FRDB Archives

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.


Go Back   FRDB Archives > Archives > Religion (Closed) > Biblical Criticism & History
Welcome, Peter Kirby.
You last visited: Yesterday at 03:12 PM

 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 01-03-2010, 11:07 AM   #81
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Ottawa, Canada
Posts: 2,579
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by sschlichter View Post
Aren't these passages from Mark and Paul about Jesus rising from the dead bodily?

Mark 8:31
There is a problem with the 'after three days' in the verse which as eg Koester pointed out (in Ancient Christian Gospels) does not agree with the empty tomb being vacant on the third day. At any rate, given the absence of bodily rising in the undisputed original version of Mark (which ends in 16:8), this would not be a convincing textual evidence.

Quote:
Mark 10
??

Quote:
1 Cor 15
see here my contribution to the discussion of the disputed passage

Quote:
Phil 3:10
I am not sure where you see this verse in Philippians asserting bodily rising.


Jiri
Solo is offline  
Old 01-03-2010, 11:14 AM   #82
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Metro Detroit, MI
Posts: 3,201
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Solo View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by sschlichter View Post
Aren't these passages from Mark and Paul about Jesus rising from the dead bodily?

Mark 8:31
There is a problem with the 'after three days' in the verse which as eg Koester pointed out (in Ancient Christian Gospels) does not agree with the empty tomb being vacant on the third day. At any rate, given the absence of bodily rising in the undisputed original version of Mark (which ends in 16:8), this would not be a convincing textual evidence.



??



see here my contribution to the discussion of the disputed passage

Quote:
Phil 3:10
I am not sure where you see this verse in Philippians asserting bodily rising.


Jiri
Mark 10 is very clear on the matter and it is the third prediction in teh book of mark of Jesus death and resuurection.


(Mark 10:33) "Look, we are going up to Jerusalem, and the Son of Man will be handed over to the chief priests and experts in the law. They will condemn him to death and will turn him over to the Gentiles.
(Mark 10:34) They will mock him, spit on him, flog him severely, and kill him. Yet after three days, he will rise again."

Phil 3 is also very clearly talking a bout physical death and resurection.

(Php 3:10) My aim is to know him, to experience the power of his resurrection, to share in his sufferings, and to be like him in his death,
(Php 3:11) and so, somehow, to attain to the resurrection from the dead.

~steve
sschlichter is offline  
Old 01-03-2010, 11:55 AM   #83
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: MidWest
Posts: 1,894
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by sschlichter View Post

How in the hell did the gospels preserve their reputation? They were all portrayed as scattered, fearful, and thick as bricks. Which gospels are you reading?

I am not sure you are making any sense. People with political ambitions do not follow dead people to their death. that requires the absense of political ambitions. What motives are you assigning to those who wrote the gospels?

~steve
You are trying awfully hard to not understand this. If you you are unaware of the motives at this point, that's on you. No reason in me reiterating the same points again, if your desire is to stay confused.
Elijah is offline  
Old 01-03-2010, 12:55 PM   #84
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Metro Detroit, MI
Posts: 3,201
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Elijah View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by sschlichter View Post

How in the hell did the gospels preserve their reputation? They were all portrayed as scattered, fearful, and thick as bricks. Which gospels are you reading?

I am not sure you are making any sense. People with political ambitions do not follow dead people to their death. that requires the absense of political ambitions. What motives are you assigning to those who wrote the gospels?

~steve
You are trying awfully hard to not understand this. If you you are unaware of the motives at this point, that's on you. No reason in me reiterating the same points again, if your desire is to stay confused.
In other words, you too are going to ignore the passages that do not fit your pre-concieved notion of what was.
sschlichter is offline  
Old 01-03-2010, 01:16 PM   #85
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: MidWest
Posts: 1,894
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by sschlichter View Post

In other words, you too are going to ignore the passages that do not fit your pre-concieved notion of what was.
No I'm not wishing to waste my time with someone being difficult in understanding obvious reasons for why they were promoting the guy as the messiah.
Elijah is offline  
Old 01-03-2010, 01:19 PM   #86
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Metro Detroit, MI
Posts: 3,201
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Elijah View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by sschlichter View Post

In other words, you too are going to ignore the passages that do not fit your pre-concieved notion of what was.
No I'm not wishing to waste my time with someone being difficult in understanding obvious reasons for why they were promoting the guy as the messiah.
obvious? Have you found that to be a common occurrence historically?
sschlichter is offline  
Old 01-03-2010, 01:25 PM   #87
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: MidWest
Posts: 1,894
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by sschlichter View Post

obvious? Have you found that to be a common occurrence historically?
Seems obvious to me. The only reason I can see for you having difficulties with this is that there is some reason you don't want to accept the idea of them exalting a dead guy as the messiah.

What occurrence needs to be common for you to understand what is going on in the NT?
Elijah is offline  
Old 01-03-2010, 01:32 PM   #88
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Metro Detroit, MI
Posts: 3,201
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Elijah View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by sschlichter View Post

obvious? Have you found that to be a common occurrence historically?
Seems obvious to me. The only reason I can see for you having difficulties with this is that there is some reason you don't want to accept the idea of them exalting a dead guy as the messiah.

What occurrence needs to be common for you to understand what is going on in the NT?
Are we living on the same planet? Yes, I require explanation for why people would exalt a dead person as the messiah in any time but especially at a time when doing so was dangerous.

You share in Abe's gift for unsubstantiated theories. At least Abe admits he is guessing.
sschlichter is offline  
Old 01-03-2010, 01:54 PM   #89
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: MidWest
Posts: 1,894
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by sschlichter View Post

Are we living on the same planet? Yes, I require explanation for why people would exalt a dead person as the messiah in any time but especially at a time when doing so was dangerous.

You share in Abe's gift for unsubstantiated theories. At least Abe admits he is guessing.
From previous post:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Elijah View Post
The gospels were necessary to show that their pick for the messiah didn't die but instead sacrificed himself as part of a plan. If it was originally followers of JTB and he was trying to fullfill the role of Elijah by choosing the king like the original did with Jehu, then they certainly had reason to try and explain that his pick wasn't defeated on the cross but was instead trying something.
What is the difficulty in understanding this? Or is your problem in understanding why anyone exalted a messiah at all back then?
Elijah is offline  
Old 01-03-2010, 03:57 PM   #90
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Ottawa, Canada
Posts: 2,579
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by sschlichter View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Solo View Post

There is a problem with the 'after three days' in the verse which as eg Koester pointed out (in Ancient Christian Gospels) does not agree with the empty tomb being vacant on the third day. At any rate, given the absence of bodily rising in the undisputed original version of Mark (which ends in 16:8), this would not be a convincing textual evidence.


I am not sure where you see this verse in Philippians asserting bodily rising.


Jiri
Mark 10 is very clear on the matter and it is the third prediction in teh book of mark of Jesus death and resuurection.

(Mark 10:33) "Look, we are going up to Jerusalem, and the Son of Man will be handed over to the chief priests and experts in the law. They will condemn him to death and will turn him over to the Gentiles.
(Mark 10:34) They will mock him, spit on him, flog him severely, and kill him. Yet after three days, he will rise again."
But again - as in 8:31 above - he is an early riser by the standard set here.

Quote:
Phil 3 is also very clearly talking a bout physical death and resurection.

(Php 3:10) My aim is to know him, to experience the power of his resurrection, to share in his sufferings, and to be like him in his death,
(Php 3:11) and so, somehow, to attain to the resurrection from the dead.

~steve
Evidently, you read it in your own understanding and it tells you that Paul (or whoever wrote the verse) meant by bodily resurrection. But Paul believes that we shall be changed (1 Cr 15:51-52, 2 Cr 3:18). He also says that when we are in the body we are away from the Lord (2 Cr 5:6) and when we shall be judged before Christ's seat, we will be judged according to what has one done in the body (2 Cr 5:10), the implications of all of this and other verses being that Paul does believe that one resurrects in a bodily fashion but in a spiritual transformation.

Jiri
Solo is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 12:51 PM.

Top

This custom BB emulates vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.