Are there credible witnesses to the resurrection?

[Ed1wolf]

Of course. As I have told you many times, Papias wrote around 130 AD, about 100 years after Jesus would have spoken on earth. Papias worte a book about the sayings of Jesus that was popular with later Christians. Papias specifically tells us that he preferred second hand information about what the apostles said compared to anything that might be in written gospels. We have no quote of Papias from a gospel. In fact, Papias appears to have never seen a gospel, for all he can tell us is what he imagines to be in them, and he tells us he imagines the written gospels would not be as valuable to him as his second hand information.

No matter what Papias prefers (and this could be due to a misinterpretation of what he actually said) he does claim that John the apostle talked to him about how Mark compiled his gospel. And his description of how Mark is arranged not in strict chronological or he could be referring to rhetorical/artistic order. Either one fits pretty well.

dm: Did you forget my illustration of the man whose source on DL Moody was a grandfather who talked to somebody who had heard Moody? That is exactly the type of source Papias says he relies on: People who came by and said they had known people who had heard Jesus 100 years earlier. And Papias says he trusts this more than the written gospels.

No, he is claiming he spoke to John, the beloved disciple, probably Jesus' closest friend.

dm: OK, you think Papias may have actually talked to the apostle John, but that would still constitute a 100 year old memory.

No, it would only be a 57 year old memory. 90AD-33AD=57 years.

dm: The disciples must surely have been adults when they walked with Jesus (otherwise they would not have been trusted by the Jews) so that puts the birth of John at 5 AD or earlier. Let's say John lived past 90 AD, and suppose Papias was born in 70 AD. Then yes, in 90 AD the 85 year old John could have talked to the 20 year old Papias, who remembered what he said and wrote it down 40 years later. Although this is possible, it is unlikely, and that would still be an unreliable chain to what Jesus said. And Papias emphasizes that he was not asking "John The Elder" what "John The Elder" heard Jesus say, but what "John the Elder" heard the other disciples say about Jesus. That is second hand information, hearsay.

No, he claims that he heard from John and Ariston first hand.

dm: So even if we go by your view on the source for Papias, it is still a long way from Jesus. But Papias trusts this source more than a written gospel. That is hardly a stinging endorsement for the authority of the gospels that you claim.

No, I think that may be a misinterpretation of his words by Eusebius. But see above about direct talk with John.

dm: It is true that Papias describes a book by Matthew and Mark, but the book he attributes to a Matthew he says is a book of sayings written in aramaic. That doesn't describe the book we call Matthew, which is mainly narrative, and was written in Greek. And he describes a book in which a Mark wrote down his memories of what Peter preached, but not in order. This does not describe the book of Mark, which is an orderly narrative. Papias seems to be describing something more like the Gospel of Thomas. Whatever Papias was referring to, it is not clear at all that he is referring to the books we now call Matthew and Mark.

It is order up to a point but not strictly chronological other than the ending. And some scholars believe he may have been referring to artistic order. The Gospel of John is a much more higher quality of Greek, Mark is written much more simple form of greek, less artistic.

dm: Actually Irenaeus quotes from Papias, so he is not exactly independent of Papias. He may have picked the names Matthew and Mark from what he read in Papias. But Irenaeus may be referring to different books than Papias was.

There is no other Mark or Matthew that the early Christians would have known about. And it is not just Ireneus, the story was also known by Clement of Alexandria, Origen, and Tertullian.

dm: Yes, Irenaeus and others after 175 AD attribute what is probably the 4 gospels we now have to what has become the four traditional authors. But they have given no evidence that this claim comes from earlier sources.

Neither did Irenaeus have an unbroken chain to the apostles.

Yes, they did see the connection to John the apostle as I have shown above.

dm: The few quotes we have from the gospels before Iranaeus differ markedly from the gospels we now have.

Evidence?

dm: Apparently somebody was editing these gospels as time passed, until they emerged as saying what that one group wanted them to say. But we don't know if the original gospels said the same thing as the documents that emerged in the third and fourth century said.

While there has been some very minor editing, there is no evidence of any significant editing affecting any doctrine.

 

[doubtingmerle]

Ed1wolf, I don't see much here that verifies that the four gospels we have now were written by the traditional authors.

No matter what Papias prefers (and this could be due to a misinterpretation of what he actually said) he does claim that John the apostle talked to him about how Mark compiled his gospel.

Huh? We have been through this before. Some people claim that the "John the elder" that Papias talked to was John the apostle, and you jump from "some people claim" to "therefore was". When I called you on this illogical jump you backed down, but now you ignore that all and once more jump from "some people claim" to "therefore was". How do you justify that jump?

And his description of how Mark is arranged not in strict chronological or he could be referring to rhetorical/artistic order. Either one fits pretty well.

How do you know Mark is not intended to be in strict chronological order? So far we have only your claim that it isn't.

Luke and Matthew largely follow Marks order. Are all three wrong?

No, it would only be a 57 year old memory. 90AD-33AD=57 years.

Cumulative memory. Cumulative memory. Cumulative memory.

It was 40 years from 90 Ad to 130 AD when Papias wrote. 57 plus 40 is close to the 100 years cumulative memory I was referring to. That is a long span from the time Jesus said something until the time it is written down. And yet Papias says he thinks this cumulative memory is more reliable than any written gospel. That is not a stinging endorsement of the gospels.

If Papias was talking to John the apostle, then it seems he would be asking what Jesus said and did. But that is not what Papias says he asked. He says he asked what Peter and John and the others had said. That is not a natural question to ask if talking directly to John.

It makes more sense to me that Papias, just before he wrote about Jesus around 130 AD, had two contacts that had talked to the disciples. So he asked them what they remembered about what the disciples had said. That is the obvious meaning to me of what Papias says about his source. And he thinks that is more reliable than any written gospel.

There is no other Mark or Matthew that the early Christians would have known about. And it is not just Ireneus, the story was also known by Clement of Alexandria, Origen, and Tertullian.

LOL! Ever hear of the gospel of the Hebrews? We have only what survives in quotes, but it appears to be very close to Matthew, but clearly not the same thing.

Ever hear of the Gospel of Thomas or the Gospel of Peter or the claimed gospel Q? There are many gospels that we know about. The books that Papias claims to be talking about appear to have a lot more in common with the gospel of Thomas than the book we now call Mark.

Here again is what Papias says about the book he says was written by Mark.

And the presbyter said this. Mark having become the interpreter of Peter, wrote down accurately whatsoever he remembered. It was not, however, in exact order that he related the sayings or deeds of Christ. For he neither heard the Lord nor accompanied Him. But afterwards, as I said, he accompanied Peter, who accommodated his instructions to the necessities [of his hearers], but with no intention of giving a regular narrative of the Lord's sayings. Wherefore Mark made no mistake in thus writing some things as he remembered them. For of one thing he took especial care, not to omit anything he had heard, and not to put anything fictitious into the statements.​

Remember that Papias wrote a book about the sayings of Jesus. He says Mark wrote about these saying, but did not give a regular narrative of the events. The book we now call Mark is a regular narrative of the events. Perhaps Papias was talking of something more like the gospel of Thomas. We don't know.

 

[doubtingmerle]

And it is not just Ireneus, the story was also known by Clement of Alexandria, Origen, and Tertullian.

Huh? The question is whether there is evidence for the traditional writers of the gospels before 150 AD. All these people are late 2nd century or 3rd century, so they are irrelevant to the topic.

