Refuting the "No Body" Theory of The Resurrection


Resurrection of Christ by Noël Coypel, 1700, 
using a hovering depiction of Jesus


Corinthians 15: 50 Now this is what I am saying, brothers and sisters: Flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God, nor does the perishable inherit the imperishable. 51 Listen,29 I will tell you a mystery: We will not all sleep,

but we will all be changed—

52 in a moment, in the blinking of an eye, at the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, and the dead will be raised imperishable, and we will be changed. 53 For this perishable body must put on the imperishable,

and this mortal body must put on immortality.

54 Now when this perishable puts on the imperishable, and this mortal puts on immortality, then the saying that is written will happen, “Death has been swallowed up in victory.” 55 “Where, O death, is your victory? Where, O death, is your sting?”

 The "no Body" theory comes in two versions: 1) that Jesus was an historical figure, but his resurrection was non-bodily; he didn't leave an empty tomb but just appeared to people as a spirit; 2) or that he never existed, and in fact Paul didn't really believe that he was a real a flesh and blood person, but merely a mythological figure or ethereal personage; the object of worship of a mystery cult. Those who hold to this latter view see Paul as a Gnostic. These "thinkers" such as Wells or Earl Doherty, totally ignored by the real academy, believe that the historical trappings of the Jesus story came after all the books of the canon were written, in the second century. Since these two views overlap I'll just lump them into the latter position; that is the more popular and faddish at the moment anyway .

The answer, of course, is that Paul's belief was the same as the Jewish belief of the day, that Messiah was to raise all of fallen Israel at the end of times. This was to be a bodily resurrection. Paul sees Jesus as the "first fruits" or the hearld of this mass resurrection in the end. But why would he speak of a bodily resurrection for us (which clearly he does, as we see in the quotation at the top from 1 Cor. 15) and not for Jesus himself? The argument is that

(1)Paul saw Jesus resurrection as a prototype of ours:

(2)He understood our resurrection (that of Israel/chruch) as bodily

(3)why would the prototype not also be bodily?



The major arguments for this view are as follows:

1) Paul never mentions the empty tomb.

2) None of the "Catholic" Epistles mention the empty tomb.

3)Paul makes certain references to Jesus "The first man Adam became a living being" [physical being], the last Adam became a life-giving spirit (Romans 5v. 45). His phrase, "life-giving spirit" (pneuma zoopoioun), is equivalent to his "spiritual body," and is related to his use of the same verb, "to make alive" in verse 23.

From that point one simply reads everything Paul says as though it implies this view.

The argument is mainly an argument from silence. The real power of the assertion is found in the silence of Paul and his failure to mention the empty tomb. But of course it is an assertion and an interpretation based upon nothing more than silence and circular reasoning. Having decided to read all of Paul's words in this way everything becomes confirmation of the view. Even when Paul clearly states that Christ had a flesh and blood linage (Romans 1:3) than even that is simply interpreted away; the response is that the Greek "kata" (according to as in "according to the flesh) means "in the appearance of flesh" not that he really had a fleshly linage. But this reading into the passage a subtle and subjective aspect which has no basis in the rest of the text other than Paul's silence.

It is not clear why Paul never mentions the tomb, but it is equally unclear why he has to. After all, none of his epistles were written to people who where contesting the resurrection. The story of the empty tomb would have been know to everyone as a basic tenet of the faith, there was no real reason to mention it. Moreover, some of his statements about the resurrection imply the story of the tomb, but this will be seen later. It might also be added that they didn't look at the witness of the tomb in the way that we do. It is a modern invention to think in terms of eye witness proofs and evidence. The early church did not look to the empty tomb as a proof that Jesus was Messiah, but as a statement about the greatness of God and the hope and future that the faith in Christ offered. Thus, since the issue didn't come up he doesn't mention it. But he certainly speaks of resurrection, and it will be seen that for Paul resurrection meant the body is raised to life again.

This is nothing more than what we should expect since it was a basic tenet of Jewish teaching that Messiah would come and raise all of Israel bodily; the dead of Israel would rise to life again. This is what the Jews believed and we have no good reason for assuming that Paul didn't mean that. Moreover, new evidence from Qumran (the Dead Sea Scrolls) illustrates this fact:


The Jewish Roman World of Jesus (website)
Archaeology and The Dead Sea Scrolls
"The Signs of the Messiah: 4Q521
by James D. Tabor
(visited 6/15/01)



http://www.uncc.edu/jdtabor/4q521.html


One of the more intriguing of the newly released Dead Sea Scrolls is a fragment now titled "Messianic Apocalypse" (4Q521). This text contains three rather striking features that are of particular significance for comparing the apocalyptic beliefs and expectations of the Qumran community with the emerging early Christian movement. First, the text speaks of a single Messiah figure who will rule heaven and earth. Second, it mentions in the clearest language the expectation of the resurrection of the dead during the time of this Messiah. And third, and perhaps most important for students of the New Testament, it contains an exact verbal parallel with the Gospels of Matthew and Luke for identifying of the times of the Messiah.


Tabor quotes Michael Wise's translation of the fragment:

[the hea]vens and the earth will listen to His Messiah, and none therein will stray from the commandments of the holy ones. Seekers of the Lord, strengthen yourselves in His service! All you hopeful in (your) heart, will you not find the Lord in this? For the Lord will consider the pious (hasidim) and call the righteous by name. Over the poor His spirit will hover and will renew the faithful with His power. And He will glorify the pious on the throne of the eternal Kingdom. He who liberates the captives, restores sight to the blind, straightens the b[ent] And f[or] ever I will cleav[ve to the h]opeful and in His mercy . . .
And the fr[uit . . .] will not be delayed for anyone.
And the Lord will accomplish glorious things which have never been as [He . . .] For He will heal the wounded, and revive the dead and bring good news
to the poor
. . .He will lead the uprooted and knowledge . . . and smoke (?)
(Michael O. Wise, translation)



Thus, Tabor states:

"We now have an unambiguous statement that "raising the dead" was one of the key expectations of the Messianic age in this community[Qumran[. Line 11 of this text also contains another highly striking feature. Indeed, it appears to be the closest and most direct linguistic parallel to a New Testament text that we have yet discovered. The line reads: "For he will heal the wounded, resurrect the dead, and proclaim glad tiding to the poor."



Tabor speaks of the story where the deligatoin came from John the Baptist to learn if Jesus was actually the Christ.The answer he gives is as follows:

Go and report to John what you have seen and heard: the blind receive sight, the lame walk, the lepers are cleansed, and the deaf hear, the dead are raised up, the poor have the glad tiding preached to them (Luke 7:22-23 and Matthew 11:4-5).

"This reply is cast in the style of a precise formula. It reflects a very early Christian expectation of the signs of the messianic age and the marks for identification of the Messiah. One indication that we have here a very early Christian tradition is that these passages from Luke and Matthew come from the source scholars have designated as Q, from the German word Quelle, meaning "Source." According to most N.T. scholars, Q was a collection of the "Sayings of Jesus," somewhat like the Gospel of Thomas in genre, which was compiled in the middle of the first century, but before our finished Gospels (Matthew, Mark, and Luke) were written"

"The phrase at the end of line 11, about "proclaiming glad tidings to the poor" is a direct quotation from Isaiah 61:1, which tells of an "anointed one" (i.e., messiah) who will work various signs before the Day of the Lord. This passage is quite important in the Gospel of Luke. In fact, he highlights it as the inauguration of the Messianic mission of Jesus. According to Luke, it is this very verse from Isaiah which Jesus reads and claims to fulfill in his home town synagogue of Nazareth. However, what is most noteworthy is that Isaiah 61:1 says nothing about this Anointed One "raising the dead." Indeed, in the entire Hebrew Bible there is nothing about a messiah figure raising the dead. Yet, when we turn to the Q Source, which Luke and Matthew quote, regarding the "signs of the Messiah," we find the two phrases linked: "the dead are raised up, the poor have the glad tidings preached to them," precisely as we have in our Qumran text. Luke makes more than passing use of this notion of the "resurrection of the dead" as a sign of the age of the Messiah. In the two places he quotes Isaiah 61:1 he also mentions specific cases of resurrection of the dead: as Elijah once raised the son of the widow, Jesus now raises the son of the widow from Nain (Luke 4:26; 7:11-17). This is hardly accidental, as the close juxtaposition of the texts makes clear."


This reference is a link between the early church, the community of John the Baptist, and the community of Qumran, or at least the Qumran-like movement which saw itself as the faithful remnant of Israel awaiting liberation by the Messiah. This Messianich movment was the cultural background out of which Jesus and his followers arose (see the Messiah pages). Eisenman and Wise demonstrate quite clearly that the early chrurch, especially James' group in Jerusalem, were an outgrowth of this larger movement. While this does not indicate that the followers of Jesus expected him to raise from the dead, it is a strong indication that their concept would have been that of bodily resurrection, just as the Jews already believed. Later, when reports of the risen Christ began to circulate, they put the two together and come up with what would become a chief tenet of Pauline theology, that Christ was "first fruits." That is, since the Messiah held the "keys of life" and would raise all the fallen of Israel to bodily life once more, that the Messiah was the fist to undergo this sort of transformation. Alfred Edersheim in Life and Times of Jesus the Messiahclearly demonstrates that this is the case. No specific prophesy said that Messiah himself would rise from the dead (with the excepted possibility of Is 53 which is hotly disputed). But in so rising, they understood that Messiah was the fist and that his followers would partake of that transformation by sharing it with him. This link connects the the early church to that prior eschatological expectation of the Messianic movement :

Tabor
Ibid

"It is also significant that this section of the Q Source is dealing with traditions shared between the community of John the Baptist and that of the early followers of Jesus. The close connections between John the Baptist and the community that produced the Scrolls have been pointed out by many scholars. Through this Dead Sea Scroll fragment, coupled with the early Q Source of the Gospels, we are taken back to a very early common tradition within Palestinian Judaism regarding the "signs of the Messiah." We are in a better position to speak of the common expectations of a variety of interrelated apocalyptic, sectarian, baptist groups which have fled to the "wilderness" to prepare the "Way of the Lord" (Isaiah 40:3; Luke 3:4; 1QS 8,9). They appear to share a specific set of expectations, and they draw in strikingly similar ways, upon a common core of prophetic texts from the Hebrew Bible and related Jewish literature. Of course, this fragment alone does not settle our attempts to identify the people of the Scrolls—whether they should be labeled as Essenes, Sadducees, Zealots, Pharisees, Nazarenes, Ebionites, or a unique blend of their own amalgamation. However, the text does provide a most direct and significant example of a common messianic hope among the followers of John the Baptist, Jesus, and the Teacher of Righteousness."


The "no Body" Theorists would have us believe that to this mix we should add Gnosticism; that for some time priror to Christianity Gnosticism had gained a foothold in Judaism and somehow produced a mystery cult about a figure called "Jesus" who somehow had a cult following but has no origin in recorded myth and doesn't seem to belong to any mythical genre. Now it is true that Gnstoicism may have preceeded Christiainity.There is much evidence for a pre-Chrsitian Jewish Gnsoticism. But there is no real evidence that this view had a significant voice at Qumran or in the Messianich movment. Rather, the notion of a transformed resurrection body is what is at issue with Pauline theology.

Paul believed in a complete transformation of all creation at the return of Christ. He saw the Christian's lot as shared with that of Christ. "If we share in his death we shall also share in his resurrection." (Romans 6). The resurrection of the dead, for Paul, was a culmination of a process through which "all of nature groans for liberation." The transforming power of God would change all those in Christ, "we shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed, in the twinkling of eye, at the last trump..." The fleshly body would be transformed into a "resurrection body," spirit, "glorified," but a body and tangible and made of a subsubstance none the less. Tabor argues that for Paul the atonement was participatory, we share in Christ's death through baptism (Rom 6) and thus, we also share in his resurrection, new life, and future, through baptism and through the regenerative act that comes from it. Merely sharing is not the link to glorification, since we also share in his death, but it leads to the shared glorified nature of the resurrection body, which all shall obtain at Christ's return. Rom. 8:29 we share in his image,(eikon, form in 2 cor 3:18, and sharing the image in Rom 8:29)"But we all, with unveiled face, beholding the glory of the Lord, are being transformed (metamorphoumetha) into his image (eikona) from one degree of glory to another; for this comes from the Lord who is the Spirit.."

Taber (Ibid) http://www.uncc.edu/jdtabor/paul.html

"Although the meaning and context of this verse is difficult, I do not think one finds here, or in the following section of 2 Cor. 5:1-10, any shift from the idea that transformation/glorification is completed only at the return of Jesus from heaven."

"Even though he uses the present tense in 2 Cor. 3:18, coupled with the phrase "from one degree of glory to another," (apo doxes eis doxan), the thought is the same as Rom. 8:29. It is his use of eikon ("image") which I find striking. Phil. 3:21 shows that he has in mind a transformation of what he calls the soma ("body"). He elaborates his idea of a transformed body in 1 Cor. 15, which I discuss below. This connection of eikon with doxa[right that's why the site is called "Doxa"] occurs elsewhere. In 2 Cor. 4:4 he speaks of the god of this age who has blinded the eyes of unbelievers so that they can not see the "light of the gospel of the glory (tes doxes) of Christ, who is in the image (eikon) of God." In verse 6 he says that God’s illumination of the hearts of these believers brings about the "light of the knowledge of the glory (tes doxes) of God in the face of Christ." Paul’s message is a gospel of the glory of Christ, i.e., a gnosis of the glory of God seen in Christ, who is the eikon of God. Such language is not mere rodomontade. We are dealing here with the heart of Paul’s system of thought, the belief that Christ bears the image and glory of God, and that believers in Christ have already begun to share the glory of Christ, being transformed into his image, and will share it completely in the End."

"This is the climax toward which his presentation in Romans (beginning in 1:16) moves. He then proceeds to explain how this glory is to be revealed and what it will involve: 'For the creation expectantly longs for the revealing of the Sons of God; since it was subjected to futility, not through its own desire but by the will of the one who subjected it in hope; because the creation itself will be set free from its enslavement to corruption obtaining the freedom of the glory of the children of God. Because we know that the whole creation has been groaning in birth pangs until now; but not only the creation but we too, who have the first fruits of the Spirit, we groan inside waiting for our sonship, that is, the redemption of our bodies. For we were saved in this very hope. Now hope that is seen is not hope, for who hopes for what he sees? But if we hope for what we do not see we wait for it patiently.' (Rom. 8:19-25) Just as in Phil. 3:21, which I have already quoted, Paul has in mind here the transformation of the body, i.e., its release from decay and glorification at the return of Christ from heaven. The use of the word huiothesia (translated "sonship"--v 23) to refer to this event is significant. Several manuscripts (chiefly Western) omit the word, probably because it appears to contradict 8:15:"


Thus, in this conext we find the major peice of evidence used by the 'No body' thoerists, that Paul speaks of Christ risen as a "spirit." But this is not to say a disembodied spirit, but a transformed spiritual body:

Tabor (Ibid)

"Thus it is written, "The first man Adam became a living being" [physical being], the last Adam became a life-giving spirit (v. 45). His phrase, "life-giving spirit" (pneuma zoopoioun), is equivalent to his "spiritual body," and is related to his use of the same verb, "to make alive" in verse 23."


So the major positive evidence for the no Body view falls due to poor interpretation. The no body theorists are merely reading in the assumptions they want to see there.

Now to complete the argument, let's look at what has been said. It was the Jewish concept that resurrection would come to all Israel and that this would be a resurrection of the Body. The early church came to understand Jesus, the Messiah, as the first fruits of that resurrection, the prototype in whose new life the rest would participate and share. Clearly Paul believed that we would all be raised in Christ to transformed spiritual bodies that would be solid and corporal. This is clearly seen in his discussion of different kinds of flesh. In 1 Cor 15 he's trying to convince those who don't believe that we will have a resurrection from the dead. Now did they not believe in life after death? Certainly the odds are that they did believe in some form of after life, so they must have doubted bodily resurrection and that is what Paul defends. He uses the resurrection of Christ to argue for the resurrection of all, that's how we can see that our resurrections are merely following the patter of Jesus' resurection. That he is arguing for bodily resurrection is obvious. In this context he compares types of bodies, of flesh.. 1 Cor 39-42:

"for not all flesh is alike, for there is one kind for men and another kind for animals, another for birds, another for fish.There are clestial bodies and there are terrestrial bodies...so it is with the resurrection of the dead, what is sowen is perishable, what is raised is imperishable."


Since Paul believed that we would have physical resurrection bodies (although glorified) he must have believed that Jesus had a resurrection body also because we are merely partaking of Christ's resurrection. And if his body was transformed and risen from death, than his tomb would be empty. It follows therefore that Paul must have accepted the empty tomb, he just never had an occasion to speak of it in writing.


1) Our resurrection will share in the likeness of Jesus Resurrection:
Ro 6:5 - 
For if we have become united with {Him} in the likeness of His death, certainly we shall also be {in the likeness} of His resurrection,

2) Resurrection for Paul meant that the body is brought back to life and transformed into a new form of body, a glorified body with some sort of spiritual overtones, but still a risen solid body.

1Co 15:42 - Show Context So also is the resurrection of the dead. It is sown a perishable {body,} it is raised an imperishable {body;}

"So also [is] the resurrection of the dead. It is sown in corruption; it is raised in incorruption:"


3)Since for Paul resurrection means a body, and since our resurrection is merely following the pattern of Jesus' resurrection, it stands to reason that he must have understood Jesus to have physically risen from the dead.

 Historical argument that crucifixion victims could be buried.

 Josephus got some down from the cross, they were attended by physicians and one saved. It seems unlikely that they would then refuse to allow them to be buried:

 Dr. James Tabor,
Jewish Roman world of Jesus (website)


Josephus (b. 37 C.E.) is our best literary source for the practice of crucifixion in Palestine during the Greco-Roman period. As a general in command of the Jewish forces of Galilee in the Great Revolt against Rome (66-73 C.E.), he reports his attempts to save the lives of three crucified captives by appealing directly to the Roman general Titus. One survived the cross under a physician’s care, the other two could not be saved.

Life 76

And when I was sent by Titus Caesar with Cerealins, and a thousand horsemen, to a certain village called Thecoa, in order to know whether it were a place fit for a camp, as I came back, I saw many captives crucified, and remembered three of them as my former acquaintance. I was very sorry at this in my mind, and went with tears in my eyes to Titus, and told him of them; so he immediately commanded them to be taken down, and to have the greatest care taken of them, in order to their recovery; yet two of them died under the physician’s hands, while the third recovered.


We know that some crucifixion victims were buried 

Wikipedia

"Jehohanan (Yehohanan) was a man put to death by crucifixion in the 1st century CE, whose ossuary was found in 1968 when building contractors working in Giv'at ha-Mivtar, a Jewish neighborhood in northern East Jerusalem, accidentally uncovered a Jewish tomb.[1] The Jewish stone ossuary had the Hebrew inscription "Jehohanan the son of Hagkol". In his initial anthropological observations in 1970 at Hebrew University, Nicu Haas concluded Jehohanan was crucified with his arms stretched out with his forearms nailed, supporting crucifixion on a two-beamed Latin cross.[2] However, a 1985 reappraisal discovered multiple errors in Haas's observations.[3][4]"
[2] Joe Zias, Crucifixion in Antiquity--the Evidence.
[3] "Crucifixion – The Archaeological Evidence," Biblical Archaeology Review, Vol. 11 (1985), pp. 44-53
[4] Fitzmyer, Yadin, "Epigraphy and Crucifixion," Israel Exploration Journal, Vol. 23(1973), pp. 494-498.

Comments

The Pixie said…
Resurrection in a New Physical Body

Joe: The "no Body" theory comes in two versions: 1) that Jesus was an historical figure, but his resurrection was non-bodily; he didn't leave an empty tomb but just appeared to people as a spirit; 2) or that he never existed, and in fact Paul didn't really believe that he was a real a flesh and blood person, but merely a mythological figure or ethereal personage; the object of worship of a mystery cult.

A third option is that Paul believed Jesus was resurrected in a new physical body, not made of flesh and blood. Kind of disappointing that you are not even aware of this possibility.

Joe: The answer, of course, is that Paul's belief was the same as the Jewish belief of the day, that Messiah was to raise all of fallen Israel at the end of times. This was to be a bodily resurrection.

The funereal practice of the time was to place the body in a tomb until the flesh rotten away, and then collect the bones to be stored in a jar. It makes no sense at all to say the Jews at that time believed they would be resurrected in their original bodies when then clearly knew their original flesh and blood would be gone within a year.

This was to be a bodily resurrection, but in a new body.

All you have written about Jewish beliefs supports the idea of resurrection in a new body, and supports it rather better than your claim of resurrection in the old body.

It is worth considering the nature of the new body:

Daniel 2:2 Many of those who sleep in the dust of the ground will awake, these to everlasting life, but the others to disgrace and everlasting contempt. 3 [b]Those who have insight will shine brightly like the brightness of the expanse of heaven, and those who lead the many to righteousness, like the stars forever and ever.

This would be a body that shines brightly. Flesh and blood bodies do not do that. Remember that what Paul saw on the Road to Damascus was a shining light - Jesus in his new body, not Jesus in his original body. This would have fitted perfectly with what Paul was expecting to see at the resurrection.

Josephus is also clear that the Pharisees expected their souls to be moved to new bodies:

14. But then as to the two other orders at first mentioned, the Pharisees are those who are esteemed most skillful in the exact explication of their laws, and introduce the first sect. These ascribe all to fate [or providence], and to God, and yet allow, that to act what is right, or the contrary, is principally in the power of men, although fate does co-operate in every action. They say that all souls are incorruptible, but that the souls of good men only are removed into other bodies, - but that the souls of bad men are subject to eternal punishment.
- Jewish War 2.8.14
The Pixie said…
No Empty Tomb

Joe: 1) Paul never mentions the empty tomb. ... The argument is mainly an argument from silence. The real power of the assertion is found in the silence of Paul and his failure to mention the empty tomb. ... It is not clear why Paul never mentions the tomb, but it is equally unclear why he has to.

If Paul knew of the Empty Tomb, then we would expect him to mention it when he mentions the burial. The Empty Tomb is far more important theologically, and yet he omitted it. Why? If Paul never mentioned the burial you would have a point, but we have this situation that he chose to mention the burial - which surely no one denied - and yet did not mention the Empty Tomb.

You can contrive as many rationalisations as you like, but the most likely reason is that he did not know about it.

He did not need the Empty Tomb - he believed Jesus was resurrected in a new body. Who cares where the old one was?

Joe: It follows therefore that Paul must have accepted the empty tomb, he just never had an occasion to speak of it in writing.

Do you really think that is true? 1 Cor 15:4 is exactly where he would have mentioned it - if he had heard of it.



A New Body

Joe: The fleshly body would be transformed into a "resurrection body," spirit, "glorified," but a body and tangible and made of a subsubstance none the less.

Exactly. A new physical body, not made of flesh and blood.

Joe: Thus, in this conext we find the major peice of evidence used by the 'No body' thoerists, that Paul speaks of Christ risen as a "spirit." But this is not to say a disembodied spirit, but a transformed spiritual body:

So not the original body.

Joe: And if his body was transformed and risen from death, than his tomb would be empty.

No. Paul differentiates between those already dead, and those alive. Those alive will be transformed, but Jesus died. We have to look at what happens to those who have died. They will be given new bodies. The righteous who died a thousand years ago are not going to be resurrected in their original bodies, they will necessarily get new bodies. Paul believed the same process applied to Jesus, so he must have believed Jesus had a new body.

Thus Paul draws an analogy:

2 Cor 5:1 For we know that if the earthly tent we live in is destroyed, we have a building from God, an eternal house in heaven, not built by human hands. 2 Meanwhile we groan, longing to be clothed instead with our heavenly dwelling, 3 because when we are clothed, we will not be found naked. 4 For while we are in this tent, we groan and are burdened, because we do not wish to be unclothed but to be clothed instead with our heavenly dwelling, so that what is mortal may be swallowed up by life. 5 Now the one who has fashioned us for this very purpose is God, who has given us the Spirit as a deposit, guaranteeing what is to come.

The tent is your old body, the eternal house in heaven your new resurrection body. Who cares what happened to the tent?
EXE JESUS said…
Pixie, You cite Daniel 2:2 and 3 in your first comment, but that's not from the book of Daniel. Would you mind clarifying your reference?
Anonymous said…
Sorry, should be Daniel 12:2-3, not Daniel 2.
im-skeptical said…
It is not clear why Paul never mentions the tomb, but it is equally unclear why he has to.

- On every obvious reason would be that the narrative of the empty tomb did not yet exist at that time.
Joe Hinman said…
On every obvious reason would be that the narrative of the empty tomb did not yet exist at that time.

we know it did I already established the fact of PMPN so you go back to the things Px and I hashed out months ago and read that,
im-skeptical said…
The mere fact that "hashed out" some issue before is no reason to suppose that you're right.
Joe Hinman said…
Joe: The "no Body" theory comes in two versions: 1) that Jesus was an historical figure, but his resurrection was non-bodily; he didn't leave an empty tomb but just appeared to people as a spirit; 2) or that he never existed, and in fact Paul didn't really believe that he was a real a flesh and blood person, but merely a mythological figure or ethereal personage; the object of worship of a mystery cult.

A third option is that Paul believed Jesus was resurrected in a new physical body, not made of flesh and blood. Kind of disappointing that you are not even aware of this possibility.

That's a a variant of the solution I give, it's not a no body theory. notice you say he got a body so it's not a no body,

Joe: The answer, of course, is that Paul's belief was the same as the Jewish belief of the day, that Messiah was to raise all of fallen Israel at the end of times. This was to be a bodily resurrection.

The funereal practice of the time was to place the body in a tomb until the flesh rotten away, and then collect the bones to be stored in a jar. It makes no sense at all to say the Jews at that time believed they would be resurrected in their original bodies when then clearly knew their original flesh and blood would be gone within a year.


don't be obtuse. We are talking about things God will do, the end of times God will do this. doesn't matter what the norm is now.


This was to be a bodily resurrection, but in a new body.

All you have written about Jewish beliefs supports the idea of resurrection in a new body, and supports it rather better than your claim of resurrection in the old body.


1 cor 15:53 makes it quite clear the old body gets revamped. You have a variation on that that is not justified but it doesn't matter because it's lose enough it's not a counter.

you are splitting hairs, trying to make it look as though you have a point and you do not



It is worth considering the nature of the new body:

Daniel 2:2 Many of those who sleep in the dust of the ground will awake, these to everlasting life, but the others to disgrace and everlasting contempt. 3 [b]Those who have insight will shine brightly like the brightness of the expanse of heaven, and those who lead the many to righteousness, like the stars forever and ever.

This would be a body that shines brightly.

a ridiculous conjecture, there's nothing in the text to indicate that,



Flesh and blood bodies do not do that. Remember that what Paul saw on the Road to Damascus was a shining light - Jesus in his new body, not Jesus in his original body. This would have fitted perfectly with what Paul was expecting to see at the resurrection.

flesh and blood is transmogrified to something more,this is not a hard concept


Josephus is also clear that the Pharisees expected their souls to be moved to new bodies:

no that is wrong, that is totally misinterpreted he did not say that, read Ederheim



Joe Hinman said…
he Pixie said...
No Empty Tomb

Joe: 1) Paul never mentions the empty tomb. ... The argument is mainly an argument from silence. The real power of the assertion is found in the silence of Paul and his failure to mention the empty tomb. ... It is not clear why Paul never mentions the tomb, but it is equally unclear why he has to.

If Paul knew of the Empty Tomb, then we would expect him to mention it when he mentions the burial. The Empty Tomb is far more important theologically, and yet he omitted it. Why? If Paul never mentioned the burial you would have a point, but we have this situation that he chose to mention the burial - which surely no one denied - and yet did not mention the Empty Tomb.


that is wrong. there is no reason why he mention the empty to when they already implied in talking about burial.,

PMPN is dated to AD 50 so empty tomb was part of the gospel before Paul began to write,




You can contrive as many rationalisations as you like, but the most likely reason is that he did not know about it.

totally unlikely since we had been in Jerusalem during the era where PMPN was circulating,,Paul never mentions his mother so he never had a mother,


He did not need the Empty Tomb - he believed Jesus was resurrected in a new body. Who cares where the old one was?

Joe: It follows therefore that Paul must have accepted the empty tomb, he just never had an occasion to speak of it in writing.

Do you really think that is true? 1 Cor 15:4 is exactly where he would have mentioned it - if he had heard of it.



A New Body

Joe: The fleshly body would be transformed into a "resurrection body," spirit, "glorified," but a body and tangible and made of a subsubstance none the less.

Exactly. A new physical body, not made of flesh and blood.

that is a body


Joe: Thus, in this conext we find the major peice of evidence used by the 'No body' thoerists, that Paul speaks of Christ risen as a "spirit." But this is not to say a disembodied spirit, but a transformed spiritual body:

So not the original body.


I'mm sorry I thought you spoke English. In English the term transformed means a thing is changed it doesn't mean a totally different thing is put in its place,


Joe Hinman said…
Joe: And if his body was transformed and risen from death, than his tomb would be empty.

No. Paul differentiates between those already dead, and those alive.

that's irrelevant because we are talking about Christ specifically not all people.

Those alive will be transformed, but Jesus died. We have to look at what happens to those who have died. They will be given new bodies. The righteous who died a thousand years ago are not going to be resurrected in their original bodies, they will necessarily get new bodies. Paul believed the same process applied to Jesus, so he must have believed Jesus had a new body.


the same principle still holds otherwise you have no basis for any claim because you have no passage that deals with a dead person,except you are wrong, Edersiem says the Talmud is clear that the dead in Israel will come back to life their bodies will be restored and changed,


Thus Paul draws an analogy:

2 Cor 5:1 For we know that if the earthly tent we live in is destroyed, we have a building from God, an eternal house in heaven, not built by human hands. 2 Meanwhile we groan, longing to be clothed instead with our heavenly dwelling, 3 because when we are clothed, we will not be found naked. 4 For while we are in this tent, we groan and are burdened, because we do not wish to be unclothed but to be clothed instead with our heavenly dwelling, so that what is mortal may be swallowed up by life. 5 Now the one who has fashioned us for this very purpose is God, who has given us the Spirit as a deposit, guaranteeing what is to come.

that the fact that he talks about different kinds w of flesh proves he is assuming our bodies will be changed,


The tent is your old body, the eternal house in heaven your new resurrection body. Who cares what happened to the tent?

that's he Greek view,The Hebrews understood a unity of body and spirit,
Anonymous said…
Joe: we know it did I already established the fact of PMPN so you go back to the things Px and I hashed out months ago and read that,

No. You assert it was in the PMPN at that time, but that is a long way from establishing it. Many scholars do not even think it was even in the PMPN, let alone in it by AD 50. The scholars you quote who do, also think it was made up.

Joe: That's a a variant of the solution I give, it's not a no body theory. notice you say he got a body so it's not a no body,

You gave the impression in a previous discussion that you would be responding here to my position. If so, then we should be discussing the difference between those two variants.

Joe: don't be obtuse. We are talking about things God will do, the end of times God will do this. doesn't matter what the norm is now.

What are you trying to say? It is a fact that the Jews knew the flesh and blood would rot away within a year, and they fully expected the righteous who were centuries dead to be resurrected. They had to have believed it would be in a new body.

Joe: 1 cor 15:53 makes it quite clear the old body gets revamped. You have a variation on that that is not justified but it doesn't matter because it's lose enough it's not a counter.

So you are going to ignore the dozen or so verses in 1 Cor 15, and the verses in 2 Cor 5 that indicate a new body, and cling to this single verse, like a drowning man clutching a straw. Go through 1 Cor 15, go through 2 Cor 5 and read what they say. Then explain it to us.

Joe: you are splitting hairs, trying to make it look as though you have a point and you do not

Then you will be able to explain why Paul said the bodies of those still alive will be changed.

Then you will be able to explain why Paul likened the original body to a tent that is replaced by a house.

Then you will be able to explain why the Jews believe their ancestors centuries dead, whose bones are stored in jars, would be resurrected in their original bodies.

Joe: a ridiculous conjecture, there's nothing in the text to indicate that,

It is what the text says, Joe. Furthermore, it is what Paul said he saw on the Road to Damascus.

Joe: flesh and blood is transmogrified to something more,this is not a hard concept

Right. Something not flesh and blood. Something different. Something new. Join the dots, Joe.

And then think about the ancestors centuries dead, whose flesh and blood rotted away long ago. They get something new too, right?

Joe: no that is wrong, that is totally misinterpreted he did not say that, read Ederheim

Tell us what you think the correct interpretation is, then Joe. If you want to go with that reincarnation BS, do please explain whether you think Josephus was an idiot who had no idea about Jewish beliefs or rather if you think reincarnation was actually a belief of the Pharisees.

Pix
Anonymous said…
Joe: that is wrong. there is no reason why he mention the empty to when they already implied in talking about burial.,

This is generally thought to be a creed. You do not skip parts of a creed because it is implied - especially not when it is so theologically important.

Joe: PMPN is dated to AD 50 so empty tomb was part of the gospel before Paul began to write,

You are assuming the Empty Tomb was part of the PMPN from the start. Why?

Joe: totally unlikely since we had been in Jerusalem during the era where PMPN was circulating,,

No, he was in Jerusalem in the time you assert the PMPN included the Empty Tomb. That is very different.

Joe: Paul never mentions his mother so he never had a mother,

But where would we expect to see mention of his mother? In 1 Cor 15:4 we have a specific place where mention of the Empty Tomb should be - if Paul had heard of it.

Joe: I'mm sorry I thought you spoke English. In English the term transformed means a thing is changed it doesn't mean a totally different thing is put in its place,

It was one thing. It was transformed. Now it is a different thing.

And remember that it is the bodies of the living that are transformed. Jesus was dead. What happened to him was the same as would happen to all the rest of the dead Jews, most of whom had been dead a very long time. The only thing that makes sense is for God to give them completely new bodies.

Joe: that's irrelevant because we are talking about Christ specifically not all people.

But Paul thought Jesus was the prototype, the first fruits. What had happened to Jesus was what Paul expected to happen to all the righteous who had died.

Joe: the same principle still holds otherwise you have no basis for any claim because you have no passage that deals with a dead person,except you are wrong, Edersiem says the Talmud is clear that the dead in Israel will come back to life their bodies will be restored and changed,

2 Cor 5 and the earlier parts of 1 C0r 15 describe what happens to the dead. They discard their old bodies, like old tents, and take up new bodies, made by God, like eternal houses.

Joe: that the fact that he talks about different kinds w of flesh proves he is assuming our bodies will be changed,

Sure, like changing your clothes. You will take off one, and put on another. The first made of earthly flesh, the second of heavenly flesh.

Joe: that's he Greek view,The Hebrews understood a unity of body and spirit,

Any evidence for that, Joe?

My reading of the subject indicates the Jews believed the dead became shades or ghosts living in the underworld (i.e., Sheol), awaiting the resurrection. See for example Psalm 16:10, Isaiah 14:9, 1 Samuel 28:11-15. I trust you can find verses that unambiguously support your claim...

Pix
JBsptfn said…
Quote"Pix: Josephus is also clear that the Pharisees expected their souls to be moved to new bodies:

Joe: no that is wrong, that is totally misinterpreted he did not say that, read Ederheim"Quote

I heard that the Pharisees believed in Soul Sleep until the resurrection (the one the happened when the bodies came out of the ground after Christ was crucified).

As for Sheol, here's a good write-up about that and Soul Sleep:

Tektonics: Soul Sleep

Also, here's another one:

Freeminds.org: Hell-Traditionalist vs. Conditionalist Views
The Pixie said…
JBsptfn, I am not sure what your point is. The Tektonics article is about whether the spirit (i.e., the soul with a body) is conscious or unconscious between death and the general resurrection, very much arguing for the latter. Either way, how does that affect our discussion?

I must admit I looked only briefly at the other article, but it too did not seem to relate to this debate. I have to admit, I am not sure what it means by "conditionalists" and "traditionalists"; its definitions are not at all clear.
Joe Hinman said…

Anonymous Anonymous said...
Joe: we know it did I already established the fact of PMPN so you go back to the things Px and I hashed out months ago and read that,


PX:
No. You assert it was in the PMPN at that time, but that is a long way from establishing it. Many scholars do not even think it was even in the PMPN, let alone in it by AD 50. The scholars you quote who do, also think it was made up.

The major scholars (Koester and Crossson, Danker,and others) DATE PMPN at AD 50. The fact that there was a PMPN and included the empty tomb is consensus I documented that with quote from Kirby.

you are doing the atheist trick of SDMBIB. send dead men back into battle, no one will notice because no one reads this stuff,


Joe: That's a a variant of the solution I give, it's not a no body theory. notice you say he got a body so it's not a no body.

PX:You gave the impression in a previous discussion that you would be responding here to my position. If so, then we should be discussing the difference between those two variants.

Joe: That's fine so long as the reader clearly understands we are no longer discussing the no body theory.Also I am starting a new project, I wont have as much time but I still enjoy our discussions.



I have to finnish this in a bit dont; answer until I do please
Joe Hinman said…
Joe: don't be obtuse. We are talking about things God will do, the end of times God will do this. doesn't matter what the norm is now.

PX:What are you trying to say? It is a fact that the Jews knew the flesh and blood would rot away within a year, and they fully expected the righteous who were centuries dead to be resurrected. They had to have believed it would be in a new body.


that does not follow, they knew bones don;t rot to dust in one year, skeletons can be decades old. besides they would have known God can restore dust. A body rotted to dust could be restored to flesh and blood since God created man from dust,

Joe: 1 cor 15:53 makes it quite clear the old body gets revamped. You have a variation on that that is not justified but it doesn't matter because it's lose enough it's not a counter.

PX:So you are going to ignore the dozen or so verses in 1 Cor 15, and the verses in 2 Cor 5 that indicate a new body, and cling to this single verse, like a drowning man clutching a straw. Go through 1 Cor 15, go through 2 Cor 5 and read what they say. Then explain it to us.

No verse says a new body ,like 1 cor 15:53 it says the old body is changed you take that to mean a new body because it helps your view,:

you are totally ignoring the object of the verse, change does not mean complete replace, you are assuming it does,s



Joe: you are splitting hairs, trying to make it look as though you have a point and you do not

Then you will be able to explain why Paul said the bodies of those still alive will be changed.

Then you will be able to explain why Paul likened the original body to a tent that is replaced by a house.

2 cor 5:

"For we know that if the earthly tent we live in is destroyed, we have a building from God, an eternal house in heaven, not built by human hands. 2 Meanwhile we groan, longing to be clothed instead with our heavenly dwelling, 3 because when we are clothed, we will not be found naked. 4 For while we are in this tent, we groan and are burdened, because we do not wish to be unclothed but to be clothed instead with our heavenly dwelling, so that what is mortal may be swallowed up by life. 5 Now the one who has fashioned us for this very purpose is God, who has given us the Spirit as a deposit, guaranteeing what is to come."

You are literalizing the metaphor, either way their view was electable enough ti could be taken either way,


Then you will be able to explain why the Jews believe their ancestors centuries dead, whose bones are stored in jars, would be resurrected in their original bodies.

why did they preserve their bones if they did not believe they would be restored? they must have thought the bodies themselves would be made new otherwise why save them?



Tell us what you think the correct interpretation is, then Joe. If you want to go with that reincarnation BS, do please explain whether you think Josephus was an idiot who had no idea about Jewish beliefs or rather if you think reincarnation was actually a belief of the Pharisees.

do you think I;m arguing for reincarnation that is really daft. the Hebrews saw boy soul and spirit a unity, they idea of discording a body and getting a new one would be absurd,
some people have interrogated the resurrection boy as a temporary loaner until God restores your real body,

It makes more sense to me that God will revamp our old body, But if it is a new one I wont turn it down.

You are trying to divert attention form the fact that Jesus rose bodily he did not just become a ghost,
Joe Hinman said…
btw about 2 cpr

"For we know that if the earthly tent we live in is destroyed, we have a building from God, an eternal house in heaven, not built by human hands. 2 Meanwhile we groan, longing to be clothed instead with our heavenly dwelling, 3 because when we are clothed, we will not be found naked. 4 For while we are in this tent, we groan and are burdened, because we do not wish to be unclothed but to be clothed instead with our heavenly dwelling, so that what is mortal may be swallowed up by life. 5 Now the one who has fashioned us for this very purpose is God, who has given us the Spirit as a deposit, guaranteeing what is to come."



he;'s speakimg to Greeks.so he using the tent vs house metaphor is Greek thinking: the Greeks thought of the soul is to the body as a person is to a tent, Makeweight a house where the tent was is a way of saying the body will be improved, Baht doesn't mean a totally different dwelling, he's Jew he did not believe the body is discordable.
Joe Hinman said…
Anonymous said...
Joe: that is wrong. there is no reason why he mention the empty to when they already implied in talking about burial.,

This is generally thought to be a creed. You do not skip parts of a creed because it is implied - especially not when it is so theologically important.

Joe: PMPN is dated to AD 50 so empty tomb was part of the gospel before Paul began to write,

You are assuming the Empty Tomb was part of the PMPN from the start. Why?


Because the major people say it was, I;ve quoted that from Koester several times,you should have read Koester by now,



Joe: totally unlikely since we had been in Jerusalem during the era where PMPN was circulating,,

No, he was in Jerusalem in the time you assert the PMPN included the Empty Tomb. That is very different.

Joe: Paul never mentions his mother so he never had a mother,

But where would we expect to see mention of his mother? In 1 Cor 15:4 we have a specific place where mention of the Empty Tomb should be - if Paul had heard of it.



why shoulod we expect him to mention the empty tomb? it was no longer an issue,


Joe: I'mm sorry I thought you spoke English. In English the term transformed means a thing is changed it doesn't mean a totally different thing is put in its place,

It was one thing. It was transformed. Now it is a different thing.

And remember that it is the bodies of the living that are transformed. Jesus was dead.

he was made alive again, all bodies are revved, all bodies both living and dead get revamped,

What happened to him was the same as would happen to all the rest of the dead Jews, most of whom had been dead a very long time. The only thing that makes sense is for God to give them completely new bodies.

Joe: that's irrelevant because we are talking about Christ specifically not all people.

But Paul thought Jesus was the prototype, the first fruits. What had happened to Jesus was what Paul expected to happen to all the righteous who had died.


so life will be resorted and then body will be transformed,what;s the problem?


Joe: the same principle still holds otherwise you have no basis for any claim because you have no passage that deals with a dead person,except you are wrong, Edersiem says the Talmud is clear that the dead in Israel will come back to life their bodies will be restored and changed,

2 Cor 5 and the earlier parts of 1 C0r 15 describe what happens to the dead. They discard their old bodies, like old tents, and take up new bodies, made by God, like eternal houses.

Ultimatum it happens to all, you are being too literal about the use of a metaphor,

Joe: that the fact that he talks about different kinds w of flesh proves he is assuming our bodies will be changed,

Sure, like changing your clothes. You will take off one, and put on another. The first made of earthly flesh, the second of heavenly flesh.

that is totally unHebrew, they were into unity not separation they were not Greek

Joe: that's he Greek view,The Hebrews understood a unity of body and spirit,

Any evidence for that, Joe?

My reading of the subject indicates the Jews believed the dead became shades or ghosts living in the underworld (i.e., Sheol), awaiting the resurrection. See for example Psalm 16:10, Isaiah 14:9, 1 Samuel 28:11-15. I trust you can find verses that unambiguously support your claim...

yes then Jesus got the resurrection first then everyone will get it at the proper time,

Pix
The Pixie said…
Joe: The major scholars (Koester and Crossson, Danker,and others) DATE PMPN at AD 50. The fact that there was a PMPN and included the empty tomb is consensus I documented that with quote from Kirby.

I have repeatedly asked you for evidence that the Empty Tomb was in the PMPN at that time, and you have never provided it.

You have shown that the PMPN was around at that time. You have shown that some scholars think the Empty Tomb was in it. But nothing ever to indicate the Empty Tomb was in it by that time. To be honest, I am not even sure you understand the question!

As an aside, both Koester and Crossson think the Empty Tomb was made up, and I am not sure about Danker.

Joe: that does not follow, they knew bones don;t rot to dust in one year, skeletons can be decades old. besides they would have known God can restore dust. A body rotted to dust could be restored to flesh and blood since God created man from dust,

But that would be a new body!

Joe: No verse says a new body ,like 1 cor 15:53 it says the old body is changed you take that to mean a new body because it helps your view,:

This version of the Bible (NIV on BibleGateway) start 2 Cor 5 with the heading "Awaiting the New Body"!
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2+cor+5&version=NIV

2 Cor 5:1 For we know that if the earthly tent we live in is destroyed, we have a building from God, an eternal house in heaven, not built by human hands. 2 Meanwhile we groan, longing to be clothed instead with our heavenly dwelling, 3 because when we are clothed, we will not be found naked. 4 For while we are in this tent, we groan and are burdened, because we do not wish to be unclothed but to be clothed instead with our heavenly dwelling, so that what is mortal may be swallowed up by life. 5 Now the one who has fashioned us for this very purpose is God, who has given us the Spirit as a deposit, guaranteeing what is to come.

The earthly tent is your current body. If it is destroyed, i.e., you die, you get a new body, your eternal house in heaven.

"Clothed" in this context means having a body, unclothed refers to the spirit in Sheol. We do not want to be a shade a Sheol, but we want to be clothed in our heavenly dwelling, the new body and not that yucky tent thing.

I will quote from 1 Cor 15 next...
The Pixie said…
1 Cor 15:37 When you sow, you do not plant the body that will be, but just a seed, perhaps of wheat or of something else.

The seed is the old body, which stays in the ground.

39 Not all flesh is the same: People have one kind of flesh, animals have another, birds another and fish another. 40 There are also heavenly bodies and there are earthly bodies; but the splendor of the heavenly bodies is one kind, and the splendor of the earthly bodies is another. 41 The sun has one kind of splendor, the moon another and the stars another; and star differs from star in splendor.
42 So will it be with the resurrection of the dead. The body that is sown is perishable, it is raised imperishable; 43 it is sown in dishonor, it is raised in glory; it is sown in weakness, it is raised in power; 44 it is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body. If there is a natural body, there is also a spiritual body.

This is all about two different bodies, made of two different materials.

50 I declare to you, brothers and sisters, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God, nor does the perishable inherit the imperishable.

You cannot get into heaven in your original body. You need a new one. It is like a dress code at a club. You cannot come in dressed like that, go home and change your clothes.

Verses 51 to 54 are specifically about how those still alive with be changed, so not the same as in Jesus' case, as he died.

Joe: why did they preserve their bones if they did not believe they would be restored? they must have thought the bodies themselves would be made new otherwise why save them?

It seems quite likely they were honouring the dead.

Why did they not preserve the bodies in the manner of the Egyptians if they expected to be resurrected in them?

Joe: do you think I;m arguing for reincarnation that is really daft. ...

Okay, that is good to hear. I was debating someone a few months ago who claimed that and thought it was you.

So what do you think Josephus meant when he said:

"They say that all souls are incorruptible, but that the souls of good men only are removed into other bodies"

Joe: It makes more sense to me that God will revamp our old body, But if it is a new one I wont turn it down.

This is about what made sense to Paul.

Joe: You are trying to divert attention form the fact that Jesus rose bodily he did not just become a ghost,

I am trying to get you to understand that Paul believed Jesus rose bodily, but in a new heavenly body.

Joe: he;'s speakimg to Greeks.so he using the tent vs house metaphor is Greek thinking: the Greeks thought of the soul is to the body as a person is to a tent, Makeweight a house where the tent was is a way of saying the body will be improved, Baht doesn't mean a totally different dwelling, he's Jew he did not believe the body is discordable.

But the Jews did think the body could disconnect. After death they believed the spirit went to Sheol without the body. They understood body and spirit to be a single whole, and a spirit without a body was a terrible thing, but that did happen when a person died.

More specifically, Paul describes an experience in 2 Cor 12:2-5 that reads very much like his spirit left his body, and at the very least shows that he considered that a real possibility.
The Pixie said…
Joe: Because the major people say it was, I;ve quoted that from Koester several times,you should have read Koester by now,

The scholar who thinks the Empty Tomb was made up? Do you consider him to be an authority? Or only where he agrees with you?

Joe: why shoulod we expect him to mention the empty tomb? it was no longer an issue,

Why mention the burial or the sighting by the 500? Were they an issue? No. They were just part of the early creed. A creed that omitted the Empty Tomb... because it got made up later.

Joe: he was made alive again, all bodies are revved, all bodies both living and dead get revamped,

No. The dead get new bodies. Remember, some of them have been dead thousands of years. There is no body to revive, not even bones by that time. The living also get new bodies, but they are swapped in an instant.

Here is Jesus on the resurrection body:

Luke 20:34 Jesus replied, “The people of this age marry and are given in marriage. 35 But those who are considered worthy of taking part in the age to come and in the resurrection from the dead will neither marry nor be given in marriage, 36 and they can no longer die; for they are like the angels. They are God’s children, since they are children of the resurrection.

I appreciate this is not clear, but it does fit exactly with what I have been saying. These new bodies will shine brightly, as described in Daniel, and as Paul saw on the Road to Damascus, and here Jesus confirms that by saying they will be like angels.

Why no marriage? Why like children? Because the new bodies will not have sex. If you are in your old body, revamped, you will want to have sex with the other people in their revamped bodies. But that is not what Jesus describes. He talks of somewhere that marriage - and by implication sex - is no longer a thing.

And so the Sadducees' question is irrelevant.

Joe: so life will be resorted and then body will be transformed,what;s the problem?

It is transformed for the living, as they still have bodies. For the dead, whose spirit has departed the body, they get new bodies.

Joe: Ultimatum it happens to all, you are being too literal about the use of a metaphor,

We can only go by what Paul said. From this metaphor, and other indications, it appears he believed the dead would get new bodies.

Joe: that is totally unHebrew, they were into unity not separation they were not Greek

And yet they believed the spirits of the dead went to Sheol.

And yet Paul accepted the possibility of the spirit leaving the body in 2 Cor 12.
JBsptfn said…
Pixie: JBsptfn, I am not sure what your point is. The Tektonics article is about whether the spirit (i.e., the soul with a body) is conscious or unconscious between death and the general resurrection, very much arguing for the latter. Either way, how does that affect our discussion?

The article that Holding wrote is along the lines of what you are talking about. I know that you and Joe are talking about the body, but that type of discussion can lead to the subject of where the spirit goes after death. And, if you read that article carefully, Holding is arguing against SS more than for it.

And, with the second article, Conditionalism is Soul Sleep (basically), and Traditionalism is the position that you go to heaven upon death. Sounds like you really didn't read the articles much.
The Pixie said…
JBsptfn: The article that Holding wrote is along the lines of what you are talking about. I know that you and Joe are talking about the body, but that type of discussion can lead to the subject of where the spirit goes after death. And, if you read that article carefully, Holding is arguing against SS more than for it.

Holding appears to argue the spirit is conscious, not asleep, between death and resurrection. That is perfectly compatible with both Joe's position and mine, hence I was not sure what your point is.

I appreciate that that is not the usual Christian position so I may have misunderstood, but the verses Holding quoted argue for consciousness between death and resurrection, rather than going directly to heaven.

JBsptfn: And, with the second article, Conditionalism is Soul Sleep (basically), and Traditionalism is the position that you go to heaven upon death.

Conditionalism is more than that; it is called conditionalism for a reason. A large part of the article is arguing about the immortality of the soul, which is irrelevant to this discussion. To be honest, I do not get why a delay until the resurrection is dependent on whether the soul is immortal.

I think the Bible is pretty clear that the people of that time believed the spirits of the dead go to Sheol, to await the resurrection, which argues very much against the traditionalist view.

JBsptfn: Sounds like you really didn't read the articles much.

Not the second one, no.

Perhaps you could quote the bit you find most relevant?
Joe Hinman said…
The Pixie said...
Joe: Because the major people say it was, I;ve quoted that from Koester several times,you should have read Koester by now,

The scholar who thinks the Empty Tomb was made up? Do you consider him to be an authority? Or only where he agrees with you?

that's an emotional attempt to shame evidence you can't answer,I never that Koester believed the resurrection. That makes him less biased you can't accuse him of that kind of basis. He dates the PN at 50 and says it includes the empty tomb you need to accept that as fact because he's not a fundie. On the other hand he is human so he stoops to speculative bull shit to explain the empty tomb,

Joe: why shoulod we expect him [Paul] to mention the empty tomb? it was no longer an issue,

Why mention the burial or the sighting by the 500? Were they an issue? No. They were just part of the early creed. A creed that omitted the Empty Tomb... because it got made up later.

the issue at that point was the truth of the resurrection but the evidence they would accept was not the empty tomb,The empty tomb would be meaningless to Greeks on Mars hill.People of Jerusalem knew the tomb was empty because they lived around it, The people on Mrs Hill had no reason to assume so. They could find and ask the 500

Joe: he was made alive again, all bodies are revved, all bodies both living and dead get revamped,

No. The dead get new bodies. Remember, some of them have been dead thousands of years. There is no body to revive, not even bones by that time. The living also get new bodies, but they are swapped in an instant.

no remember God can create a universe from nothing so he can call back a body from dust,

Here is Jesus on the resurrection body:

Luke 20:34 Jesus replied, “The people of this age marry and are given in marriage. 35 But those who are considered worthy of taking part in the age to come and in the resurrection from the dead will neither marry nor be given in marriage, 36 and they can no longer die; for they are like the angels. They are God’s children, since they are children of the resurrection.

I appreciate this is not clear, but it does fit exactly with what I have been saying. These new bodies will shine brightly, as described in Daniel, and as Paul saw on the Road to Damascus, and here Jesus confirms that by saying they will be like angels.


It works equally well either way, so you are clutching at starws becsue you know you have no evidence,

Why no marriage? Why like children? Because the new bodies will not have sex. If you are in your old body, revamped, you will want to have sex with the other people in their revamped bodies. But that is not what Jesus describes. He talks of somewhere that marriage - and by implication sex - is no longer a thing.

revamped old body could just as easily be without sex,

And so the Sadducees' question is irrelevant.

I didn't argue that

Joe: so life will be resorted and then body will be transformed,what;s the problem?

It is transformed for the living, as they still have bodies. For the dead, whose spirit has departed the body, they get new bodies.

that is bull shit, you have no basis for nit picking silliness,

Joe: Ultimatum it happens to all, you are being too literal about the use of a metaphor,

We can only go by what Paul said. From this metaphor, and other indications, it appears he believed the dead would get new bodies.

Paul never says people already dead are don't get revamps this is your conjecture,

Joe: that is totally unHebrew, they were into unity not separation they were not Greek

And yet they believed the spirits of the dead went to Sheol.


Sheol is not hell it's the grave (death)so if you die you have to go there,

And yet Paul accepted the possibility of the spirit leaving the body in 2 Cor 12.

you know that is not statement about the permanent condition but snap shot in the one phase,

4/10/2018 05:57:00 AM Delete
JBsptfn said…
Pixie: Perhaps you could quote the bit you find most relevant?

OK, here you go (this is under the Immortality and the Soul section on the Conditionalist side):

"Quote(Edward)Fudge comments on the early Fathers, and seems to give the idea that Justin Martyr and Tatian were conditionalists, which is not true. They believed in the continued existence of the soul, but not in the Platonic view of the immortality of the soul. Fudge makes general statements about these early Fathers, but does not tell us who "they" are:

Fudge: They freely borrowed the Platonic conception of the soul, the chief characteristic being its separability from the body. When these Christian defenders argued for the resurrection and last judgment, they often used the pagan doctrine of immortality to show that these things were not "logically absurd."
Over and over, however, the Christian writers distinguished their concept of the soul's "immortality" from that held by some contemporary Platonist philosophers. The soul is not inherently immortal, insisted the fathers. It had a beginning-from God. And though it survives the death of the body, its future existence also depends entirely on God's will. Even Origen and Augustine, who did sometimes speak of the soul's natural immortality, made this distinction clear. Others, like Justin Martyr and his pupil Tatian viewed the pagan doctrine of immortality as a challenge to the resurrection and fought against it openly. p. 67,68"Quote


The Pixie said…
Joe: that's an emotional attempt to shame evidence you can't answer,I never that Koester believed the resurrection. That makes him less biased you can't accuse him of that kind of basis. He dates the PN at 50 and says it includes the empty tomb you need to accept that as fact because he's not a fundie. On the other hand he is human so he stoops to speculative bull shit to explain the empty tomb,

You are saying Koester is the authority on this subject. The implication is that we should also believe him when he says the resurrection was made up. To do otherwise is cherry-picdking the data.

Quote the bit where he says the PMPN included the Empty Tomb in AD 50, because frankly, I do not believe you.

Joe: the issue at that point was the truth of the resurrection but the evidence they would accept was not the empty tomb,The empty tomb would be meaningless to Greeks on Mars hill.People of Jerusalem knew the tomb was empty because they lived around it, The people on Mrs Hill had no reason to assume so. They could find and ask the 500

If he had no reason to mention the Empty Tomb because they knew about it, then the same is true of the crucifixion and the burial. And if they could ask the 500, then no need to mention them, they were clearly known too.

Similarly, no need to mention the burial as evidence for the resurrection. That is just as meaningless to thew Greeks.

Nevertheless he did mention the burial, and he did so presumably because it was part of the creed (and it is commonly thought to be an early creed). The Empty Tomb was not included because it was not in that early creed.

Joe: no remember God can create a universe from nothing so he can call back a body from dust,

Okay... But we know the resurrected body is made of different stuff, so we have God creating a different body. In what way is that not a new body?

Joe: It works equally well either way, so you are clutching at starws becsue you know you have no evidence,

It fits my hypothesis perfectly. It can be twisted to fit yours.

Joe: revamped old body could just as easily be without sex,

So it will be your old body, but without genitalia, and made of some other material, and shining brightly like stars... But you insist it is not a new body?

Pix: And so the Sadducees' question is irrelevant.

Joe: I didn't argue that

The question is irrelevant under my hypothesis because the resurrected will exist in new, shining, genderless bodies. Why is it irrelevant under your hypothesis?

Joe: that is bull shit, you have no basis for nit picking silliness,

I am going by what the text says. You insistence that we go by a single verse, ignoring all the rest, is the mystery here.

Joe: Paul never says people already dead are don't get revamps this is your conjecture,

Read the text, Joe! Paul describes how the dead get new bodies, and then goes on to say how those still alive will have their bodies transformed in an instant.

Joe: Sheol is not hell it's the grave (death)so if you die you have to go there,

I never said it was Hell. There was a belief that the spirit resided in Sheol, without the body, as Isaiah 14:9 and 1 Samuel 28:11-14 prove.

Joe: you know that is not statement about the permanent condition but snap shot in the one phase,

It proves that Paul considered a spirit without a body to be a possibility, which is enough to refute your claim "that is totally unHebrew, they were into unity not separation they were not Greek". Now it is possible Paul got that belief from the Greeks, but it is a certainty that Paul accepted the possibility of a spirit without a body.
The Pixie said…
JBsptfn

How was that relevant? That is about whether the soul is immortal, and Joe and I are talking about whether the resurrected get new bodies or their old ones revamped.
JBsptfn said…
It's relevant because this kind of discussion usually leads to what happens to the spirit, as I said before.
Joe Hinman said…
You are saying Koester is the authority on this subject. The implication is that we should also believe him when he says the resurrection was made up. To do otherwise is cherry-picdking the data.


that does not follow, you are saying if Koester is right about one thin he must be right about everything. That's theway children think,

It seems tome I've disproved this nonsense before, give me the original source.
Joe Hinman said…
If he had no reason to mention the Empty Tomb because they knew about it, then the same is true of the crucifixion and the burial. And if they could ask the 500, then no need to mention them, they were clearly known too.


that's a slippery slope argument,he doesn't need to tell them anything because they know it all. The fact that they know the story is a good reason why he doesn't mention that one facet.He does speak of the cross not because they didn't know about it but he had actual reason to use it as an example or a theological point that the empty tomb did not afford at the time,

Similarly, no need to mention the burial as evidence for the resurrection. That is just as meaningless to thew Greeks.

that is a formulation phraseology, he's not going into detail explainable it.

Nevertheless he did mention the burial, and he did so presumably because it was part of the creed (and it is commonly thought to be an early creed). The Empty Tomb was not included because it was not in that early creed.


He was not doing apologetic,the audience accepted the validity of the gospel,they were not rejecting the resurrection. no need to to discuss that aspect, There are theological ramification to resurrection which he does go into, the fact that he left an empty tomb has limited importance beyond proving that he rose, that was not in question,

Joe Hinman said…
Joe: no remember God can create a universe from nothing so he can call back a body from dust,

PX:Okay... But we know the resurrected body is made of different stuff, so we have God creating a different body. In what way is that not a new body?

Joe: It works equally well either way, so you are clutching at starws becsue you know you have no evidence,

It fits my hypothesis perfectly. It can be twisted to fit yours.

It obviously fits mine because mine assumes a miracle that is not extensional of that miracle, your's is nothing more than disturbing the truth of that miracle,I know atheists like to think doubt is a proof but it is not.

Joe: revamped old body could just as easily be without sex,

So it will be your old body, but without genitalia, and made of some other material, and shining brightly like stars... But you insist it is not a new body?

I reeckon by the tine i resurrect they wont well anyway


Pix: And so the Sadducees' question is irrelevant.

Joe: I didn't argue that

The question is irrelevant under my hypothesis because the resurrected will exist in new, shining, genderless bodies. Why is it irrelevant under your hypothesis?

irrelevant under my hypothesis because its wrong.

Joe: that is bull shit, you have no basis for nit picking silliness,

I am going by what the text says. You insistence that we go by a single verse, ignoring all the rest, is the mystery here.

o you mean the phrase about "meet me in Galilee?"

Joe: Paul never says people already dead are don't get revamps this is your conjecture,

Read the text, Joe! Paul describes how the dead get new bodies, and then goes on to say how those still alive will have their bodies transformed in an instant.

so? that covers them both,

Joe: Sheol is not hell it's the grave (death)so if you die you have to go there,

I never said it was Hell. There was a belief that the spirit resided in Sheol, without the body, as Isaiah 14:9 and 1 Samuel 28:11-14 prove.

only for a time

Joe: you know that is not statement about the permanent condition but snap shot in the one phase,

It proves that Paul considered a spirit without a body to be a possibility,

AT A GIVEN POINT IN TIME NOT AS A PERMANENT CONDITION

which is enough to refute your claim "that is totally unHebrew,


Not at all the mistake you just made proves itl it;s just a temporary condition. Ot is also misunderstanding of Paul. You are assuming that Pual would not change or refine his Pharisaical belief but he did, in his letters he says to be out of the body is to be present with the Lord, not Sheol, it's heaven.



they were into unity not separation they were not Greek". Now it is possible Paul got that belief from the Greeks, but it is a certainty that Paul accepted the possibility of a spirit without a body.

is he a pharesee or a Greek?

4/11/2018 06:08:00 AM Delete
The Pixie said…
Joe: that does not follow, you are saying if Koester is right about one thin he must be right about everything. That's theway children think,

But that seems perfectly reasonable if you are saying he is the authority on the subject. Is he the authority?

Joe: It seems tome I've disproved this nonsense before, give me the original source.

Here is one.

Joe: that's a slippery slope argument,he doesn't need to tell them anything because they know it all. The fact that they know the story is a good reason why he doesn't mention that one facet.He does speak of the cross not because they didn't know about it but he had actual reason to use it as an example or a theological point that the empty tomb did not afford at the time,

It is the creed, so they know the whole thing by word anyway. He does not need to include it at all. However, he chose to.

And according to you he chose to include the original creed except for the Empty Tomb.

Why did he chose to omit it from the creed?

