another hack "professor" attempts to take down Christianity

[shua]

After reading the article it doesn't seem an attempt to take down Christianity so much as an attempt to make money off of its more gullible adherents by selling them books and getting royalties from Discovery Channel specials. Nope, folks like these don't want to take down Christianity - to do so wouldn't be profitable for them.

What's ironic is that that Chrisitans who protest against this sort of junk archaeology seem not to be too bothered by junk archaeology by Christian apologists out to 'prove' the historiocity of biblical events.

That's actually what Simcha Jacobovici does most of the time.

Really, neither Jacobovici or Tabor are trying to take down Christianity.  Tabor believes the earliest understanding of resurrection didn't preclude physical remnants. While I don't find it persuasive, he makes his case here.

In College took a class on the Apocalypse, and Tabor came one time to speak as a guest lecturer about how the FBI's ignorance of the Book of Revelations and the Branch Davidians theology played a role in the tragedy at Waco.  He seemed like a really bright fellow. Too bad he's succumbed to the sensationalism recently ubiquitous in NT studies.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Really, neither Jacobovici or Tabor are trying to take down Christianity.  Tabor believes the earliest understanding of resurrection didn't preclude physical remnants.

Can you rephrase that - is Tabor arguing that the earliest Christian understanding included a physical resurrection (no body left in the tomb), or is he arguing that they thought Jesus' resurrection left behind his body (thus his bones are buried somewhere)?

---

In College took a class on the Apocalypse, and Tabor came one time to speak as a guest lecturer about how the FBI's ignorance of the Book of Revelations and the Branch Davidians theology played a role in the tragedy at Waco.  He seemed like a really bright fellow. Too bad he's succumbed to the sensationalism recently ubiquitous in NT studies.

hackery has to do with desperate self-deception and lies...it has little to do with intelligence

[shua]

Really, neither Jacobovici or Tabor are trying to take down Christianity.  Tabor believes the earliest understanding of resurrection didn't preclude physical remnants.

Can you rephrase that - is Tabor arguing that the earliest Christian understanding included a physical resurrection (no body left in the tomb), or is he arguing that they thought Jesus' resurrection left behind his body (thus his bones are buried somewhere)?

the latter.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Really, neither Jacobovici or Tabor are trying to take down Christianity.  Tabor believes the earliest understanding of resurrection didn't preclude physical remnants.

Can you rephrase that - is Tabor arguing that the earliest Christian understanding included a physical resurrection (no body left in the tomb), or is he arguing that they thought Jesus' resurrection left behind his body (thus his bones are buried somewhere)?

the latter.

well, that is just laughable, for it is obvious from the entire NT they believed Jesus had a bodily resurrection.  Mat ch28, Mark ch16, Luke ch24, and John ch20 all testify to a EMPTY TOMB.  To say that the 4 gospels don't represent original church belief is to deny that the NT obviously represent uniformity across many languages and geography of mid-first century Christianity.

No doubt there were heresies within the church at the time (which is the reason many of the NT letters were written to specific churches), but the NT represents a uniform message from, obviously, the core of church leadership.  

For example, from Luke-Acts and its wide geographical descriptions, it is obvious the author was someone from the inner circle in the mid-first Century, and from Paul’s writings and there wide geographical reach, it is obvious Paul was in the inner circle….etc, etc, etc.

For anyone to claim that the first Christians did not believe in the bodily resurrection is to disagree with what is known about the early church, from the NT and from non-religious sources (it was NO SECRET that the Christians believed that Jesus bodily rose from the dead).

So, I guess Tabor believes he knows more about original Christian thought than believers who were in the church as well as those non-believers who observed the church.  The guy is simply a joke, and a dishonest joke at that.  And, yes, I consider an attempt to revise church history in order to argue against the doctrine of Jesus’ bodily resurrection an attempt to take down Christianity.

Also, bodily resurrection is nothing new, for it is taught extensively in the OT.  You’d have to deny the vast majority of the OT (kike the Sadducees did) not to understand the OT taught of a bodily resurrection.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

If you want to discuss unorthodox Christianity, then you should OBVIOUSLY create your own thread. And as of now, you are on ignore, so that your idiocy will no longer be OBVIOUS to me.

Your own original post was about someone with an unorthodox interpretation of Christianity, and the thread had already veered into a discussion of unorthodox views on the Resurrection when I joined the thread on the second page.

As for being on ignore, your loss, IMO.  If you want to engage in discussions with people of the same beliefs as you, this forum is not really the place to be.  I don't like talking to an echo chamber, so I like this place, and with you I can generally count on not getting an echo.

I will promise you one thing tho.  No more comments on the horrible graphic designs of the dinner doodles when you post them.  It's clear by now that you won't listen to any criticism (constructive or otherwise) of their format.

I will allow you to draw one more breath to tell me if you believe in the bodily resurrection of Jesus Christ.  If what you say pleases me, I will keep your posts visible.  If not, I will give you more than leave to go, I will send you to where you belong and unite you with Scam of God and Link on ignore.

[True Federalist]

Also, bodily resurrection is nothing new, for it is taught extensively in the OT.  You’d have to deny the vast majority of the OT (like the Sadducees did) not to understand the OT taught of a bodily resurrection.

It has very thin support in the Torah itself, which is the only portion of the OT that the Sadducees held canonical.  Even Jesus' response to the Sadducees on the question of which husband a woman who had through levirate marriage married seven brothers, one after another, would be married to after resurrection (which references Exodus 3:6) does not offer any definitive position on bodily resurrection.  As you point out, there is stronger support for the concept in other places in the OT, but they aren't in the Torah, so an answer based on those would not have been acceptable to his questioners.

I will allow you to draw one more breath to tell me if you believe in the bodily resurrection of Jesus Christ.  If what you say pleases me, I will keep your posts visible.  If not, I will give you more than leave to go, I will send you to where you belong and unite you with Scam of God and Link on ignore.

I must say I was tempted to ignore your 'generous' offer. Yet, like some of your better posts, it did provide me with a reason to explore my own beliefs in depth.  I urge you to either be patient with that exploration, or just skip to the final paragraph.  (Note that in what follows, "mainstream Christianity" includes more than Pauline Christianity, as one can be a non-Paulist and yet believe in resurrection.

The core tenet of mainstream Christian thought is that Jesus, through his crucifixion, acts as an intercessor for our sins with God.  That he was raised from the dead is an obvious requirement for him to do so.  That it was a bodily resurrection at first glance is less so.  Yet if there had been no bodily resurrection, then skeptics such as Thomas would have doubted that Christ had been raised from the dead.  The story of doubting Thomas serves as a way of pointing out that having held doubts need not preclude one from salvation, yet by itself it merely shifts the focus of skepticism. However, belief in a bodily resurrection gave mainstream Christianity a doctrine that distinguished it from both pagan belief, which included belief in an immortal soul, but not in a bodily resurrection), and from gnosticism (both Christian and other types), which held that the flesh was inherently corrupt.

I believe that Jesus was raised from the dead and his body did not remain in the tomb.  Whether it was a bodily resurrection or a spiritual transmutation, I am uncertain, nor am I aware of any doctrinal points where the difference is significant.   Indeed, one interpretation of the Doubting Thomas story of John 20:24-29 is that the manner in which Jesus was raised does not matter. The other disciples were able to believe that Jesus had been raised from death without being certain of its nature.  Of course, if you can demonstrate some point I have overlooked in which the difference between bodily resurrection of Jesus and other methods of having conquered death is essential, please do.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Ok, I just read your full reply….

(Note that in what follows, "mainstream Christianity" includes more than Pauline Christianity, as one can be a non-Paulist and yet believe in resurrection.

The mere fact that you attempt to parse “Pauline Christianity” from Christianity only proves you don’t understand the portions of the NT not written my Paul, for both are in 100% agreement.

