Are there credible witnesses to the resurrection?

doubtingmerle · Feb 13, 2017

Quid est Veritas,

Ok, I am still very confused what you think happened to Paul. His body is gone. Is he alive right now? Will God make him a new body? How can he possibly get from his old body to his new body if you do not think he has a spirit that can exist outside his body. You seem to think you are clear on this, but as far as I can tell, you have not made an attempt to address this.

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.

Quid est Veritas? said:
I have repeatedly been explaining that Paul is not parroting anything. His ideas are developed forms of Pharisaic ideas. Is Einstein parroting Newton? Really now, you are grasping at straws.

Yes, you say Paul is not parroting them, but when I suggest that Paul may differ with the Pharisees on the nature of the resurrection, you insist that Paul cannot possibly differ far from the Pharisees on the nature of the resurrection. That is the problem. If Paul is stuck in his faith, and cannot possibly think of a resurrection far different from what the Pharisees say, why trust a word that he says?

But if Paul can differ with the Pharisees, then your whole point is mute, for Paul can differ with the Pharisees.

No, of course, Einstein was not parroting Newton. He said some things that were very different from Newton. When Einstein said something very different from Newton, nobody says that is out of place. But when I suggest Paul said something far different from the Pharisees, you throw a fit and say that he could not possibly have differed to that extent. But so far I see no evidence for your point.

Paul never says he 'put away' his Pharisee teaching. Likewise he remains of the tribe of Benjamin, remains a hebrew, remains of Israel. Based on the rest of his list, it is ludicrous to think he is thus 'discarding' his Phariseeness.

We shall have to agree to disagree, as I do not think your exegesis holds any water and nor does Church tradition support you. Further his writings clearly betray his Pharisee origins.

Paul remains a Hebrew, remains of Benjamin, remains persecuting the church. Wait, what?

Paul is definitely not saying in Philippians 3 that he is remaining in his religion, in his Phariseeism, is his persecution. He says beware of the Pharisee teaching. He says these are things that were previously gain to him and he puts them away. There was a time that he trusted the value of his Hebrewness and Benjamin tribe, but now he says he puts that trust away.

Yet also in Acts Paul calls himself a Pharisee and calls upon his Pharisee brethren to defend him from Sadducees, so you are being abtuse here.

Wait, what?

You had agreed that the writer of Acts might be putting words in Paul's mouth. I don't trust the book of Acts. Even if you trust Acts, Acts 15 says Paul disagreed with the Pharisees. And even if Paul was a Pharisee, that does not prove he agreed with everything the Pharisees said. And even if Paul agreed with everything the Pharisees said, and believed that Jesus could not have survived in spirit, that does not mean that Paul was witness to an empty grave and a risen Jesus.

To repeat myself again, a witness to the Faith in the physical resurrection.

Paul is a witness that some had faith in a resurrection.

I am a witness that some have faith in Islam. Does that prove that Islam is true?

I would be hoping for something more than a witness that says some people believed this.

Where he is referencing OT ideas. Look, Paul's works and his own heritage are clearly derived from the OT and Second Temple Judaism, which simply does not have such doctrines. It has Ruach and Nephesh, which I have explained to you.

Absolutely, Paul used the OT as a source. But Paul also differs sometimes with the OT.

This is the problem. If Paul never differed with the books of Moses, then he did not believe in any resurrection at all. If Paul differed with the books of Moses, then it is a question of how far he would stray from them. From what I read in his books, he was willing to go quite far from the books of Moses.

It is your right to disagree, but the derivation is clear. Obviously Pharisees that did not accept Jesus would reject this interpretation, what would you expect? But there is a clear antecedant for those who did accept Him.

And there is a clear derivation for Moshe's Rooster? To me that is about as close to the Old Testament as the concept of ceremonially drinking the blood of Christ.

Because there is no reason to think Acts was only written then. I have already easily dismissed the 'Josephus as source' claim, which I notice you did not even try to dispute, and that was the only reason to date Acts so late. Because of its frequent references to corroborated 1st century evidence now that we have safely set Josephus aside, this makes an earlier date far more likely.

Rolling on the floor laughing! I cannot possibly respond to everything here, and I have about 5 threads I was working on and had to abandon because there is no time. And yet if I don't respond to something you say, you declare victory.

Thanks, I needed a hearty laugh.

Unbelievable!

You crack me up.

Which is the Sadducee position and inapllicable to a discussion on what Paul meant, who explicitly said that as to the interpretation of the Law, he was a Pharisee.

That is also your position that the books of Moses do not refer to a resurrection also, yes? So please don't write it off as the Sadducee position, when it is obvious that those books don't talk about a resurrection. That is the common sense position.

What is your position. Do you agree that the books of Moses do not teach a resurrection?

Yet there are no Gentile views similar to the concepts you would have Paul espouse. Please provide evidence as your previous attempt to do so was a dismal failure.

My view is that when Paul speaks of surviving death, he could have been speaking of the spirit surviving. Are you saying that nobody in the first century believed that? That is odd, because Paul sure seems to be believing this.

You are being disingenuous. Everyone agrees it to be a 'glorified body'. Please stop insulting my intelligence with stultified attempts at reductio ad absurdams that clearly have no basis.

How am I supposed to know what you are referring to when you begin a sentence with "it", and the previous context refers to several things that your "it" could be referring to?

Oh well, I am just going to have to guess what this cryptic text means and you will complain if I misunderstand. But if you would simply write clearly, we would not misunderstand, and then you could stop screaming.

Let me guess. You are saying that God will make Paul a new body. Huh? That is also my view of what Paul thought. I am saying that Paul thought his body would decay, and God would make him a new one. You say that nobody believes this, and then you seem to be saying exactly what you say nobody would believe.

The difference is that I think Paul thought he had a spirit separate from his original body that could inhabit this other body. As you appear to be dnying that Paul thought this, how can you possibly get Paul into his new body?

Point being? It is the midrashic reading coupled with the natural progression of Jewish texts and doctrines that makes this so compelling, not some random verses puled out of context.

Ask any Jew what the natural progression of Jewish texts are, and they will tell you it does not point to Jesus.

Ed1wolf · Feb 13, 2017

doubtingmerle said:
Ed1wolf said: ↑
No, his obvious intertwining of the Isaiah 53 prophecy and the gospels crucifixion narrative shows an extensive knowledge of the gospels.

dm: Anybody that will look up Clement 16 will clearly see this is false. I have quoted the whole passage here, and won't repeat it again. You will ignore the link, but interested lurkers can see it here-- First Clement: Clement of Rome . Clearly he is using Isaiah 53 as his source, not a gospel. Clearly he is not intertwining a gospel text of the crucifixion here. If you think he is, please quote back where he does what you claim.

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.

↑

ed: You still have not provided any evidence that the oldest copies of Luke all use that verse.

dm: I have provided two sources. Justin clearly is quoting something different from the four gospels. And Ehrman details this in his books, The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture and Misquoting Scripture. By the way, the first book is a boring book for scholars, and is not the best place to start. The second book is written for a wide audience, and was on the New York Times Bestseller list. That is a much better place to start.

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.

ed: But even if they did, different eyewitnesses hear and notice different things. God may have said all those things that are quoted in Matthew Mark and Luke. Just the source that Luke used only remembered that statement.

dm: That is not the point. The point is that many early surviving copies of Luke have a different sentence here compared to modern copies.

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.

ed: I am not saying that that reading is definitely wrong. I notice that Justin actually uses my interpretation of the verse, thanks for confirming that my interpretation may be correct even if God actually did say that. And that it does not contradict the other words from God at the baptism.

dm: I am not asking you what interpretation Justin had. The point is that Justin quotes the text 3 times as saying something different from the modern text.

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.

ed: Because it is inspired by the Christian God whom we can quite easily demonstrate most likely exists.

dm: Now that would be a good topic for a thread. Perhaps we can take it up some time.

Feel free to start it here.

ed: And The Christian God cannot contradict Himself.

dm: Then he must not have written the Bible, where one book says the disciples did not leave Jerusalem before Pentecost and another says they did, or where one book say the women saw a man at the grave who announced the resurrection, and another says they say two men, and another says they saw an angel who told them this.

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

ed: No, I provided evidence earlier that show that Acts is at the least as accurate history as Herodotus if not more given its closer date to the actual events.

dm: No you did not. You mentioned that Acts mentions some historical facts. That does not make the book historical. You have given not one piece of evidence that the stories it tells about Paul or the disciples are historical.

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.

ed: I explained this earlier. The voice at the baptism is the Voice of God, an omnipotent being. God does not need a larynx. Only human spirits need a larynx to speak. That is what the human body is for, to enable the human spirit to interact with the physical universe.

ed: Your Jesus is not God? If God can speak without an larynx, how could it not be that Jesus could speak without a larynx? And yet you find the claim that Jesus spoke as proof that he had a larynx, but do not accept the claim that God spoke as proof that he had a larynx. This sounds like special pleading to me.

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.

Quid est Veritas? · Feb 14, 2017

doubtingmerle said:
Quid est Veritas,

Ok, I am still very confused what you think happened to Paul. His body is gone. Is he alive right now? Will God make him a new body? How can he possibly get from his old body to his new body if you do not think he has a spirit that can exist outside his body. You seem to think you are clear on this, but as far as I can tell, you have not made an attempt to address this.

