do we have that any of this happened.

There is no historic controversy over whether or not Christ rose from the dead physically and literally which BTW is the only biblically known type of resurrection.

Uh, actually, there is significant controversy about whether Christ rose physically.

 

[ewq1938]

How do you know that Paul knew of a bodily resurrection of Jesus?

Because he often writes of it.

He never mentions an empty grave,a missing body, or seeing a bodily resurrected Jesus. If you think he ever mentions any of these things, please show us where he does.

He speaks of other things as a resurrection and celestial bodies and different kinds of flesh, and the bone and flesh of Christ's body which contextually would be post resurrection.

That is the point in question. You can't just simply state it as true. Paul seems to say they saw a spirit Jesus in a vision, just as he did.

A vision is something seen. It doesn't mean dream or something not true. Paul never claims the disciples only saw a vision of Christ either. They all saw Christ literally, risen in his new glorified body and he assured them he was no spirit because he had flesh and bone.

And the gospels were written later by unknown writers, who may not have been telling what happened.

That's just assumptions. No one knows who wrote them or when.

It sure does matter when the gospels were written. If they were written after 70 AD, there would have been few if any eyewitnesses to talk to about it.

It wouldn't matter if the original testimonies of the eye witnesses was preserved.

You have not yet shown me a verse which proves Paul knew of a bodily resurrected Jesus."

Just search resurrection and "from the dead" and you will see many references to Christ being raised from the dead.

It makes more sense that Mark and the later gospel writers borrowed it from Paul. Mark probably knew of Paul's message or others with a similar message.

No that doesn't make any sense. That Christ would die and resurrect 3 days later was something the disciples were told before Christ ever died. That was shared with all Christians after the resurrection and ascension as part of the gospel being shared.

Please show me where Paul speaks of the resurrected bones and flesh of Jesus. I challenge this claim.

Eph 5:22 Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord.
Eph 5:23 For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body.
Eph 5:24 Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing.
Eph 5:25 Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it;
Eph 5:26 That he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word,
Eph 5:27 That he might present it to himself a glorious church, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing; but that it should be holy and without blemish.
Eph 5:28 So ought men to love their wives as their own bodies. He that loveth his wife loveth himself.
Eph 5:29 For no man ever yet hated his own flesh; but nourisheth and cherisheth it, even as the Lord the church:
Eph 5:30 For we are members of his body, of his flesh, and of his bones.
Eph 5:31 For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall be joined unto his wife, and they two shall be one flesh.
Eph 5:32 This is a great mystery: but I speak concerning Christ and the church.
Eph 5:33 Nevertheless let every one of you in particular so love his wife even as himself; and the wife see that she reverence her husband.

And no, the apostles did not resurrect themselves.

Yes they did:

Mat 10:8 Heal the sick, cleanse the lepers, raise the dead, cast out devils: freely ye have received, freely give.

They were commanded to.

Act 9:40 But Peter put them all forth, and kneeled down, and prayed; and turning him to the body said, Tabitha, arise. And she opened her eyes: and when she saw Peter, she sat up.

Peter did.

Act 20:9 And there sat in a window a certain young man named Eutychus, being fallen into a deep sleep: and as Paul was long preaching, he sunk down with sleep, and fell down from the third loft, and was taken up dead.
Act 20:10 And Paul went down, and fell on him, and embracing him said, Trouble not yourselves; for his life is in him.
Act 20:11 When he therefore was come up again, and had broken bread, and eaten, and talked a long while, even till break of day, so he departed.
Act 20:12 And they brought the young man alive, and were not a little comforted.

Paul did.

How do you know Christians orally heard about a resurrection from witnesses? That is the whole point. What reliable witnesses do we have that any of this happened.

The original witnesses were reliable. There is nothing I can say to make someone believe if they don't believe.

Uh, actually, there is significant controversy about whether Christ rose physically.

I was speaking of Christian history. No one doubted what the gospels and the NT says about the resurrection of Christ. If there weren't reliable witnesses then there would have been a split in the earth church concerning this.

 

[doubtingmerle]

Because he often writes of it.

If Paul often writes of it, how is it that you cannot refer me to one passage where Paul refers to the bodily resurrection of Jesus?

A vision is something seen. It doesn't mean dream or something not true.

Sure, the people "seeing" the vision may claim it is seen. But they can never prove that what they claim to have saw really happened.

The only vision of Christ Paul actually describes is in 2 Corinthians, which does not confirm a physical resurrection. Even if you believe Acts--which Paul did not write--all Paul saw was a bright light. Seeing a bright light and hearing a voice is not the same thing as seeing a bodily resurrected person.

Paul never claims the disciples only saw a vision of Christ either.

In I Corinthians 15 Paul equates his own vision of Christ as though it is qualitatively the same thing as what the disciples saw. If the disciples and walked and talked with a physical Jesus for weeks after he had died, surely Paul would have seen this as significantly more than his vision.

They all saw Christ literally, risen in his new glorified body and he assured them he was no spirit because he had flesh and bone.

The gospels, written later, claim Christ walked with the disciples. The question in this thread is whether those gospels are credible witnesses to this event.

That's just assumptions. No one knows who wrote them or when.

Right. Nobody knows who wrote the gospels and when.

So can you know you can trust what they say?

It wouldn't matter if the original testimonies of the eye witnesses was preserved.

True, the gospels could have been written much later if they accurately preserved eyewitness accounts, and thus still be valid evidence. But you would need to show that they preserved eyewitness accounts.

 

[doubtingmerle]

ewg, your post above has a formatting error, so the text at the bottom is buried in a quote. You might want to go back and edit it.

There, you address my challenge, "Please show me where Paul speaks of the resurrected bones and flesh of Jesus."

You respond:

Eph 5:22 Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord.
Eph 5:23 For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body.
Eph 5:24 Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing.
Eph 5:25 Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it;
Eph 5:26 That he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word,
Eph 5:27 That he might present it to himself a glorious church, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing; but that it should be holy and without blemish.
Eph 5:28 So ought men to love their wives as their own bodies. He that loveth his wife loveth himself.
Eph 5:29 For no man ever yet hated his own flesh; but nourisheth and cherisheth it, even as the Lord the church:
Eph 5:30 For we are members of his body, of his flesh, and of his bones.
Eph 5:31 For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall be joined unto his wife, and they two shall be one flesh.
Eph 5:32 This is a great mystery: but I speak concerning Christ and the church.
Eph 5:33 Nevertheless let every one of you in particular so love his wife even as himself; and the wife see that she reverence her husband.

Uh, actually you found verses that confirm what I was saying about the body of Christ, that when Paul speaks of the body of Christ he is referring to the church. That seems to be the only body Paul knows about. His resurrected Jesus was a spirit with no body, so to give Jesus a body, Paul gives him a metaphorical body, the church.

Again, do you have a verse showing that Paul thought the resurrected Jesus had a physical body?

Yes they did [raise the dead]:

Mat 10:8 Heal the sick, cleanse the lepers, raise the dead, cast out devils: freely ye have received, freely give.

They were commanded to.

Act 9:40 But Peter put them all forth, and kneeled down, and prayed; and turning him to the body said, Tabitha, arise. And she opened her eyes: and when she saw Peter, she sat up.

Peter did.

Act 20:9 And there sat in a window a certain young man named Eutychus, being fallen into a deep sleep: and as Paul was long preaching, he sunk down with sleep, and fell down from the third loft, and was taken up dead.
Act 20:10 And Paul went down, and fell on him, and embracing him said, Trouble not yourselves; for his life is in him.
Act 20:11 When he therefore was come up again, and had broken bread, and eaten, and talked a long while, even till break of day, so he departed.
Act 20:12 And they brought the young man alive, and were not a little comforted.

Paul did.

Ah, later writings said the apostles raised people from the dead. Again, the question is whether the Gospels and Acts, which were written later, are reliable witnesses to what happened.

But even if the apostles were raising these few people from the dead, surely you must agree that resurrections are rare. So again, if resurrections are rare, and a resurrection is claimed, then one's first response is that one would want good evidence that it happened. So far I am not seeing even mediocre evidence.

The original witnesses were reliable. There is nothing I can say to make someone believe if they don't believe.

Sure there is. Show me reliable evidence. I believe all kinds of things happened in history when I have reliable evidence.

No one doubted what the gospels and the NT says about the resurrection of Christ. If there weren't reliable witnesses then there would have been a split in the earth church concerning this.

