Paul's Spiritual Resurrection

[liamconnor]

Many take Paul's understanding of Jesus' proclaimed resurrection to be spiritual in form: that is, ethereal, perhaps incorporeal; something that would not effect his corpse in any way.

Little attention has been given to the question of how he imagined the future resurrection of believers would be. Based on the texts (and please provide evidence) does Paul teach/believe that Christians will too have a spiritual resurrection, or a bodily one?

[marco]

Do you agree with this historical assessment?

You have attempted to analyse the situation and you have concluded on the basis of what is presented that it must be true. I don't so conclude.

First of all we take Paul, the writer. Paul is alleged to have been knocked down, blinded and shouted at by a voice from the sky, which he took to be a retaliatory measure from Jesus for his persecutions. I do not believe the interpretation, though there may have been an alarming incident which made Paul suppose he was being divinely pursued. Of course we would expect a huge account of such an important event from Paul, the man of great epistolary talent. We get:

" and last of all he appeared to me also, as to one abnormally born." We have colourful accounts by others, but not from the man himself. This is odd.

Consequently I don't regard Paul as a reliable witness to things he did not witness. You think that his adding" some are alive today" adds veracity. I think the opposite - there are people alive today who saw the risen Christ is a powerful magnet. And since he thought that he too had encountered the divine, he would readily embrace stories that supported his theories.

I think you are more generously disposed towards accepting accounts than professional historians would be.

[liamconnor]

[Replying to post 41 by marco]

[Replying to post 41 by marco]

Marco,

This is a theology, doctrine, dogma subforum. This is not apologetics. If I were arguing that the resurrection occurred, I would a) not do it here, and b) not pose the question such

Little attention has been given to the question of how he IMAGINED the future resurrection of believers would be.

The tone and language of the entire OP is about Paul's BELIEFS and not about the VERACITY of those beliefs. A person here can defend that Christians are not polytheists even while denying the existence of God, whether trinitarian or other, because this subforum is about Theology, Doctrine and Dogma, not apologetics.

Now, there are many who hold Paul to BELIEVE that Jesus was 'spiritually raised' (i.e., left behind a rotting corpse, whether in a tomb or in the bellies' of some dogs) and that the same will occur for Christians. Most of these people do not think Paul was right about those BELIEFS; still, they hold that he did in fact have those BELIEFS.

My argument in THIS thread is that Paul's BELIEFS remained Jewish and saw continuity between the Christian's former body and his or her future body and that Paul's use of the language "spiritual" has nothing to do with the tangibility or physicality of the body.

There is a subtle but important distinction between what a person BELIEVES and the VERACITY of that belief. Think of a Muslim scholar in Christian theology: though he does not believe in the VERACITY of Christian beliefs, he is still expected to identify and communicate those BELIEFS accurately.

So then, in terms of the 500, I was in no way saying that because of the addition "some have died" that therefore Jesus had in fact risen from a tomb; I was countering what you seemed to be insinuating, that Paul invented a story of the 500 in order to attract followers. I do not know how to take the following any other way:

Paul's "five hundred", for example, seems simply an invitation to believe. But if we are discussing if there is any justification for regarding Paul as believing X or Y, then an examination of what has been written will give clues, as far as believers are concerned.

In two sentences you seem to say, 1) Paul made up the 'five hundred' (since it is "Paul's 500") in order to encourage belief and 2) that what has been written can give us clues as to whether Paul believed X or Y.

Thus you seemed to be on board with the OP: analyzing Paul's subjective content, which in this case was conscious that the 500 was a fiction of his own making.

My argument was that the language suggests otherwise; that in fact, Paul had received the tradition of the 500 (i.e., did not make it up, and therefore it cannot be dubbed "Paul's five hundred") and that he believed in their existence.

But now you have added

Consequently I don't regard Paul as a reliable witness to things he did not witness. You think that his adding" some are alive today" adds veracity.

This is quite off-topic, and a misquote. First, Paul is a reliable witness to his own personal BELIEFS, regardless of their VERACITY; second, the quote is

he says that most are still alive.

it is the "some" that have fallen asleep. Now, assuming that you hold Paul to have invented the bit about the 500 in order to compel belief from the Corinthians (which would be a proposition fitting for this OP), how does the clause "some have fallen asleep" act as a "powerful magnet" towards Christian conversion? Why invent that part?

