A Theory Without a Ghost of a Chance

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



The "no Body" theory says that Jesus' resurrection  was non-bodily; he didn't leave an empty tomb but just appeared to people as a spirit. This view is much prized by a certain segment of theological liberalism. Some liberals can't bring themselves to buck naturalism (I on the other hand am a  liberal of a different sort). This view was Championed by Hans Grass's classic Ostergeschehen and Osterberichte. [1] 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

We know from many sources that the Jews saw resurrection as bodily,The body coning back to life. Dr. Rene' Lopez tells us: "Jewish leaders also recited daily a common liturgical temple prayer (which perhaps the Sadducees were exempt from repeating). It mentions bodily resurrection as coming from God who gives 'life to the dead....Your holy ones. That bodies, covered with worms of the dead, might rise up from the dust to an et[ernal] council; from a perverse spirit to Your understanding (1QHa 19:15)" [2] from Talmud and the Mishnah:

Minim asked Rabban Gamaliel, “How do we know that the Holy One, blessed be he, will resurrect the dead?” He said to them, “It is proved from the Torah, from the Prophets, and from the Writings.” But they did not accept his proofs. “From the Torah: for it is written, ‘And the Lord said to Moses, Behold, you shall sleep with your fathers and rise up’ (Deu. 31:16).” They said to him, “But perhaps the sense of the passage is, ‘And the people will rise up’ (Deu. 31:16)?” “From the Prophets: as it is written, ‘Thy dead men shall live, together with my dead body they shall arise. Awake and sing, you that live in the dust, for your dew is as the dew of herbs, and the earth shall cast out its dead’ (Isa. 26:19).”…[3]
It seems clear the early church thought in these terms as they already spread the word of the empty tomb before Paul even began to write. There are non canonical gospels that are as old as canonical:

Some non canonical gospels are dated roughly to the same period, and the canonical gospels and other early Christian accounts appear to rely on earlier reports.Thus, as far as the physical evidence is concerned, the canonical gospels do not take precedence over the non canonical gospels. The fragments of John, Thomas and theEgerton Gospel share the distinction of being the earliest extant pieces of Christian writing known. And although the existing manuscript evidence for Thomas dates to the mid-second century, the scholars who first published the Greek fragments held open the possibility that it was actually composed in the first century, which would put it around the time John was composed.[4]
Moreover, In some such gospels there are traces of an older inexpedient tradition:However, "there are other traces in the Gospel of Peter which demonstrate an old and independent tradition."[5] The way the suffering of Jesus is described by the use of passages from the old Testament without quotation formulae is, in terms of the tradition, older than the explicit scriptural proof; it represents the oldest form of the passion of Jesus.[6]  Jurgen Denkerargues that the Gospel of Peter shares this tradition of OT quotation with the Canonicals but is not dependent upon them.[7] Koester writes,

"John Dominic Crosson has gone further [than Denker]...he argues that this activity results in the composition of a literary document at a very early date i.e. in the middle of the First century CE" (Ibid). Said another way, the interpretation of Scripture as the formation of the passion narrative became an independent document, a ur-Gospel, as early as the middle of the first century!....Studies of the passion narrative have shown that all gospels were dependent upon one and the same basic account of the suffering, crucifixion, death and burial of Jesus. But this account ended with the discovery of the empty tomb. [8]
Thus we have a major overwhelming reason to assume Paul believed in Bodily Resurrection  because that was what the early church had preached and were preaching about the time Paul  was just starting to write, and it was the traditional view to which Jews held.


The major arguments for the no body 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.  It's similar to the way Jesus mythers look at things. 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, it could be because he wasn't an eye witness to the empty tomb. Or it may be there was no reason at the point of his epistles since the peope to whom he wrote were already converted, But it is equally unclear why he has to mention it. After all, none of his epistles were written to people who where contesting the resurrection. The story of the empty tomb would have been known 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:

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 movement was the cultural background out of which Jesus and his followers arose (see the Messiah pages).[9] In Pauline theology Christ was "first fruits frim the dead."(1 Cor 15:23) 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 Messiah clearly demonstrates that this is the case.[10] 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. 

It makes no sense that anyone would be impressed by Jesus becoming a ghost. That's basically what the no body position argues.  Simply that Jesus lived on as a ghost  with no body that's how he "rose" big deal. If there is life after death we all become ghosts who who cares? 

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 substance none the less. 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.."

It certainly is something not all have to look forward to, But if there is life after death as a spirit doen't we have that?

James Taber who is a no body advocate:

"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:"[11]

Thus, in this context we find the major argument of the non body group the transformation power of becoming a spirit and shedding the body and

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. But Taber ignores the meaning of the phrase "to be made alive," The transforming power is there in either senerio, but the disembodied ghost is not made alive,

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' resurrection. 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."
Why would he make such an argument if Jesus merely shed the body and as a ghost drifted on to be with God in the afterlife? That's not standing up again  that;s not being made alive again. What do different types of Flesh have to do with it if flesh becomes spirit? That statement implies a new body

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;}

What goes into the ground comes out of the ground it;s not abandoned,

"So also [is] the resurrection of the dead. It is sown in corruption; it is raised in incorruption:"(1 cor 25:42)


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.

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?”
I see in this a change in the body that dies,it cones to life again and has a new spiritual dimension not that it is discorded, Baht would be imagery of shucking a husk not putting on importation.  The Greek used for raised means"stand up again"[12] that implies body coming back not the spirit moving on to an immaterial existnece,

One final issue that needs discussing is the assertions made by Tabor and other ghost-theory advocates that Mark being the first Gospel written must surely reflect accurately the early church's view, They stop short at vs 8 (chap. 16) and assume everything else is added on. Thus their Mark has no  resurrection.

There are,however, older versions than Mark. Mark was the first of the four canonical but not necessarily the first ever, I've already shown there was a pre Mark redaction that means it existed before Mark. Moreover, there's good evidence against their move of cutting off the testimony at v8 of the last chapter:

Most all other manuscripts and early versions (translations into other languages) include vs. 9-20. Even earlier evidence is found among the Early Patristic Fathers (the church leaders which followed immediately after the Apostles’ deaths), substantiating that these twelve verses were not only known two hundred years before Sinaiticus and Vaticanus, but that there was support for their inclusion (since they each quoted authoritatively from the “disputed” passage (cf. Justin Martyr, Apology 1.45, ca. A.D.145; Tatian, Diatessaron, ca. A.D. 170; and Irenaeus, Against Heresies 3.10.6 ca. A.D. 180).[13]
Thus Mark does include the resurrection with empty tomb, empty tomb (demonstrated to be part of the Pre Mark redaction as well) means bodily resurrection.



Sources

[1] Hans Grass, Ostergeschehen and Osterberichte.  Gottengen: Vanderhoeck and Ruprecht, 1962.


[2]  Rene' Lopez, The Resurrection a Historical Fact Part Three," The Shiloh Excavations, (Aug 18,2011)


Lopez recived his Doctorate from DTS

[3] Ibid

[4] Charles W. Hendrick, quoted in Bible Review, (June 2002), 20-31; 46-47

[5] Philipp Vielhauer, Geschichte,Geschichte der Urchristlichen Literatur

einleitung in das Neue Testament, die Apokryphen und die Apostolischen Väter

 (1975) 646
Translation:
Philip Vielhauer, History of The original Christian Literature: Introduction to thev New Testment, the Apocrypha, and the Apostolic Fathers. (cited by Koester)
[6] Helmut Koester, Ancient Christian Gospels: Their History and Development, London. Oxford, New York: Bloomsbury T&T Clark; 2nd prt. edition, 1992, 218


[7] Danker in Ibid.