Actually we don't know how the early church responded to the gospels when they were first written. Besides the gospels, we have virtually nothing written by Christians between 60 AD and 100 AD. And after that time, there was considerable controversy about the nature of Christ, with Gnosticism very popular.

 

[Steve Petersen]

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.

A bit hard to imagine that ANY student of Gamaliel would be killing anyone.

 

[Ed1wolf]

Ed1wolf said: ↑

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.

dm: 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.

No, they memorized a creed that said that He was seen alive after His death by 500 people all at the same time. So it could not have been a subjective vision. And many scholars believe that this creed was composed within 5 years of His death. So all these 500 were alive to confirm any doubters about that may have claimed that Jesus was still dead.

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

Many scholars including non-Christian say that is an ancient Pre-Pauline creed. One reason is that the greek shows that it was originally translated from Aramaic which is what uneducated jewish fisherman spoke.

dm: 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.

No, it was an original oral tradition written down by Paul from the original Aramaic.

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

See above why it would unlikely to be wrong. Most of the 500 were still alive to refute any skeptics to His physical resurrection.

dm: 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.

No, you are misunderstanding this. It was not written in juxtaposition to what the disciples were teaching. He was referring to the origin of the Gospel not being from humans but rather from God. He and the other disciples were all preaching the same Divine Gospel that was not made up by humans. That was his point he was trying to get across, not that he didn't learn it from the disciples.

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

dm: 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.

That is irrelevant, we are talking about first century devout jews and especially Paul who only accepted the OT as Gods word and nowhere in the OT does it talk about spirits being killed and buried. He would have immediately rejected any such talk since he believed that Christ was the son of the same God of the OT, YHWH. IOW first century jews did not believe that it was possible for spirits to be killed and buried.

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

dm: 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?

You have not provided an adequate explanation of why they did not refer to the fulfillment of Christ's prophecy regarding the destruction of the Temple. Since they did not do that then that is strong evidence that they were written before 70 AD.

ed: Yes, he did see above about the seed analogy.

dm: 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, obviously a seed is a physical entity and so is the plant that comes from it. He was using a physical analogy for a physical event.

ed: 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.

dm: 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?

Why does he use the physical analogy of OUR physical bodies? Obviously we have physical bodies. He could have just as easily used a spiritual analogy but he doesn't because it was a physical event.

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

That is a whole another subject. He is using a metaphor that while Christ is back in heaven with the Father, the Church is His physical presence on the earth to do what He would be doing if He was on the earth physically again.

 

[Grafted In]

Doubtingmerle, stay in there swinging. Perhaps one day The Father Himself will respond to you by revealing His Son, Jesus Christ, to you. Until then, as I wrote on another thread, you cannot understand things of The Spirit without the indwelling of The Holy Spirit.

But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.
1Cor. 2:14 KJV

 

[doubtingmerle]

Ed1wolf, I think you are getting a lot of mileage out of I Corinthians 15 that is not justified from the text.

No, they memorized a creed that said that He was seen alive after His death by 500 people all at the same time. So it could not have been a subjective vision. And many scholars believe that this creed was composed within 5 years of His death. So all these 500 were alive to confirm any doubters about that may have claimed that Jesus was still dead.

Again, you have not proven this. Although there is significant agreement that at least some of I Corinthians 15:3-5 is part of some early creed, there is broad disagreement on what words were part of that creed.

Previously I mentioned that v6 says most of the 500 had died, which surely would not be part of an early creed. I also mentioned that the claim that I (Paul) saw Christ would probably not be part of an early creed. You quote it back, and then simply ignore it, and refuse to admit that there might be anything in these verses that was not part of that creed. But once you admit that some of this was not a creed, then it becomes an open issue as to what was part of that creed.

Even among scholars that think v3-5 were a creed, there is broad disagreement that the statement about 500 seeing was part of the same creed. So you simply cannot establish the point by claiming a scholarly consensus. See http://infidels.org/library/modern/robert_price/apocrypha.html.

Many scholars including non-Christian say that is an ancient Pre-Pauline creed. One reason is that the greek shows that it was originally translated from Aramaic which is what uneducated jewish fisherman spoke.

The only word in "the creed" that I know is claimed to be Aramaic is the name used for Peter, "Cephas". But Paul uses the name Cephas other places. The fact that Paul uses the Aramaic name for Peter does not make all of those verses creeds.

