Are there credible witnesses to the resurrection?

[mark kennedy]

Mark, thank you again for coming in and taking my side on this. I was getting tired of hearing Quid say how Paul could not possibly be talking of a disembodied spirit surviving to live in a new body.

I'm not getting that from anything he said, he seems focused on the fact of the bodily resurrection.

Please understand that the purpose of my questions is to understand, not to mock. When I ask direct questions, I would like direct answers.

Now I'm confused, you do seem to mock at the resurrection in light of being absent from the body present with the Lord.

OK, but I asked you a direct question. Figurative language about Paul wearing figurative white clothes in heaven does not answer my question as to what body you think Paul now has.

He doesn't, that's fulfilled at the end of the age.

I am going to guess that you think he is a disembodied spirit with no body.

I don't want to be rude, your obviously trying to be a gentleman about this but the word, 'duh' comes to mind. How someone could miss this from the straight forward testimony of Scripture is a complete and utter mystery to me. Paul is awaiting the resurrection.

Not all Christians believe this. Some teach that the soul sleeps until the resurrection.

Yes, the Jehovahs Witnesses who are a cult.

Some teach that the soul immediately goes to heaven and walks around heaven in his new body immediately, never coming back for the body in the grave.

I'm not familiar with them, your going to have to provide a few more details.

So when I hear these different things and I ask, it is because I expect an honest answer. I don't need figurative talk or angry refusal to answer. I simply would like a respectful answer.

That was a respectful answer, they were given robes. I don't get to wander the courts of heaven seeing how things are with the believers who went before me. I know the Scriptures and I know the doctrine of the resurrection and that's going to have to be good enough because that's the witness of Christian faith.

Excuse me, I have done no mocking. If you think I have done mocking, please post those words back to which you object. If I agree it is mocking, I will apologize. But in the absence of all evidence, I will wait for actual evidence of your claim.

I don't know that you would agree but this is what I'm talking about:

The concept that Paul would be dead for centuries, that his body would be gone, that his spirit would not exist any more, but that God will make a brand new duplicate of Paul's body and call it Paul is ridiculous, but that appears to be what you are saying. If this is not what you are saying, please, please make an attempt to tell us where you think Paul is now and how he could possibly live again if his body is gone.

Huh? I brought the subject up of the different views of resurrection and mentioned this long before in this thread. So when I am the one that brought this up, how can you say I am not acknowledging the very thing I brought up?

The core belief of Christians everywhere, through the last two thousand years is that the resurrection is a bodily one. You cannot seriously be pretending that you have never heard of this.

The key word there is "a". Paul's body is gone, but you think he will return to get "a" body.

Yes, as did Paul.

In other words, you agree with me. Paul thought that he had a spirit that would survive death, and be given a new body. We agree.

Yes, just not some celestial body that is some convoluted mysticism from some ridiculous pagan mystery religion.

But Quid argued against the concept that a spirit could survive without a body and then be given a new body. That was what this whole debate with him has been about. So I find it odd that you come on board supporting that Paul says what I say he says, in spite of Quid proclaiming that Paul could not possibly be saying that.

Quid is arguing for the bodily resurrection of Christ and the dead respectively as far as I can tell. If he argued something else I completely missed it. Could you manage a quote?

Again, thank you for coming on and taking my side on this.

Sure, no problem, you need all the help you can get.

The issue before us is not whether the miracle is incomphensible. The issue is whether Paul says he will be dead until the old body is raised, or if Paul thought his spirit could live on even as his old body decays and disappears.

You said that as if it were two different things. The old body does decay and disappear but he is still raised at the return of Christ. This is as basic as it gets, there is no genuine confusion.

Since you believe that Paul thought his spirit could survive outside the body, to be united to a new body at the resurrection, why could he not have thought that Jesus' spirit could survive outside his body to be united to a new body at the resurrection?

Paul did believe that he would receive a new body at the resurrection, he also believed that Christ's body was raised on the third day. The spirit of Jesus did survive, it did return to his body. The spirit of Paul did leave his body, it did survive and it will return at the resurrection.

This is as basic as it gets, do you honestly believe Christians are this confused about their core doctrines? Seriously?

I have one question for you, would you like to argue this formally? Because I would love it.

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[doubtingmerle]

Actually what is being suggested, what is pretty obvious, is that the Pharisees believed in the resurrection.

Sorry, I think you missed the whole point. Quid and I were having a discussion on the philosophy of life after death.

Let's lay aside any skepticism for a moment about miracles and assume God raises Paul up from the dead a couple of years from now. There he is. Paul. He says he is Paul. Everybody agrees he is Paul. God says he is Paul. There he is. Risen. Now there are two views as to how this could come about, and that is what Quid and I were discussing. I will call them the blue view and the red view, and describe them in color coded text below.

First the blue view. This view says that people have a body and a soul. Paul's body died, but his soul survived and went to heaven. God then will give him (or already has given him) a new body. Whether this body is past or future is immaterial to the discussion. Whether this body is exactly like other human bodies, or made of indestructible atoms, or made of anti-matter, or is made of some sort of spiritual stuff is not the issue. The blue view states that Paul's soul came out of his old body, and lives forever in a new body or rebuilt body that God gives him.

Now the red view. The red view says that people have a body and that is it. There is no soul. Paul died. So sad, too bad, Paul is dead. There is no soul to survive. Weeks later his body is badly decayed. So sad, too bad, Paul is dead. No soul, no Paul. Then suddenly, a miracle, the decay process reverses, and up pops Paul, as though it had only been a coma.

So which way is it? I understand Greeks and many Christians would have been open to the blue view. The Pharisee leaders supported the red view. That has been the debate here. I argue that Paul supported the blue view. Quid argued that Paul could have never, ever questioned the Pharisee position on this, and so therefore supported the red view.

The red view has an obvious flaw that it is possible only while the body still exists. Once the body is completely gone, it is logically impossible. If the body is gone, and Paul is not even alive in spirit, then all God could possibly do is build a replica of Paul. But building a replica of Paul, and saying that this is Paul is sheer silliness. It would not be Paul, any more than an identical twin or clone would be Paul. It would be a replica of Paul.

But you have come on strongly for a version of the blue view, arguing that soul survival is the only Christian view. I think you overstate your case. Some Christians do support the red view. But you support the blue view. And so does Ed. Quid argued on the other side, that Paul supported the red view.

And in spite of Quid's lengthy arguments that Paul taught the red view, Quid himself seems to support the blue view. I think that may be why he got so upset when I asked him his views. I thought asking him for his views would be the same as asking him for what he thought Paul was saying. I think now he is saying that he differs with Paul, that he personally believes the blue view, while thinking Paul taught the red. That really put him in a bind, for his very arguments seem to be undermining the New Testament.

So anyway, you, Ed and I all think Paul taught the some version of the blue view, regardless of Quid's arguments.

The philosophy of death is very interesting. Is there a soul? How would we define that a resurrected person is the same person as the one who died? Interested readers might want to view the excellent on line course by Yale professor Shelly Kagan available for free at Open Yale Courses.

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

Doubting Merle, you have been spreading a miasma of misinformation here.

I am largely in accord with Mark Kennedy here, Paul receiving a glorified body at the parousia and being with Jesus at death.
I repeatedly spoke of Christ-in-us, our OT 'ruach' becoming of Christ and thus surviving as the dead in Christ, but gaining a Nephesh at the parousia.
I even posted two articles explaining this in depth. This accords with the Pharisee view of a bodily resurrection, which of course entailed Nephesh and Ruach conceptualisations.

Yet somehow you have concocted some Shibboleth in your mind and ascribed it to me as some heresiarch, the 'red view' you here stated. The red view if anything sounds more Sadducee, at least initially. This clearly shows that you are either being duplicitous, lack comprehension or failed to read anything I wrote.

Please stop besmirching my name by ascribing views to me that do not accord with what I said in any way, shape or form. Luckily the other participants of this thread seem to be able to read and realise your characterisation is erroneous. There are anyway far more views than the two you propose.

Once again though, I am tired of the mendacity.

Good day Sir.

 

[mark kennedy]

Sorry, I think you missed the whole point. Quid and I were having a discussion on the philosophy of life after death.

I didn't miss it, that's what we have been talking about for a couple of pages now. You seem to think by wording the questions around someone is going to accept that the soul must have some mystical spiritual body, it's just not true. Christians who are rooted and grounded are comfortable with, 'absent from the body, present with the Lord'. What's more we know that the resurrection happens at the end of the age. Of course this is about life after death, that's what we've been talking about.

Let's lay aside any skepticism for a moment about miracles and assume God raises Paul up from the dead a couple of years from now. There he is. Paul. He says he is Paul. Everybody agrees he is Paul. God says he is Paul. There he is. Risen. Now there are two views as to how this could come about, and that is what Quid and I were discussing. I will call them the blue view and the red view, and describe them in color coded text below.

Something has to happen before I have such an encounter, it's called the Parousia, consider the answer to this question:

And as he sat upon the mount of Olives, the disciples came unto him privately, saying, Tell us, when shall these things be? and what shall be the sign of thy coming, and of the end of the world? (Matt. 24:3)​

See also, Matthew 24:27, 37, 39; 1 Corinthians 15:23; 1 Thessalonians 2:19; 3:13; 4:15; 5:23; 2 Thessalonians 2:1, 8, 9; James 5:7, 8; 2 Peter 1:16; 3:4, 12; 1 John 2:28.

First the blue view. This view says that people have a body and a soul. Paul's body died, but his soul survived and went to heaven. God then will give him (or already has given him) a new body. Whether this body is past or future is immaterial to the discussion. Whether this body is exactly like other human bodies, or made of indestructible atoms, or made of anti-matter, or is made of some sort of spiritual stuff is not the issue. The blue view states that Paul's soul came out of his old body, and lives forever in a new body or rebuilt body that God gives him.

Now the red view. The red view says that people have a body and that is it. There is no soul. Paul died. So sad, too bad, Paul is dead. There is no soul to survive. Weeks later his body is badly decayed. So sad, too bad, Paul is dead. No soul, no Paul. Then suddenly, a miracle, the decay process reverses, and up pops Paul, as though it had only been a coma.

So which way is it? I understand Greeks and many Christians would have been open to the blue view. The Pharisee leaders supported the red view. That has been the debate here. I argue that Paul supported the blue view. Quid argued that Paul could have never, ever questioned the Pharisee position on this, and so therefore supported the red view.

Now you did it, or I guess I should say you did it again. He's not denying the resurrection, as a matter of fact his profession is standard Christian conviction, The word 'ruach' is used to speak of the Holy Spirit that never had a human body, just as the spirit of Paul can exist apart from his physical frame:

"The Spirit (H7307 רוּחַ ruwach) of God was hovering over the surface of the waters." (Genesis 1:2)

"Behold, my Servant whom I uphold...I have put my Spirit (H7307 רוּחַ ruwach) upon him." (Isaiah 42:1)

"And the scroll of the prophet Isaiah was handed to him, and he opened the scroll and found the place where it was written: The Spirit (H7307 רוּחַ ruwach) of YHVH is upon me, because he has anointed me." (Luke 4:17-18; Isa 61:1) (see also: Gen. 1:2; Gen. 41:28; Exod. 31:2; 35:31; Num. 24:2; 1 Sam. 10:10; 11:6; 16:15, 23; 18:19; 19:20, 23; 2 Chr. 15:1; 2 Chr. 24:20)
​

Contrasting that with the breath of life breath (nephesh H5315 נֶפֶשׁ), thus demonstrating the contrast between the spirit which is eternal and the breath of life which is temporal. You just pretend like you didn't hear it, that's not that he didn't say it.

I am largely in accord with Mark Kennedy here, Paul receiving a glorified body at the parousia and being with Jesus at death.
I repeatedly spoke of Christ-in-us, our OT 'ruach' becoming of Christ and thus surviving as the dead in Christ, but gaining a Nephesh at the parousia.

I even posted two articles explaining this in depth. This accords with the Pharisee view of a bodily resurrection, which of course entailed Nephesh and Ruach conceptualisations.

Yet somehow you have concocted some Shibboleth in your mind and ascribed it to me as some heresiarch, the 'red view' you here stated. The red view if anything sounds more Sadducee, at least initially. This clearly shows that you are either being duplicitous, lack comprehension or failed to read anything I wrote.

He used the OT word 'ruach' to speak of the spirit, that part of Paul that left his body and is now present with the Lord

The red view has an obvious flaw that it is possible only while the body still exists. Once the body is completely gone, it is logically impossible. If the body is gone, and Paul is not even alive in spirit, then all God could possibly do is build a replica of Paul. But building a replica of Paul, and saying that this is Paul is sheer silliness. It would not be Paul, any more than an identical twin or clone would be Paul. It would be a replica of Paul.

Your first of all creating a false dilemma, there is no reason to conclude that Paul cannot exist when the body is gone. Again, you are denying the very words of Paul that said, 'absent from the body, present with the Lord'. Now you may consider that impossible but Christians believe it, Quid believes it and Paul certainly believed it. That makes you an unbeliever, you don't get to impose your fallacious logic on others.

But you have come on strongly for a version of the blue view, arguing that soul survival is the only Christian view. I think you overstate your case. Some Christians do support the red view. But you support the blue view. And so does Ed. Quid argued on the other side, that Paul supported the red view.

Paul believed in the bodily resurrection, all the color coding in the world doesn't change that. Paul didn't believe that the soul perished at death but that it went to the Lord. Your setting up this ridiculous strawman argument that only you are arguing for and against.

And in spite of Quid's lengthy arguments that Paul taught the red view, Quid himself seems to support the blue view. I think that may be why he got so upset when I asked him his views. I thought asking him for his views would be the same as asking him for what he thought Paul was saying. I think now he is saying that he differs with Paul, that he personally believes the blue view, while thinking Paul taught the red. That really put him in a bind, for his very arguments seem to be undermining the New Testament.

That's a false dilemma, you have tried to sneak in an absurd qualifier thinking no one would notice your pushing soul death. Your equivocating physical death with spiritual death and I know why. Carrier wants people to believe that Paul was teaching a celestial death burial and resurrection and it was later developed into a false historical narrative. He uses the example of Romulus. If you want to compare the stories of Romulus and Jesus then get on with it, if you want to compare mystery religions with biblical Christianity I will be happy to have that conversation. Just dispense with these pointless fallacious arguments and stand by your thesis like someone who has the courage of his convictions.

So anyway, you, Ed and I all think Paul taught the some version of the blue view, regardless of Quid's arguments.

