spamandham

That's probably mostly true. But, is anyone saying that Paul was sane, and that he made up a lie, and then proceded to die for it?

lpetrich

That says nothing about who he appeared to or the nature of his resurrection -- it could have been purely spiritual, instead of something crassly materialistic like what one sees in the Gospels.

He does not have to be a liar -- he could have suffered from will to believe.

As to him being martyred, is there any independent evidence of that?

And even if he got martyred, it would have been for denying the official gods of the Roman Empire -- that was what Roman officials had had against Xianity. But if we are to believe Acts, he got off rather easily after denying Artemis.

Kapyong

Gday,

Oh please ! Paul preaches at length about Jesus and his resurrection - he has EVERY reason to expound on it.


My argument is about the early books as a set - when NONE of them mention the E.T. that lends weight to the argument that no-one had heard of it.

Some early books DO mention the resurrection.
NO early books mention the E.T.


K.

Steven Carr

No sane person would EVER EVER EVER make up a lie and spend the rest of his life in prison for it.

Free Bernard Madoff now!

mountainman

The name of Pamphilus springs to mind. Its Really Good News that Eusebius was able to visit him in prison, and collaborate on various literary works of art.

lpetrich

In The God Who Wasn't There, Brian Flemming did a VERY cute visual presentation of how little Paul knew about Jesus Christ.

He represented JC in his timeline as a rectangular grid of flim clips from an early movie about him. What Paul knew about him was the last few clips -- his crucifixion, resurrection, and ascension.

Doug Shaver

So then, we should believe that whatever the 9-11 hijackers died for must have been true?

Or does the argument "Whatever someone dies for must be true" work only if they die for Christianity?

Susan2

Yes! Give him a hair cut, a fur coat, then run him up a flag pole and he can be our new alma mater.

Alma mater is Latin for "nourishing mother".

Jane H

Yes, we could collapse 4 and 5 in my scheme, even though there is no evidential reason to do so. Even so, the time gap I outlined still isn't nearly enough. Further, I doubt those developing the body “myth” would have thought about protecting something they believed true (especially with something they knew was a lie!). The challenge would have come from outside first.


Firstly, to repeat, if Paul or any other early Christians had wanted to mean a non-physical post-mortem reappearance, they kept choosing the wrong word. 'Resurrection' 'anastasis'' had a very, very clear meaning and that was physical.

Secondly there are places where Paul uses body terminology. For example Romans 10:9 “if you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved”, set in the middle of its context of Covenant exposition, can in the logic of what he's saying only be bodily. To the Jews (and the pagans) he's quoting the OT to, raising from the dead meant only one thing- a body. Many other patriarchs had died, and some even made cameo appearances, but there was no significance to those appearances. The significance is the physical nature of Jesus resurrection, in line with the relevant C1 Jewish thinking.

Thirdly the term Paul uses in 1 Corinthians 15 “soma pneumatikon” is a more physical term than the “soma psychikon” he is contrasting it with. The usual translations “spiritual body” and “earthly body” are decent enough attempts to translate, but both carry overtones in English which mislead. A more unwieldy but accurate translation would be “Body using God's Spirit for power” and “Body using God's to-be-withdrawn breath as power”. The resurrected body is the PC mains powered to our current laptop battery powered. Thus in contrast to angrily saying that a physical resurrection is impossible, Paul is saying the exact opposite- it's a physical body.

To be even clearer about this, go to 1 Corinthians 2:15 where Paul talks about the spiritual “pneumatikos” person. In that context, it cannot be other than a person with a body (whose attitude is powered by God's spirit).

Thirdly, if Paul lists his own appearance from Jesus with the others, this is because he is repeating a list of appearances already given. The word “appearance” does what it says on the tin, being an “appearance”. In the context he has no reason at all to distinguish it from the others.

Finally, the claim of the first Christians was that Jesus was alive. On the whole, seeing a vision, ghost or a spiritual appearance of someone is a pretty conclusive indication that they're dead.

Back Again

Was Joseph Smith sane?