Morally Wrong Behavior vs. What the Civil Government Should Prohibit

[carpedm9587]

No, we know no such thing. The spiritual body IS the mortal body made immortal. That is clear in the text. The mortal is not discarded or lost as Ehrman and the text made clear. That is why Ehrman said Paul would have accepted the empty tomb.

Just stop digging Tass....

Anyone who can write the highlighted sentence has lost connection with reality. Further discussion would seem to be pointless. If the spiritual is the physical, then black can be white, up can be down, and inside can be outside. All normal discourse becomes essentially meaningless with such a person.

[seer]

Anyone who can write the highlighted sentence has lost connection with reality. Further discussion would seem to be pointless. If the spiritual is the physical, then black can be white, up can be down, and inside can be outside. All normal discourse becomes essentially meaningless with such a person.

Carp this is not what you think is possible or not, but what the text says.

[carpedm9587]

Carp this is not what you think is possible or not, but what the text says.

The text can say "orange is blue," Seer - it doesn't make it true. Your belief has reduced to "if the book says it then it is true" and you will swallow outright contradictions rather than question the book.

A belief that is not arrived at rationally cannot be rationally discussed. I submit this entire thread and all of the discussions therein concerning this topic have been pointless.

I'll leave you to your beliefs.

[Boxing Pythagoras]

Anyone who can write the highlighted sentence has lost connection with reality. Further discussion would seem to be pointless. If the spiritual is the physical, then black can be white, up can be down, and inside can be outside. All normal discourse becomes essentially meaningless with such a person.

This would only be the case if "spiritual" necessarily entails "non-physical." As I've been mentioning, that doesn't seem to be the intention of the original text. Remember, again, that the original text was written in Koine Greek, not English. Paul was discussing a σῶμα ψυχικόν, which I have been referring to as a "psychic" or "natural" body and which Seer is calling the "mortal" body. The problem is that none of our English words ("psychic," "natural," "mortal") seems to be a direct and complete analog for Paul's ψυχικόν. We can also say the same with regards to σῶμα πνευματικόν and the potential English translations of "pneumatic body" or "spiritual body" or "immortal body."

[carpedm9587]

This would only be the case if "spiritual" necessarily entails "non-physical." As I've been mentioning, that doesn't seem to be the intention of the original text. Remember, again, that the original text was written in Koine Greek, not English. Paul was discussing a σῶμα ψυχικόν, which I have been referring to as a "psychic" or "natural" body and which Seer is calling the "mortal" body. The problem is that none of our English words ("psychic," "natural," "mortal") seems to be a direct and complete analog for Paul's ψυχικόν. We can also say the same with regards to σῶμα πνευματικόν and the potential English translations of "pneumatic body" or "spiritual body" or "immortal body."

My tendency is to try to use words as they are conventionally defined.

Spiritual: of, relating to, consisting of, or affecting the spirit : INCORPOREAL (Merriam Webster).

While the spiritual and physical have often been suggested to coexist - they are not equivalent. What is being suggested by Seer is a physical body that is spiritual, not a physical body that coexists with the spiritual. The latter would be no different than any other body. The former is an oxymoron, AFAICT.

[Boxing Pythagoras]

My tendency is to try to use words as they are conventionally defined.

Spiritual: of, relating to, consisting of, or affecting the spirit : INCORPOREAL (Merriam Webster).

In philosophy, theology, and generally any sort of specialized field, it's fairly common to find word usage which doesn't comport with colloquial usage. For example, I talk a lot about mathematics. If I'm talking about a "sexy prime," I'm not discussing numbers to which I am physically attracted.

This is compounded even further when talking about a translation of a philosophical or theological work from another language; and further still when that language has been dead for centuries.

While the spiritual and physical have often been suggested to coexist - they are not equivalent. What is being suggested by Seer is a physical body that is spiritual, not a physical body that coexists with the spiritual. The latter would be no different than any other body. The former is an oxymoron, AFAICT.

As this is one of those cases where we are discussing specialized-field terminology used in translation of a dead language, if you don't understand how the words can be utilized in conjunct, it is appropriate to ask the other person what they mean by those words rather than insisting upon your own preferred definition. If that person's definitions are particularly out of phase with common usage, you might wonder why the person chose those particular words, but as long as they are consistent and not equivocating between usages I don't see any issue.

For example, I've used "psychic" and "pneumatic" body to translate Paul, here. But these are obviously out of phase with the modern, common understandings of the words "psychic" and "pneumatic." In fact, when I say "psychic body" in this context, I mean almost precisely the opposite of what a normal modern English speaker usually means when using the term "psychic." I've chosen to use that word as it is the modern English cognate for the ancient Greek ψυχικόν, despite the fact that the definitions are so vastly out of sync.

[JimL]

In philosophy, theology, and generally any sort of specialized field, it's fairly common to find word usage which doesn't comport with colloquial usage. For example, I talk a lot about mathematics. If I'm talking about a "sexy prime," I'm not discussing numbers to which I am physically attracted.

