Do you believe the Bible teaches a physical resurrection, a symbolic one or what?  Is it important for the Christian faith?  

I believe the Bible teaches a physical resurrection.

Evidence (in a nutshell):

The resurrected Jesus eats with his disciples (Luke 24:42-43) and generally behaves the same as Jesus did before the crucifixion.
A symbolic resurrection wouldn't result in an empty tomb.
A symbolic resurrection (in the sense Spong and others mean) would not have had enough impact to revitalize the disciples who had scattered in fear.

The resurrection is part of the Gospel, the core of the Christian faith, that Jesus died for our sins, was buried and was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures (I Cor. 15:1-5).   If Christ is not raised our faith is vain (15:14) and worthless (17) and we are of all men most to be pitied (19).

1) Physical
2) It's somewhat Important as in the cornerstone of the Christian faith.

~Now ya know~

Quoted: Do you believe the Bible teaches a physical resurrection, a symbolic one or what?  Is it important for the Christian faith?

Hello,

Yes, the resurrection of Jesus Christ 3 days after his crucifixion was a real event. This was not a symbolic story. The credibility of the Bible is at stake if it were not true. People today who believe that Jesus Christ was ONLY crucified, but did not raised from the dead are not Christian according to Jesus' own words and teaching.

The miraculous resurrection of Jesus Christ is important, because ANYONE could be crucified. The Romans crucified thousands of individuals, but only Christ came back to life after 3 days. This act atoned for the sins of all mankind and it is up to each individual soul to accept his sacrifice and resurrection as the truth. This is the foundation of Christian belief and doctrine. His death AND resurrection fulfilled prophecy and washed away (read: replaced) the old laws and sacrificial practices of the old testament.

There were many, many people at Jesus Christ's time who saw him alive 3 days after he was crucified and killed. The Gospels account for this fact and there were numerous other individuals who witnessed him being alive after he was dead.

Many non-Catholic Christians, infact, do not agree with Catholics' use of "crucifix" images. Those are the statues and other items, such as pendents around their necks, of Christ hanging on the cross. Non-Catholic Cristians feel this is misrepresentative, because the act of him dying alone was not what was significant; what was significant was that he came back to life 3 days after his death. He was the Messiah.

Jesus was literally physically resurrected.

Quoted:
2) It's somewhat Important as in the cornerstone of the Christian faith.


Can I assume that's a sarcastic choice of words?

In answer to the question, IT IS LITERAL.  His physical death and resurrection paves the way for our spiritual resurrection... as Christians, we are resurrected with him.

If the resurrection was spiritual, would that somehow change the importance of Jesus and his role in salvation?

Quoted: If the resurrection was spiritual, would that somehow change the importance of Jesus and his role in salvation?

It's important in that it brought about the literal physical resurrection of all mankind.  Christ being the first to be resurrected, he made it so that all of us will someday be resurrected, too.

Quoted: If the resurrection was spiritual, would that somehow change the importance of Jesus and his role in salvation?

Please clarify your question Dino.

As I understand it, the resurrection was physical and spiritual.

Do you mean to ask, "If the resurrection was only spiritual, and not physical, would that somehow change the importance of Jesus and his role in salvation?"

Yes. I believe he rose from the dead naturally/physically.

I also believe that before he did that he rose from the dead spirit that was in the world and under the Law. That's what he calls us to do: to resurrect from our dead in sin condition.

Quoted: Quoted: If the resurrection was spiritual, would that somehow change the importance of Jesus and his role in salvation? Not in my mind bud.  No more than the emaculate conception is the corner stone of the Christian faith.  The actual method shouldn't over shadow the message. Tj

You know, buddy, that the 'Immaculate Conception' does NOT refer to Jesus being born of a Virgin, right?

It's a Roman Catolic doctrine that holds that Mary's physical birth was not stained with 'original sin.'

Which is yet another Roman doctrine.

The particular circumstances of the birth of Mary is not at all a 'cornerstone' of the Christian Faith.

It is to the Roman Church, but not the rest of Christianity.

Eric The(Protestant)Hun

It is important to remember that the reason protestants do not accept the Immaculate Conception is because they believe it is not in the Bible. Catholics can counter this in several ways. First, Catholics can use this same argument and say that since nowhere in the Bible does it say that only things that are in the Bible are to be believed, this argument itself must be rejected. Secondly, this protestant doctrine is as modern a development as protestantism itself. Third, Biblical exegesis can be made to lay a foundation for it's authenticity.


Scriptural sources

In his Apostolic Constitution Ineffabilis Deus (December 8, 1854), which officially defined the Immaculate Conception as dogma for the Catholic Church, Pope Pius IX primarily appealed to the text of Genesis 3:15, where the serpent was told by God, "I will put enmity between you and the woman, between your seed and her seed." According to the Catholic understanding, this was a prophecy that foretold of a "woman" who would always be at enmity with the serpent — that is, a woman who would never be under the power of sin, nor in bondage to the serpent.

Some Catholic theologians have also found Scriptural evidence for the Immaculate Conception in the angel Gabriel's greeting to Mary at the Annunciation, recorded by Saint Luke in Luke 1:28. The English translation, "Hail, Full of Grace," or "Hail, Favored One," is based on the Greek of Luke 1:28, Chaire kecharitomene. The latter word has the verb "to grace" as its root, and the Greek syntax indicates that the action of the verb was passive, fully completed in the past, with results continuing into the future. Put another way, it means that the subject (Mary) was graced fully and completely at some time in the past, and continued in that fully graced state.

The Church Fathers, almost from the beginning of Church History, found further Scriptural evidence by comparing the figure of Eve to the figure of Mary. St. Justin Martyr said that Mary was a kind of New Eve, "in order that the disobedience which proceeded from the serpent might receive its destruction in the same manner in which it derived its origin." (Dialogue with Trypho, 100) Tertullian argued in the same manner, saying, "As Eve had believed the serpent, so Mary believed the angel. The delinquency which the one occasioned by believing, the other by believing effaced." (On the Flesh of Christ, 17) St. Irenaeus declared that Mary became "the cause of salvation, both to herself and the whole human race," because "what the virgin Eve had bound fast through unbelief, this did the virgin Mary set free through faith." (Against Heresies, Book III, cap. 22, 4) St. Jerome coined the phrase, "Death came through Eve, but life has come through Mary." (Letter XXII, To Eustochium, 21)

from en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immaculate_Conception

Here are some more links from Wikipedia just because it's such a great website.

The list of Popes going back to Peter:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_popes

The Fathers of the Church:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_Fathers

Protestants reject Sacred Scripture that was believed by the Apostles and early Church.
www.staycatholic.com/the_canon_of_scripture.htm

Quoted: Do you believe the Bible teaches a physical resurrection, a symbolic one or what?  Is it important for the Christian faith?

IMHO, the Bible is open to interpretation - and interpretation can dramatically influence one's faith.  

If interpreted literally, it seems like the Bible presents a physical resurrection.  However, I cannot rationalize a physical resurrection (or most other miracles of whatever origin).  

IMHO, a physical resurrection of Jesus IS important to those who believe that by belief in his death & resurrection they will go to heaven when they die.    

OTOH, a physical resurrection is NOT important to those who believe that the Bible is more symbolic - and the idea of following certain rules of good living were more important.  

There are some theories suggesting that Paul influenced the stories of Jesus using legends of the time.  Whatever the truth, I am VERY skeptical of any miracles including a literal ressurection.

Quoted: Quoted: Do you believe the Bible teaches a physical resurrection, a symbolic one or what?  Is it important for the Christian faith?   IMHO, the Bible is open to interpretation - and interpretation can dramatically influence one's faith.   If interpreted literally, it seems like the Bible presents a physical resurrection.  However, I cannot rationalize a physical resurrection (or most other miracles of whatever origin).   IMHO, a physical resurrection of Jesus IS important to those who believe that by belief in his death & resurrection they will go to heaven when they die.     OTOH, a physical resurrection is NOT important to those who believe that the Bible is more symbolic - and the idea of following certain rules of good living were more important.   There are some theories suggesting that Paul influenced the stories of Jesus using legends of the time.  Whatever the truth, I am VERY skeptical of any miracles including a literal ressurection.

Why do a handful of you out there just assume the entire Bible, particularily the account of Jesus Christ, is "open to interpretation"!? What's so unclear about the text? The language describing the life and words of Jesus Christ is blatant and in-your-face. You can choose to believe it, or not believe it, but the idea that it is "open to interpretation" is one that is completely made-up and completely not based on historical doctrine or tradition.

This "open to interpretation" theory is brought up to confuse people and to try to stray away from actually reading the Bible for what it says. Are there a handful of books and verses in the Bible that require some degree of interpretation? Yes, the book of Revelation, in particular, is very intense with dramatic images and dream descriptions. However, compared to Revelation, the 4 Gospels' account of Jesus Christ are very clear and easy to read and understand.

Obviously, the resurrection is not important if you think the Bible is some symbolic fairy tail.

Jesus really up from the dead or just a story

Here is what Paul thought:

1 Corinthians 15

15:12 Now if Christ is being preached as raised from the dead, how can some of you say there is no resurrection of the dead?
15:13 But if there is no resurrection of the dead, then not even Christ has been raised.
15:14 And if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is futile and your faith is empty.
15:15 Also, we are found to be false witnesses about God, because we have testified against God that he raised Christ from the dead, when in reality he did not raise him, if indeed the dead are not raised.
15:16 For if the dead are not raised, then not even Christ has been raised.
15:17 And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is useless; you are still in your sins.
15:18 Furthermore, those who have fallen asleep in Christ have also perished.
15:19 For if only in this life we have hope in Christ, we should be pitied more than anyone.

Quoted: Jesus really up from the dead or just a story Here is what Paul thought: 1 Corinthians 15 15:12 Now if Christ is being preached as raised from the dead, how can some of you say there is no resurrection of the dead? 15:13 But if there is no resurrection of the dead, then not even Christ has been raised. 15:14 And if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is futile and your faith is empty. 15:15 Also, we are found to be false witnesses about God, because we have testified against God that he raised Christ from the dead, when in reality he did not raise him, if indeed the dead are not raised. 15:16 For if the dead are not raised, then not even Christ has been raised. 15:17 And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is useless; you are still in your sins. 15:18 Furthermore, those who have fallen asleep in Christ have also perished. 15:19 For if only in this life we have hope in Christ, we should be pitied more than anyone.

Never once does he tie this resurrection to a man named Jesus in Palestine during the time of Pontius Pilate.   Paul talks of a Christ whose resurrection must have occurred with no specific time or place given.  Whether this resurrection occurred on earth or some spiritual plane is up for debate.

Paul's Christology was not as developed as it was 300 years later and not as developed as our's is today.    

Quoted:

Never once does he tie this resurrection to a man named Jesus in Palestine during the time of Pontius Pilate.

Huh?

What are you talking about?

St. Paul does not tie anything about resurrection with the Resurrection of Christ?

Just Who did St. Paul think he was talking to on the Road to Damascus?

Another Jesus?

Or the Jesus of the Gospels?

Lord have mercy!  

Paul talks of a Christ whose resurrection must have occurred with no specific time or place given.  Whether this resurrection occurred on earth or some spiritual plane is up for debate.

Baloney!

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. 1 Corinthians 15:19-20

Paul's Christology was not as developed as it was 300 years later and not as developed as our's is today.

That's just the sort of asinine statement that we see from some 'modernists.'

Surely you are not some sort of modernist, are you boy?

