Just to answer this objection specifically, Paul never describes the exact nature of Jesus’ resurrection, but everything he says about resurrections in general denigrates the notion of physical resuscitation. Moreover, he does not say anything about an empty tomb or ever speak of the resurrection of Jesus in physical terms, but speaks only of “appearances.”
So there is an absence of any indication that Paul thought the resurrection of Jesus was physical, combined with a disparaging attitude about the idea of physical resurrections in general. Any attempt to argue a special exception for Jesus is necessarily an ad hoc attempt to reconcile Paul with the Gospels because the Pauline corpus, in itself, does not even raise the question or show awareness of a contradiction. The burden to prove that Paul had a different definition for Jesus than for everybody else rests with the person making that assertion. Paul’s letters, in themselves, do not show any reason not to default to a presumption that Paul thought of all resurrections as the same.
They were skeptical because they hadn’t seen God perform this for anyone else, even those who may have lived lives worthy of resurrection. Or they were fools, perhaps?
I don’t see any problem or inconsistency with the fact that Jesus could raise the dead (being God, and all).
That’s logical. They must not have known.
He was a human raised by his own will. That’s what makes his resurrection exceptional, as opposed to Lazarus’s, for example. No one is suggesting that the NT has only one dead body raised back to life. Whether you consider this fact or fiction, there’s no lack of dead bodies cavorting about in the scriptures.
But they knew it had happened to Jesus, supposedly, so they knew that physical resurrection had precedent. It’s odd that hey would denigrate something as impossible which was ostensibly the central event of thjeir faith.
Who was going to raise the Corinthians?
Didn’t Paul know?
What does that have to do with whether it was physical or spiritual?
Paul almost certainly believed that Jesus’ Body was recoverable by the likes of Cameron or other Charlatans. Paul believed that Jesus had “resurrected” and I think it is eminently reasonable to see him as referring to to a Spiritual rising. Paul was apparently in contact with people who believed like-wise regarding Resurrection in Jerusalem. I wouldn’t let discovery of Jesus’ body (which as has been rightly noted is unfalsifiable really) influence me if I were otherwise inclined to believe.
As has been pointed out, this is all based on James Tabor’s Book the Jesus Dynasty and he is blogging like a … well like a Demon on this (sorry). His info on the frequency of the name is interesting and worth the read but lets remember he has much to gain by this being accepted
You know what might be more Earth shaking than the Body – since DtC (ironically) has championed the most logical course for any thinking Christian – “Well Paul* always said* it was a Spiritual Resurrection?”
If Joseph was Jesus’ DNA Father - or not. What if Joseph was James’ Dad and Mary was Jesus’ Mom but Joseph wasn’t the Dad (like the Orthodox think it should show). The kid too … if his Dad was Jesus and Mom Mary Magdalen. IIRC from the Jesus Dynasty not all of the ossuaries had recoverable DNA though.
Let me further agree with DtC on another point: There are Early 2nd Century (at least) Traditions about Peter’s House, Paul’s Tomb and Peter’s Tomb to name three pretty well established ones … there is no such Jesus Tomb tradition until St. Helen “discovered” it.
But Paul thought the same thing. was he a fool too?
If the Corinthians knew that God could raise Lazarus, why did he think God couldn’t raise them? If the Corinthians didn’t know about Jesus raising others from the dead, then let’s focus on Paul. Why did he think that God couldn’t raise people from the dead if he knew for a fact that Jesus/God had already done so?
The way I’ve heard more spiritual and enlightened (< self-described) Christians say
it is that Jesus is capable of being resurrected inside each of us-ChristConsciousness
in other words, somewhat akin to Buddhist enlightenment.
He was disavowing them of this notion. How did he think the same thing?
I don’t think he’s saying God’s incapable. He’s saying that’s not how God gets this particular job done.
Paul.
In the cite you provided. Paul clearly considered Jesus the risen God. Again, I don’t see how anyone could read the cite you provided it and take it to mean, “This is how Jesus rose from the dead.” You want there to be a single unifying theory of the dead resurrecting. But there isn’t, not if you use scripture as your reference. They’s rising up all over da place.
Let me clarify. He agreed with them that dead bodies couldn’t be resurrected (in spite of what should have been certain knowledge of several incidents related in the Gospels), but he was upbraiding them for thinking that meant their own resurrections would not be possible. If Paul knew that Jesus had already raised several people physically from the dead, then why did he say it wasn’t possible for people to be physically resurrected?
Where does he ever say that God raised anyone in their physical bodies? Where does he ever say that there is any distinction between the coming resurrections of the dead and any past resurrections of the dead?
But where does he say the risen God had a physical body?
I understand your objection that Paul is addressing the future resurrection of mortals and is not specifically talking about the resurrection of Jesus in these passages. What I’m saying is that he doesn’t tell us anything about the specific nature of Jesus’ resurrection but everything he does say about resurrections disparages the notion that they could be physical. Again, this is despite the alleged physical resurrections performed on humans by Jesus himself. If Paul knew about those other resurrections, then why would he ridicule the notion that resurrection could be physical?
I’m only talking about Paul, not the entirety of scripture. Paul himself is never inconsistent in saying that resurrections are spiritual, nor does he ever say that Jesus was resurrected physically.
None of which is relevant to the claim under discussion – namely, whether scholars accept the historicity of the empty tomb or not. Habermas’s survey of literature shows that the overwhelming majority of critical scholars (NOT believers) still accept that there was a tomb and that it was found empty.
BTW, this is precisely why some historians resort to explanations such as the swoon theory and the stolen body theory. It would be much simpler to say, “There was no empty tomb,” but this is far from an established fact. Even skeptical historians often refuse to accept that claim.
You obviously disagree with the conclusions that he draws from this fact. Fine. You’re entitled to do so. There is a difference, however, between the fact itself and the conclusions one might draw from that fact. You may insist that his conclusions are wrong, but this does nothing to disprove his claim that 75% of all critical scholars accept the historicity of the empty tomb.
Historians do not subscribe to the swoon theory or the stolen body theory, Crackpots subscribe to those theories. Those are typical apologist strawmen, though, trying to knock down arguments that critical scholars don’t make (the most common hypothesis I’ve seen is that some of Jesus’ followers had visionary experiences after his death which were later historicized as a literal, physical resurrection in the Gospels). None of those theories need be considered because there is no evidence that the any direct follower of Jesus ever claimed that Jesus left his tomb or that any tomb existed at all.
Oh, and in case it wasn’t obvious, I don’t accept Habermas’ study as valid. It doesn’t accord with what I know of actual critical scholarship (a discipline which Habermas does not practice) and his criteria for how to count somebody as being on his side is dubious at best.
But like I said, competing appeals to authority are just pissing contests anyway (not that Habermas is an authority. His title at Liberty University is “Professor of Apologetics.” That’s not a critical discipline). I’d rather talk about actual data. Aside from Stratocaster, None of the defenders of empty tomb historicity in this thread seem to want to directly address the data and make a case. The only real scholar who has been cited is Wright (who is a conservative Anglican scholar, but a scholar nontheless). I would like to see how Wright supports his contention that the first Jewish followers of Jesus believed in a physical resurrection.
First, to answer the OP, I’d say those that I know who are devout in their particular denominations, would simply NOT believe the claims were true. Regardless if they could be proven by the most technologically advanced methods possible, somehow they’d view this as another deception of the devil.
Second, to the Christians in this thread who’ve given more in-depth and thoughtful answers (FriarTed comes to mind) and those like Bricker, who’ve stated a NOT simple solution, I appreciate your candor. I’d like to hope that if I were practicing Christian again that I’d be equally discerning. Sadly, back in the days when I actually was, I could not say such a thing would be true. Hats of to you guys! And responsible fornicating should be on the list no matter what.
I went and read it again, and I just don’t see that. I don’t read him to say that God could not physically raise someone from the dead. I read him to say, “Guys, don’t expect that or be confused by its absence. That’s not part of God’s plan. That’s not how he wants it to work for you.”
Again, where do you see him drawing the connection between the type of resurrection he describes in this part of the scriptures and Jesus’s resurrection? And I ask that not to just turn this into a “No, you do it!” back and forth. I just don’t see the logical connection.
Again, for the same reason, I’d ask if he says anywhere that the risen God did NOT have a physical body?
