One Resurrection, One Body


Image result for the risen Christ

There are actually those who think God gives us a totally separate body as a  resurrection body. Not to put anyone down but that strikes me as a bizarre idea. I've never heard it before,the vast majority of Christians have been understanding it as a renovation or renewal of the old body that dies. In discussion on the comment section of this blog Pixie asserts: "The early Christians believed Jesus was resurrected in a new body. That is what Daniel describes. That is what Paul saw. Mark is neutral on it. It is only by the time of Matthew and Luke that it changes."

I responded: --there is no evidence of that belief none at all, it contradicts Thomas testimony of placing his fingers in the nail prints:

To which he responds: "Paul wrote what he believed, that Jesus was resurrected in a new body," [1]

I disagree because the clear and dominating  image in this regard (Paul's view of resurrection body) is a seed being burred and rising up from the ground in growth.


 42 Thus also is the resurrection of the dead. It is sown in corruption, it is raised in incorruptibility. 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 body45 Thus also it is written, “The first man, Adam, became a living soul”;[j] the last Adam became a life-giving spirit. (1 Cor, 15)
You don't give the seed a totally separate  and new plant the plant evolves out of the seed. The image of sowing and reaping evokes germination which is not two separate plants  but the evolution of one plant out of one seed. He is likening death and burial to planting and resurrection to harvesting. In the next passage there is language that implies two bodies, (the theory that we get a totally new and operate body) but also there is language that contradicts this:


36 Foolish person! What you sow does not come to life unless it dies. 37 And what you sow is not the body which it will become, but you sow the bare seed, whether perhaps of wheat or of some of the rest. 38 But God gives to it a body just as he wishes, and to each one of the seeds its own body. 39 Not all flesh is the same, but there is one flesh of human beings, and another flesh of animals, and another flesh of birds, and another of fish, 40 and heavenly bodies and earthly bodies. But the glory of the heavenly bodies is of one kind, and the glory of the earthly bodies is of another kind. 41 There is one glory of the sun, and another glory of the moon, and another glory of the stars, for star differs from star in glory.
"37 And what you sow is not the body which it will become," one could twist that into meaning it's a totally different body. Yet one could make the same statement in speaking of a growth into a new form rather than two separate plants. The Tomato  harvested is not the seed that was planted but it 's not a new plant totally separate from the seed. In keeping with this analogy Paul clearly believed the body , at the proper time, would be revitalized not only  live again but be of a spiritual quality.

The idea of two separate states leads people to think of two separate bodies one physical and one spiritual. It's the same body made new. That is what Paul says, v 37 says "the body which it will become." The old body will become a new body that is what he says, it will become!  


"42 Thus also is the resurrection of the dead. It is sown in corruption, it is raised in incorruptibility. 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."
That wording might lead the unwary to believe he's talking about two  separate bodies. It's pretty clear he's talking about two different conditions for the same body.


 45 Thus also it is written, “The first man, Adam, became a living soul”;[j] the last Adam became a life-giving spirit. 46 But the spiritual is not first, but the natural; then the spiritual. 47 The first man is from the earth, made of earth; the second man is from heaven. 48 As the one who is made of earth, so also are those who are made of earth, and as the heavenly, so also are those who are heavenly. 49 And just as we have borne the image of the one who is made of earth, we will also bear the image of the heavenly.
This might lead one to think of two bodies because he compares two separate men to the two different conditions, but that does not necessitate two bodies. The separate men are the symbol, they symbolize the two separate states of our individual bodies. This this the Catholic understanding. It is also shared by protestant scholars.
The Bible tells us that when Jesus returns to earth, he will physically raise all those who have died, giving them back the bodies they lost at death.These will be the same bodies people had in earthly life—but our resurrection bodies will not die and, for the righteous, they will be transformed into a glorified state, freed from suffering and pain, and enabled to do many of the amazing things Jesus could do with his glorified body (see 1 Cor. 15:35–44, 1 John 3:2)...The Fourth Lateran Council (1215), infallibly defined that at the second coming Jesus “will judge the living and the dead, to render to every person according to his works, both to the reprobate and to the elect. All of them will rise with their own bodies, which they now wear, so as to receive according to their deserts, whether these be good or bad [Rom. 2:6–11]” (constitution 1).[2]
He goes on to say this teaching is confirmed by "...the three infallible professions of faith—the Apostles’ Creed, the Nicene Creed, and the Athanasian Creed—and has been solemnly, infallibly taught by ecumenical councils."[3] 

The great Anglican scholar professor of divinity at Cambridge, C.F.D. Moule, said that Paul began with an exchange theology  exchanging physical for spiritual body but ended with a concept of development, growth into a transformation theory in 2 Cor. 5.[4] René A. López argues that Paul was countering gnomic ideas of the evil o the flesh:

Dulle accurately describes the thought Paul attempted to correct in 1 Corinthians 15. A true incarnation of God demands that He retain His human existence for all eternity. The same applies to human beings. Part of being human is having a human body. To claim that when we are in the eternal state we will discard this aspect of our humanity is to deny the very essence of what it means to be a human. Our flesh is not some evil substance that we are trying to get rid of.
The evidence of the Gospel accounts of Jesus’ resurrection and Paul’s explanation of the resurrection in 1 Corinthians 15 clearly teach that Jesus rose physically in a glorified body, and so shall all those who place their faith alone in Him. To understand the resurrection in any other way than a physical, glorified, bodily resurrection is to misunderstand and confuse how Jesus can guarantee eternal salvation and victory over sin (1 Cor. 15:17–20; cf. Rom. 6:4–5). Thus the nature of Jesus and the believer’s resurrection body is composed of a glorified body, a body no longer controlled by all that characterizes this fallen world.[5]
The idea of the soul being put into a different body clunks with the sound of falsehood. The Hebrew View of personhood was the tripartite notion body, soul, and spirit. The body is an integral part of that identify. There is no reason to think Paul went back on that. Even the most liberal figures such as Schweitzer and Moule didn't argue for two different bodies but two different conditions for the same body. As Lopez tells us "Many wrongly interpret the words “spiritual body” to mean an “immaterial” body (i.e., composed of “spirit”) or a body composed of a semi-spiritual “light substance.”[6]
Paul's notion was Hebrew not Greek. The Greeks saw the body as a  house the spirit was the dweller in the house. The Hebrew thought iterated all three body,soul,and spirit as equally important.
A true incarnation of God demands that He retain His human existence for all eternity. The same applies to human beings. Part of being human is having a human body. To claim that when we are in the eternal state we will discard this aspect of our humanity is to deny the very essence of what it means to be a human. Our flesh is not some evil substance that we are trying to get rid of. This idea is rooted in Platonic dualism which sees the physical realm as inferior to the spiritual, incorporeal realm.[7]





