Steven Carr

KRIS
'JP argues that the Corinthians here only doubted the future resurrection of believers, not Jesus' resurrection. I argue that they doubted both. Interestingly, even if JP is right on this count, the Corinthians would soon have their doubts about Jesus' resurrection because Paul points out the obvious in the very next verse: "If there is no resurrection of the dead, then Christ has not been raised"


CARR
It is obvious, isn't it?

If there is no disagreement on this point, then there has been no debate between Kris and JP Holding.

That is obvious.

So clearly I am talking to people who deny there has been a debate between Kris and JP Holding.....



Paul is simply pointing out an inconsistency in the views of the Corinthians.

They believe Jesus is still alive, or else he would have condemned them as non-Christians.

But they did not believe that people would be resurrected, because they were scoffing at the idea of bodies being raised from tombs.

So they had a model of resurrection where their resurrection would be different from the resurrection of Jesus. As Jesus was a god, he could easily leave his mortal body behind and still live.

But they could not, as all they had was a mortal body, which rots in a grave.

Paul says that this is inconsistent. They will be resurrected in the same way that Jesus was. They were foolish to worry about what happened to their mortal body. It would die. What happened to their mortal body was irrelevant to a resurrection.

'Flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God' 'The last Adam became a life-giving spirit'.

The chapter only makes sense if the Corinthians accepted that Jesus was still alive, but doubted their own resurrection.

So Paul writes to assure them that the resurrection of Jesus was a model for their own resurrection, so their talk about how bodies would come back was idiocy. They would be resurrected like Jesus, who became a spirit, and the body which went into the ground would die. 'You do not plant the body that will be, but just a seed..... and God gives it a body as he determines'

Toto

This is a comment on Interpreting Evidence: An Exchange with Christian Apologist JP Holding by Kris D. Komarnitsky, a new article on the Secular Web kiosk.

GakuseiDon

I'm not sure the evidence supports Kris's reading. I haven't read JP Holding's response, but I don't think Kris has a point here I'm afraid. Kris writes:

The verse that our discussion centered on was 1 Corinthians 15:12 in which Paul asks the Corinthians, "How can some of you say there is no resurrection of the dead?" JP argues that the Corinthians here only doubted the future resurrection of believers, not Jesus' resurrection. I argue that they doubted both. Interestingly, even if JP is right on this count, the Corinthians would soon have their doubts about Jesus' resurrection because Paul points out the obvious in the very next verse: "If there is no resurrection of the dead, then Christ has not been raised" (1 Corinthians 15:13).

The passages are:

1Cr 15:11 Therefore whether [it were] I or they, so we preach, and so ye believed.
1Cr 15:12 Now if Christ be preached that he rose from the dead, how say some among you that there is no resurrection of the dead?
1Cr 15:13 But if there be no resurrection of the dead, then is Christ not risen:
1Cr 15:14 And if Christ be not risen, then [is] our preaching vain, and your faith [is] also vain.

It seems to me that, if the readers really were doubting the resurrection of Christ (as well as the resurrection of the dead), it would be strange for Paul to start off with their doubts about the resurrection of the dead.

Kris goes on to write:

Is Paul writing to some who doubt Jesus' resurrection and, more importantly, is Paul trying to defend Jesus' resurrection in the first part of 1 Corinthians 15?

I don't think Paul is trying to defend Jesus' resurrection, but rather he is trying to defend the resurrection of the dead. Paul is saying that Jesus was raised from the dead by God, and thus he is the first-fruits that points to a general resurrection of the dead. Paul explains it this way:

1Cr 15:20 But now is Christ risen from the dead, [and] become the firstfruits of them that slept.
1Cr 15:21 For since by man [came] death, by man [came] also the resurrection of the dead.
1Cr 15:22 For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.
1Cr 15:23 But every man in his own order: Christ the firstfruits; afterward they that are Christ's at his coming.

There is no defense of Christ's resurrection per se, but rather the implications of the resurrection, for those who doubt a general resurrection of the dead.

Kris goes on to write:

It is an important question because if Paul is trying to defend Jesus' resurrection it is odd that he never mentions a discovered empty tomb.

I think this problem falls away if Paul is not actually trying to defend the fact of Jesus's resurrection. If Paul is arguing the implications of that resurrection, then the Empty Tomb wouldn't add anything to the argument.

(Note: Kris does state that he thinks Paul had a "corpse-gone" bodily resurrection belief. I'm not sure about the Empty Tomb tradition myself, but I agree with Kris on this.)

Steven Carr

If Paul is arguing about the implications of that resurrection, ie what a resurrected body is like, then details would add something to that argument.

Assuming anybody had seen a resurrected body.....