User talk:70.64.92.32

May 2020
Hello, I'm Joshua Jonathan. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to Post-resurrection appearances of Jesus have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Teahouse. Thanks. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk!  04:34, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
 * If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits referred to above, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so that you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

May 2020
Hello, I just noticed this as the most recent source of the 'background' material the anonymous user deleted. He was in fact right, for what it's worth. I was just remarking on it the patheos blog of James McGrath. It is an obscurely motivated total inversion of the truth, and outright defacement of the page. Paul  in 1 Cor 15 says explicitly that the resurrection of Jesus was a case of the end-times resurrection of the body generally, which has thus begun. The latter idea is utterly alien to anything Greek and has nothing to do with apotheosis. The claim that it is alien to contemporary Jewish ideas is impossible. It is one among many views. It is true it is only emerging in ~200s or maybe 300s BCE - a few centuries before Paul. Its is an element not just of Pharisaical belief in the period, but of Alexandrian Jewry, as we see e.g. from 2 Macabbees. If Josephus is right the Essenes held to an immortal soul doctrine without endtimes resurrection of the body. (The citation of Jesus as affirming the supposed Essene doctrine is truly absurd; he is retailing a standard view that resurrection bodies are different from those we now possess, & thus most of the Mosaic law will have nothing to deal with.) The Sadducees, Josephus thinks, had nothing to do with 'the next life'. The 'background' spam simply leaves out the third group, which according to Josephus taught the views of the many, of the people - namely the pharisees. These were in fact the views held by every known early Christian believer, and Paul claims to have been - and perhaps even to be - a practicing pharisee. It's perfectly nuts.

That the apotheosis of heroes is mentioned is utterly absurd, since the resurrection of the body is supposed to befall all people or all righteous people or all righteous Israel or the like. It has nothing to do with becoming a God.

Everything about the intervention has some strange ideological purpose - as if the writer were a member of a sect that rejects the resurrection of the body - and its content is contradicted by every succeeding paragraph in the article.