Freethought & Rationalism Archive

dog-on · 09-09-2007, 07:48 AM

Re: Luke and Paul agreement issues:

Is there any commentary from our friend Tertullian which may shed some light on this subject?

Maybe in his anti-marcion diatribe somewhere?????!!!!!?????

Chili · 09-09-2007, 08:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steven Carr

That is true.

But the material had something added to it.

And Paul does say that human beings (or at least Christians) consist of psyche, soma and pneuma.

Those were things, in Paul's view, not adjectives.

Wisdom perhaps?

Psyche, soma and pneuma in hamony is called wisdom that bears witness to truth. Truth and beauty is real like a commodity and can be traded.

Chili · 09-09-2007, 08:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steven Carr

SO Genesis 2 says that Adam became a living soul, and Paul says Jesus became a spirit.

Presumably then Jesus was not made of what Adam was made of, as we know the constituents of what makes a living soul. The recipe is described in Genesis.

Paul , of course, has no idea what the resurrected Jesus was made of, as nobody had seen one.

But he reminds the Corinthians that it was a heavenly thing , and that heavenly things were made of different materials to earthly things, just like a fish is made of a different thing to the moon.

Just the mind is changed between the 1st and 2nd Adam. The second Adam has crucified the first Adam and redeemed the man he was created to be.

Paul knew exactly what Jesus was made of becasue Paul had died and was raised.

Transformation of mind, soul and body means that the benefits of heaven have the come to rest on the body, which in the end is the purpose of metamorphosis.

Chili · 09-09-2007, 08:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steven Carr

[

Jesus became a spirit who lives inside Christians.

I hope not. Jesus is the way but not the end. Kind of like wheel barrow and would you worship a wheel barrow?

Clivedurdle · 09-09-2007, 03:02 PM

One of the major changes of the late medieval period was the Calvinist concept of the self - this led to a massive suicide rate and depression - Bunyan and Cromwell are classic examples. It probably also drove capitalism. The use of mirrors, the concept of private rooms are earlier examples of the trends resulting in the extreme Calvinist solution of a person alone with God.

I quoted Jung earlier with another definition.

I think we see as a glass darkly when trying to work out what Paul et al meant by these terms - we have so many assumptions here it is ridiculous and possibly impossible to get back to their world view - the fossils are too damaged. Is there actually an individual resurrection or is it a general resurrection of believers?

As Adam had a body that died, might Jesus have resurrected with a new spiritual flesh body?

What is the relevance of wine into blood and bread into flesh? Might turning water into wine be relevant?

Ben C Smith · 09-10-2007, 07:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GakuseiDon

It looks that way to me, also. But then the question is, what did Paul think that Jesus's resurrected body was? If Paul regarded it as an "incorporeal daemon" then that doesn't seem to warrant the attention he gives to it.

To call the resurrection body incorporeal is a contradiction in terms, since incorporeal means, at root, bodiless.

Quote:

A spirit leaves the body and flies to heaven? I'm not sure how common place such a belief was, but I wonder if that was ever described as a "resurrection".

I am not certain such a happenstance was ever referred to as resurrection. N. T. Wright makes the case that resurrection was not life after death; it was always (as he termed it) life after life after death. That is, the person dies (death), there is an intermediate state of some kind (life after death), and then there is a resurrection. The spirit flying immediately to heaven as a direct and immediate consequence of death is just life after death, not life after life after death. He makes a good case, but I really do not know if it is airtight (by which I mean that I have not personally examined every primary text to see if his distinction holds).

Quote:

To me, it seems to me that Paul's talk of "first fruits", different types of bodies, and how living bodies will be transformed suggests that something more than just a spirit leaving the body and going to heaven are involved in "resurrection".

I agree. Indeed, the very fact that he gives the resurrection state a body is an indicator that he is not just talking about release of the spirit from the body.

Ben.

dog-on · 09-10-2007, 07:11 AM

The body of the resurrected Christ is the church.

Right?

Ray Moscow · 09-10-2007, 07:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dog-on

The body of the resurrected Christ is the church.

Right?

Metaphorically, yes.

I think that's what Paul was talking about in 1 Corith 11:29:

Quote:

For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord's body.

In the context, he was talking about relationships within the church community. But perhaps he was also talking about some "mystery" as well, understood by those in the know.

dog-on · 09-10-2007, 07:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ray Moscow

Quote:

Originally Posted by dog-on

The body of the resurrected Christ is the church.

Right?

Metaphorically, yes.

I think that's what Paul was talking about in 1 Corith 11:29:

Quote:

For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord's body.

In the context, he was talking about relationships within the church community. But perhaps he was also talking about some "mystery" as well, understood by those in the know.

How "Gnostic" of him...

So are we looking at some sort of phantasmal resurrection, in Paul?

Ray Moscow · 09-10-2007, 08:08 AM

I don't know.

I think Paul equates the body of Christ with the church community, to which the members were initiated (reborn?) by the spirit:

Quote:

1 Corith 12:12-13: For as the body is one, and hath many members, and all the members of that one body, being many, are one body: so also is Christ.
For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit.

Like I said before, this could have a double meaning that's clear only to those "in the know", perhaps the pnematikoi he mentioned in chapter 2.

Anyway, I don't think any of this need have anything to do with the sort of "resurrection" we later get in the gospels.

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

09-09-2007, 07:48 AM	#51
dog-on Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: The Netherlands Posts: 3,397	Re: Luke and Paul agreement issues: Is there any commentary from our friend Tertullian which may shed some light on this subject? Maybe in his anti-marcion diatribe somewhere?????!!!!!?????

09-09-2007, 03:02 PM	#55
Clivedurdle Contributor Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: London UK Posts: 16,024	One of the major changes of the late medieval period was the Calvinist concept of the self - this led to a massive suicide rate and depression - Bunyan and Cromwell are classic examples. It probably also drove capitalism. The use of mirrors, the concept of private rooms are earlier examples of the trends resulting in the extreme Calvinist solution of a person alone with God. I quoted Jung earlier with another definition. I think we see as a glass darkly when trying to work out what Paul et al meant by these terms - we have so many assumptions here it is ridiculous and possibly impossible to get back to their world view - the fossils are too damaged. Is there actually an individual resurrection or is it a general resurrection of believers? As Adam had a body that died, might Jesus have resurrected with a new spiritual flesh body? What is the relevance of wine into blood and bread into flesh? Might turning water into wine be relevant?

09-10-2007, 07:11 AM	#57
dog-on Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: The Netherlands Posts: 3,397	The body of the resurrected Christ is the church. Right?

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.