Is it reasonable to assume a creator?

[Sherlock Holmes]

I think most would agree that the universe is a rationally intelligible system. We can discover structures, patterns, laws and symmetries within the system. Things that happen within the system seem to be related to those laws too. So given all this is it not at least reasonable to form the view that it is the work of an intelligent source? Isn't it at least as reasonable or arguably more reasonable to assume that as it is to assume it just so happens to exist with all these laws, patterns just there, with all that takes place in the universe just being fluke?

If we take some of the laws of physics too, we can write these down very succinctly using mathematics, indeed mathematics seems to be a language that is superb for describing things in the universe, a fine example being Maxwell's equations for the electromagnetic field. Theoretical physicists often say they feel that they are discovering these laws too:

So if the universe can be described in a language like mathematics doesn't that too strongly suggest an intelligent source? much as we'd infer if we stumbled upon clay tablets with writing on them or symbols carved into stone? Doesn't discovery of something written in a language, more or less prove an intelligent source?

So isn't this all reasonable? is there anything unreasonable about this position?

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to Difflugia in post #0]

[Replying to Difflugia in post #347]

The phrase "spiritual body" (σῶμα πνευματικόν) literally means a "body of spirit" or a "body of breath" or something similar. If your argument is that the word "body" must refer to a body of flesh, then Paul's phrase is an oxymoron.

Just like their forefathers ate the same spiritual food and drank the same spiritual drink is an oxymoron that Paul describes in chapter 10. The food and drink that were made here were considered real food and real water that was produced by God. The body was made by God. That is the promise in Christianity that at the end of time we will be given a new physical body. That is what Paul is speaking of here in chapter 15. How we will be raised like Christ with a new body like Christ's.

The only reason why this passage would be confusing is if you misinterpret the word "soma".

This is simply another example of you putting your philosophical preference ahead of actual historical research. You keep trying to use Bultmann's theories of form criticism to interpret the Scripture but his theories have been discredited for the following reasons.

1. Historical grounding

Christianity does exist and it has existed for 2000 years therefore it does have a historical history. The New Testament claims to be based on historically accurate accounts without a historical core of knowledge concerning Jesus, and Christianity would have little initial impetus to encourage faith in others.

John Macquarrie

It is very doubtful whether the Christian faith could have been built upon the foundation of historic Jesus who, as Bultmann presents him, was little more than a teacher of a practical philosophy with certain resemblances to existentialism, and who is stripped of the numinous characteristics that the Gospels attribute to him. Macquarrie, Existentialist Theology pp. 185-186

This was the criticism that was most influential in the demise of form criticism.

2. Assumption of Myth

Bultmann dismisses the historicity of Jesus' resurrection without any investigation. Rather than consider the evidence and reject the priori.

Macquarrie again.

And here we must take Bultmann to task for what appears to be an entirely arbitrary dismissal of the possibility of understanding the resurrection as an objective-historical event. The fallacy of such reasoning is obvious. The one valid way in which we can ascertain whether a certain event took place or not is not by bringing in some sweeping assumption to show that it could have taken place, but to consider the historical evidence available. Macquarrie, Existentialist Theology pp. 186

3. Faulty historiography

Bultmann's methodology is that even contemporary historians oppose the form and redaction criticism that he popularized as the proper approach to New Testament Studies.

A.N. Sherwin-White

So, it is astonishing that while Graeco-Roman historians have been growing in confidence, the twentieth-century study of the Gospel Narratives, starting from no less promising material, has taken so gloomy a turn in the development of form criticism...that the historical Christ is unknowable and the history of his mission cannot be written. This seems very curious. AN Sherwin - White, Roman Society and Roman Law in the New Testament P. 187

Sherwin-White also asserts that the same standards that are commonly applied to ancient secular history can also be applied to New Testament records with the result that a factual account emerges.

Because your allegorical theory is a form of Boltzmann's "form criticism" because it starts with the premise that miracles do not exist just like Bultmann the theory must be discarded.

I'm pretty sure that Paul was using that episode as metaphor.

An "I am pretty sure" and 3 bucks will get you a cup of coffee. But it will not convince anyone of an argument you are trying to make.

Do you also think that the rock that the water came out of was literally Jesus?

Yes, it came from Jesus. He is the Creator of all things. That is the point Paul was making.

EarthScienceguy wrote: ↑Thu May 05, 2022 1:57 pm
The test for confusion is not if someone from the 21st century finds it confusing but how would someone from the first century interpret this verse with their beliefs and traditions. So it takes a little more than you simply declaring it was confusing. Why would someone in the 1st century think it was confusing with the beliefs that they had.
What did I say was confusing? I talked about Paul's phrasing being ambiguous if that's what you mean. Paul talked about different kinds of bodies without ever actually saying what kind of body Jesus was raised into, which means it can be read a number of ways. That's what ambiguous means.

Only if 'soma' is not interpreted as a physical body. And say that Christ did not raise in bodily form from the grave.

Despite this not being a "fact," but Wright's speculative opinion, it's not incompatible with a spiritual resurrection being portrayed allegorically as a physical resurrection. What isn't explained is why a physical resurrection would be represented in the earliest sources as spiritual if the resurrection were a historical occurrence and the sources were attempting to relate history.

As indicated above your form criticism method has been rejected. That means you are making your argument incorrectly. You seem intent on starting your argument from your philosophical belief and then forming the meaning of the text around your philosophical belief. That is what Boltzmann tried and it was rejected. Your argument has to come from the text and historical data.

So how do the text and the historical data of the earliest sources (whatever you think they are because you did not list them) make the conclusion that they were describing a spiritual resurrection?

Christians now recklessly live their lives witnessing to this belief and they do not witness to anything physical, either.

Again that is your philosophical belief just because it is your philosophical belief does not make it fact.

The earliest unambiguous references to Sunday as the day of Christian worship come from the second century.

Again this statement uses no historical evidence in support of your assertion.

1 Corinthians 16:2
On the first day of every week, each of you should set aside a portion of his income, saving it up, so that when I come no collections will be needed.

Acts 20:7
On the first day of the week, when we were gathered together to break bread, Paul talked with them, intending to depart on the next day, and he prolonged his speech until midnight.

Both of these passages are very early.

Paul contrasts being born into a "body of life" (σῶμα ψυχικόν, usually translated as "natural body") and being raised into a "body of spirit" (σῶμα πνευματικόν). Luke's Jesus says that he is not a "spirit" (πνεῦμα). What does that mean? Does having a body of spirit mean the same as being a spirit? If not, what does Paul mean? If so, is Luke's Jesus contradicting Paul? All you've apparently refuted is that Paul and Luke had the same idea of what kind of body Jesus was resurrected into.

Again both use the word 'soma' body and Jesus asks them the touch Him so he had to have a body to be touched.

They would not believe he was the Messiah if he was not alive in physical form. If He did not have a spiritual body "soma".

Luke does say that the resurrection was bodily, but that's specifically one of the parts that I'm claiming as allegory and is the point of this discussion.

So why are you claiming this is allegorical? You have yet to show how the historical data leads to the conclusion that Luke was writing allegorical, without relying on your own philosophical belief. You may not like the idea of miracles but Boltzmann's "form criticism" has been rejected.

Your argument that Paul's use of soma means a physical body even when it's qualified with pneumatikon is no more than an unsupported claim and a facile one at that.

It is very well supported when we examine how Paul uses the same phrase in other parts of his writing in 1 Corinthians 10:4 he used the same terminology to refer to actual physical matter. When Paul was speaking of "spiritual water" and "spiritual food" he was speaking of actual food and water that was made by God.

Paul also explains himself in Romans 8:11 "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." We will be raised like Jesus our mortal bodies will be raised to life Just like Jesus's body was raised.

You keep conflating the spiritual resurrection of Paul and Mark with a physical resurrection without offering any reason to think that conflation is valid.

