If the HTML is all over the place on this you can find this here: http://rookthehistorian.blogspot.com

Introduction to the Resurrection

For almost two thousand years Christians have had faith in the idea of some form of resurrection. From Paul to Clement, Tertullian to Aquinas there has been this idea of the living dead, on a spiritual plane of existence namely Heaven. According to the Catechism of the Catholic Church, the resurrection "of the flesh" means not only that the immortal soul will live on after death, but that even our 'mortal body' will come to life again. And also, "We firmly believe, and hence we hope that, just as Christ is truly risen from the dead and lives for ever, so after death the righteous will live for ever with the risen Christ and he will raise them up on the last day."[1]

Christians feel that as Christ rose from the dead, so too will they and live forever in paradise glorifying the Lord of Hosts. Another side bonus to this resurrection idea is that although they glorify God, the Angels glorify man - especially that in the resurrection. [2] The idea is that the Christian will not only be very capable of living for all eternity in the gentle embrace of the Lord, but also be catered to by the host of Man - an entire army of battle-hardened Angels. (That's right; because before the end of times come, these Angels have to fight off an army of fallen Angels known as demons lead by a talking serpent - who is also a fallen Angel - named Lucifer)[3]

So this sounds pretty cool right? You get to go to paradise (which I am told is the most beautiful thing ever created - even more beautiful then any scenic view on Earth) and get catered to, and get to hang out with the Big Guy (i.e. God) and his righteous son, Jesus, and swap war stories with a bunch of multi-headed, multi-bodied, multi-winged bizzaro-type Angels [4]. One could say that if Earth was this good, suicides in this world would drop exponentially.

This is one hell of a story, and it gets better. I know you can't see how, but truly I say to you it does. Not only do you get all of this cool stuff to do, and live in this wonderful land, and be guarded by some tough characters (a High-School nerds wet dream I tell you!) but you also get to see ALL your loved ones again, and Christians enjoy pointing out the fact that some of the greatest minds will also be up in Heaven with you! So you can catch up with all your old family members, friends, ex-lovers, and Martin Luther King. And the most interesting thing of all, is that you will not have a single blemish on you, or scratch, or mark, or anything indicating imperfection. You'll be you, to feel, touch, smell, see and taste just like on Earth, only better! It's Earth 2.0 the Beta Version! R0XORz!

But what's the catch? That's what we're here to discuss, really. We're here to get to the bottom of the problem, and by now I'm sure you're asking yourself - if things are so great, why not just believe in God and glorify his name in praise so you can get to Heaven and have out with the J.C.? Well, because let's face it, if things were really not so complicated, I'd probably be doing just that.

So how bad of a complication do we have here, exactly what is the damage we're talking about? Well, it's pretty bad. I've laid out four concise problems below that I will go into in detail, starting of course with why the resurrection is so God Damned important. (Pun intended) This doesn't sound like a problem but it's the most important issue we're going to discuss today in this blog entry. The others only supplement the first part, and with good reason, which you shall see and understand as we continue.

Why the Resurrection Is Important

So why is the resurrection so important to the Christians? Well to make it a clear as possible, there would be no Christianity without it. The entire basis of Christianity is that Christ not only absolved the sins of the world, but he only did so by resurrecting. [5] It was through his death and subsequent resurrection that not only took the sins of the world away from man, but also proved his divinity and perfection within the laws of God and man. Without a resurrection, Christ would be considered as just another man, a prophet who was nothing but a liar, or worse yet He might even be considered (like myself and others do) nothing more than a myth! [6]

Christians have been very clear about the importance of the resurrection from the beginning. According to Paul (Which we will discuss in depth later);

"How can some of you say that there is no resurrection of the dead? But if there is no resurrection of the dead, then Christ has not been raised; if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is in vain..." (1 Cor. 15:12-14)

Indeed, to reiterate my point, without a resurrection, Christ is nothing. And then what would Christianity be? "The resurrection of Jesus Christ and Christianity stand or fall together" according to Josh McDowell. (1st Ed. Evidence That Demands a Verdict, Pp. 179)

The Catechism of the Catholic Church has also gone on at length about the importance of the resurrection. "Belief in the resurrection of the dead had been an essential element of the Christian faith from its beginnings."[7] No doubt that is why they quote Tertullian on the following:

"The confidence of Christians is the resurrection of the dead; believing this we live." (De res. 1,1:PL 2, 841)

It's also important to note that this issue is also the most hotly debated between the communities of believers and non-believers. "From the beginning, Christian faith in the resurrection has met with incomprehension and opposition. On no point does the Christian faith encounter more opposition than on the resurrection of the body."[8]

Justin Martyr reflects on such opposite in his lost works (of which fragments remain) entitled "On the Resurrection:"

"They who maintain the wrong opinion say that there is no resurrection of the flesh; giving as their reason that it is impossible that what is corrupted and dissolved should be restored to the same as it had been. And besides the impossibility, they say that the salvation of the flesh is disadvantageous; and they abuse the flesh, adducing its infirmities, and declare that it only is the cause of our sins, so that if the flesh, say they, rise again, our infirmities also rise with it. And such sophistical reasons as the following they elaborate: If the flesh rise again, it must rise either entire and possessed of all its parts, or imperfect. But its rising imperfect argues a want of power on God's part, if some parts could be saved, and others not; but if all the parts are saved, then the body will manifestly have all its members....therefore there shall be no resurrection of the flesh. By these and such like arguments, they attempt to distract men from the faith . And there are some who maintain that even Jesus Himself appeared only as spiritual, and not in flesh, but presented merely the appearance of flesh: these persons seek to rob the flesh of the promise." (On the Resurrection, Chap. 2)

Notice the problems arising from the people who are claiming the resurrection impossible. This is important, to establish that even in Justin Martyr's day (c. 100 - 165 CE), Christians were facing opposition.

Of course, Justin's remarks here seem right in line with other 2nd Century Christians. It's apparent the church agrees with St. Augustine as well who remarked that:

"Rise again, therefore, the body will, according to the Christian Faith, which is incapable of deceiving. And if this appears incredible to any one, [it is because] he looks simply to what the flesh is at present, while he fails to consider of what nature it shall be hereafter." (On Faith and the Creed, 10:24)

And:

"And accordingly we believe also in The Resurrection of the Flesh, to wit, not merely that the soul, which at present by reason of carnal affections is called the flesh, is restored; but that it shall be so likewise with this visible flesh, which is the flesh according to nature, the name of which has been received by the soul, not in virtue of nature, but in reference to carnal affections: this visible flesh, then, I say, which is the flesh properly so called, must without doubt be believed to be destined to rise again." (On Faith and the Creed, 10:23)

Note: What is interesting to me is how Augustine views the church as incapable of lying, something we will of course have to discuss in the conclusion of this piece.

Over and over again, Augustine and Tertullian, Justin Martyr, Irenaeus explain the resurrection in this matter of importance, and stress the fact that there will be the same resurrected body - that or the mortal body that we died in, in which we will be raised. Now we have a better understanding of exactly why the resurrection is so important. And we can see why the Church fathers felt this way.

Let's face it, they have Gospels which state that Christ allowed his disciples to manhandle him, to touch his wounds in which Thomas became a believer of the bodily resurrection. If the disciples of Christ could physically touch him after he died, it would stand to reason that the soul could not be touched nor the spirit, so it had to be the physical, mortal body of Christ. How is this explained?

Above we see the fathers discussing the difference between flesh and body. The body is what is left after the flesh decays - the flesh being the putrid decaying matter that is corruptible and sinful. The body is the vessel in which carries your soul, which will also be resurrected at the end of days. And this will be discussed more thoroughly in a bit.

You'll also notice how often scripture is used to support the idea of the resurrection. In fact it comes up so often, you'd think that the resurrection would be fool-proof in the text. But if it were, I wouldn't be discussing the issues. So let's move on.

Contradictions Between Gospels

There are many contradictions concerning the nature of the resurrection of Christ and others. Below is a comprehensive list compiled by Dennis McKinsey in his two books. [9] Dennis sorted out the three main problems of the accounts of the resurrection narratives in the scriptures.

I've rearranged the list a bit to allow for more effective reading. The first problem is the most serious, that being the issue of the contradictions between the narratives themselves (I will refrain from going into a commentary on them at this time). The second issue raised is the numerous occasions in which the resurrection has appeared in scripture previously - although Dennis feels that this is evidence that the resurrection of Christ is nothing special, I'm going to take it another way and discuss why such happenings were not documented by historians or not witnessed by faith healers today. The third problem is the utter annihilistic nature of the Old Testament in terms of life after death.

Internal Contradictions:

• A.) At what time in the morning did the women visit the tomb?- At the rising of the sun (Mark 16:2) vs. when it was yet dark (John 20:1)
• B.) Who came?- Mary Magdalene alone (John 20:1) vs. Mary Magdalene and the other Mary (Matt. 28:1) vs. Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James and Salome (Mark 16:1) vs. Mary Magdalene, Joanna, Mary the mother of James and other women (Luke 24:10)
• C.) Was the tomb opened or closed when they arrived? - Open (Luke 24:2) vs. closed (Matt 28:1-2)
• D.) Whom did they see at the tomb?- The angel (Matt. 28:2) vs. a young man (Mark 16:5) vs. two men (Luke 24:4) vs. two angels (John 20:11-12)
• E.) Were these men or angels inside or outside the tomb? -Outside (Matt. 28.2) vs. inside (Mark 16:5, Luke 24:3-4, John 20:11-12).
• F.) Were they standing or sitting? - Standing (Luke 24:4) vs. sitting (Matt. 28:2, Mark 16:5, John 20:12).
• G.) Did Mary Magdalene know Jesus when he first appeared to her?-Yes, she did (Matt. 28:9) vs. no she did not (John 20:14).

As Dennis recalls, "If the stories were consistent, one could write one long continuous narrative incorporating all four versions without fear of divergencies. Yet, this has never been done without adding, altering or omitting key verses. Apologists often submit the witness-at-an-auto-accident argument which is quite irrelevant since two diametrically opposed and mutually exclusive versions of the same event can not be simultaneously accurate. One or the other is false. Moreover, witnesses at an accident, unlike gospel writers, are not claiming inerrancy."

This is clearly a problem. Especially since the church fathers relied so much on the internal explanation of the resurrection through the Gospel narratives of Christ’s death. If the versions can differ so much in regards to this issue, what else can they differ on? What else could they have gotten wrong? The possibilities are endless, and many speculate quite often as per the answer to this question without ever coming up with one.

But this is only one way to look at the inconsistencies. There is also a chronological view that I feel is very important. The chronological perspective is when a historian takes various texts of similar content and after determining a time lime by which they were written, determines how the one took or borrowed from the other and upon doing so expanded on it. The resurrection is a key example to such a happening, when one author borrowed and built upon an existing earlier author.

Richard Carrier makes the amazing comparison with smooth strokes in his debate with Mike Licona:

"The first Gospel - Mark - tells a simple story about women going to the tomb and finding it open, meeting a single boy in white then running off. The whole account is probably a parable and never intended to be read as history. But in the Gospel of Matthew, which simply borrowed from Mark and added to it, the boy has become an Angel descending from Heaven, the women experience a massive earthquake and watch the Angel descend, and open the tomb. Guards have been added to the story, and the women run off and now get to meet Jesus on the way. Can we doubt that we are looking at extensive legendary embellishment upon what began as a much more mundane story? We can see the same trend in Luke. Mark's one boy in white has been multiplied into two men who suddenly appear in dazzling apparel. Now we hear that Peter went to check the tomb and confirmed it was empty. And Jesus appears in the flesh and invites his disciples to touch him and eats fish to prove he's real, then whooshes up into heaven before their very eyes. That again sounds like a pretty fancy embellishment of Mark's far more humble story. In John, Jesus receives an absurdly fabulous burial. Peter again goes to see for himself, but this time yet another disciple goes too. Luke's two men now become two Angels and we get the elaborate tale of the doubting Thomas putting his fingers inside the wounds on Christ's body and Jesus declaring 'Blessed are they who believe without seeing.' All of this certainly looks like a growing legend." (Carrier, Licona vs. Carrier: On the Resurrection of Jesus Christ)

It's important to keep in mind that we are discussing what is most probable, as history is never 100% about anything, mainly because history can not be reproduced exactly as it happened, merely we can only deduce from what sources and evidences we have to determine the most probably cause of something.