While there has been some very minor editing, there is no evidence of any significant editing affecting any doctrine.

Uh, how do you know this? We have virtually no surviving manuscripts of the gospels before the third century. We don't know in whose custody those documents resided in the first century and what changes they might have done. So how do you know there was only minor editing of the gospels between 70 AD and 200 AD?

But there is one case where we do have what appears to be surviving edit of major editing. We have a complete book and a highly edited modified version of that same book. Matthew is essentially a highly edited version of the gospel of Mark. 90% of the verses of Mark are repeated in Matthew, often nearly word for word. And yet there are major changes to the content. Somebody took the liberty to take the book of Mark, and as he copied, freely edited and added material he wanted. If we had no surviving copies of Mark, we would be assuming Mathew was original and that there had been no edits. But that is clearly wrong by the fact that we still have a copy of Mark before those edits were made. So yes, that is major editing. If Matthew did that with his copy of Mark, how many others freely edited the documents in front of them in that time period?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

That Paul thought that the resurrected Jesus was some sort of spirit stuff we agree. The question is, if he indeed thought Jesus had a body here on earth, did he think that body physically transformed into spirit stuff, with the body found missing? Could he just have believed that Jesus resurrected as spirit stuff, with the body left behind?

Paul makes no mention of an empty grave, a missing body, or disciples interacting with a Jesus made of spirit stuff. Rather, he says that Jesus was seen by him and others, and he infers that the seeing that Paul did was the same quality as the other disciples. But Paul's experience was visionary. If you believe what it is claimed in Acts that he said about this, all he saw was a light, accompanied by a voice. If you look only in his epistles, you don't find much of a description of his seeing other than his story of going to heaven in a vision. That is perhaps, impressive, but certainly not the same thing as sitting down to a meal with a bodily resurrected person. And Paul implies that his visionary experience was in no way inferior to the apostles. (See also I Cor 9: 1-5). So could it be that the only seeing of the resurrected Jesus that was done by anybody was visionary?

So no, I am seeing no sign in Paul that the body was missing and the disciples interacted with the body of the person that had transformed into living spirit stuff.

In addition to what I said in post #407, Merle, I'm thinking that Romans 8:11 pretty much puts the Kibosh on your assertion that Paul only believed in a "spiritual" (astral?) resurrection.

And I'm saying that it puts the Kibosh on it is because Romans 8:11, within all of the contextual parallels made by Paul between physical death and the imputation of some life to come, can thus hardly be taken to imply that we will "only" be raised in a merely astral kind of way; it also doesn't mean that it will only be our bodies that receive reviving. Rather, I think it means we are to be resurrected in a morphed state at some point in the distant future, a transformed state where the body is changed into a higher level of existence, incorporating whatever spiritual essence we have along with it. So, if this is Paul's meaning, and I think it is, which seems to coincide with what he says in 1 Corinthians 15, then we "will all be changed," bones and all.

And if Paul says we will receive life in our mortal bodies through the power of the Holy Spirit, then it almost goes without saying that the application in Romans 8:11 is inferred retrospectively back to Jesus, indicating that He too was already raised in the "mortal body," although in a transformed state, obviously. All of which is opposed to the idea of His being merely revived in His spiritual essence.

Now, even with what I've stated above, please know that I do understand that even if I'm right in this respect about Paul, then we still have to cross the hurdle of conceiving him as a credible witness of a truly risen Jesus, a hurdle which is subject to relative perceptual evaluations, as I stated in an earlier post in this thread.

Peace,
2PhiloVoid

 

[2PhiloVoid]

That Paul thought that the resurrected Jesus was some sort of spirit stuff we agree. The question is, if he indeed thought Jesus had a body here on earth, did he think that body physically transformed into spirit stuff, with the body found missing? Could he just have believed that Jesus resurrected as spirit stuff, with the body left behind

As you know, I've attempted to address this in my previous post above.

Paul makes no mention of an empty grave, a missing body...

Right. Paul wasn't there at the tomb to see all that.

...or disciples interacting with a Jesus made of spirit stuff.

Again. Paul wasn't there to witness other disciples interacting with a Jesus of any kind of stuff.

Rather, he says that Jesus was seen by him and others, and he infers that the seeing that Paul did was the same quality as the other disciples. But Paul's experience was visionary.

Well, yeah. Jesus appeared to Paul suddenly out of nowhere in a similar fashion as He did with the disciples in the Gospel accounts. The main difference is that since Paul was Saul, and on a collision course with the then current Church, Paul was given the added bonus of glorified light ... leading to immediate blindness, and I'm guessing Paul had eye problems of some sort the rest of his life, which probably explains his "thorn in the side."

If you believe what it is claimed in Acts that he said about this, all he saw was a light, accompanied by a voice. If you look only in his epistles, you don't find much of a description of his seeing other than his story of going to heaven in a vision. That is perhaps, impressive, but certainly not the same thing as sitting down to a meal with a bodily resurrected person. And Paul implies that his visionary experience was in no way inferior to the apostles. (See also I Cor 9: 1-5). So could it be that the only seeing of the resurrected Jesus that was done by anybody was visionary?

Well......sure. If Paul though he was confronted by the "real" Jesus whom he had so vehemently opposed up till that point, then I suppose he did consider his experience as being equally valid as that of the other disciples who claim to have seen, touched, and eaten with, this same risen Jesus. So, if we apply the relative scale of our individual considerations, it doesn't seem to me that Paul's experience was of an inferior quality; just the manner of Jesus' presentation was a little different for Paul, which seems to be a coherent consideration since Paul wasn't really "looking" for Jesus.

So no, I am seeing no sign in Paul that the body was missing and the disciples interacted with the body of the person that had transformed into living spirit stuff.

Why should we expect Paul to write about some other person's experience of Jesus that he himself did not directly witness in detail? That expectation seems to me to be a bit fatuous. Being a former Pharisee, I imagine it was important to Paul to be sure not to bear false witness about things related to the One God that other people claimed to have experienced, claims that he couldn't directly vouch for himself.

What does seem more coherent (at least to me) is that if Paul was a part of the circle of the Pharisees in some capacity, then his determining, understanding, and verifying the truth about Jesus was specifically from within the contextual patterns and boundaries of the Scriptures, and I think this would have been more intensely important to him, up front, rather than as a later development as it probably was for sheepherders, fisherman, and tax collectors, and/or prostitutes. And if this is the case, then it also seems to me that we wouldn't expect Paul to define Jesus by way of all of the historical accidents of His biological life, but by those aspects of Jesus' life that coincided with the fulfillment of prophecies in the Scriptures; thus, we should probably, more correctly, see Paul as concentrating and defining Jesus by his own conceptions as they related to Scripture. This recognition on our part would help us in understanding why Paul gives us a paucity of detail about Jesus bodily life, but an abundance of fuller, sublime theology about the meaning of Jesus as the One God's Christ.

2 Corinthians 5:16 (NKJV)

5 16 Therefore, from now on, we regard no one according to the flesh. Even though we have known Christ according to the flesh, yet now we know Him thus no longer.


Peace,
2PhiloVoid

 

[doubtingmerle]

Evidence [of Justin not having the same gospels as we have today] ?

I don't see examples of Justin's quotes of what he calls "the memoirs" online. It is known that he does refer to the memoirs of apostles with quotes that have some similarity to the gospels, but obviously were not quoted from books that are the same as ours. Either Justin's copies were preliminary and later evolved into our gospels, or they were different books entirely.

http://freethoughtnation.com/does-justin-martyr-quote-the-gospels/

http://oxfordindex.oup.com/view/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199566365.003.0018

 

[doubtingmerle]

And I'm saying that it puts the Kibosh on it is because Romans 8:11, within all of the contextual parallels made by Paul between physical death and the imputation of some life to come, can thus hardly be taken to imply that we will "only" be raised in a merely astral kind of way; it also doesn't mean that it will only be our bodies that receive reviving. Rather, I think it means we are to be resurrected in a morphed state at some point in the distant future, a transformed state where the body is changed into a higher level of existence, incorporating whatever spiritual essence we have along with it.

Ok, so you think those who have died will bodily resurrect. But in the meantime, is the soul of the person in heaven? So where, for instance, is Paul now? Did his bones go into the ground, while his soul went to heaven? Will his soul return to find whatever bones are left to transform into a new body made of spirit-stuff? What of people who have been cremated, or had their bodies consumed in tragic explosions, or whose bodies had been completely devoured by wild animals? What body are they coming back for? But if the final resurrected body is available even to the one whose earthly body was consumed at Hiroshima, how is the flesh and blood even needed? Since the spirit stuff that is already in heaven is doing fine, how can coming back to earth and finding bits of bones on earth help to resurrect the Paul that is already spirit stuff?

You see the body of Jesus was converted into spirit stuff. But from Paul's point of view, did the body need to disappear into spirit stuff? I see no reason to believe that Paul could not have thought the spirit stuff simply came out of the dead body of Jesus.

Paul is emphatic that death is like a seed that is planted, and that something comes out of that seed, the spirit stuff if you will, while the seed withers and decays.

Paul is emphatic that flesh and blood does not inherit eternal life.

 

[doubtingmerle]

And if Paul says we will receive life in our mortal bodies through the power of the Holy Spirit, then it almost goes without saying that the application in Romans 8:11 is inferred retrospectively back to Jesus, indicating that He too was already raised in the "mortal body," although in a transformed state, obviously. All of which is opposed to the idea of His being merely revived in His spiritual essence.

What is the difference between a soul that comes out of the body as "spirit-stuff", ready to inherit eternal life, and the dead body that transforms into "spirit-stuff". It would seem that an Almighty God could use either method to make the "spirit-stuff" that inherits eternity. The only difference is that in one, the body disappears, and in the other, the body is still there.

So the debate here is whether Paul thought the body of Jesus had to disappear when his new body made of "spirit-stuff" came out of the grave. I see no reason to believe that Paul thought the body disappeared when the spirit stuff sprang to resurrected life. He never mentions it. So to emphatically say he thought the body disappeared when the spirit stuff came out of the grave, seems to be putting words into his mouth.

 

[Ed1wolf]

Ed1wolf said: ↑
I agree but all this information comes from authorities, which is my point.

dm: And authorities are sometimes wrong. That is my point.

True, but nevertheless we learn many things from authorities and we cannot often empirically test whether they are right or wrong.

dm: I too have authorities. And I think my authorities could beat up your authorities. Just saying.

Very funny.

ed: No, I am not claiming the last word, only that you never even responded to some of my strongest arguments. Such as Pauls writing how Christian preachers would be ridiculed if Christ was not raised. This only makes sense of a physical resurrection because almost all common folklore of the time believed that people were often changed into spirits after death. If that was all he was preaching then there was nothing to ridicule him about.

dm: Got me there. Paul would have made sure Jesus really rose, else why would he go around preaching that the grave was empty, that the disciples had interacted with Jesus bodily on earth after the resurrection, that Jesus had appeared bodily to many, and that his resurrected body was flesh and blood. Imagine his embarassment if he went around teaching these things, and they were not true! Wait, what? Come to think of it, Paul never taught these things.

Fraid so, he did. First by quoting the ancient hymn/creed. Which btw points to the empty tomb by mentioning being raised on the third day. They did not know exactly when He was raised, but when they visited the tomb on the third day they found it empty. That is why the third day became part of the creed/hymn. Then he makes multiple PHYSICAL analogies of PHYSICAL changes of PHYSICAL things in the later verses of Chapter 15. Not a single spiritual analogy. I wonder why that is? Any guesses? Hmmmm..

dm: He speaks only of his visionary experience of Jesus, of a Jesus who appears to be like a spirit,

No, the people with him heard a voice too, subjective visions cannot be heard by spectators.

dm: whose only body he references is the church, and of the view that death is like the seed that is planted, but a different kind of "body" springs up out of the ground. He says that flesh and blood does not inherit eternal life, making it clear to me that he is not talking about flesh and blood resurrecting. Etc. Maybe Paul never spoke of an empty grave, because he would be embarrassed to preach it. Maybe he never mentioned an empty grave, because he did not believe in a missing body.

No, see above.

dm: And wait, you say that belief in a spirit resurrection was so common nobody would be impressed. LOL! Others here have argued that belief in a spirit resurrection was considered so far out there that no self respecting Jew would ever believe it. So who is giving me the straight scoop here? Should I believe the Christians who tell me Jews so commonly believed in spirit resurrection that nobody would be impressed with such a claim, or should I believe those who say it was so far out there, no Jew would even consider believing it? Or is the actual truth my position, in the middle, that some Jews( e.g. the early Christians) might believe it?

You should believe what the bible says. Read Mark 6:49 and Luke 24:37. At least twice Jesus was mistaken for a ghost/spirit by His disciples who were mostly just ordinary jews. This shows that this was a fairly common belief. Though of course some jews did not believe in an afterlife at all, ie the Sadducees and the ones that did believe in resurrection it would be all believers at the end of time. Therefore, as Paul said that his and the other disciples message is so unique, ie physical resurrection of an individual man, that they would be ridiculed and foolish if they were preaching it and it did not actually happen.

 

[doubtingmerle]

True, but nevertheless we learn many things from authorities and we cannot often empirically test whether they are right or wrong.

Understood. As I said, we cannot all do all experiments. I said that several times and you read it, yes? So why do you repeat it back to me as though you are telling me something new?

The issue is, that when people study something and report back their findings, we expect them to tell us their experiments and reasoning. This whole lengthy discussion about authorities came when you said something was true because an authority says so, but you refuse--refuse!--to tell us what reasoning that authority used. Did the authority use bad reasoning? We have no way of evaluating it, because you refuse to tell us.

Very funny.

Sorry, it was not a joke. Lot's of folks with a college degree claim to be an authority and say things that can easily be shown to be wrong. I think that the things your authority says can be shown to be wrong by authorities that have well reasoned answers. It is no joke when I say that I think other authorities can beat up your authority. So why should we trust the authority you reference rather than trust other authorities that differ with him?

Fraid so, he did. First by quoting the ancient hymn/creed. Which btw points to the empty tomb by mentioning being raised on the third day. They did not know exactly when He was raised, but when they visited the tomb on the third day they found it empty. That is why the third day became part of the creed/hymn.

But I Cor never mentions a tomb or finding it empty. And what is the source the author of I Cor 15 used? Paul is clear that he was not taught his gospel by men. I Cor 15 even says what the source is--"according to the scriptures". That is where "Paul" thinks he learned this. He read the scriptures and he thinks he found that Christ would be raised the third day. The phrase "according to..." is the phrase used in ancient times to give a source. They might say, "Yada, yada, according to Josephus, and blah, blah, according to Pliny", meaning they learned yada yada from Josephus and blah blah from Pliny. So Paul is just saying that, in his theology, Christ is raised, based on what he read in scripture. He does not mention a time or even if it was on earth. He says nothing about a grave or people thinking the risen Christ looked like a person. That comes later, in the gospels.

Then he makes multiple PHYSICAL analogies of PHYSICAL changes of PHYSICAL things in the later verses of Chapter 15. Not a single spiritual analogy. I wonder why that is? Any guesses? Hmmmm..

Flapdoodle. It says:

It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body. There is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body. I Cor 15:44​

Also he refers to different kinds of glories of earthly bodies and stars. In those days stars were thought of as something very different from earthly materials. They had no idea that the sun was consuming hydrogen which is identical to the hydrogen in their bodies. So the glory of stars was truly something unearthy to them.

No, the people with him heard a voice too, subjective visions cannot be heard by spectators.

Wrong. If you believe Acts, Paul there describes the experience, "And they that were with me saw indeed the light, and were afraid; but they heard not the voice of him that spake to me." [acts 22:9]

Seeing a blinding light and hearing a voice from heaven, even if it really happened, is far different from walking a long distance to Emmaus with what you assume to be an ordinary man carrying on a lengthy conversation with you. One can see a blinding light and hear a voice, without necessarily having a body missing from a grave.

You should believe what the bible says. Read Mark 6:49 and Luke 24:37. At least twice Jesus was mistaken for a ghost/spirit by His disciples who were mostly just ordinary jews. This shows that this was a fairly common belief. Though of course some jews did not believe in an afterlife at all, ie the Sadducees and the ones that did believe in resurrection it would be all believers at the end of time. Therefore, as Paul said that his and the other disciples message is so unique, ie physical resurrection of an individual man, that they would be ridiculed and foolish if they were preaching it and it did not actually happen.

Interesting. If they believed that some could resurrect as spirits in heaven, and believed their gospel provided them assurance of this resurrection as happy spirits, why not be excited about it? If they had evidence this was happening, why would that be foolish?

 

[doubtingmerle]

And if Paul says we will receive life in our mortal bodies through the power of the Holy Spirit, then it almost goes without saying that the application in Romans 8:11 is inferred retrospectively back to Jesus, indicating that He too was already raised in the "mortal body," although in a transformed state, obviously. All of which is opposed to the idea of His being merely revived in His spiritual essence.

Except when is the death of the body that Paul is talking about? He seems to be saying that has already occurred, and that the raising up has already occurred.

But you are not in the flesh, you are in the Spirit, if in fact the Spirit of God dwells in you. Any one who does not have the Spirit of Christ does not belong to him.
But if Christ is in you, although our bodies are dead because of sin, your spirits are alive because of righteousness.
If the Spirit of him who raised Jesus from the dead dwells in you, he who raised Christ Jesus from the dead will give life to your mortal bodies also through his Spirit which dwells in you. Rom 8:9-11
​

The same concept of a death of the body that already occurred appears in Eph 2:

And you he made alive, when you were dead through the trespasses and sins...
But God, who is rich in mercy, out of the great love with which he loved us,
even when we were dead through our trespasses, made us alive together with Christ (by grace you have been saved),
and raised us up with him, and made us sit with him in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus,Eph 2:2, 4-6​

Paul seems to think this death occurs at baptism:

Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death?
Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.
For if we have been planted together in the likeness of his death, we shall be also in the likeness of his resurrection:
Knowing this, that our old man is crucified with him, that the body of sin might be destroyed, that henceforth we should not serve sin.
Rom 6:3-6​

So Paul describes the body of the flesh (literally the meat) that dies in baptism, and a resurrection that occurs right there in the spirit. From then on Paul seems to treat the body (the meat, the flesh) as dead baggage that comes along for the ride with the true person, who is resurrected in spirit. It is not clear that he thinks the flesh (the meat) lives on forever.

In fact he says the flesh (the meat) will not inherit heaven.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Ok, so you think those who have died will bodily resurrect. But in the meantime, is the soul of the person in heaven? So where, for instance, is Paul now? Did his bones go into the ground, while his soul went to heaven? Will his soul return to find whatever bones are left to transform into a new body made of spirit-stuff? What of people who have been cremated, or had their bodies consumed in tragic explosions, or whose bodies had been completely devoured by wild animals? What body are they coming back for? But if the final resurrected body is available even to the one whose earthly body was consumed at Hiroshima, how is the flesh and blood even needed? Since the spirit stuff that is already in heaven is doing fine, how can coming back to earth and finding bits of bones on earth help to resurrect the Paul that is already spirit stuff?

You're just full of questions, aren't you, Merle?

In short, I think that Paul alone doesn't cover these topics, so the answers are up for grabs to some extent. So, do I know if we soul-sleep instead of having our souls transported into the presence of Jesus upon the point of physical death? I can honestly say, I don't know, and I don't perceive that the Biblical writers are overly aware of how to address these issues in any comprehensive way either. There are some things that God meant to remain a mystery while allowing us just a peak at some of the intent, without explicit details. As a philosopher, I'm also open to various rational considerations, but within limits, of course.

You see the body of Jesus was converted into spirit stuff. But from Paul's point of view, did the body need to disappear into spirit stuff? I see no reason to believe that Paul could not have thought the spirit stuff simply came out of the dead body of Jesus.

Ok. So, you don't see that. Alright. But, I'm not seeing that Paul said anything with the implication that some immortal "astral" soul of Jesus emerged from His dead physical remains.

Paul is emphatic that death is like a seed that is planted, and that something comes out of that seed, the spirit stuff if you will, while the seed withers and decays.

Well, that's your understanding of what Paul is attempting to communicate in his letters.

Paul is emphatic that flesh and blood does not inherit eternal life.

I don't take that quite so literally perhaps as you do; rather, I'm thinking that the context implies that Paul meant that "sinful meat" isn't what God wants to solely work with, so that He will instead take what's left of the human remains and through metamorphosis transform what remains---even if it's just one bone, or even a speck of dust---into a physical body that is of angelic caliber (which is not to say that I think that God turns people into angels--I'm not saying that either).

 

[2PhiloVoid]

What is the difference between a soul that comes out of the body as "spirit-stuff", ready to inherit eternal life, and the dead body that transforms into "spirit-stuff". It would seem that an Almighty God could use either method to make the "spirit-stuff" that inherits eternity. The only difference is that in one, the body disappears, and in the other, the body is still there.

The difference is that one is purely astral in nature, and the other is a metamorphosis and amalgamation of what was left of the physical remains with the person's spirit/soul, creating a "new creature" that did not exist before, transcendent in nature like that of Jesus' eternal nature that retains the psychic and physical imprints of His time upon the earth as the crucified Christ.

So the debate here is whether Paul thought the body of Jesus had to disappear when his new body made of "spirit-stuff" came out of the grave. I see no reason to believe that Paul thought the body disappeared when the spirit stuff sprang to resurrected life. He never mentions it. So to emphatically say he thought the body disappeared when the spirit stuff came out of the grave, seems to be putting words into his mouth.

And I explained earlier why I think Paul didn't feel obligated to explain all of that--he was a Pharisee and, as it appears on a personal level, he also wasn't prone to caring so much about "earthly" existence as he was as to the full measure of theological meaning that Jesus held for humanity as the Son of God. So, to cite that Paul was silent on some things that other disciples were expressive about shouldn't make us assume that he thought there was nothing of further consideration beyond the spiritual. It's just that, in my estimation, Paul didn't think those "earthly" details were a priority in understanding work and person of Jesus Christ as Savior of the world.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Except when is the death of the body that Paul is talking about? He seems to be saying that has already occurred, and that the raising up has already occurred.

