So, was Jesus Resurrected?

[six7s]

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

The bible, like any hostage, will say anything if you torture it sufficiently

 

[kuroyume0161]

The bible, like any hostage, will say anything if you torture it sufficiently

I love this thinking and quote.

But, I'd say that the bible has been a hostage for at least 1700 years being tortured in all sorts of ways (copy error, translation error, omission, interpolation, extrapolation) such that when it is cross-examined contemporarily for more information it is simply spewing the layers of misinformation that have been imparted by these ways; in the same way that a human being passed from torturer to torturer will simply reiterate and expand upon the accepted confessions from previous sessions.

 

[Darth Rotor]

Gday,

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.

You make the presumption that the contents of the accounts in the Bible were unknown -- which is a deliberately curious attempt at "scholarship" -- regardless of the date of the earliest bits of scrip we can confirm were dated to.

The narrative of the Passion predates Paul, as there were people following this Christ before Paul began his doctrinal harangues, and this takes you back to Peter, and so on.

You are comfortable with your assumptions. Sleep well.

@ I-wasp: The difference between what the common narrative became, and who published first, is a fascinating discussion. No further comment on that.

For Paul to discuss death and crucifixion, he is pretty much stuck in referring to an earthly Christ/Person, since immortals and the divine don't die a fleshy death. Likewise, crucifixion is something flesh and blood Romans did to Flesh and Blood subjects.

DR

 

[HansMustermann]

But they were following him as a prophet, not like the Son Of God, and not like someone who got resurrected. According to writings categorizing the Ebionites as heretics, the list of things they rejected include:

- pre-existence of Jesus
- divinity of Jesus
- virgin birth of Jesus
- atoning death of Jesus
- physical resurrection of Jesus

Pretty thorough heretics, huh?

These guys though that Jesus was the biological son of Joseph and Mary, who was divinely inspired but that was about it, and then got crucified and stayed dead.

According to another account the _only_ christian gospel they eventually accepted was a heavily modified Matthew that, among other things, skips the whole nativity part and starts at Jesus's baptism.

But, and here's the important part, this is the church founded by Peter and James in Jerusalem, and led by James. You know, the freaking brother of Jesus. These are the people who actually knew Jesus in person, as opposed to Paul's hallucinations. And these are the guys who nearly stoned Paul for what he preached.

 

[amb]

Paul and the church that James and Peter were part of were different in the teachings as night is to day. Unfortunately, it was Paul's version that won out in the end. If this Jesus was to return to Earth even 100 years later, he would have been appalled at the turn of events thanks to the rantings of Paul. Always assuming this Jesus existed in history not mystically.

 

[edge]

But they were following him as a prophet, not like the Son Of God, and not like someone who got resurrected. According to writings categorizing the Ebionites as heretics, the list of things they rejected include:

- pre-existence of Jesus
- divinity of Jesus
- virgin birth of Jesus
- atoning death of Jesus
- physical resurrection of Jesus

Pretty thorough heretics, huh?

These guys though that Jesus was the biological son of Joseph and Mary, who was divinely inspired but that was about it, and then got crucified and stayed dead.

According to another account the _only_ christian gospel they eventually accepted was a heavily modified Matthew that, among other things, skips the whole nativity part and starts at Jesus's baptism.

But, and here's the important part, this is the church founded by Peter and James in Jerusalem, and led by James. You know, the freaking brother of Jesus. These are the people who actually knew Jesus in person, as opposed to Paul's hallucinations. And these are the guys who nearly stoned Paul for what he preached.

They did at first till he asked who they thought he was and only one got it right.
Then he took them up on the mount, (what was it) four of them… then Father talked to them directly and told them who Jesus was.
They then convinced the rest of the apostles, all but one of the apostles.

 

[HansMustermann]

Except apparently the actual historical Ebionites didn't. That's the whole point.

 

[cj.23]

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.

