Freedom Posted September 12, 2016 Share Posted September 12, 2016 I am trying to figure out these two quotes: "If anyone shall say that after the resurrection the body of the Lord was ethereal, and that such shall the bodies of all after the resurrection; and that after the Lord himself shall have rejected his true body and after others who rise shall have rejected theirs, the nature of their bodies shall be annihilated: let him be anathema" (Canon 10 cited by Schaff, 14:314-19). "If any one shall say that the future judgement signifies the destruction of the body and that the end of the story will be an immaterial nature (phusis), and that thereafter there will no longer be any matter, but only spirit (nous): let him be anathema" " (Canon 11 cited by Schaff). Link to comment
Gray Posted September 12, 2016 Share Posted September 12, 2016 I've heard it argued that Paul believed the resurrection was not physical. Link to comment
bluebell Posted September 12, 2016 Share Posted September 12, 2016 Those quotes are saying that anyone who doesn't believe in the physical resurrection is "anathema", which means 'cursed' or vehemently disliked. The quotes seem to be referring to those who believe that Christ, even though He was resurrected, no longer has a physical body and that after we are resurrected we some how won't have a physical body either. 2 Link to comment
Glenn101 Posted September 12, 2016 Share Posted September 12, 2016 1 hour ago, Gray said: I've heard it argued that Paul believed the resurrection was not physical. 1st Corinthians chapter 15, wherein is found the famous (or infamous, depending on which side of the religious tracks be ones faith) "if the dead rise not at all why are they then baptized for the dead" verse, seems to be an argument for the physical resurrection of the dead. Glenn Link to comment
Gray Posted September 12, 2016 Share Posted September 12, 2016 (edited) 18 minutes ago, Glenn101 said: 1st Corinthians chapter 15, wherein is found the famous (or infamous, depending on which side of the religious tracks be ones faith) "if the dead rise not at all why are they then baptized for the dead" verse, seems to be an argument for the physical resurrection of the dead. Glenn This is in the same chapter: Quote 42 So will it be with the resurrection of the dead. The body that is sown is perishable, it is raised imperishable; 43 it is sown in dishonor, it is raised in glory; it is sown in weakness, it is raised in power; 44 it is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body. If there is a natural body, there is also a spiritual body. 45 So it is written: “The first man Adam became a living being”[a]; the last Adam [aka Jesus], a life-giving spirit. 46 The spiritual did not come first, but the natural, and after that the spiritual. 47 The first man was of the dust of the earth; the second man is of heaven. 48 As was the earthly man, so are those who are of the earth; and as is the heavenly man, so also are those who are of heaven. 49 And just as we have borne the image of the earthly man,so shall we[b] bear the image of the heavenly man. 50 I declare to you, brothers and sisters, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God, nor does the perishable inherit the imperishable. 51 Listen, I tell you a mystery: We will not all sleep, but we will all be changed— 52 in a flash, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, the dead will be raised imperishable, and we will be changed. 53 For the perishable must clothe itself with the imperishable, and the mortal with immortality. Edited September 12, 2016 by Gray Link to comment
RevTestament Posted September 12, 2016 Share Posted September 12, 2016 1 hour ago, bluebell said: Those quotes are saying that anyone who doesn't believe in the physical resurrection is "anathema", which means 'cursed' or vehemently disliked. The quotes seem to be referring to those who believe that Christ, even though He was resurrected, no longer has a physical body and that after we are resurrected we some how won't have a physical body either. Anathema in the Nicene Creed eventually meant excommunicated, and yes the creed is saying we believe in a physical resurrection, and those who don't are apostate. Link to comment
Jeanne Posted September 12, 2016 Share Posted September 12, 2016 No offense to the OP..just curious why this question is asked if Joseph's vision is to be believed??? And didn't one of the early apostles after the resurrection touch His hands and feet? Link to comment
Glenn101 Posted September 12, 2016 Share Posted September 12, 2016 (edited) 4 hours ago, Gray said: This is in the same chapter: 4 hours ago, Gray said: 42 So will it be with the resurrection of the dead. The body that is sown is perishable, it is raised imperishable; 43 it is sown in dishonor, it is raised in glory; it is sown in weakness, it is raised in power; 44 it is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body. If there is a natural body, there is also a spiritual body. 45 So it is written: “The first man Adam became a living being”[a]; the last Adam [aka Jesus], a life-giving spirit. 46 The spiritual did not come first, but the natural, and after that the spiritual. 47 The first man was of the dust of the earth; the second man is of heaven. 48 As was the earthly man, so are those who are of the earth; and as is the heavenly man, so also are those who are of heaven. 49 And just as we have borne the image of the earthly man,so shall we[b] bear the image of the heavenly man. 50 I declare to you, brothers and sisters, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God, nor does the perishable inherit the imperishable. 