But you are not in the flesh, you are in the Spirit, if in fact the Spirit of God dwells in you. Any one who does not have the Spirit of Christ does not belong to him.
But if Christ is in you, although our bodies are dead because of sin, your spirits are alive because of righteousness.
If the Spirit of him who raised Jesus from the dead dwells in you, he who raised Christ Jesus from the dead will give life to your mortal bodies also through his Spirit which dwells in you. Rom 8:9-11​

Merle ... what commentaries or scholars are you relying on in your interpretation here? Or are you just going with your own eisegesis, taking from your own personal thoughts what you think it means?

​

The same concept of a death of the body that already occurred appears in Eph 2:

And you he made alive, when you were dead through the trespasses and sins...
But God, who is rich in mercy, out of the great love with which he loved us,
even when we were dead through our trespasses, made us alive together with Christ (by grace you have been saved),
and raised us up with him, and made us sit with him in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus,Eph 2:2, 4-6​

I'm surprised you even quote Ephesians since a number of liberal and skeptical scholars think Ephesians isn't really a bonafide work of Paul. Do you really think it is? If not, there's nothing for us to discuss on the verse you cite in this instance.

Paul seems to think this death occurs at baptism:

Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death?
Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.
For if we have been planted together in the likeness of his death, we shall be also in the likeness of his resurrection:
Knowing this, that our old man is crucified with him, that the body of sin might be destroyed, that henceforth we should not serve sin.
Rom 6:3-6​

Uhh...as far as I know, most Christians for the last 2,000 years take Paul's meaning here to be that baptism "represents" our willingness to identify with the death of Jesus and that we are willing to lay our sins to rest, reflecting Jesus' act of laying down His own life as payment for our sins. So, I don't think being baptized into Jesus' death should be equated with the event of our actual death. In the same way, when we "walk in the newness of life," we are acting in a way that represents the new spiritual life that we have begun by identifying with Jesus in His death, burial and resurrection, but this newness of life is not to be equated with our eventual resurrection.

So, no, I don't think your interpretation is correct here. There is a reason Paul states that our death and new direction of life are a "likeness" of Jesus' death and resurrection. Both baptism and an obedient life are merely in our Christian lifetime a "likeness" because that is ALL they are at the moment while we are alive. When we die, we will really die. And upon the Final Judgement, then we will really live in the fullness that God intended. (And between the point of our actual death and the Final Judgment, we can all speculate whether we'll be "sleeping," or instead be floating around in disembodied forms, awaiting the Resurrection either way...)

So Paul describes the body of the flesh (literally the meat) that dies in baptism, and a resurrection that occurs right there in the spirit. From then on Paul seems to treat the body (the meat, the flesh) as dead baggage that comes along for the ride with the true person, who is resurrected in spirit. It is not clear that he thinks the flesh (the meat) lives on forever.

In fact he says the flesh (the meat) will not inherit heaven.

Again, as in a previous post, I differ on what meaning Paul intended to imply.

Regardless of our difference of opinion about the actual nature of Jesus' resurrection, at this point I'm not sure how much it matters to discuss all of this with you since you don't believe in a resurrection of any kind anyway, and you're apparently still wanting "credibility" to feature as a prime factor when considering the Christian faith before you'll even further consider belief. So, I'm also not sure that our effort here to decipher whether Paul believed in an astral resurrection, or in one that in some way incorporated the body of Jesus, is an issue that decisively contributes to our valuing Paul as a "credible" witness of Jesus.

With all of that said, I do think that Paul is as close to "credible" as one will get in the New Testament (although this isn't to say that I personally think the Gospels and the other letters, along with Revelation are somehow incredible and thereby unbelievable).

 

[Ed1wolf]

Ed1wolf, I don't see much here that verifies that the four gospels we have now were written by the traditional authors.
↑
dm: No matter what Papias prefers (and this could be due to a misinterpretation of what he actually said) he does claim that John the apostle talked to him about how Mark compiled his gospel.

Huh? We have been through this before. Some people claim that the "John the elder" that Papias talked to was John the apostle, and you jump from "some people claim" to "therefore was". When I called you on this illogical jump you backed down, but now you ignore that all and once more jump from "some people claim" to "therefore was". How do you justify that jump?

I dealt with this earlier so will not repeat it.

ed: And his description of how Mark is arranged not in strict chronological or he could be referring to rhetorical/artistic order. Either one fits pretty well.

dm: How do you know Mark is not intended to be in strict chronological order? So far we have only your claim that it isn't.

Scholars have compared all four gospels and come up with the most likely order and Mark is the one that appears to be most out of order. But as stated above, Papias may have been referring to rhetorical or artistic order.

dm: Luke and Matthew largely follow Marks order. Are all three wrong?

There are some key omissions by Mark though, such as the virgin birth and the resurrection appearances among others. That may have been part of what Papias was referring to.

 

[doubtingmerle]

Merle ... what commentaries or scholars are you relying on in your interpretation here? Or are you just going with your own eisegesis, taking from your own personal thoughts what you think it means?

I am basically just looking at the text (Romans 8:9-11). You had referenced v11 that talks of God giving life to our dead bodies, and I was pointing out that, in context, the dead body that is getting life appears to be the body, the meat, that dies in v 10 but is yet still living. Paul gets confusing when he talks about the flesh, the body, the spirit, and death. It is hard to tell where literal interpretation ends and metaphor begins. But he seems to be describing a death of the body that he thinks somehow has already occurred and a resurrected life that is somehow already happening.

Probably the most familiar verse on this topic is Galatians 2:20:

I have been crucified with Christ; it is no longer I who live, but Christ who lives in me; and the life I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me.​

And, oh brother, try to make sense of that! The definition of "I" keeps changing. The first "I" that has been crucified is apparently the flesh, the body, the meat; the second "I" that no longer lives is apparently some aspect of the flesh, the body, the meat that no longer lives; the third "I" that now lives in the flesh, the body, the meat is apparently some sort of spirit stuff that now inhabits the body; and the fourth "I" that lives by faith is apparently that combination of spirit stuff and the meat. To further confuse things, not only does the third "I" live in the meat, but Christ also is said to live in "me", but with all these floating definitions, don't ask exactly what that "me" is that Christ is living in.

So when one pulls out a verse from Paul about flesh, body, spirit, or death, one has to dig into Paul's theology, and try to decipher all the metaphors. One cannot simply take an isolated verse from Paul on the topic and expect it to be self explanatory.

​

I'm surprised you even quote Ephesians since a number of liberal and skeptical scholars think Ephesians isn't really a bonafide work of Paul. Do you really think it is? If not, there's nothing for us to discuss on the verse you cite in this instance.

Correct. Ephesians is considered by many as being written by a later follower of Paul, not by Paul himself. However, it was probably written in a community that identified with Paul, and carried much of his theology. As such, it serves as a commentary on what we read in Paul.

Uhh...as far as I know, most Christians for the last 2,000 years take Paul's meaning here to be that baptism "represents" our willingness to identify with the death of Jesus and that we are willing to lay our sins to rest, reflecting Jesus' act of laying down His own life as payment for our sins. So, I don't think being baptized into Jesus' death should be equated with the event of our actual death. In the same way, when we "walk in the newness of life," we are acting in a way that represents the new spiritual life that we have begun by identifying with Jesus in His death, burial and resurrection, but this newness of life is not to be equated with our eventual resurrection.

Understood, but when one reads the literal words, it says that baptism is indeed the act of dying and being buried with Christ. This is consistent with other religions of the time, where rituals like baptism were life-giving events. In context of the times, Paul seems to be describing a ritual that he thought produced a new life. The idea that it is only a symbol seems to be something that developed later.

Regardless of our difference of opinion about the actual nature of Jesus' resurrection, at this point I'm not sure how much it matters to discuss all of this with you since you don't believe in a resurrection of any kind anyway, and you're apparently still wanting "credibility" to feature as a prime factor when considering the Christian faith before you'll even further consider belief. So, I'm also not sure that our effort here to decipher whether Paul believed in an astral resurrection, or in one that in some way incorporated the body of Jesus, is an issue that decisively contributes to our valuing Paul as a "credible" witness of Jesus.

Good job of steering back on topic.

If we accept that "death" for Paul represents something that already happened in the believer, and that a "spirit" inhabiting the body is key to Paul's theology, then it becomes difficult to suggest that, when the spirit lives forever, Paul thought the flesh, the body, the meat, needed to come along into eternity.

Back to the topic of the resurrection of Jesus. The resurrected Christ that Paul describes seems to me to be some sort of astral spirit stuff. In Galatians 2:20 we read that Christ lives in believers. That surely does not mean that the physical body that walked the earth now lives inside of Paul. Rather the Christ that Paul says now lives in him must surely refer to some sort of astral spirit stuff that now lives in him. The question before us is whether the body of Jesus needed to disappear from a grave for that astral spirit Christ to have been thought to live in Paul. As you mention, Paul seems to have no concern for what happened to the body of Christ after death. His only concern is that the spirit stuff of Christ is alive, that it now lives in him, and that it now does astral spirit deeds like interceding with an astral spirit God. If we look only at Paul, I see no need for a body to be missing from a grave for Paul to make the claims about Christ that he makes.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I am basically just looking at the text (Romans 8:9-11).

Ok. I appreciate your honesty on this. But, when I attempt to interpret Romans 8:11 specifically, I'm not “just looking at the text.” In my estimation, your kind of approach to interpreting the Bible, whether of the writings of Paul or any other biblical writer, isn't enough. Trying to understand the Bible by ourselves alone often leads us into isolated eisegesis rather than to a more substantive, even if not completely correct, form of exegesis, which is why I asked you to indicate the scholars you' ve used to develop your own thoughts as to how to interpret Paul, because thoughts developed in isolation should be held as suspect until tested by others. Do you do realize that your interpretation(s) of Paul does not really comport with the general way in which the Church--whether Pre-Catholic/Catholic/Orthodox/Protestant--has handled the reading of his work over the past 19 centuries?

Of course, I'm not saying that any one of us has the “all in all” perception about religious truth. In fact, I don't think God has intended for any one individual to have all the “right answers.” But, as in science, we should understand that the Christian subjects/topics/fields under investigation need to be subjected to the social accounting of community practice so when we think we have “new insights” we can also receive some criticism from others, as well as possible confirmation on some minimal level, so we have some indication that we aren't just isolated radicals floating about on the cusp of society, seeing things in a unique but cognitively disjointed way.

Now, aslo please understand, it is evident to me that you're an educated fellow who has given considerable thought to these topics you've initiated for discussion, and I also do recognize that you've cited a few scholars here and there in the thread, odds and ends references which mostly pertain to your interpretation of other aspects of the “credibility,” or lack thereof, of the New Testament writers. As to our particular conversation, I think only Price figures in, and we haven't even talked about him much. And maybe I can tentatively accept your Wiki reference you gave to another poster on Hellenistic Judaism, which may play into our slice of Paul's meaning (and to his possible credibility).

You had referenced v11 that talks of God giving life to our dead bodies, and I was pointing out that, in context, the dead body that is getting life appears to be the body, the meat, that dies in v 10 but is yet still living. Paul gets confusing when he talks about the flesh, the body, the spirit, and death. It is hard to tell where literal interpretation ends and metaphor begins. But he seems to be describing a death of the body that he thinks somehow has already occurred and a resurrected life that is somehow already happening.

While it is true that Paul has some complex theological inferences and meanings, his complexity and verbosity isn't in itself an insurmountable problem to our hermeneutical investigation of his writings. In fact, from what I can tell, the Church hasn't really given much indication that Paul is too “confusing,” – not for everyone, anyway.

Probably the most familiar verse on this topic is Galatians 2:20: I have been crucified with Christ; it is no longer I who live, but Christ who lives in me; and the life I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me.
And, oh brother, try to make sense of that! The definition of "I" keeps changing. The first "I" that has been crucified is apparently the flesh, the body, the meat; the second "I" that no longer lives is apparently some aspect of the flesh, the body, the meat that no longer lives; the third "I" that now lives in the flesh, the body, the meat is apparently some sort of spirit stuff that now inhabits the body; and the fourth "I" that lives by faith is apparently that combination of spirit stuff and the meat. To further confuse things, not only does the third "I" live in the meat, but Christ also is said to live in "me", but with all these floating definitions, don't ask exactly what that "me" is that Christ is living in.

So when one pulls out a verse from Paul about flesh, body, spirit, or death, one has to dig into Paul's theology, and try to decipher all the metaphors. One cannot simply take an isolated verse from Paul on the topic and expect it to be self explanatory.

I quite agree, with the exegetical point you're making, Merle. In fact, I only consider that we've just scratched the surface about how the meanings of the verses we've extracted may be affected by various contexts; that is, effects of the various respective levels of local, extended, inter-contextual, extra-biblical, and social, cultural contexts. By analogy, you and I have only just now decided to ski the slopes; but we haven't even put our hermeneutical skis on yet, let alone begun the plunge along the exegetical mountainside. As far as Galatians 2:20 and Romans 8:11 is concerned, by all means, let's not “simply take an isolated verse from Paul on the topic and expect it to be self explanatory”!

Correct. Ephesians is considered by many as being written by a later follower of Paul, not by Paul himself. However, it was probably written in a community that identified with Paul, and carried much of his theology. As such, it serves as a commentary on what we read in Paul.

Ok. If you count Ephesians as being within the acceptable corpus of Pauline teaching, then it might be worthwhile to include it in discussion.

Understood, but when one reads the literal words, it says that baptism is indeed the act of dying and being buried with Christ.

Well......that might seem to be a good exposition of the verse for both of us, if we both have Asperger's Syndrome.

This is consistent with other religions of the time, where rituals like baptism were life-giving events. In context of the times, Paul seems to be describing a ritual that he thought produced a new life. The idea that it is only a symbol seems to be something that developed later.

Yeah, well, let's not forget that he was a former Pharisee, because to forget that social and cultural context and assume some sense that Paul was some kind of dualistic, Hellenized freak is to make an assumption that may or may not bear itself out in a more coherent analysis. Just because there were a “variety” of Jews thinkers during the 1st century doesn't mean that Paul was overly affected by Hellenization; it also doesn't mean we should assume that he was dualistic in his thinking as it pertains to the body/soul relationship.

Good job of steering back on topic.

Thanks. I don't want us to waste time on seemingly peripheral issues if it turns out they don't have much to do with the “credibility” factor of the New Testament writers, particularly of Paul.

