Are there credible witnesses to the resurrection?

[doubtingmerle]

I have addressed your objections and none have been refuted or adequately addressed. I have repeated some of the same things because you fail to address some of them.

Uh, here are some of the things we have discussed that I would like you to address:

1. 2PhiloVoid says that the belief in spirits surviving while the body was still in the grave was so rare Paul could not possibly have believed it. You say it was extremely common. Do you think 2PhiloVoid's argument on the rarity of this belief in spirit survival of death is wrong?

2. Paul says he heard a voice from heaven. Suppose he actually did. Would that prove Jesus had bodily risen from the dead and the grave is empty?

3. Please give me one place where a story Acts tells about Paul or the 12 disciples is verified by secular history.

4. Once more the gospels that Justin quoted were either early versions that were substantial changed before they reached us, or they were different books altogether. His quotes are generally far from what the gospels say. If you think Justin actually had gospels close to our gospels, in spite of all the scholars that say he didn't, please show your evidence that he quoted from gospels that were almost identical to ours.

5. You insist that all aspects of the analogies of the resurrection in I Corinthians 15 have to be true of the resurrection. Ok, all the analogies there were to things with intelligence no greater than a bird or fish. If your view is correct, does that mean for all eternity people will be dumber than a birdbrain?

6. We know about Papias through the writings of the later historian Eusebius, who actually read Papias, and said the "John the Elder" that was in contact with Papias was a different person from John the apostle. You claim Eusebius is wrong. Do you know of anybody who has actually read Papias who agrees with you? (And no, reading the few quotes of Papias by Eusebius does not count as reading Papias. And no, the "Scholars of Wikipedia" did not read the book Papias wrote.)

Will you please answer those?

What specific questions would you like me to address?

Fraid so, we have Peter (35 AD)who was observed by John (90 AD), who told Papias (130 AD), whose claim about Peter and Mark was independently confirmed by Irenaeus (180 AD), Tertullian (190 AD), Clement of Alexandria (200 AD), and Origen who reported his research of those earlier fathers in 220 AD. There is the chain of consistent reporting of Mark being the recorder of Peter's preaching about Christ.

We have discussed the lack of a link from Peter/Mark to Papias repeatedly on this thread, so I see no need to repeat that. And we have discussed whether Papias was actually referring to our gospels ad infinitum on this thread. I discount Papias as a witness to the gospels as we know them.

That leads us to the explosion of interest in the gospels after 180 AD. This is our problem. If that explosion had happened over a century earlier, we would not be having this discussion. And that would surely be what one would expect had the resurrection really happened.

Imagine that Jesus had bodily risen from the dead; that he had bodily appeared to the disciples interacting in conversation and activities just like any man; that 3000 were convinced at Pentecost; that after that 5000 believed in one day followed by multitudes believing; and that the belief in this message had quickly spread throughout the Roman empire within decades.

One would expect an explosion of writings on the resurrection. Why must we wait until 180 AD to see that explosion? Instead the early record--the epistles before 60 AD--says virtually nothing about an empty tomb or bodily appearances. (And please don't respond with I Cor 15 without addressing my objections.) Then from 60 AD to 100 AD we find virtually no writings at all of the church other than the gospels themselves. Then up through 150 AD we find only scattered gospel quotes that have some resemblance to the Sermon on the Mount. Around 150 AD we have Justin quoting "Memoirs of the Apostles" which whatever it was, was apparently far different from today's gospels. Still, we have no clear mention of a gospel credited to a traditional author. Around 180 AD, we see an explosion of interest in the four gospels, identifying the writers by name, and accurately quoting them. Why that gap? Why must we wait until 180 AD for that explosion in interest?

I contend that during that time the story was developing. Resurrection accounts , the birth story, and many other edits were added to the original Proto-Mark that started it all. In the maze of opinions of the first and second centuries, a consensus "Orthodox" view was emerging that burst into prominence and totally dominated by 300 AD. And with it came the four modified gospels that we know today.

Actually there are a few of their writings recorded. But most of the evidence points to them being a distinct minority anyway therefore it would be expected that their writings would be few in number.

We know by the writings of those who condemned "heretics" that there were a good many books that later writers considered heresy. People like Irenaeus "quote" them extensively. We were also fortunate to discover the Nag Hammadi library, which appears to be a collection of alternate books that had been hidden. Interestingly, when we read these books, we find they are far more reasonable than what the heresiologists make them out to be.

So yes, there were indeed a huge variation of belief in the first two centuries. See, for instance, The Orthodox Corruption of Scriptures.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Uh, here are some of the things we have discussed that I would like you to address:

1. 2PhiloVoid says that the belief in spirits surviving while the body was still in the grave was so rare Paul could not possibly have believed it. You say it was extremely common. Do you think 2PhiloVoid's argument on the rarity of this belief in spirit survival of death is wrong?

Merle, please do not misrepresent what I said. I said nothing that pertains to the statistical spread of dualists in comparison to non-dualists in the 1st Century. Thanks ...

2. Paul says he heard a voice from heaven. Suppose he actually did. Would that prove Jesus had bodily risen from the dead and the grave is empty?

3. Please give me one place where a story Acts tells about Paul or the 12 disciples is verified by secular history.

4. Once more the gospels that Justin quoted were either early versions that were substantial changed before they reached us, or they were different books altogether. His quotes are generally far from what the gospels say. If you think Justin actually had gospels close to our gospels, in spite of all the scholars that say he didn't, please show your evidence that he quoted from gospels that were almost identical to ours.

5. You insist that all aspects of the analogies of the resurrection in I Corinthians 15 have to be true of the resurrection. Ok, all the analogies there were to things with intelligence no greater than a bird or fish. If your view is correct, does that mean for all eternity people will be dumber than a birdbrain?

6. We know about Papias through the writings of the later historian Eusebius, who actually read Papias, and said the "John the Elder" that was in contact with Papias was a different person from John the apostle. You claim Eusebius is wrong. Do you know of anybody who has actually read Papias who agrees with you? (And no, reading the few quotes of Papias by Eusebius does not count as reading Papias. And no, the "Scholars of Wikipedia" did not read the book Papias wrote.)

Will you please answer those?

What specific questions would you like me to address?


We have discussed the lack of a link from Peter/Mark to Papias repeatedly on this thread, so I see no need to repeat that. And we have discussed whether Papias was actually referring to our gospels ad infinitum on this thread. I discount Papias as a witness to the gospels as we know them.

That leads us to the explosion of interest in the gospels after 180 AD. This is our problem. If that explosion had happened over a century earlier, we would not be having this discussion. And that would surely be what one would expect had the resurrection really happened.

Imagine that Jesus had bodily risen from the dead; that he had bodily appeared to the disciples interacting in conversation and activities just like any man; that 3000 were convinced at Pentecost; that after that 5000 believed in one day followed by multitudes believing; and that the belief in this message had quickly spread throughout the Roman empire within decades.

One would expect an explosion of writings on the resurrection. Why must we wait until 180 AD to see that explosion? Instead the early record--the epistles before 60 AD--says virtually nothing about an empty tomb or bodily appearances. (And please don't respond with I Cor 15 without addressing my objections.) Then from 60 AD to 100 AD we find virtually no writings at all of the church other than the gospels. Then up through 150 AD we find only scattered gospel quotes that have some resemblance to the Sermon on the Mount. Around 150 AD we have Justin quoting "Memoirs of the Apostles" which whatever it was, was apparently far different from today's gospels. Around 180 AD, we see an explosion of interest in the four gospels, identifying the writers by name, and accurately quoting them. Why that gap? Why must we wait until 180 AD for that explosion in interest?