51 Listen, I tell you a mystery: We will not all sleep, but we will all be changed— 52 in a flash, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, the dead will be raised imperishable, and we will be changed. 53 For the perishable must clothe itself with the imperishable, and the mortal with immortality. We could probably go on with this ad infinitum. However your quotes present a bit of a contradiction. I will explain. First of all I will quote the other verses from chapter 15 which I feel are relevant, 4 And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures: 5 And that he was seen of Cephas, then of the twelve: 6 After that, he was seen of above five hundred brethren at once; of whom the greater part remain unto this present, but some are fallen asleep. 7 After that, he was seen of James; then of all the apostles. 8 And last of all he was seen of me also, as of one born out of due time. 11 Therefore whether it were I or they, so we preach, and so ye believed. 12 Now if Christ be preached that he rose from the dead, how say some among you that there is no resurrection of the dead? Verse 12 seems to me to be the controversy Paul was addressing. Paul, in verses 5 through 8, note that quite a few people had seen the resurrected Christ. Note in verse eight, Paul also claims to have seen the resurrected Christ. What did the apostles see when they saw Christ? Luke 24:36 And as they thus spake, Jesus himself stood in the midst of them, and saith unto them, Peace be unto you. 37 But they were terrified and affrighted, and supposed that they had seen a spirit. 38 And he said unto them, Why are ye troubled? and why do thoughts arise in your hearts?39 Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself: handle me, and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have.40 And when he had thus spoken, he shewed them his hands and his feet. Now, unless Jesus had ditched His resurrected body, that was what Paul saw also. I am going to quote again some of the verses you included. 51 Behold, I shew you a mystery; We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed, 52 In a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump: for the trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed. 53 For this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality. And just how will we be changed? Philippians 3:20 For our conversation is in heaven; from whence also we look for the Saviour, the Lord Jesus Christ: 21 Who shall change our vile body, that it may be fashioned like unto his glorious body, according to the working whereby he is able even to subdue all things unto himself. And a quote from James to sort of define death. James 2:2626 For as the body without the spirit is dead ...... With the verses you have quoted, taken by themselves, one can argue that Paul did not believe in a physical resurrection. But, taking those quotes and those I have added, I believe that the preponderance of scriptural evidence would indicate that Paul most likely believed in a physical resurrection of the body, glorified like unto the resurrected body of Christ. Edited to add: The contradiction would exist if one interprets the "spiritual body" as just a spirit, and not as in a spiritual person. Glenn Edited September 12, 2016 by Glenn101 1 Link to comment
Gray Posted September 12, 2016 Share Posted September 12, 2016 1 minute ago, Glenn101 said: We could probably go on with this ad infinitum. However your quotes present a bit of a contradiction. I will explain. First of all I will quote the other verses from chapter 15 which I feel are relevant, 4 And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures: 5 And that he was seen of Cephas, then of the twelve: 6 After that, he was seen of above five hundred brethren at once; of whom the greater part remain unto this present, but some are fallen asleep. 7 After that, he was seen of James; then of all the apostles. 8 And last of all he was seen of me also, as of one born out of due time. 11 Therefore whether it were I or they, so we preach, and so ye believed. 12 Now if Christ be preached that he rose from the dead, how say some among you that there is no resurrection of the dead? Verse 12 seems to me to be the controversy Paul was addressing. Paul, in verses 5 through 8, note that quite a few people had seen the resurrected Christ. Note in verse eight, Paul also claims to have seen the resurrected Christ. What did the apostles see when they saw Christ? Luke 24:36 And as they thus spake, Jesus himself stood in the midst of them, and saith unto them, Peace be unto you. 37 But they were terrified and affrighted, and supposed that they had seen a spirit. 38 And he said unto them, Why are ye troubled? and why do thoughts arise in your hearts?39 Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself: handle me, and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have.40 And when he had thus spoken, he shewed them his hands and his feet. Now, unless Jesus had ditched His resurrected body, that was what Paul saw also. I am going to quote again some of the verses you included. 