DCHindley

Personally, I prefer Sour Cream with my Chili.

DCH

stephan huller

I want to emphasize again that spin's reading of the passage is the same as Tertullian's. This means that it is supported in antiquity. The difficulty is determining how the docetic traditions read the passage. I have always noticed that the Church Fathers make clear that the Marcionites, Marcosians and other sects 'separated' Jesus and Christ. This has to be the solution around the idea that 'Christ' died as Jesus is clearly and consistently described as a 'phantom' in these traditions.

I think it is foolish to continue to debate what the 'absolutely' correct interpretation of 'the text is. There was an original interpretation prevalent among the 'heresies' and then there was a Catholic interpretation supported by a modification of the original text of the Letter. We are developing our arguments from that modified text. These arguments are fruitless and misguided.

spin

Because you cut it from its context.

You can say this by overlooking half the chapter.

Lovely sleight of hand.

A physical body sown is raised a spiritual body.

Adam was sown a physical body. Will he or won't he be raised a spiritual body?

Jesus the man, born of a woman, died, one of the dead corpses, was raised, the first fruits of all who will be raised. Jesus was first to be raised to a spiritual body. The verse doesn't allow you to exclude what came before Jesus was raised.

He doesn't need to. He has indicated Jesus had a physical life before he was raised.

Not the Paul you have invented.

This is an arbitrary dictum that has no basis. He is talking generally about how resurrection worked and Jesus was resurrected.

Unsupportable crystal ball gazing. You just don't know what Paul would or would not have done. Everything based on this empty conjecture falls with it.

Check the Greek. Oh, but wait, it doesn't have a paragraph there. You're still playing the version game. Your translators inserted the paragraph. Funny, isn't it? You're trying to tell all these people that they are wrong about the basics of the texts they translate and here you are depending on them regarding their paragraphs. That seems like sleeping with the enemy. They're wrong about their texts but they're right about their paragraph markers.

You make your language points from the original text, not people's translations of it.

Not only did he die, he was born of a woman and he was crucified. But you conveniently don't want to know about his being born. And you have to redefine crucifixion (well, being hung on a stake as they did in the east) so that it is something not done in the physical realm. You're a great one for cooking the books.

Consistent swapping of versions and avoiding the actual text is endemic of a sloppy job.

I don't buy snake oil.

You're reading Paul's mind, for he said nothing of the sort. Christ's being raised has been well established in the wider passage. Ignore it at your own peril.



What links the sown body to the spiritual body, Earl???

I've already demonstrated that the premise of your question is incorrect. (Look back at the diagram.)

Adam is the first who was alive (and will eventually be raised to a spiritual body). Jesus (born of a woman, same as all human beings, except he was first fruits, meaning he) was first to be raised to a spiritual body.

And anybody else. Paul didn't specify or imply. He is just explaining the process to the Corinthians. The rest is conjured out of your attempt to remain coherent.

For Adam: is raised as a spiritual body
For Jesus: was sown as a physical body

Paul didn't need to say it all again for each. He's said it enough times already to be able to imply it. (But of course he can only imply things when you can't find it in the text. For example, Jesus isn't really a man, despite Paul saying that he was. He's a heavenly being, ie a "man". He was only talking of the resurrection of the Corinthians. )

GakuseiDon

Let me be clear about my responses: I'm not interested in countering your speculations and flights of fancies. You can believe whatever you like. I'm only interested in questions about what the passages do apparently say, rather than trying to untwist the pretzels you make out of them.

Why on earth would Paul need to use the same example? Have the readers forgotten the example in 15:12-16 by the time they get to 15:39-45? Anyway, they are two different questions. The first question is "Is there resurrection of the dead?". Paul puts the question this way:

[12] Now if Christ be preached that he rose from the dead, how say some among you that there is no resurrection of the dead?

And Paul explains "of course there is resurrection of the dead. Christ was raised, wasn't he?":

[13] But if there be no resurrection of the dead, then is Christ not risen:
[14] And if Christ be not risen, then is our preaching vain, and your faith is also vain.
[15] Yea, and we are found false witnesses of God; because we have testified of God that he raised up Christ: whom he raised not up, if so be that the dead rise not.
[16] For if the dead rise not, then is not Christ raised:

The second question is: "OK, if there is resurrection of the dead, what kind of body do they get?" The question might seem strange to us, but the issue is one that had been around from before the time of Paul, and one that divided the Sadducees and the Pharisees. (It remained an issue well into the Second Century, long after Christ's resurrection in the flesh had been accepted.) Paul frames the question like this:

[35] But some man will say, How are the dead raised up? and with what body do they come?

Paul can't just respond "Christ was raised", since that wouldn't answer the question. So he goes into a spiel about how different things get different bodies, and finishes by using Christ as an example for the kind of body that people will get:

[38] But God giveth it a body as it hath pleased him, and to every seed his own body.
...
[42] So also is the resurrection of the dead. It is sown in corruption; it is raised in incorruption:
[43] It is sown in dishonour; it is raised in glory: it is sown in weakness; it is raised in power:
[44] It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body. There is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body.
[45] And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit.

I know you have your own interpretation of [45] and how it relates (or doesn't relate) to [44], but the question Paul is answering is "with what kind of body do the dead come?"

"Christ was never a physical being" is a curious way for you to describe someone whom you talk about descending into "the sphere of flesh". In what way did Paul convey that "Christ was never a physical being"? I know you need to preach to your ignorant audience, but remember I do know something about this. Please define "physical being" as the people in Paul's time would have defined it.