I contend that during that time the story was developing. Resurrection accounts , the birth story, and many other edits were added to the original Proto-Mark that started it all. In the maze of opinions of the first and second centuries, a consensus "Orthodox" view was emerging that burst into prominence and totally dominated by 300 AD. And with it came the four modified gospels that we know today.

We know by the writings of those who condemned "heretics" that there were a good many books that later writers considered heresy. People like Irenaeus "quote" them extensively. We were also fortunate to discover the Nag Hammadi library, which appears to be a collection of alternate books that had been hidden. Interestingly, when we read these books, we find they are far more reasonable than what the heresiologists make them out to be.

So yes, there were indeed a huge variation of belief in the first two centuries. See, for instance, The Orthodox Corruption of Scriptures.

 

[Ed1wolf]

ed: Ok two cases of editing, but neither is major, major editing is when they affect the doctrines and teachings of Christianity, none of those "edits" do that.

dm: Huh? If Christians drink deadly poison will it hurt them? The verses added to Mark 16 say it won't. That seems major to me.

Throughout the bible God has said He will protect His people if they are doing His will. No change there.

dm: Adding 12 whole verses to Mark 16 is major editing as far as I am concerned. If this was going on, what other changes were made?

Again none of those verses change Christian teaching, see above.

ed: Many ancient writers use other sources that they trust to supplement their own writings especially the experiences of a friend and cohort. Matthew was probably just using Marks writings as a short cut to finish his gospel. Since Mark was probably written first and Matthew knew about it, he just inserted stories from Mark that he had shared with Peter and then added the experiences and stories that were different from Peter and from his experiences with Jesus.

dm: You totally ignored my point. Why?

Once again, wherever Matthew repeats a story from Mark, he always copies from Mark with edits. If Matthew had other sources or first hand experience of the events he copies from Mark, then it is very unusual that in every such event Matthew simply copies. Why does he not tell the story of the feeding of the 5000 or the teaching on the temple destruction in his own words, rather than copy from Mark? That is strong evidence that Matthew had no independent story to tell, but simply copied from Mark and added new stories he made up.

That could just as easily be explained by what I wrote above. If Matthew felt that Mark did a good job describing an event why rewrite it? As I said writing was big deal in ancient times, why go overboard and reinvent the wheel?

ed: All the evidence we have points to there being no major editing before 200 AD and none afterwards.

dm: What evidence are you talking about? We have only the barest of fragments that survived before 200 AD. So on what basis do you make the claim that no major editing was done before 200 AD? Please, please show your evidence.

Scholars of greek can tell by careful analysis if significant editing has a occurred such as different use of grammar, more sophisticated or less sophisticated forms of greek, anachronisms, and etc. And there is no evidence of that.

ed: See above how he used Mark as a short cut. This was done often among ancient writers. Writing was a MAJOR undertaking in ancient times so such short cuts were often utilized.

dm: Please show me one writer who was an eyewitness of an event, and simply copies most of the story from another source, with a few insertions where he chooses? That is very unusual.

Evidence this has not occurred? But the disciples were experiencing unusual things and had unusual relationships, ie they met God in human form.

 

[doubtingmerle]

Throughout the bible God has said He will protect His people if they are doing His will. No change there.

That is not what Mark 16:17-18 says. It says:

And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues;
They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them;​

It says if they drink any deadly thing it will not hurt them. It does not say this applies only if they are doing his will. It does not say God will protect them (with the caveat that he sometimes lets them die). It says it will not hurt them.

Clorox is a deadly thing. Is it true that if you drink a quart of Clorox, it will not hurt you?

Again none of those verses change Christian teaching, see above.

Again, the book The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture details many changes made to the gospel texts that affected Christian teaching. Here is one example: Virtually all surviving copies from the second and thrid century have Luke 3:22 say "You are my Son, today I have begotten you." This reading is found in copies all over the Christian world, even down to the sixth century. But later copies have it changed to, "You are my beloved Son; with you I am well pleased."

In Christianity's early days, when beliefs in Jesus varied all over the map, this verse was fine. But in the late second and the third century, there was an intense fight against the adoptionists, who taught that Jesus was an ordinary man of ordinary decent who was adopted by God at baptism to be his Messiah. As the Orthodox version of faith lgained predominance, the reading at the baptism, "Today I have begotten you," became problematic, and somebody changed it. And the change is not a simple mistake in copying a word. They pulled out the whole phrase, and put in a different phrase.

That is just one example. Again, this comes from the late second century, when there were enough copies around that we can track the change. What happened between 70 AD and 170 AD? In that time range the four gospels were largely unknown to much of Christianity, as far as we can tell, so we really don't know what changes were made.

And interestingly, two major copies of "Matthew" existed in the second century. One, known as the Gospel of the Ebionites, had no mention of the miraculous birth story, and was accepted by the Adoptionists. The other, which led to the version of Matthew that we know, had the story of the miraculous birth, and was favored by those who said Jesus was born of a virgin, and did not need to wait until he was adopted by God. But which of these two was a corruption of the original, the proto-Matthew copy that both probably came from? We don't know.

That could just as easily be explained by what I wrote above. If Matthew felt that Mark did a good job describing an event why rewrite it? As I said writing was big deal in ancient times, why go overboard and reinvent the wheel?

Seriously? Imagine you just spent several years living with the Incarnate God and had watched him be killed. Is not your heart yearning to tell the story in your own words? Why would Matthew, if he was a disciple, decide that he is just going to write what Mark wrote about the crucifixion with a few edits? That makes no sense. One would think that, even if he had Mark, he would have been brimming with desire to tell it from his own viewpoint, and the words would just flow unto the page.

But regardless, what we do agree on is that he used Mark, and thus the first proto-Matthew copy is indeed a heavily edited version of Mark. If the writer of proto-Matthew could heavily edit Mark, and somebody heavily edited Mathew to get either of the two versions that existed a century later, who is to say that the most highly edited version is not the account that includes the virgin birth?

 

[doubtingmerle]

Merle, please do not misrepresent what I said. I said nothing that pertains to the statistical spread of dualists in comparison to non-dualists in the 1st Century. Thanks ...

Sorry, I had no intention of misrepresenting you. I have been reading in your writings that you think Paul was a dedicated Pharisee, and that there was never a single Pharisee who ever believed a spirit could survive if the body was dead, therefore Paul could not have believed it. If you no longer believe that, or didn't intend to convey that message, I will leave it to you to clarify if you wish. My question to Ed1Wolf concerns the words I see here in this thread. Does Ed1Wolf believe that, as a Pharisee, Paul could not possibly have believed a spirit of a person could be alive while the body is dead in the grave?

 

[Ed1wolf]

Ed1wolf said: ↑
I copied it because the scholars for Wikipedia believe that Justin DID quote from the Gospels. Your link does nothing to refute my argument. You need to provide evidence that he didn't quote from the Gospels.

dm: Scholars for Wikipedia!!!!! Rolling on the floor laughing! You were told about this before and simply ignore it. Wikipedia is done by volunteers who make edits. In general it is fairly reliable, but sometimes people inserted things that are totally false. It is actually very good, but not a work of dedicated scholars.