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.

I have explained this ad nauseam. I see no reason to indulge your feigned ignorance. Read my previous posts. This is a superficial attempt to redirect the topic away from first century evidence, where you have no foot to stand on, to an anachronistic reading based on the English understanding of the text in translation.

Yes, you say Paul is not parroting them, but when I suggest that Paul may differ with the Pharisees on the nature of the resurrection, you insist that Paul cannot possibly differ far from the Pharisees on the nature of the resurrection. That is the problem. If Paul is stuck in his faith, and cannot possibly think of a resurrection far different from what the Pharisees say, why trust a word that he says?

But if Paul can differ with the Pharisees, then your whole point is mute, for Paul can differ with the Pharisees.

No, of course, Einstein was not parroting Newton. He said some things that were very different from Newton. When Einstein said something very different from Newton, nobody says that is out of place. But when I suggest Paul said something far different from the Pharisees, you throw a fit and say that he could not possibly have differed to that extent. But so far I see no evidence for your point.

Paul is a Pharisee. What he says on the Resurrection agrees with Pharisee teaching and thereafter with Church teaching. It is clear A thus B here. I see no reason to assume A then Y then suddenly B. To suggest this somehow plausible is laughable.

Paul remains a Hebrew, remains of Benjamin, remains persecuting the church. Wait, what?

Paul is definitely not saying in Philippians 3 that he is remaining in his religion, in his Phariseeism, is his persecution. He says beware of the Pharisee teaching. He says these are things that were previously gain to him and he puts them away. There was a time that he trusted the value of his Hebrewness and Benjamin tribe, but now he says he puts that trust away.

You are being disingenuous. I have said I and the Church, disagree with your exegesis. He says it is less important than Christ. Restating your position is not going to make anyone more likely to believe it, especcially in light of your complete and utter inability to grasp the Pauline letters' meaning in other regards.

Wait, what?

You had agreed that the writer of Acts might be putting words in Paul's mouth. I don't trust the book of Acts. Even if you trust Acts, Acts 15 says Paul disagreed with the Pharisees. And even if Paul was a Pharisee, that does not prove he agreed with everything the Pharisees said. And even if Paul agreed with everything the Pharisees said, and believed that Jesus could not have survived in spirit, that does not mean that Paul was witness to an empty grave and a risen Jesus.

Paul is a witness that some had faith in a resurrection.

I am a witness that some have faith in Islam. Does that prove that Islam is true?

I would be hoping for something more than a witness that says some people believed this.

I said repeatedly that the Resurrection has to be taken on Faith. Did you miss that?
As I said in my initial post, the only witnesses are a bunch of back-country fishermen and 'hysterical' women. It is the strength of the Faith, of enduring Christianity and the ongoing relationship of its adherents to the Living Christ, that prove the Resurrection. This unfortunately is not falsifiable or 'scientific' evidence, so of course you would reject it. But your premier argument seems to attempt to reject it on historic grounds of the early Church, which is clearly erroneous.

Absolutely, Paul used the OT as a source. But Paul also differs sometimes with the OT.

This is the problem. If Paul never differed with the books of Moses, then he did not believe in any resurrection at all. If Paul differed with the books of Moses, then it is a question of how far he would stray from them. From what I read in his books, he was willing to go quite far from the books of Moses.

Once again: Paul is a Pharisee. Pharisees believe in the Oral Torah. The Oral Torah had a resurrection.
You are being deliberately obtuse on this point. Your thinking here is at best ignorant or Sadducaic. To Paul, he differed very little from Moses, who 'gave' the Oral Torah after all. Again, please educate yourself on Second Temple Judaism, this is getting tedious.

And there is a clear derivation for Moshe's Rooster? To me that is about as close to the Old Testament as the concept of ceremonially drinking the blood of Christ.

Disingenuous. Key words: To me. I have explained this multiple times.

Rolling on the floor laughing! I cannot possibly respond to everything here, and I have about 5 threads I was working on and had to abandon because there is no time. And yet if I don't respond to something you say, you declare victory.

Thanks, I needed a hearty laugh.

Unbelievable!

You crack me up.

Yet you have once again failed to adress Josephus. You write pages and pages of rebuttals on minutiae, but on this important point...silence. Your defence of "I could I am just too busy" sounds distinctly hollow and void of substance in light of this.

What should I expect though? You are basically Carrier by proxy, and his silly arguments in this regard are easily refuted.

That is also your position that the books of Moses do not refer to a resurrection also, yes? So please don't write it off as the Sadducee position, when it is obvious that those books don't talk about a resurrection. That is the common sense position.

What is your position. Do you agree that the books of Moses do not teach a resurrection?

My view is that when Paul speaks of surviving death, he could have been speaking of the spirit surviving. Are you saying that nobody in the first century believed that? That is odd, because Paul sure seems to be believing this.

The written Torah doesn't mention a resurrection explicitly, but this is an irrelevant point in light of the nature of Second Temple Judaism and the belief in the Oral Torah. I have explained this to the death and shall hence forth ignore such comments from you in this regard as you clearly are only trolling.

Ask any Jew what the natural progression of Jewish texts are, and they will tell you it does not point to Jesus.

Point being? They are followers of Judaism. This is a superfluous observation.

Second Temple Judaism gave us Christianity and a significant proportion of ancient Jewry converted to Christianity as can be seen in the disappearance of the Hellenistai. Clearly for much thereof it was the natural progression as such. This is like arguing that modern Astrology disproves that modern Astronomy is a natural development of ancient Astronomy/Astrology.

How am I supposed to know what you are referring to when you begin a sentence with "it", and the previous context refers to several things that your "it" could be referring to?

Oh well, I am just going to have to guess what this cryptic text means and you will complain if I misunderstand. But if you would simply write clearly, we would not misunderstand, and then you could stop screaming.

Let me guess. You are saying that God will make Paul a new body. Huh? That is also my view of what Paul thought. I am saying that Paul thought his body would decay, and God would make him a new one. You say that nobody believes this, and then you seem to be saying exactly what you say nobody would believe.

The difference is that I think Paul thought he had a spirit separate from his original body that could inhabit this other body. As you appear to be dnying that Paul thought this, how can you possibly get Paul into his new body?

Again, already explained. Maybe I should help you a bit with a few articles here, as you clearly are very much wallowing in ignorance and disinformation.

mark kennedy · Feb 14, 2017

Quid est Veritas? said:
I said repeatedly that the Resurrection has to be taken on Faith. Did you miss that?

As I said in my initial post, the only witnesses are a bunch of back-country fishermen and 'hysterical' women. It is the strength of the Faith, of enduring Christianity and the ongoing relationship of its adherents to the Living Christ, that prove the Resurrection. This unfortunately is not falsifiable or 'scientific' evidence, so of course you would reject it. But your premier argument seems to attempt to reject it on historic grounds of the early Church, which is clearly erroneous.

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. After that He was seen by James, then by all the apostles. Then last of all He was seen by me also, as by one born out of due time. (1 Cor. 15:3-8)

Paul is clearly saying Jesus was raised bodily, the same body that died and was buried 'rose again', "he rose (G1453) again the third day according to the scriptures".

Rose (G1453 - egeirō ἐγείρω) probably akin to the base of G58 (through the idea of collecting one's faculties); to waken (transitively or intransitively), i.e. rouse (literally, from sleep, from sitting or lying, from disease, from death; or figuratively, from obscurity, inactivity, ruins, nonexistence.

The term is used of "raising or rising" from the dead; of Christ's "raising" the dead, Mat 11:5; Mar 5:41; Luke 7:14; John 12:1, 9, 17. Also used of the resurrection of believers, Mat 27:52; John 5:21; 1Cr 15:15, 16, 29, 32, 35, 42-44, 52; 2Cr 1:9; 4:14; of unbelievers, Mat 12:42. (Vines) (See G1453 BLB)

Not just that Christ was raised but that it fulfilled predictive prophecy concerning Christ and this witness is uniform across all Christian Scripture and throughout Christian history:

Christ died for our sins (Matt 27:50; Mark 15:37; Luke 24:36; John 19:30)
He was buried (Matt 27:60; Mark 15:46; Luke 23:53; John 19:40)
He was raised on the third day (Matt 28:6; Mark 16:6; Luke 24:3; John 20:2)
He appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve (Matt 28:16-17; Mark 16:7; Luke 24:36; John 20:19)

He, like Carrier is describing Docetism, not Biblical Christianity:

Docetism was unequivocally rejected at the First Council of Nicaea in 325 and is regarded as heretical by the Catholic Church, Orthodox Church, and Coptic Church…Docetism is broadly defined as any teaching that claims that Jesus' body was either absent or illusory.

