|
Post by Josh on Feb 3, 2010 16:04:44 GMT -8
Ok, a question for yeshuafreak that others are free to jump in on.
If you agree that paul believed that jesus rose bodily from the dead, why do you think he came to that conclusion?
|
|
|
Post by yeshuafreak on Feb 4, 2010 12:08:14 GMT -8
i dont care. i care why I came to the conclusion that i did- it is not possible.
-john
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Feb 4, 2010 16:12:14 GMT -8
John, coming up with a good conclusion means considering all the relevant facts. I'm arguing that you should care about this because it should bear on your decision on the subject.
Whatever happened to the old John who left no stone unturned?
|
|
|
Post by yeshuafreak on Feb 12, 2010 21:27:54 GMT -8
i got tired of turning over stones that didnt matter.
-john
|
|
|
Post by yeshuafreak on Feb 14, 2010 19:13:56 GMT -8
but i have already considered it. i beleive he came to that fact because he truly was convinced that Yeshua had rose from the dead! Why? He saw a vision, what type of vision unknown. Hallucination? Maybe he convinced himself of this.
also, i find there to be increasing evidence that there were two Sha'uls-- a greek one and a jewish one. one was the historical paul, the other is the one who wrote the epistles. ironically, this is exactly what was done with Yeshua-- an orthodox jew, turned into Jesus, a greek.
-john
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Feb 14, 2010 20:38:32 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Feb 14, 2010 20:40:51 GMT -8
So, back on subject- do you accept it as historical that Saul/Paul visited Peter and the other disciples in Jerusalem after his conversion vision?
Do you think that he heard there from them about a physical resurrection of Jesus?
I'm trying to go somewhere with this, but I think it works best one question at a time.
|
|
|
Post by yeshuafreak on Feb 15, 2010 12:52:59 GMT -8
Luke's Paul seems to be the jewish one, whereas the one who wrote many of the epistles seems more greek.
to make discussion easier, i will call the jewish paul R. Shaul and the greek one simply Paul.
Shaul most likely visited peter and the other disciples. Acts 15 is a jewish council called Bet Din Gadol- a council of jewish men making very important halkhic decisions. Shaul, Kefa (Peter) and Ya'akov were all there, as well as Yochanon and Bar Nabba.
Shaul was a pharisee; pharisees believed in the resurrection of men. I have no doubt that Shaul may have been fully convinced that Yeshua rose from the dead since he obviously went through something that completely convinced him that yeshua was Mashiach.
I like your semi syllogistic argument style, btw.
-john
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Feb 15, 2010 17:28:11 GMT -8
Galatians 2 speaks of an even earlier visit- a visit before Paul ever engaged in any formal ministry. He went to Jersualem to check his experience against those who had been the earthly disciples of Christ. What he found was followers of Jesus of Nazareth who were claiming that Jesus rose bodily from the dead, and this was within a handful of years from Easter Sunday.
The idea that a physical resurrection was a later mytholgical invention doesn't hold water. The church was teaching it from the beginning. Why? Because after Jesus death, his disciples found his tomb empty.
|
|
|
Post by yeshuafreak on Feb 15, 2010 21:23:42 GMT -8
this is one out of the two most likely theories, but there is still historical speculation as to whether Ac. 15 and gal 2 are talking about the same event or not. either way, its not really what we are talking about, i think. :-?
how are we so sure? we arent. both cases can be made pretty well.
a gnostic once said that the church claimed Jesus died and rose from the dead. "They got the order wrong," he said. "He first rose and then died."
i agree with him. (just to clarify: not because he was a gnostic).
-john
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Feb 15, 2010 21:41:45 GMT -8
Where is the case for a later mythological invention of the physical resurrection?
You yourself deny it by agreeing that the Chrsitians were teaching it from the get-go.
|
|
|
Post by yeshuafreak on Feb 17, 2010 17:15:09 GMT -8
i know i deny it, but i can see where others believe. for a case-- well, i am sure youve read enough.
either way, i dont want to defend something i dont believe anyway.
-john
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Feb 17, 2010 17:40:27 GMT -8
So you believe that the disciples and Paul made up a mythology about a physcial resurrection immediately after Jesus' death??? Help me out here as to your theory.
|
|
|
Post by yeshuafreak on Feb 18, 2010 13:20:27 GMT -8
I do NOT believe paul and the disciples created a mythology. I believe they genuinely believe Yeshua rose from the dead-- well, most of them. However, I can see socialogically how they could have been influenced to genuinely believe a fallacy. Either way, they genuinely believe the fact. I do not.
-john
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Feb 18, 2010 19:46:42 GMT -8
What evidence do you think led them to the conclusion that he did rise from the dead and how would you explain the same evidence differently?
|
|
|
Post by yeshuafreak on Feb 19, 2010 13:04:25 GMT -8
he had a vision plus the other believers firmly believed that he rose from the dead as well, giving his vision leverage. visions can be explained multiple ways, however. it is not conclucsive proof Yeshua rose from the dead.
-john
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Feb 19, 2010 18:52:07 GMT -8
Why did Peter and James and John and the other disciples believe Jesus had risen from the dead?
|
|