Mark Did not Invent the Empty tomb!

Image result for Metacrock's blog Giotto the resurrection



In the comment section of this blog,to the article "Did Mark Invent the Empty Tomb?" (May 5 2016) Atheist apologist "Gary" makes several arguments to the effect that the author of ark invented the empty tomb. These comments indicate that he did not read the original article because almost everything he says is disproved in it.One statement he makes serves as a good summary of his arguments. I will preset that summary re-post the original article then show some of the arguments he makes and demonstrate how the article disproves them.

As a summary he makes this statement:

Most scholars do NOT believe that the Gospel of Mark was written before 60 AD. You are peddling fringe scholarship as if it is fact!...The real fact is that we have zero proof that any Christian knew about an Empty Tomb prior to the writing of the anonymous Gospel of Mark in circa 70 AD. It is therefore possible that this author simply made up this claim....You can put your fingers in your ears and stomp up and down so that you can drown out what I am saying, but the facts and the majority of experts say you have no clue what you are talking about!...
The major arguments for Mark inventing the empty tomb, are the brevity of his ending, and it's lack of presence in other sources, both Gospels (except for those dependent upon Mark--Matt and Luke) and it's absence from Paul's work.



The crux of the Easter faith is the empty tomb. Atheists and sketics believe they have proved that Mark made up the empty tomb.Peter Kirby once defended the idea, claiming a huge number of scholars agreed with that. I'm not sure if he still holds to that or not. The paper is still up and the argument was made so I will  refute it. Peter Kirby once wrote:
Several schoalrs doubt the historicity of the empty tomb. I intend to set out the reasons for disbelieving the empty tomb story. I will argue that the empty tomb narrative is the invention of the author Mark. This conclusion will be supported by showing that all the reports of the empty tomb are dependent upon Mark, that there are signs of fictional creation in the empty tomb narrative, that the empty tomb story as told by Mark contains improbabilities, and that traditions of the burial and appearances support a reconstruction of the events that excludes the discovery of the empty tomb.[1]
 In response I am to focus just one aspect, the idea that the empty tomb is the invention of Mark. I will demonstrate that the empty tomb existed in Christian preaching before Mark was written.

 We know there was more than one version of Mark. The Version we have today is not the original version. There are at least three we know of by the end of the first century. The concept of the Ur Mark, a pre-Mark version of Mark that was latter corrected and verged into two versions, one used by Matthew and one by Luke. Neil points out that the study for an "UrMark" the Gospel behind Mark, is really very old, stretching back into the 19th century.[2] But Helmut Koster traces the actual textual criticism to show that there is clearly a Gospel behind the Gospel of Mark. This primary material is much older than the version of Mark as we know it, and there is good reason to believe that it is of great historical significance.

The Gospel of Mark as we know it, draws upon many sources. One such source already mentioned is the Passion Narrative which all the Canonical and the Gospel of Peter draw upon. But Koseter also shows that there was another whole version of Mark that was apparently not known to Matthew and Luke. Whether or not this is the same source as that of the passion narrative we cannot say. In addition to this other version, there are several other sources which can be seen in the Gospel. These may be sources used by the original or they may be those drawn upon by the redactor who put the work into the form in which we know it.

"External evidence for two different versions of Mark circulating at an early date can be derived only from the observation that Luke does not reproduce the section Mark 6:45-8:26. Luke 19: 19= Mark 8:27 follows directly upon Luke 9:17= Mark 6:44. Luke may have used a copy of Mark that had accidentally lost a few pages. However there are some  special features which differentiate this particular from the rest of Mark's Gospel. It begins with Jesus going to Bethsaida (Mark 6:45) and ends with the healing of a blind man from Bethsaida (Mark 8:22). Thereafter Jesus goes to Cesaria Philippi and the town of Bethsaida never occurs again the Gospel. This section is also of a number of other doublets of Markan pericopes. 6:44-54 the walking on the water is a variant of the stilling of the tempest (Mark 4:35-41). 8:1-10 the feeding of the 4000 is a secondary elaboration of the feeding of the 5000 (Mark 6:30-44)...The cumulative evidence of these peculiarities may allow the conclusion that an earlier version of Mark, which was used by Luke did not yet contain the Besiada section (Mark 6:45-8:26) whereas Matthew knew the expanded version which must have come into existence very soon after the original composition of the original gospel."[3]


Koester doesn't' argue for a complete UrMarkus ..as a more permeative version of the Gospel, but this evidence does suggest different versions of the same Gospel. While we can't find an UrMarkus, we can see clearly that the redactor who first formed the Gospel used several sources. The passion narrative has been mentioned, moreover, a miracle story source that is compatible with John, two written documents of saying sources are also recognizable. These include a collection of parables and one of apocalyptic material. (p.287)

But does this mean that Mark [the primary redactor] is merely a "cut and paste" which destorts previous sources and collects rumors and legends with no historical value? Where the skeptic sees this aspect, Koester does not. What Koester sees is a faithful copyist who has collected materials known to be of value to the community, and forged them into a certain order for the purposes of edification to the community.
"Mark [the primary redactor] is primarily a faithful collector. In so far as he is also an author he has created an overriding general framework for the incorporation of traditional material but he has still left most of his material intact.His Gospel is therefore a most important witness for an early stage for the formative development of the traditions about Jesus. The world which these traditions describe rarely goes beyond Galilee, Judea and Jerusalem, which is not the world of the author [primary redactor] or the readers for whom the book was intended. Mark's information about Palestine and its people is fairly accurate whenever he leaves his sources intact. But from his redaction of the sources it is clear that the author is not a Jewish Chrstistian and that he does not live in Palestine."[4]

That would explain that frightened, reverenced, alarming rushed quality that one gets reading those passages. The mysterious men in white (angles?) and the lack of sightings. Not becuase there were none but perhaps becasue they didn't know which group to believe. If James was claiming to be the first to see him,[5] (scholarly consensus holds that this is a very early creed)[6] then the claim is made about the women there may have been confusion about which group had primacy. You have two groups of women, the women who stayed at the tomb and Mary Madeline who apparently left early to get John and Peter then came back after then and had one of the sightings.[7] That would explain the confusion about naming which women went to the tomb.[8] My argument is that v8 could well be the proper ending, but this is not proof that Mark made up the tomb, a better reason for the brevity of the chapter is the copy that ends there reflects the Ur Mark which did end there. The longer version may have started with one of the other two versions that are quoted in the synoptic.

The major arguments for Mark inventing the empty tomb, are the brevity of his ending, and it's lack of presence in other sources, both Gospels (except for those dependent upon Mark--Matt and Luke) and it's absence from Paul's work.[9]Paul's lack of mention I exlpain in a similar way to Mark's lack of attention to post resurrection sightings, which offer above (this is my own original argument): there were two different factions, or maybe even more than two, one of them associated with James as the first witness to risen Jesus, and the other being the communities that produced Mark, Matthew, and John. Paul spent time in the James community when he was in Jerusalem following the three years he spent in Asia after his stay in Damascus when he was first converted.

I'm not saying that these different communities disagreed about James and the women. I'm not saying the community that produced Matthew said "no James did not see him." Nor am I contending that James said "Mary didn't see him." But each community lauded the witness of it's members. So the community with Mary in it emphasized that Mary was in on the discovery of the empty tomb. while the James community focused upon James's experience of seeing his risen brother, presumably first. After all this was two decades before the Gospels began to be made known to people in written form. Without having a Bible to read it in, the James followers probalby just said "some women saw him too, I don't know who they were just women, but James saw him!" The community with the women in it probably said "Hey our women saw him, and btw James saw him too!"

Helmutt Koester

The key question is, is there a literary tradition that is not dependent upon Mark that includes the empty tomb? Yes, there is one. It's not only independent of Mark but it existed before the Gospel of Mark was written.The Gospel of Peter was discovered in Egypt at Oxryranchus in the 19th century. It was probably written around 200 AD and contains some Gnostic elements, but is basically Orthodox. There are certain basic differences between Gospel of Peter (GPet) and the canonically, but mainly the two are in agreement.

Gpet follows the OT as a means of describing the passion narrative, rather than following Matthew. Jurgen Denker uses this observation to argue that GPet is independent and is based upon an independent source. In addition to Denker, Koester, Raymond Brown, and John Dominick Crossan also agree.[10] It is upon this basis that Crossan constructs his "cross Gospel" which he dates in the middle of the first century, meaning, an independent source upon which all the canonical and GPet draw,(also see my article dating the tomb story in the passion narrative). But the independence of GPet from all of these sources is also guaranteed by its failure to follow any one of them. Raymond Brown, who built his early reputation on study of GPet, follows the sequence of narrative in GPet and  compares it in very close reading with that of the canonical Gospels. He finds that GPet is not dependent upon the canonical, although it is closer in the order of events to Matt/Mark rather than to Luke and John. Many Christian apologists think it’s their duty to show that GPet is dependent upon the canonical gospels, but it is basically a proved fact that it’s not. Such apologists are misguided in understanding the true apologetic gold mine in this fact. The fact that GPet is not dependent enables it to prove common ancestry with the canonicals and that establishes the early date of the circulation of the empty tomb as a part of the Jesus narrative. GPet is neither a copy of the canonical, nor are they a copy of GPet, but both use a common source in the Passion narrative which dates to AD 50 according to Crosson and Koester. Brown follows the flow of the narrative closely and presents a 23 point list in a huge table that illustrates the point just made above. I cannot reproduce the entire table, but just to give a few examples.[11]

Helmutt Koester argues for the “Ur Gospel” and passion narrative that ends with the empty tomb. He sees GPet as indicative of this ancient source. Again, the argument is not that GPet is older than the Canonicals but that they all five share common ancestry with the Ur source. There is much secondary material in Gpet, meaning, additions that crept in and are not part of the Ur Gospel material; the anti-Jewish propaganda is intensified, for example Hared condemns Jesus rather than Pilate.
Gospel of Peter (GPet) follows the OT as a means of describing the passion narrative, rather following Matthew. Jurgden Denker uses this observation to argue that GPet is independent is based upon an independent source. In addition to Denker, Koester, Borwn, and the very popular Charles Dominik Corssan also agree[12]

One might be tempted to argue that it's just one source, but Mark takes it form the Passion Narrative so it's still just one source. Not so, Raymond Brown proved there are two independent sources. The Passion narrative does not follow the synoptics are John, they all share a common ancestor, but Mark and Passion narrative are copied as idepndent sources. Neither depends upon the other. Mark is original and Passion narratives follows patterns from the OT. We are talking about reading that are preserved in latter documents. So while the form in which we have Gospel of Peter is latter than Mark the readings that survive in it or of a form that show they are older than Mark. They are not just copying the OT they are telling the story in the from of certain OT renditions.
      
Brown, who built his early reputation on study of GPet, follows the sequence of narrative in GPet and compares it in very close reading with that of the canonical Gospels. He finds that GPet is not dependent upon the canonical, although it is closer in the order of events to Matt/Mark rather than to Luke and John.
GPet follow the classical flow from trail through crucifixion to burial to tomb presumably with post resurrection appearances to follow. The GPet sequence of individual episodes, however, is not the same as that of any canonical Gospel...When one looks at the overall sequence in the 23 items I listed in table 10, it would take very great imagination to picture the author of GPet studying Matthew carefully, deliberately shifting episodes around and copying in episodes form Luke and John to produce the present sequence.[13]

Brown follows the flow of the narrative closely and presents a 23 point list in a huge table wich illustrates the point just made above. I cannot reproduce the enire table, but just to give a few examples:
In the Canonical Gospel's Passion Narrative we have an example of Matt. working conservatively and Luke working more freely with the Marcan outline and of each adding material: but neither produced an end product so radically diverse from Mark as GPet is from Matt." [14]
Koester demonstrates agreement with many scholars as he puts the date for the Passion narrative mid first century. However, "there are other traces in the Gospel of Peter which demonstrate an old and independent tradition." The way the suffering of Jesus is described by the use of passages from the old Testament without quotation formulae is, in terms of the tradition, older than the explicit scriptural proof; it represents the oldest form of the passion of Jesus.Philipp Vielhauer, Jurgen Denker argues that the Gospel of Peter shares this tradition of OT quotation with the Canonicals but is not dependent upon them. [15] Koester writes, "John Dominic Crosson has gone further [than Denker]...he argues that this activity results in the composition of a literary document at a very early date i.e. in the middle of the First century CE" (Ibid). Said another way, the interpretation of Scripture as the formation of the passion narrative became an independent document, a ur-Gospel, as early as the middle of the first century! This means the source for the Passion narrative is much older than our version of Mark, it's only 18 years after original events. It constitutes two independent sources testifying to the empty tomb early on, Mark (Ur Mark) and Pre Mark passion narrative. Even if we want to say it's just one source which stands behind all of these different Gospels it removes the onus that Mark invented the tomb and it places the tomb well witin living memory of eye witnesses.

