Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Steven Carr · 04-07-2004, 02:43 PM

At the Transfiguration, the face of Jesus shone like the sun.

Is this because he had a spiritual body - one animated by the Spirit?

Can a 'soulish' body shine like the sun?

Did either Moses or Elijah have a spiritual body?

GakuseiDon · 04-07-2004, 03:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steven Carr

At the Transfiguration, the face of Jesus shone like the sun.

Is this because he had a spiritual body - one animated by the Spirit?

Can a 'soulish' body shine like the sun?

Did either Moses or Elijah have a spiritual body?

Warning: One thing I've noticed about Steven is that he will sometimes take the topic of debate, twist it slightly, and repost it in a different thread or a different board as if it seems he is taking the opposite view. (He did it to me on Theology Web, and I've seen him do it to others).

Signs of this:
* He asks a series of vaguely related questions.
* He doesn't really say what his particular view of the matter is.
* He doesn't participate in the debate, other than little jabs to keep it rolling.

Now, there is nothing inherently wrong with any of the above. Certainly Steve doesn't do it all the time. And maybe Steve is asking the questions above because he just wants to know the answers. I'm not saying "don't answer" by any means. But for anyone who enjoys open debating (as I do), I suggest you proceed cautionly.

"Once bitten, twice shy" GDon.

Attonitus · 04-07-2004, 05:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steven Carr

At the Transfiguration, the face of Jesus shone like the sun.

Is this because he had a spiritual body - one animated by the Spirit?

Can a 'soulish' body shine like the sun?

Did either Moses or Elijah have a spiritual body?

Spiritual body? This pauline expression it is unknown in the Gospel's Tradition. Here we are before a metamorphosis. By the way, the word sun only appears in GMatt.

Toto · 04-07-2004, 08:03 PM

As for the meaning of a spiritual body, I think you need to consult with a real authority on spiritualism, Madame Blavatsky and the Theosophists. The Theosophists considered Paul as an initiate.

Quote:

The spiritual body is most assuredly not one of the bodies, or visible or tangible larvae, which form in circle-rooms, and are so improperly termed "materialized spirits." When once the metanoia, the full developing of spiritual life, has lifted the spiritual body out of the psychical (the disembodied, corruptible, astral man, what Col. Olcott calls "soul"), it becomes, in strict ratio with its progress, more and more an abstraction for the corporeal senses. It can influence, inspire, and even communicate with men subjectively; it can make itself felt, and even, in those rare instances when the clairvoyant is perfectly pure and perfectly lucid, be seen by the inner eye (which is the eye of the purified Psyche – soul). But how can it ever manifest objectively?

I am afraid, however, that my own level of enlightenment may not be sufficient to figure out what that means.

Or from Madame B herself, justifying the seven fold characterization of man:

Quote:

. . . Plato's various combinations of Soul and Spirit. He regarded man as constituted of two parts -- one eternal, formed of the same essence as the Absoluteness, the other mortal and corruptible, deriving its constituent parts from the minor "created" Gods. Man is composed, he shows, of (1) A mortal body, (2) An immortal principle, and (3) A "separate mortal kind of Soul." It is that which we respectively call the physical man, the Spiritual Soul or Spirit, and the animal Soul (the Nous and psuche). This is the division adopted by Paul, another Initiate, who maintains that there is a psychical body which is sown in the corruptible (astral soul or body), and a spiritual body that is raised in incorruptible substance. Even James (iii. 15) corroborates the same by saying that the "wisdom" (of our lower soul) descendeth not from the above, but is terrestrial ("psychical," "demoniacal," vide Greek text); while the other is heavenly wisdom. Now so plain is it that Plato and even Pythagoras, while speaking but of three "principles," give them seven separate functions, in their various combinations, that if we contrast our teachings this will become quite plain. . .

From another Theosophist, William Q. Judge

Quote:

What stands in the way of the modern western man's seeing this clearly is the long training we have all had in materialistic science and materializing religion, both of which have made the mere physical body too prominent. The one has taught of matter alone and the other has preached the resurrection of the body, a doctrine against common sense, fact, logic, and testimony. But there is no doubt that the theory of the bodily resurrection has arisen from the corruption of the older and true teaching. Resurrection is founded on what Job says about seeing his redeemer in his flesh, and on St. Paul's remark that the body was raised incorruptible. But Job was an Egyptian who spoke of seeing his teacher or initiator, who was the redeemer, and Jesus and Paul referred to the spiritual body only.

Kosh · 04-07-2004, 08:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GakuseiDon

Warning: One thing I've noticed about Steven is that he will sometimes take the topic of debate, twist it slightly, and repost it in a different thread or a different board as if it seems he is taking the opposite view. (He did it to me on Theology Web, and I've seen him do it to others).

Signs of this:
* He asks a series of vaguely related questions.
* He doesn't really say what his particular view of the matter is.
* He doesn't participate in the debate, other than little jabs to keep it rolling.

Now, there is nothing inherently wrong with any of the above. Certainly Steve doesn't do it all the time. And maybe Steve is asking the questions above because he just wants to know the answers. I'm not saying "don't answer" by any means. But for anyone who enjoys open debating (as I do), I suggest you proceed cautionly.

"Once bitten, twice shy" GDon.

Could be worse. At least he doesn't commit ad hominem attacks.

Steven Carr · 04-07-2004, 09:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GakuseiDon

Signs of this:
* He asks a series of vaguely related questions.
* He doesn't really say what his particular view of the matter is.
* He doesn't participate in the debate, other than little jabs to keep it rolling.

Now, there is nothing inherently wrong with any of the above. Certainly Steve doesn't do it all the time. And maybe Steve is asking the questions above because he just wants to know the answers.

As I have no idea what a spiritual body is, I am curious to learn what one could be , and if Moses and Elijah managed to live for millenia in a body that is not spiritual.

And one wonders why people spend billions of dollars on particle accelarators to find new forms of matter, when they could just read the Bible to find out about this transformed matter that our bodies will be made out of :-)

Physical bodies which can go through locked doors must be made of matter which has yet to be detected at CERN.

To get back to the thread, if a natural body must die and be transformed to become a spiritual body, then what happens to a natural body when it is transfigured?

Amaleq13 · 04-08-2004, 07:06 AM

I think the concept of a "spiritual body" is yet another example of a belief system trying to have its cake and eat it too (heretofore known as Eternally Replenishing Cake Syndrome). Add it to the list with incarnation, the Trinity, and atoning sacrifices.

They are all examples of ERCS that cannot be defended rationally but must be accepted through faith.

Gawen · 04-08-2004, 11:07 AM

I always thought a spiritual body was the congregation of a fundie church.

And many women have spiritual bodies as well. Oh...sorry, that's HEAVENLY bodies...

Toto · 04-08-2004, 11:39 AM

OK, I might have been a little flippant in looking to Blavatsky to interpret Paul. But I do contend that the Theosophists are a better guide to Paul and other 1st-2nd century writings than a literalist 21st century rationalist background.

I know that Layman likes to claim that Paul talks about a body, so it must be a material body because there are no other sorts. But Paul was not a 21st century rationalist.

The gospels, of course, do not talk about a "spiritual body" but may imply the same sort of ectoplasmic matter.

It is just part of the difficulty of reconciling Christian texts with modern science.

Layman · 04-08-2004, 12:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

I know that Layman likes to claim that Paul talks about a body, so it must be a material body because there are no other sorts. But Paul was not a 21st century rationalist.

Actually, I am quite clear that Paul believes the resurrection body is a "spiritual body."

Quote:

Third, although many have argued that the reference to a "spiritual body" implies a spiritual resurrection, this argument is without merit. Although Paul speaks of a "spiritual" body and a "natural" body, what is often overlooked is that both phrases are talking about the same thing-the "soma". The terms "spiritual" and "natural" do not change this. They are modifiers differentiating the nature of the body before and after, but in no way implying that one is physical and the other is not. According to Paul, the current body is a natural body. But, after the resurrection, it will be a spiritual body. In both cases, it remains a body (soma). The difference is not between physical and nonphysical, but between soulish and spiritual. Between, as the verses begins, corruptible and incorruptible.

http://www.didjesusexist.com/resbody.html

04-07-2004, 02:43 PM	#1
Steven Carr Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: England Posts: 5,629	What is a spiritual body? At the Transfiguration, the face of Jesus shone like the sun. Is this because he had a spiritual body - one animated by the Spirit? Can a 'soulish' body shine like the sun? Did either Moses or Elijah have a spiritual body?

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

04-08-2004, 07:06 AM	#7
Amaleq13 Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2003 Location: Eagle River, Alaska Posts: 7,816	I think the concept of a "spiritual body" is yet another example of a belief system trying to have its cake and eat it too (heretofore known as Eternally Replenishing Cake Syndrome). Add it to the list with incarnation, the Trinity, and atoning sacrifices. They are all examples of ERCS that cannot be defended rationally but must be accepted through faith.

04-08-2004, 11:07 AM	#8
Gawen Contributor Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: Cylon Occupied Texas, but a Michigander @ heart Posts: 10,326	I always thought a spiritual body was the congregation of a fundie church. And many women have spiritual bodies as well. Oh...sorry, that's HEAVENLY bodies...

04-08-2004, 11:39 AM	#9
Toto Contributor Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Los Angeles area Posts: 40,549	OK, I might have been a little flippant in looking to Blavatsky to interpret Paul. But I do contend that the Theosophists are a better guide to Paul and other 1st-2nd century writings than a literalist 21st century rationalist background. I know that Layman likes to claim that Paul talks about a body, so it must be a material body because there are no other sorts. But Paul was not a 21st century rationalist. The gospels, of course, do not talk about a "spiritual body" but may imply the same sort of ectoplasmic matter. It is just part of the difficulty of reconciling Christian texts with modern science.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.