Well, Paul doesn't really describe the nature of these "sightings." Nor do we even know that Paul is relating a historical event or a rumor circulated within Christian circles. For all we know he heard this from somebody who heard it from somebody who heard it from somebody else. The Christian commmunity was established by the time Paul wrote 1 Corinthians, of course, so who knows what was floating around in the rumor mill. Another thing to keep in mind is that there have been numerous mass-sightings of the Virgin Mary and UFOs. The angel Moroni also appeared to several people simultaneously.

Hi Le pede,

Most of this will make more sense if you see my discussion of the soma pneumatikon towards the end of the post, first.

Le pede:
I think that the people that respond to my posts do not completely understand my argument. I don't understand why there is all of this proof that Paul's resurrected Jesus had a body.

SecWebLurker: I agree that there isn't much of a dispute here if you aren't denying that the resurrection is a bodily one. But I think my opening point undercuts your claims concerning a seperate tradition. Paul does not claim that the way in which Christ manifested Himself to him is normative for all the disciples. Indeed he hints at quite the opposite. Also, there is nothing in the Gospels saying that all or any of Christ's appearances are manifestations of His exact nature immediately post-resurrection, OR His current state or essence.

Le Pede: My dispute is not over whether or not Paul's Jesus had a body (something physical), but over whether or not the body was "fleshy" or "pneumatic." And yes, SecWebLurker, Paul does say that "the last Adam" has become a life-giving "pneuma," whereas Luke's Jesus denies the fact that he is pneuma.

SecWebLurker: The distinction between "fleshy" and "pneumatic" seems to be arbitrary. On my understanding of "soma pneumatikos", one can be both (see below). That is a good point on the "life-giving spirit" though. Firstly, as I said above, all bodily appearances of a bodily resurrected Christ need not be identical. Secondly, I think it is too simplistic to read Luke's account to be a blatant denial that Christ is "pneuma" in ANY sense, and Paul's "pneuma" as MERELY "pneuma". Paul's reference to Christ as a "life-giving spirit" is IMO a reference to that aspect of Christ that is "pneuma". But Christ is embodied "pneuma", not merely "pneuma". He's not denying Christ's somatic reality and saying he turned into pure spirit. Similarly, he's not saying the first Adam became a living soul, in the sense of a disembodied psyche. The "soma" is the embodiment animated by the "pneuma". The "pneuma" itself is not the sole constituent of Christ's existence, as the "soma" itself is not being said to be COMPOSED of "pneuma" (see more on this below, or in my first post where I discussed it.) Paul here is talking about Christ being made a life-giving spirit at His resurrection. Now, if we say that this “spiritual body” that Paul is mentioning is STRICTLY spiritual - composed of "pneuma", how do we distinguish between the existence of Christ before His incarnation, and after His resurrection? Surely Paul believes in the pre-existence of Christ (Col. 1:16, Phil. 2:6), which is spiritual (He was "in the form of God"), but if he intends this POST-resurrection “spiritual body” to refer to a similar non-physical existence, why does he then place the appearance of this “spiritual” man AFTER the creation of Adam, the physical man? Essentially the resurrection would then be just a return of Christ to his former mode of existence. How then was he the "last man" in becoming a life-giving spirit?

Le pede: Firstly, assuming that William Craig is right about his theory that flesh and blood, can be a metaphor for mortality (and that is a gracious assumption), doesn't change the fact that "flesh and blood" are a part of the metaphor for human existence.

SecWebLurker: That's not a gracious assumption at all. Its clearly used as such in the examples cited. Blomberg, Witherington, Jeremias, Wright, and Kistemaker all concur here. If "flesh and blood" simply denotes the corruptible mortal nature, then all Paul is saying is that that which is corruptible cannot inherent that which is incorruptible and hence, must be changed. A metaphor for part of human existence or not, such an idiom need not negate any specific substance. Paul often uses the categories of "Flesh" and "Spirit" to connote sinful human nature and divine [/i]nature[/i], respectively, as opposed to a physical substance. E.P. Sanders writes:

"...Sin is a 'law' which lurks in one's members and prevents the fulfilling of the law of God (Romans 7:17-23). The only escape is to leave 'the Flesh' (8:8), the domain of Sin, by sharing Christ's death. Christians have died with Christ and thus to Sin (6:2-11), and they have thereby escaped not only Sin but also the law (which condemns) and the 'Flesh', the state of enmity towards God (7:4-6)...[H]ere a few words are required in explanation of the term 'the flesh'...In this section of Romans it often refers to the state of humanity when it opposes God. Thus, strikingly, Romans 7:5: 'while we were living in the Flesh...But now we are discharged from the law...so that we serve not under the old written code but in the new life of the Spirit.' The 'we' refers to Paul and other Christians. They are no longer 'in the Flesh', though they are still in their skins with their body tissue intact. As Paul puts it in Romans 8:9, 'You are not in the Flesh, you are in the Spirit,' and the contrast of Flesh and Spirit continues (8:9-13)."[E.P. Sanders, "Paul" (New York: Oxford University Press, 1991) p. 36.]

According to Sanders, "we see here the explanation of why Paul uses 'Flesh' to mean 'humanity in the state of opposition to God': it is simply the word which is opposite 'Spirit', which in turn denotes the divine power. This is, at any rate, the best way to decide when to capitalize Flesh, so that it points not to humanity as physical, but to humanity under an enemy power."[Ibid. p. 36]

Le Pede: Additionally, we have to take Paul's usage of "flesh and blood," not based on what the words "flesh and blood" can mean in a philosophical sense, but what he means in the context of 1 Corinthians 15. And I hope it is clear to everyone that 1 Corinthians 15:35 to the end involves a description of the physical body of the resurrection in direct response to the question of "in what body will they come?" (1 Cor 15:35). Paul specifically contrasts a pneumatic body with the idea of "flesh and blood."

SecWebLurker: Right, contrasting a spiritual body, dominated by the spirit, with the idea of a mortal corruptible body.

Le Pede: Actually SecWebLurker quoted someone that I think I agree with. Robert Gundry seems to be arguing that pneuma was actually a part of the physical world and a part of human existence!

SecWebLurker: Let's see what Gundry said:

"The soma denotes the physical body, roughly synonymous with 'flesh' in the neutral sense. It forms that part of man in and through which he lives and acts in the world. It becomes the base of operations for sin in the unbeliever, for the Holy Spirit in the believer. Barring prior occurrence of the Parousia, the soma will die. That is the lingering effect of sin even in the believer. But it will also be resurrected. That is its ultimate end, a major proof of its worth and necessity to wholeness of human being, and the reason for its sanctification now."[Robert H. Gundry, Soma in Biblical Theology (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1976) p. 50.]

"…its ['soma'] use is designed to call attention to the physical object which is the body of the person."[Ibid. 80]

So we see that in THAT quote Gundry says nothing of the "pneuma" being physical. Indeed, Gundry's comments would count against Le Pede's argument, as he sees the soma as roughly equivalent to the flesh, and the resurrection for Paul as precisely a resurrection of the soma! Gundry concludes that "soma refers to the physical body in its proper and intended union with the soul/spirit. The body and its counterpart are portrayed as united but distinct--and separable, though unnaturally and unwantedly seperated. The soma may represent the whole person simply because the soma lives in union with the soul/spirit."[Ibid. p. 79-80]

So this seems to correlate well with my view that the "pneuma" is an aspect of Christ, who is a pneumatikos soma - namely the animating aspect. So to refer to Christ as a life-giving spirit, is not to say that is ALL Christ is. As Chamblin writes, "Like the OT, Paul presents the human being as a fully integrated whole, in which psychological and physical functions are joined inextricably together but remain distinct. Terms for a corporeal or incorporeal function (such as soma or pneuma) may be applied by synecdoche to the whole person; but what represents the whole is not equated with the whole."[J.K. Chamblin, Psychology "Dictionary of Paul and his Letters" ed. Gerald F. Hawthorne, Ralph P. Martin, Daniel G. Reid (Illinois: InterVarsity Press, 1993)p. 767].

For Paul to say Christ is a life-giving "pneuma" is then not to describe His totality and for Christ to deny in Luke that he is a "pneuma", on my interpretation, would not be to deny that he HAS a "pneuma" -it would be, and indeed must be, a denial that he is merely a "pneuma" - just some sort of ghost. Let's see why this is the better interpretation...

Le Pede: Paul's usage of "pneuma" (a physical substance, which ancients believed was a part of human makeup) makes it even more clear that Paul is discussing the physical nature of the resurrected body; and so the use of "flesh and blood" is a reference to the substance of the resurrected body, not "human nature" or some other theological concept.

SecWebLurker: The above is based on the following mistake, that this whole thread has been leading up to with the "(see below)" comments...

Le Pede: So I do understand the nature of a pneumatic body. A pneumatic body, is a body made of pneuma with the "flesh and blood" being shed. Paul argues that the new resurrected body will be changed into a body of pneuma. And the definition of what pneuma is, is described throughout antiquity. No, the new resurrected body is not just "animated" by the pneuma, but is compsed of pneuma. The gospel writers give a different picture--that Jesus' resurrected body is made of flesh and bones and Luke makes a point of saying that it is NOT "pneuma."

SecWebLurker: The mistake is that Le Pede thinks Paul is saying the body is MADE OF PNEUMA. But I addressed that. Let's see what I wrote:

I quoted Gundry, who's thorough linguistic analysis you should really check out: "a pneumatikon soma [spiritual body]…is a physical body renovated by the Spirit." [Robert H. Gundry, Soma in Biblical Theology (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1976) p. 165-166.]

I also quoted Wright (notice the argument here regarding parallel use of psyche): "…when he [Paul] speaks of the future resurrection body as a 'spiritual body,' he does not mean, as has often been suggested, a 'nonphysical' body. To say that is to allow into the argument a Hellenistic worldview that is quite out of place in this most Jewish of chapters. He is contrasting the present body, which is a soma psychikon, with the future body, with the future body, which is a soma pneumatikon. Soma means "body," but what do the two adjectives mean? Here the translations are often quite unhelpful, particularly RSV and NRSV with their misleading rendering of 'physical body' and 'spiritual body.' Since psyche, from which psychikon is derived, is regularly translated 'soul,' we might as well have assumed that Paul thought that the present body too was nonphysical! Since that is clearly out of the question, we are right to take both phrases to refer to an actual physical body, animated by 'soul' on the one hand and 'spirit'--clearly God's spirit--on the other. (We may compare Romans 8:10f., where God's Spirit is the agent in the resurrection of Christians.) The present body, Paul is saying, is "a [physical] body animated by 'soul'"; the future body is "a [transformed physical] body animated by God's Spirit.""[N.T. Wright, "The Challenge of Jesus" (Illinois: InterVarsity Press, 1999) p.144.]

The word "spiritual" (pneumatikos) is used here in the same sense as it is used in 1 Corinthians 2:14-15:

"The natural man does not receive the gifts of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and he is not able to understand them, because they are spiritually discerned. The spiritual (pneumatikos) man judges all things but is himself to be judged by no one."

Thus, a natural man is not simply a physical man, which is redundant, but "a man orientated towards human nature, and a spiritual man is not an immaterial man, or a man MADE OF PNEUMA which is a contradiction in terms but "a man orientated towards the Spirit."

As Witherington states: "When Paul calls Christ a life-giving spirit he does not mean to imply that Jesus had or has no body, but that he lived in a form of life characterized by the Spirit....When Paul uses the term 'spiritual body' (soma pneumatikon) he does not mean a body consisting of nonmaterial substance, but a body empowered by the Spirit."[Ben Witherington III, Christology "Dictionary of Paul and his Letters" ed. Gerald F. Hawthorne, Ralph P. Martin, Daniel G. Reid (Illinois: InterVarsity Press, 1993)p. 112].

Chamblin quotes Schweizer:

"'Spiritual body' (soma pneumatikon) 'is to be understood, not as one which consists of pneuma, but as one which is controlled by pneuma'(Schweizer in Kleinknecht et al., 436)."]."[J.K. Chamblin, Psychology "Dictionary of Paul and his Letters" ed. Gerald F. Hawthorne, Ralph P. Martin, Daniel G. Reid (Illinois: InterVarsity Press, 1993)p. 766].

Le Pede: Lastly, it is important to note that using Paul's alleged Phariseical beliefs has a fatal flaw. He was a Pharisee, yet changed the entire theology to create a different religion. It isn't too hard to think that he made some alterations in the Phariseical tradition of the resurrection (btw, Pharisees disagreed on the physical nature of the resurrected bodies).

SecWebLurker: He specifically aligns his views on resurrection with that of the Pharisees. Any first century Jew who believed in the resurrection, used the term "resurrection" to connot a bodily resurrection. And as far as the Pharisees disagreement, I'm not disputing that they disagreed on the nature of the body (I'd like to see some documentation on this from you, if you have any), I'm simply asserting that they believed it was bodily.

SecWebLurker



[This message has been edited by SecWebLurker (edited February 08, 2001).]

Le Pede: Well, Paul doesn't really describe the nature of these "sightings." Nor do we even know that Paul is relating a historical event or a rumor circulated within Christian circles. For all we know he heard this from somebody who heard it from somebody who heard it from somebody else. The Christian commmunity was established by the time Paul wrote 1 Corinthians, of course, so who knows what was floating around in the rumor mill. Another thing to keep in mind is that there have been numerous mass-sightings of the Virgin Mary and UFOs. The angel Moroni also appeared to several people simultaneously.

SecWebLurker: Sorry if I was unclear. I wasn't addressing the veridicality of Paul's list of resurrection appearances, but pointing out that it is unlikely that he thought they were purely subjective visionary experiences, as he referred to large amounts of people seeing Christ "at once" - namely the 500.

Indeed, there are other considerations that argue towards Paul's conception of his own witness to the resurrection, as well as the others, being more than purely subjective/visionary.

For instance, in 2 Cor. 12.1-7, when Paul is telling of his 'visions and revelations of the Lord he does NOT include Jesus' appearance to him:

"Christ and the resurrection appearances of Christ: the appearances were restricted to a small circle designated as witnesses, and even to them Jesus did not continually reappear but appeared only at the beginning of their new life. Thus, for example, although Paul considers Christ's appearance to him to have been 'last of all' (I Cor. 15:8), nevertheless, he continued to experience 'visions and revelations of the Lord' (2 Cor. 12:1; cf. Acts 22:17). Similarly, the revelation of Christ to John on Patmos is clearly a vision of the exalted Christ, replete with allegorical imagery, not a resurrection appearance of Christ. In the same way, the visions of Christ seen by Stephen, Ananias and Paul (Acts 7:55-56; 9:10; 22:17) are not regarded by Luke as resurrection appearances of Christ, but as veridical, divinely induced visions of Christ."[William L. Craig, "From Easter to Valentinus and the Apostle's Creed Once More: A Critical Examination of James Robinson's Proposed Resurrection Appearance Trajectories." Journal for the Study of the New Testament 52 (1993): 19-39.]

Similarly, Blomberg states:

"What is…significant is that when Paul has an entirely subjective experience, or one about the nature of which he is uncertain, he indicates precisely that (cf. 2 Cor. 12:1-4, describing his visit to the 'third heaven'; and Acts 16:9; 18:9; 22: 17, in which he receives visions from the Lord regarding his travel itinerary)." [Craig L. Blomberg, "The Historical Reliability of the Gospels"(England: Inter-Varsity Press, 1987) p. 109]

Concerning the resurrection appearances as mere visions, Ben Witherington III writes, "Perhaps one example of an early critique of the vision theory is in order. It is telling that in assessing the women's testimony about the empty tomb the male disciples concluded (1) that it was an idle tale (Luke 24:11) and (2) that at most one could speak of a vision of angels (Luke 24:23). Bearing in mind that the report in Luke 24:19-23 is given by disciples who are leaving Jerusalem and speaking in the past tense about having had hope that Jesus was the one to redeem Israel, we conclude that no mere visions or reports of visions of supernatural beings or reports of empty tombs were going to change these discouraged disciples' mental state. Only an encounter with the risen Lord would do that. There is in this narrative a quality that critiques the male leadership of the early church and at the same time shows that mere visions or claims of visions were not what changed the lives of the disciples."[John D. Crossan and William L. Craig, "Will the Real Jesus Please Stand Up?" (Michigan: Baker Books, 1998) p. 135.]

N.T. Wright states:

"Paul knows, and he knows that the Corinthians know, that his seeing of Jesus was the last such event. His churches, not least the Corinthians, had had all kinds of wonderful spiritual experiences; they knew Jesus as their Lord in the power of the Spirit; but they had not seen him as Paul had.

"Nor would they have drawn the conclusion that the new age had dawned. When a Jewish leader, teacher, or hero died violently at the hands of Israel's enemies, this was the sign that the old age was still here, that the new age had not yet come. Yet the early Christians not only said that Jesus had been raised from the dead; they concluded from this that God's new age had indeed begun, however paradoxically.

"This rules out as well the explanation that has recently been offered, that the early Christians received a ghostly visitation from their recently deceased leader. Such events are well known in the modern, as in the ancient world; the worried church thought they were receiving such a visit from Peter in Acts 11. 'It must be an angel,' they said; that meant that Peter had been killed by Herod, and they would have to go and collect his body for burial. It would not mean that Peter had been 'raised from the dead'; indeed, it would mean that he hadn't been."[Marcus J. Borg and N. T. Wright, "The Meaning of Jesus: Two Visions" (New York: HarperCollins, 1999) p. 117.]

SecWebLurker

PS - I'll be away till Sunday. Have fun. :-)

1 Corinthians 15:45 says nothing about "aspects" or "domination." It simply says, that 'the last Adam' became life-giving pneuma. It is a point blank declaration with no qualifications. Reading "aspects" into this verse is not justified--it is a verse that stands on its own.

The corruptible body of Jesus' incarnation, the "flesh and blood" have been shed and to become an incorruptible body of pneuma.

And apparently I was mistaken about Gundry's views and I strongly disagree with them. Soma does not have to be flesh, it is merely a body--things such as "heavenly bodies" (sun, moon, stars) are called "bodies."

Also, applying 1 Corinthians 2:14-15 to describe soma pneumatikon is not justified. First of all, we have a very clear verse about Jesus' resurrection in 1 Cor. 15:45. Even if soma pneumatikon could mean "body dominated by the spirit," 1 Corinthians 15:45 is so clear that Jesus became "pneuma" that it should not be read as such. Secondly, the entire discourse from 1 Cor. 15:35 is a description of the physical nature of the resurrected body. To Paul, sarx indeed has associations with sin, but it does not change the fact that sarx and pneuma are still physical entities--these words don't all of a sudden lose their physical qualities. To Paul they were still physical realities. Paul has a dualistic view of humanity's makeup. The "sarx" part of humanity's makeup is associated with lusts and sin, and the "pneumatic" part with things of heaven. So it is not just a metaphorical distinction between sarx and pneuma that Paul employs, but a physical one. Also, the entire reason that the term "sarx kai haima" is used to describe mortality is becaue of the mortal nature of those two things! There has been no evidence presented by SecWebLurker that sarx is a reference to anything but physical flesh except a nebulous quote by Gundry arguing that soma has to refer to flesh--which (if I understand the argument) is just plain wrong. In the ancient world sarx was a completely different concept than pneuma.

Thirdly, Jesus' body was already directed by "pneuma" before he died and was resurrected, and so his body would not just be "directed" by pneuma. The comparison with 1 Cor. 12:14-15 is inappropriate.

From the gospel accounts and the Pauline text, we have what you would say is a "corpreal resurrection" vs. a "pneumatic one." SecWebLurker suggested that the gospels just described "apperances" of Jesus. The problem is that these appearances indicate that Jesus' resurrection was "fleshy" and that it is the only thing we have to go by to know of the gospel writers' concept of the resurrection. For someone to suggest that these passages do not reflect the gospel writers' beliefs about the resurrection is an after the fact rationalization.

The second century Christian church also vociferously defended the concept of a fleshly resurrection (see Tertullian On the Resurrection of the Flesh 28:6, 57:13, Clement 9:2, 14:5, Iraneus Against the Heresies 5.33.1). This certainly shows evolution in theology.



[This message has been edited by Le pede (edited February 09, 2001).]

This is a curious argument le pede.

Are you saying that in English, since we also refer to "heavenly bodies", yet also claim that you, I and every other human being have "bodies", that we do not believe that these are physical bodies of some kind of flesh?

And this is your second curious argument le pede. What evidence do you have that the Churches founded by Paul believed in a non-physical resurrection as depicted later on in the Gospels? In other words, which of Paul's Churchs (which surely would have believed whatever it is you are claiming Paul taught about the resurrection) rejected the Gospel accounts of the empty tomb and the bodily resurrection of Jesus?

And if they did NOT reject the Gospel accounts (written within 5-10 years of Paul's death), nor do we have evidence that Peter rejected such accounts, how do you explain this astonishing turn around in central Christian theology within such a short period of time, not to mention seeing it pulled off with a minimum (as in NO) fuss or fight?

Nomad

Come on now. I'm saying that soma "a body" is not necessarily something of "flesh" which SecWebLurker, I think, was arguing. Soma can also be a reference to a "heavenly body." Not only does my Greek lexicon say that, but it is attested to numerous times in Greek writings such as Aristotle's On the Heavens, Plutarch's On the Face of the Moon or Clement of Alexandria's Ecologae Propheticae.

I mentioned the church fathers because it shows a transition--Paul had a pneumatic body and the 2nd century church fathers defended a flesh and blood resurrection. Does it really have a bearing on what the gospel writers and Paul thought when they wrote their respective texts? Not really. But it shows transition in theology.

And we don't really know how much fussing or fighting there was. Apparently, there was some dispute over the resurrection of Christ--why did Paul feel the need to write his treatise in 1 Corinthians 15 if there weren't any disputes? And we don't even know if Paul's churches listened to him and believed what he told them to.

Paul was arguing about resurrection in general in reference to Jesus' resurrection. The "spiritual body" is in opposition to a "flesly body" because Paul often referred to the flesh (sarx) as a reference to the "sinful nature." Obviously the sinful nature wasn't resurrected as well- and the new resurrection body is a far better one then the current flesh. According to the Gospels, Jesus had a body of flesh(like when He ate and when Thomas touched His flesh) but also had "spiritual" aspects displayed perhaps while ascending to Heaven. Paul had not met the "resurrected" Christ but had met the "ascended" Christ- maybe causing a difference in what he stressed in his teaching.

There's really no getting around 1 Cor. 15:45 which says that 'the last Adam' became life giving pneuma. And even though Paul did not meet the resurrected Christ, 1 Cor. 15 was describing the nature of the resurrected body. And like I said, [/I]sarx[/I] does not loose it's definition as mortal, corruptible and physical just because it was used as a representative of sin. To Paul, sarx was still a physical reality. Flesh and blood, not only because they are sinful, but because they are mortal cannot inherit the kingdom of God. "Flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; nor does the perishable inherit the imperishable" (1 Cor. 15:50). It is not only because of its "sinfulness" that sarx cannot inherit the kingdom of God, but because of its perishable and corruptible nature.

Sarx has a very specific definition. It is earthly flesh, and it is used that way throughout Paul and throughout antiquity. Gods do not have sarx nor do heavenly bodies. "Divine sarx" is an oxymoron. Therefore, no one is given "new" sarx because sarx by its very definition is corruptible and mortal. The resurrected bodies are given something that isn't sarx at all; they are given pneuma to replace the flesh. Therefore, when Luke's Jesus says that no pneuma has sarx and bones as he does, he is denying the pneumatic resurrection of Paul and promoting one "in the flesh."


[This message has been edited by Le pede (edited February 09, 2001).]

I'm sorry le pede, but you completely missed the point of my question. Since in English, body has multiple meanings, you cannot argue that "bodies" in English, OR Greek can have only one meaning, IOW, the one you have given it here.

Paul tells us that Jesus had a physical body after the Resurrection, and the Gospels said He had a physical body. That it was different from what we know to be a standard body like we are used to in our biology classes is a given. Paul therefore calls it a "spiritual body" to show that it is different.

Try not to get tripped up on semantics please. If you want to argue that Paul disagreed with the Gospels, you must demonstrate that he would have rejected the empty tomb, or that Jesus had a physical body. You have done neither, so you are reaching pretty badly here le pede.

Umm... I was not talking about the 2nd Century Fathers. To show that there is a transition between Paul and the Gospel accounts of the nature of Christ's body after the Resurrection, you need to look at the 1st Century Gospel accounts, and Paul's letter to the Corinthians. If they are in conflict, then there must be some evidence of this actually taking place.

For example, Peter and the other Apostles (who serve as some of the witnesses in the accounts of the Gospels) would have argued against Paul and labelled him a heretic. You have offered no evidence of this, so on what evidenciary basis do you assert that Paul was in conflict with the Apostles or the Gospels on this central doctrine?

Just stick with what we know in the 1st Century, and show transition. Paul wrote from c. 50-65AD, and the Gospels came out about 70-90AD. If the Gospels contradicted Paul, then we need to see evidence that this was happening in the 1st Century, not the 2nd.

Perhaps you did not know this. The Church in Corinth was flirting with gnosticism at this time, which denied the physical resurrection of any kind of body at all. That is why Paul flipped out on them, and went into such detail affirming that the resurrected body was, indeed, very physical in nature.

On the other hand, if the Gospels were going to chuck Paul's account in favour of something radical and new, we should see quite the donnybrook breaking out wouldn't you think? After all, have you ever seen a church fight over doctrines before (even little ones)? The nature of the resurrection is a biggie, and there is ZERO evidence of a conflict between Paul and the other Apostles on this point, nor do we see any conflict with the Gospel accounts.

Nomad

First of all, I never gave soma one definition. I was saying that soma does NOT have just one definition, which is what one of SecWebLurker's sources was seeming to argue. Gundry, who he quoted seemed to argue that soma had to have flesh, and that is simply not true.

Secondly, where did you get gnostics? We don't know if it is to gnostics that Paul is referring or not; it is something read into the text by people who want to blame "those crazy gnostics" for the theological disputes. It could in fact reflect a conflict in the Corinthain church. When Paul speaks of resurrection of the dead (nekros), it could easily have been construed as a reference to resurrection of fleshly bodies. Because to many it is ridiculous to think that a fleshly (mortal) body can inherit a heavenly kingdom, they denied the resurrection. It is quite possible that he goes into great lengths to explain the nature of the resurrection in order to calm any suspicions that he belives in a corpreal resurrection. No, gnostics aren't necessary at all.

Furthermore, what the second century Christians believed is very important. Where did they get this idea and then feel the need to vociferously defend it if it weren't in the tradition somewhere?

This looks like a straw man, and I'm not going to attack it. I don't have to argue that Paul didn't think that the resurrected body would be a "physical body." The difference between a body with sarx and pneumatic body is quite significant, and not just being "hung up in semantics." To ignore their huge difference and write it off as "semantics" seems like a copout.

And we really don't know what Peter or any of the disciples "would have" thought of Paul. Peter doesn't leave any writings nor do the rest of the disciples.



[This message has been edited by Le pede (edited February 09, 2001).]