Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Layman · 07-28-2003, 11:07 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Richard Carrier
Paul rejected many fundamental tenets of Phariseeism when he converted, e.g. circumcision, so physical resurrection is no more inviolate a conviction. To the contrary, that may have been the last stumbling block preventing him from accepting Christ.

Well, aside from the substantial continuities between Paul and his Pharisiac past I touched on in my original post, you overlook an important point here. However Paul felt about circumcision--and whether he felt differently about it for Gentiles and Jews--we can agree that when he used the terms associated with the law and circumcision, he meant what the Pharisees meant.

So too with his disussion of "resurrection." When Paul writes about "resurrection" and "transformation" and resurrected "bodies" and uses the same analogy that the Talmud uses (the seed) to emphasize the continuity of the bodily resurrection, his meaning is clear--the old natural body is transformed into the new spiritual body and no longer rots in the grave.

Geoff Hudson · 07-28-2003, 11:29 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Layman

So too with his disussion of "resurrection." When Paul writes about "resurrection" and "transformation" and resurrected "bodies" and uses the same analogy that the Talmud uses (the seed) to emphasize the continuity of the bodily resurrection, his meaning is clear--the old natural body is transformed into the new spiritual body and no longer rots in the grave.

The analogy of the seed becomes ridiculous, when the editors of the NT are then forced to use the idea of sowing bodies - "the body that is sown". It is not the body that is sown but a person's pre-existent spirit that is sown in a body created for it. And it is the spirit that is transformed into a pure spirit when it is raised from its impure corpse.

Geoff

Steven Carr · 07-28-2003, 11:30 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Layman

So too with his disussion of "resurrection." When Paul writes about "resurrection" and "transformation" and resurrected "bodies" and uses the same analogy that the Talmud uses (the seed) to emphasize the continuity of the bodily resurrection, his meaning is clear--the old natural body is transformed into the new spiritual body and no longer rots in the grave.

Although Paul would have noticed the plant emerging from the case of the seed, leaving the seed behind.....

http://www.urbanext.uiuc.edu/gpe/case3/c3facts3.html explains how a seed case breaks open in terms even a child can understand.

http://www.aces.uiuc.edu/~uplink/gpe...ackground.html is another teacher's guide, trying to get the children to understand.
'When looking at a seed, realize and convey to the students that within every seed lives a tiny plant or embryo. '

Once again, we have the idea that something EMERGES from the seed, leaving the seed case behind in the ground, dead.

Paul's analogy means something EMERGES from something which is dead,as Paul makes clear 'When you sow, you do not plant the body that will be, but just a seed, perhaps of wheat or of something else.....'

The body that will be is not the body which is sown into the ground.

Paul's analogy means that there is something inside us which will emerge, leaving our dead shell behind, just like a plant emerging from a seed.

2 Corinthians 5:18-6:1

'So we fix our eyes not on what is seen, but on what is unseen. For what is seen is temporary, but what is unseen is eternal.
Now we know that if the earthly tent we live in is destroyed, we have a building from God, an eternal house in heaven, not built by human hands. .....'

Paul is emphasising the continuity of the earthly tent and his eventual eternal house, by saying that the earthly tent we live in will be destroyed, or is he?

What is seen (Paul's mortal body) is temporary and will be destroyed. This does not emphasise the way God will restore his body after it has rotted in the ground.

BTW, what will God do with bodies that have been cremated or eaten - using the 'continuity' model of resurrection?

Geoff Hudson · 07-29-2003, 01:14 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Steven Carr

The body that will be is not the body which is sown into the ground.

Paul's analogy means that there is something inside us which will emerge, leaving our dead shell behind, just like a plant emerging from a seed.

The body is not sown, it is created out of dust. The spirit is sown in the body.

1 Cor.15:
(35)But someone may ask, "How are [the dead] {spirits} raised?

With what kind of [body] {spirit} will they [come] {rise}?"

(36)How foolish! [What] {The spirit} [you] {God} sow{s} does not [come to life] {become pure} until [it] {the body} dies.

(37)When [you] {God} sow{s}, [you do] {he does} not plant the [seed] {spirit} that will be, but just a [seed] {spirit}, perhaps of wheat or of something else.

(38)But God gives [it] {the body} a [body] {spirit} as he has determined, and to each kind of [seed] {body} he gives its own [body] {spirit}.

(39)All {flesh] {spirits} are not the same:

Men have one kind of [flesh] {spirit}, animals have another, birds another and fish another.

*****
It is rather silly to say the obvious that animals, birds, seeds, the sun, moon and stars have different kinds of bodies or flesh. The point was that these were all animated by different kinds of spirit. Without their spirits they would be dead.

Geoff

Layman · 07-29-2003, 09:57 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Steven Carr
Although Paul would have noticed the plant emerging from the case of the seed, leaving the seed behind.....

http://www.urbanext.uiuc.edu/gpe/case3/c3facts3.html explains how a seed case breaks open in terms even a child can understand.

http://www.aces.uiuc.edu/~uplink/gpe...ackground.html is another teacher's guide, trying to get the children to understand.
'When looking at a seed, realize and convey to the students that within every seed lives a tiny plant or embryo.

Once again, we have the idea that something EMERGES from the seed, leaving the seed case behind in the ground, dead.

Anachronistic and irrelevant. Paul is quite clear that the seed becomes the new body. There is a transformation. This is how the Pharisees used the anaqlogy. It is how Paul uses the same analogy. And even Jesus speaks of a seed "growing" into a plant. Paul nowhere mentions anything being left behind. It is consumed, devoured, transformed, changed.

Are you arguing that the Talmud's analogy of the seed stressed only the freeing of the spirit and the leaving behind of the body?

And if Paul meant was that the spirit escapes into a new body, why the hold up? Paul believed that the spirits/souls of believers were immediately "freed" from their bodies. So what is being "raised" at some future point? The spirit is already gone.

And remember. Paul is speaking of the body. He says that "it" is sown and "it" is raised. Paul says that ALL will be changed, speaking quite clearly of their bodies.

Quote:

The degree to which he thought of transformation', rather than either disembodiment or resuscitation, can be seen in his discussion of 'putting on' immortality. Thinking of those who would still be alive when the Lord returned, he wrote that the 'perishable nature must put on the imperishable, and this mortal nature must put on immortality'. This would fulfill the Scripture, 'Death is swallowed up in victory.' (1 Cor. 15:53 f.). He used the same imagery in 2 Corinthians 5. The living are in an 'earthly tent', and they wish not to be 'unclothed', but that we would be further clothed, so that what is mortal may be swallowed up by life' (1 Cor. 5:4). The metaphor changes from 'tent' to 'clothing', but the meaning is nevertheless clear. Immortality is 'put on' and replaces mortality. Paul was not thinking of an interior soul which escapes its mortal shell and floats free, nor of new life being breathed into the same body, but again of transformation, achieved by covering mortality with immortality, which then 'swallows' it.

E.P. Sanders, Paul, at 30.

Quote:

BTW, what will God do with bodies that have been cremated or eaten - using the 'continuity' model of resurrection?

Irrelevant to Paul's conception of the resurrection.

Steven Carr · 07-29-2003, 10:19 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Layman
Anachronistic and irrelevant.

You mean even a child's knowledge that a plant emerges from the case of a seed would be unknown to the Corinthians, who would have been however quite familiar with Talmudic quotes not to be written for a couple of centuries?

Everybody would have seen plants emerge from the case of a seed. Crying 'anachronism' is anachronistic on your part.

Quote:

Paul is quite clear that the seed becomes the new body. There is a transformation. This is how the Pharisees used the anaqlogy. It is how Paul uses the same analogy. And even Jesus speaks of a seed "growing" into a plant. Paul nowhere mentions anything being left behind. It is consumed, devoured, transformed, changed.

If something is 'consumed' or 'devoured' , it is not available to be changed or transformed.

Nor is the Talmudic analogy the same. Where does the Talmud explain that there is a spiritual body , as well as the natural body and where does the Talmud stress repeatedly that YOU DO NOT PLANT THE BODY THAT WILL BE?

As for Paul not mentioning anything left behind, 1 Cor. 50 'I declare to you, brothers, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God, nor does the perishable inherit the imperishable.'

The perishable flesh and blood will not inherit the Kingdom of God - it will be left behind.

Admittedtly, this is much clearer in 2 Cor. 5 '6Therefore we are always confident and know that as long as we are at home in the body we are away from the Lord. 7We live by faith, not by sight. 8We are confident, I say, and would prefer to be away from the body and at home with the Lord.'