Nowhere does the Wikipedia article say that Justin accurately quotes from the gospels. And that was my point. You simply ignored my point.

Once more the gospels that Justin quoted were either early versions that were substantial changed before they reached us, or they were different books altogether. Your article in no sense denies that!!! You simply quote it, and pretend it addresses my point! You simply ignore my point!

Unbelievable.

I have posted for you a site that lists the closest references of Justin to the gospels we have. If you have a better example of a quote for Justin, please give it. But please don't just make things up and pretend that Wikipedea states it also.

No, read the footnotes, they reference the scholars they used that DID say that Justin quoted the Gospels.

 

[Ed1wolf]

Ed1wolf said: ↑
Actually I didn't claim to have any scholars that claim this, it is my belief that the Bible teaches this. But I am not referring to a follower of Paul, I am talking about ordinary pre-Christian jews and gentiles.

dm: Understood. You think the Bible teaches that belief in spirit survival of death was so common, nobody would think it special to mention it. 2PhiloVoid thinks this belief was so rare, Paul could not possible believe it. You cannot both be telling the truth. One of you is wrong.

So which way is it? Are you wrong that belief in this was so common Paul wouldn't have even thought it special, or is 2PhiloVoid wrong that the belief was so rare Paul could not possibly believe it?

Care to actually address the question?

I have not read Philos argument so I don't know what he is arguing and what his basis is. But I have shown that at least twice the disciples thought that Jesus was a ghost/spirit in the gospels. Given that it was reported with no elaboration or explanation, that is evidence it was a common belief among the uneducated "common" people of that time and place. That is why Paul spends almost a whole chapter arguing for a PHYSICAL resurrection and how if it was not physical then they are most to be pitied.

ed: Acts 9.

dm: Irrelevant. Suppose they all heard a voice. Would that prove that a body was missing?

If you hear a voice from the sky that sounds like John F. Kennedy saying "Ask what you can do for your country," does that prove that the body of JFK is no longer in the grave, and that his body is now in heaven? I think not.

It may not PROVE it but it is strong evidence for it since dead bodies don't speak.

dm: Do you think Paul is lying in Acts 22? There he says the others did not hear a voice.

No, actually the original greek says "but did not understand the voice".

ed: He responded by saying "Who are you Lord?" Obviously these are words used to address someone who bodily appears to be a human being but he did not recognize His physical features. So plainly Paul saw the resurrected body of Jesus Christ, just as the other apostles did.

dm: "Who are you?" That is the same thing a blind person might say if he bumps into somebody, or a person might say if somebody is behind the door. In no sense does saying "Who are you" prove that a person is seeing a body of a person.

You don't say who are you to something that you do not recognize as a human being. A blind person can tell a human being's body by touch and someone behind a door is a body behind a door.

ed: No, given all the physical analogies he used he was obviously disputing with those who did not believe in a PHYSICAL resurrection.

dm: Oh for crying out loud! All the analogies were to objects that cannot talk either! Does that mean no resurrected person can ever talk?

Of course not, only human bodies have vocal chords. His point was about the nature of the resurrected physical body, ie it has greater glory and powers than our present bodies but it is still physical. That was his point.

dm; All the analogies were to things with intelligence no greater than a bird or fish. Does that mean for all eternity people will be dumber than a birdbrain?

Of course not, he is talking about BODIES not brains. Now you are just being absurd because you know you have lost the argument.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Sorry, I had no intention of misrepresenting you. I have been reading in your writings that you think Paul was a dedicated Pharisee, and that there was never a single Pharisee who ever believed a spirit could survive if the body was dead, therefore Paul could not have believed it. If you no longer believe that, or didn't intend to convey that message, I will leave it to you to clarify if you wish. My question to Ed1Wolf concerns the words I see here in this thread. Does Ed1Wolf believe that, as a Pharisee, Paul could not possibly have believed a spirit of a person could be alive while the body is dead in the grave?

I realize you didn't intentionally misrepresent what I said about Paul's Pharisaical background. But, I do want to be clear as to what I think is relevant to understanding Paul's likely beliefs.

In a nutshell, here's what I think about Paul: Saul was an overly zealous Pharisee, and as a Pharisee, he more than likely would have held a view of the afterlife which incorporated some notion of a physical resurrection. Also, more than likely, he would have held a unified view of human nature rather than a dichotomous one. However, being that the 1st century was home to various Jewish sects, I do think there is the chance Paul accommodated some generalized dualism, but if he did, it would have been a view that still held to some kind of eventual physical resurrection of the body, even if intermittently apart from the soul.

So, in sum, when Saul had his Damascus Road "change of mind"--whatever is was that took place in real time--Saul, now Paul, would have more than likely retained some notion of a physical resurrection, even if his expanded and "reinterpreted" view of Scripture no longer strictly aligned with the Pharisaical interpretation; at the same time it probably didn't strictly align with a Hellenistic dualism either.

Thus, if we are going to imply that Paul did not really believe in a physical resurrection simply because he did not mention it in a direct manner, then to be consistent, we should probably also relinquish the idea that he was some substantially Hellenized Jew since he doesn't mention any background attachment to the city or region of Tarsus. Both of these descriptive details are things that Luke brings into the equation, perhaps reporting what Christians later thought to be a possible background picture of Paul.

Or, we could just say that Paul was a big Hellenized liar and that all his talk about having been a radical Pharisee meant very little and was simply a practical ruse he made up so as to plump-up his "spiritual resume." Otherwise, we are left with having to assert an alternative explanation--either the one I've given in the "nutshell" above, or one in which we may surmise that his having undergone a drastic change of mind, going from Saul to Paul, just happened serendipitously, and that he decided to overhaul his previously radical viewpoints as a Pharisee while blithely riding a horse on a casual, sunny afternoon and taking an extra swig or two of some kosher wine...

 

[doubtingmerle]

That is why Paul spends almost a whole chapter arguing for a PHYSICAL resurrection and how if it was not physical then they are most to be pitied.

OH, puhleese. Why are you making this stuff up? Please show me where in I Corinthians 15 he insists the resurrection is physical. If he had actually said that we would not be having this discussion.

Why would you be using that illogical analogy argument you keep bringing up, if Paul actually had said what you claim he said? Why not quote what he said rather than use your illogical analogy argument?

Actually Paul specifically says that the body he is referring to is spiritual:

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

Now please show me where he says it is physical. I have showed you where he says it is spiritual.

It may not PROVE it but it is strong evidence for it since dead bodies don't speak.

Huh? You have already acknowledged that you think God can speak. God is said to be a spirit. So yes, you acknowledge that spirits can speak.

And you also think angels can speak, yes? So again, if you hear a voice form heaven, are not there explanations other than that a body came out of a grave?

I cannot imagine that if you heard a voice from the sky claiming to be John F. Kennedy that you would then declare that the grave is empty and Kennedy's body is physically alive in heaven! You know this would not be evidence for that. And when you say it is, I don't know if I should even take you seriously.

No, actually the original greek says "but did not understand the voice".

Here is the definition of that word:

ἀκούω akoúō, ak-oo'-o; a primary verb; to hear (in various senses):—give (in the) audience (of), come (to the ears), (shall) hear(-er, -ken), be noised, be reported, understand.​

It can be used to mean understand, yes, but the primary meaning is to hear. Paul says they did not hear the voice.

