Steven Carr

They did believe in the resurrection of Christ.

But they did not believe that dead bodies could rise, and so doubted that they would also rise from the dead.

Paul attempts to reason with them by calling them idiots for not realising that what goes into the ground dies.

But if he had known the Gospel stories, he could have proved a resurrection of dead bodies by telling them how a dead body was raised.

After all, he does remind them that Jesus was raised, but , as you point out, the Corinthians already believed that.

Paul , apparently, does remind people of what they already believed. It is only when they do not believe something that Paul is silent on Gospel details.

This is the exact opposite of what Christian apologists claim Paul does.

They claim Paul had no need to remind his readers of what they already believed, and spoke to them only of what they had difficulties with.

Steven Carr

So why don't Mark and John mention any virgin birth?

jjramsey

Except that this would not fit with his argument, since he is arguing that the body that is raised is of a different, incorruptible nature, while in the stories in which Jesus raises the dead, he is merely reviving bodies that go on to live the same kind of life as before.

Steven Carr

Why doesn't Paul use the stories of Jesus eating and being touched?

Later Christians rewrote 1 Corinthians 15 to become 3 Corinthians where they gave just the examples of a resurrection that you claim do not fit Paul's arguments. So we know some early Christians were worried by Paul's lack of comparisons of the rising of Jesus with the saving from death of other people.

I guess these other Christians weren't clever enough to realise that raising people from the dead is not a resurrection. No such distinction was ever made by the early church. People died if they stayed on earth, but remained alive if they went to heaven (see Elijah, for example).

The Gospel stories of a resurrected Jesus have exactly the same body going in and coming out - flesh and bones, and complete with wounds.

The difference between that raising and the raising of Lazarus is that the flesh and blood body of the risen Jesus is no longer affected by the laws of the universe, while the risen Lazarus was. Jesus could enter locked rooms, for example. Same substance, different rules.

Paul has the opposite view. The rules of the universe still apply, but the substance is different. It is a heavenly substance.

The Bishop

Apologies for my rudeness. But the point I was making was made again by Toto and others - the virgin birth not being amongst those things you would particularly expect Paul to talk about.

I hate to point out the obvious, but if the Corinthians believed in the resurrection of Jesus and Paul believed in the resurrection of Jesus, then obviously the Corinthians and Paul knew that Gospel story at least! You make it sound as if the only leading Christian unaware of Gospel tales was Paul, the founder of Christianity himself!

Could you briefly remind me again why this is significant? Is it simply because Paul is supposed never to have believed Jesus as a corporeal being? In any case, what about 1 Corinthians 23-25? The Last Supper, described in full.

The entire Gospel of Matthew is that of a Messianic Jew turned Christian. And he specified the prophecy at Isaiah 7:14 that mentions a virgin birth. Whether the virgin birth was important to Hebrew-speaking Judaeans or not, it is not likely that diaspora Jews would have missed the word parthenon in the Septuagint or considered it insignificant.

Amaleq13

Even if this specific claim could be established as true, it does not establish that "the issue of a virgin birth was significant to messianic Jews".

What is the evidence that this was how messianic Jews of the time interpreted this passage?

Do you have any evidence to support this probability statement?

It seems to me that the importance/significance of a "virgin birth" is Christian and late and Hellenist rather than Jewish and early but I would be interested in evidence to the contrary.


ETA: We have evidence from Justin and Jerome that Jews were actively arguing against this interpretation of Isaiah.

"But since you and your teachers venture to affirm that in the prophecy of Isaiah it is not said, 'Behold, the virgin shall conceive,' but, 'Behold, the young woman shall conceive, and bear a son;' and [since] you explain the prophecy as if [it referred] to Hezekiah, who was your king, I shall endeavor to [discuss shortly this point in opposition to you, and to show that reference is made to Him who is acknowledged by us as Christ." (Dialogue with Trypho, XLIII)

Steven Carr

Correct. Both believed that Jesus was still alive, after he had died.

But the Corinthians did not believe dead bodies could rise. Clearly they had never heard of the Gospel stories of Jesus rising, leaving his grave-clothes behind, eating and being touched.

Paul never lets them in on these secrets.

TedM

I'm not sure why you conclude anything more than "but the Corinthians did not believe other people could be alive after they die", and instead focus on the idea of "dead bodies rising". Where does Paul give away the idea that the Corinthians were questioning the idea of "dead bodies rising"?

ted

Steven Carr

1 Corinthians 15:35 ' But someone may ask, "How are the dead raised? With what kind of body will they come?"'

Paul thinks this was the sort of objection people were raising as proof that there was no resurrection, apart from the resurrection of Jesus.

The Bishop

Thank you for clarifying that you actually meant those things occurring after the Resurrection. However, Thus the stories of Jesus eating and being touched are shown to be irrelevant, surely?