Are there credible witnesses to the resurrection?

[miknik5]

Contemporary witness didn't live at that time.
But Joseph Smith testified that he saw Jesus Christ more than once and He(Jesus) was very alive.

Joseph Smith added yeast where it wasn't needed

He didn't receive the SPIRIT of GOD/SPIRIT of CHRIST(who are synonymous and one) otherwise he would have testified that he who has seen THE SON has seen THE FATHER
And he wouldn't have had to add anything to the WORD/VOICE/SPIRIT of TRUTH

 

[miknik5]

Joseph Smith added yeast where it wasn't needed

I'll ask you once more, which one of my three assumptions is incorrect?

(Please don't bother responding if you're just going to preach and mis-use caps-lock ... I'm interested in genuine discussion here.)

You are interested in anything but THE TRUTH of GOD and the TESTIMONY of JESUS

And stop personally attacking my style of writing. I have told you already that the caps are used in reverence to GOD and GODLY things

 

[Alla27]

You are interested in anything but THE TRUTH of GOD and the TESTIMONY of JESUS

But he makes good arguments. You can't respond. I also don't think it is anybody's business what he is interested in.

 

[miknik5]

But he makes good arguments. You can't respond. I also don't think it is anybody's business what he is interested in.

Is that why mormons listened to Joseph smith? Because they didn't believe GOD's TESTIMONY which HE has given of HIS SON and decided that a man such as Joseph smith was needed to "help" men by providing them with false and temporal "evidence" like gold plates?

 

[ViaCrucis]

Paul writes earlier, but he appears to be talking about a spiritual resurrection.

This claim is often made, but it seems to be made by being entirely ignorant of the Pauline material.

Of the thirteen Epistles attributed to St. Paul in the Canon of Scripture, there are seven which are undisputed as being the actual, and authentic writing of the Apostle. These are 1 Thessalonians, Romans, 1 & 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Philippians, and Philemon.

I fail to see, in an honest reading of these, an idea that Jesus' resurrection was some sort of "spiritual" event rather than a bodily, corporeal one.

The following comes from the Epistle to the Romans,

"If the Spirit of him who raised Jesus from the dead dwells in you, he who raised Christ from the dead will give life to your mortal bodies also through his Spirit that dwells in you." (Romans 8:11)

Resurrection here is in regard to "your mortal bodies" and it is predicated on Jesus having been raised from the dead. Resurrection, here, is a corporeal reality--it is resurrection of the body.

But arguably the most important statement comes in the form of the entire 15th chapter of Paul's 1st Epistle to the Corinthians.

What some people often do, in regard to the 15th chapter of 1 Corinthians, is see the translated phrases, "natural body" and "spiritual body" imagining that Paul is contrasting a physical body and some sort of ethereal "spirit body". The problem is in part the use of the word "natural" in translation, and certain assumptions as English speakers we make of the word "spiritual" in regard to the body.

The Greek terms actually present in the text are soma psuchekos and soma pneumatikos. Psuchekos is the adjective form of psuche (psyche, "soul") and pneumatikos is the adjective form of pneuma ("spirit"). The term "natural" as a translation of psuchekos isn't entirely bad if one understands what the translators were wanting to convey, but it is also incredibly misleading. It is misleading because the use of the term "natural" can to a modern English speaker come across as a synonym for "physical", but psuchekos doesn't refer to physicality, it refers to "soulishness". And, of course, a literal translation of "soulish body" looks strange because "soulish" isn't a word. What is being contrasted here is not physicality and spirituality, matter vs. spirit; it's not the composition of the "body" which is being addressed at all. It's the operating principle of the body; soul vs spirit. Where the "soul" here refers to our current mode of existence in the body; and "spirit" refers to the future mode of existence in the body. But psuchekos and pneumatikos are both referring to the same thing: the soma, the body. A physical flesh and bone, solid matter body, "it is sown...it is raised". The difference between the present body and the resurrection body isn't what it's made out of, but what gives it life, the kind of "breath" it has--soul vs. spirit. Ours is currently a biological life, we are quickened by the ordinary animal breath; in the resurrection it is the spirit (and I would argue that Paul has in mind the Spirit, i.e. the Holy Spirit, not some nebulous idea of "spirit" here) that gives life, even as Paul has elsewhere (see the quote from Romans) stated: "the Spirit of him who raised Christ from the dead ... will also give life to your mortal bodies".

