Toto

He wanted to link to their prestige.

This flies in the face of the words themselves. You are trying to say that Paul thinks a spiritual body is material in the sense of modern physics? I think it is more likely that Paul thinks of spiritual beings as having a spiritual or 'ghostly' essense, like the plasma that 19th c mediums tried to connect with - something we don't believe in now.

Pneumatic refers to enlightenment only in the context of a pneumatic person, not in every use of the term.

And spiritual bodies are not material, natural bodies. You are being anachronistic in confining the choices to those recognized in modern times.

Why are you bringing the idea that the material world is evil into this? It does not appear to be central to Paul's thinking, although there are hints of it.

This seems to refer to spirituality giving life to someone who is metaphorically 'dead' through sin. But if the spiritual body is so powerful, why would one want to keep the mortal body after it has served its purpose?

Ha ha. Very funny. No, he's not. He's obscure.

If there is any parallel between what happened to Jesus and what happens to Paul's converts, it is that both involve a spiritual transformation. The gnostics, of course, thought that the crucifixion and the raising from the dead were metaphors for an inner spiritual transformation.

Rom 8 talks about living life in the present, enduring "present sufferings," avoiding our sinful nature while waiting for the "sons of God to be revealed." It does not describe the raising of the body after death. That is addressed in 1 Cor 15:

The natural body is contrasted to the spiritual body, and flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God. This sounds much clearer to me than Rom 8. The resurrected body will not be a material body.

This pretty much exhausts the time I have to invest in this subject. Perhaps Koy will come back and joust with you, or you can get back to the ending of Mark.

Layman

What prestige would that be?

No, actually, its towards a better understanding of Paul's words that we come to when we recognize this point.

I don't have any idea what Paul's views were on "modern physics." If any.

Paul did not say "spiritual beings." He said spiritual "soma."

You are dodging the point. Paul refers to spiritual food. Spiritual drink. And a spiritual rock. But he clearly means that all of these things were material items. So, when Paul again uses the same term to refer to a spiritual "soma" (body), he is speaking of a material object.

No, I recognize how Paul uses the term. And I understand that "soma" is, by definition, a reference to a material body.

Because gnostics cannot tolerate any continuity between the physical world and the spiritual world. Physical = bad. Spiritual = good. In Jewish thinking, the physical world is fallen, but it was created good. God's restoration is needed to redeem the physical world.


No, the verse is clearly linked to resurrection. It is because the body will be resurrected that it is important how it behaves in the present.

But that is not what Paul says. He specifically refers to "mortal bodies" and links them to Jesus' resurrection.

Oh please. As if Paul viewed his letter writing as a catalouge of his thoughts on various subjects, only covering each one once. Again, very anachronistic and naive.

Follow the thoughts and tenses.

Verses 9-10 speaks to the present: "But you are not in the flesh, you are in the spirit. Any one who does not have the Spirit of Christ does not belong to him. But if Christ is in you, although your bodies are dead because of sin, your spirits are alive because of righteosness."

Note all the references to the present tense. Christians ARE in the spirit now. Their spirits ARE alive because of Jesus. But, their bodies ARE dead, despite that.

Contrast that with verse 11: "If the Spirit of him who raised Jesus from the dead dwells in you, he who raised Christ Jesus from the dead will give life to your mortal bodies also through his Spirit which dwells in you."

Paul shifts tenses and notes that, even though we currently have "dead" bodies, the resurrection of Jesus gaurantees that we WILL have new mortal bodies, infused with his Spirit. Though Christians still have a dead/mortal body despite the indwelling of the spirit, we WILL have a new life brought into our mortal bodies at the resurrection.

How this sounds to you is pretty much irrelevant. The Christians living during Paul's time had alive spirits but still had dead bodies. But there was coming a time ("WILL") when Jesus' resurrection would effectuate the same effect in Christians, and the "mortal body" would be infused with the Spirit.

And whether it is natural or spiritual, you are stuck with the Greek term "soma," which means BODY. It does not mean "being." It's never used to describe a noncorporeal entity.

As for "flesh and blood," as I explained, this is shorthand for humanity--which is in a fallen state. Pheme Perkins describes it as "a Semitic expression for human being (as in Gal. 1:16). It often appears in contexts that stress creatureliness and mortality." Resurrection: New Testament Witness and Contemporary Reflection, at 306.

As usual you leave much unaddressed. Such as the verses clearly referring to the "transformation" or "change" of our present bodies at the resurrection, clearly indicating a continuity between our former and future "soma." You also failed to back up your statement that other commentators read "soma" to mean a noncorporeal form. Could you give me examples of where "soma" was so used? Or examples of anyone prior to the second century using the term "anastasis" (resurrection) to refer to what you seem to suggest is a purely "spiritual resurrection"?

Layman

Paul's belief in an intermediate spiritual state between death and the resurrection precludes his belief in a nonmaterial resurrection

When Paul speaks of the resurrection, he is clearly envisioning a future event. It is not something that happens to a person when he or she dies. It is a specific point in the future that applies generally, to all who have died. Indeed, every time Paul speaks of the resurrection of the dead he always speaks of it as a future event.

However, Paul also believed that immediately upon the death of a Christian, that person went to be with Jesus--apparently in a purely spiritual state. This is made most clear when he considers his own position as he if facing death.

Phi 1:21-24:

Paul clearly believes that, immediately upon his death, he will "be with Christ."

These are two different doctrines. First, Christians, or at least their spirits, will immediately go to be "with Jesus" immediately upon the death of the believer. Second, Christians, at the end of time, will be raised from the dead.

E.P. Sanders explains the two different doctrines, and their chronology, concisely:

Paul, at 31-32.

If all Paul means by 'resurrection' is the escape of the spirit to be with God, then how can he envision this as happening immediately upon the death of the believers and also at a definite future event--the final judgment? Obviously, he cannot. The only solution is that Paul believes that the final resurrection is distinct from the intermediate state of spiritual life after death. In other words, the resurrection cannot be merely a spiritual occurrence. That has already occurred. The spirit has already gone to be with Jesus. The resurrection to come is, therefore, a bodily one.

Toto

Soma has the meaning of "body", but does not appear to be limited to human bodies in the most literal sense:

from here and other places.

In COMMENTS ON THE McFALL-TILL DEBATE by Earl Doherty, there is this comment, which agrees with what I think the straightforward reading of the words mean:

and this, which relates to Layman's attempt to call the spiritual body a merely transformed physical body:

Doherty goes on to discuss the ending of Mark (to bring this back to the topic), and gives an argument for there being no resurrection in Mark - that no such traditions were circulating when Mark was written:

Koyaanisqatsi

Well, upon futher investigation, I think we're all wrong on this one. I think the simplest explanation is that Paul thinks that those who are "of heaven" (i.e., heavenly bodies) are made of a material that is different than the material of flesh and blood we are made of and further, that the dead burried on earth remain in their graves intact; that there is no such thing as an immaterial spirit.

The question comes down to whether or not Paul is speaking metaphorically or literally (and, what points are metaphorical and what points are literal), as well as (and more importantly), what is Paul's reason for going into all of this detailed delineation (as I get to later)?

Let's go to Young's Literal Translation to shed some new, more literal light :

A grain is certainly corporeal, but is this meant to be a metaphor? Probably not. Paul is likening the physical, earthly body in a grave to a seed that will grow into something else equally physical and equally earthly.

A clear and unmistakable delineation of many different kinds of material bodies; that all flesh is not the same kinds of flesh. So, evidence here, at least, that Paul believes heavenly bodies are made of some kind of material quality unlike any other material quality, but certainly not the same material quality as an earthly body.

So, do we have literalism, metaphor, or simply a concept of a material heavenly body that is unlike any material known to us?

Let's look further for a clarification in a more literal sense (even though it is difficult to weed out what is metaphor and what is literal).

Ok. So, we have the repetition of the "sown" metaphor of the seed; evidence that Paul is claiming that the dead are put into the ground as earth-like bodies, but will be raised as heaven-like bodies.

Still corporeal? Not as we know it, because, again, Paul has made a clear distinction that the kind of material body one finds in heaven is not the same kind of material body one finds on earth (all flesh is not the same flesh).

But is this literal or metaphor and is Paul deliberately trying to blur the distinction for a particular goal? Let's go further.

All of which is metaphor, clearly. But then we get this:

Ok, again, clear delineation of the kinds of bodies, but no delineation of what kind of material is a "spiritual" body made out of and more bluring of the line between literal and metaphor. To what end? In a minute...

Well, now we have more very clear delineation of earth to earth, heaven to heaven and that man was born of nature and had spirit "breathed" into him (referrence to Genesis) and that this "life-giving spirit" is the "Lord out of heaven."

Clear distinctions, but still no definition of the kind of material (other than to repeat "spiritual") that the "Lord of heaven" is made of.

We shall bear the image of the heavenly, but does this mean we shall be made of the same stuff as the heavenly bodies are made of (in Paul's concept)?

No. Heavenly bodies are not made of the same kind of flesh and blood that we are made of. So what's Paul's point?

Here's the key to what Paul was saying. "We indeed shall not all sleep," meaning that the people Paul was talking to will not die. Recall what he said in verse 6:

Is this literal or metaphorical? If literal, what the hell does that mean? They fell asleep?

Further clarification is given:

Note the clear delineation between the dead and the "we" who shall not sleep and compare it with what he said about those who are still among us as opposed to those who have "fallen asleep."

The change is going to happen to those who are still alive (present tense) after the dead are raised incorruptible, meaning the material bodies that are burried shall be changed from corruptible (material) to incorruptible (spiritual, or, better, like those in heaven, but still bodies of some kind, just not made of flesh and blood).

No one (in his lifetime) will ever die again. The material (corruptible) will be rendered incorruptible; it won't die. The dead bodies in the earth will likewise be raised up incorruptible. Same kinds of bodies, made of flesh and blood? No. Still corporeal, yes, but with a significant alteration; corporeal but not corruptible. No decay.

Like the kinds of bodies Paul thinks exist in heaven. Not made of flesh and blood (since that is corruptible), but made of something else; something that is like heavenly bodies in that it does not decay; it does not die.

But this is to happen, according to Paul, to those who have not yet "fallen asleep;" to them ("we," in the immediate, inclusive sense).

When will it happen? When the last trumpet is heard in their lifetimes; before they have fallen asleep.

Clear indication that a metaphor is being used, at least in regard to "sleep", but more importantly, the whole thrust of what Paul is saying is that there won't be a bodily or spiritual ascension into heaven; rather the change will be to the material structure of bodies on earth. The dead will come out of their graves as incorruptible (immortal) material bodies on earth and those in Paul's lifetime who are not dead, will likewise be changed into these incorruptible (immortal) bodies, just like the kinds of incorruptible bodies in heaven; made of the same kind of incorruptible material as heavenly bodies, in order for Paul and his followers to cheat death.

Note how he doesn't say anywhere that "they will be raised up to heaven." They are to remain on earth as changed bodies, because heaven is for heaven born and earth is for earth born and man was not born of heaven, so man will not go to heaven. Instead, the kinds of bodies that exist to his mind in heaven will be the kinds of bodies God will change them into--before they sleep--when the last trumpet sounds in their lifetimes.

So, again, what is this all leading up to? Why the bluring of distinctions and elaborate deconstruction, clearly delineating what kinds of bodies we have on earth and what kinds of bodies they have in heaven, without ever defining exactly what a heavenly kind of body is made of (other than to say it is "incorruptible" and that it will not be made out of flesh and blood; i.e., the same kind of material their current, unchanged bodies are made of)?

Paul is trying to communicate the message that our corporeal bodies will be changed into incorruptible bodies like the ones that are of heaven, because theris are of the earth and therefore part of the earth in order for his followers (who have not yet fallen asleep) to cheat death.

Death, where is thy sting? That's the whole point to all of this; that god will change their bodies (while not "'asleep") as well as raise the dead out of their graves to live immortally on the earth.

This was to happen in his lifetime--before they go to "sleep"--if we are to take all of this literally.

So what does all of this mean? That Paul was trying to convince his followers that none of them would die, not in a metaphorical sense, but in a very real and tangible sense. Their bodies are going to be changed from "flesh and blood" corruptible, to some sort of undefined non-flesh and blood bodies made out of whatever material heavenly bodies are made out of.

The bluring of the metaphorical and literal then makes sense, because he's preying upon a different concept all together--that his followers believed that a "spritual body" was not immaterial, but made of a different kind of material than is found on earth; an incorruptible material that is not like flesh and blood (corruptible)--in order to get his followers to think that they will not physically die ever again.

So, I agree with you Layman, in the sense that Paul believes (or at least the audience to whom he was speaking believes) that physical bodies will rise out of their graves transformed into a new kind of material body--without flesh and blood--that is like a heavenly body (whatever that is supposed to be), but that the purpose is not to ascend into heaven, rather the purpose is to live on earth as earthly beings, but in incorruptible new bodies, thereby cheating death.

But the problem comes when we turn to Luke 24, where we have a confirmation of sorts, as well as a contradiction.

Here we have a Jesus who is made of flesh and bones (and not a spiritual body; directly contradicting what Paul went to great lengths to clearly delineate) who then bodily ascends into "the heaven."

So we have Paul going to great lengths delineating the differences between what is a spiritual body (not flesh and blood, but still material of some kind; i.e., not immaterial) and what is an earthly body and what kind of transformation will happen (flesh and blood into not flesh and blood, but something still material), using Jesus rising from the dead as proof of what he is talking about (in order to convince his audience that they are not going to fall "asleep" before their change will occur, thereby cheating death; removing death's sting).

Yet, we have Jesus telling us that his transformation is one of flesh and bones, offering them to touch him to see he is just like they are and not spirit (immaterial), and then, most contradictory of all, his flesh and bones body then gets borne up into heaven.

In Luke, Jesus clearly delineates that a transformed body is made of flesh and bones and not an immaterial spirit. For proof, Jesus tells them to touch him and feel him to see that his body is just like their bodies.

So where did the concept of a spiritual (immaterial) body come from for Luke's Jesus and why does Jesus' flesh and bones body ascend into heaven?

Paul's lesson to his audience is that their bodies will be transformed into something other than flesh and blood (corruptible), and will remain on earth as immortal, incorruptible bodies of some kind (like spiritual bodies in heaven), yet Jesus' lesson is that they will come back to live as flesh and bones just like they are now and not as a spirit or "ghost," presumably as they exist in heaven.

What else does Jesus' declaration that he is not a spirit mean other than an immaterial being of some kind? Why does he instruct his followers to touch his "flesh and bones" so that they can tell he is not immaterial if there is no such thing as an immaterial being, either on earth or in heaven?

If Paul is right, then there is no such thing as an immaterial being, either on earth or in heaven. Heavenly "spiritual" bodies are still material, just not made of flesh and blood the way we are, but there is still a material quality to them that is incorruptible. So what the hell is Jesus talking about in Luke and which one is right?

Paul (no immaterial beings anywhere)? Jesus/Luke (immaterial beings somewhere that they all think Jesus is, until he tells them to touch him and see that he is flesh and bones just like they are; i.e., material)?

I think I need a drink...and/or aspirin.

And sorry, Layman, I didn't mean to derail the discussion from Mark to Paul like this, but what you had posted made me go back and take a more detailed look at a literal vs. metaphorical interpretation and this was the result; a contradiction between Jesus and Paul.

Layman

Oh good grief Toto. Paul is referring to the "soma" of individual human Christians. When applied to humans, "soma" always means the human's body.


As for Doherty, I'm not sure why you think this selection helps you. I agree there is a radical difference between the natural and the spiritual body. The entire hope of Christianity is based on that. This does not deny, however, that there is a continuity between the natural and the physical body. Paul, by speaking of "change" and "transformation" is clear that it is.

As for Doherty's lame attempt to deny there is any resurrection in Mark, he must ignore Mark to do so.

Mar 8:31: And He began to teach them that the Son of Man must suffer many things and be rejected by the elders and the chief priests and the scribes, and be killed, and after three days rise again.

Mar 9:31: For He was teaching His disciples and telling them, "The Son of Man is to be delivered into the hands of men, and they will kill Him; and when He has been killed, He will rise three days later."

Mar 10:32-34: They were on the road going up to Jerusalem, and Jesus was walking on ahead of them; and they were amazed, and those who followed were fearful. And again He took the twelve aside and began to tell them what was going to happen to Him, saying, "Behold, we are going up to Jerusalem, and the Son of Man will be delivered to the chief priests and the scribes; and they will condemn Him to death and will hand Him over to the Gentiles." They will mock Him and spit on Him, and scourge Him and kill Him, and three days later He will rise again.

But Mark goes even further. He specifically has Jesus predict his resurrection appearances to the disciples, in Galilee.

Mar 14:27-28: And Jesus said to them, You will all fall away, because it is written, "I will strike down the shepard, and the sheep shall be scattered." But after I have been raised, I will go ahead of you to Galilee.

Additionally, Mark goes out of his way to have the stone rolled away from the tomb. Why? To underscore the fact that Jesus is not there, but has left the tomb. In other words, to show that Jesus has been bodily raised from the dead.


And as for the "resurrection" in Mark being simply the parousia, this is a fundamentally flawed idea. That Mark intended to refer to Jesus' coming in glory suffers from many fatal defects. Mark has Jesus specifically predict his appearance in Galilee after the resurrection. Indeed, the entire statement is a command to go to Galilee where Jesus will be waiting for them. The coming in power from heaven, as the parousia was envisioned, is fundamentally incompatible with Jesus already waiting for the disciples and Peter in Galilee.

Robert H. Gundry, Mark's Apology for the Cross, at 1008.

Besides, Doherty doesn't even address the possibility of a lost ending. He simply assumes there was not one.

Asha'man

So, let me get this straight. Paul thought our bodies would be replaced with plastic?

Toto

This is what happens when you try to make literal sense out of Christian propaganda.

Koy - you haven't found a contradiction between Paul and Jesus, you've found a contradiction between writings attributed to Paul and the character of Jesus dramatized in a later piece of writing attributed to Luke. The author of Luke-Acts wanted to believe that Jesus returned as a solid human, or at least could assume that shape if he wanted.

But there is no evidence that earlier Christians believed this. If you think Paul's letters were earlier than Luke, it seems that Paul could only talk about the resurrected body as being of some ethereal or celestial substance, probably one that had no need to eat fish, and certainly not one that would still have wounds to display.

Layman - Doherty did more than assume that there was no ending to Mark. He reasoned that since the other gospels copied from Mark, and all the gospels are wildly dissimilar in their accounts as to what happened after the empty tomb was discovered, that Mark must not have had an ending for the others to work from.

Doherty may be wrong about this. We have seen that the authors of the other gospels felt free to change details that were not to their liking, so it is possible that there was an ending on the original version of Mark that was discarded by the other gospel writers. It is also possible that a later editor of Mark added not only the current ending, but the other reference in Mark to his future appearance in Galilee.

But I'm not sure why this debate has gotten so heated. Showing that Paul believed in a physical resurrection would not convince me that there was a physical resurrection.

Layman

Since most scholars agree that Matthew and Luke wrote 10-20 years after Mark was written, and the longer ending theory postulates early damage to the Marcan manuscript, Doherty's argument lacks substance. Even if they are "wildly dissimilar"-a questionable assertion-the early-lost-ending theory is just as valid an explanation. Indeed, it could be that Matthew's text had the longer ending and Luke's did not. It could be that the ending was lost in the fires of Rome in 66 CE or in the subsequent persecution, all of which occurred prior to the writing of Matthew and Luke.

Koyaanisqatsi

Yes, Toto, I'm aware of that. I was taking Layman's literalness to task and applying it to the section we had all been discussing and then asking the literalist (who believes that Paul was the author and that Jesus spoke those words in Luke) about the contradiction that obtained from the literalist deconstruction.

The question goes more to the totality of the doctrine that Layman was defending and how one cult elder says one thing and another says something contradictory (allegedly from the cult icon's mouth).

Again, I was going more to the original question of contradictory concepts and what Paul was actually talking about in 1 Corinth. (i.e., trying to convince his audience that they would all be immortal--bodily immortal--in their lifetimes). Thus Paul's take on the resurrection of the dead has nothing to do with a spiritual salvation or anything so lofty; it merely meant they would cheat death bodily. All Paul is talking about in 1 Corinth is that god will change all of their bodies before they die into immortal bodies here on earth.

It's a propaganda piece, notably lacking in anything necessarily spiritually transcendant; just a claim that because god rose Jesus from the dead god will transform all of their human bodies (while they are still alive) into incorruptible bodies that won't ever die.