Are there credible witnesses to the resurrection?

[doubtingmerle]

Sure, Paul had a different understanding about what and how the physical part of the resurrection doctrine would manifest and play itself out in the long run, but Paul's view hardly mirrors Platonism. In anything, Paul was offering yet one more variation about the resurrection doctrine. Did fellow Pharisees view Paul as heretical? Yes, they did. Was Paul a Hellenistic Dualist? No, he wasn't.

And yet the video you post says Paul thinks that after death the body decays, while his spirit lives on in heaven. That is exactly what I say that Paul says! So it appears you try to refute the idea of a spirit living on in heaven without the earthly body, and you call that Hellenistic Dualism, and say Paul would never believe Hellenistic Dualism, and then you post a video that says exactly what you say Paul would never believe. What am I missing?

We seem to be in agreement for the first 2000 years after Paul's death. I don't agree with Paul, but I think he taught that when his body dies and decays in the ground his spirit would live on. You seem to now be saying that Paul is saying exactly the same thing! So why all this talk about Paul not possibly believing in disembodied spirits separate from the body?

Where you differ is that you think Paul says that many years later his corpse will arise to unite again with the spirit. What can that possibly even mean? Paul no longer has a corpse. It's gone. How can that corpse possibly arise?

If Paul has been alive some 2000 years as a spirit, is this never even mentioned in 1 Cor 15? Does that chapter just skip those 2000 years in heaven, and skip the reassembly of the decayed corpse, and jump immediately to the point where the rebuilt corpse comes to life again?

And to put the nail on the coffin, yes Paul did think spirits were distinct from the body and could possibly do things away from the body. He writes:

I knew a man in Christ above fourteen years ago, (whether in the body, I cannot tell; or whether out of the body, I cannot tell: God knoweth; ) such an one caught up to the third heaven.
And I knew such a man, (whether in the body, or out of the body, I cannot tell: God knoweth; )
How that he was caught up into paradise, and heard unspeakable words, which it is not lawful for a man to utter. )(2 Cor 12:2-4)​

So Paul has absolutely no issue with the "Hellenistic Dualist" concept that the body could stay on earth, while the spirit went to heaven and saw things.

So between what Paul says here and in 2 Cor 5, and what your second video says, I am not seeing much of a case for the view that Paul could not possibly believe that the spirit lives on while the body decays and is gone.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

And yet the video you post says Paul thinks that after death the body decays, while his spirit lives on in heaven. That is exactly what I say that Paul says! So it appears you try to refute the idea of a spirit living on in heaven without the earthly body, and you call that Hellenistic Dualism, and say Paul would never believe Hellenistic Dualism, and then you post a video that says exactly what you say Paul would never believe. What am I missing?

We seem to be in agreement for the first 2000 years after Paul's death. I don't agree with Paul, but I think he taught that when his body dies and decays in the ground his spirit would live on. You seem to now be saying that Paul is saying exactly the same thing! So why all this talk about Paul not possibly believing in disembodied spirits separate from the body?

Where you differ is that you think Paul says that many years later his corpse will arise to unite again with the spirit. What can that possibly even mean? Paul no longer has a corpse. It's gone. How can that corpse possibly arise?

If Paul has been alive some 2000 years as a spirit, is this never even mentioned in 1 Cor 15? Does that chapter just skip those 2000 years in heaven, and skip the reassembly of the decayed corpse, and jump immediately to the point where the rebuilt corpse comes to life again?

And to put the nail on the coffin, yes Paul did think spirits were distinct from the body and could possibly do things away from the body. He writes:

I knew a man in Christ above fourteen years ago, (whether in the body, I cannot tell; or whether out of the body, I cannot tell: God knoweth; ) such an one caught up to the third heaven.
And I knew such a man, (whether in the body, or out of the body, I cannot tell: God knoweth; )
How that he was caught up into paradise, and heard unspeakable words, which it is not lawful for a man to utter. )(2 Cor 12:2-4)​

So Paul has absolutely no issue with the "Hellenistic Dualist" concept that the body could stay on earth, while the spirit went to heaven and saw things.

