Morally Wrong Behavior vs. What the Civil Government Should Prohibit

[carpedm9587]

You still seem to be misunderstanding. I'm not saying Paul thought "spiritual" meant something different. I'm saying that "spiritual" is not a very good translation for Paul's concept of πνευμα.

Using your analogy, it'd be like Paul describing a color for which we have no modern English word, and having Paul's text translated as "black." This is a case of the translation failing to properly convey Paul's meaning; it is not a case of Paul saying contradictory things.

This is an excellent explanation, and clears up the confusion very well. Thanks!

That is a more difficult question. We can speculate, based upon the positions espoused by other writers, but Paul's particular syncretism of Hellenic cosmology and Jewish beliefs was very likely unique, given his devotion to this totally new and radically different sect of Judaism which came to be Christianity. However, it is likely safe to think that Paul thought of it as "higher" both in the sense of being better in quality and in the sense of being literally, physically, from a higher physical source. To Paul, πνευμα (often translated "wind," "breath," or "spirit") physically came from οὐρανός (often translated "sky" or "heaven"). Incidentally, οὐρανός is another word which I think is poorly translated by modern English, as neither "sky" nor "heaven" quite means to us what οὐρανός meant to ancient Greek thinkers.

As has been mentioned by others, I am not a Christian. I'm not even a theist. I am simply attempting to understand what Paul intended by his writing in exactly the same manner as I would treat Plato or Aristotle or Philo or Iamblichus.

Maybe one of the theists can answer the questions...?

Meanwhile, this entire discussion underscores the observation that people claiming to certain knowledge based on biblical texts are making claims they simply cannot substantiate. I've noted that we have only fragmentary evidence, and no originals sources, and it was a different culture in a different time, but I've also noted that these documents were written in a different language where 1-to-1 translation is simply not possible. Something is always lost in translation, for the reason you note here. We can approximate, but we often cannot equate when moving from one language to another.

[Boxing Pythagoras]

This is an excellent explanation, and clears up the confusion very well. Thanks!

My pleasure! I've written a post on my own blog about a subject I refer to as "theologically loaded language" which discusses this topic (if you're interested, PM me and I'll send you the link). I've also been considering attempting to write my own translations of the canonical gospels which avoid these confusing English terms as much as possible, along with some basic commentary noting the problematic vocabulary and my translation choices. Unfortunately, that undertaking would be enormously time consuming, and as someone who already has one full-time and two part-time jobs, it isn't on my horizon anytime soon.

[JimL]

I think that this reading of Paul negates the idea that is espoused by many today of "a ghost in the machine." What need would a physical spirit have for a physical body? Also, Jesus was said to be raised as a physical body as reported by those who had seen him post resurrection. That would seem to be in contratiction with Pauls understanding, if indeed that was Pauls view.

[Tassman]

Tass, I gave you direct quotes from Erhman showing that the body is not destroyed. And from your own link Ehrman shows that the FLESH is not the physical body.

You misunderstand Paul’s beliefs as described by Ehrman. In Christianity, Paul introduced the concept of the spiritual body (sōma pneumatikos), which is neither fleshly nor an insubstantial spirit but something else again. What is “not destroyed” is the ‘spiritual body’. In Paul’s mind, this was also a physical body - but not the sort of “physical body” we would understand (i.e. the body of flesh and blood).

So, for Paul the corpse is of little importance. This is why Ehrman argues that it was of no account to Paul whether Jesus fleshly body was in a tomb or tossed into a common burial pit. It is the ‘spiritual body’ which is what it’s all about. This is what gets resurrected and this is what was seen by Paul on the road to Damascus - as well as to those listed in 1 Corinthians 15 who saw Jesus after his crucifixion.

[seer]

You misunderstand Paul’s beliefs as described by Ehrman. In Christianity, Paul introduced the concept of the spiritual body (sōma pneumatikos), which is neither fleshly nor an insubstantial spirit but something else again. What is “not destroyed” is the ‘spiritual body’. In Paul’s mind, this was also a physical body - but not the sort of “physical body” we would understand (i.e. the body of flesh and blood).

So, for Paul the corpse is of little importance. This is why Ehrman argues that it was of no account to Paul whether Jesus fleshly body was in a tomb or tossed into a common burial pit. It is the ‘spiritual body’ which is what it’s all about. This is what gets resurrected and this is what was seen by Paul on the road to Damascus - as well as to those listed in 1 Corinthians 15 who saw Jesus after his crucifixion.

Tass, that is utter nonsense.

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/

According to Erhman the BODY is not abandoned it is TRANSFORMED. It is not REPLACED. WE do NOT shed our bodies.

[shunyadragon]

Tass, that is utter nonsense.



According to Erhman the BODY is not abandoned it is TRANSFORMED. It is not REPLACED. WE do NOT shed our bodies.

I believe you are misquoting Ehrman. Ehrman is describing what Paul believed, and not what Ehrman believes.

[JonathanL]

I believe you are misquoting Ehrman. Ehrman is describing what Paul believed, and not what Ehrman believes.

He is not misquoting Ehrman. Seer is being a bit ambigious with his wording, but he's not claiming Ehrman believes anything about a resurrection body, but is saying, just like you're doing, that Ehrman is describing Paul's beliefs on the resurrection body.

[seer]

I believe you are misquoting Ehrman. Ehrman is describing what Paul believed, and not what Ehrman believes.

No freaking kidding! That is what we are arguing about - what Paul believed. Ehrman doesn't believe in any kind of resurrection. Try and keep up Shuny...

[seer]

He is not misquoting Ehrman. Seer is being a bit ambigious with his wording, but he's not claiming Ehrman believes anything about a resurrection body, but is saying, just like you're doing, that Ehrman is describing Paul's beliefs on the resurrection body.

Ambiguous? Where?

[JimL]

Tass, I gave you direct quotes from Erhman showing that the body is not destroyed. And from your own link Ehrman shows that the FLESH is not the physical body.

This is one instance where it becomes crystal clear that we have to try to think in a way that we are decidedly not accustomed to if we want to understand Paul. For US, the body is made of flesh, so when we speak of flesh, we speak of the body. For Paul, the flesh and the body were two different things. That’s because, for him, “flesh” does not refer to what WE refer to when we refer to flesh. That is, we think of it as the meat that is hanging on our bones; but that is not what Paul is referring to. He does, of course, know that there is meat hanging on our bones, but that is what he thinks of as our body. It is not our flesh. “Flesh” is a technical term for Paul. It is the bad side of being human.

The flesh is a term referring to our sinful nature NOT OUR PHYSICAL BODY. Do you even read your own links?

The claimed witnesses of Jesus post resurrection saw a flesh and bones physical body, not a spirit physical body of some kind.

[Boxing Pythagoras]

The claimed witnesses of Jesus post resurrection saw a flesh and bones physical body, not a spirit physical body of some kind.

While this seems to be true of the depiction of the resurrected Jesus in the Gospels of Luke and John, it is not necessarily true for the appearances described in Matthew, Acts, and the Pauline Epistles.

EDIT: Misremembered some of the appearance narratives. Should have re-read before posting.

[JonathanL]

Ambiguous? Where?

According to Erhman the BODY is not abandoned it is TRANSFORMED. It is not REPLACED. WE do NOT shed our bodies.

Read literally and without the wider context of the discussion this seems to be saying that it is Ehrman who believes that the body is transformed. Anyone who's been following along in the discussion would realize there's an implied Paul believes after "According to Erhman", so it's not really an issue, except for when someone like shuny misunderstands you because they jump in to the discussion without having paid attention to the arguments.

[JimL]

While this seems to be true of the depiction of the resurrected Jesus in the Gospels of Luke and John, it is not necessarily true for the appearances described in Matthew, Acts, and the Pauline Epistles.

EDIT: Misremembered some of the appearance narratives. Should have re-read before posting.

I only remember Pauls road to Damascus vision in which he didn't see the resurrected Jesus at all, he was blind throughout the experience. He talks about the other witnesses, but he doesn't explicitly define their experience, so I think one can assume that what Paul meant was that those witnesses had actually seen the physical, flesh and blood, Jesus.

[Boxing Pythagoras]

I only remember Pauls road to Damascus vision in which he didn't see the resurrected Jesus at all, he was blind throughout the experience. He talks about the other witnesses, but he doesn't explicitly define their experience, so I think one can assume that what Paul meant was that those witnesses had actually seen the physical, flesh and blood, Jesus.

I don't think that can be assumed, at all. As we have been discussing for several pages now, in the exact same letter where Paul talks about witnesses to the resurrected Jesus, he explicitly states that the resurrected Jesus had a body of pneuma and not a mortal body.

[JimL]

I don't think that can be assumed, at all. As we have been discussing for several pages now, in the exact same letter where Paul talks about witnesses to the resurrected Jesus, he explicitly states that the resurrected Jesus had a body of pneuma and not a mortal body.

Then in what manner did the witnesses see him if it wasn't a material body?