They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they confess not the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ, which suffered for our sins, and which the Father, of His goodness, raised up again. They who deny the gift of God are perishing in their disputes. (Ignatius of Antioch letter to the Smyrnaeans, 7:1, 110 AD) (Docetism, Wikipedia)

This is found no where in the New Testament and completely rejected in all Christian traditions. Docetism of this nature is found in the Koran and strictly opposed to a bodily resurrection:

And because of their saying: We slew the Messiah, Jesus son of Mary, Allah's messenger — they slew him not nor crucified him, but it appeared so unto them; and lo! those who disagree concerning it are in doubt thereof; they have no knowledge thereof save pursuit of a conjecture; they slew him not for certain. But Allah took him up unto Himself. Allah was ever Mighty, Wise. (Qur'an, Sura 4:157–158)

This is yet another equivocation fallacy of Liberal Theology bent on dismissing Christianity as just another pagan mythology:

"This skeptical way of thinking reached its culmination in the argument that Jesus as a human being never existed at all and is a myth. In ancient times, this extreme view was named the heresy of docetism (seeming) because it maintained that Jesus never came into the world "in the flesh", but only seemed to; (I John 4:2) and it was given some encouragement by Paul's lack of interest in his fleshly existence. Subsequently, from the eighteenth century onwards, there have been attempts to insist that Jesus did not even "seem" to exist, and that all tales of his appearance upon the earth were pure fiction. In particular, his story was compared to the pagan mythologies inventing fictitious dying and rising gods." (Grant, Michael. Jesus. 2004) (Docetism, Wikipedia)

It distorts and grossly misrepresents Christian profession with childish disdain. It was, is and always will be a baseless farce.

Grace and peace,
Mark

doubtingmerle · Feb 15, 2017

Quid est Veritas,

OK, so you have no comment on whether you think Paul is alive in heaven now or not. You could answer if you choose.

And you have no comment as to how, if Paul is not alive now and his body is gone, he could ever live again unless God makes him a new body. My position is that Paul thought his spirit would survive and then he would live on in a new body. But you have vehemently denied that Paul's spirit would live on in a new body. If Paul did not think he will get a new body, and his earthly body is gone, and if there is no spirit of Paul that can live on without his earthly body, how can Paul possibly ever go to heaven? But I see no answer to this from you.

You refuse to put a position of your own on the table. Very well. I win by default. If my position is the only position on the table, there is nothing left to argue. I win.

Care to put a position on the table?

Quid est Veritas? said:
I have explained this ad nauseam. I see no reason to indulge your feigned ignorance. Read my previous posts.

Why should we read your posts if you refuse to even put a position on the table that you choose to defend? Is Paul alive now? In what body? Will he ever be alive? In what body?

Paul is a Pharisee.

Flapdoodle.

I said repeatedly that the Resurrection has to be taken on Faith. Did you miss that?

OK, but this thread is about credible witnesses. If your answer is that, no, we don't have credible witnesses, but we take it on faith, than so be it.

As I said in my initial post, the only witnesses are a bunch of back-country fishermen and 'hysterical' women. It is the strength of the Faith, of enduring Christianity and the ongoing relationship of its adherents to the Living Christ, that prove the Resurrection. This unfortunately is not falsifiable or 'scientific' evidence, so of course you would reject it. But your premier argument seems to attempt to reject it on historic grounds of the early Church, which is clearly erroneous.

OK, so you have no good evidence. You have second hand reports that some back country fishermen believed it, so therefore it must be true.

I would want more evidence.

Once again: Paul is a Pharisee.

Once again: flapdoodle.

Pharisees believe in the Oral Torah. The Oral Torah had a resurrection.

Again I am asking about the books of Moses. They arguably never mention resurrection, and have no concern about eternal life. Why not? If people live forever, how can the first 5 books never mention it?

You are being deliberately obtuse on this point. Your thinking here is at best ignorant or Sadducaic. To Paul, he differed very little from Moses, who 'gave' the Oral Torah after all. Again, please educate yourself on Second Temple Judaism, this is getting tedious.

Oh, puhleeze. How do you know that Moses gave the Oral Torah? How do you know Moses even existed?

Yet you have once again failed to adress Josephus. You write pages and pages of rebuttals on minutiae, but on this important point...silence. Your defence of "I could I am just too busy" sounds distinctly hollow and void of substance in light of this.

Willful flapdoodle. I have addressed Luke and Josephus multiple times on this thread. There are probably a dozen posts on this thread I have not yet responded to. I have a half a dozen threads on my watch list I would like to respond to but have not for lack of time. If that means you win, then fine, you win.

The written Torah doesn't mention a resurrection explicitly, but this is an irrelevant point in light of the nature of Second Temple Judaism and the belief in the Oral Torah.

No, it is not a mute point. If the Old Testament is the word of God revealing God's thoughts to men, then how can the Old Testament have nothing of significance to say about resurrection, heaven, or eternity, until it is hinted at only late in the process, after the captivity?

I have explained this to the death and shall hence forth ignore such comments from you in this regard as you clearly are only trolling.

Trolling on my own thread? Huh? Have you forgotten whose thread this is? Nobody forced you to come on this thread. If you respond to my thread, I have the right to reply.

mark kennedy · Feb 15, 2017

doubtingmerle said:
Quid est Veritas,

OK, so you have no comment on whether you think Paul is alive in heaven now or not. You could answer if you choose.

I sense some confusion here, with Christians these seem like some pretty obvious questions:

So we are always confident, knowing that while we are at home in the body we are absent from the Lord. For we walk by faith, not by sight. We are confident, yes, well pleased rather to be absent from the body and to be present with the Lord. (2 Cor. 5:6-8)

I can't believe I'm explaining this, Paul being absent from the body is now present with the Lord. Would you like me to show you the context of 2 Cor. 5 because I don't mind doing expositions.

And you have no comment as to how, if Paul is not alive now and his body is gone, he could ever live again unless God makes him a new body. My position is that Paul thought his spirit would survive and then he would live on in a new body. But you have vehemently denied that Paul's spirit would live on in a new body. If Paul did not think he will get a new body, and his earthly body is gone, and if there is no spirit of Paul that can live on without his earthly body, how can Paul possibly ever go to heaven? But I see no answer to this from you.

The resurrection hasn't happened yet, The resurrection happens at the end of the age, it's the key promise of the gospel. Paul describes it as 'waiting in anxious expectation':

For we know that if our earthly house, this tent, is destroyed, we have a building from God, a house not made with hands, eternal in the heavens. For in this we groan, earnestly desiring to be clothed with our habitation which is from heaven, if indeed, having been clothed, we shall not be found naked. For we who are in this tent groan, being burdened, not because we want to be unclothed, but further clothed, that mortality may be swallowed up by life. Now He who has prepared us for this very thing is God, who also has given us the Spirit as a guarantee. (2 Cor. 5:1-5)

You refuse to put a position of your own on the table. Very well. I win by default. If my position is the only position on the table, there is nothing left to argue. I win.

Can I play?

Care to put a position on the table?

I would like to propose the position that the resurrection of the believer is a promise of the gospel, literally fulfilled at the end of the age:

And I saw the dead, great and small, standing before the throne. And there were open books, and one of them was the book of life. And the dead were judged according to their deeds, as recorded in the books. (Rev. 20:12)

For this we say to you by the word of the Lord, that we who are alive and remain until the coming of the Lord will by no means precede those who are asleep. For the Lord Himself will descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of an archangel, and with the trumpet of God. And the dead in Christ will rise first. Then we who are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air. And thus we shall always be with the Lord. (1 Thess. 4:15-17)

Being absent from the body the believer is present with the Lord (2 Cor. 5:8). We anxiously await the resurrection when Christ returns and the perishable puts on the immortal. This promise is taken by faith and as a down payment guaranteeing the redemption of the purchased price we receive the Holy Spirit:

In Him you also trusted, after you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation; in whom also, having believed, you were sealed with the Holy Spirit of promise, who is the guarantee of our inheritance until the redemption of the purchased possession, to the praise of His glory. (Eph. 1:13,14)

Why should we read your posts if you refuse to even put a position on the table that you choose to defend? Is Paul alive now? In what body? Will he ever be alive? In what body?

Paul is with the Lord awaiting the resurrection, even though those who went before us are physically dead their spirits are in heaven awaiting the resurrection. They have put off their 'earthly tent' and in the meantime are clothed with white robes:

And when he had opened the fifth seal, I saw under the altar the souls of them that were slain for the word of God, and for the testimony which they held: And they cried with a loud voice, saying, How long, O Lord, holy and true, dost thou not judge and avenge our blood on them that dwell on the earth? And white robes were given unto every one of them; and it was said unto them, that they should rest yet for a little season, until their fellowservants also and their brethren, that should be killed as they were, should be fulfilled. (Rev. 6:9-11)

Do you even own a Bible?

Flapdoodle.

Paul said that he was a Pharisee after his conversion:

Then Paul, knowing that some of them were Sadducees and the others Pharisees, called out in the Sanhedrin, "My brothers, I am a Pharisee, descended from Pharisees. I stand on trial because of the hope of the resurrection of the dead." (Acts 23:6)

He didn't stop being a Pharisee when he became a Christian. You over look the obvious so easily.

OK, but this thread is about credible witnesses. If your answer is that, no, we don't have credible witnesses, but we take it on faith, than so be it.

We do have credible witnesses, Christ and the Apostles, the New Testament is the Apostolic witness. What we take on faith is the promise of the gospel which is provided by the ministry of the Holy Spirit. By faith we wait in anxious expectation of the return of Christ and the resurrection of believers at the end of the age.

