Physical resurrection

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
User avatar
toejam
Posts: 754
Joined: Sun Apr 06, 2014 1:35 am
Location: Brisbane, Australia

Re: Physical resurrection

Post by toejam »

outhouse wrote:
toejam wrote:I am partial to the "hallucination" hypothesis. I think some of the inner group "saw" Jesus in a hallucination .
the authors were all far removed from these people. Galileans would have viewed this crap as blasphemy and he never was god to them.
The authors of the canonical gospels? Yeah probably. But the initial evidence for the hallucination hypothesis is Paul, whom I mentioned. The gospels I did not. Paul (seemingly) knew "these people". And in 1 Corinthians 15 he passes on a tradition of the earliest followers having visions of Jesus, starting with Cephas, etc. Through the chapter, despite calling the resurrected body a pneumatic (spiritual) body, there are also indicators that his view of the body was still physical in some sense. See his analogy of a seed being planted in the ground that sprouts into a new form. For Paul, Jesus's body was transformed. Like I said, I think Paul's view of the resurrection body is best interpreted as "super-physical", not completely intangible or made of Ghostbuster-like ectoplasm. I put this down to general confusion on "those people's" part, of whom Paul is starting to systematically theologize. It started with hallucinations (or, as I said, perhaps a little white lie), and it was never clarified among them whether what was "seen" was physical or docetic-like. The earliest followers themselves were confused, in other words. That to me seems the best bet.
My study list: https://www.facebook.com/notes/scott-bignell/judeo-christian-origins-bibliography/851830651507208
Bernard Muller
Posts: 3964
Joined: Tue Oct 15, 2013 6:02 pm
Contact:

Re: Physical resurrection

Post by Bernard Muller »

And in 1 Corinthians 15 he passes on a tradition of the earliest followers having visions of Jesus, starting with Cephas, etc. Through the chapter, despite calling the resurrected body a pneumatic (spiritual) body,
I would be very skeptical of 1 Corinthians 15:3-11 being from Paul: http://historical-jesus.info/9.html
See his analogy of a seed being planted in the ground that sprouts into a new form. For Paul, Jesus's body was transformed
I do not think we should take that seriously. After all, the plant born from the seed is not spiritual, and is certainly perishable; and that's the opposite of what Paul wanted his audience to think about the heavenly bodies: spiritual and not perishable.
Just that Paul wanted to explain by that imagery that something (P) different from S, but still related to S, can come out to life as P, and nothing more.

Cordially, Bernard
I believe freedom of expression should not be curtailed
User avatar
toejam
Posts: 754
Joined: Sun Apr 06, 2014 1:35 am
Location: Brisbane, Australia

Re: Physical resurrection

Post by toejam »

^Yes, the high potential for interpolation into 1 Corinthians 15:3-11 is a factor that dents my confidence. Hence why I've always acknowledged this as a *suspicion* and *best bet*. I certainly don't hold this view with confidence.

As to Paul's understanding of Jesus's resurrected body, I think it's clear that what he's getting at is not a release of Jesus's soul, for example, with the earthly body left to perish, but that the physical body was transformed into an imperishable *super-physical* state. I think he's forced to theologize this due to confusion over what Cephas and co. claimed to have seen, rather than admit that the traditions circulating are confused.
My study list: https://www.facebook.com/notes/scott-bignell/judeo-christian-origins-bibliography/851830651507208
outhouse
Posts: 3577
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 6:48 pm

Re: Physical resurrection

Post by outhouse »

toejam wrote:
The authors of the canonical gospels? Yeah probably. But the initial evidence for the hallucination hypothesis is Paul, .

Pauline communities played both sides of the fence here, so I disagree. The opinion in Pauls time is evidence for evolution of the concept as I suggest.

There was no orthodox belief in the 50's it was split so they avoided picking one side or the other and played both. 50 years later we see physical winning out over spiritual

It was all based on popularity.
User avatar
toejam
Posts: 754
Joined: Sun Apr 06, 2014 1:35 am
Location: Brisbane, Australia

Re: Physical resurrection

Post by toejam »

^It depends what you mean by "orthodox" belief. What I'm saying about hallucinations and white lies is certainly not "orthodox" in the way the term is usually used. Paul tells us that people who knew Jesus claimed to have seen Jesus. In the same chapter, Paul tells us of the belief that Jesus's resurrected body was *super-physical* in some sense. While he calls it a "pneumatic" ("spiritual") body in contrast to a "physical" body, it's clear that what he is talking about is not a release of the soul from the perishable body kind of resurrection, but that the perishable body transformed into a non-perishable one. This is the best evidence we have of what the earliest Christians believed. It's from our earliest source who knew these people. The simplest explanation for this is that these people had hallucinated an appearance of Jesus (and/or told a little white lie), and it was interpreted that Jesus's body had been resurrected - his body transformed like a seed into a fruit-bearing tree. His body was the "first fruits" of the upcoming general resurrection expected by many Messianic Jews at the time.
My study list: https://www.facebook.com/notes/scott-bignell/judeo-christian-origins-bibliography/851830651507208
User avatar
John T
Posts: 1567
Joined: Thu May 15, 2014 8:57 am

Re: Physical resurrection

Post by John T »

outhouse wrote:I have always viewed the resurrection evolving from a spiritual resurrection. Rethinking that.


Now I have no reason to think that some people who heard others teaching and repeating what John and Jesus taught, had made claims based on quality of the repeated parables that he had been resurrected.


Much the same way we see claims Jesus was John resurrected as with Herods claim.


None of us are stupid enough to run with the apologetic crap, so how did this tradition evolve as we see it in different communities? [regardless of historicity of the man himself]
The Essenes (the first Christians?) believed the messiah would rise from the dead after 3 days. e.g. the Gabriel Stone. They also believed the messiah had the power to grant a physical resurrection to the elect. This physical/earthly resurrection of the elect was a key part in how the sons of light would defeat the sons of darkness in battle.

..."And when they have risen from the slain to return to the camp, they shall all sing the Psalm of Return. And in the morning, they shall wash their garments, and shall cleanse themselves of the blood of the bodies of the ungodly. And they shall retrun to the positions in which they stood in battle formation before the fall of the enemy slain..."...War Scroll XIV

Thus giving credence to the claim that some of the first followers of Jesus were likely Essene and perhaps Jesus as well.

Outhouse may not be stupid enough to run with the apologetic crap but the Essenes sure did and paid for it with their lives during the war with the Romans in 68 A.D.
"It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into."...Jonathan Swift
Post Reply