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?

[polonius]

We make sense of it by reading John:

"I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me " (John 14:6).

Life here is used in a figurative sense. The mortal body is corruptible and dies. But Jesus is offering life eternal, and we can each figure out what that means in terms of an afterlife.

RESPONSE: But we don't know what Jesus said if he said anything at all about the matter. All we have are accounts by non-witnesses written 40 to 60 years after the his death.

Excerpted from A Concise History of the Catholic Church
By Father Thomas Bokenkotter, SS

"The Gospels were not meant to be a historical or biographical account of Jesus. They were written to convert unbelievers to faith in Jesus as the Messiah of God, risen and living now in his church and coming again to judge all men. Their authors did not deliberately invent or falsify facts about Jesus, but they were not primarily concerned with historical accuracy. They readily included material drawn from the Christian communities' experience of the risen Jesus. Words, for instance, were put in the mouth of Jesus and stories were told about him which, though not historical in the strict sense, nevertheless, in the minds of the evangelists, fittingly expressed the real meaning and intent of Jesus as faith had come to perceive him. For this reason, scholars have come to make a distinction between the Jesus of history and the Christ of faith."

So we really don't know what Jesus said or what was made up and attributed to him.

For this reason, it's prudent not to automatically accept scripture as the word of God whcih some people want us to do.

[marco]

But we don't know what Jesus said if he said anything at all about the matter. All we have are accounts by non-witnesses written 40 to 60 years after the his death.

A discussion for another place, Polonius. Though I don't disagree with you, or with the Jesuit you quote, I am playing by the rules here and using internal evidence to argue points. We accept what the Bible says as supportive.

[polonius]

But we don't know what Jesus said if he said anything at all about the matter. All we have are accounts by non-witnesses written 40 to 60 years after his death.

A discussion for another place, Polonius. Though I don't disagree with you, or with the Jesuit you quote, I am playing by the rules here and using internal evidence to argue points. We accept what the Bible says as supportive.

RESPONSE: "Supportive" but not entirely factual.

Some people may claim "bible truth", but not usually historians. Some of the information contained in the Bible is factual, but much is just a narrative written to convert unbelievers.

If you are trying to use the Bible as any type of a source document, you have to recognize its limitations. If you are trying to use it as a source here, this is certainly the place for this discussion of its limitations.

Jesus was one of several Messiah candidates of his period. He was a traveling preacher and claimed to be the Messiah (see Matthew, Mark, and Luke). Unfortunately, that would have made him King of the Jews. So he was crucified as an insurrectionist by the Romans.

Later, in about 85 AD following Jesus's death, his followers began to claim he was divine himself (see John, c 95 AD). This was a cause of the parting of the ways with Jews, who maintained "Hear O Israel, the Lord is One" as they do to this day.

[marco]

"Supportive" but not entirely factual.

It cannot be supportive if it's not factual. What the Evangelists say we are regarding as supporting evidence of what we are arguing.

I have otherwise no problem with what you're saying. I believe we are discussing Paul's meaning and what we can take from his words.

[polonius]

"Supportive" but not entirely factual.

It cannot be supportive if it's not factual. What the Evangelists say we are regarding as supporting evidence of what we are arguing.

I have otherwise no problem with what you're saying. I believe we are discussing Paul's meaning and what we can take from his words.

RESPONSE: " It cannot be supportive if it's not factual."

I'm glad you agree with me!

Thus you would have to establish that certain sections of the Bible are factual before you can claim them as evidence.

Alternately, if you claim that the Bible is all divinely inspired you would have to explain away all the Bible's errors and contradictions.

[polonius]

In his own word, Paul admits that:


Romans 3:7New Revised Standard Version (NRSV)

7 But if through my falsehood God’s truthfulness abounds to his glory, why am I still being condemned as a sinner?


1 Corinthians 9:20-22New Revised Standard Version (NRSV)

20 To the Jews I became as a Jew, in order to win Jews. To those under the law I became as one under the law (though I myself am not under the law) so that I might win those under the law. 21 To those outside the law I became as one outside the law (though I am not free from God’s law but am under Christ’s law) so that I might win those outside the law. 22 To the weak I became weak, so that I might win the weak. I have become all things to all people, that I might by all means save some.

(Someone has claimed that Paul is the patron of used car salesmen.)

[marco]

Thus you would have to establish that certain sections of the Bible are factual before you can claim them as evidence.

I don't need to. It's assumed in the Theology, Doctrine and Dogma forum.

Alternately, if you claim that the Bible is all divinely inspired you would have to explain away all the Bible's errors and contradictions.

As I say, one does that in another forum, not here. I don't disagree with what you're saying, but you're saying it in the wrong place, that's all.

[polonius]

Thus you would have to establish that certain sections of the Bible are factual before you can claim them as evidence.

Marco posted:

I don't need to. It's assumed in the Theology, Doctrine and Dogma forum.

RESPONSE:

Evidence, please.

[myth-one.com]

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?

So also is the resurrection of the dead. It is sown in corruption; it is raised in incorruption: It is sown in dishonor; it is raised in glory: it is sown in weakness; it is raised in power: It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body. There is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body. And so it is written, The first man Adam was a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit.

Paul is referring to Christians when he writes the Books of Corinthians. Specifically, the Christians at Corinth.

So the Christian body that is sown is corruptible, dishonored, weak, and a natural body.

The analogy is that the physical body is being buried or sown like a seed when we die.

At the resurrection, Christians are raised up as incorruptible, glorified, powerful, spiritual bodies.

So dead Christians will be resurrected as spiritual bodies at the resurrection.

Since this is their second birth, they have been "born again."

The first man Adam was a living, breathing being or soul. The last Adam was made a quickening spirit or spiritual body.

[marco]

Evidence, please.

Evidence of what? Just read the rules. I have no wish to defend Paul; I was simply arguing the case that the Resurrection could be taken as spiritual. I was told that the body is returned to LIFE and I replied that Jesus used the term life figuratively.

I don't believe there was a resurrection. I'm treating the discussion as I would treat Hamlet, using the text.

You want to question whether Jesus actually said this. Fine. But we are picking apples not strawberries here. It is sufficient to point out the text Via, Veritas, Vita which indicates life can be used in a figurative way and your objection is irrelevant....
good, but irrelevant.