Putting Gary's Arguments in perspective. 

In the intro  I quoted him as saying,"Most scholars do NOT believe that the Gospel of Mark was written before 60 AD. You are peddling fringe scholarship as if it is fact!" In fact it is the consensus among scholars that a pre mark redaction existed. The Gospel of Mark in the form we have it was not written before 60 but he's assuming Mark was the first writing ever to deal with the risen Jesus it was not. It's just the first of the canonical Gospels. The essay above indicates there were older traditions, Brown demonstrated there was a totally different tradition just as old that copied the trail and passion after the psalms rather than after Mark or Matthew, and that wound up in the Gospel of Peter. As for "Peddling fringe scholarship" I've quoted Danker, Crosson. Koester. and  Brown  among others. All of them argue for Pre ark reaction.If he thinks that is fringe scholarship he;s truly unread in the field. 

Here are the major arguments he makes i thesummary above
1 brevity of ending


I have trouble seeing how that is any kind of evidence. The ending is brief because it was lost. I fail to see how losing the ending proves mark made up the empty tomb?


2 lack of presence other sources not dependent upon Mark

That's not even true. The empty tomb is  mentioned in all four canonical gospels and in Gospel of Peter. Both Crosson and Koester date the empty tomb to mid first century ten years before the date Gary thinks is the origin point, Koester says: "John Dominic Crosson has gone further [than Denker]...he argues that this activity results in the composition of a literary document at a very early date i.e. in the middle of the First century CE" (Ibid). Said another way, the interpretation of Scripture as the formation of the passion narrative became an independent document, a ur-Gospel, as early as the middle of the first century![16]


3 absence from Paul's work

He certainly does stonily imply the empty tomb in 1 Cr 15:4 " that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures." He was burred and he rose the tomb would be left empty.







Sources
 [1] Peter Kirby, The Case Against the Empty Tomb, fall 2002. 176 Online materiel pdf  http://depts.drew.edu/jhc/kirby_tombcase.pdf
accessed 4/12/14

[2] Stephen Neil, The Interpretation of the New Testament 1861-1961, Oxford: Oxford University Press. see UR Marcus.

[3] Helmutt Koester, Ancient Christian Gospels: Their History and Development. Philadelphia: Trinity Press International, 1990, 285.

[4] Ibid.Koester p.289

[5] 1 Corinthians 15:5.

[6] Peter May, quoting Gary Habermas, "the Resurrection of Jesus and the Witness of Paul." Be Thinking blog. on line
May is a retired GP who held layman's rank of leadership in the Church of England.Peter May served on the General Synod of the Church of England from 1985 to 2010 and was Chair of the UCCF Trust Board from  2003 to 2010. He is a retired GP.He cites  C.H. Dodd The Founder of Christianity Fontana 1971, and Gary R. Habermas The Risen Jesus & Future Hope Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield 2003, Chapter 1.

[7] Joseph Hinman, "Resurrection Harmony Page 1," The Religious A prori, no date given. on line:
http://religiousapriorijesus-bible.blogspot.com/2010/05/resurrection-harmony-page-1.html  accessed 4/13/2014

Please read my page on The Religious a priori and follow my sense of harmony of the events. we see Mary leave when they first see the tomb stone is ajar. She goes to get Peter and John, returning after them, and seeing Jesus.

[8] Peter Kirby, Op cit. 176.

[9] Helmutt Koester, op cit, 208.

[10] Ibid, 217

[11] Ibid. 218

[12] Raymond Brown, Death of the Messiah: From Gethsemane to the Grave, A commentary on the Passionnarratives in the Four Gospels. Volume 2. New York: Doubleday 1994, 1322


[13] Ibid., 1325

[14]  Koester, Op cit, 218

[15] Ibid

[16] Ibid, 218-20

Comments

Anonymous said…
Gary: It is therefore possible that this author simply made up this claim....

JH: Atheists and sketics believe they have proved that Mark made up the empty tomb.

This is a straw man, and frankly Joe, one we see all too often. Atheists are not claiming it is proved, they are claiming a possibility. There is a huge gulf between the two.

Can you prove Mark did not make up the empty tomb? If not then it is possible that he did.

JH: But does this mean that Mark [the primary redactor] is merely a "cut and paste" which destorts previous sources and collects rumors and legends with no historical value? Where the skeptic sees this aspect, Koester does not. What Koester sees is a faithful copyist who has collected materials known to be of value to the community, and forged them into a certain order for the purposes of edification to the community.

This is a little confused. If you could show it really was a "cut and paste" that would enhance your position. It is the fact that Mark added his own spin to the text that makes it suspect. Was the empty tomb "cut and pasted" from the earlier version, or was it added by Mark for the purposes of edification to the community?

JH: That would explain that frightened, reverenced, alarming rushed quality that one gets reading those passages. The mysterious men in white (angles?) and the lack of sightings. Not becuase there were none but perhaps becasue they didn't know which group to believe. If James was claiming to be the first to see him,[5] (scholarly consensus holds that this is a very early creed)[6] then the claim is made about the women there may have been confusion about which group had primacy.

That is a possibility, but not the only one. Another is that Mark made up the empty tomb, and invented the sighting by the women, but further claimed they never told anyone to explain why hitherto evertyone had thought James was the first to see Jesus.

Pix
Anonymous said…
JH: That would explain the confusion about naming which women went to the tomb.[8] My argument is that v8 could well be the proper ending, but this is not proof that Mark made up the tomb, a better reason for the brevity of the chapter is the copy that ends there reflects the Ur Mark which did end there. The longer version may have started with one of the other two versions that are quoted in the synoptic.

Better in that it fits with your pre-conceived ideas?

A more likely explanation is that the authors of Matthew and Luke made up their respective ends. Remember that in the original Mark, the mysterious man in the tomb says Jesus has already gone to Galilee. The most likely explanation is that all the appearances in and around Jerusalem were fabricated after Mark.

JH: Paul's lack of mention I exlpain in a similar way to Mark's lack of attention to post resurrection sightings, which offer above (this is my own original argument)

But Paul takes a very definite position - that James saw Jesus first. Paul had no need of the empty tomb, he was very clear that Jesus was resurrected in a new body, having cast off the old. The most likely explanation is that Paul did not mention the empty tomb because t had noit been invented yet.

JH: The key question is, is there a literary tradition that is not dependent upon Mark that includes the empty tomb? Yes, there is one. It's not only independent of Mark but it existed before the Gospel of Mark was written.The Gospel of Peter was discovered in Egypt at Oxryranchus in the 19th century. It was probably written around 200 AD and contains some Gnostic elements, but is basically Orthodox. There are certain basic differences between Gospel of Peter (GPet) and the canonically, but mainly the two are in agreement.

It is pretty well established that Peter was heavily redacted, and what we have is that edited version (for example, the guard on the tomb). I have never seen anything to indicate the empty tomb was in the original version - and this is something I have pointed out to you on numerous occasions.

It is possible the empty tomb was in the original, pre-Mark version of Peter, but really we do not know.

I am unsure if Mark invented the empty tomb, or if - as Koester believes - it was invented prior to Mark, but I think the evidence does point to it being an invention.

Pix
Joe Hinman said…

Anonymous Anonymous said...
Gary: It is therefore possible that this author simply made up this claim....

JH: Atheists and sketics believe they have proved that Mark made up the empty tomb.

This is a straw man, and frankly Joe, one we see all too often. Atheists are not claiming it is proved, they are claiming a possibility. There is a huge gulf between the two.

No it's not. It's a claim really made by real atheists all over the net,I've argued it many times on countless message boards,

Can you prove Mark did not make up the empty tomb? If not then it is possible that he did.

I did prove it. The Qute by Koester dating the empty tomb mid century proves it,

Pix did you real the article? why do you guys always refuse to read the evidence?


JH: But does this mean that Mark [the primary redactor] is merely a "cut and paste" which destorts previous sources and collects rumors and legends with no historical value? Where the skeptic sees this aspect, Koester does not. What Koester sees is a faithful copyist who has collected materials known to be of value to the community, and forged them into a certain order for the purposes of edification to the community.

Px:This is a little confused. If you could show it really was a "cut and paste" that would enhance your position. It is the fact that Mark added his own spin to the text that makes it suspect. Was the empty tomb "cut and pasted" from the earlier version, or was it added by Mark for the purposes of edification to the community?

that is total bullshit, The empty tomb was part of the text mid century then it pre dates the writing of Mark,one need seek no further.


JH: That would explain that frightened, reverenced, alarming rushed quality that one gets reading those passages. The mysterious men in white (angles?) and the lack of sightings. Not becuase there were none but perhaps becasue they didn't know which group to believe. If James was claiming to be the first to see him,[5] (scholarly consensus holds that this is a very early creed)[6] then the claim is made about the women there may have been confusion about which group had primacy.

Px:That is a possibility, but not the only one. Another is that Mark made up the empty tomb, and invented the sighting by the women, but further claimed they never told anyone to explain why hitherto evertyone had thought James was the first to see Jesus.

No that;not possible because the PN ended with the empty tomb id first centjry,

11/27/2017 03:03:00 AM Delete
Joe Hinman said…
Anonymous said...
JH: That would explain the confusion about naming which women went to the tomb.[8] My argument is that v8 could well be the proper ending, but this is not proof that Mark made up the tomb, a better reason for the brevity of the chapter is the copy that ends there reflects the Ur Mark which did end there. The longer version may have started with one of the other two versions that are quoted in the synoptic.

Px:Better in that it fits with your pre-conceived ideas?

A more likely explanation is that the authors of Matthew and Luke made up their respective ends. Remember that in the original Mark, the mysterious man in the tomb says Jesus has already gone to Galilee. The most likely explanation is that all the appearances in and around Jerusalem were fabricated after Mark.

that's not likley, you are just taking a minor glitch in the time line and trying to build a philosophy on it. The fact is it is much more Valkyrie that that one phrase was a mistake or a emendation,Hey even if it is true even if the women were made up completely that does not prove that Mark invented the empty tomb. It was in of the first ever writting pre dated Mark.

JH: Paul's lack of mention I exlpain in a similar way to Mark's lack of attention to post resurrection sightings, which offer above (this is my own original argument)

Px:But Paul takes a very definite position - that James saw Jesus first. Paul had no need of the empty tomb, he was very clear that Jesus was resurrected in a new body, having cast off the old. The most likely explanation is that Paul did not mention the empty tomb because t had noit been invented yet.

no that's not what he says, ready argument "The no body theory." Rejuvenated body does not mean his old body stayed dead,

JH: The key question is, is there a literary tradition that is not dependent upon Mark that includes the empty tomb? Yes, there is one. It's not only independent of Mark but it existed before the Gospel of Mark was written.The Gospel of Peter was discovered in Egypt at Oxryranchus in the 19th century. It was probably written around 200 AD and contains some Gnostic elements, but is basically Orthodox. There are certain basic differences between Gospel of Peter (GPet) and the canonically, but mainly the two are in agreement.

Px:It is pretty well established that Peter was heavily redacted, and what we have is that edited version (for example, the guard on the tomb). I have never seen anything to indicate the empty tomb was in the original version - and this is something I have pointed out to you on numerous occasions.

but the oldest readings in Get have been recovered by means of textual criticism. that's what Koester is talking about,

It is possible the empty tomb was in the original, pre-Mark version of Peter, but really we do not know.

yes WE do! Klester,Crosson,Danker and eight others I name say so! It's thecponsenssu

I am unsure if Mark invented the empty tomb, or if - as Koester believes - it was invented prior to Mark, but I think the evidence does point to it being an inventio

Koester dates the PMPN to mid century AD 50 or so, He says it ends with the empty to,thus it had to exist before Mark,
Anonymous said…
JH: I did prove it. The Qute by Koester dating the empty tomb mid century proves it,

You mean this:

Koester demonstrates agreement with many scholars as he puts the date for the Passion narrative mid first century. However, "there are other traces in the Gospel of Peter which demonstrate an old and independent tradition." The way the suffering of Jesus is described by the use of passages from the old Testament without quotation formulae is, in terms of the tradition, older than the explicit scriptural proof; it represents the oldest form of the passion of Jesus.

This says some of Peter draws from an independent tradition. Find a quote that makes clear Koester thinks specifically the empty tomb was a part of that, rather than added later.

JH: Pix did you real the article? why do you guys always refuse to read the evidence?

I did read it. That was how I spotted the gaping hole. Koester says some of Peter comes from an earlier tradition, but nothing in your article indicates that he believes the empty tomb is part of that.

JH: that is total bullshit, The empty tomb was part of the text mid century then it pre dates the writing of Mark,one need seek no further.

JH: No that;not possible because the PN ended with the empty tomb id first centjry,

So far you have failed to show that.

JH: but the oldest readings in Get have been recovered by means of textual criticism. that's what Koester is talking about,

JH: yes WE do! Klester,Crosson,Danker and eight others I name say so! It's thecponsenssu

JH: Koester dates the PMPN to mid century AD 50 or so, He says it ends with the empty to,thus it had to exist before Mark,

Joe, you have present no evidence that Koester believes specifically that the empty tomb was part of that PMPN. You have the book, presumably. Go read it, and see what he said. If he does include the empty tomb, find a quote that make that clear.

Otherwise, you have no argument.

Pix
Anonymous said…
JH: that's not likley, you are just taking a minor glitch in the time line and trying to build a philosophy on it. The fact is it is much more Valkyrie that that one phrase was a mistake or a emendation,Hey even if it is true even if the women were made up completely that does not prove that Mark invented the empty tomb. It was in of the first ever writting pre dated Mark.

Why are you ignoring the evidence? Mark clearly states the disciple saw the resurrected Jesus in Galilee, not Jerusalem. Just labelling it a "minor glitch" does not cut it Joe. Mark wrote that for a reason, and you seem intent on ignoring this fact because it is inconvenient to your argument.

JH: no that's not what he says, ready argument "The no body theory." Rejuvenated body does not mean his old body stayed dead,

Paul was a pharisee, expecting a resurrection for all - and Jesus was the "first fruits" of that event. That resurrection included people dead centuries early, people whose bodies had rotted away years before. Such a resurrection necessarily requires a new body.

Further, 1 Corinithians 15 clearly states a new body.

Here is Josephus on the Pharisees:

14. But then as to the two other orders at first mentioned, the Pharisees are those who are esteemed most skillful in the exact explication of their laws, and introduce the first sect. These ascribe all to fate [or providence], and to God, and yet allow, that to act what is right, or the contrary, is principally in the power of men, although fate does co-operate in every action. They say that all souls are incorruptible, but that the souls of good men only are removed into other bodies, - but that the souls of bad men are subject to eternal punishment.
- Jewish War 2.8.14

The bit "removed into other bodies" I take to mean that the good are given new bodies, rather than to suggest reincarnation. How about you Joe?

I have yet to find any evidence the Pharisees - or more specifically Paul - believed in a resurrection in the same body. That is something Christianity added later when the Jerusalem appearances were invented.

Pix
Joe Hinman said…
Anonymous said...
JH: I did prove it. The Qute by Koester dating the empty tomb mid century proves it,

You mean this:

Koester demonstrates agreement with many scholars as he puts the date for the Passion narrative mid first century. However, "there are other traces in the Gospel of Peter which demonstrate an old and independent tradition." The way the suffering of Jesus is described by the use of passages from the old Testament without quotation formulae is, in terms of the tradition, older than the explicit scriptural proof; it represents the oldest form of the passion of Jesus.

This says some of Peter draws from an independent tradition. Find a quote that makes clear Koester thinks specifically the empty tomb was a part of that, rather than added later.

Already quotedit anditedm see fn 16, Koester ACG 218-20

JH: Pix did you real the article? why do you guys always refuse to read the evidence?

I did read it. That was how I spotted the gaping hole. Koester says some of Peter comes from an earlier tradition, but nothing in your article indicates that he believes the empty tomb is part of that.

first it was not Koester but Brown, Secondly the very last paragraph of the whole thing quotes Koester saying the empty tomb was in the PN and it dates to mid century here is rhw quote:"John Dominic Crosson has gone further [than Denker]...he argues that this activity results in the composition of a literary document at a very early date i.e. in the middle of the First century CE"



JH: that is total bullshit, The empty tomb was part of the text mid century then it pre dates the writing of Mark,one need seek no further.

JH: No that;not possible because the PN ended with the empty tomb id first centjry,

So far you have failed to show that.

"John Dominic Crosson has gone further [than Denker]...he argues that this activity results in the composition of a literary document at a very early date i.e. in the middle of the First century CE" (Koester ACG 218)


JH: but the oldest readings in Get have been recovered by means of textual criticism. that's what Koester is talking about,

JH: yes WE do! Klester,Crosson,Danker and eight others I name say so! It's thecponsenssu

JH: Koester dates the PMPN to mid century AD 50 or so, He says it ends with the empty to,thus it had to exist before Mark,

Joe, you have present no evidence that Koester believes specifically that the empty tomb was part of that PMPN. You have the book, presumably. Go read it, and see what he said. If he does include the empty tomb, find a quote that make that clear.


bloody nonsense!(1) on what other basis could he possibly make the statement I;ve quoted twice now? the literary docket which he says ends with the empty tomb is the PMPN--get the book and read it,it's blatantly obvious, (2) I've made referee to the page numbers i proper foot note that is documentation. you can buy yourself some time to pretend a little longer but if you actually bother to look you will see you are wrong,(3)point about Gpet ios the empty tomb is there and it's independent older tradition to because it doesn't follow the synoptics

Otherwise, you have no argument.

that sort of bull shit will only work as long as you refuse to examine the evidence,don't pull a skepioe, you are bigger than taht,
Joe Hinman said…
Anonymous said...
JH: that's not likley, you are just taking a minor glitch in the time line and trying to build a philosophy on it. The fact is it is much more likeley that that one phrase was a mistake or a emendation,Hey even if it is true even if the women were made up completely that does not prove that Mark invented the empty tomb. It was in of the first ever writting pre dated Mark.

Why are you ignoring the evidence? Mark clearly states the disciple saw the resurrected Jesus in Galilee, not Jerusalem. Just labelling it a "minor glitch" does not cut it Joe. Mark wrote that for a reason, and you seem intent on ignoring this fact because it is inconvenient to your argument.


why are you trying to impose a fundamentalist literalism on the evidence? One account says this one time,so what? nothing about that disproves the empty tomb, they could have an empty tomb and still contradict about where they went after burial,

you are trying to impose a contradiction, in fact there are sightings in Jerusalem because he's going to Galilee after the women found the empty Tomb and mary saw him he appears to the wonen in jerusalem in Luke and tells them he;s going to Galaliliee,


JH: no that's not what he says, ready argument "The no body theory." Rejuvenated body does not mean his old body stayed dead,

Paul was a pharisee, expecting a resurrection for all - and Jesus was the "first fruits" of that event. That resurrection included people dead centuries early, people whose bodies had rotted away years before. Such a resurrection necessarily requires a new body.

His res proceeds all the others so the others have not happened yet, you can't assume because the bodies rot that there's no bodily res, I just said they are rejuvenated,

Further, 1 Corinithians 15 clearly states a new body.

Ni it' not a second buoy it;s a glamorized body the first bodey,

Here is Josephus on the Pharisees:

14. But then as to the two other orders at first mentioned, the Pharisees are those who are esteemed most skillful in the exact explication of their laws, and introduce the first sect. These ascribe all to fate [or providence], and to God, and yet allow, that to act what is right, or the contrary, is principally in the power of men, although fate does co-operate in every action. They say that all souls are incorruptible, but that the souls of good men only are removed into other bodies, - but that the souls of bad men are subject to eternal punishment.
- Jewish War 2.8.14

The bit "removed into other bodies" I take to mean that the good are given new bodies, rather than to suggest reincarnation. How about you Joe?

I have yet to find any evidence the Pharisees - or more specifically Paul - believed in a resurrection in the same body. That is something Christianity added later when the Jerusalem appearances were invented.

Pix

that is total bullshit, you have been reading cranks form the secular web, real scholars laugh at that idea,no real scholar I know of ays that,the essay U linked to disproves it,

I can't answer the Josephus thing but I doubt that hes says that, that is antithical to everything I know about jews, I am going to have to research i tbut I willl.
Joe Hinman said…
I've seen statements that your translation of Josephus is notoriously bad, but I'll wait util I have time to look fora good source. There;s a lot wrong with your argument.

The simplest way to show the flaw is just to think about why would that idea disprove the empty tomb? Eve if God created another body for Jesus he still has to prove its Jesus.they cat get another guy and say he's Jesus that wouldn't prove anything. An empty tomb would indicate resurrection.

Moreover, the idea that they would think God would create a second body for each person who is being raised at the last trumpet is silly, for one thing it;s opposed to their concept of a unified indid iuda the Greeks thought the body was like a ship being sailed by the soul but not the jews, The jews saw anindividualas a jity of Bod,soul,and spirit,
Anonymous said…
JH: Already quotedit anditedm see fn 16, Koester ACG 218-20

As far as I can see the only bit you quoted is this:

John Dominic Crosson has gone further [than Denker]...he argues that this activity results in the composition of a literary document at a very early date i.e. in the middle of the First century CE

That does not mention the empty tomb. You go on to assert that he includes the empty tomb, but if that is true, quote him saying that!

Seriously, your whole argument rests on this claim, so it behoves you to adequately support it.

JH: first it was not Koester but Brown, Secondly the very last paragraph of the whole thing quotes Koester saying the empty tomb was in the PN and it dates to mid century here is rhw quote:"John Dominic Crosson has gone further [than Denker]...he argues that this activity results in the composition of a literary document at a very early date i.e. in the middle of the First century CE"

But it does not say the empty tomb, does it? It says there was a composition, but does not say what was included.

JH: bloody nonsense!(1) on what other basis could he possibly make the statement I;ve quoted twice now? the literary docket which he says ends with the empty tomb is the PMPN--get the book and read it,it's blatantly obvious, (2) I've made referee to the page numbers i proper foot note that is documentation. you can buy yourself some time to pretend a little longer but if you actually bother to look you will see you are wrong,(3)point about Gpet ios the empty tomb is there and it's independent older tradition to because it doesn't follow the synoptics

You already have the book, why do you quote where he makes it "blatantly obvious"?

Again, this is fundamental to your argument. What possible reason could you have for not providing the quote? You already have the book, you know the page number.

JH: why are you trying to impose a fundamentalist literalism on the evidence? One account says this one time,so what? nothing about that disproves the empty tomb, they could have an empty tomb and still contradict about where they went after burial,

Because that is what the evidence is. Whatever hypothesis we propose has to explain ALL the evidence. Why did Mark write that Jesus would meet the disciples in Galilee if he knew that actually Jesus would see them minutes later in Jerusalem? He wrote it because he knew the first known sighting was James in Galilee, and so he has the mysterious man allude to that.

JH: you are trying to impose a contradiction, in fact there are sightings in Jerusalem because he's going to Galilee after the women found the empty Tomb and mary saw him he appears to the wonen in jerusalem in Luke and tells them he;s going to Galaliliee,

The more likely explanation is that when Mark was written no one had invented the sightings in Jerusalem; Mark has the mysterious man talk to the two women, but he alludes to the only know sightings in Galilee and Mark makes it clear that he women never told anyone, and so these sightings were unknown.

Later the Jerusalem sighting were invented and tagged on the end, so now the mysterious says Jesus will see the disciples in Galilee and the women fleeing never to speak of it, then promptly go and tell the disciples, and then Jesus is chatting to them a few minutes later in Jerusalem.

Pix
Anonymous said…
JH: Ni it' not a second buoy it;s a glamorized body the first bodey,

Paul specifically says:

1 Cor 15:50 I tell you this, brothers: flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God, nor does the perishable inherit the imperishable. 51 Behold! I tell you a mystery. We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed, 52 in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, and the dead will be raised imperishable, and we shall be changed.

Two points here. First he states flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom. That means you cannot still have your old body, because your old body is flesh and blood. It needs to be shed to get in to heaven.

Secondly, he says the living will be transformed. Why? According to you, there is no need. They already have the bodies they need. However, Paul says those bodies are wrong for the kingdom of God. There have to be changed. Flesh and blood bodies will be changed into heavenly bodies. New bodies, Joe.

