Dialogue on the Resurrected Body, part 1

Herein is the continuing dialogue that grew from How Many of What Did Jesus Ride Into Jerusalem? On Colts, Donkey and Asses and continued in Flesh and Blood or Spirit? On the Resurrection: the Natural Body and the Spiritual Body

Marty said...

Wow Mariano! I call that some fancy footwork. You lay great emphasis on the word body and the fact that the metaphors he used are about physical things. But what else could he use as a metaphor but a physical thing? That's why we use metaphors in describing spiritual reality, because spiritual reality is not describable otherwise!!
Here is my assessment of what happened at the resurrection of Christ. Christ definitely did appear to the apostles, almost certainly to Peter first. The affect of these appearances was electrifying to the apostles and transformed them spiritually. Christ had fulfilled his promise and had arisen on the third day. This belief is obviously from the very beginning of Christianity and acted as the catalyst to the spread of Christ's message.
When the apostles began spreading the word that Christ had arisen the Jews may have objected that if so where was his empty tomb? The apostles knew that the resurrection was spiritual and not physical (as 1 Cor 15 clearly reads but I won't argue that with you and will let anyone else who reads it decide for themselves) and this objection of the Jews didn't concern them since they were bringing a new message from God and not just confirming the Jews preconceptions (for example they also had no answer for the Jews objection that the Messiah would deliver them from their oppressors.)
But over time later Christians were bothered by this question and so the writers of the Gospels attempted to answer it by introducing the empty tomb into resurrection accounts. Note that these accounts were all written after the destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans in 70 CE and also after the original apostles had died. Which means their accounts were acts of faith rather than accounts of eyewitnesses.

Finally I would like to quote the following verse:

Matthew 28:19 - 'Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.'

If the risen Christ had actually spoken these words, why doesn't Paul mention this clear baptismal formula anywhere in his epistles. In Galatians 3:27 he merely mentions being baptized in Christ. It simply cannot be that such a clear formula on the part of the risen Christ would not even be mentioned by Paul! But it is also clearly a doctrinal formulation that came considerably latter than the time of Christ.
This is just to say that the resurrection accounts cannot be relied on as literal eyewitness accounts of what actually happened that first Easter.

Mariano said...

Thanks for checking back and for your comments.
I did not lay great emphasis on the body/body comparison—Paul did.
I think that you are missing the point that he is very clearly comparing body with body.

I hope that you do not mind a pointed statement as the following is not meant to be an ad hominem but a dissection of a thought process. I do not simply assume that you are not erudite enough to handle the issue fairly. This is a message urging you to please slow down and reconsider carefully:

Upon your very first reading of Paul’s epistles, and I suspect that you may have had your mind made up already, you topple 2,000 years worth of scholarship. And I would further imagine that this was done without consulting any of that scholarship: no commentary/interpretation, nor any lexicon, nor any concordance, nor any cultural/historical context, nor any greater grammatical/textual context. [FYI: I knew that it was his first reading of Paul’s epistles because he had said so in an earlier discussion]

For examples, from cultural/historical context you would know that the idea that the “Messiah would deliver them from their oppressors” was an option (perhaps preferred whilst under Roman rule) yet, the Rabbinic literature is clear that one Messiah could comes twice (once to suffer and die and once to conquer and rule) or that two Messiah’s could come one after the other (one to suffer and die and the other to conquer and rule—I will be posting on Judaism and Christianity later this year). [FYI: this info is now posted here]

You disregard the very many texts to which I pointed which make the physical resurrection extremely clear. And yet you disregard these because you have invent a history without any evidence whatsoever, no ancient histories, nor manuscripts, but merely a “Here is my assessment of what happened” and now this assessment is more authoritative than the neglected 2,000 worth of scholarship.