Again I am asking about the books of Moses. They arguably never mention resurrection, and have no concern about eternal life. Why not? If people live forever, how can the first 5 books never mention it?

The Old Testament saints received a covenant and a promise, the revelation of Scripture is progressive, the resurrection is a New Testament promise:

And God spoke to Moses and said to him: “I am the Lord. I appeared to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob, as God Almighty (El Shaddai), but by My name Lord (Jehovah) I was not known to them. I have also established My covenant with them, to give them the land of Canaan, the land of their pilgrimage, in which they were strangers. (Exodus 6:2-4)

God appeared to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob as God (אֵל ʼêl, ale H410) Almighty (שַׁדַּי Shadday, shad-dah'-ee H7706). God appeared to the children of Israel as Jehovah (יְהֹוָה Yᵉhôvâh, yeh-ho-vaw' H3068), which is the Old Testament covenant name for God. The Apostles received the complete revelation through the Son of God:

For the law was given through Moses, but grace and truth came through Jesus Christ. No one has seen God at any time. The only begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, He has declared Him. (John 1:17,18)

Jesus told the Apostles that he would die and be raised from the dead on the third day. They didn't understand, Peter even argued with him, it wasn't until after the resurrection that they understood that Christ must die for our sins according to the Scriptures and be raised on the third day. This was all meticulously prophesied. God reveled this to them in the fullness of time just as God will reveal all things at the end of the age:

God, who at various times and in various ways spoke in time past to the fathers by the prophets, has in these last days spoken to us by His Son, whom He has appointed heir of all things, through whom also He made the worlds; who being the brightness of His glory and the express image of His person, and upholding all things by the word of His power, when He had by Himself purged our sins, sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high (Heb. 1:1-3)

Oh, puhleeze. How do you know that Moses gave the Oral Torah? How do you know Moses even existed?

No, it is not a mute point. If the Old Testament is the word of God revealing God's thoughts to men, then how can the Old Testament have nothing of significance to say about resurrection, heaven, or eternity, until it is hinted at only late in the process, after the captivity?

We can get into evidence for the Old Testament, there are a lot of interesting developments from archaeology these days. Apparently the resurrection was not an Old Testament promise but there were those who did believe in it, namely Abraham:

By faith Abraham, when he was tested, offered up Isaac, and he who had received the promises offered up his only begotten son, of whom it was said, “In Isaac your seed shall be called,”concluding that God was able to raise him up, even from the dead (Heb. 11:17-19)

There was also Job:

As for me, I know that my Redeemer lives, And at the last He will take His stand on the earth. "Even after my skin is destroyed, Yet from my flesh I shall see God; Whom I myself shall behold. (Job 19:26,27)

The promise of the resurrection is a New Testament revelation, known only to the Old Testament saints through special revelation that resulted from a relationship with God. It is now a promise to whosoever will.

"And it shall come to pass, that whosoever shall call on the name of the Lord shall be saved" (Acts 2:21).

Grace and peace,
Mark

doubtingmerle · Feb 15, 2017

Thanks, Mark, for coming in on my side on this question. Because it has been a little lonely debating some of the silly things people have been saying here. Glad to have you on my side on this point.

mark kennedy said:
I sense some confusion here, with Christians these seem like some pretty obvious questions:

So we are always confident, knowing that while we are at home in the body we are absent from the Lord. For we walk by faith, not by sight. We are confident, yes, well pleased rather to be absent from the body and to be present with the Lord. (2 Cor. 5:6-8)

I can't believe I'm explaining this, Paul being absent from the body is now present with the Lord. Would you like me to show you the context of 2 Cor. 5 because I don't mind doing expositions.

OK, so even though Paul's body is decaying, according to Paul's theology he is still in heaven anyway. I have been saying that Paul says this throughout this thread. Have you seen the flak we take for saying this?
Ed pooh-poohs this as Helenistic dualism. But you and I both agree that Paul taught his spirit can survive in heaven even if his body is in the grave. So Ed can laugh at us all he wants, yes? You and I know he is wrong.

And as for Quid Est Veritas? We have no idea what he thinks about the resurrection. He refuses to tell us. He just tells me that the idea that Paul could live on without his body, and have God give him a new body, is wrong. However, I don't see Quid's position. He just attacks us for our position, rather than state a position of his own.

The resurrection hasn't happened yet, The resurrection happens at the end of the age, it's the key promise of the gospel. Paul describes it as 'waiting in anxious expectation':

For we know that if our earthly house, this tent, is destroyed, we have a building from God, a house not made with hands, eternal in the heavens. For in this we groan, earnestly desiring to be clothed with our habitation which is from heaven, if indeed, having been clothed, we shall not be found naked. For we who are in this tent groan, being burdened, not because we want to be unclothed, but further clothed, that mortality may be swallowed up by life. Now He who has prepared us for this very thing is God, who also has given us the Spirit as a guarantee. (2 Cor. 5:1-5)

Wow, that is the same passage I quoted several times here. That clearly says that Paul expected his old body to be destroyed, and that he would live on in heaven anyway.

Can I play?

Sure. Here are the 4 questions I asked Quid:

1. Is Paul alive now?
2. In what body?
3. Will he ever be alive?
4. In what body?

I see your answer to question 1 & 3 are "yes". What about 2 & 4? Does Paul have a body of any kind now, or is he a disembodied spirit with no means of communicating with anybody? And will he in the future be in yet a different body from the body he is in now?

I would like to propose the position that the resurrection of the believer is a promise of the gospel, literally fulfilled at the end of the age:

And I saw the dead, great and small, standing before the throne. And there were open books, and one of them was the book of life. And the dead were judged according to their deeds, as recorded in the books. (Rev. 20:12)

For this we say to you by the word of the Lord, that we who are alive and remain until the coming of the Lord will by no means precede those who are asleep. For the Lord Himself will descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of an archangel, and with the trumpet of God. And the dead in Christ will rise first. Then we who are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air. And thus we shall always be with the Lord. (1 Thess. 4:15-17)

Being absent from the body the believer is present with the Lord (2 Cor. 5:8). We anxiously await the resurrection when Christ returns and the perishable puts on the immortal. This promise is taken by faith and as a down payment guaranteeing the redemption of the purchased price we receive the Holy Spirit:

Is the resurrection immediate or delayed? You first quote a verse seeming to say the resurrection is immediate and that Paul is alive now, and you immediately follow that be implying that the resurrection won't occur until later. So which way is it?

Paul is with the Lord awaiting the resurrection, even though those who went before us are physically dead their spirits are in heaven awaiting the resurrection. They have put off their 'earthly tent' and in the meantime are clothed with white robes:

And when he had opened the fifth seal, I saw under the altar the souls of them that were slain for the word of God, and for the testimony which they held: And they cried with a loud voice, saying, How long, O Lord, holy and true, dost thou not judge and avenge our blood on them that dwell on the earth? And white robes were given unto every one of them; and it was said unto them, that they should rest yet for a little season, until their fellowservants also and their brethren, that should be killed as they were, should be fulfilled. (Rev. 6:9-11)

What resurrection? Paul no longer has a body. His body is gone. So what resurrection is Paul waiting for?

Do you even own a Bible?

Yes. And I read the Bible. Every chapter, every verse, every line. Have you?

Paul said that he was a Pharisee after his conversion:

Then Paul, knowing that some of them were Sadducees and the others Pharisees, called out in the Sanhedrin, "My brothers, I am a Pharisee, descended from Pharisees. I stand on trial because of the hope of the resurrection of the dead." (Acts 23:6)

He didn't stop being a Pharisee when he became a Christian. You over look the obvious so easily.

Well first, if you have been following, I don't believe everything that Acts says. But even if Paul really said what Acts claims, this in no way confirms what Quid is claiming. Quid is claiming that Paul could not possibly disagree with the Pharisees on the resurrection.

Although Paul came from a Pharisee background, I think he had a dramatic conversion, and after his conversion, found himself differing with the Pharisees on certain points. Quid, however, argues that his affinity to Pharisee teaching was so strong that in no sense could Paul possibly even consider differing with them on the nature of the resurrection. And since the Pharisees differ with you, then Quid says Paul must surely have agreed with the Pharisee leaders and not with you.

But you think Quid is wrong on this point, yes?

The Old Testament saints received a covenant and a promise, the revelation of Scripture is progressive, the resurrection is a New Testament promise:

And God spoke to Moses and said to him: “I am the Lord. I appeared to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob, as God Almighty (El Shaddai), but by My name Lord (Jehovah) I was not known to them. I have also established My covenant with them, to give them the land of Canaan, the land of their pilgrimage, in which they were strangers. (Exodus 6:2-4)

God appeared to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob as God (אֵל ʼêl, ale H410) Almighty (שַׁדַּי Shadday, shad-dah'-ee H7706). God appeared to the children of Israel as Jehovah (יְהֹוָה Yᵉhôvâh, yeh-ho-vaw' H3068), which is the Old Testament covenant name for God. The Apostles received the complete revelation through the Son of God:

For the law was given through Moses, but grace and truth came through Jesus Christ. No one has seen God at any time. The only begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, He has declared Him. (John 1:17,18)

Have you ever plowed through the books of Moses? The curious thing is that Heaven or the resurrection or eternal life never come up. If heaven is real, and these were the only Bible books they had at first, how can that not be important enough to discuss?