No hang on - the Epistles were composed before the Gospels sure, but DR is right here if he is talking about their wide distribution. I think all the Gospels were extant before the Pauline Epistles were collected and actually used by the Christian community as scripture? I seem to recall this si entirely the normal position now - composed first, but collected later. And yes, some of the narratives like the Johannine Passion account may predate the Epistles anyway, isn't that so? I have even seen Thomas dated in the late 40's... I think DR may be well be referencing this - earlier (pre-Paul) material represented in the Gospel Traditions, and no one doubts they contain that?.


cj x

 

[Darth Rotor]

No hang on - the Epistles were composed before the Gospels sure, but DR is right here if he is talking about their wide distribution. I think all the Gospels were extant before the Pauline Epistles were collected and actually used by the Christian community as scripture? I seem to recall this si entirely the normal position now - composed first, but collected later. And yes, some of the narratives like the Johannine Passion account may predate the Epistles anyway, isn't that so? I have even seen Thomas dated in the late 40's... I think DR may be well be referencing this - earlier (pre-Paul) material represented in the Gospel Traditions, and no one doubts they contain that?.


cj x

Thanks, that is how I understand it, but both Kapyong and Ic_Wasp were right to tweak my nose for how I said that. Sloppy. My error.

One of the frustrating things about reading Pauline letters, for me, particularly when I first read the Bible over two decades ago, was how he seemed to time and again reference things "off stage left," or point to events and conversations that one was supposed to already know about. Annotated bibles help with that, as did Britannica, at the time.

My other frustrations with Paul can wait for another time.

DRR

 

[Lord Emsworth]

No hang on - the Epistles were composed before the Gospels sure, but DR is right here if he is talking about their wide distribution. I think all the Gospels were extant before the Pauline Epistles were collected and actually used by the Christian community as scripture? I seem to recall this si entirely the normal position now - composed first, but collected later.

But this is of no consequence to what the author of the Pauline epistles is saying, or is it? Or what this author assumes his audience knows or knows not. (It would require some quite odd backwards causation.)

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

No hang on - the Epistles were composed before the Gospels sure, but DR is right here if he is talking about their wide distribution. I think all the Gospels were extant before the Pauline Epistles were collected and actually used by the Christian community as scripture? I seem to recall this si entirely the normal position now - composed first, but collected later. And yes, some of the narratives like the Johannine Passion account may predate the Epistles anyway, isn't that so? I have even seen Thomas dated in the late 40's... I think DR may be well be referencing this - earlier (pre-Paul) material represented in the Gospel Traditions, and no one doubts they contain that?.


cj x

All fine, but what he said was that the gospels predated Paul's letters, not the later use of Paul's letters as scripture.

I think it would have been more prudent to say that there were plenty of Jesus stories floating around before Paul composed his letters. With that I think no one should have a problem unless they are of the "Paul invented the whole shebang" variety.

I think its pretty obvious that Paul inherited the kerygma from earlier Christians as he relates it. So, he necessarily heard some Jesus stories.

But the gospels we have as written documents clearly did not predate Paul. Any conjecture about an earlier dating of the Johannine passion story is just that -- conjecture. It may well have existed long before Paul's letters but even if it did it almost assuredly only existed in the Johannine community and was probably not easily available to Paul (since we have no evidence telling us that he influenced them or was influenced by them). His way of talking about Jesus was certainly different from theirs.

Thomas could have been very early -- at least parts of it, though I doubt all of it was. Parts of Mark may have been very early as well, and Q (if it existed) may date back to the 30s for all we know.

I think Darth was probably being a little lax with his language. I know he knows better than the way he phrased it -- that's why I said "please tell me you didn't say that" instead of "you dolt".

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

Thanks, that is how I understand it, but both Kapyong and Ic_Wasp were right to tweak my nose for how I said that. Sloppy. My error.