That being said, what we have here is obvious, where this myth, even being embellished in the lifetime of Paul [10], has grown out of proportions at the time of the Gospels which were written around 40-75 years after the death of Christ. The fact that there is such an internal inconsistency between the Gospel accounts is bad enough but it gets even worse when we compare the resurrection in the Gospel accounts to the resurrection narrative in Paul's account. But more on that in the next chapter.

The second problem that Dennis brings up is, "Why should the Resurrection be of such significance." He makes the following list to support the many 'resurrections' which occurred before, during and after Jesus.

• Elijah raised a child from the dead (1Kings 17:17, 21-22);

Samuel said to Saul, "Why hast thou disquietedme, to bring me" (1Sam. 28.7, 11, 15);

Elisha raised the dead son of a Shunammite ( 2 Kings 4:32, 34-35);

a dead man being lowered into a grave revived when he touched the bones of Elisha (2 Kings 13:21);

Moses and Elijah revived at the time of the Transfiguration ( Luke 9:28, 30 );

the saints arose at the time of Jesus' death ( matt. 27:52-53 );

Jairus' daughter rose from the dead (Matt. 9:18, 23-25 );

the widow at Nain's son rose from the dead (Luke 7:11-15 );

and Lazarus rose from the dead ( John 11:43-44 ).

Peter raised Tabitha

Paul raised Eutychus.

Dennis states, "So why attribute so much importance to the event. By the time Christ rose from the dead this was a rather common occurrence. Moreover, people not only before Jesus but after as well." This is a very astute point and I would expect nothing less from my esteemed friend on the matter. As it was stated by Hume that "such prodigious events never happen in our days" when in the days of the scripture they were as common as there were men alive.

Hume wasn't taking a stab at religion here, merely trying to get the point across that it was odd that miracles have simply vanished from reality while if somebody rose from the dead in Jesus' day, it was just another normal occurrence of a prophet summoning the power of God. Edward Gibbon put it as such:

"During the age of Christ, of his apostles, and of their first disciples, the doctrine which they preached was confirmed by innumerable prodigies. The lame walked, the blind saw, the sick were healed, the dead were raised, demons were expelled, and the laws of Nature were frequently suspended for the benefit of the church. But the sages of Greece and Rome turned aside from the awful spectacle, and pursuing the ordinary occupations of life and study, appeared unconscious of any alterations in the moral or physical government of the world.

Under the reign of Tiberius, the whole earth, or at least a celebrated province of the Roman empire, was involved in a preternatural darkness of three hours. Even this miraculous event, which ought to have excited the wonder, the curiosity, and the devotion of mankind, passed without notice in an age of science and history. It happened during the lifetime of Seneca and the elder Pliny, who must have experienced the immediate effects, or received the earliest intelligence, of the prodigy. Each of these philosophers, in a laborious work, has recorded all the great phenomena of Nature, earthquakes, meteors, comets, and eclipses, which his indefatigable curiosity could collect. Both the one and the other have omitted to mention the greatest phenomenon to which the mortal eye has been witness since the creation of the globe. A distinct chapter of Pliny is designed for eclipses of an extraordinary nature and unusual duration; but he contents himself with describing the singular defect of light which followed the murder of Caesar." (Gibbon, vol. 1, ch. 15, p. 512)

And yet the only case evidence we have for these miracles - these normal occurrences - are books ripe with superstition and internal contradiction, as well as the problem of anonymity among the writers of scripture. As Carrier put it:

"From all of this one thing should be apparent: the age of Jesus was not an age of critical reflection and remarkable religious acumen. It was an era filled with con artists, gullible believers, martyrs without a cause, and reputed miracles of every variety. In light of this picture, the tales of the Gospels do not seem very remarkable. Even if they were false in every detail, there is no evidence that they would have been disbelieved or rejected as absurd by many people, who at the time had little in the way of education or critical thinking skills. They had no newspapers, telephones, photographs, or public documents to consult to check a story. If they were not a witness, all they had was a man's word. And even if they were a witness, the tales above tell us that even then their skills of critical reflection were lacking. Certainly, this age did not lack keen and educated skeptics--it is not that there were no skilled and skeptical observers. There were. Rather, the shouts of the credulous rabble overpowered their voice and seized the world from them, boldly leading them all into the darkness of a thousand years of chaos. Perhaps we should not repeat the same mistake. After all, the wise learn from history. The fool ignores it." Also check out more evidence to support the claim that miracles of all sorts were exaggerated and spread by all religious propagators including the Jews in Carrier's article Kooks and Quacks of the Roman Empire.

The third major problem connected with the resurrection is the contradiction between the ideology of the resurrection of the dead in the Old and New testaments. This will later be explained in the chapter to follow on Paul, however there are some key verses that need to be considered. For example, take Eccle. 3:19-21, "For the fate of the sons of men and the fate of beasts is the same: as one dies so dies the other. ...man has no advantage over beasts;... All go to one place; all are from the dust, and all turn to dust again. Who knows whether the spirit of man goes upward and the spirit of the beast goes down to the earth." (See Also: Job 7:9-10, 1 Tim. 6:15-16, Isaiah 26:14)

Robert Ingersoll remarked on this issue, "The Old Testament tells us how we lost immortality and it does not say a word about another world, from the first mistake in Genesis to the last curse in Malachi. No man in the Old Testament stands by the dead and says, "We shall meet again." From the top of Sinai came no hope of another world." ("Orthodoxy", Ingersoll's Works, Vol. 2, page 424)

Carrier gives the following list of justifiable evidences [11] that Historians tend to look at when determining historicity:

Needless to say the problems of the Gospel accounts is vast to say the least. Unknown and otherwise anonymous authors, no sources are cited by the second-hand witnesses (the Gospel writers themselves), no citations or papyri exist from supposed witnesses like Peter or Joseph, no enemy testimony can be called (In the example of the evidence for Julius Caesar, Cicero would count as an enemy as he hated Caesar and he himself wished he had taken part in Caesar's assassination), no physical evidence exists to prove that Jesus died and was resurrected or even lived, no credible historian or scholar of the day thought to write anything of him down, and what we do have - as mentioned above in terms of the Gospel accounts - is not good evidence. For more on this subject (The lack of mention of a historical Jesus) please see my earlier blog entry on the Mythicist position.

Things aren't looking too good for the resurrection, but things get even shakier when we look at Paul.

Paul's Understanding of the Resurrection

Paul, unlike the writers of the Gospels which came later, and the Rabbinic teachings of the resurrection which 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:

"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 (cf. Section V).

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 (ἀποκά λυψις), which in the Greek literally means "manifestation" or "revelation/apocalypse." [13] 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 Christian s to generally prove a second coming of Christ [14], but lets look at the Greek, "ὥστε (therefore) ὑμᾶς (you) μὴ ὑστερεῖσθαι (shall not fall short) ἐν μηδεν (in any) χαρὶίσματι (grace) ἀπεκδεχομένους (anticipating) τὴν ἀποκάλυψιν (the revelation) τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν (of our Lord) Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ (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 (πνευματικός) and the natural body (ψυχικός)? 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. [15]

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, we see the opposite. In fact, 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:

Psychikos aka "Psyche-like"		Pneumatikos aka "Pneuma-like"
Psychê aka "Living Person"		Pneuma aka "Holy Spirit"
[always something one can lose (Php. 2:30)]		[always something ethereal (2 Cor. 5:5)]

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." [16]

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.

But if Paul believed in this two-body resurrection doctrine, where did it originate? Glad you asked. Let's turn to the final subject of the essay - that being the Greeks and how they viewed the resurrection.

