Science and Theology, the sequel

02/14/2010 11:59:21 PM · #1151

Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:
It's possible Paul meant "ideal" when he said "spiritual" which would be a very Hellenistic idea. Paul understands resurrection to be very physical, but he knows his audience and that they are likely to have a Hellenistic viewpoint. He then draws a distinction between the natural body and the spiritual body in the same way the greeks would distinguish between the physical copy of an object and the ideal object.

Here's a crazy thought... maybe, just maybe, it's possible that Paul meant what he actually wrote. If he meant "ideal" he could've written ideal. Paul does NOT understand "resurrection to be very physical." In fact, he flatly declares that "flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God," so a resurrected body couldn't be physical, period. No interpretation necessary.

Originally posted by DrAchoo:
You have the incredible ability to see exactly what you want to see in anything you read, even if it is opposite of the true meaning of the passage.

Actually, you seem to be doing this even with the OBC commentary! Paul was trying to reinforce the idea of the resurrection in general to the Corinthians because some were starting to doubt the concept (1 Cor 15:12), and he was utterly explicit in drawing a distinction between the physical body of the living and the resurrection body (1 Cor 15:42-54). The latter would have to be a non-physical form (ghost or spirit) This is totally in agreement with the OBC passage you quoted ("dispelling crude notions of physical identity between the present and the future body").

Well, we could ask Louis to mediate. You wanna pop your OBC open to page 1130? The passage is 15:1-58. Give us your take on things.

In the meantime Shannon can give me his pedigree. I have no idea why he would even be familiar with such a passage.

I do think, Shannon, that Paul would view Jesus' new body as different from his old. However, it would still be physical. He was not a "ghost".

Message edited by author 2010-02-15 00:03:04.

02/15/2010 12:03:11 AM · #1152

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

In the meantime Shannon can give me his pedigree.

Half border collie and half lab. The poodle thing was just an ugly rumor.

02/15/2010 12:12:41 AM · #1153

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

I do think, Shannon, that Paul would view Jesus' new body as different from his old. However, it would still be physical. He was not a "ghost".

Paul DID view Jesus' new body, and it was a vision (Acts 9). If it was a physical form, then others would see it (500 witnesses, remember?), yet the people with him at Damascus did not. Paul could also claim to have met Jesus in person.

02/15/2010 12:13:10 AM · #1154

Never gonna open up, are you? :)

I did a disservice to both our arguments above by not reading onto the next page (the most important part). I'll actually type a whole paragraph out for you. Here is the unadulterated OBC view on verses 42-50. It looks like my alternative hypothesis was pretty close to what they think:

"vv. 42-50 apply the illustrations to the topic in hand. What is "sown" (in death) is one kind of body - perishable, inglorious, and weak - but what is raised can be a body of a wholly different kind. One is a 'physical body': the Greek psychikon soma means a body animated by a sould (psyche), which is here taken to be mortal and temporary. The other is a 'spiritual body': the Greek pneumatikon soma indicates a body inhabited by spirit (pneuma), here perhaps the Spirit of God. Paul thus wishes to preserve the term 'body' but only when it is shorn of its connotations of physicality and mortality. The impersonal statements, "it is sown a physical body, it is raised a spiritual body', leave unclear whether the physical body is itself reused in the resurrection or whether the self gains a new body quite distinct from the old."

Canon EF 28-70mm f/2.8L USM

02/15/2010 12:36:13 AM · #1155

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

"One is a 'physical body': the Greek psychikon soma means a body animated by a sould (psyche), which is here taken to be mortal and temporary. The other is a 'spiritual body': the Greek pneumatikon soma indicates a body inhabited by spirit (pneuma), here perhaps the Spirit of God... The impersonal statements, "it is sown a physical body, it is raised a spiritual body', leave unclear whether the physical body is itself reused in the resurrection or whether the self gains a new body quite distinct from the old."