So between what Paul says here and in 2 Cor 5, and what your second video says, I am not seeing much of a case for the view that Paul could not possibly believe that the spirit lives on while the body decays and is gone.

... I can't control what you see or don't see, Merle. Only God can do that. However, I think that what you're missing is God's ability to reconstitute a physical body for the soul of a human being, a body clearly not identical to the original one--but one transcending mortality in every respect. And God can do this at any time He sees fit to do so, even if the original materials are not present.

Peace,
2PhiloVoid

 

[Ed1wolf]

Ed1wolf said: ↑
Throughout the bible God has said He will protect His people if they are doing His will. No change there.

dm: 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.

If you read verse 15, this is in the context of the Great Commission. If in their process of obeying the Great Commission they unknowingly drink poison or accidently get bitten by a snake they will be protected from them. Similar to what happened to Paul on his missionary journey when he was bitten by a poisonous snake and not harmed. Also, this must be understood in the context of the whole bible, this is a general principle not a specific promise. Because there are other cases in the bible where very obedient people were not rescued from death or suffering.

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

No, because if you knowingly drink poison you are testing God which is a sin according to both testaments.

dm; 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.

There are also ancient copies with the other reading. And in the books of Matthew and Mark (both of which are older than Luke) the other reading is used so most likely that is the correct reading since they are two older independent sources. But even if the reading about being begotten on the day of baptism is correct, that potentially changes no major doctrine. Since that day was the first public acknowledgement by God the Father of Jesus as His only begotten son, that is probably what it means. Not that He was literally begotten that day. Obviously He was not since He was probably over 30 years old. in addition, there is no mention of adoption in that reading of the verse that is just an assumption.

dm: 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.

Evidence that the gospels were largely unknown during that time?

dm: 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.

Actually there was no actual gospel of the ebionites, that is just a term used by scholars to identify a few fragments of a text mentioned by Epiphanus that he identifies with the ebionites and Matthew. So the fact that that a few fragments of an unknown text don't mention the virgin birth is irrelevant to whether the Gospel of Luke was edited. The Adoptionists just accepted it because they thought it supported their view by it intentionally leaving out the virgin birth but in fact there is no evidence that it was intentional. And even if it was intentional it only dates to 150 AD long after the true gospels were written so its historicity is very weak.

dm: 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.

See above. There is no good evidence of two versions of Matthew.

ed: 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?

dm: 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.

No, since Mark wrote Peters memoirs and Peter was one of the Major leaders of the Church and one of Christs closest friends, a humble Christian like Matthew probably was, would probably consider Peters memoirs of greater accuracy than his own.

dm: 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?

Being edited by a close associate of Jesus is no detriment to accuracy in fact it increases its accuracy. See above there is no real evidence for a second version of Matthew.

 

[doubtingmerle]

However, I think that what you're missing is God's ability to reconstitute a physical body for the soul of a human being, a body clearly not identical to the original one--but one transcending mortality in every respect. And God can do this at any time He sees fit to do so, even if the original materials are not present.

Wait, you just echoed what Carrier and I say that Paul said, that the earthly body dies and decays, and God gives a new spiritual body. The old body is left behind in the grave. Why do you say I am missing this?

The point is, in order to believe this, Paul did not need to believe the corpse disappeared.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Wait, you just echoed what Carrier and I say that Paul said, that the earthly body dies and decays, and God gives a new spiritual body. The old body is left behind in the grave. Why do you say I am missing this?

The point is, in order to believe this, Paul did not need to believe the corpse disappeared.

Ok, Merle. I'll leave the issue open. I think you can figure out the difference between what I've said and what you and Carrier have said.

 

[doubtingmerle]

There are also ancient copies with the other reading.

What is your source? My source say all the early copies of Luke 3:22 have the phrase "this day have I begotten thee" at the baptism.

And in the books of Matthew and Mark (both of which are older than Luke) the other reading is used so most likely that is the correct reading since they are two older independent sources.

What does that have to do with anything? The gospels frequently contradict each other. So one cannot say that Luke 3:22 does not say what the oldest copies say since other gospels differ. In many places the gospels contradict.