Joe: He was not doing apologetic,the audience accepted the validity of the gospel,they were not rejecting the resurrection. no need to to discuss that aspect, There are theological ramification to resurrection which he does go into, the fact that he left an empty tomb has limited importance beyond proving that he rose, that was not in question,

You have just said the audience accepted the validity of the gospel, so they all believed in the resurrection already.

This chapter is all about the nature of the resurrection. The Empty Tomb is vital to that - if Paul was saying Jesus was resurrected in his original body. Far more important than the burial or the appearance to the 500. That is why we are arguing about it!

What you are saying is that Paul started his discussion by repeating the creed they all believed, but choosing to omit the one bit of it that that directly supports his position that resurrection is in the original body!

Think it through, Joe. If Paul believed Jesus was resurrected in his original body, and he is trying to explain this to fellow Christians who accepted the resurrection, but did not understand the details, the one bit of the creed he would emphasise is the Empty Tomb.
Joe Hinman said…
PX you have not answered a single argument I;ve made in the original post, not a one.
Joe Hinman said…
This comment has been removed by the author.
Joe Hinman said…

Blogger The Pixie said...
Joe: that does not follow, you are saying if Koester is right about one thing he must be right about everything. That's the way children think,

But that seems perfectly reasonable if you are saying he is the authority on the subject. Is he the authority?

Of course that dependents upon how much power one ascribes to authority. To me the authority of a cavalry source is not absolutist. One is still free to disagree with authorities.

Beside I have good reason(s) to believe you are misinterpreting the source he did not say that. I can't google it, I can point out several contradictions,


Joe: It seems to me I've disproved this nonsense before, give me the original source.

Here is one.

Joe: that's a slippery slope argument,he doesn't need to tell them anything because they know it all. The fact that they know the story is a good reason why he doesn't mention that one facet.He does speak of the cross not because they didn't know about it but he had actual reason to use it as an example or a theological point that the empty tomb did not afford at the time,

It is the creed, so they know the whole thing by word anyway. He does not need to include it at all. However, he chose to.

If he quoted a creed that said the empty tomb was part of the creed he woudl be mentioning the empty tomb. that would blow your argument. The empty tomb is in no creed,It's in the gosels do you thin gospels are creeds?

And according to you he chose to include the original creed except for the Empty Tomb.

where do you have a version of the creed with the empty tomb in it that Paul Quotes? are think "creed" just refers to a loose set of beliefs? it's a testament it's word word for word,like a short manifesto.

Why did he chose to omit it from the creed?

He didn't it's not in a creed,besides they didn't have the same kind of creeds in Paul's day, they were statements made in worship but they weren't used in the same way until much latter

Joe: He was not doing apologetic,the audience accepted the validity of the gospel,they were not rejecting the resurrection. no need to to discuss that aspect, There are theological ramification to resurrection which he does go into, the fact that he left an empty tomb has limited importance beyond proving that he rose, that was not in question,

You have just said the audience accepted the validity of the gospel, so they all believed in the resurrection already.

the gospel existed before the four canonical gospels, the term refers to the main body of Christian teaching the distilled christian message,

This chapter is all about the nature of the resurrection. The Empty Tomb is vital to that - if Paul was saying Jesus was resurrected in his original body. Far more important than the burial or the appearance to the 500. That is why we are arguing about it!

that point aw notion dispute by any of the churches Paul dealt with so no reason to talk about it. He talks about the resurrection not about the empty tomb,

What you are saying is that Paul started his discussion by repeating the creed they all believed, but choosing to omit the one bit of it that that directly supports his position that resurrection is in the original body!

you need to read some stuff about the evolution of creeds you don't understand what's going on,

Think it through, Joe. If Paul believed Jesus was resurrected in his original body, and he is trying to explain this to fellow Christians who accepted the resurrection, but did not understand the details, the one bit of the creed he would emphasise is the Empty Tomb.


you are begging the question he wrote to them 1 Cor 15:53 which makes it clear because they understood the word change, that's all they needed,

4/12/2018 12:19:00 AM Delete
Joe Hinman said…
This comment has been removed by the author.
Joe Hinman said…
the source you use for Koester was from 1985. That was before Jurgen Danker published his PMPN stuff on Diatesseron,that evidence must have changed Koester's mind. There is a contradiction, in that source it asserts the empty tomb was invented to explain no veneration of the tomb by 66. In ACG Koester says the PMPN included empty tomb by AD 50.

Besides it makes no sense to explain not venerating a tomb by saying it's the sight of resurrection. I doubt that he's saying they made up the resurrection, just that this is when they began using the empty tomb as an apologetically tool.
The Pixie said…
Pix: Here is Jesus on the resurrection body:
Luke 20:34 Jesus replied, “The people of this age marry and are given in marriage. 35 But those who are considered worthy of taking part in the age to come and in the resurrection from the dead will neither marry nor be given in marriage, 36 and they can no longer die; for they are like the angels. They are God’s children, since they are children of the resurrection.
I appreciate this is not clear, but it does fit exactly with what I have been saying. These new bodies will shine brightly, as described in Daniel, and as Paul saw on the Road to Damascus, and here Jesus confirms that by saying they will be like angels.


Joe: It works equally well either way, so you are clutching at starws becsue you know you have no evidence,

Pix: It fits my hypothesis perfectly. It can be twisted to fit yours.

Joe: It obviously fits mine because mine assumes a miracle that is not extensional of that miracle, your's is nothing more than disturbing the truth of that miracle,I know atheists like to think doubt is a proof but it is not.

You have lost the train of the discussion. I was talking specifically about Luke 20:34.

Joe: I reeckon by the tine i resurrect they wont well anyway

Not sure quite wat you are saying, but you seem to be suggesting that when God revamps your body, it will be with useless genitals?

Joe: irrelevant under my hypothesis because its wrong.

How so? Because when God resurrected you, it will be in a revamped body, but with useless genitals, so therefore no one will want to marry? What are you saying?

Joe: o you mean the phrase about "meet me in Galilee?"

If there were other verses in the original Mark that contradicted that, then that would be analogous. However, the original Mark gives no indication Jesus was ever seen in Jerusalem subsequent to being buried. On the other hand, Paul gives plenty of verses indicating a new body.

Joe: so? that covers them both,

No it does not. Two processes (though with the same end result), described separately.

Joe: only for a time

Sure. But for a time, spirits are separate from bodies.

Joe: AT A GIVEN POINT IN TIME NOT AS A PERMANENT CONDITION

Okay. So what? We are discussing a time between death and resurrection, not a permanent condition.

Are you saying that the spirit has to return to its original body? If so, can you offer any evidence for that position?

Joe: Not at all the mistake you just made proves itl it;s just a temporary condition. Ot is also misunderstanding of Paul. You are assuming that Pual would not change or refine his Pharisaical belief but he did, in his letters he says to be out of the body is to be present with the Lord, not Sheol, it's heaven.

But it shows he believed it possible for a spirit to leave the body.
The Pixie said…
Joe: Of course that dependents upon how much power one ascribes to authority. To me the authority of a cavalry source is not absolutist. One is still free to disagree with authorities.

Then I am free to disagree with Koester about when the Empty Tomb appeared in the PMPN. If he even said when, which we are still waiting for you to show.

Joe: Beside I have good reason(s) to believe you are misinterpreting the source he did not say that. I can't google it, I can point out several contradictions,

Well go ahead.

Joe: If he quoted a creed that said the empty tomb was part of the creed he woudl be mentioning the empty tomb. that would blow your argument.

Obviously. However, he did not, so in fact my argument is well-supported.

Joe: The empty tomb is in no creed,It's in the gosels do you thin gospels are creeds?

I take creed to mean a relatively brief statement of faith that might be recited on a regular basis, so no, the gospels are not creeds, but I am not sure how that is important here. The Empty Tomb was not in the creed Paul used because it had not been invented. The gospels included it because they were written later, and by then it had been invented.

Joe: where do you have a version of the creed with the empty tomb in it that Paul Quotes? are think "creed" just refers to a loose set of beliefs? it's a testament it's word word for word,like a short manifesto.

I am not aware of any creeds in the gospels, so we have none that mention the Empty Tomb.

Joe: He didn't it's not in a creed,besides they didn't have the same kind of creeds in Paul's day, they were statements made in worship but they weren't used in the same way until much latter

So why did the creed mention the burial and the appearance to the 500, but not the Empty Tomb?

Bear in mind that Mark used the Empty Tomb as the triumphant ending to his gospel, so this was a big thing to early Christians.

Joe: the gospel existed before the four canonical gospels, the term refers to the main body of Christian teaching the distilled christian message,

Of course. Now answer the question.

Joe: that point aw notion dispute by any of the churches Paul dealt with so no reason to talk about it. He talks about the resurrection not about the empty tomb,

But the nature of the resurrected body is intimately connected to whether the tomb was empty. The Empty Tomb indicates revamped old body with useless genitals, no empty tomb indicates new bodies that shine like stars. The burial was irrelevant, the appearance to the 500 was irrelevant, but the Empty Tomb was the one part of the account that was important.

And apparently the one bit he chose to leave out!
Joe Hinman said…
Pix: Here is Jesus on the resurrection body:
Luke 20:34 Jesus replied, “The people of this age marry and are given in marriage. 35 But those who are considered worthy of taking part in the age to come and in the resurrection from the dead will neither marry nor be given in marriage, 36 and they can no longer die; for they are like the angels. They are God’s children, since they are children of the resurrection.

nothing there says different body, the same effect is had with a changed body as 1 Cor 15:53 suggests,the word change not replace,

change not replace,



I appreciate this is not clear, but it does fit exactly with what I have been saying. These new bodies will shine brightly, as described in Daniel, and as Paul saw on the Road to Damascus, and here Jesus confirms that by saying they will be like angels.

since it does not say what you want it to it doesn't fit at all. It fits my view just as well.


Joe: It works equally well either way, so you are clutching at starws becsue you know you have no evidence,

Pix: It fits my hypothesis perfectly. It can be twisted to fit yours.


since it does not say what you want it to it doesn't fit at all. It fits my view just as well.

Joe: It obviously fits mine because mine assumes a miracle that is not extensional of that miracle, your's is nothing more than doubting the truth of that miracle,I know atheists like to think doubt is a proof but it is not.

You have lost the train of the discussion. I was talking specifically about Luke 20:34.

Joe: I reckon by the time i resurrect they wont well anyway

Not sure quite wat you are saying, but you seem to be suggesting that when God revamps your body, it will be with useless genitals?

Joe: irrelevant under my hypothesis because its wrong.

How so? Because when God resurrected you, it will be in a revamped body, but with useless genitals, so therefore no one will want to marry? What are you saying?

Joe: o you mean the phrase about "meet me in Galilee?"

If there were other verses in the original Mark that contradicted that, then that would be analogous. However, the original Mark gives no indication Jesus was ever seen in Jerusalem subsequent to being buried. On the other hand, Paul gives plenty of verses indicating a new body.

you can;t base your view on readings you don't have this is all just a smokescreen of verbiage. your argument above is bullshit and you know it none of the passages say the body is replaced with a new one,

Joe: so? that covers them both,

No it does not. Two processes (though with the same end result), described separately.

Joe: only for a time

Sure. But for a time, spirits are separate from bodies.

Joe: AT A GIVEN POINT IN TIME NOT AS A PERMANENT CONDITION

Okay. So what? We are discussing a time between death and resurrection, not a permanent condition.

Are you saying that the spirit has to return to its original body? If so, can you offer any evidence for that position?

Joe: Not at all the mistake you just made proves it l it;s just a temporary condition. Ot is also misunderstanding of Paul. You are assuming that Paul would not change or refine his Pharisaical belief but he did, in his letters he says to be out of the body is to be present with the Lord, not Sheol, it's heaven.

But it shows he believed it possible for a spirit to leave the body.

only as a temporary condition sot wasting my time, you are just repeating the same nonsnse,

4/12/2018 04:52:00 AM Delete
Joe Hinman said…
But the nature of the resurrected body is intimately connected to whether the tomb was empty. The Empty Tomb indicates revamped old body with useless genitals, no empty tomb indicates new bodies that shine like stars. The burial was irrelevant, the appearance to the 500 was irrelevant, but the Empty Tomb was the one part of the account that was important.

stupid stupid stupid argument, these observations wrap it all up.

(1) You do not produce a single passage that says clearly the old body is discarded and never seen again and a totally new one is substituted and that is permeate, all based upon conjecture. you have no counter passage that clearly says it,

(2) I have a passage that says the old body is changed it does not say replaced it says changed, not exchanged but changed, 1 Cor 15:53

(3) there is nothing in the nature of an empty tomb that does not work just as well with a revamped body as with a totally knew body. In fact it really does imply a changed body because there is no old body lying in the tomb since it is empty. So what happened to the old body? It became new or changed. It lives again and walked out of the tomb hence empty tomb.
The Pixie said…
Luke 20:34

Joe: nothing there says different body, the same effect is had with a changed body as 1 Cor 15:53 suggests,the word change not replace,
change not replace,
...
since it does not say what you want it to it doesn't fit at all. It fits my view just as well.


No it does not. While it does fit your claim, it is a poor fit. However, it fits my claim perfectly.

I asked before why a changed body makes the Sadducees question irrelevant, and I note you have continued to duck the question. Why is that? You said before "irrelevant under my hypothesis because its wrong." but you can offer no actual reason why it is irrelevant. That is because the text in Luke is actually not such a good fit for your claim, and frankly it looks like you know that and so want to duck the issue.

It fits perfectly with my claim because Jesus understood the resurrected body to be a new body, shining like a star (Daniel 2:3); genderless, the concerns of flesh and blood, such as sex and marriage, are irrelevant.
The Pixie said…
What Paul says

Joe: you can;t base your view on readings you don't have this is all just a smokescreen of verbiage. your argument above is bullshit and you know it none of the passages say the body is replaced with a new one,

Back in the real world, there are actually a lot of verses that support my position:

1 Cor 15:37 When you sow, you do not plant the body that will be, but just a seed, perhaps of wheat or of something else.

The seed is the old body, which stays in the ground. No Empty Tomb!

39 Not all flesh is the same: People have one kind of flesh, animals have another, birds another and fish another. 40 There are also heavenly bodies and there are earthly bodies; but the splendor of the heavenly bodies is one kind, and the splendor of the earthly bodies is another. 41 The sun has one kind of splendor, the moon another and the stars another; and star differs from star in splendor.
42 So will it be with the resurrection of the dead. The body that is sown is perishable, it is raised imperishable; 43 it is sown in dishonor, it is raised in glory; it is sown in weakness, it is raised in power; 44 it is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body. If there is a natural body, there is also a spiritual body.

This is all about two different bodies, made of two different materials.

50 I declare to you, brothers and sisters, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God, nor does the perishable inherit the imperishable.

You cannot get into heaven in your original body. You need a new one. It is like a dress code at a club. You cannot come in dressed like that, go home and change your clothes.

2 Cor 5:1 For we know that if the earthly tent we live in is destroyed, we have a building from God, an eternal house in heaven, not built by human hands. 2 Meanwhile we groan, longing to be clothed instead with our heavenly dwelling, 3 because when we are clothed, we will not be found naked. 4 For while we are in this tent, we groan and are burdened, because we do not wish to be unclothed but to be clothed instead with our heavenly dwelling, so that what is mortal may be swallowed up by life. 5 Now the one who has fashioned us for this very purpose is God, who has given us the Spirit as a deposit, guaranteeing what is to come.

The tent is the old body, the eternal house the new body, whilst naked is the state of the spirit between the two bodies.

Joe: only for a time

Pix: Sure. But for a time, spirits are separate from bodies.

Joe: only as a temporary condition sot wasting my time, you are just repeating the same nonsnse,

Joe, we both agree it is a temporary condition. You are attacking a straw man - and then pretending it is me waste your time!
The Pixie said…
The Empty Tomb

I see you have not addressed the issues I raised on this.

Why did Paul choose to omit the Empty Tomb from the creed? If it was in the creed, and Paul was reciting the creed, it is certain that he would include it all.

Why did Paul choose to omit the Empty Tomb from the account when it is the one bit that actually relates to the nature of the resurrected body?

These are two vital questions that you have no answer for. If Paul had known about the Empty Tomb he had two very good reason for mentioning it at the start of 1 Cor 15. That he failed to do so is very good evidence that it was not in the creed, and makes it likely Paul had not heard of it.

Joe: (3) there is nothing in the nature of an empty tomb that does not work just as well with a revamped body as with a totally knew body. In fact it really does imply a changed body because there is no old body lying in the tomb since it is empty. So what happened to the old body? It became new or changed. It lives again and walked out of the tomb hence empty tomb.

Your argument is founded on the assumption that the Empty Tomb is real!

All the evidence points to it being absent from the creed Paul used, and therefore unlikely to have ever happened.
Joe Hinman said…
The Pixie said...
The Empty Tomb

I see you have not addressed the issues I raised on this.

Why did Paul choose to omit the Empty Tomb from the creed? If it was in the creed, and Paul was reciting the creed, it is certain that he would include it all.

Why did Paul choose to omit the Empty Tomb from the account when it is the one bit that actually relates to the nature of the resurrected body?


sending the dead buys back into battle. I've already killed this, you know I have.

These are two vital questions that you have no answer for. If Paul had known about the Empty Tomb he had two very good reason for mentioning it at the start of 1 Cor 15. That he failed to do so is very good evidence that it was not in the creed, and makes it likely Paul had not heard of it.

they are not vital at best they make an argument from silence which is an informal fallacy,and you know I answered the argument.,

Joe: (3) there is nothing in the nature of an empty tomb that does not work just as well with a revamped body as with a totally new body. In fact it really does imply a changed body because there is no old body lying in the tomb since it is empty. So what happened to the old body? It became new or changed. It lives again and walked out of the tomb hence empty tomb.

Your argument is founded on the assumption that the Empty Tomb is real!


of course that's the whole point.

(1) no valid reason ot to assumne so

(2) PMPN put empty tomb just 18 years after the Crucifixion meaning many eye witnesses still alive to say "what empty tomb?" If there wasn't one
(3)no skeptic or enemy of Christianity ever questioned the fact of an empty tomb
(4) we have already discussed how your argument is an admission that there was a bodily resurrection,

why is your memory so bad? You repeat the same stuff I'e answered time and time again,



All the evidence points to it being absent from the creed Paul used, and therefore unlikely to have ever happened.


THAT IS A STUPID Statement BEAT IT INTO THE GROUND READ ABOVE!!!!!

(1)they had no creeds in Paul's day, they refereed to as "creedal" Or "creed-like" statement,:"they did not have the same function as creeds as indicative of belief and identity.


you have no example of a creed with to compare statements about the empty tomb,

the tomb being empty was never the issue because everyone knew it was,

Dr. Corbo;'s excavators pored they did venerate the tomb as early as first century,


4/13/2018 02:51:00 AM Delete
Joe Hinman said…
The Pixie said...
What Paul says

Joe: you can;t base your view on readings you don't have this is all just a smokescreen of verbiage. your argument above is bullshit and you know it none of the passages say the body is replaced with a new one,

Back in the real world, there are actually a lot of verses that support my position:

1 Cor 15:37 When you sow, you do not plant the body that will be, but just a seed, perhaps of wheat or of something else.


by the seed analogy the thing you plant changes that fits my view, your view would be someone digs up the seed and cuts part of it off and splices the other half with a different seed and puts it back.

This is all about two different bodies, made of two different materials.

yes your view is, my view is about the same body changes to become different,


50 I declare to you, brothers and sisters, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God, nor does the perishable inherit the imperishable.

that is why God will change it,it wont be corruptible after he changes it,it womt bemere flesh and blood anymore,

You cannot get into heaven in your original body. You need a new one. It is like a dress code at a club. You cannot come in dressed like that, go home and change your clothes.

not passage says that, that's conjecture based upon the stupid assumption that God can;t change your bode he have to give you a new one, The bible says flesh and blood can't enter you tack onto that "therefore your old body can't come in" because you conceptually rule out God's power,

2 Cor 5:1 For we know that if the earthly tent we live in is destroyed, we have a building from God, an eternal house in heaven, not built by human hands. 2 Meanwhile we groan, longing to be clothed instead with our heavenly dwelling, 3 because when we are clothed, we will not be found naked. 4 For while we are in this tent, we groan and are burdened, because we do not wish to be unclothed but to be clothed instead with our heavenly dwelling, so that what is mortal may be swallowed up by life. 5 Now the one who has fashioned us for this very purpose is God, who has given us the Spirit as a deposit, guaranteeing what is to come.

then you conveniently leave out the phrase:καὶ ἡμεῖς ἀλλαγησόμεθα--"We will be changed"
that comes right after the word imperishable,we will be changed.




Joe, we both agree it is a temporary condition. You are attacking a straw man - and then pretending it is me waste your time!

I/m attacking your position my friend,are you defending a straw man?

in all of these exchanges you have carefully avoided even mentioning 53 let alone refitting it,


everything you argued now is dead guys back into battle, case closed

I think we need to close the topic, you seem not to have anything new
Anonymous said…
The Empty Tomb (part 1)

Pix: Why did Paul choose to omit the Empty Tomb from the creed? If it was in the creed, and Paul was reciting the creed, it is certain that he would include it all.
Why did Paul choose to omit the Empty Tomb from the account when it is the one bit that actually relates to the nature of the resurrected body?


Joe: sending the dead buys back into battle. I've already killed this, you know I have.

I have no idea what you mean. I have not seen any answer to those two questions.

Joe: they are not vital at best they make an argument from silence which is an informal fallacy,and you know I answered the argument.,

An argument from silence is not a fallacy if we have good reason to expect it to be there. In this case we have two reasons to expect it to be there.

Hypothesis: Paul knew of the Empty Tomb
Prediction: Paul would mention the Empty Tomb when reciting the creed, and also when discussing the nature of the resurrection
Test: Paul fails to mention the Empty Tomb in the creed and in the discussion
Conclusion: Paul had not heard of the Empty Tomb

Hypothesis: Paul did not know of the Empty Tomb
Prediction: Paul would omit the Empty Tomb when reciting the creed, and when discussing the nature of the resurrection
Test: Paul fails to mention the Empty Tomb in the creed and in the discussion
Conclusion: Paul had not heard of the Empty Tomb

Joe: of course that's the whole point.
(1) no valid reason ot to assumne so


Not if you are part of a religion that takes it on faith, no.

But there is for anyone interested in what really happened.

The reality is that Paul omits the Empty Tomb where we would expect him to mention it. The reality is that your authority on the subject, Koester, believes it was made up.

Joe: (2) PMPN put empty tomb just 18 years after the Crucifixion meaning many eye witnesses still alive to say "what empty tomb?" If there wasn't one

And yet whenever challenged, you fail to provide any evidence that it was in the PMPN that early. You present evidence the PMPN existed, you present evidence it included the Empty Tomb, but nothing to show the Empty Tomb was in it that early.

Furthermore, the Gospel of Mark has built into it an answer to "what empty tomb?" Convenient!

Joe: (3)no skeptic or enemy of Christianity ever questioned the fact of an empty tomb

This is clearly false, as I am questioning it. But it is not just me. I am sure you are familiar with Habermas' "Minimal Facts". The Empty Tomb is one supposed fact, but he is obliged to admit:

"Generally, the listings are what might be expected, dividing along theological “party lines.” To be sure, such a large number of arguments, both pro and con, includes very specific differentiation, including some overlap.
Of these scholars, approximately 75% favor one or more of these arguments for the empty tomb, while approximately 25% think that one or more arguments oppose it. Thus, while far from being unanimously held by critical scholars, it may surprise some that those who embrace the empty tomb as a historical fact still comprise a fairly strong majority."


Note what he says about "party lines". Habermas is saying about 75% of surveyed scholars are Christians, and they accept the Empty Tomb, while about 25% are not Christian and reject it.

Therefore the vast majority of sceptical scholars reject the Empty Tomb.

You are wrong, and demonstrably wrong at that.

Pix
Anonymous said…
The Empty Tomb (part 2)

Joe: (4) we have already discussed how your argument is an admission that there was a bodily resurrection,

I am admitting Paul believed in a bodily resurrection, and that that was in a new physical body. No more than that.

Joe: why is your memory so bad? You repeat the same stuff I'e answered time and time again,

We go through this every time, and every time you duck the real issues. Every time you carefully duck the issue that there is no evidence the Empty Tomb was in the PMPN from the start, and every time you pretend you have proved it, when really all you have shown is that many scholars think it was probably in the PMPN at some point. Sad for you that my memory is not bad, and I know that you have ducked this every time.

Joe: (1)they had no creeds in Paul's day, they refereed to as "creedal" Or "creed-like" statement,:"they did not have the same function as creeds as indicative of belief and identity.

What is the practical difference for our discussion? Explain why Paul would choose to omit the Empty Tomb from a "creed-like" statement. Re-labelling it does not help you position.

Joe: you have no example of a creed with to compare statements about the empty tomb,

The verses at the start of 1 Cor 15 are generally accepted to be a creed Paul was repeating.

Joe: the tomb being empty was never the issue because everyone knew it was,

Paul clearly did not.

Joe: Dr. Corbo;'s excavators pored they did venerate the tomb as early as first century,

The Church of The Holy Seplechur's claim is founded on the highly dubious idea that the Romans built a Temple on the site where the most dishonourable trators to Rome were buried - the most profane site in the whole city!

Pix
Anonymous said…
The Nature of the Resurrection

Joe: by the seed analogy the thing you plant changes that fits my view, your view would be someone digs up the seed and cuts part of it off and splices the other half with a different seed and puts it back.

