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

Re: tomb stories and Adoptionism

Expand Messages
  • Ragu1997@aol.com
    Message 1 of 3 , Jun 4, 1998
      <<Yes, this is yet one more of these tell-tale older passages, early sources
      incorporated into our canonical gospels overladen with later editorial
      materials. Yes, the unwieldy assemblage of tomb stories just happens to be
      a later editorial intrusion, or so it seems to me.

      Clearly in the original version of events the persons burying Jesus were
      the hostile "Jews", and sure as sure can be they would not have been
      burying him in any sort of a tomb. It is obvious that Acts 13:28-29 has
      Jesus being buried by these "hostile Jews" (although admittedly they're
      burying him in a "tomb", which word is almost certainly a late intrusion
      here, clashing with the whole general sense of this passage). How could
      this passage be ever squared with burial by the quasi-disciple Joseph? I
      don't see how. And the source behind Jn 19:31 also features these very
      same "hostile Jews"; theirs, and nobody else's was the initiative to take
      the three victims from their crosses.

      Of course, you know I wrote about this earlier.

      But a question may be asked, "How could this early version of the faith --
      ignominious death on the Cross, followed immediately by the Resurrection
      - -- be seen as acceptable to the earliest believers? How could they ever
      worship a man whose body was buried in a place of infamy, some anonymous
      shallow trench, along with other convicted criminals? Does this seem
      unlikely? Not at all. Just look at Isaiah 53:9.

      "A grave was assigned him among the wicked and a burial place with
      evildoers, Though he had done no wrong nor spoken any falsehood."

      ...and notice that in the pre-Pauline hymn, the burial is not mentioned as
      "according to the scriptures". (I picked this up from that discussion linked


      So there really is no good reason why this realistic version of the burial
      would have been seen as unacceptable to the earliest believers. The key
      concept to grasp here is that the kind of resurrection they believed in
      was _the spiritual resurrection_. The earthly body had nothing to do with
      it. "Flesh and blood shall not inherit the kingdom of God".

      You obviously have not read Craig's article, "The Bodily Resurrection of
      Jesus" (http://www.leaderu.com/offices/billcraig/docs/bodily.html). The Jews
      had no concept of a non-bodily resurrection. "Flesh and blood" is a Jewish
      idiom (cf Gal 1:16). Anyhow, I'd rather you read Craig's article before making
      these comments. (Perhaps see my "Paul and the Resurrection, outside ICor 15"
      piece as well.)

      Paul believed in a bodily resurrection (eg Rom 8:23). The very word for body
      ('soma') always connotes a physical body, and often times a corpse. (Hence in
      English, somatic=physical.) See Gundry, _Soma in Biblical Theology_.

    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.