This is compounded even further when talking about a translation of a philosophical or theological work from another language; and further still when that language has been dead for centuries.

As this is one of those cases where we are discussing specialized-field terminology used in translation of a dead language, if you don't understand how the words can be utilized in conjunct, it is appropriate to ask the other person what they mean by those words rather than insisting upon your own preferred definition. If that person's definitions are particularly out of phase with common usage, you might wonder why the person chose those particular words, but as long as they are consistent and not equivocating between usages I don't see any issue.

For example, I've used "psychic" and "pneumatic" body to translate Paul, here. But these are obviously out of phase with the modern, common understandings of the words "psychic" and "pneumatic." In fact, when I say "psychic body" in this context, I mean almost precisely the opposite of what a normal modern English speaker usually means when using the term "psychic." I've chosen to use that word as it is the modern English cognate for the ancient Greek ψυχικόν, despite the fact that the definitions are so vastly out of sync.

Pneuma is the word for spirit, right. So how is it wrong to translate Pauls words to mean a spiritual resurrection, rather than a physical resurrection?

[carpedm9587]

In philosophy, theology, and generally any sort of specialized field, it's fairly common to find word usage which doesn't comport with colloquial usage. For example, I talk a lot about mathematics. If I'm talking about a "sexy prime," I'm not discussing numbers to which I am physically attracted.

This is compounded even further when talking about a translation of a philosophical or theological work from another language; and further still when that language has been dead for centuries.

As this is one of those cases where we are discussing specialized-field terminology used in translation of a dead language, if you don't understand how the words can be utilized in conjunct, it is appropriate to ask the other person what they mean by those words rather than insisting upon your own preferred definition.

It's not "my own preferred definition," BP. It's one of many similar dictionary definitions, which means it is the definition commonly used. I didn't just "make it up."

If that person's definitions are particularly out of phase with common usage, you might wonder why the person chose those particular words, but as long as they are consistent and not equivocating between usages I don't see any issue.

Except that how words are conventionally used is the basis for how we communicate. If someone uses a word in a manner that is not aligned with common parlance, I suggest it is on them to clarify their meaning. If they don't, then the common usage meaning will be assumed and there will be a miscommunication.

For example, I've used "psychic" and "pneumatic" body to translate Paul, here. But these are obviously out of phase with the modern, common understandings of the words "psychic" and "pneumatic." In fact, when I say "psychic body" in this context, I mean almost precisely the opposite of what a normal modern English speaker usually means when using the term "psychic." I've chosen to use that word as it is the modern English cognate for the ancient Greek ψυχικόν, despite the fact that the definitions are so vastly out of sync.

Then you are inviting miscommunication.

I suggest you either use different terminology, or you use descriptions of the concepts that provide a clearer sense of what you mean. Meanwhile, I am left with two terms that don't fit together and no clue what either one of you are talking about - because the terms being used are oxymoronic in the way they are being used.

ETA: This entire discussion is one I have with my wife fairly often. She seems to be under the impression, often, that it is the recipient of the communication that bears the burden for successful communication. While it is true that the recipient needs to be open to the communication, it is the person who wishes to communicate something that bears the burden for ensuring that their communication is successful. If they do not - then the communication will likely not succeed.

[Boxing Pythagoras]

It's not "my own preferred definition," BP. It's one of many similar dictionary definitions, which means it is the definition commonly used. I didn't just "make it up."

I never accused you of making it up. I said that you prefer it. The fact that it came from the dictionary doesn't change that.

Except that how words are conventionally used is the basis for how we communicate. If someone uses a word in a manner that is not aligned with common parlance, I suggest it is on them to clarify their meaning. If they don't, then the common usage meaning will be assumed and there will be a miscommunication.

I actually agree, here. However, there were whole pages of our discussing precisely what Paul means by σῶμα ψυχικόν and σῶμα πνευματικόν which had already clarified that we were discussing two different types of physical bodies prior to your insistence that "spiritual" must mean "non-physical."

Pneuma is the word for spirit, right. So how is it wrong to translate Pauls words to mean a spiritual resurrection, rather than a physical resurrection?

As mentioned earlier in the discussion, πνευμα did not imply any sort of non-physicality to the Greek speakers of Paul's time and earlier. Quite the contrary, πνευμα was a physical substance, just a different sort of substance than that which composes our current bodies.

[JimL]

I never accused you of making it up. I said that you prefer it. The fact that it came from the dictionary doesn't change that.

I actually agree, here. However, there were whole pages of our discussing precisely what Paul means by σῶμα ψυχικόν and σῶμα πνευματικόν which had already clarified that we were discussing two different types of physical bodies prior to your insistence that "spiritual" must mean "non-physical."

As mentioned earlier in the discussion, πνευμα did not imply any sort of non-physicality to the Greek speakers of Paul's time and earlier. Quite the contrary, πνευμα was a physical substance, just a different sort of substance than that which composes our current bodies.