[8] Koester, Ibid, 220


[9] J.L. Hinman, "Messiah:First Century Jewish Expectations," Doxa. 2004

The crux of my point is embodied in this quote by Cornfeld:

The Diversity of First century Judaism:"The Essenic movment and heterodox Judaism spread throughout the entire Jewish world. Reflecting the power of the 'splinded isolation' that gave rise to the Hasiedan movement.... Pharisaic Judaism and Christinity represent different offshoots of old Testament religion. The one emphasized the Law of Moses but in terms of oral tradition and adaptability of ancient revelation to contemporary conditions. The other places stress on prophecy and fullfillment of promises in terms of the Messianic fulfillment....It is clear that the Essenes were closer to the Jewish-Christian in terms of Messianic expectation and eschatological fulfillment, although they were at different points on the time table. Thus the people of Qumran awaited royal and preistly Messiahs, while in the New Testament the term "Messiah" is clearly of the Dividic King."
--Gallayah Cornfeld, Archaeology of The Bible Book by Book, New York: Harper and Row, 1976, p. 265.
[10] Alfred Edersheim in Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah Hendrickson Pub; Updated edition (July 1, 1993)

[11] James Taber (Ibid) http://www.uncc.edu/jdtabor/paul.html

[12] Lopez, op cit

[13] Names F, Willams, "Why Does Mark's Gospel Omit the Insurrection and The Virgin Birth?" Probe for Answers (Dec.28,2002)
https://probe.org/why-does-marks-gospel-omit-the-resurrection-and-the-virgin-birth/

James F. Williams is the founder and past president of Probe Ministries International. He holds degrees from Southern Methodist University (B.A.) and Dallas Theological Seminary (Th.M.). He also has pursued inter-disciplinary doctoral studies (a.b.d.) in the humanities at the University of Texas at Dallas.
Hey he;s a UTD man he must be great,

Comments

The Pixie said…
Joe: The "no Body" theory says that Jesus' resurrection was non-bodily; he didn't leave an empty tomb but just appeared to people as a spirit.

There is an important distinction here between a non-physical resurrection, a bodily resurrection and a physical, non-bodily resurrection,.

A bodily resurrection is Jesus resurrected in his original body, complete with the wounds from the crucifixion, as depicted in John. A non-physical resurrection is comparable to a ghost, resurrection in a new body without physical form. Luke is at pains to argue against this.

However, the third alternative is a new, physical body. It will be interesting to see how you address that 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. Paul sees Jesus as the "first fruits" or the hearld of this mass resurrection in the end.

Paul's belief was determined primarily by what he saw on the Road to Damascus. What he saw was a bright light, not Jesus in his original body. Even if he had previously believed the dead were raised in their original bodies, that that experience was enough to convert him tells us it was enough to change his view of the resurrection.

Furthermore, as you say, he saw Jesus as the first fruits, and Paul expected the same thing to happen to all the righteous - even those dead for centuries. All that was left of those long dead was dried bones. It makes no sense for Paul to think those long dead would come back as smambling skeletons. He must have believed the dead would get new bodies.

This is born out by 1 Cor 15 and 2 Cor 5, in which he states that clearly. Earthly flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God. And those living at that point, their bodies will be changed too.

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. 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. 53 For the perishable must clothe itself with the imperishable, and the mortal with immortality.

2 Cor 5:1 For we know that when this earthly tent we live in is taken down (that is, when we die and leave this earthly body), we will have a house in heaven, an eternal body made for us by God himself and not by human hands. 2 We grow weary in our present bodies, and we long to put on our heavenly bodies like new clothing. 3 For we will put on heavenly bodies; we will not be spirits without bodies.[a] 4 While we live in these earthly bodies, we groan and sigh, but it’s not that we want to die and get rid of these bodies that clothe us. Rather, we want to put on our new bodies so that these dying bodies will be swallowed up by life. 5 God himself has prepared us for this, and as a guarantee he has given us his Holy Spirit.
The Pixie said…
In addition to that, Jesus also implies that the bodies of the righteous would be different:

Matt 22:30 At the resurrection people will neither marry nor be given in marriage; they will be like the angels in heaven.

Josephus reinforces the idea of new bodies:

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

And in Daniel we get a hint of what the new bodies are like, shining like stars:

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.

Note that this fits with what Paul reportedly saw. Whether that new body is physical I would not care to say, but what we see is a belief that resurrection was in a new body, a spiritual body (in the sense of being closer to God) that shines brightly like a star.
Joe: The "no Body" theory says that Jesus' resurrection was non-bodily; he didn't leave an empty tomb but just appeared to people as a spirit.

There is an important distinction here between a non-physical resurrection, a bodily resurrection and a physical, non-bodily resurrection,.

A bodily resurrection is Jesus resurrected in his original body, complete with the wounds from the crucifixion, as depicted in John. A non-physical resurrection is comparable to a ghost, resurrection in a new body without physical form. Luke is at pains to argue against this.

a new body without physical form. is a contradiction in terms. Bodies have physical form physical means solid matter. solid matter has form,that's part of being solid.

However, the third alternative is a new, physical body. It will be interesting to see how you address that possibility.


you are confusing me, is that your intention? first you give three alternatives: (1)"original body, complete with the wounds from the crucifixion" (2) "A non-physical resurrection is comparable to a ghost" (3) "new body without physical form" then you say you have a new one which is 4 things which you say are three (4?) "the third alternative is a new, physical body." No 3 was "without physical form" Now you call it physical. so it;s physical body without physical form? what does that mean? do you have three or four which is it? which is your position?

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. Paul sees Jesus as the "first fruits" or the hearld of this mass resurrection in the end.

Paul's belief was determined primarily by what he saw on the Road to Damascus.

(1)that is a fallacious argument, We have no reason to assume that he would not explain what he saw by his existing doctrine which is what 99.9% of mystics do,

(2) there is no reason to think that Paul would have equated Jesus current state with the state of his resurrection body. There is a thing called 'the ascension' where Jesus went up into the sky and then changed into the universal omnipresent God. Paul Himself puts it"rose to fill the universe in every way" But that;s after the resurrection appearances in the body Paul would have known that because Luke knew it


What he saw was a bright light, not Jesus in his original body. Even if he had previously believed the dead were raised in their original bodies, that that experience was enough to convert him tells us it was enough to change his view of the resurrection.

we'll get into that more latter there's no reason to assume that he just thought Jesus was a bright light and stopped with that.



Furthermore, as you say, he saw Jesus as the first fruits, and Paul expected the same thing to happen to all the righteous - even those dead for centuries. All that was left of those long dead was dried bones. It makes no sense for Paul to think those long dead would come back as smambling skeletons. He must have believed the dead would get new bodies.

if course it does God made man from dust

This is born out by 1 Cor 15 and 2 Cor 5, in which he states that clearly. Earthly flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God. And those living at that point, their bodies will be changed too.

wew wmtn just resole earthy flesh we will have resurrection bodies but they will be caliphs bodies. That doesn;t mean Jesus didn;t have a flesh and blood bodywhen he rose He told Mary M dont;touch me I have I have not yet been to the father,So there was a purifying process, or something.



