Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Ben C Smith · 05-08-2006, 03:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steven Carr

And again this can only be done by rewriting the text.

I shall put back in the bit you left out.

''Accordingly, it at one time puts off one body which was necessary before, but which is no longer adequate in its changed state, and it exchanges it for a second...'

'Exchanges it for a second' is very clear isn't it?

The entire sentence is:

Accordingly, it at one time puts off one body which was necessary before, but which is no longer adequate in its changed state, and it exchanges it for a second; and at another time it assumes another in addition to the former, which is needed as a better covering, suited to the purer ethereal regions of heaven.

Two different processes appear to be in view. In one process the soul puts off one body and then puts on another in its place. In another process the soul puts on another body in addition to the first (apparently without having shed the first).

I admit I do not fully understand Origen here.

Ben.

Steven Carr · 05-08-2006, 10:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ben C Smith

The entire sentence is:

Accordingly, it at one time puts off one body which was necessary before, but which is no longer adequate in its changed state, and it exchanges it for a second; and at another time it assumes another in addition to the former, which is needed as a better covering, suited to the purer ethereal regions of heaven.

Two different processes appear to be in view. In one process the soul puts off one body and then puts on another in its place. In another process the soul puts on another body in addition to the first (apparently without having shed the first).

I admit I do not fully understand Origen here.

Ben.

Pity. I was hoping you might explain 'The men of God say also that "the corruptible shall put on incorruption," which is a different thing from "the incorruptible;" and "the mortal shall put on immortality," which is different from "the immortal."'

I think Origen was hiding his views.

Origen did teach that the church at large held a doctrine of resurrection of the flesh.

But people like him knew better, understood Paul, and knew what really happened.

Paul is much clearer than Origen.

He says in 2 Corinthians 5 that the earthly body will be destroyed, and we will get a heavenly body.

andrewcriddle · 05-08-2006, 10:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ben C Smith

The entire sentence is:

Accordingly, it at one time puts off one body which was necessary before, but which is no longer adequate in its changed state, and it exchanges it for a second; and at another time it assumes another in addition to the former, which is needed as a better covering, suited to the purer ethereal regions of heaven.

Two different processes appear to be in view. In one process the soul puts off one body and then puts on another in its place. In another process the soul puts on another body in addition to the first (apparently without having shed the first).

I admit I do not fully understand Origen here.

Ben.

A still longer quote is

Quote:

Accordingly, it at one time puts off one body which was necessary before, but which is no longer adequate in its changed state, and it exchanges it for a second; and at another time it assumes another in addition to the former, which is needed as a better covering, suited to the purer ethereal regions of heaven. When it comes into the world at birth, it casts off the integuments which it needed in the womb; and before doing this, it puts on another body suited for its life upon earth. Then, again, as there is "a tabernacle" and "an earthly house" which is in some sort necessary for this tabernacle, Scripture teaches us that "the earthly house of this tabernacle shall be dissolved," but that the tabernacle shall "be clothed upon with a house not made with hands, eternal in the heavens

The section in red IMO deals with the process of birth and development of the person. The section in blue deals with resurrection and life after death.

In death and resurrection the earthly house EPIGEIOS OIKOS is destroyed but the tabernacle SKHNH , the underlying principle of the body, receives a new and better embodiment.

Andrew Criddle

Steven Carr · 05-29-2006, 01:22 AM

The Bishop of Durham , NT Wright, has seen the Times Literary Supplement of The Empty Tomb edited by Lowder and Carrier.

He has not yet written any rebuttal. Will he?

Steven Carr · 07-18-2006, 10:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steven Carr

The Bishop of Durham , NT Wright, has seen the Times Literary Supplement of The Empty Tomb edited by Lowder and Carrier.

He has not yet written any rebuttal. Will he?

Just a reminder that NT Wright has not yet rebutted anything in the book.

I don't think he can.

jlowder · 05-24-2007, 10:05 AM

I have just launched the official companion website for our book, The Empty Tomb: Jesus Beyond the Grave. The site may be found at the following URL:

http://theemptytomb.googlepages.com/

Jeffery Jay Lowder

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

05-29-2006, 01:22 AM	#24
Steven Carr Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: England Posts: 5,629	The Bishop of Durham , NT Wright, has seen the Times Literary Supplement of The Empty Tomb edited by Lowder and Carrier. He has not yet written any rebuttal. Will he?

05-24-2007, 10:05 AM	#26
jlowder Regular Member Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: USA Posts: 274	I have just launched the official companion website for our book, The Empty Tomb: Jesus Beyond the Grave. The site may be found at the following URL: http://theemptytomb.googlepages.com/ Jeffery Jay Lowder

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.