What historical facts are you basing this assessment of your theory on? Or is this just another one of your belief statements not grounded in any historical fact?

The earliest reference we have to Christ's resurrection is Galatians, generally dated to the early A.D. 50s. Anything earlier than that is speculative.

This statement is so outside modern scholarship that it can only be considered a token belief that you have.

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to Tcg in post #350]

Even those who claim to be god die just like any other humans. Claims, whatever they may be, do nothing to change this fact.

Except when they are based in fact.

12 facts of the resurrection

1. Jesus Died by Crucifixion
The nature of Roman crucifixion assures death. Before his crucifixion, Roman “lictors”: flogged Jesus (Mark 15:24-41). They tortured him to the point of “half-death.”

Then crucifixion demanded the pounding of nails into his hands and feet. And he hung on the cross slowly suffocating from nine in the morning until just before sunset (Mark 15:25, 33).

To ensure Jesus’s death, the governor Pilate had a Roman soldier stab his side with a spear (John 19:34). Then Pilate allowed Joseph of Arimathea to take Jesus’s body for burial (Mark 15:44–45).

2. Jesus Was Buried in a Tomb
Joseph of Arimathea put Jesus’s body in his new tomb and rolled a large stone across the entrance (Matt. 27:57-61; Mark 15:46; Luke 23:53-54; John 19:39-42). Concerned that someone might steal the body, the Jews requested a guard at the tomb (Matt. 27:64-66). Christ’s body remained there until Sunday morning.

3. Jesus’s Death Caused the Disciples to Despair and Lose Hope, Believing That He Was Dead
The disciple’s desperation is understandable. Jesus’ shameful execution marked him as a criminal, a heretic, and a man accursed by God.

4. Jesus’s Tomb Was Empty a Few Days Later
This point is not as accepted by scholars as much as the other eleven. But many scholars do believe that on Sunday, witnesses discovered Jesus’ tomb empty.

Each gospel provides an “empty tomb” scene (Matt. 28:1–8; Mark 16:1–8; Luke 24:1–12; John 20:1–8) with an angel appearing to confirm that “He is not here. He is risen” (Matt. 28:6; Mark 16:6; Luke 24:6; John 20:12).

5. The Disciples Had Experiences Which They Believed Were the Literal Appearances of the Risen Jesus
Jesus appeared to more than 500 different eyewitnesses (1 Cor. 15:6) in various settings.

He appeared on at least ten occasions during the forty days after his resurrection (Matt. 28:1-10, 16-20; Mark 16:9-12, 14-19; Luke 24:34-52; John 20:18-28; 21:1-23; 1 Cor. 15:4-7).

6. The Transformation of the Disciples
The transformation of the disciples resulted from their experiences with the risen Lord. They went from doubters (John 20:19) to fearless proclaimers of Jesus’s resurrection. They even died for their faith.

7. The Resurrection of Jesus Was the Center of Their Message
Christ’s resurrection was the subject of Peter’s first sermon at Pentecost (Acts 2:22–40). His following address was at the temple (Acts 3:14, 26) and then before the Jewish Sanhedrin (Acts 4:10).

Everywhere the apostles went, they preached the resurrection of Jesus (Acts 4:33; Acts 4:2).

8. The Disciples Proclaimed the Resurrection in Jerusalem where Jesus was Killed
Jesus was killed and buried in Jerusalem. And it was here where the apostles told others about his resurrection (Acts 19:39).

The apostles had repeated confrontations with the Jewish authorities. These Jewish leaders could not produce the body, nor did they even organize a search.

Instead, these leaders bribed the soldiers who had guarded the tomb to lie (Matt. 28:11–15). The actions of the Jewish leaders show that the tomb was empty.

9. As A Result of Their Preaching, the Church was Born and Grew
There are lots of good reasons why the Church should never have started! For instance, the first church was predominantly made up of Jews. Jews are monotheistic (Deut. 6:4), yet they proclaimed that Jesus (a man) was God.

Also, there was a host of problems almost immediately. The difficulties included persecution, threats, and death (Acts 7:57-60).

