Amaleq13

Yes, and the "actual event" to which Paul is referring is apparently the descent of Jesus into Sheol for three days.

Please offer specific examples of the "radical disjunction" interpreting "buried" to mean "descended into Sheol" creates. Paul only uses the word three times and the other two examples are descriptions of how Christian baptism is symbolic of being buried with him in death. There appears to be no "radical disjunction" in either case. The Christian baptism is symbolic of the descent into Sheol.

I wrote:
Regarding Paul's meaning in using the phrase "according to the flesh", am I understanding you correctly that you're arguing him to have meant something like "in a physical sense" or "as far as physical things are concerned"? In other words, when Paul is trying to explain how the pre-existent Heavenly Messiah could be said to be Jewish, he says that "in the physical sense" he was a descendent of David?

As the phrase "am I understanding you correctly" implies, I have read the article.

Would you mind telling me if I am understanding you correctly?

Getting a straight answer out of you is like pulling teeth. You seem so paranoid that every question is some kind of trick!

Layman

What grounds again do you have for equating "buried" with "descended into Sheol"? Other than the fact you saw a footnote at Bible Gateway?

I ask because my Strong's definition is "to celebrate funeral rites, that is, inter--bury." Thayer's defines it as "to bury, inter." Unfortunately I do not have my more comprehensive Thayer's.

The radical disjunction is your intent to ignore other usage of the same term by other authors. Matthew, Luke, and Acts all use this verb only to mean a literal burial.

Please provide me with examples of usage that support your interpretation?

You could very well have been referring to my previous post or posts. But I did answer you. You simply ignored the answer to do some more carping:

I think that Paul was emphasizing that while Yes, Jesus was literally descended in human form from King David, an even more powerful attestation as to His Lordship was the resurrection.

NOGO

I have no doubt that Paul learned about Jesus through some human. I also agree that there was a core of teachings which was common among Christians.

What I disagree with is the interpretation of these two passages

Galatians 1:11-12
For I make known to you, brethren, as touching the gospel that was preached by me, that it is not after man, for neither did I receive it from man nor was I taught it, but it came to me through revelation of Jesus Christ.

AND

Romans 16:25-26
Now to Him who is able to establish you according to my gospel and the preaching of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery which has been kept secret for long ages past, but now is manifested, and by the Scriptures of the prophets, according to the commandment of the eternal God, has been made known to all the nations, leading to obedience of faith;


The conclusion is as follow:

Paul was told of Jesus Christ by a Christian with Bible in hand.
He considers these teachings coming directly from God
BECAUSE
As the gospels state it was the holy spirit who told them what to say.
Paul has a lengthy explanation of this where he speaks of the "living word" of God, transmitted by word of mouth, as opposed to the written word ie the Jewish Bible.
This living word of God within the community is in a way Christ himself and that is why GJohn 1 speaks of the "Word".

Paul therefore does not consider that he was instructed by man but by Christ's word itself.

So there are two elements at work here. One is divine inspiration to interpret scriptures or the living word of God in the community and the other is of course scriptures themselves. What is lacking is the HJ.

Amaleq13

Both the NASB and the AMP give a footnote indicating Paul's Scriptural reference for Christ being buried three days to be Psalm 16:8-10. None of the other translations provides references to the Scripture Paul mentions.

Do you know of any translations that give a different Scriptural reference for the passage?

The literal meaning of "buried" is neither argued nor necessarily relevant. It is the Scripture Paul claims is in accordance with these statements that will tell us what Paul meant. If there was a passage from Scripture where Christ could be said to have been literally buried for three days, you would have an excellent basis to point to the literal meaning. As it stands, the specific Scriptural passage Paul had in mind (according to the NASB and AMP editors) is:

"For Thou dost not leave my soul to Sheol, Nor givest thy saintly one to see corruption."

The connection from "burial" to "Sheol" is obvious. The connection between the lack of corruption of the body and three days requires some background knowledge. Lowder covers this at http://www.infidels.org/library/mode...der/empty.html:

"Indeed, in the Jewish Midrash, we find a passage stating that the facial features of a corpse become disfigured in three days:

Bar Kappara taught: Until three days [after death] the soul keeps on returning to the grave, thinking that it will go back [into the body]; but when it sees that the facial features have become disfigured, it departs and abandons [the body].[105]

Given this disfigurement, the Midrash is emphatic that the identity of a corpse can only be confirmed within three days of death._ Consider the pronouncement of one Midrash:

You cannot testify to [the identity of a corpse] save by the facial features together with the nose, even if there are marks of identification in his body and garments: again, you can testify only within three days [of death].[106]"

Carrier offers a bit more along the same lines at http://www.secweb.org/asset.asp?AssetID=125.

Regarding the alleged radical disjunction caused by interpreting Paul's "buried" within the context of the cited Scripture, Layman wrote:
The only legitimate "radical disjunction" would be against Paul's use. There are all much later authors clearly writing within the context of the Gospel story. It is not legitimate to read information from these later texts backwards in time to understand Paul. Kirby, arguing against Craig, agrees (http://www.infidels.org/library/mode...rebuttal1.html):

"Craig seems to think that the narrative in the canonical gospels should be retrojected onto the mind of Paul. Such a procedure is entirely invalid."

When I read this, I immediately thought of you.

That was the answer to a different question.

The questions that remain unanswered are:

am I understanding you correctly that you're arguing him to have meant something like "in a physical sense" or "as far as physical things are concerned"? In other words, when Paul is trying to explain how the pre-existent Heavenly Messiah could be said to be Jewish, he says that "in the physical sense" he was a descendent of David?

As you can see, your answer above does not tell me if above suggestions correctly describe your claim for the meaning of the phrase. If not, what specific translation of the phrase kata sarka do you consider to best reflect the meaning Paul intended?

edited by Toto to fix URLs

Layman

I have rarely found appeals to side notes in study bibles to be all that perusasive. I did not ask which study bibles so noted. Most overreach in this area. My question was why should I think that Paul is basing this passage on Psalm 16?

Do you have an answer that does not rely on sidenotes from study Bibles?

Where does Paul claim this?

Again, how do you know this is the specific passage that Paul had in mind?

ANd even if he did, why does this equate "burial" with Sheol?

Amaleq13

I didn't say Paul was "basing" his claims on this passage from Psalm. I said the best way to understand how Paul means "buried" is to read the Scripture he considers to be in accordance with that claim.

The only suggestion for that Scripture so far introduced comes from the NASB and AMP. You haven't offered an alternative to their suggestion nor any legitimate reason to doubt their scholars' understanding of the material so I'm not sure why you are so resistant to the suggestion. Surely it can't be simply because it doesn't support your conclusion?

1 Corinthians 15:4

It seems pretty obvious given the rest of passage referenced:

"I did place Jehovah before me continually, Because -- at my right hand I am not moved. Therefore hath my heart been glad, And my honour doth rejoice, Also my flesh dwelleth confidently: For Thou dost not leave my soul to Sheol, Nor givest thy saintly one to see corruption."

Uh, the fact that's where Jews believed dead people went and the fact there is nothing else in the passages that seems even remotely relating to burial or the "three days" concept. This does not require any specialized exegesis to comprehend. The background material I referenced earlier should be sufficient to understand why this passage was suggested as the Scripture Paul had in mind.

Dominus Paradoxum

I think you're really reaching. Why couldn't Paul just say "decended into sheol" ? And Paul says that his rising on the third day is what is in accordance with scripture, not his burial.

Layman

What is more likely is that since Paul uses a term that means "to celebrate funeral rites, that is, inter--bury" and does not say that Jesus descended into sheol--which probably simply meant death to the author of the Psalms--he probably knew of a tradition that Jesus was buried and had a few passages in mind about the messiah not dying.

That Paul says nothing about Sheol tends to show that the idea for the passage came as an afterthought. The event itself came first.


Paul refers to this Psalms?

It's a possibility that Paul had this verse in mind. But why would that mean he equates burial with descending into Sheol?

It is not sufficient because the whole point of Psalm 16:8 is that "You will NOT abandon my soul to Sheol". Why would a claim that the soul was NOT abandoned to Sheol mean descended into some lower spiritual world (if that is what you think)?

The more I look at this the more it seems that Paul used the term for "to celebrate funeral rites, that is, inter--bury" and searched for a scripture he thought was appropriate. Psalm 16, with its focus on David not dying fit the bill. If he invented some tradition based on Psalm 16 it does not seem clear why he would refer to "died, buried, raised." Nor have you given any reason link "buried" with descending into anyplace. If any term would, it would be "died." Buried is something you do with a body, not a soul. Moreover, if this Psalm were the source why does Paul not use any of its language? He does not mention being abandoned or Sheol at all. No, it is more reasonable to believe that Paul is refering to an established event he had learned about and sought out OT references that seemed, in his mind at least, to have correlated.

And I fail to see your point about "three days." Why would this support your argument? There is no mention of three days in Psalm 16. Some scholars think this is a reference to Johnah 1:17 in mind: "And the Lord appointed a great fish to swallw Johan, and JOhan was in the stomach of the fish three days and three nights." Does this mean Paul thought Jesus was eaten by a big fish? I've always thought that this verse was a good candidate-- Hosea 6:2: "After two days will he revive us: in the third day he will raise us up, and we shall live in his sight."

Obviously none of these are the kinds of verses that would cause someone to invent a messianic figure rejected by his own people and crucified by the pagans who died, was buried, and rose again on the third day. But it is the kind of scripture that a Jew who believed in Jesus might come up with after the fact.

Amaleq13

Forgive me if I take the opinion of the scholars behind the NASB and AMP over your unsubstantiated consideration of what is "more likely". Paul uses the term three times in his extant letters. In two, he is explicitly using it in a symbolic sense. In the third, given the claim that it is in "accordance with Scripture" and given the NASB/AMP scholars' suggestion as to which particular Scripture Paul has in mind, insisting that he meant the word literally requires more support than you have provided.

This appears to be a reference to a claim that Paul is basing his description on the Scriptural passage rather than my argument that suggests he is describing those claims within a Scriptural context. I have avoided claiming that Paul is fabricating the statements on the Scripture and explicitly denied this to be part of my argument.

Why do you ask questions to which you already know the answers? As you are well aware, Paul refers to an accordance with Scripture but does not specify the reference.

The connection is so obvious, I have to wonder if this is not willful obtuseness on you part. If you are willing to accept the possibility that Paul had this verse in mind, the connection should be apparent.

To be buried is to be dead and placed in the ground. Sheol, according to Jewish tradition, was an underground place for dead people. Real tricky comparison, that one.

To have one's soul not left in Sheol and to have one's body not show signs of corruption is another way of saying, again consistent with Jewish tradition, the dead guy didn't stay dead and he came back before more than three days had elapsed. As you note, consideration of Hosea and, possibly, the story of Jonah might be seen as support for the idea that the duration was exactly three days. Please read Kirby's rebuttal to Craig's argument that Paul's statements "must" be read as containing Gospel details.

No wonder you are being so stubbornly obtuse! You mistakenly think I am making some sort of argument in defense of Doherty's thesis. I have made it clear throughout this particular discussion that I am only trying to determine what Paul meant. I agree that the whole point of the Psalm, as far as Paul would be concerned, is the temporary nature of the visit to Sheol.

The temporary nature of the soul's visit to Sheol is an obvious perfect fit for Paul's Resurrected Christ. That the body in the Psalm had not become corrupted would, within the context of Jewish tradition, equate with a maximum of three days. Consideration of Hosea and, possibly, Jonah would serve to emphasize the duration length.

When a person is buried, they are dead and placed in an underground location. Sheol is an underground location where the Jews believed dead people went. It does not require a specialized degree to comprehend the connection between the two concepts.

That can only be because you continue to look at it through the lense of the later Gospel story. As Kirby observed, that is an entirely invalid methodology. Given Psalm 16 as the Scripture Paul considers this claim to be in accordance with, there is no good reason to insist that he has a literal burial in mind. On the other hand, Paul may have had a literal descent into Sheol in mind.