I Corinthians 15:3-11 is problematic, and could well be a later interpolation to Paul. Without it, I Corintians 15:1-2,12 makes more sense. One translation of that would be:

Now I would remind you, brethren, in what terms I preached to you the gospel, which you received, in which you stand, by which you are saved, if you hold it fast -- unless you believed in vain. But if Christ is preached as raised from the dead, how can some of you say there is no resurrection of the dead? Source​

So if v 3-11 were a later interpolation, the whole flow makes more sense.

The argument can be made that, although most of v3-5 could have been a creed, the rest of v 3-11 revolved around arguments about who had priority in the church. Later those arguments about priority were changed to evidences for the resurrection, and later this whole section (v3-11) was inserted into Paul.

See above why it would unlikely to be wrong. Most of the 500 were still alive to refute any skeptics to His physical resurrection.

What 500? None of them is mentioned by name. Who would you go see?

And if 500 had seen Jesus at once, and this was widely known in a creed, how could the gospel writers have considered that unimportant and not mentioned it?

No, you are misunderstanding this. It was not written in juxtaposition to what the disciples were teaching. He was referring to the origin of the Gospel not being from humans but rather from God. He and the other disciples were all preaching the same Divine Gospel that was not made up by humans. That was his point he was trying to get across, not that he didn't learn it from the disciples.

That simply is not what Galatians 1:11-12 says. Here it is again:

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. [emphasis added]​

So no, his point was not that he was preaching the same gospel as the others. His point is that he did not receive it of man.

Do you agree that Galatians says Paul did not receive his gospel of man? Do you agree that he says he was not taught it by men? See bolded text above.

That is irrelevant, we are talking about first century devout jews and especially Paul who only accepted the OT as Gods word and nowhere in the OT does it talk about spirits being killed and buried. He would have immediately rejected any such talk since he believed that Christ was the son of the same God of the OT, YHWH. IOW first century jews did not believe that it was possible for spirits to be killed and buried.

Actually Greek thought was quite prevalent among Jews, especially those in the diaspora.

To prove your point that no Jew would have incorporated this, you would need to prove that every single sect did not incorporate such Greek ideas. If one small sect blended Greek ideas, then your idea that every single one refused to go along with the Helenistic ideas is disproven. With the hundreds of sects at that time, good luck in proving that not a single one went along with this.

You have not provided an adequate explanation of why they did not refer to the fulfillment of Christ's prophecy regarding the destruction of the Temple. Since they did not do that then that is strong evidence that they were written before 70 AD.

I saw it as a rabbit trail. As long as you agree that the Gospels and Acts were written after Paul, that is good enough for now. I see no need for the gospels to have stated the obvious, that the temple was indeed destroyed, but we can leave that for another thread. Let's just agree the Gospels were written after Paul for now.

No, obviously a seed is a physical entity and so is the plant that comes from it. He was using a physical analogy for a physical event.

The plant is a different entity from the seed. A different entity. That is the emphasis of I Corinthians 15. The dead body is planted, a different entity arises. And I Corinthians 15 refers to this resurrected body as a spiritual body, not a physical body.

That is a whole another subject. He is using a metaphor that while Christ is back in heaven with the Father, the Church is His physical presence on the earth to do what He would be doing if He was on the earth physically again.

Uh, no the body of Christ is not another subject. Everywhere that Paul describes the body of Christ, he is referring to the church. He saw the resurrected Christ as a spirit, with his only body being the church. That is indeed relevant.

 

[ChetSinger]

Do you agree that Galatians says Paul did not receive his gospel of man? Do you agree that he says he was not taught it by men? See bolded text above.

I agree. But the same letter also describes his meetings with apostles and mentions no corrections to his gospel. That is, his message was approved by some of the original witnesses.

First, there was first a short visit with Peter:

Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to visit Cephas and remained with him fifteen days. - 1:18

It appears that after fourteen years of labor he did become concerned whether he was on the right path, so he went to Jerusalem for a gut check:

Then after fourteen years I went up again to Jerusalem with Barnabas, taking Titus along with me.

I went up because of a revelation and set before them (though privately before those who seemed influential) the gospel that I proclaim among the Gentiles, in order to make sure I was not running or had not run in vain. - 2:1-2

And he passed their tests, winning the approval of Peter, James, and John:

And from those who seemed to be influential (what they were makes no difference to me; God shows no partiality)—those, I say, who seemed influential added nothing to me.

On the contrary, when they saw that I had been entrusted with the gospel to the uncircumcised, just as Peter had been entrusted with the gospel to the uncircumcised, (for he who worked through Peter for his apostolic ministry to the circumcised worked also through me for mine to the Gentiles), and when James and Cephas and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that was given to me they gave the right hand of fellowship to Barnabas and me, that we should go to the Gentiles and they to the circumcised.

Only, they asked us to remember the poor, the very thing I was eager to do. - 2:6-10

So while his original message was divinely received, by the time he wrote Galatians it had been blessed with apostolic approval.

 

[doubtingmerle]

I agree. But the same letter also describes his meetings with apostles and mentions no corrections to his gospel. That is, his message was approved by some of the original witnesses.

I agree that Paul taught the same gospel as Peter. That is not the issue. The issue is whether Paul claims to have gotten his gospel from Peter. And Galatians is clear on that. Paul said he was taught his gospel through revelation and scripture, not from Peter.

That is what is so strange about the claim that Paul memorized a creed that the disciples had written, and when summarizing his gospel, just echoed the creed he learned from Peter. That goes against what he claimed.

Most likely I Cor. 15:3-11 was added later by somebody else. If Paul wrote it, then I find it more likely that he is writing his own words rather than repeating a creed he memorized from Peter.

 

[Ed1wolf]

Ed1wolf, I think you are getting a lot of mileage out of I Corinthians 15 that is not justified from the text.

↑
ed: No, they memorized a creed that said that He was seen alive after His death by 500 people all at the same time. So it could not have been a subjective vision. And many scholars believe that this creed was composed within 5 years of His death. So all these 500 were alive to confirm any doubters about that may have claimed that Jesus was still dead.

dm: Again, you have not proven this. Although there is significant agreement that at least some of I Corinthians 15:3-5 is part of some early creed, there is broad disagreement on what words were part of that creed.

No, there is a large number of scholars that believe it goes to verse 7. Such as Crossan, Habermas, Reginald Fuller, among many others.

dm: Previously I mentioned that v6 says most of the 500 had died, which surely would not be part of an early creed. I also mentioned that the claim that I (Paul) saw Christ would probably not be part of an early creed. You quote it back, and then simply ignore it, and refuse to admit that there might be anything in these verses that was not part of that creed. But once you admit that some of this was not a creed, then it becomes an open issue as to what was part of that creed.

Why would the 500 not be part of the creed? There were many skeptics back then too. The creed was an apologetic also. See above, how many scholars believe from the text and language used that it goes to verse 7.

dm: Even among scholars that think v3-5 were a creed, there is broad disagreement that the statement about 500 seeing was part of the same creed. So you simply cannot establish the point by claiming a scholarly consensus. See http://infidels.org/library/modern/robert_price/apocrypha.html.
Source

Infidels.org is a hyperskeptical organization, so some scholars they use are a little out of the mainstream. Some even deny that Jesus ever lived which is an extreme minority view. Also, this Robert Price seems a little out of date. Recent research has shown that the entire passage 3-7 has Aramaic characteristics.

dm: So if v 3-11 were a later interpolation, the whole flow makes more sense.

But there is no objective evidence that it is later interpolation.

dm: The argument can be made that, although most of v3-5 could have been a creed, the rest of v 3-11 revolved around arguments about who had priority in the church. Later those arguments about priority were changed to evidences for the resurrection, and later this whole section (v3-11) was inserted into Paul.

Given that there were skeptics about His resurrection even at the time the priority remained the same. There is no real evidence that section was inserted. You only think it is because it doesn't support your argument.

dm: Galatians 1:11-12 says. Here it is again:

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. [emphasis added]
So no, his point was not that he was preaching the same gospel as the others. His point is that he did not receive it of man.

Do you agree that Galatians says Paul did not receive his gospel of man? Do you agree that he says he was not taught it by men? See bolded text above.

His point was both. He personally was taught it by the resurrected Christ but the gospel of the Church had a divine origin, not a human origin.

ed: That is irrelevant, we are talking about first century devout jews and especially Paul who only accepted the OT as Gods word and nowhere in the OT does it talk about spirits being killed and buried. He would have immediately rejected any such talk since he believed that Christ was the son of the same God of the OT, YHWH. IOW first century jews did not believe that it was possible for spirits to be killed and buried.

dm: Actually Greek thought was quite prevalent among Jews, especially those in the diaspora.