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. 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. 53 For the perishable must clothe itself with the imperishable, and the mortal with immortality.

That's the spiritual refuel I was talkie about

2 Cor 5:1 For we know that when this earthly tent we live in is taken down (that is, when we die and leave this earthly body), we will have a house in heaven, an eternal body made for us by God himself and not by human hands. 2 We grow weary in our present bodies, and we long to put on our heavenly bodies like new clothing. 3 For we will put on heavenly bodies; we will not be spirits without bodies.[a] 4 While we live in these earthly bodies, we groan and sigh, but it’s not that we want to die and get rid of these bodies that clothe us. Rather, we want to put on our new bodies so that these dying bodies will be swallowed up by life. 5 God himself has prepared us for this, and as a guarantee he has given us his Holy Spirit.

you have not answered a single reason I give to think Paul believed in bodily res, all you are doing is just assuming your interpretation fits then just reading a litany of verses that you are interpreting but you have answered none of my reasons why that interp is wrong.



4/29/2019 01:44:00 AM Delete
Blogger The Pixie said...
In addition to that, Jesus also implies that the bodies of the righteous would be different:

Matt 22:30 At the resurrection people will neither marry nor be given in marriage; they will be like the angels in heaven.

Yes different as in spiritually augmented.that;s my position. Still physical. it;s still a body

Josephus reinforces the idea of new bodies:

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

Jo did not know Jesus. He's just speaking from myth and opinion not revelation. It is true that some Jews say have that God would put souls in new bodies, that is a body so it let;s out the ghost theory. moreover the Mishna says the old body is alive again so it seems the closer we get to holy scripture the closer we get to bodily res.



And in Daniel we get a hint of what the new bodies are like, shining like stars:

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.

yes sure we will glow. sounds good,maybe we will have wings. a glowing body is still a body.

Note that this fits with what Paul reportedly saw. Whether that new body is physical I would not care to say, but what we see is a belief that resurrection was in a new body, a spiritual body (in the sense of being closer to God) that shines brightly like a star.

my position has always been that the resurrection body is revitalized augmented by spiritual means but is still a physical body
The Pixie said…
Joe: a new body without physical form. is a contradiction in terms. Bodies have physical form physical means solid matter. solid matter has form,that's part of being solid.

You are getting hung up on the semantics. If you prefer, call it a form without a physical body.

Joe: you are confusing me, is that your intention? first you give three alternatives: (1)"original body, complete with the wounds from the crucifixion" (2) "A non-physical resurrection is comparable to a ghost" (3) "new body without physical form" then you say you have a new one which is 4 things which you say are three (4?) "the third alternative is a new, physical body." No 3 was "without physical form" Now you call it physical. so it;s physical body without physical form? what does that mean? do you have three or four which is it? which is your position?

I thought I was pretty clear.

1) A bodily resurrection is Jesus resurrected in his original body, complete with the wounds from the crucifixion, as depicted in John

2) A non-physical resurrection is comparable to a ghost, resurrection in a new form without physical body. Luke is at pains to argue against this.

3) However, the third alternative is a new, physical body.

Joe: (1)that is a fallacious argument, We have no reason to assume that he would not explain what he saw by his existing doctrine which is what 99.9% of mystics do,

If what he saw was compatible with existing doctrine, then absolutely. But what if the two were contradictory? Does he ignore what he experienced, and stick with doctrine? Or does he abandon doctrine? Well, we know Paul abandoned doctrine and became a Christian.

Joe: (2) there is no reason to think that Paul would have equated Jesus current state with the state of his resurrection body. There is a thing called 'the ascension' where Jesus went up into the sky and then changed into the universal omnipresent God. Paul Himself puts it"rose to fill the universe in every way" But that;s after the resurrection appearances in the body Paul would have known that because Luke knew it

See if you can find anything in Paul (or indeed Mark and Matthew) about the ascension. It is not there. It had not been invented. Furthermore, when in the accounts of the ascension is there something about Jesus' body changing?

Joe: we'll get into that more latter there's no reason to assume that he just thought Jesus was a bright light and stopped with that.

Of course not, he thought Jesus was in a new resurrected body that shone brightly like a star, as described in Daniel. A body like that of an angel, as Jesus himsel;f said (Mat 2:30).

Joe: if course it does God made man from dust

Paul was pretty sure the new bodies would be made of heavenly material.

Joe: wew wmtn just resole earthy flesh we will have resurrection bodies but they will be caliphs bodies. That doesn;t mean Jesus didn;t have a flesh and blood bodywhen he rose He told Mary M dont;touch me I have I have not yet been to the father,So there was a purifying process, or something.

When does Paul say anything about that?

Why would Jesus need to be purified? Was he not pure when resurrected?
The Pixie said…
Joe: you have not answered a single reason I give to think Paul believed in bodily res, all you are doing is just assuming your interpretation fits then just reading a litany of verses that you are interpreting but you have answered none of my reasons why that interp is wrong.

To be honest, I found it hard working out what your argument is.

The ancient Hebrews believed the dead went to Sheol; not bodily but as shades or ghosts. When we read about the dead in the ground, that is what it refers to. The resurrection is the righteous shades getting new bodies.

Your quote of Deu. 31:16 does nit match any translation I have seen by the way.

You trot out the usual lame excuses for Paul not mentioning the empty tomb, but as ever fail to explain why Paul did mention the burial. Plus the usual dubious claim about the empty tomb dates to around 50 AD - yes there was a narrative, possibly as early as that, but we do not know when it had the empty tomb in it.

You even admit:

Paul believed in a complete transformation of all creation at the return of Christ.

Why is there a transformation if everyone stays in their current body? More damning, you admit:

That statement implies a new body
Joe: a new body without physical form. is a contradiction in terms. Bodies have physical form physical means solid matter. solid matter has form,that's part of being solid.

You are getting hung up on the semantics. If you prefer, call it a form without a physical body.

you made two statements that logically contradict each other that is not semantics it is logic.a from without a body is also just a ghost, You do not answer my arguments as to why he should assume Paul believed in bodily res,

Joe: you are confusing me, is that your intention? first you give three alternatives: (1)"original body, complete with the wounds from the crucifixion" (2) "A non-physical resurrection is comparable to a ghost" (3) "new body without physical form" then you say you have a new one which is 4 things which you say are three (4?) "the third alternative is a new, physical body." No 3 was "without physical form" Now you call it physical. so it;s physical body without physical form? what does that mean? do you have three or four which is it? which is your position?

I thought I was pretty clear.

1) A bodily resurrection is Jesus resurrected in his original body, complete with the wounds from the crucifixion, as depicted in John

2) A non-physical resurrection is comparable to a ghost, resurrection in a new form without physical body. Luke is at pains to argue against this.

No he's not, The Jesus eatting Thomas feeling nail prints is not to counter ghost res idea it is contra Gnostic idea that he was never flesh and blood.. There is no evidence of ghost res idea in first century

3) However, the third alternative is a new, physical body.

there was a fourth one, so if you are retracting it we'll call it a mistake but you did write it

Joe: (1)that is a fallacious argument, We have no reason to assume that he would not explain what he saw by his existing doctrine which is what 99.9% of mystics do,

If what he saw was compatible with existing doctrine, then absolutely. But what if the two were contradictory? Does he ignore what he experienced, and stick with doctrine? Or does he abandon doctrine? Well, we know Paul abandoned doctrine and became a Christian.

