Did Jesus Rise Bodily From The Dead?

[TrueFreedom]

Arif Ahmed destroys the resurrection story. I wonder how he would do debating an empty tomb with WLC...

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vU2ButuNyI0&feature=player_embedded

[mcdaddy]

paul didnt think so. thats good enough for me.

[Akheia]

Pretty much. Paul speaks of it--not to mention of Jesus himself--in metaphorical terms.

[TrueFreedom]

What do you take this to mean?

 

1 Corinthians 15:

¹² Now if Christ is proclaimed as raised from the dead, how can some of you say that there is no resurrection of the dead? ¹³ But if there is no resurrection of the dead, then not even Christ has been raised. ¹⁴ And if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is in vain and your faith is in vain. ¹⁵ We are even found to be misrepresenting God, because we testified about God that he raised Christ, whom he did not raise if it is true that the dead are not raised. ¹⁶ For if the dead are not raised, not even Christ has been raised. ¹⁷ And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile and you are still in your sins. ¹⁸ Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ have perished. ¹⁹ If in Christ we have hope^[b] in this life only, we are of all people most to be pitied.

²⁰ But in fact Christ has been raised from the dead, the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep. ²¹ For as by a man came death, by a man has come also the resurrection of the dead. ²² For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive. ²³ But each in his own order: Christ the firstfruits, then at his coming those who belong to Christ. ²⁴ Then comes the end, when he delivers the kingdom to God the Father after destroying every rule and every authority and power. ²⁵ For he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet. ²⁶ The last enemy to be destroyed is death.

[Akheia]

Could go either way. Some theologians think it means a zombie uprising. Others think it means a spiritual resurrection only. Given the other stuff Paul talks about, I'm inclined to the latter. John Loftus wrote something really neat about it in his Why I Became an Atheist regarding the nature of Paul's word choice indicated a spiritual more than a physical resurrection (p. 364 in the paperback if you have a copy). Moreover, Paul's understanding of the nature of resurrections in general sounds more metaphysical and spiritual than physical (an idea he develops v 35-49). In verse 44 of 1st Cor 15 he actually states this explicitly, btw. So I'm not inclined to think that Paul even thought zombie uprisings were possible much less desirable.

 

Loftus quotes a (ETA: anti-)Christian theologian about the matter. He writes,

 

Richard Carrier argues that Paul's understanding of Jesus' resurrection didn't require a resurrected body, but that independent from Paul and later in time, the author of Mark invented the story of the empty tomb. Mark did this, as other biblical authors did, making the empty tomb a metaphor symbolizing either the corpse of Jesus or the ascension of Jesus. "On my theory," he writes, "the empty tomb story originated as a symbol, not a historical fact. It then became the subject of legendary embellishment over the ensuing generations, eventually becoming an essential element in the doctrine of a particular sect of Christians, who spurned Paul's original teachings, and insisted on a resurrection of the flesh instead."

[TrueFreedom]

I need to go back and read Why I Became an Atheist again, as well as Gnostic Paul.

 

Regardless, this might be a good debate to share with fundies.

[mcdaddy]

what Ak said.

[pandora]

Obviously, the answer is a huge NO.

 

I think the story was initially meant to be symbolic of the eternal nature of the supposed soul, but was taken too literally as time went on in the development of Christianity.

 

Many modern (liberal) Christians do not believe in a literal resurrection. Most Bible scholars do not. Unfortunately, most of the herd in the US still believes in Zombie Jesus... which is fine with me, it makes for all sorts of funny jokes during Easter. >)

[♦ ficino ♦]

Cool. Akh, just one point: Richard Carrier is not a Christian theologian. He's an anti-Christian historian.

[mcdaddy]

Cool. Akh, just one point: Richard Carrier is not a Christian theologian. He's an anti-Christian historian.

 

And my BFF.

[Akheia]

Ficino, thanks for the correction. I used to think that Paul had really pissed in the Kool-Aid that was Christianity for a long time, but his more metaphysical view of the Resurrection grounded the idea and made it a lot more palatable than the literal flesh-and-blood raising in the gospels, didn't it? Definitely would have gone a lot further with more rational Romans. There's something for everybody in the Bible--if you're a howling, wild-eyed literalist, you've got plenty of flesh-and-blood stuff to parrot. If you're a metaphysical sort, Paul's your homey.