Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: resurrection body

Expand Messages
  • Jim West
    ... Stevan will be pleased to know that you will here correct his egregious errors and poor grasp of the literature and thought of the era. :) ... I really
    Message 1 of 7 , Jun 30, 1998
    • 0 Attachment
      At 12:09 AM 7/1/98 -0400, you wrote:
      >Stevan and some others seem to have some trouble with the concept, but the
      >difference between a normal resuscitation and a resurrection is rather simple.

      Stevan will be pleased to know that you will here correct his egregious
      errors and poor grasp of the literature and thought of the era. :)

      >Resuscitations were a return to everyday life. Resurrection, OTOH, was a jump
      >to immortality, incorruptibility, etc., but in a body (not just immortality of
      >the soul). This was what Jews associated with the end of time--what is
      >dissimilar in the case of Jesus' resurrection was that this was a full-scale
      >resurrection to 'doxa' and immortality before the eschaton.
      >

      I really dont know what to say to this. It is such a gross mistatement and
      generalization of first century Judaism that I dont know where to start. SO
      I will ask a simple question:

      Which segment of 1st century Judaism do you mean here when you say "the
      Jews"? The Sadducees? Pharisees? Essenes? Qumran Covenanters? Enochites
      (sorry Jack- infelicitous choice of terms to be sure). Who are you talking
      about? Tell us that, and then we can move on to the other inadequacies
      listed above.

      >Rather plain, but rather significant.
      >

      Not so plain.

      >Secondly, I'm sensing some oncoming detraction by way of sour tone. Let's take
      >a couple breaths and spend a moment reflecting on the terrible past before
      >getting me upset&disgruntled.
      >

      Oh my! That would be horrid if you got upset!!! (Note the multitude of
      exclamations!) Just tell us what segment of Second Temple "Jews" you are
      talking about in terms of the belief in resurrection you describe above.
      Hopefully no one's blood will boil over at your incredibly wise (beyond your
      years) answer.


      Best,

      Jim

      ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
      Jim West, ThD
      Pastor, Petros Baptist Church
      Adjunct Professor of Bible,
      Quartz Hill School of Theology
      jwest@...
    • Stevan Davies
      ... Now, where is this to be found in Matthew or Mark or Luke? Are you just making this up, or is it actually in the evangelists writing and I am missing it?
      Message 2 of 7 , Jul 1 2:25 PM
      • 0 Attachment
        > From: Ragu

        > Stevan and some others seem to have some trouble with the concept, but the
        > difference between a normal resuscitation and a resurrection is rather simple.
        > Resuscitations were a return to everyday life. Resurrection, OTOH, was a jump
        > to immortality, incorruptibility, etc., but in a body (not just immortality of
        > the soul). This was what Jews associated with the end of time--what is
        > dissimilar in the case of Jesus' resurrection was that this was a full-scale
        > resurrection to 'doxa' and immortality before the eschaton.

        Now, where is this to be found in Matthew or Mark or Luke? Are you
        just making this up, or is it actually in the evangelists' writing
        and I am missing it? It think you're just making this up....

        Steve
      • Ragu1997@aol.com
        In a message dated 98-07-01 01:25:25 EDT, jwest@Highland.Net writes:
        Message 3 of 7 , Jul 1 2:33 PM
        • 0 Attachment
          In a message dated 98-07-01 01:25:25 EDT, jwest@... writes:

          <<
          At 12:09 AM 7/1/98 -0400, you wrote:
          >Stevan and some others seem to have some trouble with the concept, but the
          >difference between a normal resuscitation and a resurrection is rather
          simple.

          Stevan will be pleased to know that you will here correct his egregious
          errors and poor grasp of the literature and thought of the era. :)
          >>

          You go beyond what I say. All I am disputing is his notion of resurrection--I
          think he has belittled the distinction between reanimation and resurrection.
          (Usually there is not a linguistic distinction, but there is a conceptual
          difference.)

          <<
          >Resuscitations were a return to everyday life. Resurrection, OTOH, was a
          jump
          >to immortality, incorruptibility, etc., but in a body (not just immortality
          of
          >the soul). This was what Jews associated with the end of time--what is
          >dissimilar in the case of Jesus' resurrection was that this was a full-scale
          >resurrection to 'doxa' and immortality before the eschaton.
          >

          I really dont know what to say to this. It is such a gross mistatement and
          generalization of first century Judaism that I dont know where to start.
          >>

          Well, how about finding me (and J.P. Meier, whose opinion I thought you
          respected) a single counterexample of a man resurrecting from the dead to
          immortality within Jewish lit.

          Besides J.P. Meier (and Craig), Joachim Jeremias agrees:
          ===
          Ancient Judaism did not know of an anticipated resurrection as an event of
          history. Nowhere does one find in the literature anything comparable to the
          resurrection of Jesus. Certainly resurrections of the dead were known, but
          these always concerned resuscitations, the return to the earthly life. In no
          place in the late Judaic literature does it concern a resurrection to doxa as
          an event of history. ["Die alteste Schict der Osteruberlieferungen," in
          _Resurrexist_, p. 194, cited in Craig, _Assessing the New Testament Evidence_,
          409]
          ===

          With this agreement between all scholars whom I have read from on this, it
          would seem that the burden of proof is on you again. You wish to posit a
          counterexample, ok, then do it. Until then.....

          <<
          SO
          I will ask a simple question:

          Which segment of 1st century Judaism do you mean here when you say "the
          Jews"? The Sadducees?
          >>

          Didn't believe in any resurrection whatsoever, much less one within ongoing
          history.

          <<
          Pharisees?
          >>

          The view Paul most closely resembles. Eschatological resurrection (to
          immortality), without exception. Unless you find one.

          <<
          Essenes? Qumran Covenanters?
          >>

          I used to be able to get to a site with a Qumran document on resurrection.
          Unfortunately, my computer is currently crashed, and it's not so easy for me
          to find. You won't find a counterexample in their lit either, I'll wager.

          <<
          Enochites
          (sorry Jack- infelicitous choice of terms to be sure). Who are you talking
          about? Tell us that, and then we can move on to the other inadequacies
          listed above.

          >Rather plain, but rather significant.

          Not so plain.
          >>

          Restated:
          Resurrection=rising from the dead to immortality; the risen one will never die
          reanimation=rising from the dead to everyday, mortal life; the one risen will
          eventually die again

          Most skeptics of the resurrection on the web I've read (e.g., Lowder, Carr) of
          Jesus very clearly know this distinction.

          <<
          >Secondly, I'm sensing some oncoming detraction by way of sour tone. Let's
          take
          >a couple breaths and spend a moment reflecting on the terrible past before
          >getting me upset&disgruntled.

          Oh my! That would be horrid if you got upset!!! (Note the multitude of
          exclamations!)
          >>

          Thanks for your concern....now lay off with the exclamations and mockery. This
          is a civilized list, and you'd rather not put anyone through the trouble of
          deleting the conversation from the archives, reading personal remarks, etc.

          <<
          Just tell us what segment of Second Temple "Jews" you are
          talking about in terms of the belief in resurrection you describe above.
          Hopefully no one's blood will boil over at your incredibly wise (beyond your
          years) answer.
          >>

          Give the counterexample, then we're talking. All the wings of Judaism, and
          with Meier and Jeremias and Craig all being so wrong, it shouldn't be
          difficult at all for you to find that missing counterexample. Or perhaps you
          could side with Jeremias et al if you find no example of this. (Silly me,
          asking people to switch opinions.)

          Now go find me that example.
          Ryan
          http://members.xoom.com/Ragu1997/index.htm
        • Ragu1997@aol.com
          Message 4 of 7 , Jul 1 4:35 PM
          • 0 Attachment
            <<
            > Stevan and some others seem to have some trouble with the concept, but the
            > difference between a normal resuscitation and a resurrection is rather
            simple.
            > Resuscitations were a return to everyday life. Resurrection, OTOH, was a
            jump
            > to immortality, incorruptibility, etc., but in a body (not just immortality
            of
            > the soul). This was what Jews associated with the end of time--what is
            > dissimilar in the case of Jesus' resurrection was that this was a full-scale
            > resurrection to 'doxa' and immortality before the eschaton.

            Now, where is this to be found in Matthew or Mark or Luke?
            >>

            First, I was writing about the Jewish conception of resurrection--not
            necessarily that found directly in the Synoptics. What we are looking for is a
            negative ('People are not expected to raise from the dead to immortality
            within the usual course of human history'), which is not usually all too easy
            to find.

            However, I think there are some good reasons to assume that the gospel writers
            made this distinction. Jesus is said to have sided himself closer to the
            pharisees, not the Sadducees on the question of resurrection. We all know the
            context of the passage, but Jesus' answer here refreshes this notion. Though
            all the synoptics have //'s, Luke's version of Jesus' reply is most relevant:
            ===
            Lk 20:34-37a Jesus said to them, "The children of this age marry and remarry;
            but those who are deemed worthy to attain to the coming age and to the
            resurrection of the dead neither marry nor are given in marriage. The can no
            longer die, for they are like angels; and being sons of the resurrection
            because they are the ones who will rise. That the dead will rise even Moses
            made known..."
            ===

            A couple thoughts here: the resurrected are obviously not portrayed as being
            the same in status as they were before resurrection. They 'can no longer die,'
            i.e., their bodies are immortal. Second, the dead 'will' rise in 'the coming
            age'--i.e., the eschaton.

            And now in John, we see this general notion confirmed in 11:23-24. Jesus
            wanted to raise Lazarus:
            ==
            Jn 11:23-24 "Your brother will rise again," Jesus assured her. "I know he will
            rise again," Martha replied, "in the resurrection on the last day."
            ==
            Now obviously I don't think that this raising of Lazarus was like Jesus' in
            Jn's mind; Lazarus most likely went on to die again, but I rather highly doubt
            John had in mind that Jesus was to grow old and die sometime down the road. I
            don't think Jn had it in mind that Jesus would hear Thomas confess, "My Lord
            and my God!" and then just go back to his 'usual business'.

            A similar type of confusion is found in Mk 9:9-13. Here the disciples are
            confused by Jesus' predictions of his future resurrection, because they know
            that Elijah must come first and restore all things before the resurrection.
            This is another indicator that they associated the resurrection with the end;
            all these things that had to be fulfilled before the resurrection, the end.

            Where can the 'doxa' of Jesus' resurrection body be found in the gospels? I
            think we can find the hints of it in some christological statements in e.g.,
            Mt 28:18. Lk/Jn has Jesus teleport, vanish, reappear quickly, etc, all while
            being abundantly physical, which is not usual in plain old mortal bodies.
            Also, Lk's mention of an Ascension is significant; obviously he didn't
            envision Jesus continuing normal life.

            But Paul summarized most efficiently (Phl 3:21).

            <<
            Are you just making this up, or is it actually in the evangelists' writing
            and I am missing it? It think you're just making this up....
            >>

            If this is all contrived, then I wasn't the first to do this bit of
            contriving. (As I mentioned, Meier, Jeremias, Craig, and probably many others
            I don't know about agree).

            hope I clarified something.....
            Ryan
            http://members.xoom.com/Ragu1997/index.htm
          • Stevan Davies
            ... Your letter about various dead people coming back just leaves me adrift. What is the point you are defending vis a vis the early church? I no longer know
            Message 5 of 7 , Jul 1 4:48 PM
            • 0 Attachment
              > From: Ragu

              > If this is all contrived, then I wasn't the first to do this bit of
              > contriving. (As I mentioned, Meier, Jeremias, Craig, and probably many others
              > I don't know about agree).

              Your letter about various dead people coming back just leaves me
              adrift. What is the point you are defending vis a vis the early
              church? I no longer know what we are talking about.

              My particular point has been that claims that Jesus had some
              sort of special hoo hah resurrection would impress the converted
              only and convert nobody. If your point is that those within the
              church did often tend to assert that glory resurrection, or whatever,
              then I'll agree as long as "often" does not mean "always" or
              even "predominantly."

              Steve
            • Ragu1997@aol.com
              Stevan Davies wrote:
              Message 6 of 7 , Jul 2 12:12 PM
              • 0 Attachment
                Stevan Davies wrote:

                <<
                Your letter about various dead people coming back just leaves me
                adrift. What is the point you are defending vis a vis the early
                church? I no longer know what we are talking about.
                >>

                You gave the impression that resurrections like Jesus' were common claims,
                even nuisances, at the time, and so could not have been a unique or central
                aspect of early Christianity. I disagree; Jesus' resurrection was not 'same
                old, same old', but unparalleled in Judaism.

                <<
                My particular point has been that claims that Jesus had some
                sort of special hoo hah resurrection would impress the converted
                only and convert nobody.
                >>

                Stick the word "hoo hah" in front of anything, and it loses impact, e.g., a
                'hoo hah cynic sage' or a Jesus who had a 'hoo hah holy spirit'. So I think
                the terminology could be a little more accurate by omitting 'hoo hah'. Jews at
                the time knew the difference.

                I think Yuri's original point would be something like that even if early
                Christianity could have survived the crucifixion without a sort of victory
                over death at the end, it would not have had much driving force behind it.
                What was it that motivated Paul & co. to work diligently as they did, as
                missionaries, ministers, etc, risking their lives? For both our purposes, this
                passage (Paul in Athens) should come to mind:
                ===
                Acts 17:17-18 Epicurean and Stoic philosophers disputed with him, some of them
                asking, "What is this magpie trying to say to us?" Others commented, "He
                sounds like a promoter of foreign gods," because he was heard to speak of
                "Jesus" and "Resurrection" [Gr. "Anastasis"].
                ===
                What happens here is that they thought Paul was thinking of two deities: Jesus
                and 'Anastasis'. They thought "Anastasis" was a goddess.

                Anyhow, my point is that even though some outsiders would have seen the
                resurrection as a stumbling block, it was the driving force of Paul's
                missionary work. Looking at the wider picture, even if belief in the
                resurrection served to impress only the believers, it was a key driving force
                of the early church; without it, I think that 'orthodox' Christianity would
                have dwindled away before making it far.

                <<
                If your point is that those within the
                church did often tend to assert that glory resurrection, or whatever,
                >>

                The concept is not really so strange as I might make it sound. "Did not the
                Messiah have to suffer all this to enter into his glory?" (Lk 24:26); Phl
                3:20-21 "But our citizenship is in heaven; and from it we also await a savior,
                the Lord Jesus Christ. He will change our lowly body to conform with his
                glorified body by the power that enables him also to bring all things into
                subjection to himself," etc.

                <<
                then I'll agree as long as "often" does not mean "always" or
                even "predominantly."
                >>


                later,
                Ryan
                http://members.xoom.com/Ragu1997/index.htm
              Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.