CJD

What is the evidence that Greeks had a conception of a spiritual resurrection?

thanks,
Peter Kirby

Maybe Plato's Meno and Phaedo? Both speak of immortality of the soul (not "resurrection" per se). With reference to the seed analogy, see especially his dialogue Symposium.

It would seem more accurate to say that the Greeks would not have been opposed to the idea that the soul continued to live on after death.

Layman

CJD is right. "Spiritual resurrection" is an anachronistic term. They believed that the human spirit was immortal and continued on after death. Unlike Christian resurrection, this did not require, as I understand it, any divine intervention. This was the normal state of affairs and is very Platonic. The spirit is freed from its fleshly prison. I can get you cites if you this doesn't clarify my position sufficiently.

CJD

Best to quote 1 Cor. 15 again

'When you sow, you do not plant the body that will be, but just a seed, perhaps of wheat or of something else. 38But God gives it a body as he has determined, and to each kind of seed he gives its own body.'

The body planted in the ground was NOT the body that came out of the ground. God gave it a new body.

I agree with your principle, but I think Paul, by emphasizing the differences from seed to plant is pointing out a difference in quality, with at least one substantial difference—the incorruptibility of the flesh.

God looks at the seed, creates a body of the plant for that seed, and gives it to the seed, which dies and is annihilated.

Amazing somebody can look at an analogy of an acorn being planted, and an oak tree growing, 2 vastly different things , and conclude that Paul meant that Jesus's resurrected body would still have had the same wounds and still be flesh-and-blood, just as it was before it was planted.

Steven, there has to be some amount of continuity, even if its just the body itself. In other words, given all the improvements the resurrected body is supposed to have, one continuity must remain: it is a body. Again, it is a false dichotomy that assumes Paul is speaking of material/immaterial. Why can't the discontinuity be material/perfected material? Which, BTW, would fall completely in line with the gospel story.

One more question: What do you make of the Greeks' responses to Paul at the mention of the resurrection at the Areopagus? Popular belief embraced immortality (especially the Stoics, who were said to be present at the time of Paul's apology), so what else would they have disdained, except that that immortality would be realized in the flesh?

Regards,

CJD

Steven Carr

2 Corinthians 5:1-8 expresses very well this idea of a spirit yearning to be free from its earthly holder

1Now we know that if the earthly tent we live in is destroyed, we have a building from God, an eternal house in heaven, not built by human hands. 2Meanwhile we groan, longing to be clothed with our heavenly dwelling, 3because when we are clothed, we will not be found naked. 4For while we are in this tent, we groan and are burdened, because we do not wish to be unclothed but to be clothed with our heavenly dwelling, so that what is mortal may be swallowed up by life. 5Now it is God who has made us for this very purpose and has given us the Spirit as a deposit, guaranteeing what is to come.
6Therefore we are always confident and know that as long as we are at home in the body we are away from the Lord. 7We live by faith, not by sight. 8We are confident, I say, and would prefer to be away from the body and at home with the Lord.

I doubt if any Greek p[hilosopher could have put it better.

Steven Carr

A Gospel story which shows a Jesus still subject to the fleshly passion of having to eat, and still having wounds?

BTW, did anybody answer the question of why the Corinthians became Christians if they doubted that there was a resurrection from the dead?

Peter Kirby

However, you said, "A Greek would have no problem with a body in the grave and discussion of resurrection, . . ." Would you agree that this is false, or is there evidence that a Greek would have no problem with discussion of resurrection with a body in the grave?

(Minor point: most Greeks didn't agree with Plato's afterlife.)

best,
Peter Kirby

Layman

I only assume what Paul tells us. He had previously taught them about the resurrection of Jesus.

As I pointed out, Paul does refer to his previous teachings of the resurrection of Jesus.

As hard as you say it, and as many times as you say it, you cannot make white = black. The seed becomes the plant. It is transformed into the plant. There is no "total discontinuity." That the seed dies certianly does not preclude it being resurrected. Indeed, death is a necessary condition of resurrection. (And I am not CJD and Paul nowhere says "annhilated").

And please, quit just asserting what you want Paul to say, if Paul says that God creates a brand new body that has no contintuity with the old, then please who where he says that.

Again you ignore what Paul actually says. He does not speak of two bodies existing at the same time. The spiritual body is raised from the old one. "It" is sown, and "it" is raised. It is sown one kind of body and "it" is raised another kind of body.

Oh please, the selected material is obviously discussing the resurrection of the righteous. Just as Paul uses the analogy, the stress is on continuity but transformation.

The context is a story of a Rabbi explaining the concept of the resurrection to an Egyptian who has questions about how the body is raised, and seems especially concerned about its nakedness.

http://religion.rutgers.edu/iho/parable.html#wheat

So the context is clear--This section of the Talmud, like Paul, is discussing the nature of bodily resurrection.

Well, not as the idiom "flesh and blood" is used, no, he did not.

Then you are arguing another point, because this post--as I made quite clear--is devoted to demonstrating continuity between the old and the new, not about examining the exact nature of the resurrected body.

Apparently Paul believed they were made out of material stuff, but different than that which makes up creatures. But they are not spiritual beings.

