another hack "professor" attempts to take down Christianity

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

OBVIOUSLY, anyone attempting to disprove the Virgin Birth and Resurrection...especially the Resurrection...is attempting to take down Christianity.  For without the Resurrection, Christianity is useless.

Not useless, but it would be profoundly different from what it is.  It would transform it into a religion like Buddhism, but without the belly fat.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

OBVIOUSLY, anyone attempting to disprove the Virgin Birth and Resurrection...especially the Resurrection...is attempting to take down Christianity.  For without the Resurrection, Christianity is useless.

Not useless, but it would be profoundly different from what it is.  It would transform it into a religion like Buddhism, but without the belly fat.

Not useless?  Well, the NT disagrees with you...

As 1Cor 15:12-19 states, preaching about the Resurrection if it had not happened would be useless. And if one holds that only the one true religion is useful, and that the Resurrection of Christ is a tenet of that religion, then yes, such an altered Christianity would be useless from that viewpoint.

However, whether a Christianity without the Resurrection would be useless as a religion is a separate question.  It would be a profoundly different religion with Jesus showing a path towards enlightenment but without placing him in the role of intercessor for our sins, making it much like Buddhism in that regard.  It would be useful in the sense that it would still fulfill the role of a religion and it would be consistent with the Old Testament.  (As far as I am aware, there is no prophecy in the OT that unambiguously states that the Messiah will die and be resurrected.  There are some verses that hint at the possibility, and several that talk about a general resurrection of the dead, tho in terms that leave open the possibility of it being a figurative rather than a literal resurrection of the flesh that is meant.)

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Not useless?  Well, the NT disagrees with you...

As 1Cor 15:12-19 states, preaching about the Resurrection if it had not happened would be useless. And if one holds that only the one true religion is useful, and that the Resurrection of Christ is a tenet of that religion, then yes, such an altered Christianity would be useless from that viewpoint.

Ernest, you’re a genius.

The point you are ignoring (I think you are genius enough to not have missed it.) is that this board mainly discusses philosophy and religion from the standpoint of does it satisfy human needs and does it exhibit a consistency in its beliefs.  This board doesn't focus as much on doctrinal purity.

You do focus on that, and it is a valid focus.  Yet, I was hoping for more from you than a sarcastic "genius".  If anyone here was going to argue that the OT foreshadows a resurrected Messiah, it is going to be you.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

The point you are ignoring (I think you are genius enough to not have missed it.) is that this board mainly discusses philosophy and religion from the standpoint of does it satisfy human needs and does it exhibit a consistency in its beliefs.  This board doesn't focus as much on doctrinal purity.

Being a Captain Obvious shouldn’t require a Herculean Effort, Ernest – if you want to examine the consistency of a religion, you have to be willing to examine the viewpoint of a religion; and from the viewpoint of Christianity the Resurrection of Jesus Christ is the central tenet of the whole religion and the NT itself states that point blank.

The viewpoint of orthodox Christianity.  There were a wide variety of unorthodox beliefs that called themselves Christian in first few centuries, and not all of them placed importance in the Resurrection.  While it didn't happen, the survival of one of them as Buddhism-like religion that called itself Christianity, was certainly possible, and as I said in my original post in this line of posts it would be "profoundly different".

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

If you want to discuss unorthodox Christianity, then you should OBVIOUSLY create your own thread. And as of now, you are on ignore, so that your idiocy will no longer be OBVIOUS to me.

Your own original post was about someone with an unorthodox interpretation of Christianity, and the thread had already veered into a discussion of unorthodox views on the Resurrection when I joined the thread on the second page.

As for being on ignore, your loss, IMO.  If you want to engage in discussions with people of the same beliefs as you, this forum is not really the place to be.  I don't like talking to an echo chamber, so I like this place, and with you I can generally count on not getting an echo.

I will promise you one thing tho.  No more comments on the horrible graphic designs of the dinner doodles when you post them.  It's clear by now that you won't listen to any criticism (constructive or otherwise) of their format.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Also, bodily resurrection is nothing new, for it is taught extensively in the OT.  You’d have to deny the vast majority of the OT (like the Sadducees did) not to understand the OT taught of a bodily resurrection.

It has very thin support in the Torah itself, which is the only portion of the OT that the Sadducees held canonical.  Even Jesus' response to the Sadducees on the question of which husband a woman who had through levirate marriage married seven brothers, one after another, would be married to after resurrection (which references Exodus 3:6) does not offer any definitive position on bodily resurrection.  As you point out, there is stronger support for the concept in other places in the OT, but they aren't in the Torah, so an answer based on those would not have been acceptable to his questioners.

I will allow you to draw one more breath to tell me if you believe in the bodily resurrection of Jesus Christ.  If what you say pleases me, I will keep your posts visible.  If not, I will give you more than leave to go, I will send you to where you belong and unite you with Scam of God and Link on ignore.

I must say I was tempted to ignore your 'generous' offer. Yet, like some of your better posts, it did provide me with a reason to explore my own beliefs in depth.  I urge you to either be patient with that exploration, or just skip to the final paragraph.  (Note that in what follows, "mainstream Christianity" includes more than Pauline Christianity, as one can be a non-Paulist and yet believe in resurrection.

The core tenet of mainstream Christian thought is that Jesus, through his crucifixion, acts as an intercessor for our sins with God.  That he was raised from the dead is an obvious requirement for him to do so.  That it was a bodily resurrection at first glance is less so.  Yet if there had been no bodily resurrection, then skeptics such as Thomas would have doubted that Christ had been raised from the dead.  The story of doubting Thomas serves as a way of pointing out that having held doubts need not preclude one from salvation, yet by itself it merely shifts the focus of skepticism. However, belief in a bodily resurrection gave mainstream Christianity a doctrine that distinguished it from both pagan belief, which included belief in an immortal soul, but not in a bodily resurrection), and from gnosticism (both Christian and other types), which held that the flesh was inherently corrupt.

I believe that Jesus was raised from the dead and his body did not remain in the tomb.  Whether it was a bodily resurrection or a spiritual transmutation, I am uncertain, nor am I aware of any doctrinal points where the difference is significant.   Indeed, one interpretation of the Doubting Thomas story of John 20:24-29 is that the manner in which Jesus was raised does not matter. The other disciples were able to believe that Jesus had been raised from death without being certain of its nature.  Of course, if you can demonstrate some point I have overlooked in which the difference between bodily resurrection of Jesus and other methods of having conquered death is essential, please do.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Again, while attempting to be captain obvious, you’ve missed the complete point – Jesus’ answer was NOT attempting to prove a bodily resurrection (the Sadducees didn’t even believe in an afterlife much less a bodily resurrection).  Jesus’ response was simply to prove there was an afterlife (resurrection), it had nothing to do with defining the type of resurrection, bodily or otherwise.  And since his response was only to prove the general idea of a resurrection (afterlife), he answer was a direct hit:

Mat 22:31 “But about the resurrection of the dead—have you not read what God said to you, 32 ‘I am the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob’? He is not the God of the dead but of the living.”

There’s nothing thin about it.

No, it is thin if one insists upon a basis derived solely from the Torah.  The quote from Exodus 3 does not include the description of God as the God of the living but not of the dead.  It is an interpretation added by Jesus.

But, if you want to prove a bodily resurrection from just the Torah, you could easily use the example of Joseph’s instructions about his bones (Gen 50:25).  Since the Promised Land is also an analogy to Heaven, Joseph’s instruction about his bones displays Joseph’s faith that God would give departure to the Jews from bondage in Egypt, but also that he believed God would give his body departure from the world through a bodily resurrection.

The former for certain, but there are reasons other than a belief in bodily resurrection for Joseph to have wanted his descendants to carry his bones with them when they left.

But, of course, you’re sure to argue with that, as you argue with everything, seeing how you, a Christian, thought even Jesus’ answer was “very thin”.

Jesus was limited by having to use Torah alone in his efforts to convince the Sadducees, and even then he had to supply an interpretation of the quote he selected.  However, while it is an interpretation consistent with bodily resurrection, that is not the only doctrine it is consistent with if one takes at look at not just the two verses of Matthew you quoted, but the one before it as well.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Note that the resurrection Jesus is talking about in verse 30 is not a simple reanimation of the body. Indeed, taken as a whole, the three verses can be seen as a rejection of the importance of a bodily resurrection, for what matters to God is not our dead corpses but our living spirits.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

The quote from Exodus 3 does not include the description of God as the God of the living but not of the dead.  It is an interpretation added by Jesus.

[facepalm, followed by beating head against keyboard]

Dude, Jesus’ point was NOT weak, for he was pointing out that since Abraham/Issac/Jacab were long dead by the time God said, “ I am the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob” and NOT “I was the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob”...it meant that they were NOT dead to God, thus proving that an afterlife (resurrection) was already a given that was understood by the heroes of faith in the Torah.

Jesus’ point is ironclad, so for you to claim that it is “weak” only shows that you don’t understand how to interpret scripture.

That you think it is "strong" only shows that you don't accept any possibility that an afterlife need not incorporate the old corpus.  Life after death need not require that the old body be reanimated.  Evidence of a belief in life after death is not by itself evidence of a belief in bodily resurrection.  Bodily resurrection is but one possible method of life after death.

As for your verb tense argument, if I were to say that, "George Washington is the founding father of the United States," does that mean that I think George Washington is still living?  (And that leaves aside the issue of how verbs in Biblical Hebrew relate to those of English. Not all languages possess the relatively strong divide between past and present that English does.  Tense is not strongly marked grammatically in Biblical Hebrew.)

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Ernest, jmfcst is right about the tense issue (Jesus actually talks about that, by implication, in the 'not of the dead but of the living' part), but obviously doesn't have a leg to stand on re: resurrection with the same old orrery.

Jesus' exegesis of Exodus 3:6 is not itself in the Torah, so it can't be used as an argument based on Torah alone, which is what I thought was being discussed.

If you take a look at Young's Literal Translation of Exodus 3:6, you will see: "He saith also, `I [am] the God of thy father, God of Abraham, God of Isaac, and God of Jacob;' and Moses hideth his face, for he is afraid to look towards God. "  The word "am" is in brackets because the original Hebrew has no indication of tense whatsoever, but is supplied because unlike Biblical Hebrew, English is a language in which tense is required,.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

the contrast between your reaction and the reaction of the crowd who listened to Jesus’ argument:

Mat 22:31 “Have you not read what God said to you, 32 ‘I am the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob’? He is not the God of the dead but of the living.”  33 When the crowds heard this, they were astonished at his teaching.

Seems that those non-believers were more astonished by Jesus’ scriptural prowess than you are, even though you claim to be a “Christian”.   But, that’s why you don’t mesh, Ernest…that’s why you reject the NT while claiming to be a Christian.  You’re simply a goat, not a sheep.

You draw an implication not demanded by the plain text.  It does not say why the crowd was astonished.  Jesus has just given an interpretation that they likely had never heard of before of a Torah verse, and of a verse they likely had never thought of having any bearing on the concept of resurrection.  No matter what they thought of his words, good or bad, they were likely to be astonished by his novel argument.  I'm tempted to search and see if you've ever written that you were astonished by the views of someone you've disagreed with.  Not that I think they were astonished by disagreement.  Rather, I think the astonishment was due to him arguing that the disagreement between on the Sadducees and Pharisees over bodily resurrection was of no particular importance.

As for previous posts, I admit I didn't parse one of yours as carefully as I should have.

Again, while attempting to be captain obvious, you’ve missed the complete point – Jesus’ answer was NOT attempting to prove a bodily resurrection (the Sadducees didn’t even believe in an afterlife much less a bodily resurrection).  Jesus’ response was simply to prove there was an afterlife (resurrection), it had nothing to do with defining the type of resurrection, bodily or otherwise.  And since his response was only to prove the general idea of a resurrection (afterlife), he answer was a direct hit:

Mat 22:31 “But about the resurrection of the dead—have you not read what God said to you, 32 ‘I am the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob’? He is not the God of the dead but of the living.”

I didn't dwell on the sentence prior to the one I bolded, because I totally disagree with your premise that Jesus proved a general afterlife.  He asserted the idea, but he did not prove it from the Torah with his quote.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

I see the silence as coming not because he had shown their doctrine to be false, but because he had indicated that it was irrelevant.

At this point in Matthew, Jesus has made his triumphal entry into Jerusalem and the two major factions, the Sadducees and the Pharisees are trying to see what advantage they can wring out of it.  Instead, Jesus repeatedly demonstrates that he has no interest in their petty politicking.