Resurrection in Greek Myths

Remember just a minute ago we were discussing Josephus and his view of the two-body doctrine that Paul discusses? Well where did that originate? Did it come from the Jews, as we don't see this in the Talmud? Did it come from somewhere else? Here is what Josephus had to say about where the doctrine spawned from:

“…this is like the opinion of the Greeks, that good souls have their habitations beyond the ocean, in a region that is neither oppressed with storms of rain, or snow, or with intense heat, but that this place is such as is refreshed by the gentile breathing of the west wind, that is perpetually blowing from the ocean; while they allot to bad souls a dark and tempestuous den, full of never-ceasing punishments. (156) And indeed the Greeks seem to me to have followed the same notion, when they allot the islands of the blessed to their brave men, whom they call heroes and demigods; and to the souls of wicked, the region of the ungodly, in Hades, where their fables relate to certain persons, such as Sisyphus, and Tantalus, and Ixion, and Tityus, are punished; which is built on this first supposition, that souls are immortal; and thence are those exhortations to virtue, and exhortations from wickedness collected; (157) whereby good men are bettered in the conduct of their life, by the hope they have of reward after their death, and whereby the vehement inclinations of bad men to vice are restrained, by the fear and expectation they are in, that although they should lie concealed in this life, they should suffer immortal punishment after their death. (158) These are the divine doctrines of the Essenes about the soul, which lay an unavoidable bait for such as have once had a taste of their philosophy.” (Wars 2:8:11, 155-8)

Indeed, this helps shed some light on the issue. The Greeks came up with the idea! And we know this, not only from Josephus, of course, but the Orphics as well:

"The Orphic was an ascetic, that is to say, he believed that the source of evil lay in the body with its appetites and passions, which must therefore be subdued if we are to rise to the heights which it is in us to attain. ...The belief behind it is that this present life is for the soul a punishment for previous sin, and the punishment consists precisely in this, that it is fettered to a body. This is for it a calamity, and is compared sometimes to being shut up in a prison, sometimes to being buried in a tomb. This doctrine is mentioned by Plato, and we may be eternally grateful that for once the whim took him to ascribe it, not vaguely and mysteriously to 'the wise,' or 'the old and sacred writings,' but expressly to the Orphics." (W.K.C. Guthrie, Orpheus and Greek Religion, Pp. 156)

"The central doctrine to the Orphics had a tremendous and one is sometimes tempted to say unfortunate fascination for Plato. Some of the finest parts of the dialogs give the impression not that he despised the body, but that, although the soul was the higher principal and must maintain the lead, soul and body could work in harmony together. Yet this unnatural dualism of the Orphics, which divides the two so sharply and makes the body nothing but an encumbrance, the source of evil, from which the soul must long to be purified, permeates the Phaedo, together with a great deal of language borrowed from 'the initiators'." (W.K.C. Guthrie, Orpheus and Greek Religion, Pp. 157)

"The return, life on earth was itself a punishment. It was also a period of trial. Together with the punishments suffered by the impure in Hades; it formed the circle of trial and purgatory by which the soul might finally be purified. According to a man's actions on earth, so was his fate in Hades one of punishment or happiness. (W.K.C. Guthrie, Orpheus and Greek Religion, Pp. 157-58)

You can see the similarities in Orphic thought presented here in the epistles of Paul. Paul also refers to the flesh as sinful and evil, Romans 7:25, " I thank God through Jesus Christ our Lord. So then with the mind I myself serve the law of God; but with the flesh the law of sin" and Colossians 2:11, " In whom also ye are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ." Note that he is not talking about a physical circumcision here but a metaphorical circumcision. Also Romans 8:3, "For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh." Also notice how it states "in the likeness of sinful flesh", but that Jesus was actually flesh and blood. Paul also suggests that flesh and blood cannot enter the kingdom of God in 1 Corinthians 15. And one more, Romans 8:13, “For if ye live after the flesh, ye shall die: but if ye through the Spirit do mortify the deeds of the body, ye shall live.”

Paul, especially where Paul discusses the idea of "wearing" bodies. This is common with Paul, for example in 2 Corinthians 5:6, "The way the Orphics discuss the body as a prison or a tomb for the spirit inside is also akin toTherefore we are always confident, knowing that, whilst we are at home in the body, we are absent from the Lord." Paul also discusses 'putting on Christ' like a cloak or a shirt, "For you are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus. For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ." (Gal. 3:26-27) Also “But put ye on the Lord Jesus Christ, and make not provision for the flesh, to fulfil the lusts thereof.” (Romans 13:14)

How is it that all of these similarities exist? There are too many to simply be a coincidence. The ideas of Christianity seem to stem from the ideas of Greek thought, and with good reason, as the Greeks conquered and held the area of Palestine for several generations [17]. And this is not the only thing the Christians stole from other religions. In fact the list gets bigger the further into history one travels, as if riding a wave from the beginnings to that of the days of Eusebius and beyond. The theft of Solis Invicti from the Apollo worshipers in the late end of the month of December (the 25th), that of Easter being taken from various cults of the day. Eventually burning and destroying thousands of documents and precious works of literature deemed heretical or witchery. Even as far as miracles were stolen from the Greeks and Romans.

One such case is recounted by Carrier in several places, that of the Aurelius Rain Miracle:

"Consider the astonishing "rain miracle" which rescued the army of Marcus Aurelius in 172 A.D., complete with the enemy army being zapped to death by lightning balls hurtling from a clear sky, while the "good guys" were at the same time rescued from a desperate thirst when clouds gathered and sent down a torrential rain, despite a long period of summer drought. Everyone claimed responsibility, from advocates of the god Jupiter, to proponents of Neoplatonic magic-working, to, of course, Christians. It even appears on the column of Marcus Aurelius, where some rain god is seen sweeping across the battlefield, toppling the enemy while filling the Roman soldiers' shields with life-giving water." (Richard Carrier, Beckwith on Historiography)

"In 172 A.D. one of the legions of Marcus Aurelius got itself in a bit of a pickle. Surrounded on all sides by barbarian hoards somewhere in Eastern Europe, in the middle of a hot summer, dying of thirst, the army begged and pleaded with the gods for salvation. The gods replied. Clouds quickly gathered in a previously-clear sky, and a torrential rain fell. As the Romans desperately filled their shields with water to drink, balls of lightning thundered down into the enemy ranks, destroying and routing them utterly. ...Just a few years later, this miracle was celebrated in stone, the scene carved into a Column of Marcus Aurelius, still visible today. Carved in the stone, you can see a winged rain god pouring life into the Roman shields and raining death upon the enemy hoard before them. About the same time, Aurelius dedicated a statue to Jupiter Thunderbolter, and minted a coin praising the religion of the Emperor. Only eight years after this astonishing event, Christian apologist Apollinarius claimed that the legion that was there that day was entirely compromised of Christians who prayed to their god for help, and therefore the miracle proved the true power of belief in Christ. Indeed, he says, that the legion was then dubbed the Thundering Legion to honor this. Only twenty five years after the event, Tertullian, another Christian apologist, echoed the same story. ...First it is incredible that a pagan emperor who showed little mercy for Christians would allow any into his legions, much less fill an entire legion with them. Despite the fact that some Christians later believed Aurelius to be a "good" emperor, his reign saw the martyrdom of Polycarp, Justin, and a multitude of others at Lyons, and two lengthy apologetic letters were written to Aurelius, begging him to treat Christians with more respect. Besides all that, all legionaries had to offer daily prayers to the emperor's guardian spirit and routinely praise Jupiter Optimus Maximus, "Jupiter Best and Greatest," protector of the legions. But since these were things no Christian could do, it is impossible for Christians to have been in any legion at the time. And we have no evidence they were. Second, contrary to the tale told by the Christian authors that the legion responsible won its new name for the miracle, that legion had already been called the Thundering Legion for almost two centuries."

It's apparent that what we have is a case against the resurrection being a purely Christian idea, and it definitely did not come from the Jews, as we have traced back earlier, they were annihilistic and did not believe in an afterlife, which was why originally the raising up of the prophets was such an amazing thing - nobody got that privilege. It isn't until after you see the Hellenistic age when Jews start discovering the Orphic traditions and really start to delve into the idea of the resurrection. There were over thirty various Jewish sects, the Pharisees having the notion of a single body resurrection, while others like the Essenes had a dual-body resurrection doctrine. It's become painfully obvious now which one the first Christians ascribed too, and which ones the later Christians followed.

Conclusion What we can conclude from all this definitely not looking too good for the resurrection myth and that of the Christians. Remember the saying? Without the resurrection, "...all our preaching be in vain." How much we stressed over the importance of the resurrection, and how these subsequent chapters would tie into the first, you can now understand how and why it came full circle. The entire basis of Christianity rests on the position of the infallibility of the resurrection doctrine, that there be one creed (created by the Council of Nicea in 325) and one view of the resurrection, and to have faith that this is exactly how it happened, step by step, and there are no flaws in it.

But we have seen this is quite the opposite. We have seen that the Gospels do not cooperate and Paul certainly doesn't agree with the Gospels - which came much later then Paul. We know that Paul did not write about the resurrection the way we'd expect him to had he been trying to get across the idea of not only a physical reality of a Christ but also a same-body resurrection. Paul is the only link between Jesus and Early Christianity, yet as a witness to this he fails to fill in the gap between Jesus and orthodoxy.

We have also seen the concept of miracles and the idea of resurrections happening everywhere, all over the place in antiquity. We know that such visions and myths existed and were common during the time of Paul and even before. We have seen the evolution of the resurrection doctrine and how it grows over time between the four Gospels, and also from Paul to the Gospel of Mark (the first Gospel).

And we've seen, finally, that these ideas of a soul and a resurrection and trading bodies and all these things we've discussed over the previous chapters have come from earlier myths and cults, like that of Orphicism - and we know the Christians are not incapable of stealing from earlier cults and myths, as shown by the Aurelius Rain Miracle. We know that Paul taught the same sort of doctrine as the Orphics, and that he experienced a vision, and he compares his vision with that of the 500 witnesses.

In the end, if this is the foundation of Christian belief, faith, and trust - it is a hopeless foundation, and truthfully doesn't exist - it's an ideal based on air, and nothing more. What we see here is something Christians deem important, yes, but truly was never extant to begin with. And we must all be sure to let the Christian know that when it comes to the resurrection, there is little there - if anything - that can be reconciled by those whom believe in it. Goodness knows apologists like Tertullian and Martyr have tried, and lied in the process. How many have done the same since then?

I hope you enjoyed reading this article as much as I've enjoyed writing it. Take care, and until next time....stay rational.

Rook Hawkins

SOURCES

[1] Catechism of the Catholic Church, Article 11 (989), Pp. 280

[2] The Holy Bible, The Book of Revelations

[3] Rushide, The Satanic Verses

[4] The Seraphim; Isaiah 6:1-3, Rev. 4:8

[5] Catechism of the Catholic Church

[6] Wilhelm Bousset, Kurious Christos; Price, The Incredible Shrinking Son of Man; Arthur Drews, The Christ Myth; Earl Doherty, The Jesus Puzzle; Talbert, What is a Gospel; J. M. Robertson, Pagan Christs

[7] Catechism of the Catholic Church, Article 11 (991), Pp. 280

[8] Catechism of the Catholic Church, Article 11, "Christ's Resurrection and Ours" (996), Pp. 281

[9] Dennis McKinsey wrote two books, The Encyclopedia of Biblical Errancy and Biblical Errancy: A Reference Guide. I recommend both of these, but also recommend you do some critical research to determine what is actually a errant contradiction and what really isn't. There are not many, but some, of the contradictions listed in this book that can be discounted with new evidence and more careful research. Although the majority of the text is quite good and very informative. The Reference Guide is an excellent must-have for having verses at your finger tips.

[10] Licona vs. Carrier: On the Resurrection of Jesus Christ

[11] Licona vs. Carrier: On the Resurrection of Jesus Christ

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

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

[14] 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."

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

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

[17] Michael Grant, From Alexander to Cleopatra: The Hellenistic World