Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Amaleq13 · 11-03-2006, 08:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dzim77

What do you propose Paul is saying here? To what does "it is raised" refer to if not to the body that was sown?

That which houses whatever one calls one's "true self" (ie soul, spirit). Thus, the perishable body and the imperishable body are "your body" even though they are completely different simply because they house what makes "you".

What is raised is the new house for "you".

dzim77 · 11-03-2006, 11:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Amaleq13

That which houses whatever one calls one's "true self" (ie soul, spirit). Thus, the perishable body and the imperishable body are "your body" even though they are completely different simply because they house what makes "you".

What is raised is the new house for "you".

Hi Amaleq,

I agree with this idea. Is this the first time we've agreed?

My personal theology is that the spirits/souls of believers await in heaven from their death until the second coming of Christ. At that time the "old bodies" will somehow be raised from the earth, then transformed into a new glorious, imperishable body... the spirit/souls of believers that were in heaven will inhabit these new transformed bodies for eternity and will dwell from that time forth in the new heavens and new earth (Rev. 21).

So, then, Jesus was the first ever to inhabit this new, transformed, glorified body that we see in the Gospels... as the rest of believers one day will. He is the firstfruits.

Of course this theology can not be derived only from Paul... it is derived from the whole teaching of the NT.

Amaleq13 · 11-03-2006, 01:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dzim77

Hi Amaleq,

I agree with this idea. Is this the first time we've agreed?

I dunno. Mark your calendar.

Quote:

Of course this theology can not be derived only from Paul...

To bring what I wrote closer to my understanding of Paul's theology, I should change the concept of housing the self into a "manifestation" of the self. IOW, there is a physical manifestation of the self (ie physical body) and a subsequent spiritual manifestation of the self (ie spiritual body) with no assumption of a separate entity like a soul. I obtained this understanding of Paul in an exchange with Richard Carrier in this thread.

Solo · 11-03-2006, 01:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GakuseiDon

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steven Carr
and it is entirely different to the way Paul writes who denies that the dust of the earth will be the material from which resurrected bodies are made.

Where does Paul deny that the dust of the earth will be the material from which resurrected bodies are made? 1 Cor 15:48 is about the transformation. "First the natural, then the spiritual"

Try two verses below:

(50) I tell you this, brethern: flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God, nor does the perishable inherit the imperishable

BTW, it is on this point that I have argued that 1 Cor 15:3-11 is an un-Pauline fake.

Jiri

dzim77 · 11-03-2006, 01:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Amaleq13

I dunno. Mark your calendar.

To bring what I wrote closer to my understanding of Paul's theology, I should change the concept of housing the self into a "manifestation" of the self. IOW, there is a physical manifestation of the self (ie physical body) and a subsequent spiritual manifestation of the self (ie spiritual body) with no assumption of a separate entity like a soul. I obtained this understanding of Paul in an exchange with Richard Carrier in this thread.

Thanks for the link. It's a great thread.

GakuseiDon · 11-03-2006, 01:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steven Carr

'So it is written: "The first man Adam became a living being" the last Adam, a life-giving spirit. The spiritual did not come first, but the natural, and after that the spiritual. The first man was of the dust of the earth, the second man from heaven. As was the earthly man, so are those who are of the earth; and as is the man from heaven, so also are those who are of heaven. And just as we have borne the likeness of the earthly man, so shall we bear the likeness of the man from heaven. I declare to you, brothers, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God, nor does the perishable inherit the imperishable.'

Notice how Paul quotes from Gen 2:9, which is about the creation of Adam from the dust of the earth , and contrasts that with Jesus.

'If there is a natural body, there is also a spiritual body.' Notice the 'also' , almost as though there were two bodies.

Yes, and the question is whether one becomes the other, or the first is discarded. You said that "We discard the old corruptible body and put on a new incorruptible body". Where does it say that the old corruptible body is actually discarded?

Clivedurdle · 11-05-2006, 12:20 PM

I think we really must introduce the concept of Judaic sacrifice - the sacrifice must be perfect, and according to Hebrews Jesus is our great high Priest.

Was the High Priest sacrificed? How can the lamb be unblemished and wounded for our transgressions?

It does look as if there is no consistency or logic behind all this stuff. Why do we try and find something that is not there? The people who wrote this stuff had no idea about germination for example.

Steven Carr · 11-05-2006, 12:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GakuseiDon

Yes, and the question is whether one becomes the other, or the first is discarded. You said that "We discard the old corruptible body and put on a new incorruptible body". Where does it say that the old corruptible body is actually discarded?

I'm not sure about 'discarded'.

In 1 Corinthians 6, Paul talks about God destroying the stomach, and in 2 Corinthians 5, Paul talks about the earthly body being destroyed.

So perhaps 'discarded' was the wrong word for me to use.

GakuseiDon · 11-05-2006, 05:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steven Carr

Quote:

Originally Posted by GDon

Yes, and the question is whether one becomes the other, or the first is discarded. You said that "We discard the old corruptible body and put on a new incorruptible body". Where does it say that the old corruptible body is actually discarded?

I'm not sure about 'discarded'.

In 1 Corinthians 6, Paul talks about God destroying the stomach, and in 2 Corinthians 5, Paul talks about the earthly body being destroyed.

So perhaps 'discarded' was the wrong word for me to use.

Well, if the body isn't discarded, then what? Destroyed -- not discarded -- sounds like the body isn't left behind.

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

11-05-2006, 12:20 PM	#27
Clivedurdle Contributor Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: London UK Posts: 16,024	I think we really must introduce the concept of Judaic sacrifice - the sacrifice must be perfect, and according to Hebrews Jesus is our great high Priest. Was the High Priest sacrificed? How can the lamb be unblemished and wounded for our transgressions? It does look as if there is no consistency or logic behind all this stuff. Why do we try and find something that is not there? The people who wrote this stuff had no idea about germination for example.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.