Sources

[1] "The Resurrection as Apology and as Doctrine." Cadre Comments, (sept15.2019)
https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=6363362&postID=4366235878769344310&isPopup=true

[2]
https://www.catholic.com/tract/resurrection-of-the-body

This included this official Catholic stamp of approval:
NIHIL OBSTAT: I have concluded that the materials presented in this work are free of doctrinal or moral errors. Bernadeane Carr, STL, Censor Librorum, August 10, 200 IMPRIMATUR: In accord with 1983 CIC 827permission to publish this work is hereby granted Robert H. Brom, Bishop of San Diego, August 10, 2004


[3]Ibid.

[4]
https://brill.com/view/book/edcoll/9789004316690/B9789004316690_005.xml?crawler=true

Andrew W. Pitts is the Chair of the Biblical Studies Department and Assistant Professor of Biblical Studies and Christian Ministries at ACU. He taught at seminaries and universities across the continent before taking this appointment. He has published peer-reviewed articles in JBLCBRJGRChJ, and Religions. He serves as the editor of the Brill Exegetical Commentary and is the co-author of The Fundamentals of New Testament Textual Criticism (Eerdmans, March, 2015). He is also the co-editor of three recently released books on Early Christianity: Christian Origins and Hellenistic Judaism (Brill,
[5] René A. López 
http://javathescript.com/documents/TheNatureOfBodyOfBelievers.Lopezpdf.pdf

Dr. René A. López is the founder of Scripture Unlocked Ministries. He writes and speaks widely, teaching about Jesus’ physical resurrection as the basis for the Christian faith and salvation. He served as an Adjunct Professor at Trinity International University where he taught Old and New Testament Bible courses. Currently he is teaching in three theological institutions: Liberty Baptist Theological SeminaryCriswell College, and abroad in external studies at Dallas Theological Seminary. He has been involved in various church plants and is the Pastor of Iglesia Bíblica Nuestra Fe.
[6] Ibid

[7]Jason Dulle,quoted iun Lopez. originally, Jason Dullem, “Heavenly or Earthly Bodies?” Institute for Biblical Studies (www.onenesspentecostal.com/bodiesheaven.htm [accessed February 2, 2012]).









Comments

The Pixie said…
Joe: Paul's notion was Hebrew not Greek.

Indeed it was, and more specifically that of a Pharisee.

The Pharisees believed that once the Jews were sufficiently observant of the laws, God would send a messiah, a man, a new King of the Jews and therefore a descendant of David, who would overthrow the Romans and usher in a new age of peace. This was the coming Kingdom of God, and is what Christian's anticipate (perhaps without realising it), in the Lord's Prayer, when they say "Your kingdom come on Earth as it is in heaven". This coming of the Kingdom of God would be accompanied by the resurrection of the dead.

Here is Josephus on the Pharisees:

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 bit "removed into other bodies" I take to mean that the good are given new bodies, rather than to suggest reincarnation! It was the practice at the time to bury the dead in a tomb until the body had rotted away, and then to put the bones in an ossuary, so clearly the resurrected would need new bodies.

We get a idea about the time between death and resurrection from the Bible, eg:

Psalm 16:10 For You will not leave my soul in Sheol, Nor will You allow Your Holy One to see corruption.
11 You will show me the path of life; In Your presence is fullness of joy; At Your right hand are pleasures forevermore.

So they would hang around in Sheol until the resurrection, when they would come back to life in new bodies shining brightly:

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 [a]contempt. 3 [b]Those who have insight will shine brightly like the brightness of the [c]expanse of heaven, and those who lead the many to righteousness, like the stars forever and ever.

So what Paul believed when he was a Pharisee is that when a person died he became a shade in Sheol, and at the start of the Messianic age, that person, if righteous, would be resurrected in a body that shines like a star.

Then he saw Jesus, in a bright light, shining like a star, and believed Jesus was the Messiah, and the Messianic age had arrived. So now he believed that the general resurrection was just around the corner.

Here is what he wrote of Jesus:

Romans 1:3 concerning His Son, who was born of a [b]descendant of David according to the flesh, 4 who was declared the Son of God with power [c]by the resurrection from the dead, according to the [d]Spirit of holiness, Jesus Christ our Lord,

A man, descended from David, as required for the Messiah. A man adopted (or declared) the son of God, as was the case for any King of the Jews.

Paul was clear that he understood Jesus to be the prototype for the resurrection. It was Jesus first, but then it would happened to everyone.

1 Corinthians 15:20 But now Christ has been raised from the dead, the first fruits of those who are asleep.

Paul is also clear that this will be a change, because he states that those who are alive at the general resurrection will also be changed:

1 Corinthians 15:51 Listen, I tell you a mystery: We will not all sleep, but we will all be changed— 52 in a flash, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, the dead will be raised imperishable, and we will be changed.

That makes no sense if people are resurrected in their original bodies. It only makes sense if the resurrected body is different.
your reading on that us strange. I've never heard if it, I called professor from Perkins he had never heard of it either. I can't find anyone who mentions it


from a site on basic idea of Judaism, no mention of second bodies, the closest to it is reincorporation which some Jewish mystics are into.

https://www.myjewishlearning.com/article/jewish-resurrection-of-the-dead/

"The resurrection doctrine is fleshed out in a variety of rabbinic sources. Among the ideas associated with it is the belief that during the messianic age the dead will be brought back to life in Israel. According to the Talmud , all bodies not already in Israel will be rolled through underground tunnels to the holy land. Avoiding this process, which is said to be spiritually painful, is one reason some Jews choose to be buried in Israel."

"According to the Jewish mystical tradition, souls can be reincarnated in different bodies if those souls have not completed their missions on earth. At the time of the resurrection, the individual soul will be split among the various bodies it once inhabited, and the portion of the soul whose mission was completed in a particular body will return to that body."