But even if the reading about being begotten on the day of baptism is correct, that potentially changes no major doctrine. Since that day was the first public acknowledgement by God the Father of Jesus as His only begotten son, that is probably what it means. Not that He was literally begotten that day. Obviously He was not since He was probably over 30 years old. in addition, there is no mention of adoption in that reading of the verse that is just an assumption.

I had no question that you would be able to come up with an interpretation to explain it away by saying Luke wouldn't have really meant what he said. We have found that throughout this thread. You tell us that when Paul says he was not taught the gospel by anyone, that means he was. You tell us when Paul says flesh will not enter heaven, that means it does. So when you tell us there are no major edits, I understand that to mean there are no edits that you cannot somehow make them out to say what you need them to say.

Evidence that the gospels were largely unknown during that time?

In the time period from 70 to 140 AD, we have several Christian writings, but none that clearly quote the gospels. Contrast that with writings after 180 AD, where we find many quotes of the four gospels.

Actually there was no actual gospel of the ebionites, that is just a term used by scholars to identify a few fragments of a text mentioned by Epiphanus that he identifies with the ebionites and Matthew. So the fact that that a few fragments of an unknown text don't mention the virgin birth is irrelevant to whether the Gospel of Luke was edited.

Uh, no that was a term used by by ancient writers who refer to it as The Gospel of the Ebionites and quote it. Their quotes show the book is very similar to Matthew, but distinctly different in the verses they quote. They say it does not include the virgin birth. The most likely expanation for this is that this book was a variant of the book of Matthew.

And even if it was intentional it only dates to 150 AD long after the true gospels were written so its historicity is very weak.

Oh, for crying out loud. How in the heck would you know that?

We know of the Gospel of the Ebionites because a later writer quotes it. He does not tell us when it was written. Based on this, how can you possibly know it was written in 150 AD? Although the first copy of Matthew was probably before 90 AD, we don't know what it looked like. It is possible it looked more like the gospel of the Ebionites than the modern Gospel of Matthew, and that the modern Gospel of Matthew actually has more edits than the Gospel of the Ebionites.

 

[doubtingmerle]

Ok, Merle. I'll leave the issue open. I think you can figure out the difference between what I've said and what you and Carrier have said.

Ah, so you will play a game of cat and mouse. You will tell us you differ with my views that Paul taught a second body after death, but it is up to me to figure out where the difference is.

I am not biting. If you have something to say, say it.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Ah, so you will play a game of cat and mouse. You will tell us you differ with my views that Paul taught a second body after death, but it is up to me to figure out where the difference is.

I am not biting. If you have something to say, say it.

And I'm not biting your avoidance of the many things I've already stated. Don't dare read the James Ware article that I cited, whatever you do!

 

[doubtingmerle]

However, I think that what you're missing is God's ability to reconstitute a physical body for the soul of a human being, a body clearly not identical to the original one--but one transcending mortality in every respect. And God can do this at any time He sees fit to do so, even if the original materials are not present.

OK, so you support the two body hypothesis for Paul. You think Paul lived in one earthly body, and that body died and decayed. Then God makes Paul a second, different body that lives forever. That is the two body view. That is what Carrier thinks Paul teaches.

So, if the two body view applies to Paul, why can it not be that Paul thought the two body view applied to Jesus?

 

[doubtingmerle]

And God can do this at any time He sees fit to do so, even if the original materials are not present.

I guess that is one difference between you and Carrier. Carrier sees that Paul expected to get his new body soon after death. You say Paul might be waiting around as a disembodied spirit for 2000 years before getting his new body. Either way, Paul has one body on earth, and a second, different body in heaven. Likewise, Paul might have thought Jesus had one body on earth and a second, different body in heaven, leaving the old body behind in the grave.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

OK, so you support the two body hypothesis for Paul. You think Paul lived in one earthly body, and that body died and decayed. Then God makes Paul a second, different body that lives forever. That is the two body view. That is what Carrier thinks Paul teaches.

So, if the two body view applies to Paul, why can it not be that Paul thought the two body view applied to Jesus?

