Toto

The third day probably comes from Jonah in the belly of the big fish. But Christians tended to read Jewish scripture and extract a special meaning that might not be obvious to anyone else, so we don't know.

eta - cross posted with Ben. Thanks for finding that. I knew we had discussed it.

helmvgod

That's not the same thing as a physical resurrection. In fact, Paul makes it clear that they are quite different.

spamandham

I feel compelled to resurrect this post every time someone tries to make a bit too much out of 1 Cor 15.

Ben C Smith

Toto used the term bodily resurrection.

One has to slice the onion pretty thin to extract all those layers of meaning between physical, fleshly, bodily, and the like.

The real question, with respect to the OP (or perhaps the immediately ensuing discussion, at any rate), is whether what Paul envisioned would have left behind an empty tomb, right?

If Paul is imagining the soulish (natural) body becoming a spiritual body, even if the latter is extremely different than the former, then such a transformation may indeed imply an empty tomb anyway. It would be a transmutation that would not leave the natural body behind.

Ben.

helmvgod

too speculative. it seems obvious to me that Paul rejects the idea of Jesus in the flesh, and that is the key issue. If we were to conclude what you have posted, which we certainly can not, it doesn't really address the issue of when christians started referring to fleshy jesus. It wasn't with Paul.

gstafleu

The resurrection in the sense the OP uses it is, I think, one where the normal body first dies, lies still for three days, then stirs again, rises and walks about. This is the image we get from the gospels. I don't think that this is what Paul talks about in 1 Cor 15.

For example:
Paul clearly distinguishes between two different types of body here. The body that is raised is different from the normal, every-day body:
So Ben is right in saying that this is a "bodily" resurrection, as Paul does indeed claim that there is some sort of body involved. But this is not our normal body, so in that sense I don't think this is what the OP is looking for.

Gerard Stafleu

Ben C Smith

Do you mean that Paul rejected a Jesus resurrected in the flesh, or do you mean that Paul rejects that Jesus had flesh at all, even while alive?

I agree with the former (1 Corinthians 15.50), but not with the latter (Romans 1.3; 9.5).

We cannot conclude that Paul is imagining the soulish (natural) body turning into the spiritual body? Why not? What rules that out?

(I am by no means saying it is the only way of taking this chapter; I am not even sure it is my own position! But nor am I sure what eliminates the transmutation notion as an option.)

Again, are you talking about the resurrection state only? If so, I agree.

What 1 Corinthians 15 shows beyond dispute is that Paul thinks of the resurrection state as a body (15.44) not made of flesh (15.50).

What can be disputed is what Paul thought this body was made of. Some say he thinks of it as just a spirit, but that makes little sense on two counts:

1. If he is thinking of a mere spirit, why call it a spiritual body?
2. The counterpart to the spiritual body is the soulish body (often translated as the natural body). The soulish body is not made of soul (indeed, it must be made of flesh and blood); why then should we expect the spiritual body to be (made of) spirit?

Ben.

aa5874

I agree, you really don't seem to be sure.

Perhaps the author called "Paul" was a post-resurrection docetist but this notion contradicts the author of gJohn, gLuke where it was claimed the post-resurrection Jesus was eating fish, bread or honeycomb.

But, based on Church History, the author of Luke may have gotten information from "Paul", but in any event, Luke, the so-called follower of "Paul" did write about some kind of test to find out if the post-risen Jesus was human.

Luke 24.36- 43 Perhaps it was thought or known that a spirit had no teeth or a digestive system but notwithstanding, the post-risen Jesus passed the Lucan test.

It is really odd that, as described in the NT, the disciples thought or knew that the post-risen Jesus was human, after the Lucan test, and "Paul" believed that the resurrected Jesus was a spiritual body.

spamandham

The part that is difficult to dispute, in my mind, is that the author of 1 Cor. 15 was referring to bodily resurrection. What is not difficult to dispute to me, is whether or not 1 Cor. 15 as a whole is original to the text.

helmvgod

I think we can safely conclude that paul's resurrected jesus was not the fleshy jesus of the gospels. So, as far as I know, the first reference to fleshy jesus is matthew, right? So, when do we see the gospel of Matthew referenced initially by the christians? Perhaps, that will provide the answer I am looking for.