Resurrection: Physical or Spiritual?

[Guest]

I downloaded and listened to an interesting debate (from a web site that Rick gave me). The debate was on the Ressurrection between a Christian (Michael Licona) and an agnostic (Richard Carrier).

Some of Carrier's argument is what liberal theologians have been saying for some time: that the gospels give us an account that has been altered by a growing tradition in the early Christian community, and that they are not factually correct. However, some of his argument I have never heard before. I will try to outline it the best that I can as I am interested in some responses. You can download the debate for free at: http://www.bringyou.to/CarrierLiconaRes ... Debate.mp3

(Carrier begins his first speech at around 23:35)

Let me summarize his points:

1) Paul's description of the Resurrection in 1 Cor. 15 was written before the Gospel accounts; therefore it is more reliable.
2) Paul never mentions the empty tomb.
3) Paul does not mention the empty tomb because Paul does not believe it is empty.
4) Paul believes that Jesus was resurrected spiritually - not physically.
5) The reason Paul believes that Jesus was spiritually resurrected is because Paul describes the resurrected body of the Christian as a spirtual one - not physical.
6) Carrier cites 1 Cor 15:44-50 as proof that Paul believes the resurrected body is not a physical one.

Of these points the only one that I am interested in is # 6.

There is a sense in which the mentioned passages suggests that the resurrected body is not a physical one. If one understands resurrection in that way, then one could understand that it is possible that one could believe that Jesus was not physically resurrected.

Now, I do not believe that the Gospels were corrupted by a growing Christian tradition. I believe that they are reliable, and that the writers had sources independent of one another. But that notwithstanding, how do you read Paul's description of the resurrected body. Spiritual or physical?

peace,

dane

[Guest]

I've heard this argument before.

I think he just misunderstands Paul's usage of the word. For 1st century Jews the word 'resurrection' referred to the body. It is extremely rare to use it in any other way. When Paul calls the resurrection body 'spiritual' he is not making a contrast b/w material and immaterial. He is making a contrast between fleshly/worldly and spiritual/heavenly. It's a statement about the purity of the resurrection body, not the makeup of it, after all, Paul uses the term 'body' throughout: Our current body is perishable, our future BODY will be imperishable. Our current body is dishonorable, our future BODY will be glorious. Our current body is weak, our future BODY will be powerful. Our current body is natural (bound by natural law), our future BODY will be spiritual (freed by heavenly law). In any case, the BODY is raised (44).

Paul was raised a pharisee. They were staunch adherents to the future bodily resurrection (but, again, to use the phrase 'bodily resurrection' is redundant since resurrection MEANS bodily). Paul never retracted this view, in fact, he gloried in it.

[_Rick_C]

Welcome Back!

Here's the page where Dane got the lecture from (me):
http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/audio.htm
(I'm loading Carrier V. Licona now for a listen)....

From Mike Lacona's Risen Jesus site
(I just heard the following yesterday: Description):

"On March 26, 2005, New Testament historian Mike Licona and Princeton distinguished professor of religion Elaine Pagels discussed the historicity of the resurrection of Jesus on The Ron Insana Show (37 minutes)."

Elaine Pagels had to leave early...and Mike Lacona addressed several things toward the end. Among which was the Jewish idea of bodily resurrection. Basically, "What Matt said"....and more. Well worth a listen.

Btw, I've read several of Pagels' books. I'd recommend them, if you are accustomed to, or don't mind having to sift through: postmodernism. Pagels is a great scholar...though I don't accept her presuppositions or general outlook (PoMo worldview).

I've also been listening to an Eastern Orthodox guy's lectures on Church History. In one of them, Jeff McDonald (the guy) explains that, in 1 Cor. 15, Paul is addressing Platonic ideas (as opposed to gnostic, btw). The Platonists, who were influential in Corinth and elsewhere and everywhere, did not believe in a physical (bodily) resurrection. The spirit, in Platonic thought, was "released from matter," (which was considered evil), at death. Platonists believed in a kind of "spiritual resurrection" where one's spirit would leave its body (the material realm is evil) and ascend back up into the "pure spiritual realm."

Paul says, "It [the dead physical body] is raised a spiritual body." N.T. Wright explains this as: The resurrection body is "animated by [the Holy] Spirit" (and I think he's nailed Paul on this). So, in Platonic thought; there was no such thing as a "spiritual body." Only the spirit exists after physical life...as many Christians also wrongly believe they "will be in heaven forever" (without their bodies)....

I'm tired. Just in from a new (2nd shift) job. That's all I have for now,

[_Rick_C]

I found an old Beliefnet interview with Wright.
("Bnet" doesn't date articles (why, I don't know); this was from around 2003, I think):
http://www.beliefnet.com/story/148/story_14843.html

Post edited by Rick_C, June 1, 2008
(excerpted from the above)

"Your Spirit-Powered Resurrection Body"
Renowned Bible scholar N.T. Wright talks about what human bodies will be like when they rise.
Interview by Laura Sheahen

Christian doctrine teaches that, at the end of time, God will physically raise up human beings. But what will "the resurrection of the body" be like? Anglican bishop N.T. Wright, one of the world's premier New Testament scholars, spoke with Beliefnet recently about the subject--and about his series of accessible Bible commentaries, "Mark for Everyone," "Luke for Everyone," and more.

In your books, you speak of bodily resurrection, not just Jesus' but regular Christians'. You say "God will make a new type of material not subject to death out of the old material."

You get this issue raised explicitly in 1 Corinthians [read chapter 15], a bit in 2 Corinthians, and indeed in Romans 8. It is fascinating to me that most contemporary Christians find this idea strange and new, since it is so front and center--in Paul particularly. It shows that in post-Enlightenment reading of the New Testament a significant strand of material has just been screened right out.

A lot of scholars seem to look at the Pauline phrase which in Greek is "pneumatic" body and in English is "spiritual" body, and they seem to think the resurrection won't be physical at all.

The word "spiritual" in 1 Corinthians 15 comes from the Greek "pneuma." But the word is pneumatikos. Greek adjectives that end in -kos do not describe the substance out of which something is made. They describe the force that is animating the thing in question. It's the difference between saying on the one hand, "Is this a wooden ship or a steel ship?" and saying on the other hand, "Is this a nuclear-powered ship or a steam-powered ship?" And the sort of adjective it is of the latter type, it's a spirit-powered body.

But it's still a ship.

Exactly! But it's still a body. And generations of readers have been misled-particularly by the RSV and the NRSV-into thinking that the distinction Paul is making is between a physical body, in the sense of something you can actually get a grip on, and a spiritual body, in the platonic sense of something you couldn't get a grip on....

....Going back to 1 Cor. 15, Paul says [we] begin with one sort of body and then it is another sort of body. The word he uses for the first sort, which is translated in the RSV and NRSV as "physical," actually there cannot mean physical. It is a bizarre mistranslation to say "physical" there.

The first word is a word formed out of "psyche"--which is the word for "soul." If you wanted to say in the ancient world that something was non-physical, you might use the word psychekon. The point is that the present body is a body animated by the ordinary human soul, and the future body will be a body animated by God's spirit and hence not corruptible.

Dane,

I heard the Licona/Carrier debate last nite (a long one).
Carrier's translation of 1 Cor. 15 was off. I could listen back and copy & paste it, but for now; it seemed he was reading Platonic and, perhaps also, Gnostic ideas into the text. He didn't follow Paul's true train of thought, imo: I don't think he really "grasped" it.

I hope the Wright article helps clear things up.
(it's worth a "study" imo).
'Off to work! ...

[Guest]

Rick, does beliefnet mind if you reprint their copyrighted materials?

[_Rick_C]

Michelle,
I identified the source--and also--gave the link, so there's not a problem,
Even the article itself says "Beliefnet"...(kinda like free advertising)....
Btw, Beliefnet owns your posts. I'm pretty experienced with "Netiquette" and the legalities involved with posting on the web. If you need any more info, PM me.
Off to work!

[_Rick_C]

Michelle, I asked about "the posting issue" here:
http://www.wvss.com/forumc/viewtopic.php?p=31668#31668

Now, back to your regularly scheduled thread....

[Guest]

Michelle, I asked about "the posting issue" here:
http://www.wvss.com/forumc/viewtopic.php?p=31668#31668

Now, back to your regularly scheduled thread....

Okie, I look forward to hearing other people's opinions on the matter.

[Guest]

Thanks Matt and Rick for your replies. I had never understood the passage as addressing the understanding of the resurrection from the reader's vantage point. Rather, I had always just read my understanding into the passage.

It's funny how you sometimes overlook these things until someone comes by and challenges you on them. I had never heard an argument like Carrier's before, and in my opinion the debater who debated him didn't do a good job of providing a viable explanation.

Thanks again ...

peace,

dane

[_Rick_C]

Thanks Matt and Rick for your replies. I had never understood the passage as addressing the understanding of the resurrection from the reader's vantage point. Rather, I had always just read my understanding into the passage.

Yer Welcome, Bro. Matt is pretty impressive, imo: His brevity and the ability to say-a-lot succinctly (a talent or gift I definitely lack)....

I know what you mean about reading 1 Co 15. In English, and with a "common sense" approach, it's kind of hard to decipher. We need always to keep it in mind: "How would it have been understood at the time?" Thanks for the important reminder,

I've referred back to the NTW Beliefnet article many times. Wright made 1 Co 15 "crystal clear." I've had the article bookmarked since I first read it.

Btw, Beliefnet is a good place to go if you want to keep up with the latest trends in liberal and/or "revisionist" theology. They track "Historical Jesus studies" and offer the conservative angle on things to balance things out: N.T. Wright and Ben Witherington III are among several conservatives they feature. On the liberal/revisionist end of things they have J.D. Crossan and other Jesus Seminar types, Bart Ehrman, and the "modern-day Gnostic" approach on things.

I don't visit Beliefnet often for several reasons. A primary one is my computer is so old and dialup (pages load so incredibly slow).

It's funny how you sometimes overlook these things until someone comes by and challenges you on them. I had never heard an argument like Carrier's before, and in my opinion the debater who debated him didn't do a good job of providing a viable explanation.

This was one of the more enjoyable debates I've heard: Point by point rebuttal. I don't recall Ad Hominem or enough to speak of.

Carrier's argumentation, I've heard before.
Having read several of Elaine Pagels' books and my exposure to the Jesus Seminar, etc., @ Beliefnet; there's a standard approach these "liberal ... revisionist ... modern-gnostics" take: Their common presupposition and argument is simple:
"Jesus was not raised bodily...only his spirit was."

You're right that Carrier is a formidable debater! (He had his ducks in a row). At one of Carrier's segments I thought, "Licona has his work cut out for him now!" With Licona's rebuttal, however, I felt he covered everything and "won" the debate.

Thanks for linking to this debate, Dane. I'd heard of Lacona before but not Carrier. I may not have listened to it, had you not brought it up.