Mystics do have experiences that contradict their cherished doctrines, they do go ahead and try to rat ionize them with their doctrines. Some times they flip over their entire theological interpretation as did Aro Bindo with Vedanta. Sometimes not as I did which you can read about in my book where I argue mystical expedience can;'t be used to make doctrine, in final chapter. Paul flipped over what he thought about Jesus and about Christians because he became one. But that does not mean he changed from bodily res to ghost res

Joe: (2) there is no reason to think that Paul would have equated Jesus current state with the state of his resurrection body. There is a thing called 'the ascension' where Jesus went up into the sky and then changed into the universal omnipresent God. Paul Himself puts it"rose to fill the universe in every way" But that;s after the resurrection appearances in the body Paul would have known that because Luke knew it.

See if you can find anything in Paul (or indeed Mark and Matthew) about the ascension. It is not there. It had not been invented. Furthermore, when in the accounts of the ascension is there something about Jesus' body changing?


why do you keep making these silly little argument-from-silence assumptions? your whole approach to understanding the evolution of kyrigma is paint by numbers and based upon atheist apologetic needs.It's in Luke and confirmed by Paul.


Joe: we'll get into that [Damascus road] more latter there's no reason to assume that he just thought Jesus was a bright light and stopped with that.

PxOf course not, he thought Jesus was in a new resurrected body that shone brightly like a star, as described in Daniel. A body like that of an angel, as Jesus himsel;f said (Mat 2:30).

Here is the way you reason: I claim this passage in Matthew as a construct of my atheist universe, which Paul never alludes to but because I claim it;s now a quasi fact, all references to res body must coordinate with this passage ergo res bodies sine and a body that shine is a ghost body, ipso facto ergo hnhu, now it;s a meta fact of my atheist fact mill

(1) You have not proven that that means that res bodies shine
(2)No proof Paul ever saw that passage since Matthew wasn't written in his life time
(3)I also said that my spiritually enhanced solid body glows too, my res body shines, that is not proof of ghost body.

---------------------

Joe: if course it does God made man from dust

Paul was pretty sure the new bodies would be made of heavenly material.

he doesn;t say that, you are so quick to build those meta facts,



Joe: wew wmtn just resole earthy flesh we will have resurrection bodies but they will be caliphs bodies. That doesn;t mean Jesus didn;t have a flesh and blood body when he rose He told Mary M dont;touch me I have I have not yet been to the father,So there was a purifying process, or something.

When does Paul say anything about that?

O shit get over your little pretend versions of neurasthenics, you have made up a false principle that says Paul must sanction all things we can't believe christians ever thought anything unless Paul said they did. But the Johanine community was seperte from the Pauline circle and it was pre Mark

Why would Jesus need to be purified? Was he not pure when resurrected?

His body must have gone through an evolutionary process from the first moment of res to the ascension,he started as a revived corps then evolved into a "life giving spirit"
Joe: you have not answered a single reason I give to think Paul believed in bodily res, all you are doing is just assuming your interpretation fits then just reading a litany of verses that you are interpreting but you have answered none of my reasons why that interp is wrong.

PxTo be honest, I found it hard working out what your argument is.


I should not wonder, since you can only understand things that are part of your meta fact world of atheist hermeneutics based upon counterfit Paulineism

My overall view us that we will die and be transformed into spiritual beings who are manifested in physical bodies but bodies with spiritual powers. If we are incorporated as pure consciousness into'God's consciousness and we have no bodies I can handle that; but since Paul talks about resurrection bodies I have to assume we have them. I believe Jesus rose as a revived human like he had been then went through a process where he became a spiritual being,then merged with the Godhead.

I have two major reasons why Paul believed in bodily res and you do not touch either of them: (1) Koester and Crosson say empty tomb was part of PMPN om wroittomg AD 50, meaning it was circulating orally before that, That means bodily res is much older than Paul's writing. (2)He clearly says we have res bodies that's why he talks about different kinds of flesh,(1 Cor 15:50)
PxThe ancient Hebrews believed the dead went to Sheol; not bodily but as shades or ghosts. When we read about the dead in the ground, that is what it refers to. The resurrection is the righteous shades getting new bodies.

Of course that is a red herring. The issue is not where they go when they die but how they are raised when they come back at the end of days. when the Messiah stands on top of the temple and shouts "Israel your time has come" and all fallen Israel raises from the dead.



PxYour quote of Deu. 31:16 does nit match any translation I have seen by the way.

how many have you seen? I think that was by Lopez




PxYou trot out the usual lame excuses for Paul not mentioning the empty tomb,

You trot out the usual lame excuses why Paul did not discuss his mother;'s drinking. what a silly idea, not the the time or place for it,what a lame excuse. btw we know Paul's mother drank because he never denies it,


Px but as ever fail to explain why Paul did mention the burial.

I sure as well did! It was part of the historical account and thus had become ingrained and formulaic, The empty tomb wasn't formula because they didn't do apologetic,rather than being proof of the res it was just the scene where he rose and that is the logical implication of the burial

Px Plus the usual dubious claim about the empty tomb dates to around 50 AD - yes there was a narrative, possibly as early as that, but we do not know when it had the empty tomb in it.

still trying to pretend that Koester and Crosson don;t date the empty tomb karygma to AD 50 but they do Koester ACG 218-220. Pretend all you like they say it.

PxYou even admit:

Paul believed in a complete transformation of all creation at the return of Christ.

Why is there a transformation if everyone stays in their current body? More damning, you admit:

Hey are you really Skepie? why do you ignore half of what i say? I;ve talked about my view as spiritual augmentation of the body time and time again stop being such a putz

PxThat statement implies a new body


Or transformation of the old one,
The Pixie said…
Joe: a from without a body is also just a ghost,

A ghost is a form without a body, but that does not imply that a form without a body is necessarily a ghost.

Joe: You do not answer my arguments as to why he should assume Paul believed in bodily res,

We should NOT assume that.

Joe: No he's not, The Jesus eatting Thomas feeling nail prints is not to counter ghost res idea it is contra Gnostic idea that he was never flesh and blood.. There is no evidence of ghost res idea in first century

Luke 24:37 They were startled and frightened, thinking they saw a ghost. 38 He said to them, “Why are you troubled, and why do doubts rise in your minds? 39 Look at my hands and my feet. It is I myself! Touch me and see; a ghost does not have flesh and bones, as you see I have.”

Joe: there was a fourth one, so if you are retracting it we'll call it a mistake but you did write it

I have no idea what you think the fourth one is.

Joe: ... Paul flipped over what he thought about Jesus and about Christians because he became one. But that does not mean he changed from bodily res to ghost res

Not necessarily, no, but it makes it highly plausible.

However, it may not be necessary. It may be the case that the Pharisees believed in a new body at the resurrection - that is certainly what Josephus indicates.

Joe: why do you keep making these silly little argument-from-silence assumptions? your whole approach to understanding the evolution of kyrigma is paint by numbers and based upon atheist apologetic needs.It's in Luke and confirmed by Paul.