Quid tried to teach you something about the Old Testament and introduced a couple of important terms to expand your understanding. You have refused his generous offer and twisted into a fallacious word salad argument. That's all that's going on here, just you popping smoke thinking we are going to chase your arguments like ghosts in the fog. We're not, we are sitting on the side waiting for the smoke to clear and you to realize your rhetorical trap failed.

The philosophy of death is very interesting. Is there a soul? How would we define that a resurrected person is the same person as the one who died? Interested readers might want to view the excellent on line course by Yale professor Shelly Kagan available for free at Open Yale Courses.

Now that does sound interesting, I'll check it out this weekend. Love that kind of stuff, I learned genetics listening to an open course from MIT. Eric Lander did a fascinating discussion on Mendel. At any rate, thanks for that.

As far as your argument, if you want to create a smoke screen and run in circles around it be my guest. I'll be sitting here waiting when your done.

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[doubtingmerle]

Doubting Merle, you have been spreading a miasma of misinformation here.

So sorry if I offended you. I am only trying to understand you. As you know I have been asking you about what you thought Paul was saying. I was doing that, not as gotcha questions, but in an attempt to understand you. I asked the same questions several times, not because I was trying to trap you, but trying to understand you. You refused to answer. So I did my best attempt at guessing what you were saying, based on what I had read here.

Again, I made absolutely no attempt to misrepresent you.

In the future, when I ask you questions, if you would kindly answer, it would make it much easier for me to understand you.

I am largely in accord with Mark Kennedy here, Paul receiving a glorified body at the parousia and being with Jesus at death. I repeatedly spoke of Christ-in-us, our OT 'ruach' becoming of Christ and thus surviving as the dead in Christ, but gaining a Nephesh at the parousia.

OK, so you think Paul's spirit survived the death of his body, that his body has decayed, and that he will be given a new body. That is what I have been saying that Paul says! So you are in agreement with me that Paul says his body will decay, his spirit will survive outside his earthly body, and he will be given a new body? Great! After all that debate, you really agree with me on these points.

So now that we agree that Paul says that his spirit will survive death, and be given a new body at the resurrection, we can get back to my original question before this long sidebar. If Paul believed that his resurrection was a matter of his spirit going into a new body, then could it be that Paul thought the resurrection of Jesus was a matter of Christ's spirit going into a new body?

Yet somehow you have concocted some Shibboleth in your mind and ascribed it to me as some heresiarch, the 'red view' you here stated. The red view if anything sounds more Sadducee, at least initially. This clearly shows that you are either being duplicitous, lack comprehension or failed to read anything I wrote.

Please, please refrain from personal attacks. No I did not concoct a duplicitous misrepresentation of you. I was truly trying to understand you, but that is hard when your writings are confusing me and you refuse to answer my questions when I seek clarification.

 

[doubtingmerle]

Mark,

Please read my posts more carefully. Most of your comments assume I am saying the exact opposite of what I say.

I am trying to make myself understood. Do you have any suggestions on how I can make myself clearer? Because I say the same things over and over, and in response, people tell me I am saying the exact opposite. What is going on around here?

You seem to think by wording the questions around someone is going to accept that the soul must have some mystical spiritual body, it's just not true.

Huh? Are you serious or joking?

My point is that Paul thought his body would decay and his spirit would survive, to live on in another body.

Your first of all creating a false dilemma, there is no reason to conclude that Paul cannot exist when the body is gone. Again, you are denying the very words of Paul that said, 'absent from the body, present with the Lord'.

Huh? Why would I try to persuade people that Paul did not think he would survive after his body is gone? My very point is that I think Paul thought he would survive after his body is gone! So why do you say my point is the opposite of what I say? Hello?

Paul didn't believe that the soul perished at death but that it went to the Lord. Your setting up this ridiculous strawman argument that only you are arguing for and against.

I never ever said that Paul thought his soul perished at death.
I never ever said that Paul thought his soul perished at death.

Do you need me to repeat that a hundred times for your benefit?

My point is that Paul thought his soul would survive death. Why do you make up the exact opposite of what I say, and pretend I said that?

That's a false dilemma, you have tried to sneak in an absurd qualifier thinking no one would notice your pushing soul death. Your equivocating physical death with spiritual death and I know why.

Wait what? You think I am secretly sneaking in absurd qualifiers to make people think I am saying the exact opposite of what I am saying?

Rolling on the floor laughing!

Please go by what I actually say, instead of making up that I am inserting absurd qualifiers to say the opposite of what I say.

Did I enter the joke forum by mistake?

Carrier wants people to believe that Paul was teaching a celestial death burial and resurrection and it was later developed into a false historical narrative. He uses the example of Romulus. If you want to compare the stories of Romulus and Jesus then get on with it, if you want to compare mystery religions with biblical Christianity I will be happy to have that conversation. Just dispense with these pointless fallacious arguments and stand by your thesis like someone who has the courage of his convictions.

Excuse me but I think I have said a hundred times on this thread that I discussed the mythical Jesus on another thread, and I am trying my best to keep that topic on that thread. I am trying to keep the threads separate, with this thread only discussing the question of if there are credible witnesses to a physical resurrection.

I am trying to keep the mythical Jesus topic to another thread.
I am trying to keep the mythical Jesus topic to another thread.
I am trying to keep the mythical Jesus topic to another thread.

I have said that over and over again. How many more times to you want me to repeat it. I can cut and paste as many times as you want.

Why after all those repeats do you pretend I am trying to do the exact opposite of what I say?

 

[doubtingmerle]

Well that sure has been a surprising change of events!

I have been arguing ad nauseam that Paul taught that his body would decay, that his spirit would survive, and that he would live forever in a new body. I have taken all kinds of flak for that, and now, all of a sudden everybody decides they believe that too. And in response they decided to tell me I no longer believe what I have been arguing for. No, I am told, that is their position, so I must have a different position.

Strange, strange place this is.

At any rate, I have been arguing that Paul taught "the blue view", which I repeat here:

This view says that people have a body and a soul. Paul's body died, but his soul survived and went to heaven. God then will give him (or already has given him) a new body. Whether this body is past or future is immaterial to the discussion. Whether this body is exactly like other human bodies, or made of indestructible atoms, or made of anti-matter, or is made of some sort of spiritual stuff is not the issue. The blue view states that Paul's soul came out of his old body, and lives forever in a new body or rebuilt body that God gives him.​

Now of course I disagree with Paul. I don't think anybody lives forever. But I have been arguing that Paul believed this.

And again the point: Since Paul taught that people were spirits that separate from the earthly body, and inhabit a new body in the resurrection, then is it possible that Paul thought that Jesus did the same thing, that he also abandoned his earthly body behind, and inhabited a new body, just like everybody now seems to agree that Paul taught happens for everyone else?

 

[doubtingmerle]

Ok, we are back to the gospel manuscripts. To bring people up to speed, I take the position that there may have been heavy editing of the gospels in the first century of their existence. We know from the proliferation of gospel variations that showed up in the second century that somebody was doing modifications to the texts. We also have multiple groups saying that other groups were corrupting the originals to end up with their versions. In the late second century, one group, calling themselves Orthodox, won out, and forced their versions on everyone. However groups like Marcion and the Gnostics tell us the orthodox corrupted the originals. Who really knows?