You're still not getting it, and I thought I explained to you already in a couple of my earlier posts. Which is strange since you seem to be an educated guy.

As I said earlier: Jesus got His body now because He was innocent and the Son of God............so He was raised, both body and soul, together, a few days after His crucifixion and burial. We, on the other hand, being sinners, don't get the benefit of resurrection 'now' because we are sinners in need of the redemption of our bodies and souls. So, God has set a date, at some undisclosed moment in the future, when we who believe will be "given back" a physical body to enclose our souls. This isn't rocket science, Merle. (And all of this reflects the general Jewish expectation of resurrection for a corporate Israel, even though the Christian version, and that of Paul, is a derivative of it. Paul, by the way, also expects for "creation" (nature) to receive some kind of revivification as well. Which is strange, because nature is physical and isn't going to be imparted some "spiritual body.")

Does this make sense yet, Merle? Jesus: innocent (immediate reward). Us: not innocent (delayed reward).

 

[2PhiloVoid]

And yet the video you post says Paul thinks that after death the body decays, while his spirit lives on in heaven. That is exactly what I say that Paul says! So it appears you try to refute the idea of a spirit living on in heaven without the earthly body, and you call that Hellenistic Dualism, and say Paul would never believe Hellenistic Dualism, and then you post a video that says exactly what you say Paul would never believe. What am I missing?

We seem to be in agreement for the first 2000 years after Paul's death. I don't agree with Paul, but I think he taught that when his body dies and decays in the ground his spirit would live on. You seem to now be saying that Paul is saying exactly the same thing! So why all this talk about Paul not possibly believing in disembodied spirits separate from the body?

Where you differ is that you think Paul says that many years later his corpse will arise to unite again with the spirit. What can that possibly even mean? Paul no longer has a corpse. It's gone. How can that corpse possibly arise?

It is reconstituted, and reconstituted in a glorified form.

If Paul has been alive some 2000 years as a spirit, is this never even mentioned in 1 Cor 15? Does that chapter just skip those 2000 years in heaven, and skip the reassembly of the decayed corpse, and jump immediately to the point where the rebuilt corpse comes to life again?

Yes, Paul skips that. He was reducing down the eschatological nature of his message to address the specific problem in the Corinthian's understanding about the resurrection. The "when" of it all wasn't important for him to state on that occasion. He was writing a letter, after all, not a dissertation.

And to put the nail on the coffin, yes Paul did think spirits were distinct from the body and could possibly do things away from the body. He writes:

I knew a man in Christ above fourteen years ago, (whether in the body, I cannot tell; or whether out of the body, I cannot tell: God knoweth; ) such an one caught up to the third heaven.
And I knew such a man, (whether in the body, or out of the body, I cannot tell: God knoweth; )
How that he was caught up into paradise, and heard unspeakable words, which it is not lawful for a man to utter. )(2 Cor 12:2-4)​

So Paul has absolutely no issue with the "Hellenistic Dualist" concept that the body could stay on earth, while the spirit went to heaven and saw things.

I never said that Paul had a problem with that in full. If you notice, I've been focusing mainly on whether Paul maintained some semblance of a Pharisaic type of expectation regarding the notion of physical resurrection. Where and what the soul is doing I haven't touched much on. As far as the soul goes, what you and I said briefly in our first few posts in this thread still applies.

So between what Paul says here and in 2 Cor 5, and what your second video says, I am not seeing much of a case for the view that Paul could not possibly believe that the spirit lives on while the body decays and is gone.

As above, I'm not concerned much as to whether Paul's meaning for the soul refers to a soul-sleep or a prolonged disembodiment.

 

[doubtingmerle]

You're still not getting it, and I thought I explained to you already in a couple of my earlier posts. Which is strange since you seem to be an educated guy.

