Religion Ask a Christian - Continued in Part 2

[Chief]

Continued in Part Two:

https://www.bigfooty.com/forum/threads/ask-a-christian-part-2.1295001/unread

 

[Evolved1]

Yes. What's the catch?

I'm the devil's 2IC.

If he is granted forgiveness, I'm god in Hell.

 

[Vdubs]

I'm the devil's 2IC.

If he is granted forgiveness, I'm god in Hell.

Not so.
If he is forgiven, sin is conquered, you are free.

 

[Total Power]

What? This is a horribly bad interpretation of 1 Corinthians 15:36.

"Paul calls the imaginary objector "foolish."...The critic imagined here is rejecting belief in the resurrection because of a simple lack of understanding about how God might accomplish such a thing."

"You who with your own hand sow seed, ask such a question as that! The Apostle now proceeds to show, by the analogies in Nature, how a resurrection of a body is possible." (emphasis mine)

"Or, thou inconsiderate and thoughtless creature, who thinkest a matter impossible, of the possibility of which thou hast an example in the very seed thou sowest." (emphasis mine)

"How are the dead raised up? that is, by what means? How can they be raised? 2. As to the bodies which shall rise. Will it be with the like shape, and form, and stature, and members, and qualities? The former objection is that of those who opposed the doctrine, the latter of curious doubters" (emphasis mine)

"Thou fool - Foolish, inconsiderate man! The meaning is, that it was foolish to make this objection, when the same difficulty existed in an undeniable fact which fell under daily observation." (emphasis mine)

St. Paul is not calling those who believe in the physical resurrection fools, but he is calling those who deny the physical resurrection fools...can you see the irony in your post?

Sources: Benson Commentary, Ellicott's Commentary for English Readers, Matthew Henry's Concise Commentary, Barnes' Notes on the Bible, https://www.bibleref.com/1-Corinthians/15/1-Corinthians-15-36.html

Roylion - I will have a post up about the historical arguments (made by historians - not theologians) up in the next few days. Thank you for being patient.



2 Timothy 2:14 - Keep reminding God's people of these things. Warn them before God against quarreling about words; it is of no value, and only ruins those who listen. (NIV)

It is of no value to quarrel about qualifications and who is better suited to make this or that argument. How about we just address the arguments made by people rather than dismissing them based upon their qualifications, or lack thereof. That being said, I am posting a list of historians who support the resurrection of Christ in the next few days.

Yet another copy paste from fundamentalist site, i assume you have no original thoughts of your own?

Nice selective quoting there though but you have done nothing to disprove me. Paul was a Jew and the concept of ressuerction was common with the Jewish beliefs back then, you have actually argued in my favour.

Cor 15:40-44 and that we have a new "heavenly dwelling" awaiting in case our earthly body gets destroyed - 2 Cor 5:1-4.

Paul says "no flesh (σάρξ sarx) shall glory before God" - 1 Cor 1:29

"flesh and blood shall not inherit the kingdom of God" - 1 Cor 15:50

we "put off the body of the flesh" in Col. 2:11

paul says there are different "types" of bodies in 1 Cor 15:40-44, 2 Cor 5:1-4. There are those that are earthly/natural and those that are heavenly/spiritual. Josephus tells us that the Pharisees believed their souls would be "removed" into "other" bodies Jewish War 2.162. These "other/spiritual bodies" were in heaven which would explain why Paul says Jesus was experienced through visions and not physical interactions with a formerly dead corpse that had returned to life on earth. So even if the Resurrected Jesus "had a body" of some sort it does not follow that this body was believed to have been on earth or physically interacted with at all. When Paul says "Jesus was raised" he meant "raised straight to heaven" regardless of bodily form.

And in regards to W.L.C there's nothing to talk about, you said 'historians' are on your side, yet came back with theologians and Christian apologists, maybe it's about time you read what Christian apologist mean? Are you looking for someone for 'faith' based argument? are you looking for someone in denial of science like evolution? we are not asking for such 'faith' based Christian apologist. Whatever qualification you have, anti-science and anti-history loving gutter trash Christian apologists are not wanted, it can 'affirm' your faith ,but it serves no purpose to the rational minded folks out there. Quote a real historian who quotes science/facts/history and not pretend ones. There is a video of Noble prize winning Roger Penrose and WLC debate on youtube, Penrose puts him in his spot in the debate and this Kalam cosmological argument and misuing scientific terms/concepts. Christian apologists are by no way objective

 

[indoistriku]

Cor 15:40-44 and that we have a new "heavenly dwelling" awaiting in case our earthly body gets destroyed - 2 Cor 5:1-4.

