Robert said
Steefen said
We disagree. That’s it. Thank you.
We disagree about your ability to understand the obvious way in which you misrepresented my view. Assuming you’re being honest about your inability to understand.
You are in error. You are not my go-to person on this issue. I no longer solicit your input on this matter. You had your chance.
Look: the discussion has moved on.
If you’d like, start a a different thread.
I will not comment on that new thread.
We disagree. That’s it. Thank you.
Robert said
Steefen, what in the world do you think I’m in error about? I obviously know what my own opinion is and I demonstrated exactly how you misunderstood and/misrepresented my view. I’m giving you the benefit of the doubt that you did not do so on purpose. It’s beyond ridiculous for you to argue about this.
I am not arguing about anything.
You are not my go-to person on this issue. I no longer solicit your input on this matter. You had your chance.
If you’d like, start a a different thread and tell other people anything you want about 1 and 2 Corinthians.
I will not comment on that new thread.
We disagree. That’s it. Thank you.
Steve Campbell, Author of Historical Accuracy
Dr. M. David Litwa explains that Paul mentions a new body for resurrection because people knew our earthly body could not survive ascension to higher levels of heaven. Just as we need a space suit for space travel, Paul’s audience knew a resurrection and ascension body needed to fit the ecology of space.
In 2 Corinthians, Paul explains our body was a tent, but it will be a (spirit body) Temple.
Dr. Tabor
I want to comment about 2 Cor. 5 about the body being “re-clothed”. You have to look at the end of chapter four.
The point is not to be naked but to be further clothed. You need a mode of existence in this new creation.
Mr. Campbell
Jesus’ post-Tribulation kingdom was on Earth.
Paul’s kingdom was not on Earth.
Dr. Tabor drops the name Norman Perrin. That author is in the bibliography of my book for the author’s book “What Is Redaction Criticism?” Dr. Tabor says Perrin is a specialist in the gospel of Mark; he taught me much at Chicago. Other titles of Norman Perrin are:
The Kingdom of God in the Teaching of Jesus
Parable and Gospel
The Promise of Bultmann
Jesus and the Language of the Kingdom: Symbol and Metaphor
The New Testament, an Introduction: Proclamation and Parenesis, Myth and History
The Resurrection Narratives: A New Approach
Robert said
Steefen said
I am not arguing about anything.
You claim I’m in error but can’t even say what I am in error about. OK. If you’re no longer arguing about anything, then I must suppose you now realize that you misrepresented my view but apparently cannot bring yourself to admit it. Everyone makes mistakes, Steefen; there’s no shame in that. We’re a friendly group here.
Thank you for illustrating why you are not my go-to person on this issue.
We disagree. That’s it. Thank you.
Dr. M. David Litwa
Paul’s message of salvation is deification, reading Paul in his Greco-Roman context.
When the cosmos is reformed…
Steve Campbell, author of Historical Accuracy
Paul is in error.
The Apocalypse (1. Repent/Prepare for the Lord’s judgement and kingdom, 2. Tribulation, 3. Judgement, 4. Glorious Son of Man Kingdom where the Son of Man is coming to earth through the clouds not, as Paul depicts, leaving earth through the clouds) does not involve a rearrangement of planets in the solar system.
p/u at 1:09.02 / 1:37.31
Paul’s kingdom was not on Earth.
I think this is mistaken. It rests on a misunderstanding of Paul’s views of the body especially the kingdom body. Dale Martin has an illuminating discussion of this issue in his ** you do not have permission to see this link **. Paul describes the body in the fashion typical of the thought of his day. Roughly, the body consists of Sarx (the flesh), Nous (the mind) and Pneuma (the spirit). The problem is that none of these terms translates exactly to what a modern conception would be. For Paul even sarx, the “flesh”, has a metaphysical aspect. But each component is physical, being composed of a more and more refined substance. In the resurrection the sarx and the nous drop away and the pneuma is transformed into the kingdom body**. For Paul the body is transformed but it is still a body. The Earth is transformed but it is still the Earth.
