Resurrected human beings

stevencarrwork

The Bishop of Durham, NT Wright, wrote a book called 'Galatians for Everyone'

Wright translates Galatians 1:1 as follows :-

Paul, an apostle.... (my apostleship doesn't derive from human sources!) Nor did it come through a human being. It came through Jesus the Messiah, and God the father who raised him from the dead.

Why was Paul so keen to stress that the resurrected Jesus was not a human being?

kelly1

stevencarrwork wrote: »

The Bishop of Durham, NT Wright, wrote a book called 'Galatians for Everyone'

Wright translates Galatians 1:1 as follows :-

Paul, an apostle.... (my apostleship doesn't derive from human sources!) Nor did it come through a human being. It came through Jesus the Messiah, and God the father who raised him from the dead.

Why was Paul so keen to stress that the resurrected Jesus was not a human being?

Hello Steven, I looked this up in my bible (Ignatius RSV) and it reads:

1. Paul an apostle - not from men nor through man, but through Jesus Christ and God the Father, who raised Him from the dead - and all the brethern who are with me, to the churches of Galatia...


I think what Paul is saying is that the Gospel he is preaching is not revealed by man but by God even though Jesus was and is human (and divine). I don't see this as a denial of the humanity of Jesus and the resurrection doesn't change His humanity.

God bless,
Noel.

stevencarrwork

kelly1 wrote: »

Hello Steven, I looked this up in my bible (Ignatius RSV) and it reads:

1. Paul an apostle - not from men nor through man, but through Jesus Christ and God the Father, who raised Him from the dead - and all the brethern who are with me, to the churches of Galatia...


I think what Paul is saying is that the Gospel he is preaching is not revealed by man but by God even though Jesus was and is human (and divine). I don't see this as a denial of the humanity of Jesus and the resurrection doesn't change His humanity.

God bless,
Noel.

It was not revealed by man, it was revealed through Jesus, and this is not a denial that Jesus was a man?

Could you unpack that bit please?

kelly1

stevencarrwork wrote: »

It was not revealed by man, it was revealed through Jesus, and this is not a denial that Jesus was a man?

Could you unpack that bit please?

If Jesus is not a man, what is He?

In Roman 5, Paul says Jesus is a man:

15 But not as the offence, so also the gift. For if by the offence of one, many died; much more the grace of God, and the gift, by the grace of one man, Jesus Christ, hath abounded unto many.

Don't you think you're nit-picking just a bit?

stevencarrwork

kelly1 wrote: »

If Jesus is not a man, what is He?

'The last Adam became a life-giving spirit.;

kelly1 wrote: »

In Roman 5, Paul says Jesus is a man:



Don't you think you're nit-picking just a bit?

I don't see why. It was Paul who said he didn't get the gospel from a human being.

hivizman

I suggest that you read Tom Wright's explanation of this passage on pages 5 and 6 of Paul for Everyone: Galatians and Thessalonians. For those without immediate access to the book, here it is:

Paul's opponents in Galatia . . . had persuaded the Galatians that Paul was only an apostle at second hand. The word 'apostle' means 'one who is sent', and came to be a technical term in early Christianity for the original ones whom Jesus sent out after his resurrection. The opponents have suggested that Paul got his apostleship, and the message he announced, from other early Christians, not from Jesus himself. They, by contrast, got theirs (so they claim) from Jerusalem, from the 'original' apostles such as Peter, and James the brother of Jesus.

Not so, replies Paul. His apostleship, his commission to build this new family, came from God himself, and from Jesus the Messiah. Paul's vision of Jesus on the road to Damascus is absolutely central for him and his work.

For reference, the NRSV, Anglicized edition, translates Galatians 1:1 as: "Paul an apostle - sent neither by human commission nor from human authorities, but through Jesus Christ and God the Father, who raised him from the dead."

A transliteration of the original Greek text is: "Paulos apostolos, ouk ap anthropon oude di anthropou alla dia Iesou Christou kai theou patros tou egeipantos auton ek nekron".

The Ignatius RSV translation quoted by kelly1 ("not from men nor through man") is closest literally, the NRSV seems to reflect the sense of Paul's rhetoric though labours the point somewhat, and Tom Wright's translation is a little less formal but still sound.

Fanny Cradock

stevencarrwork wrote: »

Why was Paul so keen to stress that the resurrected Jesus was not a human being?

I wasn't aware that Paul had denied Jesus' human form post resurrection. If I'm to follow N.T. Wrights thought on the matter, the risen Jesus not only had a physical and temporal human body as before - he ate with the disciples, for example - but having gone through death and emerged the other side, it was a body that was more real than yours or mine. So while Jesus' had a body as we would understand the meaning, it was also a different type of body - one that could do strange things.

Look at John 21:12, for example: Jesus said to them, “Come and eat breakfast.” Yet none of the disciples dared ask Him, “Who are You?”—knowing that it was the Lord.

These men had been in Jesus' presence day and night for 3 years, and yet this was their reaction. Clearly there was something utterly new, yet also entirely familiar, about Jesus. I'm reminded of Lord of the Rings where the new incarnation 'Gandalf the White' is the same but different to the old 'Gandalf the Grey'.

To paraphrase Wright - by conquering death Jesus was the beginning of the new creation, which will ultimately result not in heaven, but a new type of earth after heaven and earth have passed away.

N.T. Wright does a considerably better job of making the case.

PDN

stevencarrwork wrote: »

Why was Paul so keen to stress that the resurrected Jesus was not a human being?

He wasn't. If you try to argue such a thing then, in order to be consistent, you would have to argue that Paul also stressed that the Christians in Corinth were not human beings! Why? Because in 1 Corinthians 3:3-4 we see Paul using the exact same verbal construction to accuse the Corinthians of acting like mere men (literally ' being men' - anthropoi este). A much more sensible conclusion is that Paul (in both 1 Corinthians and Galatians) uses the word anthropos in the sense of 'a mere man' (ie human activity rather than the activity of God).

Interestingly we find the same construction, in classical Greek, contrasting real men (hoi andres) with mere men (anthropoi). For example, Herodotus has Xerxes complaining at Thermopylae that he has many anthropoi but few andres. Thucydides, Homer and Xenophon use andres and anthropoi in a similar manner.

stevencarrwork

hivizman wrote: »

I suggest that you read Tom Wright's explanation of this passage on pages 5 and 6 of Paul for Everyone: Galatians and Thessalonians. For those without immediate access to the book, here it is:

In other words, Wright agrees that Paul claims his apostleship did not come from a human being. It came from Jesus.

stevencarrwork

PDN wrote: »

He wasn't. If you try to argue such a thing then, in order to be consistent, you would have to argue that Paul also stressed that the Christians in Corinth were not human beings! Why? Because in 1 Corinthians 3:3-4 we see Paul using the exact same verbal construction to accuse the Corinthians of acting like mere men (literally ' being men' - anthropoi este). A much more sensible conclusion is that Paul (in both 1 Corinthians and Galatians) uses the word anthropos in the sense of 'a mere man' (ie human activity rather than the activity of God).

Totally irrelevant, as Paul is contrasting Christians with non-Christians.

Nobody claims people thought Paul had been sent by non-Christians.

Not even NT Wright uses that argument of yours....

PDN wrote: »

Interestingly we find the same construction, in classical Greek, contrasting real men (hoi andres) with mere men (anthropoi). For example, Herodotus has Xerxes complaining at Thermopylae that he has many anthropoi but few andres. Thucydides, Homer and Xenophon use andres and anthropoi in a similar manner.

Totally irrelevant, just throwing out stuff to obscure and confuse.

Jonah 1:16 (LXX) refers to the pagan sailors as 'the men' (andres)

Are pagans the 'real men' , compared to the apostles, who were 'anthropoi' (mere men)?

stevencarrwork

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

I wasn't aware that Paul had denied Jesus' human form post resurrection.

You haven't read Paul claiming 'the last Adam became a life-giving spirit'?

Or Galatians 1, where Paul says his apostleship did not come from a human being, it came from Jesus?

hivizman

stevencarrwork wrote: »

You haven't read Paul claiming 'the last Adam became a life-giving spirit'?

Or Galatians 1, where Paul says his apostleship did not come from a human being, it came from Jesus?

I suspect that if Tom Wright had left out the word "not", some people would be claiming that Paul was denying the divine nature of Jesus.

Tom Wright has explained quite adequately the point that Paul is making in the first few verses of Galatians. Taking a single verse and reading it out of context is not a sound approach to interpretation.

And anyway, Paul goes on the explain the point he's making in verses 11 and 12. In Tom Wright's translation, these read:

You see, brothers and sisters, let me make it clear to you; the gospel announced by me is not a mere human invention. I didn't receive it from human beings, nor was I taught it; it came through an unveiling of Jesus of Nazareth.

At the time of Paul's conversion on the road to Damascus, Jesus was not (if indeed he ever was) a "mere human being".

Incidentally, Tom Wright states, in the standard introduction to all of his New Testament translations and commentaries, that he is writing for a reader who "mightn't necessarily understand the more ponderous tones of some of the standard [translations]. I have of course tried to keep as close to the original as I can. But my main aim has been to be sure that the words can speak not just to some people, but to everyone." Wright is a prolific and scholarly author, one of the leading New Testament scholars of the day (how he manages this and still finds time to be Bishop of Durham amazes me), and he would, I'm sure, be the last person to deny the human nature of Jesus or to claim that Paul denies this.

stevencarrwork

hivizman wrote: »

At the time of Paul's conversion on the road to Damascus, Jesus was not (if indeed he ever was) a "mere human being".

Indeed Jesus had become a 'life-giving spirit', to use Paul's words.

And the gospel Paul preached had not come from any human being who had met Jesus.

I wonder if any Gnostic Gospels say so clearly that the Gospel did not come from human beings, it came from Jesus.

Of course, Wright will be ready to tell people that when Gnostic Gospels say the Gospel did not come from human beings, it is because Gnostics denied that Jesus was a human being.

Paul is clear that nobody would have heard of Jesus if it were not for Christian preachers preaching about him.

Romans 10
How, then, can they call on the one they have not believed in? And how can they believe in the one of whom they have not heard? And how can they hear without someone preaching to them? And how can they preach unless they are sent? As it is written, "How beautiful are the feet of those who bring good news!"

But not all the Israelites accepted the good news. For Isaiah says, "Lord, who has believed our message?"

It is a fair point. How could the Israelites believe in Jesus if they had never heard of him? And how could they hear about Jesus if Christians did not preach about him?

And not all Israelites became believers. Some rejected Christian preaching about Jesus.

That would seem to be Paul's explanation of why many Jews did not believe. They had rejected the message of Christian preachers.

PDN

stevencarrwork wrote: »

Totally irrelevant, as Paul is contrasting Christians with non-Christians.

Nobody claims people thought Paul had been sent by non-Christians.

Not even NT Wright uses that argument of yours....

Well, I say lots of things that NT Wright doesn't say. While I have the utmost respect for the good Bishop of Durham I don't think that he is the sole inerrant fount of all wisdom and knowledge. I suspect he doesn't explain Paul's use of anthropoi in greater detail because he never imagined anyone would manage to misunderstand Paul so spectacularly (which, of course, no-one would unless they are deliberately trying to do so).

And I don't think the 1 Corinthians 3 reference is irrelevant at all. It is evidence of Paul using the simple word 'men' (anthropoi) in the sense of 'mere humans' as opposed to something that is more than human. In the Corinthians case this meant that they were possessers of God's Spirit, but that did not stop them being human - more of a case of them being superhuman (in todays's jargon we might have said 'turbo-charged humans'). So, in 1 Corinthians we see people contrasted with anthropoi in a way that makes them humans+something - but still human nonetheless.

So, in Galatians 1:1, we see the same use of language. Paul says he received his Gospel from Jesus Christ (human+divinity) and from God the Father (not human at all). Paul uses this fact to emphasise that his Gospel was not something that he himself had dreamed up, or that came from a merely human source.

Totally irrelevant, just throwing out stuff to obscure and confuse.

Not at all, I was attempting to have an intelligent debate on the use of language. But I think I was probably wasting my time.

Jonah 1:16 (LXX) refers to the pagan sailors as 'the men' (andres)

Are pagans the 'real men' , compared to the apostles, who were 'anthropoi' (mere men)?

Dear, dear, where to begin? You really seem to have a strange understanding of how language operates.

No-one is arguing that anthropoi or andres are always used in contrast with each other, no language (including English) works that way. We have to read in context, taking note of who the author is, who he is writing to, and how any given word relates to the subject under discussion.

I have pointed out how anthropoi can be used in the sense of 'mere men' and how andres can be used in the sense of 'real men'. However, there are plenty more occasions where no such distinction is made.

Andres is often used to denote males of the species only, with anthropoi sometimes (including women and children). The guys who translated Jonah into Greek assumed, fairly reasonably, that sailors on a merchant vessel were probably all men - so andres was a reasonable choice of word. So, no, they were not comparing the pagan sailors with Christian disciples that would not exist for another couple of centuries. :rolleyes:

stevencarrwork

PDN wrote: »

Dear, dear, where to begin? You really seem to have a strange understanding of how language operates.

No-one is arguing that anthropoi or andres are always used in contrast with each other, no language (including English) works that way.

So you didn't have a point with your previous post,where you claimed there was such a distinction between anthropoi and andres.

It was irrelevant, just like I claimed it was.

And all your diversions into Greek are simply so you can claim that Paul said in Galatians 1 ' a MERELY' human source, when no such word appears in the Greek....

If you throw out enough Greek, nobody can spot where you start adding words to the text.

But feel free to show where Paul says in Galatians 1:1 that, to quote YOU, but not PAUL, 'came from a MERELY human source.'

Paul says it did not come from a human being, jist like in the Bishop of Durham's translation.

And you should read Wright's explanation of why Paul thinks the Jews rejected Christianity because they had either never heard of Jesus or had rejected Christian preaching about him.

