12. With Mike Licona - The Resurrection

[infamousralf]

Sooooo..... The resurrection is a hypothesis based on conjecture? That is hardly proof, or even a solid argument, for anything.

[ndrthrdr1]

Myths.

[crazyliclay]

@ndrthrdr1 tell that to the over 500 eye witnesses

[ndrthrdr1]

@crazyliclay Cult claims that many people were eye witnesses? How many of these "witnesses" reliably documented this? We know that cults never make false claims, and of course there were no believers in superstitious nonsense in those days. The claim that these reliable witnesses actually existed and actually made such outrageous claims is totally credible - to the credulous.

[crazyliclay]

@ndrthrdr1 actually almost all of these eye witnesses were documented, the problem that you raise about credibility cannot be solved given the time gap. 2000 years from now many people will doubt the credibility of the videos on 9/11. And calling us a cult is just a feeble attempt to anger me. A cult is said to have practices regarded by others to be sinister, and none of Christian practices are sinister.... so how are we a cult?

[sonvolt48]

Really? Using the Bible to validate the Bible? What is it that y'all don't get?

[Jesrael1986M]

@sonvolt48 He's not "using the Bible". He's using eyewitness information coming from multiple documents written independently of each other in the 1st century. The fact that these documents were later (in the 3rd century) collected into single volume called "The Bible" is irrelevant.

[JWDanielsFC]

Culture, not methodology, is the key factor in understanding the resurrection. The "3 questions/best answer" method Mike deploys is ethnocentric & anachronistic. This misrepresents visionary seeing by callin it pathological hallucinations. Wrong! In antiquity bodies could & did exist in different forms and visions were real experiences of reality. I'm a Xtian & I know Jesus was raised. How the raised Jesus was experienced back then was not the same way we experience bodies in our world.

[Misscommentator]

I am a Christian woman and agree with this video. However, I disagree with some of the comments below. If you watch the first video in this series he quotes 1 Peter 3:15 which I will paraphrase: "Always be ready to give an answer for the hope that you have but do it with gentleness and respect." Let's remember that last part about gentleness and respect. I believe that only after you truly know someone can you discuss the more sensitive subjects such as hell. Remember... Gentleness and respect.

[businessman20]

very powerful case for the resurrection. Atheist you are doom! believe in the Lord, confess your sins and be saved.

[dgault1087]

Amen

[Jugglable]

He mentions Jesus appearing to different people, separating the visions with phrases like "after that," and finally before mentioning his own vision, he says "and last of all he was seen of me also." This differentiates different appearances. Also, for a first century Jew the idea of a non-bodily resurrection was a contradiction in terms. Their concept of resurrection was a resurrection of the bones, hence their ossuaries. BTW everybody accepts Paul wrote 1 Corinthians.

[JWDanielsFC]

@Jugglable "Their concept of resurrection was a resurrection of the bones, hence their ossuaries". So, are bones "spiritual" or "natural" (1 Cor 15:44)? Are bones "flesh" or not "flaesh"? (1 Cor 15:50)?

The "body" that Paul imagines when he suggests a "bodily resurrection" is a very different "body" than what you are likely thinking about - and certainly very different than what Licona thinks.

[Jugglable]

@JWDanielsFC In 1 Cor 15:44 "it is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body."

The antecedent (it) is the same in both cases. He's talking about the same body.

As for 1 Corinthians 15:50, it's still about the corruptible body.

This fits very well with the stories about how Jesus was at not first recognized after his resurrection! It was still Jesus, still his body (hence the empty tomb, and the stories about eating with him and touching him), but radically new.

[JWDanielsFC]

@Jugglable At 1 Cor 15:44 - yes, the same body (I agree with you there). But the soma pneumatikon is not sarx, or else it too would be corruptible.

I believe Jesus was raised bodily, but without insisting his raised body be the same sarx-ish body that walked the earth - an ethnocentric claim important to fundamentalists. Touching/seeing him eat are not indicative of sarx-ish body in antiquity either, since bodies in that culture were experienced differently than they are in ours.

[Jugglable]

@JWDanielsFC I am not sure what you mean by sarx-ish. Could you please explain what that means?  I'm curious, what do you think the nature of the resurrection body was, and how does it differ from Licona's idea?

