By the way Rook, you never mentioned where you got your history degree.

What do you mean? Did you read my first post on this thread? I know that Rook has a history degree, I just want to know where he went to school. And when I mentioned the debate, it was kind of a insult to Comfort, not to the RRS. If Comfort read the forged Josephus account and thought it was authentic, he would have to be crazy.

My first post lists some verses where Paul talks about the historiocity of Jesus.

1 Cor 15 is one of the chapters I use to prove that Paul thought that Jesus was a real person. Specifically because Paul explains the resurrection through a earthly body to a spiritual body.Thus, it does seem that the resurrection according to Paul was Jesus in the form of a spiritual body. That doesn't really conflict with Mark or Matthew. Only in Luke and John (which were written much later) do we see a resurrected Jesus with a new physical body.  

"I know a man in Christ who fourteen years ago was caught up to the third heaven. Whether it was in the body or out of the body I do not know—God knows. 3And I know that this man—whether in the body or apart from the body I do not know, but God knows— 4was caught up to paradise."

Paul says that he doesn't know if it was a spiritual or physical body. Honestly, it doesn't really matter which it was.

By the way, where is Rook?

It appears to me that Paul is claiming to have met the resurrected Jesus on earth. Paul appears to be unsure of whether Jesus inhabited a physical or spiritual body. To me, I can assume that Paul is claiming that the resurrection happened on earth, becasue he says that Jesus appeared to over 500 people, including Peter.

Jesus in the form of a spiritual body or a physical body shouldn't matter to Christianity. Although it may seem like it, I am not a Christian, so I cannot really comment on the significance of Paul's testimony.

Even though there was allegory around his life, I think that a real Jesus who inspired Christianity really existed. Honestly, I don't think that atheism helps its cause by pushing the idea that Jesus was 100% mythology.

Hey I Quixie. Based on Paul's vision, I assume that the appearances to Cephas and the 500 were probably visions of the spirit-body Jesus.

This begs one of the questions that keeps me intrigued with Christianity. Is Paul telling the truth? Did he really see a resurrected Jesus (in whatever form). Keep in mind, Paul's conversion happened 1-5 years after the crucifixion. When I try to rationalize my answer, I am always fascinated that Paul's conversion casued him to reject his lifelong training to become a Pharisee and his Roman citizenship. He claims that the dramatic change in his life was caused by a vision of the resurrected Jesus. If we take this claim seriosuly as truth, it becomes difficult to reject Christianity.

Ahhhh.

Rael(Claude) was an aspiring publisher and a racecar driver before December 13, 1973 when he met the Elohim. Ergo it must be difficult to reject Raelianism too.

Muhammed was a poor orphan. He was 40 before he found out that he was the chosen prophet from the archangel Gabriel. He was ~50 when he was 'divinely' told he could marry a 6/7 year old. 

It really doesn't become that difficult to reject christianity when so many others declare themselves to be correct. 

I've already made a post about this very thing (I apologize for the formatting things didn't transfer right):

 Here is an excerpt from a book I'm working on (aside from the one on the origins of Christianity) concerning the resurrection:

Paul, unlike the writers of the Gospels, which came later, and the rabbinic teachings of the resurrection that came earlier, had a vastly different approach to the resurrection. Up until now, we've seen exactly what the resurrection is to the church today according to the Catechism, and what the early church fathers like Martyr and Tertullian thought of the resurrection - which isn't all that different from what the Catechism suggest.

We know that the resurrection is so important that if it fails, so does the Christian faith, in fact the resurrection is the backbone of Christianity, as I've shown throughout this commentary. That being stated, exactly why did Paul think that? How exactly did Paul view the resurrection?

Richard Carrier makes an excellent point on Paul in his "Spiritual Body" chapter in The Empty Tomb:[i]

"The vast diversity of Jewish ideology establishes the possibility, but the existence of a two-body doctrine can be demonstrated specifically. First, we know the concept of a purely spiritual 'salvation' (the soul lives forever in paradise, or sometimes hell, without a body) was held by many Jews in the time of Christ. This is proven directly by Jubilees 23-25 and a redaction in 1 Enoch (92-105), as well as other Jewish apocrypha. Even the Pharisees conceived of souls separable from the body that wait for the body to decay, then go to heaven or hell, even raise complaints with angels about where they ended up, or hold conversations with the living, all before the general Resurrection ever happens. It is a very small step to go from that to an idea of the departed soul becoming or being clothed in an entirely new body. And we have indications of just such a view in two prominent Jewish writers: Philo and Josephus." (Pp. 113)  

"From the Rabbinical material we have ample evidence of how at least one sect of the Pharisees dealt with those who doubted the resurrection (of the body before Christ – Ed). There are three general types of attack that keep recurring in the sources, requiring an answer: those that challenge the claim that the resurrection can be deduced from scripture, those that challenge whether God can even accomplish such a thing, and those that challenge the idea of the resurrection with the question about what form it will take. The first kind of argument is answered with copious citations and exegesis of biblical passages. The second is answered with analogies from observed facts. And the third is answered with a clever harmonizing of details in resurrection doctrine. The first type of argument is the most frequent. The second type is exemplified by a passage in the Talmud: “An emperor said to Rabban Gamaliel: ‘You maintain that the dead will revive, but they turn to dust, and can dust come to life?” The rabbis answer him with analogies involving claymolding and glassmaking, then the spontaneous generation of moles and snails, then with an argument that the soul and body must be reunited so they can be judged together. In every case, the challenge can only be answered by proving resurrection possible with logical argument and evidence from the natural and human world. [12]” (Pp. 114 )

 The way Carrier explains the Talmudic idea of the resurrection is accurate. Here are a few examples from the Sanhedrin, Volume 16 of the Talmud by Neusner:

A. Caesar said to Rabban Gamaliel, “You maintain that the dead will live. But
they are dust, and can the dust live?”
B. [91A] His daughter said to him, “Allow me to answer him:
C. “There are two potters in our town, one who works with water, the other who
works with clay. Which is the more impressive?”
D. He said to her, “The one who works with water.”
E. She said to him, “If he works with water, will he not create even more out of
clay?”

And:

A. A Tannaite authority of the house of R. Ishmael [taught], “[Resurrection] is a
matter of an argument a fortiori based on the case of a glass utensil.
B. “Now if glassware, which is the work of the breath of a mortal man, when broken, can be repaired,
C. “A mortal man, who is made by the breath of the Holy One, blessed be he, how
much the more so [that he can be repaired, in the resurrection of the dead].”

And:

A. Said R. Joshua b. Levi, “How on the basis of Scripture may we prove the
resurrection of the dead?
B. “As it is said, ‘Blessed are those who dwell in your house, they shall ever praise
you, selah’ (Psa. 84: 5).
C. “What is said is not ‘praised you’ but ‘shall praise you,’ on the basis of which there is proof from the Torah of the resurrection of the dead.”
D. And R. Joshua b. Levi said, “Whoever recites the song [of praise] in this world will have the merit of saying it in the world to come,
E. “as it is said, ‘Happy are those who dwell in you house, they shall ever praise you, selah’ (Psa. 84: 5).”
F. Said R. Hiyya b. Abba said R. Yohanan, “On what basis do we know about the
resurrection of the dead from Scripture.”
G. “As it says, ‘Your watchman shall lift up the voice, with the voice together they
shall sing (Isa. 52: .’”
H. What is said is not ‘sang’ but ‘will sing’ on the basis of which there is proof from
the Torah of the resurrection of the dead.
I. Said R. Yohanan, “In the future all the prophets will sing in unison, as it is written, ‘Your watchman shall lift up the voice, with the voice together they shall sing (Isa. 57: .’”

As you can see, the Talmud is very clear on the resurrection. How similar of a concept it is to glass making and pot molding. In fact there is even a reference to building a house - similar to that stated in Paul and in the Gospel accounts.

What is also worthy of note is how similar the Talmudic responses are to the replies of the church fathers - with regards to the clay molding and scripture references. And how they describe the resurrection as with the same body.

Carrier continues in regards to Paul, he states the following,

"We have established (over the previous several pages – Ed) that Paul did not hold to the resurrection doctrine of a Rabbinical Pharisee, but something substantially different, in some respects, exactly the opposite. This should not be surprising, since upon conversion Paul came to regard the trappings of the Pharisees as “mere rubbish” (skybala - Phil. 3:8 ). Unlike the Pharisee, Paul explains, a Christian “trusts not in the flesh” (ouk en sarki pepoithotes). The true circumcision, for instance, is spiritual not physical.” (Pp. 118)

“Paul would have known everything pertinent to believing Christ’s resurrection really happened: he attests to speaking with God directly, knows the primary witnesses, and attests to having spoken with them and to having visited them in Jerusalem. It seems improbable Paul himself would remain a convert without checking any of the evidence – for if we are to suppose this, then we can hold no trust in anything Paul affirms. It is therefore peculiar that Paul only provides two kinds of evidence in support of Christ’s resurrection: scripture and various epiphanies like his own roadside vision. On the hypothesis that Jesus rose in the same body that died (and proved this by submitting that body to handling by disciples and eating fish, and by the very words of Jesus himself), such an approach makes little sense. Too many unanswered questions arise. How could the Corinthians have any doubt about the kind of body Jesus rose in, when they would have had such specific accounts of it? And why would Paul never once appeal to those accounts in making his case? It cannot be that the Corinthians were doubting Christ’s resurrection, since Paul makes it clear that denial of his resurrection is the unforeseen consequence of their doubts, and therefore not one of the things they are actually doubting. Therefore, doubts over the metaphysical minutiae of Christ’s resurrection could not have led to doubting the resurrection of everyone else…. But though Paul insists on there being no difference, he never cites any testimony, of Jesus or those who saw him raised, as to the nature of his resurrected body. This is the first puzzle. The second puzzle is: How was Paul’s elaborate answer supposed to end the dispute? If the problem were merely one of identifying how we are like Christ and thus will be raised in the same way, then that is what Paul would have argued. But he doesn’t. Instead, he discourses on metaphysical minutiae, clearly aimed at resolving some misunderstanding about the nature of the resurrected body in general. Why? On the same-body hypothesis (Of the Pharisees for example - Ed) this doesn’t make much sense. The response for Paul in that case would be to list the eye-witness evidence pertaining to the nature of Christ’s raised body and then directly eliminate whatever ‘difference’ between us and him the Corinthians were stumbling over. So why does Paul respond in an entirely difference way? Why does he never mention the material witness, or the particular stumbling block tripping up the Corinthians? Why does he never resort to any of the Pharisaic descriptions of continuity between the dead and the raised body, which answered the very same worry for them? More puzzling questions.” (Pp. 120-21)

 
“In contrast, consider how later Christians defended the resurrection against doubters (who included both pagans and Christians). Their approach is quite the opposite of Paul’s. First of all, their thesis is exactly what we would expect from someone who believed the flesh would be raised: as Justin succinctly puts it, “the resurrection is a resurrection of the flesh which died.” So why wouldn’t Paul ever say anything like that? There is no logical explanation—other than the obvious: Paul didn’t say it because he didn’t believe it. Likewise the arguments they (the later Christians) deploy are exactly what we would expect from someone who believed the flesh would be raised. Just like the Pharisees, they recognize and address the problem of wounds and blemishes. Just like the Pharisees, they prove their point using analogies, especially the very same analogy (claymolding), but many others besides, which illustrate continuity and reassembly. Just like the Pharisees they insist that the body and the soul must be reunited to be judged together, and to restore the “whole man.” Indeed, as Athenagoras puts it, “it is absolutely necessary” that soul and body be restored together, “for it is impossible” for the same man to rise otherwise. If it is impossible, if it is absolutely necessary, how could Paul have failed to say so? Why doesn’t he berate the Corinthians for believing that the soul can be saved without a body? Why, indeed, does he never even mention a soul? Why does Paul show no interest whatever in the problem of wounds or deformities? How is it that Paul never resorts to obvious analogies like claymolding or shipbuilding (like Christians following Paul in the century to come did – Ed)? It simply makes no sense. Unless Paul believed something fundamentally different from what these later Christians did.” (Pp. 123)

Let's take a look at some of the church fathers and their ideas of the resurrected flesh which Richard is suggesting, so we have a better understanding of how he means they are similar to that of the Pharisees, and then we'll look closely at what Paul says on the resurrection and compare.

Comparing to clay molding or reforming the flesh:

"And this being so, the regeneration of the flesh will, according to all these philosophers, appear to be possible. For if, according to Plato, it is matter and God, both these are indestructible and God; and God indeed occupies the position of an artificer, to wit, a potter; and matter occupies the place of clay or wax, or some such thing. That, then, which is formed of matter, be it an image or a statue, is destructible; but the matter itself is indestructible, such as clay or wax, or any other such kind of matter. Thus the artist designs in the clay or wax, and makes the form of a living animal; and again, if his handiwork be destroyed, it is not impossible for him to make the same form, by working up the same material, and fashioning it anew." (Justin Martyr, On the Resurrection; Chap. 6)

"What therefore is there left to which we may apply the term "mortal body," unless it be the thing that was molded, that is, the flesh, of which it is also said that God will vivify it?" (Irenaeus, Adversus Haereses, 5:7:1)

"To that man, however, who had been blind from his birth, He gave sight, not by means of a word, but by an outward action; doing this not without a purpose, or because it so happened, but that He might show forth the hand of God, that which at the beginning had moulded man. And therefore, when His disciples asked Him for what cause the man had been born blind, whether for his own or his parents' fault, He replied, "Neither has this man sinned, nor his parents, but that the works of God should be made manifest in him." (John 9:3) Now the work of God is the fashioning of man. For, as the Scripture says, He made [man] by a kind of process: "And the Lord took clay from the earth, and formed man." (Genesis 2:7) Wherefore also the Lord spat on the ground and made clay, and smeared it upon the eyes, pointing out the original fashioning [of man], how it was effected, and manifesting the hand of God to those who can understand by what [hand] man was formed out of the dust." (Irenaeus, Adversus Haereses, 5:15:2)

On deformities corrected:

"Well, they say, if then the flesh rise, it must rise the same as it falls; so that if it die with one eye, it must rise one-eyed; if lame, lame; if defective in any part of the body, in this part the man must rise deficient. How truly blinded are they in the eyes of their hearts! For they have not seen on the earth blind men seeing again, and the lame walking by His word. All things which the Saviour did, He did in the first place in order that what was spoken concerning Him in the prophets might be fulfilled, "that the blind should receive sight, and the deaf hear," (Isaiah 35:5) and so on; but also to induce the belief that in the resurrection the flesh shall rise entire. For if on earth He healed the sicknesses of the flesh, and made the body whole, much more will He do this in the resurrection, so that the flesh shall rise perfect and entire. In this manner, then, shall those dreaded difficulties of theirs be healed." (Justin Martyr, On the Resurrection; Chap. 4)

As we can see there are similarities in the doctrines of early Christians and that of the Pharisees rabbinical works. I could have listed more, but for the sake of the discussion I still have lots more to go over in this blog.

One can clearly see the references to clay molding and reconstruction of the body. This is important to establish the styles in which Christians portrayed the one-body doctrine, that your body will be raised in the resurrection - just as the Talmud explains it. Paul, being a former member of the Pharisaic sect of Jews, does not feel this way, however later Christians do insist that he did. Let's look at some apologetics of early Church fathers.

Misinterpreting Paul - concerning the nature of the two-body doctrine:

"He does not say: "He that raised up Christ Jesus from the dead shall quicken also your dead bodies" (although he had previously said, "the body is dead," Romans 8:10); but his words are: "He shall quicken also your mortal bodies;" Romans 8:11) so that they are not only no longer dead, but no longer mortal [or capable of dying], since the natural is raised spiritual, and this mortal body shall put on immortality and mortality shall be swallowed up in life." (Augustine, On Merit and Forgiveness of Sins, 1:5)

"In the same manner, therefore, as Christ did rise in the substance of flesh, and pointed out to His disciples the mark of the nails and the opening in His side (now these are the tokens of that flesh which rose from the dead), so "shall He also," it is said, "raise us up by His own power."1 Corinthians 6:14)" (Irenaeus, Adversus Haereses, 5:7:1)

Notice how they use Romans 8 and 1 Corinthians? Let's look at these two passages:

According to the KJV, Romans 8:10-11, "And if Christ be in you, the body is dead because of sin; but the Spirit is life because of righteousness. But if the Spirit of him that raised up Jesus from the dead dwell in you, he that raised up Christ from the dead shall also quicken your mortal bodies by his Spirit that dwelleth in you."

The slide on the left - like all slides in this commentary - are from Carrier's debate with Licona at UCLA on the resurrection. Carrier shows here that this verse is mistaken a lot, even by church fathers, to be about the resurrection. For those who can't see what this says, it states the following:

(1) "If the spirit - the one who raised Jesus - lives in us (present tense), then the one - who raised Jesus - will also (i.e. in addition to living in us) make alive our mortal bodies, because his spirit is in us."

(a) Talking about the present (the spirit living in us now)

(b) A 'mortal' body is a body that by definition dies

(c) Does not say God will change or raise our mortal bodies

(2) Paul says we're 'made alive' already (Eph. 2:1-7, Col. 2:13)

(3) Context of Romans 8:11 is the present: We walk now not in flesh but spirit (8:4-5), flesh is death but spirit is life (8:6), but only if spirit lives in you now are you alive now (8:9), because our bodies are already dead (8:10).

Richard makes some excellent points, which is why I quote him so often, because he does so in such eloquence I would not be able to mimic it. Indeed, the context of this passage is not the resurrection but the present in the spirit - something Paul discusses a lot, as he feels that only through the spirit are we saved. For example, in 1 Corinthians 3:1-3, “My brothers, I could not talk to you as spiritual people, but as fleshly people, as infants in Christ. I fed you milk, not solid food, because you were unable to take it. Indeed, you are still not able, even now, for you are still of the flesh.” Indeed, the only re-enforces the point that Paul feels that those who are still in the flesh are not yet ready to handle certain truths, they are but infants, but Paul feels he is learned through the spirit in the present.

Romans 13:11-14, “And that, knowing the time, that now it is high time to awake out of sleep: for now is our salvation nearer than when we believed. The night is far spent, the day is at hand: let us therefore cast off the works of darkness, and let us put on the armor of light. Let us walk honestly, as in the day; not in rioting and drunkenness, not in chambering and wantonness, not in strife and envying. But put ye on the Lord Jesus Christ, and make not provision for the flesh, to fulfill the lusts thereof.”

In Romans 13, above, we can make several reasonable posits from this. The first is the most clear, that without the spirit we are but asleep, drunk and in the dark - and only with the spirit are we made awake, sober and brought to light. The second part is less obvious, you'll notice Paul doesn't say "accept Christ" but rather "Put Christ on" - this is the next point we'll bring up after we finish looking at the falsities of the Church fathers on Paul. The next verse we'll look at is 1 Corinthians 15 (KJV).

1 Corinthians 15, "Moreover, brethren, I declare unto you the gospel which I preached unto you, which also ye have received, and wherein ye stand; By which also ye are saved, if ye keep in memory what I preached unto you, unless ye have believed in vain. For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures: And that he was seen of Cephas, then of the twelve: After that, he was seen of above five hundred brethren at once; of whom the greater part remain unto this present, but some are fallen asleep. After that, he was seen of James; then of all the apostles. And last of all he was seen of me also, as of one born out of due time. For I am the least of the apostles, that am not meet to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God. But by the grace of God I am what I am: and his grace which was bestowed upon me was not in vain; but I laboured more abundantly than they all: yet not I, but the grace of God which was with me. Therefore whether it were I or they, so we preach, and so ye believed. Now if Christ be preached that he rose from the dead, how say some among you that there is no resurrection of the dead? But if there be no resurrection of the dead, then is Christ not risen: And if Christ be not risen, then is our preaching vain, and your faith is also vain. Yea, and we are found false witnesses of God; because we have testified of God that he raised up Christ: whom he raised not up, if so be that the dead rise not. For if the dead rise not, then is not Christ raised: And if Christ be not raised, your faith is vain; ye are yet in your sins. Then they also which are fallen asleep in Christ are perished. If in this life only we have hope in Christ, we are of all men most miserable. But now is Christ risen from the dead, and become the firstfruits of them that slept. For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead. For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive. But every man in his own order: Christ the firstfruits; afterward they that are Christ's at his coming. Then cometh the end, when he shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father; when he shall have put down all rule and all authority and power. For he must reign, till he hath put all enemies under his feet. The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death. For he hath put all things under his feet. But when he saith all things are put under him, it is manifest that he is excepted, which did put all things under him. And when all things shall be subdued unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him that put all things under him, that God may be all in all. Else what shall they do which are baptized for the dead, if the dead rise not at all? why are they then baptized for the dead? And why stand we in jeopardy every hour? I protest by your rejoicing which I have in Christ Jesus our Lord, I die daily. If after the manner of men I have fought with beasts at Ephesus, what advantageth it me, if the dead rise not? let us eat and drink; for to morrow we die. Be not deceived: evil communications corrupt good manners. Awake to righteousness, and sin not; for some have not the knowledge of God: I speak this to your shame. But some man will say, How are the dead raised up? and with what body do they come? Thou fool, that which thou sowest is not quickened, except it die: And that which thou sowest, thou sowest not that body that shall be, but bare grain, it may chance of wheat, or of some other grain: But God giveth it a body as it hath pleased him, and to every seed his own body. All flesh is not the same flesh: but there is one kind of flesh of men, another flesh of beasts, another of fishes, and another of birds. here are also celestial bodies, and bodies terrestrial: but the glory of the celestial is one, and the glory of the terrestrial is another. There is one glory of the sun, and another glory of the moon, and another glory of the stars: for one star differeth from another star in glory. So also is the resurrection of the dead. It is sown in corruption; it is raised in incorruption: It is sown in dishonour; it is raised in glory: it is sown in weakness; it is raised in power: It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body. There is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body. And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit. Howbeit that was not first which is spiritual, but that which is natural; and afterward that which is spiritual. The first man is of the earth, earthy; the second man is the Lord from heaven. As is the earthy, such are they also that are earthy: and as is the heavenly, such are they also that are heavenly. And as we have borne the image of the earthy, we shall also bear the image of the heavenly. Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; neither doth corruption inherit incorruption. Behold, I shew you a mystery; We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed, In a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump: for the trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed. For this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality. So when this corruptible shall have put on incorruption, and this mortal shall have put on immortality, then shall be brought to pass the saying that is written, Death is swallowed up in victory. O death, where is thy sting? O grave, where is thy victory? The sting of death is sin; and the strength of sin is the law. But thanks be to God, which giveth us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ. Therefore, my beloved brethren, be ye stedfast, unmoveable, always abounding in the work of the Lord, forasmuch as ye know that your labour is not in vain in the Lord."

There is a lot to cover, so I'm going to start out with what Carrier has to say on this chapter, and I'll add in my two cents after his points, which he makes clear where he has posted these that there are more he could cover.

1. Paul makes no distinction between his vision and appearances to the others, apart from when it happened (vv. 8, vs. 1-7). This makes it prima facie reasonable that all the appearances were understood by him to be visions and not literally physical in the sense portrayed by the Gospels of Luke and John.
2. Paul's distinction between "perishable" and "imperishable" bodies (vv. 42) is based on a distinction between earthly things and things of heaven (vv. 40, 47-9), and it was common belief in antiquity that the heavenly things were ethereal. Since Paul does not disclaim the common belief, he must be assuming his readers already accept it. This makes it prima facie reasonable that he means the "imperishable body" to be an ethereal one, not a body of flesh.
3. Paul literally makes this distinction, calling the one a "natural body" (psychikos) and the other a "spiritual body" (pneumatikos), and says that they both coexist in one person (vv. 44), in that first there is a natural body which is then infused with a spiritual one (vv. 46), thus the resurrected body is clearly in his mind something lacking the physical body we know, the body that is conceived in a womb and only later infused with a spirit. He says outright (here and in 2 Cor. 4:16-5:9) that the body we know, the body of flesh, is sown only to die, and only this other, second body, the body of the spirit, rises to new life.
4. The Christian lexicographer Photius understood psychikos to mean the "animal" part of man (Lexicon, s.v.), as opposed to the higher, spiritual part that was made in the image of God (and God is certainly not a body of flesh), and there is a lot of evidence that Paul meant this as well.[ii]
5. Paul distinguishes Adam and Jesus in a certain way that supports this: Adam is regarded as being alive in the psychic sense, Jesus as giving life in the pneumatic sense (vv. 45), and Paul relates them as opposites (also vv. 22), so that as Adam was given physical form, beginning the age of sin, Jesus transcended it, ending sin. For Adam was made of dust (crude matter), but the resurrected Jesus was not (vv.47, cf. 48-9).
6. Paul says point blank that "flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God" (vv. 50), because flesh and blood is the mortal, perishable body, and we are resurrected as an imperishable body (ibid.). It is thus plain that he does not believe that the resurrection involved flesh and blood, i.e a physical body in our familiar sense, but a different, ethereal body, like the same sort of body angels have (and according to the Gospels, Jesus said we shall be like angels, cf. Mk. 12:25; Mt. 22:30; Lk. 20:34-36).

I'd like to go over each bullet point as these are Carrier's points, and since he isn't here to back these up, I'll add in my own evidence to weigh in on certain things I feel need to be explained more.

The first point is pretty clear if you know Paul, but if not you may be wondering, "Wait, what about his conversion? Didn't he see Christ?" No. According to Galatians1:1, "Not of men, neither by man, but by Jesus Christ, and God the Father, who raised him from the dead;" and also Galatians 1:11-12, "But I certify you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached of me is not after man. For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ."

For Paul this is clear as day, that he did not receive his conversion from a physical being, but rather a revelation (aποκaλυψις), which in the Greek literally means "manifestation" or “revelation/apocalypse.”[iii]  This is the same word used in Romans 2:5, “But after thy hardness and impenitent heart treasurest up unto thyself wrath against the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God” and 1 Corinthians 1:7.

1 Corinthians 1:7 is important to have a side note, just to explain how some Christians will purposefully misinterpret texts to explain things. If you read the KJV text of this passage this is what you get: "So that ye come behind in no gift; waiting for the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ:" The problem is the Greek doesn't use the word "coming" or "to come" in any manner. This verse is used by Christians to generally prove a second coming of Christ[iv], but lets look at the Greek, " ωστε (therefore) υμας (you) μη υστερεισθαι (shall not fall short) εν μηδενι (in any) χαρισματι (grace) απεκδεχομενους (anticipating) την αποκαλυψιν (the revelation) του κυριου ημων (of our Lord) ιησου χριστου (Jesus Christ)."

You'll see the translation is much different when understood in the Greek and within the context of the passages. Note that I highlighted in red the same word used in 1 Corinthians 15, and that it again means the same thing - a revelation, a vision of Jesus. Paul uses this word even after interviewing with the Apostles in Jerusalem three years after his conversion in Galatians to explain his vision. You'd think that had Jesus really been resurrected in the bodily form as Acts suggests, that Peter would have compared stories with Paul when they met there in Jerusalem. Couldn't you just see the conversation unfolding in your mind?

Peter: "Yes, I've seen Christ risen as well! He was glorious! He let us tough his palms where the nails had been pierced through his very bone! And Thomas just started apologizing like you wouldn't believe. Then he was swept up in an array of clouds! Was that what you saw too?"

Paul: "Why yes! I saw that as well! Let me go preach about this miracle to the world!"

*some years later*

Paul scribbling notes down on papyri to the Galatians: "But I certify you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached of me is not after man. For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ."

Don't you find it odd that he would describe his vision in this manner? Why would he use the word donating "revelation" and not something that would have fit much better? And what of his constant reference to Christ "in the spirit?" Romans 8:1, “There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.”

Had Christ been a physical being, and Paul had witnessed this, or even discussed this matter with Peter, why does he differentiate between the spiritual body (pneumatikos) and the natural body (psycikos)? It seems rather odd one would make a distinction between the two if they believed in a one-body resurrection, and not a new, spiritual body that they'd get upon death. This makes no sense at all, unless there's more to it.

In fact when he describes the vision among the 500, he states in the Greek, "φησὶν ἀκούων λόγια θεο ῦὅστις ὅρασιν θεοῦ εἶδεν ἐν ὕπνῳ ἀποκεκαλυμμένοι οἱ ὀφθαλμοὶ αὐτοῦ" in which the two words highlighted differentiate better the difference between sight and visions. The first word comes from the Greek ὅρασις which indicates seeing (mentally, a vision) which is then supported by the word ὁράω which signifies the vision, qualifying the first. This is how the word is read - a vision, a sight through the mind.[v]

Notice how these phrases and words and just the general overall language of Paul differs from that of the Talmud, and that of Christians less then a hundred years later. This is important, because remember what we're trying to establish - what exactly Paul believed of the resurrection. Not only through that of Christ but of every man, and how important Paul said it was - "if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is in vain..." Of course it's important! As stated earlier, the entire Christian faith rests upon this idea.

But clearly Paul does not hold to the one-body resurrection. If he had, we would see signs of this, but we don't. It's clear, in fact, that we see the opposite. As Carrier alluded to, it makes a clear reference to what Josephus states on this doctrine, believed by the Essene sect of the Jews:

“For this particular doctrine (the Two-Body doctrine – Ed) is strong among them: bodies are subject to corruption and their material is not permanent, but souls are immortal and persist forever. Descending from the thinnest ether they are merged with bodies just like prisons, having been drawn down by some natural spell. But whenever they are released from the bonds of the flesh, as if released from a long slavery, then they rejoice and are carried skyward.” (Wars 2:8:11; 154-5)

“The bodies of all men are indeed mortal, and are created out of corruptible matter, but the soul is forever immortal, and is a part of God that inhabits our bodies….Don’t you know that those who exit this life according to the law of nature, and pay that debt received from God, when he that gave it wants it back again…then the souls that remain pure and obedient obtain from God the holiest place in heaven, and from there, after the completion of the ages, they are instead sent again into undefiled bodies.” (Wars 3:8:5; 372, 374-75)

Indeed the very same idea is shown here in Paul. What is more interesting is how Josephus describes the nature of this ideology and from whence it stemmed. That will be discussed in the next section.

