|
Post by Josh on Dec 14, 2009 20:55:00 GMT -8
Last pubagetics we discussed the somewhat popular argument that Paul's writings (the earliest of the New Testament) reflect a belief in a spiritual raising of Jesus, but not a physical one.
The argument then runs that it was only later, around the time the gospels were written, that Christians attempted to make the claim that Jesus had physically risen from the dead.
This argument is usually supported with the following passages from Paul:
1 Cor. 15:42-50 42So will it be with the resurrection of the dead. The body that is sown is perishable, it is raised imperishable; 43it is sown in dishonor, it is raised in glory; it is sown in weakness, it is raised in power; 44it is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body. If there is a natural body, there is also a spiritual body. 45So it is written: "The first man Adam became a living being"[e]; the last Adam, a life-giving spirit. 46The spiritual did not come first, but the natural, and after that the spiritual. 47The first man was of the dust of the earth, the second man from heaven. 48As was the earthly man, so are those who are of the earth; and as is the man from heaven, so also are those who are of heaven. 49And just as we have borne the likeness of the earthly man, so shall we[f] bear the likeness of the man from heaven.
50I declare to you, brothers, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God, nor does the perishable inherit the imperishable.
We discussed reasons why the above is a misunderstanding of Paul's theology, such as:
1) Paul was of the Pharisitical school of thought on resurrection, which insisted on a physical resurrection.
2) Paul's use of the word "flesh" (sarx in the Greek) is not used to describe the "body" but what he elsewhere calls the "natural man", or "corrupted flesh"- what could be called the "sinful nature" or aspect of our physicality.
3) Paul was not a Platonist despiser of physicality, but was thoroughly Jewish in the outlook that the physical things God had created are "good"
4) Old Testament passages indicate the Jewish belief (or at least the interpreation of some) that the Messiah would not see "corruption in the grave"
5) Luke definitely believed in a physical resurrection- and Paul and Luke were ministry partners with no gap of time between them. If they had disagreed on such a fundamental issue, where is the evidence?
6) Paul makes no clear distinction between the historical Jesus and the mystical one, so to suppose it is dubious.
Anyway, Douglas and Karen came over the other week and Douglas pointed out to me perhaps the best counter arguments yet:
1) If Paul wanted to say that the physical body is not raised, he should have/ could have/ would have used the Greek word "soma" rather than "sarx"
2) In Romans 8:11 and 8:23-24a Paul says:
And if the Spirit of him who raised Jesus from the dead is living in you, he who raised Christ from the dead will also give life to your mortal bodies through his Spirit, who lives in you.
Not only so, but we ourselves, who have the firstfruits of the Spirit, groan inwardly as we wait eagerly for our adoption as sons, the redemption of our bodies. For in this hope we were saved
How much clearly could he be that he sees resurrection not as a bodiless afterlife, but as the transformation of our perishable physical bodies into imperishable physical bodies?
Thanks, Douglas. Interesting that two great verses were there right under my nose.
|
|
|
Post by yeshuafreak on Jan 28, 2010 15:20:31 GMT -8
havent the slightest idea what that means.
this argument is fruitless for me- i do not believe in the infallibility of what Paul writes. R. Sha'ul was a RABBI, not God. And even God makes "mistakes" as we call them that (they would not be from his point of view, which we are aiming for).
but here goes. I expect to get something out of this Josh! :-D
The opposite is true. "Soma" refers to the whole body. If he wanted to say that physical body IS raised, he would have used Soma, not sarx. His use of the word Sarx indicates an allegory.
for those verses, the only use of them to me is allegory. The fact is, the atoms in my body have been around for millions of billions of years. They were also part of other creatures and humans. The atoms in my body now will all be gone seven years from now. If our bodies AS THEY ARE NOW are raised and transformed (as paul said) than we willall be siamese twins and sharing atoms. It would not be possible.
One cannot deny that Paul's idea of the resurrection is primitive, even if one holds to the resurrection.