Carrier mentions this early Christian belief in his rebuttal against Kersey:

"THE next most important event in the histories of the Saviors after their crucifixion, and the act of giving up the ghost, is that of their descent into the infernal regions. That Jesus Christ descended into hell after his crucifixion is not expressly taught in the Christian bible, but it is a matter of such obvious inference from several passages of scripture, the early Christians taught it as a scriptural doctrine. Mr. Sears, a Christian writer, tells us that "on the doctrine of Christ's underground mission the early Christians were united. ... It was a point too well settled to admit of dispute." (See Foregleams of Immortality, p. 262).

And besides this testimony, the "Apostles' Creed" teaches the doctrine explicitly, which was once as good authority throughout Christendom as the bible itself; indeed, it may be considered as constituting a part of the bible prior to the council of Nice (A.D. 325), being supposed to have been written by the apostles themselves. It declares that "Jesus Christ suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified (dead) and buried. He descended into hell; the third day he rose again from the dead," etc. This testimony is very explicit."
(http://www.infidels.org/library/hist...6/chap18.shtml)

Why do you persist in pursuing this straw man argument? Not only have I not claimed that Paul is "inventing" anything here, I have repeatedly and explicitly reminded you of this fact. He is describing specific beliefs about Jesus and claiming them to be in accordance with Scripture. It is painfully obvious that the best way to understand the description offered is to understand the Scripture he considers to agree with it. If the Scripture referenced is Psalm 16, then the interpretation I have offered is entirely reasonable despite not requiring us to assume Paul is thinking of a literal burial.

That said, I do notice that Carrier makes some observations in the article cited above that do offer interestingly specific and earlier parallels:

"Prometheus of Caucasus (600 B.C.) likewise is represented as "suffering and descending into hell, rising again from the dead, and ascending to heaven." Horus of Greece is described as "first reigning a thousand years, then dying, and being buried for three days, at the end of which time he triumphed over Typhon, the evil principle, and rose again to life evermore." And Osiris of Egypt also is represented as making a descent into hell, and after a period of three days rose again." (empasis mine)

While one could argue that this is the basis for Paul's "three days", it is entirely possible that everybody's (i.e. Paul and those believing it before him) notion of a "three day" time limit is ultimately connected to the amount of time it takes for corruption of a dead body to begin.

This is how many 21st century folks think but it is not how 1st century Jews thought. You are familiar with the ancient Jewish understanding of "Sheol", aren't you? Besides, the Psalm passage clearly states the the soul is not left in Sheol rather than has not entered. The body and soul are described as being in Sheol in this Psalm. For a Jew like Paul, "buried" meant body and soul. It also meant a descent into Sheol. These would be assumed true no matter what the actual disposition of the body might have been.

I don't know how you could ask this question if you read the references I provided. The Psalm passage indicates the body had not yet been corrupted. Jewish tradition included a belief that corruption of the body began after three days. Therefore, the Psalm indicates the body was not in Sheol longer than three days. It is entirely possible that Paul also had in mind the three days of Jonah. Kirby, in the article previously cited, considers Hosea 6:2 to be a likely candidate.

If you had read the Kirby article I referenced, you would have known better than to make this claim as though it was relevant:

"No explicit quotation of the text needs to be made in order to make use of a text in the Jewish scriptures."

I agree but there is nothing in the Scriptures referenced that requires us to assume that Paul has in mind a literal burial as part of the preceding "fact". Early Christian tradition and the Scripture offered by the scholars of the NASB and AMP support interpreting Paul to be referring to Jesus' descent to Sheol for three days before being resurrected.

All you've offered to support a literal interpretation is your faith in the truth of the Gospel story and the mistaken belief that it is legitimate to read details of that story into earlier texts.

Amaleq13

I realized too late to edit my post that I completely forgot to mention that the alleged "radical disjunction" between Paul's use of "buried" and the use of "buried" by later Gospel authors is thoroughly and conclusively denied by the quotation from Carrier: