[
Replying to Difflugia in post #0]
[
Replying to Difflugia in post #358]
I'm really trying to figure out what your argument is here. Your claim is that Luke cannot have been writing an allegory, in part because early belief in a physical resurrection means that the physical resurrection in Luke was real. Your further claim is that Paul's spiritual body was actually a physical body because he used the Greek word for "body." So, Luke's Jesus must have been speaking literally when he spoke of "flesh and bone," but Paul must have been speaking figuratively when using the word "spiritual?" This just sounds like taking particular theological interpretations and claiming that they are necessarily obvious and correct without providing any sort of logical connection. That's a perfect example of ad hoc reasoning.
This is nothing more than an ignoratio elenchi, because you have failed to address the many issues that occur when you try to interpret this early Christian creed as a spiritual resurrection.
1. Paul's use of spiritual food and drink in 1 Cor. 10
2. Belief in the bodily resurrection of Jesus is the origin of Christianity.
"Bart Ehrman explains that, “Historians, of course, have no difficulty whatsoever speaking about the belief in Jesus’ resurrection, since this is a matter of public record. For it is a historical fact that some of Jesus’ followers came to believe that he had been raised from the dead soon after his execution.” This early belief in the resurrection is the historical origination of Christianity." Bart D. Ehrman, Jesus: Apocalyptic Prophet of the New Millennium (New York: Oxford University Press, 1999), 231.
"Fuller elsewhere refers to the disciples’ belief in the resurrection as “one of the indisputable facts of history.” What caused this belief? That the disciples’ had actual experiences, characterized as appearances or visions of the risen Jesus, no matter how they are explained, is “a fact upon which both believer and unbeliever may agree.”" Fuller, The Foundations of New Testament Christology, 142.
"Wright asks how the disciples could have recovered from the shattering experience of Jesus’ death and regrouped afterwards, testifying that they had seen the risen Jesus, while being quite willing to face persecution because of this belief. What was the nature of the experience that dictated these developments?" N.T. Wright, Jesus and the Victory of God (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1996), 109-111.
3. This is not the only place where Paul mentions the bodily resurrection of Christ and in those passages, he does describe Jesus rising in the flesh.
Romans 8:11 "If the Spirit of him who raised Jesus from the dead dwells in you, he who raised Christ Jesus from the dead will also give life to your mortal bodies through his Spirit who dwells in you"
The belief that our bodies will be raised like Christ was raised is another one of the early beliefs of Christianity. It was the belief that they would be raised like Christ that transformed the disciples into bold preachers. Your theory offers no reason why the disciples would be transformed.
4. You have not defined what type of spiritual vision it was.
What do you mean by a spiritual resurrection? Are you saying that now you believe in souls? If it was a vision that Paul had, there has yet to be an adequate answer from anyone on how others could have seen the same vision.
I have had people very close to me die before, but I have never had a vision of them coming back to life. There is no way that 500 people were that close to Jesus.
5. You have attempted to make the argument that Luke was writing about something other than the resurrection. You have attempted to make the argument that Mark knew nothing of the resurrection. When the fact of the matter is there is no Christianity without the resurrection.
6. There were more than just Jesus raised from the dead in Scripture and they all were bodily resurrections.
Jesus raised Jairus' Daughter and Lazarus.
Others were raised from the dead
Peter raised Tabitha or Dorcas
And Paul himself raised Eutychus from the dead.
All of these were said to be raised from the dead and they all had actual bodies, not spiritual bodies. Again what type of body is a spiritual body? How would you be defining that body?
7. The Pharisees had a resurrection theology.
The Jewish people believed that God created the world. Our physical world is God's creation, and it is good. The Pharisees, in contrast to the Greco-Roman religious beliefs, vigorously affirmed the doctrine of the resurrection of the dead. The Pharisees stressed a literal resurrection of the physical body, which would be reunited with the spirit of an individual. Their worldview embraced a future restoration of God's original design for his world. The Pharisees envisioned a time of redemption in which God would realign the physical creation with the ethereal realm. -Brad H. Young, Paul, The Jewish Theologian, at 123.
EarthScienceguy wrote: ↑Fri May 06, 2022 12:47 pm
This is simply another example of you putting your philosophical preference ahead of actual historical research. You keep trying to use Bultmann's theories of form criticism to interpret the Scripture but his theories have been discredited for the following reasons.
Bultmann? Form criticism? Is this the start of another Gish gallop? "Bultmann's theories" revolved around the attempt to isolate a historical Jesus, interpret his presumably genuine sayings in the light ("Sitz im Leben") of his Palestinian Judaism, then examine how those sayings were reinterpreted by the Hellenistic communities that later wrote the Gospels. I'm really curious what Google search led you to connect that to my arguments.
