Bart Ehrman on the Historical Jesus

[Brainache]

Well that is your own subjective opinion. But I am asking you first, before any subjective personal opinion (either yours or that of any church group), to address the fact of what is very clearly said in Paul's letter -

- does Paul's letter say what I just quoted to you or not?

- and are Paul's words not a complete total contradiction of any physical human flesh resurrection of Christ?

Let's get that clear first, before we proceed to discuss what any current day Christian group (even the Vatican!) may or may not actually believe about the nature of a miraculous resurrection - does the letter say what I said it does or not (and I think that’s the 3rd or 4th time of asking now)?

This is all rather beside the point regarding Jesus' physical nature before he died though, isn't it?

Are you now agreeing with the HJ crowd who say that Jesus was a human being, and not a spirit dwelling in the celestial realm? If Paul's resurrected Christ was a ghost, it was a ghost of a human being who walked around on the earth, had brothers, drank wine and ate bread wasn't it?

I don't see how he could have died on the cross in outer space, whether or not he left Bones behind...

 

[IanS]

Luke 24:39 shows that the glorified Jesus has flesh ("a spirit hath not flesh and bones"), so 1 Corinthians 15:50 can’t mean resurrected beings have no flesh or blood. What does Paul mean, then, when he declares, "Flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God"? He’s saying that natural, physical life as it is now constituted cannot inherit the kingdom of God. A supernatural transformation must occur first (1 Cor 15:53).

http://www.catholic.com/quickquesti...ell-us-that-jesus-glorified-body-has-no-blood

Also, you should read this:
https://thedivinelamp.wordpress.com/2011/05/30/father-callans-commentary-on-1-corinthians-1535-58/

OK, well you are clearly never going to be able answer the question. I have asked you at least 3 or 4 times now very directly to answer whether or not Paul's letter says what I have quoted to you. And for some reason you are totally unable to admit that it does.

 

[dejudge]

The confessional or non confessional historians who I know either don't deal with the Shroud of Turin or consider it is false. Historicists don't support their theories on this fake.

Are you doing a new caricature or you confuse apples with oranges?

Well, once HJers reject the shroud of Turin as a fake they only have the known fake or falsely attributed writings riddled with fiction, discrepancies, historical problems and events that could NOT have happened.

See Bart Ehrman's "Did Jesus Exist" page 182-184.

HJers and the Vatican are using the very same Bible, an established source of Mythology, as history for their Jesus.

 

[Brainache]

Well, once HJers reject the shroud of Turin as a fake they only have the known fake or falsely attributed writings riddled with fiction, discrepancies, historical problems and events that could NOT have happened.

See Bart Ehrman's "Did Jesus Exist" page 182-184.

HJers and the Vatican are using the very same Bible, an established source of Mythology, as history for their Jesus.

The shroud of Turin? Seriously? Wow.

What are you using the Bible for?

You know it is possible to draw conclusions from ancient documents without accepting everything they tell you, don't you?

Or have you just been passively taking it all at face value?

That's not a very skeptical approach.

 

[dejudge]

No one is really looking for a physical Jesus outside of a very small cluster of one-off individuals.

You are very, very, wrong. There is still an ON-GOING QUEST for an HJ.

The Quest for a Physical Jesus was initiated by Bible Believers over 250 years ago.

I am surprised that you have little or no knowledge of the history of the QUEST for an HJ.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quest_for_the_historical_Jesus

There have been many "manhunts" for an HJ since the 18th century by Theologians and Christian Scholars. They have ended up as failures due to lack of evidence.

 

[dejudge]

The shroud of Turin? Seriously? Wow.

What are you using the Bible for?

You know it is possible to draw conclusions from ancient documents without accepting everything they tell you, don't you?

Or have you just been passively taking it all at face value?

That's not a very skeptical approach.

HJers must have interest in the Shroud of Turin. If the Shroud of Turin was regarded as an authentic 1st century artifact then HJers would have to cling to it. But, alas, the Shroud is a Fake.

You have already discredited the Bible and called Paul a Liar so your HJ argument is "DEAD out of the water".