Eric The(WhoKnew?)Hun

Quoted: Quoted: Jesus really up from the dead or just a story Here is what Paul thought: 1 Corinthians 15 15:12 Now if Christ is being preached as raised from the dead, how can some of you say there is no resurrection of the dead? 15:13 But if there is no resurrection of the dead, then not even Christ has been raised. 15:14 And if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is futile and your faith is empty. 15:15 Also, we are found to be false witnesses about God, because we have testified against God that he raised Christ from the dead, when in reality he did not raise him, if indeed the dead are not raised. 15:16 For if the dead are not raised, then not even Christ has been raised. 15:17 And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is useless; you are still in your sins. 15:18 Furthermore, those who have fallen asleep in Christ have also perished. 15:19 For if only in this life we have hope in Christ, we should be pitied more than anyone. Never once does he tie this resurrection to a man named Jesus in Palestine during the time of Pontius Pilate.   Paul talks of a Christ whose resurrection must have occurred with no specific time or place given.  Whether this resurrection occurred on earth or some spiritual plane is up for debate. Paul's Christology was not as developed as it was 300 years later and not as developed as our's is today.

"Never once does he tie this resurrection to a man named Jesus in Palestine during the time of Pontius Pilate. "
Ahhhh, are you serious?

"Paul talks of a Christ whose resurrection must have occurred with no specific time or place given."
Ahhhhh, what makes you say that it MUST have occured with no time or place?

"Whether this resurrection occurred on earth or some spiritual plane is up for debate."
Oh really? Then what support do you have that the text does not say what it says?

Those are pretty bold and far out conclusions you are drawing, Dino. Got any text or doctrine to support your claim?

No, really. He's alive.

I believe it with every fiber of my being.

Quoted: Never once does he tie this resurrection to a man named Jesus in Palestine during the time of Pontius Pilate.   Paul talks of a Christ whose resurrection must have occurred with no specific time or place given.  Whether this resurrection occurred on earth or some spiritual plane is up for debate.

What a load of lunacy. Paul and Peter are contemporaries and most definitely were talking about the same Jesus the Christ, the son of the living God.

Quoted: Paul's Christology was not as developed as it was 300 years later and not as developed as our's is today.

Anybody with a lick of sense should reject your assumption that Christology got better with time as total lunacy.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Jesus really up from the dead or just a story Here is what Paul thought: 1 Corinthians 15 15:12 Now if Christ is being preached as raised from the dead, how can some of you say there is no resurrection of the dead? 15:13 But if there is no resurrection of the dead, then not even Christ has been raised. 15:14 And if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is futile and your faith is empty. 15:15 Also, we are found to be false witnesses about God, because we have testified against God that he raised Christ from the dead, when in reality he did not raise him, if indeed the dead are not raised. 15:16 For if the dead are not raised, then not even Christ has been raised. 15:17 And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is useless; you are still in your sins. 15:18 Furthermore, those who have fallen asleep in Christ have also perished. 15:19 For if only in this life we have hope in Christ, we should be pitied more than anyone. Never once does he tie this resurrection to a man named Jesus in Palestine during the time of Pontius Pilate.   Paul talks of a Christ whose resurrection must have occurred with no specific time or place given.  Whether this resurrection occurred on earth or some spiritual plane is up for debate. Paul's Christology was not as developed as it was 300 years later and not as developed as our's is today.     "Never once does he tie this resurrection to a man named Jesus in Palestine during the time of Pontius Pilate. " Ahhhh, are you serious? "Paul talks of a Christ whose resurrection must have occurred with no specific time or place given." Ahhhhh, what makes you say that it MUST have occured with no time or place? sorry punctuation error.  Paul said it must have occurred, but he specified no time or place.   He could as easily been speaking of a spiritual resurrection that occured on a heavenly plain "Whether this resurrection occurred on earth or some spiritual plane is up for debate." Oh really? Then what support do you have that the text does not say what it says? which part of the text?   Paul's letters say what they say.    Paul didn't write Revelations and the concensus is Revelations was written after  Paul's letters, so they have no bearing on what Paul wrote.   Paul's letter may have influenced the writer of Revelations, but his writings could not have influenced Paul. Those are pretty bold and far out conclusions you are drawing, Dino. Got any text or doctrine to support your claim?

not bold and far out if you have done any reading on the subject, Paul's view of Christ is not as developed as later generations.  Its not a big surprise, later theologians had decades more time to develop theories.  

Historical and textual analysis of the Bible is nothing new, just new to people who haven't looked into it.

If you are interested in a historical discussion on the origins of Christianity there is a good group at groups.yahoo.com/group/JesusMysteries/

Just a heads up, it is not an apologetics list, so posting in that vein if frowned upon, but if you want to  learn about the historical underpinnings of early Christianity, it is top notch.  

Quoted: Quoted: Never once does he tie this resurrection to a man named Jesus in Palestine during the time of Pontius Pilate.   Paul talks of a Christ whose resurrection must have occurred with no specific time or place given.  Whether this resurrection occurred on earth or some spiritual plane is up for debate. What a load of lunacy. Paul and Peter are contemporaries and most definitely were talking about the same Jesus the Christ, the son of the living God. Quoted: Paul's Christology was not as developed as it was 300 years later and not as developed as our's is today.     Anybody with a lick of sense should reject your assumption that Christology got better with time as total lunacy.

better? I never said better, I said more developed.

The Christianity as practiced by Catholics is far more complex than the Christianity I practiced as a  child raised in a Church of Christ family in Texas.   Does that make it better?

eta:  its interesting that you view more developed as better, because I was raised to believe the simpler Christianity as taught by Paul was "better".   I don't believe that any longer, but it is what I was taught.

St. Paul also wrote:

I give thee charge in the sight of God, who quickeneth all things, and before Christ Jesus, who before Pontius Pilate witnessed a good confession; 1 Timothy 6:13

Apparently, St. Paul knew all about the events in the historical trial of Jesus, including His Appearance at the Trial before this historical Roman procurator.

Not exactly 'late 3rd Century embellishment', eh?

Eric The(TriedAndTrue)Hun

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Never once does he tie this resurrection to a man named Jesus in Palestine during the time of Pontius Pilate.   Paul talks of a Christ whose resurrection must have occurred with no specific time or place given.  Whether this resurrection occurred on earth or some spiritual plane is up for debate. What a load of lunacy. Paul and Peter are contemporaries and most definitely were talking about the same Jesus the Christ, the son of the living God. Quoted: Paul's Christology was not as developed as it was 300 years later and not as developed as our's is today.     Anybody with a lick of sense should reject your assumption that Christology got better with time as total lunacy. better? I never said better, I said more developed. The Christianity as practiced by Catholics is far more complex than the Christianity I practiced as a  child raised in a Church of Christ family in Texas.   Does that make it better? eta:  its interesting that you view more developed as better, because I was raised to believe the simpler Christianity as taught by Paul was "better".   I don't believe that any longer, but it is what I was taught.

You seem to have switched subjects from "Christology" to "Christianity" and have lost me (and apparently you) completely.

Quoted:

The Christianity as practiced by Catholics is far more complex than the Christianity I practiced as a  child raised in a Church of Christ family in Texas.   Does that make it better?

That's a whole 'nother thread.

eta:  its interesting that you view more developed as better, because I was raised to believe the simpler Christianity as taught by Paul was "better".   I don't believe that any longer, but it is what I was taught.

It's a true shame that you no longer believe, for it appears that you were taught very well, indeed.

What happened?

Life?

When I consider what occurred in the lives of the surviving Apostles and in the Early Church, it simply underscores the Truth behind this Story.

And makes the troubles I face seem trivial and worthless to even consider.

Come back, thou Prodigal Son!

Eric The(WheneverYouComeToYourSenses,ISuppose)Hun

Quoted: Come back, thou Prodigal Son! Eric The(WheneverYouComeToYourSenses,ISuppose)Hun

anything is possible ETH, you never know.

If it does occur you will have an invite for the fatted calf BBQ

Jesus really up from the dead or just a story?  


Yes.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Never once does he tie this resurrection to a man named Jesus in Palestine during the time of Pontius Pilate.   Paul talks of a Christ whose resurrection must have occurred with no specific time or place given.  Whether this resurrection occurred on earth or some spiritual plane is up for debate. What a load of lunacy. Paul and Peter are contemporaries and most definitely were talking about the same Jesus the Christ, the son of the living God. Quoted: Paul's Christology was not as developed as it was 300 years later and not as developed as our's is today.     Anybody with a lick of sense should reject your assumption that Christology got better with time as total lunacy. better? I never said better, I said more developed. The Christianity as practiced by Catholics is far more complex than the Christianity I practiced as a  child raised in a Church of Christ family in Texas.   Does that make it better? eta:  its interesting that you view more developed as better, because I was raised to believe the simpler Christianity as taught by Paul was "better".   I don't believe that any longer, but it is what I was taught. You seem to have switched subjects from "Christology" to "Christianity" and have lost me (and apparently you) completely.

I'll try a different tact then.

From the Pauline epistles, which is all we have documenting Paul's views on Christ (his "Christology"), we can build an idea of how he viewed Christ.    Taking things from other parts of the Bible that Paul had never seen nor new of doesn't give us a picture of Paul's view, its a pastiche of the views of Paul and the writers of the other books of the NT.

Based on that, the Christology of Paul is plain and simple compared to the Christology of John the Revelator (you build his Christology the same way, but you have to allow for other influences as John the Revelator probably had access to things like at least one of the synoptics and some of the Epistles).  

There could be several reasons for the simpler view of Christ, but one of the views (and the view I think is most probably correct, based upon how other religions have developed) is that his view of Christ was an early view that others built upon over time.

So while his simpler view might be less complex or developed than later views, it is hardly less worthy than the later views.

hope that clarifies it

Quoted: Quoted: Come back, thou Prodigal Son! Eric The(WheneverYouComeToYourSenses,ISuppose)Hun anything is possible ETH, you never know. If it does occur you will have an invite for the fatted calf BBQ

Truthfully, my friend, that would be an event that I would love to attend.

Eric The(Humble)Hun

Quoted: I'll try a different tact then. From the Pauline epistles, which is all we have documenting Paul's views on Christ (his "Christology"), we can build an idea of how he viewed Christ.    Taking things from other parts of the Bible that Paul had never seen nor new of doesn't give us a picture of Paul's view, its a pastiche of the views of Paul and the writers of the other books of the NT. Based on that, the Christology of Paul is plain and simple compared to the Christology of John the Revelator (you build his Christology the same way, but you have to allow for other influences as John the Revelator probably had access to things like at least one of the synoptics and some of the Epistles).   There could be several reasons for the simpler view of Christ, but one of the views (and the view I think is most probably correct, based upon how other religions have developed) is that his view of Christ was an early view that others built upon over time. So while his simpler view might be less complex or developed than later views, it is hardly less worthy than the later views. hope that clarifies it

Sounds like a very serious Gnostic stretch.

How about option B: John, Peter, and Paul are writing to different audiences, such as a Roman (with no OT heritage) having different questions than a Hebrew (who had OT heritage), who had different problems than a Corinthian who had different problems than a preacher (Timothy and Titus). And maybe, just maybe, a historical overview (Acts) would be written and a Prophecy that further developed Daniel's prophecies (The Revelation) to guide the church into the future would be written also.

These guys met, broke bread together, knew what each other were doing, fought on occasion, and encouraged the churches they wrote to to make many copies of their letters and circulate them.  That is why we have the letters.

Their differences in views were not vast enough to include spiritual ressurection and literal ressurection as both being true as Paul made quite clear in 1 Corinthians 15, Peter in 1 Peter 1:3 and 1 Peter 3:21, John in John 20 (see his summation in 21:24-25), Peter and John in Acts 4:2, the author of Hebrews in 6:1-2.

Quoted: Quoted: I'll try a different tact then. From the Pauline epistles, which is all we have documenting Paul's views on Christ (his "Christology"), we can build an idea of how he viewed Christ.    Taking things from other parts of the Bible that Paul had never seen nor new of doesn't give us a picture of Paul's view, its a pastiche of the views of Paul and the writers of the other books of the NT. Based on that, the Christology of Paul is plain and simple compared to the Christology of John the Revelator (you build his Christology the same way, but you have to allow for other influences as John the Revelator probably had access to things like at least one of the synoptics and some of the Epistles).   There could be several reasons for the simpler view of Christ, but one of the views (and the view I think is most probably correct, based upon how other religions have developed) is that his view of Christ was an early view that others built upon over time. So while his simpler view might be less complex or developed than later views, it is hardly less worthy than the later views. hope that clarifies it Sounds like a very serious Gnostic stretch. How about option B: John, Peter, and Paul are writing to different audiences, such as a Roman (with no OT heritage) having different questions than a Hebrew (who had OT heritage), who had different problems than a Corinthian who had different problems than a preacher (Timothy and Titus). And maybe, just maybe, a historical overview (Acts) would be written and a Prophecy that further developed Daniel's prophecies (The Revelation) to guide the church into the future would be written also. These guys met, broke bread together, knew what each other were doing, fought on occasion, and encouraged the churches they wrote to to make many copies of their letters and circulate them.  That is why we have the letters. Their differences in views were not vast enough to include spiritual ressurection and literal ressurection as both being true as Paul made quite clear in 1 Corinthians 15, Peter in 1 Peter 1:3 and 1 Peter 3:21, John in John 20 (see his summation in 21:24-25), Peter and John in Acts 4:2, the author of Hebrews in 6:1-2.

Since we were discussing Paul's views I will only address Paul's statement.

If I die and God raises me (as happened with Jesus and could be used as evidence in the other discussion on unitarianism) he can raise my physically or spiritualy.

Paul never says which, leaving it open to interpretation.  


I am more than happy to admit that later documents clarify things, but they were written by other men and reflect their views, not Paul's.

Never once does he tie this resurrection to a man named Jesus in Palestine during the time of Pontius Pilate. Paul talks of a Christ whose resurrection must have occurred with no specific time or place given. Whether this resurrection occurred on earth or some spiritual plane is up for debate. Paul's Christology was not as developed as it was 300 years later and not as developed as our's is today.

That statement is too broad given the evidence available.  Paul never wrote a systemic treatise on theology.  Rather, what we have are several letters written by Paul to specific Christian churches, such as the Church of Corinth (i.e. Corinthians) and the Church of Rome (i.e. Romans) covering specific issues.  You also have to take into consideration the traditions of the Church, and especially the early Church fathers.  Paul trained many of the founders and leaders of the early church, and imparted his beliefs to them, many of which were never written down.  Now there is no doubt that Christian doctrine evolved over time, but I think it is going a little too far saying that this is in opposition to what Paul himself believed because we do not have a complete picture of what Paul himself believed.

It is a sad thing indeed, to say that Christian Doctrine 'evolved over time.'

What did Christians find wanting in the Gospel of Christ, that they needed to add to His Words?

Lord, to whom shall we go? thou hast the words of eternal life. John 6:68

Forget what man has said, he never gets it right, anyway.

Listen to the Words of Christ, and those of the Holy Spirit, contained in the Scriptures.

Anything more is of Satan.

Eric The(FirstCentury)Hun

Yes I believe that Jesus did rise from the dead and not just his spirit, You shoud note thar Jesus did EAT with His deciples, a ghost can not eat ...Please , Please remember what Our Lord sais unto Thomas.........thank you  Paux Dominu sis semper vo biscum