tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29179803.post718248460601862407..comments2024-03-28T20:47:47.445-04:00Comments on Serene Musings: The Craig-Ehrman Resurrection Debate: A CommentaryScotthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10535260741343975445noreply@blogger.comBlogger44125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29179803.post-6353925406443566442009-07-26T02:41:19.074-04:002009-07-26T02:41:19.074-04:00What it really comes down to is terminology and de...What it really comes down to is terminology and definitions.<br /><br />When discussing Platonism, "body" means the flesh, blood, and bones. It means, quite literally, our human bodies. <br /><br />"Soul," on the other hand, means that inefffible stuff that makes us who we are. <br /><br />When Paul talks about "spiritual bodies," I don't think it makes sense to equate that with the flesh and blood body. It's not just the flesh and blood body made holy or "spiritual." It's a euphemism for "soul." Paul could just as easily have said that we have an earthly body and a soul. For Paul, the soul was the spiritual (heavenly) body, so that's what he called it. But it wasn't simply an earthly body made heavenly. It was distinct and different. And he goes on to illustrate that by saying that we will be changed in the twinkling of an eye. Our flesh and blood earthly body will be discarded, and we will clothe ourselves with our spiritual heavenly body - that is, our soul.Scotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10535260741343975445noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29179803.post-35090160071105881142009-07-26T02:21:56.933-04:002009-07-26T02:21:56.933-04:00I believe that understanding, outlined above, is p...I believe that understanding, outlined above, is perfectly explicit and clear in the passage in question, and seems to take quite a stretch to try to interpret it any other way.<br /><br />You made a point about "this perishable" and "this mortal" putting on "imperishability" and "immortality." You draw the conclusion that "this" refers to the body. The New Revised Standard Version (my personal preference) agrees with you, adding in "body" to that verse ("This perishable body must put on the imperishable...").<br /><br />I don't think that's an unreasonable conclusion or translation. However, I think it is a stretch to use it to tear down arguments about Paul's Platonism. <br /><br />I go back again to that "flesh and blood" phrase. <br /><br />Prior to that, Paul has made clear that there are two bodies. The natural (or earthly) body, and the spiritual (or heavenly) body. Not one body that gets transformed into another, but two seperate bodies. I don't think it's a stretch to call Paul's "spiritual body" a soul, even though soul (psyche) is not the word he chose to use there. <br /><br />After that, he makes the "flesh and blood" statement - flesh and blood can't inherit the kingdom. In other words, the natural (earthly) body cannot inherit the kingdom.<br /><br />That statement begs the question "Okay, then how do us humans, us flesh and blood, us of the earthly body - how do we get into the kingdom then?"<br /><br />So Paul tells us. It's a mystery, but it will happen in a twinkling, to some from death, to others who are still alive at the end of time. <br /><br />We will be "changed." Not "transformed." The earthly body will not be "transformed" into the heavenly body. He's already made clear that those two bodies are separate, and the first can't inherit the kingdom. Instead, we will be "changed" from earthly beings to heavenly beings - no longer an earthly, flesh and blood body, but a heavenly, spiritual body. Then, he asserts, we will have victory over death.Scotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10535260741343975445noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29179803.post-2576520734791257772009-07-26T01:56:37.869-04:002009-07-26T01:56:37.869-04:00You said: " We, our spirit and body need to b...You said: " We, our spirit and body need to be redeemed, changed or transformed."<br /><br />I agree that this is what Paul's message was about. And that is why I (and so many others) say that Paul broke with Pharisaical ideas about resurrection and took a more Platonic view. Nothing in Jewish resurrection theology suggested that the body (or soul) needed to be fixed or transformed before resurrection. Instead, the earth would simply bring forth her dead. The Jewish dead would rise up and take their place in God's eternal kingdom, the new Jerusalem. God would right the wrongs. He would justify an unjust world. It didn't have anything to do with whether Jews, personally, were good or bad. God had already chosen the Jews as his people. He would not abandon them. <br /><br />Paul and the other Christians, however, were Hellenized. They came to understand that the body was the corrupt outer shell, weighted down with sin. Thus, the soul had to be redeemed from that earthly existence in order to see God's kingdom. Thus, we will attain "spiritual bodies" - perfect soul-bodies that are not hindered by flesh and blood, because, as Paul says, flesh and blood won't inherit the kingdom. That phrase, alone, is in direct contrast to Jewish resurrection theology, which specifically and explicitly believed flesh and blood would, in fact, inherit the kingdom.<br /><br />The very fact that Paul mentions it at all shows that it was a common understanding of resurrection. Paul, instead says no. Flesh and blood *won't* inherit the kingdom. Instead, we'll be given perfect spiritual bodies - just like what Jesus was given.Scotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10535260741343975445noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29179803.post-86534019905732047872009-07-26T01:48:53.716-04:002009-07-26T01:48:53.716-04:00That leads to the next point. Paul was a Platonis...That leads to the next point. Paul was a Platonist, but he was what we might call a "moderate" Platonist. <br /><br />If you imagine a scale of body/soul dichotomy, you have on one side the Jews who did not differentiate between body and soul at all. Body and soul were one and the terms could even be used interchangeably. On the other extreme you have the Gnostics and other Platonic dualists who asserted that body was corruption, and soul was perfection - the two could not be more seperate in their eyes. You would NEVER refer to body when you meant soul. <br /><br />Somewhere in the middle of that is Paul. Body was not total corruption, totally separate from soul, but was instead sort of like the necessary hut that housed the soul. Body was God's temporary creation, so it was good for earthly existence. But soul was God's eternal creation, so only soul would live on beyond death. Body, as the earthly creation, would decay with the earth.<br /><br />Imagine a fancy sports car. You have the exterior car, the fancy part that everyone sees, and you have the engine inside which actually makes it run and operate with precision. <br /><br />Jews would not differentiate between car and engine. They were one and the same, both necessary for the other, neither existing without the other. One could refer to the engine or the car interchangeably. The car runs great. The engine runs great. No difference.<br /><br />Gnostics would see the car as the useless external body masking the truly important part, the engine. A Gnostic would never say the car runs great. The car doesn't do anything but hide the truly important part. In that sense, not only is it not great, it's actually a hindrance. It's the engine that runs great. <br /><br />Paul would have seen the car as pretty and enticing, but would have understood the engine to be the important part. The car runs great, but only because the engine makes it do so. Without the engine, the car is meaningless. The engine, on the other hand, doesn't need the car.Scotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10535260741343975445noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29179803.post-2364409149938150572009-07-26T01:37:13.801-04:002009-07-26T01:37:13.801-04:008) Paul's discussion about flesh and blood:
F...8) Paul's discussion about flesh and blood:<br /><br />First, about Paul's Gnosticism.<br /><br />I agree that Paul was not a Gnostic. Gnosticism certainly existed during Paul's day, but Christian Gnosticism did not. <br /><br />However, one could argue that Paul inadvertently *founded* Christian Gnosticism, because there is no question that the Christian Gnostics interpreted Paul's writings as supporting their view of the body's corruption that the soul's perfection. <br /><br />The earliest prominent Gnostic leader - Marcion - was so enamored with Paul that when he created was is generally regarded as the first Christian canon of scripture, he only included Paul's letters, Luke, and Acts. He chose Luke and Acts because they were written by the same person, with Acts primarily being a biography of Paul. That led Marcion to believe the two texts had been written by a follower of Paul, and it may have in fact been Marcion who first suggested it was Luke (Luke being one of many companions of Paul named in various Pauline letters). Neither text, of course, says who wrote it.<br /><br />So while I agree that Paul was no Gnostic, there is no question that Paul's writings can be understood within a Gnostic worldview - corruption of the flesh and perfection of the soul.Scotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10535260741343975445noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29179803.post-91334520017176713042009-07-26T01:29:16.795-04:002009-07-26T01:29:16.795-04:007) About textual criticism:
You have explained te...7) About textual criticism:<br /><br />You have explained textual criticism well, and I am familiar with it, having studied it myself. I don't think there's any question that most of what is contained in our New Testament is fairly reliable in terms of being original to the documents. In other words, when we read Acts in Greek, we're reading a pretty close rendition of what the original text of Acts probably looked like. <br /><br />When I said that having a large number of early documents doesn't mean they are "reliable," I meant that it doesn't have anything to do with whether the words they contain are TRUE or not. In other words, just because there are fifty copies of a story talking about Big Foot doesn't mean the stories are true. Similarly, just because we have numerous early texts of New Testament writings doesn't have any bearing on whether what those writings contain is true or not. <br /><br />That's the only point I was making. It seemed that the website you referred me to was implying that because we have so many early manuscripts, that lends credence to the historicity of Jesus' divine life, resurrection, etc.Scotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10535260741343975445noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29179803.post-90078961280342509882009-07-26T01:23:30.787-04:002009-07-26T01:23:30.787-04:007) Regarding Jesus' body:
The way you have as...7) Regarding Jesus' body:<br /><br />The way you have asked the question implies that you may not have fully wrapped your mind around my argument of "spiritual resurrection" yet.<br /><br />I have argued that the earliest Christians - the earthly companions of Jesus - never claimed Jesus had been physically raised. I have argued that those ideas did not develop until many decades later, as third and fourth generation Christians, who were Gentile, began to literalize Jewish Christian teachings. I have argued that the first Christians, instead, claimed Jesus' soul or spirit had been glorified to God's right hand. <br /><br />As such, the question of what happened to Jesus' body would not have been a question in those early decades. Where was his body? Well, right there in the ground where it was buried! <br /><br />The existence of Jesus' body, either in a mass grave, a tomb, or destroyed by vultures/dogs at the foot of the cross (forgive the gross image), would not have had any impact on the debate about whether Jesus' soul had been glorified.<br /><br />By the last quarter of the 1st century, as physical resurrection ideas began to circulate, the location of Jesus' grave or tomb would have been long lost or forgotten. And if he had never been buried at all, no such tomb/grave would even have existed.<br /><br />It's interesting to point out that among all our 1st and early 2nd century textual history about Christianity - texts either within the canon, outside the canon, or secular - none ever gives even the slightest indication that there was any pilgrimage tradition to the grave/tomb of Jesus in Jerusalem. If the tomb existed - or if its location was known - surely this would have been a popular pilgrimage site? <br /><br />It was not until the 4th century, when Constantine replaced a Pagan temple with a Christian church and asserted that it was built over Jesus' tomb - only then did pilgrimage traditions begin. <br /><br />Why would Jesus' tomb have been lost to history, so quickly, if Jesus had been physically raised? It would have been a major pilgrimage spot from the very beginning. Yet it wasn't. This implies to me 2 things. 1) Jesus may not have been buried in a tomb; and 2) Jesus' resurrection was believed to be spiritual in nature, so venerating the place where his earthly corpse lay decomposing would have been silly.Scotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10535260741343975445noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29179803.post-47134645417501736642009-07-26T00:54:32.406-04:002009-07-26T00:54:32.406-04:006) Regarding Paul and Platonism:
It's true th...6) Regarding Paul and Platonism:<br /><br />It's true that anyone can make any sort of claim they want about anything in history: Bush masterminded 9/11, George Washington was a homosexual, or Julius Caesar masterminded his own assassination. And extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.<br /><br />But the claim that Paul was a Platonist and was Hellenized is not one of those extraordinary claims. Within the realm of historical research, it is widely understood that Jews of the first century were "Hellenized" by Greek culture. All of the Mediterranean world was affected by the Greeks. Our Western culture to this day, in fact, is still living with the influence of the Greeks. This is not debated by historians. <br /><br />What IS of interest is how much that Greek culture pervaded every day life. Certainly some pockets of the ancient world would have been less affected than others by Hellenization. But 1st century Palestine wasn't one of those places. <br /><br />So that's the first point - all of 1sts century Judaism was Hellenized, as were the Romans themselves. <br /><br />The second point is drawn from the texts we've already been discussing. Paul talks about spiritual bodies. Paul talks about souls (psyche) and spirits (pneuma) as being separate from body. This is Platonism, and did not exist in Judaism until Plato and the Greeks. <br /><br />Consider 1 Thessalonians 5:23b - May your whole spirit, soul and body be kept blameless...<br /><br />Spirit, soul, and body are all separate things. Jews, prior to Hellenization, did not conceive of body and soul being separate, but one. <br /><br />The writer of Matthew makes the differentiation clear when he has Jesus say "Don't fear those who can kill the body (soma) but not the soul (psyche)." <br /><br />Therefore, Paul's entire discussion in 1 Corinthians 15 can only be understood against this Platonic background. Flesh and blood can't inherit the kingdom of God. We are raised with spiritual bodies. We are changed in a twinkling. We are raised in glory. Etc., etc., etc. <br /><br />Nothing in that chapter is anything whatsover like Jewish ideas of resurrection. And you've demonstrated that quite well yourself by quoting from Jewish resurrection prophecies. "God Himself will refashion the bones and ashes of humans and raise up mortals as they were before." That sure doesn't sound like Paul's spiritual bodies and teachings against flesh and blood inheriting the kingdom! <br /><br />Finally, this statement: "Paul can affirm that he will one day be absent from the body and present with the Lord without violating any of the doctrines or beliefs he embraced as a Pharisee" simply isn't true, in my opinion. <br /><br />We've already agreed Pharisees believed in physical resurrection of the flesh and blood body and bones. So if Paul is saying he will leave the body to be with God, he is asserting strong Platonic ideas, not Pharisaical ones!Scotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10535260741343975445noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29179803.post-29308743850935544632009-07-24T02:05:57.026-04:002009-07-24T02:05:57.026-04:00Regarding Job 19: This is a popular one in discuss...Regarding Job 19: This is a popular one in discussions about resurrection prophecies in the OT. And, like the examples above, it is clearly not talking about resurrection in my opinion.<br /><br />The word translated as "Redeemer" there simply refers to someone who "buys back." Thus, God is someone who will "buy back" Job. Job has just gotten done with a speech about how God has abandoned him. Now, he asserts, he has faith that God will return to him.<br /><br />The word translated as "earth" in that passage ("In the end, God will stand upon the earth") is not actually the Hebrew word for "earth." Instead, it is the Hebrew word for "dust" or "ashes" or "rubbish." It can mean "earth" in the sense of "He fell to the earth and covered his head" (i.e., "he fell to the ground"), but it does not refer to Planet Earth, as it is made to sound in this passage. <br /><br />What it actually is saying is that God will stand upon the "rubbish" of Job's life, or the "ashes" of Job's life.<br /><br />So verse 25, in the context of the original language, says that even though God has abandoned Job, God will buy him back, and when it's all said and done, God will stand upon the ashes of Job's life (perhaps you could say God will "overcome" the ashes of Job's life by redeeming him). <br /><br />Verse 26 is usually translated as you've given it: "After my skin has been destroyed, yet in my own flesh will I see God."<br /><br />This is a very Christianized way to translate the verse. Only 6 words exist in the original Hebrew text. In order, they are "After skin destroyed body behold God." <br /><br />In other words, after my flesh has been destroyed (which, for Job, has already happened), then my body will still behold God. Again, God will "redeem" or "restore" Job's sick, frail body. <br /><br />Taken together with the previous verses, this passage is saying that although God has abandoned me, he will not leave me forever but will redeem my flesh from destruction, and then I will behold God. <br /><br />Nothing whatsoever there about life after death or resurrection. <br /><br />This is one of those famous exmples in the Old Testament where common English translations of the Bible (going back to the KJV but even in more modern versions) Christianize Jewish texts to fit more easily with Christian theology. There is nothing "Christian" in Job. No modern Christian doctrine existed in the 10th century B.C.E. poetry of an anonymous Jewish writer. <br /><br />We like to imagine our Bibles are bias-free; that the translations are free from error or theological bias; that what we read in English corresponds perfectly with what would have been read and understood in Greek or Hebrew or Aramaic. Unfortunately, this is not always the case. The KJV, in fact, is full of Christian theological bias in its English translation of Hebrew, Greek, and Aramaic, and unfortunately the KJV has become the "standard" in English translations, and many of the KJV's translation biases have found their way into modern translations as well. <br /><br />So to sum up, I agree that much of the late-era OT texts talk about resurrection. And there can be no question that orthodox Judaism in the 1st century conceived of resurrection as physical in nature. But I do not believe that older-era OT texts discuss resurrection theology (Isaiah, Job, Psalms, etc), and I do believe that Paul and the earliest Christians broke from traditional Jewish resurrection theology to assert a spiritual type of resurrection. Again, I refer you to my blog post on the nature of the resurrection to read my arguments there.