Why do you accept Galatians 1.19 at face value when you discredit Paul as a Liar? Even Apologetic writers contradict Paul.

Paul was a known liar since at least the 4th century.

The Pauline writers were liars based on Hierocles and grew up in an atmosphere of Lying according to Macarius Magnes.

 

[eight bits]

CraigB

Paul's words are indeed difficult to reconcile with orthodox Christian doctrine regarding the resurrection;

No, they're not. Maybe you've found a denomination that has some difficulty with them, and that falls under the category of "winnders and losers," something that happens whenever new information is found. JW's have done rather nicely by relatively recent scholarship that maybe Jesus was hung on a pole rather than a cross. Meanwhile, the Chick ministries have dug in for the cross, because that's what's in the divinely inspired KJV translation.

Winners and losers. Net impact on Christian biomass: zip.

JaysonR

It does not matter what the Bible holds in it, in this point.
It matters what the Church believes.

We are discussing what they would believe if they had additional information (there was a histroical Jesus, which we would know because whatever happened after he died, he left his bones behind). It is perfectly reasonable that Christians generally would re-examine what's in the Bible, and the vast majority (Catholics, Orthodox Eastern and Oriental, the Anglican Communion, and others) will also consult patristic authors as well, and maybe later writers.

What matters is what they think the Bible states, not what it really states, or what we say it does.

Not really. New facts will lead to new readings. Just like Jesus' return, which hasn't played out exactly as Paul wrote, unless, of course, what he really meant was.... And that's all it takes. This experiment has been done, Jayson. We needn't obsess over it.

Christians divorce and remarry, without alleging infidelity. Multiple attestation ends the debate of a historical fact? Not this time. And BTW, Catholics got around it by inventing "annulment," the theory that regardless of duration, amount of sexual activity, quality of shared life, children... whatever, there never was a marriage, if you pay the right fee to the right bishop. Fixed.

Perhaps you could offer them your take so they could have an escape plan.

It's kind of you to think that of me, but you seem not to get the point: there would be little problem for them to escape.

and I know from experience of Catholic schooling and living with Greek orthodox monks that what I have pointed out is how they view it.

I didn't know you studied in Rome. On the off chance you didn't, we've had the "I'm an expert on this because I went to a Catholic school, and the nuns told me so" rant. I think Limbo was the most recent occasion for that, from another poster. Apparently, throwing grade school teaching nuns under the bus isn't much of a problem for Rome. Speaking of Limbo.

I think you'll also find that Eastern Orthodox views differ a bit from Catholic ones on the finer points. No matter, they also have less pretense of centralized doctrinal quality control. The monks aren't going to leave the monastery over this; they'll just say they got it wrong.

If you offer something like what you suggest, then you will get told thst such views are misunderstandings, and then a talk about why it must be so that his exact body was risen and nothing else.

Do you seriously think you are the only one who's ever spoken with apostolic succsession clergy? Feed them their own Thomas story. That chest wound Jesus pointed out at 20:27? It wasn't received during Jesus' life. It's something that happened to his corpse after he was dead. See 19:30-36. So, it's not the same body he had when he died. So what is it the same as? Where is the mandatory authority for your answer?

Now, if you dig a little (and this one is a place where Catholics are vulnerable, and Greek Orthodox can argue to a draw or escape), we have that the resurrection body is the body a person has at 35 as acceptable in Catholic belief. If so, then everybody who died at age 34 or younger receives a body which the same as a body they never had. No problem.

Bottom line: the Church teaches "deepning understanding." That's how Adam and Eve's story isn;t to be read literally, but nevertheless, their story refers to an actual event. Uh huh.

Again, my thanks for your thinking that people like that could use any help from me about how to spin barn sweepings. Truly, I am not worthy to kiss the hem of their skirts.

 

[JaysonR]

Eight bits,

I will respond more later, but why do you write with such snide tone?

 

[eight bits]

JaysonR

I will respond more later, but why do you write with such snide tone?

If I had to guess, the reason might be similar to why you wrote

Eight bits,

Perhaps you could offer them your take so they could have an escape plan.

That was followed up by a recitation of your credentials in this matter.

I take it from your reaction, then, that you maybe haven't studied in Rome, and my remarks about how teaching by Catholic nuns on another issue has recently fared may have hit a sore spot. No lasting damage was done, Jayson. As to Greek Orthodox monks, they aren't Roman Catholics. I gave an example where it might make a difference in discussing this aspect of the topic.

The rest of my post seemed fairly straightforward. All of it was ontopic and the entire portion that was addressed to you was resposnive to points that you had raised. It seems to me that you have little to complian about in our exchange, and yourself to thank for bringing up that little.

 

[Craig B]

- does Paul's letter say what I just quoted to you or not?

As far as your "former earthly body" is concerned, Paul's letter does not say what you quoted, as far as I can see. I have asked you to comment on this, and I would be most grateful if you would.

 

[JaysonR]

OK, Eight Bits,

I didn't state that as a snide remark; I meant that as an earnest remark to the consideration of the hypothetical - that your solution is one that could be presented to them and perhaps someone could convince them to go with that idea to remove that potential problem.

I don't know what Rome has to do with anything; I mentioned my familiarity because you were discussing various ways to read into the Catechism and the idea of the value and interpretation of the Orthodox understanding of Jesus' physical resurrection.
Since your idea of swapping parts is not directly, in those words, outlined in the Catechism I was attempting to convey that in the past when I have discussed the idea regarding "same" for Jesus' body the answers have always been that it was exactly the same and in no way some other option.

To be sure, this morning I stopped by our local Catholic church and asked one of the fathers there our hypothetical consideration.
I pointed out that it is never exactly explicitly stated anywhere in the Catechism in the text regarding the "same" as to what exactly "same" refers to other than the body that was tortured and crucified, and so therefore could that body have had parts swapped out, like a car swaps out parts, and still be the "same" body of Jesus - could Jesus have left his bones behind.

The first response was that 'those' bones are not the real bones of Jesus; those are fake.

I had to clarify that I hadn't any specific finding in mind; it was a hypothetical question.

After that clarification, the answer was that no - no parts were swapped. The exact same body entirely as that which was tortured and crucified was the exact same body as that which ascended.
He went on to elaborate that the entire salvation and resurrection into eternal life was only possible by Jesus defeating the carnal form through beautifying that exact same body as was tortured and crucified entirely - not by exchanging body parts like modern medicine.

So then I asked, that considering this view, in theory, what would happen if Jesus' bones somehow were found and were somehow unquestionably belonging to Jesus.

To this, he simply stated that such was simply not possible and any found would be obvious fakes.
There was no acceptance of the hypothetical; just denial of the possibility, even in imagination.

He asked me why I was asking these questions, and I gave the lie that a fellow adherent was offering the idea up that the Catechism does not specifically outline "same" in any discernible means differently than Star Trek describes transporters (then I described what that entailed).
His response was, "Your friend is reading in error and should come in for a discussion."

I left it at that and thanked him for his time.


I'm not really surprised, however, as this is what I have been trying to convey.
They do not accept the idea of anything at all outside of Jesus "same", exact same with no swapping of any kind at all, body as that which was tortured and crucified as being the body that was then resurrected and beautified.

 

[JaysonR]

OK, well you are clearly never going to be able answer the question. I have asked you at least 3 or 4 times now very directly to answer whether or not Paul's letter says what I have quoted to you. And for some reason you are totally unable to admit that it does.

For the sake of conversation, let's just say that I agree with you.

What difference would this make on the subject?

 

[IanS]

For the sake of conversation, let's just say that I agree with you.

What difference would this make on the subject?

Well that's still pretty begrudging isn't it? And for something which is totally unarguable ... why so defensive and reluctant to admit an inescapable truth?


What difference would it make? Well it’s actually directly & fully relevant to what I first said to you as an explanation of why the current day church would have no problem at all ditching any adherence you may think they have, or that they may have publicly stated, about believing Jesus was "physically "raised from the dead.

And I'm happy to explain that more clearly, if you would first like to be equally clear in saying that you do of course totally accept that Paul’s letter is in fact not only the total opposite of what you had quoted (I think you were repeating someone’s else’s quote of 1-Corinthians 15), and specifically says the exact opposite of what you are saying the church believes about the "human-form" nature of the resurrection?

 

[JaysonR]

It appears that they would have a challenge as they do not appear to share your view of the text (regardless who's right or wrong with that; or whether you are just highlighting what is literally just in the text).

Every discussion on that section outlines the discussion as those links I provided, and considering that their articles of faith are built around the opposite position which you are presenting, I'd say that is a rather critical obstacle; whether we see any problem or not.

It's not our theology and it's not our way of thinking.
It's their's and it is their rendering and tradition which denies what you are presenting - not me.

What they think of the human form, by the way (as in those links), is that Corinthians 15 is referring to the 'natural human body' as opposed to the beautified human body.
To them, it is not about no physical body making it into heaven, only no Earthly-natural body.
That a beautified transformation of the body must be made.

 

[dejudge]

Since the 2nd century, before the Pauline Corpus was fabricated, Justin Martyr wrote on the "Resurrection".

Justin "On the Resurrection"

The resurrection is a resurrection of the flesh which died. For the spirit dies not; the soul is in the body, and without a soul it cannot live.

Justin's "On the Resurrection"

They who maintain the wrong opinion say that there is no resurrection of the flesh; giving as their reason that it is impossible that what is corrupted and dissolved should be restored to the same as it had been............

Well, they say, if then the flesh rise, it must rise the same as it falls; so that if it die with one eye, it must rise one-eyed; if lame, lame; if defective in any part of the body, in this part the man must rise deficient.

How truly blinded are they in the eyes of their hearts! For they have not seen on the earth blind men seeing again, and the lame walking by His word.

All things which the Saviour did, He did in the first place in order that what was spoken concerning Him in the prophets might be fulfilled, "that the blind should receive sight, and the deaf hear," and so on; but also to induce the belief that in the resurrection the flesh shall rise entire.

For if on earth He healed the sicknesses of the flesh, and made the body whole, much more will He do this in the resurrection, so that the flesh shall rise perfect and entire.

In this manner, then, shall those dreaded difficulties of theirs be healed.

In gJohn, the Resurrection of Lazarus was Bodily--The Spirit dies NOT.

The Pauline writings are about the Physical Bodily Resurrection of Jesus, the Son of God, which is compatible with the Gospels and the teaching of the Church.

In 1 Corinthians 15, a Pauline writer claimed he was seen of the Resurrected Jesus.

Apologetic writers who used the Pauline Corpus claimed Jesus bodily resurrected and used the Pauline Corpus AGAINST those who claimed Jesus did not bodily resurrect.

See "Against Marcion" and "On the Flesh of Christ" attributed to Tertullian.

 

[eight bits]

JaysonR

that your solution is one that could be presented to them and perhaps someone could convince them to go with that idea to remove that potential problem.

And my reply to you is that they have no "problem" that requires special effort for them to solve. It is exactly snide to state that they might welcome such assistance from me, making that and only that your reply to 27 lines or so of closely reasoned prose as to how we know that the term as they use it is currently ill-defined. (The rest of your brief post being about things I hadn't argued.)

The noun phrase same body has no specific meaning across time. The body that is typing this nessage is not, in every repsect, identically the same body as read your post in the first place. So, if at some future time I have the same body as before, then I can have at most one of those two - so the user of the term must define what they mean by the phrase - same in what sense, body in what sense? And as we saw with some urgency in Jesus' post-mortem thoracic wound problem, we also need some specifics about when "before" is.

... because you were discussing various ways to read into the Catechism and the idea of the value and interpretation of the Orthodox understanding of Jesus' physical resurrection.

You brought up the Catholics (post 7345), and I asked for catechism references (7361). After that, the first mention of Orthodox between us is yours, at post 7398, when you mentioned living with Greek Orthodox monks. That was not in response to anything I posted about the Catholic catechism.

There was no acceptance of the hypothetical; just denial of the possibility, even in imagination.

So, he is smart enough not to answer a high-stakes hypothetical question which he could avoid. We who post on the topic don't have the option. His explanation is premised on the impossibility of something whose having happened is the premise of our discussion. All you have established is that he will not consider, much less concede, the possibility before he must. Good for him. That doesn't tell us what options his superiors will notice if and when availing themselves of those options is salient.

They do not accept the idea of anything at all outside of Jesus "same", exact same with no swapping of any kind at all, body as that which was tortured and crucified as being the body that was then resurrected and beautified.

Brave talk. They say the body was dead is the "same" as a body that is not dead. That in itself means that the two are not the same in every respect. So, in what respects, exactly, are they different? It's all rather like the storied gentleman who offered the lady a million dollars, thereby establishing a principle, and now they're dickering about the price.

 

[pakeha]

It would be interesting if at any point the Japanese considered Audie Murphy a sort of American kami.

Audie Murphy merits all possible honour and respect, of course.
Kami status?

Difficult to say.
My colleagues are skittish about talking about kamis; they only blurted out they perceived a kami in my possession because they were utterly taken by surprise by the object.

Anyway, back to your regularly scheduled programme.

 

[IanS]

It appears that they would have a challenge as they do not appear to share your view of the text (regardless who's right or wrong with that; or whether you are just highlighting what is literally just in the text).

Every discussion on that section outlines the discussion as those links I provided, and considering that their articles of faith are built around the opposite position which you are presenting, I'd say that is a rather critical obstacle; whether we see any problem or not.

It's not our theology and it's not our way of thinking.
It's their's and it is their rendering and tradition which denies what you are presenting - not me.

What they think of the human form, by the way (as in those links), is that Corinthians 15 is referring to the 'natural human body' as opposed to the beautified human body.
To them, it is not about no physical body making it into heaven, only no Earthly-natural body.
That a beautified transformation of the body must be made.

OK, so you are never going to give a frank admission of what 1 Corinthians 15 undoubtedly and repeatedly says.

It's impossible to make any progress at all if people can't even admit "1+1=2".

 

[JaysonR]

Ian,

Does it matter what I, a non-Christian, think about this issue when the issue is what Christians think?

Eight bits,

I will respond in a bit.
I have gone back to that Church, as well, I am currently on wait for a phone conference with the Archpriest Fr. Paisius, whom I used to study under when living with the Greek orthodox monks (I once was on a path to being a monk, and he was my teacher before he was elevated in status).

 

[eight bits]

Jayson

Does it matter what I, a non-Christian, think about this issue when the issue is what Christians think?

No, the issue is what Christians would think. So, yes, you are potentially as accurate a predictor as anybody else. As we have seen, at least one Christian simply refuses to consider the question. I think any of us can do at least as well as that.

Meanwhile, there is an aspect of our discussion that isn't hypothetical, that the phrase the same body as before isn't well defined. That's a fact, nothing hypothetical about that.

The actual phrase that Paul uses is sōma pneumatikon, which he distinguishes from the sensual body, sōma psychikon, along several dimensions: immortality-decay; glory-dishonor; power-weakness. (1 Corinthians 15: 42-43). There is nothing there about the "same" body in any sense, only (arguably) that there is a 1:1 relationship between the body "sown" and the body that rises (based on a possible reading of 15:35-41, especially 38, "But God gives a seed its body, as he has willed, and to each of the seeds its own body.")

Seeds and plants are not the same things, although they are the same species, just as caterpillars and the buterrflies they become are the same species, and juvenile and adult goshawks are the same species, although they are different enough that they were once mistaken for two species. They are still distinct from one another, not the same, but two parts of the life-trajectory of the same individual.

If you read that bit of Paul differently, then please say so. But otherwise, that passage is avaialble to every Christian denomination and to every individual Christian, right now. It would still be available after any discovery of bones. There is no difficulty finding the passage, and so far as I can see no difficulty in applying to any of the hypothetical scenarios we have discussed.

If the question is raised today with a Christian professional, as a hypothetical and without any actual bones, then there is a problem that another poster has at least hinted at in his posts. The question, if addressed at all, will likely be interpreted as a challenge of the professional's denomination's consistency with Paul. No bones? How can that conversation go anywhere? With bones? How could that conversation not go somewhere?

At least to define less sloppily the now free-floating phrase the same body. If that is at all cleverly defined, then what further problem could there be?