You reference 1st Corinthians 15 which states:

Christ died…
He was buried…
He rose again…
He was seen…
He was seen by over five hundred brethren at once, of whom the greater part remain to the present [this means: go ask them]…
He was seen…
He was seen…
He has been raised from the dead, how do some among you say that there is no resurrection of the dead?
But if there is no resurrection of the dead, then Christ is not risen.
And if Christ is not risen, then our preaching is empty and your faith is also empty.
Yes, and we are found false witnesses of God, because we have testified of God that He raised up Christ, whom He did not raise up—if in fact the dead do not rise.
For if the dead do not rise, then Christ is not risen.
And if Christ is not risen, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins!
Then also those who have fallen asleep in Christ have perished.
If in this life only we have hope in Christ, we are of all men the most pitiable.
But now Christ is risen from the dead…
If the dead do not rise, “Let us eat and drink, for tomorrow we die!”…
But someone will say, “How are the dead raised up? And with what body do they come?”
Foolish one, what you sow is not made alive unless it dies…
All flesh is not the same flesh…

From here he goes on to describe what I elucidated in the post above [meaning Flesh and Blood or Spirit?].

Yet, this is irrelevant because you want to say that the text is not stating and you declared that you do not want to discuss it, a sure sign of a problematic doctrine—you have, in fact, created your very own dogma.

Lastly, having invented theology and history without historical or textual evidence, you do something that is sadly typical of various groups: eisegesis/isogesis. You are now taking your preconceived notions and reading them back into the text. You are, pardon the term but, desperately searching for the tiniest little crumb upon which to form your loaf. You are inventing an entire scenario including conspiratorial rewritings of history by false witnesses.

I could just as easily reverse your history and invent my own:

“The apostles saw Jesus physically resurrected. But then, much, much later Paul, who was, after all, the apostle to the Gentiles, found it hard to get the Gentiles to swallow a physically resurrected since they were steeped in Greek philosophy and Gnostic body/spirit dualism so he changed the story to it having been a spirit resurrection” (7th Concoction 4:15½).

We could invent whatever we want—un-viably.

I think that you will actually find that the accounts were all written before the destruction of Jerusalem which is why the New Testament does not mention it—tantamount to an author writing a history of New York for the year 2001 not bothering to mention 9/11.

Yet, since you invented a conspiratorial history you can explain this away by claiming that they did not mention it because they were deceivers and wanted to make it appear as if they had written it before 70 AD.

And this is indicative of the black hole of conspiracy theorizing—anything can be fitted into the theory, no matter how damaging to the original conspiracy since anything can be co-opted as part of the theory, the greater conspiracy, it only grows with every refuting objection, it only gets deeper.

For instance, the, I suppose, proof for your invented theology/history amounts to one point about baptismal formulas—this does not suffice to substantiate the rewriting of theology/history. And I would further caution you to not think: well, I a pleased with my theology/history so I will further read my preconceived notions in to the Bible to the point that you then ask, “How about this…and this…and this…” but are merely asking others to substantiate your new theology/history.

As to the, as you have chosen to term it, baptismal “formula” you would know from cultural/historical context that oral tradition was not about reproducing word one followed by word two followed by word three…
It was meant to put forth the thought/concept (even while allowing that the audience could offer corrections for the sake of accuracy and accountability).

But what of Galatians 3:27?
Paul is not baptizing anyone, nor preaching about baptism, nor reciting any formulaic statements.
You will notice from the context why he singles out Jesus in relation to baptism:

“…the promise by faith in Jesus Christ might be given to those who believe…the law was our tutor to bring us to Christ, that we might be justified by faith…For you are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus.”

Thus, he is again and again emphasizing Jesus and so it follows that this emphasis would continue to the very next verse “For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ…you are all one in Christ Jesus. And if you are Christ’s, then you are Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise.”

Baptized into Christ due to the contextual emphasis on Christ and due to the fact that in the New Testament baptism is likened to Jesus being buried and raised from the dead.

Again, we could make much of this and perhaps even start our own church:
“baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost”—does that mean that when you baptize someone you say “I baptize you in the ‘name of the Father and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost’”?
Or do you say the actual name?
Sure, why not?: Jesus was saying that we were to pronounce the, according to cultural/historical context, unpronounced, actual name of the Father and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.
So when you are baptizing someone you say, “I baptize you in…”
Oh, oh! Do I say “Jehovah” or “Yahweh” or “YHWH” or “LORD” or “Adonai” or “El” or “Emet” or ___________ (fill in the blank).