Nope. My point is that there is continuity between the old body and the new one. The old body is transformed into the new one. You are the one who is arguing that the old body continues to rot in the grave. How is that possible if it is transformed into the new body?

Please clarify whether you believe Paul believed that the old body just rotted or if it was transformed? You seem to be shifting around.

Oh, please don't be so petty. I'm not adding words to Romans 8, I put quotes around what came from Romans 8 and they did not encompass the reference to the resurrection.

Paul is referring to the "here and now" in the first part of Romans 8. That is the part that: "But you are not in the flesh, you are in the Spirit, if the Spirit of God dwells in you. If the Messiah is in you, though the body is dead because of sin, the Spirit is life because of righteousness."

As I wrote but you ignored in the initial post:Verses 9-10 speaks to the present: "But you are not in the flesh, you are in the spirit. Any one who does not have the Spirit of Christ does not belong to him. But if Christ is in you, although your bodies are dead because of sin, your spirits are alive because of righteousness."

Note all the references to the present tense. Christians are in the spirit now. Their spirits are alive because of Jesus. But, their bodies are dead, despite that.

The second part of these verses, however, speaks to a future event--not to the here and now: "If the Spirit of him who raised Jesus from the dead dwells in you, he who raised the Messiah from the dead will give life to your mortal bodies also, through his Spirit who dwells in you."

As I wrote but you ignored in the initial post: Contrast that with verse 11: "If the Spirit of him who raised Jesus from the dead dwells in you, he who raised Christ Jesus from the dead will give life to your mortal bodies also through his Spirit which dwells in you."

Paul shifts tenses and notes that, even though we currently have "dead" bodies, the resurrection of Jesus guarantees that we will have new mortal bodies, infused with his Spirit. Though Christians still have a dead/mortal body despite the indwelling of the spirit, we will have a new life brought into our mortal bodies at the resurrection.

Paul is very clear that the Spirit of the Messiah is in Christians now and that as a result their spirits are alive. However, even though the spirit of the Messiah is in the Christians, their mortal bodies are still dead because of sin. That is the state of the Christian even though the Messiah has started a transforming work. The culimination of that transforming work, however, is a future event. That this event is the resurrection is made clear because Paul stresses resurrection by repeating twice that the spirit that raised Jesus from the dead will then give life to our mortal bodies.


Please show me where Paul uses "soma" to refer to a purely spiritual being.

As I have shown, Paul again and again and again uses "soma" to refer to the phsyical part of man. "The soma denotes the physical body, roughly synonymous with flesh in the neutral sense." Robert H. Gundry, Soma in Biblical Theology, at 50. By using the term soma, Paul is stressing the resurrection including the physical part of man.

And you continue to ignore the fact that Paul believed that the spirit of the believer went to be with Jesus immediately upon death. What need, therefore, of any future reference to the "resurrection" of the "soma"? Unless of course, as a good Jew, Paul believed that resurrection involved the physical body of the believer.

And you now seem to be shifting your position. Before you argued that the body continued to rot in the ground. I've pointed out now several times that this is inconsistent with Paul's langauge of "transformation" of the old into the new. Your response has been to argue that the new body is different than the one described in the gospels. Okay, well that's not the focus of this thread, but are you now admitting that by "transformation" that Paul sees the old body becoming the new one? Or are you going to continue ignoring Paul's "transformation" language?

Layman

I'll agree that the use of the term of "resurrection" is misleading to the informed because it is anachronostic. Most modern Americans unfortunately equate "resurrection" with
"life after death." To Jews, resurrection mean bodily resurrection. Indeed, there is a good argument to be made that the term resurrection itself carried with it a clear reference to the body. To that extent, "resurrection" may be a poor word. Is that what you are getting at?

But if I was using "resurrection" to mean "life ater death" then the statement is accurate, though the use of the term might be misleading to some.

I stand by my point that Greeks believed in life after death involving the human spirit. They devalued the physical and the concept of a bodiyl resurrection was, as Paul put it, a "stumbling block" to them.

Perhaps I'm not getting your point.

Layman

The question is actually self-defeating on your part since your view of Paul's letter requires you to believe that as Christianity got further away from its Jewish roots and more and more immerseed in Hellenistic culture, that its original belief in a purely spiritual resurrection somehow transformed by Greek influence into a belief in a bodily resurrection.

That Paul attracted converts from among the Greeks who had difficulties shedding some of their hellenistic ideas and lapsed back into them on occassion much better fits the socio-religious background than your idea that the more Greek Christianity becamse the more they demanded a physical resurrection.

Peter Kirby

My point is that Greeks would have a problem with the idea of a resurrection with a body still in the grave. Further, the Greeks in general had a problem with the idea of a resurrection, period. This makes it likely that Paul's opponents in Corinth were not saying that people were raised spiritually, unless you can show that some Greeks had a concept of a spiritual resurrection. Rather, some of these opponents were denying the idea of a resurrection in toto.

I do not believe that there is any justification for equating "resurrection" with "life after death," as they are not the same thing. And I do not believe that the beliefs of Plato can be generalized for all Hellenes.

best,
Peter Kirby