Steven Carr

You are quite right, but not even orthodox Christians can entirely spin away what Paul states.

Take http://www.xenos.org/teachings/nt/1c...y/1cor15-2.htm which says 'Read vs 45-49. Paul tells us that Adam and Jesus are similar in that they are both inaugurators of a race of humans. Because Adam's body is made of earthy materials, those who descend from him also receive earthy bodies (vs 48a,49a). Because Jesus' new body is made of heavenly materials, those who descend from him receive heavenly bodies.'

This is exactly what Paul does say.

But the Gospels still have Jesus composed of flesh and bones, and the earthy materials that he was made of have left the tomb.

Paul would argue that the resurrected Jesus was made of heavenly materials, which implied that there was no use for the previous earthy materials. Jesus was still in the grave, which is why it was stupid to ask how a corpse could live again. The earthy materials of a corpse are the dust of the earth. Resurrected bodies just won't be made out of dust.

The Corinthians were making a category error in wondering how dead bodies could be raised.

mikem

Verse 35 comes half way through the argument that Paul is developing. Go back to verse 12 - "Now if Christ is preached as raised from the dead, how can some of you say that there is no resurrection of the dead? So yes, there were christians, who although they believed in the resurrection of Christ, did not beleive in a general resurrection.

In the following verses, Paul develops an argument to the effect that unless there is a resurrection of the dead, then Christ has not been resurrected (his logic, not mine). He develops this argument, throws in some eschatology, and then at verse 35, he imagines a further objection from an imaginary interlocutor. This objection is that if there is a resurrection, and since we know what happens to physical bodies, what kind of body is it then?

Reading your post again, I see that we are 99% in agreement. Where we differ is that I don't think that the question at verse 35 and what follows it is specifically addressing an argument of the form "if there is a resurrection it has to be a physical one", to which Paul answers "no, it is a spiritual one", although I would agree with you that Paul clearly sets out his view that the resurrection is "spiritual". From verse 12, it is clear that it is resurrection in any form that the Corinthians deny, and then in verse 35 Paul simply anticipates a further objection based on what we know of what happens to physical corpses.

Did the Corinthians actually raise this further objection? We know from other pasages that Paul wrote that he often argues with imaginary interlocutors as a way of developing his argument, and answering possible objections to it that his readers might or might not have thought of. (Romans 2:1-20, 3:1-9, 9:19). It is a mode of argumentation called "diatribe", and was part of the rhetorical bag of tricks of any self respecting ancient philosopher.

So we don't know whether anyone had actually raised the objection Paul refers to in v35, or whether he was answering it before anyone could!


I knew that there were three letters, 1 Corinthians being the first, 2 Corinthians 1-9 being the second, and 2 Corinthians 10-13 beingthe third, according to some scholars. There is a passage at 2C12:1-10 where Paul speaks of a man being caught up to the third heaven, ("whether in or out of the body I know not", says Paul). Some scholars think that Paul is referring to himself in the third person, because it occurs in a long passage where Paul is talking about himself and his sufferings, and then goes on to talk about visions and revelations. The whole point of the third letter seems to be Paul once again defending his apostolic authority. If this is the third letter you are referring to, I've never come across the suggestion that it is a forgery, and it certainly has nothing to say about the resurrection.

If there is yet another letter to the Corinthians I would very much like to know about it.

Steven Carr

I am pretty certain that the Corinthians did, as otherwise they would be puzzled by the letter.

Romans is more of a general work , not aimed at the problems of one church in particular. 1 Corinthians in general deals with specific problems raised by that group of Christians.

http://www.chass.utoronto.ca/~kloppen/3corinthians.htm



It gives examples Paul should have used, because the authors were not happy with Paul's analogy with a seed. (Has anybody ever wrote a sermon using the Gospels and said that the body of Jesus which went into the ground was a seed? It would be interesting to know.

Here are the examples, all of which Paul could have used, and which were also familiar to the Corinthians, who accepted the OT.

28 And if we must not take an example from seeds. 29 You know how Jonah the son of Amathios, when he would not preach to them of Nineveh, was swallowed by the sea-monster; 30 and after three days and three nights God heard the prayer of Jonah out of the lowest hell, and no part of him was consumed, not even an hair nor an eyelash. 31 How much more, shall he raise up you that have believed in Christ Jesus, like as he himself arose. 32 Likewise also a dead man was cast upon the bones of the prophet Helisaetis by the children of Israel, and he arose, both body and soul and bones and spirit; how much more shall you which have been cast upon the body and bones and spirit of the Lord

I like the 'both body and soul and bones and spirit'

Paul, of course, wrote no such words.

andrewcriddle

The Apocyphal Acts of Paul composed c 160 CE contains a (bogus) letter of Paul to the Corinthians in it Paul defends the Resurrection as follows Andrew Criddle

Clivedurdle

Even the Gospels state the risen Jesus was very special! He could walk through walls!

Jayrok

It's odd that in his letter, Paul doesn't mention the empty tomb. I agree with you that Paul's resurrected body is a spiritual body, not physical.

I noticed on the theoweb board some are saying the Corinthians already accepted that Jesus was resurrected, but his case was different than the general resurrection... he was a God. Their counter-argument with Paul might have been that Jesus was raised in his old Body (he showed it to the disciples) but may have questioned how we would be raised. Unfortunately, Paul never mentions the empty tomb. Probably because he knows nothing of it.

I would expect that he would have clarified for them about the empty tomb. That he would have explained that Jesus' resurrection was spiritual, but it was necessary to appear whole before Thomas and the others so that they would believe. But we won't have the same type body, etc..

On the same token, he could have also used the empty tomb example to remind them that dead bodies most certainly can be raised. Same with Lazarus, the daughter, etc.. As it is, we don't know if the Corinthians knew Jesus showed his body to Thomas or not. As christians, surely they would have known the famous story, right? But not if it didn't occur.

Of course his letter, and the corinthians not understanding how bodies can be raised from the dead, makes sense if Lazarus, and the empty tomb stories weren't developed until years after this letter was written.

The letter to the Corinthians is another example of where Paul should have used an earthly event of Jesus' life (the empty tomb) to explain his position.

mikem

Thanks for the link, Steven, and to Andrew for giving me the source. It makes for interesting reading.

Clivedurdle

Has anyone compiled the post resurrection attributes of Jesus body and whether it fits a spiritual or physical model better? If it can go through walls, Thomas put his hand in a gaping wound of someone who had not bled to death, and this body was able to go up into the sky it does not seem to be very mortal, so how can it be said to be a resurrection?

Steven Carr

You would expect? I thought only we British went in for understatement.

Paul calls the Corinthians idiots. If he has stories of Jesus physically resurrecting in the body that went into the ground, he would have rubbed their noses in it!

If I denied that Jerry Rice had been a good wide receiever, and claimed he had only one decent season, but sucked the other 3 seasons that he played in his short career,how would you rebut me?

'You idiot! There are different kinds of wide receivers. Some are naturally gifted, while others have to work at their game.'

Or would you say 'You idiot! Just look at all the Superbowl rings he won. Rice was playing major league football at 40! Look at the records he broke!'

Paul would have mocked the Corinthians mercilessly. 'You deny that dead bodies can rise in their flesh. You idiot! Jesus ate fish, and was touched and seen to have flesh and bones. How could he do that, if dead bodies don't rise?'

He would have torn them a new one.

Jayrok

yes. The Jesus in the gospels is different than the Jesus in the epistles. And it is apparent the Corinthians had never heard of anyone being raised from the dead.

A question though... If Paul didn't believe, or know, that the other apostles walked and were taught by an earthly Jesus... what was his take on them? Did he believe they also saw Jesus through visions, or did he know that they claimed to walk, talk and dine with an historical Jesus?

I'm trying to connect the dots of the church circa AD 35-45. If James, the brother of Jesus, was the head of the Jerusalem church, how did Paul view him (if Paul didn't know an earthly Jesus)?