douglas

I'm not sure if this is going to make sense, but here goes.

My spotty understanding of ancient Jewish beliefs is that the concept of an afterlife was foreign. To Jews and gentiles of Paul's day, the idea that you could be spiritually resurrected and live for all eternity in heavan would have been a major selling point for Paul. The idea of a bodily resurrection would have seemed kind of icky (and once you pass 40, who wants to take their body with them after they die anyway!)

Given the historical context and the audience that Paul was dealing with, would it have been more likely that...

a. Paul would have preached a spiritual resurrection of Jesus?
b. Paul would have preached a spiritual AND physical resurrection?

Forget about what actually happened, but what would Paul's audience have wanted to hear?

Steven Carr

That is one reason why Paul wanted to be rescued from his body.

'Who will rescue me from this body of death'?, writes Paul in Romans 7:24

Paul is clear that our present body will be done away with (Romans 6:6), and calls the Corinthians fools for even imgaining that a resurrection involves a corpse rising, reminding them that earthly things are as different from heavenly things as a fish from the moon.

Paul, and other early converts to Christianity, just did not teach that a corpse received eternal life.

Even my opponent in the resurrection debate http://www.richarddawkins.net/forum/...ic.php?t=12232 had to concede that Paul thought of our present bodies as 'temporary'.

Temporary things do not have eternal life. Paul did not teach what the Gospels taught.

gracebkr

Isaiah 53:9

His grave was assigned with wicked men,
Yet He was with a rich man in His death,
Because He had done no violence,
Nor was there any deceit in His mouth.

gracebkr

Many people who were claiming to be prophets during that time and starting their movements were executed and the movements came to a halt. Nothing happened, when the leaders died, so did the movement. That is why the Romans wanted to kill Jesus, to end the movement. The romans taunted the Jews by killing their king and calling Him King of the Jews, they would have stopped the rumor of the empty tomb if they could have. Don't you think that if the Romans wanted Jesus dead, they definitely did not want people going around claiming he was risen? Christianity would not even be here if that tomb was not empty. There was a reason why this movement continued and the others died with their leaders. Scholars of this subject of all faiths agree the tomb was empty.

gracebkr

Gospel of Thomas says this, which might have been written first, I guess it is still unknown.

http://www.gnosis.org/naghamm/nhl_thomas.htm
http://www.gnosis.org/naghamm/gosthom.html


5. Jesus said, "Know what is in front of your face, and what is hidden from you will be disclosed to you.

For there is nothing hidden that will not be revealed. [And there is nothing buried that will not be raised.]"

I think this is relevant.

aa5874

There were many Christians who believed in the non-bodily resurrection of Jesus if you read about the Christian followers of Marcion, Valentinus, Basilides and others.

The NT's Jesus was not the only Jesus that was worshiped in the 2nd century. There was a Jesus that hated the God of the Jews because this God tried to have him killed. See Against Heresies by Irenaeus for a string of Jesuses, you may find one that is more suited for the 21st century.

Steven Carr

Pilate wanted to kill Jesus?

I wonder why Paul wrote that the Roman authorities never killed innocent people....

gracebkr

I don't have the Bible memorized, please as I asked before, quote the bible passage and give it so I can know what you are talking about.

It only makes sense the Romans killed Jesus. King of the Jews, doesn't sound fitting for a Jew to say. Pilate executed others with signs over their heads. Josephus talks about Pilate killing without trials. Are we going to look at it from a historical point of view or what? As so many have stated to me on this board when I stand corrected, The Bible is not a History Text, it is a Historical text.

gracebkr

I looked into those guys and they sound a little fishy. Valentinus seems to be the most trustworthy, if at all.

I don't get your point.

douglas

Have you ever tried to squash a rumour before, Grace? This "rumour" was in no way dangerous or threatening to the Romans. It would have been just another fantastic story among thousands of similar stories.

According to the gospels, the Romans were not "taunting" the Jews, the Romans were carrying out their wishes. The Jewish leadership saw Jesus as a threat, and conspired with Pilate to have him killed.