But even if they had heard a voice, that would not prove that a grave is empty, any more than hearing a voice sounding like JFK would prove that his grave was empty.

Of course not, only human bodies have vocal chords.

Nobody said anything about vocal chords! Hello? The question was if you hear a voice from heaven, does that prove the body is missing.

And you have previously said that God can talk! Did you forget you said that?

Once again, your argument that since all things in the analogy were physical, therefore the thing in the analogy is physical is bogus.

All bodies Paul compares the spiritual body to have intelligence at the level of a bird or lower. If your argument that since all the bodies he compares it to are physical so therefore the resurrected body is physical is a valid argument, then why does not the fact that every body he compares it to is stupid not prove that resurrected people are stupid? This is special pleading. You use the analogy argument only when you want to, even though other analogy arguments are equally valid.

If your argument from analogy is a valid argument, then why does not the fact that every body he compares it to are incapable of talking prove that resurrected people cannot talk? That is the same argument form that you use.

 

[doubtingmerle]

No, read the footnotes, they reference the scholars they used that DID say that Justin quoted the Gospels.

Why is this so difficult for you? Again the question is not so much whether Justin quoted from the gospels, but whether those gospels were the same as we have. It has been well known that the quotes that Justin gives of the gospels vary significantly from what the gospels we have today say. I have given you a link to an entire book on the subject of the differences between what Justin quotes and the gospels we have today. That leaves us with two alternatives: either the gospels were edited, so the versions we now have are different from what Justin had, or Justin was quoting from different books.

None of the footnotes in Wikipedia say that Justin was quoting gospels that were essentially the same as what we have today. None. Zero. Zilch. Zip. Nada. So you have no evidence that Justin's quotes were essentially the same as the gospels we have today. You simply ignored my point.

 

[doubtingmerle]

2PhiloVoid,

Thanks for clarifying your beliefs.

You had asked for other scholars who think that Paul did not see the resurrection as being the physical transformation of a body. I found this source which I think was largely the origin of my current views on this -- On Paul's Theory of Resurrection: The Carrier-O'Connell Debate . That is a formal debate between two views on the resurrection, with tons of references, so that is certainly a place to look if one is looking for a more scholarly discussion of this issue. I had forgotten all about it until I chanced upon it again yesterday.

Carrier argues there that Paul thought Jesus left the physical body in the grave, and rose in a new, spiritual body. Carrier calls this the two body view, as opposed to the one body view that says the resurrected body is a transformation of the physical body.

You had asked for other people who share this view. If you click a few footnote links there, you will come to a place where Carrier says:

Q: Is it true that many other scholars agree with you that the earliest Christians believed Jesus rose from the dead by switching to a new body and leaving the old one behind?

A: Yes. These include: James Tabor, "Leaving the Bones Behind: A Resurrected Jesus Tradition with an Intact Tomb" in Sources of the Jesus Tradition: An Inquiry (forthcoming); Bruce Chilton, Rabbi Paul: An Intellectual Biography (2005), pp. 57-58; Peter Lampe, "Paul's Concept of a Spiritual Body" in Resurrection: Theological and Scientific Assessments (2002), edited by Ted Peters et al.: pp. 103-14; Gregory Riley, Resurrection Reconsidered: Thomas and John in Controversy (1995); Dale Martin, The Corinthian Body (1995); Adela Collins, "The Empty Tomb in the Gospel According to Mark" in Hermes and Athena: Biblical Exegesis and Philosophical Theology (1993), edited by Eleonore Stump & Thomas Flint: pp. 107-40; and C.F. Moule, "St. Paul and Dualism: The Pauline Conception of the Resurrection," New Testament Studies 12 (1966): 106-23. Many others think it's likely or at least possible (e.g. see answer to previous question).​

So yes, for what it is worth, there is considerable scholarly support of the two body hypothesis.

In a nutshell, here's what I think about Paul: Saul was an overly zealous Pharisee, and as a Pharisee, he more than likely would have held a view of the afterlife which incorporated some notion of a physical resurrection. Also, more than likely, he would have held a unified view of human nature rather than a dichotomous one. However, being that the 1st century was home to various Jewish sects, I do think there is the chance Paul accommodated some generalized dualism, but if he did, it would have been a view that still held to some kind of eventual physical resurrection of the body, even if intermittently apart from the soul.

OK, but the question is whether Paul thought that resurrection involved the old body transforming (the one body hypothesis) or the first body decaying and Jesus putting on a different, spiritual body (the two body hypothesis).

So, in sum, when Saul had his Damascus Road "change of mind"--whatever is was that took place in real time--Saul, now Paul, would have more than likely retained some notion of a physical resurrection, even if his expanded and "reinterpreted" view of Scripture no longer strictly aligned with the Pharisaical interpretation; at the same time it probably didn't strictly align with a Hellenistic dualism either.

Clicking on some of the links in the above mentioned debate, I ran across this:

Q: Paul said he was a Pharisee trained in Jerusalem, a "Hebrew of Hebrews," who rivaled his fellow Pharisees in his zealous defense of their dogmas (Philippians 3:5-6; Galatians 1:13-14; Acts 22:3, 23:6), so how can you argue that Paul held a view of the resurrection that sounds more like that of the Essenes, which was quite contrary to what Pharisees believed?

A: This argument is already addressed in the book [The Empty Tomb]. In the very same passage where Paul says he was a zealous Pharisee, he immediately goes on to say he abandoned that sect entirely and regarded all its teachings as "rubbish" (Philippians 3:7-8), as things he has abandoned, literally "left behind," in exchange for the teachings of Christianity (Philippians 3:9-14), because of a powerful revelation that convinced him he was wrong and that he should take up a new teaching (Galatians 1:11-16; Acts 22:6-16), which involved adopting several beliefs exactly contrary to Pharisaic doctrines (such as that the oral law no longer applies to him and that one can gain resurrection without being circumcised: Galatians 2:1-20), and as a result other Pharisee converts became his opponents in the Church, not his allies (Acts 15:5-32).

Consequently, Paul's past beliefs are completely inapplicable--he says himself that he has converted to a new set of beliefs, Christian beliefs, which were certainly not Pharisaic, but essentially Essene (for example, see Sid Green 's essay From Which Religious Sect Did Jesus Emerge?; for Christianity's opposition to Pharisaism, see the passages I cite in n. 14, p. 199, and corresponding remarks on p. 108, though see my qualification below). I say more against the fallacy of drawing conclusions from the fact that Paul "was a Pharisee" on p. 116, and I show how clearly and blatantly Paul has abandoned Pharisaic reasoning about the resurrection on pp. 114-18. And yet I also show that Josephus, even as a Pharisee, shared Paul's two-body view of resurrection on pp. 112-13. So there is no difficulty there either. [ at Spiritual Body FAQ ]​

And I agree with Carrier on this. Paul does say he was a Pharisee, but he immediately classifies that as rubbish, and then presents his views that show signs of Greek influence.

 

[Ed1wolf]

Flapdoodle. Acts is widely regarded as unreliable.

Please give me one place where a story it tells about Paul or the 12 disciples is verified by secular history.

One place.

I forgot to respond to this about Acts in my last post. Of course, specific events by a tiny group of religious "fanatics" are not going to be reported by major ancient historians in the mid first century. But in reporting larger events of history Acts has been confirmed by "secular" sources. He mentions the death of Herod Agrippa I, a serious famine in the middle 40's, the edict of Claudius expelling jews from Rome, the replacement of the Judean Procurator Felix with Festus, and an Egyptian terrorist active in the middle 50's. All of which have been confirmed by secular historians.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

2PhiloVoid,

Thanks for clarifying your beliefs.

You had asked for other scholars who think that Paul did not see the resurrection as being the physical transformation of a body. I found this source which I think was largely the origin of my current views on this -- On Paul's Theory of Resurrection: The Carrier-O'Connell Debate . That is a formal debate between two views on the resurrection, with tons of references, so that is certainly a place to look if one is looking for a more scholarly discussion of this issue. I had forgotten all about it until I chanced upon it again yesterday.

Carrier argues there that Paul thought Jesus left the physical body in the grave, and rose in a new, spiritual body. Carrier calls this the two body view, as opposed to the one body view that says the resurrected body is a transformation of the physical body.

You had asked for other people who share this view. If you click a few footnote links there, you will come to a place where Carrier says:

Q: Is it true that many other scholars agree with you that the earliest Christians believed Jesus rose from the dead by switching to a new body and leaving the old one behind?

A: Yes. These include: James Tabor, "Leaving the Bones Behind: A Resurrected Jesus Tradition with an Intact Tomb" in Sources of the Jesus Tradition: An Inquiry (forthcoming); Bruce Chilton, Rabbi Paul: An Intellectual Biography (2005), pp. 57-58; Peter Lampe, "Paul's Concept of a Spiritual Body" in Resurrection: Theological and Scientific Assessments (2002), edited by Ted Peters et al.: pp. 103-14; Gregory Riley, Resurrection Reconsidered: Thomas and John in Controversy (1995); Dale Martin, The Corinthian Body (1995); Adela Collins, "The Empty Tomb in the Gospel According to Mark" in Hermes and Athena: Biblical Exegesis and Philosophical Theology (1993), edited by Eleonore Stump & Thomas Flint: pp. 107-40; and C.F. Moule, "St. Paul and Dualism: The Pauline Conception of the Resurrection," New Testament Studies 12 (1966): 106-23. Many others think it's likely or at least possible (e.g. see answer to previous question).​

So yes, for what it is worth, there is considerable scholarly support of the two body hypothesis.


OK, but the question is whether Paul thought that resurrection involved the old body transforming (the one body hypothesis) or the first body decaying and Jesus putting on a different, spiritual body (the two body hypothesis).


Clicking on some of the links in the above mentioned debate, I ran across this:

Q: Paul said he was a Pharisee trained in Jerusalem, a "Hebrew of Hebrews," who rivaled his fellow Pharisees in his zealous defense of their dogmas (Philippians 3:5-6; Galatians 1:13-14; Acts 22:3, 23:6), so how can you argue that Paul held a view of the resurrection that sounds more like that of the Essenes, which was quite contrary to what Pharisees believed?

A: This argument is already addressed in the book [The Empty Tomb]. In the very same passage where Paul says he was a zealous Pharisee, he immediately goes on to say he abandoned that sect entirely and regarded all its teachings as "rubbish" (Philippians 3:7-8), as things he has abandoned, literally "left behind," in exchange for the teachings of Christianity (Philippians 3:9-14), because of a powerful revelation that convinced him he was wrong and that he should take up a new teaching (Galatians 1:11-16; Acts 22:6-16), which involved adopting several beliefs exactly contrary to Pharisaic doctrines (such as that the oral law no longer applies to him and that one can gain resurrection without being circumcised: Galatians 2:1-20), and as a result other Pharisee converts became his opponents in the Church, not his allies (Acts 15:5-32).

Consequently, Paul's past beliefs are completely inapplicable--he says himself that he has converted to a new set of beliefs, Christian beliefs, which were certainly not Pharisaic, but essentially Essene (for example, see Sid Green 's essay From Which Religious Sect Did Jesus Emerge?; for Christianity's opposition to Pharisaism, see the passages I cite in n. 14, p. 199, and corresponding remarks on p. 108, though see my qualification below). I say more against the fallacy of drawing conclusions from the fact that Paul "was a Pharisee" on p. 116, and I show how clearly and blatantly Paul has abandoned Pharisaic reasoning about the resurrection on pp. 114-18. And yet I also show that Josephus, even as a Pharisee, shared Paul's two-body view of resurrection on pp. 112-13. So there is no difficulty there either. [ at Spiritual Body FAQ ]​

And I agree with Carrier on this. Paul does say he was a Pharisee, but he immediately classifies that as rubbish, and then presents his views that show signs of Greek influence.

Thanks for finding all of these sources, Merle. This is the kind of thing that grabs my attention, and I see that Carrier is front and center in all of this. I'll look these over during the long Christmas break. Have a great holiday, and Merry Christmas!

Peace,
2PhiloVoid

 

[Ed1wolf]

Ed1Wolf,

Ok, we are back to Papias, which you cling to as your only hope of anyone crediting any of the four gospels to the traditional four authors before 180 AD. Papias mentions a book written by Mark (which I argue may not be Mark) and a book written by Matthew (which, as Papias describes it, is probably not the book we know as Matthew).

No, I provided several lines of evidence both external and internal that it was probably written by Mark. Besides Papias I provided several early Church fathers that also seem to have independent knowledge that it was written by Mark as he followed Peter and recorded his preaching and teaching long before Eusebius recorded what Papias wrote. And there is both internal and external evidence that the disciple Matthew probably wrote the GoMatt.

dm: I think Papias is weak testimony to the authorship of these two gospels. He apparently never read them, for he tells us that he imagines there is nothing better in them than the information he was receiving from his two aquaintances. If he had read them, why would he be telling us what he imagines to be in them, as opposed to what is in them? He can only go by what he imagines to be in them.

Apparently he didn't feel necessary to report what was in them, especially since by the time he was around they were being circulated widely in the church.

dm: Nobody really knows for sure what books Papias was referring to, or even if the writers Matthew and Mark are the same as the Matthew and Mark in the New Testament. But there are several "Gospels" we know of that he could be referring to, and there could have been many others that we do not know about.

I never claimed that we know for certain but the evidence strongly points to the traditional authors. The church fathers were certainly in a better time and place for knowing than a bunch hyperskeptical atheists with an ax to grind against Christianity living 2000 years after the fact.


↑

ed: According to Wikipedia it was written in the early decades of the 2nd century, IOW long after the canonical gospels and Pauls letters. It also shows evidence of gnostic influences. Scholars also believe it was written in Egypt, far away from Judea and Galilee. So these are many strikes against its accuracy.

dm: Uh no, Wikipedia says the Gospel of Hebrews was "probably composed" then. Once again, when dealing with ancient dates, things are often known only in probabilities. But you consistently ignore that, take the information you want, and declare it as absolute truth. The Early Christian Writings site, which relies on a range of scholars, dates the book as 80 AD-150 AD with a wide range of uncertainty. So the Gospel of the Hebrews might have been known by Papias in 130 AD.

Maybe but unlikely given that he lived nowhere near Egypt.

dm: Also you write it off as having Gnostic influence. So? Studies have shown that the earliest Christian teachings at every geographical area differed significantly from what we now call Orthodox teaching.