One of the frustrating things about reading Pauline letters, for me, particularly when I first read the Bible over two decades ago, was how he seemed to time and again reference things "off stage left," or point to events and conversations that one was supposed to already know about. Annotated bibles help with that, as did Britannica, at the time.

My other frustrations with Paul can wait for another time.

DRR

Whoops, sorry for the other post, but "see I was right" -- I figured you were just being a little loose with language. I do the same thing all the time.

Hopefully this will keep the conversation on a proper line. Carry on.

I haven't checked yet. Did I ever get a reply to my question for your interlocutor about Paul's statements on bodily resurrection in 1Corinthians?

 

[Darth Rotor]

Whoops, sorry for the other post, but "see I was right" -- I figured you were just being a little loose with language. I do the same thing all the time.

Hopefully this will keep the conversation on a proper line. Carry on.

I haven't checked yet. Did I ever get a reply to my question for your interlocutor about Paul's statements on bodily resurrection in 1Corinthians?

Not sure, but thanks for giving me that tweak. Also a shout out to Lord Elmsworth for tweaking my nose as well. Will ice the nose tomorrow.

As to I Corinthians ... OK, here I voice some of my frustration with Paul's style of discourse, New KJV for the moment. He wanders back and forth on topics, and goes between literal and figurative with seemingly random inspiration. OK, kvetching over.

1: 21For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not know him, God was pleased through the foolishness of what was preached to save those who believe. 22 Jews demand miraculous signs and Greeks look for wisdom, 23 but we preach Christ crucified: a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles

6: 18 Flee sexual immorality. Every sin that a man does is outside the body, but he who commits sexual immorality sins against his own body. 19 Or do you not know that your body is the temple of the Holy Spirit who is in you, whom you have from God, and you are not your own? 20 For you were bought at a price; therefore glorify God in your body[c] and in your spirit, which are God’s.

8: 10 For if anyone sees you who have knowledge eating in an idol’s temple, will not the conscience of him who is weak be emboldened to eat those things offered to idols? 11 And because of your knowledge shall the weak brother perish, for whom Christ died? 12 But when you thus sin against the brethren, and wound their weak conscience, you sin against Christ.

It may not be obvious, but the "bought at a price" alludes to the crucifixion/blood sacrifice of Jesus from the accepted gospel narrative. The narrative looks to have predated Paul ...

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.

15: 3 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, 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.

Here he refers to the accepted narrative yet again, and alludes to fleshy events.

Anyway, I have been rather quick in grabbing a few bits of I Corinthians, it is late, and I may not be back for a while. Paul, even with his eratic prose style, does indeed point to knowledge of the fleshy Christ before Christ became the Risen Christ, the latter being the topic of most of his writings, doctrinal and otherwise.

DR

 

[Darat]

...snip...

As to I Corinthians ... OK, here I voice some of my frustration with Paul's style of discourse, New KJV for the moment. He wanders back and forth on topics, and goes between literal and figurative with seemingly random inspiration. OK, kvetching over.

...snip...

And again that puts me in mind of what I said earlier - Paul seems to fit the pattern of many a cult leader. I used to have a couple of links to transcripts of speeches/sermons by Hubbard and Jim Jones (I used to have quite an interest in cults) and it was astonishing how similar in many ways they were. They would, as you put it, wander back and forth on topics and seemingly switch between the literal and figurative with seemingly random inspiration.

 

[amb]

The thing to consider is this. If some dude came up to you today and told you some tale about some guy who claimed to be a messiah/son of god was executed by the ruling class but three days later this messiah feller was claimed to have been seen again alive, would even a Christian believe it?
The laws of physics are still the same today as they were 2000 years ago, nothing has changed or is it likely to do so. The dead stay dead unless the body wasn't dead to begin with. Using Occam's Razor, it is unlikely this man [if he existed at all] was resurrected.

 

[HansMustermann]

Not sure, but thanks for giving me that tweak. Also a shout out to Lord Elmsworth for tweaking my nose as well. Will ice the nose tomorrow.

