- Jan 28, 2003
- 9,703
- 2,335
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Humanist
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Democrat
Thank you, thank you very much. It is great to be back to continue my lecture series.
Since my last lecture on the resurrection (here) was so warmly received [boos and hisses from the audience], I have moved to a new venue so we have more room for the overflow audience [jeers and catcalls]. Today I would like to talk about Mark, since we found Paul was not much of a witness to the resurrection...[flying shoe sails past the podium].
What's that? You had some more questions on Paul? Sure, I could start by taking a few questions about Paul. Who will be first? Yes, Mr. Kennedy...
I do not exclude the possiblity that a supernatural being might do supernatural things. In order for me to believe that, however, I need strong evidence. Hence, this thread and its predecessor.
The early church could have easily happened without a resurrection. See Richard Carrier Blogs: Not the Impossible Faith .
Next question.
The last time you asked me this I asked if you had read the whole Bible. I believe your answer was no. So based on that, why do you ask me this again?
Other questions? Yes, Mr. Veritas...
As far as I can tell, you claim Paul's Nephesh went in the ground, separated from his Ruach, which is with Jesus. That seems to me to say that you think Paul is currently non-existent.
Most Christians probably think Paul exists in heaven right now, that he might be walking the streets, preaching, or singing praises to God, or doing some other act that we think of as requiring a body of some kind.
So it seems, in your effort to refute me, you are teaching something most Christians disagree with.
Please answer clearly: Do you think Paul right now exists in heaven and is able to do some things similar to the things I mentioned? Saying his breath went to be with Jesus is not the same thing as what most Christians teach.
But regardless of the timing, if Paul can expect to arise in a new body, why can it not be that he thought Jesus arose in a new body, leaving the old body behind?
Suppose you took all the old planks from Jason's ship and put them back together. All you did was move Jason's ship from point A to point B one plank at a time. Now which of those two ships is Jason's ship?
If you arrive the next day to see all the planks of Jason's old ship fully assembled back into his "old ship", and you see Jason sail off in a new ship, do you know what process was used to make that new ship? Do you know which is truly Jason's original ship? It does not matter. The old ship (or something identical to the old ship) is left behind, and Jason sails off in an ship with new planks.
Could it be that the old body of Jesus was left behind, and Paul thought Jesus sailed off in a new body, however that came about?
Anyone else? Yes, Mr. Wolf...
OK, that is all the time we have for questions.
Now as I was saying, I wanted to talk about Mark but we are out of time. I will pick up with Mark next time. Feel free to add any questions or comments below. Thanks for listening. Good night.
Since my last lecture on the resurrection (here) was so warmly received [boos and hisses from the audience], I have moved to a new venue so we have more room for the overflow audience [jeers and catcalls]. Today I would like to talk about Mark, since we found Paul was not much of a witness to the resurrection...[flying shoe sails past the podium].
What's that? You had some more questions on Paul? Sure, I could start by taking a few questions about Paul. Who will be first? Yes, Mr. Kennedy...
Were it true that Paul taught a celestial death, burial and resurrection of a fictional character his writings and ministry of the first century would have been regarded as pagan mythology, docetism and Gnosticism that was categorically rejected by ancient Judaism and all Christian theism from the last 2,000 years and beyond:
OK, as I have explained multiple times, the thread you responded to was not actually about the mythological Jesus view. There was another thread in which I and others supported Carrier's view of the mythological Jesus. This thread and the other resurrection thread, are not primarily about the mythological Jesus.
Au contraire, White House sources report that millions attended my "lecture". Here is a picture of the record crowd. As far as I can tell it's only me and a couple of Christian apologists who are very much unpersuaded by his arguments. He is alone on a stage, myself, Ed and Quid are watching the performance that none of us will applaud or accept.
Wrong room. Penn and Teller are in the room down the hall, I think. Next question?For his second trick, he will attempt to make the Pauline doctrine of the bodily resurrection, the translation of the saints at the Parousia to transform itself into a pagan myth. Can he do it?
That sounds totally compatible with the idea that Jesus resurrected in a spiritual body. Also it is compatible with my option c) that Paul mistakenly thought Jesus had risen bodily. So I don't see how this proves a bodily resurrection.The question immediately comes to mind, is Paul teaching a physical body at the resurrection or a celestial one. I wonder what would Paul say to this:
Paul, an apostle (not from men nor through man, but through Jesus Christ and God the Father who raised Him from the dead) (Gal. 1:1)
It would seem to me that all people turn to naturalistic explanations when a fantastic claim is made. Do not naturalistic explanations come as your first answer when somebody suggests the Book of Morman came on golden plates? Do you not turn to natural explanations when people make claims that the Quran can be proven to be the inspired word of God?What he is talking about is his own naturalistic assumptions. Well that makes sense.
I do not exclude the possiblity that a supernatural being might do supernatural things. In order for me to believe that, however, I need strong evidence. Hence, this thread and its predecessor.
OK, the early church had faith, but was the faith based on anything other than the a), b) or c) reasons for belief as discussed in my last lecture? I have suggested many ways such a faith could begin.Except, of course, the living witness of the first century church, the twelve Apostles and the power of the Holy Spirit including signs, wonders and mighty deeds being the marks of Apostleship:
I persevered in demonstrating among you the marks of a true apostle, including signs, wonders and miracles. (2 Cor. 12:12)
by the power of signs and wonders, and by the power of the Spirit of God. So from Jerusalem all the way around to Illyricum, I have fully proclaimed the gospel of Christ. (Romans 15:19)
The early church could have easily happened without a resurrection. See Richard Carrier Blogs: Not the Impossible Faith .