And, therefore, for Paul resurrection can be nothing other than physical, corporeal resurrection; and it is only with this in mind that the earlier statement by Paul in 1 Corinthians 15 can make any sense: Where he states that he relayed what he himself had received as of first importance,

"that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the scriptures, and that he was buried, and that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the scriptures, and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve. Then he appeared to more than five hundred brothers and sisters at one time, most of whom are still alive, though some have died. Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles. Last of all, as to one untimely born, he appeared also to me."

And in addition to this, Paul has to argue against those who said "the dead do not rise", for Paul says, "if the dead do not rise, then Christ is not risen".

But for Paul resurrection is a thing that relates to the body, it is bodies which are raised up, the transformation/transfiguration in the resurrection is of the body; and so when he speaks against those who say "there is no resurrection" he appeals to Christ's resurrection as the central point of importance. So much so that Paul considers it essential to recount what he himself had already received, which includes the reported appearance of the resurrected Christ to upward of five hundred people. For Paul the seeing of and witness of the real, physical, actual Jesus is critical; because that Christ is no longer dead can only make sense from the perspective of an empty tomb, of someone no longer dead. Not merely as metaphorical for some sort of higher spiritual life, or a "spiritual" resurrection; it can only be of a material, corporeal one.

And so I present all this, not as an argument that you should believe the resurrection, or even whether or not there were "credible witnesses"; but rather I present this chiefly as an argument about what the earliest Christians believed based on their own ideas and attestation. For Paul the resurrection of Christ can be nothing other than a real, actual, physical resurrection--a cessation of death, an end of mortality, and a transformation--a transfiguration--of the body from mortality to immortality, from corruption to incorruption. And so "Jesus is risen" can mean nothing other than the human person known as Jesus of Nazareth stopped being dead.

This is the central teaching of the earliest Christians. Whether it is true or not, whether it is reliable or not is, of course, the subsequent conversation; but it's a conversation that first requires that we stand on the same playing field by recognizing that the idea of and belief in the resurrection is not some late addition to the Christian message, it is its defining feature. Christianity is not a Greek, philosophical system that adopted Judaistic language; it is a Jewish messianic movement that adopted the ancient Greco-Roman world as its host culture in spreading its central teaching to that culture and adopting Greeks, Romans, and Barbarians into its fold in addition to Jews, becoming a cosmopolitan and, indeed, univeral religion. Christianity must be defined first by its Jewish context and only secondarily its Greek context.

Christianity began in Jerusalem, not Athens.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Ed1wolf]

Ed1Wolf, would you please quit ignoring my responses and just repeating the same arguments over and over that have already been answered?

Where have I ignored your responses? You have ignored several of mine such as the textual evidence that the terms "flesh and blood" means corruptible as opposed to incorruptible. Not that we won't have bodies in heaven. Our bodies just need to be changed as seed changes into a plant.

↑

ed: The whole purpose of Chapter 15 of I Corinthians is to show that Christ had a physical body.

dm: No, it is saying that the risen Christ had a spiritual body. I Corinthians 15:44 "It is sown a physical body, it is raised a spiritual body. If there is a physical body, there is also a spiritual body."

Your interpretation is seriously flawed. If he had meant a non-physical being which is what you are claiming, he would have said "sown a body, raised a spirit." But he specifically used the word body and intentionally used it. There are two types of material bodies, a physical flesh and blood (corruptible) body, and the physically transformed spiritual (incorruptible) body.

ed: I notice you did not respond to my post about all of his analogies using other things in the universe, ie seeds and plants, different species of animals, and stars and planets in verses 35-44. ALL of which are physical entities that are just transformed not destroyed.

dm: It is an analogy. Not everything in the analogy is true about the thing it is an analogy of.

For instance, the analogy of a seed bringing forth a plant does not mean that Paul thought we would have a stalk planted in the ground at resurrection!

Paul is saying the spiritual body rising out of a dead body is analogous to a different plant body coming out of a seed.

He is not saying we are going to be corn on the cob for eternity, or even that we will have a physical body for eternigy. Not everything in an analogy is true about the analogous thing.

If EVERY SINGLE analogy is a physical entity when he very easily could have used a spiritual analogy with one or two but he didn't, is strong evidence that them all being physical is an essential part of the analogy as is the fact that the seed is the same kind as the plant it becomes. This shows that while different and transformed there is a continuity between our present body and our resurrected body. Also, since this is a God inspired analogy, they are often much deeper than human contrived analogies.

ed: Also, we have the historical fact of the empty tomb and the emphasis on it by the early Christians, which would make no sense if His resurrection was just spiritual.

dm: Huh? Get with the program please. That is the question of this thread. What credible evidence do you have for the empty tomb and physical resurrected body? You can't just assume the thing I am asking you to prove.

Most scholars agree that there was an empty tomb. Jacob Kremer has found that 75% of scholars believe the tomb was empty.

ed: No, but we have the ancient creed in verses 3-7.
That says that he saw the resurrected Christ.

dm: Huh? So far you have presented no evidence that vs. 6-7 are a creed. All you said is that some scholars agree with you. So what. I think most scholars agree with me that at least the mention of James and the 500 were not part of a creed.

If some scholars agree with you, what is their evidence? You refuse to give any evidence and just repeat the same assertion over and over.

The textual evidence points to an Aramaic original for the entire passage not just Peters name.

 

[Ed1wolf]

And given that he was a skeptic and died a martyr the most likely and rational conclusion is that he had seen the physically resurrected Jesus.

dm: You have not proven that James was previously a skeptic. You have not proven he believed in a resurrection. You have not proven that he died because of belief in a resurrection. And even if he had, you have not proven that his death proves he was right. Many people die for a lie.

There is evidence he was a skeptic, read Mark 3:21, 31, and 6:3-4. He claimed to have seen Christ resurrected as shown in the ancient hymn. And since it was being sung within 10 years of Christs death, people were still living that could prove that He had been killed and therefore could not have been alive if he had not been crucified.

ed: No, we had been talking about Paul and the disciples, it is you now who is changing the subject.

dm: Who's thread do you think this is, anyway?

It is ours, and you had been talking about Paul and the disciples. You need to remain consistent.

dm: I am talking about Paul and his followers. You have done nothing to show that Paul and his Greek followers could not have had some Greek ideas.

Non sequitur. I didn't say that. But there is no evidence that they believed that spirits could be killed and buried. Which makes no sense even from the standard Greek perspective.

Ed: Yes, they may have been but not Paul himself, a jew among jews, and a Pharisee among Pharisees.

dm: ROFL! Paul, after he was a Christian, was still a Jew among Jews, a Pharisee among pharisees!?!?! Where are you getting this stuff?

As I stated before since he considered Christianity the fulfillment of Judaism, he did not completely jettison the jewish worldview especially the Torah's teaching about spirits and in fact many other things.

ed: Only superficially. Again there is absolutely no evidence that he or any other mainstream jews believed that spirits could be killed and buried.

dm: Get with the program please. You have been told repeatedly that the historical Jesus was the topic of the other thread, and I think I made my case there. Read it if you want to see my case. We can get back to that later if you want to talk about that.

All you have to do is prove that ancient mainstream jews believed that spirits could be killed and buried.

dm: This thread is not about the historicity of Jesus, but about whether there is evidence that there was a physical resurrection of a physical Jesus.
ed: There is good evidence for it. Irenaeus testified to Acts being written by Luke, as well as Clement, the Muratorian Fragment, and Eusebius.

dm: Oh please. The Fragment and Irenaeus were after 180 AD, too late to be reliable on who wrote the gospels. The internal evidence indicates it was not the people traditionally claimed to have written them.