Bultmann did not support his research with historical data because he believed that he could rule out the idea of miracles as a priori just like you and the allegorical theory that you are proposing. Bultmann also held that the Gospels were essentially a later interpretation of Jesus' person and teaching in mostly mythical terms. According to Boltzmann's theory, the Gospel writers used imagery to express spiritual concepts in mundane forms.
If I am understanding your theory correctly I believe that is pretty close to what you are trying to say.
EarthScienceguy wrote: ↑Fri May 06, 2022 12:47 pm
Because your allegorical theory is a form of [Bultmann's] "form criticism" because it starts with the premise that miracles do not exist just like Bultmann the theory must be discarded.
That's not what defines form criticism.
That is the premise Bultmann started from same as you.
That means that it's figuratively Jesus. Paul's point is that the literal food and drink provided by God through Moses in the desert are metaphors for the spiritual sustenance provided by God through Jesus. God's delivery of the Israelites from the harsh wilderness through Moses mirrors His delivery of Christians from the wilderness of sinful nature.
10 For I do not want you to be unaware, brothers, that our fathers were all under the cloud, and all passed through the sea, 2 and all were baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea, 3 and all ate the same spiritual food, 4 and fall drank the same spiritual drink. For they drank from the spiritual Rock that followed them, and the Rock was Christ. 5 Nevertheless, with most of them God was not pleased, for they were overthrown in the wilderness.
6 Now these things took place as examples for us, that we might not desire evil as they did. 7 Do is not idolaters as some of them were; as it is written, “The people sat down to eat and drink and rose up to play.” 8 we must not indulge in sexual immorality as some of them did, and twenty-three thousand fell in a single day. 9 We must not put Christ to the test, as some of them did and were destroyed by serpents, 10 nor grumble, as some of them did and were destroyed by the Destroyer.
Paul was reminding these about how God took care of them in the wilderness. But God was not pleased with most of them. Paul was using this as an example and warning not to sin.
Do you have any study Bibles? Any of them with even the slightest theological bent should have a comment at that verse telling you the same thing that the NIV Study Bible does:
that rock was Christ. The rock, from which the water came, and the manna are here viewed by Paul as symbolic of the spiritual sustenance God’s people experienced already in the desert through Christ, the bread of life and the water of life.
This is why most people do not rely on Study Bibles. Because they try to express things in concise ways but much of the meaning can get lost.
Barnes Notes on the Bible
And did all drink the same spiritual drink - The idea here is essentially the same as in the previous verse, that they had been highly favored of God, and enjoyed tokens of the divine care and guardianship. That was manifested in the miraculous supply of water in the desert, thus showing that they were under the divine protection, and were objects of the divine favor. There can be no doubt that by "spiritual drink" here, the apostle refers to the water that was made to gush from the rock that was smitten by Moses. Exodus 17:6; Numbers 20:11. Why this is called "spiritual" has been a subject on which there has been much difference of opinion. It cannot be because there was anything special in the nature of the water, for it was evidently real water, suited to allay their thirst. There is no evidence, as many have supposed, that there was a reference in this to the drink used in the Lord's Supper. But it must mean that it was bestowed in a miraculous and supernatural manner; and the word "spiritual" must be used in the sense of supernatural, or that which is immediately given by God. Spiritual blessings thus stand opposed to natural and temporal blessings, and the former denote those which are immediately given by God as an evidence of the divine favor. That the Jews used the word "spiritual" in this manner is evident from the writings of the Rabbis. Thus, they called the manna "spiritual food" (Yade Mose in Shemor Rabba, fol. 109. 3); and their sacrifices they called "spiritual bread" (Tzeror Hammer, fol. 93. 2). - Gill. The drink, therefore, here referred to was that bestowed in a supernatural manner and as a proof of the divine favor.
Dr. John MacAuthur
https://www.gty.org/library/sermons-library/80-212
Then they were given divine provision. They all ate the same spiritual food, the same manna, the same birds that God provided. God provided, you remember, their food. They wanted meat. He gave them bird flesh to eat. They were otherwise given manna, which God provided for them on a regular, routine basis. So they all experienced not only divine direction; divine care in delivering them from Egypt, divine rescue; a divine leader, solidarity with that leader, namely Moses; but divine provision of food and water. They all drank the same spiritual drink. And the spiritual drink was the drink provided by the spiritual source who is God. And I’ve been in that desert out there a number of times, and you could go a long time without finding water out there. But God made sure that two million people wandering for 40 years always had water. And sometimes it even came out of a rock.
We could say it this way: They had been given divine care and guidance out of Egypt. They had been given divine deliverance, miraculous deliverance through the Red Sea. They had been given divine provision of food and water. And they had been given a divine Savior, whose presence was with them at all times. They were always under the special care of the rock who is Christ who followed them, who was really the source of all the miracles that met their needs. It’s a very different way to view Christ than the incarnate way. We look at Him in His incarnation, and we see a Man. We look at Him in His pre-incarnation ministry to Israel, and we see Him as God.