But Paul and the disciples were not in the Diaspora.

dm: To prove your point that no Jew would have incorporated this, you would need to prove that every single sect did not incorporate such Greek ideas. If one small sect blended Greek ideas, then your idea that every single one refused to go along with the Helenistic ideas is disproven. With the hundreds of sects at that time, good luck in proving that not a single one went along with this.

Of course, I am not referring to every single jew or even every single sect. I am referring to the majority of mainstream devout jews who revered the Torah of which Paul and most of the disciples belonged.

ed: You have not provided an adequate explanation of why they did not refer to the fulfillment of Christ's prophecy regarding the destruction of the Temple. Since they did not do that then that is strong evidence that they were written before 70 AD.

dm: I saw it as a rabbit trail. As long as you agree that the Gospels and Acts were written after Paul, that is good enough for now. I see no need for the gospels to have stated the obvious, that the temple was indeed destroyed, but we can leave that for another thread. Let's just agree the Gospels were written after Paul for now.

The fulfillment of Christs prophecy have been a huge apologetic especially among jews since that is the Mosaic criterion for a true Prophet. So your dismissal of it is very weak. Only very shortly after Paul and they strongly point to a physical resurrection not a spiritual one.

ed: No, obviously a seed is a physical entity and so is the plant that comes from it. He was using a physical analogy for a physical event.

dm: The plant is a different entity from the seed. A different entity. That is the emphasis of I Corinthians 15. The dead body is planted, a different entity arises. And I Corinthians 15 refers to this resurrected body as a spiritual body, not a physical body.

Not entirely a different entity, he doesn't have to be a botanist to know that there is an intrinsic connection between the seed and the plant, ie in a fundamental way they are the same entity but different just as our physical bodies will be different from our resurrected bodies but still physical bodies just as the seed is a physical body as well as the plant. Paul was not dumb he was very well educated and intelligent.

ed: That is a whole another subject. He is using a metaphor that while Christ is back in heaven with the Father, the Church is His physical presence on the earth to do what He would be doing if He was on the earth physically again.

dm: Uh, no the body of Christ is not another subject. Everywhere that Paul describes the body of Christ, he is referring to the church. He saw the resurrected Christ as a spirit, with his only body being the church. That is indeed relevant.

No, this is obvious from the context that it is a metaphor.

 

[doubtingmerle]

Ed1wolf, I'm still not seeing anything close to a credible witness to the resurrection in the things you write. And that is the whole point of this thread. Do we have credible witnesses to the resurrection?

No, there is a large number of scholars that believe it goes to verse 7. Such as Crossan, Habermas, Reginald Fuller, among many others.

And there are a large number of scholars that say "the creed" does not go beyond verse 5, that at least some of the sightings of Jesus mentioned in those later verses were not part of an early creed. Price writes:

Almost all would bracket the mentions of the 500 brethren (v. 6) and of Paul himself (vv. 8-10) as Pauline additions to the formula. (source)​

And Price is a scholar and has multiple footnotes about his points.

If almost all scholars exclude the mention of the 500 from the "early creed", you simply cannot claim that the consensus of scholarship agrees with you.

Why would the 500 not be part of the creed?

Why would a creed mention the 500? Is a man a heretic who believes it was 400 or who never heard of the large group who saw at once?

The mention of the 500 is clearly an argument, not a creed.

And why do you ask for the reasons against it? I talked about the reasons before, and gave you a link that discusses this in detail. Again, the 500 appears to be more of an argument then a statement of faith, the 500 are never mentioned in the Gospels or Acts, and the 500 is out of place in I Corinthians. How does it make sense to say Christ appeared to all the apostles after he had already appeared to the 12 and to the 500? How many apostles were there?

So why keep asking the same questions that I already answered?

Recent research has shown that the entire passage 3-7 has Aramaic characteristics.

I asked you about this claim, and you just come back and repeat it. Why? Again, the only claim I know of about Aramaic being in I Corinthians 15:3-11 is the Aramaic name "Cephas" which I already responded to. If you know of additional Aramaic characters, please tell me what, rather than repeating the same unverified claim over and over.