But we can linearly trace the Fragment and Irenaeus back to the first century apostles with other texts.

dm: And what does Clement have to do with proving who wrote the gospels?

Since he lived from 30 AD to 100 AD there is evidence that he met the apostles and there is evidence that he was ordained by Peter and he also mentions the bodily resurrection of Christ so he was transmitting the teaching of the apostles that they believed in the physical resurrection. He also may have been mentioned by Paul in Philippians 4:3.

ed: And the "we" passages show that the author traveled everywhere Luke had traveled with Paul. Among other things.

dm: The "we" passages are a common literary device of the time that does not mean they were written first person.

Evidence?

 

[Ed1wolf]

And given that he was a skeptic and died a martyr the most likely and rational conclusion is that he had seen the physically resurrected Jesus.

dm: You have not proven that James was previously a skeptic. You have not proven he believed in a resurrection. You have not proven that he died because of belief in a resurrection. And even if he had, you have not proven that his death proves he was right. Many people die for a lie.

There is evidence he was a skeptic, read Mark 3:21, 31, and 6:3-4. He claimed to have seen Christ resurrected as shown in the ancient hymn. And since it was being sung within 10 years of Christs death, people were still living that could prove that He had been killed and therefore could not have been alive if he had not been crucified.

ed: No, we had been talking about Paul and the disciples, it is you now who is changing the subject.

dm: Who's thread do you think this is, anyway?

It is ours, and you had been talking about Paul and the disciples. You need to remain consistent.

dm: I am talking about Paul and his followers. You have done nothing to show that Paul and his Greek followers could not have had some Greek ideas.

Non sequitur. I didn't say that. But there is no evidence that they believed that spirits could be killed and buried. Which makes no sense even from the standard Greek perspective.

Ed: Yes, they may have been but not Paul himself, a jew among jews, and a Pharisee among Pharisees.

dm: ROFL! Paul, after he was a Christian, was still a Jew among Jews, a Pharisee among pharisees!?!?! Where are you getting this stuff?

As I stated before since he considered Christianity the fulfillment of Judaism, he did not completely jettison the jewish worldview especially the Torah's teaching about spirits and in fact many other things.

ed: Only superficially. Again there is absolutely no evidence that he or any other mainstream jews believed that spirits could be killed and buried.

dm: Get with the program please. You have been told repeatedly that the historical Jesus was the topic of the other thread, and I think I made my case there. Read it if you want to see my case. We can get back to that later if you want to talk about that.

All you have to do is prove that ancient mainstream jews believed that spirits could be killed and buried.

dm: This thread is not about the historicity of Jesus, but about whether there is evidence that there was a physical resurrection of a physical Jesus.
ed: There is good evidence for it. Irenaeus testified to Acts being written by Luke, as well as Clement, the Muratorian Fragment, and Eusebius.

dm: Oh please. The Fragment and Irenaeus were after 180 AD, too late to be reliable on who wrote the gospels. The internal evidence indicates it was not the people traditionally claimed to have written them.

But we can linearly trace the Fragment and Irenaeus back to the first century apostles with other texts.

dm: And what does Clement have to do with proving who wrote the gospels?

Since he lived from 30 AD to 100 AD there is evidence that he met the apostles and there is evidence that he was ordained by Peter and he also mentions the bodily resurrection of Christ so he was transmitting the teaching of the apostles that they believed in the physical resurrection. He also may have been mentioned by Paul in Philippians 4:3.

ed: And the "we" passages show that the author traveled everywhere Luke had traveled with Paul. Among other things.

dm: The "we" passages are a common literary device of the time that does not mean they were written first person.

Evidence?

 

[doubtingmerle]

You have ignored several of mine such as the textual evidence that the terms "flesh and blood" means corruptible as opposed to incorruptible.

Already answered. I think flesh and blood means flesh and blood. If Paul wanted to say the body becomes incorruptible, there would have been easier ways to say that. He does not say that. He says flesh and blood does not enter heaven.

