Morally Wrong Behavior vs. What the Civil Government Should Prohibit

[Tassman]

Actually, for Paul, it did. The transformed, resurrected body was a physical, material thing, in Paul's eyes. It just wasn't made up of the same stuff that makes up mortal bodies.

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

The idea that something could be "physical certainly, but specifically not material" would have been entirely alien to anybody at that time. In fact, I'm not sure that I even understand what it's supposed to mean. Paul absolutely thought that the body of pneuma was material.

we mean by physical. See above.

As Seer clarified later, whether or not Jesus was buried in a tomb, Paul certainly believed that Jesus had been buried. It is absolutely reasonable, therefore, to say that Paul would have expected that Jesus' body was no longer in this burial spot after the Resurrection.

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

[Boxing Pythagoras]

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

I completely agree with all of this.

we mean by physical.

Here is where you lose me. What do you mean that it was "different to what we mean by physical?" Different in what way? Paul thought that the resurrected body was made up of πνεῦμα. While this word is often translated as "spirit" (erroneously, as I have already argued) it was the Greek word for "wind" or "breath," which I'm sure you'll agree we moderns think is physical stuff. For Paul, the resurrected body would be made of πνεῦμα because that is a material which originates in οὐρανός ("sky") which is where the divine kingdom (ἡ βασιλεία τοῦ θεοῦ) is physically located.

Paul also seems unaware of the empty tomb stories which post date Paul by 20+ years.

I can't actually agree to this. I certainly don't see enough evidence to warrant claims that Paul WAS aware of an empty tomb tradition; but neither is there enough evidence to say that he WAS NOT aware of an empty tomb tradition. Our extant sources are simply inconclusive on the matter. It seems futile, to me, to attempt to cite Paul as either in support of or against the idea of the empty tomb. Nothing he says explicitly affirms an empty tomb, but neither does anything he says contradict the idea.

[Tassman]

Here is where you lose me. What do you mean that it was "different to what we mean by physical?" Different in what way? Paul thought that the resurrected body was made up of πνεῦμα. While this word is often translated as "spirit" (erroneously, as I have already argued) it was the Greek word for "wind" or "breath," which I'm sure you'll agree we moderns think is physical stuff. For Paul, the resurrected body would be made of πνεῦμα because that is a material which originates in οὐρανός ("sky") which is where the divine kingdom (ἡ βασιλεία τοῦ θεοῦ) is physically located.

insubstantialwe

I can't actually agree to this. I certainly don't see enough evidence to warrant claims that Paul WAS aware of an empty tomb tradition; but neither is there enough evidence to say that he WAS NOT aware of an empty tomb tradition. Our extant sources are simply inconclusive on the matter. It seems futile, to me, to attempt to cite Paul as either in support of or against the idea of the empty tomb. Nothing he says explicitly affirms an empty tomb, but neither does anything he says contradict the idea.

[JimL]

insubstantialwe

Isn't it odd that Luke, who Paul apparently knew, wrote about the empty tomb, and yet Paul never mentions it. What could explain that?

[Boxing Pythagoras]

insubstantialwe

This is why I keep insisting that "spiritual" is precisely the wrong word to use to translate πνευματικος. Paul did not think of the resurrected body as being like what we think of when we say "ghosts," "souls," or "spirits." We really ought to stop using the phrase "spiritual body," because it has precisely the wrong connotations in modern English.

I honestly don't think it is very surprising, at all. Paul wasn't writing to people who needed to be convinced that Jesus had resurrected. He was writing to people who ALREADY believed. There's no need to be persuasive about the Resurrection with people who already believe in the Resurrection. In 1 Cor 15, he's not trying to convince the Corinthians that Jesus rose from the dead-- this is something to which the Corinthians are already committed. He's trying to describe to them the nature of his resurrected body and how that relates to the resurrected bodies which all Christians will eventually have. There's no reason to expect an empty tomb narrative, there.

Isn't it odd that Luke, who Paul apparently knew, wrote about the empty tomb, and yet Paul never mentions it. What could explain that?

Not particularly. As I just mentioned in my reply to Tass, it's really not very surprising that Paul's extant writings would lack empty tomb narratives even if he had been aware of them. They just weren't important to the message he was trying to convey.

Furthermore, the idea that Luke-Acts was written by a companion of Paul is itself a rather dubious claim.

[Tassman]

This is why I keep insisting that "spiritual" is precisely the wrong word to use to translate πνευματικος. Paul did not think of the resurrected body as being like what we think of when we say "ghosts," "souls," or "spirits."

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

We really ought to stop using the phrase "spiritual body," because it has precisely the wrong connotations in modern English.

I honestly don't think it is very surprising, at all. Paul wasn't writing to people who needed to be convinced that Jesus had resurrected. He was writing to people who ALREADY believed.

Paul was preaching to people who had been Christian for 20 years at most, not part of an established Christian culture with long accepted traditions and beliefs.

There's no need to be persuasive about the Resurrection with people who already believe in the Resurrection. In 1 Cor 15, he's not trying to convince the Corinthians that Jesus rose from the dead-- this is something to which the Corinthians are already committed. He's trying to describe to them the nature of his resurrected body and how that relates to the resurrected bodies which all Christians will eventually have. There's no reason to expect an empty tomb narrative, there.

[JimL]

Not particularly. As I just mentioned in my reply to Tass, it's really not very surprising that Paul's extant writings would lack empty tomb narratives even if he had been aware of them. They just weren't important to the message he was trying to convey.

Well, christians sure seem to think the empty tomb to be an important event relative to the resurrection narrative.

Furthermore, the idea that Luke-Acts was written by a companion of Paul is itself a rather dubious claim.

Well, Paul actually mentions his friend Luke 3 times in the bible.