So, was Jesus Resurrected?

[Tricky]

Please keep it civil folks.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Tricky

 

[amb]

The answer to this thread is no. Jesus was not resurrected. The dead stay dead if they are really dead. There has been a case where a person has resuscitate in a morgue after been there for up to 24 hours. According to medical records it's not all that unusual for a person to be declared dead with no sign of a pulse. But the heart is still pumping blood to vital organs while showing a flatline on a monitor. In this case I'm referencing, a medical man in a morgue was about to start an autopsy when the corpse suddenly moved. He was rushed to a operating theater where the man was brought back from the jaws of death. No, he had no recollection of his ordeal, no bright light or tunnel.
This is not to say that this is what happened to Jesus, but one never knows although it's very doubtful if the tales in the gospels are even half right.

 

[Darth Rotor]

So what?
WTF?

Your reading and quoting failure, my friend, not mine.

Why didn't you just READ the quote I answered?

I bothered to read. If you had bothered not to misrepresent cj, I'd not have responded.
cj wrote this

He certainly claims to know of a historical earthly Jesus though

Your falsely represent to me that statement thuswise:

His claim was Paul knew an earthly Jesus.

Do you understand the problem here?

Are you sure you are discussing this on the same terms as cj is?

(But Paul in fact says nothing of an earthly Jesus' life)

???? Uh, seed of David according to the flesh, is in the beginning of Romans. Would you like more references to Jesus on earth from Paul?

Paul, a servant of Jesus Christ, called to be an apostle, separated unto the gospel of God,
2(Which he had promised afore by his prophets in the holy scriptures,)
3Concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh;
4 And declared to be the Son of God with power, according to the spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the dead:
5By whom we have received grace and apostleship, for obedience to the faith among all nations, for his name:
6Among whom are ye also the called of Jesus Christ:

From I Corinthians ...

And I, brethren, when I came to you, did not come with excellence of speech or of wisdom declaring to you the testimony[a] of God. 2 For I determined not to know anything among you except Jesus Christ and Him crucified

Your glorying is not good. Do you not know that a little leaven leavens the whole lump? 7 Therefore purge out the old leaven, that you may be a new lump, since you truly are unleavened. For indeed Christ, our Passover, was sacrificed for us. 8 Therefore let us keep the feast, not with old leaven, nor with the leaven of malice and wickedness, but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth.

Granted, this last is a bit more figurative that 'and Pilate had him scourged with 39 lashes' from a primary Gospel standpoint ...
I Corinthians 11:

23 For I received from the Lord that which I also delivered to you: that the Lord Jesus on the same night in which He was betrayed took bread; 24 and when He had given thanks, He broke it and said, “Take, eat; this is My body which is broken[c] for you; do this in remembrance of Me.” 25 In the same manner He also took the cup after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in My blood. This do, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of Me.” 26 For as often as you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death till He comes.

Granted, here Paul is summarizing a narrative from the Primary gospel, but he is referring to Jesus when he was on earth. Ya know, the earthly Jesus. Like when he refers to this bit in I Corinthians 15:

For I delivered to you first of all that which I also received: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, 4 and that He was buried, and that He rose again the third day according to the Scriptures,

Earthly
followed by divine

5 and that He was seen by Cephas, then by the twelve. 6 After that He was seen by over five hundred brethren at once, of whom the greater part remain to the present, but some have fallen asleep. 7 After that He was seen by James, then by all the apostles. 8 Then last of all He was seen by me also, as by one born out of due time.
9 For I am the least of the apostles, who am not worthy to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God. 10 But by the grace of God I am what I am, and His grace toward me was not in vain; but I labored more abundantly than they all, yet not I, but the grace of God which was with me. 11 Therefore, whether it was I or they, so we preach and so you believed.

From Galatians I:

21 I do not set aside the grace of God; for if righteousness comes through the law, then Christ died in vain.”

Hey, ya gotta be earthly to die, right?

I am guessing that you mean the narrative form used in the primary Gospels when you said that. Are we having the same conversation here? I will grant you that the bulk of Paul's writings refer to Jesus as the risen and living divine being.

Please READ what the post is about before sticking your foot in your mouth again.

You are invited to add salsa, or gravy, to your own foot, my friend.

DR

 

[cj.23]

Hi chaps

My apologies for abandoning the thread for a couple of days - been distracted by work, illness, and running errands. Her eis what I have been up to!

I am taking Han's "Paul as super-fanboy" ideas very seriously. I have no idea what fanboy might look like int he 1st century, but I'm trying to dig up some papers on fan mentality, and the psychology of extreme fan-dom. This is taking longer than expected, and there may be a PhD in this somewhere. I have looked in the past at fans who attempt to become physically identical with their idols, changing names etc. I hope to be able to comment meaningfully on Hans ideas within a few days. IF anyone else can help or do this I'd be immensely grateful.

For Kapyong: from previous discussions on RichardDawkins.net where we have discussed these things together (I'm Jerome there) I know we will have along conversation here. Can I suggest a thread split? I don't know how one organises it, but if a moid would split off from your first post down then we can have another"was there a historical Jesus?" discussion.

OK< what I'm actively working on today is the psychology and parapsychology stuff on that specific set of hallucinations known as Entity Encounters. I have found what appears to be a very promising paper on the phenomenology of such by James Houran: the only downside is that I am just writing a paper using a grounded theory approach to apparitional experiences, so I don't want to read Houran's article till after i have finished my analysis lest i start to see things through his interpretive lens. I'll have a look tonight if i can get my thing done and off to my co-author to review by then.

Anyway I have not given up on the thread at all I'll throw myself back in to the fray soon, and thanks to everyone who has come up with inspiring and interesting ideas

cj x

 

[Kapyong]

Gday,

Your reading and quoting failure, my friend, not mine.

Bollocks.

WE were discussing PAUL.
YOU suddenly popped in with a comment about the Gospels, as if that was relevant.
Why did you do that ?

???? Uh, seed of David according to the flesh, is in the beginning of Romans. Would you like more references to Jesus on earth from Paul?

Paul's describes Jesus as a spiritual being somewhat like our 'soul' - "Christ IN us, the hope of Glory".
Jesus is thus ensouled in all 'flesh'.
It's nothing to do with being a historical person at all.

The rest of your comments are equally vague and spiritual - nothing historical at all. Just your INTERPRETATION.

Paul says specifically that Jesus was a "life-giving spirit" unlike Adam who was man of earth.

Hey, ya gotta be earthly to die, right?

Are you serious?
I mean, do you actually, truly believe that ONLY historical beings can die?

Seriously?

You mean you have NEVER ever heard of a fictional or mythical being who has died?

Really?
What nonsense.

There are a vast number of fictional, mythical and non-historical persons who died.

Hercules died - that means he was an earthly historical being, according to your argument.

Noah died - that means he was an earthly historical being, according to your argument.

Osiris died - that means he was an earthly historical being, according to your argument.

Gollum died - that means he was an earthly historical being, according to your argument.


You didn't think about this at all, did you?

Fictional and mythical beings are frequently described with earthly characteristics. That does NOT make them historical.

Your argument is nonsense.


K.

 

[Kapyong]

Gday,

For Kapyong: from previous discussions on RichardDawkins.net where we have discussed these things together (I'm Jerome there) I know we will have along conversation here. Can I suggest a thread split? I don't know how one organises it, but if a moid would split off from your first post down then we can have another"was there a historical Jesus?" discussion.

Heya Jerome
Thanks for your calm response.


I'm happy to talk here, or another thread if you want.

Busy time of year though, so sometimes slow responses.

What do you think about Paul's comment that Christ became a life-giving spirit, in distinction to Adam who was a man of earth ?

He contrasts the earthly with the heavenly - with Christ, and his body, being clearly on the heavenly side :


42So will it be with the resurrection of the dead.

The body that is sown is perishable, it is raised imperishable;

43it is sown in dishonor, it is raised in glory;

it is sown in weakness, it is raised in power;

44it is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body.

If there is a natural body, there is also a spiritual body. 45So it is written:

"The first man Adam became a living being"; the last Adam, a life-giving spirit.

46The spiritual did not come first, but the natural, and after that the spiritual.

47The first man was of the dust of the earth, the second man from heaven.

48As was the earthly man, so are those who are of the earth; and as is the man from heaven, so also are those who are of heaven.

49And just as we have borne the likeness of the earthly man, so shall we bear the likeness of the man from heaven.

Paul clearly distinguishes the earthly from the heavenly.

Christ is firmly on the heavenly side - no sign that he actually came to earth. Paul's theme is that the heavenly effects the earthly. Paul's Christ has an effect on earth because he is somehow ensouled in all humans or something like that.


K.

 

[amb]

A mystical Jesus is what Paul was trying to convey?
Great Idea about a new thread asking: Was there a historical Jesus? Go for it and send me the link. There's such a thread on the RD forum as you probably know.
I'm angelo there.

 

[cj.23]

A mystical Jesus is what Paul was trying to convey?
Great Idea about a new thread asking: Was there a historical Jesus? Go for it and send me the link. There's such a thread on the RD forum as you probably know.
I'm angelo there.

Hi Angelo. This is Jerome. Nice to meet you here as well ! I guess i might just turn in to a repeat of that thread, but a thread on Earl Doherty's ideas might be worthwhile if there is not one?

cj x

 

[amb]

Hi Angelo. This is Jerome. Nice to meet you here as well ! I guess i might just turn in to a repeat of that thread, but a thread on Earl Doherty's ideas might be worthwhile if there is not one?

cj x

How are you going Jerome. Nice to see you again.

That thread is practically owned by a TimOneil who quick smart shows mythers his vast knowledge of the subject which he thinks is correct and everyone else is wrong and tells them so in no uncertain terms and language.
He probably is correct, but there's always a chance that perhaps the story of this man could possibly be a collection of the many who claimed to be messiahs in that time and one day all the dots converged to become one man.
Oral traditions have a way of becoming distorted.

 

[slingblade]

Are you serious?
I mean, do you actually, truly believe that ONLY historical beings can die?

Only beings who have ever actually existed can die, yeah. Is that what you're asking here, or do I misunderstand?

Harry Potter can't actually die, becuase Harry Potter has never actually lived.
He can be written as living and dying, but does neither, in fact.

Seriously?

If I'm reading that correctly, yeah. Seriously.

You mean you have NEVER ever heard of a fictional or mythical being who has died?

Oh, well, yeah. But...no, not really.

Fictional and mythical beings are frequently described with earthly characteristics. That does NOT make them historical.

No, it doesn't make them historical in the sense that they actually existed.
But the argument being made was that, in order to die, one first has to have actually lived, wasn't it?

Your argument is nonsense.

I was a Christian for over 30 years, and not once did I ever hear the argument that Paul never thought Jesus had been a real man. This is, frankly, the first time I've ever seen the notion presented. I am not persuaded.

 

[Darth Rotor]

Gday,

WE were discussing PAUL.

Yes.

YOU suddenly popped in with a comment about the Gospels, as if that was relevant. Why did you do that ?

It was releveant because you were (or seemed to be) getting up in arms about Paul not describing, nor leaving a chronicle, of Jesus as He was upon the earth. The Gospels were the core source of such descriptions, and Paul's letters came well after the Gospels were out. For him to repeat the chronicles may have seemed to him redundant. His personal experience/encounter of Christ was, as noted, with the Risen Christ. (According to him. You are free to think he was hallucinating).

Paul's describes Jesus as a spiritual being somewhat like our 'soul' - "Christ IN us, the hope of Glory".
Jesus is thus ensouled in all 'flesh'. It's nothing to do with being a historical person at all.

Your exceptionally narrow, and incomplete, interpretation. We will agree that the bulk of Paul's writings in re Christ were reflections on and reference to the Risen Christ, which is the divine nature.

The rest of your comments are equally vague and spiritual - nothing historical at all. Just your INTERPRETATION.

This is false, given that I provided you with scriptural points on Paul referring to earthly Christ's characteristics, though again, we agree that most of his references (if we put all of his letters into one pile) are refrences to the Risen Christ.

The spirit does not die, the flesh does. (From Paul's PoV). Fleshy men get crucified, not spirits. Go back to my few scriptural extracts, if you please.

YEt again, cj says Paul knew of earthly Christ, and you misrepresented him as saying Paul knew the earthly Christ, which neither he, nor I, nor, AFAIK, Scripture.

Paul says specifically that Jesus was a "life-giving spirit" unlike Adam who was man of earth.

That isn't all he says. When he refers to the Risen Christ (which temporally is AFTER the fleshy death by crucifixion) he would of course refer to the divine/spiritual phase of "being Jesus."

Your cherry picking doesn't make you right. Your blinders on approach in fact makes little sense.

I mean, do you actually, truly believe that ONLY historical beings can die?

No, earthly, which is where you and cj were when I entered. I never said historical, this is your invention. This careless technique of yours is called by some a strawman during an argument, but I think it's more a symptom of disorganized thinking, and maybe not reading / grasping what was written.

You are pretty consistent in your misuse of terms, and in focus. Not good at this, are you? Understanding what words mean? Using words correctly, and knowing what synonyms are, and aren't?

G'day.

DR

 

[Lord Emsworth]

Yes.

It was releveant because you were (or seemed to be) getting up in arms about Paul not describing, nor leaving a chronicle, of Jesus as He was upon the earth. The Gospels were the core source of such descriptions, and Paul's letters came well after the Gospels were out. For him to repeat the chronicles may have seemed to him redundant.

Sorry to step in, but ... There is absolutely no reason why anybody should agree to any such propositon. The Gospels are generally dated to be 70ish at the earliest (except in Fundy La La Land, 'course), while the Paulines are dated 40/50ish (except maybe by some radicals).

ETA:

His personal experience/encounter of Christ was, as noted, with the Risen Christ.

And before I forget ... Paul's experience takes place several years, if I am not mistaken, later than the crucifixion, along with the resurrection, supposedly has. AND "the Risen Christ" of the Gospel stories has a physical body and can easily be touched (remember Thomas). I have a hard time believing that this was true for whatever Paul "saw."

 

[Kapyong]

Gday,

The Gospels were the core source of such descriptions, and Paul's letters came well after the Gospels were out.

Ah - there's the problem !
You don't actually know anything about the history of the bible!

In fact -
Paul's letters were written LONG BEFORE the Gospels. As any NT scholar will confirm.

I suggest you study this subject before making glaring mistakes again.

The Gospels did not become known to Christians until mid 2nd century or so.

Why don't you quote the earliest Christian who quotes a written Gospel by name?


K.

 

[Kapyong]

Gday,

Only beings who have ever actually existed can die, yeah. Is that what you're asking here, or do I misunderstand?

Oh please !
FICTIONAL persons die in fiction.
MYTHICAL persons die in myths.

The fact that a person is described as dieing does NOT mean they are real.

Mythical and fictional people die in myths and fiction all the time. Of COURSE it's not a real death - that's my point.

It's a fictional death.
Fictional deaths are common.

A fictional death does NOT prove a person is real.


K.

 

[Kapyong]

Gday,

I was a Christian for over 30 years, and not once did I ever hear the argument that Paul never thought Jesus had been a real man. This is, frankly, the first time I've ever seen the notion presented. I am not persuaded.

Really?

You never read 1 Cor. where Paul describes Jesus as 'life-giving SPIRIT" ?

Even though I quoted it above?


K.

 

[amb]

Paul only ever envisaged a spiritual Jesus, never a historical one. The guy he was writing about had been executed around 20-30 years before, always assuming that there actually existed a historical Jesus.

 

[gambling_cruiser]

If Paul counts as eyewitness than I am the Emporer of the Earth.

 

[edge]

Gday,



Really?

You never read 1 Cor. where Paul describes Jesus as 'life-giving SPIRIT" ?

Even though I quoted it above?


K.

Then this goes here too.

John 2:
Jesus Knows What Is in Man
23Now when he was in Jerusalem at the Passover Feast, many believed in his name when they saw the signs that he was doing. 24But Jesus on his part did not entrust himself to them, because he knew all people.
25A. And needed no one to bear witness about man, for he himself knew what was in man.


from John :31
He who comes from above is above all. He who is of the earth belongs to the earth and speaks in an earthly way. He who comes from heaven is above all.
32 He bears witness to what he has seen and heard; yet no one receives his testimony.
33 Whoever receives his testimony sets his seal to this, that God is true.
34 For he whom God has sent utters the words of God, for he gives the Spirit without measure.
35 The Father loves the Son and has given all things into his hand. 36 Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life; whoever does not obey the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God remains on him.

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

The Gospels were the core source of such descriptions, and Paul's letters came well after the Gospels were out. For him to repeat the chronicles may have seemed to him redundant.
DR

Darth, please tell me you didn't actually write this. Or that someone stole your computer and has been posting in your name. I think you know better than to say something so clearly untrue.

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

Gday,



Heya Jerome
Thanks for your calm response.


I'm happy to talk here, or another thread if you want.

Busy time of year though, so sometimes slow responses.

What do you think about Paul's comment that Christ became a life-giving spirit, in distinction to Adam who was a man of earth ?

He contrasts the earthly with the heavenly - with Christ, and his body, being clearly on the heavenly side :


42So will it be with the resurrection of the dead.

The body that is sown is perishable, it is raised imperishable;

43it is sown in dishonor, it is raised in glory;

it is sown in weakness, it is raised in power;

44it is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body.

If there is a natural body, there is also a spiritual body. 45So it is written:

"The first man Adam became a living being"; the last Adam, a life-giving spirit.

46The spiritual did not come first, but the natural, and after that the spiritual.

47The first man was of the dust of the earth, the second man from heaven.

48As was the earthly man, so are those who are of the earth; and as is the man from heaven, so also are those who are of heaven.

49And just as we have borne the likeness of the earthly man, so shall we bear the likeness of the man from heaven.

Paul clearly distinguishes the earthly from the heavenly.

Christ is firmly on the heavenly side - no sign that he actually came to earth. Paul's theme is that the heavenly effects the earthly. Paul's Christ has an effect on earth because he is somehow ensouled in all humans or something like that.


K.

Yes, all true and well laid out. But does not Paul make a clear argument in 1Corinthians that resurrection is a bodily process that cannot occur until after death, so none of the Corinthians could have experienced the benefits of the resurrection yet? It seems that he has the idea of Jesus having died and being the first fruits of the resurrection to come very soon.