Not that we won't have bodies in heaven. Our bodies just need to be changed as seed changes into a plant.

But Paul specifically says that the seed you sow is not the body that will be. He refers to the seed dying, and something else coming up. That seems to be his view of the resurrection.

Your interpretation is seriously flawed. If he had meant a non-physical being which is what you are claiming, he would have said "sown a body, raised a spirit." But he specifically used the word body and intentionally used it. There are two types of material bodies, a physical flesh and blood (corruptible) body, and the physically transformed spiritual (incorruptible) body.
If EVERY SINGLE analogy is a physical entity when he very easily could have used a spiritual analogy with one or two but he didn't, is strong evidence that them all being physical is an essential part of the analogy as is the fact that the seed is the same kind as the plant it becomes. This shows that while different and transformed there is a continuity between our present body and our resurrected body. Also, since this is a God inspired analogy, they are often much deeper than human contrived analogies.

Flapdoodle. It is an analogy, for crying out loud.

Most scholars agree that there was an empty tomb. Jacob Kremer has found that 75% of scholars believe the tomb was empty.

Depends what scholars you ask.

The problem is that there is no credible witness to the empty tomb.

The textual evidence points to an Aramaic original for the entire passage not just Peters name.

What evidence points to an Aramaic origin of I Cor 15 3-7? You refuse to answer.

As long as you repeatedly refuse to answer this simple request for your evidence, I will assume you have none.

 

[ewq1938]

He says flesh and blood does not enter heaven.

Enter?

Paul never said that.

1Co_15:50 Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; neither doth corruption inherit incorruption.

 

[doubtingmerle]

He claimed to have seen Christ resurrected as shown in the ancient hymn. And since it was being sung within 10 years of Christs death, people were still living that could prove that

You have not even attempted to prove that the sighting by James was part of a creed. You have only said that some people agree with you. That is not proof.

I have given you strong evidence that it was not part of an early creed, and you ignored it all.

I didn't say that. But there is no evidence that they believed that spirits could be killed and buried. Which makes no sense even from the standard Greek perspective.

Can you please get with the program. You have been told repeatedly the claim here in this thread is that Paul sees the risen Christ as a spirit. This thread is not claiming that Christ was entirely mythical. That was another thread. We can talk again about the mythical Jesus if you want, but that is another thread.

That is another thread.
That is another thread.
That is another thread.
That is another thread.

Please let me know if you want me to repeat that another dozen times for your benefit.

As I stated before since he considered Christianity the fulfillment of Judaism, he did not completely jettison the jewish worldview especially the Torah's teaching about spirits and in fact many other things.

Huh? Paul says he counts it as rubbish. Explain to me again how Paul liked this "rubbish" so much that he wouldn't give it up, even if he thought Christ was otherwise?

If anyone else thinks he may have confidence in the flesh, I more so: circumcised the eighth day, of the stock of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew of the Hebrews; concerning the law, a Pharisee; concerning zeal, persecuting the church; concerning the righteousness which is in the law, blameless. But what things were gain to me, these I have counted loss for Christ. Yet indeed I also count all things loss for the excellence of the knowledge of Christ Jesus my Lord,for whom I have suffered the loss of all things, and count them as rubbish, that I may gain Christ. Phil 3:4-8​

But we can linearly trace the Fragment and Irenaeus back to the first century apostles with other texts.

Then do. Show me where anybody who could have known who the true authors were says the gospels were written by the people you claim.

Since he lived from 30 AD to 100 AD there is evidence that he met the apostles and there is evidence that he was ordained by Peter and he also mentions the bodily resurrection of Christ so he was transmitting the teaching of the apostles that they believed in the physical resurrection. He also may have been mentioned by Paul in Philippians 4:3.

None of this has any relevance to your claim that Clement testifies who wrote the gospels. That is simply bogus. Clement makes no such claim.

 

[Ed1wolf]

Ed1wolf said: ↑
You have ignored several of mine such as the textual evidence that the terms "flesh and blood" means corruptible as opposed to incorruptible.

dm: Already answered. I think flesh and blood means flesh and blood. If Paul wanted to say the body becomes incorruptible, there would have been easier ways to say that. He does not say that. He says flesh and blood does not enter heaven.

