Layman

No one is moving any goal post. The issue at issue in the interview was clearly the afterlife. Jesus' resurrection was an example for all Christians. Not that of Lazarus or of some people raised from the dead by the Prophets. Greeks believed in the immortality of the soul and Jews believed in the resurrection.

Obviously, the entire discussion is about the afterlife. When Wright uses the term resurrection he is clear what he means. It nost simply a being raised from the dead. It is the afterlife in which Jews and Christians believed they would have bodies.

What is your evidence that the Greeks had a concept of resurrection? A permanent one that did not result in another death. You have none.

And Wright is quite clear that it did not "burst" into the world in 33 AD. Rather, it was already an existing and vital part of Jewish though, most commonly associated with the Pharisees.

Since there are no examples of resurrection (being understood as discussing the afterlife) in Greek thought, it certainly did not come from them, did it? If you are trying to equate a few stories about people being raised from the dead only to die again, there is no basis for your comparison. In any event, such stories already existed in pre-hellenized Judaism--some of the prophets raised people from the dead.

Unless, of course, you have any actual evidence to the contrary.

Layman

And have you read his book yet? Or do you rely only on the selective parsing of online interviews?

Vorkosigan

I would like to see where Celsus makes this distinction.

In any case, I am sure that if Celsus did actually make this distinction, Wright would say it didn't count, because he was talking about Greek bodies, not Palestinian bodies.:rolleyes

Greek mythology is filled with stories of people coming back from the dead in various ways. Additionally, some of those who were rescued from Hades had died and lived again in their own bodies, such as Eurydice, who in some versions died from snakebite and then lived again after rescue by Orpheus. Guess that doesn't count, though, because she didn't get nailed to a cross. Demeter was the subject of death and rebirth cults, and of course Persephone was taken alive out of Hades, a death-and-resurrection myth. Then there is Castor and Pollux, who get immortality on alternate days, in their own bodies (but that doesn't count, because......wait a second, I'll think of something). And let's not forget reincarnation.

Greek mythology shows a vast array of takes on the whole death and resurrection bit. NT Wright is simply abusing his status as a "scholar" to advance apologetics. A shameful act.


Vorkosigan

Steven Carr

I shall quote his exact explanation of what 'resurrection' means.

'some substantial bodily life at some distance after death'

And there were Greek stories of exactly that - of exactly what Wright himself said a resurrection was.

And what is this 'some distance after death' business of Wright? Where did that qualification come from? After all, Jesus was supposed to be resurrected after 3 days, which Muller explained was in the time span some Greeks might have accepted.

Wright thinks carefully before he speaks. I've seen him speak.

He put in this 'some distance after death' business, precisely so he could deny that Greeks might believe in a physical resurrection after the body was cremated or eaten by worms, hoping nobody would think to ask why that should rule out Greeks believing in a resurrection a mere 72 hours after death.


He left out the 'not to die again' business, or else people might wonder why that was such an important criterion to make in his theories (It isn't. It is just there so he can deny parallels.)


And please tell me if Moses was resurrected , or if he died again. Apparently those are the only two choices, as a spiritual body is ruled out. (no such thing , says Wright - either a physical , resurrected body or a body which dies again are your only choices.)

And who cares if the Greek concept of bodily resurrection is not exactly the same as the Jewis concept of resurrection (the one which says the second man was not made out of flesh and blood)

Bodily life after death is close enough for it to be extended easily to give whatever you think Paul might have believed. The concepts are not as far apart as Wright likes to pretend they are.


Oh by the way, when Wright writes 'fifth-century Athenian audience would not have thought of the story as in any way realistic.', is he implying that what applies to 5th century Athens can be imported as evidence of the beliefs of 1st-century Tarsus?

What sort of methodology is that for a scholar?

Layman

More selective parsing. I already showed that Wright is discussing the afterlife.

He left it out because it's irrelevant to the issue of the afterlife.

I asked once. I ask again. Where does Wright rule out a "spiritual body"? And, in any event, what do you mean by that. I would think that Wright thinks that Jesus' body was a "spiritual soma" just as resurrected Christians will be "spiritual somas."

And how would Moses being resurrected prove that the Greeks believed in resurrection?

Uhh, anyone who is interested in studying the Greek and Jewish conceptions of the afterlife would be so interested.

The concepts have nothing to do with each other. If you are just talking about a few instances of someone dead getting a second chance to die again there was OT precedent. That's hardly a Greek idea. Nor does it have anything whatsoever to do with the afterlife.

Nor is there any need to imagine Paul desparately searching through rare Greek stories about a few people being raised from the dead to die again. There were OT stories of such. And, Paul tells us he is a Pharisee. And the Pharisees were known to have believed in much the same kind of resurrection that Paul affirms--that of an afterlife that involves the body. Indeed, their affirmation of such was prominent and peculiar.

As far as I have been able to determine the Greek literature is overwhelmingly what Wright says it is. Either the immortality of the soul, shedding the body to release the spirit, or no afterlife at all.

Steven Carr

Are you claiming Wright does not say there is no such thing as a spiritual, non-physical body?

After death, Moses 'appeared' to the disciples in a non-resurrected , non-physical body, yet never died again?

But Moses was NOT resurrected. That much Wright and I agree on.

So what sort of body did he appear in?

Please explain.

Layman

I'm asking you were he says this?

Given your distortions of what Wright says, I wouldn't trust your unreferenced characterizaton of his beliefs if it was by sworn declaration.


Wright believes that the Chrsitians affirmed that the human soul/spirit lives on in an intermediate state until the final resurrection of the dead.

Steven Carr

'Overwhelmingly'? So what? It is vital to Wright's apologetic that there is NO concept of a bodily life after death in Greek thought, so he can claim that the only way Paul could have come up with it is by seeing it happen.

Even if the overwhelming majority of Greeks did not believe a bodily resurrection after 72 hours was possible, that is not enough for Wright's point.

As for Wright discussing the afterlife, what is a bodily return from the dead but an after life?

Did Moses die again, or was he resurrected?

Layman

Where does Wright say that the issue is whether Paul saw it happen or not?

First, you again seem to be distorting Wright's point here.

Second, since you have failed to give any Greek reference whatsoever to resurrection it's a moot point. First give me the reference and evidence, then we can discuss it.

Nice play on the English terms, but it's not the "afterlife." It's not the eschatological arrival of a new epoch in God's plan because someone was raised from the dead only to die again. It's not about immortality, and it's Greek and Jewish perceptions of immortality that Wright is discusssing.

First tell me where Wright says there are no "spiritual" bodies and tell me what you mean by that.

I've already noted that Wright believed that human souls/spirits lived on in an intermediate state awaiting the final resurrection of their bodies. Whether he thinks Moses appeared as such a soul/spirit or not I'd have to check.

So, what does Wright say about this?

And have you read the book?

Steven Carr

So Moses was NOT resurrected , but he could be seen in a non-physical body, never to die again, when he 'appeared' to the disciples in the Transfiguration.

So why then is it absurd to suggest that the 'appearances' of Jesus in 1 Corinthians 15 were of a non-physical body?


How can you say that would have been incomprehensible to Jews, when it had just happened (unless you beg the question of what resurrection might mean.)?

After all, people can die, come back to Earth, appear, be seen, never die again , all NOT in the sort of body Wright states is essential for a Jew to claim that he has seen somebody come back from the dead.