"The doctrine of resurrection has proved controversial throughout Jewish history. Maimonides wrote in his Mishneh Torah that the idea that the Messiah will revive dead bodies is something that “fools” say. However, when critics charged that he denied resurrection, he penned a scathing essay in which he emphatically argued that he did in fact believe in resurrection."
Psalm 16:10 For You will not leave my soul in Sheol, Nor will You allow Your Holy One to see corruption.
11 You will show me the path of life; In Your presence is fullness of joy; At Your right hand are pleasures forevermore.

that doesn't support second body

So they would hang around in Sheol until the resurrection, when they would come back to life in new bodies shining brightly:



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 [a]contempt. 3 [b]Those who have insight will shine brightly like the brightness of the [c]expanse of heaven, and those who lead the many to righteousness, like the stars forever and ever.

says nothing about second body,neither passage there supports it
Romans 1:3 concerning His Son, who was born of a [b]descendant of David according to the flesh, 4 who was declared the Son of God with power [c]by the resurrection from the dead, according to the [d]Spirit of holiness, Jesus Christ our Lord,


yes Paul believed Jesus rose from the dead, so do I, nothing there about second body,


A man, descended from David, as required for the Messiah. A man adopted (or declared) the son of God, as was the case for any King of the Jews.

no second body


Paul was clear that he understood Jesus to be the prototype for the resurrection. It was Jesus first, but then it would happened to everyone.

You have so far given no bible passage for second body, it all goes back to your assertion about Josephus and what he meant,

1 Corinthians 15:20 But now Christ has been raised from the dead, the first fruits of those who are asleep.

so far that is all common knowledge but no link to the passage in Josephus or second body,



Paul is also clear that this will be a change, because he states that those who are alive at the general resurrection will also be changed:

1 Corinthians 15:51 Listen, I tell you a mystery: We will not all sleep, but we will all be changed— 52 in a flash, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, the dead will be raised imperishable, and we will be changed.

That makes no sense if people are resurrected in their original bodies. It only makes sense if the resurrected body is different.


I accounted for that change perfectly in my paper the traditional view is change,we change from mortal to immortal but not in second body,the old mortal body becomes immortalized,,
no Bible passage you quoted says anything about another body, you are pasting Josephus on to the Bible. a Major church historian has not heard of this idea it;snot a major idea, I find no scholarly discussion of it.
Anonymous said…
https://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined/2013/03/10-reasons-the-crucifixion-story-makes-no-sense-2/
O can't believe you take an article like this seriously? it reads like it was written by an adolescent.
yiu so what if they hurted this Jeso guy or whatever his name was,so who cares hu?
The Pixie said…
Joe: your reading on that us strange. I've never heard if it, I called professor from Perkins he had never heard of it either. I can't find anyone who mentions it

I am going by what is in the Bible and what Josephus said, which are pretty much our only sources on Pharisee beliefs. I may be wrong, but what I am claiming is consistent with those texts:

- the dead continue as shades in Sheol
- a messiah, i.e., new King of the Jews will appear
- God will adopt him as his son, as he did with earlier kings
- the will be the start of the Messianic age, God's kingdom on earth
- it starts with the day of judgement, when the righteous are resurrected and the wicked go to eternal damnation.
- the resurrected will have bodies that shine like stars

What do YOU think the Pharisees believed about the Messiah and the afterlife? Perhaps you could indicates which of these you and Prof. Perkins disagree with, and we can examine the text more thoroughly.

Joe: that doesn't support second body

Try reading it in the context of my argument. It supports my position that Paul, in common with the Pharisees, believed the above.

Joe: says nothing about second body...

Again, you need to read it context.

Joe: so far that is all common knowledge but no link to the passage in Josephus or second body,

I quoted Josephus in the reply! The important bit is: 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. It very clearly states a second body.

That sentence is pretty much all we have to go on with regards to how the Pharisees believed the resurrection worked, by the way.

Joe: yes Paul believed Jesus rose from the dead, so do I, nothing there about second body,

Paul believed Jesus was the "first fruits", the prototype for the imminent resurrection of all the righteous, born human, but made divine when God adopted him as his son, as he had adopted early kings.

I am sure that is NOT what you believe.

Joe: I accounted for that change perfectly in my paper the traditional view is change,we change from mortal to immortal but not in second body,the old mortal body becomes immortalized,,

What is the difference between one body changing from mortal to immortal, and swapping a mortal body for an immortal one?

I have a broom that is 30 years old. I have had to replace the handle five times, and the head three times, but it is the same broom...
Tim Wood said…
Hello, Joe and Pixie. I'm going to add two thoughts to this discussion. In the accounts of Jesus' appearance after his resurrection, he tells Thomas (according to John 20, echoed in Luke 24)

26 Eight days later, His disciples were once again inside with the doors locked, and Thomas was with them. Jesus came and stood among them and said, "Peace be with you." 27 Then Jesus said to Thomas, "Put your finger here and look at My hands. Reach out your hand and put it into My side.

How could Thomas put his hand in Jesus' side if Jesus body was new? Jesus body still bore some evidence of the wounds in his side and his hands. Jesus' resurrection body wasn't new it was his old body healed/renewed/transformed.

To answer Pixie's question, "the difference between one body changing from mortal to immortal, and swapping a mortal body for an immortal one" is that the old body is still there in some sense. Jesus wounds may have been healed but they were not gone.

If the old body is still there, then the seed falling into the earth metaphors get interesting; especially because the connection with dieing is made explicit in several places (Jn 12:24-25):

24 Very truly I tell you, unless a kernel of wheat falls to the ground and dies, it remains only a single seed. But if it dies, it produces many seeds. 25 Anyone who loves their life will lose it, while anyone who hates their life in this world will keep it for eternal life.