I also want to make it clear the meaning of Paul when he discusses the natural and spiritual bodies. Carrier, in his publication I posted above, makes the following graph:

Carrier states, "The above chart makes the meaning of these Greek words clear: psychikos and pneumatikos are adjectives, meaning something is made of, or is like, or shares the properties of the noun they are derived from, in this case psychê and pneuma respectively. When we look at the nouns, we find that their associations are clear: one is used typically to refer to a living body, hence a body of flesh and blood (a search of the letters of Paul shows this to be his usual use of the word); the other, always to a disembodied spirit. The word sôma, which they modify in 1 Cor. 15:44, means only a distinct thing with volume and location, it does not entail what that thing is made of or what its properties are or where it came from. Paul calls the resurrected a pneumatikos sôma to distinguish this pneuma from "the" Pneuma, or Holy Spirit, which is not a sôma because it is everywhere, whereas a resurrected soul is not everywhere, but has a distinct and localized existence as an individual. Paul clearly means to say that when we are resurrected, we become like the Holy Spirit, and cease to be what we are when we were alive (a living body made of dust), but unlike the Holy Spirit, our spirit is still organized as a new kind of body, more like Casper the Ghost.”[vi]

Indeed, there is no denying the fact that these words are dissimilar, and in fact are not the same thing as some of the early church fathers had thought - and even made a case using this very passage and chapter. It is also obvious that Paul could not have been discussing the same thing that the Church fathers had thought he was.

So far we've discussed several important topics in this essay, that being the fact that we determined exactly the nature of the resurrection through various sources including modern-day church authorities and authorities in antiquity. We've discussed the importance of it, and why it is that way, as well as determined what the church fathers had to say on the matter. We've witnessed the internal contradictions of the resurrection in the Gospels and also the complications of the historical nature of the resurrection, and we've now discussed Paul at length concerning his views on the resurrection, how he differed from the Gospels, Pharisees and the later Church fathers, and also how there was similarity to Paul's thought to that of Josephus and Philo, and other Jews and Gentile Jews of the day.

[i] Richard Carrier, The Empty Tomb, "The Spiritual Body of Christ," page numbers listed.

[ii] Check out Richard’s article, particularly Section V.

[iii] LSJ: Greek-English Lexicon 9th Edition

[iv] Naves Study Bible, 1 Corinthians 1:7, Pp. 1567 states in a side note, "Jesus, second coming of (as some interpret), Matt. 1:21. 1. R.V. Revelation" - Clearly a purposeful mistranslation when the word, as they admit, means revelation. This is not the same thing as "coming."

[v] LSJ: Greek-English Lexicon 9th Edition

[vi] Richard Carrier, "Why I Don't Buy the Resurrection Story; Section V: What Do 'Pneumatikos' and 'Psychikos' Mean?"

Hey Quixie! 

I think it goes beyond that.  I am fairly certain judging by Paul's own admissions that the entire character of Jesus is in the spiritual. 

 Haha!  Well, I guess you can say I like being thorough.  It's who I am.  I don't like repeating myself, so this saves me the trouble.  I can just direct people to the whole picture, and state somewhere in the mass is what they're looking for.

Wait until you read my book.  

Of course, feel free to launch away. 

I would agree but we do have quite a large amount of writing which would back up my position.  I defer you to the two volume set by Charleston entitled "The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha."  Although some works are fragmentary, a large deal of them are quite indespencible.  I refrained from adding to the text, because it was quite long already, but there are many key instances in which such evidence can be backed by pre-second-exilic times.  

I would also add that we have quite a lot of Judaic texts from Egypt, albeit that is where most of our manuscripts derive.  We also have many works from Qumran, in which scholarship is leaning towards them being general diasporic writings (instead of the previous notion that they are Essene texts), at the behest of the IAA, and the Biblical Archaeological Review.  Of course, this is not set in stone, but based on the findings it is made pretty clear that the archaeological findings at Kirbet/Qumran do not match what you'd expect to find based on the textual data from Hippolytus, Josephus, Pliny and Philo.  

So one can say we have a very good foundation of texts with which to consider, and gain perspective of various groups of Jews in the Diaspora or in the homeland.  From my research I've gleaned several key factors, which my book will hopefully draw some concensus on.

Ha!  Well, if you remember it, please bring it up. 

I appreciate your comments.  The best to you! 

I Quixie, this is not a well thought out point. Yes, Paul was a Jew. He would have spent his entire life studying Hebrew scripture. Thus he would be very familiar with God's treatment of those who oppose the Hebrews. Haven't you ever read a book like Joshua? God allows the Hebrews to show no mercy on people who stand in their way.

In Paul's case, he persecuted Christians because they made insanely heretical claims about Jesus. To Christians, Jesus superceded Moses. Do you realize how angry that claim would make a Pharisee? Moses was the figurehead of Passover and the Jewish Law. Going off the tradition they know in OT, a Pharisee  like Paul would have no problem killing a Christian who blasphemed against God in such a horrible way.

I completely understand your objection here. I will post my hypothesis about this where this "better-than-Moses" position came from in that Quirinus thread.

I actually have given it more thought than you think.

peace

Ó 

[MOD EDIT - removed duplicate post]