The ascension is a huge event. That it is not mentioned before Luke is very significant. Yes, it is an argument from silence, but a silence where we can reasonably expect no silence. Certainly enough to cast doubt on Paul, for example, having heard about it.

I have no idea why you think Paul confirms the ascension.

Joe: Here is the way you reason: I claim this passage in Matthew as a construct of my atheist universe, which Paul never alludes to but because I claim it;s now a quasi fact, all references to res body must coordinate with this passage ergo res bodies sine and a body that shine is a ghost body, ipso facto ergo hnhu, now it;s a meta fact of my atheist fact mill

Not quite. There are various bits of evidence supporting a shining resurrected body; the description in Daniel and the event of the Road to Damascus, and to a lesser extent what Jesus said. Can you find anything else at all that Jesus said about the resurrected body? Is there anything in Paul's epistles to suggest a mundane body?

Joe: (1) You have not proven that that means that res bodies shine
(2)No proof Paul ever saw that passage since Matthew wasn't written in his life time
(3)I also said that my spiritually enhanced solid body glows too, my res body shines, that is not proof of ghost body.


As per usual, you demand proof from your opponents, but only offer wishful thinking - or warrant as you call it - to support your own position.

Joe: he doesn;t say that, you are so quick to build those meta facts,

Have you read 1 Cor 15? You should; it is quite germane to this discussion.

Joe: ...you have made up a false principle that says Paul must sanction all things we can't believe christians ever thought anything unless Paul said they did. But the Johanine community was seperte from the Pauline circle and it was pre Mark

Right. Paul invented one version, the Johannine community invented another.

Joe: His body must have gone through an evolutionary process from the first moment of res to the ascension,he started as a revived corps then evolved into a "life giving spirit"

No, it is the narrative that went through an evolutionary process.
DEH Whittekley theologyofSt Paul


He discusses the Hebrew concept of body, Not like the Greeks who saw body as vehicle that the soul uses like a man in a tent the Hebrews said we are our bodies they are an integral part of us. unity of body.soul and spirit. Thus that is a reason why the old body is revamped.
The Pixie said...
Joe: a from without a body is also just a ghost,

A ghost is a form without a body, but that does not imply that a form without a body is necessarily a ghost.

sorry you have not answered any of my arguments as to why Paul kept to the traditional view so you lose those arguments, You have no logical reason to assume we should read his words your way



Joe: You do not answer my arguments as to why he should assume Paul believed in bodily res,

We should NOT assume that.


that's not a reason you are just gainsaying the argument


Joe: No he's not, The Jesus eatting Thomas feeling nail prints is not to counter ghost res idea it is contra Gnostic idea that he was never flesh and blood.. There is no evidence of ghost res idea in first century

Luke 24:37 They were startled and frightened, thinking they saw a ghost. 38 He said to them, “Why are you troubled, and why do doubts rise in your minds? 39 Look at my hands and my feet. It is I myself! Touch me and see; a ghost does not have flesh and bones, as you see I have.”

they were connecting ghost to Gnosticism (spirit) not just to the resurrection alone

Joe: there was a fourth one, so if you are retracting it we'll call it a mistake but you did write it

I have no idea what you think the fourth one is.

I listed them I quoted you ver batium,you ca;t follow the words on the page,see my first response page above see 4/29/2019 03:37:00 AM


Joe: ... Paul flipped over what he thought about Jesus and about Christians because he became one. But that does not mean he changed from bodily res to ghost res

Not necessarily, no, but it makes it highly plausible.

Not one little bit, there is nothing to connect to that,the church was already teaching bodily res (Koester ACG 218-220) why he contradict it? why would he face down the eye witnesses and tell them it didn;t happen? Makes no sense at all.he's been persecuting the church he has to gain their trust so the first thing he does is to deny the cornerstone of their faith?

However, it may not be necessary. It may be the case that the Pharisees believed in a new body at the resurrection - that is certainly what Josephus indicates.

wrong, he said some believed that he didn;t say they were pharisees, even so new body is still a body and not a ghost,



Joe: why do you keep making these silly little argument-from-silence assumptions? your whole approach to understanding the evolution of kyrigma is paint by numbers and based upon atheist apologetic needs.It's in Luke and confirmed by Paul.

The ascension is a huge event. That it is not mentioned before Luke is very significant. Yes, it is an argument from silence, but a silence where we can reasonably expect no silence. Certainly enough to cast doubt on Paul, for example, having heard about it.


still doing paint by numbers,we have all the writings they ever made hey were all published by Scribner and sons and every thing was known, only the things Pasul said could ever be believed that is sheer stupidity. You are muit amiinga meta fact atheist universe of Biblical assumptions.

face reality, Like was Pauline circle it;s in Luke so it was beveled by Paul.

I have no idea why you think Paul confirms the ascension.


Luke was the side kick Paul was the great theologian it;s more probable that Luke's trotting reflect Paul's views

Joe: Here is the way you reason: I claim this passage in Matthew as a construct of my atheist universe, which Paul never alludes to but because I claim it;s now a quasi fact, all references to res body must coordinate with this passage ergo res bodies sine and a body that shine is a ghost body, ipso facto ergo hnhu, now it;s a meta fact of my atheist fact mill

Not quite. There are various bits of evidence supporting a shining resurrected body; the description in Daniel and the event of the Road to Damascus, and to a lesser extent what Jesus said. Can you find anything else at all that Jesus said about the resurrected body? Is there anything in Paul's epistles to suggest a mundane body?


both passages might just as well be using the image metaphorically about the greatness of the martyrs


Joe: (1) You have not proven that that means that res bodies shine
(2)No proof Paul ever saw that passage since Matthew wasn't written in his life time
(3)I also said that my spiritually enhanced solid body glows too, my res body shines, that is not proof of ghost body.

As per usual, you demand proof from your opponents, but only offer wishful thinking - or warrant as you call it - to support your own position.

You just don't read very well, you haven;t bothered to read my pagson rational warrant,I never advocated giving up the concept of proof across the board; We on;y settle for the lesser standard in mattes where Proof can;t be gotten at. Even so you don ot a warrant for reading those passages as literal glowing pertaining to resurrection bodides

you are also contracting your own artiest hermienutic since mattew is not Psline and is post Pal

Joe: he doesn;t say that, you are so quick to build those meta facts,

Have you read 1 Cor 15? You should; it is quite germane to this discussion.


Not only you have not read it you haven;t ready discussion of it in the oringal post,Skepie.


Joe: ...you have made up a false principle that says Paul must sanction all things we can't believe christians ever thought anything unless Paul said they did. But the Johanine community was seperte from the Pauline circle and it was pre Mark

Right. Paul invented one version, the Johannine community invented another.

The John community predated Paul and pre dated Mark and believed in the bodily res

Joe: His body must have gone through an evolutionary process from the first moment of res to the ascension,he started as a revived corps then evolved into a "life giving spirit"

No, it is the narrative that went through an evolutionary process.

yes so I'm right, taht narrative invokes bodily res
you still have not dealt with these arguments

My overall view us that we will die and be transformed into spiritual beings who are manifested in physical bodies but bodies with spiritual powers. If we are incorporated as pure consciousness into'God's consciousness and we have no bodies I can handle that; but since Paul talks about resurrection bodies I have to assume we have them. I believe Jesus rose as a revived human like he had been then went through a process where he became a spiritual being,then merged with the Godhead.

