Clivedurdle

Is there a confusion from modern thinking occuring here? We know from biology, genetics etc that seeds develop directly into plants. Paul et al did not know that - he talks of seeds dying - in reality they do not!

So his metaphors of living and dying and new bodies are further confused by incorrect biological models and we further confuse matters by importing back our biological ideas onto these ancient writings.

I also think the comment "channeling chili" is extremely rude.

Your other comments show you do not really understand the alchemic and gnostic thinking that is obvious here.

Read Martin Luther - he repeats very similar beliefs. Look up alchemy on wiki.

Steven Carr

And why talk of seeds dying at all, implying that the Corinthians have missed the basic fact that the seed is dead?


I hope I understand your thinking here.

Are you saying that Paul didn't think one element could be transformed into another element? That the earth, air, fire and water we are made of would not , or could not, be transformed into the heavenly element that the risen Jesus was made of?

I agree. Paul would have thought of that as a category error, like saying that a bird becomes a fish, if you put scales and fins on to it.

The whole point of elements in ancient thought is that one element is not another element. No matter what transformations you do to fire, you won't get water. They are, basically, different things. It would be like turning the number three into a football. Not even God can do that.

If I have misinterpreted you, please say.

GakuseiDon

I'm not talking about reality, I'm talking about religion See John 12:24
Except the grain of wheat falling into the ground die, it abides alone; but if it die, it bears much fruit.

The belief seems to be that the seed has to die before it blooms. That seems to be the belief that Paul is referring to. The seed doesn't get "left behind" after it blooms either, AFAIK.

I agree that we have to understand them in terms of their beliefs, not ours. Including whether seeds die first before they bloom.

I think perhaps Steve thought he was answering another question from someone on the Theologyweb thread. It came across as pretty confusing. Can you see where I was trying to reconcile Paul and the Gospels as Steve claimed I was doing?

It talks about common metals being transformed into gold or silver. Is that the part you mean?

GakuseiDon

Yes, I agree, and this suggests (at least to me) that the objection being raised was along the lines of the "fishermans' dilemma". Christians had to face this objection for the next hundred years and more.

It is the topic of that passage. "How are the dead raised up, and what kind of body do they get?"

For me, Paul uses the seed analogy to show a transformation. I guess we will always disagree on this, but John 12:24 shows the idea that a seed has to die before it becomes fruitful. Is the seed discarded and left behind, or does it get transformed into the new fruit? AFAIK the seed is not discarded, so the analogy supports a transformation (IMHO at least).

The problem is that I just can't see the language supporting your view. The themes are "buried and resurrected", "sown and raised", etc. I'd be interested in any example that has what is resurrected or raised leaving the body behind. As far as I can see, 1 Cor 15:42 "[The body] is sown in corruption, and is raised in incorruption" is a slam-dunk case showing a transformation. (The topic is plaining referring to "the body" IMO). It just doesn't seem likely that Paul means that the body is sown and something else is raised.

There were people who believed that the soul rose from the body on death, but AFAIK no-one ever talks about the soul being "resurrected" from the body. I just think you need to have some examples to support this. It is weird that most people who read Paul see Paul talking about a resurrection of the dead body being a physical resurrection (ignoring the question of Jesus and the gnostics).

Does it make sense to say that my mortal body will put on immortality? I can't see why not. And that doesn't mean that my mortal body has to be left behind either. I don't think you've raised a strong objection here.

I'm not ignoring it so much as I don't understand its relevence to your position. From my perspective, Paul is saying that there are different types of glory:

40 There are also celestial bodies and terrestrial bodies; but the glory of the celestial is one, and the glory of the terrestrial is another. 41 There is one glory of the sun, another glory of the moon, and another glory of the stars; for one star differs from another star in glory.
42 So also is the resurrection of the dead. [The body] is sown in corruption, it is raised in incorruption. 43 It is sown in dishonor, it is raised in glory. It is sown in weakness, it is raised in power. 44 It is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body.

I think you will agree that "sown" equates to "put into the earth" and applies to the dead body. I think you are saying that what is being raised is just the spirit/soul and the body is left behind. But everyone else reads it as the physical body which is raised. And looking at it, that just seems to be the most likely reading.

You could be right, but it just seems that the evidence is against you. It might be nice to see examples of "resurrection" being used in non-Christian texts, though, to see how that compares. Did any other groups talk about a "resurrection" and NOT refer to the physical body?

Steven Carr

That part of John refers to Jesus having to die before the church can blossom.

Paul also explains to the Corinthians that bodies have to die before there is a resurrection. But they already knew that dead people were dead, so he must be stressing the finality of the death, in much the same way that atheists say that 'When you're dead, you're dead'.

And there is still nothing in John 12:24 to show that people believed the seed rose again, rather than God creating a plant. Paul states explicitly that when it comes to a seed 'God gives it a body'. Why? It already has a body, on the transformation theory.

Incidentally, Paul uses a different word for 'seed' to John 12. He uses 'sperma', which , if you remember, is also used for Abraham's seed by Paul, and for Jesus being the 'seed' of David by Paul in Romans 1.

Abraham did not transform himself into millions of Jews. He died, but his seed prospered. And Jesus was not a bit of David transformed.

Perhaps not a great analogy in my favour, but the concept 'sperma' does not lend itself as readily to ideas of transformation, as it does to the idea of new growth.

Steven Carr

Once again, you can only make Paul say what you want him to say, by adding words that Paul left out. There is no 'the body' in 'the body is sown in corruption'. There is no 'it' in 'It is sown in weakness'.

I get tired of these attempts to rewrite the Bible and then claim that your rewrite supports you.

The only subject before 'sown in corruption' is 'the dead'.

Paul thinks the dead are sown in corruption, and the dead are raised in power.

He deliberately avoids saying one body is sown in corruption and the same body is raised in power, or putting in any ties like 'it' to tie the things together. That is the point. Paul never ties them together, which is why you have to change it to make it support you.

Perhaps he just never realised that people would simply alter what he wrote to suit themselves.

The apotheosis of this process of rewriting was 3 Corinthians, where 2nd century Christians, mindful of the unconvcining power of the seed analogy, clarify matters for the Corinthians by making Paul explicitly state that the dead body gets raised.

The real Paul, also aware that his seed analogy could be mistaken, clarifies matters for the Corinthians by telling them in 2 Corinthians that the earthly body could be destroyed and he would still get a heavenly body, one not made by hands.

mikem

According to the Talmud, Rabbi Meier used the metaphor of a grain of wheat sown into the ground but raised a blossoming flower: "If a kernel of wheat is buried naked and will sprout forth in many robes, how much more so the righteous." (b. Sanh. 90b).

This is from the following article:

http://www.christianorigins.com/resbody.html

mikem

Romans 8:21-23 "..the creation itself will be set free from it's bondage to decay and obtain the glorious liberty of the children of God. We know that the whole creation has been groaning in travail until now, and not only the creation but we ourselves who have th efirstfruits of the spirit, groan inwardly as we wait for adoption as sons, THE REDEMPTION OF OUR BODIES. For in this hope we were saved."

I don't think Paul could have made himself any clearer to be honest. Our bodies are redeemed.

Steven Carr

It is no use putting English words in bold. That won't change the Greek.

Paul is even clearer in the previous chapter , Romans 7, where he asks to be rescued from his body of death. He doesn't think his mortal body, his body of death will be saved.

He does believe his spiritual body (the body of spirit) will be saved.

And the Greek word he uses in Romans 8:23 is 'apolutrosis', which means a liberation from imprisonment.

See Hebrews 11:35, where the same word is used to mean release from imprisonment. Ironically (and coincidentally), Hebrews 11:35 uses 'apolutrosis' to mean the very opposite of resurrection.

Paul wants to be rescued from his body of death, and awaits the liberation of his spiritual body from the prison of his body of death.

Paul is really, really clear that the flesh and the spirit will have different fates.

1 Cor. 5:5 'hand this man over to Satan for the destruction of his flesh, so that his spirit may be saved on the day of the Lord'.

And in 2 Corinthians 4:18 , Paul tells the Corinthians that what they can see (presumably they could see their bodies) was temporary.