Dieing is used both literally and metaphorically in the New Testament. Without disputing that talk in the new testament was referring to the eschatological future in the new heaven and new earth, an element that is often missed is its occurrence in the present. Paul talks about he suffered due to his physical condition, how he was lashed almost to death. That talk often coincides with his talk of what appears to be mystical experience. Part of what Paul is talking about is what he's experienced now due to mystical experience, to the presence of the Holy Spirit. Paul explicitly argues that that the Christ in them gives life to their mortal bodies (Ro 8:10-11):

But if Christ is in you, then even though your body is subject to death because of sin, the Spirit gives life because of righteousness. 11 And if the Spirit of him who raised Jesus from the dead is living in you, he who raised Christ from the dead will also give life to your mortal bodies because of his Spirit who lives in you.

Paul repeats himself here. First, he talks about the Spirit giving life in general, encompassing liberation, mental renewal, etc. Then, he pulls out the specific example he wants: that the divine will "give life to your mortal bodies." The promise is not of a replacement or (to adapt Pixie's language, the changing out of handles and arms and torsos) but pouring life into their existing bodies.
Joe: your reading on that us strange. I've never heard if it, I called professor from Perkins he had never heard of it either. I can't find anyone who mentions it

Px" I am going by what is in the Bible and what Josephus said, which are pretty much our only sources on Pharisee beliefs. I may be wrong, but what I am claiming is consistent with those texts:

No one else interprets those passages that way,


- the dead continue as shades in Sheol
- a messiah, i.e., new King of the Jews will appear
- God will adopt him as his son, as he did with earlier kings
- the will be the start of the Messianic age, God's kingdom on earth
- it starts with the day of judgement, when the righteous are resurrected and the wicked go to eternal damnation.
- the resurrected will have bodies that shine like stars

none of that necessitates a separate body. all of it can be understood without that.

What do YOU think the Pharisees believed about the Messiah and the afterlife? Perhaps you could indicates which of these you and Prof. Perkins disagree with, and we can examine the text more thoroughly.

In Joe's phrase about other bodies the most likely thing he means is reincarnation,

Joe: that doesn't support second body

Try reading it in the context of my argument. It supports my position that Paul, in common with the Pharisees, believed the above.

that context is wrong. you are the only one who ever saw it that way.


Joe: says nothing about second body...

Again, you need to read it context.

you imposed the context out of your misunderstanding,
Josephus is not a Biblical author. he was not a Christian so he did not look at things the way the Biblical authors did. His reincarnation statement (or whatever it is) can't be imposed upon the Bible as a false context.
Tim: "Paul repeats himself here. First, he talks about the Spirit giving life in general, encompassing liberation, mental renewal, etc. Then, he pulls out the specific example he wants: that the divine will "give life to your mortal bodies." The promise is not of a replacement or (to adapt Pixie's language, the changing out of handles and arms and torsos) but pouring life into their existing bodies."

right! thank you
Anonymous said…
Tim: How could Thomas put his hand in Jesus' side if Jesus body was new? Jesus body still bore some evidence of the wounds in his side and his hands. Jesus' resurrection body wasn't new it was his old body healed/renewed/transformed.

Hi Tim. The point here is what the very early Christians believed, up to around the writing of Mark. Certainly by the time the later gospels were written they believed Jesus was resurrected in his original body.

Tim: Paul repeats himself here. First, he talks about the Spirit giving life in general, encompassing liberation, mental renewal, etc. Then, he pulls out the specific example he wants: that the divine will "give life to your mortal bodies." The promise is not of a replacement or (to adapt Pixie's language, the changing out of handles and arms and torsos) but pouring life into their existing bodies.

I am skipping ahead to here because I broadly agree with what your say, but not in how you then apply it. Yes, Paul talks about the Spirit transforming a person, but I think that is something different. What you are talking about is the transformative effect of the Holy Spirit, changing individuals lives, something Christians claim happens to them today. Clearly that is not the resurrection as they are still alive!

The resurrection was anticipated to be a very specific event, as the last trumpet of the apocalypse sounds.

1 Cor 15:51 Listen, I tell you a mystery: We will not all sleep, but we will all be changed— 52 in a flash, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, the dead will be raised imperishable, and we will be changed.

Pix
Anonymous said…
Joe: No one else interprets those passages that way,

So how do they interpret it? I asked you last time about Pharisee beliefs on this issue.

Joe: none of that necessitates a separate body. all of it can be understood without that.

Are you saying they are wrong? You said that last time. Now you seem to be saying they are right, but it does not matter.

Joe: In Joe's phrase about other bodies the most likely thing he means is reincarnation,

Really? So your position is that the Pharisees believed in reincarnation?

Joe: that context is wrong. you are the only one who ever saw it that way.

I think my position is much more likely than the Pharisees believe in reincarnation.

Joe: Josephus is not a Biblical author. he was not a Christian so he did not look at things the way the Biblical authors did. His reincarnation statement (or whatever it is) can't be imposed upon the Bible as a false context.

We are discussing Pharisee beliefs. Are you saying only Biblical authors can be taken as authorities on that? That would be bizarre, given how adversarial they were, so hardly an unbiased source.

Pix
Joe: No one else interprets those passages that way,

PX:So how do they interpret it? I asked you last time about Pharisee beliefs on this issue.

the body that dies is refurbished. That's the only thing I've s seen for the pharisees.

Joe: none of that necessitates a separate body. all of it can be understood without that.

PX:Are you saying they are wrong? You said that last time. Now you seem to be saying they are right, but it does not matter.

I've never said anyone believed we get two bodies.Except for those who believe in reincarnation,I don't know how they rationalize it.

Joe: In Joe's phrase about other bodies the most likely thing he means is reincarnation,

Really? So your position is that the Pharisees believed in reincarnation?


No but Jewish mystics have been know to.

Joe: that context is wrong. you are the only one who ever saw it that way.

I think my position is much more likely than the Pharisees believe in reincarnation.

some Jewish mystics have been known to believe in reincarnation O think the major belief even of the phrases is one body gets revitalized and becomes mortal.

Joe: Josephus is not a Biblical author. he was not a Christian so he did not look at things the way the Biblical authors did. His reincarnation statement (or whatever it is) can't be imposed upon the Bible as a false context.

We are discussing Pharisee beliefs. Are you saying only Biblical authors can be taken as authorities on that? That would be bizarre, given how adversarial they were, so hardly an unbiased source.

Josephine just one guy he's not indicative of pharisees as a whole, he had strong ties to Rome.
1 Cor 15:51 Listen, I tell you a mystery: We will not all sleep, but we will all be changed— 52 in a flash, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, the dead will be raised imperishable, and we will be changed.

that says the one body will be changed,it says nothing about a new body or totally second body,

but we will all be changed—
the body we have will be changed why do we need a second body? the old body is changed that's the one boy model I'm defednig,

the dead will be raised imperishable, and we will be changed.

the body you have now will be changed you don't need a second one
Anonymous said…
Joe: the body that dies is refurbished. That's the only thing I've s seen for the pharisees.

Originally you were saying I was entirely wrong about the Pharisees, and I asked you to comment on this list:

- the dead continue as shades in Sheol
- a messiah, i.e., new King of the Jews will appear
- God will adopt him as his son, as he did with earlier kings
- the will be the start of the Messianic age, God's kingdom on earth
- it starts with the day of judgement, when the righteous are resurrected and the wicked go to eternal damnation.
- the resurrected will have bodies that shine like stars

Why are you unable to do that? Are you afraid that if you agree with even one, then you will lose the argument, but you have no grounds to say any of them are wrong? Come on, Joe! Have the courage of your convictions.

Joe: I've never said anyone believed we get two bodies.Except for those who believe in reincarnation,I don't know how they rationalize it.

I am betting you have never met a Pharisee. They disappeared nearly 2000 years ago. So how is this germane?

Joe: No but Jewish mystics have been know to.

Right. And was Josephus talking about Pharisees or Jewish mystics?

Joe: Josephine just one guy he's not indicative of pharisees as a whole, he had strong ties to Rome.

He is about the only source we have on the Pharisees outside the bible.

Joe: that says the one body will be changed,it says nothing about a new body or totally second body,

Sure. Changed like a broom getting a new handle and head. But still the same broom.

Joe: the body we have will be changed why do we need a second body? the old body is changed that's the one boy model I'm defednig,

In what sense is that not a new body? Will people who died in a car crash be resurrected with all the injuries of the crash? Of course not; that would be absurd! Will their bodies be made of the same material? not according to Paul.

Pix
Anonymous said…
Let us suppose God gives all the righteous a car when they get to heaven (I appreciate that is not the case). Do you think he would give them the old car they used to drive back on earth? Sure it is an old model, and got 70,000 on the clock, but give it a bit of a polish, and that will be fine. Perhaps you have not driven for a while, because your eye sight got bad. No problem, God will find that second-hand Honda you drove thirty years ago. He might even repaint it, so you cannot see the rust holes. Perhaps he even patches up the rust. He will renovate that old car, so its... well, not as good as new, but hey, no one said it would be perfect.

Or do you think he will give everyone new cars? Not just brand new, but the latest, top-of-the-range models.

What you (and apparently every Christian you have ever met) claim is that God will be revamping your old car, rather than giving you a brand new one. Is that really how you envisage the afterlife.

Pix
Anonymous said…
https://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined/2013/11/25000-new-testament-manuscripts-big-deal/

Pix
The Pixie said…
The comment about cars was by me, but the last one with the link was not, despite someone signing it as such.

Another point to ponder...

Suppose a man's wife dies and he marries again. In the afterlife, is he married to his first wife or the second or both? The vows are "until death do us part", so is he free to pursue new romantic interests?

In the scenario Joe presents this is a real issue, because your body in heaven will be like the one on Earth, but renovated, so the man will feel the same urges.

In the scenario I present, this is not a issue. The righteous have new bodies that shine like stars, and the concerns of the flesh are irrelevant.

Compare to what Jesus himself said:

Mat 22:23 On that day some Sadducees (who say there is no resurrection) came to Jesus and questioned Him, 24 asking, “Teacher, Moses said, ‘If a man dies having no children, his brother as next of kin shall marry his wife, and raise up children for his brother.’ 25 Now there were seven brothers with us; and the first married and died, and having no children left his wife to his brother; 26 so also the second, and the third, down to the seventh. 27 Last of all, the woman died. 28 In the resurrection, therefore, whose wife of the seven will she be? For they all had married her.”
29 But Jesus answered and said to them, “You are mistaken, not [a]understanding the Scriptures nor the power of God. 30 For in the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels in heaven.

I would say Jesus' answer is aligned with my position, not Joe's.
Originally you were saying I was entirely wrong about the Pharisees, and I asked you to comment on this list:

- the dead continue as shades in Sheol
- a messiah, i.e., new King of the Jews will appear
- God will adopt him as his son, as he did with earlier kings
- the will be the start of the Messianic age, God's kingdom on earth
- it starts with the day of judgement, when the righteous are resurrected and the wicked go to eternal damnation.
- the resurrected will have bodies that shine like stars

Why are you unable to do that? Are you afraid that if you agree with even one, then you will lose the argument, but you have no grounds to say any of them are wrong? Come on, Joe! Have the courage of your convictions.

I did account for it. I said all of those can be accounted for under my model.
Anonymous Anonymous said...
https://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined/2013/11/25000-new-testament-manuscripts-big-deal/

I can;t believe you take this drivel seriously this guy does not understand the basics of biblical scholarship. the importance of having so many Ms is it makes running down error more easy and thus enables us to restore the original text.
29 But Jesus answered and said to them, “You are mistaken, not [a]understanding the Scriptures nor the power of God. 30 For in the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels in heaven.

that does not in anyway imply a second body. It is accounted for by my model, you have no backing your view, you can;t even provide one person who backs you. this is non productive. It's boring Im tired of it,
The Pixie said…
Joe: I did account for it. I said all of those can be accounted for under my model.

Okay, great. So you agree that Paul believed Jesus was the adopted son of God, and that Paul believed Jesus was the protype for the resurrection, the first fruits, and he believed it would be the same for the righteous, and that the resurrected will have bodies that shine like stars.

Joe: I can;t believe you take this drivel seriously this guy does not understand the basics of biblical scholarship. the importance of having so many Ms is it makes running down error more easy and thus enables us to restore the original text.

You are right not to believe it. I did not post that; someone else posted it and signed it from me.

Joe: that does not in anyway imply a second body. It is accounted for by my model, you have no backing your view, you can;t even provide one person who backs you. ...

It implies people in the afterlife have a very different form to their earthly form. That fits better with a new body than a renovated body.