Um... the mortal, temporary body is the physical one, and the resurrection body is something other than physical. How does this support your assertion? It's unclear in the last phrase whether the physical body is transformed into the non-corporeal form or if that's totally separate, but Paul's crystal clear that "flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God," and he personally encountered a resurrected body as a non-physical entity invisible to others. I'm amused that you seem to think this backs your claim.

johnnyphoto

Canon EOS-450D Rebel XSi

02/15/2010 12:41:22 AM · #1156

Originally posted by scalvert:

You're still hung up on the date as the source of unreliability. It's NOT the date. It has nothing to do with being in the first century, and not all histories before Christ are reliable either. The reliability is in doubt because we have no original copy, aren't really sure of the author, and the contents conflict with other accounts. Like the other synoptic texts, the gospel to bear the name "Matthew" was written anonymously, with tradition (not evidence) ascribing authorship to Matthew at a later date.

Hmmm... I think the problem is that you're talking about the gospel and I'm talking about the extra-biblical sources Tacitus, Pliny, etc. At least that's what Louis and I were discussing.

Originally posted by scalvert:

Except that Matthew doesn't agree with Mark. There are many conflicting details (accounts of the resurrection famously among them).

Here's the funny thing. When an automobile accident happens, and all the witnesses give their reports, the minor details rarely agree (Was the blinker on? Who swerved first? etc...) Yet, while there are different details in the stories of the witnesses, the police offer at the scene doesn't conclude that the accident never really happened. Even an insurance agent who never saw the scene of the accident wouldn't conclude that the accident was "made up" simply because of disagreement among the eye-witnesses. So, if minor details don't cause us to question major events today, why do minor details (such has how many angels were at the tomb) make us question the major events (that Jesus rose form the dead) that took place in the past? For some reason we expect perfection from the ancients, but excuse imperfections amongst ourselves.

You guys pick apart The Bible and conclude that it's faulty because it's imperfect while we don't even hold ourselves to such high standards. Neither Matthew nor Mark were actually at the Tomb, and both were probably relying on what was told them by the two Marys that were actually there. Nowadays when two journalists are writing a story about the same event, they can correspond via phone, email, text message, video conference etc. to make sure they have all the details straight. Two thousand years ago Matthew and Mark did not have such luxuries, nor was it their intention to strive for perfect unison. We can't hold the 1st century writers up to 21st century standards and then criticize them for failing. Just because the two gospels don't meet our expectations doesn't mean their completely false and unreliable.

02/15/2010 12:56:56 AM · #1157

Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:
"One is a 'physical body': the Greek psychikon soma means a body animated by a sould (psyche), which is here taken to be mortal and temporary. The other is a 'spiritual body': the Greek pneumatikon soma indicates a body inhabited by spirit (pneuma), here perhaps the Spirit of God... The impersonal statements, "it is sown a physical body, it is raised a spiritual body', leave unclear whether the physical body is itself reused in the resurrection or whether the self gains a new body quite distinct from the old."

Um... the mortal, temporary body is the physical one, and the resurrection body is something other than physical. How does this support your assertion? It's unclear in the last phrase whether the physical body is transformed into the non-corporeal form or if that's totally separate, but Paul's crystal clear that "flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God," and he personally encountered a resurrected body as a non-physical entity invisible to others. I'm amused that you seem to think this backs your claim.

And I'm amused that you can't see that "a body inhabited by spirit" talks about two things. Body and spirit. They are not the same. It's isn't a spirit inhabiting a spirit. If it was only spirit, why even talk about a body? It also doesn't make any sense to think about the body being transformed into a spirit. Clearly both Paul and Hellenized thinkers alike considered the "body" and the "spirit" of a person to be separate. It would be bizarre to consider one transforming into another. At best (for your argument), the spirit will shed the body, but the body will not become spirit. Paul's transformation is from one body to another body. A perishable one to a non-perishable one. It is unclear in the passage whether Paul thinks the old body is part of the process or we trade it in for a completely new body.

Message edited by author 2010-02-15 01:00:21.

Nikon AF Nikkor 85mm f/1.8D

02/15/2010 01:15:04 AM · #1158

Originally posted by johnnyphoto:

I think the problem is that you're talking about the gospel and I'm talking about the extra-biblical sources Tacitus, Pliny, etc. At least that's what Louis and I were discussing.

Could be. That makes the discussion much easier: Biblical references in Taticus, Josephus, etc. are unreliable because we have EVIDENCE that suggests they're not (sometimes as blatant as earlier copies that are missing the parts in question). To use your example, if a copy of an accident report makes statements that don't appear on the original, then the reliability of the copy will be in question even if the original is accepted as historical fact. It still has nothing to do with the date.

Originally posted by scalvert:

So, if minor details don't cause us to question major events today, why do minor details (such has how many angels were at the tomb) make us question the major events (that Jesus rose form the dead) that took place in the past?

For one thing, none of the gospel authors were witnesses to the events or disciples of Jesus. That alone is a very different scenario than your accident description. For another, the details aren't all minor. People have DIED handling snakes based upon parts of Mark that were not in the original manuscripts.

"Many biblical books have the earmarks of fiction. For example, private conversations are often related when no reporter was present. Conversations between God and various individuals are recorded. Prehistoric events are given in great detail. When a story is told by more than one author, there are usually significant differences. Many stories--stories which in their original context are considered even by Christians to be fictional--were borrowed by the biblical authors, adapted for their own purposes, given a historical setting, and then declared to be fact."

Louis

Nikon D800

02/15/2010 01:23:31 AM · #1159

Woot.

Originally posted by johnnyphoto:

I'm not saying that we can't know anything prior to 100 CE. However, if you think some of the (as you yourself acknowledged) most important sources of information from the first century are unreliable, then certainly the less important sources will also be reliable. And if first the first century histories are unreliable, then certainly all previous and more primitive histories must also be unreliable.

Good Lord. I've presented well-known problems with three ambiguous ancient sources of snippet-like information about Jesus. I haven't said anything about "the most important sources of information from the first century", any other contemporary, any other ancient historian, or anything else other than exactly what I said.

02/15/2010 01:24:23 AM · #1160

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Paul's transformation is from one body to another body. A perishable one to a non-perishable one.

How does Paul distinguish between those two? Natural flesh and blood = perishable. Spiritual = imperishable. You're going WAY out on a limb with the "two things" approach. "If there is a natural body, there is also a spiritual body"â�� each one thing.

Carl Zeiss 50mm ZE f/1.4 Planar T for Canon

02/15/2010 02:16:52 AM · #1161

Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Paul's transformation is from one body to another body. A perishable one to a non-perishable one.

How does Paul distinguish between those two? Natural flesh and blood = perishable. Spiritual = imperishable. You're going WAY out on a limb with the "two things" approach. "If there is a natural body, there is also a spiritual body"â�� each one thing.

the Greek psychikon soma means a body animated by a soul (psyche), which is here taken to be mortal and temporary. The other is a 'spiritual body': the Greek pneumatikon soma indicates a body inhabited by spirit (pneuma), here perhaps the Spirit of God.

In the scheme of things pneuma seems to be superior to psyche. Perhaps the new body is likewise superior (in order to be able to house the pneuma), but it is a body nonetheless.

Once again, I ask, can you appeal to authority at all to defend your case? I have zero reason to accept the thinking of Shannon, who for all I know, has never stepped foot in a church and may be nothing more than an armchair Seminary student (and even that causes head scratching as to why you would bother). Either cough up some personal credentials or at least back yourself up with someone we can judge on his/her merit.

Message edited by author 2010-02-15 02:20:26.

yanko

Canon EOS-5D Mark II

02/15/2010 03:13:25 AM · #1162

I don't understand. Why must Shannon's argument require validation by an authority? If you can't point out the error in it then maybe there isnt one or you're missing it, in which case maybe it's your credentials that should be questioned...

johnnyphoto

Canon EOS-450D Rebel XSi

Canon EF 28-70mm f/2.8L USM

02/15/2010 10:30:44 AM · #1163

Originally posted by scalvert:

To use your example, if a copy of an accident report makes statements that don't appear on the original, then the reliability of the copy will be in question even if the original is accepted as historical fact. It still has nothing to do with the date.

And here's the problem. We don't have the original. We have older manuscripts, but no originals. We assume that older manuscripts are more reliable, but that's just an assumption, there is no way to really know what the originals said. So to continue with our accident report analogy, If there is no original what is the basis for concluding that The Bible is unreliable?

When it comes to The Bible, we can't be 100% certain of what the original manuscripts said either. This is where faith comes in. Faith assures us that God preserved his word for us through the centuries. God has revealed himself in his word, and he has told us that he doesn't lie. So, we believe his word and we believe that he doesn't go against his word by producing a false Bible. Obviously that's not good enough for non-believers, but that's not my concern. Believe whatever you want. Ultimately, The Bible has faced more criticism than any other book in history. After bombarding The Bible with all these criticisms, many non-believers claim that it's unreliable, but at the same time those same people believe that other ancient texts are reliable while those texts have face little criticism in comparison to The Bible. It's a lopsided battle.

Originally posted by scalvert:

Matthew and John were both disciples of Jesus. Once again, we don't know that the final section of Mark wasn't in the original because we don't have the original. Most historians think it was added later, but there is no way to know with certainty.

Once again, these are matters of faith. Believe what you want. I'll argue the facts with you, but you should stop presenting theories and opinions as facts.

ETA - I should clarify that when I say, "matters of faith" I am not denying the historical evidence or the age old methods of textual criticism. What I mean is that there is no way to prove that The Bible is true, or that it is false. We can examine the evidence and develop theories, but the "proof" does not exist. We can only speculate based on the evidence that we have. It all comes down to who you trust. Do you trust the non-Christian historians, or do you trust God and the authors of The Bible?

Message edited by author 2010-02-15 10:48:26.

02/15/2010 11:19:54 AM · #1164

Originally posted by johnnyphoto:

We assume that older manuscripts are more reliable, but that's just an assumption, there is no way to really know what the originals said. So to continue with our accident report analogy, If there is no original what is the basis for concluding that The Bible is unreliable?

Details that are absent in all earlier copies may be reasonably assumed as new additions.

Originally posted by johnnyphoto:

Faith assures us that God preserved his word for us through the centuries. God has revealed himself in his word, and he has told us that he doesn't lie.

Thessalonians: "And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie: That they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness." Chronicles: "Now therefore, behold, the LORD hath put a lying spirit in the mouth of these thy prophets, and the LORD hath spoken evil against thee." Jeremiah: "How do ye say, We are wise, and the law of the LORD is with us? Lo, certainly in vain made he it; the pen of the scribes is in vain."

Originally posted by johnnyphoto:

Matthew and John were both disciples of Jesus.

The traditional view is that the gospels were written by their namesake disciples, however "the only books for which there are solid authorship consensuses among modern critical scholars are the Pauline epistiles mentioned above, which are universally regarded as authentic, and Hebrews, which is nearly always rejected. The remaining nineteen books remain in dispute, some holding to the traditional view, and others regarding them as anonymous or pseudonymic. The authorship of all non-Pauline books have been disputed in recent times. Ascriptions are largely polarized between Christian and non-Christian experts, making any sort of scholarly consensus all but impossible. Even majority views are unclear."

Tradition is not necessarily based upon any evidence. As a basic example, most people assume Jesus was born on Dec 25th, at the start of the Gregorian calendar because that's the traditional view, however "most scholars generally assume a date of birth between 6 and 4 BC/BCE," and the month, let alone the exact day, is unknown. "Indeed there is no month of the year to which respectable authorities have not assigned his birth." We celebrate Christmas by tradition, not evidence.

Canon EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 USM

02/15/2010 11:25:44 AM · #1165

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

It's curious that you would attempt to make this distinction because it implies that your mortal body has no soul. Whoops!

RayEthier

Canon EOS-5D Mark II

02/15/2010 11:29:47 AM · #1166

Originally posted by johnnyphoto:

[quote=scalvert]
Once again, these are matters of faith. Believe what you want. I'll argue the facts with you, but you should stop presenting theories and opinions as facts.

The sad truth is that you are doing exactly what you accuse Shannon of doing, namely presenting theories and opinions as facts. There is no denying that these are indeed matters of faith, but you seem unwilling to understand that not all view such things from your perspective.

Your analogy to the car accident and witnesses is flawed in that you did not make mention of certain situational factors such as miracles, spirits and rising from the dead, in your equation... factors which I earnestly believe would seriously impact on the credence given any witness that made such assertions (at least in today's society).

Skepticism is not necessarily a bad thing as it does give rise to a better understanding of the subject matter.

Ray

02/15/2010 11:40:26 AM · #1167

Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:
the Greek psychikon soma means a body animated by a soul (psyche), which is here taken to be mortal and temporary. The other is a 'spiritual body': the Greek pneumatikon soma indicates a body inhabited by spirit (pneuma), here perhaps the Spirit of God.

It's curious that you would attempt to make this distinction because it implies that your mortal body has no soul. Whoops!

Come again? More Shannon doublespeak? "a body animated by a soul" means no soul? I don't get it.

02/15/2010 11:48:24 AM · #1168

Originally posted by yanko:

If I have presented an authoritative source that contradicts his point (despite the fact he doesn't think it does. The only quarter I can give him is perhaps he would see better if he had access to the entire passage which I can't type due to it being a few thousand words), can't I ask him who is in his corner? If the argument was merely one of logic then there would be no need and the facts would speak for themselves. But both arguments hinge upon an understanding of Greek and New Testament texts. Shannon has never said why he would be versed in either.

To back up my assertion I chose as acceptable a source as I could. I didn't pick any Christian commentaries (which would flat out deny what he is saying), but rather chose a purely scholarly one. This commentary is scholarly (not religious) and has been praised by Louis (who, in fact, gave it to me as a gift). It has lots of things in it I disagree with, but if even THEY disagree with Shannon, what hope does he have unless he proves his superior knowledge compared to the OBC (good luck) or pulls up his own commentaries?

The crazy part of Rant is this is purely a side argument. What does it matter to the larger picture of whether there was a historical Jesus? Physical resurrection? Spiritual resurrection? There was still someone real to be resurrected and the idea that it was all made up is pretty intellectually poor. (Which I will affirm Shannon was never making.)

Message edited by author 2010-02-15 11:50:21.

Nikon AF Nikkor 85mm f/1.8D

02/15/2010 12:00:05 PM · #1169

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:
the Greek psychikon soma means a body animated by a soul (psyche), which is here taken to be mortal and temporary. The other is a 'spiritual body': the Greek pneumatikon soma indicates a body inhabited by spirit (pneuma), here perhaps the Spirit of God.

It's curious that you would attempt to make this distinction because it implies that your mortal body has no soul. Whoops!

Come again? ~~More Shannon doublespeak?~~ "a body animated by a soul" means no soul? I don't get it.

I didn't see that part (enough already with personal commentary). I was focused on the idea that only the resurrected body has a spirit.

Let's evaluate here... Paul is trying to distinguish between two bodies: the mortal kind that lives on earth and the immortal kind of the resurrection (capable of ascending to heaven). I have been contending that the difference is physical since, among other things, Paul clearly states that flesh and blood cannot go to heaven. You appear to claim that they're both physical. If that were the case, then Paul would be distinguishing between a physical body inhabited by a soul and a physical body inhabited by a spirit. So my last statement should be reversedâ�� the resurrected body has no soul.

Louis

Nikon D800

02/15/2010 12:01:03 PM · #1170

Originally posted by johnnyphoto:

God has revealed himself in his word, and he has told us that he doesn't lie. So, we believe his word and we believe that he doesn't go against his word by producing a false Bible.

Hey, guys, look at this! I've got a book here written by God! Look, it says so right in the book, so it must have been written by God! Also, it says in the book that the book is true, so the book must be true! There's no denying that kind of evidence! Best of all, the book itself says we can trust everything he says and does, so that's further evidence that the book is the bona fide word of God! Wow! What a great book!

*snicker*

Originally posted by johnnyphoto:

Obviously that's not good enough for non-believers, but that's not my concern.

It's not good enough for four year olds, either, until you beat them senseless with this kind of poisonous logic.

Originally posted by johnnyphoto:

After bombarding The Bible with all these criticisms, many non-believers claim that it's unreliable, but at the same time those same people believe that other ancient texts are reliable while those texts have face little criticism in comparison to The Bible.

First of all, that's pure and unadulterated horse hockey. "Textual criticism" is a discipline relevant to all ancient texts. The same rigours applied to the bible are applied to every ancient text. Nothing gets a free pass. The authenticity or corruption of the bible manuscripts fall or rise on their own merits as ancient texts, just as any other manuscript. So you can stop with the thinly veiled suggestion that the Christian faith and its holy book is under some kind of cultural assault.

Secondly, even if it were true that people are more likely to accept other ancient texts as authentic while examining the status of the bible more closely, that's because none of them are presented as the unsullied word of the creator of the universe. A claim as ballsy as that demands closer scrutiny of the source; anything less is an insult to the human race. You can use your four pounds of grey matter in whatever way you see fit, but I'll damned, if you'll pardon the snarky pun, if I'm going to switch mine off and walk blindly into a stygian darkness of ignorance because of the circular logic of a few rabble-rousing goatherders that lived a couple of millennia ago.

Originally posted by johnnyphoto:

Once again, these are matters of faith. Believe what you want. I'll argue the facts with you, but you should stop presenting theories and opinions as facts.

Then stop interjecting all this nonsense about faith and how it trumps reason, logic, and facts.

Originally posted by johnnyphoto:

... there is no way to prove that The Bible...is false.

As often as you commit this fallacy of the argument from ignorance, I will expose it.

Originally posted by johnnyphoto:

Do you trust the non-Christian historians, or do you trust God and the authors of The Bible?

The only source for the existence of the God described in the bible is the bible. The question has nothing to do with trusting the very thing you are asked to trust. "Hey, Santa is real! Don't believe me? That's okay, he says he's real, and that should be good enough!" It is about the texts and the texts alone, and their authorship. You can't ask if someone believes in the veracity of an ancient text by formulating the question along the lines of, "Do you trust God enough to believe that God wrote those texts, and that he didn't lie while writing them?" That's stupid.

The question any thinking person who isn't terrified of challenging themselves must ask is not some self-referencing nonsense like that, but something more seminal that has to do with the authorship of the texts, their status as physically reliable ancient documents, their position in the culture of the time, and their relevance, outside of any established doctrine, to people alive right now.

Louis

Nikon D800

Nikon AF Nikkor 85mm f/1.8D

02/15/2010 12:09:14 PM · #1171

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

What does it matter to the larger picture of whether there was a historical Jesus? Physical resurrection? Spiritual resurrection? There was still someone real to be resurrected and the idea that it was all made up is pretty intellectually poor. (Which I will affirm Shannon was never making.)

But it's not intellectually poor. I'm not crying out from the desert here. There is a branch of scholarship that questions the existence of a historical Jesus. It's a minority opinion, and there are snide scholars who like to make generalized statements about the question having been answered long ago, but there are some of us who are entitled to formulate opinions based on the evidence. And the evidence is sparse. I am frankly surprised that any scholar without a stake in the game thinks that the existing evidence is as convincing as to close the question for all time.

(In short, you can stop with the appeal to ridicule. It also is a fallacy. :P)

Message edited by author 2010-02-15 12:11:19.