Another excellent discussion of these concepts is in Alan Scott’s ** you do not have permission to see this link **. While not the prime focus of the book Scott has a nice discussion of the Hellenistic view of human/divine substance including the both earthly and heavenly bodies. (It was cutting edge thought that the stars were living creatures.) The view that the spirit was incorporeal was centuries away.
**Given this view I’ve always wondered just how interested Paul (or indeed the early Christians) would have actually been in the fate of Jesus’ fleshly corpus. The earliest view of the Resurrection seems to have been as an apotheosis. The view of the resurrection as resembling an actual resuscitation of Jesus’ corpse came later. I’ve always thought Mark’s account of an empty tomb but no appearance constituted a transitional view.
Stephen said
Paul’s kingdom was not on Earth.I think this is mistaken. It rests on a misunderstanding of Paul’s views of the body especially the kingdom body. Dale Martin has an illuminating discussion of this issue in his ** you do not have permission to see this link **. Paul describes the body in the fashion typical of the thought of his day. Roughly, the body consists of Sarx (the flesh), Nous (the mind) and Pneuma (the spirit). The problem is that none of these terms translates exactly to what a modern conception would be. For Paul even sarx, the “flesh”, has a metaphysical aspect. But each component is physical, being composed of a more and more refined substance. In the resurrection the sarx and the nous drop away and the pneuma is transformed into the kingdom body**. For Paul the body is transformed but it is still a body. The Earth is transformed but it is still the Earth.
Another excellent discussion of these concepts is in Alan Scott’s ** you do not have permission to see this link **. While not the prime focus of the book Scott has a nice discussion of the Hellenistic view of human/divine substance including the both earthly and heavenly bodies. (It was cutting edge thought that the stars were living creatures.) The view that the spirit was incorporeal was centuries away.
**Given this view I’ve always wondered just how interested Paul (or indeed the early Christians) would have actually been in the fate of Jesus’ fleshly corpus. The earliest view of the Resurrection seems to have been as an apotheosis. The view of the resurrection as resembling an actual resuscitation of Jesus’ corpse came later. I’ve always thought Mark’s account of an empty tomb but no appearance constituted a transitional view.
Steefen
Paul’s view of the kingdom body is misunderstood, Stephen says. Stephen, please tell us the Pauline verse, verses, or a representative verse of the kingdom body.
Maybe you would like to start at 1 Cor Chapter 15 verse 50
“Now I declare to you, brothers, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God, nor does the perishable inherit the imperishable.”
Maybe you would like to consider Philippians chapter 3, verses 20 and 21
verse 20
But our citizenship is in heaven, and we eagerly await a Savior from there, the Lord Jesus Christ.
Steefen
Let’s exploit the pious:
Pious, wait for Tribulation and Judgement, then the Son of Man, Savior, Lord Jesus Christ will come to earth through the clouds.
Apostle Paul: The Son of Man will not come to earth. We have to die and go to heaven. Jesus got that part wrong, you have to die, go to heaven and wait some more for the Savior and the Lord Jesus Christ to come to heaven.
verse 21
who, by the power that enables Him to subject all things to Himself, will transform our lowly bodies to be like His glorious body.
Stephen
In the resurrection the sarx/flesh and the nous/mind drop away and the pneuma/spirit is transformed into the kingdom body**.
Steefen
And you are saying that is what happened to the daughter of Jairus, Lazarus, and Jesus?
I think Paul and yourself, not Dr. Litwa, not Dr. Tabor, are mistaken, unless Paul words over time contain more than one allegation.
The earthly bodies (including body and mind) of Jairus’ daughter, Lazarus, and Jesus resurrected. Thomas touched the resurrected physical body of Jesus. Why was the tomb empty, Stephen, if not for the resurrection of the physical body?
The dead and those living will be caught up in the air, not the dead and those living will die and their pneuma/spirit will be transformed and join the bodies from the graveyards.
Once again Steefen you’re reading concepts that developed much later into these first century texts. Paul believed in a bodily resurrection. It’s just that his concept of the body is different than what you’re thinking of. The dichotomy between a corporeal body and an immaterial spirit is an idea that developed much later. The “spiritual” body of which Paul speaks is a body made of much finer stuff than the flesh but it is a body. All I can do is recommend Prof Martin’s book. The ancients didn’t think the way we think. They used a lot of the same words as we do but they meant different things by them.
