Morally Wrong Behavior vs. What the Civil Government Should Prohibit

[JimL]

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?

You mean that the decomposed body, the body that no longer exists, is transformed?

[seer]

You mean that the decomposed body, the body that no longer exists, is transformed?

Again what does the it refer to?

[JimL]

Again what does the it refer to?

I would assume, exactly what is says, a spirit.

[seer]

I would assume, exactly what is says, a spirit.

Then you are not honest. The it is the natural body.

[Boxing Pythagoras]

I'm actually going to side with Seer on this one-- sort of. In 1 Cor 15:44, Paul does indeed say "a natural body is sown, a pneumatic body rises up" (Gk., "σπείρεται σῶμα ψυχικόν, ἐγείρεται σῶμα πνευματικόν"); so I disagree that the "it" which rises refers to the natural body. However, the question becomes, "What did Paul mean by a natural body as opposed to a pneumatic body?"

I do not believe Paul would have thought the pneumatic body to be non-physical. Other Greek-speaking writers that time and earlier-- including Jewish ones like Philo of Alexandria-- considered the pneumatic to be physical stuff, but a different sort of stuff than our natural bodies. This pneumatic stuff is airy, in a way (hence, "πνευμα"), and didn't interact strongly with the natural or psychic body. Interestingly, Ehrman actually discusses this exact notion in quite a bit of depth in his latest book, Heaven and Hell.

[NorrinRadd]

In various of his works, Gordon Fee opines that Scripture, or at least Paul, generally intends "pneumatikos," "spiritual," to mean "having to do with the s/Spirit" or "coming from the s/Spirit," as opposed to implying a "substance."

The "s/S" nomenclature is Fee's shorthand way of saying that in many contexts, Paul saw a great deal of overlap and interplay between the Holy Spirit and the regenerated human spirit.

[JonathanL]

In various of his works, Gordon Fee opines that Scripture, or at least Paul, generally intends "pneumatikos," "spiritual," to mean "having to do with the s/Spirit" or "coming from the s/Spirit," as opposed to implying a "substance."

The "s/S" nomenclature is Fee's shorthand way of saying that in many contexts, Paul saw a great deal of overlap and interplay between the Holy Spirit and the regenerated human spirit.

I don't know if it is the same concept that you're speaking of here, but I read somewhere that "psuchikos" vs "pneumatikos" is not about the type of matter that the body consists of, but it's mode of operations/influence. So a "psuchikos" (natural) body would be a body governed by the base natural instincts apart from the spirit of God, while a "pneumatikos" (spiritual) body would be one that is governed by the higher, spiritual aspects (and under the influence of the Holy Spirit).

[seer]

I'm actually going to side with Seer on this one-- sort of. In 1 Cor 15:44, Paul does indeed say "a natural body is sown, a pneumatic body rises up" (Gk., "σπείρεται σῶμα ψυχικόν, ἐγείρεται σῶμα πνευματικόν"); so I disagree that the "it" which rises refers to the natural body. However, the question becomes, "What did Paul mean by a natural body as opposed to a pneumatic body?"

I do not believe Paul would have thought the pneumatic body to be non-physical. Other Greek-speaking writers that time and earlier-- including Jewish ones like Philo of Alexandria-- considered the pneumatic to be physical stuff, but a different sort of stuff than our natural bodies. This pneumatic stuff is airy, in a way (hence, "πνευμα"), and didn't interact strongly with the natural or psychic body. Interestingly, Ehrman actually discusses this exact notion in quite a bit of depth in his latest book, Heaven and Hell.

The point is the natural body is not destroyed but transformed, a point that Ehrman agrees with.

[Boxing Pythagoras]

I don't know if it is the same concept that you're speaking of here, but I read somewhere that "psuchikos" vs "pneumatikos" is not about the type of matter that the body consists of, but it's mode of operations/influence. So a "psuchikos" (natural) body would be a body governed by the base natural instincts apart from the spirit of God, while a "pneumatikos" (spiritual) body would be one that is governed by the higher, spiritual aspects (and under the influence of the Holy Spirit).

I would argue that these aren't really mutually exclusive. Again, contemporary writers including Philo thought that the substance of a thing and the essential nature of that thing were inextricably linked. In their minds, a pneumatic body would be unable, by its very nature, to be basally driven. It would still be a material thing, though.

[JonathanL]

I would argue that these aren't really mutually exclusive. Again, contemporary writers including Philo thought that the substance of a thing and the essential nature of that thing were inextricably linked. In their minds, a pneumatic body would be unable, by its very nature, to be basally driven. It would still be a material thing, though.

So the issue would then be whether there's any indication in Paul's writings whether his use of pneumatikos and psuchikos in the context of 1 Cor 15 alludes to both the substance and essential nature (which I'm assuming you're using in the sense of "driven by") of a thing or just one or the other...

[Boxing Pythagoras]

So the issue would then be whether there's any indication in Paul's writings whether his use of pneumatikos and psuchikos in the context of 1 Cor 15 alludes to both the substance and essential nature (which I'm assuming you're using in the sense of "driven by") of a thing or just one or the other...

Insofar as I'm aware, there's nothing explicit in Paul's extant work which goes into detail on just what he understands the psychic and pneumatic bodies to be. Unfortunately, we are left to try to come up with our best understanding from other sources.

[carpedm9587]

I'm actually going to side with Seer on this one-- sort of. In 1 Cor 15:44, Paul does indeed say "a natural body is sown, a pneumatic body rises up" (Gk., "σπείρεται σῶμα ψυχικόν, ἐγείρεται σῶμα πνευματικόν"); so I disagree that the "it" which rises refers to the natural body. However, the question becomes, "What did Paul mean by a natural body as opposed to a pneumatic body?"

I do not believe Paul would have thought the pneumatic body to be non-physical. Other Greek-speaking writers that time and earlier-- including Jewish ones like Philo of Alexandria-- considered the pneumatic to be physical stuff, but a different sort of stuff than our natural bodies. This pneumatic stuff is airy, in a way (hence, "πνευμα"), and didn't interact strongly with the natural or psychic body. Interestingly, Ehrman actually discusses this exact notion in quite a bit of depth in his latest book, Heaven and Hell.

The word "pneumatic" means "containing or operated by air or gas under pressure."

Think about it...





(for the comically challenged - that was a joke)

[Tassman]

Correct Tass, the body (flesh and blood) is mortal. The it that is raised is the mortal body made immortal. The mortal body is not discarded it is transformed.

Yes. This is just what I said. Paul is clearly saying that all the encounters with Jesus in 1 Corinthians 15 were the same as his encounter with Jesus. And we know that this was not a fleshly encounter. Paul does not believe the pneumatic body to be non-physical. He believes that the resurrection body is a “spiritual body”, i.e. physical but not fleshly. “I declare to you, brothers and sisters, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God, nor does the perishable inherit the imperishable”. 1 Corinthians 15:50

[seer]

Yes. This is just what I said. Paul is clearly saying that all the encounters with Jesus in 1 Corinthians 15 were the same as his encounter with Jesus. And we know that this was not a fleshly encounter. Paul does not believe the pneumatic body to be non-physical. He believes that the resurrection body is a “spiritual body”, i.e. physical but not fleshly. “I declare to you, brothers and sisters, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God, nor does the perishable inherit the imperishable”. 1 Corinthians 15:50

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.

1 Cor.15:53: For this perishable body must put on the imperishable, and this mortal body must put on immortality.

Romans 8:11, 23: If the Spirit of him who raised Jesus from the dead dwells in you, he who raised Christ Jesus from the dead will also give life to your mortal bodies through his Spirit who dwells in you...And not only the creation, but we ourselves, who have the firstfruits of the Spirit, groan inwardly as we wait eagerly for adoption as sons, the redemption of our bodies....

Philippians 3:20, 21: But our citizenship is in heaven, and from it we await a Savior, the Lord Jesus Christ, who will transform our lowly body to be like his glorious body, by the power that enables him even to subject all things to himself.

Just stop digging Tass....

[JimL]

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....

Transformed how, seer. The physical body decays, it's gone, so what do you mean by transforms? Does god just make a new suit of flesh for you and drop you into it. If you died an old man do you resurrect as an old man, or could you come back as a 2 year old?