tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9118409153657833547.post1989869405021609412..comments2024-02-10T02:53:47.545-06:00Comments on Do You Ever Think About Things You Do Think About?: The Case for the Real Jesus (7): Spiritual Body or Physical BodyVinnyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08955726889682177434noreply@blogger.comBlogger7125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9118409153657833547.post-30351919943093914782008-03-23T15:23:00.000-05:002008-03-23T15:23:00.000-05:00I have certainly had the same experience as Steven...I have certainly had the same experience as Steven Carr.<BR/><BR/>In <I>Lord or Legend? </I>, I saw Greg Boyd citing Richard Bauckham as authority for a claim that the oral culture of first century Palestine would be capable of accurately handing on the historical facts of Jesus’ life until the time they were recorded in the gospels. There was no explanation of Bauckham’s research; just some conclusory assertions along the lines of “recent scholarship has shown that oral cultures can preserve history more accurately than once thought.”<BR/><BR/>I am now taking a look at <I>Jesus and the Eyewitnesses </I>by Bauckham, which I obtained through inter-library loan. In turns out that Bauckham cites the abstract conclusions of other scholars with little or no details concerning the factual situations they investigated and little or no showing of how their conclusions apply to first century Palestine.<BR/><BR/>Compare that to John Dominic Crossan’s <I>The Birth of Christianity</I>. In the section titled “Memory and Orality,” he describes both the research and the conclusions of scholars in these fields. He describes studies of the transmission of oral traditions in Yugoslavia with specific illustrations of how the stories were altered by different performers in terms of details, length, and phrasing. He describes various studies of memory with detailed examples of different experiments with different types of information. Even if you disagree with Crossan, you are not left wondering whether or not the authorities he cites actually have anything to do with the arguments he is making.Vinnyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08955726889682177434noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9118409153657833547.post-38472130632672207312008-03-23T03:55:00.000-05:002008-03-23T03:55:00.000-05:00The evidence is not in Strobel. Somebody else has ...The evidence is not in Strobel. Somebody else has it.<BR/><BR/><BR/>More pass the parcel apologetics.<BR/><BR/>The evidence is always in another book.<BR/><BR/>When you open that book, you will be told that the evidence is in another book.<BR/><BR/>Eventually you open the last book and discover there is nothing in the parcel of 'evidence' that is being passed from one book to another.Steven Carrhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11983601793874190779noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9118409153657833547.post-53354396650998227912008-03-23T01:29:00.000-05:002008-03-23T01:29:00.000-05:00Strobel takes a lot of heat for his books. The tw...Strobel takes a lot of heat for his books. The two or three I have read are not defintive tomes on the subjects covered. In fact, I found them to be a somewhat hurried synopsis of how his research probably went. They seem a bit too convenient, even for me who doesn't think he's the putz Vinny and friends seem to believe he is. At the same time, he lists quite a group of people who DO have definitive works on such things, and it is to them one should concern themselves, not a distiller of info like Strobel.Marshal Arthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01054268632726520871noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9118409153657833547.post-20717853706528900712008-03-18T10:32:00.000-05:002008-03-18T10:32:00.000-05:001 Corinthians (as common with Paul’s letters) was ...1 Corinthians (as common with Paul’s letters) was written to address problems within the Church. You can read it almost like a laundry list:<BR/><BR/>1) Problem of marriage/divorce. Solution<BR/>2) Problem of Gifts. Solution.<BR/>3) Problem of Sexual Immorality. Solution<BR/><BR/>And so on… One of the problems Paul was addressing was the Corinthian concept of Resurrection. They didn’t know what this new Christian perspective would be. I always find it an extremely weak (yet amazingly popular) argument to claim, “Oh, they already knew such-and-such, which is why Paul didn’t write it.” <B>Paul was addressing a problem.</B> To claim they already knew the solution is…well…ludicrous. To claim they already knew of an empty tomb is stupid.<BR/><BR/>The Jewish concept of Resurrection was <I>en masse</I>--everyone at one time. The concept of an “empty tomb” would be meaningless, since there would be no one to be around to observe any empty tombs and they would all be empty anyway. They did not have this one-at-a-time view more popular today. For Paul to speak of Jesus’ body no longer present at all would be very new indeed. To talk of his already being resurrected (when no one else was) would also be new.<BR/><BR/>So Paul was addressing a new problem with a new solution, but doesn’t mention supporting evidence because they already knew it? But if they already knew it, it wouldn’t be a problem, now would it?