Paul on the resurrected body
2 Corinthians 5:10 'For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, that each one may receive what is due him for the things done while in the body, whether good or bad.'
Clearly, Paul doesn't think our mortal bodies will appear before Christ. He speaks of the time in our bodies as being the time that we spent on earth. For Paul, the time we spent on earth is what will be judged and the time we spent in our body is what will be judged. The two things are the same.
This is more proof that for Paul, a resurrection did not involve raising a dead body.
This contradicts the Gospels which say that a resurrection does involve raising a dead body.
Clearly, Paul doesn't think our mortal bodies will appear before Christ. He speaks of the time in our bodies as being the time that we spent on earth. For Paul, the time we spent on earth is what will be judged and the time we spent in our body is what will be judged. The two things are the same.
This is more proof that for Paul, a resurrection did not involve raising a dead body.
This contradicts the Gospels which say that a resurrection does involve raising a dead body.
posted by Steven Carr at 2:25 PM
2 Comments:
Steven,
I must urge you to get a good Agent to broker the best deal... Dan Brown's "Da Vinci Code" is mere title-tatle compared to the breadth and depth of the deception of which you are accusing the early Christians...
What was their motive? Please come up with something better than "money" (as at http://www.bowness.demon.co.uk/resr.htm)- that is truly laughable.
Once again, Martin has no answer to what Paul said.
As it happens, reading Paul lets us know that Christians were making up false stories about Jesus. He urges the Thessalonians not to believe them.
What were these false stories? Perhaps the stories of Jesus being touched and eating fish. The stories Paul never mentions when trying to show the Corinthians what a resurrected body was like.
What was the motive of the author of Mark?
We don't know why he was writing, when he was writing, where he waqs writing, who he was writing to, who his sources were, how he got his information or anything?
So historians reject the work out of hand.
The other Gospels use the basic story of Mark.
Which means they have no historical worth either.
Sorry about this Martin, but if you want the Gospels to be considered as history, then you have to have them written as histories.
And Mark is not a history. It has no chronology, no interest in sources, and it is anonymous.
The very sort of ancient writing that historians distrust the most.
Post a Comment
<< Home