It is clear to me that Paul thought that Christ was "in the flesh" before crucifixion, regardless of where you think that "flesh" existed. And the idea can be seen very clearly in Hebrews and other early writings (which talk about "come in the flesh") that you believe express a mythicist viewpoint. So when Paul writes "the last Adam was made a quickening spirit", it is obvious that some transformation has occurred, just like there was a transformation in the case of the first Adam.

I'm saying "spiritual to spiritual" makes no sense at all. And Paul IS using Christ to counter the idea that the dead aren't raised. That's the HUMAN dead, by the way.

Because, as I explained above, it is a different question.

Yes, most definitely! :huh: I don't know why you think this helps you, Earl. Surely from Paul's perspective, the greater the probability that Christ was raised, the stronger his argument against an opponent whose argument infers that "Christ was not raised"? So of course he would use it. You can almost hear the sound effects; it would be like "OK, if Christ was not raised KAPOW!" and "but if Christ is not risen ZAMMO!"

Maybe because there were no witnesses? And that scholarship has admitted the language suggests conviction of Christ’s spiritual presence rather than bodily return right in front of them—also borne out by Paul including his own vision of Christ with the rest as though they are all the same?

I'll repeat what I wrote in my review: one big problem with your analysis is that you seem to make the choice come down to either "Gospel Jesus" or "Mythical Jesus". So that if you can show that the Gospel Jesus doesn't apply, the implication is that this supports your case. But it is not true. Now, if you REALLY believe that modern scholarship admits that the 1 Cor 15's list of appearances suggest a 'spiritual presence' rather than a 'bodily return', then go with that. But if you do go with that, then there's no point asking "Why didn't Paul write about the bodily appearances in THIS passage", if modern scholarship has ruled that out. Because then you are only trying to appeal to those people who are more interested in seeing that the Gospels are wrong than those interested in trying to get behind what Paul is saying.

Well, your views on how they thought back then are nonsense. I may be wrong, but I'm not in any doubt on that score. So I'm not interested in going over all that again.

Yeah, whatever. Just to reiterate: I'm not interested in going through all this again. You can believe whatever you like, Earl. I'll stick to the sources.

OK. So what do we infer from this? I'm thinking some answers might be: "Maybe there were no earthly witnesses. Maybe the Gospels are not historically reliable." But I'll leave the implications up to you.

I don't care.

judge

This is just an indication of how poor earls investigative skills are I'd say.
Earl hss convinced himself of this, just like he convinced himself of many other things.

Now Don believes it too, or appears to (otherwise why post what he did). It is an indication of how Don (maybe) and Earl arrive at conclusions I'd say.

GakuseiDon

Nah, I'm sure spin isn't Tim. And Earl knows that spin isn't Tim as well, since he saw the acrimonious debates between spin and Tim on the Rationalskeptics forum. He knows that spin isn't fond of Tim. So why does Earl claim this? It's just part of his "exit strategy": Earl starts making little digs at his opponent, so that they respond in kind; until eventually Earl claims he feels unwanted, that FRDB is not fair to him, and he leaves for a little while. Spin hasn't taken the bait, so Earl is in the unfortunate position (for him) of actually having to make an argument and support it.

judge

I think we should save this post (or a version of it), and for brevity, in future, just say , please see point 3 (or 4 or whatever).

EarlDoherty

Yes, you're finally getting it right. Christ IS the same stuff as those who have died, after they have died. That's Paul's whole point. They both have spiritual bodies. Paul uses Christ as an example and prototype for the post-resurrection humans. I guess it is worth repeating things more than once.

Yes, the first sentence is also right. The purely spiritual body, gods in their purest form, are immortal and cannot die. That's why they have to descend to a lower level of the heavens where they can take on inferior forms which can die. Again, I guess repetition pays off.

Thanks, spin.

(By the way, I never seriously entertained the idea that spin was Tim O'Neill. Debating himself on Rational Skepticism would have been too bizarre and subtle an exercise.)

Earl Doherty

mountainman

Some know this, not all. Contrary to Ehrman, this fact is not on "public record".

Hi Earl.

I have to admire your perseverance in debate. first fruits?. Are you and/or spin ignoring the people who were resurrected before Jesus? How do they fit in to the big picture?

Elisha the prophet (2 Kgs. 4.32-35) rose before Jesus, Lazarus also rose before Jesus’ resurrection (John 11:43f.) and in the time of the Passion “many bodies of those who had fallen asleep” were raised (Matt. 27.52f.). That Jesus was the first born of the dead is and was a contraversial subject. For example see fragments of the heresey of Marcellus of Ancyra.

Best wishes,


Pete

spin

Yeah, a corpse, you know, dead human. But you can of course try to redefine that as well.

You don't get up well, Earl.

Doh, when they're dead, they haven't been raised yet. They are the same seed: "it is sown a physical body, it is raised a spiritual body."

Saying something often enough often convinces the teller of the story.

So Jesus takes on an "inferior form", eh, Earl? What was his form before he became a spiritual body after resurrection? The only inferior form Paul talks about before resurrection is the physical form. And he says that the spiritual body comes after the physical body. But perhaps you'd like to theorize another "inferior form" that Paul doesn't talk about. But I'm sure he implies it somewhere like in your imagination. But remember, "It is not the spiritual that is first, but the ["inferior form"], and then the spiritual." So first you have some undefined form, then some inferior form, and finally, after being raised, a spiritual body. Dontcha just love the contortions.

So you keep telling yourself.



Glad to help.