<BR/><BR/>Further, Licona (and Strobel) fail to mention burial practices of the time. Bodies were habitually placed in tombs and later removed. In fact, the Jewish notion was that you were not truly “dead” until one year after the heart stopped beating. For that one year, your body was laid in a tomb to decompose. (The decomposition process was part of the retribution for acts committed while alive.) After one year, the only thing left were the bones, which would then be placed in an Ossuary (bone box) with designation of the person. Typically a family tomb would contain numerous ossuaries—father, mother, sons, grandchildren, etc.<BR/><BR/>Since Jesus was not from Jerusalem, his family tomb would have been in his hometown of Galilee. If Joseph used his tomb for Jesus temporarily, it would have been normal, even expected, for Jesus’ family to remove his body and take it back home for proper burial. Most likely immediately, but possibly one year later.<BR/><BR/>The reason Paul didn’t talk about an “empty tomb” is because everyone, EVERYONE would expect Joseph of Arimathea’s tomb to be empty of Jesus’ body. If you wanted Jesus’ Ossuary (there would be no body) one would look to Galilee.<BR/><BR/>Paul, in his typical convoluted way, was saying, “Don’t worry about the physical body. It is, at best, a seed which will disappear once the new plant—your spiritual body—comes out.” Of course this is some type of spiritual resurrection. The “material” of the supernatural was considered quite different than the material of the natural. (They fail to point that out as well.)<BR/><BR/>Finally, this was not exactly a new question. The Jews wrestled with the resurrected body as well, if I remember correctly. I thought there was some Rabbinical teaching regarding whether a man who was blind in one eye would be blind after the resurrection, or what age they would portray. I am too lazy to look it up. I will when Strobel interviews me. *grin.*DagoodShttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04557451438888314932noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9118409153657833547.post-39269845413024666902008-03-17T16:40:00.000-05:002008-03-17T16:40:00.000-05:00'They’re sown natural—bodies with all their fleshl...'They’re sown natural—bodies with all their fleshly and sinful desires and with hearts and lungs—but raised and transformed into a new body with spiritual appetites and empowered by God’s Spirit.'<BR/><BR/>So Licona is claiming that there has to be a corpse present to be transformed? Paul's whole thesis is that there has to be a body to be transformed.<BR/><BR/>What about all the cremated bodies? Or the billions of bodies which have been eaten and disappeared?<BR/><BR/>How would Paul's answer have answered the questions of the Corinthians about how dead people could be resurrected, as they surely knew that corpses were often burned to ash and smoke?<BR/><BR/>It wouldn't. They would still scoff at the idea of God transforming bodies which no longer exist, just as I would scoff at the idea of God transforming water into wine, if there wasn't any water left to transform.<BR/><BR/>Paul, of course, *explicitly* teaches the destruction of the natural body, not its salvation.<BR/><BR/>2 Corinthians 5:1 'For we know that if our earthly dwelling, a tent, should be destroyed, we have a building from God, a dwelling not made with hands'<BR/><BR/>'Not made with hands' is jargon for made from a different material.Steven Carrhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11983601793874190779noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9118409153657833547.post-15035988854438350292008-03-17T16:24:00.000-05:002008-03-17T16:24:00.000-05:00Surely the word 'pneumatikos' in 1 Corinthians 9 i...Surely the word 'pneumatikos' in 1 Corinthians 9 is basically the same word as in 1 Corinthians 15.<BR/><BR/>Paul's whole point is that the Corinthians were idiots to think that a corpse turns into a resurrected body.<BR/><BR/>He gives them a whole list of examples of earthly and heavenly things - fish, birds, animals, the sun, the moon.<BR/><BR/>These do not turn into each other.<BR/><BR/>In Paul's view, an earthly thing could not become a heavenly thing.<BR/><BR/>It would be like a fish turning into the moon.<BR/><BR/>That is why the Corinthians were idiots.<BR/><BR/>Their model of a resurrection was like wondering how a fish can turn into the moon.<BR/><BR/>Hence Paul's elaborate talk of all sorts of different bodies, to emphasise that a resurrected body is not a transformed corpse.<BR/><BR/>No heavenly thing is a transformed earthly thing.Steven Carrhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11983601793874190779noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9118409153657833547.post-80409663534591600842008-03-17T16:15:00.000-05:002008-03-17T16:15:00.000-05:00'The body that is sown is perishable....'Where is ...'The body that is sown is perishable....'<BR/><BR/>Where is the word 'soma' in the Greek for that verse?<BR/><BR/>The dead are sown and the dead are raised.<BR/><BR/>But Paul carefully does not have the word 'body' as subject here.<BR/><BR/>And why was flesh and blood used to mean 'mortal being'?<BR/><BR/>Because if you had flesh and blood, you were a mortal being!<BR/><BR/>So how could think that the resurrected Jesus had flesh and blood, when having flesh and blood meant that you were mortal?Steven Carrhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11983601793874190779noreply@blogger.com