Evidence?

dm: Papias was likely teaching things that later Christians called heresy. We know about Papias only through what Irenaus and Eusebius say about him, and Eusebius says Papias was a man of "very limited understanding". Eusebius actually read the books of Papias. We have never seen them. But the fact that Eusebius says Papias had very limited understanding, that indicates that Eusebius must have disagreed with much of what Papias wrote, that is, he must have thought Papias taught heresy.

Limited understanding sounds more like he probably just meant that his theological education was poor or he was not very intelligent, not that he was a heretic. It appears you are making the typical atheist truth stretch to in attempt to discredit orthodox Christianity.

dm: At any rate the church of Eusebius's day were actively copying and distributing books they liked, but they did not copy Papias. They apparently didn't think it was worth preserving.

Evidence?

dm: And no, you have not proven that many others have written about Papias. You simply made the assertion, and I dispute it. If you know of others who spoke of Papias, prove it.

I was not attempting to do that, I was just demonstrating that there were multiple church fathers that had probably independenty discovered the same information that he had about Mark writing the G of Mark by listening to Peter.

dm: So you cannot argue that Papias would not have used a book that the later Orthodox regarded as Heresy. For Papias himself seems to be an outsider to the later church.

No, see above.

ed: Matthew was probably written in the late 60s, that is 50 or 60 years before the GoH. Therefore it could not have been derived from the GoH.

dm: First, I dispute your date for Matthew.

Well there are multiple lines of evidence for its and in fact all of the synoptic gospels composition prior to 70 AD. First, there is no mention of the persecution of Christians by Nero, second, there is no mention of the martyrdoms of Peter and Paul, thirdly there is no mention of the fall of Jerusalem, and fourth no mention of the fulfillment of Christ's prophecy regarding the destruction of the Temple. If they had been written after 70 AD all these surely would have been mentioned.

dm: Also, remember that nobody knows what the book looked like in the first century. We know of two other books that people have quoted that are similar to Matthew: The Gospel of the Ebionites and the Gospel of the Nazoreans. Since quotes from all 3 sources are similar, it is likely that they were different edits of the same book. But which was first? Could all have been copying from the same proto-Matthew that end up in three different versions? And could it be that the original was closer to the other two? We don't know, because we don't really know about the modern version of Matthew until late in the second century.

No, see above for evidence Matthew was written long before the late 2nd century.

dm: Remember when you say Matthew was first century, that does not mean the current book of Matthew was first century. Nobody knows that.

While not certain, nevertheless there is strong evidence that it is the same, because there is no evidence of any major editing of Matthew having ever occurred.

ed: Maybe, but no church father mentions it until 220 AD and Thomas was attached to it pretty early so it is unlikely he would attribute it to Mark and Peter.

dm: No church father clearly mentions the book of Matthew until 180 AD. This is the problem throughout the first two centuries. The state of the gospels is largely unknown.

No, we can tell by careful analysis of the original greek that no major editing has occurred since their pre 70 composition.

ed: It is an old and well respected translation. Kirsopp Lake's translation published by Harvard University Press.

dm: Interesting. Thanks for sharing this translation of Papias. All modern sources that I know of use a translation of Papias which makes it hard to see he is talking about our book of Mark. I cannot say which translation is right, only that modern sources seem to be overwhelmingly accepting the translation I have given.

That is because "modern" sources have a greater anti-supernaturalist philosophical commitment. Even the older non-Christian scholars were more open minded than todays.

 

[doubtingmerle]

I forgot to respond to this about Acts in my last post. Of course, specific events by a tiny group of religious "fanatics" are not going to be reported by major ancient historians in the mid first century. But in reporting larger events of history Acts has been confirmed by "secular" sources. He mentions the death of Herod Agrippa I, a serious famine in the middle 40's, the edict of Claudius expelling jews from Rome, the replacement of the Judean Procurator Felix with Festus, and an Egyptian terrorist active in the middle 50's. All of which have been confirmed by secular historians.

...that were recorded in secular history before the books of Acts was written. You forgot to add that part.

The book of Acts takes historical events and adds in stories about Paul and the disciples. The fact that he does that does not prove that the stories he added are true.

Do you think Forest Gump is history? After all, it includes many historical events in the background of its story.

I think neither the plotline of Forest Gump, nor Acts, are history.

One of the arguments for a late date of Acts is that he appears to be sourcing things from Josephus, which means Acts was written after Josephus. See Luke and Josephus

 

[doubtingmerle]

Perhaps we should call this thread The Groundhog Day Thread. Because it seems like we are living the same day over and over. You keep bringing up the same things that you brought up before that have been refuted, and yet you bring them up again as though it is the first time they are being mentioned. Why do you do this?

No, I provided several lines of evidence both external and internal that it was probably written by Mark. Besides Papias I provided several early Church fathers that also seem to have independent knowledge that it was written by Mark as he followed Peter and recorded his preaching and teaching long before Eusebius recorded what Papias wrote.

Good Morning. Happy Groundhogs day!

Once gain, all those church fathers you mentioned (other than Papias) are after 180 AD.

And there is both internal and external evidence that the disciple Matthew probably wrote the GoMatt.

Good Morning. Happy Groundhogs day!

And a disciple such as Matthew, when telling the story of the crucifixion, would simply copy what Mark had written?

Apparently he didn't feel necessary to report what was in them, especially since by the time he was around they were being circulated widely in the church.

Apparently? What evidence do you have that the gospels were widely circulated in the church by the time of Papias? There are Christians writings before then, but not one that clearly quotes a gospel. After 180 AD, yes, but before Papias (130 AD), no they did not.

Regardless of what Papias's reasons were for not quoting from the gospels the fact remains that he didn't (at least not in the surviving record) and without such quotes we cannot know which books he is referring to.

And actually Papias does tell us why he did not quote the gospels. He says that he cannot imagine there would be anything in them that would be better than the two men that were telling him about what the disciples said about Jesus.

Maybe but unlikely given that he lived nowhere near Egypt.

Papias lived nowhere near Jerusalem either, and yet he knew two men who reportedly knew the 12 disciples.

Papias apparently had connections.

Evidence?

Good Morning. Happy Groundhogs day!

See the first chapter of The Orthodox Corruption of scripture.

Limited understanding sounds more like he probably just meant that his theological education was poor or he was not very intelligent, not that he was a heretic. It appears you are making the typical atheist truth stretch to in attempt to discredit orthodox Christianity.

Flapdoodle.

What we know is that Eusebius thought Papias had very limited understanding, and that his books were not preserved while others were. That is not a ringing endorsement of the content of what Papias wrote. We simply do not know if the church of the fourth century trusted Papias.

Evidence?

Evidence that the church of the Middle Ages copied many manuscripts? Because we have many copies.

Evidence that the church of the Middle Ages did not preserve Papias? Because we have no copies.

Why do you ask such silly questions?

I was not attempting to do that, I was just demonstrating that there were multiple church fathers that had probably independenty discovered the same information that he had about Mark writing the G of Mark by listening to Peter.

Probably? Probably?

That is your evidence for testimony of Mark's authorship before 180 AD? Probably some people before 180 AD were saying that?

Well there are multiple lines of evidence for its and in fact all of the synoptic gospels composition prior to 70 AD. First, there is no mention of the persecution of Christians by Nero, second, there is no mention of the martyrdoms of Peter and Paul, thirdly there is no mention of the fall of Jerusalem, and fourth no mention of the fulfillment of Christ's prophecy regarding the destruction of the Temple. If they had been written after 70 AD all these surely would have been mentioned.

Flapdoodle. You don't find all these things in Barnabas, The Shepherd of Hermas, or Clement and these are all thought to be after 70 AD. Your argument that any Christian document who does not mention these things must have been written before 70 AD is bogus.

While not certain, nevertheless there is strong evidence that it is the same, because there is no evidence of any major editing of Matthew having ever occurred.

Wait. An entire ending was added to Mark. The story of the woman in adultery was added to John. Numerous edits, such as the change to Luke 3:22 are documented in the book I mentioned.

No, we can tell by careful analysis of the original greek that no major editing has occurred since their pre 70 composition.

There are thousands of manuscripts, and no two manuscripts of any significant length are exactly the same. If there was no significant changes, then which of those thousands of copies represents the unedited copy?

That is because "modern" sources have a greater anti-supernaturalist philosophical commitment. Even the older non-Christian scholars were more open minded than todays.

Oh, puhleeze. The translation of Papias that is commonly available on the Internet is from a collection of translations of early church fathers by two 19th century Presbyterian ministers, Roberts and Donaldson. How do you get from 19th Presbyterian ministers to "modern anti-supernatural sources"? See Ante-Nicene Fathers - Wikipedia , Fragments of Papias .

 

[Ed1wolf]

ed: Fraid so, we have Peter (35 AD)who was observed by John (90 AD), who told Papias (130 AD), whose claim about Peter and Mark was independently confirmed by Irenaeus (180 AD), Tertullian (190 AD), Clement of Alexandria (200 AD), and Origen who reported his research of those earlier fathers in 220 AD. There is the chain of consistent reporting of Mark being the recorder of Peter's preaching about Christ.

dm: We have discussed the lack of a link from Peter/Mark to Papias repeatedly on this thread, so I see no need to repeat that. And we have discussed whether Papias was actually referring to our gospels ad infinitum on this thread. I discount Papias as a witness to the gospels as we know them.

Well many scholars disagree with you.

dm: That leads us to the explosion of interest in the gospels after 180 AD. This is our problem. If that explosion had happened over a century earlier, we would not be having this discussion. And that would surely be what one would expect had the resurrection really happened.

magine that Jesus had bodily risen from the dead; that he had bodily appeared to the disciples interacting in conversation and activities just like any man; that 3000 were convinced at Pentecost; that after that 5000 believed in one day followed by multitudes believing; and that the belief in this message had quickly spread throughout the Roman empire within decades.

One would expect an explosion of writings on the resurrection. Why must we wait until 180 AD to see that explosion? Instead the early record--the epistles before 60 AD--says virtually nothing about an empty tomb or bodily appearances. (And please don't respond with I Cor 15 without addressing my objections.) Then from 60 AD to 100 AD we find virtually no writings at all of the church other than the gospels themselves. Then up through 150 AD we find only scattered gospel quotes that have some resemblance to the Sermon on the Mount. Around 150 AD we have Justin quoting "Memoirs of the Apostles" which whatever it was, was apparently far different from today's gospels. Still, we have no clear mention of a gospel credited to a traditional author. Around 180 AD, we see an explosion of interest in the four gospels, identifying the writers by name, and accurately quoting them. Why that gap? Why must we wait until 180 AD for that explosion in interest?

You have to remember this was 2000 years ago, many ancient writings have been lost. We don't have every single Christian writing in that time period. In addition during that time they may have only been concentrating on the gospels and rest of the future Canon. They may have felt that there was no need to add any other writing to those. Because those were considered divinely inspired very early.

dm: I contend that during that time the story was developing. Resurrection accounts , the birth story, and many other edits were added to the original Proto-Mark that started it all. In the maze of opinions of the first and second centuries, a consensus "Orthodox" view was emerging that burst into prominence and totally dominated by 300 AD. And with it came the four modified gospels that we know today.

Actually there is no hard evidence for any of your speculation. It is just based on a anti-supernatural philosophy and anti Christian bias.

ed: Actually there are a few of their writings recorded. But most of the evidence points to them being a distinct minority anyway therefore it would be expected that their writings would be few in number.

dm: We know by the writings of those who condemned "heretics" that there were a good many books that later writers considered heresy. People like Irenaeus "quote" them extensively. We were also fortunate to discover the Nag Hammadi library, which appears to be a collection of alternate books that had been hidden. Interestingly, when we read these books, we find they are far more reasonable than what the heresiologists make them out to be.

So yes, there were indeed a huge variation of belief in the first two centuries. See, for instance, The Orthodox Corruption of Scriptures

Not near as many as there are orthodox writings. The Nag Hammadi writings are much later than the canonical orthodox writings so therefore are unlikely to be historically accurate. I don't deny that in the 3rd century the number of heretics began increase greatly due to more heretics coming into existence as time passed from the time of Christ and the disciples. But there was always a large majority of the orthodox at this time. What is their hard evidence in that book?

 

[doubtingmerle]

Ed1Wolf,

OK, we can actually move on to a different aspect: Was Christian thought united around "Orthodox" belief in the 1st and 2nd century, or was it severely fractured? That is actually a controversial subject, but I agree with those who say it was fractured.

You have to remember this was 2000 years ago, many ancient writings have been lost. We don't have every single Christian writing in that time period. In addition during that time they may have only been concentrating on the gospels and rest of the future Canon. They may have felt that there was no need to add any other writing to those. Because those were considered divinely inspired very early.

Understood, but there were indeed a lot of other books preserved in the Middle Ages other than just the Bible. See for instance, Early Christian Writings: New Testament, Apocrypha, Gnostics, Church Fathers . The "heretical" books also must have been quite common, for Christian writers frequently refer to them in works condemning them. If they were not common, why do early Christian writers keep quoting them? However, these largely were not saved for us.

Actually there is no hard evidence for any of your speculation. It is just based on a anti-supernatural philosophy and anti Christian bias.

No, the diversity of the early church is based on more than just speculation. For instance, Galatians 1:6-9

I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel:
Which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ.
But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.
As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.
​

That is strong language. And according to Paul, others were saying similar things about him. That does not sound like unity to me.

The Nag Hammadi writings are much later than the canonical orthodox writings so therefore are unlikely to be historically accurate. I don't deny that in the 3rd century the number of heretics began increase greatly due to more heretics coming into existence as time passed from the time of Christ and the disciples. But there was always a large majority of the orthodox at this time.

Understood the Nag Hamadi writings are later, but that does not prove earlier writings did not exist. Again, we know about the earlier "heretical" writings because early church writers talk about them. You cannot simply state that the absence of these books today proves those thoughts were always absent.

What we do find in the earliest layers, and the earliest copies of the scriptures, are ideas that were later condemned as heresy. I discussed Luke 3:22, for instance, which seems to say Jesus was adopted, and was universally accepted as the true text until the third century, when it was changed, right in the middle of the controversy condemning adoptionist teachings. So yes, the early writings were indeed varied, and later editors cleaned them up to be compatible with the newly defined "Orthodoxy".

Beliefs that seem to be found in early versions of the New Testament that have been sanitized out include Adoptionism (the belief that Jesus was a man adopted by God), Docetism (the belief that Jesus was a divine God that only appeared to be human), Gnosticism, and Separatism (the belief that Jesus was a man that was inhabited by a separate divine Christ). See Diversity in early Christian theology - Wikipedia
.