<br /><br />More responses tomorrow.Scotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10535260741343975445noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29179803.post-21318357994407698272009-07-24T02:05:47.851-04:002009-07-24T02:05:47.851-04:00The two quotes from Psalms are not talking about r...The two quotes from Psalms are not talking about resurrection either. Much more simply, they are simply talking about life and death. The Psalmist is simply asserting that God is going to save his life, not let him come to personal or physical ruin. Only by reading these passages through the lens of the New Testament could one possibly think they were talking about life after death or resurrection.<br /><br />Psalm 16, for instance, starts off with the phrase "Keep me safe, O God, for in you I take refuge." Later, then, when he says "you will not abandon me to the grave," it's clear that he's saying God is not going to just let him die. Instead, God will bless him and keep him safe. That's what the entire Psalm 16 is about. It's about life, not death or resurrection. <br /><br />Additionally, Psalm 49 says that God will "redeem my life from the power of the grave." That Psalm is entirely about how riches and worldly wealth are the way to ruin in God's kingdom (i.e., the way of the grave in God's kingdom). God, on the other hand, will redeem the Psalmist from this fate because the Psalmist sees the hypocrisy and ungodliness in material wealth and power. Again, nothing there about resurrection or life after death, unless you read it out of context and in literal English translation.Scotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10535260741343975445noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29179803.post-58517755706929809552009-07-24T01:19:33.436-04:002009-07-24T01:19:33.436-04:005) Regarding evidence for a spiritual resurrection...5) Regarding evidence for a spiritual resurrection:<br /><br />Rather than type out another exceedingly long response, I will refer you to my blog post where I outlined my reasons for asserting a spiritual resurrection. It's here on my blog at http://serene-musings.blogspot.com/2009/05/nature-of-resurrection.html<br /><br />In regards to your quotes from the Old Testament (since I do not address those in the blog post referenced above), I would point out that most of what you quoted from are OT texts that come from the era of Jewish history when resurrection belief was well-entrenched - that is, the last 100-200 years B.C.E. <br /><br />You did quote, however, from some OT texts that pre-date any resurrection belief in ancient Judaism. I would like to comment specifically on these.<br /><br />Isaiah 26: This chapter is a hymn of joy that goes together with the two previous chapters. Chapter 24 talks about God punishing the oppressors of the earth. Chapter 25 praises God's greatness. And Chapter 26 provides encouragement for Jews to persevere. <br /><br />In the verse in question - 16:19 - the writer is not talking about dead bodies coming back to life. It is clear from the context of the passage that the writer is writing metaphorically. The phrase "the earth will give birth to her dead" refers back to the previous verse, in which it was asserted that while the Jews were like a woman in childbirth, the Jews had not given birth to a new people. They had failed to follow God's commands. So God was going to re-establish them, and make them a great nation again, to spread them across his creation once again as his people.Scotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10535260741343975445noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29179803.post-27429885704654160822009-07-24T01:02:11.337-04:002009-07-24T01:02:11.337-04:00You also referred to Paul's comments about tho...You also referred to Paul's comments about those who experienced the resurrection as pretty good proof that the physical resurrection was not only proclaimed, but also supported by eyewitnesses.<br /><br />The problem here is 2-fold. <br /><br />1) I've already given my perspective on why Paul's words support a spiritual resurrection, and not a physical one, so I won't go back into that again, other than to simply refer to it: I believe Paul's resurrection appearances are best understood as apparitions of a spiritually-resurrected Jesus, not physical sightings of a physically-resurrected Jesus.<br /><br />2) Using the Bible to prove the Bible is a circular-argument. To say that we know Jesus was physically resurrected because there were eyewitnesses is to say that we know the Bible is true because the Bible says its true. We know of no eyewitnesses to Jesus' resurrection outside of Christian texts. It's not like the Jerusalem News Leader published an article on Easter Sunday, 30 A.D., talking about Jesus coming back from the dead. <br /><br />The only accounts we have of witnesses to the resurrection come from writers who were Christian evangelists - Paul and the Gospel writers, etc, writing their own interpretations of what *other people* saw and experienced.<br /><br />If we accept those accounts as proving themselves, then it should apply equally to all religions. Yet most Christians have no problem rejecting miracle stories witnssed by numerous people found in other religions' documents.<br /><br />Buddha, for instance, is said to have performed a miracle of turning his body into part flame and part water, to prove that he had become enlightened. He did this on numerous occasions before numerous people, causing untold thousands to convert to Buddhism. <br /><br />That, of course, is just one example out of thousands in religious history. So unless we are prepared to accept all religious assertions of miracles as proving themselves, then we should take great care in asserting that the Bible's eyewitness accounts "prove" that Jesus was physically raised.Scotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10535260741343975445noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29179803.post-74513409567095906992009-07-24T00:40:47.411-04:002009-07-24T00:40:47.411-04:00(Continued from above)
