ApostateAbe

I think this would be the hang-up in your assertion. Paul wrote 1 Corinthians. In 1 Corinthians 15:4, we have:

"and that He was buried, and that He was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures"

I know that you probably have your own speculative explanation for that verse, but it wouldn't be so reasonable to use that speculative explanation to claim silence of Paul about the empty tomb and then proceed that to demand an explanation for that silence.

spin

This says nothing about an empty tomb. Paul makes a distinction between the physical body and the resurrection body in 1 Cor 15:35-49.

ApostateAbe

Right. Paul wrote, "If there is a natural body, there is also a spiritual body." And presumably you think it follows that maybe it was merely the spiritual body of Jesus that died, was buried and was raised on the third day. Well, (1) that is a maybe, for one thing, (2) a "burial" as far as we know is physical, not spiritual, and (3) we have other Christian accounts of the same myth to shed light on Paul meant--it was physical. Once again, you should treat speculations as speculations, and it is not appropriate to assume unlikely speculations about what Paul really meant, find silence, and then proceed to demand an explanation or that silence.

spin

Fuck, read it again and try to understand it. What is sown a physical body is raised a spiritual body. The physical body doesn't get raised. It stays dead and the spiritual body takes over. This means that the physical body stays in the tomb and the spiritual body goes on to glory. See how it's related to the issue of the empty tomb?

For christ sake think before you speak again. The you wouldn't go on with such rubbish:

Doug Shaver

Glad to. If they believed they were writing factual history, we have to account for that belief. Just what led them to think that those things really happened? Here are two possibilities.

1. The traditional orthodox account: They were witnesses to what they wrote about or were acquainted with witnesses. Almost nobody in this forum believes that, but the very earliest Christian references to these documents say exactly that. I think the presupposition of historicity here is obvious.

2. They were not witnesses, but they had sources that, in their opinion, could be trusted. This seems to be the consensus of mainstream scholarship. What would those sources have been?

2.a. The usual response is "oral tradition." But how would those traditions have gotten started? I see no way to justify an assumption that the traditions existed absent a presupposition that the subject of those traditions was a real person.

2.b. They had written sources that no longer survive. I've seen references to recent scholarship defending this notion. The question still arises as to why the gospel authors trusted those documents. There must have been a shared belief in their communities that those documents were reliable accounts of the ministry and martyrdom of their religion's founder. Again, it seems improbable to me that we can explain how such a belief could have arisen without presupposing the existence of a real founder whose story was told in those documents.

avi

This thread has meandered a bit, but the focus--> Jesus' baptism, is derived, ostensibly, from the gospel of Mark, supposedly our "earliest" gospel.

Who attests to this gospel's origin? Ultimately, isn't it Eusebius?

Why was this gospel written? Who could afford to hire someone to write and distribute this story, regardless of whether you consider it legitimate history, or fiction, as I do.

Isn't Eusebius the source for the claim that Papias, in the early second century, asserted a witness to Mark's original text? So far as I am aware, there are no extant copies of Papias' texts. Everything we know about Papias' writing is based upon Eusebius, to the best of my understanding.

Are there any extant copies of Mark's work before B45, dated by handwriting to mid third century?

Who paid for this composition of Mark?

Following the money......

avi

maryhelena

The historicists argue for a historical gospel JC. Albeit one stripped naked of his mythological finery.

The ahistoricists/mythicists argue that the gospel JC, even when minus his mythological baggage, was not a historical figure.

What if there is merit in both arguments?

Bottom line for the historicists is that some history is relevant to the gospel storyline.

Bottom line for the ahistoricists/mythicists is that the gospel JC figure is not historical.

So, to bring these two apparently opposite positions together......

The ahistoricists/mythicists are correct - no historical gospel JC.
The historicists are correct - a historical figure is relevant to the gospel storyline.

Therefore - the reasoned conclusion is - the historical figure that was relevant to the developing gospel storyline, in the period surrounding the 15th year of Tiberius, did not go by the name of Jesus from Nazareth - or Bethlehem - or Galilee.

Historicists will get nowhere with insisting that the gospel JC is historical. Likewise, the ahistoricists/mythicists will get nowhere insisting that no history was relevant - that it's all related to Paul's visionary experience.

*nowhere* being an understanding of the origins of early Christian history.

Simple ......really simple...

ApostateAbe

Paul writes, "The body that is sown is perishable, it is raised imperishable; it is sown in dishonor, it is raised in glory; it is sown in weakness, it is raised in power; it is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body."

Spin writes, "This means that the physical body stays in the tomb and the spiritual body goes on to glory."

An interpretation that is speculative, then to assume it, then demand an explanation for it--that would be one thing. It is going to quite a higher level to have an interpretation that seems directly opposite from what the passage actually means, and then proceed as if it is damned obvious and everyone who doesn't share it is an idiot. Spin, you deserve an award for that.

spin

What do you think happens to the physical body?? It's like a grub turning into a butterfly??

You deserve your pants being pulled for trying to change the subject. You mightn't like my analysis but what you are accusing me of is just what you are hypocritically doing. You are forcing an analysis of the passage solely in order to justify your specious claim that Paul somehow supports the empty tomb. Paul in fact doesn't show any support for the empty tomb. You are trying to hijack him to do so for your tendentious purposes. Time and time again, you show your bias.

:hitsthefan:

Toto

Please cool the emotions here.

If you want to discuss the issue of whether Paul describes resurrection as involving a new spiritual body or a revived corpse, it might be worth a new thread. But any discussion will have to start with Richard Carrier's chapter in The Empty Tomb: Jesus beyond the grave (or via: amazon.co.uk).

See also his FAQ on the question.