Thats a bit of a distinction without a difference, wouldn't you say? It's still not the material/physical body, it's what we would call immaterial, or non physical, which is what we usually refer to as spirit, and the spirit which is defined as that which moves the physical body, is not a kind of material/physical substance. Or is it your contention that Paul was suggesting that the spirit associated with the physical body, is a physical substance itself, just a different kind of physical substance.

[Tassman]

False, that is not what it says. The mortal body is not lost or destroyed it is transformed. It is sown in dishonour, it is raised in glory. It is sown in weakness; it is raised in power. It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body.

What is the it that is raised here?

The “IT” that is raised here is NOT the “natural body” it is the ‘spiritual body’. “For Paul, the flesh and the body were two different things". It was the 'spiritual body' of Christ which was experienced by Paul on the road to Damascus AND for those he lists in 1 Corinthians 15: "he appeared to Cephas, and then to the Twelve. After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers and sisters at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep. Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles, and last of all he appeared to me also"

For Paul, flesh and blood do not inherit the kingdom of God. They are done away with, because people are raised in spiritual bodies, just as Christ was”.

https://ehrmanblog.org/did-paul-beli...e-resurrected/

[Boxing Pythagoras]

Thats a bit of a distinction without a difference, wouldn't you say? It's still not the material/physical body, it's what we would call immaterial, or non physical, which is what we usually refer to as spirit, and the spirit which is defined as that which moves the physical body, is not a kind of material/physical substance. Or is it your contention that Paul was suggesting that the spirit associated with the physical body, is a physical substance itself, just a different kind of physical substance.

It is, indeed, my contention that Paul thought the πνευμα is a physical substance, itself. I don't believe that Paul was suggesting the σῶμα πνευματικόν was a non-physical body. Honestly, Paul would likely have thought that the idea of a non-physical body was completely incoherent.

[JimL]

It is, indeed, my contention that Paul thought the πνευμα is a physical substance, itself. I don't believe that Paul was suggesting the σῶμα πνευματικόν was a non-physical body. Honestly, Paul would likely have thought that the idea of a non-physical body was completely incoherent.

So, are you suggesting you believe that what Paul meant by spirit was that we have a different kind of physical (spirit) body within our physical (material) body.

[Boxing Pythagoras]

So, are you suggesting you believe that what Paul meant by spirit was that we have a different kind of physical (spirit) body within our physical (material) body.

I think you are confusing two completely separate things, here. The resurrected body is a σῶμα πνευματικόν, a pneumatic body. That doesn't imply that the only πνευμα is that which composes a resurrected body. That said, I do indeed think that Paul would say that the πνευμα which dwells within is a physical thing, too.

[seer]

The “IT” that is raised here is NOT the “natural body” it is the ‘spiritual body’. “For Paul, the flesh and the body were two different things". It was the 'spiritual body' of Christ which was experienced by Paul on the road to Damascus AND for those he lists in 1 Corinthians 15: "he appeared to Cephas, and then to the Twelve. After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers and sisters at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep. Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles, and last of all he appeared to me also"

For Paul, flesh and blood do not inherit the kingdom of God. They are done away with, because people are raised in spiritual bodies, just as Christ was”.

https://ehrmanblog.org/did-paul-beli...e-resurrected/

Again Tass, I'm not denying that it is a spiritual body but the spiritual includes the physical (the mortal made immortal). There are not different its here, the it that is the natural body is made the it that is the spiritual. You link Ehrman, but he agrees with me.

My guess it that Paul does not talk about any traditions that indicated that women went to the tomb and found it empty because he had not heard these tradition. Paul certainly thought, and would have said, if asked, that the tomb was empty, because he definitely thought Jesus was physically raised from the dead. That is his entire argument in 1 Corinthians 15. His Corinthian opponents maintained that the resurrection of believers was a past spiritual event, and they had already experienced it. Paul’s purpose in 1 Corinthians is NOT, decidedly not, to argue that Jesus really was raised from the dead physically. That is the view that he accepts as OBVIOUS and AGREED UPON between himself and the Corinthians. I say this because some people have claimed that 1 Corinthians 15 is the chapter where Paul tries to prove Jesus resurrection. That’s not true at all. He USES the belief in Jesus’ physical resurrection – a belief he shares with his readers – in order to argue a different point, about their OWN resurrection. His point is that since Jesus’ resurrection was a bodily resurrection (which the Corinthians agree on), then their own resurrection will as well be bodily. Which means it is not simply spiritual.

https://ehrmanblog.org/pauls-view-of...n-for-members/



Glorifying a body is different from replacing a body (for an example of a glorified body, see the traditions about Jesus’ Transfiguration)

When Paul says “we shall all be changed” (1 Cor. 15:51) he does *not* say “we will all shed our bodies.” The body is transformed/changed, not abandoned.

In 1 Corinthians 15:3-8, it is the same person, the bodily Jesus, who dies, is buried, is raised, and who appeared to other, including Paul.

https://ehrmanblog.org/did-paul-thin...-july-14-2017/