P_Brian_Bateman

Does the idea that Jesus' body is gone fromt he tomb mean that he was physically resurrected, and walking around somewhere else? No. From what I've read of the spiritual over physical resurrection hypothesis, the acension into heaven could have included Jesus' physical body disappearing. I mean, Catholic tradition says that the same thing happened with Mary. And also, from what I've read, it was not that common an idea that human beings would die, and go to heaven in the afterlife. Saying that Jesus was alive could very well have meant that Jesus didn't die when he was crucified, but instead, lives on in heaven, sitting by God's side. Also, there is one thing that is interesting about one of the spiritual resurrection arguments. It is Paul's writings about how the resurrected JEsus appeared to around 500 persons, Paul being one of the last. But Paul never actually saw the resurrected Jesus, yet he included himself along with those other hundreds of witnesses that apologists like to use to defend the physical resurrection hypothesis. If Paul thinks his seeing the spiritual resurrection counts, then he could very easily consider it for all the other hundreds who saw Jesus' spiritual body, not physical (and this doesn't mean seeing a ghost, but seeing some sort of presence of some sort, and applying that feeling you get to it being a form of Jesus). You may say that no one would have cared or followed Jesus if no physical resurrection occured. But that would be an ahistorical statement, because we see that Mohahmmed, in his own lifetime, converted and united the whole Arabian peninsula, and had them believing he was really a messenger of god, and thus, his "writings" should be followed. And he didn't need anything as grandiose as a physical resurrection from the dead to do this.

[ October 08, 2001: Message edited by: P_Brian_Bateman ]

boneyard bill

I know of no evidence that Jews beleived in ghosts. We know from Acts that the Sadducees did not believe in an afterlife and the Pharisees believed in a physical resurrection at the end of time but did not believe in a non-material sould or any form of resurrection at that stage of human history. Any evidence, therefore, such as the sense of his presence, could easily be interpreted as a resurrection by his followers. The resurrection before Paul in Acts does not describe a physical appearance. Paul's own account in II Corinthians, though vague, doesn't suggest physicality. And Paul equates this with Jesus' resurrection to the other Apostles.

Nomad

Okay, at least you are narrowing down where you are getting your unusual ideas Micael. Thank you for that much at least. At the same time, you are still not really addressing the questions I have put on this (nor nat's).

Alright, so you think that the Docetists rejected the physicallity of the resurrection. Fair enough, they actually rejected that Christ suffered, or died at all, only that the human being Jesus did these things. In their arguments (and those of Marcion as well), Christ entered Jesus at His baptism, and left Him just prior to the Passion. But as I have said previously, these arguments were based on Luke, not Mark, and as you have said, Luke is very clear (even by your rules) in that Jesus rose physically from the dead. The Gospel of Peter was also sometimes viewed as Docetic, but it also shows a physical (albeit transformed) resurrection of Jesus.

What I cannot find, is Docetists using Mark as their proof text for a non-physical resurrection. I would like to know what, or who, you are reading on this matter.

Well, given that Marcion was using Luke, and still denied the physicallity of the resurrection, this does not seem to be much of an argument. People who want to stubbornly assert something will continue to do so, regardless of the amount of evidence presented against them. Typically they will do so by merely moving the goalposts, and claiming the existing evidence to be insufficient, or at least, insufficiently clear.

In any event, Marcion rejected Mark (as well as all other Gospels) in favour of Luke alone.

Good question. Can you quote a Docetist for us, and tell us what he thinks Mark is saying? BTW, the Acts of John? None of the early Fathers identified this document as being Docetic. Why bring it up here? Do you see this document as somehow connected to Mark? And if so, how?

I am content to run with your theory Michael and see where it takes us. On that basis, I would like to see some actual documents from some early Docetists that make the claims you attribute to them, AND base their beliefs on Mark's Gospel. Failing that, a citation where Irenaeus or Hippolytus or some other early Father condemning their false reading or Mark's account of the resurrection will do. I honestly cannot find any evidence to support your claims, so I would appreciate seeing what you have.

You are right Michael. I have presented the traditional interpretation of Mark. What I would like to see is something dating back to the ancients themselves, that says some believed Mark was talking about a spiritual, non-physical resurrection.

Thank you.

Nomad

Vorkosigan

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Nomad:
Okay, at least you are narrowing down where you are getting your unusual ideas Micael. Thank you for that much at least. At the same time, you are still not really addressing the questions I have put on this (nor nat's).

What unusual ideas? I assume that this shift in the discussion means that you cannot find a positive statement in Mark about where the body is.

You are right Michael. I have presented the traditional interpretation of Mark. What I would like to see is something dating back to the ancients themselves, that says some believed Mark was talking about a spiritual, non-physical resurrection.

You have presented the orthodox interpretation of Mark. I have said that other interpretations are possible. I have already presented evidence that other gnostic groups did indeed interpret Mark differently; for example, those who thought the Christ left Jesus at Mark 15:34, whom Ehrman, citing Iraneus, says prized Mark's gospel.

