Talk:Post-resurrection appearances of Jesus/Archive 1

Markan priority
I think this paragraph (currently beginning "According to the theory of Markan priority") is largely twaddle.
 * The theory of "Markan priority" doesn't say that John derives from Mark; it's only a theory about the Synoptics.
 * It doesn't, so far as I know, specifically say that the resurrection narratives of Matthew and Luke derive from Mark's.
 * If it were conclusively shown that Mark originally had no resurrection narratives, all that would follow is that Matthew and Luke didn't in fact copy theirs from Mark.
 * The paragraph refers to "the heterodoxy" but surely means "the orthodox". Actually, the whole article is riddled with instances of "heterodox" that clearly should say "orthodox"; very strange.

There seems to me to be only one valid point here: that if Mark, the earliest gospel, originally had no resurrection appearances then this would argue against there having actually been any. (Not against there having been a resurrection, since no one disputes that Mark has an empty tomb and a claim of resurrection.)

I am about to replace it with a shorter paragraph containing fewer highly dubious claims. If anyone cares to argue that this is an error, let's discuss.

Gareth McCaughan 02:05, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Appearances in John
Right at the beginning of the article there's what purports to be a comprehensive list of appearances in the canonical gospels. But (1) it describes John's account of Jesus's second appearance to the disciples together, at which Thomas was present, simply as "to Thomas Didymus", and (2) it entirely omits the appearance described in John 21, as indeed does the entire article. This seems like a pretty serious omission. Gareth McCaughan 02:41, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Merge Noli me tangere to ressurection proposal

 * Oppose-These are two distinct topics : the words of Christ and the Ressurection. --Jondel 05:14, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose, per Jondel. As a theme in religious art alone, Noli me tangere could grow into a large article; it has been treated by almost every major painter from Giotto to Veronese. Skarioffszky 15:32, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Original research in the first para
The opening paragraph attempts to reconcile the different lists given by Matthew, Mark, Luke, John and Paul. It says that "the several occasions on which Jesus appeared after the empty tomb, in order, are ..." and then gives a composite list of appearances based on all five sources. However, this reconciliation is original research unless attributed to a source.

As an example, the first paragraph identifies the appearance to Peter reported by Paul with that reported by Luke -- but this identification is pure speculation. We should remove this composite list and replace it with the separate lists given by each source. Grover cleveland 03:06, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Para removed from 1 Cor discussion
This appears to violate WP:SYN since it was placed as a commentary on the 1 Cor appearance, but is based on a reference that does not appear to be addressing that passage. Grover cleveland (talk) 20:43, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

''To those who advocate the Primacy of Peter, this is a hierarchy of how the church will be. Peter, James, and Paul are the most important figures in the Early Christian Church.<REF: The Canon Debate, McDonald & Sanders editors, 2002, chapter 32, page 577, by James D. G. Dunn: "For Peter was probably in fact and effect the bridge-man (pontifex maximus!) who did more than any other to hold together the diversity of first-century Christianity. James the brother of Jesus and Paul, the two other most prominent leading figures in first-century Christianity, were too much identified with their respective "brands" of Christianity, at least in the eyes of Christians at the opposite ends of this particular spectrum. But Peter, as shown particularly by the Antioch episode in Gal 2, had both a care to hold firm to his Jewish heritage, which Paul lacked, and an openness to the demands of developing Christianity, which James lacked. John might have served as such a figure of the center holding together the extremes, but if the writings linked with his name are at all indicative of his own stance he was too much of an individualist to provide such a rallying point. Others could link the developing new religion more firmly to its founding events and to Jesus himself. But none of them, including the rest of the twelve, seem to have played any role of continuing significance for the whole sweep of Christianity&mdash;though James the brother of John might have proved an exception had he been spared." [Italics original]> ''

Mark 16:9-20
Hi,

There may be an inconsistency with the article linked in Mark_16, because that article mentions Irenaeus, a 2th century church father quoting from that questioned ending, so he originally used a manuscript with that ending before the so-called "earliest" manuscripts.

You can find a good discussion on Mark 16 at http://www.new-life.net/faq011.htm. Though the author believes that part is in the original texts, he presents a detailed explanation, why.

Thanks, VATTee 11:57, 5 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Your reference to an online blog is not a Reliable sources. 75.15.196.42 (talk) 05:53, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

This is not the NT Textual Scholarship page. It is sufficient here to note the content in the appropriate place, with a comment that it is uncertain whether Mark 16:9-20 is part of the original text, and a link to the discussion elsewhere. Tb (talk) 13:30, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

appearence to Paul
Unlike the other appearences, there is no indication of bodily anything in the appearance to Paul. It is clear from the NT that this appearance is not like the others--which is only to be expected, given that a narration of it is only given in Acts, after the Ascension. I would like the comment to remain that it was "probably not in bodily form" for this reason. The editor who deleted the clause explains that the Paul took the experience very seriously--which I don't doubt--but saying that the appearance was different in kind does not imply that it was somehow not important. Tb (talk) 22:20, 5 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree with you. But there are probably other sources to expand the section, and one day I will ge to it, or you can do so if you wish. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 00:58, 6 May 2008 (UTC)


 * If you read the accounts in Acts (see the verse listings at Road to Damascus) you can see that there is no bodily appearance, only a voice. 75.0.12.200 (talk) 09:25, 6 May 2008 (UTC)


 * On second thought, looks like Road to Damascus has been dumbed down. There are three accounts, all slightly different:, , . 75.0.12.200 (talk) 09:32, 6 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Of course they're all slightly different, but that's of no huge consequence here. Each of them features bright light and a voice only. Tb (talk) 20:40, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Original research on "not in bodily form"
An editor has repeatedly inserted the gloss that the appearance to Paul was "probably not in bodily form". This addition constitutes original research for several reasons:
 * The phrase "probably not in bodily form", or an equivalent thereof, does not occur in Biblical text of Acts which is the only cited source.
 * The use of the word "probably" shows that this is speculation. Speculation is explicitly banned as Original Research unless it is cited in a published Reliable Source (it's in the very first sentence of WP:OR).
 * Because the Bible is a primary source, it is subject to the restrictions on use of Primary Sources specified in WP:OR. Specifically:
 * anyone—without specialist knowledge—who reads the primary source should be able to verify that the Wikipedia passage agrees with the primary source. Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation.

Could someone with no specialist knowledge clearly tell that the cited Biblical passage states that the appearance was not in bodily form? Clearly, no. Please find a reliable secondary source that states that the appearance was not in bodily form. If one can be found, then it's fine to keep the phrase in the article. If one is not be found, it must be removed. Cheers. Grover cleveland (talk) 06:18, 8 May 2008 (UTC)


 * How about this, "nothing in this report mentions bodily appearance", or words to that effect? Tb (talk) 00:50, 9 May 2008 (UTC)


 * A lot of the other "appearances" listed don't mention any details of how Jesus appeared (for example, the ones in 1 Corinthians)ß. It would seem odd to single out this one. Grover cleveland (talk) 17:00, 9 May 2008 (UTC)


 * 1 Corinthians seems to be referring to the same events described in the Gospels. It's really not radical to think that Luke is making a sharp distinction between pre- and post-Ascension appearances. Tb (talk) 16:24, 10 May 2008 (UTC)


 * This all needs citations.  It's not the role of editors in Wikipedia to make their own judgments on these matters.  See WP:OR. Grover cleveland (talk) 10:46, 11 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I have no objection to adding a tag to the phrase.  I would also be interested: if there is not consensus about retaining it, can we please hear what's wrong with it?  Tb (talk) 00:17, 13 May 2008 (UTC)


 * What's wrong with it is that it is not backed up by citations per WP:V and substitutes the subjective judgment of a Wikipedia editor for those of reliable sources, contravening WP:OR. To put it another way, suppose I disagree and say "actually, I think this appearance was probably in bodily form".  Who is to judge one way or another?  What does "in bodily form" mean anyway?  Grover cleveland (talk) 06:43, 13 May 2008 (UTC)


 * As I said, I have no objection to adding a fact tag, and when I'm back with my library at hand (I'm in the midst of moving across the country and books are in transit), I'll get some appropriate references. So far, however, you're just saying, "suppose I disagree."  Well, so far, nobody actually has.  I haven't substituted judgment for reliable sources: it's not as if there is some reliable source out there contradicting the text I would like to see retained, and there isn't any editor who actually has proposed a problem with it.  All we've got is your insistence that a source would be good: and I agree.  Tb (talk) 20:14, 22 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Technically, in bodily form would have implied that "somehow" some cells (e.g. the cone cells) in the retina of the observer (e.g. St Paul), were activated. Given the loss of sight, the matter is really complicated. My personal guess from reading the Gospels is that St Paul did not get a clear image formed on his retina in that experience, but since I am not a scripture scholar, please do not take my word for it. A more complete web search may yet show more references. Cheers History2007 (talk) 11:04, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

In Universe Style
Hi, a couple of days ago I tagged four articles relating to Jesus with the 'in universe' tag. They have all since been removed so someone probably thought it was vandalism thus removed them. Well it wasn't, and this article is the worst of the four.

There is no mention at all in this article that it is about “what Christians believe”, in fact it is referenced throughout with the bible as if it is the unquestionable truth – a book which most consider, at least in part, fictional. Do not let your way of 'thinking' ruin an article.

Look at any of the pages relating to Greek or Roman mythology; how is this any different? They are even called mythology! The only real difference between Christianity and Greek mythology is some people believe Christianity is true (there are many books on Greek mythology, many of those proclaim themselves to be the truth as well).

Consider this question: if many people believed that Only Fools and Horses was real, would it be correct to remove the 'in universe' tag from the Del Boy article?

--Bobby6610 (talk) 10:39, 5 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Presumably you will also be similarly "in-universe" tagging the articles about works of other writers of about the same time such as, say, Josephus and his works Antiquities of the Jews and The Wars of the Jews. If I recall correctly, doesn't scholarly opinion reckon that the works of Josephus  and of the Gospel writers have comparable (i.e. not wildly different) historical and fictional basis? Let us know how you get on with tagging those Josephus and Jews articles, so we can attempt to improve this one.  Thanks.  Meanwhile, because those articles remain untagged, I'm pulling this article into line with them by untagging.  Hope that's OK. Feline Hymnic (talk) 19:58, 5 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Because other articles do it it's OK in this one too? I guess your right, that's the way to make wiki better.


 * I am not familiar with those things which you mentioned, I am however familiar with this. I was under the impression that the point of a wiki was for people to criticise, and thus improve, the content which they are familiar with; which is what I am doing.


 * It is clear that the reason that you do not want the in universe tag is one of personal bias. If you were brought up by people who believed the holy words of Only Fools and Horses I'm sure you would be pulling down good 'ol Del Boy's tag instead. --Bobby6610 (talk) 10:11, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Noli me Tangere
I beleive what he really said was "noone can touch me now", being within the safe enclosure of the higher realm, with other laws governing him now (enclosure= the grail etc - which can also be explained scientifically when you acheive full herat coherence = christ consciousness). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.230.150.218 (talk) 12:03, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

deleting non-notable, poorly sourced information
I've deleted information throughout the article that doesn't represent a mainstream view and doesn't have a notable, scholarly citation. It's great to recount more than one opinion on the topic, but they need to be notable, cited opinions. Please don't replace this deleted information without providing scholarly evidence that these opinions are notable.

BTW, there's way too much stuff about Mary M in this article. Leadwind (talk) 02:48, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Missing important item.
> The major Resurrection appearances of Jesus are reported in the New Testament <

There is a constant resurrection appearence, it's called the Shroud of Turin. Why no mention of it in the article? 82.131.210.163 (talk) 17:25, 4 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Most other encyclopedias do not consider the Shroud a resurrection appearance. Please check general encyclopedic sources, and it will be clear. History2007 (talk) 21:11, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Change article name?
Shouldn't the article's title be "Post-resurrection appearances of Jesus" or something like that? Editor2020 (talk) 22:01, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Homophobia?
I've just deleted another bit of silliness. The article, until a few minutes ago, claimed that Kastner's theory (that Jesus didn't want to be touched by Mary because he was concerned lest she be tempted by his naked body) implies homophobia on John's part because he doesn't report any such concern about Thomas. That's silly because there are other explanations at least as plausible as homophobia: for instance, perhaps John supposed that Jesus was unclothed immediately after the resurrection but clothed when he appeared several days later to Thomas; or perhaps John supposed that Mary and Thomas were both straight and known to be so. Gareth McCaughan 02:38, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

were both straight and known to be so. I think the word you're looking for is heterosexual Also, it's not too much of a stretch of the imagination that a guy with 12 'close friends' that follow him around all the time might be homosexual. It's not like it's against nature or anything: Homosexuality in animals

Your comment totally ignores the nuances of a master-pupil relationship that is to be found in the middle and far east of which people in the west are totally ignorant. The closest is perhaps the relationship of master and apprentice but even that is a poor comparison. There are numerous such stories of love between men who were not necessarily homosexual/bisexual. Especially in relation to the Sufi relationship between a master (Pir) and the student (Murid) to whom esoteric secrets were imparted. The relationship between Shams of Tabriz and Rumi for example. There is no reason to sexualise it into something rather vulgar (the sexualisation of it, an aftermath of Freud). One would much rather it be left sublime, romantic and related to Agape rather than Eros. SEMTEX85 (talk) 14:06, 5 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Regarding 'it's not too much of a stretch of the imagination', i believe this can be corrected. All the historical evidence we have in the gospel accounts indicate that the Religious authorities were constantly trying to undermine or destroy Jesus and his work. Had he been homosexual, even if not sexually active, this would have been a huge avenue of attack and it is indeed a far stretch to imagine that they either never pursued it, were not aware of it, or the gospel writers simply left it out. WisdomLoveSpirit (talk) 01:21, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Failure to recognize Jesus
The article should mention the failure to recognize the risen Jesus as a somewhat remarkable common feature of most of the gospel accounts. Maybe somebody has a good secondary source for this (I don't). -- 176.94.112.129 (talk) 12:48, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Needs a controversy section.
There are a fair number of secular arguments against the historical reality of the events described on this page. This should at least be mentioned in a controversy section. For example, one might point out how there is zero historical evidence for the '500 witnesses' casually mentioned by Paul, or that there are zero secular sources confirming any of these events. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dgk934 (talk • contribs) 16:58, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
 * A hilarious charge. If there was a "secular" source that mentioned the appearance to the 500, this source wouldn't be secular anymore. Since, you know, they're affirming that Jesus actually appeared Dr. Ryan E. (talk) 20:58, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

Some recent edits
I am transferring this from my personal Talk page. I apologise to user Γαλαδριήλ for saying in an edit summary that he was a "pov warrior"; I see that he is sincere and is trying to improve the article. This is what Γαλαδριήλ said on my page:


 * Hi Pico, I am writing you because of your revert of my edits. Your rationale was that my edits were pov. What really happened is that I think the article was/is pov and I tried to balance the tone. The background section is based on a book by Mark Finney, gives weight to his view and takes it matter-of-factly; I think it must be clear that the source isn't expressing a scientific conscensus, but an author. The section also fails to make a distinction between a post-Resurrection and a post-Ascension appearance, so I introduced the concept, backing it with a citation. Furthermore, another citation was/is misplaced and I had fixed it. And I did check the sources before editing. I don't see why you think my edits were pov. Whether I believe or not in Resurrection etc, I wouldn't express it on a Wikipedia article; on the other hand I believe that the article as it is now is pov. While fixing it, I was careful to not shift the balance the other way, so I think that reverting my edits doesn't fix anything. Please let's agree on how to improve the present pov of the article without shifting the weight. Γαλαδριήλ (talk) 07:46, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Γαλαδριήλ wishes to amend this paragraph, the last in the section titled Background:


 * The experiences of the risen Christ attested by the earliest written sources – the "primitive Church" creed of 1 Corinthians 15:3-5, Paul in 1 Corinthians 15:8 and Galatians 1:16 – are ecstatic visions of the soul alone; the stress on a physical resurrection begins with Mark, with the empty tomb and the women witnesses (Paul and the "primitive creed" of 1 Corinthians mention neither).[2][12][Notes 1] This development can be linked to the changing make-up of the Christian community: Paul and the earliest Christ-followers were Jewish, and Second Temple Judaism emphasised the life of the soul; the gospel-writers, in an overwhelmingly Greco-Roman church, stressed instead the pagan belief in the hero who is immortalised and deified in his physical body.[4] In this Hellenistic resurrection paradigm Jesus dies, is buried, and his body disappears (with witnesses to the empty tomb); he then returns in an immortalised physical body, able to appear and disappear at will like a god, and returns to the heavens which are now his proper home.[13]

This is his proposed replacement - a new section or subsection with a new subheader, "Possible development of the tradition":


 * ''The experiences of the risen Christ attested in the earliest written sources are Pauline Epistles (the "primitive Church" creed of 1 Corinthians 15:3-5, Paul in 1 Corinthians 15:8 and Galatians 1:16) that show a widespread belief of post-Ascension ecstatic visions of the soul alone; The Conversion of Paul the Apostle is attributed to such a post-Ascension vision of Jesus (Christophany).(Newman|1992:"The thesis defended below can be simply stated: the Damascus Christophany is the interpretive "origin" of Paul's ... That is, the vision of the resurrected and exalted Jesus, the Christophany, was the catalyst for the apostle's ...")


 * According to Mark Finney the stress on a physical resurrection begins with Mark, with the empty tomb and the women witnesses (Paul and the "primitive creed" of 1 Corinthians mention neither). According to Finney, this development can be linked to the changing make-up of the Christian community: Paul and the earliest Christ-followers were Jewish, and Second Temple Judaism emphasised the life of the soul; the gospel-writers, in an overwhelmingly Greco-Roman church, stressed instead the pagan belief in the hero who is immortalised and deified in his physical body. In this Hellenistic resurrection paradigm Jesus dies, is buried, and his body disappears (with witnesses to the empty tomb); he then returns in an immortalised physical body, able to appear and disappear at will like a god, and returns to the heavens which are now his proper home.

These are my objections to the proposal: I invite Γαλαδριήλ and others to comment. I welcome our new colleague, and our aim is to produce a good article. PiCo (talk) 07:34, 31 May 2017 (UTC) Ps. It occurs to me that Γαλαδριήλ might be wanting to make a distinction between post-Resurrection and post-Ascension appearances. The sources don't generally do this.PiCo (talk) 07:37, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
 * 1) The first paragraph is almost incomprehensible. This is, I think, because Γαλαδριήλ does not have English as a first language. It could be fixed.
 * 2) The quotes in the last sentence of that paragraph (from a respectable source, Cary Newman) are in too truncated to be meaningful. I've looked up the source, and Newman seems to be talking about the origin of St. Paul's specific Christology in his visionary experience on the road to Damascus. I have no objection to Newman as a source, but I just can't see the point Γαλαδριήλ believes this makes vis-a-vis our article.
 * 3) The final paragraph adds "according to Finney" to everything sourced from Finney. This is unacceptable as a general rule of editing - we simply can't put "according to so-and-so" in front of every sentence in Wikipedia. We use it when there are two opposing points of view and both need to be included - "according to A, this, and according to B, that." In this case, the views are generally accepted and there are no major opposing views, at least in scholarly circles. If Γαλαδριήλ can supply them then of course we can edit the article accordingly. (Just to remind, the view expressed is that before Mark the appearances of Jesus were visionary, they were seeing Jesus as Crist in glory, as we see with Paul, and it's only in the later gospels that Jesus becomes physical and tangible).
 * Thank you User:PiCo for the invitation and the will for improvement. Let's start from the simple stuff: one of the citations is misplaced. The reference of April De Conick mentions the early church belief of mystical and visionary experiences of Jesus but it doesn't follow Finney's reasoning that the corporeal resurrection is a later fabrication; the location it is placed in the text along with one of Finney's, makes it seem like supporting his reasoning while it doesn't. It must be placed to the appropriate location.
 * Secondly, I judge that the intro section and the specific "Background" section is based on Finney, giving a matter-of-fact weight to the view that the resurrection is unhistorical, a "prequel" of sorts fabricated after the early church Christophanies. It is like going to the article God and add a citation from Dawkins's book in the intro section disclaiming that God as presented in the article is a fictional entity; of course that article covers several views, including the atheist view, and there is a section on "God", but that article doesn't take a position, which I think is the issue with the article here. Finney's reasoning and conclusion actually raises the matter of the historicity of the resurrection and I would propose its move to a "Resurrection of Jesus" section.
 * I now understand that an author's name isn't normally included in the prose. I put Finney's name to reduce the matter-of-factly tone and give the text a sense of balance; it is an author's opinion, not a universally accepted scientific truth.
 * You are right that the first paragraph isn't written well; it is a result of me trying to improve it while trying to keep the same structure without removing information, and saving the text prematurely. I hope it makes enough sense so that we can agree on how it should be written. Γαλαδριήλ (talk) 19:09, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I've reworked the first sentence of the 3rd para ta make it closer to what De Conick and Finney say. I don't have time to do any more just now But I'll come back PiCo (talk) 06:49, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Hey User:PiCo, just wondering how we could proceed from here. I hope you see my reasoning how the article is biased towards Finney. Γαλαδριήλ (talk) 08:25, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

-

27 Oct 2020

PiCo's responses to Galadriel are completely confused.

"In this case, the views are generally accepted and there are no major opposing views, at least in scholarly circles. If Γαλαδριήλ can supply them then of course we can edit the article accordingly. (Just to remind, the view expressed is that before Mark the appearances of Jesus were visionary, they were seeing Jesus as Crist in glory, as we see with Paul, and it's only in the later gospels that Jesus becomes physical and tangible)."

There are two questions: a) what actually happened with the first believers in 'resurrection', what is kind of 'experiences' are the source of their conviction and Paul's? and b) what doctrine did they affirm on the basis of these 'experiences'?

The whole "Background" section is shocking and a scientific scandal as it stands -- effectively spam produced from 1) the above totally elementary confusion and 2) the associated assimilation of affirming the resurrection of a special unfamiliar form of body and rejecting resurrection in favor of immortality of soul, paired with 3) the deeply incoherent sub-minority idea that the gospel view is apotheōsis when they speak of resurrection, anastasis, in standard Jewish koine - that is, in accordance with with a widespread but not universal Jewish view later universalized by the rabbinical movement - a view that is intrinsically about people generally. anastasis and apotheosis are simply contradictory, the former is supposed to happen to one's great uncle. There are many curiosa in the development from Paul through the various gospels, but nowhere in NT is anything said of Jesus' resurrection that the writer would not also affirm was going to happen even if he was a righteous nobody and died a natural death.

Let us look again

"In this case, the views are generally accepted and there are no major opposing views, at least in scholarly circles. If Γαλαδριήλ can supply them then of course we can edit the article accordingly. (Just to remind, the view expressed is that before Mark the appearances of Jesus were visionary, they were seeing Jesus as Crist in glory, as we see with Paul, and it's only in the later gospels that Jesus becomes physical and tangible)."

Yes of course serious and secular scholars do not think that the early believers or Paul bumped into Jesus after he had died. One has to construct a theory of the matter, whether in terms of ′visions′, lies, whatever. There is then, as I said, the question what propositions they were affirming on the basis of these experience. There is no evidence earlier than Paul, but his so-called conversion is quite early and no scholar doubts that he affirmed what others had on these points. Paul speaks of the resurrection of Jesus as resurrection. That is, he uses the standard pharisaical category of a general resurrection of the dead, or the dead of Israel, or the righteous dead of Israel or the like. This same category is of course employed in e.g. 2 Baruch and in the earliest signs of the rabbinnical movement in Mishnah. Paul affirms that the resurrection of Jesus JUST IS the general resurrection of the dead we find in these writers. It has started.

That with the eschatological resurrection one's body is novel and different - that it is on many views we can find pneumatic or subtle or luminous or glorious - stands to reason within such a framework. The thought provides zero ground for assimilation of resurrection to immortality of soul. When Paul speaks of the dead in Christ they are exactly not resurrected, though they have whatever there may be of a detached 'soul', in which his interest seems to be about nil. If anything he seems to think psuchē and flesh and blood are the same - as in the contrast between the first Adam and 'ho eschatos Adam'. When Paul says those living at the parousia will be 'changed' he is not saying that they will die and experience liberation of the soul from the coarse body. They - i.e. their bodies - will simply be transformed. As KJV has 1 Cor 15:52 for the trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed. Since Jesus actually died, he thinks that he falls into the '[has been] raised incorruptible' category unlike the Paul's hearers whom he supposes will experience the parousia and therewith 'change' without dying.

One could go on but the whole spam effort continues in forcing on the reader the idea that the later gospel accounts are imports of Roman 'apotheosis'. The consensus of secular scholarship does not doubt that the gospels affirm the eschatological general resurrection and that the resurrection of Jesus was the 'first fruits' and beginning of the process and that this is why it is called resurrection. How could it be apotheōsis if it's for everyone? The naive reception of Finney as if he were not completely eccentric is especially comical.

The claim that eschatological resurrection was an eccentric view in late Second Temple period is very far from consensus: it was affirmed by the pharisaical teachers who represented, as Josephus says, the opinion of the people. Pious writers are of course often wrong when they affirm it's 'what the Jews thought' same as when they affirm universal expectation of a messiah. It would indeed have been worth pointing out that the Essenes seem to have rejected resurrection in one way while the Zadokites did in another. (It is often affirmed that the former are a priestly breakaway fraction of the latter, indeed with the first pre-Dead Scrolls appearance of part of the Damascus Document it was characterized as proof of feverish Zadokite sectarians.) Chief sequoya (talk) 15:41, 27 October 2020 (UTC)Chief_sequoya