I have two major reasons why Paul believed in bodily res and you do not touch either of them: (1) Koester and Crosson say empty tomb was part of PMPN om wroittomg AD 50, meaning it was circulating orally before that, That means bodily res is much older than Paul's writing. (2)He clearly says we have res bodies that's why he talks about different kinds of flesh,(1 Cor 15:50)

4/30/2019 01:29:00 AM
This comment has been removed by the author.
Two more loose end to tie up

(1)
Px i want to point out that the Lopez Material quotes Gamalleial the great Rabbi saying he favors bodily res. That's the guy Pauli studied under,
4/30/2019 02:19:00 AM

(2) GPet is said not to use any material unique to Luke. Bit it includes the Ascension. That's a good reason to assume its from the Pre Mark Redaction.
The Pixie said…
Joe: sorry you have not answered any of my arguments as to why Paul kept to the traditional view so you lose those arguments, You have no logical reason to assume we should read his words your way

The story of his conversion tells us he abandoned the traditional view in favour of what he experienced to become a Christian. It is very likely he would at the same time abandon the traditional view of the resurrected body (if that was a bodily resurrection) in favour of what he experienced.

Joe: they were connecting ghost to Gnosticism (spirit) not just to the resurrection alone

So?

Joe: Not one little bit, there is nothing to connect to that,the church was already teaching bodily res (Koester ACG 218-220) why he contradict it? why would he face down the eye witnesses and tell them it didn;t happen? Makes no sense at all.he's been persecuting the church he has to gain their trust so the first thing he does is to deny the cornerstone of their faith?

Whether the church was already teaching bodily resurrection is exactly the point under discussion. You cannot base you argument on assuming it is; that would be a circular argument.

Koester states that it is Crossan's view that there was a ur-gospel around AD 50, and later that the empty tomb was part of it. As I have pointed out so many times before, that does not mean the empty tomb was in it at that time (or even, from your quote, that Koester thinks it existed at that time).

Joe: wrong, he said some believed that he didn;t say they were pharisees, even so new body is still a body and not a ghost,

Wrong. He was explicitly talking about 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

This is a physical resurrection, but in a new body, just as Paul describes.
The Pixie said…
Joe: face reality, Like was Pauline circle it;s in Luke so it was beveled by Paul.

Luke was writing some forty years later, and clearly had a different theology to Paul by that time.

Joe: both passages might just as well be using the image metaphorically about the greatness of the martyrs

The text in Daniel might, not Acts or Matthew.

Joe: you are also contracting your own artiest hermienutic since mattew is not Psline and is post Pal

Fair point. But if we suppose this was made up, it still indicates the beliefs of the community at that point. The author of Matthew choose to add a story suggesting resurrection in a new body, indicating this was the belief as late as AD 80.

Joe: The John community predated Paul and pre dated Mark and believed in the bodily res

They believed in bodily resurrection by the time the gospel was finalised, around AD 100. How can we tell what they believed originally?

Joe: My overall view us that we will die and be transformed into spiritual beings who are manifested in physical bodies but bodies with spiritual powers. If we are incorporated as pure consciousness into'God's consciousness and we have no bodies I can handle that; but since Paul talks about resurrection bodies I have to assume we have them. I believe Jesus rose as a revived human like he had been then went through a process where he became a spiritual being,then merged with the Godhead.

Up to the last sentence, that is what Paul indicates. It is that idea of Jesus being a revived human that is entirely absent from Paul.

Joe: Px i want to point out that the Lopez Material quotes Gamalleial the great Rabbi saying he favors bodily res. That's the guy Pauli studied under,

Can you quote that?

Joe: (2) GPet is said not to use any material unique to Luke. Bit it includes the Ascension. That's a good reason to assume its from the Pre Mark Redaction.

According to Brown (who made his reputation studying the Gospel of Peter), Peter was written much later, the author drawing on what he remembered of the canonicals, having no text to copy from. Therefore the ascension comes from Luke.
Joe: sorry you have not answered any of my arguments as to why Paul kept to the traditional view so you lose those arguments, You have no logical reason to assume we should read his words your way

The story of his conversion tells us he abandoned the traditional view in favour of what he experienced to become a Christian. It is very likely he would at the same time abandon the traditional view of the resurrected body (if that was a bodily resurrection) in favour of what he experienced.

No it does not tell us anything of the kid!!!He says nothing to make one think he basic stricture of his world view. The idea of God speaking out of light is old and would have been well known to any Jew,that does not change anything no indication that his basic concepts had changed. He merely inserted Jesus into the blank space of messiah. Now over time his view evolved in some way but no indication that he abandoned bodily resurrection.


Joe: they were connecting ghost to Gnosticism (spirit) not just to the resurrection alone

So?

so he had no reason to change the idea of resurrection. Besides does it make any sense to say all of fallen Israel will be raised but by continuing to be ghosts?

Joe: Not one little bit, there is nothing to connect to that,the church was already teaching bodily res (Koester ACG 218-220) why he contradict it? why would he face down the eye witnesses and tell them it didn;t happen? Makes no sense at all.he's been persecuting the church he has to gain their trust so the first thing he does is to deny the cornerstone of their faith?

PX:Whether the church was already teaching bodily resurrection is exactly the point under discussion. You cannot base you argument on assuming it is; that would be a circular argument.

No other reason to have an empty tomb that does not fit with ghost res, it's bodily, so the PMR ended with empty tomb by AD 60 Kata Koester and Crosson (Koester ACG 218-220)



PX: Kiester states that it is Crossan's view that there was a ur-gospel around AD 50, and later that the empty tomb was part of it.


Personification! you made up that hes aid it was added latter, your fantasy answer he never Saudi latter,!!!!!!!!!

As I have pointed out so many times before, that does not mean the empty tomb was in it at that time (or even, from your quote, that Koester thinks it existed at that time).

WHAT?? THAT'S A BALD FACED LIE!



Joe: wrong, he said some believed that he didn;t say they were pharisees, even so new body is still a body and not a ghost,

Wrong. He was explicitly talking about 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

Obviously he;s not talking about all or is wrong about all Pharisees saying that since I already quoted the very Mishnah saying the old body is renovated.

This is a physical resurrection, but in a new body, just as Paul describes.


Still a body so it beats the ghost res idea,I also think that;s just bad translation I;m going to research that

5/01/2019 12:25:00 AM Delete
Blogger The Pixie said...
Joe: face reality, Like was Pauline circle it;s in Luke so it was beveled by Paul.

Luke was writing some forty years later, and clearly had a different theology to Paul by that time.

That is not at all likely. That's like asserting that Philip Melanchthon had a different theology from Luther. Wetting many years latter has nothing to do with it, he would not have changed. The church wax universal in it;s acceptance of bodily res. There is no example of any church father ever advocating ghost res..


Joe: both passages might just as well be using the image metaphorically about the greatness of the martyrs

The text in Daniel might, not Acts or Matthew.

where is it in Acts?The one in Matt could Just as easily be metaphorical There is no detailed discussion it;s one testament,



Joe: you are also contracting your own artiest hermienutic since mattew is not Psline and is post Pal

Fair point. But if we suppose this was made up, it still indicates the beliefs of the community at that point. The author of Matthew choose to add a story suggesting resurrection in a new body, indicating this was the belief as late as AD 80.