You also said: "A spi...(Continued from above)<br /><br />You also said: "A spiritual resurrection would be even more unverifiable than these claims because of its very nature."<br /><br />I agree with you 100% on this statement, and addressed it in my recent essay on the nature of the resurrection.<br /><br />How could we possibly ever confirm a spiritual resurrection? Fact is, we couldn't. But again, if a spiritual resurrection *is*, in fact, what happened, then the fact that we can't confirm it is not a good reason to accept some other conclusion in its place. <br /><br />I believe this lack of confirmation may, in fact, be one of the reasons bodily resurrection came to be asserted and emphasized by the 2nd and 3rd century Church. Spiritual resurrection was too tenuous; how could Christianity spread with a doctrine of resurrection that could never have been verifiable, even by the earliest Christians (you can't, after all, witness a soul being glorified to heaven)?<br /><br />I'll make two points:<br /><br />First, even if we assume physical resurrection, that still doesn't mean we are *certain* that it happened...faith is an integral part of Christian belief, and that does not change whether you assume physical resurrection or spiritual.<br /><br />Second, regarding "first-hand" accounts of the resurrection: we do not actually have any first-hand accounts from those present at the first Easter. The Gospels and letters attributed to the disciples Matthew, John, and Peter are widely accepted across the scholarly spectrum to be accounts written only in those disciples’ names, not written by those disciples personally. And aside from those three figures, no other text in the New Testament even claims to be written by a witness to Jesus’ life.<br /><br />So most of our “first-hand accounts” are actually accounts told second- and third- and perhaps even fourth-hand. <br /><br />It is interesting and profoundly important to note, however, that we do have one first-hand account of the risen Jesus. That, of course, is the vision by Paul on the road to Damascus. So our only first-hand account of resurrection is one that speaks strongly of spiritual resurrection, not physical!Scotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10535260741343975445noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29179803.post-33654623951165111172009-07-24T00:32:20.250-04:002009-07-24T00:32:20.250-04:004) Regarding spiritual vs. physical resurrection:
...4) Regarding spiritual vs. physical resurrection:<br /><br />You said: "The entire basis of the Christian faith is based on the bodily resurrection of Jesus Christ. Without that, then the entire edifice falls crashing to the metaphysical ground."<br /><br />The first response I would give to that is related to what I just posted in the previous answer. Intellectual honesty demands that we follow the evidence where it leads, even if it leads us to a place our worldview bias doesn't want to go. <br /><br />I don't agree that Christian theology collapses without a physical resurrection, but even if it *did* collapse without a physical resurrection, that would not be a good reason to continue to affirm it, if in fact it didn't actually happen.Scotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10535260741343975445noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29179803.post-741127899524662122009-07-24T00:28:23.422-04:002009-07-24T00:28:23.422-04:00To further comment on your question #3 about world...To further comment on your question #3 about worldviews regarding God and nature, you are right that *if* God exists as Christianity traditionally describes God (a supernatural deity able to intervene miraculously on earth), then of course it is not a stretch to say God could have raised Jesus.<br /><br />So any scholar who approaches the Bible as an atheist could not possibly reach the right conclusions if God does exist and if Jesus was raised physically. <br /><br />But while that point is true from an "absolute" standpoint, it's opposite is also true: If I believe in the God of traditional Christianity, and I believe God is able to raise people from the dead, but in fact God doesn't exist, then I will draw the wrong conclusions when I read the New Testament.<br /><br />This gets back to the bias thing...we all bring biases to the table, but it *is* possible to be "less" biased than others. And one of the ways we can lessen our bias in Biblical scholarship is 1) to recognize the bias is there and remain cognizant of it; and 2) be open enough to find that anything in the Bible could be true, or anything in the Bible could be false. That is, be willing to follow the evidence where it leads, even if it leads you somewhere your worldview bias doesn't want to go.Scotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10535260741343975445noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29179803.post-8997268104854707332009-07-23T00:15:19.791-04:002009-07-23T00:15:19.791-04:00(continued from above)
Regarding the Bible: I vie...(continued from above)<br /><br />Regarding the Bible: I view the Bible as a human text, written by human beings, describing their own experiences and struggles to understand God. In that sense, I find it to be vitally important - both historically and theologically.<br /><br />I do not, however, approach the Bible as the divine Word of God, perfectly infallible and directly inspired. I believe it is and can only be a human text. That doesn't mean it's all wrong about God, or that God doesn't exist. It just means that the Bible wasn't faxed down from heaven. <br /><br />As such, I am open to anything in the Bible being right, but I am also open to anything in the Bible being wrong. <br /><br />So....that's my long answer to # 3. It's now after midnight, so I will stop for now. I'll pick up with your question # 4 hopefully tomorrow.Scotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10535260741343975445noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29179803.post-59258759811881299792009-07-23T00:11:01.868-04:002009-07-23T00:11:01.868-04:00(Continued from above)