But there is no objective evidence that it is later interpolation.

Sure. There is evidence. Read the link I provided several times with evidence that I Corinthians 15:3-11 was a later interpolation. I even discussed the reasons for it here with a quote from that link. You simply ignored all that, and announce that there is no evidence.

Sigh.

His point was both. He personally was taught it by the resurrected Christ but the gospel of the Church had a divine origin, not a human origin.

Huh?

Here it is again:

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. [Galatians 1:11-12, emphasis added]​

Paul says he did not receive his gospel from men. You cannot simply ignore that, and then state that Paul copies his gospel verbatim from men in I Corinthians 15.

But Paul and the disciples were not in the Diaspora.

Wait, what?

Paul was of Tarsus, far from Jerusalem. And his followers were spread throughout Asia minor. Many of his followers were not even Jews. So yes, Paul and his followers were far from Jerusalem, were living intermixed with Greeks, and were including Greeks in their fellowship. It is no surprise that they may have included some Greek thought in their religion.

Of course, I am not referring to every single jew or even every single sect. I am referring to the majority of mainstream devout jews who revered the Torah of which Paul and most of the disciples belonged.

Wait, what? Paul, after his conversion, belonged to a "majority of mainstream devout Jews who revered the Torah"? Read what Paul writes. He strongly writes about his objections to Jewish laws and customs. It is no surprise to me that Paul might incorporate some Greek thought.

Only very shortly after Paul and they strongly point to a physical resurrection not a spiritual one.

Again, Paul is the earliest witness, and he says little if anything about a physical body. And the four Gospels and Acts were written later by unknown people who may not have been reliable.

Do you have any reliable witnesses to the resurrection?

Not entirely a different entity, he doesn't have to be a botanist to know that there is an intrinsic connection between the seed and the plant, ie in a fundamental way they are the same entity but different just as our physical bodies will be different from our resurrected bodies but still physical bodies just as the seed is a physical body as well as the plant. Paul was not dumb he was very well educated and intelligent.

Sure, I agree Paul thought there was a connection between the physical person and the resurrected person. But I Corinthinans 15:36-44 make it clear that the resurrected body was a spiritual body, not the physical body that died.

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, and another 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: It is sown in dishonour; it is raised in glory: it is sown in weakness; it is raised in power: It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body. There is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body.​

He goes on to say that flesh and blood does not enter heaven. He is not talking about flesh and blood coming out of the grave.

No, this is obvious from the context that it is a metaphor.

Of course Paul sees the body of Christ as a metaphor. That is my point! Why repeat my point?

But again, the only body of Christ that Paul refers to is the church. He never refers to a physical body. It will do you no good to continue to ignore this, because I will keep bringing it up as often as you ignore it.

 

[Grafted In]

Doubtingmerle, you seem to have all the answers. We are but poor pathetic dolts. Why do you waste your time trying to convert those who are saved?
Has your father, the devil, given you this purpose in life?

 

[HitchSlap]

Doubtingmerle, stay in there swinging. Perhaps one day The Father Himself will respond to you by revealing His Son, Jesus Christ, to you. Until then, as I wrote on another thread, you cannot understand things of The Spirit without the indwelling of The Holy Spirit.

Yeah, about that. Why do you think the "Holy Spirit" tells all of you guys something different?

 

[doubtingmerle]

Doubtingmerle, you seem to have all the answers.

Thank you. I try to stay informed.

We are but poor pathetic dolts.

You are?

 

[miknik5]

In another thread it was claimed that there are multiple credible witnesses to the resurrection. I disagree. Basically we have the author of Mark, and he wrote many years after the supposed event. We don't even know who he was, and don't know what his intention was. Matthew, Luke and John come even later. They closely follow Mark's story, indeed they often just copy it, but diverge sharply on the resurrection. Paul writes earlier, but he appears to be talking about a spiritual resurrection. So no, I don't see any credible witnesses to the resurrection. If you think otherwise, who do you think was a credible witness to it?

There wouldn't have been historically documented "witnesses"since those in charge didn't want it publicly announced

In the scriptures we even read that the guards were told to keep their mouth closed and if anyone asked they were to say that HIS DISCIPLES stole HIS BODY

So what we have is the written account of HIS FIRST eye witnesses: HIS Apostles

For that is even what an Apostle is...one who had seen THE LORD