-John
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Jan 28, 2010 18:05:54 GMT -8
The importance of Paul on this subject doesn't have to do with one's view of inspiration. Paul gets fixated on at this point because his letters are the earliest NT documents. People who hold the view you do cannot get away from the fact that the Gospels teach a physically resurrected Messiah. So they must attempt to demonstrate that they are later corruptions of an earlier metaphorical teaching in Paul. So looking at what Paul actually meant is very important.
If you concede that Paul did have a physical resurrection in mind (it's not clear at all to me what you think because you started off saying he didn't and then you seem to say his view is primitive precisely because it insists on physicality) that is enough to demonstrate that the oldest view of the church is that Jesus physically rose from the dead.
It's really a losing battle to attempt to demonstrate that the earliest Christians saw Jesus' resurrection as merely a metaphor, and the above reasons are just a few.
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Jan 28, 2010 18:06:35 GMT -8
Pubagetics is our monthly "apologetics in a pub" group, btw I'll see if I can get Douglas (Greek major) to come chime in about his sarx/ soma point.
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Jan 28, 2010 20:52:40 GMT -8
John (yf)- I have a recommendation for you. No study or perspective on this subject would be complete without a consultation of N.T. Wright's magnum opus "The Resurrection of the Son of God"- widely respected by even his critics. There you will find detailed and exhaustive evidence contra to your perspective on this subject that at least deserves a hearing.
Anyway, before I continue on this thread I'll wait to hear what you have the points in my various posts (other than the sarx/ soma issue which we'll put on hold until Douglas can join in).
|
|
|
Post by yeshuafreak on Jan 29, 2010 7:56:54 GMT -8
oh god i never meant to say PAUL didnt believe in physical resurrection; I am saying that I dont and that I interpret them metaphorically and allegorically.
i have read most of NT wrights stuff. It is interesting you mention him- doesnt he also believe in NPP? Covenantal Nomism..... and from what i gathered, you deny this perpective. But Wright also "proves" that Paul teaches it!
what othe rpoints?
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Jan 29, 2010 8:20:36 GMT -8
oh god i never meant to say PAUL didnt believe in physical resurrection; I am saying that I dont and that I interpret them metaphorically and allegorically. Ok. Well, it is a popular claim right now that Paul didn't believe in a literal physical resurrection of Jesus, so I thought you might be subscribing to that view. If you do believe that Paul believed that Jesus physically rose from the dead, then you believe that after Jesus' death the Christians began immediately to proclaim his physical resurrection. Yet you think they were mistaken. How is it that they were mistaken in your view? Points 1, 3, 4, 5, and 6 in my original post. But perhaps you agree with them now that the above has been cleared up.
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Jan 29, 2010 8:25:07 GMT -8
As to Wright's "new perspective on Paul", it does redefine the common Christian perception of "works righteousness", which I think is an important correction. However, I myself see Christian teaching as a reaction to a reality somewhere in the middle of the spectrum between covenental nomism and merit theology.
What do you think of Wright's arguments in favor of physical resurrection of Jesus Christ?
|
|
|
Post by yeshuafreak on Jan 30, 2010 9:32:09 GMT -8
PEOPLE CANNOT RAISE FROM THE DEAD. there is no way that that is going to happen. the laws of nature are expressions of Him, and He will not defy His very nature! Those within him, who are also expressions of him, have to wrok around the laws of nature as well.
the same i think of McDowells: i have no doubt that there were plenty of people at that time who beleived that Yeshua HaMashiach defied death and sh'ol. however, i see no reason to beleive in the resurrection just because those other people did. there are perfectly healthy people today that believe pretty crazy stuff- that doesnt mean it is true. Christianity also used to be a cult (in the proper sense of the word) so we have to keep in mind that there were not many other sources of information that the people were recieving.
if you can show how the laws of nature can cause a man to rise, oh please let it be. but death is a natural and good part of life, necessary for the world equilibrium. take death from the equation and the world becomes unbalanced.
