Sorry this took so long to compose..but here goes...

In this post I will be reviewing Holding's foundational essay "Let's Get Physcial" where Holding writes a well-written essay critiquing the concept of a "spiritual resurrection". I am a proponent of the spiritual resurrection to a certain degree. I am not an expert in it and I don't profess to be super-read on the subject. Therefore, I will just elaborate on my reasons for being skeptical about Holding's critique.

First off, I think it's wrong to look at the "spiritual resurrection" as a matter of physcial vs. non-physical. Even more educated critics who should know better often make this mistake. I believe it's better to see it as an issue of flesh vs. lack of flesh. Thus I believe that the "spiritual body" would've been regarded as simply a body lacking flesh- a physical body never-the-less but one lacking flesh.

With this squarely in mind, I began my commentary:

...........................................................................................

Let's now work with the NT evidence, starting with the positive arguments for a physical rez body:

Paul's word for "body" can have no other meaning than a physical body. In this regard, Gundry's landmark study of the word used for "body" (soma) makes it quite clear that something physical in intended. In Soma in Biblical Theology, Gundry examines the use of soma in other literature of the period and shows that it refers to the physical "thingness" of a body. It is often used in a sense that we would say, "We need a body over here" with reference to slaves who are used as tools; to soldiers who are on the verge of death, to passengers on a boat, and to people in a census. In other places it is used to refer to a corpse (and so cannot refer by itself to the "whole person" as some influenced by Bultmann have suggested). Xenophon (Anabasis 1.9.12) refers to the people entrusting Cyrus with their possessions, their cites, and their "bodies" (somata). Plato refers to the act of habeus corpus in terms of producing a soma. Aristophanes refers to the throwing of a soma to dogs. It is used by Euripides and Demosthenes to refer to corpses.

While I haven't studied Gundry's book (I do have it and it's on my list of "to read" books) I have to say that there's nothing that I see in this paragraph that refutes a "spiritual resurrection". I might even agree with Gundy that "soma" was always and necessarily a physical object. But that's not to say that as a physical object it had flesh or contained flesh. Thus Gundry appears to be refuting a misunderstanding (promoted by Evangelicals and misinformed skeptics) that rightly needs to be rebutted. I think I will agree with Gundry (and Holding!) that "soma" always meant a physical object. Where I see Evangelical scholars fudging the issue here is whether "soma" necessarily contains flesh. I doubt so strongly.

I don't think one needs to read Gundry's book to realize this although I predict that my study of Gundry's book should bear this prediction out. Paul himself used the Greek word "soma" to refer to the sun, moon, and stars- objects which are necessarily physical but do not necessarily contain flesh. So on this point, I think Gundy hasn't refuted a "spiritual resurrection"- as long as the 'spiritual body' was defined as something, while definitely physical, was lacking in flesh.

Paul's 1 Cor. 15 examples are analogous to a physical body.
Paul is answering the question posed by the Corinthians, "How are the dead raised up? and with what body do they come?" His answers refer to appropriate physical bodies, suitable for various types of existence -- "somatic variety with the universe" [Harr.RI, 119]. This is not appropriate if Paul has in mind a spiritual, disembodied "resurrection". And of course, he refers back to Christ's own body (1 Cor. 15:3ff) as an example of this principle in action, a "positive and emphatic correlation" between the resurrection of Christ and that of the believer. [Gundry, 172]

Once again, I see no reason to disagree with either Gundry or Holding on this point. I am not arguing that a "spiritual resurrection" was essentially a non-physical one but a non-fleshly one. The sun, moon, and stars are 'soma' lacking in flesh and it's this that I think we need to bear in mind when thinking of the "spiritual resurrection".

The word anastasis can only mean bodily resurrection.
This word is used 44 times in the NT. In the Synptics we have this episode: "The same day came to him the Sadducees, which say that there is no resurrection..." In John we have: "And shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation," a clear allusion to Daniel 12; also "Martha saith unto him, I know that he shall rise again in the resurrection at the last day." Acts uses this word to explain what happened to Jesus. "But when Paul perceived that the one part were Sadducees, and the other Pharisees, he cried out in the council, Men and brethren, I am a Pharisee, the son of a Pharisee: of the hope and resurrection of the dead I am called in question."; "And have hope toward God, which they themselves also allow, that there shall be a resurrection of the dead, both of the just and unjust." Paul uses anastasis as well to refer to what happened to Jesus (Rom. 1:4, 6:5; 1 Cor. 15; Phil. 3:10). It is used to describe a physical, bodly resurrection in Heb. 11:35, and is found as well in 1 Peter.

Like the Greek word "soma", I doubt "anastasis" necessarily refers to something contains flesh. I believe that "anastasis" probably came to designate something that was both physical and contained flesh but originally didn't connotate both and I doubt that it does denote 'flesh' necessarily.

Skeptics may wish to argue, "Well, the Gospels and Hebrews meant one thing, and Paul meant another." But anastasis is not so easily disposed of. It is clearly a technical term for bodily resurrection, and it is the burden of critics to prove otherwise.

If Holding can prove that "soma" and "anastasis" both and have always connotated something containing flesh, then I will regard the "spiritual resurrection" has been refuted. I want to see it proven that either or both words had the necessary connotation of something that had flesh.

2 Cor. 5 shows that a physical body is in view.
"Now we know that if the earthly tent we live in is destroyed, we have a building from God, an eternal house in heaven, not built by human hands. Meanwhile we groan, longing to be clothed with our heavenly dwelling, because when we are clothed, we will not be found naked. For while we are in this tent, we groan and are burdened, because we do not wish to be unclothed but to be clothed with our heavenly dwelling, so that what is mortal may be swallowed up by life. Now it is God who has made us for this very purpose and has given us the Spirit as a deposit, guaranteeing what is to come." Here, Paul describes the earthly body as a "tent" (i.e., temporary living structure) and the new body as something that is a "building" built by God, something that one is "clothed" with (the verb in question has the connotation of "pulling one garment on over another one" - Craig.ANTE, 151), something that the Spirit is a "deposit" for! How much more of a suggestion of being tangible and material do we need?

This hinges upon the argument that the "spiritual resurrection" is, essentially, a non-physical resurrection. I don't believe this to be the case. I believe that the "spiritual resurrection" was believed to be one that was lacking flesh. Inescapably physical, but not necessarily fleshly.

Phil. 3:21
Who shall change our vile body, that it may be fashioned like unto his glorious body, according to the working whereby he is able even to subdue all things unto himself. It is clear from this little verse that Paul regards Christ as now having a "glorious" body (soma). This is clear testimony to a physical resurrection.

Same problem. Where is the evidence that "soma" is something that necessarily had flesh as opposed to a lack of flesh?

A transfer to an idea of a physical rez from a spiritual one makes no sense in the social context.
In view of the expanding Gentile mission, it is hard to see how an embellishment from "disembodied" to "embodied" could take place. The Greeks perceived such events as a resurrection, initially, as a "resuscitated corpse" - rather like our Creature Feature zombies! Paul would have had no problem preaching a disembodied spirit to the Gentiles; but doing that, then switching it to "physical" as in the Gospels, would have been highly counterproductive to missions. As Perkins [Perk.Rz, 61] observes:


Christianity's pagan critics generally viewed resurrection as misunderstood metempsychosis at best. At worst, it seemed ridiculous.


This view is reflected for example by Celsus, who responded thusly to the idea of resurrection: "The soul may have everlasting life, but corpses, as Heraclitus said, 'ought to be thrown away as worse than dung'". Plutarch similarly said it was "against nature" to "send bodies to heaven" and that only pure souls "cast no shadows" (i.e., had no bodies) and he even rejected accounts of bodily translations on this basis.

As for the Church starting with a repugnant doctrine such as a fleshly resurrection, I am not so certain that all of the ancient Greco-Roman pagans would've found it as such. Perhaps the majority would've. Perhaps most. But I doubt it was nearly universal as Holding seems to argue here. However, one thing that was interesting and I think tends to support a "spiritual resurrection" was the following quote:

"The funeral pyre was said to burn away the body so that the immortal part could ascend to the gods." [73]

What is the Greek word for body here? What immortal part was supposed to ascend to the gods? The immortal part of what? I plan on reading this upcoming week an essay that will argue that Jesus left his "soma" containing flesh and entered into a 'spiritual body' one lacking in flesh. Perhaps it was believed that the funeral pyre burned away the fleshly "soma" so that the immortal "soma" lacking in flesh could ascend to the gods. If this is the case, then this is strong evidence for my argument here.

There were cases of temporary resuscitation, but these occurred before the person was buried and in almost all cases before they entered the realm of the dead. In such cases the person died again eventually -- which does not conflict with hostility to, or rejection of, resurrection. (See Peter Bolt, "Life, Death and the Afterlife in the Greco-Roman World", in Life in the Face of Death, Eerdmans, 1998.)

What about Lazarus? Was he resurrected? He wasn't resuscitated before his burial that I recall reading. If resuscitations happened before burial, does that make it plausible that in the cases of Lazarus and other pre-mortem raisings-from-the-dead were actual resurrections and not mere resuscitations?

Note as well that in 1 Cor., Paul is addressing advocates of asceticism and libertinism -- points of view associated with those who thought matter was evil and at the root of all of man's problems. Platonic thought supposed that "man's highest good consisted of emancipation from corporeal defilement. The nakedness of disembodiment was the ideal state." [Harr.RI, 116] If the critics are right, Christianity took a big and significant step backwards that should have killed it in the cradle, or at least caused historical reprecussions and divisions that would still be in evidence.

Once again, this assumes that the resurrection was a fleshly one from the very beginning. I am arguing that the "spiritual resurrection" would've been seen as a 'soma' lacking in flesh.

Thus is our "pro" case for a physical rez body; what about the counter-arguments? Robert Price claims above that the Gospel pictures of the rez Jesus clash "violently" with those in the epistles -- mainly, Paul's material in 1 Cor. 15. Is this truly the case? Let's start with the biggest "con job" in the whole lot:

"Paul can't possibly be referring to a physically resurrected body, because he clearly says that 'flesh and blood' cannot inherit the Kingdom of God. (1 Cor. 15:50)

This cite is usually contrasted with Luke 24:39: Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself: handle me, and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have. It's clear enough that the phrases compared are different in a key way: "flesh and blood" versus "flesh and bones." A difference that is no difference, the skeptic may say. Really? Not at all. The phrase "flesh and blood" is "a typical Semitic expression denoting the frail human nature." It is a phrase that reflects a conceptual unity, rather than a physical aspect of the body; and this is supported by the use of the singular "is" rather than the plural "are." [Craig.ANTE, 141] Thus, as Craig also points out, the second half of the parallel in 1 Cor. 15:50 (corruptible/incorruptible) is "Paul's elaboration in other words of exactly the same thought" [Craig.BR, 60] - perhaps making it more clear to the Greeks in his audience who would not "get" the Semitic turn of speech. (This relates to the Semitic Totality concept, which we explore here.)

I think that the phrase "flesh and blood" has the precise implication that a 'soma' of flesh cannot inherit the kingdom of God. That it is a Semitic phrase connotating human frailty I doubt makes any deference. I realize that it's a synedoche being used here, but from what I have read, what applies to the whole also applies to the part. Thus the reason why 'flesh and blood' cannot inherit the kingdom of God, is precisely because human frailty contains flesh.

Only 'soma' lacking in flesh can inherit the kingdom of God because it is made of the same substance that the sun, moon, and stars are made of- a physical substance that was lacking in flesh. To enter the spiritual, heavenly realm with other 'soma' lacking in flesh, the "spiritual body" likewise has to be a 'soma' lacking in flesh.

Now I realize that the above is purely speculative but I think it may be reasonable as an inference. I would have to study it more thoroughly and technically in graduate school before making up my mind on this matter. I am not going to take Bill Craig's word for it!

Similar use of the phrase "flesh and blood" is found in Sir. 14:18 and 17:31, Wisdom 12:5, and in the works of Philo, as well as elsewhere in the NT, and in rabbinical literature. Craig also points out that Paul uses the phrase "flesh and blood" in the sense of "people" or "mortal creatures" elsewhere: Eph. 6:12 "For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of this dark world and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms." - It is also used this way in Gal. 1:16. Dahl [Dahl.RoB, 121], reflecting both on this phrase and the word "flesh" as used in v. 39, comments:

The connotation of the word is not merely, if primarily, physical, but describes the whole totality and would therefore comprehend the mental or psychological as well. It is used in biblical literature to emphasize frailty, creatureliness, weakness, etc., and is, for that reason, the opposite of 'spirit,' which is always connected with the idea of strength.

I see no particular evidence here that "flesh and blood" goes against what I have suggested. The key word here is 'flesh' as I have been arguing about all along and I believe that the "spiritual resurrection" was simply a 'soma' lacking in flesh. I doubt that "flesh and blood" only meant human frailty. I believe that it might have meant more in antiquity.

This fits in with what Craig is saying: "flesh" = weakness; spiritual body = strength. And Orr and Walther [Orr.1COR, 349-50] state:

Paul may mean the material substance of bodies, composed of flesh and blood; or the phrase may have a quasi-technical significance, referring to humanity. If he means the former, then certainly God's kingdom is in the future. If he means the latter, then he seems to be referring to the natural human being in other terms. The other two uses of this phrase in the Pauline literature, Gal. 1:16 and Eph. 6:12, suggest the second option (cf. also Matt. 16:17 and Heb. 2:14). (emphasis added)

This is interesting. It seems to suggest that the idiom has multiple connotations depending on the context. I happen to think for now that the context in 1st Corinthians 15 was suggestive of a connation in which only 'soma' lacking in flesh could enter into the heavenly realm with all the other "fleshless" 'soma'.

Let us also add the opinion of Perkins [Perk.Rz, 306]. For her, "flesh and blood" is:

...a Semitic expression for human being (as in Gal. 1:16). It often appears in contexts that stress creatureliness and mortality. (emphasis added)

Okay, but I doubt that was the only connotation and further I don't see that as necessarily meaning that the 'soma' spoken of in 1st Corinthians 15 necessarily contained flesh.

We have thus seen what "flesh and blood" means; what about "flesh and bones"? This is not an anatomical description, but a reflection of the Jewish concept of resurrection, an emphasis on physicality. In the OT, it is the bones that are raised and preserved for the resurrection; hence, the phrase "connotes the physical reality of Jesus' resurrection." [ibid., 69] This was why Jewish belief held great concern for the preservation of the bones - hence, the use of ossuaries to keep them in one handy container. [Craig.ANTE, 144] Jesus is thus assuring the disciples that they are not merely seeing a ghost, but a resurrected body - the stress is on corporeality, not constituency. As Harris notes, "flesh and blood" would not be used for this sort of emphasis, not only because of the connotation of that phrase in association with weakness and corruptible life, but also because blood wasn't something that could be touched [Harr.RI, 54].

There are other New Testament scholars who argue for a wide range of meaning for the resurrection body. I have no doubt that the gospels are portraying a fleshly body but the question is whether or not the "spiritual body" was one that necessarily contained flesh.

"Paul can't be referring to a physical body, because in 1 Cor. 15:45 he says that Jesus became 'a life-giving spirit.'"

This does not follow from the text at all in terms of disproving a physical rez body. Paul says that Adam became a "living soul" -- he is not saying that Adam became a disembodied soul; nor is he, then, saying that Christ became a disembodied spirit. [Craig.ANTE, 137] In light of the explanation by Paul previous to this verse, it correllates to the natural body made at Adam's creation versus the "spiritual body" created at the Resurrection, or what Craig believes is better referred to as the "supernatural body."

I believe that when the text says that Jesus became a "life-giving spirit" it was in a body lacking in flesh. He was put the death in the flesh and became a life-giving spirit because he no longer had flesh and therefore is able to give his followers life with a new spiritual body, while physical, was lacking in flesh and therefore was immortal. The reason why the "spiritual body" was immortal was precisely because it was lacking flesh which is a mortal substance.

As Dahl [Dahl.RoB, 81-2] puts it:
God's eschatological plan demands that if a man is a body-animate, he can and will be a body-spiritual...That is to say, his ultimate destiny is to be a totality not simply animated by the spirit (which might be said of other kinds of 'flesh'), but a totality taken up into the life of the Spirit himself, so that the whole totality is so controlled and possessed by the Spirit that it shares his life-giving powers....the second man derives his glory and power direct from heaven.

I disagree. I believe that while 'soma' was always a physical body, it was one lacking in flesh. The quoted argument above is simply one interpretation of it. I have been suggesting another interpretation of it.

And Jansen [Jans.RJC, 106-7] adds:

The stress is not on the relationship of Lord and Spirit but on the contrast between the physical body and the spiritual body. The exalted Christ not only has a spiritual body but is himself the life-giver, in contrast to the first man who became a living being...Paul views the first and the last Adam as inclusive figures (as in Romans 5) in whom we see the whole of human history.

Uggh. More appeals to authority. Woudln't it have been easier just to endnote these fellas?

Thus, this verse "contrasts the two heads of two different families" [Ladd.IBRz, 117]by way of their orientation. More practically, the parallelism Paul is attempting to Genesis 2:7 would have been lost had he referred to Jesus' body. [Craig.ANTE, 138]

I think that this is just one way of interpreting it- it's not the only way though.

"Paul could not mean a physical body -- he refers to a 'spiritual body'." Price suggests that this refers to a body that is immaterial, or some sort of angelic substance, spiritual in nature. Mormons may find this useful for their own doctrine of spirit as a sort of substance. The phrase actually means not a disembodied spirit, but a tangible body dominated and directed by the Holy Spirit - thus Craig prefers the term, "supernatural" body, in accordance with the Greek terminology:

152. pneumatikos, pnyoo-mat-ik-os'; from G4151; non-carnal, i.e. (humanly) ethereal (as opposed to gross), or (daemoniacally) a spirit (concr.), or (divinely) supernatural, regenerate, religious:--spiritual.

Price is a critic who should know better but apparently doesn't. He doesn't seem to realize that the "spititual body" should not be thought of as non-physical" but, rather, non-fleshly.

Harris points out that Greek adjectives ending in -ikos "carry a functional or ethical meaning" [Harr.RI, 120].

I would agree with Harris. But just because Greek adjectives ending in "ikos" carry a functional or ethical meaning doesn't necessarily mean that it connotates something that was necessarily fleshly. In fact, it might have been seen as ethical to liberate the spirit from a body containing flesh and instead to raise it up in a body lacking flesh.

Consider there sample verses where, obviously, pneumatikos could by no means be referring to something immaterial:

Rom. 1:11 I long to see you so that I may impart to you some spiritual gift to make you strong...(Does this refer to a gift that is made of some "luminous angelic substance" or is simply immaterial?)

This only proves that the Greek word for spiritual had more than one meaning to it.

Gal. 6:1 Brothers, if someone is caught in a sin, you who are spiritual should restore him gently. But watch yourself, or you also may be tempted. (Is Paul talking to people who are CURRENTLY made of an "angelic substance" or are immaterial?)

I don't want to make a mockery of what Holding writes but this criticism is a bit silly. It can blow up back in his face by pointing out that these "spiritual" people didn't have "transphysical" bodies (bodies made of resurrected, glorified, immortal flesh- to use a term from N.T. Wright). Granted "spiritual" didn't mean that the people were made of an 'angelic substance' but I sure as heck doubt that they were made of glorfied, immortal, imperishable, flesh as well. All this verse shows is that the Greek word had a variety of meanings.

The point, then, being made by Craig is that Jesus' resurrection body was dominated and directed by the Holy Spirit - not "made of" spirit. "Spiritual" here is an adjective describing an orientation, not a status of existence.

That's only one interpretation of it though. "Spiritual" can describe a status of existence. Let's not forget an example that even Holding cited- Ephesians 6:12. In that verse it speaks of "spiritual forces of evil" in the heavenly realms. Obviously, then, 'spiritual' used here, doesn't necessarily mean something that was "Spirit-controlled and Spirit-guided" which in this context would make it an oxymoron. How can a force of evil be "Spirit-controlled and Spirit-guided"? Obviously, then, the Greek word refers to something that was not made of flesh and in fact contrasted to "flesh and blood". It was used here to mean something that was not a fleshly entity. "Spiritual forces of evil" is something evil that is lacking in flesh.

Pushback: But can Paul have imagined that Jesus's body during his earthly life was not already dominated and directed by the Holy Spirit? Ours, maybe, but his? One cannot ignore the parallel being drawn between Jesus and the resurrected believer throughout the chapter. And to say that "it is raised a spiritual body" means only "it is raised" is a piece of harmonizing sleight-of-hand...

Here our critic, Robert Price, has missed the point. Of COURSE Paul "imagined" that Jesus had an earthly body that was not "dominated and directed" by the Holy Spirit, as indeed the Gospels, and even Paul, teach: It was a body that got hungry, got thirsty, wept, was born of a woman, was descended from David, and was crucified and killed. The post-resurrection body, on the other hand, was/is NOT subject to weaknesses, according to Paul. This is the whole thrust of the parallel between Jesus' RESURRECTED body - NOT His earthly one - and the believer's resurrected body! Paul said of Jesus in His earthly body: "Your attitude should be the same as that of Christ Jesus: Who, being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be grasped, but made himself nothing, taking the very nature of a servant, being made in human likeness." - Phil. 2:5-7. And: "For what the law was powerless to do in that it was weakened by the sinful nature, God did by sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful man to be a sin offering." - Rom. 8:3. The earthly body of Jesus was just as frail as ours; but it is the RESURRECTED body of Jesus that is under the domination of the Spirit - or as Craig puts it, is Spirit-oriented - not the earthly one, in either case. What Price has apparently done here is confused the idea that Jesus received COUNSEL and DIRECTION from the Holy Spirit with the idea that His bodily material was itself dominated by the Holy Spirit on the material, earthly level. The two concepts are in no way the same!

Woa, hold it pilgrim!

A few things are in order here. First of all, take a look at the Greek word that's pitted against the Greek word for "spiritual" in 1st Corinthians 15. This Greek word is translated as "natural" as in "A natural body is sown: a spiritual body is raised". The problem is that in this very epistle, earlier, Paul talks about different men and how the "natural man" doesn't understand the word of God because it is foolishness to him and cannot understand it because it is spiritually discerned. If Jesus had a "natural body" then doesn't this mean, though, that Jesus both wouldn't/couldn't have understood the word of God? If not, why not?

"Peter doesn't believe in a physical resurrection. He says that Jesus was 'put to death in flesh but made alive in spirit' (1 Peter 3:18). He also doesn't mention the empty tomb where he should (5:1)." We have dealt with the first cite with reference to the Mormons: the phrase here is by the Spirit, meaning the mode whereby Jesus was raised. The verb "quickened" is used elsewhere to describe physical resurrection (John 5:21, 1 Cor. 15). As for 5:1, I challenge critics to make a case that this was a place where anything like the empty tomb should be mentioned: "The elders which are among you I exhort, who am also an elder, and a witness of the sufferings of Christ, and also a partaker of the glory that shall be revealed..."

While I am not sure that Peter means to preach a "spiritual resurrection" I do find it odd that an empty tomb isn't mentioned. In fact, none of the epistles describe an empty tomb. This would've been very strong evidence for the gospel accounts which have Jesus resurrected in a "transphysical" body. Also Holding suggests that the word for "quickened" always referred to a physical resurrection. Okay, fine. No problem. The question is whether this resurrection was of a body containing flesh. This hasn't been shown to be the case and this is what Holding needs to prove here.

I am going to end my commentary here. There is very little that I see that needs commenting on for anyone to understand my point.

Matthew

p.s. Alright, J.P. The soapbox and mic are all yours!

Originally posted by Matthew

Sorry this took so long to compose..but here goes...

In this post I will be reviewing Holding's foundational essay "Let's Get Physcial" where Holding writes a well-written essay critiquing the concept of a "spiritual resurrection". I am a proponent of the spiritual resurrection to a certain degree. I am not an expert in it and I don't profess to be super-read on the subject. Therefore, I will just elaborate on my reasons for being skeptical about Holding's critique.

First off, I think it's wrong to look at the "spiritual resurrection" as a matter of physcial vs. non-physical. Even more educated critics who should know better often make this mistake. I believe it's better to see it as an issue of flesh vs. lack of flesh. Thus I believe that the "spiritual body" would've been regarded as simply a body lacking flesh- a physical body never-the-less but one lacking flesh.

With this squarely in mind, I began my commentary:

...........................................................................................


While I haven't studied Gundry's book (I do have it and it's on my list of "to read" books) I have to say that there's nothing that I see in this paragraph that refutes a "spiritual resurrection". I might even agree with Gundy that "soma" was always and necessarily a physical object. But that's not to say that as a physical object it had flesh or contained flesh. Thus Gundry appears to be refuting a misunderstanding (promoted by Evangelicals and misinformed skeptics) that rightly needs to be rebutted. I think I will agree with Gundry (and Holding!) that "soma" always meant a physical object. Where I see Evangelical scholars fudging the issue here is whether "soma" necessarily contains flesh. I doubt so strongly.

I don't think one needs to read Gundry's book to realize this although I predict that my study of Gundry's book should bear this prediction out. Paul himself used the Greek word "soma" to refer to the sun, moon, and stars- objects which are necessarily physical but do not necessarily contain flesh. So on this point, I think Gundy hasn't refuted a "spiritual resurrection"- as long as the 'spiritual body' was defined as something, while definitely physical, was lacking in flesh.



Once again, I see no reason to disagree with either Gundry or Holding on this point. I am not arguing that a "spiritual resurrection" was essentially a non-physical one but a non-fleshly one. The sun, moon, and stars are 'soma' lacking in flesh and it's this that I think we need to bear in mind when thinking of the "spiritual resurrection".



Like the Greek word "soma", I doubt "anastasis" necessarily refers to something contains flesh. I believe that "anastasis" probably came to designate something that was both physical and contained flesh but originally didn't connotate both and I doubt that it does denote 'flesh' necessarily.



If Holding can prove that "soma" and "anastasis" both and have always connotated something containing flesh, then I will regard the "spiritual resurrection" has been refuted. I want to see it proven that either or both words had the necessary connotation of something that had flesh.



This hinges upon the argument that the "spiritual resurrection" is, essentially, a non-physical resurrection. I don't believe this to be the case. I believe that the "spiritual resurrection" was believed to be one that was lacking flesh. Inescapably physical, but not necessarily fleshly.



Same problem. Where is the evidence that "soma" is something that necessarily had flesh as opposed to a lack of flesh?



As for the Church starting with a repugnant doctrine such as a fleshly resurrection, I am not so certain that all of the ancient Greco-Roman pagans would've found it as such. Perhaps the majority would've. Perhaps most. But I doubt it was nearly universal as Holding seems to argue here. However, one thing that was interesting and I think tends to support a "spiritual resurrection" was the following quote:



What is the Greek word for body here? What immortal part was supposed to ascend to the gods? The immortal part of what? I plan on reading this upcoming week an essay that will argue that Jesus left his "soma" containing flesh and entered into a 'spiritual body' one lacking in flesh. Perhaps it was believed that the funeral pyre burned away the fleshly "soma" so that the immortal "soma" lacking in flesh could ascend to the gods. If this is the case, then this is strong evidence for my argument here.



What about Lazarus? Was he resurrected? He wasn't resuscitated before his burial that I recall reading. If resuscitations happened before burial, does that make it plausible that in the cases of Lazarus and other pre-mortem raisings-from-the-dead were actual resurrections and not mere resuscitations?



Once again, this assumes that the resurrection was a fleshly one from the very beginning. I am arguing that the "spiritual resurrection" would've been seen as a 'soma' lacking in flesh.



I think that the phrase "flesh and blood" has the precise implication that a 'soma' of flesh cannot inherit the kingdom of God. That it is a Semitic phrase connotating human frailty I doubt makes any deference. I realize that it's a synedoche being used here, but from what I have read, what applies to the whole also applies to the part. Thus the reason why 'flesh and blood' cannot inherit the kingdom of God, is precisely because human frailty contains flesh.

Only 'soma' lacking in flesh can inherit the kingdom of God because it is made of the same substance that the sun, moon, and stars are made of- a physical substance that was lacking in flesh. To enter the spiritual, heavenly realm with other 'soma' lacking in flesh, the "spiritual body" likewise has to be a 'soma' lacking in flesh.

Now I realize that the above is purely speculative but I think it may be reasonable as an inference. I would have to study it more thoroughly and technically in graduate school before making up my mind on this matter. I am not going to take Bill Craig's word for it!



I see no particular evidence here that "flesh and blood" goes against what I have suggested. The key word here is 'flesh' as I have been arguing about all along and I believe that the "spiritual resurrection" was simply a 'soma' lacking in flesh. I doubt that "flesh and blood" only meant human frailty. I believe that it might have meant more in antiquity.



This is interesting. It seems to suggest that the idiom has multiple connotations depending on the context. I happen to think for now that the context in 1st Corinthians 15 was suggestive of a connation in which only 'soma' lacking in flesh could enter into the heavenly realm with all the other "fleshless" 'soma'.



Okay, but I doubt that was the only connotation and further I don't see that as necessarily meaning that the 'soma' spoken of in 1st Corinthians 15 necessarily contained flesh.



There are other New Testament scholars who argue for a wide range of meaning for the resurrection body. I have no doubt that the gospels are portraying a fleshly body but the question is whether or not the "spiritual body" was one that necessarily contained flesh.



I believe that when the text says that Jesus became a "life-giving spirit" it was in a body lacking in flesh. He was put the death in the flesh and became a life-giving spirit because he no longer had flesh and therefore is able to give his followers life with a new spiritual body, while physical, was lacking in flesh and therefore was immortal. The reason why the "spiritual body" was immortal was precisely because it was lacking flesh which is a mortal substance.



I disagree. I believe that while 'soma' was always a physical body, it was one lacking in flesh. The quoted argument above is simply one interpretation of it. I have been suggesting another interpretation of it.



Uggh. More appeals to authority. Woudln't it have been easier just to endnote these fellas?



I think that this is just one way of interpreting it- it's not the only way though.



Price is a critic who should know better but apparently doesn't. He doesn't seem to realize that the "spititual body" should not be thought of as non-physical" but, rather, non-fleshly.



I would agree with Harris. But just because Greek adjectives ending in "ikos" carry a functional or ethical meaning doesn't necessarily mean that it connotates something that was necessarily fleshly. In fact, it might have been seen as ethical to liberate the spirit from a body containing flesh and instead to raise it up in a body lacking flesh.



This only proves that the Greek word for spiritual had more than one meaning to it.



I don't want to make a mockery of what Holding writes but this criticism is a bit silly. It can blow up back in his face by pointing out that these "spiritual" people didn't have "transphysical" bodies (bodies made of resurrected, glorified, immortal flesh- to use a term from N.T. Wright). Granted "spiritual" didn't mean that the people were made of an 'angelic substance' but I sure as heck doubt that they were made of glorfied, immortal, imperishable, flesh as well. All this verse shows is that the Greek word had a variety of meanings.



That's only one interpretation of it though. "Spiritual" can describe a status of existence. Let's not forget an example that even Holding cited- Ephesians 6:12. In that verse it speaks of "spiritual forces of evil" in the heavenly realms. Obviously, then, 'spiritual' used here, doesn't necessarily mean something that was "Spirit-controlled and Spirit-guided" which in this context would make it an oxymoron. How can a force of evil be "Spirit-controlled and Spirit-guided"? Obviously, then, the Greek word refers to something that was not made of flesh and in fact contrasted to "flesh and blood". It was used here to mean something that was not a fleshly entity. "Spiritual forces of evil" is something evil that is lacking in flesh.



Woa, hold it pilgrim!

A few things are in order here. First of all, take a look at the Greek word that's pitted against the Greek word for "spiritual" in 1st Corinthians 15. This Greek word is translated as "natural" as in "A natural body is sown: a spiritual body is raised". The problem is that in this very epistle, earlier, Paul talks about different men and how the "natural man" doesn't understand the word of God because it is foolishness to him and cannot understand it because it is spiritually discerned. If Jesus had a "natural body" then doesn't this mean, though, that Jesus both wouldn't/couldn't have understood the word of God? If not, why not?



While I am not sure that Peter means to preach a "spiritual resurrection" I do find it odd that an empty tomb isn't mentioned. In fact, none of the epistles describe an empty tomb. This would've been very strong evidence for the gospel accounts which have Jesus resurrected in a "transphysical" body. Also Holding suggests that the word for "quickened" always referred to a physical resurrection. Okay, fine. No problem. The question is whether this resurrection was of a body containing flesh. This hasn't been shown to be the case and this is what Holding needs to prove here.

I am going to end my commentary here. There is very little that I see that needs commenting on for anyone to understand my point.

Matthew

p.s. Alright, J.P. The soapbox and mic are all yours!

Matthew, are you arguing that Jesus' resurrection body did not have flesh?

Originally posted by Dee Dee Warren

Matthew, are you arguing that Jesus' resurrection body did not have flesh?

No. I was arguing that J.P. Holding hasn't refuted the concept of a "spiritual resurrection" that skeptics and liberal theologians see in 1st Corinthians 15. It has nothing to do with the resurrection of Jesus in the gospels- which would've been clear if you read it more carefully.

Matthew

Originally posted by Matthew

No. I was arguing that J.P. Holding hasn't refuted the concept of a "spiritual resurrection" that skeptics and liberal theologians see in 1st Corinthians 15. It has nothing to do with the resurrection of Jesus in the gospels- which would've been clear if you read it more carefully.

Matthew

If you are appealing to the arguments of liberal theologians and sceptics, they don't accept the flesh resurrection of Christ either. That would have been clear if you read them more carefully.

If Christ's resurrection was flesh, then ours will be as well. Paul connects the two as part of the same "crop" and also uses as a point in his argument that "flesh and blood" cannot inherit the Kingdom of God. Thus, by your inconsistency in arguing that Christ was raised in the flesh, you have just excluded Christ from inheriting the Kingdom of God - and the ONLY way Christians inherit is through Christ as co-heir.

Originally posted by Dee Dee Warren

If you are appealing to the arguments of liberal theologians and sceptics, they don't accept the flesh resurrection of Christ either. That would have been clear if you read them more carefully.

Look, for your information, I was trying not to touch on the gospels. I do happen to be doubtful of the gospels accounts of Jesus as having a resurrected body of flesh. I believe that the earliest Christians would've believed that Jesus was raised with a body lacking in flesh. I was referring to the arguments of liberal theologians and skeptics regarding 1st Corinthians 15, not anything they said regarding the gospels. That they do argue that the body of Jesus lacked flesh- fine. I happen to agree with them but nowhere was I trying to touch on the gospels. I was trying to stick mostly with 1st Corianthians 15.

If Christ's resurrection was flesh, then ours will be as well. Paul connects the two as part of the same "crop" and also uses as a point in his argument that "flesh and blood" cannot inherit the Kingdom of God. Thus, by your inconsistency in arguing that Christ was raised in the flesh, you have just excluded Christ from inheriting the Kingdom of God - and the ONLY way Christians inherit is through Christ as co-heir.

And I currently doubt that Christ's resurrection was fleshly. I happen to think (for the time being) that the earlist Christians would've believed Jesus to have been raised in a body lacking flesh and that the latter gospels accounts (especially the empty tomb) were later and legendary. There is nothing inconsistent in what I wrote. My original post was about the "spiritual resurrection". No where do I argue that Jesus was raised in the flesh nor do I believe that the earliest Christians believed so.

Do yourself a favor- please go back and read my post more carefully. Are we clear now?

Matthew

Hey bud,

Surd in the mix here. I need to address Carrier's chapter in Empty Tomb on this, and I'm going to be significantly updating that article to include a response to his criticisms (which do touch on my own, though he does not address me directly). In the meantime I can make some comments, with the understanding that the article you read will or may soon be significantly updated, 'K?

First off, I think it's wrong to look at the "spiritual resurrection" as a matter of physcial vs. non-physical.

I agree. Maybe you have seen CS Lewis' suggestion that what is "incorporeal" in this dimension of reality is "corporeal" in another. He suggested for example that for angels, light was like a liquid they could swim in. Could be the same for spirit somehow.

While I haven't studied Gundry's book (I do have it and it's on my list of "to read" books) I have to say that there's nothing that I see in this paragraph that refutes a "spiritual resurrection".

I think what this will boil down to is the later issue of what "spiritual" can mean since you otherwise agree with Gundry.

Where I see Evangelical scholars fudging the issue here is whether "soma" necessarily contains flesh.

I don't think I went that far, did I? Y'know, I'm not sure I have a problem with the idea you're promoting, and I don't think the view I am answering matches with yours. My thing was against the likes of Price who made the "spiritual body" into some non-physical thing. You seem to be allowing for a spiritual body that is what we call physical too. Correct? You say:

I am not arguing that a "spiritual resurrection" was essentially a non-physical one but a non-fleshly one.

OK, so how far is this from the idea that the resurrection body is glorified flesh -- flesh with something added to it that removes all of its weaknesses? Also, what is your view in terms of how the mortal body relates to the new one? Are you following Carrier's idea that the old body stays in the ground, and a whole new one is made, or are you allowing for that the old body is somehow overwhelmed and incorporated into the new one? Or have you not decided yet?

Because if its the latter, I don't have any problem with it in terms of an exgesis of the texts.

Like the Greek word "soma", I doubt "anastasis" necessarily refers to something contains flesh.

OK, well -- you'd have to show a use of it where it did not refer to something that was originally flesh. Carrier found some uses that could conceivably refer to flesh being resuscitated -- I was iffy about how valid they were -- but he didn't show any that were for things other than flesh being restored somehow.

Your next few lines are much the same point; so again what I'd like to know is where you stand on the disposition of the old body.

But I doubt it was nearly universal as Holding seems to argue here.

OK, but you need to find me some folks from then who say the opposite.

"The funeral pyre was said to burn away the body so that the immortal part could ascend to the gods." [73]


What is the Greek word for body here?

Um, that's a quote from Perkins' description, not a direct quote from Plutrach. Sorry if that's confusing.

I plan on reading this upcoming week an essay that will argue that Jesus left his "soma" containing flesh and entered into a 'spiritual body' one lacking in flesh. Perhaps it was believed that the funeral pyre burned away the fleshly "soma" so that the immortal "soma" lacking in flesh could ascend to the gods.

I take it you mean Carrier's essay. He only deals with what Paul believes and does not address whether this would relate to something like what Perkins offers from a secular source.

What about Lazarus? Was he resurrected?

I don't see any reason to think that he was resurrected as Jesus was, no.

I think that the phrase "flesh and blood" has the precise implication that a 'soma' of flesh cannot inherit the kingdom of God. That it is a Semitic phrase connotating human frailty I doubt makes any deference.

Sounds like what Carrier argued against Licona. But here again, I don't think the rez body is simply "flesh" but "flesh plus (? -- God's infused spiritual power)". And it may even lack blood. The key also is that "flesh and bone" is also an expression emphasizing solidity, so it can't be taken as a thorough comment on the content of Jesus' body. I also don't expect Jesus to be presenting the disciples with some new term for what the body is made of. Jews would not be as much concerned about the technical composition as that it really WORKED.

I doubt that "flesh and blood" only meant human frailty. I believe that it might have meant more in antiquity.

You'll need, again, some evidence for that.

Uggh. More appeals to authority. Woudln't it have been easier just to endnote these fellas?

Not with the opponents I usually deal with, bud.

This only proves that the Greek word for spiritual had more than one meaning to it.

That is, if we assume you are correct?

I don't want to make a mockery of what Holding writes but this criticism is a bit silly.

No offense taken... though Price's argument was silly too, wasn't it? Consider it a reductio ad absurdum of Price's position.

That's only one interpretation of it though. "Spiritual" can describe a status of existence. Let's not forget an example that even Holding cited- Ephesians 6:12.

I think Licona noted that one. In that case I think "evil" is the object of "spiritual" so that it is saying that the evil is spirit-controlled and spirit-guided. But maybe someone with Greek expertise (Jaltus?) could make further comment.

If Jesus had a "natural body" then doesn't this mean, though, that Jesus both wouldn't/couldn't have understood the word of God?

An interesting point. Of course theories with respect to the kenotic emptying of Christ would suggest that the earthly Jesus had to draw on power and knowledge that he had voluntarily laid aside while in the flesh, so this may not be as incongruous with what I would hold as you suggest. Aside from that, if Jesus is the only "exception" to Paul's "natural man" rule I don't see him going out of his way to make that exception clear. I don't even know that Paul would place Jesus in the category of "man" for the purpose of his argument if he was (as the Chalcedonian creed says) "God and man".

I do find it odd that an empty tomb isn't mentioned. In fact, none of the epistles describe an empty tomb. This would've been very strong evidence for the gospel accounts which have Jesus resurrected in a "transphysical" body.

On the other hand, were the epistles written for the purpose of providing evidence for the Gospel accounts?

OK, well, I hope in the process of boiling down to your basics that I didn't shortchange you. I guess you may need to read Carrier before addressing my "disposition of the old body" question; and I need to work on him also, so your call on what to do next, bud.

JP

J.P, my man!

Originally posted by jpholding

Hey bud,

Surd in the mix here. I need to address Carrier's chapter in Empty Tomb on this, and I'm going to be significantly updating that article to include a response to his criticisms (which do touch on my own, though he does not address me directly). In the meantime I can make some comments, with the understanding that the article you read will or may soon be significantly updated, 'K?

No problem. In fact after our discussion on here, feel free to address some of the points or arguments raised in this thread if you wish. I think some of your readers who don't participate regularly on TWeb might be interested in seeing the results of our discussion.

I agree. Maybe you have seen CS Lewis' suggestion that what is "incorporeal" in this dimension of reality is "corporeal" in another. He suggested for example that for angels, light was like a liquid they could swim in. Could be the same for spirit somehow.

Perhaps. I haven't heard of C.S. Lewis' suggestion. But now that you have mentioned it, it sounds like the discussion of ASC by Rohrbaugh and Malina in their SS commentaries. They talk about "alternate reality", IIRC, and how ancient honor-shame societies would see angels, demons, ghosts, gods, etc in terms of alternate reality that they could experience through ASC and visionary experience that I believe involve ASC.

I think what this will boil down to is the later issue of what "spiritual" can mean since you otherwise agree with Gundry.

I think you're right about this. It would have to boil down to whether "spiritual" can mean a fleshly state of existence.

I don't think I went that far, did I? Y'know, I'm not sure I have a problem with the idea you're promoting, and I don't think the view I am answering matches with yours. My thing was against the likes of Price who made the "spiritual body" into some non-physical thing. You seem to be allowing for a spiritual body that is what we call physical too. Correct? You say:

Absolutely. This is why I said that Price was an un-informed critic who should know better. I have seen Price make passing references to Gundry in his essays (like "This Time He Stinketh") but I don't see anywhere that he has read Gundry's book. Now if my argument in this thread is correct and the "spiritual resurrection" can be be defended along the lines suggested on here, I wouldn't take that to mean that Gundry's work on 'soma' is useless. On the contrary, it serves as an alertfor all sides interested in the debate to explore the ancient world in vast more detail. It also serves to show, I think, that there is some foggy thinking on both sides. I wouldn't be suprised if Carrier made the same mistake regarding the physical/non-physical distinction.

OK, so how far is this from the idea that the resurrection body is glorified flesh -- flesh with something added to it that removes all of its weaknesses? Also, what is your view in terms of how the mortal body relates to the new one? Are you following Carrier's idea that the old body stays in the ground, and a whole new one is made, or are you allowing for that the old body is somehow overwhelmed and incorporated into the new one? Or have you not decided yet?

Well, if I am right (and that's a big "if" by the way) then there would still be the clash that is argued for between the gospels and 1st Corinthians 15. The "transphysical" body would be a body containing flesh only in a glorified, immortal, Spirit-controlled state. If my argument is right about the "spiritual resurrection", then the "spiritual body" (which would stand in complete contrast to the resurrection body of the gospels) would be lacking in one key ingredient that the "transphysical" body had: flesh. (Personally, I prefer Wright's term over Craig's term. "Transphysical" sounds like a more precise description of what Evangelicals are arguing for; "supernatural" as Craig might put it just seems more confusing to me) As for how the mortal body relates to the new one- it's interesting that this should come up.

I am personally undecided. I read in an essay by Peter Kirby (and this should be in a chapter in the Empty Tomb ) that there are several views of the resurrection. One of them was a view espoused by Raymond Brown in which the natural body is transformed into a spiritual body (the kind that Price may have in mind) and there is no physical trace of the natural body- no ingredient like flesh or blood. Carrier argues that Jesus left his natural body behind to rot and entered into a spiritual body.

At this point, I am undecided. I would have to read Carrier's chapter in greater detail and then study Gundy in greater detail before I make up my mind. I even tried tracing Kirby's references to Brown but the only book that I had encountered was Brown's book on the virginal conception and resurrection body of Jesus which was rather vague.

Because if its the latter, I don't have any problem with it in terms of an exgesis of the texts.

Alrighty. But the thing is that if my argument is the best way to go, it might open up a new chapter in the debate over the resurrection body. Who knows- I might wind up the most informed critic you might have a discussion with!

OK, well -- you'd have to show a use of it where it did not refer to something that was originally flesh. Carrier found some uses that could conceivably refer to flesh being resuscitated -- I was iffy about how valid they were -- but he didn't show any that were for things other than flesh being restored somehow.

I'd have to read what Carrier wrote. As for showing that the word did not refer to something that was orginally flesh- no problem. I realise that in proposing my argument I am taking on a burden of providing evidence that would require a deep and nuanced understanding of how Greek words were used in antiquity. This might take some time, even years to develop!

Your next few lines are much the same point; so again what I'd like to know is where you stand on the disposition of the old body.

I'm not sure on this point. Right now, I am just beginning to carry out a more detailed investigation. Your essay is a step in the right direction.

OK, but you need to find me some folks from then who say the opposite.

I think the scholar I had in mind when I wrote what I did in my original post was a New Testament scholar that Carrier quoted. Let me dig it up for you in a future post on this thread- just so that you know what I had in mind.

Um, that's a quote from Perkins' description, not a direct quote from Plutrach. Sorry if that's confusing.

Funny. I saw this reference in Carrier's rebuttal to your essay on chapter three. Since I saw this reference I was wondering if it existed in the original Greek. I wonder what the original Greek might look like.

I take it you mean Carrier's essay. He only deals with what Paul believes and does not address whether this would relate to something like what Perkins offers from a secular source.

What?!? You're kidding me! (I haven't gotten the ET book yet. I haven't even been home lately; I have been house-sitting for a buddy of mine. Don't ask how that went- it was a weekend of hell for me!) Carrier doesn't address secular sources? Okay, I got to read this book and bring out my hopelessly critical "how-you-could've-argued-this-better" mindset. Some skeptics are going to be hearing about this if I have anything to say about it!

I don't see any reason to think that he was resurrected as Jesus was, no.

But this would qualify as a documented instance of rescucitation happening after burial. I believe that there are other instances of this.

Sounds like what Carrier argued against Licona. But here again, I don't think the rez body is simply "flesh" but "flesh plus (? -- God's infused spiritual power)". And it may even lack blood. The key also is that "flesh and bone" is also an expression emphasizing solidity, so it can't be taken as a thorough comment on the content of Jesus' body. I also don't expect Jesus to be presenting the disciples with some new term for what the body is made of. Jews would not be as much concerned about the technical composition as that it really WORKED.

I haven't even watched the debate between the two (I have to be careful about my budget these days!) I thought about buying the debate on CD but I figured that the book containing Carrier's essay should be sufficent in itself. As for "flesh and blood" I don't think the "transphysical" body is simply flesh either. It had a lot more to it and would've been understood by Jews as having qualities and substances that transcended what the ancients might have even concieved of!

You'll need, again, some evidence for that.

I couldn't agree with you more. If I have a germ of an argument here, it might take quite a while to develop a detailed and nuanced argument after I master literature and languages in antiquity.

Not with the opponents I usually deal with, bud.

LOL. Christians shouldn't feel too bad about some rather poor quality apologists like McDowell and others. Geez..it seems that we have stinkers on both sides here, don't we? The opponents that you usually deal with don't sound like the most well-read, informed kids in school!

That is, if we assume you are correct?

That's just it! I would be very much amazed if I am correct. But then again, I have no problem with accepting an empty tomb and "transphysical" resurrection in theory though. I think you would agree with me, New Testament scholarship is deeply fascinating!

No offense taken... though Price's argument was silly too, wasn't it? Consider it a reductio ad absurdum of Price's position.

Not as silly as Price's argument about a lack of tomb veneration. Geez louize! I can come up with a better answer than that! Perhaps both of you have your silly moments- I know I have mine!

I think Licona noted that one. In that case I think "evil" is the object of "spiritual" so that it is saying that the evil is spirit-controlled and spirit-guided. But maybe someone with Greek expertise (Jaltus?) could make further comment.

At Jaltus' convienence- he probably has a busy schedule and so I wouldn't want to pester him if he has bigger responsibilities to attend to. As for the reference in Ephesians, I don't necessarily disagree with you although I think that the "spiritual forces" are put in constrast to "flesh and blood" so it can be seen that these "spiritual forces of evil" were lacking in what they were constrasted to, especially that they were in the heavenly realms. They weren't Spirit-guided and Spirit-controlled in the sense of being controlled by the triune Deity.

An interesting point. Of course theories with respect to the kenotic emptying of Christ would suggest that the earthly Jesus had to draw on power and knowledge that he had voluntarily laid aside while in the flesh, so this may not be as incongruous with what I would hold as you suggest. Aside from that, if Jesus is the only "exception" to Paul's "natural man" rule I don't see him going out of his way to make that exception clear. I don't even know that Paul would place Jesus in the category of "man" for the purpose of his argument if he was (as the Chalcedonian creed says) "God and man".

Perhaps, but I would have to study the ancient literature and languages to develop a more fully nuanced argument. I raise this as a possibility and one that needs to be scrutinized in more detail since it's very pertinent to the words that we are discussing. As for Paul making an exception- perhaps.

On the other hand, were the epistles written for the purpose of providing evidence for the Gospel accounts?

I don't think this would've been necessary. But I think that the epistles should've provided mention of the empty tomb and the "transphysical" body of Christ. If Luke is right about some of the sermons given in Acts then we would expect an empty tomb and a resurrected body of flesh to be discussed in some of their epistles.

OK, well, I hope in the process of boiling down to your basics that I didn't shortchange you. I guess you may need to read Carrier before addressing my "disposition of the old body" question; and I need to work on him also, so your call on what to do next, bud.

No, not at all. I think you understood my position rather well except for what I haven't elaborated on. I need to read Carrier's essay but I am wondering if I will need to supply any correction to Carrier's arguments. Perhaps. We'll see! In fact, I might not make any further posts on this topic until after I have read his chapter.

Matthew

Oyez, my budito! I got your latest email but I may respond to that tomorrow. It's 3:30 here and I ain't eaten lunch yet.

I just have a few points here, given that we both have some more reading to do before we can go further. And let me say as I will to those who say so, that the expressed desire to DO more homework is something that gains my highest admiration.

No problem. In fact after our discussion on here, feel free to address some of the points or arguments raised in this thread if you wish. I think some of your readers who don't participate regularly on TWeb might be interested in seeing the results of our discussion.

Oh, sure! I often do link to TWeb threads discussing my specific articles, from those articles; but this has been the first in a long while. I'd add it in as a link in the physrez item next upload.

ancient honor-shame societies would see angels, demons, ghosts, gods, etc in terms of alternate reality that they could experience through ASC and visionary experience that I believe involve ASC.

We, of the Star Trek generation, grok with dat.

I wouldn't be suprised if Carrier made the same mistake regarding the physical/non-physical distinction.

So far as I can see, he didn't; but I don't think his position would require him to be concerned with it, either.

If my argument is right about the "spiritual resurrection", then the "spiritual body" (which would stand in complete contrast to the resurrection body of the gospels) would be lacking in one key ingredient that the "transphysical" body had: flesh.

OK. I like "transphysical" better too. And a thoroughly transformed rez body might not even fit our modern definition of "flesh". The critical question for me is whether Paul teaches transformation; if he does, then we may have incongruous use of "flesh" from Paul to the Gospels, but if we do, I again don't expect Jesus to launch into some complex anthropological treatise for the sake of his disciples who would never understand it in the first place.

Who knows- I might wind up the most informed critic you might have a discussion with!

Whaddya mean, "wind up"? As far as I can see you're already there.

What?!? You're kidding me! (I haven't gotten the ET book yet. I haven't even been home lately; I have been house-sitting for a buddy of mine. Don't ask how that went- it was a weekend of hell for me!) Carrier doesn't address secular sources?

To be fair, it was outside his scope. And whoops -- I guess Philo, Josephus, and the rabbis MIGHT be called secular sources, right? Or maybe patristic writers, too? By "secular" I had in mind pagan sources. I tend to use this classification system in which sources that are not pagan are not "secular" and that's really not correct, is it?

Okay, I got to read this book and bring out my hopelessly critical "how-you-could've-argued-this-better" mindset. Some skeptics are going to be hearing about this if I have anything to say about it!

I will be very curious to hear your remarks on the first item by Cavin.

But this would qualify as a documented instance of rescucitation happening after burial. I believe that there are other instances of this.

Yes.

I haven't even watched the debate between the two (I have to be careful about my budget these days!) I thought about buying the debate on CD but I figured that the book containing Carrier's essay should be sufficent in itself.

Yes and no. Carrier uses some of the same arguments in the debate as in teh book, but Licona offered some replies that he does not mention in the book. He did reply to SOME of Licona's comments in the debate itself, but I would have liked to have seen them in the book also, for completeness. And obviously, Licona has his own psot-debate comments as well.

The opponents that you usually deal with don't sound like the most well-read, informed kids in school!

I won't even trouble you with links to the guy I just worked on who thinks that just going to church for 16 years made him an authority.

I don't think this would've been necessary. But I think that the epistles should've provided mention of the empty tomb and the "transphysical" body of Christ. If Luke is right about some of the sermons given in Acts then we would expect an empty tomb and a resurrected body of flesh to be discussed in some of their epistles.

You'll see that I do think "transphysical" is in 1 Cor. 15. On the tomb -- well, you can see my reply to Kirby's essay on that at your convenience.

In fact, I might not make any further posts on this topic until after I have read his chapter.

Sounds good. I'll wait for your reply and I won't post more myself until I get my reply to the "two body" part of the chapter done. I finished abouyt a quarter of my reply today.

JP

Originally posted by Matthew

Sorry this took so long to compose..but here goes...

In this post I will be reviewing Holding's foundational essay "Let's Get Physcial" where Holding writes a well-written essay critiquing the concept of a "spiritual resurrection". I am a proponent of the spiritual resurrection to a certain degree. I am not an expert in it and I don't profess to be super-read on the subject. Therefore, I will just elaborate on my reasons for being skeptical about Holding's critique.

Nothing has been refuted, proven or demonstrated one way or another. Holding has simply presented an argument to support his beliefs.

Originally posted by shunyadragon

Nothing has been refuted, proven or demonstrated one way or another. Holding has simply presented an argument to support his beliefs.

We thank you for the reminder, Puff, that when it comes to arguing any sort of case, you are truly incompetent.

J.P.-

Before I read Carrier's chapter, I wanted to make a few remarks that I thought would be fitting for our thread.

I just have a few points here, given that we both have some more reading to do before we can go further. And let me say as I will to those who say so, that the expressed desire to DO more homework is something that gains my highest admiration.

Well of course; all divinity students should be willing to do more homework and even take the time to critique their own arguments just to see if they hold water. You know something interesting- I am very much interested in the inerrancy debate and I spend just as much time trying to resolve alleged cases of errancy as I do exploring what I consider to be cases of errancy that I have detected.

I recall being very much fascinated and intrigued when I realized that many of the cases of fulfilled messianic prophecy were not actually taken out of context (such as Matthew's gospel quoting Hosea in the infancy narrative) but are actually examples of midrash. I also think that I have come up with a potential way of resolving a OT discrepency that Farrell Till has harped on in the past. I can share it with you in e-mail if you like or if everyone else is interested, I can share my possible solution on here.

Oh, sure! I often do link to TWeb threads discussing my specific articles, from those articles; but this has been the first in a long while. I'd add it in as a link in the physrez item next upload.

Super! I'd be very flattered and humbled if you did so. I think it would be great for your readers to see this discussion. Discussion threads like these are badly needed and I think this is just what many Christians and skeptics need to stimulate thought on the subject.

So far as I can see, he didn't; but I don't think his position would require him to be concerned with it, either.

Well, I can't wait to read Carrier's article but I can't help but think that his position might need improving on.

OK. I like "transphysical" better too. And a thoroughly transformed rez body might not even fit our modern definition of "flesh". The critical question for me is whether Paul teaches transformation; if he does, then we may have incongruous use of "flesh" from Paul to the Gospels, but if we do, I again don't expect Jesus to launch into some complex anthropological treatise for the sake of his disciples who would never understand it in the first place.

Thank goodness for the Context Group! I like "transphysical" because Wright's term very much captures the essence of the Evangelical position. Craig's term is more confusing; it sounds like he's making the resurrected body more "phantom-like" if that makes any sense.

Whaddya mean, "wind up"? As far as I can see you're already there.

Are you serious?? If so, I very much appreciate that! I still have a lot of reading to do but that is indeed a complement that I would feel honored to have spoken of in my favor. And I do indeed mean it when I said that you were one of the best apologists out there. I am dead serious about that!

To be fair, it was outside his scope. And whoops -- I guess Philo, Josephus, and the rabbis MIGHT be called secular sources, right? Or maybe patristic writers, too? By "secular" I had in mind pagan sources. I tend to use this classification system in which sources that are not pagan are not "secular" and that's really not correct, is it?

I only tend to think of pagan sources as "secular". I don't care how "liberal" the Jewish sources are or even the patristic sources are- even if they're on the "radical fringe" (like Evangelicals today believe some of the Gnostics of the 1st century were) that's still not quite "secular" since they were fighting with the mainstream orthodoxy not being an alien spirituality or religious cult altogether.

I just think that if Carrier is going to make his case thorough- he should include secular examples just to give a diverse feeling for how words were used in antiquity. "Soma" and "anastasis" were some of the words and I would be as thorough as I felt necessary if his shoes were on my feet.

I will be very curious to hear your remarks on the first item by Cavin.

I'd probably make that a separate thread and invite other TWebbers who have read The Empty Tomb to comment on (yourself included- that goes without saying)

Yes and no. Carrier uses some of the same arguments in the debate as in teh book, but Licona offered some replies that he does not mention in the book. He did reply to SOME of Licona's comments in the debate itself, but I would have liked to have seen them in the book also, for completeness. And obviously, Licona has his own psot-debate comments as well.

I'd like to see the DVD with the debate. I am also very much interested in Licona's post-debate remarks. Perhaps like Carrier he feels that there are some points he needed to address in the debate but couldn't because of time constraints. If I choose to write my own book or articles- I would definitely include remarks, observations, or arguments from folks like Licona and yourself.

OTOH- I wouldn't expect Carrier to include remarks from Licona in his chapter. I have been waiting two years for this book to be published. Carrier informed me in e-mail that he had contributed three chapters and so the original manuscript was good to go as early as easter of 2004 if I understood Carrier's remarks right. In fact, Carrier wrote his chapter on the "Spiritual Body" as early as two years ago. Prometheus had made the final editing on the book some time ago. There was some disappointment about the book being released this late; IIRC Carrier thought the book should've come out by easter of 2004 as an antidote to Gibson's Passion movie. Carrier wasn't impressed with Prometheus and a number of people have expressed dissatisfaction with the company (well, they publish books by C. Dennis McKinsey- I'm not super-impressed with them). So being that Carrier debated Licona after the chapter was written, I am not all that suprised that Carrier didn't include his remarks. I am suprised that Carrier doesn't seem to have touched on secular sources- that will be disappointing for me.

I won't even trouble you with links to the guy I just worked on who thinks that just going to church for 16 years made him an authority.

J.P.- You needn't bother. I might be yanking my hair out to see this fellow babble on what he probably knows precious little about. I tend to do that with both skeptics and Christians it seems.

You'll see that I do think "transphysical" is in 1 Cor. 15. On the tomb -- well, you can see my reply to Kirby's essay on that at your convenience.

Sure thing. Did you wait up until just now to respond to Kirby? Kirby's chapter was taken from his online writings on the Sec Web. It has been available for some time- did you know about this?

Until next time folks-

Matthew

Originally posted by jpholding

OK, so how far is this from the idea that the resurrection body is glorified flesh -- flesh with something added to it that removes all of its weaknesses?

Unfortunately, nobody has any idea what glorified flesh is.

Any samples of it anywhere?

Perhaps it was made out of ectoplasm, or dark matter.

Or perhaps 'glorified flesh' is something made up by people who simply cannot have any idea what they are talking about for the simple reason that nobody can produce this strange substance, or give us anything even remotely close.....

All matter has weaknesses (as I can demonstrate with this sledgehammer - always a useful thing to have in a theological debate).

Does 'glorified flesh' have no weaknesses yet still have holes in the sides for people to put their hands in? Yes.

Is 'glorified flesh' totally physical and yet can enter locked rooms. Yes.

Can 'glorified flesh' ingest fish and not eventually produce the normal by-products of ingested food? Yes.

'Glorified flesh' is simpy a harmonization between Luke who says that the body which was planted in the ground was the body which rose, and Paul who says that you do not plant the body that will be, and says clearly in 2 Cor. 5 that our heavenly dwelling is made by God, and will not be our earthly tent - which can be destroyed.

Originally posted by jpholding

OK. I like "transphysical" better too. And a thoroughly transformed rez body might not even fit our modern definition of "flesh".

Has the definition of flesh really changed so much?

Presumably 'transphysical' is to 'physical' as 'transatlantic' is to 'Atlantic'.

In which dictionary can I read the definition of 'transphysical'?

Presumably 'transphysical' is a word for people who can see that the Gospels stories of Jesus entering locked rooms is not really consonant with the idea of 'physical', but would still like a word with physical in it....

Originally posted by Matthew

I recall being very much fascinated and intrigued when I realized that many of the cases of fulfilled messianic prophecy were not actually taken out of context (such as Matthew's gospel quoting Hosea in the infancy narrative) but are actually examples of midrash.

How much midrash do you think the evangelists did?

Originally posted by stevencarrwork

Has the definition of flesh really changed so much?

Presumably 'transphysical' is to 'physical' as 'transatlantic' is to 'Atlantic'.

In which dictionary can I read the definition of 'transphysical'?

Presumably 'transphysical' is a word for people who can see that the Gospels stories of Jesus entering locked rooms is not really consonant with the idea of 'physical', but would still like a word with physical in it....

By the sound of it, I would assume that a transphysical object would be one that has both material and immaterial components that manifest simultaneously. You can think of Jesus's body as a body with one foot in the spirit world and the other in the physical.

From what I understand, the idea of a "purely spiritual" resurrection would have been completely meaningless to the mindset of the Hebraic people simply because the Jews had no concept of a "soul" as distinct from the body. The view was rather a totality, that understood the human being as a whole, not compartmentalized as was the Hellenistic emphasis. The idea of a "spiritual" resurrection almost certainly did not exist prior to the advent of the Gnostic heresy.