Did Paul believe in a bodily resurrection?

5wize

Well-known member
We are addressing one event in history here. The bodily resurrection of Jesus Christ which you dismiss as myth absent one shred of counter- evidence from that time period when resurrection is easy to falsify. Esp when they have a dead body.
Such a weak criteria for belief in a recorded event coupled with such a strong requirement for disproof makes you susceptible to defending a lot of recorded events, like Muhammad's ride on a winged horse from Mecca to Jerusalem in one night.

Do you dismiss as myth this historically recorded event accepted by billions absent one shred of counter- evidence?
 

Harry Leggs

Well-known member
Such a weak criteria for belief in a recorded event
What weak criteria? The overall case is not weak at all.
coupled with such a strong requirement for disproof
What strong requirement? Falsifying bodily resurrection is easy. Produce the dead body.
makes you susceptible to defending a lot of recorded events,
Well i don't see the atheists putting up much of a defense for their beliefs. I see a lot of claims like overwhelming evidence for this and that. Then when asked to produce... it comes up snake eyes.
like Muhammad's ride on a winged horse from Mecca to Jerusalem in one night.

Do you dismiss as myth this historically recorded event accepted by billions absent one shred of counter- evidence?
Don't know anything about a winged horse or if the two are comparable or equalized as is presented. On its face, the claim is dismissed without comment. Studied the one. Don't know the other. You would be wrong to assume i or anyone here blindly accepted virgin birth or bodily resurrection as historical fact all my life. It had no meaning to me until the case was studied. McDowell books along with others paved the way. Fact being, it either happened or it did not. You don't believe it happened .....you're blood is on your own head. I am not responsible nor do i have control.
 

The Pixie

Well-known member
This OP should be in the religious forums as no rational, secular person believes for a second that a decomposing human body can reassemble himself and fly through the air. The religious forums are where myths and superstitions are debated as historical events. Here in the secular forums we like to see some evidence behind religious assertions. I have already explained a secular explanation for what Paul actually wrote and you ignore it in preference for some supernatural explanation, I guess (because I really don't know what your purpose is).

For the record, Paul did not believe in a decomposing human reassembling himself. What appeared to him was an "abortion" the consequence of Sophia's (Greek: Wisdom) fall into materiality which is documented in existing manuscripts written in the 1st through 3rd centuries. IOW, the material, lifeless cosmos appeared to Paul as an abortion before it produced life in us. Paul was a rational human being trained in Hellenistic thought. He saw nothing supernatural. What he did perceive as the Greek philosophers saw was a much larger perspective of our cosmos than the one we commonly have here on earth. They perceived the cosmos having a past and a future, in addition to the present, that is commonly perceived. They perceived the cosmos with a life of its own: living, dying, and living again --in us!
As someone else pointed out, I am not supposed to post outside the "Secular" forums.

However, part of the message to secular people here is that there is an answer to the Christian claim the gospel accounts and the fact that early Christians were prepared to die for their beliefs makes the resurrection very likely.

If you consider only the two possibilities - (1) Jesus was resurrected in his original body and seen as the gospels describe; or (2) the disciples were mistaken about meeting and talking to Jesus in Jerusalem - then I will accept that the latter is unlikely. And that is how a lot of apologetics present it.

I am saying there is at least one other possibility. The disciples were mistake, but what they thought they saw was not Jesus in his original body, but Jesus shining like a star. That is far more plausible than either of the other two possibilities..
 

The Pixie

Well-known member
Bodily resurrection is depicted as a historical fact in the records.
Sure, because it was Christians writing those records.

Self assembly in the ocean is scientific while the Gospels are religious?
Self assembly in the ocean is a hypothesis, not a fact. It is an area being researched to see how plausible it is.

Not really since these have no evidence for life from exclusive nonlife. The writings are the evidence. The results are 2000 yrs of Christianity.
The writings are evidence, but there is more than one explanation that explains that evidence.

The evidence also fits with the disciples seeing Jesus in a brand new body that shone like a star. In fact, look at the wider evidence, such as the Pauline letters, and I say that that explanation fits the evidence rather better. For example, how does your theory explain Mark having the disciples go to Galilee to see the risen Jesus, while Luke-Acts has Jesus tell the disciples to stay in Jerusalem?
 

docphin5

Well-known member
But Gnosticism was not rational. It was merely a mythological explanation as to why the good thrive and the bad suffer as to offer some kind of mental relief in this world from that reality via the promise of another. The era of the prophets were always struggling with why god's chosen suffer so. Here is where you find a before unheard of philosophy in Judaism of an eternal life in a hereafter world where evil can't reach you and only the suffering go.

None of what we find in science supports this tradition that has seeped into our wishful lexicon so deeply that it has become trait.
Gnosticism has its myths with an underlying truth just like any religion. The myths and symbols keep us connected to the unseen reality or as CG Jung put it, connected to the non conscious self, that is, everything which goes into who we are but not perceived by the conscious self or senses. We are more than just our conscious self, infinitely more. The very (H) atoms flowing through your veins were present at the beginning of our universe. How can we not be affected by that? We are connected to everything else. It is for us to discover that and realize our place in “all things”. Gnosticism, Greek philosophy, Hermeticism, Jewish mysticism, was that attempt to do so. The cool thing is that it correlates with the evidence in front of us, eg, evolution and cosmogenesis.
 
Last edited:

docphin5

Well-known member
As someone else pointed out, I am not supposed to post outside the "Secular" forums.

However, part of the message to secular people here is that there is an answer to the Christian claim the gospel accounts and the fact that early Christians were prepared to die for their beliefs makes the resurrection very likely.

If you consider only the two possibilities - (1) Jesus was resurrected in his original body and seen as the gospels describe; or (2) the disciples were mistaken about meeting and talking to Jesus in Jerusalem - then I will accept that the latter is unlikely. And that is how a lot of apologetics present it.

I am saying there is at least one other possibility. The disciples were mistake, but what they thought they saw was not Jesus in his original body, but Jesus shining like a star. That is far more plausible than either of the other two possibilities..
You left out the obvious most likely explanation —that the authors of the Gospels wrote mythical fiction which contained an underlying truth. The underlying truth per Dykstra is that one should believe Paul’s teachings for Paul was a prophet. Then one hundred years later the protoorthodox made them historical events and began the process of subordinating gnostic Paul to orthodoxy which we find in Acts of the Apostles, the pastoral letters, 2 Thessalonians, etc., for without Paul orthodoxy only has the myths and superstitions. It is Paul who lays the foundation for the inner Christ among the Gentiles. Paul was the prophesied “light to the Gentiles.” (Isaiah 49:6). Isaiahs “Yesuati (Hebrew: Yeshua English: Jesus) to the ends of the earth.” Which in fact has actually happened. Think about it.
 
Last edited:

Harry Leggs

Well-known member
Sure, because it was Christians writing those records.
So? Does it matter? Are you referencing a historical standard used by historians? Keep going back to this Bart Ehrmann article.
This is a hostile witness. The pertinent here is the 2nd.


is also true that our best sources about Jesus, the early Gospels, are riddled with problems. These were written decades after Jesus’ life by biased authors who are at odds with one another on details up and down the line. But historians can never dismiss sources simply because they are biased. You may not trust Rush Limbaugh’s views of Sandra Fluke, but he certainly provides evidence that she exists.


The question is not whether sources are biased but whether biased sources can be used to yield historically reliable information, once their biased chaff is separated from the historical kernel. And historians have devised ways of doing just that.

With respect to Jesus, we have numerous, independent accounts of his life in the sources lying behind the Gospels (and the writings of Paul) — sources that originated in Jesus’ native tongue Aramaic and that can be dated to within just a year or two of his life (before the religion moved to convert pagans in droves). Historical sources like that are is pretty astounding for an ancient figure of any kind. Moreover, we have relatively extensive writings from one first-century author, Paul, who acquired his information within a couple of years of Jesus’ life and who actually knew, first hand, Jesus’ closest disciple Peter and his own brother James. If Jesus did not exist, you would think his brother would know it.
Self assembly in the ocean is a hypothesis, not a fact. It is an area being researched to see how plausible it is.
It is fiction.
The writings are evidence, but there is more than one explanation that explains that evidence.
Right but none that jibes with the writings. Could go point by point but it would probably make no difference.
The evidence also fits with the disciples seeing Jesus in a brand new body that shone like a star. In fact, look at the wider evidence, such as the Pauline letters, and I say that that explanation fits the evidence rather better. For example, how does your theory explain Mark having the disciples go to Galilee to see the risen Jesus, while Luke-Acts has Jesus tell the disciples to stay in Jerusalem?
I googled the emboldened and this came up.

Mark having the disciples go to Galilee to see the risen Jesus, while Luke-Acts has Jesus tell the disciples to stay in Jerusalem? - Google Search

All i did was read two books. One was The Resurrection Factor by Josh McDowell and i don't even know if it is still out. Also talked to this Mennonite Preacher from SD about Israel coming back in 1948. That is what turned my thinking around on the subject. The difference being i never had a closed mind against the supernatural since i knew practicing witches back in the day who were friends and others. I thought it was mostly nonsense but they were great people overall and friends. The group included homosexuals, bisexuals, druggies and boozers, well off and not so well off and we would all party together. We were all friends and always helped each other out. It was in California.
 

Furion

Well-known member
I already know why I fight against the concept of the Christian god. The concept is evil and diminishing and no longer deserves a place in human progress.

You seem to think your meaning comes from some relationship to a father who never shows up and that you do not understand. That is a meaninglessness I am glad I do not know.

You mean God's creation? tsk, tsk....
That is funny. You claim to fight against God because you say God is evil. You fight against something you don't even believe in. That is irrational. Then again, many atheists lose their minds when God is brought up.

I already know there is no actual meaning in your life, just convenient constructs to attempt to give meaning where none exists. It does make the human feel better about it though, humans are fragile, delicate psyches that must invent order from chaos, which is actually nothing.

All you have is to eat, drink and be merry. Maybe paint some crappy paintings, play pretend and think it has meaning! It's funny what atheists have to swallow.
 

Furion

Well-known member
Thank you.My level is existence, and I have not elevated God to that level. And recognizing reality to be imperfect is not displeasure - it's just realism.

What case do you imagine I need to plead? What do you need to be convinced of? And will you hold me to the same low standard of evidence you accept when it comes to your God's existence?
Imperfect? Your reality is to die and be forgotten. That's all.

You don't need to tell me what you plead, I just look at your posts, pleading that God doesn't exist!

Waste of time really.
 

The Pixie

Well-known member
So? Does it matter?
Kind of a conflict of interest. They clearly had an agenda to promote Christianity, which means there is a question as to whether it was recorded because it is true or because they wanted it to be true.

Are you referencing a historical standard used by historians? Keep going back to this Bart Ehrmann article.
This is a hostile witness. The pertinent here is the 2nd.

Great article. But I agree Jesus actually existed, so not relevant to this discussion.

is also true that our best sources about Jesus, the early Gospels, are riddled with problems. These were written decades after Jesus’ life by biased authors who are at odds with one another on details up and down the line. But historians can never dismiss sources simply because they are biased. You may not trust Rush Limbaugh’s views of Sandra Fluke, but he certainly provides evidence that she exists.
I am not saying we should just dismiss them, but we have to be careful because we know there was bias.

The question is not whether sources are biased but whether biased sources can be used to yield historically reliable information, once their biased chaff is separated from the historical kernel. And historians have devised ways of doing just that.
Agreed.

With respect to Jesus, we have numerous, independent accounts of his life in the sources lying behind the Gospels (and the writings of Paul) — sources that originated in Jesus’ native tongue Aramaic and that can be dated to within just a year or two of his life (before the religion moved to convert pagans in droves). Historical sources like that are is pretty astounding for an ancient figure of any kind. Moreover, we have relatively extensive writings from one first-century author, Paul, who acquired his information within a couple of years of Jesus’ life and who actually knew, first hand, Jesus’ closest disciple Peter and his own brother James. If Jesus did not exist, you would think his brother would know it.
Agreed.

Did you read the OP? Maybe you should. I am arguing the very first Christians believed in a resurrection in a new body, not that Jesus did not exist.

It is fiction.
It is speculation based on the evidence we have.

Right but none that jibes with the writings. Could go point by point but it would probably make no difference.
If you start from the assumption the gospels are true, sure. I do not.

Great. Did you take the time to read any of those links? Maybe you should, then you can present a reply.

I see a big contradiction between Mark saying they saw Jesus in Galilee and Luke-Acts having Jesus tell the disciples to stay in Jerusalem. The best you can offer is a Google search? I rest my case.

All i did was read two books. One was The Resurrection Factor by Josh McDowell and i don't even know if it is still out. Also talked to this Mennonite Preacher from SD about Israel coming back in 1948. That is what turned my thinking around on the subject. The difference being i never had a closed mind against the supernatural since i knew practicing witches back in the day who were friends and others. I thought it was mostly nonsense but they were great people overall and friends. The group included homosexuals, bisexuals, druggies and boozers, well off and not so well off and we would all party together. We were all friends and always helped each other out. It was in California.
No idea what this is about.
 

docphin5

Well-known member
That is funny. You claim to fight against God because you say God is evil. You fight against something you don't even believe in. That is irrational. Then again, many atheists lose their minds when God is brought up.

I already know there is no actual meaning in your life, just convenient constructs to attempt to give meaning where none exists. It does make the human feel better about it though, humans are fragile, delicate psyches that must invent order from chaos, which is actually nothing.

All you have is to eat, drink and be merry. Maybe paint some crappy paintings, play pretend and think it has meaning! It's funny what atheists have to swallow.
He (5wize) actually said he fights the concept of the God promoted by Christian orthodoxy. You are taking it personal when he has a point. YHWH has been known to have a temper and lashes out killing every living thing in his path. Some people would say that is a bad thing, even evil, which by the way, YHWH claims to have created (Isaiah 45:7). So he has a point and it cannot be swept under the rug so easily.
 

J regia

Well-known member
That is funny. You claim to fight against God because you say God is evil. You fight against something you don't even believe in. That is irrational. Then again, many atheists lose their minds when God is brought up.

I already know there is no actual meaning in your life, just convenient constructs to attempt to give meaning where none exists. It does make the human feel better about it though, humans are fragile, delicate psyches that must invent order from chaos, which is actually nothing.

All you have is to eat, drink and be merry. Maybe paint some crappy paintings, play pretend and think it has meaning! It's funny what atheists have to swallow.
So what is the meaning in your life, and what do you have if you don't eat, drink and be merry or maybe paint some crappy paintings?
And are you looking forward to kicking the bucket instead?
 

Furion

Well-known member
He (5wize) actually said he fights the concept of the God promoted by Christian orthodoxy. You are taking it personal when he has a point. YHWH has been known to have a temper and lashes out killing every living thing in his path. Some people would say that is a bad thing, even evil, which by the way, YHWH claims to have created (Isaiah 45:7). So he has a point and it cannot be swept under the rug so easily.
We'll sure, atheists will say they fight the "concept" of God.

Which is exactly the same as fighting with God.

Sorry, nothing personal here.
 

Furion

Well-known member
So what is the meaning in your life, and what do you have if you don't eat, drink and be merry or maybe paint some crappy paintings?
And are you looking forward to kicking the bucket instead?
This is about you, the atheist.

It has nothing to do with me, the born again believer.

Maybe if you atheists would get your logical duckies in a row you'd not hear from me. But alas...
 

J regia

Well-known member
This is about you, the atheist.

It has nothing to do with me, the born again believer.

Maybe if you atheists would get your logical duckies in a row you'd not hear from me. But alas...
But what if your after-death dreams are not fulfilled, and will you ask for another opportunity?
 

Furion

Well-known member
But what if your after-death dreams are not fulfilled, and will you ask for another opportunity?
If, as you hope, there is no God, then it is off to the blackest nothingness, neither caring for another opportunity, nor even knowing I ever existed.

Atheism is easy, just think nothing and you would get there.
 

Whatsisface

Well-known member
That is funny. You claim to fight against God because you say God is evil. You fight against something you don't even believe in. That is irrational. Then again, many atheists lose their minds when God is brought up.
But other people believe, which makes it rational.

I already know there is no actual meaning in your life, just convenient constructs to attempt to give meaning where none exists. It does make the human feel better about it though, humans are fragile, delicate psyches that must invent order from chaos, which is actually nothing.
I already know there is no actual meaning in your life, just a convenient construct to attempt to give meaning where none exists. It does make the human feel better about it though, humans are fragile, delicate psyches that must invent order from chaos, which is actually nothing.

That was easy.
All you have is to eat, drink and be merry. Maybe paint some crappy paintings, play pretend and think it has meaning! It's funny what atheists have to swallow.
Yes, particularly from Christians.
 

J regia

Well-known member
If, as you hope, there is no God, then it is off to the blackest nothingness, neither caring for another opportunity, nor even knowing I ever existed.

Atheism is easy, just think nothing and you would get there.
And since Moses & Noah & Abraham & David etc weren't born again and didn't tithe to preacher-men selling after-death salvation, is that the reason why they never went to heaven (John 3:13) even though David was his god's begotten son (Psalm 2:7)?
Either way, unbelievers are saved anyway (1Tim 4:9-11).
 

Nouveau

Well-known member
Imperfect? Your reality is to die and be forgotten. That's all.
Not all. There's also living. I don't need to live forever or be remembered for my life to be meaningful.

You don't need to tell me what you plead, I just look at your posts, pleading that God doesn't exist!
If you disagree with something specific I've said, or want me to support it, you can just quote it and ask.

Waste of time really.
Responding to you might be, but I'm giving you a chance anyway.
 

Furion

Well-known member
And since Moses & Noah & Abraham & David etc weren't born again and didn't tithe to preacher-men selling after-death salvation, is that the reason why they never went to heaven (John 3:13) even though David was his god's begotten son (Psalm 2:7)?
Either way, unbelievers are saved anyway (1Tim 4:9-11).
Your theology is weird.
 
Top