Nevertheless, we can tell from his other uses of these terms that is what he means. Just because he doesn't say it the way you would say it, does not refute the understanding. But you are partially right, flesh and blood as it now is while we are alive does not enter heaven, it is a transformed type of BODY (not spirit).

ed: Not that we won't have bodies in heaven. Our bodies just need to be changed as seed changes into a plant.

dm: But Paul specifically says that the seed you sow is not the body that will be. He refers to the seed dying, and something else coming up. That seems to be his view of the resurrection.

Yes, a seed is transformed into a plant. He is saying it has some very different qualities but yet the same essence and even few of the same qualities. Of which being physical is a quality of both.

ed: Your interpretation is seriously flawed. If he had meant a non-physical being which is what you are claiming, he would have said "sown a body, raised a spirit." But he specifically used the word body and intentionally used it. There are two types of material bodies, a physical flesh and blood (corruptible) body, and the physically transformed spiritual (incorruptible) body.
If EVERY SINGLE analogy is a physical entity when he very easily could have used a spiritual analogy with one or two but he didn't, is strong evidence that them all being physical is an essential part of the analogy as is the fact that the seed is the same kind as the plant it becomes. This shows that while different and transformed there is a continuity between our present body and our resurrected body. Also, since this is a God inspired analogy, they are often much deeper than human contrived analogies.

dm: Flapdoodle. It is an analogy, for crying out loud.

Yes, and God speaking thru Paul takes His analogies very seriously, all aspects of them, read the bible. Ancient jews took their analogies very seriously.

ed: Most scholars agree that there was an empty tomb. Jacob Kremer has found that 75% of scholars believe the tomb was empty.

dm: Depends what scholars you ask.

Uhhh MOST?

dm: The problem is that there is no credible witness to the empty tomb.

The women are extremely credible because as I stated earlier first century jews would have never had them as the first to see the empty tomb if they were trying to make it a credible story unless it actually happened. Women's testimony was at the bottom of reliability to first century jews.

ed: The textual evidence points to an Aramaic original for the entire passage not just Peters name.

dm: What evidence points to an Aramaic origin of I Cor 15 3-7? You refuse to answer.

As long as you repeatedly refuse to answer this simple request for your evidence, I will assume you have none.

I admit that I am not a greek or Aramaic scholar so I don't know how they can determine that but you are free to read the books by the scholars I have referenced earlier in this thread.

 

[Ed1wolf]

You have not even attempted to prove that the sighting by James was part of a creed. You have only said that some people agree with you. That is not proof.

I have given you strong evidence that it was not part of an early creed, and you ignored it all.

See post 252.

dm: Can you please get with the program. You have been told repeatedly the claim here in this thread is that Paul sees the risen Christ as a spirit. This thread is not claiming that Christ was entirely mythical. That was another thread. We can talk again about the mythical Jesus if you want, but that is another thread.

That is another thread.
That is another thread.
That is another thread.
That is another thread.

Please let me know if you want me to repeat that another dozen times for your benefit.

YOU were the one using this belief that spirits can die and be buried as part of your argument that Paul believed Jesus was only spiritually raised from the dead. I am just refuting the first part of your argument which therefore refutes the second part of your argument.

dm: Huh? Paul says he counts it as rubbish. Explain to me again how Paul liked this "rubbish" so much that he wouldn't give it up, even if he thought Christ was otherwise?

If anyone else thinks he may have confidence in the flesh, I more so: circumcised the eighth day, of the stock of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew of the Hebrews; concerning the law, a Pharisee; concerning zeal, persecuting the church; concerning the righteousness which is in the law, blameless. But what things were gain to me, these I have counted loss for Christ. Yet indeed I also count all things loss for the excellence of the knowledge of Christ Jesus my Lord,for whom I have suffered the loss of all things, and count them as rubbish, that I may gain Christ. Phil 3:4-8​

In context Paul was saying that believing those things produce salvation is rubbish. He was saying nothing about the overall Hebraic worldview, ie beliefs about bodies and spirits. He never questioned such foundational beliefs. That would be like a scientist saying he now believes in dark matter and then saying therefore he no longer believes in the laws of physics. It makes no sense.​

dm: Then do. Show me where anybody who could have known who the true authors were says the gospels were written by the people you claim.

None of this has any relevance to your claim that Clement testifies who wrote the gospels. That is simply bogus. Clement makes no such claim.

Clement quotes from the synoptic gospels referencing their authors as did Polycarp and Papias.

 

[doubtingmerle]

Nevertheless, we can tell from his other uses of these terms that is what he means. Just because he doesn't say it the way you would say it, does not refute the understanding. But you are partially right, flesh and blood as it now is while we are alive does not enter heaven, it is a transformed type of BODY (not spirit).

Where are you getting this stuff? Please show me one place where Paul uses the phrase "flesh and blood" to mean anything other than "flesh and blood". You cannot simply say "flesh and blood" does not mean "flesh and blood" in Paul's writings unless you can show me one example in Paul where it does not mean "flesh and blood".

When Paul describes the resurrection as not being flesh and blood, I think he means it is not flesh and blood.

Yes, a seed is transformed into a plant. He is saying it has some very different qualities but yet the same essence and even few of the same qualities. Of which being physical is a quality of both.

Actually his whole emphasis of I Corinthians 15 is that different bodies have different essences, and that the resurrected body has a different essence from the flesh and blood that dies.

Uhhh MOST?

Oh, jeez, now you are back to counting scholars again? Truth is not determined by counting scholars.

Where there is a clear consensus among scholars, then one can rightly refer to that clear consensus as evidence that something is true. But when there is broad disagreement in scholarship, then one cannot resolve the issue by counting scholars and seeing who gets the most. That is especially true when many claimed scholars have questionable credentials, and where there are strong biases, as is the case for the resurrection. So we will need to stick with the facts, rather than try to add up votes.

The women are extremely credible because as I stated earlier first century jews would have never had them as the first to see the empty tomb if they were trying to make it a credible story unless it actually happened. Women's testimony was at the bottom of reliability to first century jews.

OK, but the question is whether the women testified to these things. The original Mark (ending at 16:8) says that they told nobody, and makes no mention that they saw a resurrected Christ. That story about seeing Christ and their testimony does not come until later, and the accounts contradict. And Paul, who was first, makes no mention of the women at all.

 

[doubtingmerle]

See post 252.

That post in no way proves that I Corinthians 15:3-7 is part of a memorized creed. I have posted links and arguments saying Paul did not quote this as a creed. You simply ignore the arguments, and pretend you make your case.

Paul specifically says he did not receive his gospel from men and was not taught it by men. You say what he really means is that he received it of men and was taught it of men. That is the exact opposite of what he says! You cannot simply claim that Paul means the opposite of what he says.

I have shown you lengthy evidence that I Cor 15:3-11 could well be a later insertion. You simply ignored it.

If verses 3-5 is indeed a creed, there is a strong scholarly opinion that the creed does not extend beyond v5. You simply ignore that, and state that you are right.

You have given no evidence that Aramaic wording is there. You simply state it is in some book somewhere. That is not a argument.

YOU were the one using this belief that spirits can die and be buried as part of your argument that Paul believed Jesus was only spiritually raised from the dead. I am just refuting the first part of your argument which therefore refutes the second part of your argument.

OK, I thought I could get by with only a few repetitions of this point. Apparently with you, it takes a lot of repetitions to make this simple point. Once again.

The argument that Jesus was never a physical person is another thread.
That is another thread.
That is another thread.
That is another thread.
That is another thread.
That is another thread.

I would be more than happy to take that up in that thread if you wish.

This thread is about the claim that, regardless of where Paul thought the original story came from, regardless of whether Paul thought he walked on earth as a man, he thinks the resurrection is of a spiritual body.

Get with the program please.