Paul says "no flesh (σάρξ sarx) shall glory before God" - 1 Cor 1:29

"flesh and blood shall not inherit the kingdom of God" - 1 Cor 15:50

we "put off the body of the flesh" in Col. 2:11

paul says there are different "types" of bodies in 1 Cor 15:40-44, 2 Cor 5:1-4. There are those that are earthly/natural and those that are heavenly/spiritual. Josephus tells us that the Pharisees believed their souls would be "removed" into "other" bodies Jewish War 2.162. These "other/spiritual bodies" were in heaven which would explain why Paul says Jesus was experienced through visions and not physical interactions with a formerly dead corpse that had returned to life on earth. So even if the Resurrected Jesus "had a body" of some sort it does not follow that this body was believed to have been on earth or physically interacted with at all. When Paul says "Jesus was raised" he meant "raised straight to heaven" regardless of bodily form.

It is clear that the writers of the Bible believed in the physical resurrection of Jesus. Firstly, in the twentieth chapter of the Gospel of John, St. Thomas (known popularly as 'doubting Thomas') refuses to believe that Jesus is raised from the dead bodily until he lays his own eyes on the risen Lord. He does just that, according to St. John. He inserts his fingers into the wounds on Christ's hands, and his hand into the hole in the side of body of Christ. Gijsbert van den Brink - a professional theologian (since credentials matter greatly here) agree that St. Thomas only believed, or came to his faith, after he believed he had encountered the phyically resurrected body of Christ.

As regards St. Paul - from an essay written by Pastor Liebenow: "Van den Brink’s opinion seems to fit much more with Paul’s words in 1 Corinthians 15, where he points out people to whom Jesus appeared as evidence that Jesus’ rose from the dead, as well as the fact that the entire Christian faith is useless if Jesus has not been raised from the dead. His clear point is that if there is no resurrection, then there is no reason to live the way the apostles preached."

A quote from van den Brink: "Careful scrutiny shows that Paul understood Jesus’ comeback at Easter in terms of a bodily resurrection, that the empty tomb tradition goes back to the earliest post paschal times rather than being a later invention, that the gospel writers considered Jesus’ resurrection as a real historical event"

There is no doubt that our glorified bodies will be spiritual. They will also be physical. Those two things are not mutually exclusive. We are already body and soul, according the Scripture. The resurrection of Christ was, always has been, and still is believed to be physical in nature by the majority of Christians.

 

[Total Power]

A quote from van den Brink: "Careful scrutiny shows that Paul understood Jesus’ comeback at Easter in terms of a bodily resurrection, that the empty tomb tradition goes back to the earliest post paschal times rather than being a later invention, that the gospel writers considered Jesus’ resurrection as a real historical event"

There is no doubt that our glorified bodies will be spiritual. They will also be physical. Those two things are not mutually exclusive. We are already body and soul, according the Scripture. The resurrection of Christ was, always has been, and still is believed to be physical in nature by the majority of Christians.

This is clearly wrong, read my post above again. Yet again, you have provided nothing and quoted nothing to disprove me but a bunch of Christian apologists again. Van den Brink lol leader of christiian apologetics! of course whatelse do you think he will say?

If they are of different glory/splendor and each "heavenly" and "earthly" body is suitable for it's own environment then it's perfectly reasonable to assume he's saying they are made of different "stuff." There's also the problem of Paul rejecting resurrection of the flesh which seems to contradict the later gospel depictions in Luke 24 and John 20.

 

[Roylion]

Roylion - I will have a post up about the historical arguments (made by historians - not theologians) up in the next few days. Thank you for being patient.

I'm sure I've already read most, of not all of those arguments. Hopefully they are cfedentialled historians and not theologians masquerading as historians such as William Lane Craig and Gary Habermas.

Remember historians can only establish what probably happened in the past, and by definition a miracle, such as the resurrection is the least probable occurrence. As such, resurrection has to be taken on faith, not on the basis of proof.

 

[Total Power]

Remember historians can only establish what probably happened in the past, and by definition a miracle, such as the resurrection is the least probable occurrence. As such, resurrection has to be taken on faith, not on the basis of proof.