As to I Corinthians ... OK, here I voice some of my frustration with Paul's style of discourse, New KJV for the moment. He wanders back and forth on topics, and goes between literal and figurative with seemingly random inspiration. OK, kvetching over.


It may not be obvious, but the "bought at a price" alludes to the crucifixion/blood sacrifice of Jesus from the accepted gospel narrative. The narrative looks to have predated Paul ...


Here he refers to the accepted narrative yet again, and alludes to fleshy events.

Anyway, I have been rather quick in grabbing a few bits of I Corinthians, it is late, and I may not be back for a while. Paul, even with his eratic prose style, does indeed point to knowledge of the fleshy Christ before Christ became the Risen Christ, the latter being the topic of most of his writings, doctrinal and otherwise.

DR

Nevertheless, you're essentially trusting Paul there that there actually was such a narrative, without any further evidence or corroboration. How's that different from trusting Joseph Smith that he actually did find his narrative on golden tables, or Ron Hubbard that he didn't pull the Xenu narrative out of his own arse?

 

[Darth Rotor]

Nevertheless, you're essentially trusting Paul there that there actually was such a narrative, without any further evidence or corroboration. How's that different from trusting Joseph Smith that he actually did find his narrative on golden tables, or Ron Hubbard that he didn't pull the Xenu narrative out of his own arse?

Actually, that other narrative seems to have come up independent of Paul, though the identity of Q remains an interesting challenge for historical detectives.

We certainly don't have evidence that Paul did all of this to win a bet, nor to make his first million, which we seem to have in Hubbard's case. (Depends on which 50's SF writer you find a more credible source).

Likewise, the primary Gospels are not attributed to Paul. (IIRC, three of them are related to Q, who made all that neat stuff for 007 as well. Got around, that gent).

You might want to try another example than Hubbard.

Smith's Golden tablets are certainly an interesting claim by him, however, his entire framework was derivative of previously established religion called Christianity. You may have heard of it. We are drifting from the topic established in the OP. Resurrection. We don't have Paul claiming to have seen it. He refers to it.

DR

 

[Mr Clingford]

...But, and here's the important part, this is the church founded by Peter and James in Jerusalem, and led by James. You know, the freaking brother of Jesus. These are the people who actually knew Jesus in person, as opposed to Paul's hallucinations. And these are the guys who nearly stoned Paul for what he preached.

This intrigues me; I knew that Peter and James argued strongly with Paul and vice versa but I didn't know that they nearly stoned him - is it in Acts - I haven't read it in ages?

 

[HansMustermann]

I can't find a link right now, but a bit of reading between the lines of Acts also brings quite a few questions, even though the spin there is in Paul's favour. (And some of the dead see scrolls seem to be extremely bitter against one who leads people astray from the faith, presumed to be Paul.)

For a start, while James did give Paul dispensation to not _require_ a full conversion to Judaism by the Gentiles or circumcision, what Paul does is outright preach _against_ it. E.g., in Galatians 5:2, 6:12-15, Colossians 3:11, he not only thoroughly dismisses its necessity, and calls those who want to circumcise you as just trying to get some glory for themselves out of it... but also makes it pretty clear that there is no difference between Jewish Christians and Gentile Christians in that aspect either. Basically even the Jews don't need it any more, according to him. Jamese had simply not given him such dispensation.

Also while James did require _some_ minimal dietary laws even for gentiles (e.g., no blood), Paul doesn't mention that in any of his epistles, and in fact considers the whole of the OT to be now null and void. In fact, far from being a temporary dispensation for Gentiles, Paul seems to think it doesn't apply to Jews any more either, as seen in his rebuking Peter for going back to the dietary laws after a meeting with James. (Galatians 2:11-12) And in Galatians 2:15-16, he insists that, basically, keeping the law is no factor in salvation, apparently not even for Jews like him or Peter. And ends with a climactic declaration that "for if righteousness come by the law, then Christ is dead in vain."

