| |
| |
| From: | hpickle | Oct-6 10:36 pm |
| To: | ALL |
(1 of 39) | | | | 3998.1 | |
In a discussion with a friend, I used an older essay from Spong to support my position on the Resurrection story and the differences between Paul's writings and the various Gospels.
Unfortunately, my friend has stumped me, yet it's got to be something I am missing in what Spong is saying in this essay. IF anyone is knowledgable and able to help me break this down, I will be most grateful. To be specific, the portion that got me stumped is this:
When one reads the New Testament in the order in which these books were written, a fascinating progression is revealed. Paul, for example, writing between the years 50 and 64 or some 20 to 34 years after the earthly life of Jesus came to an end, never describes the resurrection of Jesus as a physical body resuscitated after death. There is no hint in the Pauline corpus that one, who had died, later walked out of his grave clothes, emerged from the tomb and was seen by his disciples.
What Paul does suggest is that Easter meant that God had acted to reverse the verdict that the world had pronounced on Jesus by raising Jesus from death into God. It was, therefore, out of God in a transforming kind of heavenly vision that this Jesus then appeared to certain chosen witnesses. Paul enumerates these witnesses and, in a telling detail, says that this was the same Jesus that Paul himself had seen. No one suggests that Paul ever saw a resuscitated body. The Pauline corpus later says, "If you then have been raised with Christ, seek the things which are above, where Christ is, seated at the right hand of God." Please note that the story of the Ascension had not been written when these Pauline words were formed. Paul did not envision the Resurrection as Jesus being restored to life in this world but as Jesus being raised into God. It was not an event in time but a transcendent and transforming truth.
http://www.johnshelbyspong.com/bishopspongon_theResurrection.aspx
My friend's response is below:
That would seem inconsistent with this passage from I Corinthians 15:
3For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance[a]: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, 4that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, 5and that he appeared to Peter,[b] and then to the Twelve. 6After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep. 7Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles, 8and last of all he appeared to me also, as to one abnormally born.
|
| |
|
| | | | | 3998.2 in reply to 3998.1 | |
Helen,
I'm working on it. Good question. Will get back to you when time permits. Hopefully, others are studying also. These type questions are part of what I enjoy from this forum. |
| |
|
| | | | | 3998.3 in reply to 3998.2 | |
Thank you kindly Ron. I really enjoy this forum for the same reason. I've learned more details about the Bible here than I ever did going to church every Sunday.
The people I find on here aren't afraid to talk about the hard subjects or question things.
I wish I knew how to send this question directly to Spong. I'm certain he could clarify my uncertainty on this one quickly. But I have faith this answer will come forward.
Again thanks for helping me research this.
Helen
|
| |
|
| | | | | 3998.4 in reply to 3998.1 | |
Helen,
Me, again. I have not found anything that definitively solves our quandary. However, I have found a few paragraphs written by John Dominic Crossan in the Biblical Archaeology Society's The Search for Jesus edited by Hershel Shanks:
Imagine another case. Imagine Paul in 1 Corinthians 15, which everyone quotes because it has become normative, as if this were the only type of Christianity in the first century. Paul concludes in 1 Corinthians 15:13, 16 that, “If there is no resurrection of the dead, then Christ has not been raised … For if the dead are not raised, then Christ has not been raised.”
Why does he argue it that way? Why, even if there is no general resurrection, can’t Christ be raised anyhow? What Paul is saying is this: I am a Pharisee, and I believe in the general resurrection. As far as I am concerned, Jesus has risen from the dead, and is, according to 15:20, “the first fruits of those that have died.” The resurrection of Jesus starts, in other words, the general resurrection, just as the first fruits start the general harvest. For Paul, the harvest has begun; the resurrection of the dead has begun.
We usually say that Paul expected the end of the world soon. That, I think, is flatly wrong. Paul considered that the end of the world had already begun, and only by the mercy of God was it holding until Paul and others could get around widely enough among the gentiles to warn them. That’s the way I see Paul. His logic is quite clear. General resurrection and Jesus’ resurrection stand or fall together. The general resurrection has begun. And, he insists, if this is wrong, then our preaching is in vain.
But does Paul speak for all of early Christianity? That is the question I want to ask. The people of the Q gospel don’t think like that. If you were to talk to the people of the Q gospel and ask them if Jesus was risen from the dead, they would probably reply that such was not their language. If you asked them where Jesus is, they might have answered that he is with God. “What do you mean by that?” “We don’t know. All we know is that the empowerment of Jesus is still operative in our lives.” “Is he risen?” “Well, if that’s your language, okay, but it’s not ours.”
It is Paul’s language, however, and I don’t think Paul could put it any other way. I wouldn’t know how to interpret Paul except within the framework of his belief that the general resurrection has begun. Resurrection is crucial for Paul.
But should we take Paul’s language and make it normative for all of early Christianity? My thesis is that there were other types of Christians in the first century who did not confess Jesus using the term resurrection. They might, for example, as in the Gospel of Thomas, speak about “the living Jesus.” And if you said, “Do you mean the risen Jesus?” They might reply, “No, the living Jesus. Yesterday, today, tomorrow and forever. What do you mean, risen? That’s not the way we think.”
I now move from my first to my second thesis. Paul had experienced Jesus. Paul had a vision. Paul had a revelation. And he must equate that experience with the experience of Jesus’ earliest followers. Otherwise his own authority is at stake. He mentions, as you know, in 1 Corinthians 15:1–8, the appearances of the risen Jesus. He appeared to Cephas, to the Twelve, to more than 500 people, to James, to all the apostles and last of all to Paul himself. A vision of the risen Lord was determinative for Paul. And he, I think for rather obvious political reasons, says it’s determinative for everyone. It is the vision of the risen Lord that makes him an apostle on a par with the others.
Editor, Hershel Shanks: BAS The Search for Jesus. Biblical Archaeology Society, 2004; 2004
I've read and re-read this. The best I can get from this and Bishop Spong's writings is that Paul is anticipating Jesus' ascension (resurrection) according to the scriptures -- not an actual resuscitation or even a resurrection. Crossan states Paul's references to the original disciples' viewings as only seeking authority.
...[Message truncated]
Edited 10/11/2009 3:44 pm by Vridar |
| View Full Message |
| |
|
| | | | | 3998.5 in reply to 3998.4 | |
Thank you sincerely for this investigation Vridar. This explaination is taking my thinking in a new direction and causing me to go back and do more comparative reading also.
I would never have discovered this connection on my own. This is why this message board is such a wonderful resource for all of us.
Helen |
| |
|
| | | | | 3998.6 in reply to 3998.5 | |
Helen,
I agree. It has given me a pause also. I am currently (as to this minute) reading Rabbinical Judaism and Christianity edited by Hershel Shanks. The current chapter is by E.P. Sanders and he is trying to explain I Corinth 15. He is thinking, I think, also that Paul is taking something from Peter and the Twelve for authority only.
My new obsession, hmmmmm? |
| |
|
| | | | | 3998.7 in reply to 3998.1 | |
Hi "H",
While you await Ron's answer, consider this; Paul rejected The Law. Yet it was because of this Law that Paul's topic Jesus, allegedly existed. Do you see the conflict here in what Paul relates? Because you and your friend are using the N.T as a reference point for your discussion, delve a little bit further into it. Paul was, by his own admission a Pharisee. Jesus<OTH, had a beef with the Pharisaic brotherhood, that was so intense it got him placed on their "hit list". Matt.23:13-31
Now, why would Jesus be so insenced about a Law, the ruling powers at the time, dismissed as superstitution and old wive's tails? The LAW to an Israelite was viewed as the Constitution of the Israelite/Judaic nation. (Deut.5:22)(Deuteronomy 6:4-6,9) . Before Paul sought to establish a belief system palatable to all who formerly were either godless, pagans or believers in what the Pharisees were espousing, the Constitution of the Nation of Israel; The Law, was being trashed, spit upon and rejected. All of Jesus' actions during his ministry points to this attempt at correcting this travesty, as the motive. Paul, OTH, was never given authority by Jesus or anyonelse to reject the Law of Israel, other than but by those who would benefit from the acceptance of this pharisaic/septuagint version of Torah. But thats another story. See Matt.5:17-18 and visualize Paul being blown out of the water by the acceptance of the edits and tenets of The Law. http://ezinearticles.com/?Not-One-Jot-Or-Tittle-Will-Pass-Away-From-the-Law-Till-All--Is-Fulfilled-Matthew-5:17-18&id=2398912
Peace,
The Juanster
|
| |
|
| | | | | 3998.8 in reply to 3998.4 | |
Ron,
Oh no you don't! Dont hangup yet, you left this hanging; help Helen with this question I asked her; "Paul rejected The Law. Yet it was because of this Law that Paul's topic Jesus, allegedly existed. Do you see the conflict here in what Paul relates?"
See my post to her .3998.7
BTW, I'm in the process of reading "Ancient Israel" now. Thanks again for it.
The Juanster
Edited 10/12/2009 6:44 pm ET by Juan |
| |
|
| | | | | 3998.9 in reply to 3998.8 | |
Juan,
Thanks for the reply. Ancient Israel is a wonderful read. Usually, I get through a book in three days. This one took three weeks and I plan to re-read it when the other pile shrinks a little. There is no way I can digest it all but like that blind sow, ever so often I pick up an acorn. Those little acorns I pick up are worth the read.
Somewhere, I have read about the misconception of Paul and the law and Jesus' interpretation being so different from what we traditionally learned. I will get back to you on this one. Time is so precious any more. Should have started on this stuff when we were 12 years old ;>) .
These are the discussions I really enjoy. |
| |
|
|
|
|