As for my religious belief...(Continued from above)<br /><br />As for my religious beliefs, I like to joke that I am a recovering Baptist :)<br /><br />In the last 5-6 years, I've moved away, theologically, from traditional Christian beliefs into a much more progressive theological worldview. I'm not an atheist, but I tend to think of God in very abstract terms - the source of love, the ground of being, etc. I no longer identify at all with concepts of God that humanize God into the Big Man in the Sky. <br /><br />That change from traditional God concepts to non-traditional God concepts came as much from my study of religious scholarship as from any personal experiences/events. A long period of "questioning" led to delving into religious and textual scholarship, and that ultimately led me to be the "progressive" Christian I am today.<br /><br />I am a very Jesus-centered Christian. I believe very, very strongly in the teachings of Jesus and in following Jesus in the lifestyle he urged his followers to take. I believe the kingdom of God is and was always primarily about the "here and now," not the hereafter. I believe Jesus called his followers into a lifestyle, not just a set of beliefs. I believe, in that sense, that Christianity is a verb. It's about how you act and behave, how you treat others, and how you fight the systemic evils and injustices of a broken world. <br /><br />I am officially "agnostic" about the resurrection. I do not know if it was physical, spiritual, or completely fictionalized. My argument, however, is that it does not matter. What matters is what it *means*. Am I willing to follow the living words of Jesus in the very difficult lifestyle he taught, or will I choose to "be conformed" to the world, to choose the easy path, the path of self-interest and self-concern? <br /><br />In that sense, I see the resurrection - whether real or imagined, whether physical or literal - as a powerful metaphor for life: Does Jesus still matter? Is Jesus' message still alive? <br /><br />If those are the questions the resurrection asks, then I am an avowed "resurrectionist."Scotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10535260741343975445noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29179803.post-49300220688689522702009-07-23T00:08:49.872-04:002009-07-23T00:08:49.872-04:003) As to my own worldviews/background, etc.:
I ha...3) As to my own worldviews/background, etc.:<br /><br />I have a B.A. in European History. I work professionally, however, in the medical industry. I am not a professional academic. I am a published writer, however, mostly in short fiction and poetry. Religious scholarship is simply an intense passion and hobby of mine - and it goes along with my lifelong interest in ancient history and European history. I hope to one day publish on the topic, but it will be as an independent commentator, not as a professional religious scholar.Scotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10535260741343975445noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29179803.post-42394975451482745912009-07-22T23:48:24.929-04:002009-07-22T23:48:24.929-04:002) Regarding approaching Biblical scholarship with...2) Regarding approaching Biblical scholarship without bias:<br /><br />Everything you said is true. I agree that there is no such thing as "unbiased" historical research - especially in the field of religious history. We aren't robots. We all have worldviews and presuppositions.<br /><br />But it is certainly possible to be "more" biased or "less" biased. From my experience reading and studying the works of an array of scholars, it is my belief that "progressive" scholarship (that is, scholarship that draws conclusions frequently at odds with traditional belief) is *less* biased than evangelical scholarship (that is, scholarship that draws conclusions perfectly in line with traditional belief). <br /><br />It would be easy, even if lazy, to support this assertion by simply saying "What's more likely? That everything the Church has always said is true, or that the evangelical scholars are simply biased?"<br /><br />But that's not why I believe progressive scholarship is less biased than evangelical scholarship. In my studies, I have come across numerous examples of scholars who started their careers as traditionally-leaning Christians, delved professionally into religious scholarship, and came out on the other side as progressive Christians or even sometimes agnostics and atheists. <br /><br />On the other hand, I know of not a single instance of a person entering professional religious scholarship as a progressive Christian, agnostic, or atheist, who then came out on the other side as a traditionally-leaning Christian.<br /><br />That tells me very strongly that if any side is less biased than the other, it's the progressive side that is being more honest, because they are the ones who have *changed* their minds based on the evidence they've investigated.Scotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10535260741343975445noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29179803.post-37067993205157603472009-07-22T23:30:31.761-04:002009-07-22T23:30:31.761-04:00Thanks for continuing to engage in this discussion...Thanks for continuing to engage in this discussion, SK. I'll answer each of your questions separately. <br /><br />1) Regarding the appeal to scholarly authority. I was trying to make two points, but probably didn't make a clear enough distinction. <br /><br />The first point is in regards to claims by folks like Habermas and Craig that "the majority" of Biblical scholars assert a physical resuscitation as the best way to understand the stories of Jesus' resurrection. I don't deny that many prominent scholars do abide by this claim. But I have not seen evidence to convince me that these scholars represent "the majority," of scholarship.<br /><br />A scientific poll would presumably be the best way to tackle this problem, but as far as I know, no such poll has ever been done. Habermas certainly didn't do a poll; he bases his conclusions on the scholars whose published works he has read and studied. <br /><br />Until substantial proof, through a scientific poll, is produced by those scholars like Habermas and Craig who assert that the majority of the scholarly world is on their side, then their arguments can safely be rejected as biased. The same is true for any other scholar who makes such a claim. Ehrman, in fact, counters Craig in the debate by saying that, in fact, most scholars agree with Ehrman. He too needs to prove that before making the claim.<br /><br />In fact, I don't think anyone can justifiably say what "most scholars" agree on in regards to the resurrection. There are too many scholars out there, and no one has delved deeply enough into an analysis of their conclusions to say one way or the other.