Page 79 of 79 FirstFirst ... 2969777879
Results 781 to 787 of 787

Thread: Morally Wrong Behavior vs. What the Civil Government Should Prohibit

  1. #781
    tWebber Tassman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Sydney/Phuket
    Faith
    Atheist
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    12,271
    Amen (Given)
    2624
    Amen (Received)
    1921
    Quote Originally Posted by Boxing Pythagoras View Post
    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.
    I think that the underlined is what results in the confusion.

    The ‘spiritual body’ for Ehrman “is a body of a more refined substance; it is still matter, but it is a different kind of matter. When Paul thought Jesus was physically raised from the dead, that was NOT a contradiction to his claim that Jesus had a spiritual body at the resurrection. Spiritual bodies *were* physical. We too will be raised (for Paul) into spiritual bodies. At that time, we will not have “flesh,” because sin will no longer have any role to play in our existence. But when he says this, he means it in the ancient, not the modern, sense”.

    “Later Christian theologians who were NOT raised in Jewish apocalyptic thinking did not make this distinction that Paul made between body and flesh, leading to all sorts of confusions. They stressed the “resurrection of the flesh,” which for Paul would have been nonsense”.

    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.
    Paul believed that the resurrected body was physical in some sense, certainly – but different to what 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.
    Paul also seems unaware of the empty tomb stories which post date Paul by 20+ years. This suggests that they are the result of embellishment and a more literal understanding of the nature of Jesus’ resurrected body. “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. But later theologians (for example, Tertullian) did not make this distinction and stressed that it is precisely the “flesh” that comes to be raised. By that, he meant what Paul meant when he talked about “body.”

    https://ehrmanblog.org/did-paul-beli...e-resurrected/
    “He felt that his whole life was a kind of dream and he sometimes wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it.” - Douglas Adams.

  2. Amen JimL amen'd this post.
  3. #782
    tWebber Boxing Pythagoras's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Location
    New Jersey, USA
    Faith
    Heathen
    Posts
    2,183
    Amen (Given)
    351
    Amen (Received)
    883
    Quote Originally Posted by Tassman View Post
    I think that the underlined is what results in the confusion.

    The ‘spiritual body’ for Ehrman “is a body of a more refined substance; it is still matter, but it is a different kind of matter. When Paul thought Jesus was physically raised from the dead, that was NOT a contradiction to his claim that Jesus had a spiritual body at the resurrection. Spiritual bodies *were* physical. We too will be raised (for Paul) into spiritual bodies. At that time, we will not have “flesh,” because sin will no longer have any role to play in our existence. But when he says this, he means it in the ancient, not the modern, sense”.

    “Later Christian theologians who were NOT raised in Jewish apocalyptic thinking did not make this distinction that Paul made between body and flesh, leading to all sorts of confusions. They stressed the “resurrection of the flesh,” which for Paul would have been nonsense”.

    https://ehrmanblog.org/did-paul-beli...e-resurrected/
    I completely agree with all of this.

    Paul believed that the resurrected body was physical in some sense, certainly – but different to what 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.
    "[Mathematics] is the revealer of every genuine truth, for it knows every hidden secret, and bears the key to every subtlety of letters; whoever, then, has the effrontery to pursue physics while neglecting mathematics should know from the start he will never make his entry through the portals of wisdom."
    --Thomas Bradwardine, De Continuo (c. 1325)

  4. #783
    tWebber Tassman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Sydney/Phuket
    Faith
    Atheist
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    12,271
    Amen (Given)
    2624
    Amen (Received)
    1921
    Quote Originally Posted by Boxing Pythagoras View Post

    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.
    I believe that today we tend to think in terms of a human body being substantial – i.e. with flesh and organs etc. and a spiritual entity as being insubstantial – i.e. ghosts, souls and spirits etc. Unlike Paul, we tend not to think of a “spiritual body” as being a physical entity, whereas Paul clearly did – it is his core description of the risen Jesus.

    This is what I mean when I say: “different to what we mean by physical.”

    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.
    There is no evidence either way whether Paul was aware of the empty tomb tradition. It is obviously not part of his 1 Cor 15 narrative (nor any of his writings), which is surprising. One would have thought that an empty tomb had greater persuasive value in promoting the resurrection story – if he knew of the empty tomb - than merely recounting “appearances” of the risen Jesus.
    “He felt that his whole life was a kind of dream and he sometimes wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it.” - Douglas Adams.

  5. #784
    tWebber
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Faith
    Agnostic
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    18,042
    Amen (Given)
    2249
    Amen (Received)
    1751
    Quote Originally Posted by Tassman View Post
    I believe that today we tend to think in terms of a human body being substantial – i.e. with flesh and organs etc. and a spiritual entity as being insubstantial – i.e. ghosts, souls and spirits etc. Unlike Paul, we tend not to think of a “spiritual body” as being a physical entity, whereas Paul clearly did – it is his core description of the risen Jesus.

    This is what I mean when I say: “different to what we mean by physical.”



    There is no evidence either way whether Paul was aware of the empty tomb tradition. It is obviously not part of his 1 Cor 15 narrative (nor any of his writings), which is surprising. One would have thought that an empty tomb had greater persuasive value in promoting the resurrection story – if he knew of the empty tomb - than merely recounting “appearances” of the risen Jesus.
    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?

  6. #785
    tWebber Boxing Pythagoras's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Location
    New Jersey, USA
    Faith
    Heathen
    Posts
    2,183
    Amen (Given)
    351
    Amen (Received)
    883
    Quote Originally Posted by Tassman View Post
    I believe that today we tend to think in terms of a human body being substantial – i.e. with flesh and organs etc. and a spiritual entity as being insubstantial – i.e. ghosts, souls and spirits etc. Unlike Paul, we tend not to think of a “spiritual body” as being a physical entity, whereas Paul clearly did – it is his core description of the risen Jesus.

    This is what I mean when I say: “different to what we mean by physical.”
    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.

    There is no evidence either way whether Paul was aware of the empty tomb tradition. It is obviously not part of his 1 Cor 15 narrative (nor any of his writings), which is surprising. One would have thought that an empty tomb had greater persuasive value in promoting the resurrection story – if he knew of the empty tomb - than merely recounting “appearances” of the risen Jesus.
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by JimL View Post
    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.
    "[Mathematics] is the revealer of every genuine truth, for it knows every hidden secret, and bears the key to every subtlety of letters; whoever, then, has the effrontery to pursue physics while neglecting mathematics should know from the start he will never make his entry through the portals of wisdom."
    --Thomas Bradwardine, De Continuo (c. 1325)

  7. #786
    tWebber Tassman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Sydney/Phuket
    Faith
    Atheist
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    12,271
    Amen (Given)
    2624
    Amen (Received)
    1921
    Quote Originally Posted by Boxing Pythagoras View Post
    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."
    That’s the point I was trying to make. Paul’s “spiritual body” doesn’t have an exact equivalent for us today. His usage of ‘spiritual body’ seems to have been unique to him and his culture - as evidenced (according to Ehrman) by “later Christian theologians who were NOT raised in Jewish apocalyptic thinking who did not make this distinction that Paul made between body and flesh"

    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.
    You’re probably right. But even so, the most recent translations, e.g. the NIV, still use the term ‘spiritual body’.

    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.
    Every good pastor proclaims the gospel, instructs the faithful and reinforces the fundamental Christian message. I would have thought the more “ammunition” the better – and what would have been more powerful than the empty tomb – if Paul had known of it.
    “He felt that his whole life was a kind of dream and he sometimes wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it.” - Douglas Adams.

  8. #787
    tWebber
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Faith
    Agnostic
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    18,042
    Amen (Given)
    2249
    Amen (Received)
    1751
    Quote Originally Posted by Boxing Pythagoras View Post
    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.
    Last edited by JimL; 05-23-2020 at 09:52 PM.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •