All posts by Wintery Knight

https://winteryknight.com/

Bible study: Was the resurrection body of Jesus spiritual or physical?

One of the leading naturalistic attempts to account for Jesus’ death, empty tomb, post-mortem appearances, and the early proclamation of the resurrection is that the disciples had individual and group hallucinations. In this case, the New Testament authors would not have meant that the resurrected body of Jesus was physical. But is that what they recorded?

We’ll look at the words for 1) resurrection, 2) body and 3)

Here’s a quotation from my friend Eric Chabot, from his blog Think Apologetics. He explains why Paul’s use of the word “resurrection” to describe what the other witnesses saw means bodily resurrection.

He writes:

The two words are used for resurrection in the New Testament “anastasis” (rising up) and “egersis” (waking up), both imply a physical body. Furthermore, the use of the word “opethe” (the Greek word for appeared) shows the Gospel writers did believe that Jesus appeared physically. “There you will see (opethe) him” (Matt. 28:7); “The Lord has risen and has appeared (opethe) to Simon” (Luke 24:24). When they used “opethe” here, it means that He appeared physically to them.

OK so all the words they used for resurrection imply a physical body.

But what about the word for body. Do they imply a physical body?

Yes:

So when Paul gives his list of appearances in 1 Cor. 15, the issues becomes whether the appearance to him is the same as it was to the disciples. There is no doubt the post resurrection body of Jesus (after the ascension) had to be somewhat different than the body the disciples saw. Also, whenever the New Testament mentions the word body, in the context of referring to an individual human being, the Greek word “soma” always refers to a literal, physical body. Greek specialist Robert Gundry says “the consistent and exclusive use of soma for the physical body in anthropological contexts resists dematerialization of the resurrection, whether by idealism or by existentialism.” [9] Furthermore, in N.T. Wright’s The Resurrection of the Son of God shows that the Greek word for resurrection which is “anastasis” was used by ancient Jews, pagans, and Christians as bodily in nature.

What about the nature of Paul’s appearance? Was that a hallucination, or seeing some objective reality? Did the people with Paul see or hear anything?

Eric Chabot writes this in another place:

The Bible says, “they heard” the same voice Paul did ” (Acts 9: 7). But they “did not see anyone ” (Acts 9: 7). Notice Paul was physically blinded by the brightness of the light. One way or the other, the experience involved something that was external to Paul. It wasn’t something that was the same thing as a vision that Paul talks about in 2 Cor. 12:1. Furthermore, the phrase “he let himself be seen’” (ōphthē , aorist passive, ), is the word Paul uses in 1 Cor. 15:7 to describe of his own resurrection appearance as the other ones in the creed.

Paul didn’t get a bodily resurrection appearance, but he got an objective appearance that people nearby could see (as a bright light) and hear. His appearance, coming 5-8 years after the appearances to the disciples, should not be seen as overriding their appearances, which were appearances of the bodily resurrected Jesus.

If you want to read something a little more challenging, I found a paper from the Evangelical Theological Society (ETS) from their journal, where it talks more about soma and anastasis. If you want a bit of a challenge, download the PDF and read it. It’s by Kirk R. MacGregor and the title is “1 Corinthians 15:3B–6A, 7 And The Bodily Resurrection Of Jesus”.

Biden’s Supreme Court nominee does not know what a woman is, or when human life begins

I know that secular left Democrats want me to believe that they are very intelligent people. But what am I supposed to think when their best and brightest people cannot define what the word “woman” means, or answer when human life begins? Republican Senators Marsha Blackburn and John Kennedy asked Ketanji Brown Jackson basic questions, but she didn’t know the answers to them.

Here’s Life News first:

Joe Biden’s nominee for the Supreme Court had absolutely no idea when human life begins when Senator John Kennedy asked the easy and obvious question of her during his questioning in today’s Senate Judiciary Committee hearing.

SENATOR: “When does life begin, in your opinion?”

JACKSON: “Senator, um… I don’t know.”

Life News makes an excellent case there that there is no dispute among scholars about when life begins, but this Democrat woman “doesn’t know”. Is this the best Democrat available for a permanent seat on the Supreme Court?

Medical experts and medical textbooks have confirmed for decades that human life begins at conception/fertilization.

“The life cycle of mammals begins when a sperm enters an egg.”

Okada et al., A role for the elongator complex in zygotic paternal genome demethylation, NATURE 463:554 (Jan. 28, 2010)

And again:

“Fertilization is the process by which male and female haploid gametes (sperm and egg) unite to produce a genetically distinct individual.”

Signorelli et al., Kinases, phosphatases and proteases during sperm capacitation, CELL TISSUE RES. 349(3):765 (Mar. 20, 2012)

And again:

“The oviduct or Fallopian tube is the anatomical region where every new life begins in mammalian species. After a long journey, the spermatozoa meet the oocyte in the specific site of the oviduct named ampulla, and fertilization takes place.”

Coy et al., Roles of the oviduct in mammalian fertilization, REPRODUCTION 144(6):649 (Oct. 1, 2012) (emphasis added).

A survey asked over 5,500 biologists when human life begins and 96% of them agree that human life begins at the point of conception or fertilization.

Well, that’s one case where the Democrat elite is ignorant of science. But they are ignorant of more science than that.

What about the definition of the word woman? Republican voters know what the definition of a woman is. We trust the science. You would think that Joe Biden would be able to find a nominee for the Supreme Court who trusted the science. But he can’t.

Daily Wire reports:

“Can you provide a definition for the word ‘woman’?” Blackburn asked.

“Can I provide a definition?” Jackson repeated the question.

“Mmhmm, yeah,” Blackburn confirmed.

“I can’t,” Jackson replied.

“You can’t?” Blackburn asked.

“Not — in this context, I’m not a biologist,” Jackson laughed.

“So you believe the meaning of the word ‘woman’ is so unclear and controversial that you can’t give me a definition?” Blackburn continued to press.

She never answered the question. She doesn’t know.

Previously, I blogged about this judge’s record of permissiveness and lenience towards child pornographers. I noted how Biden, who was accused of sexual assault before the 2020 election, would probably prefer a nominee who thinks that pedophilia is OK.

And before that, I blogged about how Joe Biden, who is white, blocked the nomination of a black conservative woman Priscilla Rogers Brown, to the Supreme Court. His questioning of another black Supreme Court Justice, Clarence Thomas, shows that his motive for blocking Brown was likely anti-black racism.

Homeschooling family from Alabama raises 10 kids who all started college before age 13

Wow, if this is the way that women are going to do marriage now, then sign me up! In today’s post, I’m going to talk about this family from Montogomery, Alabama. Since I’ve been complaining a lot about the public schools lately, I thought it would be good to have a positive article about what a homeschooling success story. And surprise: they’re not all doing easy degrees in English and music.

This is from the UK Daily Mail:

The parents of 10 children who all started college before the age of 13 insist their precocious sons and daughters are ‘not geniuses’ – instead crediting their ‘efficient’ homeschooling regimen for their family’s academic success.

Monalisa Harding, 53, and her husband Kip, 53, who are high school sweethearts from San Jose, California, homeschooled all their children from the same syllabus instead of sending the kids to traditional schools.

They knew they were on the right track after getting each of their first three children through high school by the time they all turned 11, and their younger kids went on to achieve similar success.

Their oldest child, Hannah, went on to earn a bachelors degree in mathematics at the age of 17 from Auburn University, Montgomery in 2004 – making her the first child prodigy.

Last year, their youngest child Thunder, 11, passed his entrance exams to college, joining Lorennah, 13, who is already in her second year.

Those of the Harding siblings who have already graduated from college have gone on to become doctors, architects, spacecraft designers and lawyers.

Now when I talk to women about raising effective children, what I mean is (at a minimum) is that they will finish college or trade school and move out of the house. Ideally, I’d like to see these kids go on the graduate school or specialized training in some trade. The best would be to get some people who can make the Christian worldview look more reasonable in the culture culture. Someone like a William Lane Craig or a Stephen C. Meyer or a Jay W. Richards.

Well, this family has some people doing advanced degrees:

Hannah earned her bachelor’s in mathematics at the age of 17 from Auburn University, Montgomery in 2004 – making her the first child prodigy.

Last year youngest child Thunder, 11, passed his entrance exams to college, joining Lorennah, 13, who is in her second year.

Eight of the brothers and sisters have already graduated by either 15 or 16 – and all went to university before they were 13.

The most recent family graduate Mariannah, 16, is now applying to do her masters in horticulture in January.

[…]Seth Harding, 20, child six of ten, became Alabama’s youngest lawyer at the age of 19 after getting his law degree and passing his professional exams during the pandemic.

If you’re wondering what their worldview is, they’re Christians. Page 2 of their book says this:

First off, we are Christians. We love our Lord Jesus with all our hearts and have dedicated our lives to teaching our children to love Jesus first and others second. If we succeed in this, then we have fulfilled our purpose on this earth.

Second, we are not perfect. We fail all the time. We fight just like everybody else. We yell at each other in anger at times, yet we know how to forgive. We try really hard to forgive as we have been forgiven.

Third, as we said, we are not geniuses. Every member of our family is of average intelligence. There is nothing special about our genes. Our kids have been able to start college by the age of twelve because of two things: the grace of God and the vision to accelerate our teaching methods that we have come to through Him.

Elsewhere in the book:

We believe in a Christian worldview and creation. We believe that there is scientific evidence that supports intelligent design. Uncle Sam will pay for kids to learn only a single theory, which limits diversity of opinion and growth.

Our right to pray in school is being challenged everywhere (and has already been taken away in many places) even though it is still our constitutional right.

And this is how they get around the dangers of kids being pressured / bullied by their same-age peers:

We believe teaching kids in an age-segregated environment is not the most effective way to develop real-life social skills and exposes them to peer pressure. It is not the way the real world works. In the real world, we encounter people of all different ages. We want to teach our kids how to interact with people of all ages. Homeschooled kids are less peer-dependent and better socially adjusted for the real world.

Same-age peers have no demonstrated achievements in the real world. They bully other kids into mistakes like transitioning genders, premarital sex, abortion, drinking, etc. All the emphasis is on stupidity like sports, movies, music, popularity, gossip and looks. I would rather my kids be influenced by adults with demonstrated achievements in ministry and in private sector jobs.

I did a quick search through the book, and there’s a ton of Bible verses and talk about Christianity in it. This is nice. It seems like these days only East Indians, West Indians (like me), Asians and Africans are doing a good job of raising kids who will make a difference. Nice to see some normal white Christians talking the education of their kids seriously. These days, it seems like parents just want to hand their kids off to atheist strangers. Or they just give their kids everything they want so their kids will like them.

Last point. On dates, I always ask young women about their Christian role models, and then immediately follow up by asking how they intend to raise children like their role models. If a woman offered me 10 Christian kids in college before the age of 13, I would take that deal.

I’d like to see women offer men more than just youth and beauty. Every man wants a legacy. And unless a man can work AND homeschool at the same time, he’s going to be leaning on his wife to build him that legacy. Putting the kids in daycare and public schools so they can fumble around with condoms and cucumbers is not valuable to marriage-minded men like me. Marriage is risky and costly for men. We expect a lot. What do Christian women bring to the table? It better be more than “be nice”, “read your Bible” and “pray”. I achieved results, and I expect results from my kids.