We can get into evidence for the Old Testament, there are a lot of interesting developments from archaeology these days. Apparently the resurrection was not an Old Testament promise but there were those who did believe in it, namely Abraham:

By faith Abraham, when he was tested, offered up Isaac, and he who had received the promises offered up his only begotten son, of whom it was said, “In Isaac your seed shall be called,”concluding that God was able to raise him up, even from the dead (Heb. 11:17-19)

You are quoting the New Testament, not the Old. The books of Moses say nothing about eternal life.

There was also Job:

As for me, I know that my Redeemer lives, And at the last He will take His stand on the earth. "Even after my skin is destroyed, Yet from my flesh I shall see God; Whom I myself shall behold. (Job 19:26,27)

Yes, read anachronistically, this seems to be talking about eternal life. But when you find the lack of this concept in other books, and the whole concept of Job is that, no matter how bad it gets, Job was confident God would make things right, this verse seems to be nothing more than a poetic confirmation that, even if he dies, he will rise again and finish his life. This is not talking about eternal life.

Quid est Veritas? · Feb 15, 2017

doubtingmerle said:
Quid est Veritas,

OK, so you have no comment on whether you think Paul is alive in heaven now or not. You could answer if you choose.

And you have no comment as to how, if Paul is not alive now and his body is gone, he could ever live again unless God makes him a new body. My position is that Paul thought his spirit would survive and then he would live on in a new body. But you have vehemently denied that Paul's spirit would live on in a new body. If Paul did not think he will get a new body, and his earthly body is gone, and if there is no spirit of Paul that can live on without his earthly body, how can Paul possibly ever go to heaven? But I see no answer to this from you.

You refuse to put a position of your own on the table. Very well. I win by default. If my position is the only position on the table, there is nothing left to argue. I win.

Care to put a position on the table?

I have explained Paul's position ad nauseam in multiple posts. I posted two articles that explain it in depth. We talked of Ruach which leads to Christ-in-us and Nephesh as the glorified body etc. My own opinion on the afterlife is irrelevant here when we were discussing PAUL'S, so this is a sneaky obfuscation on your part. I find it patently absurd that you would write such a ridiculous self-righteous diatribe. For you ignore what I wrote and then pretend I didn't address things. This is not the first time you have made this ludicrous accusation, but it is just willful disregard of my posts and specious thinking.

Why should we read your posts if you refuse to even put a position on the table that you choose to defend? Is Paul alive now? In what body? Will he ever be alive? In what body?

Irrelevant to the discussion which is about Paul's views and the early Christian's. These are merely flagrant attempts at distancing the conversation from the actual points of the thread where you have failed dismally to make any headway.

Flapdoodle.

I have supported Paul's Phariseeness repeatedly while you have only denied it, while ignoring the multiple places where Paul says it or is said of Paul. This is a puerile response.

OK, so you have no good evidence. You have second hand reports that some back country fishermen believed it, so therefore it must be true.

I would want more evidence.

No evidence would ever be sufficient to you, I think. Look how you defend Carrier whose ideas are patently false and repeatedly shown in error...

Again I am asking about the books of Moses. They arguably never mention resurrection, and have no concern about eternal life. Why not? If people live forever, how can the first 5 books never mention it?

Oh, puhleeze. How do you know that Moses gave the Oral Torah? How do you know Moses even existed?

Again, our opinion of Moses is irrelevant as to whether Paul and the Pharisees believed in the Oral Torah and its descent from him.

Willful flapdoodle. I have addressed Luke and Josephus multiple times on this thread. There are probably a dozen posts on this thread I have not yet responded to. I have a half a dozen threads on my watch list I would like to respond to but have not for lack of time. If that means you win, then fine, you win.

To quote Queen Gertrude: "The lady doth protest too much, me thinks."

I responded to your attempts to address Luke and Josephus to others and you just reposted the same dishonest Carrier article that I easily refuted. But I have clearly seen you are out of your depth on any historical question, hence your repeated farcical attempts to redirect conversation to modern interpretation, individual beliefs and English readings.

No, it is not a mute point. If the Old Testament is the word of God revealing God's thoughts to men, then how can the Old Testament have nothing of significance to say about resurrection, heaven, or eternity, until it is hinted at only late in the process, after the captivity?

Once again, Oral Torah. To Paul it would be a MOOT point. Your malapropism here is quite funny, seeing that you see the OT to be mute therein.

Trolling on my own thread? Huh? Have you forgotten whose thread this is? Nobody forced you to come on this thread. If you respond to my thread, I have the right to reply.

Trolls often start threads to do just that.
I am tired of this tedious and quite silly way you fail to address what I say. This thread has been very much mendacious. I no longer have the inclination to wade through so much nonsense, so this will be my final response to this thread.

Good day, Sir.

Ed1wolf · Feb 15, 2017

doubtingmerle said:
Sure, stated many times here.

I said SIGNIFICANT changes. I am still waiting.

dm: Oh for crying out loud. That has nothing to do with what I said.

Once again. Marcion says the Orthodox like Irenaeus corrupted the gospels, and had copies that did not match the originals. Irenaeus claimed it was Marcion who was corrupting the gospels. Who was right? Could it be both sides were corrupting them?

Marcion was proven to be in error in his interpretation of both the OT and the NT. And his obvious anti-Semitic edits of Paul's letters plainly showed that Marcion was the one corrupting God/Yahweh's holy Word. Irenaeus plainly was not.

dm: Oh for crying out loud. That has nothing to do with what I said.

Once again. The Gnostics said the Orthodox like Irenaeus corrupted the gospels, and had copies that did not match the originals. Irenaeus claimed the Gnostics were corrupting them. Who was right? Could it be both sides were corrupting them.

The Gnostics were very undemocratic and tried to rule the church with an aristocracy based on mystical knowledge. This plainly went against the teachings of Christ.

dm: 2 Peter is widely regarded as being written after 100 AD. It is not even mentioned by anybody in the second century, and has themes that tend to date the book as a late writing. The Hellenistic wording definitely rules out Peter as the author.

No, he calls himself his original more Aramaic Simeon Peter rather than the more familiar Simon Peter. A forger would have used his more widely known version of his name as he did in First Peter. Given its brevity and subject matter it is a given that it would not likely to be quoted or mentioned in the early church. But actually it was referenced by the author of the Apocalypse of Peter which was written in 150 AD.

dm: Sure he did. Matthew 5:18 says you need to follow all the law. But Mark 7:19 had said Jesus changed the law about unclean foods.

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

dm: And Mark said the people would be given no sign, but Matthew says they would be given the sign of the prophet Jonah. So yes, Matthew did add his own opinions.

Again you are taking these out of their context.

mark kennedy · Feb 16, 2017

doubtingmerle said:
Thanks, Mark, for coming in on my side on this question. Because it has been a little lonely debating some of the silly things people have been saying here. Glad to have you on my side on this point.

I don't have a side, I have a source. I'm old school evangelical, the sooner you learn that about me the better this is going to be.

OK, so even though Paul's body is decaying, according to Paul's theology he is still in heaven anyway. I have been saying that Paul says this throughout this thread. Have you seen the flak we take for saying this?

Absent from the body, present with the Lord, is not a complicated doctrine. The spirit of Paul went to be with the Lord and he awaits the resurrection when the body:

For the perishable must be clothed with the imperishable, and the mortal with immortality. (1Cor. 15:53)

Yes Paul is in heaven, awaiting the resurrection.

Ed pooh-poohs this as Helenistic dualism. But you and I both agree that Paul taught his spirit can survive in heaven even if his body is in the grave. So Ed can laugh at us all he wants, yes? You and I know he is wrong.

This isn't about Ed, it's about Paul and it's about the gospel.

And as for Quid Est Veritas? We have no idea what he thinks about the resurrection. He refuses to tell us. He just tells me that the idea that Paul could live on without his body, and have God give him a new body, is wrong. However, I don't see Quid's position. He just attacks us for our position, rather than state a position of his own.

Quid has not attacked my position, he can't, depending on what he believes about the resurrection. He has quoted NT Wright a couple of times and that may have been on Biologos.com too many times. NT Wright posts there sometimes and his exposition of Romans 5 had about as much to do with Romans 5 as it has to do with the Groucho Marx recipe for bread pudding. I'm not all that concerned with how you relate, my thing is what the Scriptures teach and what the true history of the Scriptures are. You'll find that my focus is on the Scriptures, it's of little significance how that might conflict with an occasional opinion regarding them.

[Edited to add] Quid Est Veritas informs me he made no such quotes and has never been on Biologos. I would love to edit out this careless error but thought it better to simply correct it openly so that it causes no further confusion.

Wow, that is the same passage I quoted several times here. That clearly says that Paul expected his old body to be destroyed, and that he would live on in heaven anyway.

Paul expected that he would physically die, his spirit would go to heaven and at the end of the age those would be rejoined.