A very close analysis of it plainly points to the gospel accounts of the crucifixion. I can't help it if you can't see it.

OK, back to Clement. You tried to claim Clement mentions Matthew by name. This is totally false, and you have dropped the claim. You tried to say Clement quotes Matthew. I think this is also false. You have dropped the claim. You are backpeddling faster than a clown on a unicycle. Now you are suggesting that, in Clement 16 it points to the gospel account. I have shown you where Clement is using Isaiah and Psalms as his source for Clement 16, not the gospels. You have been asked over and over to show me the words that indicate he was using our gospels. You refuse to show that.

So the problem for you is that the church writings have virtually nothing to say about the gospels in the first and the early second centuries. You are left with pretending Clement does, but refusing to quote back where he does. I have quoted the entire chapter of Clement 16 twice to you proving it is not there. That does not seem to stop you from blindly claiming it is there, without ever attempting to support your claim. Anybody who looks at Clement 16 will clearly see that I am right.

If Justin is quoting from something different from Luke then that disproves your contention that the earliest copies of Luke use that verse. I have read the second book, and it does just like you, takes many verses out of context. And never proves that any of the minor differences between texts have any effect on Christian doctrine.

OK, now Justin. Justin in the middle of the second century quotes "Memoirs of the Apostles" which are close to our gospels but not exact. There are two views of this. One is that this he was quoting a now lost book by that name, and the other view is that the gospels Justin was quoting were versions of our gospels that were different from our versions.

One prominent example is that three times Justin says the voice at the baptism said, "This day have I begotten you". That phrase appears in none of our existing gospels, but it does appear in Justin, and in many existing ancient copies of Luke. Regardless of where Justin got this quote, that does not change the fact that this same quote is found in most of the oldest copies of Luke, making a strong case that this is what the early copy of Luke said, and somebody edited this verse later.

That IS the point it shows that if that is the correct version then it is consistent with Christian doctrine and again proves that Gods word is consistent. And that at the actual baptism all those words could have been spoken by God and it harmonizes perfectly with the other gospels.

Ah, the voice could have said both things at the baptism. That is not the point. The point is that the gospel that Justin quotes does not agree with the modern gospels.

But you just admitted above that he was not quoting from the original gospel of Luke, so that proves it did not come from the inspired original and therefore no real relevance about the canon.

Again, nobody knows what book Justin was quoting. You have long been saying he was quoting Luke, and now seem to have switched to saying he was quoting a long lost book. None of that changes the fact that, in addition to Justin, we have multiple early sources for Luke that say this verse said something else from what appears in our Bibles.

And if Justin is not quoting one of our gospels, then once again you are having a hard time finding early writers that recognized the gospels. (And please don't respond with people from the late second century once again. We know they readily quoted the gospels by then.)

See above where different witnesses notice and report different things, this is widely known in police investigative science.

Except where the witnesses contradict, that goes against the credibility of the witnesses. The original Mark, which ends at v8, for instance, says the women told nobody, but the other gospels all say they told the disciples. That is a contradiction. That indicates at least one was not saying the truth.

But the larger events that are recorded have been confirmed by archaeology and other ancient documents from the time period. That means that the events that cannot be confirmed by archaeology by definition are more likely to be accurate.

Suppose I were to write, "When Donald Trump became President, Ed1Wolf was living on the moon." One thousand years from now archaeologists find proof, in the mangled ruins of the former America that Trump destroyed, that Donald Trump was indeed president. By your logic, this post proves you were living on the moon, yes?

I disagree with your logic.

Because at the incarnation He emptied Himself of some of His divine powers, He became human and divine. As a resurrected human He needed a larynx to speak.

Ok, back to the voice that Acts reports a voice came from the heavens in what Acts describes as a heavenly vision. You say that had to come from a larynx. No it did not. There are many other explanations.

1. The writer of Acts could be wrong.
2. Paul could have lied to the author of Acts.
3. Paul could have only thought it was a voice. After all, Acts tells us nobody else heard it (although other places in Acts contradict this).
4. The voice could have come from somewhere else, say, an angel or demon impersonating Jesus.
5. One would think that if it really was Jesus speaking, that he would figure out a way to make the sound of a voice without using a larynx. Engineers can do that. One would think a man who walked on water, raised the dead, turned water to wine, muliplied loaves and fishes, and healed those born blind would be as capable as modern engineers to create a voice without a larynx. Apparently you are saying that it would have been too hard for the creator of the universe to make a voice without a larynx.​

 

[doubtingmerle]

No, in Matthew 5 Jesus did not say you need to follow all the law, He said He FULFILLED the Law and the Prophets.

I disagree. This is what Matthew 5:18-20 says:

For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.
Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.
For I say unto you, That except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven.​

That to me is a clear commandment to keep the law.

No, 17-18 refers to the entire law (ceremonial, civil and moral) and the prophets that Christ's coming will fulfill. But beginning in verse 19 he uses the term commandments, when ancient jews referred to commandments they generally meant the Moral Law. Jesus DOES say that Christians need to strive keep the moral law plus Christ's deeper explanations of it, such as lust.

Ah, you simply throw out the laws you don't like? I see nowhere that Matthew says he is asking people to follow only certain parts of the law.

Mathew also says:

Then spake Jesus to the multitude, and to his disciples,
Saying, The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses' seat:
All therefore whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and do; but do not ye after their works: for they say, and do not. (Matthew 23:1-3)​

So Matthew tells us not only to follow the entire written law of Moses, but also to follow the Oral Torah of the Pharisees.

"All", seems to me to mean all.

This contradicts Mark, which says we do not need to follow the dietary restrictions of the OT. Again, the gospels contradict each other.

 

[doubtingmerle]

OK, now back to the contradiction between Luke and Matthew. Luke says the disciples stayed in Jerusalem before Pentecost, Matthew says they were commanded to go to Galilee and went.

Maybe. Actually the link I provided provides a better refutation.

It does? I scanned down through your link-- The Sequence of Christ’s Post-Resurrection Appearances -- and don't even see where it mentions this. If you are going to abandon your previous assertion that the disciples went to Galilee and back before the command to stay in Jerusalem, please state your new argument. Hiding behind a link that does not even mention the issue is not an answer.

 

[doubtingmerle]

double post

 

[doubtingmerle]

Ed1Wolf,

Ah, now you are back on "The Creed".

No, it begins with Christ.

​

No, ending at "all the apostles", makes perfect sense.

That is probably a parenthetical insertion by Paul.​

Ok, so finally after many attempts to get you to admit it, you admit that portions of I Corinthians 15:3-9 are not a creed. As near as I can tell, you support that only the text in blue below is part of an original creed.

For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures;
And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures:
And that he was seen of Cephas, then of the twelve:
After that, he was seen of above five hundred brethren at once; of whom the greater part remain unto this present, but some are fallen asleep.
After that, he was seen of James; then of all the apostles.
And last of all he was seen of me also, as of one born out of due time.
For I am the least of the apostles, that am not meet to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God.
​

So even if you think this was an ancient creed, you apparently admit that Paul did a whole lot of edits to the text as shown in black.

The term "the Twelve" was the early Aramaic formulaic reference to the original apostles, as I explained earlier. It is one of the evidences for the age of the hymn. They were still refered to the Twelve for a time after Judas died.
​

You had said this "creed" was written within three months of the crucifixion. And you get that from the fact that it describes the disciples as The Twelve? And you are telling me that language was changing that rapidly from 30 AD to 50 AD, that you can tell by the words "The Twelve" that this was written in 30 AD? I disagree.