-John
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Jan 30, 2010 13:21:36 GMT -8
This is an unproven assumption (granted, from observation alone, a very likely one). However, imo, history and logic give us strong evidence that Jesus DID and science gives us strong reason to assert that it would be possible for a transcendant God to raise someone from the dead without breaking any physical laws of the universe He has created. Are you assuming that God is bound within our 4 dimensions? If He created the universe, He must transcend all dimensions.
Lastly, if you're equating Wright's arguments with McDowell's I suggest you read The Resurrection of the Son of God (and the other two books in his scholarly trilogy). Your response tells me you haven't interacted with the arguments thoroughly.
|
|
|
Post by yeshuafreak on Jan 30, 2010 13:39:52 GMT -8
he IS those four demensions. those four demensions are a part of him, an emanation of who he is. everything contained in those four dimensions (like us) are bound by them.
good thing i am not equating them. but they are similar in many respects.
sorry if i am a bit edgy, but i see no reason why i should be debating about this-- why does it matter? why should i care? according to christianity, no belief will grant me permission into heaven except the belief in Yeshua and his death, and his resurrection (whatever that means to whoever is beleiving it). I am believing in all of those (no matter how different that belief is from yours). and i am not commiting any unforgivable sin or a sin unto death. i fulfill the requirements and in some ways goes past them. you should know that.
-john
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Jan 30, 2010 14:43:17 GMT -8
.
There are more than 4 dimensions, so he exceeds them and his not bound by them. He therefor can manipulate time, matter, energy, and space in ways we can't even imagine. And he must exceed all the dimensions if He existed before and created the universe.
Authentic Chrisitan belief is not belief in a merely metaphorical death and resurrection of Christ. 1 John 4:2-3, for instance, explains that it is important what meanings we pour into phrases like "I believe in Jesus".
Also, Paul here, expounding on the revelation Jesus Himself bequeathed to him, explains why this is important to saving faith:
1 Cor. 15
12But if it is preached that Christ has been raised from the dead, how can some of you say that there is no resurrection of the dead? 13If there is no resurrection of the dead, then not even Christ has been raised. 14And if Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith. 15More than that, we are then found to be false witnesses about God, for we have testified about God that he raised Christ from the dead. But he did not raise him if in fact the dead are not raised. 16For if the dead are not raised, then Christ has not been raised either. 17And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins. 18Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ are lost. 19If only for this life we have hope in Christ, we are to be pitied more than all men.
|
|
|
Post by yeshuafreak on Jan 30, 2010 17:24:27 GMT -8
i understand that there are more than 4 dimensions. but we are bound by four dimensions and therefore God's nature is only revealed to us through them.
okay then. Does that mean I am going to hell?
-John
|
|
|
Post by yeshuafreak on Jan 30, 2010 17:29:29 GMT -8
Replies to your pionts:
1. just because R. Sha'ul believed it doesnt mean it is true
2. already replied
3. just because things are "good" doesnt mean that they have to come back to life after they died.
4, 5, 6. see (1).
i dont care what paul says. i will "test the spirits." Woe to me if I am failing.
-John
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Jan 30, 2010 17:44:48 GMT -8
Again, all the points above were given in order to proof what Paul taught/ believed. No more no less.
|
|
|
Post by yeshuafreak on Jan 30, 2010 20:33:44 GMT -8
I know. but i wanted to reply to them all.
but you know that my stance is that he did believe- i just dont believe.
-John
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Jan 30, 2010 22:28:43 GMT -8
Yes we are bound by those dimensions but the things a God who transcends them does are bound to be called "miracles" by us. In 4+ space time dimensions a person (such as the risen Jesus) could without breaking any physical laws, walk through walls, for instance.
I'm not going to decide that. But when Paul, discussing salvation, said in Romans 10:9 if you confess with your mouth, "Jesus is Lord," and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. he was clearly talking about a physical raising.
|
|