It is an amazing thing to see!

hivizman

stevencarrwork wrote: »

And you should read Wright's explanation of why Paul thinks the Jews rejected Christianity because they had either never heard of Jesus or had rejected Christian preaching about him.

It is an amazing thing to see!

This new direction is possibly going off-thread.

By the way, my local Christian bookshop has a whole shelf devoted to Wright's books (I joked with the owner once that Wright seemed to be publishing a new book every month), and I have, or had but gave away, well over 20 books by him. I'd really appreciate an exact reference to this "amazing" explanation, so that I can read it for myself.

PDN

hivizman wrote: »

This new direction is possibly going off-thread.

By the way, my local Christian bookshop has a whole shelf devoted to Wright's books (I joked with the owner once that Wright seemed to be publishing a new book every month), and I have, or had but gave away, well over 20 books by him. I'd really appreciate an exact reference to this "amazing" explanation, so that I can read it for myself.

I was listening to a podcast yesterday where an interviewer, admittedly American, said to Wright, "You seem to write a book faster than I can read a book!" Wright replied that his bigger works take years to write, but he will sometimes take a couple of weeks off and write a shorter popular book (like 'Galatians for Everyone' which hardly goes very deep) within a fortnight!

stevencarrwork

hivizman wrote: »

By the way, my local Christian bookshop has a whole shelf devoted to Wright's books (I joked with the owner once that Wright seemed to be publishing a new book every month), and I have, or had but gave away, well over 20 books by him. I'd really appreciate an exact reference to this "amazing" explanation, so that I can read it for myself.

Romans for Everyone, Part 2.

When Wright writes as Tom Wright, he is writing for a general audience, just as Richard Dawkins wrote 'The God Delusion' for a general audience, so nobody expects the book to go very deep. That would be an unfair criticism of Wright, as he was writing for a general audience.

PDN

stevencarrwork wrote: »

So you didn't have a point with your previous post,where you claimed there was such a distinction between anthropoi and andres.

It was irrelevant, just like I claimed it was.

No, you appear to be as adept at misunderstanding my writings as you are at misunderstanding the writings of Paul.

I had a very clear point - namely that anthropoi is sometimes used, both by Paul and in classical Greek, as referring to 'mere men'. It isn't always used in that way, but sometimes it is. Therefore, in contrasting X with anthropoi, it does not follow that anyone is therefore saying that X is not
human.

You can see similar examples of similar use of language when Jesus says that his disciples are 'not of this world'. Now, any normal person will understand that Jesus must be using the word 'world' in some kind of technical sense, not as simply referring to planet Earth. Only a complete moron would argue that Jesus was teaching that His disciples are extraterrestials from outer space.

And all your diversions into Greek are simply so you can claim that Paul said in Galatians 1 ' a MERELY' human source, when no such word appears in the Greek....

If you throw out enough Greek, nobody can spot where you start adding words to the text.

Nobody is adding words to the text. I am simply pointing out the explanation of the existing words of the text that best fit the context and are consistent with Paul's overall teaching.

And as for 'nobody can spot' - that is utter nonsense. Anyone with even a smattering of Greek and who is educated beyond primary school level should be able to follow exactly what I'm doing. 'Throwing out Greek' is hardly inappropriate when we are discussing a text that is written in Greek.

In fact, I find it proposterous that someone with little or no Greek would attempt to lecture and correct proficient Greek scholars (like NT Wright) on the correct way to interpret a text written in Greek. Can you imagine us doing that with any other text in any other language? Let's imagine such a scenario:

I speak no German. However, imagine that I have decided, after reading some of Goethe in an English translation, that I can interpret something written by Goethe better than all the philosophers that have studied him. So I advance my interpretation because, in an English translation, it seems to make more sense to me. Then, when someone gently points out to me that I am misunderstanding a German idiom, I say, "Ah, you're just throwing out German to try to confuse people!" I would, quite rightly, be dismissed as an utter buffoon. Obviously, if I want anyone to treat seriously my claims to be able to interpret Goethe better than anyone else, I need to either gain proficiency in the language in which Goethe wrote, or else not be so arrogant and dismissive of those who are proficient in that language.

stevencarrwork

'I had a very clear point - namely that anthropoi is sometimes used, both by Paul and in classical Greek, as referring to 'mere men'. '

And such a point is irrelevant.

Even NT Wright does not translate it as 'mere men'.

No translation translates it as 'mere men'. When Paul calls the non-resurrected Jesus an 'anthropos' in Romans 5:15, it is not translated 'mere men'



You just made up a claim that Paul is referring to 'mere men', without a word in the Greek of Galatians 1 to suggest that Jesus was a human being.

After all, Paul says outright that Jesus became a life-giving spirit after the resurrection.

Do any Gnostic Gospels deny that Jesus had been a man in the same clear, direct way that Paul does?

After all, if a Gnostic said that he did not get revelation from a human being, he got it from Jesus, you would never use a double standard and say that it meant he DID get revelation from a human being, just not a mere human being, would you?

Fanny Cradock

hivizman wrote: »

This new direction is possibly going off-thread.

By the way, my local Christian bookshop has a whole shelf devoted to Wright's books (I joked with the owner once that Wright seemed to be publishing a new book every month), and I have, or had but gave away, well over 20 books by him. I'd really appreciate an exact reference to this "amazing" explanation, so that I can read it for myself.

Where would this shop be? I've tried a few shops locally and I've not found a great deal of variety and it would be nice to keep it in the family, if you follow.

hivizman

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Where would this shop be? I've tried a few shops locally and I've not found a great deal of variety and it would be nice to keep it in the family, if you follow.

I'm currently "in exile" in England, living in an ancient Cathedral city. The shop used to be owned by SPCK, but they sold their shops off to a Greek Orthodox organisation a couple of years ago and the local shop hasn't been as good since then.

PDN

stevencarrwork wrote: »

'I had a very clear point - namely that anthropoi is sometimes used, both by Paul and in classical Greek, as referring to 'mere men'. '

And such a point is irrelevant.

No, it is very relevant. You are trying to construct an argument along the following lines:
1. Paul says that he did not receive his Gospel from anthropoi.
2. Paul says he received his Gospel from Jesus.
3. Therefore Paul must be saying that Jesus is not human.

That only works logically if not being anthropoi always equates to a denial of humanity. If it can be demonstrated that being referred to as non-anthropoi is also compatible with being fully human then your argument is logically invalid.

Paul speaks of the Corinthians (who I think we agree were human) as being non-anthropoi. Thucydides, Herodotus and Homer all do the same in Classical Greek when referrinbg to people (freemen, Spartans and warriors) who were most certainly human. Therefore it possible to refer to someone as non-anthropoi without denying their humanity. Therefore your argument is fallacious.

Even NT Wright does not translate it as 'mere men'.

No translation translates it as 'mere men'. When Paul calls the non-resurrected Jesus an 'anthropos' in Romans 5:15, it is not translated 'mere men'

The issue is not how it is translated, but what Paul actually meant by it. In 1 Corinthians 3:4 most translations insert qualifying phrases because the translators realised that a literal translation ('Are you not being men') would be difficult for the average reader to understand. That's what translators do. However, it would be unreasonable to expect any translator to predict that anyone would manage to misinterpret Galatians 1:1 so as to portray Paul as denying Christ's humanity. And of course nobody would make such a mistake if they were genuinely seeking to understand what Paul was saying.

You just made up a claim that Paul is referring to 'mere men', without a word in the Greek of Galatians 1 to suggest that Jesus was a human being.

I didn't make up any claim. I simply agree with the vast majority of scholars who, due to context and language, see no denial of Christ's humanity in Greek 1:1. The 'mere human' meaning makes much more sense, and Paul uses the word anthropos in that sense elsewhere.

Paul was neither affirming or denying that Jesus was a human being in Galatians 1:1. He wasn't addressing that issue at all. He was responding to the Judaisers who were saying in effect, "Paul isn't a real apostle. He's just a johnny-come-lately who learned all his stuff second hand." Therefore he was stressing at the commencement of the letter that his gospel was not something he had picked up from people along the way. This is the indisputable historical context in which Galatians was written. Therefore the 'mere men' idea makes perfect sense whereas interpreting it as a denial of Christ's humanity is ripping it out of context.

After all, Paul says outright that Jesus became a life-giving spirit after the resurrection.

Yes, and the same verse also says that Adam became a living soul. Now what does that mean? It means Adam had a natural body, but that when God breathed the breath of life into him then he became something more - but Adam did not cease to have a literal body when he became a soul. When Adam became a soul he did not cease being human - instead he became a human with a soul. So, when Jesus became a life giving Spirit (ie at the Resurrection) there is no thought of him ceasing to be human - that is simply your unwarranted assumption.

Christ, in His Resurrection body, was Human+ - or humanity evolved to the next level. And as such he is the firstfruits of what awaits us at our resurrection. We will not cease to be human, but neither will we simply be like Lazrus - raised with all our old frailty and eventually dying again. We will be raised in new spiritual bodies.

And that is the context in which Paul talks about Jesus becoming a Life-giving Spirit. The verse immediately preceding (1 Corinthians 15:44) says, "it is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body. If there is a natural body, there is also a spiritual body."

The meaning, when taken in context, is very clear. A natural human body dies, but the person is then raised from the dead in a new spiritual body. That is what happened to Jesus, and that is what awaits every true Christian.

Adam was a living soul, but he was also a human. Why? Because 'living soul' and 'human' are not mutually exclusive terms.

Jesus, after His Resurrection, is a Life-Giving Spirit - but you seem to have got the rather muddled idea that 'human' and 'Life-Giving Spirit' are somehow mutually exclusive. That is Platonism, but it is not the position of Paul or the other biblical writers.

Do any Gnostic Gospels deny that Jesus had been a man in the same clear, direct way that Paul does?

Since Paul doesn't deny any such thing, either directly or indirectly, that is a nonsense question.

After all, if a Gnostic said that he did not get revelation from a human being, he got it from Jesus, you would never use a double standard and say that it meant he DID get revelation from a human being, just not a mere human being, would you?

That would depend on the context in which it occurred. If the Gnostic in question was known to be a Docetist (not all Gnostics denied the humanity of Christ) then it would be more likely that they were trying to score a point rather than simply using a common phrase.

For example, if an atheist says "RIP" when mentioning someone's death then I would consider it unlikely that they were making any point about purgatory or the resurrection, but were simply using the phrase to express respect for the person who has died. However, if a devout Catholic used the same phrase then I would probably read more into it. As always, meaning is influenced by context.

stevencarrwork

PDN wrote: »

We will not cease to be human, but neither will we simply be like Lazrus - raised with all our old frailty and eventually dying again. We will be raised in new spiritual bodies.

And that is the context in which Paul talks about Jesus becoming a Life-giving Spirit. The verse immediately preceding (1 Corinthians 15:44) says, "it is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body. If there is a natural body, there is also a spiritual body."

SO when Paul said Jesus became a spirit, he meant that Jesus had a body of flesh and bone.

And when we are raised in - to quote you - 'NEW' spiritual bodies, he meant that the body that went into the tomb , was the body that came out of the tomb, and it was recognisable by the wounds that the old body had.

And when Paul writes 'If there is a natural body, there is *also* a spiritual body.", he meant that there was only ONE body, which was first a natural body and then became a spiritual body, made out of flesh and bone.

Just like if somebody says 'If there is a dog, there is also a cat', he would mean that there is only one animal, which is first a dog and then becomes a cat.

Hence Paul's analogy of earthly and heavenly things being as different as 'fish', 'animals' , 'birds', 'the Moon', 'Sun', etc. These can be transformed into each other, hence they are ideal analogies for how there can be a natural body and also a spiritual body, just like there are birds and also the Moon.

PDN

stevencarrwork wrote: »

SO when Paul said Jesus became a spirit, he meant that Jesus had a body of flesh and bone.

Paul certainly did believe that Jesus had a body of flesh and bone. It would be unthinkable, purely from a cultural and historical standpoint, that a former Pharisee like Paul would take such a radical step away from contemporary Jewish thought without stating his position clearly and defending it from Scripture.

However, while the physical resurrection of Christ is clear elsewhere in Paul's teaching, in the particular verse you refer to (1 Corinthians 15:45) it is neither being affirmed not denied because Paul's emphasis is on something else entirely - namely, on the extra dimension that is added.

And when we are raised in - to quote you - 'NEW' spiritual bodies, he meant that the body that went into the tomb , was the body that came out of the tomb, and it was recognisable by the wounds that the old body had.

We know that Christ's resurrection body did indeed bear the wounds of His crucifixion - this is what clinched it for Thomas (often called Doubting Thomas). The Book of Revelation also portrays Jesus as "the Lamb that had been slain" indicating that His body still bears the wounds of the Cross. However, those wounds are no longer seen as disfigurement but rather as a constant reminder of His love for us.

And when Paul writes 'If there is a natural body, there is *also* a spiritual body.", he meant that there was only ONE body, which was first a natural body and then became a spiritual body, made out of flesh and bone.

Just as you might say that 'if there was a caterpillar's body, there is also a butterfly's body'.

Paul says that the seed that is buried in the ground brings forth a plant. The plant is not identical to the seed (we don't sow a whole apple tree) but neither is it totally separate and disconnected from the seed. The new resurrection body is still human and, as we see in Jesus, can still sit and eat breakfast with others, but it also has some wonderful new qualities.

Paul never mentions dogs and cats. His primary analogy is of a seed that becomes a plant. The apple seed becomes a tiny apple tree - but it is still of the same kind and species! So our dead corruptible bodies are raised as glorious spiritual bodies - but we are still of the same species - human.

Hence Paul's analogy of earthly and heavenly things being as different as 'fish', 'animals' , 'birds', 'the Moon', 'Sun', etc. These can be transformed into each other, hence they are ideal analogies for how there can be a natural body and also a spiritual body, just like there are birds and also the Moon.

No analogy is ideal. An analogy serves to illustrate one or two points. Press it too far and the '... ogy' drops off leaving someone merely being anal.