Again, James had not given him authority to fully abolish the OT, and certainly not for Jews like himself or Peter.

Understanding this helps in understanding what James requires of him in Acts 21.

For a start, if James too saw Christianity as that radical a departure from the Law, it would make no sense to require Paul to prove his faith to non-Christian Jews. Knowing that some non-Christian mob wants Paul dead would make it more logical to just get him out of town ASAP, not make him appear in front of a mob.

Likely, James and the Christian Jews too want to see Paul prove that he still keeps the Law. At any rate, that's what they require him to do. (Acts 21:24)

That's the people who are concerned "that thou teachest all the Jews which are among the Gentiles to forsake Moses, saying that they ought not to circumcise their children, neither to walk after the customs." (Acts 21:21, My emphasis.) While James repeats his dispensation that the _Gentiles_ need not be forced to circumcise, and only get a reduced set of dietary laws (Acts 21:25), this charge is that Paul had been teaching _Jews_ too to disobey the Law. Something he had no right to do.

So essentially he's put under the escort of four men, to undergo a purification ritual and sacrifice and generally show that he still lives by the Law. It doesn't sound to me like the Christian Jews under James were that OK with Paul's vision than the OT is completely obsolete, and this time they even do something about it.

(It also kinda makes the point that Paul's proclaimed version of what great stuff he did for the Gentiles in Acts 21:19 and they liked in the first half of Acts 21:20 omitted those parts. Must have slipped his mind)

Making him appear in the temple and in front of a multitude in the process, and in fact prove his observance of the Law _to_ that multitude, also makes it pretty clear what would happen if he fails. Even if James's followers themselves wouldn't stone him personally, that's what would happen. Essentially James is at the very least OK with that outcome if Paul fails to show his adherence to the Law.

But at one point a bunch of Jews from Asia (likely Christian Jews too, since they had paid attention to what he was preaching) make a big fuss about what Paul actually does preach: "This is the man, that teacheth all men every where against the people, and the law, and this place" (Acts 21:28). Again it seems an interesting choice of words that they say he teaches _all_ men against the Law, as opposed to, say, merely that he teaches the Gentiles against the Law, which everyone involved likely wouldn't have given a damn about.

Paul gets nearly killed, but he gets rescued by a Roman patrol: "And as they went about to kill him, tidings came unto the chief captain of the band, that all Jerusalem was in an uproar. Who immediately took soldiers and centurions, and ran down unto them: and when they saw the chief captain and the soldiers, they left beating of Paul." (The presence of centurions -- roughly equivalent in rank to a modern Colonel - kinda makes it sound like a small army jumping to the rescue. But I digress.) The wording "as they were about to kill him" and the fact that the Romans had time to intervene, makes it sound not like an impromptu assault on Paul, but rather like they were about to do it properly.

It's also interesting that at this point there is no mention any more of James or his followers or even the four men who were seeing to it that Paul completes his ritual. The whole Ebionite sect had exitted the scene. It seems to me like they had taken their hand off him, and left him to his stoning. And not the herbal kind.

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

Nevertheless, you're essentially trusting Paul there that there actually was such a narrative, without any further evidence or corroboration. How's that different from trusting Joseph Smith that he actually did find his narrative on golden tables, or Ron Hubbard that he didn't pull the Xenu narrative out of his own arse?

Well, yeah, but there is no particular reason not to trust Paul that he received the kerygma as he relates it. These are letters after all written for specific purposes. He did not write the letters in order to create a new religion. If he really invented it all why claim to have received information from others? Why not simply say "God told me ........."?

Yes, we have to trust what he says about this issue, but this seems to be one of the things we can trust. What it all means, on the other hand, is another issue.

Historians try to read between the lines all the time -- that is what most ancient historical criticism consists in nowadays as far as I can tell.