If we accept that "death" for Paul represents something that already happened in the believer, and that a "spirit" inhabiting the body is key to Paul's theology, then it becomes difficult to suggest that, when the spirit lives forever, Paul thought the flesh, the body, the meat, needed to come along into eternity.

I'm not so sure that Paul thought of all of this in just the way that you perceive him to have done, Merle.

Back to the topic of the resurrection of Jesus. The resurrected Christ that Paul describes seems to me to be some sort of astral spirit stuff.

I know—you keep saying that!

In Galatians 2:20 we read that Christ lives in believers. That surely does not mean that the physical body that walked the earth now lives inside of Paul. Rather the Christ that Paul says now lives in him must surely refer to some sort of astral spirit stuff that now lives in him.

Yes, on that point we can agree; what I don't agree on is that when we bring the expanded contexts into the equation, that “spirit stuff” is all and only what Paul meant to imply. If we assume that you're correct, then when we try to interpret other related verses, then they don't seem to cohere in meaning if all there is to the resurrection is “spirit stuff.”

The question before us is whether the body of Jesus needed to disappear from a grave for that astral spirit Christ to have been thought to live in Paul.

Ambiguous use of the term “need,” Merle. I have to disagree. It isn't a question of “need,” but one about the intention of Paul in his communication and meaning.

Obviously, in the grand scheme of things, we could say that it was enough that Jesus, the Logos of God, separated from a physical body upon that body's death and yet still existed. We could “say” that. But simply saying that and then seeing that exposition as some kind of simpler mental model by which to parse everything down to a less complex solution STILL BELIES the point of whether or not Paul actually thought that or not. So far, neither one of us has gotten to that level of nitty-gritty for this discussion. Right now, we just thrashing around in a pool of hypotheticals about Paul's intended meaning.

As you mention, Paul seems to have no concern for what happened to the body of Christ after death. His only concern is that the spirit stuff of Christ is alive, that it now lives in him, and that it now does astral spirit deeds like interceding with an astral spirit God. If we look only at Paul, I see no need for a body to be missing from a grave for Paul to make the claims about Christ that he makes.

If we both only look at Paul, it may just be that there isn't enough detail given by Paul about the nature of the resurrection of Jesus and/or us to bring the clarity to this issue to a point where either one of us feels we can see the validity of the opposing position (ala ~ Willard Quine).

It could be that the semantic evidence on this issue is underdetermined. But, although I'm open to the possibility that neither of us will see enough to push one or the other to the opposing view, I'd suggest that we also haven't progressed far enough in the discussion to say that, yep, it's underdetermined.

Peace,
2PhiloVoid

 

[doubtingmerle]

Do you do realize that your interpretation(s) of Paul does not really comport with the general way in which the Church--whether Pre-Catholic/Catholic/Orthodox/Protestant--has handled the reading of his work over the past 19 centuries?

Much of what I say agrees with what many churches say, some does not. Ultimately, if we want to know what the Bible says, then we must go by what the Bible says, not by what churches say that the Bible says.

As to our particular conversation, I think only Price figures in, and we haven't even talked about him much. And maybe I can tentatively accept your Wiki reference you gave to another poster on Hellenistic Judaism, which may play into our slice of Paul's meaning (and to his possible credibility).

I have learned a lot from Richard Carrier, Farrell Till, Randy Helms, Bart Ehrman, Robert Price, Earl Doherty and others. Also I have had years in Evangelical teaching in churches so I understand that view. Favorite teachers in my past church life included John R. Rice, Jerry Falwell, John MacArthur, Jay Adams, Tim LaHaye, Chuck Swindoll, and C. S. Lewis. So what I say is not my isolated opinion, but reflects my learning from many sources.

Yeah, well, let's not forget that he was a former Pharisee, because to forget that social and cultural context and assume some sense that Paul was some kind of dualistic, Hellenized freak is to make an assumption that may or may not bear itself out in a more coherent analysis.

Dualistic, Hellenized freak! Gosh, many if not most Christians believe in dualism, that is, the belief that the soul is different from the body, and that the soul can live on after the body dies. Are they all dualistic, Hellenized freaks? I think not. Let's show some respect to those Christians who may differ with you on dualism, please.

Paul taught that the divine Jesus took bread and divided it for people to eat, saying this is my body. Paul says he took a cup and referred to it as his blood. That a person would eat the body of God and drink the blood of God, even symbolically, was far from anything Judaism stood for. But Paul was willing to break from Judaism to believe this. We simply cannot say that since something was not part of Judaism, then Paul could not possibly have believed it.

And as other Christians have argued here, belief in a spirit surviving death was actually quite common back then.

I don't want us to waste time on seemingly peripheral issues if it turns out they don't have much to do with the “credibility” factor of the New Testament writers, particularly of Paul.

Well again, the question is whether Paul is a credible witness to a physical resurrection. Paul is certainly a credible witness to what his Pauline Christianity was all about, and hence gives us a valuable and credible window into what Christianity in general was like in the early stages. But whether he is a credible witness to a empty grave, a missing body, physical sightings of a bodily resurrected Jesus, or a living body of a resurrected Jesus, that is an entirely different question.

I know—you keep saying that!

Ok, but you agree with me that when Paul says "Christ lives in me" he is referring to some sort of spirit that lives in him, yes? He is not talking about a physical body of the earthly Jesus living in him. So at least in some sense, you agree that the resurrected Jesus is some sort of spirit that can be inside Christians, yes?

Now do you have any evidence that Paul thought the resurrected Jesus had a physical body of any kind? Do you have any evidence that Paul thought that Jesus had any body other than the church, which is the only think he ever specifically defines as the body of Christ? Do you have any evidence that the Jesus that Paul worshipped had a body that was specifically made by transforming the atoms of his physical body into that resurrected body?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Much of what I say agrees with what many churches say, some does not.

Ok. Which denominations? Unitarians?

Ultimately, if we want to know what the Bible says, then we must go by what the Bible says, not by what churches say that the Bible says.

Yes, obviously we have to go by what the Bible says, but the hermeneutical challenge comes in realizing that in order to even attempt to understand what the Bible says, we have to go OUTSIDE the Bible so as to gain other data, other insights, other frameworks, other information which the Bible itself does not provide.

I have learned a lot from Richard Carrier, Farrell Till, Randy Helms, Bart Ehrman, Robert Price, Earl Doherty and others. Also I have had years in Evangelical teaching in churches so I understand that view. Favorite teachers in my past church life included John R. Rice, Jerry Falwell, John MacArthur, Jay Adams, Tim LaHaye, Chuck Swindoll, and C. S. Lewis. So what I say is not my isolated opinion, but reflects my learning from many sources.

Ok. So, now I can understand more of where you're coming from. And just so you know where I'm coming from, my sources are not the typical evangelical ones, although I've heard plenty of John JacArthur and Chuck Swindoll. I harbor within a more philosophical, ecumenical, eclectic, wider-ranging historical approach to the Christian faith, but one that holds to the general thrust of the central Traditional, Trinitarian understanding of Christianity through the ages. So, I'm more open to considering various theological ideas but still within a reasonable latitude. I'm much more of a C.S. Lewis type than a John MacArthur type; besides these, my library of sources, books, and journal articles is too vast for me to give you a list.

Dualistic, Hellenized freak! Gosh, many if not most Christians believe in dualism

Well, that's their problem, not mine. I personally don't see that more mainstream Jews of Palestine in Jesus' day would have imbibed more than a modicum of Greek, dualistic thinking, and I don't think the fact that Paul was from Tarsus automatically means that he must have been an overly Hellenized Jew.