In Paul's thoughts. their 'bodies of death' were temporary.

That means that they won't be saved and made eternal.

Steven Carr

I wonder what else is in that section of the Talmud? It is a section which convinced me that Paul's thoughts are totally different to the thoughts of Jews who believed God would reform human beings from decayed corpses.

The question is posed 'can dust come to life?' - the same question that Paul puts in the mouths of the Corinthians.

And the Rabbis answer in an entirely different fashion to Paul.

They use analogies of claymoulding and glassmaking, where transformations of a material happen. The same substance, but transformed through an agency.

Paul talks about different kinds of substances , in different kinds of bodies.


Where the Talmud stresses continuity of material, Paul stresses discontintiniy of material.


The rabbis point out that body and soul must be reunited , so that they can be judged together.

Paul just never talks about reuniting the body and soul.

Here is Sanhedrin 90b , so you can see how utterly different from Paul are the proofs of people who believe in the resurrection of corpses which have become the dust of the ground (Paul says Adam was made of the dust of the ground, but resurrected people will be made of heaven)



----------------------------------------------------------
Sanhedrin 90b......

Caesar said to Rabban Gamliel: You Jews say that the dead will live again. How can this be? Why, they become dust, and can dust come alive?!

[Caesar’s] daughter said to [Rabban Gamliel]: Rabbi, leave him be and I will answer him for you. She then turned to her father and said: Suppose there were two potters in our city, one who fashions pottery out of water and one who fashions pottery out of clay. Which one of them would you say is superior? [Caesar] replied to her: The one who fashions pottery out of water.

For any potter can fashion pottery out of clay, but it is quite a feat to fashion a piece of solid pottery out of water!

She then said to him: By the same token, if [G-d] fashions human beings out of water I.e. from a fluid – a fetid drop [of semen] (Rashi) – is it not certain that He can fashion them out of clay or dust?!

• • •

Sanhedrin 90b (continued)

A certain sectarian said to R. Ami: You Jews say that the dead will live again. How can this be? Why, they become dust, and can dust come alive? [R’ Ami] replied to him: I will give you a parable: To what can the matter of your objection be compared? To a king of flesh and blood who said to his servants: “Go and build me a great palace in a place where there is no water or earth with which to make bricks.”

They went and build it using other materials. Some days later, [the palace] collapsed. [The King] said to them: “Rebuild it in a place where there in earth and water.” They said to him: “We are unable to do so.” [The king] became angry with them and said to them: “If you built the palace in a place where there is no water or earth with which to make bricks, now that there is water and earth, how much more so should you be able to build it!”

Similarly, your objection to the notion of resurrection on grounds that earth cannot be infused with life is specious. For even you admit that G-d fashions human beings fro a mere drop of semen. Will you now claim it inconceivable that He should do so from earth, which is more substantive? (Rashi). Alternatively, if you admit that He created the world out of nothing, will you now claim it inconceivable that he should fashion man out of dust? (ibid).

And if you do not find yourselves able to believe that living beings can be formed from dust, go out to the field and see the squirrel that one day is half flesh and half earth and by the morrow it has metamorphosed into a creeping thing and become entirely flesh! Thus, such a thing is not only possible, but takes place before our very eyes!

(and later the same section of the Talmud says)

' So will the Holy One, blessed be He, bring the soul, replace it in the body, and judge them together, as it is written, He shall call to the heavens from above, and to the earth, that he may judge his people'

(notice how Paul says 'hand this man over to Satan for the destruction of his flesh, so that his spirit may be saved on the day of the Lord'.)



========================================

As for the seed analogy, here is the full thing :-

Queen Cleopatra said to Rabbi Meir:
--"I know that the dead will live, for it is written:
--'like the grass of the ground
they shall sprout from the city' (Ps 72:16).
But when they rise, will they rise up naked or in their garments?"
He said to her, (arguing) from less to greater [qal wahomer]
from a grain of wheat:
--"And what of a grain of wheat which is buried naked?
It rises up in so many garments.
How much more the righteous, who are buried in their garments!"

As you can see, even this passage supports the idea of a new creation. The seed had no garments. Then it had garments. No garments are transformed. They are created.