Yet salvation came to 3,000 people when Peter preached in Jerusalem (Acts 2:41). And the numbers of new Christians swelled daily (Acts 2:47).

Within days, 2,000 more became believers (Acts 4:4). And the number of disciples continued to increase rapidly. As a result of the growth, care for the widows fell to appointed “deacons” (assistants to the church leaders) (Acts 6:1).

10. Sunday Became the Primary Day of Worship Instead of the Jewish Sabbath On Saturday
Jesus’s resurrection was on the first day of the week (Matt. 28:1). So Christians made Sunday their primary day of worship (Acts 20:7; 1 Cor. 16:2).

11. James, The Half-brother of Jesus, Had Been a Skeptic but Converted
Before his resurrection, Jesus’ half-brothers were unbelievers (John 7:5). But after James saw the resurrected Jesus, he converted (1 Cor. 15:7).

James became an early church leader in Jerusalem (Acts 15:13). He wrote the New Testament book that bears his name, and he died for his belief in Jesus.

12. A Few Years Later, The Skeptic Paul Converted
Jesus’ last physical appearance was to the apostle Paul (Acts 9:1-9; 22:5-11; 26:12-18; 1 Cor. 9:1; 15:8-10). Before his conversion, Paul was an opponent of Christianity. He was present at the disciple Stephen’s stoning (Acts 8:1).

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to JoeyKnothead in post #349]

Even a preponderance of evidence don't make a fact.

But the fact does have to explain the evidence.

[Miles]

[Replying to JoeyKnothead in post #349]

Even a preponderance of evidence don't make a fact.

But the fact does have to explain the evidence.

What fact has to explain the evidence we have for dark energy?

What fact has to explain the evidence we have for the rare allergy to water?

What fact has to explain the evidence we have for the Big Bang?

What fact has to explain the evidence we have for the disappearance of Amelia Earhart?

What fact has to explain the evidence we have for quantum entanglement?


.

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to Miles in post #354]

You are seriously asking this?

What fact has to explain the evidence we have for dark energy?

What is the evidence for dark energy? That is what it has to explain.

What fact has to explain the evidence we have for the rare allergy to water?

What is the evidence of this rare allegy to water. That is what the fact has to eplain.

What fact has to explain the evidence we have for the Big Bang?

What is the evidence for the Big Bang and that is what the facts have to explain.

What fact has to explain the evidence we have for the disappearance of Amelia Earhart?

What is the evidence that Amelia Earhart has disappeared and that is what the facts have to explain


What fact has to explain the evidence we have for quantum entanglement?

What is the evidence for quantum entanglement and that is what the facts have to expain.

[JoeyKnothead]

[Replying to JoeyKnothead in post #349]

Even a preponderance of evidence don't make a fact.

But the fact does have to explain the evidence.

How cute.

The bottom line is you can't no more put reliable fact to Jesus ever existing than you can any of them other claims you went on about.

[Miles]

Replying to Miles in post #354
What fact has to explain the evidence we have for dark energy?

What is the evidence for dark energy? That is what it has to explain.

For starters, here are five sources that address the evidence for the existence of dark energy: THIS, THIS, THIS, THIS, and THIS. NOW, what fact (singular, you indicate) has to explain the evidence I linked to?



---For reasons that should be obvious I'm not going to bother digging up evidence for the rest of my examples---


.

[Difflugia]

The phrase "spiritual body" (σῶμα πνευματικόν) literally means a "body of spirit" or a "body of breath" or something similar. If your argument is that the word "body" must refer to a body of flesh, then Paul's phrase is an oxymoron.

Just like their forefathers ate the same spiritual food and drank the same spiritual drink is an oxymoron that Paul describes in chapter 10. The food and drink that were made here were considered real food and real water that was produced by God. The body was made by God. That is the promise in Christianity that at the end of time we will be given a new physical body. That is what Paul is speaking of here in chapter 15. How we will be raised like Christ with a new body like Christ's.

The only reason why this passage would be confusing is if you misinterpret the word "soma".

I'm really trying to figure out what your argument is here. Your claim is that Luke cannot have been writing allegory, in part because early belief in a physical resurrection means that the physical resurrection in Luke was real. Your further claim is that Paul's spiritual body was actually a physical body because he used the Greek word for "body." So, Luke's Jesus must have been speaking literally when he spoke of "flesh and bone," but Paul must have been speaking figuratively when using the word "spiritual?" This just sounds like taking particular theological interpretations and claiming that they are necessarily obvious and correct without providing any sort of logical connection. That's a perfect example of ad hoc reasoning.

This is simply another example of you putting your philosophical preference ahead of actual historical research. You keep trying to use Bultmann's theories of form criticism to interpret the Scripture but his theories have been discredited for the following reasons.

Bultmann? Form criticism? Is this the start of another Gish gallop? "Bultmann's theories" revolved around the attempt to isolate a historical Jesus, interpret his presumably genuine sayings in the light ("Sitz im Leben") of his Palestinian Judaism, then examine how those sayings were reinterpreted by the Hellenistic communities that later wrote the Gospels. I'm really curious what Google search led you to connect that to my arguments.

Because your allegorical theory is a form of [Bultmann's] "form criticism" because it starts with the premise that miracles do not exist just like Bultmann the theory must be discarded.

That's not what defines form criticism.

I'm pretty sure that Paul was using that episode as metaphor.

An "I am pretty sure" and 3 bucks will get you a cup of coffee. But it will not convince anyone of an argument you are trying to make.

Do you also think that the rock that the water came out of was literally Jesus?

Yes, it came from Jesus. He is the Creator of all things. That is the point Paul was making.

That means that it's figuratively Jesus. Paul's point is that the literal food and drink provided by God through Moses in the desert are metaphors for the spiritual sustenance provided by God through Jesus. God's delivery of the Israelites from the harsh wilderness through Moses mirror His delivery of Christians from the wilderness of the sinful nature.

Do you have any study Bibles? Any of them with even the slightest theological bent should have a comment at that verse telling you the same thing that the NIV Study Bible does:

that rock was Christ. The rock, from which the water came, and the manna are here viewed by Paul as symbolic of the spiritual sustenance God’s people experienced already in the desert through Christ, the bread of life and the water of life.

A much longer discussion is available in the First Corinthians volume of the International Critical Commentary series. That volume was written in 1914 and is now in the public domain. A scan is available at Internet Archive and the discussion for verse 10:4 begins on page 201.

Paul talked about different kinds of bodies without ever actually saying what kind of body Jesus was raised into, which means it can be read a number of ways. That's what ambiguous means.

Only if 'soma' is not interpreted as a physical body. And say that Christ did not raise in bodily form from the grave.

You're just saying that if you reject any readings that don't match the one you prefer, then it's no longer ambiguous. That certainly describes a lot of what passes for Christian exegesis, but it's not a valid argument.

So how do the text and the historical data of the earliest sources (whatever you think they are because you did not list them) make the conclusion that they were describing a spiritual resurrection?

I did list them: the Gospel of Mark and the Pauline epistles, 1 Corinthians in particular. I'm using the accepted date of Galatians as representative of the entire corpus. There are no earlier sources for Christ's resurrection.

Mark's original ending through 16:8 describes the resurrection only in terms of an empty tomb.

Paul says that a spiritual body is different than a living body and that the living body must die before one might be raised into a spiritual body.

The earliest unambiguous references to Sunday as the day of Christian worship come from the second century.

Again this statement uses no historical evidence in support of your assertion.

Then find an earlier, unambiguous statement.

1 Corinthians 16:2
On the first day of every week, each of you should set aside a portion of his income, saving it up, so that when I come no collections will be needed.

This doesn't refer to worship at all.

Acts 20:7
On the first day of the week, when we were gathered together to break bread, Paul talked with them, intending to depart on the next day, and he prolonged his speech until midnight.

This isn't unambiguous as it would also be compatible with Jewish Christians observing the Sabbath on Saturday, then engaging in some sort of Christian fellowship on Sunday. Your argument hinges on the claim that Jewish Christians moved the Sabbath from Saturday to Sunday.

Again both use the word 'soma' body and Jesus asks them the touch Him so he had to have a body to be touched. They would not believe he was the Messiah if he was not alive in physical form. If He did not have a spiritual body "soma".

In Luke, which also denies that Jesus is a pneuma. Paul describes the body as pneumatikon and includes no such touching.

So why are you claiming this is allegorical? You have yet to show how the historical data leads to the conclusion that Luke was writing allegorical, without relying on your own philosophical belief.

At this point, you're still defending your claim that it can't, so I only have to support that it can (and I'll even accept having to defend that it's reasonable), not that it does in fact.

If the Christian resurrection was still viewed as spiritual when the Gospel of Luke was written, then Luke was telling representative stories about the visionary appearances by recasting them as physical appearances to make the story more visceral and real.

You may not like the idea of miracles but [Bultmann's] "form criticism" has been rejected.

You may not like the idea of non sequiturs, but kumquats are delicious.

It is very well supported when we examine how Paul uses the same phrase in other parts of his writing in 1 Corinthians 10:4 he used the same terminology to refer to actual physical matter. When Paul was speaking of "spiritual water" and "spiritual food" he was speaking of actual food and water that was made by God.

Theologians disagree with you.

Paul also explains himself in Romans 8:11 "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." We will be raised like Jesus our mortal bodies will be raised to life Just like Jesus's body was raised.

Yes. Just like Jesus' living, perishable body was raised into a spiritual, imperishable body.

The earliest reference we have to Christ's resurrection is Galatians, generally dated to the early A.D. 50s. Anything earlier than that is speculative.

This statement is so outside modern scholarship that it can only be considered a token belief that you have.

I assume you're referring to early sources of Christ's resurrection and not the dating of Galatians. I also think that you didn't understand the scholarship. Unless I'm mistaken and you can provide a different one, the earliest written reference to Christ's resurrection is the earliest of Paul's epistles, Galatians. If we assume that Paul's statement about the resurrection in Galatians is based on his knowledge of the creed in 1 Corinthians 15 and the creed isn't Paul's own composition, then it must necessarily predate 1 Corinthians. By how much it does so is speculation.

Even if we accept the creed as formative to all forms of Christianity, then it still only supports that early Christians believed in some form of resurrection. Paul himself describes the resurrection as "spiritual," so apparently however he understood the creed is compatible with a ghostly (the same word in Greek) body. The only argument against this that you've provided is your insistence that soma must refer to a physical body, Paul's description notwithstanding.

[historia]

I'm really trying to figure out what your argument is here.

Sorry to butt in here, but this is one of my pet topics, so maybe I can help flesh this out a bit (no pun intended).

The phrase "spiritual body" (σῶμα πνευματικόν) literally means a "body of spirit" or a "body of breath" or something similar.

Sure, but that doesn't necessarily mean a "body made out of spirit" (or breath), as you seem to take it.

It could mean a "body animated by spirit" (or wind). Just as the English word 'wind turbine' does not describe a machine made out of wind, but rather one powered by it.

If your argument is that the word "body" must refer to a body of flesh, then Paul's phrase is an oxymoron.

Not if Paul means a body animated by or embodied by spirit -- or, better, the Spirit.

Several things point in that direction:

First, Greek adjectives that end with the suffix -ikos (as Paul is using here) do not generally refer to what something is made of. If you want to describe what something is made of, you would instead likely use an adjective with the suffix -inos.

We see a good example of pneumatikos outside the New Testament in the Roman architect Virtuvius, who, in writing about ancient machines, notes that the Greeks have several different types of machines, including those "worked by air, which with them is called πνευματικὁν" (Virtuvius 10.1.1). An organon pneumatikon, then, is a tool driven by wind, not made of it.

Second, Paul's usage of the same term earlier in 1 Cor. is not about material composition:

The natural (psychikos) person does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and he is not able to understand them because they are spiritually discerned. The spiritual (pneumatikos) person judges all things, but is himself to be judged by no one.

Obviously, Paul is talking here about flesh-and-blood people, so a "spiritual person" cannot mean a person made out of spirit.

Finally, coming back to the phrase "spiritual body" itself, the contrast Paul makes in 1 Cor. 15:44 compels us against viewing the adjective "spiritual" as entailing material composition.

It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body. If there is a natural body, there is also a spiritual body.

Paul is contrasting a soma psychikon ("natural body") with a soma pneumatikon ("spiritual body") -- the same contrast we just saw him make in 2:14-15, but there about persons.

If soma pneumatikon means a "body made out of spirit" (pneuma) then to be consistent we would have to view the soma psychikon as a "body made out of soul" (psyche). But that can't be Paul's meaning, as the soma psychikon is the body we posses now, which is composed of flesh and blood.

Instead, it seems that what Paul is saying here in 1 Cor. 15:44 is that the body we possess now is animated by or embodied by the soul, while the resurrected body will be animated by or embodied by the Spirit.

But the body in both cases is very much physical, as the word soma would normally entail.

[Difflugia]

Sorry to butt in here, but this is one of my pet topics, so maybe I can help flesh this out a bit (no pun intended).

Butt on in! I certainly stick my nose (and more) where it wasn't invited, so I can hardly criticize you for doing the same thing.

The phrase "spiritual body" (σῶμα πνευματικόν) literally means a "body of spirit" or a "body of breath" or something similar.

Sure, but that doesn't necessarily mean a "body made out of spirit" (or breath), as you seem to take it.

It could mean a "body animated by spirit" (or wind). Just as the English word 'wind turbine' does not describe a machine made out of wind, but rather one powered by it.

If your argument is that the word "body" must refer to a body of flesh, then Paul's phrase is an oxymoron.

Not if Paul means a body animated by or embodied by spirit -- or, better, the Spirit.

Several things point in that direction:

First, Greek adjectives that end with the suffix -ikos (as Paul is using here) do not generally refer to what something is made of. If you want to describe what something is made of, you would instead likely use an adjective with the suffix -inos.

I hadn't considered this and had to think about this for a while, but I think there's enough overlap both in how the suffix is used and within Paul's context that Paul still means a spiritual body as opposed to an earthy physical body.

I'll agree that -inos is narrow enough that Paul could have made his statement less ambiguous by constructing the word spiritual that way, in the way that "made of bronze" is χάλκινος and "made of steel" is ἀδαμάντινος. -ikos, however, isn't opposed to -inos or narrow enough in a way that the two don't overlap. It broadly just indicates a relationship with the root of the adjective, not necessitating, but also not excluding composition. For example, ὑλικός broadly means "material" in a way that includes "made of matter." In fact, I find that word particularly interesting because it's based on a similar metaphor of "wood" or "timber" (ὕλη) for "material" as "wind" or "breath" is for "spirit."

So, I'll dial back the "oxymoron" comment, but that still doesn't rescue EarthScienceguy's argument, which is that soma necessitates a physical body on Earth as opposed to an ephemeral one in Heaven in order to (somehow) prove that the resurrection was real. That it merely could be physical still isn't good enough.

In any case, I enjoyed re-reading 1 Corinthians in light of your argument, as well as trolling through the dictionary and Perseus collection for adjectives ending in -ικος and -ινος.

We see a good example of pneumatikos outside the New Testament in the Roman architect Virtuvius, who, in writing about ancient machines, notes that the Greeks have several different types of machines, including those "worked by air, which with them is called πνευματικὁν" (Virtuvius 10.1.1). An organon pneumatikon, then, is a tool driven by wind, not made of it.

Second, Paul's usage of the same term earlier in 1 Cor. is not about material composition:

The natural (psychikos) person does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and he is not able to understand them because they are spiritually discerned. The spiritual (pneumatikos) person judges all things, but is himself to be judged by no one.

Obviously, Paul is talking here about flesh-and-blood people, so a "spiritual person" cannot mean a person made out of spirit.

I agree, but in this case Paul isn't discussing the person's body. If we, I think reasonably, treat psychikos as meaning "of the natural realm" and pneumatikos as "of the spiritual realm," then both contrasts still make sense.

Paul is fond of few things more than overused metaphors. Paul speaks of living Christians "receiving the spirit of God" that they might know the "things of God," just as the spirit of a person is the only thing that can know the things of that person (2:11).

The metaphor in chapter 15, though, is different. He's not talking about the difference between a natural discernment and a discernment empowered by God's spirit, but that between a natural body and spiritual body. Following verse 44, he makes a series of contrasts that all point to the same thing, that the perishable, earthly, material body is replaced with an imperishable, heavenly, spiritual one.

In verse 45, he contrasts Adam's existence as a "living" (zosan) "life" (psyche) with Christ's post-resurrection existence as a "life giving" (zoopoioun) "spirit" (pneuma). This contrasts an animate, natural existence with an animating, supernatural one. Note also that whether one decides it to be literal or metaphorical, this verse explicitly refers to the risen Christ as transforming into (note the preposition εἰς) a "pneuma."

Assuming that Paul's combination of words isn't accidental, the previous contrast of "life" with "spirit" is followed immediately in verse 46 by a contrast of "living" (psychikon) with "spiritual" (pneumatikon). The living existence must come first, then it dies to be replaced by a spiritual one.

The next three verses are even more telling. The first man, Adam, was out of the earth and of dust (note the -ikos ending on choikos, "of dust"). The second man, Christ, was out of heaven. The question here is if "earth" and "heaven" should be capitalized. Given the contrast and the fact that "heaven" is singular, I think the verse should read: "The first man was from the Earth, of dust, the second man was from Heaven."

Paul then repeats the statement, this time including the rest of humanity. As Adam was "of dust," so too, all who inhabit the same sphere are "of dust." As Christ was the man "of Heaven," so too, all who inhabit the same sphere are "of Heaven." in the context of this discussion, the contrast can only be before and after the resurrection. He is contrasting "of dust" with "of heaven." Given the obvious reference to Genesis 2:7, do you think that the metaphor is referring to the same physical bodies, one of which is powered by the soul and one powered by spirit without making a statement of their composition and perhaps plane of existence? I don't.

Finally, coming back to the phrase "spiritual body" itself, the contrast Paul makes in 1 Cor. 15:44 compels us against viewing the adjective "spiritual" as entailing material composition.

It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body. If there is a natural body, there is also a spiritual body.

Paul is contrasting a soma psychikon ("natural body") with a soma pneumatikon ("spiritual body") -- the same contrast we just saw him make in 2:14-15, but there about persons.

If soma pneumatikon means a "body made out of spirit" (pneuma) then to be consistent we would have to view the soma psychikon as a "body made out of soul" (psyche). But that can't be Paul's meaning, as the soma psychikon is the body we posses now, which is composed of flesh and blood.

Instead, it seems that what Paul is saying here in 1 Cor. 15:44 is that the body we possess now is animated by or embodied by the soul, while the resurrected body will be animated by or embodied by the Spirit.

But the body in both cases is very much physical, as the word soma would normally entail.

And this is what I mentioned earlier. If psychikon refers broadly to "of the natural world," as I think it reasonably does, then the first contrast is between people with natural discernment and those with spiritual discernment. Paul explicitly says as much in verse 12, by defining the spiritual person as having received the spirit of God that allows judgement.

The second contrast is meant to be the same sort of contrast, but Paul is recasting the same imagery to illustrate the actual substance of the body, the transformation from the literal dust of Genesis 2:7 to the literal heavenly spirit of 1 Corinthians 15:45. Those resurrected will then no longer look like Adam of dust, but will look like Christ of heaven—a Christ whose appearance Paul knows to be different from that of earthly men, because Christ has appeared to him.