Ted Hoffman

For each case also, Layman needs to state the bible translation that he is using.
There are translations that are engineered to weed out any "mythical" connotations that can be gleaned out of the books.
Layman wrote:
This is incorrect. Paul speaks of Christ as a present force. And of the resurrection as something that can be experienced through faith. He says in Collosians that (some) people were buried (and NOT entombed - and this has HUGE implications) with christ and have also ressurected with christ .

Colossians 2:12:
To Paul, whether or not christ resurrected, whether or not the people resurrected with him was/is all a matter of faith (in God - not in Jesus).

CJD

What about the second-century Gnostics? They certainly heard the stories, and, being unable to critically amputate certain hellenistic commitments, fell woefully short in their reconstruction of the gospel.

I'm not sure I follow you, Steven. The time frame for Paul's story would not have allowed his interaction with a resurrected body. If you are referring to his interactions with other apostles who would have supposedly seen and touched Jesus' resurrected body, then what kind of appeal did you have in mind?

While failing to see what the big deal is, couldn't the seed imagery connote both discontinuity and continuity? And if total discontituity, how does this undermine Layman's argument? The fact remains that the resurrection, as understood by Paul, is physical. The new flesh, while completely different in many ways than the old, is nonetheless spoken of as "flesh" (cf. 1 Cor. 15:39ff.).

Now, this is the lynchpin of Paul's gospel. Jesus was a person that came in the flesh, and was NOT ruled by sinful desires. For Paul, therein lies the exaltation of Christ just as the resurrection is proof of that exaltation. Accordingly, you can't have a physical resurrection without a physical victory where the first man failed (so Paul).

The point is not the supposed false dichotomy. The point is whether or not their was a rotted, dead Jesus in a grave somewhere outside Jerusalem. Jews were largely materialists. "Spiritual substance" does not entail "ethereal" in this sense. Even "God is spirit" in the Tanak does not mean "God is a vapor." I am even willing to bet that if Paul were alive today, he would say that given the right scientific instruments (and with God's approval) we could view the physical location of God's throne room. Jesus' resurrection body, for Paul, was not some wispy floating figure. He was a tangible reality that was the first of many to come. Without this, you evacuate the entire meaning of Paul's writings on the future resurrection.

I think this is close, but wrong about there being two bodies. The rotting body was just a seed, but that seed is wholly corruptible so that the resurrected body replaces it entirely. That is, the two never exist at once. Death for the seed is annihilation. Or maybe herein lies the continuity between the seed and the plant. Whatever physical remnants of the body are left at the time of the resurrection, they will be "caught up" and transformed into the new body?

For Jesus, however, we must recognize that the bible as a whole guards his resurrection. For example, it was taught that the Messiah's body would not see decay. But if Jesus died, even for as short amount of time as the gospels indicate, then there still would have been decay, no matter how small. On the other hand, the various authors of Scripture never claimed scientific pedantry, so I am willing to overlook all that, etc., etc.

The conditional contrast here is not between material and non-material (as I alluded to above). The contrast here is both practical and theological. Given that Paul believed all animals were enlivened by the soul (psuchikos soma, 1 Cor. 15:44), so, too, must the material resurrected body be enlivened by the Spirit. The soul, which prevents all animals from being carcasses, will be replaced in those who are resurrected in Christ by the Spirit. Hence, "the last Adam became a life-giving spirit" (15:45). It is a contrast in quality—therein lies the discontinuity.

Simply put, Paul is arguing that the body before it is resurrected suffers want, while afterwards, being quickened by a much greater Spirit, will need nothing that it formerly needed. It seems to me that 15:44 does not even have the change of bodily "substance" in mind.

Regards,

CJD

* edited to add: Steven, we cross-posted. Suffice to say that you suffer from the false dichotomy. See above. "Heavenly" does not equal "wispy" or "vaporous."

Layman

Not at all. Their main objection seems to be about the resurrection of Christians, not of Jesus. Paul refers back to the resurrection of Jesus to emphasize the physical nature of the resurrection. Indeed, Paul explicitly refers back to his teachings about Jesus to stress the physicality of the resurrection.

1 Cor. 15:11-17 Whether then it was I or they, so we preach and so you believed. Now if Christ is preached, that He has been raised from the dead, how do some among you say that there is no resurrection of the dead? 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. Moreover we are even found to be false witnesses of God, because we testified against God that He raised Christ, whom He did not raise, if in fact the dead are not raised. For if the dead are not raised, not even Christ has been raised; and if Christ has not been raised, your faith is worthless; you are still in your sins.

Of course, it's quite possible that that they had heard the gospel stories but put their own gnostic gloss on them--as later actual gnostics were to do. Or, even as Muslism, aware of gospel stories, put their own spin on them. You assume way too much. But it appears that they simply did not make take the Gospel stories as examples of what would happen, or had happened to them.

Well, there had been no practical experience with the resurrection of Christians. But as discussed above, Paul refers to what he taught them about Jesus having been raised from the dead and makes it quite clear that because of those teachings, their doubts about a general resurrection are misplaced.

Actually, nothing but unwarranted skepticism for its own sake on your part.

Where?

Paul actually is very clear that the body which is sown is raised transformed. Heck, the entire analogy of the seed falls apart if there is no continuinty. What the seed analogy stresses is continuity with radical transformation. Does a see lay rotting in the ground wants the rose has bloomed? Of course not, the seed has become the rose.

And Paul himself is clear that he is discussing the same body of the Christian pre and post resurrection:

1 Cor. 15: 42-44 It is sown a perishable body, it is raised an imperishable body; it is sown in dishonor, it is raised in glory; itis sown in weakness, it is raised in power; it is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body. If there is a natural body, there is also a spiritual body.

Throughout Paul is discussing something (it) that is sown, but then is raised. It is sown a particular way, but it will be raised another way. It's the same thing being sown that is raised, but radically transformed.

Besides, you ignored that Paul is here using a Pharsiac analogy for bodily resurrection:

It is significant that Talmudic literature uses the same analogy of a seed to explain the connection between the old body and the new one following the resurrection. According to the Talmud, Rabbi Meier used the metaphor of a grain of wheat sown into the ground but raised a blossoming flower: "If a kernel fo wheat is buried naked and will sprout forth in many robes, how much more so the righteous." (b. Sanh. 90b). Not only does this highlight Paul's Jewishness, it further suggests that Paul was discussing--as was Rabbi Meier--a physical resurrection.

Well, that's pretty much irrelevant since Paul spends most of Corinthians 15 talking about the bodies of Christians, not the body of Jesus. Paul is quite clear about the continuity but transformation of the bodies of ordinary believers. He is quite clear that they are ordinary bodies before hand and gloried bodies afterwards.

As for Jesus, although Paul refereneces his teachings about Jesus, he does not repeat them in any detail. The most we can tell is that Paul also believed that Jesus' resurrection also involved continuity and physicality.

Again, irrelevant. By "our" Paul is speaking of Christians, not of Jesus.

But, if I had to reconstruct Paul's thoughts on the subject I'd probably tentatively conclude that Paul believed that Jesus was a spiritual man, as he uses that term in 1 Cor. 2:14-15, but that he had a natural body that was transformed into a spiritual body upon his resurrection. Of course, being the Messiah, Jesus' faith and God's attention to him would have allowed his natural body to do all sorts of things normal bodies could not. Remember, even Peter walked on water, even though he still resided in his old, natural body.

Actually, your objection is a false dichotomy. Even if the new body was "some ethereal, spiritual substance" that does not preclude continuity with the old. Remember, Paul uses the term "transformed" to describe what happens to the old body. So it is quite possible that the old natureal body was "transformed" into your substance.

Of course, if that is what Paul meant he probably would not have used the term "soma" at all, since it stresses the physical part of humanity.

Jews did not believe that "heavenly bodies" were immortal spiritual bodies. Indeed, Paul is quite clear that heavenly bodies are physical objects. And he and other Jews believed that those physical objects would be displaced at the end of time.


You fail to explain how Paul could believe that the spirit's believer immediately departs to be with Jesus, but the resurrection occurs later.

You fail to explain how Paul can speak of the "transformation" of the old body if he merely means a spiritual resurrection (or, a replacement by some other kind of spiritual substance).

You completely ingore Romans 8, which makes it clear that God will give "life to your mortal bodies" at the resurrection.

You also ignore the use of "soma" to emphasize the physical.

Layman

It's the second link. Its part of Carrier's "why I don't buy the resurrection" article.