JH: I've seen statements that your translation of Josephus is notoriously bad, but I'll wait util I have time to look fora good source. There;s a lot wrong with your argument.

Sounds like you are clutching at straws, but we will see,

JH: The simplest way to show the flaw is just to think about why would that idea disprove the empty tomb? Eve if God created another body for Jesus he still has to prove its Jesus.they cat get another guy and say he's Jesus that wouldn't prove anything. An empty tomb would indicate resurrection.

I agree it does not disprove the empty tomb. However we are discussing why Paul does not mention the empty tomb. You appear to be of the opinion that it is implicit in his writing. In fact it is not; Paul had no need of an empty tomb and had probably never heard of it.

JH: Moreover, the idea that they would think God would create a second body for each person who is being raised at the last trumpet is silly, for one thing it;s opposed to their concept of a unified indid iuda the Greeks thought the body was like a ship being sailed by the soul but not the jews, The jews saw anindividualas a jity of Bod,soul,and spirit,

Silly compared to the idea that a guy dying on a cross means my sins will be forgiven?

How do you know this? There is hardly anything on the Pharisees anywhere; the New Testament and Josephus are the best we have. It is clear the Pharisees were very different in their beliefs to the Sadducees, and it would therefore be foolish to claim the Pharisees believed something based on what other Jewish sects believed.

The best source we have on the Pharisee resurrection belief is Josephus, and he indicates new bodies.

Pix
Gary said…
Good Monday to you, Joe!

I read the article. It appears to be a condensed version of the previous article about which we engaged in discussion. Let me make some points:

1. As "Anonymous" said, I never said that it is a fact that the author of Mark invented the Empty Tomb story. What I said is that it is POSSIBLE that the author of Mark invented the Empty Tomb story. I cannot prove he did because I have ZERO evidence that he did. Would you kindly provide me a list of atheist bloggers who are making this outrageous claim. They need to be educated. I repeat: There is no definitive evidence that the author of Mark invented the Empty Tomb story. Hints, yes, hard evidence, no.

2. However, Kirby's list of scholars who believe that the author of Mark invented the Empty Tomb story is LONGER than your list of scholars whom you believe assert that a pre-Markan source included this detail. Does that mean that Kirby is right and you are wrong? No. Both positions are espoused by a minority of scholars. Since I am personally not a New Testament scholar I do not jump on bandwagons with the latest rage of minority scholarly opinion. I wait until a majority of scholars reach a consensus. As of this moment, there is no majority consensus on this issue. Therefore, I will withhold judgment as to the origin of the Empty Tomb story. Until a consensus is reached, I will continue to say that it is possible that the author of Mark invented the Empty Tomb story AND it is also possible that there really was an Empty Tomb of Joseph of Arimathea.

3. I have a great deal of respect for the scholarship of Raymond Brown. Could you give us a quote in which Brown states that there is convincing evidence of an Empty Tomb pericope existing prior to the Gospel of Mark?
Joe Hinman said…
ary said...
Good Monday to you, Joe!

hey Gary good to see you

I read the article. It appears to be a condensed version of the previous article about which we engaged in discussion. Let me make some points:

1. As "Anonymous" said, I never said that it is a fact that the author of Mark invented the Empty Tomb story. What I said is that it is POSSIBLE that the author of Mark invented the Empty Tomb story. I cannot prove he did because I have ZERO evidence that he did. Would you kindly provide me a list of atheist bloggers who are making this outrageous claim. They need to be educated. I repeat: There is no definitive evidence that the author of Mark invented the Empty Tomb story. Hints, yes, hard evidence, no.

I've been doing this since 1998. I've mode over a million posts and I've been on a thousand boards,these figures are not exaggerations. I've seen that stuff no and again, probably someone on CARM I think you could find it if you look.

Your assertion that saying it's possible rather than definite makes a big difference is wrong, it does not. History is about probability the probability of Mark inventing the empty tomb is slim to none.


2. However, Kirby's list of scholars who believe that the author of Mark invented the Empty Tomb story is LONGER than your list of scholars whom you believe assert that a pre-Markan source included this detail.



That is not a means of determining truth in scholarship. Who has more people in their list is irrelevant, but since you accept Kirby as evidence he says the view of PM redaction is consensus,



Does that mean that Kirby is right and you are wrong? No. Both positions are espoused by a minority of scholars.

wrong PMPN is consensus in the field,

Since I am personally not a New Testament scholar I do not jump on bandwagons with the latest rage of minority scholarly opinion. I wait until a majority of scholars reach a consensus.

you are not well read. No offense, I went to seminary I have a Masters in theology I've been studding this stuff for 50 Years.


As of this moment, there is no majority consensus on this issue.

yes there is

Therefore, I will withhold judgment as to the origin of the Empty Tomb story. Until a consensus is reached, I will continue to say that it is possible that the author of Mark invented the Empty Tomb story AND it is also possible that there really was an Empty Tomb of Joseph of Arimathea.

that is also lousy scholarship to think that consensus is what decides a matter, It' one factor.

3. I have a great deal of respect for the scholarship of Raymond Brown. Could you give us a quote in which Brown states that there is convincing evidence of an Empty Tomb pericope existing prior to the Gospel of Mark?

I don't know if I have a quote by him saying Mark didn't invent the empty tomb gut he does say the PN in Gpet is an older independent tradition does not depend upon the synoptic,the Passion narrative includes the empty tomb(Kokester says(.

11/27/2017 04:36:00 PM Delete
Joe Hinman said…
Gary I looked back at the paper of this thread the one you claim to have read. the quote I laid out by Brown says what you are looking for. Ok I know my sources better I wrote it not really being critical of you. I believe you read it, Here's the quote:

"GPet follow the classical flow from trail through crucifixion to burial to tomb presumably with post resurrection appearances to follow. The GPet sequence of individual episodes, however, is not the same as that of any canonical Gospel...When one looks at the overall sequence in the 23 items I listed in table 10, it would take very great imagination to picture the author of GPet studying Matthew carefully, deliberately shifting episodes around and copying in episodes form Luke and John to produce the present sequence."[13]

page 1322 death of Messiah

He includes tomb and post res appearances as part of the early independent mateiral,
Joe Hinman said…
Anonymous said...
JH: Ni it' not a second buoy it;s a glamorized body the first bodey,

Paul specifically says:

1 Cor 15:50 I tell you this, brothers: flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God, nor does the perishable inherit the imperishable. 51 Behold! I tell you a mystery. We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed, 52 in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, and the dead will be raised imperishable, and we shall be changed.

I know you to quote more fully, he says in 38-44

"38 But God gives it a body as he has determined, and to each kind of seed he gives its own body. 39 Not all flesh is the same: People have one kind of flesh, animals have another, birds another and fish another. 40 There are also heavenly bodies and there are earthly bodies; but the splendor of the heavenly bodies is one kind, and the splendor of the earthly bodies is another. 41 The sun has one kind of splendor, the moon another and the stars another; and star differs from star in splendor.

42 So will it be with the resurrection of the dead. The body that is sown is perishable, it is raised imperishable; 43 it is sown in dishonor, it is raised in glory; it is sown in weakness, it is raised in power; 44 it is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body."

that last bit it's sown in one way raised in another indicates that it is a process of rehabilitating the old body making it into a new one not one of a totally different body after all Jesus said we put new wine in old wineskins we make the old wine skins new,


Two points here. First he states flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom. That means you cannot still have your old body, because your old body is flesh and blood. It needs to be shed to get in to heaven.

that's why it;s "glorified,": it's the old body made new not a different body,

Secondly, he says the living will be transformed. Why? According to you, there is no need. They already have the bodies they need. However, Paul says those bodies are wrong for the kingdom of God. There have to be changed. Flesh and blood bodies will be changed into heavenly bodies. New bodies, Joe.

It says we will be transformed, a totally new body would not be transformation but relocation ,transformation means to remake the old body,


Gary said…
On page 1325 of Brown's "Death of Messiah" Brown says it would be "even more difficult" to say that the four canonical gospel authors used all or part of the Gospel of Peter for the sequencing of their stories.

What Brown seems to be saying is that the Gospel of Peter has a very different sequencing in the pericopes than the four canonical gospels. What does this prove? Brown doesn't really say other than it is not obvious that the author of "Pete" copied the sequence of events in the Jesus story as "Luke" and "Matthew" had copied "Mark". I don't see anywhere where Brown states that the Joseph of Arimathea tomb pericope was part of an original passion narrative that existed prior to the Gospels.
Joe Hinman said…
JH: I've seen statements that your translation of Josephus is notoriously bad, but I'll wait util I have time to look fora good source. There;s a lot wrong with your argument.

Px:Sounds like you are clutching at straws, but we will see,

Looking at the langue should always be the first thing you do, that's just a habit of good scholarship,that makes me think you have no real understanding of scholarship,

JH: The simplest way to show the flaw is just to think about why would that idea disprove the empty tomb? Eve if God created another body for Jesus he still has to prove its Jesus.they cat get another guy and say he's Jesus that wouldn't prove anything. An empty tomb would indicate resurrection.

Px:I agree it does not disprove the empty tomb. However we are discussing why Paul does not mention the empty tomb. You appear to be of the opinion that it is implicit in his writing. In fact it is not; Paul had no need of an empty tomb and had probably never heard of it.

yes it is who do you mention a body rising from the dead without implying that he left an empty tomb?" the quote alludes to a tomb. The Jews did not believe in ghosts living on apart fro the body that;not what they called resurrection that's proven by the emendation of tombs exploding and the dead rose and wondered the streets in Matthew,if that was not bodies how did anyone know they were there? If they were just disembodied spirits how did people see them? why did the tombs need to explode? your Jo quote about other bodies disproves the no body idea, they were talking about bodies,


JH: Moreover, the idea that they would think God would create a second body for each person who is being raised at the last trumpet is silly, for one thing it;s opposed to their concept of a unified individual. the Greeks thought the body was like a ship being sailed by the soul but not the jews, The jews saw an individual as a unity of Bod,soul,and spirit,

Silly compared to the idea that a guy dying on a cross means my sins will be forgiven?

that's not an answer, you think because you find the major thesis of Xr silly then they did;t write about bodily res? it does't work that way,red herring.

How do you know this? There is hardly anything on the Pharisees anywhere; the New Testament and Josephus are the best we have. It is clear the Pharisees were very different in their beliefs to the Sadducees, and it would therefore be foolish to claim the Pharisees believed something based on what other Jewish sects believed.

the Sads didn't believe in res at all. We know more about the pharisees from the Talmud than from Jo,He was trying to placate the' Ronans,

Hey you totally misunderstood the context of the other body thing. He's not talking about the final resurrection he's about reincarnation, I am willing to believe that some pharisees believed in reincarnation. But bodices resurrection is out and getting a new body at the final resurrection is not likely,


The best source we have on the Pharisee resurrection belief is Josephus, and he indicates new bodies.

(1) no it's the talmud and maybe Philo too. (2) he was not talking about the resurrection but reincarnation,
Joe Hinman said…
Gary said...
On page 1325 of Brown's "Death of Messiah" Brown says it would be "even more difficult" to say that the four canonical gospel authors used all or part of the Gospel of Peter for the sequencing of their stories.

Yes that;s because what he really means is they all five used the older PMR. He is saying the canonical did not copy gpet gpet did not copy them trey all used the older source,

What Brown seems to be saying is that the Gospel of Peter has a very different sequencing in the pericopes than the four canonical gospels. What does this prove?

what's important about that is hes saying Gpet is not based upon Matthe wit uses Psalms rather than Mathew for stricture, that;s good incineration that it;s older than the synoptic at least in that section,


Brown doesn't really say other than it is not obvious that the author of "Pete" copied the sequence of events in the Jesus story as "Luke" and "Matthew" had copied "Mark". I don't see anywhere where Brown states that the Joseph of Arimathea tomb pericope was part of an original passion narrative that existed prior to the Gospels.

He Accepts J of A as sophistical because he was not a friend of the Jesus movement as many suppose. He has a whole argument about that. He was just trying to keep from profaning the Holy day when he gave his tomb,
Joe Hinman said…
I know the Talmud wasn't written until at least two centuries latter, but most scholars especial Jewish one's accept that the originator sources were were oral and that it was passed on in oral form until written and pre dates first century and includes seal sections for the first cabinetry, Jesus is actually quoted in Talmudic material a couple of times,
Anonymous said…
JH: "38 But God gives it a body as he has determined, and to each kind of seed he gives its own body. 39 Not all flesh is the same: People have one kind of flesh, animals have another, birds another and fish another. 40 There are also heavenly bodies and there are earthly bodies; but the splendor of the heavenly bodies is one kind, and the splendor of the earthly bodies is another. 41 The sun has one kind of splendor, the moon another and the stars another; and star differs from star in splendor.

Two types of bodies; the original bodies (earthly bodies) and post-resurrection bodies (heavenly bodies).

JH: 42 So will it be with the resurrection of the dead. The body that is sown is perishable, it is raised imperishable; 43 it is sown in dishonor, it is raised in glory; it is sown in weakness, it is raised in power; 44 it is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body."

The earthly body is sown in the ground, i.e., buried in a tomb. From that a new body will spring. Think about it: When you plant a seed the seed stays in the ground! There is no empty hole where the seed used to be, just as there is no empty tomb where Jesus' body used to be.

JH: that last bit it's sown in one way raised in another indicates that it is a process of rehabilitating the old body making it into a new one not one of a totally different body after all Jesus said we put new wine in old wineskins we make the old wine skins new,

That is just spin that Christianity has added to it. Read what it actually says, not what Christian dogma pretends it says.

Did Paul really think people centuries dead would rise out if their tombs in their original bodies, rotten flesh hanging from dry bones?

JH: Looking at the langue should always be the first thing you do, that's just a habit of good scholarship,that makes me think you have no real understanding of scholarship,

Cheap shot. I used a standard translation. If you think it is lacking, it is up to you to show that. Given you feel the need to call out the standard of my scholarship, I assume you have failed to do that.

Looks to me like everything we have about the Pharisees indicates they believed in resurrection in a new body. So far you have offered zero to suggest otherwise.

JH: yes it is who do you mention a body rising from the dead without implying that he left an empty tomb?" the quote alludes to a tomb.

Paul alludes to a new body from a seed. The seed was the old body, planted in the ground, in a tomb. The new body is the plant that grows from the seed, not the seed that stays buried in the ground.

Pix
Anonymous said…
JH: The Jews did not believe in ghosts living on apart fro the body that;not what they called resurrection that's proven by the emendation of tombs exploding and the dead rose and wondered the streets in Matthew,if that was not bodies how did anyone know they were there? If they were just disembodied spirits how did people see them? why did the tombs need to explode? your Jo quote about other bodies disproves the no body idea, they were talking about bodies,

Just to be clear here, the Jews did in ghosts because the gospels are at pains to establish that Jesus was something else (see also Psalm 6:10-11). However, the ghostwas the pre-resurrection state. At the resurrection they would be given new bodies, something akin to angels:

Mat 22:30 For in the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels in heaven.

Daniel 2:2 Many of those who sleep in the dust of the ground will awake, these to everlasting life, but the others to disgrace and everlasting [a]contempt. 3 [b]Those who have insight will shine brightly like the brightness of the [c]expanse of heaven, and those who lead the many to righteousness, like the stars forever and ever.

Also consider what Paul actually saw when he saw Jesus.

Acts 9:3 As he journeyed he came near Damascus, and suddenly a light shone around him from heaven.

A new body. As described by Josephus. As described by Paul. Also as described in Ezekiel 37 (though this is a metaphor for the nation of Israel).

What do you think the author of Matthew was writing about? Hundreds of skeletons walking around Jerusalem, rotten fleshing falling from their bones? Or people that looked like angels, shining brightly like the expanse of heaven?

JH: the Sads didn't believe in res at all.

I know the Saducees did not believe in resurrection; my point was that there were very differing beliefs within Judaism.

JH: We know more about the pharisees from the Talmud than from Jo,He was trying to placate the' Ronans,

Great. I look forward to you finding the bit that says about resurrection.

JH: Hey you totally misunderstood the context of the other body thing. He's not talking about the final resurrection he's about reincarnation, I am willing to believe that some pharisees believed in reincarnation. But bodices resurrection is out and getting a new body at the final resurrection is not likely,

That is possible, but not certain. Far more likely is that Josephus was talking about typical Pharsee belief, which was resurrection, not re-incarnation.
Joe Hinman said…
Anonymous said...
JH: "38 But God gives it a body as he has determined, and to each kind of seed he gives its own body. 39 Not all flesh is the same: People have one kind of flesh, animals have another, birds another and fish another. 40 There are also heavenly bodies and there are earthly bodies; but the splendor of the heavenly bodies is one kind, and the splendor of the earthly bodies is another. 41 The sun has one kind of splendor, the moon another and the stars another; and star differs from star in splendor.

Two types of bodies; the original bodies (earthly bodies) and post-resurrection bodies (heavenly bodies).

the passage says it's the same body but made better but the same body, why else say: it goes to sleep one way and wakes up another way?: it says it!!!!

JH: 42 So will it be with the resurrection of the dead. The body that is sown is perishable, it is raised imperishable; 43 it is sown in dishonor, it is raised in glory; it is sown in weakness, it is raised in power; 44 it is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body."

there it is sown perishable and raised imperishable,same body,

The earthly body is sown in the ground, i.e., buried in a tomb. From that a new body will spring. Think about it: When you plant a seed the seed stays in the ground! There is no empty hole where the seed used to be, just as there is no empty tomb where Jesus' body used to be.

it does not say that, you are raging from analogy and you are extending it in ways the author did not,

JH: that last bit it's sown in one way raised in another indicates that it is a process of rehabilitating the old body making it into a new one not one of a totally different body after all Jesus said we put new wine in old wineskins we make the old wine skins new,

Pix:That is just spin that Christianity has added to it. Read what it actually says, not what Christian dogma pretends it says.

the spin the English language puts on it, v42 is obviousness saying the same body gets changed. ,

Did Paul really think people centuries dead would rise out if their tombs in their original bodies, rotten flesh hanging from dry bones?

so what if he did? he raised people from the dead so He must known God works miracles,
God can create a universe out of nothing why can;the do that?

such trucking ridiculous lengths to go to just to deny the resurrection,


Joe Hinman said…
Paul alludes to a new body from a seed. The seed was the old body, planted in the ground, in a tomb. The new body is the plant that grows from the seed, not the seed that stays buried in the ground.

1 cor 15

"36 How foolish! What you sow does not come to life unless it dies. 37 When you sow, you do not plant the body that will be, but just a seed, perhaps of wheat or of something else. 38 But God gives it a body as he has determined, and to each kind of seed he gives its own body. 39 Not all flesh is the same: People have one kind of flesh, animals have another, birds another and fish another. 40 There are also heavenly bodies and there are earthly bodies; but the splendor of the heavenly bodies is one kind, and the splendor of the earthly bodies is another. 41 The sun has one kind of splendor, the moon another and the stars another; and star differs from star in splendor."

that actually disproves your position.you don;t plant a seed then go get another seed to replace it, if you want to keep the planting metaphor and extend it all the way then it must be the same bodey that changes,

you have not answered the argument about the other resurrections their body cane out of the tombs,their spirits didn;t go into new bodies,
Joe Hinman said…
Anonymous said...
JH: The Jews did not believe in ghosts living on apart fro the body that;not what they called resurrection that's proven by the emendation of tombs exploding and the dead rose and wondered the streets in Matthew,if that was not bodies how did anyone know they were there? If they were just disembodied spirits how did people see them? why did the tombs need to explode? your Jo quote about other bodies disproves the no body idea, they were talking about bodies,

Px:Just to be clear here, the Jews did in ghosts because the gospels are at pains to establish that Jesus was something else (see also Psalm 6:10-11). However, the ghostwas the pre-resurrection state. At the resurrection they would be given new bodies, something akin to angels:

they belived in ghosts but ghosts were bad, they did not believe the resurrection at the end of tine would be ghosts,

Mat 22:30 For in the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels in heaven.

that does not mean they are ghosts,

Daniel 2:2 Many of those who sleep in the dust of the ground will awake, these to everlasting life, but the others to disgrace and everlasting [a]contempt. 3 [b]Those who have insight will shine brightly like the brightness of the [c]expanse of heaven, and those who lead the many to righteousness, like the stars forever and ever.

no reason to assume awaking means a ghost, it means with a body yourold body thatis renewed,

Also consider what Paul actually saw when he saw Jesus.

Acts 9:3 As he journeyed he came near Damascus, and suddenly a light shone around him from heaven.

Jesus changed again in the ascension,

A new body. As described by Josephus. As described by Paul. Also as described in Ezekiel 37 (though this is a metaphor for the nation of Israel).

that was rein corn nation not the resurrection, Alfred Edershiem says they believed in bodily resurrection of the same body,

What do you think the author of Matthew was writing about? Hundreds of skeletons walking around Jerusalem, rotten fleshing falling from their bones? Or people that looked like angels, shining brightly like the expanse of heaven?

obviousness if God is going to renew their lives, he;s going to renew their bodies, obvious, that fit what Jesus says about old wineskins being made new, can't you understand the metaphor? wine is the spirit and the skin is the body,

JH: the Sads didn't believe in res at all.

I know the Saducees did not believe in resurrection; my point was that there were very differing beliefs within Judaism.

yes that odes not indicate a separate body,

JH: We know more about the pharisees from the Talmud than from Jo,He was trying to placate the' Ronans,

Great. I look forward to you finding the bit that says about resurrection.

I have read it, Edersheim was a Jew trained as a rabbi who became a Christian he was professor of Bible at Oxford, He showed the Talmudic passage that related the New Testament,so he showed the Talmud teaches that the Messiah will decked and he will shout the triplet will blow then dead come back in their old bodies but remade,,

JH: Hey you totally misunderstood the context of the other body thing. He's not talking about the final resurrection he's about reincarnation, I am willing to believe that some pharisees believed in reincarnation. But bodices resurrection is out and getting a new body at the final resurrection is not likely,

That is possible, but not certain. Far more likely is that Josephus was talking about typical Pharsee belief, which was resurrection, not re-incarnation.

you can read the original context on the Ethereal library he;snot talking about the resurrection,

have you ever asked yourself how it would work they could switch and why would do it? Everyone kibbles in coming back as a ghost and being into new body but let's say Jesus re animated his old body why?? what would it get them?
Anonymous said…
JH: the passage says it's the same body but made better but the same body, why else say: it goes to sleep one way and wakes up another way?: it says it!!!!

Going to sleep is a metaphor for death, it is not literally going to sleep. I am sure you know that.

Paul knew many people had already "fallen sleep" and that the flesh on their bodies had entirely rotten away - it was the practice at that time to recover the bones in a ossuary once this had happened so was common knowledge and would happen within a year of death.

If you are right, then Paul believed that jar full of bones would come to life, an animated skeleton!

If I am right, that jar of skeletons is merely a seed, and Paul believed God would give the deceased a new body, a body suitable for heaven.

JH: it does not say that, you are raging from analogy and you are extending it in ways the author did not,

I think it likely that Paul thought the seed sown in the ground was like the body buried in a tomb, but I accept it could be coincidence. Either way he was clearly differentiating between the seed and the plant that comes from it. The seed is the old body, the plant the new. "it is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body." That adds up to two bodies, Joe.

Pix: Did Paul really think people centuries dead would rise out if their tombs in their original bodies, rotten flesh hanging from dry bones?

JH: so what if he did?

Then he has a frankly disturbed view of the resurrection. The Pharisees believed the resurrection would be a wonderful thing for the righteous, not the zombie apocalypse.

JH: he raised people from the dead so He must known God works miracles,
God can create a universe out of nothing why can;the do that?


It is not about whether God could do it, it is about what Paul believed. How did Paul envisage the general resurrection? Did he see it as the zombie apocalypse, with the resurrected shambling skeletons with rotten flesh hanging from them? Or did he envisage it as the righteous in brilliant new bodies similar to angels?

JH: such trucking ridiculous lengths to go to just to deny the resurrection,

You are the one who has to suppose Paul was looking forward to the day the undead walk the land.

JH: that actually disproves your position.you don;t plant a seed then go get another seed to replace it, if you want to keep the planting metaphor and extend it all the way then it must be the same bodey that changes,

No, Joe, new seeds appear on the plant that grew from the old seed. Different seeds.

JH: you have not answered the argument about the other resurrections their body cane out of the tombs,their spirits didn;t go into new bodies,

I thought I had (first half of my comment 11/28/2017 01:01:00 AM). Again, we have to either suppose these saints were walking skeletons, with the flesh dropping from their ancient bones, or that God gave them new bodies, and they walked around Jerusalem like angels. Which do you think the author of Matthew was claiming? I think the former is nonsense.

I think the latter is supported by Mat 22:30, Daniel 2:2 and Acts 9:3. See if you can find any Bible verses to support your claim of walking skeletons. I think you will struggle.

Pix
Anonymous said…
Pix: Just to be clear here, the Jews did in ghosts because the gospels are at pains to establish that Jesus was something else (see also Psalm 6:10-11). However, the ghostwas the pre-resurrection state. At the resurrection they would be given new bodies, something akin to angels:

JH: they belived in ghosts but ghosts were bad, they did not believe the resurrection at the end of tine would be ghosts,

I take it you did not actually read the comment you were replying to. Your next few comments are based on a misunderstanding. The resurrected bodies were not ghosts, they were new heavenly bodies akin to angels:

Mat 22:30 For in the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels in heaven.

Daniel 2:2 Many of those who sleep in the dust of the ground will awake, these to everlasting life, but the others to disgrace and everlasting [a]contempt. 3 [b]Those who have insight will shine brightly like the brightness of the [c]expanse of heaven, and those who lead the many to righteousness, like the stars forever and ever.

Acts 9:3 As he journeyed he came near Damascus, and suddenly a light shone around him from heaven.

JH: Jesus changed again in the ascension,

That is the line Christianity invented subsequent to Paul, but it is likely the ascension was as unknown to Paul as the empty tomb - it is similarly absent from 1 Corinthians 15:3-9. Paul saw Jesus as the first fruits, the prototype for the resurrection to come. He expected what happened to Jesus to happen to all the righteous. That is, they would get new heavenly bodies like angels. There is nothing in 1 Corinthians 15 to suggest a second transformation 40 days later.

JH: that was rein corn nation not the resurrection, Alfred Edershiem says they believed in bodily resurrection of the same body,

Are you seriously claiming that Josephus said Pharisees believed in reincarnation? Is it your position that Josephus was so clueless that he got this basic fact about his own people wrong? Or are you arguing reincarnation was the mainstream Pharisee belief?

It is pretty well established that Josephus was a great historian for his time and that he was a Jew, and he is generally thought to be a Pharisee himself. On the other hand, the Old Testament talks about the resurrection a lot, but never reincarnation. Either way I think you will find yourself in an untenable position. I suspect you know that and will do your best to evade reply.

JH: obviousness if God is going to renew their lives, he;s going to renew their bodies, obvious, that fit what Jesus says about old wineskins being made new, can't you understand the metaphor? wine is the spirit and the skin is the body,

Absolutely. Why can you not understand that the new wineskin is different to the old one?

JH: I have read it, Edersheim was a Jew trained as a rabbi who became a Christian he was professor of Bible at Oxford, He showed the Talmudic passage that related the New Testament,so he showed the Talmud teaches that the Messiah will decked and he will shout the triplet will blow then dead come back in their old bodies but remade,,

We are talking specifically about the Pharisees. Find the bit that explains what they believed.

Pix
Anonymous said…
JH: you can read the original context on the Ethereal library he;snot talking about the resurrection,

Here it is from Ethereal library:

14. But then as to the two other orders at first mentioned, the Pharisees are those who are esteemed most skillful in the exact explication of their laws, and introduce the first sect. These ascribe all to fate [or providence], and to God, and yet allow, that to act what is right, or the contrary, is principally in the power of men, although fate does co-operate in every action. They say that all souls are incorruptible, but that the souls of good men only are removed into other bodies, - but that the souls of bad men are subject to eternal punishment. But the Sadducees are those that compose the second order, and take away fate entirely, and suppose that God is not concerned in our doing or not doing what is evil; and they say, that to act what is good, or what is evil, is at men's own choice, and that the one or the other belongs so to every one, that they may act as they please. They also take away the belief of the immortal duration of the soul, and the punishments and rewards in Hades. Moreover, the Pharisees are friendly to one another, and are for the exercise of concord, and regard for the public; but the behavior of the Sadducees one towards another is in some degree wild, and their conversation with those that are of their own party is as barbarous as if they were strangers to them. And this is what I had to say concerning the philosophic sects among the Jews.

It is clear he is talking about the afterlife because he is contrasting the souls of good men and bad. The bad get punishment, the good get their reward, the new body. Note also how he says the Pharisees are all nice people and the Saducees are not; likely because he was himself a Pharisee, and he was selling their ideology to the Romans.

Again, I ask, what is your position here, Joe? Do you think Josephus is wrong about what the Pharisees believed? Or are you arguing reincarnation was the Pharisee belief of the time?

JH: have you ever asked yourself how it would work they could switch and why would do it? Everyone kibbles in coming back as a ghost and being into new body but let's say Jesus re animated his old body why?? what would it get them?

What Paul (and Pharisees in general) envisaged was that when you die you become a shade, a ghost. At some point the messiah would appear to herald the kingdom of God, and this would cause the resurrection, when all the dead would come back to life in new, angel-like bodies, shining brilliantly (Daniel 2:2-3, Acts 9:3). Even those who are not dead would still be transformed into these new heavenly bodies (1 Cor 15:51-52).

Paul saw what he believed to be Jesus, a shining light, i.e., someone that this had already happened to. This is what convinced him Jesus was the messiah - Jesus resembled what he was expecting from the resurrection.

In contrast, you appear to be arguing that Paul believed people would be resurrected in their old bodies as shambling skeletons, whilst Josephus did not believe in the resurrection at all, but claiming the good get reincarnated!

Pix
Gary said…
I ordered Brown's book online. I will read both volumes in their entirety. He was a very good scholar.
Joe Hinman said…

It is clear he is talking about the afterlife because he is contrasting the souls of good men and bad. The bad get punishment, the good get their reward, the new body. Note also how he says the Pharisees are all nice people and the Saducees are not; likely because he was himself a Pharisee, and he was selling their ideology to the Romans.

after life is not the resurrection people are dying long time before the res happens, but reincarnation is in the after life.After this life I will be reincarnated. supposedly.So he was probably talking about reincorporation not resurrection,
Joe Hinman said…
Paul saw what he believed to be Jesus, a shining light, i.e., someone that this had already happened to. This is what convinced him Jesus was the messiah - Jesus resembled what he was expecting from the resurrection.

there is no evidence that Paul had a preconceived idea that Jesus rose or that he would talk to him,he asked the light "who are you?"

In contrast, you appear to be arguing that Paul believed people would be resurrected in their old bodies as shambling skeletons, whilst Josephus did not believe in the resurrection at all, but claiming the good get reincarnated!


I am at a loss to know why you can;t read the words. It;s your native tongue I use words everytime like "revitalize" "rehabilitate," "rejuvenated,": I have expressed explicitly the old body but Made new, MADE NEW, MADE NEW, MADE NEW MAKE THE BODY NEW MALE NEW
WHAT MORE CAN i SAY? ARE YOU DAFT????
Anonymous said…
JH: after life is not the resurrection people are dying long time before the res happens, but reincarnation is in the after life.After this life I will be reincarnated. supposedly.So he was probably talking about reincorporation not resurrection,

Wrong, he is talking about what happens at the resurrection. He contrasts it with the Saducees who "take away the belief of the immortal duration of the soul, and the punishments and rewards in Hades". The reward is the resurrection in a new body; this happens at the resurrection event.

Further, as predicted, you have failed to address the important issue of WHY Josephus said reincarnation. What set the Pharisees apart from other Jewish sects was their belief that a strict adherence to the law would allow God to send the messiah, which would initiate the resurrection event. The resurrection was a vital component of what being a Pharisee actually meant.

Are you seriously suggesting Josephus, likely a Pharisee himself, was clueless about this fundamental belief of the Pharisees? Are you aware how desperate this makes you look?

JH: there is no evidence that Paul had a preconceived idea that Jesus rose or that he would talk to him,he asked the light "who are you?"

Agreed, he certainly was not expecting to see Jesus, whom he considered a false messiah or false prophet up to that point.

However, he was expecting the resurrection, and he was expecting the resurrected to appear in bodies that "shine brightly like the brightness of the expanse of heaven" (Daniel 2:2), and he was expecting the true messiah to usher in the resurrection. Because this is what the Pharisees believed, just as Josephus says.

Jesus fitted what he was expecting, and so Paul concluded that Jesus was not a false prophet, he really was the messiah.

JH: I am at a loss to know why you can;t read the words. It;s your native tongue I use words everytime like "revitalize" "rehabilitate," "rejuvenated,": I have expressed explicitly the old body but Made new, MADE NEW, MADE NEW, MADE NEW MAKE THE BODY NEW MALE NEW
WHAT MORE CAN i SAY? ARE YOU DAFT????


What you are saying is that it is the old body but it is not really the old body. Christianity has successfully twisted itself into this contradictory position because of the later accounts of Jesus wandering around with crucifixion holes in his hands and this need to support the empty tomb.

If God is making a new body, he does not need the old. It is done, worn out, useless. Remember the wineskin analogy? God pours the wine out of the old wineskin, and into the new. The old is discarded. Remember the seed analogy? The seed is still there, buried in the ground. The old body is discarded, left buried in the ground.

Pix
Joe Hinman said…
JH: after life is not the resurrection people are dying long time before the res happens, but reincarnation is in the after life.After this life I will be reincarnated. supposedly.So he was probably talking about reincorporation not resurrection,

Wrong, he is talking about what happens at the resurrection. He contrasts it with the Saducees who "take away the belief of the immortal duration of the soul, and the punishments and rewards in Hades". The reward is the resurrection in a new body; this happens at the resurrection event.

No wrong he does not, he doesn't say it and no scowl thinks so, you can contrast Pharisee and sacucee notions of after life,
Joe Hinman said…
If God is making a new body, he does not need the old. It is done, worn out, useless. Remember the wineskin analogy? God pours the wine out of the old wineskin, and into the new. The old is discarded. Remember the seed analogy? The seed is still there, buried in the ground. The old body is discarded, left buried in the ground.



no that is stupid, Jews Belleek that who you are included your body stick a spoilsport a different body and it is a different person.more over where is he going to grow brainless husks of body waiting to to stick a new spirit inside it? If it has a brain it has a soul it;s a different person, there is no suite thing as a brainless body waiting to become a person, why destroy the person? desultory the destroy you destroy the person,
Joe Hinman said…
What you are saying is that it is the old body but it is not really the old body. Christianity has successfully twisted itself into this contradictory position because of the later accounts of Jesus wandering around with crucifixion holes in his hands and this need to support the empty tomb.

that's pretty senseless,. unthinking you can't rejuvenate some thing that is stupid,
Joe Hinman said…
It's extremely obvious the Josephus quote is not about the final resurrection but reincarnation, key phrases, no mention of Messiah no mention of resurrection of fallen Irael.

quote:

14. "But then as to the two other orders at first mentioned, the Pharisees are those who are esteemed most skillful in the exact explication of their laws, and introduce the first sect. These ascribe all to fate [or providence], and to God, and yet allow, that to act what is right, or the contrary, is principally in the power of men, although fate does co-operate in every action."

obviously talking about life,death and moral behavior the way you live not the last trupet, or the en\d of times,


"They say that all souls are incorruptible, but that the souls of good men only are removed into other bodies,"


- but that the souls of bad men are subject to eternal punishment. But the Sadducees are those that compose the second order, and take away fate entirely,

"and suppose that God is not concerned in our doing or not doing what is evil; and they say, that to act what is good, or what is evil, is at men's own choice, and that the one or the other belongs so to every one, that they may act as they please."

not the need of time but dials with the way one lives with death and lifenot the last days


They also take away the belief of the immortal duration of the soul, and the punishments and rewards in Hades. Moreover, the Pharisees are friendly to one another, and are for the exercise of concord, and regard for the public; but the behavior of the Sadducees one towards another is in some degree wild, and their conversation with those that are of their own party is as barbarous as if they were strangers to them. And this is what I had to say concerning the philosophic sects among the Jews.
Anonymous said…
JH: No wrong he does not, he doesn't say it and no scowl thinks so, you can contrast Pharisee and sacucee notions of after life,

Not sure what you mean. Josephus very clearly is contrasting Pharisee and Saducee notions of the afterlife, and clearly indicates the Pharisee view is of judgement, leading to reward or punishment, with the reward being a new body. It is possible to understand that as reincarnation in the absence of any context, but we know the Pharisee were expecting a resurrection, and in the context of that, it has to be the case that Josephus is talking about that.