Sure. Here are the 4 questions I asked Quid:

I doubt my answers will be all that different but ok:

1. Is Paul alive now?

Yes

2. In what body?

His physical frame was reduced to dust a long time ago.

3. Will he ever be alive?

His body will be resurrected on the last day.

4. In what body?

The new one:

It is the same way with the resurrection of the dead. Our earthly bodies are planted in the ground when we die, but they will be raised to live forever. Our bodies are buried in brokenness, but they will be raised in glory. They are buried in weakness, but they will be raised in strength. They are buried as natural human bodies, but they will be raised as spiritual bodies. For just as there are natural bodies, there are also spiritual bodies. (1 Cor. 15:42-44)

I see your answer to question 1 & 3 are "yes". What about 2 & 4? Does Paul have a body of any kind now, or is he a disembodied spirit with no means of communicating with anybody? And will he in the future be in yet a different body from the body he is in now?

The answer to both is the new one. He is not currently in a 'body', he exists as a spirit clothed in what is described as a robe.

Is the resurrection immediate or delayed?

It's in the 'twinkling of an eye'.

in an instant, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, the dead will be raised imperishable, and we will be changed. (1 Cor. 15:52)

You first quote a verse seeming to say the resurrection is immediate and that Paul is alive now, and you immediately follow that be implying that the resurrection won't occur until later. So which way is it?

Both

What resurrection? Paul no longer has a body. His body is gone. So what resurrection is Paul waiting for?

The resurrection of his mortal body that will become his immortal body.

Yes. And I read the Bible. Every chapter, every verse, every line. Have you?

I don't sit down and read the Bible like a novel very much, I study it in detail and I've covered the whole thing. The Eighth Century Prophets were the hardest part but after that the rest of the prophets was not that tough. It took a while to understand the Levitical Law, the Sacrifices and the Feasts but when I finally got through that it's surprisingly simple to discern the rest. I know the Scriptures, I have pursued an understanding of them my entire adult life. That is why it's hard to relate to someone who can't seem to manage something as basic as the resurrection.

Well first, if you have been following, I don't believe everything that Acts says. But even if Paul really said what Acts claims, this in no way confirms what Quid is claiming. Quid is claiming that Paul could not possibly disagree with the Pharisees on the resurrection.

Paul even after conversion was a Pharisee, just like he was still a Jew, from the tribe of Benjamin. He says so, so there is no real room for conjecture. The challenge for you is to learn what that means.

Although Paul came from a Pharisee background, I think he had a dramatic conversion, and after his conversion, found himself differing with the Pharisees on certain points. Quid, however, argues that his affinity to Pharisee teaching was so strong that in no sense could Paul possibly even consider differing with them on the nature of the resurrection. And since the Pharisees differ with you, then Quid says Paul must surely have agreed with the Pharisee leaders and not with you.

Quid is simply trying to get through to you that Paul's thinking regarding the resurrection being the physical body matched the Pharisee understanding of the resurrection. It's really that simple.

But you think Quid is wrong on this point, yes?

No, like Quid, I think your being absurd.

Have you ever plowed through the books of Moses? The curious thing is that Heaven or the resurrection or eternal life never come up. If heaven is real, and these were the only Bible books they had at first, how can that not be important enough to discuss?

They didn't know about the resurrection, they certainly didn't know about the incarnation, that was a fuller revelation. They, like us, first needed to know the righteousness of God as being of first importance. Then the rest can be added in the fullness of time.

You are quoting the New Testament, not the Old. The books of Moses say nothing about eternal life.

I'm a New Testament Christian or haven't you noticed? The Old Testament told them things they didn't understand, a lot of fundamentally important things like the new birth for instance:

Jesus answered, “Most assuredly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God. That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. Do not marvel that I said to you, ‘You must be born again.’ The wind blows where it wishes, and you hear the sound of it, but cannot tell where it comes from and where it goes. So is everyone who is born of the Spirit.” Nicodemus answered and said to Him, “How can these things be?” Jesus answered and said to him, “Are you the teacher of Israel, and do not know these things? Most assuredly, I say to you, We speak what We know and testify what We have seen, and you do not receive Our witness. If I have told you earthly things and you do not believe, how will you believe if I tell you heavenly things? (John 3:5-12)

Yes, read anachronistically, this seems to be talking about eternal life. But when you find the lack of this concept in other books, and the whole concept of Job is that, no matter how bad it gets, Job was confident God would make things right, this verse seems to be nothing more than a poetic confirmation that, even if he dies, he will rise again and finish his life. This is not talking about eternal life.

Job is talking about the resurrection, something revealed to him by God himself. Even if I die, in my flesh I will see God. It's pretty simple and obvious.

Here's the problem. You like Carrier have tired to present the Pauline doctrine as if Jesus were being presented as a celestial deity which is absolutely false. You are equivocating Pauline doctrine with Docetism which the church has categorically rejected as heresy at least since the early first century. Paul, like all the Apostles, taught the bodily resurrection of Christ and all believers and there is no contradicting that from the Scriptures. Quid is struggling with the fact that you are denying an evident and obvious fact, I on the other hand have no real problem dealing with it.

I enjoy this sort of banter, I don't need someone else to do my expositions for me. Because my loquacious friend, I know the Scriptures, their history and their progression. It took me years to learn Paul, the Pauline doctrine is no joke. I learned it because I abandoned the Roman Road of salvation only to find that the fundamentalists had it right all along, they were just too pedantic in how they presented it. I've been through the wringer, theistic evolutionist, liberal theologian, fundamentalist and even a fair amount of evangelical to boot and emerged as convinced as ever. The original writers get to tell their story their own way and neither you nor anyone gets to change that.

I am enjoying the exchange, looking forward to continuing it.

Grace and peace,
Mark

doubtingmerle · Feb 16, 2017

mark kennedy said:
Quid has not attacked my position, he can't, depending on what he believes about the resurrection.

Huh? Have you even been reading what Quid is writing?

Once more, I claim that Paul teaches that his spirit was separate from the body, and after death, Paul thought his spirit would live on in some other body. You agree with me that Paul has a spirit that would live on. You say the spirit is clothed in white robes, whatever that means. What exactly is a spirit in a white robe? Have you been watching too many cartoons of ghosts that look like sheets? But on the main point you agree with me, that Paul thought he had a spirit that lived on after death.

Quid has attacked our view of spirit survival after death, but he refuses to tell us what he believes.

Quid is simply trying to get through to you that Paul's thinking regarding the resurrection being the physical body matched the Pharisee understanding of the resurrection. It's really that simple.

But does Quid think Paul is alive now? He condemns us for saying Paul said that, but he refuses to tell us what he believes on this issue!

How can Paul's body ever come alive again? It is gone. The molecules are probably spread throughout the earth. You probably have several atoms of Paul's body in your body right now. How can Paul's body ever come back to life again? Is God going to rip those atoms out of you and use them to build a replica of Paul's body? If God makes a new body for Paul, that would be a duplicate body, not the same body.

I am suggesting that Paul thought his spirit would survive death and he would live forever in a new body. You seem to be saying bascially the same thing. For since Paul's body is gone, he cannot possibly live for eternity in the same body as he had on earth.

And I am suggesting that perhaps Paul thought Jesus lived on in the same sense that Paul thought for himself, in that his spirit rose from the grave to live in a new body.

doubtingmerle · Feb 16, 2017

Quid est Veritas,

Once more, these are the questions again that I would like you to answer. Based on what Paul wrote,

1. Is Paul alive now?
2. In what body?
3. Will he ever be alive?
4. In what body?

I will tell you exactly what I think. I think Paul thought he had a spirit that would survive death. He thought that spirit would live on in another body. Its not clear when Paul thought that spirit would begin that new life in that new body, but it is clear to me that Paul taught this.

Now you have said I am wrong, but you refuse to tell us what you think Paul was saying about this question. How can you come here and insist others are wrong, while refusing to address the question yourself?

Quid est Veritas? said:
I have explained Paul's position ad nauseam in multiple posts. I posted two articles that explain it in depth. We talked of Ruach which leads to Christ-in-us and Nephesh as the glorified body etc. My own opinion on the afterlife is irrelevant here when we were discussing PAUL'S, so this is a sneaky obfuscation on your part. I find it patently absurd that you would write such a ridiculous self-righteous diatribe. For you ignore what I wrote and then pretend I didn't address things. This is not the first time you have made this ludicrous accusation, but it is just willful disregard of my posts and specious thinking.

You could answer those basic questions about what Paul thought if you wanted to. Instead you descend into condemnation and obfuscation. I am waiting to see if you choose to actually address the questions.

I have supported Paul's Phariseeness repeatedly while you have only denied it, while ignoring the multiple places where Paul says it or is said of Paul. This is a puerile response.

I have not denied that Paul came from a Pharisee background.

What I have said is that we cannot look up Pharisee beliefs in a book, and then declare with absolute certainty that Paul had to teach what the Pharisees said in those books. I have shown repeated evidence that Paul sometimes differed with the Pharisees. So to find what Paul thought about the resurrection, you must look at what Paul taught, not just look at what the Pharisees taught. And Paul clearly taught that he thought his spirit would live on after his body decayed.