In context Paul was saying that believing those things produce salvation is rubbish. He was saying nothing about the overall Hebraic worldview, ie beliefs about bodies and spirits. He never questioned such foundational beliefs. That would be like a scientist saying he now believes in dark matter and then saying therefore he no longer believes in the laws of physics. It makes no sense.​

I disagree with your interpretation.

Regardless, it is clear to me, and I think to most of the lurkers, that the message taught by Paul was very, very different from Judaism. If Paul thought his Christ was in any way different from Judaism, then he had absolutely no hesitation to vary from Judaism in proclaiming his Christ. Your view that he found himself so bound by Judaism that he could not allow himself to think out of the Pharisaic box is absolutely unsupportable.

Clement quotes from the synoptic gospels referencing their authors as did Polycarp and Papias.

Flapdoodle. Clement absolutely does not specifically reference the gospels and claim they were written by the traditional authors. This is absolutely false. If you think he did, please show us where he says that.

Clement has some sayings that are similar to the Sermon on the Mount, but he does not attribute them to Matthew. Matthew and Clement could have both used a common source.

And Papias? Oh dear. You want to get into discussing Papias?

 

[Archie the Preacher]

I think I'll start a thread where I can tell all the Secular Humanists what they believe and how to understand all the SH teachings.

 

[Radrook]

The original Mark source has the boy in the tomb telling the women that Jesus is risen, but the physical appearances of the resurrected Jesus are of course known to be forgeries. Hence Mark is not reliable on the issue of the resurrection, at least as eyewitness testimony goes.

The Matthew source, as I mentioned in another thread, puts forward an implausible sequence of events:

The guards were tasked with guarding a corpse from grave robbers. They failed and then proceeded to report fantastical events to the priests as their excuse. What they reported was even less plausible than the classic, "The dog ate my homework." Granted, this may have occurred before that line was ever invented, but I think the dog-homework excuse is so implausible that I doubt it flew the first time around. And now here we are, being told that the priests - the most literate, educated Jews in the entire world - fell for an excuse far less plausible than the dog-homework classic.

On top of that, their response - the bribing of the guards - does not seem to be plausible whether they believed or disbelieved the guards' story. How could you believe their story and not finally be convinced that Jesus is Lord? Or how could you disbelieve their story and then reward their incompetence with hush money?

If we can all agree on these two as being unreliable, we can move on to Luke, John and Paul.

What boy in Jesus' tomb are you referring to?
I have repeatedly read the four Gospels and don't recall a boy in Jesus's tomb.

Mark 16:

1When the Sabbath was over, Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James, and Salome bought spices so that they might go to anoint Jesus’ body. 2 Very early on the first day of the week, just after sunrise, they were on their way to the tomb 3 and they asked each other, “Who will roll the stone away from the entrance of the tomb?”

4 But when they looked up, they saw that the stone, which was very large, had been rolled away. 5 As they entered the tomb, they saw a young man dressed in a white robe sitting on the right side, and they were alarmed.

6 “Don’t be alarmed,” he said. “You are looking for Jesus the Nazarene, who was crucified. He has risen! He is not here. See the place where they laid him. 7 But go, tell his disciples and Peter, ‘He is going ahead of you into Galilee. There you will see him, just as he told you.’”

8 Trembling and bewildered, the women went out and fled from the tomb. They said nothing to anyone, because they were afraid.[a]

How are the accounts of Jesus appearance known forgeries?
Known by whom and how?
What is so implausible about guards reporting a supernatural experience?
Don't people today report UFO experiences?
I had a UFO experience and it isn't a forgery.

 

[doubtingmerle]

I think I'll start a thread where I can tell all the Secular Humanists what they believe and how to understand all the SH teachings.

Wouldn't it be better to ask us what we believe?

 

[Radrook]

Why are the Apostles being tagged as not credible?

 

[Archie the Preacher]

Wouldn't it be better to ask us what we believe?

That does make sense.

Why don't you? You keep telling Christians about the Bible message. You keep on telling us we're wrong about what God has said and you know better. Which is curious, as you deny God exists.