Try to find a clear teaching of the trinity before 180 AD. Its not there. Instead we find a wide range of beliefs in Jesus gelling into the belief in a trinity. But the uniting behind that did not come until well into the fourth century, after the controversy between Arius (Jesus had a beginning, and was subordinate to the father), Sebellius (Jesus and the Father were two names for the same thing), and Athanasius (Jesus and the Father are different, but made of the same essence). For a while the views of Arius dominated, but later that was rejected for the view of the trinity.

Other controversies included whether one is bound to the Judaic law, or whether the God of the New Testament was a Demiurge subject to the true, righteous God of the New Testament (Marcionism).

 

[Ed1wolf]

ed: That is why Paul spends almost a whole chapter arguing for a PHYSICAL resurrection and how if it was not physical then they are most to be pitied.

dm: OH, puhleese. Why are you making this stuff up? Please show me where in I Corinthians 15 he insists the resurrection is physical. If he had actually said that we would not be having this discussion.

His multiple analogies using physical entities. Why did he not use a spiritual entity changing?

dm: Why would you be using that illogical analogy argument you keep bringing up, if Paul actually had said what you claim he said? Why not quote what he said rather than use your illogical analogy argument?

Actually Paul specifically says that the body he is referring to is spiritual:

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

Now please show me where he says it is physical. I have showed you where he says it is spiritual.

He says BODY, if it was pure spirit then he would have said, "it is raised a SPIRIT". It makes no sense to use an adjective and a noun, unless to emphasize the noun, which is in fact what he is doing.

ed: It may not PROVE it but it is strong evidence for it since dead bodies don't speak.

dm: Huh? You have already acknowledged that you think God can speak. God is said to be a spirit. So yes, you acknowledge that spirits can speak.

And you also think angels can speak, yes? So again, if you hear a voice form heaven, are not there explanations other than that a body came out of a grave?

God and angels are not humans, humans require a living body to speak.

dm: I cannot imagine that if you heard a voice from the sky claiming to be John F. Kennedy that you would then declare that the grave is empty and Kennedy's body is physically alive in heaven! You know this would not be evidence for that. And when you say it is, I don't know if I should even take you seriously.

Yes, it would definitely be evidence for him being alive bodily in heaven as shown above about humans. But it would not prove it.

ed; No, actually the original greek says "but did not understand the voice".

dm; Here is the definition of that word:

ἀκούω akoúō, ak-oo'-o; a primary verb; to hear (in various senses):—give (in the) audience (of), come (to the ears), (shall) hear(-er, -ken), be noised, be reported, understand.

It can be used to mean understand, yes, but the primary meaning is to hear. Paul says they did not hear the voice.

No, given what he said in Acts 9 understand is much more likely to be the correct meaning.

dm: But even if they had heard a voice, that would not prove that a grave is empty, any more than hearing a voice sounding like JFK would prove that his grave was empty.

Not prove it, but evidence for it.

ed; Of course not, only human bodies have vocal chords.

dm; Nobody said anything about vocal chords! Hello? The question was if you hear a voice from heaven, does that prove the body is missing.

I didn't say prove, see above.

dm: And you have previously said that God can talk! Did you forget you said that?

See above.

dm: Once again, your argument that since all things in the analogy were physical, therefore the thing in the analogy is physical is bogus.

All bodies Paul compares the spiritual body to have intelligence at the level of a bird or lower. If your argument that since all the bodies he compares it to are physical so therefore the resurrected body is physical is a valid argument, then why does not the fact that every body he compares it to is stupid not prove that resurrected people are stupid? This is special pleading. You use the analogy argument only when you want to, even though other analogy arguments are equally valid.

If your argument from analogy is a valid argument, then why does not the fact that every body he compares it to are incapable of talking prove that resurrected people cannot talk? That is the same argument form that you use.

Because the whole point of the chapter is the RESURRECTION, not about brains or the ability to talk.

 

[doubtingmerle]

Ed1Wolf,

Can you tell me please, what type of afterlife of Christians you believe in? I know of 3 alternatives.

1. The body stays in the grave, the spirit lives on in some sort of heavenly body.
2. The person is dead and is unaware of anything until the future when the body resurrects to go to heaven.
3. The body stays in the grave, the spirit goes to heaven, and someday the spirit come back to unite with the body that resurrects.​

Can you tell me which of these 3 you believe in? If you believe in the first or the third options above, as I think most Christians do, then we would find the resurrection body you claim for Jesus is very different from the body you claim for Christians, in spite of Paul's arguing for their similarity. If you believe in soul sleep (option 2) how do you reconcile this with Paul?

He says BODY, if it was pure spirit then he would have said, "it is raised a SPIRIT". It makes no sense to use an adjective and a noun, unless to emphasize the noun, which is in fact what he is doing.

Paul seems to be teaching two bodies, an earthly body that decays, and a heavenly body that replaces it. So he refers to the spirit body because that is what he believes. Paul says the earthly body dies and decays, and we get a new body. For instance, in 2 Cor 5:1-6 Paul says:

For we know that if the earthly tent we live in is destroyed, we have a building from God, a house not made with hands, eternal in the heavens.
Here indeed we groan, and long to put on our heavenly dwelling,
so that by putting it on we may not be found naked.
For while we are still in this tent, we sigh with anxiety; not that we would be unclothed, but that we would be further clothed, so that what is mortal may be swallowed up by life.
He who has prepared us for this very thing is God, who has given us the Spirit as a guarantee.
So we are always of good courage; we know that while we are at home in the body we are away from the Lord,​

So he had two metaphors: our earthly body is like a tent that we move out of, and move into a new body that is like a heavenly house. And our earthly body is like an old set of clothes, which we take off, and put on new clothes. The old tent and the old clothes are left behind, according to Paul.

Paul says specifically that the body that dies is not the body that comes up. I Cor 15:35-38 says:

But some one will ask, "How are the dead raised? With what kind of body do they come?"
You foolish man! What you sow does not come to life unless it dies.
And what you sow is not the body which is to be, but a bare kernel, perhaps of wheat or of some other grain.
But God gives it a body as he has chosen, and to each kind of seed its own body.​

So no, Paul does not think that body that we put in the grave is the body that is to be. He specifically says it is not. He says God gives you a new body.

A literal translation of I Cor 15:44 is "a natural body is sown, [then] a spiritual body is raised".

Paul's writings are very much like the writings of Origin, who is specific in believing the two body view, that the earthly body stays dead and a new body is given to the person. Paul's wording is very different from those later Christians who believed the old body resurrects, who always end up addressing diseased bodies or corpses that have been mutilated. Paul never addresses any of that, because he has no need to show how a corpse eaten by animals can live again. The old body decays, in Paul's views, and God gives us a new body.

See Carrier's Opening Statement (Carrier-O'Connell Debate) .

Yes, it would definitely be evidence for him being alive bodily in heaven as shown above about humans. But it would not prove it.

Ok, so that is your evidence. You must surely know that it is extremely rare for a body that was dead for 3 days to come out of the grave, if it ever happened. Most of us would want very good evidence to believe such things. And yet you will accept a verse from Acts (which many regard as nonhistorical) that says Paul heard a voice, therefore the body must be missing. I can think of many other explanations for this: 1) the story in Acts in made up, 2) Paul really didn't actually hear a voice, but interpreted some natural noise as a voice 3) the voice came from something other than a resurrected body (an angel, a spirit Jesus, a man playing a trick, etc.) All of those seem more likely to me than that a body rose from the dead.