In any case, my position is only that Mark COULD be interpreted differently because it contains no positive statement about the whereabouts of the body. That's all.

Once again, show me the positive statement about the location of the body. I agree that we can safely infer that the body is not in the tomb. So where is it, according to Mark?

Michael

Vorkosigan

Boneyard Bill, how do you interpret the raising of the ghost of Samuel by the Witch of Endor at the command of Saul?

Also, there are prohibitions against trafficking with the spirits of the dead, as in Dt 18:10-11.

Michael

Nomad

LOL! Very cute Michael. I already gave you the evidence, and I even explained elementary English to you. You have also admitted that the interpretation is legitimate. Now I ask you to produce your evidence, and all we see is that you do not have any. See below.

Look, a claim that a scholar thinks that Irenaeus said that a Docetist said "X" is NOT the presentation of evidence. You have not quoted from Eisenman's book, you have not offered a specific source that I can look up for myself, and I am asking you directly to do this please.

If you cannot, then you cannot. Just say so. I am not interested in doing this dance with you Michael.

I know that this is your claim. I even told you that I am prepared to run with it. Now I am asking for an actual citation that I can look up, allowing me to see for myself that some ancient read Mark to say that the resurrection was non-physical. As it stands right now, you have no such evidence, and that is what I thought. I will give you the time to find it.

Galilee, and very much alive. Don't make me have to go through this again Michael. Just show us where you are getting your evidence so that it can be checked and verified. This is how debates take place, and this is how one shows that one has actual evidence (as opposed to hearsay or stubborn faith) for one's beliefs.

Nomad

Vorkosigan

I guess all this is to say that there is no positive statement in Mark about where the body is. I don't know what the women are to "see" and neither do you, except by interpretation, since Mark doesn't tell us.

When you come up with that positive statement about where the body is -- we already agreed on where it is not -- I'll be happy to talk.

BTW, since I never claimed anyone in the past had this particular interpretation of Mark, although apparently there were, and are, many possible ones, I am not obligated to provide evidence for claims I haven't made. That is, as you say, elementary debate rules.

Let me know when you've discovered that positive statement about where the body is.

Michael

Nomad

I didn't think you had any evidence. I just needed to be sure. Thanks Michael.

Nomad

P.S. You STILL don't know what the women were supposed to "see" in the tomb??? LOL!

Emperor of the Universe

Ruling the universe is a busy job, so I haven't had time to read all of the posts here. Since I started this thread, if anyone feels I should have responded to replies which I so far haven't, feel free to speak up.

A few points caught my interesting in particular, though:

P_Brian_Bateman:
One thing is clear: Jesus was claimed to have been seen by mortal human beings, on planet earth, after his 'resurrection'. Your theory seems to be similar what I have said; that Jesus' body was originally thought to be physically resurrected, but transformed into a heavenly, 'spiritual' being, as (perhaps) would supposedly happen to all others who eventually were raised.
It doesn't seem probable that this is the only thing it meant. Given the extensive talk of a resurrection coupled with Biblical descriptions specifically describing ghosts or spirits as such (not merely saying they are 'alive' people), it doesn't seem very likely.

boneyard bill:
Turtonm already mentioned the verses. It should be added that Gospel teaching says Jesus' followers thought he was a spirit when first seeing him, and I believe they thought the same thing of his walking on water.

Furthermore, Christianity was being preached to everyone 'with ears to hear'. This, clearly, included the believers of the countless different religions of the Roman world, many of whom would have believed in ghosts.

See above, but also note your statement: "the Pharisees believed in a physical resurrection at the end of time". The early Christians probably believed it was the end of time, that the resurrection was at hand, and Jesus was the first of those to be resurrected. Resurrected in the physical sense as the Pharisees thought, most likely.

Turtonm:

Look, the Mark passage is obviously describing a physical resurrection. Must this point even be debated? I suppose what makes it most obvious is the statement: "He[Jesus] is going ahead of you to Galilee; there you will see Him, just as He told you." Right before claiming "he is risen". He is risen up and going to Galilee. Jesus doesn't need to be 'going' if he is a supernatural spirit. He can warp there instantly, and one would say 'he is at Galilee' in such as situation, for the disciples. A physical Jesus, on the other hand, with certain physical limitations, would make quite a lot more sense if he was traveling someplace instead of instantly being there in some way.

This is aside from the fact that your drawing upon later, quite frankly weird ideas about Jesus fails to recognize the importance of simplicity in spreading a message. Mark is a short, comparatively simple Gospel, with quite a lot missing when compared with the others (probably because it had yet to be made up). Its not written at the time when large branches of Christianity have had time to go about spreading every manner of absurdity about Jesus. Its intended to be a clear message to a general audience. What does all this mean? It means it probably was describing a physical resurrection, and not some body anihilation, because the former is what most people would generally have assumed was true when reading the passage, and the latter is an idea that a far fewer number of specific individuals--who by comparison would be overall more well versed in Christianity's ways--would embrace.