JH: obviously talking about life,death and moral behavior the way you live not the last trupet, or the en\d of times,

But they were intimately connected. If you are a good person, you get resurrected at the end times, otherwise you get eternal punishment. Surely you must realise that? Jesus said much the same; repent and have everlasting life, sin and reap eternal suffering. Have you not heard of the "Day of Judgement"? That is what he is talking about.

JH: not the need of time but dials with the way one lives with death and lifenot the last days

He is discussing how the way one lives ones life will affect whether you are resurrected or suffer eternally. This is basic stuff, Joe.


Further, you still have not explained why you think Josephus is talking about reincarnation. Why so shy Joe? Is it because you know it makes no sense?

You are so sure you are right, and yet cannot bring yourself to take a position on this. If you are right, he must have had some reason to say the Pharisees believed in reincarnation. Was he mistaken? Or did they really believe in reincarnation? You know neither makes any sense, so time and again you refuse to address it.

Pix
Anonymous said…
JH: no that is stupid, Jews Belleek that who you are included your body stick a spoilsport a different body and it is a different person.more over where is he going to grow brainless husks of body waiting to to stick a new spirit inside it? If it has a brain it has a soul it;s a different person, there is no suite thing as a brainless body waiting to become a person, why destroy the person? desultory the destroy you destroy the person,

Are you suggesting the Jews at that time believed the mind is reducible to the brain?

The belief is not that God would grow mindless husks, but that he would create them instantly. Read your Bible, Joe. It is all in there.

Resurrected in angel-like bodies that shine brightly:

Mat 22:30 For in the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels in heaven.

Daniel 2:2 Many of those who sleep in the dust of the ground will awake, these to everlasting life, but the others to disgrace and everlasting [a]contempt. 3 [b]Those who have insight will shine brightly like the brightness of the [c]expanse of heaven, and those who lead the many to righteousness, like the stars forever and ever.

Acts 9:3 As he journeyed he came near Damascus, and suddenly a light shone around him from heaven.

Resurrected in bodies that are different in nature to the old one:

1 Cor 15:39 All flesh is not the same flesh, but there is one flesh of men, and another flesh of beasts, and another flesh of birds, and another of fish. 40 There are also heavenly bodies and earthly bodies, but the glory of the heavenly is one, and the glory of the earthly is another. 41 There is one glory of the sun, and another glory of the moon, and another glory of the stars; for star differs from star in glory.

1 Cor 15:44 it is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body.

Bodies created in the instant:

1 Cor 15:52 in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet; for the trumpet will sound, and the dead will be raised [r]imperishable, and we will be changed.
Joe Hinman said…
Bodies created in the instant:

1 Cor 15:52 in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet; for the trumpet will sound, and the dead will be raised [r]imperishable, and we will be changed.

11/29/2017 06:19:00 AM Delete

NOTHING IN THAT PASSAGE SAYS "CREATED" IT IS CLEARLY AND OBVIOUSLY TALKING ABOUT THE SAME BODY THAT DIED BEING CHANGED AND COMING BACK TO LIFE!!!!!!! IT IS CLEALRY THE SANE BOEY.


(1_ it says "changed" not created "and we will be changed"

(2)the phrase "at the last Trump indicates the resurrection of all those who diedin Israel, thye end of the age,


you have totally drooped the arguments I made about why this does not preclude the resurrection. so i proved highly unkindly that Mark created the empty tomb,
Anonymous said…
JH: ...more over where is he going to grow brainless husks of body waiting to to stick a new spirit inside it? If it has a brain it has a soul it;s a different person, there is no suite thing as a brainless body waiting to become a person, ...

Pix: Bodies created in the instant:
1 Cor 15:52 in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet; for the trumpet will sound, and the dead will be raised [r]imperishable, and we will be changed.

JH: NOTHING IN THAT PASSAGE SAYS "CREATED" IT IS CLEARLY AND OBVIOUSLY TALKING ABOUT THE SAME BODY THAT DIED BEING CHANGED AND COMING BACK TO LIFE!!!!!!! IT IS CLEALRY THE SANE BOEY.

My comment was specifically to address your idea about empty bodies being grown as "brainless husks". That is not what Paul says at all, and the quote from 1 Cor 15 indicates he envisaged this as happening (whatever it was) instantaneously.

JH: (1_ it says "changed" not created "and we will be changed"

Like when you change your clothes, it is not the same clothes. You take off the old clothes, and put on new.

JH: (2)the phrase "at the last Trump indicates the resurrection of all those who diedin Israel, thye end of the age,

So you have heard of it then. That is the resurrection event that Josephus is referring to.

Paul believed that at the last trump the righteous would be resurrected. In common with all other Pharisees, just as Josephus described; "They say that all souls are incorruptible, but that the souls of good men only are removed into other bodies, - but that the souls of bad men are subject to eternal punishment." This was the Day of Judgement, Joe, when people are judged and either resurrected or sent to eternal suffering. This was standard Pharisee belief, and was supported by various verses in the Bible. Nothing about reincarnation, Joe.

Pix
Joe Hinman said…
Anonymous said...
JH: no that is stupid, Jews Belleek that who you are included your body stick a spoilsport a different body and it is a different person.more over where is he going to grow brainless husks of body waiting to to stick a new spirit inside it? If it has a brain it has a soul it;s a different person, there is no suite thing as a brainless body waiting to become a person, why destroy the person? desultory the destroy you destroy the person,

Are you suggesting the Jews at that time believed the mind is reducible to the brain?

the reality of my argumet precludes God doing it that way regardless of what they believed, but they did not know abouit the brain, but they did beleive your body was asm much you as your mind,

The belief is not that God would grow mindless husks, but that he would create them instantly. Read your Bible, Joe. It is all in there.

Resurrected in angel-like bodies that shine brightly:

Mat 22:30 For in the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels in heaven.

that would be the very same if the old body is reworked, there is noting there that implies a different body

Daniel 2:2 Many of those who sleep in the dust of the ground will awake, these to everlasting life, but the others to disgrace and everlasting [a]contempt. 3 [b]Those who have insight will shine brightly like the brightness of the [c]expanse of heaven, and those who lead the many to righteousness, like the stars forever and ever.

nothing in that passage says new different body, it could just as easily be the old body that is shied up,

Acts 9:3 As he journeyed he came near Damascus, and suddenly a light shone around him from heaven.

how in the hell do you imagine that it's a different body?


Resurrected in bodies that are different in nature to the old one:

1 Cor 15:39 All flesh is not the same flesh, but there is one flesh of men, and another flesh of beasts, and another flesh of birds, and another of fish. 40 There are also heavenly bodies and earthly bodies, but the glory of the heavenly is one, and the glory of the earthly is another. 41 There is one glory of the sun, and another glory of the moon, and another glory of the stars; for star differs from star in glory.

I already quoted this passage to you but you conveniently left out 42 which clearly and obviousness backs what I'm saying,

That says point blank it;s the same body that is hurried is changed and raised,you are wrong


1 Cor 15:44 it is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body.

why do you assume God can't change something from one state to another? can't you frese water and change it's form? they thought you could
Anonymous said…
JH: the reality of my argumet precludes God doing it that way regardless of what they believed, but they did not know abouit the brain, but they did beleive your body was asm much you as your mind,

But we are discussing what they believed, so the reality or otherwise of your argument is irrelevant.

Also, I would dispute your claim about the body, in the light of this:

Psalm 16:10 For you will not abandon my soul to Sheol, or let your holy one see corruption.[f]
11 You make known to me the path of life; in your presence there is fullness of joy; at your right hand are pleasures forevermore.

I think this makes it clear that they believed the soul existed outside of the body after death, awaiting the resurrection. Otherwise, when the body rots away - which would happen in a matter of other - the soul is gone too. The resurrection was for everyone, not just those who had died within the last 90 days.

JH: that would be the very same if the old body is reworked, there is noting there that implies a different body

But what if there is no old body because rotted away centuries ago? They necessarily had to believe in a new body because they knew those long dead - such as the saints the author of Matthew claimed walked around Jerusalem - had no body to replace.

JH: nothing in that passage says new different body, it could just as easily be the old body that is shied up,

No it cannot because those long dead have no body to replace.

JH: how in the hell do you imagine that it's a different body?

It shows the Pharisees (such as Paul) expected the resurrected to appear as angel-like, and not in the form the gospels indicate, the original body, including all the marks of death.

You need to appreciate that this is a general picture of Pharisee belief at that time.

JH: I already quoted this passage to you but you conveniently left out 42 which clearly and obviousness backs what I'm saying,

1 Cor 15:42 So is it with the resurrection of the dead. What is sown is perishable; what is raised is imperishable.

The body is sown in the ground, and from it springs the new body - like a seed producing a plant. The seed is still there. The old body is still there.

JH: That says point blank it;s the same body that is hurried is changed and raised,you are wrong

No it does not. You are looking at it from a distorted Christian perspective, because you want it to say that.

JH: why do you assume God can't change something from one state to another? can't you frese water and change it's form? they thought you could

I am not assuming anything about God, I do not think he exists. This is about what Pharisees like Paul believed.

This is why the Josephus quote is important as it is the only non-Biblical text we have. I still do not know why you think Josephus said the Pharisees believed in reincarnation. Are you claiming he was mistaken? Avoiding the awkward questions is a sign of bad scholarship; if there is an issue with your claim you need to address it, not pretend it does not exist.
Joe Hinman said…
Px:
Also, I would dispute your claim about the body, in the light of this:

Psalm 16:10 For you will not abandon my soul to Sheol, or let your holy one see corruption.[f]

That's a prophesy of the Messiah not a statement about all people.He did not see corruption because he was raised from the dead, Messiah was expected to be the first fruits for the dead that's why he would hold the keys to life and death,


11 You make known to me the path of life; in your presence there is fullness of joy; at your right hand are pleasures forevermore.

I think this makes it clear that they believed the soul existed outside of the body after death, awaiting the resurrection. Otherwise, when the body rots away - which would happen in a matter of other - the soul is gone too. The resurrection was for everyone, not just those who had died within the last 90 days.

they believed God could do things we can't do, they knew that bodies decay into bones into dust, But God can reverse the process and bring the dust back to a Flesh and blood body and make it better than it was,



But what if there is no old body because rotted away centuries ago? They necessarily had to believe in a new body because they knew those long dead -

No I just covered that,God can reconstitute the dust,



It shows the Pharisees (such as Paul) expected the resurrected to appear as angel-like, and not in the form the gospels indicate, the original body, including all the marks of death.

that's foolish because the gospels never indicate how resurrection bodies look. You are asserting that people Jesus raised from the dead are the same as people at the major end time resurrection. Those are two different things.

You need to appreciate that this is a general picture of Pharisee belief at that time.

No it's not, it's one passage by a guy who got his fax as a teen ager and was talking about reincarnation not the final resurrection,



JH: I already quoted this passage to you but you conveniently left out v42 which clearly and obviously backs what I'm saying,

1 Cor 15:42 So is it with the resurrection of the dead. What is sown is perishable; what is raised is imperishable.

The body is sown in the ground, and from it springs the new body - like a seed producing a plant. The seed is still there. The old body is still there.

JH: That says point blank it;s the same body that is hurried is changed and raised,you are wrong

Px:No it does not. You are looking at it from a distorted Christian perspective, because you want it to say that.

No I;m looking at it from reading Greek. it literally says it goes in the ground this way it comes out of the ground this way that is literal the same thing goes in and comes out not adifferent bodfy,

JH: why do you assume God can't change something from one state to another? can't you frese water and change it's form? they thought you could

I am not assuming anything about God, I do not think he exists. This is about what Pharisees like Paul believed.

they believed God could do things.they had no trouble believing God could reconstitute a rotted body,

Joe Hinman said…
This is why the Josephus quote is important as it is the only non-Biblical text we have.

no it;snot I've already covered this, its also not as widely trusted as he used to be.

http://mb-soft.com/believe/txc/pharisee.htm

"Virtually all our knowledge about the Pharisees is derived from three sets of sources: the works of the Jewish historian Flavius Josephus, The Jewish War (ca. A.D. 75), The Antiquities of the Jews (ca. A.D. 94), and Life (ca. A.D. 101); the various compilations of the rabbis (ca. A.D. 200 and later); and the NT."