As I said earlier: Jesus got His body now because He was innocent and the Son of God............so He was raised, both body and soul, together, a few days after His crucifixion and burial. We, on the other hand, being sinners, don't get the benefit of resurrection 'now' because we are sinners in need of the redemption of our bodies and souls. So, God has set a date, at some undisclosed moment in the future, when we who believe will be "given back" a physical body to enclose our souls. This isn't rocket science, Merle. (And all of this reflects the general Jewish expectation of resurrection for a corporate Israel, even though the Christian version, and that of Paul, is a derivative of it. Paul, by the way, also expects for "creation" (nature) to receive some kind of revivification as well. Which is strange, because nature is physical and isn't going to be imparted some "spiritual body.")

Does this make sense yet, Merle? Jesus: innocent (immediate reward). Us: not innocent (delayed reward).

Ah we were sinners, so all need to wait to be given a new body. Those sinners who died 2000 years ago need to wait 2000+ years, and those who die today much less, not sure why, but that must be the way it is, huh?

Whatever. The time delay is not the point. The point is that Paul has two bodies in this view, one earthly body that decays, and one new body that he gets in heaven while his earthly body continues to decay. I am wondering how you know Paul did not think Jesus also had two bodies--one earthly body that decays and disappears, and a second heavenly body that lasts forever?

 

[doubtingmerle]

It is reconstituted, and reconstituted in a glorified form.

But Paul's corpse is gone. How is it being reconstituted? You seem to be saying that God gives Paul a second body because the first body is decayed and gone.

So again, if Paul believed that God would let his body decay and decompose, and believe God will reconstitute a second glorified body for Paul to live in, how do you know Paul did not think the same of Jesus, that the first body decayed and decomposed, while God reconstituted him a second body?

This is the problem. Paul's emphasis is that Jesus was the first fruits, and an example of our resurrection, but the resurrections you describe are quite different. For Jesus, you say the corpse itself is changed to a glorified body, and never fully decays. For Paul, you say the body decays, decomposes, vanishes, and Paul gets a second body made for him.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

But Paul's corpse is gone. How is it being reconstituted? You seem to be saying that God gives Paul a second body because the first body is decayed and gone.

So again, if Paul believed that God would let his body decay and decompose, and believe God will reconstitute a second glorified body for Paul to live in, how do you know Paul did not think the same of Jesus, that the first body decayed and decomposed, while God reconstituted him a second body?

This is the problem. Paul's emphasis is that Jesus was the first fruits, and an example of our resurrection, but the resurrections you describe are quite different. For Jesus, you say the corpse itself is changed to a glorified body, and never fully decays. For Paul, you say the body decays, decomposes, vanishes, and Paul gets a second body made for him.

Yep. That's about it. And since you're seemingly reluctant to read, watch, or astutely consider the articles and/or sources I've offered thus far, there's probably little point in me carrying on in this thread. It seems like you want me to absorb ALL of your information and consider it deeply, but you don't think you have to reciprocate on that same point. So, since this seems to be the case, I think I'll bow out at this time, and maybe at some point I'll take up one of your other threads for further discussion.

Peace,
2PhiloVoid

 

[Ed1wolf]

Huh, Acts 9 and Acts 22 use the same Greek words. Acts 9 says the people with Paul did hear the voice (akouō phōnē), but Acts 22 says they did not hear the voice
(akouō
οὐ
phōnē).


So did they akouō phōnē or not? (See Acts Chapter 9 (KJV) , Acts Chapter 22 (KJV) )

You have to understand the context, since both statements were made by the same person and recorded by the same person, then it is unlikely they would contradict themselves and the word itself can literally mean that they just didn't understand the voice then that is most likely the correct interpretation.

 

[Ed1wolf]

Ed1wolf said: ↑
First, Forrest Gump is based on an intentional fictional novel, intentional fiction was not invented until the 13th century. So Acts could not be intentional fiction.

dm: Please, this thread is intended for serious discussion. Surely you must know about ancient mythology that was intended to be fiction. There are many fictional gospels about Jesus. It is obvious most of these were not even intending to say the truth.

I am referring to both what the writer believed and what they are trying to convey to the readers. Most ancient myths were meant to be believed as true and some were believed as true by both the reader and the writer. Some were just to teach some truth or message they felt was important like a fable or parable and not meant to be literally true. But none are intentionally fiction just for fictions sake until the middle ages. Most of the fictional gospels about Jesus were believed to be true by the both the writer and the reader because most of them were written by people that did not have a connection with the orthodox church and its teachers or they did not want to believe orthodox teaching for some reason or felt orthodoxy had gotten corrupted.

dm: Historians know that the record is filled with intentional fiction. You will read of peoples writing of great victories in wars, while the other side doesn't even know that great defeat happened. Obviously one side of the other is writing intentional fiction. So historians try to sort it out, and figure out who is writing fiction.

Yes, these are cases where the writer wanted the reader to think it was true, but not like a novel where they are intentionally writing fiction and knows the reader will know it is fiction.

ed: Second, Forrest Gump has been dated to the late 20th century and has events recorded in it that occurred 25-40 years earlier, thereby proving that probably a good number of the producers of FG were not alive or not adults when those events occurred. Acts was probably written within 10-15 years of the events that it records, therefore the writer probably had actual experience of the "secular" events he records. This is how all ancient documents are determined to be historically accurate.

dm: Huh? If a movie about a historical event is made 40 years after the event, then it cannot be historical? I disagree.

I am not talking about intentional fiction/movies I am talking about ancient documents.

dm: Forrest Gump is fiction because it is obviously intended to be fiction, not because it was written 40 years after the time period of the movie.

True but that is one piece of evidence why it is not fact. And Luke and Acts were obviously written to be a historical record as seen in Chapter 1 of both books.

ed: Acts was probably written within 10-15 years of the events that it records, therefore the writer probably had actual experience of the "secular" events he records. This is how all ancient documents are determined to be historically accurate.

dm: Flapdoodle. Please show me one historian that says, if a writing is 10-15 years after an event, that it is therefore historically accurate. Where in the heck are you getting this stuff?

Talk to your local university history professor, he will tell you that if you have two ancient documents and one is written within 10 years of an event and one is written 100 years after the event, generally the one written closer to the event is considered more accurate. This is historical documents 101. You deny this? In addition, we have extant documents of Luke within 250 years of he events, but the Gallic War extant documents are 900 years after the events. How much editing do you think can occur in 900 years? And yet the Gallic Wars are considered pretty accurate. The only reason you question Luke and Acts is your anti supernatural bias.

ed: No, Luke was most likely written around 62 AD, long before Josephus.

dm: The link I posted had multiple arguments showing why Luke was after Josephus. Are you going to ignore everything I write unless I cut and paste it ten or fiteen times unto this thread?

None of them were very convincing. Scholars have demonstrated the nativities of John the Baptist and Jesus in the first two Chapters are among the most archaic sections of the NT. And being from Antioch he had access to the early founders of the Antiochene Church among many other sources including Peter. The great historian Sir William Ramsay has stated that "Luke is a historian of the first rank.."

 

[doubtingmerle]

Yep. That's about it. And since you're seemingly reluctant to read, watch, or astutely consider the articles and/or sources I've offered thus far, there's probably little point in me carrying on in this thread.

Oh puhleeze. I watched one of your movies. But I am not going to watch hour on end of movies if you won't answer some basic questions.

You say Paul survived as a disembodied spirit for some 2000 years or more, then God will make him a second body that will then get modified and his disembodied spirit will come back into that second body and inhabit it for eternity. I think maybe Paul thought his new body would be made in far less than 2000 years, and that his second body did not necessarily need to begin with a physical body. But those are details.

You see that Paul will have two bodies, an earthly body that decays to nothing, and a second body created for him for eternity. I still would like to know how you are certain that Paul did not think the same thing applied to Jesus.

And regarding the article you posted, I don't have access to it. I would look at it and comment on it is I had access.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Oh puhleeze. I watched one of your movies. But I am not going to watch hour on end of movies if you won't answer some basic questions.

On that first video, you only really need to watch the last fifteen minutes.

You say Paul survived as a disembodied spirit for some 2000 years or more, then God will make him a second body that will then get modified and his disembodied spirit will come back into that second body and inhabit it for eternity. I think maybe Paul thought his new body would be made in far less than 2000 years, and that his second body did not necessarily need to begin with a physical body. But those are details.

No... ....I'm under the impression that Paul thinks he'll get his body back at "the resurrection," which happens at the same time (approximately) as the renewal of creation (see Romans 8:18-26).

You see that Paul will have two bodies, an earthly body that decays to nothing, and a second body created for him for eternity. I still would like to know how you are certain that Paul did not think the same thing applied to Jesus.

I'm not for "certain," since I agree that the language Paul uses is less than what we'd all like it to be. But when I take into consideration the historical circumstances he lived in, along with a study of the underlying Greek language behind the English texts and other exegetical and contextual considerations, it seems to me to be much more plausible to interpret Paul along the lines that I have given.

And regarding the article you posted, I don't have access to it. I would look at it and comment on it is I had access.

Maybe I'll be nice and try to summarize it for you since you probably do have to have access to a database through a university or library to get it.

I've got some other articles that are accessible through google that I might link for you as well. They pertain to Romans 8:18-26. Also, we can also talk about that R.M. Price article at some point too. As I said earlier in a previous post, I read it thoroughly, and I've gotten about half way through the Carrier - O'Connel debate (I read the Carrier portions, but I might go back and see what O'Connell has to say).

So, yes, I'm going to hold my ground on Paul. I've got lots more sources and pieces we can delve into. As Princess Leia told Han and Luke after escaping from the Death Star, "It's not over yet!"

Peace,
2PhiloVoid

 

[doubtingmerle]

I am referring to both what the writer believed and what they are trying to convey to the readers. Most ancient myths were meant to be believed as true and some were believed as true by both the reader and the writer.

It is very hard to judge the intents of ancient writers from their books, so we really don't know if they were intending to write fiction. It seems that as the myths developed, surely some people were at least partially aware that what they were adding to the myths was simply made up. Whether the writers that wrote the myths believed them is difficult to say.

And yes, many ancient readers apparently believed most anything they read in books.

Some were just to teach some truth or message they felt was important like a fable or parable and not meant to be literally true. But none are intentionally fiction just for fictions sake until the middle ages.

And the case can be made that Mark was a parable to convey a truth, as opposed to history. I discussed that in detail in another thread, and prefer to keep this thread on topic for the resurrection.

And Luke and Acts were obviously written to be a historical record as seen in Chapter 1 of both books.

The writer of Luke/Acts throws on a veneer of history to the gospels she received, yes. That does not change the fact that much of what she adds appears to be fabrications.

Talk to your local university history professor, he will tell you that if you have two ancient documents and one is written within 10 years of an event and one is written 100 years after the event, generally the one written closer to the event is considered more accurate. This is historical documents 101. You deny this?

Of course not. I certainly do not deny that books written close to an event tend to be more accurate than books written a century later.

But there are exceptions.

In addition, we have extant documents of Luke within 250 years of he events, but the Gallic War extant documents are 900 years after the events. How much editing do you think can occur in 900 years? And yet the Gallic Wars are considered pretty accurate.

I don't know the details of this particular document, but I know that, in general a copy of a copy of a document is considered of some historical value if the original is thought to be an informed document based on accurate sources, and the suspected chain of custody indicates it was probably accurately copied. If that document is accompanied by multiple collaborating evidence, then the event can be considered likely history.

We do not have this for the four gospels. See The Rubicon Analogy in Why I Don't Buy the Resurrection Story .

The only reason you question Luke and Acts is your anti supernatural bias.

Please do not make up motives for me. I do not make up motives for you.

I gave you a link that lists many of the reasons I doubt Acts. If you disagree, we can discuss.

Please go by what I actually say, not by the fictions you make up about me. We will get nowhere if you make up motives and pretend they are true.

Scholars have demonstrated the nativities of John the Baptist and Jesus in the first two Chapters are among the most archaic sections of the NT.

I would love to know their reasoning. The nativities of Jesus mentioned in Luke correlates very poorly with Matthew, and the nativity of John the Baptist does even show up in earlier gospels. I would say this is one point where Luke's historicity is most in doubt.