aa5874

How can it be shown that a Spirit is dead and then show that it was resurrected?

Please, forget about LUNAR crucifixions.

The Pauline writer claimed he would be a False witness if the dead rise not.

Who could have witnessed a LUNAR Crucifixion? Only the ARCHONS?

Was Paul an ARCHON?

Duvduv

This woild mean that there were groups who believed in a non-physical resurrection.
Apologists would not have had to argue so strongly if this idea didn't exist. In the case of 1Corinthians 15 the author must have been addressing those whose belief in Jesus did not include his physical resurrection. Or anyone else's either.

aa5874

The author is addressing those who did NOT believe Jesus resurrected.

How is it even possible to argue or show that a Spirit died and that it was later resurrected? You will simply have NO witnesses.

Duvduv

But that's only because they felt the need to explain the belief from Judaism in physical resurrection. But some could have viewed it not in the standard Jewish way, but metaphysically.

aa5874

So, provide the source for those who had a metaphysical view because you should have taken into consideration that it is also likely that no-one had a metaphysical view of the resurrection.

Duvduv

As I recall, Earl Doherty or Peter Gandy explained that through faith in the Christ of the mystery who died and was reborn, the believer attained rebirth and eternal life.

aa5874

Please, please, please. I asked for SOURCES of ANTIQUITY not for expert opinion. Experts do NOT agree on almost anything.

I am dealing with WRITTEN statements from antiquity, Sources of antiquity, Evidence from antiquity, not opinion. Sources, Sources, Sources.........Sources of antiquity

Right now, we may have Billions of opinions but ZERO corroborative Sources of antiquity for Jesus and Paul.

Please, provide a source of antiquity for Christians who believe in a Spiritual resurrection.

Maklelan

But the word "anointed" is the same as the word "Christ." Also, the word means "of/pertaining to the anointed one," or "follower of the anointed one." It has to refer to a character called "Christ."

No, the word would have to be Christoi for them to identify as the anointed. The Greek suffix -ian in Christian means "of," "pertaining to," or "follower of." "Christian" refers to someone who follows, is owned by, or otherwise pertains to an anointed one. It cannot refer to people who thought of themselves as anointed. The word Christian unquestionably derives from the appellative Christ.

aa5874

How illogical can you be!!!??

Have you NOT read "To Autolycus"?

People were called Christians because they BELIEVED that they THEMSELVES were ANOINTED.
To Autolycus
Theophilus did NOT mention any character called Jesus Christ.

You seem to have very little knowledge of who were called Christians in antiquity.

You need to read Justin Martyr's "First Apology", "To Autolycus" by Theophilus and Ad Nationes and Apology attributed to Tertullian. There were people who were called Christians who did NOT even believe the Jesus story.

First Apology It is just erroneous that the word Christian is derived from the character Christ.

AD NATIONES The Apology

Maklelan

I'm the only one being logical here. You're insisting the word means something it cannot mean.

This is an example of how not knowing the language, the literature, or the literary conventions just utterly misleads you. First,
Theophilus' explanation is clearly just a play on words. Notice how many different words he uses that he connects with the word "Christian" that don't have the same meaning, but just look and sound the same:

χριστον
ευχρηστον
χρισθη
κεχρισται
χριεται
χρισθηναι
χριομεθα

Notice in the previous passage he says "I am a Christian (χριστιανος). I bear this name beloved by God (θεοφιλες) in the hopes of being useful (ευχρηστος). In addition to linking the name "Christian" to "useful," he links the beloved nature of the name Christian to his own name, Theophilus (θεοφιλος ~ θεοφιλες). This is just a play on words, not a normative usage of the word Christian.

Next, the absence of the word "Christ" from Theophilus' extant writings is interesting, but it also indicates that his definition of the word "Christian" cannot simply be assumed to be normative or original, since his omission of the name Christ is far from that, and the word is etymologically unrelated to his utterly unique usage. People who do mention Christ unilaterally define the word as derivative of the name Christ. Tacitus, for example, or Tertullian. You reject the dates for these texts. Funny that you don't appear to do so for Theophilus. Why? Because he prima facie supports your thesis. You're just picking and choosing the things you want to stand and the things you don't. A working knowledge of the language, of genre, and of his literary and rhetorical context preclude the relevance of his definition beyond his own text, though.

There are people today who self identify as Christians, and explicitly as "followers of Christ" who also don't believe the Jesus story. That doesn't mean anything.

I see Tertullian stating that the entire "weight and fruit of the Christian name" was Jesus' death (Against Marcion 3.8). He also asks if people can be Christians without Christian family, and then answers saying, "He will not be counted, I suppose, a true follower of Christ, who has not a brother or a son" (Apology 8). Christian is thus defined as a "follower of Christ."

Justin Martyr says in chapter 4 of his first apology that authorities compel Christians to deny they are Christians, but Justin says, "For as some who have been taught by the Master, Christ, not to deny Him, give encouragement to others when they are put to the question." In other words, to deny they are Christians are to deny Christ. This is nonsensical if "Christian" just refers to the anointing of the disciples. In chapter 12 he explicitly states that the name Christian comes from Jesus Christ:

Look also at chapter 16: "let those who are not found living as He taught, be understood to be no Christians, even though they profess with the lip the precepts of Christ." Christian = living the precepts of Christ. In other words, being a follower of Christian, just as the etymology of the word suggests.

You misunderstand Justin. Look at the clause immediately following the one you highlighted. Those people go by the name Christian, despite rejecting Christ's gospel, just like philosophers appropriate the names of previous philosophers despite having different doctrine. The fact that Justin says these people call themselves Christians despite the fact that he doesn't think they're real Christians has absolutely no bearing whatsoever on the actual lexical meaning of the word. Your argument here is a total non sequitur.

Yes, and as Tertullian states multiple times elsewhere, it has to do with Christ, the anointed one. You seriously do not have a single leg to stand on. Your argument has been completely demolished. Please don't waste everyone's time and embarras yourself further by trying to salvage it by compounding your misunderstandings and misrepresentations.