In verse 39 Paul is still answering the question of verse 35: "How are the dead raised? With what kind of body do they come?" (a question, he says in verse 36, that only a fool would ask ).

On this board we put up with all kinds of assorted muppetry from atheist posters. If Jesus was raised from the dead He must be a zombie? How will a new earth provide enough food for all the resurrected Christians that have ever lived? What if someone's body is cremated? What if a cannibal eats a Christian and then becomes a believer himself (the molecules of the cannibal's victim becoming part of the cannibal)?

Such moronic coat-trailing questions are not new. Jesus Himself faced questions from the Sadducees (who denied the resurrection of the body) about whose wife would a woman be in the resurrection. Also Rabbi Meir was asked whether the resurrected dead would be naked or clothed (the Rabbi, in a similar response to Paul, pointed out that there are different kinds of flesh. If the grain of wheat, which is put into the earth naked, grows up in who knows how many garments, how much more does that apply to the righteous who are buried in their clothes!)

Of course we know today that such questions are essentially meaningless since the atoms in our bodies are constantly changing and being replaced. Therefore we should expect our resurrected bodies to show some kind of continuity with our old bodies - but also many changes. In other words, our new bodies, while still unmistakably 'us' and human, will be a different kind of flesh.

Rabbi Meir's answer (apparently addressed to Cleopatra!) , while written in a pre-scientific age, catches this truth very well. As, indeed, does Paul's analogy of different kinds of flesh (men, beasts, birds, and fish). The point here is not that fish transform into birds (I guess, Steven, that you must be a Creationist since you appear to find that kind of evolutionary development to be proposterous ), but rather that there is more than one kind of flesh. 'So,' Paul is saying to his foolish questioner, 'You should not suppose that our resurrection bodies will be composed of the same kind of corruptible flesh as our old bodies.' Then he uses the moon, sun and starsas an analogy, demonstrating that some celestial bodies shine brighter than others. So our new incorruptible resurrected bodies will shine with a glory that our old ones never possessed.

So, when you read the whole passage in context rather than trying to grind an axe, Paul is saying that there is a continuity between our old bodies and our resurrected bodies, but there will also be essential differences. Our new bodies will still be us, will never be less than or other than human, but they have an extra spiritual glory.

I don't think it's too difficult to grasp if you are genuinely trying to understand Paul's thought rather than to (unsuccessfully) score ideological points against someone else.

stevencarrwork

PDN wrote: »

Paul certainly did believe that Jesus had a body of flesh and bone. It would be unthinkable, purely from a cultural and historical standpoint, that a former Pharisee like Paul would take such a radical step away from contemporary Jewish thought without stating his position clearly and defending it from Scripture.

Paul had not one single detail of what a resurrected body was like.

All he could say was that Jesus had become a spirit, and that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God. Paul says the earthly body is destroyed.

As for continuity, this is such a weak point.

'What a foolish question! When you put a seed into the ground, it doesn’t grow into a plant unless it dies first.'

The Christian converts knew that corpses were dead when you put them in the ground. So why does Paul tell them that corpses were dead?

Let's try an an analogy. 'How can scrambled eggs be put back together? What a stupid question! When you make scrambled eggs, the eggs have to be smashed.'



'And what you put in the ground is not the plant that will grow, but only a bare seed of wheat or whatever you are planting. Then God gives it the new body he wants it to have.'

Of course there is continuity. Plant corpses and God creates resurrected beings. Plant seeds of wheat and God creates wheat.

But Paul stresses that the seed is naked - it has no material of its own. God gives it the body.

'Similarly there are different kinds of flesh—one kind for humans, another for animals, another for birds, and another for fish.

40 There are also bodies in the heavens and bodies on the earth. The glory of the heavenly bodies is different from the glory of the earthly bodies. 41 The sun has one kind of glory, while the moon and stars each have another kind. And even the stars differ from each other in their glory.

42 It is the same way with the resurrection of the dead.'

Your amazing answer is that Paul uses the analogy of totally different things that never turn into each other to persuade people that the material of corpses turns into a totally different thing, when the Corinthians would have been wondering how corpses could be raised at all, once they had been burned to ash and smoke or eaten by worms.

I can just imagine the questions and answers.

Corinthian - How can corpses be raised when they lack a head or arms?

Paul. The material of the corpse is turned into a different kind of flesh.

Corinthian - What material? There is no (deleted) head to turn into anything, and you call us idiots?

The obvious question and answer runs as follows.


Corinthian - How can corpses be raised when they lack a head or arms?

Paul - The earthly body is destroyed, and you get a new heavenly body from God.

Corinthian - We didn't know that. What idiots we were not to realise that.

Paul's answer makes perfect sense, as he regarded the idea of corpses being transformed as foolish as us thinking that we fly to Paris by putting wings on our cars and transforming them.

