andrewcriddle

Hi Ben

When you say that Paul does not distinguish in kind between his own vision and the visions of those who came before him I think you may be understanding Paul's experience of the risen Christ in the light of Luke's description in Acts. If so this may be unjustified. IE I find it plausible that although Paul's understanding of the resurrection experiences of those who came before him was less material than in Luke's account, his understanding of his own experience may well have been more material than in Luke's account of the Damascus Road conversion.

IMHO there is a special issue with the way in which Luke has represented the resurrection appearances, which makes them different from Paul's understanding thereof. I don't think this is true for the Gospels as a whole. IE I don't regard the accounts of the appearances in Matthew 28 and John 20 as being clearly more material than in Paul's understanding. (John 21 may be another matter.)

Andrew Criddle

Ben C Smith

I am trying not to read Paul by what Luke is saying. Here is how I am thinking:

1. Paul, precisely in a context explaining the mode of resurrection (the nature of the risen body) says that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom. His tying together of the general resurrection and the resurrection of Jesus seems to me to entail that this statement about the general resurrection is supposed to apply to that of Jesus, too.
2. A vision of the risen Lord, then, must be a vision of an entity that lacks flesh and blood.
3. Paul fails to distinguish in kind between his vision and the visions of his predecessors; all seem to be in the same boat, having received visions of a Jesus who lacks flesh and blood.

The risen Lord supposedly had a body of some kind, according to Paul, so I am not certain how physical or nonphysical these visions were supposed to be; but given that flesh and blood are suited for earth, it seems to me that whatever Paul is imagining should be more suited for heaven (see verses 48-49). It is only when we turn to Luke that things seem to get more complicated.

That may be, but in that case Luke has done even more work to create a divide between the 40 days and the time thereafter, since he has taken a set of medial events, if you will, and made some of them more physical and one of them less physical than he found in his sources.

I agree that Matthew 28 may describe a purely nonphysical vision on a mountaintop, for all we know. John 20, on the other hand, has the doubting Thomas material. Unless you can finesse this material for me, I think I am going to find it hard to believe that the author is not thinking of a fleshly body (complete with stigmata).

Ben.

andrewcriddle

Just to confirm; that is what I am (tentatively) sugesting Luke has done.
Matthew 28 includes the appearance of Jesus to the women in verses 9-10 as well as the mountaintop experience at the end. I don't see either as contrary to Paul's understanding of the resurrection. Paul IMO regards the resurrection body as being of angelic or quasi-angelic nature which by OT and other precedents permits a reasonable amount of apparent physicality when interacting with human beings.

The doubting Thomas material is I agree more questionable. However, it does seem to differ from the Lukan material. In Luke Jesus is explicitly establishing his continued fleshly state. This does not seem to be the case in John. Jesus is persuading Thomas of the reality of his resurrection, that it is really him. IE the thought seems to be that the risen Jesus encountered by the disciples is the same person as the Jesus of Nazareth they previously knew. This idea of personal continuity preserved in the resurrection seems compatible with how I understand 1 Corinthians 15.

Andrew Criddle

Ben C Smith

I agree with this, at least in principle. I note, with an eye to our discussion thus far, that an angelic state is more fit for heaven than for earth; angels occasionally appear on earth (or between heaven and earth, or in dreams) in the biblical texts, but they seem to live in heaven.

It is interesting that all three synoptics report Jesus saying that the resurrected dead will be like angels (Matthew 22.30 = Mark 12.25 = Luke 20.36). Now, it may be that the bit about not marrying is the only intended basis for comparison, but Luke seems to deliberately connect this angelic state with the resurrection in his version of the saying. So it may also be that Luke imagines the general resurrection as angelic in quality; if so, then his view of the resurrection of Jesus is exceptional, even on his own terms.

I would say that in John the Lord is indeed persuading Thomas that it is really he, as you say; but it is the way in which the Lord does so in John that resembles Luke, IMO. He is not, for example, proving his identity by claiming to know something that only the earthly Jesus could have known; rather, he is proving his identity by showing the persistence of wounds inflicted on his flesh in its earthly state, and the presence of these wounds seems to me to virtually require a continued fleshly state (to use your apt words for it).

Ben.

lycanthrope

This is a question more for the Christian believers: Is there a scriptural basis for believing in a spiritual resurrection and not physical one like most christians?

Chili

That he rose from the grave?

Steven Carr

You mean, apart from Paul saying flat-out that Jesus became a spirit?

http://www.premiercommunity.org.uk/g...ATopic%3A26641 is an interesting debate on the topic

Ben C Smith

The terms are so slippery here. If the only choices are that (A) Jesus rose from the dead in spirit only, without a body, and that (B) Jesus rose from the dead with his original flesh intact, Paul believes neither. 1 Corinthians 15.35, 37, 42-44 disproves A; 1 Corinthians 15.48-50 disproves B.

What does Paul believe? It is a legitimate question, and all answers seem to run up against legitimate objections. My personal view of what Paul is saying involves the present human body (made of flesh and blood) being transformed into a new, glorified body of some kind (made of something other than flesh and blood). This transformation preserves most of the Pauline statements on the topic, including the destruction of the old body (since a transformation can be talked about as the destruction of one entity and replacement by another; think larva and butterfly) and the continuity between the old body and the new (the seed metaphor, for example).

Ben.