The gospels frequently refer to the disciples as "The Twelve". By your logic, they were all written within three months of the resurrection, before the meaning of "The Twelve" was lost. And yet even many conservative scholars think the gospels were written after I Corinthians. So no, saying "The Twelve" is not proof that the words were spoken within a year of the crucifixion.

He was on the earth for over a month after His resurrection, it [the appearance to the 500] could easily have occurred during that time.

I wasn't asking you when the sighting from the 500 occurred in time. I was asking you where you would insert it into the gospels. If the gospel writers all knew about the sighting by the 500, it is odd that none of them mention it. It is also hard to find a place in each of the four gospels to insert it and have it make sense.

Matt. 28:16-20 [for James and all the Apostles].

Uh no, this is the story of Jesus appearing to The Eleven, not to James and then all the apostles. The appearance to James and then all the Apostles in I Cor occurs after the appearance to The Eleven--er, uh, The Twelve--and after the appearance to the 500. The James referred to here is thought to be a different James from the disciple James. Also, there were many others who claimed to be apostles, such as Paul and Barnabas. (Acts 14:14) This last appearance to "all the apostles" including Barnabas is never mentioned in the four gospels.

As you write that the reference saying he was seen of Paul was inserted into this list later, many think the appearance to James was added later, by those who wanted to make sure James was recognized as an authority also.

I have agreed that v3-5 repressent the core of early Christian teachings, and may or may not have been a creed. If we start with your blue text, and remove the sighting by James and all the other apostles from this list, than we have only v3-5 and the sighting of the 500. But as most of that verse about the 500, by your own admission, is probably a later insertion, could it be the whole verse is an insertion?

So we may be left only with v3-5, which is a summary of early doctrine, but really gives us nothing specific on the resurrection.

It plainly implies that the tomb was empty on the third day, why else mention it?

Again "the creed" never specifically says the tomb was empty. The empty tomb can be said to be implied only if you anachronistically add in the gospels. If all you have is the writings of Paul, which came first chronologically, there is no clear implications of anybody verifying an empty tomb.

​

 

[mark kennedy]

Ed1Wolf, OK, back on the edits that may have happened in the first century of the gospels' existence. I contend that the gospels were in uncontrolled hands at that time, and that we have little record of the gospels during that time. So they may have been significantly changed. Some argue that there were no major edits, for if there were, then we would have multiple variations today. And I argue that this is exactly what the evidence indicates. We have what I consider to be two very different versions of the original Mark, the books we now call Matthew and Mark. I contend that both of these are edits of the original Mark.

I contend they were independently authored in the first century by John Mark and Matthew respectively. See how that works, when all you have to do is say it anyone can do it.

Also we have books like Secret Mark:

Discovered in 1958 and only two people have actually seen the original, which is just a fragment.

the Gospel of the Ebionites, the Gospel of the Nazarenes, and the Gospel of the Hebrews.

You forgot to add the most interesting part of the Wikipedia article you got this from:

Jewish–Christian gospels, along with the Gospel of the Hebrews and the Gospel of the Nazarenes; all survive only as fragments in quotations of the early Church Fathers. (Gospel of Ebionites. Wikipedia)​

All appear to be edit of the original Matthew and/or Mark. We don't know much about the last three, other than a few references and quotes from the early church fathers. However, what we do know about these books indicate that they were close to our modern Matthew but with significant differences. This is exactly what we would expect if there was significant editing going on.

Your not making much of a connection here. It's exactly what you would expect if the scrolls of Matthew and Mark saw wide circulation. Given the Apostolic authority of Matthew and Mark you would expect them to be of the highest importance, meticulously maintained while random excerpts and commentary would be evident, which is what happened.

If they were so careful in honoring the texts, how is it that all the books I mentioned above survive? And how is it that the copy of Jeremiah that survived that period is very different from the Jeremiah found in the Dead Sea Scrolls?

Not different, shorter:

Among the Qumran texts was a scroll of Jeremiah. This is very significant because the LXX version of Jeremiah is seven chapters shorter than the Masoretic, and what remains is in a different order! The Dead Sea Scrolls backs up the LXX version, not our Masoretic Bibles. We western Christians may worry about that, but eastern Christians won't. Most Orthodox Christians use the LXX for their Old Testament. (The Dead Sea Scrolls Version of Isaiah and Jeremiah)​

Correct. There is a scrap from the early second century with a few verses from John. Besides that, we have no gospel manuscripts in the early second century. So we have almost no hard evidence of what the gospels looked like before the middle of the second century.

Except for the fact that they are 98% identical across 30,000 extant manuscripts covering up to 1900 years of their history. Try comparing it to anything else from the first century, or antiquity for that matter, there is no close second.

No, wikipedia does not say that. Wikipedia says the information we know about the Gospel of the Ebionites comes from a gospel harmony written in ancient times. That is exactly what I have been telling you. We have a few quotes and comments from the ancients about these other gospels.

So they are a curiosity, nothing more.

Again, you have never attempted to prove that the Gospel of the Ebionites was written from scratch in the second century. All evidence indicates this is a corruption of the original Matthew. And as I mentioned, if we have several variations of Matthew that appear to be corruptions of the original book of Matthew, that is exactly what we would expect to see if people were making major edits to the books. The modern Matthew happens to be one of the variations found after the middle of the second century.

So your equivocating fragments, quotes from the early church Fathers and this mysterious Ebionites with Matthew. The dating of the oldest fragments are working their way back to the first century:

The Matthew fragments redated by Thiede are at Magdalen College (Oxford). They are called The Magdalen Papyrus (listed as Greek 17 and p64). There are three fragments written on both sides, together representing 24 lines from Matthew 26:7-33. Two of the three fragments are a little larger than 4 x 1 cm.; the other is smaller, 1.6 x 1.6 cm. Another two fragments, located in Spain, are called the Barcelona Papyrus (P. Barc. inv. 1/p67) and contain portions of Matthew 3:9, 15; 5:20-22, 25-28...​

...More than 40 years later Thiede reexamined the fragments, using state-of–the-art electronic scanners with close analysis of the paper, ink, letter formation, line length, and other factors to redate the fragments to around A.D. 60. Thiede’s tests and skill appear to be well within responsible papyrology, although his conclusions have met with strong opposition from critics. I have examined most of the critical articles and have found their criticisms less convincing than Thiede’s conclusions. (Eyewitness to Jesus: Amazing New Manuscript Evidence about the Origin of the Gospels CRI)​

Clearly the jury is still out but Higher Criticism and Liberal Theology have their work cut out for them because the date is moving further to the left. The is a long range trend in Biblical scholarship. One thing is for sure, it's not as cut and dried as your trying to make it.

