sotto voce

The Jews worshipped neither Freya nor the Sun.

The gospels have Jesus' entombment at the end of the fourth day of the week, and ending presumably at the end of the seventh day, or perhaps a little later. That's day five, day six and day seven entombed.

Diogenes the Cynic

The key word is pneumatikon. That is the perceived material we are talking about. Whether it's a "body" or a "form," it's still made out of the same stuff, so it's a distinction without a difference. Chocolate bunny/chocolate mouse. Same difference.
I do not believe that I am the one reading into the text here.
I didn't mean the act of resurrecting, I mean that Paul does not claim anyone saw Jesus as a resuscitated, living body, or that they saw him on earth at all. Paul does not have a two stage resurrection chronology (1.physical resuscitation and interaction with followers 2.ascension). He has only an ascension straight from the grave (same with Mark). He is then "seen" by Cephas, et al. Paul interpreted "I saw Jesus" as "Jesus was raised to Heaven." That was his apocalypse, not merely "seeing" Jesus like the others, but having Jesus tell him what it mean
I honestly don't understand what you're trying to say here. "It wasn't perceived that way" by who? What's eisegetic about saying we do NOT know what the pre-Pauline apostles claimed to have seen?
1 Cor. 15 says nothing of the kind.
Different from what? You know nothing at all about the content of the pre-Pauline 'appearances," so you can't say they were different, and Paul could well have patterned his own story to match theirs. It's exactly the kind of thing he would have done. He was "me too-ing" these people, after all. There is no reason to think he would have claimed an experience radically different from theirs.
Nothing precludes it either. Those appearances are closed files. We don't know what they included or didn't include.
No, because Paul said he had both:

καυχᾶσθαι...εἰς ὀπτασίας καὶ ἀποκαλύψεις κυρίου.

They had visions, he saw both visions AND received an explanation.

aa5874

Again, the Pauline writer claimed he was a WITNESS of the resurrected Jesus.

1Co 15:15 You are imposing propaganda.

We have the Pauline writings and we can SEE what is written.

The Pauline writings are Compatible with the Teachings of the Church that Jesus Bodily resurrected and Visited the disciples.

The Great Commission to preach the Jesus story in the Canon was given by the Resurrected Jesus in Galilee and Jerusalem in the Canon.

Please get familiar with the Canon and find out what a Canon represents.

A Canon of the Church is NOT expected to be Heretical and to contain the writings of Known Heretics.

Please, please, please!!! Do you not understand that if the Pauline Jesus was considered a man that the Pauline writings would have been Rejected as BLASPHEMY???

The HJ argument is a most horrible argument.

outhouse

paul was a "want to be" apostle

he very well could have been a god-fearer and in doing so used fiction to describe not only how jewish he was but his ties to the REAL apostles to give himself as much credibility as possible.

You dont go from hunting down and murdering leaders of this movement for 3 years, which in that time he may have killed all of the real apostles, to then becoming its leader.

anethema

A question for Spin: Do you think Crossan"s "Galilee tax revolt and egalitarian movement" or GA Wells's 1st cenbce argument are,either one, closer to the truth? Or are both both trying to drill the same dry holes?

spin

Give the kid some candy for the important discovery that Friday and Sunday are English words.

Give the kid an all-day-sucker for the rehearsal of this apologetic.

To understand the chronology it is important to see that Mark uses Greco-Roman times. The day began in the morning. The third hour was thus 9am.

[T2]Mk 14:1|"It was two days before the passover"|.||
Mk 15:1|"As soon as it was morning"|(day before the passover)||
Mk 15:25|"the third hour"|(crucifixion, using Roman time)||
Mk 15:42|"When the evening had come|(9 hours after the crucixion)||
Mk 15:42|"since it was the prosabbaton"|(the day before the sabbath is the day before the passover)||
Mk 16:1|"When the sabbath was over"|(one day later)||
Mk 16:2|"Very early on the first of the week"|(ie day after the sabbath, still Roman time)[/T2]
It is interesting to note the different reactions to the Marcan chronology. Luke fairly literally preserves the time sequence, adding extra information regarding the funerary anointing, Lk 23:54, "It was the day of preparation and the sabbath was dawning". Luke uses the same Roman times: the sabbath begins at dawn. One day later, Lk 24:1, the tomb is empty. (But note the strange approach in Mt 27:62 which talks about the day after the day of preparation, which should be both the sabbath and the passover, but that is not acknowledged.)