<br /><br />As to the second point I was trying to make, regardless of what "most scholars" believe or don't believe, there is no question that "many" scholars argue for spiritual resurrection. I made that point simply to show that the arguments I am making are not "fringe" or "way out there." A lot of prominent, mainstream scholarship points toward spiritual resurrection. I am making that point because I have read and heard many evangelicals attempt to paint "liberal" scholars as somehow on the fringe of the scholarly world. This simply is not true. <br /><br />But no appeal to authority ever means that the conclusions is therefore, by default, correct.Scotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10535260741343975445noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29179803.post-17237313560968827892009-07-21T08:30:35.462-04:002009-07-21T08:30:35.462-04:008) You quoted Paul saying “flesh and blood cannot ...8) You quoted Paul saying “flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God” many times as evidence or proof that he did not believe in a physical resurrection. But this text does not say a spiritual resurrection took place. This text does not disprove the physical resurrection hypothesis. Paul was talking about the corruption of the flesh and blood by sin that cannot enter heaven. We, our spirit and body need to be redeemed, changed or transformed. In fact the resurrection of the dead is the final hope of all believers. Let us read the verse in context:<br /> <br />“Now I say this, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; nor does the perishable inherit the imperishable. Behold, I tell you a mystery; we shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed, 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. For this perishable must put on the imperishable, and this mortal must put on immortality.”<br /><br />Paul is not a Gnostic. He did not believe that the body was evil and only the spirit was good. So this phrase must be understood another way. Even if it were true that the appearances of Jesus to Paul were mystical or spiritual in some way, (Acts 9.1-19: 22.3-16 26.9-23), that does not prove or provide evidence that when Jesus rose from the dead that it was not a physical resurrection. Paul wrote that this body will be transformed. This flesh and blood will not inherit the kingdom of God, but when this flesh and blood are transformed, they can inherit the kingdom of God. This is not my arbitrary conjecture. Paul wrote “we shall all be changed . . . For this perishable must put on the imperishable, and this mortal must put on immortality.” It is logical to assume here that “this” body will change into a new imperishable body. Thus, the resurrection of the physical dead is most rational.<br />Paul also wrote in 1 Thessalonians 4:16 “For the Lord himself will come down from heaven with a commanding shout, with the call of the archangel, and with the trumpet call of God. First, all the Christians who have died will rise from their graves.” Here again I hope you can see that he did believe in a physical resurrection of all believers, why would it not be rational to also believe this extends to the first resurrection of Jesus Christ? Also, Enoch and Elijah were physically taken to heaven. We can safely reason that their bodies were also transformed before they entered the presence of God almighty. <br /><br />(Note: I had two 7s as a mistake in posting)Khaldoun Sweishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15591543066458897827noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29179803.post-56199020944536318622009-07-21T08:19:49.297-04:002009-07-21T08:19:49.297-04:007) You mentioned that just because we have a great...7) You mentioned that just because we have a great deal of manuscripts of the NT, that does not make them reliable. Well that is not necessary the case. Of course, more is required than sheer numbers such as archaeological, prophetic, medical, scientific evidences. Have you studied the how scholars to do effective textual criticism? The first is how many existing copies of the manuscript there are? The more copies you have, the more difficult it is to forge the original and to make meaningful comparisons. Also, we must raise the issue of how close in time are the oldest existing documents to the original.<br />May I quote Gregory Koul on this? He gives a very articulate way of understand this with a recipe example:<br /> Let me illustrate how such a test can be made. It will help you to see how scholars can confidently reconstruct the text from existing manuscript copies even though the copies themselves have differences and are much older than the autograph (i.e., the original). Pretend your Aunt Sally has a dream in which she learns the recipe for an elixir that would continuously maintain her youth. When she wakes up, she scribbles the directions on a scrap of paper, then runs into the kitchen to make up her first glass. In a few days her appearance is transformed. Sally is a picture of radiant youth because of her daily dose of what comes to be known as "Aunt Sally's Secret Sauce." Sally is so excited she sends hand-written instructions to her three bridge partners (Aunt Sally is still in the technological dark ages--no photocopier) giving detailed instructions on how to make the sauce. They, in turn, make copies which each sends to ten of her own friends. All is going well until one day Aunt Sally's pet schnauzer eats the original copy of the recipe. Sally is beside herself. In a panic she contacts her three friends who have mysteriously suffered similar mishaps. Their copies are gone, too, so the alarm goes out to their friends in attempt to recover the original wording. They finally round up all the surviving hand-written copies, twenty-six in all. When they spread them out on the kitchen table, they immediately notice some differences. Twenty-three of the copies are exactly the same. One has a misspelled word, though, one has two phrases inverted ("mix then chop" instead of "chop then mix") and one includes an ingredient that none of the others has on its list. Here is the critical question: Do you think Aunt Sally can accurately reconstruct her original recipe? Of course she could. The misspelled words can easily be corrected, the single inverted phrase can be repaired, and the extra ingredient can be ignored. Even with more numerous or more diverse variations, the original can still be reconstructed with a high level of confidence given the right textual evidence. The misspellings would be obvious errors, the inversions would stand out and easily be restored, and the conclusion drawn that it's more plausible that one word or sentence be accidentally added to a single copy than omitted from many. This, in simplified form, is how the science of textual criticism works. Textual critics are academics who reconstruct a missing original from existing manuscripts that are generations removed from the autograph. According to New Testament scholar F.F. Bruce, "Its object [is] to determine as exactly as possible from the available evidence the original words of the documents in question.” The science of textual criticism is used to test all documents of antiquity--not just religious texts--including historical and literary writings. It's not a theological enterprise based on haphazard hopes and guesses; it's a linguistic exercise that follows a set of established rules. Textual criticism allows an alert critic to determine the extent of possible corruption of any work. (Available at http://www.str.