This was an agrarian society. The seed was planted in the ground specifically to produce something to harvest - Paul mentions wheat in this analogy, but elsewhere talks about first fruits. When you harvest the wheat, the seed remains in the ground. When the dead are resurrected in new bodies, the corpses are left in the ground.

Joe: yes your view is, my view is about the same body changes to become different,

And for those alive, there is no practical difference. For those dead, especially those long dead, they have no bodies to change. They necessarily had to have new bodies, and Paul must have known that.

Pix: 1 Cor 15:50 I declare to you, brothers and sisters, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God, nor does the perishable inherit the imperishable.

You cannot get into heaven in your original body. You need a new one. It is like a dress code at a club. You cannot come in dressed like that, go home and change your clothes.


Joe: not passage says that, that's conjecture based upon the stupid assumption that God can;t change your bode he have to give you a new one, The bible says flesh and blood can't enter you tack onto that "therefore your old body can't come in" because you conceptually rule out God's power,

I just quoted the verse that say it!

And I am not saying anything about God's power, I am talking about what Paul believed. Paul believed your old body, the flesh and blood, the seed in the ground, the tent, must be discarded, and you get a new body, one that shines like the stars (Daniel 2:3), that is the wheat, the eternal house built by God.

Joe: then you conveniently leave out the phrase:καὶ ἡμεῖς ἀλλαγησόμεθα--"We will be changed"
that comes right after the word imperishable,we will be changed.


Sure, the living will be changed, i.e., they will get new bodies. For the living, swapping one body for another is essentially the same as transforming one body into another made of another material. But Paul only says this of those still alive.

Pix
Joe Hinman said…
this is the last go round on this stuff, you come back on it after this I will remove it


Anonymous Anonymous said...
The Empty Tomb (part 1)

Pix: Why did Paul choose to omit the Empty Tomb from the creed? If it was in the creed, and Paul was reciting the creed, it is certain that he would include it all.
Why did Paul choose to omit the Empty Tomb from the account when it is the one bit that actually relates to the nature of the resurrected body?

Joe: sending the dead buys back into battle. I've already killed this, you know I have.

I have no idea what you mean. I have not seen any answer to those two questions.


I have answered this any times, I see echoes of my answer on message boards even now,(my answer is famous) I have answered in this thread. I said Paul was not doing apologetic. He was not trying to prove that Christ rose from the dead because they accepted that, they knew aobut the empty tomb, he had no occasion to bring i up,


Joe: they are not vital at best they make an argument from silence which is an informal fallacy,and you know I answered the argument.,

An argument from silence is not a fallacy if we have good reason to expect it to be there. In this case we have two reasons to expect it to be there.

Yes it is, it cannot be a proof. It can only be an interesting question, you use it as a proof that is a fallacy. I have accounted for it besides,

Hypothesis: Paul knew of the Empty Tomb
Prediction: Paul would mention the Empty Tomb when reciting the creed, and also when discussing the nature of the resurrection

The empty tomb was not part of the creed. it was part of the narrative not part of any ceedal statement,you confusing narrative with creed I pointed that out and you did not answer it.

you never produced a credential statement with empty tomb in it,



Test: Paul fails to mention the Empty Tomb in the creed and in the discussion
Conclusion: Paul had not heard of the Empty Tomb

It doesn't have a place in the issues being addressed. He is not trying to prove to the churches that Jesus rose from the dead they already accept that,that was never at issue in any of his dealings with churches.

Hypothesis: Paul did not know of the Empty Tomb
Prediction: Paul would omit the Empty Tomb when reciting the creed, and when discussing the nature of the resurrection
Test: Paul fails to mention the Empty Tomb in the creed and in the discussion
Conclusion: Paul had not heard of the Empty Tomb


silence is no more indicative of the one hypothesis as the other,

Joe Hinman said…
Joe: of course that's the whole point.
(1) no valid reason ot to assumne so

Not if you are part of a religion that takes it on faith, no.

you have not given a valid reason for that assumption,you have yet to answer the basic point that I just made.

But there is for anyone interested in what really happened.

The reality is that Paul omits the Empty Tomb where we would expect him to mention it.

that just points up the fact that you have never come to terms with: WHY ON GOD'S GREEN EARTH SHOULD WE EXPECT HIM TO MENTION IT? NONE OF THE CHURCHES TO WHOM HE WROTE DENIED THE RESURRECTION. You can give me no reason to assume that the fact of Christ's resurrection was at issue.

the only reason you give for expecting such are to fill in the gap where your argent from silence can't prove anything.


The reality is that your authority on the subject, Koester, believes it was made up.

there's another dead guy; you fall back on that bull shit all the time, you have never answered my disproof.He quote you use (not Koester but about him an interpretation) puts the fabrication in 66 and I quote the man himself saying the empty tomb was part of the PMPN in 50. Ergo your quote has to be wrong,either misinterpreted or he changed his mind,

Joe: (2) PMPN put empty tomb just 18 years after the Crucifixion meaning many eye witnesses still alive to say "what empty tomb?" If there wasn't one

And yet whenever challenged, you fail to provide any evidence that it was in the PMPN that early. You present evidence the PMPN existed, you present evidence it included the Empty Tomb, but nothing to show the Empty Tomb was in it that early.

that IS JUST A TOTAL LIE, Not only I quoted Koester saying it I also show it's consensus in the field,I show Koester saying Crosson agrees with in and I have Brown saying it too,this has come out many times

Furthermore, the Gospel of Mark has built into it an answer to "what empty tomb?" Convenient!

why would it do that if the empty empty tomb did not already exist?

Joe: (3)no skeptic or enemy of Christianity ever questioned the fact of an empty tomb

This is clearly false, as I am questioning it. But it is not just me. I am sure you are familiar with Habermas' "Minimal Facts". The Empty Tomb is one supposed fact, but he is obliged to admit:

"Generally, the listings are what might be expected, dividing along theological “party lines.” To be sure, such a large number of arguments, both pro and con, includes very specific differentiation, including some overlap.
Of these scholars, approximately 75% favor one or more of these arguments for the empty tomb, while approximately 25% think that one or more arguments oppose it. Thus, while far from being unanimously held by critical scholars, it may surprise some that those who embrace the empty tomb as a historical fact still comprise a fairly strong majority."


In history silly, obviously modern skeptics say that so what? :they don;'t know anything,they have no basic holistically knowledge of the early faith, the people in the day never questioned it


Joe Hinman said…
Note what he says about "party lines". Habermas is saying about 75% of surveyed scholars are Christians, and they accept the Empty Tomb, while about 25% are not Christian and reject it.

spin physician heal thyself,do you not know Hammertoes is a Christian apologist?> that mean that they agree with us, they are Christians the head line is 75% of scholars agree Christianity is true.



Therefore the vast majority of sceptical scholars reject the Empty Tomb.


well duh! if they accepted it they wouldn't be skeptics. you have no point,

all you are relay informing us here is that you are in the ministry,


You are wrong, and demonstrably wrong at that.

by God all that wasted verbiage and you YOU STILL HAVE NOT EVEN ANSWERED 15:33 I even gave you the Greek it doesn't sin through the haze. You lost several exchange,. you are demonstrably defeated: you have failed to a answer a single argument!!!

15:53 beats you cold if you are too dense to understand and why I'm sorry! it says changed rather then replace, my whole theory is prejudiced upon that one concept you clearly and obviously lose. you have no answer you have never tired to answer it,


You have lost every argument you advanced.
Joe Hinman said…
This comment has been removed by the author.
Joe Hinman said…
Anonymous said...
The Empty Tomb (part 2)

Joe: (4) we have already discussed how your argument is an admission that there was a bodily resurrection,

I am admitting Paul believed in a bodily resurrection, and that that was in a new physical body. No more than that.

Joe: why is your memory so bad? You repeat the same stuff I'e answered time and time again,

We go through this every time, and every time you duck the real issues. Every time you carefully duck the issue that there is no evidence the Empty Tomb was in the PMPN from the start, and every time you pretend you have proved it, when really all you have shown is that many scholars think it was probably in the PMPN at some point. Sad for you that my memory is not bad, and I know that you have ducked this every time.


that is a stupid lie because I;ve winter whole articles supporting jut that,you made this stupid assertions agaisnt a blog pace I wrote that was exactly about this you didn;t even refer to the proof I put in the article.

your arugentatiomnskiillssucki,yocouldnot a win a singledebateata highscoool toirmanemt,

you have taeken up tacticsw of Skepie where you don;treadthemataierak,



Joe: (1)they had no creeds in Paul's day, they refereed to as "creedal" Or "creed-like" statement,:"they did not have the same function as creeds as indicative of belief and identity.

What is the practical difference for our discussion? Explain why Paul would choose to omit the Empty Tomb from a "creed-like" statement. Re-labelling it does not help you position.

ignorance of church history does not help your position. you don't even know what creeds were you are trying them for evidence,



you think there was a creed containing the empty tomb why don;t you quote that creed? where is it from? how do you know about it?

Joe: you have no example of a creed with to compare statements about the empty tomb,

The verses at the start of 1 Cor 15 are generally accepted to be a creed Paul was repeating.

Dumbass! you are that doesn't justify the assertion that they should talk about the empty tomb, you are makimng the mistake of thinking that anything christians believed had to be in a creed,no not true,they could believe there was an empty tomb and not put it in the creed not everything was in a creed.

Joe: the tomb being empty was never the issue because everyone knew it was,

Paul clearly did not.

argument from silence, obviously he did because he believed there was a resurrection that it as bodily that means the tomb had to be left empty. you are just contradiction your own assertions about Pual's beliefs, to believe in bodily res is to believe in an empty tomb

Joe: Dr. Corbo;'s excavators pored they did venerate the tomb as early as first century,

The Church of The Holy Seplechur's claim is founded on the highly dubious idea that the Romans built a Temple on the site where the most dishonourable trators to Rome were buried - the most profane site in the whole city!

he found the temple big shot. A Temple to and shrine to Jupitar over christian/Jewish burial. How many could there be?

see Cornfeld,m he was not a christian but a jew he acknowledges Corbo found the site

Joe Hinman said…
Anonymous said...
The Nature of the Resurrection

Joe: by the seed analogy the thing you plant changes that fits my view, your view would be someone digs up the seed and cuts part of it off and splices the other half with a different seed and puts it back.

This was an agrarian society. The seed was planted in the ground specifically to produce something to harvest - Paul mentions wheat in this analogy, but elsewhere talks about first fruits. When you harvest the wheat, the seed remains in the ground. When the dead are resurrected in new bodies, the corpses are left in the ground.

You are basing your hole argument on understanding a metaphor

Joe: yes your view is, my view is about the same body changes to become different,

And for those alive, there is no practical difference. For those dead, especially those long dead, they have no bodies to change. They necessarily had to have new bodies, and Paul must have known that.

Pix: 1 Cor 15:50 I declare to you, brothers and sisters, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God, nor does the perishable inherit the imperishable.

You cannot get into heaven in your original body. You need a new one. It is like a dress code at a club. You cannot come in dressed like that, go home and change your clothes.


yes you can,there;s no verse that says that, you can because it changes, 15:53 I quoted the Greek we will be changed,you stillhaveno answer!

Joe: not passage says that, that's conjecture based upon the stupid assumption that God can;t change your bode he have to give you a new one, The bible says flesh and blood can't enter you tack onto that "therefore your old body can't come in" because you conceptually rule out God's power,

I just quoted the verse that say it!


No you did not,that verse does not say that,you are conjecturing that part, it says no flesh and blood you are conjugating that the only option is either flesh and blood or total replace, but it says we will be changed,

it says change,Paul said we change,WE CHANGE


And I am not saying anything about God's power, I am talking about what Paul believed. Paul believed your old body, the flesh and blood, the seed in the ground, the tent, must be discarded, and you get a new body, one that shines like the stars (Daniel 2:3), that is the wheat, the eternal house built by God.


you are ignoring God's power

Joe: then you conveniently leave out the phrase:καὶ ἡμεῖς ἀλλαγησόμεθα--"We will be changed"
that comes right after the word imperishable,we will be changed.

Sure, the living will be changed, i.e., they will get new bodies. For the living, swapping one body for another is essentially the same as transforming one body into another made of another material. But Paul only says this of those still alive.

Pix

enough stupid hair splitting obviously the dead dead will be changed too,
Joe Hinman said…
all of his arguments are based upon re introducing beaten ideas fron before to make up for lack of proof now,

never never never did he even b attept to answer 15:53 "we will be changed,: he asserts
topic closed,

Popular posts from this blog

Where did Jesus say "It is better to give than receive?"

How Many Children in Bethlehem Did Herod Kill?

Martin Luther King, Jr., Jesus, Jonah and U2’s Pride in the Name of Love

Dr. John Lennox: Video - Christmas for Doubters

On the Significance of Simon of Cyrene, Father of Alexander and Rufus

William Lane Craig on "If Mind is Reducible to Brain Function, Why Trust Thought?"

Fine Tuning Bait and Switch

The Meaning of the Manger

Responding to the “Crimes of Christianity”; The Inquisition