---

The core tenet of mainstream Christian thought is that Jesus, through his crucifixion, acts as an intercessor for our sins with God.  That he was raised from the dead is an obvious requirement for him to do so.  That it was a bodily resurrection at first glance is less so.  Yet if there had been no bodily resurrection, then skeptics such as Thomas would have doubted that Christ had been raised from the dead.  The story of doubting Thomas serves as a way of pointing out that having held doubts need not preclude one from salvation, yet by itself it merely shifts the focus of skepticism. However, belief in a bodily resurrection gave mainstream Christianity a doctrine that distinguished it from both pagan belief, which included belief in an immortal soul, but not in a bodily resurrection), and from gnosticism (both Christian and other types), which held that the flesh was inherently corrupt.

I believe that Jesus was raised from the dead and his body did not remain in the tomb.  Whether it was a bodily resurrection or a spiritual transmutation, I am uncertain, nor am I aware of any doctrinal points where the difference is significant.   Indeed, one interpretation of the Doubting Thomas story of John 20:24-29 is that the manner in which Jesus was raised does not matter. The other disciples were able to believe that Jesus had been raised from death without being certain of its nature.  Of course, if you can demonstrate some point I have overlooked in which the difference between bodily resurrection of Jesus and other methods of having conquered death is essential, please do.

Why does this take two whole paragraphs?!  Even from the Gospels we can see that the story Christianity describes is one of an EMPTY TOMB as a result of his resurrection – he had a bodily resurrection.  In fact, the Jews even conspired with the Roman guards to explain the disappearance of Jesus’ body:

Mat 28”11 While the women were on their way, some of the guards went into the city and reported to the chief priests everything that had happened. 12 When the chief priests had met with the elders and devised a plan, they gave the soldiers a large sum of money, 13 telling them, “You are to say, ‘His disciples came during the night and stole him away while we were asleep.’ 14 If this report gets to the governor, we will satisfy him and keep you out of trouble.” 15 So the soldiers took the money and did as they were instructed. And this story has been widely circulated among the Jews to this very day.

So, OBVIOUSLY, the early Christian church believed in the bodily resurrection of Jesus Christ.  And the wide historical, geographical, and linguistically nature of the NT absolutely forces a conclusion that the NT represents the beliefs of the first Christians.  In fact, we have many non-Christian sources to back up the fact that the bodily resurrection of Jesus Christ was widely believed among Christians.

This “professor” is an absolute hack to argue otherwise.  If his university aspired to any standards of honesty, they would fire him.  Case closed. 

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

dang, just overwrote one post with another...but I was able to recover the former from the clipboard:

Also, bodily resurrection is nothing new, for it is taught extensively in the OT.  You’d have to deny the vast majority of the OT (like the Sadducees did) not to understand the OT taught of a bodily resurrection.

It has very thin support in the Torah itself, which is the only portion of the OT that the Sadducees held canonical.  Even Jesus' response to the Sadducees on the question of which husband a woman who had through levirate marriage married seven brothers, one after another, would be married to after resurrection (which references Exodus 3:6) does not offer any definitive position on bodily resurrection.  As you point out, there is stronger support for the concept in other places in the OT, but they aren't in the Torah, so an answer based on those would not have been acceptable to his questioners.

Very thin?  Only because you are blind.

Again, while attempting to be captain obvious, you’ve missed the complete point – Jesus’ answer was NOT attempting to prove a bodily resurrection (the Sadducees didn’t even believe in an afterlife much less a bodily resurrection).  Jesus’ response was simply to prove there was an afterlife (resurrection), it had nothing to do with defining the type of resurrection, bodily or otherwise.  And since his response was only to prove the general idea of a resurrection (afterlife), he answer was a direct hit:

Mat 22:31 “But about the resurrection of the dead—have you not read what God said to you, 32 ‘I am the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob’? He is not the God of the dead but of the living.”

There’s nothing thin about it.

But, if you want to prove a bodily resurrection from just the Torah, you could easily use the example of Joseph’s instructions about his bones (Gen 50:25).  Since the Promised Land is also an analogy to Heaven, Joseph’s instruction about his bones displays Joseph’s faith that God would give departure to the Jews from bondage in Egypt, but also that he believed God would give his body departure from the world through a bodily resurrection.

But, of course, you’re sure to argue with that, as you argue with everything, seeing how you, a Christian, thought even Jesus’ answer was “very thin”.

---

I will allow you to draw one more breath to tell me if you believe in the bodily resurrection of Jesus Christ.  If what you say pleases me, I will keep your posts visible.  If not, I will give you more than leave to go, I will send you to where you belong and unite you with Scam of God and Link on ignore.

I must say I was tempted to ignore your 'generous' offer. Yet, like some of your better posts, it did provide me with a reason to explore my own beliefs in depth.  I urge you to either be patient with that exploration, or just skip to the final paragraph.  (Note that in what follows, "mainstream Christianity" includes more than Pauline Christianity, as one can be a non-Paulist and yet believe in resurrection.

The core tenet of mainstream Christian thought is that Jesus, through his crucifixion, acts as an intercessor for our sins with God.  That he was raised from the dead is an obvious requirement for him to do so.  That it was a bodily resurrection at first glance is less so.  Yet if there had been no bodily resurrection, then skeptics such as Thomas would have doubted that Christ had been raised from the dead.  The story of doubting Thomas serves as a way of pointing out that having held doubts need not preclude one from salvation, yet by itself it merely shifts the focus of skepticism. However, belief in a bodily resurrection gave mainstream Christianity a doctrine that distinguished it from both pagan belief, which included belief in an immortal soul, but not in a bodily resurrection), and from gnosticism (both Christian and other types), which held that the flesh was inherently corrupt.

I believe that Jesus was raised from the dead and his body did not remain in the tomb.  Whether it was a bodily resurrection or a spiritual transmutation, I am uncertain, nor am I aware of any doctrinal points where the difference is significant.   Indeed, one interpretation of the Doubting Thomas story of John 20:24-29 is that the manner in which Jesus was raised does not matter. The other disciples were able to believe that Jesus had been raised from death without being certain of its nature.  Of course, if you can demonstrate some point I have overlooked in which the difference between bodily resurrection of Jesus and other methods of having conquered death is essential, please do.

You obviously don’t know the meaning of “one…breath” – the portion of your answer I bolded would have sufficed.  I will keep you around for an example.

[True Federalist]

Again, while attempting to be captain obvious, you’ve missed the complete point – Jesus’ answer was NOT attempting to prove a bodily resurrection (the Sadducees didn’t even believe in an afterlife much less a bodily resurrection).  Jesus’ response was simply to prove there was an afterlife (resurrection), it had nothing to do with defining the type of resurrection, bodily or otherwise.  And since his response was only to prove the general idea of a resurrection (afterlife), he answer was a direct hit:

Mat 22:31 “But about the resurrection of the dead—have you not read what God said to you, 32 ‘I am the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob’? He is not the God of the dead but of the living.”

There’s nothing thin about it.

No, it is thin if one insists upon a basis derived solely from the Torah.  The quote from Exodus 3 does not include the description of God as the God of the living but not of the dead.  It is an interpretation added by Jesus.

But, if you want to prove a bodily resurrection from just the Torah, you could easily use the example of Joseph’s instructions about his bones (Gen 50:25).  Since the Promised Land is also an analogy to Heaven, Joseph’s instruction about his bones displays Joseph’s faith that God would give departure to the Jews from bondage in Egypt, but also that he believed God would give his body departure from the world through a bodily resurrection.

The former for certain, but there are reasons other than a belief in bodily resurrection for Joseph to have wanted his descendants to carry his bones with them when they left.

But, of course, you’re sure to argue with that, as you argue with everything, seeing how you, a Christian, thought even Jesus’ answer was “very thin”.

Jesus was limited by having to use Torah alone in his efforts to convince the Sadducees, and even then he had to supply an interpretation of the quote he selected.  However, while it is an interpretation consistent with bodily resurrection, that is not the only doctrine it is consistent with if one takes at look at not just the two verses of Matthew you quoted, but the one before it as well.

30 At the resurrection people will neither marry nor be given in marriage; they will be like the angels in heaven. 31 But about the resurrection of the dead—have you not read what God said to you, 32 ‘I am the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob’? He is not the God of the dead but of the living.”

Note that the resurrection Jesus is talking about in verse 30 is not a simple reanimation of the body. Indeed, taken as a whole, the three verses can be seen as a rejection of the importance of a bodily resurrection, for what matters to God is not our dead corpses but our living spirits.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Again, while attempting to be captain obvious, you’ve missed the complete point – Jesus’ answer was NOT attempting to prove a bodily resurrection (the Sadducees didn’t even believe in an afterlife much less a bodily resurrection).  Jesus’ response was simply to prove there was an afterlife (resurrection), it had nothing to do with defining the type of resurrection, bodily or otherwise.  And since his response was only to prove the general idea of a resurrection (afterlife), he answer was a direct hit:

Mat 22:31 “But about the resurrection of the dead—have you not read what God said to you, 32 ‘I am the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob’? He is not the God of the dead but of the living.”

There’s nothing thin about it.

No, it is thin if one insists upon a basis derived solely from the Torah.  The quote from Exodus 3 does not include the description of God as the God of the living but not of the dead.  It is an interpretation added by Jesus.

[facepalm, followed by beating head against keyboard]

Dude, Jesus’ point was NOT weak, for he was pointing out that since Abraham/Issac/Jacab were long dead by the time God said, “ I am the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob” and NOT “I was the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob”...it meant that they were NOT dead to God, thus proving that an afterlife (resurrection) was already a given that was understood by the heroes of faith in the Torah.

Jesus’ point is ironclad, so for you to claim that it is “weak” only shows that you don’t understand how to interpret scripture.

[True Federalist]

The quote from Exodus 3 does not include the description of God as the God of the living but not of the dead.  It is an interpretation added by Jesus.

[facepalm, followed by beating head against keyboard]

Dude, Jesus’ point was NOT weak, for he was pointing out that since Abraham/Issac/Jacab were long dead by the time God said, “ I am the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob” and NOT “I was the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob”...it meant that they were NOT dead to God, thus proving that an afterlife (resurrection) was already a given that was understood by the heroes of faith in the Torah.

Jesus’ point is ironclad, so for you to claim that it is “weak” only shows that you don’t understand how to interpret scripture.

That you think it is "strong" only shows that you don't accept any possibility that an afterlife need not incorporate the old corpus.  Life after death need not require that the old body be reanimated.  Evidence of a belief in life after death is not by itself evidence of a belief in bodily resurrection.  Bodily resurrection is but one possible method of life after death.

As for your verb tense argument, if I were to say that, "George Washington is the founding father of the United States," does that mean that I think George Washington is still living?  (And that leaves aside the issue of how verbs in Biblical Hebrew relate to those of English. Not all languages possess the relatively strong divide between past and present that English does.  Tense is not strongly marked grammatically in Biblical Hebrew.)

[asexual trans victimologist]

Ernest, jmfcst is right about the tense issue (Jesus actually talks about that, by implication, in the 'not of the dead but of the living' part), but obviously doesn't have a leg to stand on re: resurrection with the same old orrery.

[True Federalist]

Ernest, jmfcst is right about the tense issue (Jesus actually talks about that, by implication, in the 'not of the dead but of the living' part), but obviously doesn't have a leg to stand on re: resurrection with the same old orrery.

Jesus' exegesis of Exodus 3:6 is not itself in the Torah, so it can't be used as an argument based on Torah alone, which is what I thought was being discussed.

If you take a look at Young's Literal Translation of Exodus 3:6, you will see: "He saith also, `I [am] the God of thy father, God of Abraham, God of Isaac, and God of Jacob;' and Moses hideth his face, for he is afraid to look towards God. "  The word "am" is in brackets because the original Hebrew has no indication of tense whatsoever, but is supplied because unlike Biblical Hebrew, English is a language in which tense is required,.

[asexual trans victimologist]

Ernest, jmfcst is right about the tense issue (Jesus actually talks about that, by implication, in the 'not of the dead but of the living' part), but obviously doesn't have a leg to stand on re: resurrection with the same old orrery.

Jesus' exegesis of Exodus 3:6 is not itself in the Torah, so it can't be used as an argument based on Torah alone, which is what I thought was being discussed.

Well...yes, certainly that's the case, and if jmfcst thinks that the text of the Torah itself specifies (rather than implies) Jesus' exegesis he's gravely mistaken as to the religious history of the Israelites.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

That you think it is "strong" only shows that you don't accept any possibility that an afterlife need not incorporate the old corpus.  Life after death need not require that the old body be reanimated.

dude, did you not read my previous post?!

Again, while attempting to be captain obvious, you’ve missed the complete point – Jesus’ answer was NOT attempting to prove a bodily resurrection (the Sadducees didn’t even believe in an afterlife much less a bodily resurrection).  Jesus’ response was simply to prove there was an afterlife (resurrection), it had nothing to do with defining the type of resurrection, bodily or otherwise.  And since his response was only to prove the general idea of a resurrection (afterlife), he answer was a direct hit:

Mat 22:31 “But about the resurrection of the dead—have you not read what God said to you, 32 ‘I am the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob’? He is not the God of the dead but of the living.”

[shua]

Jmfsct, the argument Tabor was making was that there was a bodily resurrection, but that it was not a reanimation of his corpse.  Now, I disagree with him on the empty tomb bit in terms of fact, because it is clear from the gospels that there was an empty tomb that was evidence for the resurrection.  But it's not clear that the resurrection (being not the same as Lazarus' resuscitation) would have required an empty tomb.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

As for your verb tense argument, if I were to say that, "George Washington is the founding father of the United States," does that mean that I think George Washington is still living?

I would simply understand your poor choice of tense to mean in the past.

 (And that leaves aside the issue of how verbs in Biblical Hebrew relate to those of English. Not all languages possess the relatively strong divide between past and present that English does.  Tense is not strongly marked grammatically in Biblical Hebrew.)

The name being used for God in Exo 3:6 implies an ongoing reality, therefore by saying "[I am the ongoing] father of Abraham/Issac/Jacob" and placing an implied tense ("I am") is a correct translation, even though "am" is not an "explicit" translation.

But, that is your problem - you can NOT imply anything and view anything implied as being "weak".

Your objection is nothing more than you typically being an ass, a fact made clear in the contrast between your reaction and the reaction of the crowd who listened to Jesus’ argument:

Mat 22:31 “Have you not read what God said to you, 32 ‘I am the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob’? He is not the God of the dead but of the living.”  33 When the crowds heard this, they were astonished at his teaching.

Seems that those non-believers were more astonished by Jesus’ scriptural prowess than you are, even though you claim to be a “Christian”.   But, that’s why you don’t mesh, Ernest…that’s why you reject the NT while claiming to be a Christian.  You’re simply a goat, not a sheep.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Jmfsct, the argument Tabor was making was that there was a bodily resurrection, but that it was not a reanimation of his corpse.

first off, why would I want to parse the reasoning of someone who has been proven to a forger of evidence?!  The man is simply a liar.  He is not intellectually honest.

second, a bodily resurrection without a reanimated body seems totally contradictory, unless he is saying his body was duplicated during resurrection.  But, as you stated, the gospels declare an empty tomb, so the point is moot.

[True Federalist]

the contrast between your reaction and the reaction of the crowd who listened to Jesus’ argument:

Mat 22:31 “Have you not read what God said to you, 32 ‘I am the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob’? He is not the God of the dead but of the living.”  33 When the crowds heard this, they were astonished at his teaching.

Seems that those non-believers were more astonished by Jesus’ scriptural prowess than you are, even though you claim to be a “Christian”.   But, that’s why you don’t mesh, Ernest…that’s why you reject the NT while claiming to be a Christian.  You’re simply a goat, not a sheep.

You draw an implication not demanded by the plain text.  It does not say why the crowd was astonished.  Jesus has just given an interpretation that they likely had never heard of before of a Torah verse, and of a verse they likely had never thought of having any bearing on the concept of resurrection.  No matter what they thought of his words, good or bad, they were likely to be astonished by his novel argument.  I'm tempted to search and see if you've ever written that you were astonished by the views of someone you've disagreed with.  Not that I think they were astonished by disagreement.  Rather, I think the astonishment was due to him arguing that the disagreement between on the Sadducees and Pharisees over bodily resurrection was of no particular importance.

As for previous posts, I admit I didn't parse one of yours as carefully as I should have.

Again, while attempting to be captain obvious, you’ve missed the complete point – Jesus’ answer was NOT attempting to prove a bodily resurrection (the Sadducees didn’t even believe in an afterlife much less a bodily resurrection).  Jesus’ response was simply to prove there was an afterlife (resurrection), it had nothing to do with defining the type of resurrection, bodily or otherwise.  And since his response was only to prove the general idea of a resurrection (afterlife), he answer was a direct hit:

Mat 22:31 “But about the resurrection of the dead—have you not read what God said to you, 32 ‘I am the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob’? He is not the God of the dead but of the living.”

I didn't dwell on the sentence prior to the one I bolded, because I totally disagree with your premise that Jesus proved a general afterlife.  He asserted the idea, but he did not prove it from the Torah with his quote.

[shua]

Jmfsct, the argument Tabor was making was that there was a bodily resurrection, but that it was not a reanimation of his corpse.

first off, why would I want to parse the reasoning of someone who has been proven to a forger of evidence?!  The man is simply a liar.  He is not intellectually honest.

second, a bodily resurrection without a reanimated body seems totally contradictory, unless he is saying his body was duplicated during resurrection.  But, as you stated, the gospels declare an empty tomb, so the point is moot.

I bring it up because it's not something you can just dismiss ad hominem. I think it brings up an interesting point about the nature of resurrection.  For instance, does the general resurrection involve the actual physical materials of all the people who lived and died and may have decomposed?

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Jmfsct, the argument Tabor was making was that there was a bodily resurrection, but that it was not a reanimation of his corpse.

first off, why would I want to parse the reasoning of someone who has been proven to a forger of evidence?!  The man is simply a liar.  He is not intellectually honest.

second, a bodily resurrection without a reanimated body seems totally contradictory, unless he is saying his body was duplicated during resurrection.  But, as you stated, the gospels declare an empty tomb, so the point is moot.

I bring it up because it's not something you can just dismiss ad hominem. I think it brings up an interesting point about the nature of resurrection.  For instance, does the general resurrection involve the actual physical materials of all the people who lived and died and may have decomposed?

ok, I'm going to go on the assumption you want to discuss the mechanics of a bodily resurrection apart from Tabor’s insanity...

Therefore, setting Tabor aside, let me begin and end by saying the mechanics of a bodily resurrection are not relevant to me.  Neither are they spelled out in scripture.

Ezekiel ch 37 paints a picture of bodily resurrection, but parsing the mechanics in order to split hairs is not something I’m going to interested in doing:

Eze 37 The hand of the LORD came upon me and brought me out in the Spirit of the LORD, and set me down in the midst of the valley; and it was full of bones. 2 Then He caused me to pass by them all around, and behold, there were very many in the open valley; and indeed they were very dry. 3 And He said to me, “Son of man, can these bones live?”
So I answered, “O Lord GOD, You know.”
4 Again He said to me, “Prophesy to these bones, and say to them, ‘O dry bones, hear the word of the LORD! 5 Thus says the Lord GOD to these bones: “Surely I will cause breath to enter into you, and you shall live. 6 I will put sinews on you and bring flesh upon you, cover you with skin and put breath in you; and you shall live. Then you shall know that I am the LORD.”’”
7 So I prophesied as I was commanded; and as I prophesied, there was a noise, and suddenly a rattling; and the bones came together, bone to bone. 8 Indeed, as I looked, the sinews and the flesh came upon them, and the skin covered them over; but there was no breath in them.
9 Also He said to me, “Prophesy to the breath, prophesy, son of man, and say to the breath, ‘Thus says the Lord GOD: “Come from the four winds, O breath, and breathe on these slain, that they may live.”’” 10 So I prophesied as He commanded me, and breath came into them, and they lived, and stood upon their feet, an exceedingly great army.
11 Then He said to me, “Son of man, these bones are the whole house of Israel. They indeed say, ‘Our bones are dry, our hope is lost, and we ourselves are cut off!’ 12 Therefore prophesy and say to them, ‘Thus says the Lord GOD: “Behold, O My people, I will open your graves and cause you to come up from your graves, and bring you into the land of Israel. 13 Then you shall know that I am the LORD, when I have opened your graves, O My people, and brought you up from your graves. 14 I will put My Spirit in you, and you shall live, and I will place you in your own land. Then you shall know that I, the LORD, have spoken it and performed it,” says the LORD.’”

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

the contrast between your reaction and the reaction of the crowd who listened to Jesus’ argument:

Mat 22:31 “Have you not read what God said to you, 32 ‘I am the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob’? He is not the God of the dead but of the living.”  33 When the crowds heard this, they were astonished at his teaching.

Seems that those non-believers were more astonished by Jesus’ scriptural prowess than you are, even though you claim to be a “Christian”.   But, that’s why you don’t mesh, Ernest…that’s why you reject the NT while claiming to be a Christian.  You’re simply a goat, not a sheep.

You draw an implication not demanded by the plain text.  It does not say why the crowd was astonished.

You really are blind – they were OBVIOUSLY astonished of how completely and profoundly and concisely he defeated the Sadducees false doctrine…which is why the VERY NEXT VERSE states:

Mat 22:34 “Hearing that Jesus had silenced the Sadducees, the Pharisees got together… “

If you can’t understand that, allow me to parse it for you:  The Sadducees were owned by Jesus’ rebuttal, and seeing they were owned, they were wise enough to shut up and chill – something you’re incapable of even though you are owned on a regular basis.

So, A-G-A-I-N, you, a Christian, are openly disagreeing with:  Jesus’ scriptural argument, the NT view of Jesus’ argument, the crowds awe of the profoundness of Jesus’ argument, and the Sadducees’ ability to shut up with they have lost an argument.

Why exactly do you make such a public ass out of yourself?  I realize my testimony of having received the Holy Spirit after reading a couple of chapters of Paul’s writings directly contradicts your antiPaul/antiNT distorted version of Christianity, but there comes a point where you just need to give it up.

[True Federalist]

I see the silence as coming not because he had shown their doctrine to be false, but because he had indicated that it was irrelevant.

At this point in Matthew, Jesus has made his triumphal entry into Jerusalem and the two major factions, the Sadducees and the Pharisees are trying to see what advantage they can wring out of it.  Instead, Jesus repeatedly demonstrates that he has no interest in their petty politicking.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

I see the silence as coming not because he had shown their doctrine to be false, but because he had indicated that it was irrelevant.

having a doctrine denying an afterlife is NOT irrelevant, nor is there anything in that account that even hints Jesus thought it was irrelevant.

again, you're just making things up as you go along to cloak not being in agreement with the NT.   But, it's rather transparent and pitiful.

This conversation is soo not productive.