Why was the tomb empty, Stephen, if not for the resurrection of the physical body?
We were discussing Paul’s viewpoint, remember? The gospel writers have somewhat different views. But in no case is Jesus’ resurrection body described as a simple resuscitation. You notice how he appears suddenly in closed rooms and is unrecognizable one minute and recognizable the next? The gospel writers, like Paul, believed in a physical resurrection, but not a fleshly one. The problem we have seeing this distinction merely testifies to the difference between the way we moderns think and the way these ancient people thought.
Stephen said
Once again Steefen you’re reading concepts that developed much later into these first century texts. Paul believed in a bodily resurrection. It’s just that his concept of the body is different than what you’re thinking of. The dichotomy between a corporeal body and an immaterial spirit is an idea that developed much later. The “spiritual” body of which Paul speaks is a body made of much finer stuff than the flesh but it is a body. All I can do is recommend Prof Martin’s book. The ancients didn’t think the way we think. They used a lot of the same words as we do but they meant different things by them.Why was the tomb empty, Stephen, if not for the resurrection of the physical body?
We were discussing Paul’s viewpoint, remember? The gospel writers have somewhat different views. But in no case is Jesus’ resurrection body described as a simple resuscitation. You notice how he appears suddenly in closed rooms and is unrecognizable one minute and recognizable the next? The gospel writers, like Paul, believed in a physical resurrection, but not a fleshly one. The problem we have seeing this distinction merely testifies to the difference between the way we moderns think and the way these ancient people thought.
It’s not about me, it’s about Jairus’ daughter, Lazurus, and people coming out of their graves in a gospel account and people coming out of their graves to be caught up in the air in a Pauline letter. They were resurrected on earth that did not require a spiritual body fit for heaven and earth.
Apparently, Paul did not have a conversation with Doubting Thomas. Jesus insisted to Thomas: this is my same body–not a clothed body suited for earth and heaven.
It appears that Steefen is referring to John 20:26-29. Jesus makes no explicit claim that the body Thomas sees is not a resurrection body as imagined, in general, by Paul, although I suppose the fact that Jesus’ (alleged) wounds are still there allows one to infer that it is a regular body of the flesh. Of course, the nature of the resurrection body was not a concern that John felt the need to address.
Even if we were to agree that John and Paul were not consistent on this point, it does not necessarily follow that both are wrong and that the NT is just fan fiction. One could be wrong and that other could be right. I personally doubt the story of doubting Thomas. It Jesus was resurrected in his mortal body, it would seem that he would experience a lot of pain if Thomas stuck his hand in the sword wound. The sword wound itself is doubtful. I think someone in the chain from the actual crucifixion to the writing of John added it to conform to the “prophecy” of Zechariah 12:10.
As for Paul, someone wrote those authentic letters, so it seems strange to doubt his historicity. I haven’t seen any compelling evidence to think that he is anything other than sincere in his writings, even if he engaged in some hyperbole regarding the persecution that he inflicted or that he himself suffered. He was trying first to convert people and then to keep them in line.
It would be nice if the NT was internally consistent in all respects, but any serious reader knows that it isn’t. I don’t think you can reasonably infer from the many inconsistencies that the authors were all lying. The traditions and the theologies they offer are different because they heard and understood it differently.
Judith said
Steefen said
Apparently, Paul did not have a conversation with Doubting Thomas. Jesus insisted to Thomas: this is my same body–not a clothed body suited for earth and heaven.
This is an interesting point!
There seems to be two types of resurrections:
resurrect to continue living an incarnation
and
resurrection to go to heaven.
It is suggested that Stephen explains Acts 20: 8-10 (at Troas, Eutychus falls from a third floor building and dies, where Paul himself performs a resurrection for Eutychus to continue living an incarnation).
Second, note the distinction.
Apocalypticism for Jesus was: 1) Repent 2) Tribulation, 3) Judgement, 4) Glorious Kingdom on earth ruled by the Son of Man.
