TedM

No, it isn't clear. First, he says "some one will ask". He doesn't say "many have asked" or "you have asked" or "some of you say"(the phrase he uses earlier). Second, it comes significantly later in his reply--an indication that this WASN'T something Paul knew they were pounding the table about. Third, Paul's answers with regard to the TIMING of the resurrection of those who were already dead and rotting--which is found both before and after verses 35 to 50--provides an alternative explanation of their concern.

You are assuming something that is questionable.


Yup. Paul doesn't seem interested in PROVING whether believer' physical bodies will be reassembled or not. IF that was a concern of the Corinthian's it wasn't to Paul, and it isn't to many if not most current Christians. Should we assume that if Paul believed Jesus' body had been reassembled, he would have felt it necessary to point this out to the Corinthians? Possibly, IF he thought they were concerned about that.


And, perhaps this is why Paul doesn't mention Jesus' physical body. However, it is interesting to me that he doesn't explain that Jesus' physical body wasn't resurrected despite understandable beliefs that it was. IF Jesus were thrown in a common grave, his body WOULD be missing. This would make it easy to claim that his BODY was raised, yet Paul never says: "Hey guys, you're missing the boat here. Jesus' body is missing NOT because it was resurrected, but because his burial place is unknown. We believe in a SPIRITUAL resurrection of Jesus, not PHYSICAL" But Paul doesn't say that.


You are assuming that a resurrected body is physical just because it is manifested as physical in certain ways. Clearly, it could not have been physical, but spiritual. Why should Paul appeal to confusing stories about eating fish and wounds when the body itself could not have been physical at that point?

ted

Amaleq13

But you don't. There is no evidence of the existence of the concept in early Christianity (ie prior to Paul's conversion or even while Paul preached). You only have evidence of it at the end of the 1st century. Do you contend that Christianity was "predominantly made up a Christian Jews who considered themselves Jews" in the last decades of the 1st century? If so, what is the evidence for this?

This is just another unsupported leap. Nothing in Justin or Jerome suggests Judaism "went out of its way" to reject this notion. All the Jews were doing was pointing out the obvious (ie that the interpretation was flawed).

Repeating this doesn't make it true. You continue to lack any evidence that the earliest, predominantly Jewish Christians held this belief. The Gospels were not written by the group in Jerusalem but they were written at a time when Christianity was establishing itself as a separate entity from Judaism and predominantly gentile.

The concept of a miraculous birth associated with a divine being was fairly common in Greek mythology and the stories appear just when Christianity was predominantly gentile.

This is "provenance" was your original assertion for which you have still offered absolutely no evidence.

That should not be a difficult decision.

Steven Carr

The timing was not , in itself, a concern. Both the Thessalonikans and the Corinthians thought that the dead were lost, both now and in the future.



You have to look at how other people handled virtually the identical question that Paul answered (or rather didn't answer), to see that it was a concern which had to be addressed, at least by those who believed that corpses would rise again.

See 2 Baruch 49-51 or Sanhedrin 90b where the same question is met by explicit statements that the dead return to life in the form that the earth receieved them, or by elaborate proofs of how God can reassemble people from clay.

Or look at the fake Paul in 3 Corinthians, who says ' he arose, both body and soul and bones and spirit'

Or look at the real Paul in 2 Corinthians 5, who says the body will be destroyed and we will get a heavenly body.


And the obvious conclusion is that Paul didn't know of a missing body, and nor did the Thessalonikans and nor did the Corinthians.

Paul states outright 'the last Adam became a life-giving spirit', which is hard to square with your claim that Paul does not talk about a spiritual resurrection.

TedM

I"m doubtful, because to both groups Paul speaks about the timing of the resurrection of those who had already died.


I don't think that is obvious at all. I question if the tradition of a missing body could have developed within the community if everyone originally understood that it was NOT missing and that the resurrection was SPIRITUAL only. IF THAT was the case, why would the Corinthians be concerned about the bodies of those who had died--ie they should already have understood that the bodies rot and the souls are resurrected.


Paul does talk about a spiritual body. I'm just saying that isn't inconsistent with belief that Jesus' physical body was missing or that it was even resurrected as a spiritual body. The fish and wounds need not be seen as representative of the typical resurrection, but rather as a means of proof for those that knew him. It was still believed by the gospel writers to be a spiritual body, as is evidenced by its imperishability.

ted

GakuseiDon

Paul talks about a transformation. Paul's analogy of the seed becoming a plant hints at this, as I pointed out here: http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...5&page=1&pp=16

Is the seed left behind Steve, or is it transformed?

"It is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body" is pretty much a slam-dunk case. It may not sound right to modern ears, but it is part of the process of the perishable body becoming imperishable. The physical body isn't left behind, and, like the seed, is transformed into something new.

Dina Noun

Some examples of scripture indicating the resurrected body is physical.

GakuseiDon

That's what the Gospels are saying, certainly. But is that what Paul thought as well? From what Paul says, I don't think he would have agreed that Christ rose in a body that had the physical marks from the crucifixion. "It is raised a spiritual body" hints at a transformation that would not allow such imperfection, IMHO.

Gamera

To say Paul isn't writing during the period of early Christianity beggars common sense.

So the burden is on you to show us evidence they were in a position to know one way or the other. You haven't provided that evidence, making your argument unconvincing.


It looks like our disagreement turns on what you call "early." I assert that Paul was in fact writing during the early period of Christianity. Your claim that this isn't early Christianity is, well, kind of odd. I think 20 years after Jesus death qualifies as early Christianity. And given Paul was at the front of spreading Christianity outside Judea to talk about early Christianity ending before Paul came on the scene is again, odd.

Already rebutted this. There are no Greek myths concerned with virgin births and especially not virgin births tied up with soteriological concerns. But if you can cite one, be my guest.


Sure I have. But you offer no provenance, merely the assertion that the virgin birth motif suddenly popped up in early Chrsitianity.

Gamera

[QUOTE=Steven Carr]Well this is the most strained argument I've heard in a long time. Again, arguments for an author doesn't say are the weakest. But more to the point, your claim that Paul should have used narratives from the synoptic gospels to make a theological point is very strange, since Paul got his revelations (according to him) directly from Jesus, and not from the witnesses. He makes a point of that, as I showed. It was important to him. It rather follows that he doesn't use witness material, but rather his understanding purported given directly from the risen Christ. And voila, that's what he does in Corinthians!

You have an argument with Paul's statements in Galatians, not with me. Paul made a point of asserting that he didn't get his message from other men, including the witnesses and the apostles. I think the reason that this was a concern of his was obvious, but whatever the reason, he asserts it. So that rebuts your claim that he "should" have used narratives from the gospels, which were the very narratives of the witnesses and the apostles.

So try again.

Gamera

Then you won't believe, according to the terms of the gospel.

But leaving your unbeleif aside, which is your choice, the point is Paul was at pains to avoid the gospel narratives for the reasons I set forth, or rather he set forth in Galatians. This utterly rebuts Steve's claim.