Joe: ... this is non productive. It's boring Im tired of it,

That the best you have? Your big argument seems to be that modern Christians believe mainstream Christianity. Paul's beliefs were clearly different. The Pharisees clearly had different beliefs.

Are you still claiming Josephus believed in reincarnation, or have you abandoned that nonsense?
sorry you have the burden of proof, you not only prove that you don;t understand scholarly methods of textual criticism but you don;t understand basic logic,

You must prove your case,no scholar agrees with you that is a good reason not to accept your view,
Tim Wood said…
I am at a bit of disadvantage in my commenting since I can only break away from others things a time or two a day.


Anonymous said…
Tim: How could Thomas put his hand in Jesus' side if Jesus body was new? Jesus body still bore some evidence of the wounds in his side and his hands. Jesus' resurrection body wasn't new it was his old body healed/renewed/transformed.

Hi Tim. The point here is what the very early Christians believed, up to around the writing of Mark. Certainly by the time the later gospels were written they believed Jesus was resurrected in his original body.



Pix, I get that you're asserting that the early Christians believed this. But, as far as I can see (apologies if I missed it), you're really "discussing Pharisee beliefs" I'm certainly not going to grant authority only to authors of the texts in the christian and hebrew bibles. They are certainly fair sources for Pharisees believed and should be taken into account when trying to understand the early 1st century CE. BUT, what I'm not seeing (at least here), is the evidence that _early Christians_ believed otherwise about the resurrection itself.


I am skipping ahead to here because I broadly agree with what your say, but not in how you then apply it. Yes, Paul talks about the Spirit transforming a person, but I think that is something different. What you are talking about is the transformative effect of the Holy Spirit, changing individuals lives, something Christians claim happens to them today. Clearly that is not the resurrection as they are still alive!

The resurrection was anticipated to be a very specific event, as the last trumpet of the apocalypse sounds.


We agree on something!? ;-)

Yes, the resurrection was a future event. And the crucifixtion and resurrection of Christ was the considered beginning of the new age. The authors were living in what Paul (and presumably the others) viewed as essentially an in-between age. The one age had not fully passed away and the new age had not fully begun. A lot of Paul's writing speaks of things like eternal life as both future and available now. I chose the quote I did because it conveys exactly this: the spirit gives life... [and] will also give life to your mortal bodies If Paul was explicitly not talking about life in our mortal bodies now, he would have clarified. He's too much of a lawyer, imho, to not do so.

The Pixie said…
Joe: sorry you have the burden of proof, you not only prove that you don;t understand scholarly methods of textual criticism but you don;t understand basic logic,

Ah, pulling out all the stops. You insist the burden of proof is on me, then make two entirely unsupported claims, that I "don;t understand scholarly methods of textual criticism" and do not "understand basic logic". The burden of proof is on you to show that that is so.

Joe: You must prove your case,no scholar agrees with you that is a good reason not to accept your view,

Can you find any scholar that agrees with you that Josephus was talking about reincarnation? No? Then get busy "proving" that one.
The Pixie said…
Tim: Pix, I get that you're asserting that the early Christians believed this. But, as far as I can see (apologies if I missed it), you're really "discussing Pharisee beliefs" I'm certainly not going to grant authority only to authors of the texts in the christian and hebrew bibles. They are certainly fair sources for Pharisees believed and should be taken into account when trying to understand the early 1st century CE. BUT, what I'm not seeing (at least here), is the evidence that _early Christians_ believed otherwise about the resurrection itself.

We got on to Pharisees following Joe saying "Paul's notion was Hebrew not Greek." I think this is spot on. I think Paul's beliefs were largely unchanged; he became a Pharisee who believed the Messiah was here, rather than a Pharisee longing for the day the Messiah arrived, following his vision of said Messiah on the Road to Damascus.

The unspoken background here is the Empty Tomb. Joe takes the view that "4 that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures," necessarily implies an Empty Tomb because Paul, in common with modern Christians, believed the corpse was renovated. I think it more likely that Paul believed Jesus was resurrected in a new body, the corpse was still in the tomb, a discarded husk. Paul did not mention an Empty Tomb because there was no empty tomb.

Tim: Yes, the resurrection was a future event. And the crucifixtion and resurrection of Christ was the considered beginning of the new age. The authors were living in what Paul (and presumably the others) viewed as essentially an in-between age. The one age had not fully passed away and the new age had not fully begun. A lot of Paul's writing speaks of things like eternal life as both future and available now. I chose the quote I did because it conveys exactly this: the spirit gives life... [and] will also give life to your mortal bodies If Paul was explicitly not talking about life in our mortal bodies now, he would have clarified. He's too much of a lawyer, imho, to not do so.

That is certainly possible. However, it is clear that Paul believed there was a time to come, a specific moment, when the general resurrection would occur. As I quoted last time:

1 Corinthians 15:51 Listen, I tell you a mystery: We will not all sleep, but we will all be changed— 52 in a flash, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, the dead will be raised imperishable, and we will be changed.

He did not think that that had happened yet, but presumably thought it would be soon.

Did he believe he was already transformed by the Holy Spirit? I would guess he did. And therefore that transformation was entirely different in nature to the change he looked forward to at the resurrection.

Look at your quote: the spirit gives life... [and] will also give life to your mortal bodies Why does he say "mortal bodies"? Because he was talking about the pre-resurrection body, something that would transform a Christian in the here-and-now, prior to the transformation that would occur at the resurrection.
Anonymous said…
There is a good deal of scholarly support for the idea that, in 1 Cor. 15, Paul is speaking of the resurrection body as another body that is not materially continuous with the mortal body. That doesn't mean it's correct, of course, but it is a subject of scholarly discussion, and it's a little but surprising to hear that an unnamed professor at Perkins has never heard of it.

>>The most important thing to notice is the discontinuity between the seed and the plant. "What you sow is not the body which is to be ...But God gives it a body as he has chosen, and to each seed its own body" (I Cor 15.37-38). In other words, for Paul the seed "dies" and God creates a plant in its place. Paul seems to have in mind here the phenomenon whereby the sprout of a new plant springs forth from that which is planted, such as a bean or a potato, and the "seed" itself shrivels and eventually decomposes. Of course, for Paul there is continuity between the dead person buried and the person who is raised. This is not, however, primarily material continuity in the sense of a relatively slight transformation of the body, It is rather the continuity of the person.<<

Adela Yarbro Collins, The Beginnings of the Gospel: Probings of Mark in Context (2001) p.124. Collins is a Professor of New Testament at Yale University (previously at Chicago and Notre Dame, PhD from Harvard), and the author of the Hermeneia series commentary on Mark's gospel.
you found one source I ciyndnitfnd any, I quoited four that contradict you.
In other words, for Paul the seed "dies" and God creates a plant in its place. Paul seems to have in mind here the phenomenon whereby the sprout of a new plant springs forth from that which is planted, such as a bean or a potato, and the "seed" itself shrivels and eventually decomposes. Of course, for Paul there is continuity between the dead person buried and the person who is raised. This is not, however, primarily material continuity in the sense of a relatively slight transformation of the body, It is rather the continuity of the person.<<

she does not know how plants work. why would he use a plant metaphor if he does not see a parallel? plants do not have separate plants from the seed, the seed changes into the new plant,

:"the sprout of a new plant springs forth from that which is planted," that is not the process described as a separate body,
1 Corinthians 15:51 Listen, I tell you a mystery: We will not all sleep, but we will all be changed— 52 in a flash, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, the dead will be raised imperishable, and we will be changed.

He did not think that that had happened yet, but presumably thought it would be soon.

Did he believe he was already transformed by the Holy Spirit? I would guess he did. And therefore that transformation was entirely different in nature to the change he looked forward to at the resurrection.

Obviously there is more than one sense in which we are reviewed and transformed, There are several aspects to the process.
think about this The Gospel says I'm going to give you a second chance. You will be reviewed, you will be revived. but this is saying throw away who you are and become a ghost in someone else's body.
Isaiah 1:18 "Come now, let us settle the matter," says the LORD. "Though your sins are like scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they are red as crimson, they shall be like wool."

not consistent with getting a whole other body

The Pixie said…
Joe: you found one source I ciyndnitfnd any, I quoted four that contradict you.

That was not me, but thanks to whoever it was. Here are references to a couple more.

In his work on The Apostles' Creed, Professor McGiffert asserts that St/ Pauls gives "explicit denial that the flesh will rise again," since with this apostle "the resurrection is a spiritrual matter"
https://www.jstor.org/stable/3135596?seq=1#metadata_info_tab_contents

Kirsopp Lake was among the first to insist on the possibility that the earliest Christians posited an immaterial or spiritual body for the risen Jesus.
https://brill.com/view/book/edcoll/9789004316690/B9789004316690_005.xml

That said, you are arguing for the mainstream Christian view, and most of the scholars in this area are mainstream Christian, and so of course tow the party line. I do doubt you can find more scholars supporting your view.

Joe: she does not know how plants work. why would he use a plant metaphor if he does not see a parallel? plants do not have separate plants from the seed, the seed changes into the new plant,

There is an original plant that produces the seed, then there is a new plant that springs from the seed. Two different plants.

Joe: think about this The Gospel says I'm going to give you a second chance. You will be reviewed, you will be revived. but this is saying throw away who you are and become a ghost in someone else's body.

It will be your body, but a new one. Just like when you buy a new car, you get rid of the old one, and the new one becomes yours.
Joe: you found one source I ciyndnitfnd any, I quoted four that contradict you.

That was not me, but thanks to whoever it was. Here are references to a couple more.

these passages do not say you get a second body, they say spiritual body which means merely loss of body you are a spirit,

In his work on The Apostles' Creed, Professor McGiffert asserts that St/ Pauls gives "explicit denial that the flesh will rise again," since with this apostle "the resurrection is a spiritrual matter"
https://www.jstor.org/stable/3135596?seq=1#metadata_info_tab_contents

"the resurrection is a spiritual matter" does not = separate second body

Kirsopp Lake was among the first to insist on the possibility that the earliest Christians posited an immaterial or spiritual body for the risen Jesus.
https://brill.com/view/book/edcoll/9789004316690/B9789004316690_005.xml

immaterial body is not a second body it's just being immaterial.

That said, you are arguing for the mainstream Christian view, and most of the scholars in this area are mainstream Christian, and so of course tow the party line. I do doubt you can find more scholars supporting your view.

those views expressed are too veg. I agree our bodies will be spiritual. But that is not what I;m calling a separate body it just means our bodies reconstituted as spiritual.

Joe: she does not know how plants work. why would he use a plant metaphor if he does not see a parallel? plants do not have separate plants from the seed, the seed changes into the new plant,

There is an original plant that produces the seed, then there is a new plant that springs from the seed. Two different plants.

right not a separate second plant.

Joe: think about this The Gospel says I'm going to give you a second chance. You will be reviewed, you will be revived. but this is saying throw away who you are and become a ghost in someone else's body.

It will be your body, but a new one. Just like when you buy a new car, you get rid of the old one, and the new one becomes yours.


I think you are back peddling your changing your view from operate second body to the old body being made spiritual which is not the same concept.
to be clear the idea that the physical body stays dead and we become wholly spirit is not the same as the concept I thought you argued for. It;s not exactly what I believe either but it's not the same. My view says our physical bodies are reconstituted but in spiritual form.

Kirsop Lake is highly regarded as a scholar,he was not a fundie he was not an extreme liberal. But he is expressing a radical idea here above. He is best known for his translations of the Church fathers.
Anonymous said…
Joe: these passages do not say you get a second body, they say spiritual body which means merely loss of body you are a spirit,

I think it could mean spiritual as in connected to the divine, rather than immaterial.

Joe: "the resurrection is a spiritual matter" does not = separate second body

It supports that view.

Joe: immaterial body is not a second body it's just being immaterial.

Now you are just clutching at straws. Jesus' original body was material. If he now has an immaterial body, that is a different body.

Joe: those views expressed are too veg. I agree our bodies will be spiritual. But that is not what I;m calling a separate body it just means our bodies reconstituted as spiritual.

So how is having your body transformed into an immaterial body different to getting a new body?

Pix: There is an original plant that produces the seed, then there is a new plant that springs from the seed. Two different plants.

Joe: right not a separate second plant.

Not separate, in the sense that there is a definite link from one to the other via the seed. Just as the second body is linked to the first by the soul.

Joe: I think you are back peddling your changing your view from operate second body to the old body being made spiritual which is not the same concept.

What do you think is the salient difference?

Say a man has been dead a thousand years at the resurrection. Does he get a new body that is identical to the first? No, because the new one is spiritual. It is different in a fundamental way. But it is still him.

Has it been made from his old body? No! That turned to dust centuries ago.

So in what sense is this guy's body the same?

Joe: My view says our physical bodies are reconstituted but in spiritual form.

So this guy who has been dead a thousand years, God will reassemble all the atoms he was made of, then he will get rid of them all, to give a body that is not made of atoms?

Again, if I have broom, and I change the handle, and later change the head, is it the same broom?

Pix
Anonymous Anonymous said...
Joe: these passages do not say you get a second body, they say spiritual body which means merely loss of body you are a spirit,

I think it could mean spiritual as in connected to the divine, rather than immaterial.

Joe: "the resurrection is a spiritual matter" does not = separate second body

It supports that view.

Not to any degree. It;s an insane idea because it destroys concept of the self it destroys the notion of identity. You have not answered this.

Joe: immaterial body is not a second body it's just being immaterial.

Now you are just clutching at straws. Jesus' original body was material. If he now has an immaterial body, that is a different body.


that is utterly silly. We are spirits in bodies. We are made up of body and soul,and spirit. Take away the body there is still spirit and soul, it;s not a new body it's; just the ghost that is in you. yo are calling it a body but it's not

Joe: those views expressed are too veg. I agree our bodies will be spiritual. But that is not what I;m calling a separate body it just means our bodies reconstituted as spiritual.

So how is having your body transformed into an immaterial body different to getting a new body?

imagine yo are standing there then another body appears beside you, your spirit comes out of you and goes into the body beside you. That is what I thought you are defending.

Pix: There is an original plant that produces the seed, then there is a new plant that springs from the seed. Two different plants.

that is not two different plants.that's insane, do you not understand the concept of conservation of mass?

Joe: right not a separate second plant.

Not separate, in the sense that there is a definite link from one to the other via the seed. Just as the second body is linked to the first by the soul.

you have one body, you do not get a different body, the one you have now will be re-made.

Joe: I think you are back peddling your changing your view from operate second body to the old body being made spiritual which is not the same concept.

What do you think is the salient difference?

It seemed to me at first you were supporting the two body idea now you are trying to call the original body remade the second body,

Say a man has been dead a thousand years at the resurrection. Does he get a new body that is identical to the first? No, because the new one is spiritual. It is different in a fundamental way. But it is still him.

His original body re-constituted in spiritual form

Has it been made from his old body? No! That turned to dust centuries ago.

So in what sense is this guy's body the same?

Joe: My view says our physical bodies are reconstituted but in spiritual form.

So this guy who has been dead a thousand years, God will reassemble all the atoms he was made of, then he will get rid of them all, to give a body that is not made of atoms?

since we don't know what spirit is how can we say the atoms have to be gotten rid of? ho do you know they can't be made spiritual in some way?

Again, if I have broom, and I change the handle, and later change the head, is it the same broom?

good little brain teaser I was in second grade, seven years old when I first heard that. An ax has seven heads and 10 handles is it the same ax? the problem is we are not merely collections of body parts, we have spirit and soul. It's a triunity you can;t just stick soul in new body and think it's you it's not the same person

Anonymous said…
Joe: Not to any degree. It;s an insane idea because it destroys concept of the self it destroys the notion of identity. You have not answered this.

That is just nonsense. The self persists in the shade that resides in Sheol. And I have already pointed this out.

Joe: that is utterly silly. We are spirits in bodies. We are made up of body and soul,and spirit. Take away the body there is still spirit and soul, it;s not a new body it's; just the ghost that is in you. yo are calling it a body but it's not

Not sure what you are saying. Again, the Pharisees, and presumably Paul, believed the self persisted as a shade - without a body - in Sheol, and at the resurrection, they got new bodies. The spirit in the body would be that shade - the ghost that is you. Not a new body.

Then the resurrection happens, and god gives you a nmew, heavenly body that shines like a star.

Joe: imagine yo are standing there then another body appears beside you, your spirit comes out of you and goes into the body beside you. That is what I thought you are defending.

Sure, because the spirit moving from one to the other is the shade in Sheol. Paul answers the question, what of those who are not dead. For them it will happens in the blink of a eye; the old body goes, the new one takes its place. I do not understand how that latter process is different to what you describe.

Joe: that is not two different plants.that's insane,...

Yes it is! The new plant may well grow up beside the plant that dropped the seed.

Joe: .... do you not understand the concept of conservation of mass?

Yes, so I am confident saying you are wrong to use it in this context, but go on, give me a laugh. explain the relevance.

Joe: you have one body, you do not get a different body, the one you have now will be re-made.

How is that different to swapping bodies in the blink of an eye, as Paul describes.

Joe: His original body re-constituted in spiritual form

So all the original atoms will be drawn from all across the world. And then changed into something different.

So what was the point of gathering all those original atoms again?

Joe: since we don't know what spirit is how can we say the atoms have to be gotten rid of? ho do you know they can't be made spiritual in some way?

Atoms are earthly. Paul is clear the earthly can not inherit.

Pix
Gary said…
I have repeatedly asserted that the biggest weakness in the evidence for the alleged resurrection of Jesus is the fact that most historians and scholars doubt the eyewitness/associate of eyewitness authorship of the books that tell this tale (see here). For all we know, these stories are the theological or literary inventions of their non-eyewitness authors. But what if these four authors did profess to be eyewitnesses to multiple back-from-the-dead Jesus sightings? Should we believe them?

No.

Here’s why: https://lutherwasnotbornagaincom.wordpress.com/2019/10/19/why-we-should-not-believe-the-resurrection-stories-even-if-they-were-written-by-alleged-eyewitnesses/

Popular posts from this blog

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

More evidence for the Historical Truth of David and Goliath

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

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

How Many Children in Bethlehem Did Herod Kill?

A Simple Illustration of the Trinity

Bread and Butter apologetics

Do God's Omniscience and Omnipotence Contradict?

The Meaning of the Manger

The Genre of the Gospel of John (Part 1)