Layman

Well, as a matter of fact I do not think that the Corinthians had read the Gospels, because the Gospels had not yet been written. In any event, I do not remember you making this point. But it seems the point is irrelevant anyway. Did Marcion never hear the “Gospel stories?� Or Valentinus? Or the later Gnostics? Absurd. Are you going to defend the idea that it was “impossible� for some in the Corinthian church to have either misunderstood the message or to have let their Greek culture alter their beliefs after joining the church? And what about the apparent fact that “some� in the Corinthian church managed to mess up whatever it was that Paul had taught them.

I responded to your baiting because I thought you had a new angle. But you do not really seem interested in pursuing the new angle or backing it up in any way. Most of the rest of this stuff we have gone over ad nauseum in a thread , ironically enough, I started over two years ago to the day.

I did not find the “it.� The “it� is part of almost all English translations because it imparts the meaning of the Greek texts. Perhaps Carrier believes his Greek is better than every modern translation available, but I am skeptical of that.

KJV 1 Corinthians 15:44: It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body. There is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body.

NAU 1 Corinthians 15:44: it is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body. If there is a natural body, there is also a spiritual body.

NET 1 Corinthians 15:44: it is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body. If there is a natural body, there is also a spiritual body.

NIV 1 Corinthians 15:44: it is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body. If there is a natural body, there is also a spiritual body.

NLT 1 Corinthians 15:44: They are buried as natural human bodies, but they will be raised as spiritual bodies. For just as there are natural bodies, there are also spiritual bodies.

NRS 1 Corinthians 15:44: It is sown a physical body, it is raised a spiritual body. If there is a physical body, there is also a spiritual body.

RSV 1 Corinthians 15:44: It is sown a physical body, it is raised a spiritual body. If there is a physical body, there is also a spiritual body.

YLT 1 Corinthians 15:44: it is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body; there is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body.

Okay, so the NLT uses “they� instead of “it.� In any event, it is not I who adds the “it,� but most modern translators who have determined that the “it� is necessary to properly convey the meaning of the Greek here.

Paul refers to the putting on if imperishable bodies (15:42), to the dead bodies being ‘asleep’ while awaiting resurrection (15:6, 18), and uses the example of heavenly bodies and stars to compare and explain the glory of the resurrected body (15:40-41). That is actually quite a bit of relevant references.

Speaking of which, Paul’s echo of Daniel’s sleeping language is significant. Because Paul believes that our spirits depart to be with Jesus upon our deaths (Phil. 1:21-24; 2 Co 5:6-8), just what does Paul envision to be sleeping? The only reasonable answer is the bodies of the righteous dead. Their inactive bodies are the only thing that can be referred to as sleeping.

Jesus is using the analogy of the seed to refer to his own bodily resurrection. How is that not using the analogy of the seed to refer to bodily resurrection? Jesus dies, the body is buried, but then he is given a remarkable new body upon their resurrection. Perhaps you are complaining because Jesus also uses the analogy to say he will bring forth much fruit. The meaning is obvious. Through Jesus’ death and bodily resurrection he will be able to bring salvation to so many. Just as a wheat plant contains many more seeds that can produce many more wheat plants, so too will Jesus’ resurrection produce many more followers and resurrections.

You really are trying to miss the forest for the trees. Both Rabbis use the seed analogy as Paul does. They are describing a bodily resurrection by starting with the seed being planted (death and burial) and its resurrection into a new kind of body (the growth/transformation). The answer of the Rabbis is not simply that God will give us a new set of leather trousers and cotton blouse, but that our new state is going to be very different than our previous one. Indeed, when Cleopatra asks Rabbi Meier about the resurrection, she is already drawing on this imagery by referring to the resurrected as “blossoming forth� out of the city “like the grass of the earth.� As W.D. Davies notes, “when R. Meier used the analogy of the seed he was thinking most certainly of the glorious new body which would come into being at the resurrection and there is no reason to think that Paul also in 1 Cor. 15 was not thinking of the same event.� Paul and Rabbinic Judaism, page 310. The comparison with the wheat shows that the wheat is buried naked and is raised beautifully transformed. How much more will humans be during their resurrection? We had more going in and will have yet more coming out.

And when John and Clement and Tertullian use the same analogy of the seed as Paul do they mean something different? The opposite of what Paul meant, in effect? In your opening post you seemed to find it significant that the author of 1 Clement wrote about a nonbodily resurrection to the Corinthians. In light of his references to the raising of his “flesh,� you seem to have abandoned that tact altogether. If you thought it significant when he supported your point, why is it not also significant now that its clear that he was writing to the Corinthians using the same analogy as Paul to describe what is clearly a bodily resurrection?

There is nothing invisible inside a seed. It is all quite material.

More important, however, is that Paul does not use the seed analogy to describe anything escaping or being left behind or anything being freed from within. He uses it like the Rabbis and John and 1 Clement and Tertullian to describe the seed becoming the plant. It is about a physical body being sown but a spiritual body being produced. It is not about a physical body being buried and rotting away for all eternity while the spirit is freed to new glory. Notably, you have not offered a single example of anyone using the seed analogy to make this very Greek point. Instead, everyone who uses the seed analogy to refer to resurrection is clearly referring to a bodily resurrection. In any event, Paul’s usage is like those we know were referring to a bodily resurrection.

As you should know by now, Paul is employing an idiom, "flesh and blood," that refers to the sinful nature of man. Craig Blomberg, 1 Corinthians, at 316 ("'Flesh and blood' in verse 50 was a stock idiom in Jewish circles for a 'mere mortal' and does not contradict what Paul has already stressed, that resurrection experience is a bodily one."); Pheme Perkins, Resurrection: New Testament Witness and Contemporary Reflection, at 306 (describing "flesh and blood" as "a Semitic expression for human being (as in Gal. 1:16). It often appears in contexts that stress creatureliness and mortality"). But really even notice of this idiom is unnecessary because I agree with you that Paul is saying that human flesh cannot inherit the kingdom of God. First it has to be transformed into something new that is consistent with the kingdom of God. Which is why all along I have stressed continuity with radical transformation, just as the Rabbis did, to explain Paul’s belief in the resurrection.

And there is also the issue of what happens to the living upon Jesus’ return. When we last debated this topic here, I seem to remember that you accepted that Paul believed that the bodies of Christians who were living upon Christ’ return would be transformed into their new spiritual bodies. Or do you now think that Paul believed that those alive at the second coming were going to first drop dead and then be given new bodies, leaving the earth littered with the corpses of God's saints? I do not see such imagery anticipated in 1 Corinthians.

Since Paul has already described the resurrected state as involving a spiritual “body� this is not an effective counter-argument. Paul believes the resurrected person will have a material body, the only issue is whether it has any continuity with the old one. If I remember correctly, Carrier has changed his position to accept that Paul believes in a material body for the resurrected Christian. He now denies only that there is any continuity between the two.

I could just as easily say that it is only skeptologists who claim that the mortal “putting on� the immortal involves the mortal being left behind and the spirit essence being transformed to a new spiritual entity. Paul does not say that the mortal is left behind, it says it “puts on� immortality. Right after Paul says that “flesh and blood� cannot inherit the kingdom, he says we will all be “changed.� He does not say transferred, does he? Once this transformation is complete, we can, with our new spiritual bodies, enter into the full Kingdom. This is why Paul caps off that section with, “but when this perishable will have put on the imperishable, and this mortal will have put on immortality, then will come about the saying that is written….� 1 Cor. 15:54. Remember that according to Romans 8, our spirits have already been made alive by Jesus Christ. It is only our bodies that remain “mortal� and “perishable.� So when Paul says that the “mortal� and “perishable� must “put on� immorality he is referring to our bodies “putting on� these characteristics. Paul says nothing of leaving our perishable and mortal behind to rot away for eternity. Just the opposite, we can partake in the new reality by being “changed� when that trumpet sounds.

And let us throw the rest of the relevant Pauline references into the mix.

Philippians 3:21 is on point. And lest anyone think I am being selective in my choice of translations, I will use a diversity of them:

KJV Philippians 3:21 Who shall change our vile body that it may be fashioned like unto his glorious body, according to the working whereby he is able even to subdue all things unto himself.

NAU Philippians 3:21 who will transform the body of our humble state into conformity with the body of His glory, by the exertion of the power that He has even to subject all things to Himself.

NET Philippians 3:21 who will transform these humble bodies of ours into the likeness of his glorious body by means of that power by which he is able to subject all things to himself.

NIV Philippians 3:21 who, by the power that enables him to bring everything under his control, will transform our lowly bodies so that they will be like his glorious body.

NLT Philippians 3:21 He will take our weak mortal bodies and change them into glorious bodies like his own, using the same power with which he will bring everything under his control.

NRS Philippians 3:21 He will transform the body of our humiliation that it may be conformed to the body of his glory, by the power that also enables him to make all things subject to himself.

RSV Philippians 3:21 who will change our lowly body to be like his glorious body, by the power which enables him even to subject all things to himself.

YLT Philippians 3:21 who shall transform the body of our humiliation to its becoming conformed to the body of his glory, according to the working of his power, even to subject to himself the all things.

Why does Paul not say that Jesus will destroy our mortal bodies and give us completely new ones?

And Romans 8:9-11. To save myself some time I will refer to my article.

Rom. 8:9-11 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. 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.

Again Paul use soma here. Jesus will give life to the mortal soma, not end it so that his followers can be freed into a nonphysical existence. Again Paul is speaking of a change to the existing body. And the reason it becomes spiritual is because of the change brought about by the spirit of God [a life-giving Spirit anyone?]. The "body" that will be raised is our current "mortal body." The raising of our "mortal body" is linked to the raising of Jesus' own body, indicating a parallel of bodily resurrection between what happened to Jesus and what happens to us.

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.

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.

Later in Romans 8, Paul provides even more evidence that he is speaking of a bodily resurrection.

Rom. 8:18-23.

Above we discussed how Paul envisioned the redemption of the material world. Paul reinforces that notion here by noting that creation "groans and suffers" for reconciliation with God. To be "set free from its slavery." Paul goes on to explicitly include our material bodies in that reconciliation by noting that "not only this but also we ourselves" will have our "soma" redeemed. Not our spirits. Nor our souls. But our material bodies.

Speaking of the connection between the reconciliation of the material world and the redemption of our bodies, Professor Scotts comments: "In this ultimate purpose we have solidarity with the rest of the material world. The fallen creation retains within it a redemptive purpose. It will be set free from corruption at the time when believers' mortal bodies are redeemed from their temporality and weakness (Rom. 8:18-23)." Stephen C. Mott, Ethics, in The Dictionary of Paul and His Letters, at 272.

William L. Craig describes this connection, thus: "Paul's doctrine of the world to come is that our resurrection bodies will be part of, so to speak, a resurrected creation (Rom 8.18-23). The universe will be delivered from sin and decay, not materiality, and our bodies wil1 be part of that universe." William L. Craig, "The Bodily Resurrection of Jesus," in Gospel Perspectives I, pp. 47-74. Edited by R.T. France and D. Wenham. Sheffield, England: JSOT Press, 1980.

Once again, therefore, Paul speaks explicitly of the transformation -- not cessation -- of our bodies as fulfilling Christ' redemptive work.

Steven Carr

Layman may think it absurd to expect Christians to have been converted to Christianity by beleiving eyewitness accounts of the risen Jesus being touched and eating fish.

Perhaps he is right. Perhaps early Christians (like later Gnostics) did not believe these stories , or did not take them literally.


Paul never makes clear what is 'sleeping'.

If Layman thinks a good metaphor for a body that has been eaten by fishes, or by worms, or burned by fire is 'sleeping', then he does not get many restful nights.

Paul could hardly think that our 'vessel of identity' which 'sleeps' before being resurrected was a flesh and blood body, because this decays and is often destroyed.

Certainly the author of 2 Peter did not think he was merely going to sleep in his body while awaiting resurrection.

2 Peter 1:13-14 'I think it is right to refresh your memory as long as I live in the tent of this body, because I know that I will soon put it aside, as our Lord Jesus Christ has made clear to me.'

'Tent' is the same word as Paul uses, and 2 Peter is utterly clear that the tent will be set aside at death. It won't be kept or transformed.

I do like Laymans quote '....when R. Meier used the analogy of the seed he was thinking most certainly of the glorious new body which would come into being.'

Layman really trashed the 2-body theory there, with his talk of a new body which only came into being at the resurrection.......

As for his quotes from Philippians, these are his strongest points. Paul is not consistent though, and seemed to have developed his doctrine so that by the time of 2 Corinthians, the tent is discarded altogether and replaced by one made in Heaven.

(incidentally when Jesus refers to the Temple of his body, he says that the temple would be destroyed and then remade in 3 days. Doesn't this also imply a 2 Temple theory)

It is certainly better than his claim that when Paul said that flesh and blood will not inherit the kingdom of God, he meant only that mere mortals would not inherit the kingdom of God....

Laymans writes ' Paul does not say that the mortal is left behind, it says it “puts on� immortality...'

Just as putting on new clothes means not discarding the old clothes??

Amaleq13

IIUC, Steven was referring to the popular notion that the stories upon which the written versions were based might have been known to the Corinthians.

I think he is suggesting that modern translations have been guided by faulty assumptions.

But is "it" simply a literal reference to the formerly living body or a reference to that which made visible the individual identity or, as Paul would have understood it, their spirit? The "person" or spirit is sown in a corrupt body but raised in a spiritual body.

Are the bodies asleep or is it the personality of the individual (spirit) that sleeps awaiting resurrecting in a new, celestial body?

What is unreasonable about the possibility that he is actually talking about the individual identity (spirit) that is the only truly continuous aspect of the resurrection?

I don't know if it represents a change in position but Carrier argues in his chapter of the book that Paul envisioned the resurrected bodies to be as material as the bodies of angels.

Have you read Carrier's chapter?

Steven Carr

I find I must revise my opinions.

Paul is not inconsistent at all.

Philippians 3 is not about a resurrection.

Paul is very explicit that the bodies of people still alive when Jesus
appears will be transformed.

But he just never uses that word about resurrection.

The contrast is striking. Living bodies will be transformed.

Dead people will be given new bodies.

After explaining how God gives a new body, Paul then goes on to talk about
living people. And he says 'Behold, I tell you a mystery.'

In other words, what he is about to say does not follow from what he has just said.

After claiming that 'flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God', he tells people a mystery -
that their flesh and blood bodies will be transformed.

After claiming that a seed must die before it comes to life, he tells people a mystery - that not all will sleep (ie die)

So clearly the transformation theme (which Paul is clear about here and in Philippians) does not apply to resurrections.

Or else it would not be a mystery.

Magdlyn

Yes, absolutely, but we are talking about Paul's rather esoteric philosophy/theology, not the gospel fictions--er--narratives. The gospel narratives attempt to clothe the esoteric wisdom in a literal shell.

Steven Carr

NT Wright wrote 'We are forced to postulate something which will account for the fact that a group of first-century Jews, who had cherished messianic hopes and centred them on Jesus of Nazareth, claimed after his death that he really was the Messiah despite the crushing evidence to the contrary ... to this question, of course, the early Christians reply with one voice: we believe that Jesus was and is the Messiah because he was raised bodily from the dead.'

One voice? Just ask Layman if early Christians believed 'with one voice' that Jesus was raised bodily from the dead. Unfounded, he would say. Paul was battling early Christians who doubted that Jesus had been raised bodily from the dead, Layman would retort to Wright.


How does Wright know that a faction among the Corinthians could not possibly have doubted a resurrection of the body? , would be the answer of Layman to Wright's claim that Christians said 'with one voice' that Jesus was raised bodily from the dead.

NOGO

Yes, I agree.
I am keen on differences between Paul and the Gospels.

For the Gospels Jesus was a spirit (at least for John) who created the world and picked up a body of sorts on his transit on earth.

For Paul it must be very different since all he saw on the road to Damascus was a light and hear a voice. Paul's Jesus was therefore a spirit after his resurection or if you like without the incorruptible body that he describes.

I think that Paul would have found it shocking to discover that Jesus had wounds after his resurrection in his new and incorruptible body.

Vorkosigan

Excellent post, Layman. You've opened my eyes to a whole new way of interpreting the enigmatic parables in Mark 4. In fact, you've provided some very powerful insight into the whole meaning and purpose of the Gospel of Mark. I have long puzzled over how the parable section in the first part of the book fits into the narrative as a whole. You've enabled me to answer it.

Vorkosigan

Magdlyn

Technically, Paul does not say he heard/felt Christ on any road to Damascus. The whole Damascus story is in Acts. /nitpick