Then he would answer just as he did, stressing the difference between heavenly and earthly bodies, just like we would point out how flying machines differ from ground-based machines.

PDN
On this board we put up with all kinds of assorted muppetry from atheist posters. If Jesus was raised from the dead He must be a zombie? How will a new earth provide enough food for all the resurrected Christians that have ever lived? What if someone's body is cremated? What if a cannibal eats a Christian and then becomes a believer himself (the molecules of the cannibal's victim becoming part of the cannibal)?

Such moronic coat-trailing questions are not new.

CARR
Of course, such questions make perfect sense if you think a resurrection involves corpses being raised.

And as soon as Christians started to teach that corpse were raised, they started to pose exactly those questions and start to answer them.

Paul never answers them, because they were foolish.

But those questions are not 'moronic'.

As shown by the way Christians like Justin had to explictly state what Paul never did 'the resurrection is a resurrection of the flesh which died.'

Athenagoaras and Tertullian had to answer these 'moronic' questions by claiming that their god would keep track of all the parts of a body , so that it could be reassembled.

Paul just states the earthly body will be destroyed, and there will be a heavenly body.

PDN

stevencarrwork wrote: »

Paul had not one single detail of what a resurrected body was like.

His writings do not contain any such detail, which is a very different thing.

I suspect that Paul, like myself and most other Christians, did not see the details of what a resurrected body is like as being particularly relevant to most of the pressing issues of Christian faith and practice.

Denial of the resurrection, however, is a serious issue, which is why Paul addressed it.

All he could say was that Jesus had become a spirit, and that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God. Paul says the earthly body is destroyed.

No, that isn't true. Paul is able to say plenty of other things about resurrection bodies (both ours and Christ's).

For example, he can say that our lowly bodies will be transformed to be like Christ's glorious body (Phil 3:21) and that our bodies will be redeemed (Romans 8:23).

As for continuity, this is such a weak point.

Not weak at all. The continuity between the seed and the plant is the whole point of that analogy. The continuity that occurs when our bodies are transformed.

The Christian converts knew that corpses were dead when you put them in the ground. So why does Paul tell them that corpses were dead?

What on earth are you talking about? Paul is pointing out to the Corinthians that the seed must cease to exist in its previous form in order for the plant to grow from it. So our earthly bodies must die before they can be raised as glorious resurrection bodies.

Let's try an an analogy. 'How can scrambled eggs be put back together? What a stupid question! When you make scrambled eggs, the eggs have to be smashed.'

Yes. And scrambled eggs are simply eggs that have been transformed.

'And what you put in the ground is not the plant that will grow, but only a bare seed of wheat or whatever you are planting. Then God gives it the new body he wants it to have.'

Of course there is continuity. Plant corpses and God creates resurrected beings. Plant seeds of wheat and God creates wheat.

But Paul stresses that the seed is naked - it has no material of its own. God gives it the body

You appear to be confusing 'naked' with 'non-existent'.

'Similarly there are different kinds of flesh—one kind for humans, another for animals, another for birds, and another for fish.

40 There are also bodies in the heavens and bodies on the earth. The glory of the heavenly bodies is different from the glory of the earthly bodies. 41 The sun has one kind of glory, while the moon and stars each have another kind. And even the stars differ from each other in their glory.

42 It is the same way with the resurrection of the dead.'

Your amazing answer is that Paul uses the analogy of totally different things that never turn into each other to persuade people that the material of corpses turns into a totally different thing, when the Corinthians would have been wondering how corpses could be raised at all, once they had been burned to ash and smoke or eaten by worms.

No, that isn't my answer at all. Paul uses three analogies to teach the Corinthians three different truths - a much more coherent approach than your muddling of his argument.

a) He uses the analogy of the seed and the plant to stress the continuity of the old body with the new.

b) He uses the analogy of different living creatures to stress that not all flesh is the same. Therefore it would be foolishness to discuss the new resurrected body as if it were composed of the same kind of corruptible flesh as the old body.

c) He uses the analogy of heavenly bodies to stress that there are different degrees of brightness, or glory. Our new resurrection bodies will possess a glory that our old bodies lack.

Of course what all these analogies share is that they discuss physical bodies.

However, although I award you nil points for your exegesis of Paul, I would give you 10 out of 10 for ingenuity. You take a passage (1 Corinthians 15) where Paul argues passionately for the resurrection, and try to present it as a denial of the resurrection.

Fanny Cradock

I suspect that everything you wrote will fall on deaf ears, so to speak.

BrianCalgary

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

I suspect that everything you wrote will fall on deaf ears, so to speak.

I agree FC. PDN makes some very interesting points on language usage that explain the writings perfectly well.

The response: Irrelevant.

I think I may go over to the big thread and just keep saying: Irrelevant.