Perhaps they believed Jesus was a god and so could survive the death of his body.

Whatever their exact beliefs, it is clear that their model of resurrection for themselves involved a corpse rising.

Paul attacks this and tells them they will be resurrected in the way Jesus was. (and so become a life-giving spirit)

It took me some digging around through your links to grasp what you were getting at — am I correct in understanding that you argue that the fact Paul felt it necessary to teach on the resurrection in a couple of his pastoral letters demonstrates that early Christians didn’t believe in it, therefore Wright’s argument is flawed?

I’m not altogether convinced.

Out of interest, how did you come to be here?

How exactly does that possess ‘unrivalled power’ to explain ‘historical data’ about ‘early Christianity’ which is that early converts to Jesus-worship simply scoffed at the idea of God choosing to raise a corpse, and so denied that they would be resurrected, although they believed Jesus was alive.

Paul attacks them for not realising that they would be resurrected in the same way as Jesus was, and for having a model of resurrection which involved a corpse rising from the grave (except for Jesus, who they believed was still alive, despite their scoffing at the idea of a corpse rising)

All this is discussed on my resurrection debate, which is open to all-comers.

Comments are always welcome. The Christians are getting hammered.

Bring on Wright!

‘For we know that if our earthly dwelling, a tent, should be destroyed, we have a building from God, a dwelling not made with hands’ – Paul, who preached the destruction of the body, not its salvation.