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=6068 ).Khaldoun Sweishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15591543066458897827noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29179803.post-91105211266118947412009-07-20T23:33:10.072-04:002009-07-20T23:33:10.072-04:006) You consented/agreed that Paul did, as a Pharis...6) You consented/agreed that Paul did, as a Pharisee did believe in the physical resurrection, yet you say that he was influenced by Greek thought to become a Platonic dualist. This thus lead him to embrace a spiritual resurrection. That is an interesting hypothesis. It is possible, I must consent to that. However it is also possible that Moses was an Egyptian magician trying to fool the Jews and establish himself as the first Jewish king, that Jesus married Mary Magdalene and moved to France to sire children, or that King David was a closet homosexual or that President Bush masterminded 9/11. However, there are just no overwhelming evidences for these claims to give them credibility. Without overriding evidence for this claim you made about Paul, then the burden of proof falls on you, not on the historical church. Paul can affirm that he will one day be absent from the body and present with the Lord without violating any of the doctrines or beliefs he embraced as a Pharisee. Can you expand on this claim that he may have been a Platonic dualist with more evidence?<br />7) If The Lord Jesus did rise from the dead “spiritually” then his body should have been still in the tomb. Or it was stolen, or went missing? What happened to the body and why did the Jews or the Romans not produce it to crush the new “way” (Christians)? I find Bart Ehrman’s explanation to be very implausible.Khaldoun Sweishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15591543066458897827noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29179803.post-35288205951150944332009-07-20T21:41:33.089-04:002009-07-20T21:41:33.089-04:00Evidence for the physical resurrection (as a back ...Evidence for the physical resurrection (as a back drop for the physical resurrection of Jesus the Christ), from other Jewish scriptures:<br />C) Psydo- writings <br />a. 4 Ezra 7:32 The earth shall restore those who sleep in her, and the dust those who rest in it, and the chambers those entrusted to them.<br />b. 1 Enoch 51:1 In those days, the earth will also give back what has been entrusted to it, and Sheol will give back what it has received, and hell will give back what it owes.<br />c. Sib. Or. IV ...God Himself will refashion the bones and ashes of humans and raise up mortals as they were before.<br />d. 2 Baruch 50:2ff For certainly the earth will then restore the dead. It will not change their form, but just as it received them, so it will restore them.<br />e. Pseudo-Phocylides 103-4 ...we hope that the remains of the departed will soon come to light again out of the earth. And afterward, they will become gods.Khaldoun Sweishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15591543066458897827noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29179803.post-67963457236766515002009-07-20T21:40:10.685-04:002009-07-20T21:40:10.685-04:005) The early Church. You claimed that they believ...5) The early Church. You claimed that they believed in a spiritual resurrection. What evidence do you have for this? <br />The Apostolic tradition argues strongly for a physical resurrection. Let me list the evidence for the physical resurrection:<br /><br />A) The Gospels, <br />a. Luke 24:36-46 “36 While they were still talking about this, Jesus himself stood among them and said to them, "Peace be with you." 37 They were startled and frightened, thinking they saw a ghost. 38 He said to them, "Why are you troubled, and why do doubts rise in your minds? 39 Look at my hands and my feet. It is I myself! Touch me and see; a ghost does not have flesh and bones, as you see I have." 40 When he had said this, he showed them his hands and feet. 41 And while they still did not believe it because of joy and amazement, he asked them, "Do you have anything here to eat?" 42 They gave him a piece of broiled fish, 43 and he took it and ate it in their presence. 44 He said to them, "This is what I told you while I was still with you: Everything must be fulfilled that is written about me in the Law of Moses, the Prophets and the Psalms." 45 Then he opened their minds so they could understand the Scriptures. 46 He told them, "This is what is written: The Christ will suffer and rise from the dead on the third day. . . .”<br />(I can quote the other synoptic gospels, but it would be redundant). <br /><br />This affirms that this resurrection body is flesh and blood—according to Luke. He ate about four times after his resurrection and even had Thomas touch his physical body. <br /><br />b. Acts 2:31 affirms Jesus body did not see corruption. <br />B) Old Testament :<br />a. Job 19:23-29; I know that my Redeemer lives, and that in the end he will stand upon the earth. And after my skin has been destroyed, yet in my flesh I will see God; I myself will see him with my own eyes--I, and not another. How my heart yearns within me! <br />b. Psalms 16:9,10; “Therefore my heart is glad and my tongue rejoices; my body also will rest secure, because you will not abandon me to the grave, nor will you let your Holy One see decay.” <br />c. Psalms 49:15 “But God will redeem my life from the grave; he will surely take me to himself.” <br />d. Isaiah 26:19; “But your dead will live; their bodies will rise. You who dwell in the dust, wake up and shout for joy. Your dew is like the dew of the morning; the earth will give birth to her dead” <br />e. Ezekiel 37:12-14; Therefore prophesy and say to them: 'This is what the Sovereign Lord says: O my people, I am going to open your graves and bring you up from them; I will bring you back to the land of Israel. Then you, my people, will know that I am the Lord, when I open your graves and bring you up from them. I will put my Spirit in you and you will live, and I will settle you in your own land. Then you will know that I the Lord have spoken, and I have done it, declares the Lord.'" <br />f. Daniel 12:2,3,13; “Multitudes who sleep in the dust of the earth will awake: some to everlasting life, others to shame and everlasting contempt. Those who are wise will shine like the brightness of the heavens, and those who lead many to righteousness, like the stars for ever and ever. "As for you, go your way till the end. You will rest, and then at the end of the days you will rise to receive your allotted inheritance." <br />g. Is. 26:19 Thy dead men shall live, together with my dead body shall they arise.Khaldoun Sweishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15591543066458897827noreply@blogger.com