Layman

Not hardly. Notice throughout the focus Paul has on a new physical dwelling place or clothes. He is not speaking of the human spirit escaping its physical body, but of God providing to humans a new physical body animated by his spirit. He speaks of a "building" from God, a "house." This is not the language of the human spirit set free from its body, but of God providing new bodies to human beings.

In other words, this is consistent with the Jewish belief that God's creation is good, but fallen. And, at some point in the future (eschatology), God will "fix" creation. At that time, our bodies that have been taitned by their fallen state will be subsumed by bodies from God that are not subjet to that fallan state. This is classic Jewish eschatology.

Layman

I'm not sure we disagree Peter. You agree that most Greeks believed in life after death. Right? And that "life after death" was not bodily. Right? If all Paul meant was that the human spirit continued to live after the body died, then what would be the objection of most Greeks?

I agree with you that the term "resurrection" would have implied something physical to a Greek audience.

I agree that the term "resurrection" does not mean "life after death." I've admitted that several times and I again apologize for being anachronostic. The sad fact is that many modern Americans DO get the two concepts confused.

Again, I'm sorry I don't see your point here, but could you spell it out for me. Are you saying that the Corinthians would have denied that the spirit continued after death? They were like the Sadduccees who denied ANY life after death?

I'm not sure how your point relates to the overall discussion.

Peter Kirby

I was objecting to the specific statement that you made. I accept the apology/correction that you have made.

best,
Peter Kirby

CJD

Yes. This is much less convoluted.

But Layman's argument doesn't seem to rest on this point, as Paul's use of soma and his Pharisaic background show his belief that the resurrection should be expected to be a bodily resurrection.

Agreed. But why? Because at the very least, some of the Xians in Corinth had hearkened back to their Greekish glory days and redeveloped a disdain for the human body, probably distorting their sexual relationships, too (cf. 6:14). Since the body is disdained, the doctrine of the resurrection (which Paul had undoubtedly already taught them) meant that dishonourable bodies would be raised. This, they could not stomach.

No one said this. But history shows a general belief that the soul was immortal. Plato's details are beside the point.

Romans 8:18–23 expresses very well the idea of the entire material created universe (our bodies included) pining after the redemption of God:

I doubt one could get any more un-Platonic than that.

Regards,

CJD

* edited to add: sorry Peter, cross-posted.

Layman

Good.

The task is somewhat difficult because I think part of the problem is the anachronisms some of us place on the terms in our English translations and popular beliefs about life-after-death.

Layman

Great point and use of Paul's writing. Exactly true. I'll have to incorporate this into my article if you don't mind.

All creation is awaiting reconciliation with the creator. This includes our bodies. But the reconciliation requires a transformation. Thus, the bodly resurrection which affirms continuity but with radical transformation.

Peter Kirby

If you look at the OP closely, you will see that I am cited as the hidebound atheist who rejects (against my all-clouding skeptical bias) the idea that ancients believed in "spiritual resurrections." So I have no problem with the main point being made by you and Layman in this thread.

best,
Peter Kirby

Layman

Hey, I simply refer to you as a skeptic. It's not stated in amazement that you in particular are so clear headed on this issue, but kind of as a soothing reminder to other, more militant types, that it's okay to admit this point if the evidence leads us there.

Toto

The URL needs to have the period at the end edited out. And I don't think that Peter Kirby actually "rejects" the idea. He says that there is insufficient evidence to accept one form of the idea, but seems to favor the view that "The second understanding is that resurrection will not leave the body of flesh unstirred but that resurrection will transform the current body entirely into a spiritual, non-material body that is not located in space and time." I am not sure if this is accurately described as a belief in a "physical resurrection," although it implies that there may be no physical body left in the grave. I do not see a sharp divide between Peter Kirby's view here and that of Richard Carrier, except for the question of whether the old physical body was left in the grave or transmuted into the new ethereal body.

Paul is claimed as an "initiate" by the modern (?) Theosophists.

From Blavatsky.net

Also from Theosophy in the Christian Bible

20th century physics has disproven the existence of the ether, of astral bodies, ectoplasm, and other "spiritual" substances that the Theosophists and some New Agers believe in, (unless, like some modern Christians, you choose to believe in "a spiritual, non-material body that is not located in space and time," possibly in some 5th dimension?)

But it seems to me that Paul most likely did believe in this other sort of reality, a soma or a body that is not strictly speaking a corpse or a mere ghost, but some more ethereal version of a real body. He does seem to have believed in seven heavens and demons who ruled the world. What implications does that have for this topic, which is trying to force things to a binary choice - was there a body or not a body?