In 1995 the German scholar Carsten Peter Thiede took another look at Papyrus 64 in light of recent discoveries. Thiede concluded that based upon comparison with other papyri known to date to the late 1st century and before, an earlier date of 70-100 AD. should be assigned to Papyrus 64 (and thus the other two papyri produced by the same scribe).[4] This generated an uproar in the scholarly world. Graham Stanton, a liberal scholar who had written extensively on Matthew, published a book later the same year which began with a chapter dismissing Thiede’s arguments because he had compared manuscripts from different locations.In response to this Thiede devoted an entire book to the subject in 1996 entitled The Jesus Papyrus.​

While it must be acknowledged that Thiede has a bit of a sensational flair, the evidence which he presents is reasonable and should not be so quickly dismissed. Some of Thiede’s critics, including Stanton, hold the belief that the gospels were not verbally inspired by the Holy Spirit, but formed through an editorial process by the early church using a hypothetical text of Jesus’ sayings they call Q. Such critics cannot escape the fact that if they accept a first century date for a surviving gospel manuscript their liberal theories crumble. This cannot avoid coloring their appraisal of Thiede’s dating. (New Testament Manuscripts from the First Century By Kyle Pope)​

It's intersting that Bible scholars have no problem accepting a Q document that has no manuscript evidence as the source of the Gospels, which have an abundance.

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[doubtingmerle]

Quid est Veritas,

I have read through your early posts, and you do indeed seem to be saying that you thought Paul thought his soul would not survive death, and that he would need to wait for his physical body to resurrect. And yet when I say that you believe that, you hit the roof. I cannot understand how we can argue about this long and hard, with you seemingly arguing against Paul believing in soul survival, and then suddenly disagreeing when we point out what you have been apparently saying. If you changed your mind, fine, tell us you changed your mind, but please don't criticize us for stating what you have said here. Let's review.

I see a claim has been made that Paul referenced a Spiritual Resurrection: This is an anachronism, importing Cartesian or body/spirit dualism backwards where it does not belong.
Let me explain: Paul is a Pharisee, who studied under Gamaliel, a student of Hillel. He studied the Torah and the knowledge of his Elders.
The Pharisees were traditionalists who opposed Hellenistic ideas in Second Temple Judaism. So Paul had studied and identified himself amongst the traditionalists.
Now the Torah and OT in general, does not really support the idea of separation between spiritual and material states. We see this in the terms they use, like 'Ruach' or the breath that animates living matter, that is bound to it and departs or 'Nephesh' which could be either living Nephesh or dead Nephesh (usually translated as corpse or dead flesh), this is more an animating principle than a 'spirit' as such.
We see this in the prophets who write how God takes control of their hands or mouths to do His work, directly and not in a 'spiritual' sense.
Now Second Temple Judaism had different schools. Sadducees rejected resurrection of the dead based solely on the writings, Pharisees supported a form thereof in Sheol split between Gehenna and the Bosom of Abraham and Essenes had far more esoteric conceptions.
None of these are anywhere near Plato's Tripartite soul, Gnostic ideas of divine sparks or even Indo-European conceptions of Shades. We see the same in the Koran where the Jinn are smokeless fire. The idea of a separate spiritual and bodily resurrection is very alien to the semitic mind and Paul was a traditionalist afterall.

So you seem to be very clearly arguing that there can be no spiritual resurrection, no soul survival unless the body is risen.

You argue against there being a Tripartite soul or body/spirit dualism. That seems to me to be a clear statement that you didn't think Paul thought the soul could live on apart from the body.

Please provide evidence that any first century group held the conception of a 'spiritual body' in this manner, for this sounds like later dualistic ideas and does not fit the first century as far as I am aware.

I find it very odd that you ask for evidence of Paul thinking spirits survived in a spiritual body in the next world. You later post a link to the article "The Dead in Christ" which ten times mentions Paul speaking of a "spiritual body". I am a little confused how you can dogmatically say Paul did not believe this, and then post a file that says repeatedly that he did.

And again you condemn dualistic ideas as something Paul would never have. That seems to mean you thought the soul was not separate from the body.

Excuse me? Citation? I am very well versed in the works of Flavius Josephus, from whence is this statement derived?

Again very odd that you ask where Josephus talked about the soul going into another body after death, for you later sent me a file, "Paul's Understanding of Death", that has the following quote:

[The Pharisees] belief in the resurrection is described by Joseph Flavius (2.8.1) with the following words: "The soul does not disappear; the soul of the righteous man is transported into another body, while the soul of the unrigheous men is punished with eternal torment."​

So thanks for sending me the file with the quote proving my assertion that Josephus said this.

Again, it was me arguing that Josephus thought that the soul lived on in an a spiritual body. You were arguing against it.

Later I said, "Again, Paul seems to me to have taught that the earthly body dies and decays, and the Spirit lives on, in a new body of which he refers in 2 Cor 5."

In response you said:

Again, seems to you. First century background and Paul's stated Pharisee background and clear OT referencing, makes this unlikely.

And again, you later sent me a file, "Recovering Paul's understanding" which goes into detail of how Paul expected his soul to survive in a new body, expounding on the same chapter of 2 Corinthians I used. What is going on here? You enter dogmatically opposed to my views on what I said Paul said about spirit survival and a spiritual body, and then end up sending me files that support my views of what I said Paul was saying. When I ask you for clarification, you hit the roof. Can you not understand that, in such circumstances, it is hard to understand what you are saying?


Later I wrote to you, "It seems to me that one could use the same practice to put soul survival into the Old Testament."

Nope. The meanings of Nephesh and Ruach do not allow it.

And I quite agree that the Old Testament did not allow soul survival. What I do not understand is that you later seem to accept these same terms as proving soul survival.

Anyway, it seems your views were confusing. If you now believe that Paul thought his soul would survive at death, then great, you agree with me that Paul says this. And 2 Corinthians makes it clear this soul inhabits a new body, and I Corinthians refers to this as a spiritual body. That seems to support my view that Paul thought people would live on in a new spiritual body made for them in heaven.

All that to get back to my (minor) point. If Paul thought people would live on in a new spiritual body made for them in heaven, while the first body decays, could it be that he thought this of Jesus too?

 

[doubtingmerle]

duplicate post.

 

[Ed1wolf]

Ed1wolf said: ↑
Many scholars both liberal and conservative believe that it is. Read them. For example, Reginald Fuller, Norman Perrin, John Dominic Crossan, Gary Habermas. Michael Licona, among others.

dm: What about my response to this? Are you just going to ignore my response and make me repeat the claim forever? Are you going to hold your hands over your eyes and pretend nobody ever responded to this? Where does any of this get us?

That IS my response to you.

ed: I never claimed that James wrote the hymn or the gospels or Josephus, where did you get that idea?

dm: Because I asked you what book James wrote where he said these things, and this was your response. It seems you now agree that you were not responding to my question. If I ask you a quesiton, and you do not want to respond, then it will be more clear if you tell us you wish not to respond, rather than pretend to respond.

I have no idea what you are saying here.

ed: The hymn just records what he told his fellow believers why he became a follower of Christ when he was initially a skeptic. He saw his brother alive not long after he had seen him murdered on the cross. So they wrote the ancient hymn/creed and put his testimony in it.

dm: Suppose somebody tells you a tribe in Africa sings
Ogzo was poisoned and died for our sins!
Ogzo was buried and rose again a year later!
Bani and Ceislo and Boonycans and Seisly saw him!

That is your evidence. You never see any of these people and never confirm who wrote the song. Can you see how this is not sufficient evidence to worship Ogzo?

Uhh...Your analoyg makes no sense. There are multiple lines of independent historical evidence that both James and Jesus existed and these events occurred. There is absolutely no evidence for Ogzo. So your analogy fails completely.

ed: No, it is very relevant because the documentary evidence for Christ is much stronger than the documentary evidence for Muhammad and practically no scholar denies that his bio does not contain much actual history. Therefore, the gospels probably contain even more actual history than Muhammad's bio.

dm: Most scholars believe both the story of Jesus and Muhammad have some truth. But some scholars say both the story of Jesus and Muhammad are fiction. But as I told you many times, that was a topic of another thread.

Those are fringe historians that deny their existence.

dm: This thread is not about whether the gospels had a core of history, but about whether there is good evidence that Jesus bodily rose from the dead.

I repeat: This thread is not about whether the gospels had a core of history, but about whether there is good evidence that Jesus bodily rose from the dead.

I know you love, love, love repetition. How many times would you like me to repeat the above paragraph? Let me know, I will copy it that many times, and then we can move on.

The Resurrection of Jesus is part of that core of history and in fact is one the best documented events in that core of history. As I have demonstrated throughout this thread.

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

Doubting Merle - This is the last courtesy I am extending.

I have explicitly stated that I agree with Mark Kennedy, who clearly said "absent from the body, present with the Lord" until the parousia. Yet somehow you keep talking as if I said something completely different?

Read my two articles instead of skimming them. They actually explain nicely how the Jewish views differed from those surrounding them, how Paul is in accord and how your characterisation of Paul's views are obviously fallacious.
I find it very strange that you would pull lines from a text and then truimphantly crow they support you, when they clearly do nothing of the sort.

Similarly, the Josephus quote says nothing of the 'two body view, one planted one risen' that you said Josephus mentioned. Taking a quote on resurrection and then representing it as if this somehow has anything to do with what you said is laughable and ridiculous. We know Pharisees believed in the resurrection of the body.

To try and explain: There was a belief in the Ruach, lets call it the 'Spirit'. There was a belief in Nephesh, lets call it the 'Soul'.
Both were present in the Living. At death, Ruach or spirit returns to God and Nephesh goes to Sheol according to Sadducees. Sheol is not an afterlife per se, perhaps closer to stasis. What resides there is likewise not a 'spirit' or Greek Shade, but the dead nephesh of a being, a material remnant. To Sadducees the Ruach had no characteristics of the person, it was the breath of Life God blew into Adam.
Pharisees saw things differently, in that the 'spirit' carries the person in some sense and that the nephesh in Sheol would be reunited with it, thus creating the 'body' in a sense at some future date.
Paul took this further - the 'Spirit' being in Christ, essentially of Christ as we become 'little Christs', thus survives as present with the Lord while our bodies' remnants moulder in Sheol. But Christ has been Resurrected, his Spirit and Soul are both ascended and thus our Spirit-in-Christ can be in a sense existent in Christ, borrowing His Nephesh in a sense. We are an extention of Christ, his body or bride (which becomes "one flesh"), so for us to survive after death, according to OT ideas, we require a glorified body that had overcome death - Christ. For without it we would have no existence without the Breath of Life of God, with us being a composite of our Nephesh and Ruach, the former either living or dead and the latter being in some sense Divine. It is not so crass to say the Nephesh is the 'body' as it is clearly more than this, but for a being to be present all these elements are clearly required in OT sources. Thus Paul's whole theology requires a bodily resurrected Christ.
My two articles try and explain the development of this doctrine and try and show the nuances thereof without having to resort to too much Hebrew or Greek, yet you just took this as carte blanche to assume English meanings and misrepresent them as you did me - even when both articles try and clearly prohibit such an understanding by explaining the first century views initially within them.

I have been trying to speak to you in this thread repeatedly and in response have only received unfettered sophistry or mendacious twisting of my words, even after I corrected you. I am tired of chasing you around in this smoke you try and create. I find your arguments disingenuous and your method frankly slimy. Please stop mentioning my name and speaking as if I said something when I explicitly and repeatedly told you this is not the case. You are merely trying to discredit my arguments by representing them in a false light and I feel I cannot continue in this thread on account of this. An honest discussion is one thing, but this underhanded and facetious argumentation you present is quite another.

I trust you will desist henceforth to mention me, although you are of course free to continue to misquote and misrepresent the information I have supplied as this seems to be your forte.

This was my last attempt to communicate with you in this thread, do not expect another reply.

 

[doubtingmerle]

Quid,

Thanks for writing, but I notice that you did not mention my two big concerns.

First, you replied to a post in which I was explaining why I was finding your writings confusing. Your early posts condemned dualism and seemed to me to indicate that you thought the spirit would not survive outside the body. Please understand, that in the context in which you wrote, somebody in this thread had strongly been condemning the idea that Paul taught spirit-survival by calling that the belief of "Hellenized dualistic freaks". It is in this context that you came condemning dualism, and that sure seemed to me that you were condemning spirit survival. At any rate, I posted a number of quotes from your early writings that seemed to indicate this was your belief. I notice that you did not respond to that at all. Instead you emphasize that you accept spirit survival (now). Well yes, understood, but you do not even address all your early posts that seem to indicate you did not believe spirit survival. If you changed your mind or those quotes have a different meaning, please let me know.

Since you had said all those things to me that seem to me to deny spirit survival, I can hardly be faulted when I said it looks like you deny it, but I was confused by what you write.

Second, you never addressed the question we were facing before you left, in that I would like to know how you think Paul's body could ever live again, since it is gone. If you say God will make him a duplicate body, then you are echoing what I say about Paul. For I say Paul says his spirit will survive to enter a second body. If you think Paul's spirit will live in a replica body, that is a duplicate body, so then you could have just said you agree with me, that Paul thinks he will live in a second body, and we could have ended all our discussion at post 1. Instead, I find you not even addressing the question.

I have explicitly stated that I agree with Mark Kennedy, who clearly said "absent from the body, present with the Lord" until the parousia. Yet somehow you keep talking as if I said something completely different?

Well yes, that is because your early posts that I quoted seem to be denying dualism and spirit survival. Do you have an explanation why you said those things at first if you do indeed believe in spirit survival?

Read my two articles instead of skimming them. They actually explain nicely how the Jewish views differed from those surrounding them, how Paul is in accord and how your characterisation of Paul's views are obviously fallacious.

Uh, no they don't. The first article you quoted, as I showed you, tells us that Josephus agrees with what I say Paul taught, that the spirit would live on in a second body. The author goes on to say he disagrees with Josephus, but nevertheless, he agrees with my statement that Josephus supported the two body view of death. As such, he is witness that some people believed it.

And the second article, well frankly, I am baffled why you posted it. It goes into detail on the Roman and Greek influences on Paul's thought, even though you have argued long and hard that there was no significant influence from them. Then it talks of spirit survival, and how Paul thought that spirits would live in a developing spiritual body in the spirit world until the spirits return in their spiritual bodies at the Parousia. I see no mention at all of a physical resurrection in that article. So since this is exactly what I say Paul says, and the opposite of what you say Paul says, I don't know why you posted it.

Similarly, the Josephus quote says nothing of the 'two body view, one planted one risen' that you said Josephus mentioned.

Huh? Again the article says

[The Pharisees] belief in the resurrection is described by Joseph Flavius (2.8.1) with the following words: "The soul does not disappear; the soul of the righteous man is transported into another body, while the soul of the unrigheous men is punished with eternal torment."​

So yes, this is a quote saying that Josephus taught survival in a second body, just as I claim Paul taught.