That would in no way be indicative of Paul's belief. I did not say they made itup it could just as easily represent pre-Pauline Christianity

Joe: The John community predated Paul and pre dated Mark and believed in the bodily res

PXThey believed in bodily resurrection by the time the gospel was finalised, around AD 100. How can we tell what they believed originally?

THERE IS NO REASON IN THE ******* WORLD TO ASSERT THAT THE GOSPELS REPRESENT A CHANGE FROM PE-PAULINE CHRISTIANITY.


Joe: My overall view us that we will die and be transformed into spiritual beings who are manifested in physical bodies but bodies with spiritual powers. If we are incorporated as pure consciousness into'God's consciousness and we have no bodies I can handle that; but since Paul talks about resurrection bodies I have to assume we have them. I believe Jesus rose as a revived human like he had been then went through a process where he became a spiritual being,then merged with the Godhead.

Up to the last sentence, that is what Paul indicates. It is that idea of Jesus being a revived human that is entirely absent from Paul.

Paul does not say enough about the risen Christ for us to know what he believed, but clearly he believed that Jesus was readies bodily. You are jut hooked on intellectually respectable modernist avoid embarrassment strategy they are ashamed to espouse resurrection of body so they hide it in a sort of sadistic idea Jews never espoused,


Joe: Px i want to point out that the Lopez Material quotes Gamalleial the great Rabbi saying he favors bodily res. That's the guy Pauli studied under,

Can you quote that?

"Minim asked Rabban Gamaliel, “How do we know that the Holy One, blessed be he, will resurrect the dead?” He said to them, “It is proved from the Torah, from the Prophets, and from the Writings.” But they did not accept his proofs. “From the Torah: for it is written, ‘And the Lord said to Moses, Behold, you shall sleep with your fathers and rise up’ (Deu. 31:16).” They said to him, “But perhaps the sense of the passage is, ‘And the people will rise up’ (Deu. 31:16)?” “From the Prophets: as it is written, ‘Thy dead men shall live, together with my dead body they shall arise. Awake and sing, you that live in the dust, for your dew is as the dew of herbs, and the earth shall cast out its dead’ (Isa. 26:19).”…"
[Talmudic passage quoting him]


Joe: (2) GPet is said not to use any material unique to Luke. Bit it includes the Ascension. That's a good reason to assume its from the Pre Mark Redaction.

According to Brown (who made his reputation studying the Gospel of Peter), Peter was written much later, the author drawing on what he remembered of the canonicals, having no text to copy from. Therefore the ascension comes from Luke.


You know better. we've argued this so many times you know You are being dishonest. you know my answer. Brown clearly says Gpet used early independent source.

5/01/2019 12:27:00 AM Delete
Pix, clarification?

my op was written against the host idea, that Jesus only rose in spirit by living on after death as a embroidered spirit. That is the view I oppose.

you seem to vacillate between that and the idea that the soul will be put into a new body.

so which is your position?
The Pixie said…
Sorry, I do not have time to respind properly, and will probavly leave the discussion at this point. I just want to follow up on this from the blog post:

"John Dominic Crosson has gone further [than Denker]...he argues that this activity results in the composition of a literary document at a very early date i.e. in the middle of the First century CE" (Ibid). Said another way, the interpretation of Scripture as the formation of the passion narrative became an independent document, a ur-Gospel, as early as the middle of the first century!....Studies of the passion narrative have shown that all gospels were dependent upon one and the same basic account of the suffering, crucifixion, death and burial of Jesus. But this account ended with the discovery of the empty tomb.

Part of this is from page 218 of Koester's book, part from page 220. There is a big chunk of text you have skipped. On page 218, Koester goes on to say of Crossan's suggestion:

There are three major problems regarding this hypothesis.

I can see why you would want to omit that! He goes into each of the three. The second is particularly relevant (page 219):

The second problem regarding Crossan's ingenious hypothesis is his confidence in major literary compositions of a very early date as the well spring for, and almost exclusive source of, all later gospel literature. In our discussion of the process of the formation of the gospel tradition, two observations applied to all relevant materials: (1) the oral tradition continued for many decades and remained an important factor, influencing even later stages of the written record; (2) the earliest written materials were relative small compositions of special materials which paralleled the oral use of traditional materials, such as collections of wisdom sayings or of miracle stories, which were assembled for very practical purposes.

This is important because it makes clear that there were a lot of different documents floating around. Your claim is predicated on a single ur-gospel, written in AD 50, and unchanged until Mark used it. The reality is that there could have been many ur-gospels, one of which dates from AD 50, and another, likely based on the first, that included the Empty Tomb.

Also worth looking at this, from page 220:

Both Denker and Crossan have contributed substantially to a better understanding of the passion narrative by demonstrating how it was developed thought scriptural interpretation.

What this is saying is the passion narrative is not a witness account in any case, but was constructed from verses in the Old Testament.
Sorry, I do not have time to respind properly, and will probavly leave the discussion at this point.

I understand


I just want to follow up on this from the blog post:

"John Dominic Crosson has gone further [than Denker]...he argues that this activity results in the composition of a literary document at a very early date i.e. in the middle of the First century CE" (Ibid). Said another way, the interpretation of Scripture as the formation of the passion narrative became an independent document, a ur-Gospel, as early as the middle of the first century!....Studies of the passion narrative have shown that all gospels were dependent upon one and the same basic account of the suffering, crucifixion, death and burial of Jesus. But this account ended with the discovery of the empty tomb.

Part of this is from page 218 of Koester's book, part from page 220. There is a big chunk of text you have skipped. On page 218, Koester goes on to say of Crossan's suggestion:

There are three major problems regarding this hypothesis.

I can see why you would want to omit that! He goes into each of the three. The second is particularly relevant (page 219):

The second problem regarding Crossan's ingenious hypothesis is his confidence in major literary compositions of a very early date as the well spring for, and almost exclusive source of, all later gospel literature. In our discussion of the process of the formation of the gospel tradition, two observations applied to all relevant materials: (1) the oral tradition continued for many decades and remained an important factor, influencing even later stages of the written record; (2) the earliest written materials were relative small compositions of special materials which paralleled the oral use of traditional materials, such as collections of wisdom sayings or of miracle stories, which were assembled for very practical purposes.

This is important because it makes clear that there were a lot of different documents floating around. Your claim is predicated on a single ur-gospel, written in AD 50, and unchanged until Mark used it. The reality is that there could have been many ur-gospels, one of which dates from AD 50, and another, likely based on the first, that included the Empty Tomb.

No you don;t understand what he's saying,he;s talking about the epiphanies not the whole thing. First of all I never said there was one Ur gospel. although I think Brown assumes that, the idea of multiple stories doesn't do anything to hurt my argument. You don't know what they said they probably all agreed

Also worth looking at this, from page 220:

Both Denker and Crossan have contributed substantially to a better understanding of the passion narrative by demonstrating how it was developed thought scriptural interpretation.

you are reading that in because it's an old idea atheists have advanced it's based upon not knowing the relationship Jewish writers had to prophetic books.

What this is saying is the passion narrative is not a witness account in any case, but was constructed from verses in the Old Testament.

That is most emphatically not what it is saying! you are basing that upon the imposition of modern tenners of historiography and ignoring the way first century Jews thought about things,

Jews expected passages to parallel testimony they did not have a modern idea of eye witness testimony, they had an idea of things happening God's way so scripture was a guide to realitiy It's like a fulfillment.