There is no proof of physical resurrection though in the Bible, atleast in Paul/Mark.

Please see Adela Yarbro Collins here on page 125 for her take on the Greek:

People are assuming that Paul had the same idea as the later gospel authors. My post conclusively refutes this.

 

[Evolved1]

Not so.
If he is forgiven, sin is conquered, you are free.

There's no fun in that. If you let me into Heaven, I'm gonna wreck the joint.
The first thing I'm going to do when you prove that god is real is find out what offends him and do it.

 

[Total Power]

There's no fun in that. If you let me into Heaven, I'm gonna wreck the joint.
The first thing I'm going to do when you prove that god is real is find out what offends him and do it.

God is a him? interesting lol why can't god have big ****?

 

[Evolved1]

God is a him? interesting lol why can't god have big ****?

Interesting question. Nothing is impossible for god, so 3 big **** are on the menu. It brings back memories of the first version of Total Recall.

You've done the impossible and sold me on the merits of theism! Send me the address and I'll be there to enjoy Her blessings.

 

[Roylion]

Yes. My post will focus not on proving that the resurrection happened, but that it is not unreasonable to believe that it did.

Essentially William Lane Craig's argument, except that he argues the resurrection is the most probable explanation of the 'facts'.
'

It sources historians (as well as learned theologians) as authority, and is largely taken from a thesis written at a seminary and submitted and approved by a professor of history at said seminary.

A seminary? A school of theology? You do know that a seminary is an educational institution for educating students in scripture, theology, generally to prepare them for ordination to serve as clergy or as a minister? So its just another Christian apologetic thesis that does as Craig does and argue the inerrancy of the Biblical texts that have produced the story of the resurrection.

 

[Total Power]

Yes. My post will focus not on proving that the resurrection happened, but that it is not unreasonable to believe that it did. It sources historians (as well as learned theologians) as authority, and is largely taken from a thesis written at a seminary and submitted and approved by a professor of history at said seminary. Of course, one may note the bias of said professor - but if one believes in the resurrection, they will inevitability convert to Christianity. I'm putting it into my own words and will post it here when I'm satisfied with it. I'd like also to respond to your post regarding the pagan roots of Christianity, but I'm not sure I'll find the time to research and respond anytime soon. In the meantime, I'm trying to avoid involving myself in the petty quarrels in this thread regarding qualifications and whether or not Christians are obnoxious or not. I want to put my best foot forward, so please indulge me a little and wait some more.

You might as well quote answersingenesis. Scripture is not the 'proof', it's a claim. What do you think people will call you today if you have visions of someone rising from the dead? The authors of the Gospels contradict each other regardless, written decades after the death of Christ and they never met Christ or knew someone who met him.

 

[Cooldude]

Reading the Carl Lentz Hillsong cheating bullshit, it gets funnier and funnier

Been cheating on his wife and banging other women for 7 years, small time leaders in the church told the high brass Hillsong big shots, got silenced and kicked out.

Apparently preying on women in the green room backstage

Only Christians know how to love their families btw, KEKW

These religious leaders only pretend to be religious for money and sex; religion only exists to service the financial, emotional and sexual needs of its leaders/inner circle, nothing more

 

[Total Power]

Only Christians know how to love their families btw, KEKW

This is the most bizarre statement i have read on bigfooty, that only Christians know how to love their families.

You must wonder what kind of mindset these people have?

 

[chelseacarlton]

Anger management and forgiveness would not go astray here.

I kinda sound like your god in the first book that the Jews wrote on the subject don’t I?
Why couldn’t god forgive the Amalekites?
Your god has all the “Forgiveness and anger management” issues kinda like that of a human, someone like me?
Now, you never got to Matthew 10:34, have you read the bible, like all the way through several times like many of us non believers, or, are you like I believe you to be, one of those “I take my bible from my guy at the front of the congregation each Sunday” types?

 

[raskolnikov]

 

[Baltimore Jack]

If you read the bible as it is is written by a number of people over hundreds of years, who are trying design their best version of what a christian religion should look like and how it should be administered, then it will make partial sense

If you read it as if it is a true account of history, you are batshit crazy

 

[Roylion]

Paul does not reject the resurrection of the flesh.

For Paul, the flesh and the body were two different things.

For us, the body is made of flesh, so when we speak of flesh, we speak of the body. That’s because, for Paul, "flesh" does not refer to what is commonly refer to when we refer to flesh. That is, we think of it as the meat that is hanging on our bones; but that is not what Paul is referring to. He does, of course, know that there is meat hanging on our bones, but that is what he thinks of as our body.

At times, "flesh" is used by Paul negatively (e.g., Galatians 5:24ff) but that is in reference to our sinful nature, our fleshly desires, not in reference to actual physical substance.

"Flesh" for Paul is the bad side of being human. He saw it as that part of the human that has been corrupted by 'sin' and is alienated from God and so the flesh needs to be destroyed. But since the flesh is not the same thing as the body, that does not mean that the body has to be destroyed. For Paul Jesus didn’t have "flesh" - that sinful part of the self that is indwelt and empowered by sin. Paul’s view of the "flesh" was distinctive to him: it wasn’t shared by other authors.

For Paul, flesh and blood do not inherit the kingdom of God. They are done away with, because people are raised in spiritual bodies, just as he believed Christ was. But later theologians (for example, Tertullian) did not make this distinction and stressed that it is precisely the "flesh" that comes to be raised. By that, he meant what Paul meant when he talked about "body".

In 1 Corinthians 15, Paul uses, in the Greek, the word for a literal, physical body. Yes, it will be a spiritual body - but it is a body nonetheless - a real, physical body.

In ancient ways of thinking, the body was not the only material part of a human. Humans also have souls and spirits. And for ancient people, souls and spirits were material entities, not immaterial entities (as they are for many of those of religious persuasion). For those who have religious belief, the difference between soul and body is visible/invisible or material/immaterial or substantial/insubstantial.

For the ancients, soul and spirit were material entities. But their material was much finer, more refined, than the clunky shell of the body. Only in this way can you reconcile that while Paul thought Jesus was "physically" (soul/spiirt) raised from the dead, and therefore regarded that Jesus had a 'spiritual body' at the resurrection only.

Later Christian theologians who were not raised in Jewish apocalyptic thinking did not make this distinction that Paul made between body and flesh, leading to all sorts of confusions. They stressed the "resurrection of the flesh," (the meat hanging off the bones) which for Paul would have been nonsense.

I regard such a purely physcial resurrection of the body and flesh as a historical event as a nonsense as well.

The rest of course is theology.

Our bodies, as they are now, are not fit for Heaven. Why? They are riddled with original sin, and subject to death, decay and sadness of the body. In Heaven, in the New Earth, they will he glorified. Our bodies now are physical and spiritual. They will be in Heaven, too. They will be glorified. Paul absolutely believes in a physical resurrection - not to mention Thomas in John 20.

Paul and John approach the idea of "physical" resurrection from different viewpoints.

Praise God for the hope of the resurrection, which is our justification and our life eternal!

There was no such thing as the physical raising from the dead of the body of Jesus Christ.

 

[Sweet Jesus]

Our entire religion is based upon the historically disprovable claim that Jesus rose from the dead - a claim which, if proven a lie, would destroy the foundation of the Christian religion.

Christ rose from the dead. Witnesses testify to this fact. The world hates Christ and if given the opportunity, would readily disprove this fact if it was at all possible. But that fact remains, and it remains unchallenged - the tomb is empty and the world is justified.

What a load of rubbish. How can you assert this as "fact"?

Why can't you just hold up Christ as a moral philosopher? Why can't you just say that people should follow his example? That should be sufficient, without all the bullshit hocus pocus.

 

[Total Power]

Paul does not reject the resurrection of the flesh. At times, "flesh" is used by Paul negatively (e.g., Galatians 5:24ff) but that is in reference to our sinful nature, our fleshly desires, not in reference to actual physical substance. In 1 Corinthians 15, Paul uses, in the Greek, the word for a literal, physical body. Yes, it will be a spiritual body - but it is a body nonetheless - a real, physical body.

Our bodies, as they are now, are not fit for Heaven. Why? They are riddled with original sin, and subject to death, decay and sadness of the body. In Heaven, in the New Earth, they will he glorified. Our bodies now are physical and spiritual. They will be in Heaven, too. They will be glorified. Paul absolutely believes in a physical resurrection - not to mention Thomas in John 20.

In Matthew 26, Jesus descends into Hell and raises thee dead to life - they are seen, physically, walking around Jerusalem.

Praise God for the hope of the resurrection, which is our justification and our life eternal!

Uh, no. The appearance to Paul in 1 Cor 15:8 was a "vision/revelation" while Jesus was in heaven - Gal. 1:16 and he uses the same verb ὤφθη for each other "appearance" in the list. He does not distinguish the appearances regarding their nature, quality, or type. So how do you know he wasn't just saying the others had spiritual experiences from heaven too?

Where does Paul say the Risen Jesus was on earth?

Or

experienced in a way that was not a vision?

You haven't even addressed the OP at all.

Josephus tells us that the Pharisees believed their souls would be "removed" into "other" bodies Jewish War 2.162. http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=2.162&fromdoc=Perseus:text:1999.01.0148 The word "other" means it's not the same one. That is not how you would describe physical corpse revivification.

1 Cor 15:40-41 compares the resurrection body to what the sun, moon, and stars are made out of. The "heavenly bodies" are of a different kind than the earthly bodies.

You would still have to demonstrate that what Paul means by a "spiritual body" he necessarily means a physically risen corpse that walked on the earth. Good luck demonstrating that when Jewish resurrection/afterlife views were diverse and when what Paul actually says in 1 Cor 15:35-54 is so ambiguous that it's been interpreted different ways for millennia.

 

[Vdubs]

Uh, no. The appearance to Paul in 1 Cor 15:8 was a "vision/revelation" while Jesus was in heaven - Gal. 1:16 and he uses the same verb ὤφθη for each other "appearance" in the list. He does not distinguish the appearances regarding their nature, quality, or type. So how do you know he wasn't just saying the others had spiritual experiences from heaven too?

Where does Paul say the Risen Jesus was on earth?

Or

experienced in a way that was not a vision?

You haven't even addressed the OP at all.

Josephus tells us that the Pharisees believed their souls would be "removed" into "other" bodies Jewish War 2.162. http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=2.162&fromdoc=Perseus:text:1999.01.0148 The word "other" means it's not the same one. That is not how you would describe physical corpse revivification.

1 Cor 15:40-41 compares the resurrection body to what the sun, moon, and stars are made out of. The "heavenly bodies" are of a different kind than the earthly bodies.

You would still have to demonstrate that what Paul means by a "spiritual body" he necessarily means a physically risen corpse that walked on the earth. Good luck demonstrating that when Jewish resurrection/afterlife views were diverse and when what Paul actually says in 1 Cor 15:35-54 is so ambiguous that it's been interpreted different ways for millennia.

The message is not ambiguous, unless you are looking for ambiguity. I have never had an issue with it. He describes early on the post resurrection appearance of Jesus to several disciples, and reluctantly includes himself in that group, because he had previously been a persecutor of Christians. This confirms the Gospels.
Then he describes how critical the resurrection concept is to Christianity, giving us hope of life beyond the fleeting existence we have here.
You are seriously trying to make it look grey, and thereby making it tenuous. Because you raise doubts, it must be that way?? Paul is clear saying Jesus APPEARED to those hundreds of witnesses.

 

[Sweet Jesus]

The message is not ambiguous, unless you are looking for ambiguity. I have never had an issue with it. He describes early on the post resurrection appearance of Jesus to several disciples, and reluctantly includes himself in that group, because he had previously been a persecutor of Christians. This confirms the Gospels.
Then he describes how critical the resurrection concept is to Christianity, giving us hope of life beyond the fleeting existence we have here.
You are seriously trying to make it look grey, and thereby making it tenuous. Because you raise doubts, it must be that way?? Paul is clear saying Jesus APPEARED to those hundreds of witnesses.

Why would anyone believe these stories as literal, factual truth?

Was there also a talking snake?

 

[Roylion]

The message is not ambiguous, unless you are looking for ambiguity. I have never had an issue with it. He describes early on the post resurrection appearance of Jesus to several disciples, and reluctantly includes himself in that group, because he had previously been a persecutor of Christians. This confirms the Gospels.

This does not confirm the Gospels.

 

[Vdubs]

This does not confirm the Gospels.

Ok, it confirms the message of resurrection in the gospels.

 

[Roylion]

Ok, it confirms the message of resurrection in the gospels.

But not the bodily resurrection of Jesus Christ, which of course didn't happen. Paul makes it clear that he regards it as a spiritual reusrrection. As Ive already explained.