Taking a quote on resurrection and then representing it as if this somehow has anything to do with what you said is laughable and ridiculous. We know Pharisees believed in the resurrection of the body.

Correct. And that first article states disagreement with Josephus. I didn't say that article agreed with me. I said Josephus agreed with what I say Paul said.

The second article does agree with me.

To try and explain: There was a belief in the Ruach, lets call it the 'Spirit'. There was a belief in Nephesh, lets call it the 'Soul'.
Both were present in the Living. At death, Ruach or spirit returns to God and Nephesh goes to Sheol according to Sadducees. Sheol is not an afterlife per se, perhaps closer to stasis. What resides there is likewise not a 'spirit' or Greek Shade, but the dead nephesh of a being, a material remnant. To Sadducees the Ruach had no characteristics of the person, it was the breath of Life God blew into Adam.
Pharisees saw things differently, in that the 'spirit' carries the person in some sense and that the nephesh in Sheol would be reunited with it, thus creating the 'body' in a sense at some future date.
Paul took this further - the 'Spirit' being in Christ, essentially of Christ as we become 'little Christs', thus survives as present with the Lord while our bodies' remnants moulder in Sheol. But Christ has been Resurrected, his Spirit and Soul are both ascended and thus our Spirit-in-Christ can be in a sense existent in Christ, borrowing His Nephesh in a sense. We are an extention of Christ, his body or bride (which becomes "one flesh"), so for us to survive after death, according to OT ideas, we require a glorified body that had overcome death - Christ. For without it we would have no existence without the Breath of Life of God, with us being a composite of our Nephesh and Ruach, the former either living or dead and the latter being in some sense Divine. It is not so crass to say the Nephesh is the 'body' as it is clearly more than this, but for a being to be present all these elements are clearly required in OT sources. Thus Paul's whole theology requires a bodily resurrected Christ.

Uh, you have already told us you believe this. This in no way explains why you earlier posted things that seem to disagree with this. And that was the actual point of the post you replied to.

I have been trying to speak to you in this thread repeatedly and in response have only received unfettered sophistry or mendacious twisting of my words, even after I corrected you. I am tired of chasing you around in this smoke you try and create.

Oh please show me what words I said that were unfettered sophistry or medacious twisting of words. If you show me what I said wrong I will apologize.

Where is your evidence? All my words are recorded here for your convenience. Please cut and paste the offending words so I can see what upset you, and can apologize.

Please stop mentioning my name and speaking as if I said something when I explicitly and repeatedly told you this is not the case.

OK, but in post 821 Mark Kennedy said, "Quid is arguing for the bodily resurrection of Christ and the dead respectively as far as I can tell. If he argued something else I completely missed it. Could you manage a quote?" So he asked me to quote where you said what I claim. Since he asked me to quote you, I obliged him and quoted what I saw in your posts.

If you do not want me to mention you, please tell Mark not to ask me to quote you.

You are merely trying to discredit my arguments by representing them in a false light and I feel I cannot continue in this thread on account of this.

I'm sorry, but I think I have been asking you questions and seeking to understand you. I am sorry if you think I cast anything of yours in a false light.

An honest discussion is one thing, but this underhanded and facetious argumentation you present is quite another.

I would think if you are going to attack my argumentation, you would be able to provide a quote of an argument I made that you think is underhanded.

 

[Ed1wolf]

Ed1Wolf,

ed: No, his atoms or mirror atoms still exist. See my post about matter and antimatter. God can recreate bodies with either the same atoms or mirror atoms that may have always existed.

dm: Huh? Once again: I had told you that the body of Paul does not exist. And yet you say, "No", when I tell you the body of Paul does not exist! Huh?

Then you change the subject. You say the atoms of Paul's body exist. That was not my point. Of course the atoms exist. Now what about my point--the body of Paul no longer exists.

The fact that the atoms of Paul still exist is not the same as his body existing. If you shred a car into a billion pieces, that car no longer exists.

You say a body of antimatter could exist. Uh, huh, but then you would lose because that would be a variation of what I am talking about. I am saying that Paul could have meant that the body decays, and a second body comes out of it. You say, no, maybe the body decays and a second body (of antimatter) comes out of it. Same thing! Have you come over to my side?

You say God may make a new body for Paul. Again, if that is so, you lose. I contend Paul may be saying that the first body decays, and the person lives on in a second body. You say no, the first body decays, and the second person lives on in a (recreated) second body. Same thing! Have you come over to my side?

Actually,I never said you were wrong, I am just presenting different possibilities. We don't really know exactly what happens, only that there is some kind of continuity between our earthly body and our resurrected body.

 

[Ed1wolf]

dm: Yes. Yes. Yes.

That is what Paul seems to be saying. The outer man, the flesh, dies. The inner man, the spirit, lives on. Or in your analogy, the book is destroyed, but the story lives on in a new printing. Paul says in the resurrection it is the same inner person, different packaging. You say Paul says it is the same inner person, different packaging. Same thing! Have you come over to my side?

See my previous post above. I never said you were wrong about this. Just that there are other possibilities.

dm: No sir, I have not committed the Genetic Fallacy. I was merely echoing back what you said. You are the one that keeps on saying you are right because you have authorities. My standard response is to say I too have authorities, and move on to the argument they make. That is not the Genetic Fallacy.

It appears that you reject my authorities just because some are conservative Christians.

dm: Of course. This in no way refutes my claim that we have little discussion of the gospels before 140 AD, and major discussion of them after 180 AD. Of course there was a gradual buildup of interest in the gospels in the interim.

Fraid so, if top ancient scholars at the time were already making harmonizations in the mid second century, then that plainly implies that the gospels were well known long before that.

dm: I am claiming that Paul did not think the resurrected body was made of physical matter as it appears on earth (what we call molecular matter). You are claiming that Paul did not think the resurrected body was made of physical matter as it appears on earth (what we call molecular matter). Same thing! Have you come over to my side?


The only evidence you have presented for that is your argument from analogy (which I consider bogus) which you will no doubt write back again to say it is not bogus.

You may consider it bogus, but you have not proven that it is bogus and in fact you have not provided any biblical evidence that it is bogus, other than a few verses taken out of context.

dm: Whatever. Again, the point is, I see nothing in Paul's teaching that says the body cannot decay in the grave, with the person living forever in a different body.

After all that is what you believe about Paul. You believe his body has decayed in the grave, and God will make him a different replica body later on. All I am saying is that Paul may have thought Jesus experienced the same thing you think Paul will experience.

Maybe, but Christ was a slightly different case. His present body had not decayed and in order to demonstrate the power of God over death, His body was transformed in the grave and then raised. See above about continuity between the two. God has the power to reconstitute our earthly bodies and then transform it so that there is continuity between the two.

dm: No, that is flat out wrong. As I said before the outer body of the seed has the DNA of the mother, and the embryo has a different DNA. See Seed - Wikipedia . (There, I turned to your favorite source, wikipedia. It agrees with me.)

I was not referring to the outer husk. I was referring to the kernel that becomes the plant. Even Paul knew that fact. That DNA is the same as the adult plant See: How To Genetically Modify a Seed, Step By Step

dm: Right Paul dies. His body decays and is no more. Paul's spirit survives and will live on in a new body, or so Paul thought.

Perhaps Paul thought the same thing about Jesus.

No, see above about how Jesus was a slightly different case.