Look at how may times the NT says:this happeneed that it might be fulfilled"



"There are hundreds of prophecies in the New Testament that are quotations from the Old Testament: "This happened that it might be fulfilled." With the ... Would human logic and wisdom ever say here is a prophecy about the Messiah? In fact .." http://christiancadre.blogspot.com/2019/04/a-theory-without-ghost-of-chance.html?showComment=1556874077314#c3110493645392433219
Wayne Jackson in Christian courier:

"The general thrust of Matthew’s Gospel record is to establish, on behalf of the Hebrews, that Jesus of Nazareth is the promised Messiah of Old Testament Scripture. The Greek New Testament (Aland et al. 1983) lists approximately sixty-eight Old Testament references cited in the Gospel of Matthew.

In addition, the technical expression, “it is written,” in the perfect tense (gegraptai), is found nine times (2:5; 4:4, 6, 7, 10; 11:10; 21:13; 26:24, 31). It is employed in the sense of “it stands written,” and is used to express the authority and present validity of what was written (Balz 1990, 1.261).

Twelve times Matthew cites Old Testament prophecy in conjunction with the term “fulfilled,” together with such phrases as “that it might be fulfilled” or “was fulfilled,” “is fulfilled,” “should be fulfilled.” The following represents a sketch of these texts.

Matthew 1:22 – The apostle cited Isaiah 7:14 and declared that the supernatural conception of Mary, as a virgin with whom Joseph had not been intimate, was that which fulfilled what the Lord had spoken “through the prophet” in foretelling the nature of Jesus’ birth.

Matthew 2:15 – When Herod had ambitions to murder baby Jesus, Joseph was warned to take the child and his mother and flee to Egypt until such a time as it was safe to return to Canaan. Joseph followed the instruction. He remained there until Herod’s death “that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the Lord through his prophet, saying, ‘Out of Egypt did I call my son.’” The quotation was from Hosea 11:1.

Matthew 2:17 – When the vicious Herod murdered the male babies two years old and under in Bethlehem, a cry of anguish went up from from the hearts of the inhabitants of the region. Matthew says: “Then was fulfilled that which was spoken through Jeremiah the prophet.” Jeremiah 31:15 was cited.

Matthew 2:23 – Herod died. When Joseph heard that Archelaus was reigning in his father’s place, he was fearful. Being warned of God, he traveled into northern Palestine and settled in Galilee, in a city called Nazareth, “that it might be fulfilled which was spoken through the prophets, that he should be called a Nazarene.”

Matthew 4:14 – After Jesus heard that John the Baptist had been delivered up, he left Nazareth and went to Capernaum, near the region of Zebulun and Naphtali in order that a prophecy “might be fulfilled which was spoken through Isaiah the prophet,” namely that Galilee of the Gentiles might see a great light (Isaiah 9:1-2).

Matthew 8:17 – While Jesus was in the vicinity of Capernaum, many who were possessed of demons were brought to him. He cast out the evil spirits and healed the sick, “that it might be fulfilled which was spoken through Isaiah the prophet, saying, ‘Himself took our infirmities, and bare our diseases’” (53:4).

Matthew 12:17 – In one of the Jewish synagogues in which Jesus was visiting, the Jews taunted him by asking whether or not it was lawful for him to heal a certain man with a withered hand on the Sabbath. The Savior did heal the man and the Pharisees plotted as to how they might destroy him. Perceiving such, the Lord moved on, but continued to heal many, although urging the crowds not to publicize him. This was done “that it might be fulfilled which was spoken through Isaiah the prophet” (Isaiah 42:1ff)."

Pix by your reasoning you have to assume nothing the Gospels had any grounding in reality because it's all based upon the OT. That was a big thing for them its the way they told stories.

Crosson and Koester are not making the argent you made, They are talking about their argument between themselves one thought the epiphanies were from one source (Crosson did believe in Ur Gospel) and koester said they are from many sources,


Here's another article that might help you

by Dan G. McCartney
Dan McCartney Should we employ the hermeneutics of the New Testament writers? The answer to this question is usually framed in one of two ways. The approach of Longenecker is to acknowledge that the apostles, in accordance with their age, did things quite differently than our grammatical-historical approach would allow, and concludes, “Our commitment as Christians is to the reproduction of the apostolic faith and doctrine, and not necessarily to the specific apostolic exegetical practices.” 1

The other approach is that presented by Greg Beale in his article in The Right Doctrine from the Wrong Texts? (hereafter RDWT), 2 who argues that “In fact, of all the many Old Testament citations and allusions found in the New Testament, only a few plausible examples of non-contextual usage have been noted by critics ... [and] it is by no means certain that even these examples are non-contextual....”, 3 and concludes that the New Testament did (at least most of the time) follow what is effectively the grammatical-historical meaning, and we should follow their exegetical practice.

I want to suggest a third answer: The New Testament writers were not doing grammatical-historical exegesis nor did they consistently interpret according to original historical contextual meanings, but we should follow their exegetical lead anyway.

All would agree, I think, that the New Testament writers do sometimes follow “natural” or contextual meanings, and I think most would also agree that at times they find meanings in the Old Testament which are hard to justify by strict grammatical-historical interpretation. The question before us is whether and to what degree we can legitimately find meanings by means that do not conform to grammatical-historically derivable meanings.

I agree with Longenecker on many things.

The New Testament writers were not doing grammatical-historical exegesis. As Longenecker has pointed out, the New Testament writers were definitely people of the first century, and we are not. They moved in an interpretive world that is different from ours—their interpretive methods are visible in the Hellenistic Jewish world around them. And they were inspired and we are not. In this regard, then, there certainly are some necessary differences between our interpretive approaches and those of the apostles. So far as I can tell on the basis of the New Testament texts themselves, when the apostles used the Old Testament they never asked questions like “what did this text mean in its original historical context of several hundred years ago.” The few times they come close to doing so, they sometimes reject the original historical context as not particularly relevant. (e.g. 1 Cor 9:9, “Is God concerned with oxen? Does it not speak entirely for our benefit?”) 4 Apostolic use of the Old Testament is not, however, representative of the way they would interpret texts in general. For them the Old Testament was generically different from other literature. As the New Testament writers thought of the Old Testament as a divine word rather than a human word, they read the Old Testament not as they would a letter from home but as “the Holy Spirit speaking from God.” Granted, sometimes a fairly straightforward quotation of a general ethical command is cited (e.g. “the greatest commandment” in Mark 12 and parallels), but “original contextual meaning,” as though it were something isolatable and distinct from present application, is not their concern. And in its context in the Gospels even the greatest commandment is given a christological focus by virtue of its placement between the resurrection question and Jesus’ question about whom David was referring to in Psalm 110.

(see link for more)

Popular posts from this blog

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

Exodus 22:18 - Are Followers of God to Kill Witches?

Revamping and New Articles at the CADRE Site

The Bogus Gandhi Quote

Discussing Embryonic Stem Cell Research

How Many Children in Bethlehem Did Herod Kill?

Why Christian Theism Is Almost Certainly True: A Reply to Cale Nearing

Scientifically Documented Miracles

The Criteria of Embarrassment and Jesus' Baptism in the Gospel of Mark

The Meaning of the Manger