No evidence would ever be sufficient to you, I think. Look how you defend Carrier whose ideas are patently false and repeatedly shown in error...

Ad hominem. Once more, we are not here to attack people. We are here to address arguments. Care to actually address my arguments?

Again, our opinion of Moses is irrelevant as to whether Paul and the Pharisees believed in the Oral Torah and its descent from him.

If Paul believed the Oral Torah descended from Moses, than Paul was wrong.

Do you agree that If Paul believed the Oral Torah descended from Moses, than Paul was wrong?

To quote Queen Gertrude: "The lady doth protest too much, me thinks."

I responded to your attempts to address Luke and Josephus to others and you just reposted the same dishonest Carrier article that I easily refuted. But I have clearly seen you are out of your depth on any historical question, hence your repeated farcical attempts to redirect conversation to modern interpretation, individual beliefs and English readings.

Oh for crying out loud! I have explained this multiple times. I have numerous posts on this thread I have not yet responded to. I have numerous threads on my watch list I have abandoned because there simply is no time to respond. And yet if I do not respond to everything you write immediately, you hit the roof.

Here is the problem. I am seeing endless repeats of everything on this thread. If I try to pick out the important stuff to respond to, you scream that I am not responding on some point you wanted. If I respond yet again to this same point, you complain I am trolling.

You are not going to have fun on this forum if you keep repeating the same thing, and yell at people for ignoring you if they stop responding, and yell at them for trolling if they keep responding.

mark kennedy · Feb 16, 2017

Quid has informed me that I've made a fairly serious error, I assure you it was unintentional. This is the statement:

Quid has not attacked my position, he can't, depending on what he believes about the resurrection. He has quoted NT Wright a couple of times and that may have been on Biologos.com too many times. NT Wright posts there sometimes and his exposition of Romans 5 had about as much to do with Romans 5 as it has to do with the Groucho Marx recipe for bread pudding. I'm not all that concerned with how you relate, my thing is what the Scriptures teach and what the true history of the Scriptures are. You'll find that my focus is on the Scriptures, it's of little significance how that might conflict with an occasional opinion regarding them.

Thought I seen him quote N.T. Wright but as it turns out I was completely mistaken. I've apologized to him but it only seems right to correct the statement in the open forum. Sorry about that Quid Est Veritas, it won't happen again.

Grace and peace,
Mark

mark kennedy · Feb 16, 2017

doubtingmerle said:
Huh? Have you even been reading what Quid is writing?

I inadvertently misrepresented his view earlier, I don't want to make that mistake again:

Quid est Veritas? said:
Paul is a Pharisee. What he says on the Resurrection agrees with Pharisee teaching and thereafter with Church teaching.

I said repeatedly that the Resurrection has to be taken on Faith. Did you miss that?

Once again: Paul is a Pharisee. Pharisees believe in the Oral Torah. The Oral Torah had a resurrection.

What should I expect though? You are basically Carrier by proxy, and his silly arguments in this regard are easily refuted.

The written Torah doesn't mention a resurrection explicitly, but this is an irrelevant point in light of the nature of Second Temple Judaism and the belief in the Oral Torah. I have explained this to the death and shall hence forth ignore such comments from you in this regard as you clearly are only trolling.

Point being? They are followers of Judaism. This is a superfluous observation.

Second Temple Judaism gave us Christianity and a significant proportion of ancient Jewry converted to Christianity as can be seen in the disappearance of the Hellenistai. Clearly for much thereof it was the natural progression as such. This is like arguing that modern Astrology disproves that modern Astronomy is a natural development of ancient Astronomy/Astrology.

There are two key points here that you have apparently missed or otherwise ignored. First of all Second Temple Judaism was represented by two key groups, the Sadducee tradition that was a lot like modern liberal theology. The Pharisees on the other hand were more like fundamentalists in that they believed in angels, demons and the point being made here, they believed in the bodily resurrection.

For the Sadducees say that there is no resurrection, neither angel, nor spirit: but the Pharisees confess both. (Acts 23:8)

This is very easy to qualify, the scholarship on this is unequivocal. Paul never taught celestial resurrection, this is something Carrier just made up:

Among the Jews the Pharisees believed in the resurrection of the physical body after death. "In classical Judaism, resurrection of the dead was a central belief, essential to defining oneself as a Jew. “Today,” writes Jon D. Levenson in Resurrection and the Restoration of Israel: The Ultimate Victory of the God of Life (Yale University Press, 2006)., professor of Jewish studies at Harvard, that fact “comes as a shock to most Jews and Christians alike.” (The Case for What ‘Comes as a Shock to Most Jews and Christians Alike’ by Peter Steinfels.)(Philosophy of Religion; an online textbook. Philip A. Pecorino, Ph.D.)

Secondly, Quid Est Veritas is telling you what Paul believed and what first century Pharisees believed. This is 'classical Judaism', a 'central belief', it was 'essential to defining oneself as a Jew'. This celestial resurrection of the first century and beyond was pure paganism, Paul taught no such thing nor has the church throughout it's entire history:

Docetism was unequivocally rejected at the First Council of Nicaea in 325 and is regarded as heretical by the Catholic Church, Orthodox Church, and Coptic Church…Docetism is broadly defined as any teaching that claims that Jesus' body was either absent or illusory.

They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they confess not the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ, which suffered for our sins, and which the Father, of His goodness, raised up again. They who deny the gift of God are perishing in their disputes. (Ignatius of Antioch letter to the Smyrnaeans, 7:1, 110 AD) (Docetism, Wikipedia)

The contention that Docetism is the Pauline doctrine of the resurrection is indefensible.

Once more, I claim that Paul teaches that his spirit was separate from the body, and after death, Paul thought his spirit would live on in some other body. You agree with me that Paul has a spirit that would live on. You say the spirit is clothed in white robes, whatever that means. What exactly is a spirit in a white robe? Have you been watching too many cartoons of ghosts that look like sheets? But on the main point you agree with me, that Paul thought he had a spirit that lived on after death.

The robes are figurative language, at death the spirit of the believer goes to heaven. At the end of the age the body is resurrected, this is one of the most common promises of the gospel. You either understand this simple core doctrine or you don't, what you seem unable to accept is Paul believed it and all Christians believe it and always have. The resurrection happens at the end of the age and if you choose to mock it that's your choice, just don't misrepresent it.

Quid has attacked our view of spirit survival after death, but he refuses to tell us what he believes.

You won't acknowledge obvious core beliefs here, why should he?

But does Quid think Paul is alive now? He condemns us for saying Paul said that, but he refuses to tell us what he believes on this issue!

Your lucky he is still talking to you, most Christians won't allow their faith to be mocked and scoffed at like this.

How can Paul's body ever come alive again? It is gone. The molecules are probably spread throughout the earth. You probably have several atoms of Paul's body in your body right now. How can Paul's body ever come back to life again? Is God going to rip those atoms out of you and use them to build a replica of Paul's body? If God makes a new body for Paul, that would be a duplicate body, not the same body.

God knows the anatomy and DNA of the body of Paul, on the last day Paul will be returned to a resurrected body. The fact that you find that miracle incomprehensible is due to unbelief not the inability of Christians to express their convictions.

I am suggesting that Paul thought his spirit would survive death and he would live forever in a new body. You seem to be saying bascially the same thing. For since Paul's body is gone, he cannot possibly live for eternity in the same body as he had on earth.

And I am suggesting that perhaps Paul thought Jesus lived on in the same sense that Paul thought for himself, in that his spirit rose from the grave to live in a new body.

Christ returned to his physical body and it was transformed, 'translated' is the Pauline word, in three days. With the Church it happens at the beginning of the millennium. The rest of the dead are not raised until after the millennium, it's up to you which group you want to be resurrected with and what the outcome will be.

mark kennedy · Feb 16, 2017

Ed1wolf said:
I said SIGNIFICANT changes. I am still waiting.

There are a few but no doctrines or history is effected.

Marcion was proven to be in error in his interpretation of both the OT and the NT. And his obvious anti-Semitic edits of Paul's letters plainly showed that Marcion was the one corrupting God/Yahweh's holy Word. Irenaeus plainly was not.

Marcion was teaching the God of the Old Testament was a demiurge. He edited out parts he didnt like but apparently knew which books were apostolic, probably indicating it was common knowledge. There were entirely too many scrolls in circulation for a blatant revision to go unnoticed. Carrier does this almost constantly. He quotes Peter saying we did not invent cleverly devised fables but were eye witnesses. He says this means he was being accused of fabricating the gospel which is absolutely false. The church was being inundated by Judiazers on one front and pagan mystery religion on the other. Its reflected in Jude, 1 and 1 Corinthians deals with it at length. Jesus' message to Thyatira in the Revelation, Ephesians 6 describing standing on the gospel like a Roman garrison. He's betting the farm we don't know our own Scriptures

The Gnostics were very undemocratic and tried to rule the church with an aristocracy based on mystical knowledge. This plainly went against the teachings of Christ.

Docetism was the concept that Jesus either had no physical body or it was a illusion. Carrier and our debate buddy here never discuss Docitism and the universal rejection of it in the early church. That should be telling us something.

doubtingmerle · Feb 16, 2017

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.