Steven Carr

Are you saying the first-century Christian Corinthians had the same problem?
So how did Paul know what a resurrected body was like? Was he just guessing?

Touching Jesus would have been proof that Jesus was tangible, yet Paul makes no appeal to Jesus bing touched, or Jesus eating.

But as you point out, when Paul wrote, he had heard of no experiences of a resurrected body to draw upon.


1 Corinthians 15:38-39
But God gives it a body as he has determined, and to each kind of seed he gives its own body. 39All flesh is not the same: Men have one kind of flesh, animals have another, birds another and fish another. 40There are also heavenly bodies and there are earthly bodies; but the splendor of the heavenly bodies is one kind, and the splendor of the earthly bodies is another.

Paul is simply pointing out that we would expect a resurrected body NOT to have the flesh of a mortal body. This contradicts the Gospel idea that the body which went in the ground is the body which came out.

Indeed he goes on to imply that heavenly bodies do not have the same flesh as man, just as man does not have the same flesh as birds.

I don't understand your point here. You claim Paul believed that a spiritual body is one not ruled by sinful desires.

Therefore, you believe Paul said Jesus had a spiritual body BEFORE the resurrection. This ruins the idea that Paul was simply talking about a transformation from a fleshly body ruled by sinful desires to a fleshly body not ruled by sinful desires.

There was no such transformation in the case of Jesus, so Paul must have been talking about a different transformation - one from a fleshly body to a spiritual body, not made of the dust of the earth.

And this runs totally contrary to the Gospel claim that the physical body was not annihalated at all, but got up and walked around.

And you are stretching Paul's analogy too far. When a farmer sows, plants come up, but there would still have been ungerminated seeds lying around. Was Paul so scientifically educated to count plants and seeds, work out that some had germinated and some not?

Or would he just have looked at the seemingly dead seeds, the plants, and used an analogy of a seed having to die before God creates a plant's body? Paul would no more have been fazed by seeing the dead seed of Jesus's body, than a farmer by the fact that plants have grown , even though there are still dead seeds visibile.

Anyway, Paul is quite clear that there are TWO bodies, and that God creates the new body.

And this is to be shown as well. I said 'ethereal', which has connotations of 'wispy' now, but was just the stuff of heavenly bodies 2,000 years ago.

CJD

Steven, Layman summed it up best: "Throughout Paul is discussing something (it) that is sown, but then is raised. It is sown a particular way, but it will be raised another way. It's the same thing being sown that is raised, but radically transformed."

Your suggestion that "God creates the new body" cannot mean in its textual context "from scratch."

Paul is simply pointing out that we would expect a resurrected body NOT to have the flesh of a mortal body.

Right. We should expect a resurrected body to have the soma of an immortal body.

This contradicts the Gospel idea that the body which went in the ground is the body which came out.

It is no contradiction insofar as the body is the plant that was formerly the seed.

You claim Paul believed that a spiritual body is one not ruled by sinful desires.

That is what makes the life and work of X so dramatic. The fact that the natural man is ruled thus, and the fact that the gospel story depicts a natural man defying such slavery, is the whole point. His work on our behalf. That's not so hard to grasp, is it?

Besides this, you are beginning to conflate Paul's use of soma and sarx.

Paul is simply talking about the transformation from a body of flesh enlivened by the soul that suffers want to a body of flesh enlivened by the Spirit that does not suffer want. Christ Jesus had always been enlivened by the Spirit. I think that is the point you have missed.

And this runs totally contrary to the Gospel claim that the physical body was not annihalated at all, but got up and walked around.

But then I wrote:"Or maybe herein lies the continuity between the seed and the plant. Whatever physical remnants of the body are left at the time of the resurrection, they will be "caught up" and transformed into the new body?"

To reiterate Layman, Paul is here largely speaking of Xians not Jesus.

But as you point out, when Paul wrote, he had heard of no experiences of a resurrected body to draw upon.

Um. I never said "he had heard of no experience . . . ." Doesn't Paul mention somewhere that a whole bunch of people saw Jesus after his resurrection? Besides all of this, he, by his own testimony (as well as the approval of the apostles), recounted a time when the risen Saviour appeared to him directly. You don't have to believe him, but that's what he said, and common sense would dictate that if he was not lying, then that is all the appeal one would need. Whatever else common sense dictates, I need not hear about it.

Or would he just have looked at the seemingly dead seeds, the plants, and used an analogy of a seed having to die before God creates a plant's body?

Yes, I think it's that simple. But the fact remains that the seed and the plant are of the same substance. It seems to me that you must grapple with the Hebraic concept of spiritual beings as found in the Tanak (which Paul, as a former Pharisee, would have known thoroughly), if you are to surmise what Paul was assuming in pericopes such as these.

* edited to add: I am not saying that just because a doctrine is found that Paul embraced it; I am saying that it would be wise to first go there, then compare to Paul's text, and then let the law of parsimony do the rest.

Regards,

CJD

Steven Carr

And you assume too much assuming that they had heard of them.

If they had heard of them (or if Paul had heard of them!) 1 Cor. 15 would have referred to them in some way.

And, of course, Paul would have seen plants coming up although there were dead seeds still in the ground.

There is total discontiniuity in Paul's analogy. The seed dies (is annihalted, according to CJD) and then God CREATES the body of the thing of which the seed is the seed.

Note there THERE IS ALSO a spiritual body. 2 bodies, ie nmore than one. Just how clearly must Paul write to show that the body which came out of the ground was not the body which was planted, no more than the huge shrub of the mustard plant is nothing like the mustard seed.


There is simply no context to what you have quoted from the Talmud. Out of context quotes are not convincing. Give the sentences before and after, to prove that this is relevant to a resurrection.


Of course, and it was no longer a flesh-and-blood body.

Again, I agree. But the Gospels have Jesus eating, and being touched.

Well, you are the expert. Perhaps you can tell us whether Jews believed heavenly bodies were made out of any substance found on earth.




I shall quote your own words

' Remember, Paul uses the term "transformed" to describe what happens to the old body. So it is quite possible that the old natureal body was "transformed" into your substance.'

So you agree that he merely meant a replacement by some other kind of spiritual substance.

Romans 8
10But if Christ is in you, your body is dead because of sin, yet your spirit is alive because of righteousness. 11And if the Spirit of him who raised Jesus from the dead is living in you, he who raised Christ from the dead will also give life to your mortal bodies through his Spirit, who lives in you.

Layman adds words not found in Romans 8 'at the resurrection', so he can accuse me of ignoring words that he only added to the Bible a few moments ago.

Paul is not talking about the resurrection in Romans 8. Paul is talking about their lives being transformed here and now.



Because it was a non-sequitor on your part. Naturally, there are places where 'soma' means a physical, flesh-and-blood body. Lots of words have different meanings in different contexts.

Layman

You have your worlds turned upside down. The Corinthians are coming from a Greek background. They are not Pharisees or Jews devoted to the idea of a physical resurrection. From a Greek conception of life after death, the fact that Jesus' body remained in the tomb would pose no difficulty at all.

Then we have Paul, a Jew, a Pharisee. But more than that he is speaking of resurrection from a thoroughly Jewish standpoint--it includes the soma and is an eschatological event. He is the Jew in this scenario. Indeed, elsehwere he is attempting to impose Jewish sexual mores on this Greek-background church that permits licentious behavior.

So you have the Greeks playing the part of the Jews and the Jew playing the part of the Greeks. A Greek would have no problem with a body in the grave and discussion of resurrection, and a Jew would not go out of his way to try and convince people that there was a resurrection when the body was still in the grave.

Peter Kirby

What is the evidence that Greeks had a conception of a spiritual resurrection?

thanks,
Peter Kirby

Steven Carr

Best to quote 1 Cor. 15 again

'When you sow, you do not plant the body that will be, but just a seed, perhaps of wheat or of something else. 38But God gives it a body as he has determined, and to each kind of seed he gives its own body.'

The body planted in the ground was NOT the body that came out of the ground. God gave it a new body.

God looks at the seed, creates a body of the plant for that seed, and gives it to the seed, which dies and is annihilated.

Amazing somebody can look at an analogy of an acorn being planted, and an oak tree growing, 2 vastly different things , and conclude that Paul meant that Jesus's resurrected body would still have had the same wounds and still be flesh-and-blood, just as it was before it was planted.

The analogy emphasises the utter discontinuity and the irrelevance of the seed being planted, which is no more than a message to God to say what sort of body now needs to be created.

This is just so different from the Gospel stories of a resuscitated corpse.