Next question.
Yes, you asked me before, and I explained that I had read the whole Bible. In fact, when I was a Christian, I read the whole Bible, every word, every name in every geneology, every obscure prophetic rant, everything, six times. By the time I got through the sixth time, it was dawning on me that there was something very wrong with this book.Have you read Paul, the early church fathers who quote Paul and the other Apostles?
The last time you asked me this I asked if you had read the whole Bible. I believe your answer was no. So based on that, why do you ask me this again?
Other questions? Yes, Mr. Veritas...
I am sorry, I am doing my best to understand you. But when I said that you think that a person is not existent unless he has both Ruach (spirit/breath) and Nephesh (body/soul) you say I am twisting your words, and then repeat that, without both, one would be non-existent. I don't understand. That seems to be exactly what I said you say.Your twisting my words again. The Ruach is the 'breath of Life' of a body, but if there is no body how can there be a breath to vitalise it? A being is not existent without both, they are parts of a whole.
As far as I can tell, you claim Paul's Nephesh went in the ground, separated from his Ruach, which is with Jesus. That seems to me to say that you think Paul is currently non-existent.
Most Christians probably think Paul exists in heaven right now, that he might be walking the streets, preaching, or singing praises to God, or doing some other act that we think of as requiring a body of some kind.
So it seems, in your effort to refute me, you are teaching something most Christians disagree with.
Please answer clearly: Do you think Paul right now exists in heaven and is able to do some things similar to the things I mentioned? Saying his breath went to be with Jesus is not the same thing as what most Christians teach.
Ok, you think Jesus is alive because he has a Ruach and a Nephesh. But Paul, in your view, currently does not have a living Nephesh with his Ruach, yes?It is because Christ has a Nephesh, a resurrected and glorified body which facilitates the continued existence of the 'dead-in-Christ' who are one with Him. There Ruach has an existence as we are of Him. This is why Paul is speaking by necessity of a physical resurrection, for there is no other first century conceptualisation that allows his theology.
OK, you think the body decays, and a new body could spontaneously come up. Odd, for that is exactly what I say Paul says. The old house, the old body dies, and Christians have a new house, a new body in heaven, according to Paul. The only difference is that you apparently do not think Paul will get this new body until the Parousia, whereas most Christians think he already has a new spiritual body.It seems to me as if you are stuck on modern definitions. "If the body decayed, there is no body" - but people did not think like this in the old days. People thought insects spontaneously arose from corruption and decay. They thought adopted children developed physical characteristics of their new parents.
But regardless of the timing, if Paul can expect to arise in a new body, why can it not be that he thought Jesus arose in a new body, leaving the old body behind?
Fun with words.In a similar vein, they conceived that when your body decayed, somethimg remained...As Aristotle wrote on Jason's ship - it gets new planks until none of the original ship remains, but it is still Jason's ship; however here we have a centrality around which it could anyway be built.
Suppose you took all the old planks from Jason's ship and put them back together. All you did was move Jason's ship from point A to point B one plank at a time. Now which of those two ships is Jason's ship?
If you arrive the next day to see all the planks of Jason's old ship fully assembled back into his "old ship", and you see Jason sail off in a new ship, do you know what process was used to make that new ship? Do you know which is truly Jason's original ship? It does not matter. The old ship (or something identical to the old ship) is left behind, and Jason sails off in an ship with new planks.
Could it be that the old body of Jesus was left behind, and Paul thought Jesus sailed off in a new body, however that came about?
The problem is that our entire discussion has been about this very point. I have argued that Paul could have thought Jesus left his old body behind, and then he got a new body. If you also are saying Paul thought Jesus could have left his old body behind, and have gotten a new one, then we agree.I fail to see the relevance of the body having to consist of the same exact matter anyway...So quite frankly I don't understand why you think it a problem if someone gets a duplicate body per se?
Anyone else? Yes, Mr. Wolf...
Ok, you are referring to an old argument where you say that I Cor 15:3-8 are an ancient creed, and therefore represents ancient witness, because it has the word Cephas in it. I have the same answer I gave every time you mentioned this before. Paul uses the word Cephas several places to refer to Peter. If the presence of the word Cephas proves a passage is an ancient creed, are all those other verses creeds also? I have discussed the "creed" in detail here.Cephas was Peters pre-Christian greek name. This means that it dates back to the time he first met Jesus. The linguistic structure also points to it being a creed/hymn.
Paul gave his source, "according to the scriptures". He does not say, "according to what Peter told me". As I mentioned before, this is the format people used in ancient times to attribute their source. I think Paul is saying here that he learned it happened the third day because he read it in the scriptures (but actually, he read it into the scriptures, which is different).How did they know that he rose on the third day if they didn't know it was empty at that time?
OK, that is all the time we have for questions.
Now as I was saying, I wanted to talk about Mark but we are out of time. I will pick up with Mark next time. Feel free to add any questions or comments below. Thanks for listening. Good night.
Last edited: