Freethought & Rationalism Archive

andrewcriddle · 04-30-2006, 06:10 AM

Origen emphasised the distinction between the mortal body and the resurrection body to an extent doubtfully compatible with later orthodoxy.

It may be of interest how he interpreted 1 Corinthians 15

There are detailed discussions in Peri Archon book 2 and Contra Celsum book 5

Contra Celsum book 5 has

Quote:

We, therefore, do not maintain that the body which has undergone corruption resumes its original nature, any more than the grain of wheat which has decayed returns to its former condition. But we do maintain, that as above the grain of wheat there arises a stalk, so a certain power is implanted in the body, which is not destroyed, and from which the body is raised up in incorruption

the bold portion is in Greek LOGOS TIS EGKEITAI TWi SWMATI APh hOU MH PhThEIROMENOU EGEIRETAI TO SWMA EN APhThARSIAi The idea seems to be that some sort of seminal principle of the original body is resurrected in a transformed bodily form.

Andrew Criddle

GakuseiDon · 04-30-2006, 08:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chris Weimer

You people really need to learn Greek:

1st Corinthians 15.42 introduces the subject "resurrection of the dead". speiretai and egeiretai are both 3rd person singular present passive indicative. There's nothing else in the sentences except resurrection of the dead that it can be referring to. The "it" is part of English grammar to keep from appearing to amiguous when using the 3rd person.

This is all basic Greek grammar, very useful to know before you try calling bullshit.

ETA: Stephen Carr - it can't be referring to the dead - nekrwn is plural, and the verbs are singular. It refers to the resurrection of the dead.

Thanks Chris.

Quote:

Originally Posted by andrewcriddle

Origen emphasised the distinction between the mortal body and the resurrection body to an extent doubtfully compatible with later orthodoxy.

It may be of interest how he interpreted 1 Corinthians 15

There are detailed discussions in Peri Archon book 2 and Contra Celsum book 5

Quote:

We, therefore, do not maintain that the body which has undergone corruption resumes its original nature, any more than the grain of wheat which has decayed returns to its former condition. But we do maintain, that as above the grain of wheat there arises a stalk, so a certain power is implanted in the body, which is not destroyed, and from which the body is raised up in incorruption

Contra Celsum book 5 has the bold portion is in Greek LOGOS TIS EGKEITAI TWi SWMATI APh hOU MH PhThEIROMENOU EGEIRETAI TO SWMA EN APhThARSIAi The idea seems to be that some sort of seminal principle of the original body is resurrected in a transformed bodily form.

Andrew Criddle

Thanks Andrew, that's interesting. That's pretty much what Paul appears to be saying, and, from what I understand, what the Pharisees of Paul's time believed as well.

Steven Carr · 05-08-2006, 11:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chris Weimer

You people really need to learn Greek:

1st Corinthians 15.42 introduces the subject "resurrection of the dead". speiretai and egeiretai are both 3rd person singular present passive indicative. There's nothing else in the sentences except resurrection of the dead that it can be referring to. The "it" is part of English grammar to keep from appearing to amiguous when using the 3rd person.

This is all basic Greek grammar, very useful to know before you try calling bullshit.

ETA: Stephen Carr - it can't be referring to the dead - nekrwn is plural, and the verbs are singular. It refers to the resurrection of the dead.

So what? I have not claimed it is referring to the 'resurrections' of the dead, and so must be a plural verb.

There is only one resurrection.

It means that a dead person is sown in a corruptible body, and raised in an incorruptible body.

But Paul never says one becomes the other.

Chris Weimer · 05-08-2006, 11:57 AM

Steven,

This is your direct quote:

Quote:

The nearest now before these abstract phrases is 'the dead' (nekros), so if you want a subject , you can have 'the dead are sown in a natural body, the dead are sown in a spiritual body.'

I don't care for whatever theological argument you're having with Don. My point is that the dead is not the subject.

Steven Carr · 05-08-2006, 12:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by andrewcriddle

It may be of interest how he interpreted 1 Corinthians 15

There are detailed discussions in Peri Archon book 2 and Contra Celsum book 5

Contra Celsum book 5 has the bold portion is in Greek LOGOS TIS EGKEITAI TWi SWMATI APh hOU MH PhThEIROMENOU EGEIRETAI TO SWMA EN APhThARSIAi The idea seems to be that some sort of seminal principle of the original body is resurrected in a transformed bodily form.

Andrew carefully avoids quoting in full...

Isn't that the bit of Contra Celsum where Origen says we do not rise in the same bodies , but transfer (metabolin) to 'better' bodies (epi to beltion), as if rising from 'apo' our corpses just as a stalk rises from the ground.

I'm quoting Richard Carrier here, but I'm sure Andrew will confirm the Greek, and confirm the 'transfer' to better bodies bit.

Andrew never quoted any Greek from 'Peri Archon', because there isn't any.

I will quote Richard again.

'Most of these "statements" come from the Peri Archôn, better known as the De Principiis, "On the First Principles," which in fact only survives in the Latin translation of Rufinus, who changed everything Origen said that was heretical into what was accepted orthodoxy at the time....'

Steven Carr · 05-08-2006, 01:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chris Weimer

Steven,

This is your direct quote:
I don't care for whatever theological argument you're having with Don. My point is that the dead is not the subject.

Which is why I accepted your very useful correction, and changed it to 'a dead person', which is singular. 'The dead' remains the closest noun, but Paul then talks about one of the dead being sown in a natural body, and one of the dead being raised in a spiritual body (if Don really does want a subject i the phrases)

Origen in Contra Celsum 7:32 is very clear about what happens to the soul at resurrection. It gets rid of the old body and gets a new body.

It exchanges bodies and gets a second body.

'Accordingly, it at one time puts off one body which was necessary before, but which is no longer adequate in its changed state, and it exchanges it for a second; and at another time it assumes another in addition to the former, which is needed as a better covering, suited to the purer ethereal regions of heaven.

When it comes into the world at birth, it casts off the integuments which it needed in the womb; and before doing this, it puts on another body suited for its life upon earth.'

So hopefully we will hear no more talk about even Origen thinking there was only one body, which gets changed.

Then, again, as there is "a tabernacle" and "an earthly house" which is in some sort necessary for this tabernacle, Scripture teaches us that "the earthly house of this tabernacle shall be dissolved," but that the tabernacle shall "be clothed upon with a house not made with hands, eternal in the heavens."

The men of God say also that "the corruptible shall put on incorruption," which is a different thing from "the incorruptible;" and "the mortal shall put on immortality," which is different from "the immortal."

andrewcriddle · 05-08-2006, 01:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steven Carr

Andrew carefully avoids quoting in full...

Isn't that the bit of Contra Celsum where Origen says we do not rise in the same bodies , but transfer (metabolin) to 'better' bodies (epi to beltion), as if rising from 'apo' our corpses just as a stalk rises from the ground.

I'm quoting Richard Carrier here, but I'm sure Andrew will confirm the Greek, and confirm the 'transfer' to better bodies bit.

I'm afraid I don't have current access to the full Greek text of Conta Celsus only a few extracts.

The English translation of the relevant portion is

Quote:

We, therefore, do not maintain that the body which has undergone corruption resumes its original nature, any more than the gain of wheat which has decayed returns to its former condition. But we do maintain, that as above the gain of wheat there arises a stalk, so a certain power is implanted in the body, which is not destroyed, and from which the body is raised up in incorruption. The philosophers of the Porch, however, in consequence of the opinions which they hold regarding the unchangeableness of things after a certain cycle, assert that the body, after undergoing complete corruption, will return to its original condition, and will again assume that first nature from which it passed into a state of dissolution, establishing these points, as they think, by irresistible arguments. We, however, do not betake ourselves to a most absurd refuge, saying that with God all things are possible; for we know how to understand this word "all" as not referring either to things that are "non-existent" or that are inconceivable. But we maintain, at the same time, that God cannot do what is disgraceful, since then He would be capable of ceasing to be God; for if He do anything that is disgraceful, He is not God. Since, however, he lays it down as a principle, that "God does not desire what is contrary to nature," we have to make a distinction, and say that if any one asserts that wickedness is contrary to nature, while we maintain that "God does not desire what is contrary to nature,"-either what springs from wickedness or from an irrational principle,-yet, if such things happen according to the word and will of God, we must at once necessarily hold that they are not contrary to nature. Therefore things which are done by God, although they may be, or may appear to some to be incredible, are not contrary to nature. And if we must press the force of words, we would say that, in comparison with what is generally understood as "nature," there are certain things which are beyond its power, which God could at any time do; as, e.g., in raising man above the level of human nature, and causing him to pass into a better and more divine condition, and preserving him in the same, so long as he who is the object of His care shows by his actions that he desires (the continuance of His help).

I'm a bit reluctant to comment without checking either the Greek or the precise context of what Richard Carrier is saying; but it does seem as if the first portion and last portion of the passage are being combined together in a problematic way.

Andrew Criddle

Ben C Smith · 05-08-2006, 02:20 PM

Andrew and Steven, Skeptik has an online edition of Against Celsus in the original Greek. I have a portal to the Skeptik texts on my website.

(You may have to change the encoding on your browser to Unicode, UTF-8, or such in order to view the Greek properly. At least I have to do so.)

Ben.

andrewcriddle · 05-08-2006, 02:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steven Carr

Origen in Contra Celsum 7:32 is very clear about what happens to the soul at resurrection. It gets rid of the old body and gets a new body.

It exchanges bodies and gets a second body.

Conta Celsus 7:32 begims

Quote:

Celsus next assails the doctrine of the resurrection, which is a high and difficult doctrine, and one which more than others requires a high and advanced degree of wisdom to set forth how worthy it is of God; and how sublime a truth it is which teaches us that there is a seminal principle lodged in that which Scripture speaks of as the "tabernacle" of the soul, in which the righteous "do groan, being burdened, not for that they would be unclothed, but clothed upon."

This seems to agree with my previous idea that

Quote:

some sort of seminal principle of the original body is resurrected in a transformed bodily form

this resurrection of the seminal principle of the original body provides the soul with a new body suitable for its new mode of existence.

Andrew Criddle

Steven Carr · 05-08-2006, 02:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by andrewcriddle

Conta Celsus 7:32 begims

This seems to agree with my previous idea that this resurrection of the seminal principle of the original body provides the soul with a new body suitable for its new mode of existence.

Andrew Criddle

And again this can only be done by rewriting the text.

I shall put back in the bit you left out.

''Accordingly, it at one time puts off one body which was necessary before, but which is no longer adequate in its changed state, and it exchanges it for a second...'

'Exchanges it for a second' is very clear isn't it?

Certainly a lot clearer than claiming that Origen meant that the Jesus which came out of the ground only had a 'seminal principle' of the original body, when the Gospels claimed it had flesh, blood and wounds from the original body.

As for 'tabernacle' of the soul, the bit you quoted, this fits perfectly with the idea of Paul that we only dwell in this body until death, after which we will dwell in a new building. Clearly , there is continuity, in that the same soul (or spirit) does the residing. It has just moved house.

Or it has changed clothing, which is the other metaphor Origen and Paul use.

Either way, it has exchanged bodies, which is why Origen talks about exchanging bodies.

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

05-08-2006, 02:20 PM	#18
Ben C Smith Veteran Member Join Date: May 2005 Location: Midwest Posts: 4,787	Andrew and Steven, Skeptik has an online edition of Against Celsus in the original Greek. I have a portal to the Skeptik texts on my website. (You may have to change the encoding on your browser to Unicode, UTF-8, or such in order to view the Greek properly. At least I have to do so.) Ben.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.