I would submit that what I am about to review and respond to is a performance representing, 'certain idle dogmas', 'false notions', specifically regarding the Pauline doctrine of the resurrection. Were it true that Paul taught a celestial death, burial and resurrection of a fictional character his writings and ministry of the first century would have been regarded as pagan mythology, docetism and Gnosticism that was categorically rejected by ancient Judaism and all Christian theism from the last 2,000 years and beyond:
Lastly, there are idols which have crept into men’s minds from the various dogmas of peculiar systems of philosophy, and also from the perverted rules of demonstration, and these we denominate idols of the theater…For we regard all the systems of philosophy hitherto received or imagined, as so many plays brought out and performed, creating fictitious and theatrical worlds. (Novum Organum, Sir Francis Bacon)
Sometimes doubtingmerle performs for some mysterious 'lurkers', that he imagines are part of his larger audience. As far as I can tell it's only me and a couple of Christian apologists who are very much unpersuaded by his arguments. He is alone on a stage, myself, Ed and Quid are watching the performance that none of us will applaud or accept. He opens with:
Thank you, thank you very much.
It is a great pleasure to speak to this raucous crowd. I haven't seen this much noise lately, except when the Republican Senators came back to their home districts. At least I have something to offer [wild applause from my loyal fans].
Actually it's just us, waiting as the performance unfolds.
We are here to discuss the evidence for the resurrection of Jesus, or rather, the lack thereof. We have concentrated on Paul recently, and for good reason. He is the first written witness to say anything substantial on the resurrection, but he is surprisingly short on details. He makes no specific mention that the grave was found empty, and tells no details of any account of a person with the risen Jesus. His list in I Corinthians 15 includes himself, but arguably he only saw a "Heavenly Vision" (as Acts calls it). Could the others have seen nothing more than a vision? Or was Paul merely repeating rumors? We don't know.
Paul taught a resurrection. What did he mean? It could be:
a) a mythical resurrection of a mythical Jesus, who was never even lived on earth, not even as a Docetic Jesus.
b) a spiritual resurrection, in which Paul's spirit lived on in a spiritual body.
c) a bodily resurrection.
He portrays two characters, one the mythical Jesus that had neither flesh nor blood, like the ones the genealogies found in Luke and Matthew. He was neither Hebrew, nor Judean nor a descendant from the house of David. The other a mystery religion god, formed from an illusory vision with no bearing on the contemporary history no historian questions Paul belonged to. Somehow he managed to convince not only 12 disciples, known as Apostles, but up to five hundred purported eye witnesses of the existence of this imaginary figure but churches were founded across Galatia and Greece who's numbers soared in the first century. The evidence of this living witness, I repeat, no serious historian questions, he will attempt to make disappear.
Now I think a) is probably the correct answer. I argue that in detail starting at post 204 in another thread --
Carrier: On the Historicity of Jesus, a community discussion . I won't address that here.
Which of course is the Carrier thesis that Paul was a devotee of a celestial Jesus and the founder of a pagan mystery religion. With a clumsy slight of hand he will attempt to neutralize the Apostolic witness, the blessed hope, the translation of believers and the bodily resurrection. I for one am as fascinated with this performance and unconvinced that 2,000 years of Christian scholarship and the collective consensus of virtually all secular historians is mistaken. This trick, that is the whole performance is leading up to and based on, will attempt to make all of the evidence for the bodily resurrection of the Son of God disappear before our eyes. This I've got to see.
To me, the next most likely answer is b), but first, let me say a few words about c). It could be that Paul taught a bodily resurrection and was mistaken. Jesus could have survived crucifixion, and only have been thought to have risen again. The body could have been misplaced or stolen away by a rogue disciple such as Joseph of Arimathea. Or the rumor could have started years later while the body was who knows where. Or Jesus could have risen. But since actually resurrections are rare, I doubt that is the answer. So c) is possible.
It's just a rumor, Paul managed to convince the 12 Apostles and up to 500 eye witnesses that someone who never existed was raised from the dead. We must assume tremendous powers of persuasion here, on an epic scale. It staggers the imagination that such story would convince so many devote Jews of a myth, and grow to include such a vast array of Gentile converts with Paul's rendition of a mere rumor. We all sit, consumed with incredulity and disdain wondering where such a misguided notion could have arisen. We are directed to search the pages of another thread. Unimpressed and utterly unconvinced we continue to wait patiently for the second act.
For his second trick, he will attempt to make the Pauline doctrine of the bodily resurrection, the translation of the saints at the Parousia to transform itself into a pagan myth. Can he do it?
This brings us back to b), which I think is the most likely if not a). The reason is simple. Paul seems to say that this is what he is expecting, that his body will die and decay, and the real self will live on. He tells us specifically that this is what happens in 2 Corinthians 5:1-5. The earthly "house" decays and we have a new body prepared for us in heaven. Paul says specifically that the body that is planted is not the same body that comes up:
But some man will say, How are the dead raised up? and with what body do they come?
Thou fool, that which thou sowest is not quickened, except it die:
And that which thou sowest, thou sowest not that body that shall be, but bare grain, it may chance of wheat, or of some other grain:
But God giveth it a body as it hath pleased him, and to every seed his own body. I Cor 15:35-38
The question immediately comes to mind, is Paul teaching a physical body at the resurrection or a celestial one. I wonder what would Paul say to this:
Paul, an apostle (not from men nor through man, but through Jesus Christ and God the Father who raised Him from the dead) (Gal. 1:1)
How very strange indeed that Paul would be starting a letter, no one seriously doubts he wrote, in the time frame of the first century, would be speaking of anything other then a physical resurrection. The long awaited, 'Son of David', 'Lion of the Tribe of Judea', promised 'Messiah', would be fictional after all. Of course, because people believed anything a middle age Jewish zealot says in the first century, they were just gullible like that. This is coming from a Pharisee who believed in the resurrection of the dead and certainly that the Messiah must be a physical descendant of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Judah from the root of Jesse and the House of David. He lays claim to not only Jesus having all these qualifications but that the 12 Apostles bore witness of the same historical fulfillment of Messianic prophecy.
For I delivered to you first of all that which I also received: 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 by Cephas, then by the twelve. After that He was seen by over five hundred brethren at once, of whom the greater part remain to the present, but some have fallen asleep. (1 Cor. 15:3-6)
He convinces a large number of Jews across Israel, Galatia and Asian Minor, Macedonia, Greece and Rome that someone who never existed was the promised Messiah, from the Tribe of Judea and the House of David and we are to believe that first century Jews would not object to this pagan mythology? Never mind that churches have already been started, by devote Jewish Christians in northern Africa and Rome 14 years before Paul starts talking about this mythic character.
But the issue is not the length of time one waits for the new body, or what that new body is like. The issue is that the spirit is thought to come out of the body and live on. It is thought to eventually be in some sort of new body to spend eternity. So most Christians believe.
Correction, all Christians believe, including Paul that Christ was raised bodily and that the dead in Christ will rise at the Parousia. But we are supposed to believe there is nothing up his sleeve.
Many will stop me and say the spirit will not be returning to a new body, but to the same body. But how can that possible be? For Paul, the body is gone. For Paul, there is no body to return to. If Paul's only hope of survival is to live on in the same body, then Paul is gone, without hope. But some will say that, although his first body is gone, God will give him an exact replica body. OK, that is the same thing as I say. Paul thought he would live on in his spirit until he gets a new body to spend eternity. Both are talking of a new body.
What's this I wonder, could he really have some vague inclining of a bodily resurrection because that's what Paul really taught. We will have to wait and see.
Now I personally don't believe in spirit survival after death. So when the body is gone, for me, that is it. There is no possibility of that person living again. Conceivably a God could save some DNA and make a duplicate of you, but that would be a clone, not you. So if any teach that there is no spirit that can live on beyond the body after death I see no possibility of heaven.
Oh, now I see, this isn't about Paul at all. It's not about whether or not Paul believed in the immortality of the soul or the bodily resurrection of Christ or the translations of believers. What he is talking about is his own naturalistic assumptions. Well that makes sense.
Regardless if Paul thought Jesus rose to a second body or if the first body arose, I see precious little in Paul that actually confirms that a resurrection occurred.
Except, of course, the living witness of the first century church, the twelve Apostles and the power of the Holy Spirit including signs, wonders and mighty deeds being the marks of Apostleship:
I persevered in demonstrating among you the marks of a true apostle, including signs, wonders and miracles. (2 Cor. 12:12)
by the power of signs and wonders, and by the power of the Spirit of God. So from Jerusalem all the way around to Illyricum, I have fully proclaimed the gospel of Christ. (Romans 15:19)
He is here basing his credibility as an Apostle, with the other 12 Apostles still alive and able to confront him over exaggeration or deceit, on miracles confirming his office as Apostle from things they personally saw happen. It's not like the Essenes built a considerable community around the promise of Messianic prophecy, that diabolical deception wouldn't be crafted until sometime in the second century, after Israel and the Temple were destroyed. They even crafted a scene describing an 'abomination that causes desolation', in a nation and a Temple that no longer existed. There's nothing absurd or conflicted about that at all.
Have you read Paul, the early church fathers who quote Paul and the other Apostles? Are you kidding me?
OK, we are out of time. Thanks for listening. Good night. [standing ovation]
There is no crowd, the only audience are a few Christian apologists who neither applaud your theatrics nor stand in celebration. It's only you on that empty stage, reciting, 'dogmas of peculiar systems of philosophy', 'certain idle dogmas', 'false notions', 'creating fictitious and theatrical worlds', in the theater of the secular humanist mind. It was a roar of passion and fury, a gross distortion of the Pauline doctrine of the resurrection with neither practical evidence nor relevant source material. It's just you on a stage, trying to pull off a clumsy slight of hand, and not a very convincing one at that.
Quite a performance, you just couldn't pull off the prestige, except to an imaginary crowd. In the end, it's only you. No proof, no prestige and certainly, no applause.
Have a nice day
Mark