"...The value of Josephus's information (traditionally regarded as the most helpful) is diminished by recent studies which suggest that Josephus was not a Pharisee before A.D. 70 and that his eventual conversion was motivated more by political realities than by careful study of the different Jewish sects. It certainly cannot be denied that Josephus's descriptions of the Pharisees are superficial. In short, therefore, our sources provide neither a complete nor a straightforward picture of the Pharisees."

and the quote-- the only quote--is about reincarnation


I still do not know why you think Josephus said the Pharisees believed in reincarnation. Are you claiming he was mistaken? Avoiding the awkward questions is a sign of bad scholarship; if there is an issue with your claim you need to address it, not pretend it does not exist.

I/ve covered that,

(1) the things he says are about life and death and being moral,so he;s talking about the the average experience of death not the end of the age.

(2) what he does not say is anything about the end of the age or the last Trumpet or the Messiah he would talk about that if he was reffing to the end of the age,

finally no scholar supports your view,you have not quoted quoted one and I bet you wont find one,
Anonymous said…
I wrote this yesterday, but only just realised it failed to post...

JH: you have totally drooped the arguments I made about why this does not preclude the resurrection. so i proved highly unkindly that Mark created the empty tomb,

I am not sure if Mark invented the empty tomb or not; it may well predate him. There are fair arguments both ways, and your cherry-picking of scholars really is not convincing (and I say cherry-picking because you use Koester exactly as far as he agrees with you, but reject his opinion where it disagrees with your own).

But so what? If it got made up ten years earlier, then it was still made up. And what Paul says is vital to deciding whether it was made up or not. What Paul said is our best guide to what the very earliest Christians believed by a long way. And all the evidence points to him (1) not having heard of the empty tomb and (2) believing in a new heavenly body so not requiring an empty tomb.

Pix
Anonymous said…
I am going to take a step back, and state exactly what my position is on Jewish beliefs at the time of Jesus, and what support there is for those beliefs.

The Jews of that time were awaiting a messiah. The messiah was the new king, and as such had to be a descendant of the original king, David (2 Samuel 7:12-16). The king was considered to have been adopted by God as his son (2 Samuel 7:14; Psalm 2:2,7), so the new messiah would become the son of God. He was expected to overthrow the Romans (or whoever was ruling over the Jews at the time), and to usher in a new age; the Kingdom of God on Earth. This was the end times that all Jews hoped would arrive soon (even Jesus prayed for it: "Thy kingdom come; Thy will be done in earth, as it is in heaven"), and that it would be accompanied by the resurrection.

The Spirits of the Dead

The Jews belied that at death the spirit departed the body - specifically with the last breath, as breath and spirit were deeply connected - to reside in Sheol. This Psalm might be about the messiah, but the messiah was a man too:

Psalm 16:10 For you will not abandon my soul to Sheol, or let your holy one see corruption.

See also:

Isaiah 14:9 “Sheol from beneath is excited over you to meet you when you come;
It arouses for you the [e]spirits of the dead, all the [f]leaders of the earth;
It raises all the kings of the nations from their thrones.

And also:

1 Samuel 28:11 Then said the woman, Whom shall I bring up unto thee? And he said, Bring me up Samuel.
...
14 And he said unto her, What form is he of? And she said, An old man cometh up; and he is covered with a mantle. And Saul perceived that it was Samuel, and he stooped with his face to the ground, and bowed himself.
15 And Samuel said to Saul, Why hast thou disquieted me, to bring me up? And Saul answered, I am sore distressed; for the Philistines make war against me, and God is departed from me, and answereth me no more, neither by prophets, nor by dreams: therefore I have called thee, that thou mayest make known unto me what I shall do.

It is also worth pointing out that in the later gospels, Jesus was at pains to point out that he was not a ghost after his resurrection.


Resurrected Body

In 1 Corinthians 15, Paul explains in some detail how the resurrected body is different to the original body, and this is further confirmed by these verses:

Mat 22:30 For in the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels in heaven.

Daniel 2:2 Many of those who sleep in the dust of the ground will awake, these to everlasting life, but the others to disgrace and everlasting [a]contempt. 3 [b]Those who have insight will shine brightly like the brightness of the [c]expanse of heaven, and those who lead the many to righteousness, like the stars forever and ever.

Also consider what Paul actually saw when he saw Jesus. He believed Jesus had been resurrected because Jesus appeared to him in this new body shining brightly:

Acts 9:3 As he journeyed he came near Damascus, and suddenly a light shone around him from heaven.


Resurrection Event and Judgement Day

The resurrection is for the righteous only, as the Daniel verses state. At the resurrection, God will judge everyone, rewarding the righteous, punishing the sinful. Paul understood Jesus to be the precursor to that event.

Daniel 7:9-10 “As I looked, thrones were placed, and the Ancient of Days took his seat; his clothing was white as snow, and the hair of his head like pure wool; his throne was fiery flames; its wheels were burning fire. A stream of fire issued and came out from before him; a thousand thousands served him, and ten thousand times ten thousand stood before him; the court sat in judgment, and the books were opened.

Pix
Anonymous said…
The Pharisees

All the above was the standard Jewish belief, even today:
https://www.myjewishlearning.com/article/jewish-resurrection-of-the-dead/

Where the Pharisees were different is that they believed that God would send the messiah only when Jews were sufficiently observant of the law, and so they saw a strict obedience to the letter of the law to be vital.

Josephus

All the above, then, is what Josephus was talking about.

14. But then as to the two other orders at first mentioned, the Pharisees are those who are esteemed most skillful in the exact explication of their laws, and introduce the first sect. These ascribe all to fate [or providence], and to God, and yet allow, that to act what is right, or the contrary, is principally in the power of men, although fate does co-operate in every action. They say that all souls are incorruptible, but that the souls of good men only are removed into other bodies, - but that the souls of bad men are subject to eternal punishment.
- Jewish War 2.8.14

The Pharisees were "most skillful in the exact explication of their laws" because they understood that to be how to facilitate the arrival of the messiah. In general with most Jews (though not Saducees), they believed God would judge the spirits, with the good "removed into other bodies", i.e., resurrected and the bad "subject to eternal punishment".

There is no reincarnation in Judaism, so it beggers belief to say that that is what Josephus was talking about. But even if he was, this shows that there was a belief in transferring a spirit from one body to another, which in any case supports my position.


New Body or Old?

So now we come to the crux of it. Did they think the righteous were resurrected in their old bodies or in new?

Funeral practice at that time was to allow the body to rot away in the tomb, then collect the bones in an ossuary; we can be certain that they knew bodies rotted away, and they did so in a matter of months. The resurrection was not seen as thousands of skeletons coming out of their tombs like the zombie apocalypse, it was seen as people raised in angel-like bodies.

Did God just patch up the old body? Perhaps putting new flesh on the ancient bones? Did they envisage the resurrect walking around in hybrid bodies, part angel-like, part original body? Certainly Paul did not. He very clearly states that the flesh and blood of your original body cannot enter the kingdom of God:

1 Cor 15:50 I declare to you, brothers and sisters, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God, nor does the perishable inherit the imperishable.

Further, he explicitly states that the bodies of those still living will be changed to:

1 Cor 15:51 Listen, I tell you a mystery: We will not all sleep, but we will all be changed— 52 in a flash, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, the dead will be raised imperishable, and we will be changed.

If God was raising people in their original bodies, then no change would be required - those still alive already have bodies. But that is not the case. God is replacing the old bodies, the perishable, the weak, with new bodies, imperishable, strong.


Transformation?

Is the change a transformation? For those living, yes. Their old bodies are replaced in an instant, transformed into the new. But not so much for the dead. Their spirit has departed the body. God could create the new body at the site of the deceased bones, but he is God, he has no need to do that. What if the bones no longer exist? All that is needed in the spirit, and that is in Sheol.

Pix
Anonymous said…
Jesus and the Empty Tomb

What does this mean to what Paul believed about Jesus? Paul believed Jsus was the messiah. He was crucified, and when he breathed his last, his spirit departed to Sheol - just as Psalm 16 describes. After three days, God raised Jesus, giving Jesus a new body that shined "brightly like the brightness of the expanse of heaven", and this was how Paul encountered Jesus - "a light shone around him from heaven".

Jesus no longer needed his old body, he had a new one. As far as Paul was concerned there was no empty tomb and no need to suppose one.

Pix
Joe Hinman said…
stop flaming, you have not beaten a a single argumemt. you said nothing new you keep repeating the same points I've beate beaten already.

Joe Hinman said…

Anonymous said...
Jesus and the Empty Tomb

What does this mean to what Paul believed about Jesus? Paul believed Jsus was the messiah. He was crucified, and when he breathed his last, his spirit departed to Sheol - just as Psalm 16 describes. After three days, God raised Jesus, giving Jesus a new body that shined "brightly like the brightness of the expanse of heaven", and this was how Paul encountered Jesus - "a light shone around him from heaven".

Jesus no longer needed his old body, he had a new one. As far as Paul was concerned there was no empty tomb and no need to suppose one.

If Jesus got a new body why was the tomb empty? where did they put the old body? why did they need to leave an empty tomb? There are so many problems with your little subterfuge.

Jesus got a new and different body? Cleaver of God to put new nails holes in the new body so they could see where they were, But why didn't the men go "what are these holes doing here? isn't this a new body?"

Jesus had the same body that was crucified, because it still had the wounds; but he clearly said he was in some state of glorification because he didn't want Mary M to touch him because he had not yet been before the father,

get your head around the idea that God can re make something and elevate it to a higher level. If God could make an angle body the could make an old body into an angle body you don't know what Angels look like you do''t know what you are talking about anyway,

1 cor 15;42 say clearly it's the same body that is put in the ground that grows into something new,

you still have scholar who agrees with you



Joe Hinman said…
Further, he explicitly states that the bodies of those still living will be changed to:

1 Cor 15:51 Listen, I tell you a mystery: We will not all sleep, but we will all be changed— 52 in a flash, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, the dead will be raised imperishable, and we will be changed.

you just admitted the old bodies will be changed. I don't think you even know what we are arguing about,


THIS TOPIC IS CLOSED
Anonymous said…
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Joe Hinman said…
you put down bout five posts I have not answered, I made a much shorter summary of my position. We are not saying anything new so that looks like a fair place to end it. I said it;s closed.
Joe Hinman said…

Remove contentDeleteSpam50
1-50 of 11904 Newer comments1Older comments

JH: stop flaming, you have not beaten a a single argumemt. you said nothing new you keep repeating the same points I've beate beaten already. What points do you think you have beaten me on?!? JH: If Jesus got a new body why was the tomb empty? where did they put the old body? why did they need to leave an empty tomb? There are so many problems with your little subterfuge. See this is why I presented my argument in one coherent block - because you clearly have problems with understanding. You have clearly failed to understand the most basic point here - I am saying that there was no empty tomb. How you can have missed that I have no idea. The tomb was not empty. They did not put the body anywhere. The concept of the empty tomb was invented, possibly by Mark, perhaps earlier, but sufficiently late no one could check. JH: Jesus got a new and different body? Cleaver of God to put new nails holes in the new body so they could see where they were, But why didn't the men go "what are on Mark Did not Invent the Empty tomb!
Remove content | Delete | Spam
Anonymous
at 12:29 AM

Further, he explicitly states that the bodies of those

I/ve decided i will answer this bit the that;s the end of the thread, i;ll answer it latter tonight,
Joe Hinman said…
See this is why I presented my argument in one coherent block - because you clearly have problems with understanding. You have clearly failed to understand the most basic point here - I am saying that there was no empty tomb. How you can have missed that I have no idea. The tomb was not empty. They did not put the body anywhere.

obviously that's not provable one way or the other. What I did prove is that the story of the empty tomb pre dates Mark's gospel, he did not invent it.


The concept of the empty tomb was invented, possibly by Mark, perhaps earlier, but sufficiently late no one could check.

that;s no different than any other atheist supposition based upon fear. afraid to trust,but the story began to circulate during the life span of eye witnesses


JH: Jesus got a new and different body? Cleaver of God to put new nails holes in the new body so they could see where they were, But why didn't the men go "what are on Mark Did not Invent the Empty tomb!

Popular posts from this blog

Martin Luther King, Jr., Jesus, Jonah and U2’s Pride in the Name of Love

How Many Children in Bethlehem Did Herod Kill?

Where did Jesus say "It is better to give than receive?"

How Should I Be A Sceptic -- belief and reason

Kierkegaard's Knights of Faith and the Account of Abraham

Bayes Theorem And Probability of God: No Dice!

The Origin of Life and the Fallacy of Composition

If Christianity were true, would you become a Christian?