Resurrection: Physical or Spiritual?
Posted: Wed May 28, 2008 1:05 pm
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
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