Paul says he will leave his body to be with the Lord.

Quote:

Irrelevant to Paul's conception of the resurrection.

Paul's conception of a resurrection could not answer the question of what happened to bodies cremated or eaten?

Those poor Corinthians , asking what sort of bodies the dead will rise up, would have wanted an answer to this question. Probably the first one they would have asked.

But if Paul's conception of the resurrection did not stretch to the obvious case of what would happen to bodies totally destroyed, you can easily fill in the gap. How will God resurrect atoms which have been recycled into new bodies - bearing in mind the 'continuity' of these atoms?

Geoff Hudson · 07-29-2003, 10:22 AM

1Cor. 15

(38)But God gives [it] {the body} a [body] {spirit} as he has determined, and to each kind of [seed] {body} he gives its own [body] {spirit}.

(39)All {flesh] {spirits} are not the same:

Men have one kind of [flesh] {spirit}, animals have another, birds another and fish another.

(40)There are also heavenly [bodies] {spirits} and there are earthly [bodies] {spirits};

but the [splendour] {purity} of the heavenly [bodies] {spirits} is one kind, and the [splendour] {purity} of the earthly [bodies] {spirits} is another.

(41)The sun has one kind of [splendour] {purity}, the moon another and the stars another; and star differs from star in [splendour] {purity}.

(42)So will it be with the [resurrection] {rising} of [the dead] {spirits}.

The [body] {spirit}�

[that]

�is sown�

[,is perishable]

�{in an impure body};

it is raised [imperishable] {pure}.

(43)it is sown in [dishonour] {impurity}, it is raised in [glory] {purity};

it is sown in weakness, it is raised in power;

(43)it is sown [a natural] {in an impure} body, it is raised a [spiritual] {pure} [body] {spirit}.

If there is [a natural] {an impure} [body] {spirit}, there is also a [spiritual] {pure} [body] {spirit} (the two spirits of the DSS).

(45)So it is written: "The first man {Adam} became a living being"; the second {Adam}, a [life-giving] {pure} SPIRIT (here spirit is explicit)

(46)The [spiritual] {pure spirit} did not come first, but the [natural] {impure spirit}, and after that the [spiritual] {pure spirit}.

(47)The first [man] {spirit} was [of the dust of the earth] {impure}. The second [man] {spirit} was [from heaven] {pure}.

(48)As was the {spirit of the} earthly man, so are {the spirits of} those who are of the earth;

and as is the [man] {Spirit} from heaven, so also are {the spirits of} those who are of heaven.

(49)And just as we have�
[borne the likeness]
�{the spirit} of the earthly man, so shall we�
[bear the likeness of the man]
�{have the Spirit} from heaven.

I declare to you, brothers, that [flesh and blood] {impure spirits} cannot [inherit] {enter} the [kingdom] {heaven} of God,

[nor does the perishable inherit the imperishable].

Geoff

Layman · 07-29-2003, 10:31 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Steven Carr
You mean even a child's knowledge that a plant emerges from the case of a seed would be unknown to the Corinthians, who would have been however quite familiar with Talmudic quotes not to be written for a couple of centuries?

Everybody would have seen plants emerge from the case of a seed. Crying 'anachronism' is anachronistic on your part.

Yeah, I'm not going to assume Paul had a farmer's knowledge of planting and growing. Even Jesus, who probably did, speaks of the seed growing into the plant. And the Pharisiac tradition is based entirely on this analogy and the stress is on the continuity between the seed and the plant.

Quote:

If something is 'consumed' or 'devoured' , it is not available to be changed or transformed.

When something is consumed or devoured that is the process by which it is changed and transformed. When you eat something does it disintegrate. No. It is changed and transformed so it becomes the body.

Quote:

Nor is the Talmudic analogy the same.

Yes, it is. As I have shown by quoting the entire passage. Which you continue to ignore.

Quote:

Where does the Talmud explain that there is a spiritual body , as well as the natural body and where does the Talmud stress repeatedly that YOU DO NOT PLANT THE BODY THAT WILL BE?

The Talmudic analogy is the same. It was actuallyd ealing with a pagan who had a problem understanding how a body could be raised from the dead. The stress was on the continuity between the seed and the plant--as with Paul. But is also stressed that the new body would be a "glorious" one that was very different than the old one--as with Paul.

Quote:

As for Paul not mentioning anything left behind, 1 Cor. 50 'I declare to you, brothers, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God, nor does the perishable inherit the imperishable.'

Paul nowhere uses the seed analogy to stress that something is being left behind. Rather, the analogy stresses that there is continuity but radical transformation between the seed and the plant. Remember, Paul says "it" is sown and "it" is raised. Not "it" is sown and "it" stays in the ground while something else is raised.

Quote:

The perishable flesh and blood will not inherit the Kingdom of God - it will be left behind.

Paul never says it will be left behind. He says it will be transformed. And you have already admitted that this is the case. You admit that this refers to those living at the time of the second coming. You admit that those alive at the second coming will have their bodies transformed into new bodies. You admit that their bodies will not be left lying on the ground at the second coming.

You are being incredibly dishonest here.

You cannot argue that the "flesh and blood" will be left behind when its convenient and then turn around and argue that it will be transformed because you are losing on some other point.

Quote:

Admittedtly, this is much clearer in 2 Cor. 5 '6Therefore we are always confident and know that as long as we are at home in the body we are away from the Lord. 7We live by faith, not by sight. 8We are confident, I say, and would prefer to be away from the body and at home with the Lord.'

Paul says he will leave his body to be with the Lord.

As I mentioned in my first post, this reinforces my point. Paul is speaking about dying and going to be with Jesus immediately upon that death. The resurrection is another matter for another time.

Besides, I'm sure Paul, like any good Christian, did not fell at home in the natural body and yearned for the spiritual body.

Quote:

Paul's conception of a resurrection could not answer the question of what happened to bodies cremated or eaten?

I suspect Paul believed that if God could transform dust into man he could transform ashes into the new spiritual body.

Quote:

Those poor Corinthians , asking what sort of bodies the dead will rise up, would have wanted an answer to this question. Probably the first one they would have asked.

It is the one that they asked. Your kind of questions are exactly the problem his Greek audience had with the doctrine of the resurrection.

Quote:

But if Paul's conception of the resurrection did not stretch to the obvious case of what would happen to bodies totally destroyed, you can easily fill in the gap. How will God resurrect atoms which have been recycled into new bodies - bearing in mind the 'continuity' of these atoms?

I doubt Paul had any concept of atomic particles. To him, if God could make man out of dust he could make a new body out of the ashes of the old.

Geoff Hudson · 07-29-2003, 10:59 AM

EACH SPIRIT WILL BE RAISED IMMEDIATELY AT DEATH � AT THE TRUMPET CALL (NOT THE LAST)

(51)Listen, I tell you a mystery: [We] {You} will not [all] sleep (i.e.no-one will sleep) , but [we] {you} will [all] be [changed] {raised}

(52)in a flash, in the twinkling of an eye at the [last] trumpet {CALL}.

For the trumpet (NOT THE LAST) will sound, and [the dead] {you} will be raised [imperishable] {pure}.

(54)When the [perishable] {impure} has been�
[clothed with the imperishable]
�{raised pure},�
[and the mortal with immortality],
�then the saying that is written will come true: "Death has been swallowed up in victory."

(55)"Where, O death, is your victory? Where, O death, is your sting?"

(56)The sting of death is [sin] {judgement}, and the power of [sin] {judgement} is the [law] {Spirit}

(57)But thanks be to God! He gives us the victory through
[our Lord Jesus Christ] {the Spirit}.

(58)Therefore, my dear brothers, [stand firm] {obey the Spirit}. Let [nothing] {the Spirit} MOVE YOU.

Always give yourselves fully to the [work] {Spirit} of [the Lord] {God}, because you know that your labour IN the [Lord] {Spirit} is not in vain.

Geoff

Layman · 10-23-2003, 04:40 PM

Since Carr is bringing his up again as if we had not previously addressed it, I thought I would bump it up.

One of the most peculiar developments in the argument was Carr's insistent that, according to Christian belief at the time, the statement that "flesh and blood" could not inherit the Kingdom of God precluded a bodily resurrection of the dead, but his concession that those living at the time of Jesus' second coming will have their bodies transformed into new spiritual bodies. Why this "transformation" allowed the living to escape the supposed "flesh and blood" bar but not the dead remains a mystery .

07-29-2003, 10:59 AM	#69
Geoff Hudson Banned Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: UK Posts: 318	NO-ONE WILL SLEEP EACH SPIRIT WILL BE RAISED IMMEDIATELY AT DEATH � AT THE TRUMPET CALL (NOT THE LAST) (51)Listen, I tell you a mystery: [We] {You} will not [all] sleep (i.e.no-one will sleep) , but [we] {you} will [all] be [changed] {raised} (52)in a flash, in the twinkling of an eye at the [last] trumpet {CALL}. For the trumpet (NOT THE LAST) will sound, and [the dead] {you} will be raised [imperishable] {pure}. (54)When the [perishable] {impure} has been� [clothed with the imperishable] �{raised pure},� [and the mortal with immortality], �then the saying that is written will come true: "Death has been swallowed up in victory." (55)"Where, O death, is your victory? Where, O death, is your sting?" (56)The sting of death is [sin] {judgement}, and the power of [sin] {judgement} is the [law] {Spirit} (57)But thanks be to God! He gives us the victory through [our Lord Jesus Christ] {the Spirit}. (58)Therefore, my dear brothers, [stand firm] {obey the Spirit}. Let [nothing] {the Spirit} MOVE YOU. Always give yourselves fully to the [work] {Spirit} of [the Lord] {God}, because you know that your labour IN the [Lord] {Spirit} is not in vain. Geoff

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

07-29-2003, 10:22 AM	#67
Geoff Hudson Banned Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: UK Posts: 318	1Cor. 15 (38)But God gives [it] {the body} a [body] {spirit} as he has determined, and to each kind of [seed] {body} he gives its own [body] {spirit}. (39)All {flesh] {spirits} are not the same: Men have one kind of [flesh] {spirit}, animals have another, birds another and fish another. (40)There are also heavenly [bodies] {spirits} and there are earthly [bodies] {spirits}; but the [splendour] {purity} of the heavenly [bodies] {spirits} is one kind, and the [splendour] {purity} of the earthly [bodies] {spirits} is another. (41)The sun has one kind of [splendour] {purity}, the moon another and the stars another; and star differs from star in [splendour] {purity}. (42)So will it be with the [resurrection] {rising} of [the dead] {spirits}. The [body] {spirit}� [that] �is sown� [,is perishable] �{in an impure body}; it is raised [imperishable] {pure}. (43)it is sown in [dishonour] {impurity}, it is raised in [glory] {purity}; it is sown in weakness, it is raised in power; (43)it is sown [a natural] {in an impure} body, it is raised a [spiritual] {pure} [body] {spirit}. If there is [a natural] {an impure} [body] {spirit}, there is also a [spiritual] {pure} [body] {spirit} (the two spirits of the DSS). (45)So it is written: "The first man {Adam} became a living being"; the second {Adam}, a [life-giving] {pure} SPIRIT (here spirit is explicit) (46)The [spiritual] {pure spirit} did not come first, but the [natural] {impure spirit}, and after that the [spiritual] {pure spirit}. (47)The first [man] {spirit} was [of the dust of the earth] {impure}. The second [man] {spirit} was [from heaven] {pure}. (48)As was the {spirit of the} earthly man, so are {the spirits of} those who are of the earth; and as is the [man] {Spirit} from heaven, so also are {the spirits of} those who are of heaven. (49)And just as we have� [borne the likeness] �{the spirit} of the earthly man, so shall we� [bear the likeness of the man] �{have the Spirit} from heaven. I declare to you, brothers, that [flesh and blood] {impure spirits} cannot [inherit] {enter} the [kingdom] {heaven} of God, [nor does the perishable inherit the imperishable]. Geoff

10-23-2003, 04:40 PM	#70
Layman Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2001 Location: Los Angeles, CA Posts: 2,635	Since Carr is bringing his up again as if we had not previously addressed it, I thought I would bump it up. One of the most peculiar developments in the argument was Carr's insistent that, according to Christian belief at the time, the statement that "flesh and blood" could not inherit the Kingdom of God precluded a bodily resurrection of the dead, but his concession that those living at the time of Jesus' second coming will have their bodies transformed into new spiritual bodies. Why this "transformation" allowed the living to escape the supposed "flesh and blood" bar but not the dead remains a mystery .

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.