[JWDanielsFC]

@Jugglable If I may, I prefer to turn the question to you. In light of 1 Cor 15:50, what do you think the nature of the resurrection body was? Was is perishable sarx (Greek for "flesh"; you probably know that)? Or was the "transformed" body something other than sarx? And if it was something other than sarx, how was it experienced by those privileged to experience the risen Christ.

[Jugglable]

@JWDanielsFC I do not think it was perishable. Our bodies right now are perishable, so we get sick and die, etc. I don't think that's the nature of the resurrection body.

Can I ask what Dale Martin argues? I watched his New Testament course online, and cannot fathom why he's a Christian. He sounds like an atheist to me... he thinks God became a man and then didn't tell anyone and we only know about him through hopelessly contradictory texts... looks like God is a bad communicator...

[JWDanielsFC]

@Jugglable I know Dale Martin is not a fundamentalist and so his faith, whatever shape it takes, does not require the Bible to be non-contradictory. Personally, I see the Bible as loaded with contradictions too, and that according to the text (at least Mark) Jesus did try to keep his identity secret. What we have in the Bible is a rather miraculous text that despite its contradictions, or perhaps within them, the word of God abides.

[Jugglable]

May I respectfully ask, do you happen to be part of the Episcopal Church? You sound somewhat like my friends who are.

[JWDanielsFC]

@Jugglable What I sound like is not due to my faith tradition (RC) but rather the tools I normally use when studying the Bible - social and cultural - though this doesn't really bear on what I think Dale Martin thinks. I can only offer my interpretation of what Dale writes. In a nutshell, Martin argues the resurrection body that Paul describes is a "spiritual", that is, non-physical body-but a body nonetheless. I think he's just elaborating in great detail what most NT scholars already think

[Jugglable]

@JWDanielsFC As far as the interpretation of 1 Cor 15:50, I think Paul is talking about the different nature of the resurrection body than this body. And I think you can see in the descriptions of how he was experienced that it was indeed very different than anything they were used to--they didn't recognize their own best friend until bread was broken!? Weird. But given the huge emphasis on the physical I do think it was a physical event, though nobody's sure.

[JWDanielsFC]

@Jugglable To keep the conversation moving - generally speaking, I’m in agreement with Dale Martin’s assessment of Paul’s notion of resurrection body as described in his book The Corinthian Body, pg 104-36.

[JWDanielsFC]

@Jugglable Interestingly, Dale was involved in a debate with James Ware about the resurrection body in Paul at the 2010 Society of Biblical Literature meeting. My sense is Ware is at least a conservative Evangelical, or even a fundamentalist. But his ability to muster an argument for a fleshy resurrected body was impressive, albeit misguided. My interest is how the resurrected body was experienced.

[Jugglable]

@JWDanielsFC I do think Jesus' resurrection body was like the one I have now, but seeing as it is *like* the one I have now that also means it's different. It's not like any body I've ever experienced, as they don't recognize him at first and he comes through walls, etc. It must have some similarity though (eating and drinking, speaking with them, etc.). How did this happen? I'm not sure if I understand. Are you asking how God pulled it off? That's probably beyond the human mind to grasp.

[Jugglable]

But Paul doesn't mention the resurrection in his letters. Why did he not mention things like the Virgin Birth and the resurrection?

[AndreaAzuca]

Read 1 Corinthians 15:3-8...

Paul mentions the resurrection everywhere.... one would have to say that someone hasn't read the New Testament to say that Paul didn't mention the resurrection....

Paul's letters were centered on the resurrection in fact he said that if Christ didn't resurrect their faith is worthless and they would still be in their sins. In Acts 17:22-31, Paul would boldly proclaim Christ as Lord because He proved it by resurrecting....

[Jugglable]

ah. Thank you for correcting me. I was very under-informed.

[highwind8124]

Paul doesn't mention a bodily resurrection. In fact, the writer of the 1 Cor 15:3-8 passage states that Jesus appeared to others in the same breath as he claims appearing to him, not differentiating it from his "vision", assuming he wrote it.

[followerofjesus1984]

@Jugglable resurrectoin of Christ by paul, ----- 1 corinthians 15 :1-11,12-34,1 thessalonians 4:13-17, phillipians 3 1-21, just to giv you an insight to puals writteng on the resurrection