Only if 'soma' is not interpreted as a physical body. And say that Christ did not raise in bodily form from the grave.
You're just saying that if you reject any readings that don't match the one you prefer, then it's no longer ambiguous. That certainly describes a lot of what passes for Christian exegesis, but it's not a valid argument.
I am saying that because that is what "soma" means.
I did list them: the Gospel of Mark and the Pauline epistles, 1 Corinthians in particular. I'm using the accepted date of Galatians as representative of the entire corpus. There are no earlier sources for Christ's resurrection.
Ok that is 20 years after the resurrection.
1. You already have a problem because that is writing that is closer to anyother event in ancient history.
2. Paul had to persecute the Church, he had to become a Chrisitan and he had to go on a missionary journey before he wrote Galatians. So what was the date that he was given the Creed in 1 Corinthians 15:3? 10, 15, 20 years ealier. 20 years is already extremely close to the resurrection so this information he recieved in the creed had to be within 3-5 years of the resurrection, but it also had to be formulated. Your theory still does have to explain the facts.
Mark's original ending through 16:8 describes the resurrection only in terms of an empty tomb.
No, the passage still says that Jesus has risen.
5 And entering the tomb, they saw a young man sitting on the right side, dressed in a white robe, and they were alarmed. 6 And he said to them, “Do not be alarmed. You seek Jesus of Nazareth, who was crucified. He has risen; he is not here. See the place where they laid him. 7 But go, tell his disciples and Peter that he is going before you to Galilee. There you will see him, just as he told you.” 8 And they went out and fled from the tomb, for trembling and astonishment had seized them, and they said nothing to anyone, for they were afraid.
Mark 5 also talks about Jesus raising a young girl from the dead and this was not a spiritual resurrection whatever that is.
After he put them all out, he took the child’s father and mother and the disciples who were with him, and went in where the child was. 41 He took her by the hand and said to her, “Talitha koum!” (which means “Little girl, I say to you, get up!”). 42 Immediately the girl stood up and began to walk around (she was twelve years old). At this they were completely astonished. 43 He gave strict orders not to let anyone know about this, and told them to give her something to eat.
The Pharasees beleived in the resurrection of the dead and they beleived that it was a bodily resurrection and they believed in the bodily resurrection. Mark 12
18 Then the Sadducees, who say there is no resurrection, came to him with a question. 19 “Teacher,” they said, “Moses wrote for us that if a man’s brother dies and leaves a wife but no children, the man must marry the widow and raise up offspring for his brother. 20 Now there were seven brothers. The first one married and died without leaving any children. 21 The second one married the widow, but he also died, leaving no child. It was the same with the third. 22 In fact, none of the seven left any children. Last of all, the woman died too. 23 At the resurrection[c] whose wife will she be, since the seven were married to her?”
24 Jesus replied, “Are you not in error because you do not know the Scriptures or the power of God? 25 When the dead rise, they will neither marry nor be given in marriage; they will be like the angels in heaven. 26 Now about the dead rising—have you not read in the Book of Moses, in the account of the burning bush, how God said to him, ‘I am the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob’[d]? 27 He is not the God of the dead, but of the living. You are badly mistaken!”
Paul says that a spiritual body is different than a living body and that the living body must die before one might be raised into a spiritual body.
EarthScienceguy wrote: ↑Fri May 06, 2022 12:47 pm
The earliest unambiguous references to Sunday as the day of Christian worship come from the second century.
Again this statement uses no historical evidence in support of your assertion.
Then find an earlier, unambiguous statement.
This isn't unambiguous as it would also be compatible with Jewish Christians observing the Sabbath on Saturday, then engaging in some sort of Christian fellowship on Sunday. Your argument hinges on the claim that Jewish Christians moved the Sabbath from Saturday to Sunday.
Paul was a pharasee a Jew.
In Luke, which also denies that Jesus is a pneuma. Paul describes the body as pneumatikon and includes no such touching.
Paul was a pharasee. The Pharasee's had a resurrection theology.
The Jewish people believed that God created the world. Our physical world is God's creation, and it is good. The Pharisees, in contrast to the Greco-Roman religious beliefs, vigorously affirmed the doctrine of the resurrection of the dead. The Pharisees stressed a literal resurrection of the physical body, which would be reunited with the spirit of an individual. Their worldview embraced a future restoration of God's original design for his world. The Pharisees envisioned a time of redemption in which God would realign the physical creation with the ethereal realm. -Brad H. Young, Paul, The Jewish Theologian, at 123.
The resurrection of the dead is a core doctrine of traditional Jewish theology. Traditional Jews believe that during the Messianic Age, the temple will be rebuilt in Jerusalem, the Jewish people ingathered from the far corners of the earth and the bodies of the dead will be brought back to life and reunited with their souls. It is not entirely clear whether only Jews, or all people, are expected to be resurrected at this time.
This belief — distinct from, though connected to, the belief in the immortality of the soul — is mentioned explicitly only twice in the Hebrew Bible, in the books of Isaiah and Daniel, though hints of it are extrapolated from other biblical sources. The medieval philosopher Maimonides includes it as one of his 13 principles of the Jewish faith, and the Mishnah states that those who don’t believe in resurrection “have no share in the world to come.” (Mishnah Sanhedrin 10:1) The Amidah prayer recited thrice daily by traditional Jews includes a blessing praising God as the resurrector of the dead.
https://www.myjewishlearning.com/articl ... -the-dead/
There is no way Paul a pharasee would ever think that the resurrection of the dead would every be anything other than a bodily resurrection.
EarthScienceguy wrote: ↑Fri May 06, 2022 12:47 pm
So why are you claiming this is allegorical? You have yet to show how the historical data leads to the conclusion that Luke was writing allegorical, without relying on your own philosophical belief.
At this point, you're still defending your claim that it can't, so I only have to support that it can (and I'll even accept having to defend that it's reasonable), not that it does in fact.
No that is not the way that science or history hypotheses are arrived at. They at least have to account for the known facts. Miracles not ocurring is not a known fact at least not in modern historical scholarship. Miracles are considered a possibility if the facts suggest it is possible.
If the Christian resurrection was still viewed as spiritual when the Gospel of Luke was written, then Luke was telling representative stories about the visionary appearances by recasting them as physical appearances to make the story more visceral and real.
The FACT that the Pharisees had a resurrection theology that included a bodily resurrection really dispels your spiritual resurrection claim whatever that meant.
EarthScienceguy wrote: ↑Fri May 06, 2022 12:47 pm
You may not like the idea of miracles but [Bultmann's] "form criticism" has been rejected.
You may not like the idea of non sequiturs, but kumquats are delicious.
You are basing your theory on the idea that miracles cannot happen. That is a fact unless you are going to change that. Are you changing that?
Theologians disagree with you.
No not really reference above.
EarthScienceguy wrote: ↑Fri May 06, 2022 12:47 pm
Paul also explains himself in Romans 8:11 "If the Spirit of him who raised Jesus from the dead dwells in you, he who raised Christ Jesus from the dead will also give life to your mortal bodies through his Spirit who dwells in you." We will be raised like Jesus our mortal bodies will be raised to life Just like Jesus's body was raised.
Yes. Just like Jesus' living, the perishable body was raised into a spiritual, imperishable body.
Again Paul was a Pharisee and believed the resurrection of the dead in a physical body.
"he that says there is no resurrection of the dead prescribed in the Law.. has no share in the world to come" -Sanhedrin 10:1
According to Josephus, who himself was a Pharisee, the Pharisees held that only the soul was immortal and the souls of good people would be resurrected or reincarnated and "pass into other bodies," while "the souls of the wicked will suffer eternal punishment." Paul the Apostle declared himself to be a Pharisee even after his belief in Jesus Christ.
Even Wikipedia says the same thing.
John Hick (Death & Eternal Life, 1994, p. 395) interprets Josephus to be most likely talking about resurrection, while Jason von Ehrenkrook ("The Afterlife in Philo and Josephus", in Heaven, Hell, and the Afterlife: Eternity in Judaism, ed. J. Harold Ellens; vol. 1, pp. 97–118) understands the passage to refer to reincarnation
Josephus Jewish War 2.8.14; cf. Antiquities 8.14–15.
Acta 23.6, 26.5.
Udo Schnelle (2013). Apostle Paul: His Life and Theology. Baker Publishing Group. pp. 51–. ISBN 978-1-4412-4200-6.
I assume you're referring to early sources of Christ's resurrection and not the dating of Galatians. I also think that you didn't understand the scholarship. Unless I'm mistaken and you can provide a different one, the earliest written reference to Christ's resurrection is the earliest of Paul's epistles, Galatians. If we assume that Paul's statement about the resurrection in Galatians is based on his knowledge of the creed in 1 Corinthians 15 and the creed isn't Paul's own composition, then it must necessarily predate 1 Corinthians. By how much it does so is speculation.
Even if we accept the creed as formative to all forms of Christianity, then it still only supports that early Christians believed in some form of resurrection. Paul himself describes the resurrection as "spiritual," so apparently however he understood the creed is compatible with a ghostly (the same word in Greek) body. The only argument against this that you've provided is your insistence that soma must refer to a physical body, Paul's description notwithstanding.
First, the part is answered above.
What other form of resurrection would there be? Especially when the Pharisees had a resurrection theology and it was as bodily resurrection. There would be no type of resurrection in the Jewish mind of the day.