For Paul, I do not see a glorious Kingdom on earth ruled by the Son of Man. The Son of Man comes back and there is a mass ascension.
Exploit the pious: for more than 2,000 years, the mass ascension of the dead and the living (caught up in mid air) with Jesus has not happened.
Wait for that and die and go to heaven and wait some more for Jesus. Exploit the pious.
TTHorne56 said
It appears that Steefen is referring to John 20:26-29. Jesus makes no explicit claim that the body Thomas sees is not a resurrection body as imagined, in general, by Paul, although I suppose the fact that Jesus’ (alleged) wounds are still there allows one to infer that it is a regular body of the flesh. Of course, the nature of the resurrection body was not a concern that John felt the need to address.Even if we were to agree that John and Paul were not consistent on this point, it does not necessarily follow that both are wrong and that the NT is just fan fiction. One could be wrong and that other could be right. I personally doubt the story of doubting Thomas. It Jesus was resurrected in his mortal body, it would seem that he would experience a lot of pain if Thomas stuck his hand in the sword wound. The sword wound itself is doubtful. I think someone in the chain from the actual crucifixion to the writing of John added it to conform to the “prophecy” of Zechariah 12:10.
As for Paul, someone wrote those authentic letters, so it seems strange to doubt his historicity. I haven’t seen any compelling evidence to think that he is anything other than sincere in his writings, even if he engaged in some hyperbole regarding the persecution that he inflicted or that he himself suffered. He was trying first to convert people and then to keep them in line.
It would be nice if the NT was internally consistent in all respects, but any serious reader knows that it isn’t. I don’t think you can reasonably infer from the many inconsistencies that the authors were all lying. The traditions and the theologies they offer are different because they heard and understood it differently.
Gospel of Mark originally ends at verse 6 of chapter 16?
Verse 14 was added later.
Gospel of John John embellishes Mark 16:14?
Mark’s new ending and John chastises followers for not believing Jesus resurrected. Gospel of John lessens the reason of doubt by showing evidence.
Mark 16 and 14
Later, as they were eating, Jesus appeared to the Eleven and rebuked them for their unbelief and hardness of heart, because they did not believe those who had seen Him after He had risen.
Only John’s gospel tries to ground belief in evidential illustration:
John 20 and 27
Then Jesus said to Thomas, “Put your finger here and look at My hands. Reach out your hand and put it into My side. Stop doubting…
= = =
Michael Newton, author of Life between Lives wrote something to the effect that spirits take on appearances people can recognize.
= = =
1. Our resurrection bodies are to be our mortal bodies made alive. That this making alive implies transformation is much insisted upon. We wait for the Lord Jesus Christ from heaven, “Who shall fashion anew the body of our humiliation, that it may be conformed to the body of his glory” (** you do not have permission to see this link **).
But if the Spirit of him that raised up Jesus from the dead dwelleth in you, he that raised up Christ Jesus from the dead shall quicken also your mortal bodies through his Spirit that dwelleth in you.—** you do not have permission to see this link **.
** you do not have permission to see this link **
Dr. Tabor
Paul has a servant theology for Jesus.
Gospel of Mark is influenced by Paul.
“provided that we suffer with him” then there will be glory; you cannot skip suffering with Jesus.
Act like Jesus – Adam not the Adam of Genesis who grasped glory.
Dr. Tabor
Eastern Church are closer to accepting deification than the Western Church.
Salvation via deification.
Dr. Litwa
Luther believed in deification.
Paul became a god when he ascended to the third heaven
Ascension is deification. Ancients thought that.
The truth of salvation is deification.
Counterpoint: If we all become deified, then Jesus is not special enough.
Dr. Tabor
He became like us so we could become like him.
Well, what do you mean “like him”?
Derek Mythvision
Dr. Tabor does have a YouTube channel.
Steve Campbell, Author of Historical Accuracy
This looks interesting:
I started this one and have to pick up at 9:54/57:53.
= = =
Yes, I got to the end of the Tabor/Litwa video, so no more on that.
BDEhrman
FreedomBen
evgendob
Robert
2 Guest(s)