Ted Hoffman

His background can only be used as an explanation of his beliefs if it can be shown that his background had an overriding influence on his beliefs.

I never made any such argument. You are attacking a strawman.

Quibble. That would be with regard to Platonism.

Well, on what basis was this assumption made?

Like I have stated earlier, it has not been shown that spiritual resurrection was found acceptable.
That has to be done first.
Saying someone was physical does not entail that he was an actual person. Attis died and resurrected - was she an actual person?
Actual people live somewhere, come from actual places have actual mothers and actual fathers who have names.

In any case, Paul himself made statements that contradict the idea of spiritual resurrection as Steven Carr has rightly mentioned:

1 Corinthians 15:50 I declare to you, brothers, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God, nor does the perishable inherit the imperishable.

This alone should show you that your interpretation is flawed.
Steven Carr added:
This is excellent. It shows that Paul believed Jesus was from heaven and came down in (the sphere of ) the flesh.

You are right to some extent, but asking us to ignore the wider context is like asking us to bury our heads in the sand.

Jews became materialistic after Hellenistic influence. In Shepherd of Hermas and Sirach for example we see angels and other celestial beings interacting with the material universe and wisdom (sophia) having her role in peoples lives without having a physical embodiment. Sophia was later replaced by a male logos and later the male pre-existing logos was embodied in a physical Jesus.
Its the Greek (material) influence that brought about the replacement of the Christ Logos (Jewish) with a historical Jesus.
This brings us to the crux of the matter - Jesus was fleshly - on another sublunar layer of the universe - not on earth proper.

1 Cor 15 ...But if there is no resurrection of the dead, not even Christ has been raised; and if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is vain, your faith also is vain.

Whether or not Christ resurrected is not a matter that can be proved (to Paul). Its all a matter of faith to him. Its not something one can go and verify from eyewitnesses.
He doesn't tell the doubters that they can go and ask the disciples, or mention the empty tomb, or mention the suprise of those who saw his resurrected body.
Does he even mention anyone who witnessed the ressurected Jesus?
No he doesnt.
Its all a matter of faith.

Now why would they not take the gospel stories on faith?
Did not tombs open and the dead walk on the streets?
Did not Jairus' daughter rise from the dead?
Didn't the resurrected Jesus wander around for 40 days?
Weren't there any living witnesses to these events that Paul could mention?

Weren't all these evidence that they could resurrect too?

Why doesn't Paul appeal to them at all? Why does he feel he has no choice but to cling in the thin reed of faith to support such a weighty matter?

It is because all knowledge Paul has about Jesus is from scripture and revelatory sources.

Pulls Carr, CJD and Layman aside...

People, people, you are thinking under the wrong context. The rotting happens on earth - the dying and rising saviour gods operated in a different sublunar realm.
[This concept of the resurrection has its roots from the Egyptian (creation) story of resurrection that represented (heaven) god, falling on earth, to fecundate/impregnate it and then rising back (as sphinx) to heaven and mankind arose from that virgin conception.]

In Pauls Platonic mindset, he envisioned the universe being arranged in layers. The earth being at the bottom. Jesus came down in the sphere of the flesh (kata sarka), which is a lower layer, assumed a human body, died and resurrected and thereby conferred salvation to the believers.
This is what the dying and rising saviour figures all did.

You have allowed the gospels to corrupt your interpretation of Pauls epistles.

Correct, but in a different manner. All ancient gods died and rose in the flesh.
But not on earth. It was anachronistic of Mark, Ignatius or whoever fabricated the story of Jesus in the Gospels to place his birth, death and resurrection on earth.

In the Gospels, Jesus says that the body has no place in heaven. One wonders why Jesus resurrected naked. And why the person that was inventing the story chose to have Jesus leave behind the clothes he was entombed in while at the same time he had to push open the stone that blocked the tombs entrance.
Why didn't he take his clothes with his body when he resurrected?

One also wonders what happens to food when it is eaten by a resurrected body. (Jesus asked for food - I believe he was given
fish, Jairus' daughter was also given food).

Do ressurected people shit for example?

If they do - are there toilets in heaven for Moses and Elijah and Jesus? If they eat, it means they do get hungry (eating must be for nourishment, not as a pastime) - are there plants and animals in heaven (or wherever the bodily resurrected Jesus, Moses amd ELijah dwell)?

When you place the physical resurrection on earth and use our bodies - you get a mass of nonsensical contradictions.

That itself should show you that you are on the wrong path.