That’s where I see the logical disconnect. If Paul does not specifically describe the nature of the resurrection of the risen God–a resurrection he clearly believes in-- at best we could say the Paul’s evidence is inconclusive. I just don’t see how we necessarily would conclude that in the absence of any assertion, he must believe that God’s resurrection assumes the same form and nature as the resurrection of the rest of us schlubs.
Again, even if this is true, your syllogism is faulty in its conclusion. It needn’t conclude what you think it does, ISTM.
Couldn’t or wouldn’t, Paul thought the question was ridiculous even though he should have been expected to know that it had already happened multiple times.
My conclusion is only that Paul’s letters do not provide evidence that he or the disciples he knew believed in a physical resurrection for Jesus, not that he must necessarily be read as providing evidence against that. What he does say suggests a belief that all resurrections are spiritual and he does not claim that Jesus was an exception.
If you were to read Paul’s letters without knowing anything about the Gospels (which had not yet been written while Paul was alive), you would be unlikely to infer a physical resurrection for Jesus from what he says and you would find nothing about an empty tomb.
My thesis here is not that Paul’s letters necessarily refute an early belief in a physical resurrection but that they do not confirm it. Hence, my contention that we do not have direct evidence (primary or secondary testimony) that anyone who knew Jesus ever claimed he had been physically resurrected or that he was ever put in a tomb. Those claims are absent from the earlest strata of Christian literature. Those who would claim the belief did exist among the direct followers of Jesus still have the burden to prove it.
This view doesn’t make much sense to me. The bodily resurrection is trivial as the virgin birth: it’s essentially one more parlor trick on top of a long line of parlor tricks described in the Gospels. A theology of sacrifice and redemption can be formulated without it without changing much at all, and in fact nothing in Paul’s interpretation of events seems to require anything in particular happening to Christ’s physical body: only that he returned in some form or another.
Seriously, I know that obviously a lot of ritualized theology has been built up around the idea, but what’s the difference REALLY? How would it impact the core idea of God giving his son as a sacrifice and then showing the promise of a new afterlife? The specifics of body no body seem like arbitrary metaphysical esoterica.
Thanks for the summary - I was getting lost about what the actual claims/counter-claims under discussion were. Is there a short quote from Paul that captures the gist of this point?
My purpose was not to authenticate that Jesus was resurrected bodily but to point out that some of the Bible writers made it sound as such. To those who use the Bible they may take that as reason to believe. I am not a Christian and so it doesn’t convince me.
This is mostly what I’m talking about. From 1 Corinthians 15:35-55 (ASV):
15:35But some one will say, How are the dead raised? and with what manner of body do they come? 15:36Thou foolish one, that which thou thyself sowest is not quickened except it die: 15:37and that which thou sowest, thou sowest not the body that shall be, but a bare grain, it may chance of wheat, or of some other kind; 15:38but God giveth it a body even as it pleased him, and to each seed a body of its own. 15:39All flesh is not the same flesh: but there is one flesh of men, and another flesh of beasts, and another flesh of birds, and another of fishes. 15:40There are also celestial bodies, and bodies terrestrial: but the glory of the celestial is one, and the glory of the terrestrial is another. 15:41There is one glory of the sun, and another glory of the moon, and another glory of the stars; for one star differeth from another star in glory. 15:42So also is the resurrection of the dead. It is sown in corruption; it is raised in incorruption: 15:43it is sown in dishonor; it is raised in glory: it is sown in weakness; it is raised in power: 15:44it is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body. If there is a natural body, there is also a spiritual body. 15:45So also it is written, The first man Adam became a living soul. The last Adam became a life-giving spirit. 15:46Howbeit that is not first which is spiritual, but that which is natural; then that which is spiritual. 15:47The first man is of the earth, earthy: the second man is of heaven. 15:48As is the earthy, such are they also that are earthy: and as is the heavenly, such are they also that are heavenly. 15:49And as we have borne the image of the earthy, we shall also bear the image of the heavenly. 15:50Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; neither doth corruption inherit incorruption. 15:51Behold, I tell you a mystery: We all shall not sleep, but we shall all be changed, 15:52in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump: for the trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed. 15:53For this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality. 15:54But when this corruptible shall have put on incorruption, and this mortal shall have put on immortality, then shall come to pass the saying that is written, Death is swallowed up in victory. 15:55
on this (sorry). His info on the frequency of the name is interesting and worth the read but lets remember he has much to gain by this being accepted