I think you are more generously disposed towards accepting accounts than professional historians would be.

Not in the least. Many Jesus scholars (non-Christian, btw) hold the 500 to be part of Paul's BELIEFS. They deny that 500 people actually saw a dead man walking; but they accept that there were in fact a large number of people who BELIEVED that Jesus was risen. They just think they were wrong.

So, here is the original paragraph that begun this confusion. It is by no means a minority position among scholars. Please notice that none of it has anything to do with the nature of Paul's own conversion. Please note that the operative term "belief" was, in the original, in italics, but I have underlined it here.

Let us compare this hypothesis with another: Paul received the oral creed from the apostles before him, chiefly from Peter and James and John when he visited them (Gal. 1:18 where the pivotal term is ἱστο�ῆσαι, from which we get the word 'history'). The reason the creed included more than 500 people is because at the time 500 people believed the risen Jesus had appeared to them. Paul adds to the creed "most of whom are alive, though some sleep" because at the time he was writing, he knew that a few of these people had died, but most were still alive.

[marco]

Marco, This is a theology, doctrine, dogma subforum.

Liam, I know. I already said this earlier in this very thread.

I was simply replying to your analysis of Paul's way of thinking. It seemed relevant to mention that the man had undergone some weird experience and that might be more influential than prevailing Jewish views on resurrections. He changed his name; he changed his views. Why argue for consistency?

His mention of glories of different bodies suggests he entertained ideas of different types of existence. I place no great faith on what the man thought, but if one wants to guess at what he might have thought of the future dead, I think he saw them as possessing some new form of life. Ethereal beings. He wasn't bereft of intelligence, so he probably saw the absurdity of corpses rolling around and rising.

[liamconnor]

[Replying to post 43 by marco]

I think I see. in which case, my sincere apologies.

I was simply replying to your analysis of Paul's way of thinking. It seemed relevant to mention that the man had undergone some weird experience and that might be more influential than prevailing Jewish views on resurrections.

It is a possibility that his experience over threw all of his background beliefs; that is, it does not involve a contradiction. One would then peruse his letters, extrapolate from them his theology, and compare it with the prevalent Jewish views on the resurrection.

I have done so and find that all of the relevant Pauline literature is quite consistent.

He changed his name;

We have no evidence of this; people of that culture had multiple names. There is no reason to assume that Paul was not already referred by that name when he was among Greeks.

he changed his views.

That is the relevant question.

Why argue for consistency?

Because the evidence suggests consistency; why argue for inconsistency? On the assumption that because he had a crazy experience he must have gone off the deep end?

His mention of glories of different bodies suggests he entertained ideas of different types of existence.

That is quite an interpretation from that little passage; for one, the differences between the lights for Paul would not be differences between substance, but, as he explicitly says, differences between glory (here meaning 'honor').

I place no great faith on what the man thought, but if one wants to guess at what he might have thought of the future dead, I think he saw them as possessing some new form of life. Ethereal beings.

So what do you do with those passages where Paul clearly talks of life (resurrection life) being bestowed upon their mortal bodies? How do you reconstruct the Corinthian's objection to the resurrection; postmortem ethereal existence was congenial to Graeco/Roman ways of thinking. Whatever Paul taught, some Corinthians scoffed at it. So it seems reasonable to look for a concept which Greeks would find absurd.

He wasn't bereft of intelligence, so he probably saw the absurdity of corpses rolling around and rising.

I see no absurdity in the idea of God raising Jesus and transforming his body into a new type. Am I bereft of intelligence? Aristotle reasoned for an un-caused cause; was he 'bereft of intelligence'? The quote is an example of what C.S. Lewis called "chronological snobbery".

he probably saw

Are you relying upon the texts and their relevant background, or are you throwing out ad hoc guesses?

Perhaps this thread does not really interest you...?

[marco]

It is a possibility that his experience over threw all of his background beliefs; that is, it does not involve a contradiction. One would then peruse his letters, extrapolate from them his theology, and compare it with the prevalent Jewish views on the resurrection.

I have done so and find that all of the relevant Pauline literature is quite consistent.

If you've gone to that degree of trouble then that is admirable. However, he DID change his views on matters religious. From being oppressively hostile towards Christian thinking he became a principal spokesman. It is perfectly reasonable to accept that what he once regarded as wrong, he then regarded as solid doctrine. He refers to himself as one who persecuted Christians, which indicates he regretted old ways.

[liamconnor]

[Replying to post 45 by marco]

If you've gone to that degree of trouble then that is admirable. However, he DID change his views on matters religious. From being oppressively hostile towards Christian thinking he became a principal spokesman. It is perfectly reasonable to accept that what he once regarded as wrong, he then regarded as solid doctrine. He refers to himself as one who persecuted Christians, which indicates he regretted old ways.

What in this thread are you specifically arguing for and against? Could you please give a very detailed proposition? I am at a loss and, I will have to say, vague arguments are really, really unimpressive to me. I pride myself on clarity, and to the best of my knowledge no on here has ever wondered at the meaning of one of my posts.

So, what are you getting at here? What is your main point?

[marco]

So, what are you getting at here? What is your main point?

You are asking whether Paul regards resurrection in a spiritual way. I think he does. You contend this would show inconsistency with past beliefs. I see this as an invalid objection given that Paul completely changed his views on Christianity so past loyalties are abandoned. You argue that you've been through Paul and see no inconsistency......

Then look at the circumcision debate where Paul advocated non-circumcision for gentiles, yet still suggested he was pro-circumcision elsewhere. Then - and this is relevant to your OP - we have him arguing for SPIRITUAL circumcision. If he can regard this as a spiritual affair, he can surely regard resurrection as such.
(Romans 2:25-29)

I hope this clears up your difficulties.

[polonius]

So, what are you getting at here? What is your main point?

You are asking whether Paul regards resurrection in a spiritual way. I think he does. You contend this would show inconsistency with past beliefs. I see this as an invalid objection given that Paul completely changed his views on Christianity so past loyalties are abandoned. You argue that you've been through Paul and see no inconsistency......

Then look at the circumcision debate where Paul advocated non-circumcision for gentiles, yet still suggested he was pro-circumcision elsewhere. Then - and this is relevant to your OP - we have him arguing for SPIRITUAL circumcision. If he can regard this as a spiritual affair, he can surely regard resurrection as such.
(Romans 2:25-29)

I hope this clears up your difficulties.

RESPONSE: This reply seems to be confusing two different religious requirements.

1. Jews converting to Christianity still had to be circumcised.

2. Non-Jews converting to Christianity did not have to be circumcised. They only had to observe the Noahide aws

Reference Acts 15 - conversion of non-Jews

"The Seven Laws of Noah (Hebrew: שבע מצוות בני נח‎‎ Sheva Mitzvot B'nei Noah), also referred to as the Noahide Laws or the Noachide Laws (from the English transliteration of the Hebrew pronunciation of "Noah"), are a set of imperatives which, according to the Talmud, were given by God [1] as a binding set of laws for the "children of Noah" – that is, all of humanity.[2][3]

Accordingly, any non-Jew who adheres to these laws because they were given by Moses[4] is regarded as a righteous gentile, and is assured of a place in the world to come (Hebrew: עול� הב�‎‎ Olam Haba), the final reward of the righteous.[5][6]
The seven Noahide laws as traditionally enumerated are the following:[7]

1. Do not deny God.
2. Do not blaspheme God.
3. Do not murder.
4. Do not engage in illicit sexual relations.
5. Do not steal.
6. Do not eat from a live animal.
7. Establish courts/legal system to ensure obedience to said laws.
See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seven_Laws_of_Noah

[marco]

This reply seems to be confusing two different religious requirements.

Really? I thought it was clear that we were discussing Paul's views which opposed Peter's on the question of gentile circumcision. This is the Incident at Antioch referred to in Galatians 2:11–14. I see no confusion.

1. Jews converting to Christianity still had to be circumcised.

We weren't discussing the old Noahide Laws. The Council of Jerusalem exonerated gentiles from the need to be circumcised; this was in accordance with Paul's viewpoint. This is significant in showing that Paul was prepared to abandon the old ways for the new. His comment on "spiritual circumcision" might suggest, too, that he took a liberal interpretation of resurrection.