• Died ~3pm (prosabbaton)
• Remains dead (sabbath)
• Up before dawn of the first day of the new week.

[T2]Friday|Saturday|Sunday||
Died|sabbath/
passover|Raised early||[/T2]
That's a smidgen over a day and a half. But you can call that "on the third day", though certainly not "after three days".

spin

There's no content addition here. There's just assertion that adds nothing to the docetist tangent.

I understand that's your belief.

The text says that he appeared to them. There are no suggestions of anything other than that they saw him. The treatment is so different from Paul's revelation that you are merely relying on the silence, that Paul doesn't spell out the fact that they weren't lifted up to heaven, to imply they were.

Paul goes into detail to indicate the experience of his revelation. It certainly was not a simple sighting that can be done anywhere. He was ripped up to heaven. There is nothing like this in 1 Cor 15. Silence here is your friend. You can suggest that they went on a vacation to Cuba in that silence as well and found Jesus lying on the beach sipping mojitos.

Again, silence is your friend. If he doesn't say that they weren't in Cuba no-one can show that they weren't.

We work with the indications we have. Paul tells us about his experience of revelation. It's not there in 1 Cor 15 and you can't seriously inject it.

2 Cor 12:2 or even simply Gal 1:12, 15-16. Here he has a revelation. It is described differently from the sightings in 1 Cor 15.

You're trying to turn sightings into revelations.

That doesn't help you with your claim that the others had experiences that compare with Paul's revelation, his being transported to heaven, such that Paul can reduce them to the same sort of thing, Jesus appearing to all and sundry. You may imagine that you can whisk the twelve or the apostles or the 500 up to heaven for group experiences by you are being hopeful to the extreme. These of course would top Paul's lone experiences for their wowness.

Jesus appeared to them according to 1 Cor 15. He was taken up to heaven according to 2 Cor 12.

Your attempt to turn the narrative fact that Jesus appeared to them into "visions" along etymological lines is shaping the little information you have to give it a more elevated air.

This passage is a post-Pauline effort to put him in his orthodox place.

Diogenes the Cynic

Our disgareement boils down to this - I think that your insistence on 1 Cor. 15 as being reducible to "sightings" (not really what Paul says) is unwarranted and tendentious. Paul says Jesus was "seen" by them, and then "seen by me." He tells us nothing at all about the content or context of any of these visions (and I see no reason to parse any difference between "seeing" Jesus and having "visions" of Jesus) and you are arguing from assertion alone that Paul's Tritos Ouranos story was somehow completely different from whatever Cephas and the rest said they saw.

I don't buy that the whole 12 had these experiences, by the way. I think it was likely just Cephas, then the others started claiming to have seen Jesus too, then it just became a thing where you had to say you had seen Jesus to be in the group.

The 500 story - I don't know, maybe some kind of Fatima episode, but its curious that the Gospels never mention it.

Adam

And we know that because of the revelation given to Herbert W. Armstrong last century. So which offshoot of the Worldwide Church of God are you?

spin

You still turn the act of appearing before someone into someone having a vision. That is still the same eisegesis you started with.

I don't know the range of your thoughts about this passage, but I have pointed to the following:

• The use of the verb for "received" in 15:3 does not reflect Paul. The verb implies a master/student relationship, not appropriate here;
• The reference to Paul as an abortion in v.8 is a ridiculous put-down for someone chosen before birth to do god's work with Paul's ego and to his rowdy Corinthians;
• The twelve doesn't have precedent;
• The 500 is pure tradition development;
• The phrase "in accordance with the scriptures" is catechistic; and
• The reference to Jesus appearing to Paul homogenizes Paul's revelation with all the other "appearings", when Paul has pointed out the special nature of his experience.

Nearly all of these issues has the hands of the later church on them to put Paul in a manageable place.