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

mark kennedy said:
The robes are figurative language, at death the spirit of the believer goes to heaven.

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.

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

At the end of the age the body is resurrected, this is one of the most common promises of the gospel. You either understand this simple core doctrine or you don't, what you seem unable to accept is Paul believed it and all Christians believe it and always have.

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

The resurrection happens at the end of the age and if you choose to mock it that's your choice, just don't misrepresent it.

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.

You won't acknowledge obvious core beliefs here, why should he?

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?

God knows the anatomy and DNA of the body of Paul, on the last day Paul will be returned to a resurrected body.

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

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.

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.

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

The fact that you find that miracle incomprehensible is due to unbelief not the inability of Christians to express their convictions.

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.

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?

doubtingmerle · Feb 16, 2017

mark kennedy said:
I don't sit down and read the Bible like a novel very much, I study it in detail and I've covered the whole thing. The Eighth Century Prophets were the hardest part but after that the rest of the prophets was not that tough. It took a while to understand the Levitical Law, the Sacrifices and the Feasts but when I finally got through that it's surprisingly simple to discern the rest. I know the Scriptures, I have pursued an understanding of them my entire adult life. That is why it's hard to relate to someone who can't seem to manage something as basic as the resurrection.

I wasn't asking if you read the Bible like a novel. I was asking if you ever read through every word of the Bible.

One would think if God took the time to write one book, every Christian would want to read every word. I was wandering if you ever had.

Paul even after conversion was a Pharisee, just like he was still a Jew, from the tribe of Benjamin.

That is debatable based on Philippians 3.

But regardless, this was not the point of contention. The question is whether one could pick up a book of Pharisee teaching on a subject such as the resurrection, and say that Paul must have agreed with every word of this, for Paul could not possibly disagree with Pharisee leaders. That is what was suggested here.

What do you think? Is it possible that Paul had views of the resurrection that were slightly different from the Pharisee leaders? Or did he just ditto whatever the Pharisee leaders said?

Quid is simply trying to get through to you that Paul's thinking regarding the resurrection being the physical body matched the Pharisee understanding of the resurrection. It's really that simple.

But you yourself agree that Paul's earthly body is gone, yes? So if Paul gets a new body, it could be a replica of the original body, but that would not be the same as going back into the same body. So Paul cannot possibly return to his original body, which is no more.

I'm a New Testament Christian or haven't you noticed? The Old Testament told them things they didn't understand, a lot of fundamentally important things like the new birth for instance:

I understand. That is not the point. The point is that the books of Moses do not teach resurrection. Quoting a New Testament book about a Bible character believing in resurrection is not the same as showing me where the books of Moses teach resurrection.

I have read through the Bible. Every word. Six times. And when one does that, one finds many strange things, such as plowing through the books of Moses and wandering why there would be no mention of Heaven.

Ed1wolf · Feb 16, 2017

doubtingmerle said:
That is a rather odd invention to get around the problem that Matthew says they went to Galilee after the resurrection, but Luke says they stayed in Jerusalem. You try to slip them up to Galilee before the command to stay in Jerusalem. To get there, you have to insert comments like the text in red below:

Luk 24:32-49
They [the two that had walked to Emmaus] said to each other, "Did not our hearts burn within us while he talked to us on the road, while he opened to us the scriptures?"
And they rose that same hour and returned to Jerusalem; and they found the eleven gathered together and those who were with them,
who said, "The Lord has risen indeed, and has appeared to Simon!"
[Then they all traveled from Jerusalem up to Galilee]
Then they told what had happened on the road, and how he was known to them in the breaking of the bread.
As they were saying this, Jesus himself stood among them.
But they were startled and frightened, and supposed that they saw a spirit.
And he said to them, "Why are you troubled, and why do questionings rise in your hearts?
See my hands and my feet, that it is I myself; handle me, and see; for a spirit has not flesh and bones as you see that I have."
Other ancient authorities add verse 40, And when he had said this, he showed them his hands and his feet.
And while they still disbelieved for joy, and wondered, he said to them, "Have you anything here to eat?"
They gave him a piece of broiled fish,
and he took it and ate before them.
[Then they all traveled back to Jerusalem]
Then he said to them, "These are my words which I spoke to you, while I was still with you, that everything written about me in the law of Moses and the prophets and the psalms must be fulfilled."
Then he opened their minds to understand the scriptures,
and said to them, "Thus it is written, that the Christ should suffer and on the third day rise from the dead,
and that repentance and forgiveness of sins should be preached in his name to all nations, beginning from Jerusalem.
You are witnesses of these things.
And behold, I send the promise of my Father upon you; but stay in the city, until you are clothed with power from on high."

Your creative insertion simply is not supported by the text. The text makes it clear they were in Jerusalem the whole time. Luke contradicts Matthew.

Maybe. Actually the link I provided provides a better refutation. I notice you just ignored that. I wonder why....

Ed1wolf · Feb 17, 2017

doubtingmerle said:
I knew that.

The point is that you never claimed on this thread that you know that what the gospels say is true because God said it. If you could prove God said the words of the four gospels, this thread would be over.

I cant prove it, but there is strong evidence that the entire bible was inspired by God. For example it is the only major religious book that teaches that the universe had a definite beginning, is expanding, and is winding down energetically. All of which has been confirmed by science.

dm: That is your evidence?

I was hoping for something better than that before concluding that God wrote a book.

You were asking for evidence that the WRITERS believed that what they were writing was inspired by God. I was not providing evidence that the Bible is inspired by God. But I did do that above, just now. I never claimed that God wrote a book, I am claiming that it is inspired by God.

dm: Oh yes he does. Read Matthew 5:17-20. That says we need to keep the whole law. (But Mark disagrees).

Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.
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.

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. IOW just not committing adultery is not enough, you must also not commit adultery in your mind. This is where the scribes and Pharisees misunderstood, they just thought the moral law was external, but in fact it is also internal.

mark kennedy · Feb 17, 2017

doubtingmerle said:
I wasn't asking if you read the Bible like a novel. I was asking if you ever read through every word of the Bible.

You have to understand, and yes, I have. I can't just sit down and try to read Isaiah, there is just too many things going on to actually get it at a glance. Job sure, the Gospels are no problem but the prophets...well let's just say there was a time when just reading them yielded me little.

One would think if God took the time to write one book, every Christian would want to read every word. I was wandering if you ever had.

Sure, me and my wife years ago went though a thing at church that followed a reading plan. I just feel like I'm driving through a town at fifty miles an hour and it's hard not to stop and ask the locals what the area is like.

That is debatable based on Philippians 3.

I don't see an issue there but then again you never seem to be forthcoming with an exposition.

But regardless, this was not the point of contention. The question is whether one could pick up a book of Pharisee teaching on a subject such as the resurrection, and say that Paul must have agreed with every word of this, for Paul could not possibly disagree with Pharisee leaders. That is what was suggested here.

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

What do you think? Is it possible that Paul had views of the resurrection that were slightly different from the Pharisee leaders? Or did he just ditto whatever the Pharisee leaders said?

If Paul had some idea of a celestial resurrection he kept it to himself because his writings always reflected a bodily resurrection which is exactly what all Pharisees believed. I think your grasping at straws here.

But you yourself agree that Paul's earthly body is gone, yes?

Obviously

So if Paul gets a new body,

Yes, at the time of the resurrection.

it could be a replica of the original body, but that would not be the same as going back into the same body. So Paul cannot possibly return to his original body, which is no more.

Which is the idea of of the resurrection, his mortal body is raised incorruptible. Are you sure you've actually read Paul?

I understand. That is not the point. The point is that the books of Moses do not teach resurrection. Quoting a New Testament book about a Bible character believing in resurrection is not the same as showing me where the books of Moses teach resurrection.

The Old Testament didn't teach the Incarnation, the virgin birth, being born again or the translation of believers at the time of the return of Christ. These things were a new revelation.

I have read through the Bible. Every word. Six times. And when one does that, one finds many strange things, such as plowing through the books of Moses and wandering why there would be no mention of Heaven.

That's what you get from the Old Testament? There is no mention of heaven? Seriously? The creation, the call of Abraham, the rise of the Patriarchs, the Exodus, the establishment of the Mosaic covenant, the prophets and the restoration of the nation. All you get is no mention of heaven? The God of heaven is involved in human affairs on an epic scale and all you see is the absence of New Testament revelation and doctrine unknown before the coming of Christ? I think you have some very serious issues with context here, doctrinal and historical.

You've abandoned Carrier here, you have not the slightest interest in the fact that his thesis is based on an equivocation of pagan mythology and the Pauline doctrine of the resurrection. I'm left wondering what you think you have left. I guess I'll have to wait and see.

Grace and peace,
Mark

Are there credible witnesses to the resurrection?

I'll think about it.

Well-Known Member

In Memoriam to CS Lewis

Attachments

Natura non facit saltum

I'll think about it.

Natura non facit saltum

I'll think about it.

In Memoriam to CS Lewis

Well-Known Member

Natura non facit saltum

I'll think about it.

I'll think about it.

Natura non facit saltum

Natura non facit saltum

Natura non facit saltum

I'll think about it.

I'll think about it.

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Natura non facit saltum

Similar threads