, that is, the belief that the soul is different from the body, and that the soul can live on after the body dies. Are they all dualistic, Hellenized freaks? I think not. Let's show some respect to those Christians who may differ with you on dualism, please.

I'm not casting aspersions on dualist Christians, so please don't play the "oh, you're being offensive" card.

Rather, I'm attempting to qualify that I firmly believe that Paul was much more of a Pharisee than many are willing to give him credit for. Sure, he radical, perhaps even on the fringes of Pharisaism, but this shouldn't make us jump to conclusions that just because he might have been slightly eccentric before his conversion to Christian faith, that he was less than a Pharisee.

Paul taught that the divine Jesus took bread and divided it for people to eat, saying this is my body. Paul says he took a cup and referred to it as his blood. That a person would eat the body of God and drink the blood of God, even symbolically, was far from anything Judaism stood for. But Paul was willing to break from Judaism to believe this.

Well then, it sounds like Paul was in league with many other disciples of his time, and rather than teaching something alternative, he taught a conception of the Gospel in line with the others.

We simply cannot say that since something was not part of Judaism, then Paul could not possibly have believed it.

Sure. But we also cannot say that since Paul lived in the Greco-Roman world, that his Judaism was fully Hellenized.

And as other Christians have argued here, belief in a spirit surviving death was actually quite common back then.

Let me get us back on course then. As far as I understand our discussion, we aren't trying to ascertain if Christians of that time believed in spiritual survival. Our discussion also isn't whether the resurrection of Jesus was either spiritual or physical. Nay, my focus is specifically on holding to the point that even thought you and I can understand the resurrection as a spiritual manifestation of "some sort," my difference with you is in that I think the physical body of Jesus was included in the transference process of His Resurrection. My position shouldn't necessarily be confused with one from say, Norman Geisler, who holds that the value of Jesus' Resurrection is primarily of determined by it's physical properties. Although I like some things Geisler says, I wouldn't go that far, and I'd be more inclined to reflect a position of interpreting the Bible akin more to someone like Langdon Gilkey, who recognizes the difficulties involved in the "linguistic turn" and our attempts to understand religious language.

Well again, the question is whether Paul is a credible witness to a physical resurrection. Paul is certainly a credible witness to what his Pauline Christianity was all about, and hence gives us a valuable and credible window into what Christianity in general was like in the early stages. But whether he is a credible witness to a empty grave, a missing body, physical sightings of a bodily resurrected Jesus, or a living body of a resurrected Jesus, that is an entirely different question.

Ok. Instead of continually going in circles and rehashing the same claims over and over again, how about we look at that text in Romans I cited and center on that in a fuller way so we might reach a resolution as to how best to interpret Paul there. (Or, you can pick some other book, but let's stick to one point at a time and not play bible hopscotch.)

Ok, but you agree with me that when Paul says "Christ lives in me" he is referring to some sort of spirit that lives in him, yes?

Uh, yes.......the Holy Spirit.

He is not talking about a physical body of the earthly Jesus living in him. So at least in some sense, you agree that the resurrected Jesus is some sort of spirit that can be inside Christians, yes?

Yes, BUT this is not to say that that is all Jesus is, at least not in the way you affirm its meaning to be.

Now do you have any evidence that Paul thought the resurrected Jesus had a physical body of any kind? Do you have any evidence that Paul thought that Jesus had any body other than the church, which is the only think he ever specifically defines as the body of Christ? Do you have any evidence that the Jesus that Paul worshipped had a body that was specifically made by transforming the atoms of his physical body into that resurrected body?

Yes, I've already hinted at "evidence," if you want to call it that (and assuming it's not all underdetermined either way), but my evidence will be found in a different hermeneutical approach from yours.

The first consideration you and I need to haggle on is the degree to which we might call Paul a Pharisee, and if he was that, what would that indicate for his theological belief framework as a 1st century (possibly mainstream, rather than marginal) Jew?

Once we get this hashed out then we can move on to one or two other major considerations about Paul.

 

[doubtingmerle]

Yes, obviously we have to go by what the Bible says, but the hermeneutical challenge comes in realizing that in order to even attempt to understand what the Bible says, we have to go OUTSIDE the Bible so as to gain other data, other insights, other frameworks, other information which the Bible itself does not provide.

I have no problem with studying the culture and background of the people to help us understand what the words of the Bible say. But I have a problem when people throw interpretations on the Bible because that is what they want the Bible to say. Many interpretations the church throws on the Bible has more to do with what they want it to say, than about the light that background knowledge sheds on the Bible.

I'm not casting aspersions on dualist Christians, so please don't play the "oh, you're being offensive" card.

Well, you are the one who described people that believe the soul is separate from the body as "dualistic Hellenized freaks". As many Christians here believe that, their grandmother or other ancestor is in heaven in spirit even though her body is in the grave, I suggest you don't call those Christian brothers of yours "dualistic Hellenized freaks."

Well then, it sounds like Paul was in league with many other disciples of his time, and rather than teaching something alternative, he taught a conception of the Gospel in line with the others.

I wasn't asking if Paul was in league with the other disciples. The point was his teaching on drinking the blood of God, and eating the body of God, even if only symbolic, was very different from what Judaism would accept. So please don't tell me that Paul would never consider a religious belief that differed significantly from Judaism.

Sure. But we also cannot say that since Paul lived in the Greco-Roman world, that his Judaism was fully Hellenized.

OK. I won't say that Paul was fully Hellenized. In fact, I never said that, and would not think of saying that. That still does not change the fact that he grew up in a town among Greeks, had many gentile friends, and seems to be at home with some Greek thought.

Yes, BUT this is not to say that that is all Jesus is, at least not in the way you affirm its meaning to be.

OK, you agree that, in Galatians 2:20, Paul says Christ lives in him, and this refers to Christ spiritually living in him. It does not mean a modification of all the atoms of the body of the earthly Christ lived in Paul.

But you think the resurrected Jesus may have had a different, bodily aspect from the spirit aspect. I'm not even sure what that means. How can Jesus simultaneously be a body in space and time and be a spirit inhabiting other people at the same time? If Paul believed something so odd, you would think he would say so. Do you know any place he even hints at what you claim.?

Ok. Instead of continually going in circles and rehashing the same claims over and over again, how about we look at that text in Romans I cited and center on that in a fuller way so we might reach a resolution as to how best to interpret Paul there.

OK, here is Romans 8:10-11 again.

But if Christ is in you, although your bodies are dead because of sin, your spirits are alive because of righteousness.
If the Spirit of him who raised Jesus from the dead dwells in you, he who raised Christ Jesus from the dead will give life to your mortal bodies also through his Spirit which dwells in you.​

He seems to say that your body is already dead (metaphorically) , and Jesus is already inside giving it life. This agrees with Eph 2 and Romans 4 that we looked at.

Yes, I've already hinted at "evidence," if you want to call it that (and assuming it's not all underdetermined either way), but my evidence will be found in a different hermeneutical approach from yours.

The first consideration you and I need to haggle on is the degree to which we might call Paul a Pharisee, and if he was that, what would that indicate for his theological belief framework as a 1st century (possibly mainstream, rather than marginal) Jew?

Wait, the Paul who counted his Pharisee background as rubbish was still partially Pharisee? I don't think so. See Philippians 3:3-8.