51 Behold, I shew you a mystery; We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed, 52 In a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump: for the trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed. 53 For this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality. And just how will we be changed? Philippians 3:20 For our conversation is in heaven; from whence also we look for the Saviour, the Lord Jesus Christ: 21 Who shall change our vile body, that it may be fashioned like unto his glorious body, according to the working whereby he is able even to subdue all things unto himself. And a quote from James to sort of define death. James 2:2626 For as the body without the spirit is dead ...... With the verses you have quoted, taken by themselves, one can argue that Paul did not believe in a physical resurrection. But, taking those quotes and those I have added, I believe that the preponderance of scriptural evidence would indicate that Paul most likely believed in a physical resurrection of the body, glorified like unto the resurrected body of Christ. Glenn You have to remember that Paul is the earliest writer in the new testament, and the gospels were not written down until decades later. In fact, some of the details in the gospels about the physicality of the resurrection may be a response to Paul's teachings. Luke (the gospel) did not exist when Paul wrote 1 Cor, and neither did James (the epistle). Philippians 3 seems consistent with the idea of a spiritual body rather than a physical body. Paul seems to indicate that the resurrected spiritual body is completely unlike the physical body. I'm not saying there aren't other valid perspectives on Paul, I was just giving this as one example for the topic of the thread. 1 Link to comment
notHagoth7 Posted September 12, 2016 Share Posted September 12, 2016 5 hours ago, Jeanne said: ...just curious why this question is asked if Joseph's vision is to be believed??? And didn't one of the early apostles after the resurrection touch His hands and feet? Based on context, I'm guessing that Freedom simply encountered someone IRL or online that asserted that the resurrection doesn't involve a physical body...and was working through the drafting of a response.. Anywhere close to being accurate on that guess, Freedom? Link to comment
Glenn101 Posted September 12, 2016 Share Posted September 12, 2016 27 minutes ago, Gray said: You have to remember that Paul is the earliest writer in the new testament, and the gospels were not written down until decades later. In fact, some of the details in the gospels about the physicality of the resurrection may be a response to Paul's teachings. Luke (the gospel) did not exist when Paul wrote 1 Cor, and neither did James (the epistle). Philippians 3 seems consistent with the idea of a spiritual body rather than a physical body. Paul seems to indicate that the resurrected spiritual body is completely unlike the physical body. I'm not saying there aren't other valid perspectives on Paul, I was just giving this as one example for the topic of the thread. Not going to debate the chronology of the different NT books, although most chronologies place James as the first of the NT books. I used the Luke quotes to support the idea that the apostles saw and touched a "flesh and bones" physical body, the body of the resurrected Christ. Paul claimed to have seen Christ himself. Although Paul's epistles were almost certainly written before any of Mark, Matthew, John, or Luke, Paul visited Peter in Jerusalem three years after his conversion (Galatians, chapter 1). While there, he also saw "James, the Lord's brother." I would not be surprised to learn that is where Paul received his information about those who had seen Christ and very possibly, actually very probably Peter recounted the account of Christ appearing to the apostles in the locked room after his resurrection. The main point, to me, though, is that Paul claimed to have seen the resurrected Christ. From the scriptures, the Bible, we know that Christ's physical body was resurrected. Did Christ jettison his body between the time that He appeared to the apostles and when Paul saw him? Glenn Link to comment
Guest Posted September 12, 2016 Share Posted September 12, 2016 8 hours ago, Gray said: I've heard it argued that Paul believed the resurrection was not physical. Or that we simply sleep until the resurrection (kind of a JW idea) and wake on the day of judgement. However if one continues all the way through Paul's teachings...all of 1 Corinthians 15, he teaches of physical resurrection and more. Then their is his vision when he "was caught up into the 3rd Heaven". It was during that vision that he did not know if he was seeing it in the spirit or the flesh. Link to comment
halconero Posted September 13, 2016 Share Posted September 13, 2016 4 hours ago, Glenn101 said: Not going to debate the chronology of the different NT books, although most chronologies place James as the first of the NT books. I used the Luke quotes to support the idea that the apostles saw and touched a "flesh and bones" physical body, the body of the resurrected Christ. Paul claimed to have seen Christ himself. Although Paul's epistles were almost certainly written before any of Mark, Matthew, John, or Luke, Paul visited Peter in Jerusalem three years after his conversion (Galatians, chapter 1). While there, he also saw "James, the Lord's brother." I would not be surprised to learn that is where Paul received his information about those who had seen Christ and very possibly, actually very probably Peter recounted the account of Christ appearing to the apostles in the locked room after his resurrection. The main point, to me, though, is that Paul claimed to have seen the resurrected Christ. From the scriptures, the Bible, we know that Christ's physical body was resurrected. Did Christ jettison his body between the time that He appeared to the apostles and when Paul saw him? Glenn James is considered to be pseudepigraphal and of a later penmanship. In fact it generally seems directed to Pauline Christians. The first New Testamenr writing considered to be of both authentic value and chronological penmanship is 1 Thessalonians. 2 Link to comment
The Nehor Posted September 13, 2016 Share Posted September 13, 2016 13 hours ago, Gray said: I've heard it argued that Paul believed the resurrection was not physical. Yeah, but the argument is a bit of a stretch. The dodges needed to get around Paul's plain resurrection talk makes it kind of silly. Jesus spent a lot of time drilling in to his followers that the resurrection was physical. He ate, he talked, he touched. When they thought he was a ghost he corrected them. If the stories in the gospels are true then Jesus is being incredibly disingenuous and confusing if the resurrection is not physical. On the other hand he also made it clear that his kind of life was something different in a physical form. He had powers not held by men and made it clear this is something new. Physical but very different. 2 Link to comment
Freedom Posted September 13, 2016 Author Share Posted September 13, 2016 12 hours ago, Jeanne said: No offense to the OP..just curious why this question is asked if Joseph's vision is to be believed??? And didn't one of the early apostles after the resurrection touch His hands and feet? My question is about the teachings of the early church fathers, not about the doctrine itself Link to comment
Gray Posted September 13, 2016 Share Posted September 13, 2016 15 hours ago, Glenn101 said: Not going to debate the chronology of the different NT books, although most chronologies place James as the first of the NT books. I used the Luke quotes to support the idea that the apostles saw and touched a "flesh and bones" physical body, the body of the resurrected Christ. Paul claimed to have seen Christ himself. James is relatively early, but not earlier than 1 Cor. Paul claimed that Jesus appeared to him, but that is not the same thing as claiming that Jesus had a physical body. 15 hours ago, Glenn101 said: Although Paul's epistles were almost certainly written before any of Mark, Matthew, John, or Luke, Paul visited Peter in Jerusalem three years after his conversion (Galatians, chapter 1). While there, he also saw "James, the Lord's brother." I would not be surprised to learn that is where Paul received his information about those who had seen Christ and very possibly, actually very probably Peter recounted the account of Christ appearing to the apostles in the locked room after his resurrection. Paul says he received his doctrine by revelation and that he was unknown to the rest of the apostles for some time. 15 hours ago, Glenn101 said: The main point, to me, though, is that Paul claimed to have seen the resurrected Christ. From the scriptures, the Bible, we know that Christ's physical body was resurrected. Did Christ jettison his body between the time that He appeared to the apostles and when Paul saw him? Glenn Paul claimed to have received a visitation, but that doesn't mean he claimed that Jesus' resurrected body was material. Remember, the the gospels post-date Paul's experiences, and differ in many ways from what Paul taught. 1 Link to comment
Gray Posted September 13, 2016 Share Posted September 13, 2016 15 hours ago, Pa Pa said: Or that we simply sleep until the resurrection (kind of a JW idea) and wake on the day of judgement. However if one continues all the way through Paul's teachings...all of 1 Corinthians 15, he teaches of physical resurrection and more. Then their is his vision when he "was caught up into the 3rd Heaven". It was during that vision that he did not know if he was seeing it in the spirit or the flesh. Can you quote which passage you're referring to? Link to comment
Gray Posted September 13, 2016 Share Posted September 13, 2016 9 hours ago, The Nehor said: Yeah, but the argument is a bit of a stretch. The dodges needed to get around Paul's plain resurrection talk makes it kind of silly. Jesus spent a lot of time drilling in to his followers that the resurrection was physical. He ate, he talked, he touched. When they thought he was a ghost he corrected them. If the stories in the gospels are true then Jesus is being incredibly disingenuous and confusing if the resurrection is not physical. On the other hand he also made it clear that his kind of life was something different in a physical form. He had powers not held by men and made it clear this is something new. Physical but very different. Where do you believe that Paul discusses physical resurrection? Remember, the gospels were composed after Paul. Link to comment
Freedom Posted September 13, 2016 Author Share Posted September 13, 2016 16 hours ago, notHagoth7 said: Based on context, I'm guessing that Freedom simply encountered someone IRL or online that asserted that the resurrection doesn't involve a physical body...and was working through the drafting of a response.. Anywhere close to being accurate on that guess, Freedom? Yes. I was given a number of quotes that clearly had nothing to do with their argument, but the quote I posted was a bit unclear and it got me thinking, despite my assailants inability to produce any support for their argument, I was wondering if there is any evidence that the early church fathers rejected the physical resurrection. Link to comment
halconero Posted September 13, 2016 Share Posted September 13, 2016 No, in fact the Cathodox fathers were vehemently opposed to Docetism, a divergent belief in early Christianity that held Jesus' resurrection to be spiritual in nature. As noted, both of your quotes, in direct response to that heresy, declare any such believer to be accursed. 1 Link to comment
Bobbieaware Posted September 13, 2016 Share Posted September 13, 2016 (edited) 23 hours ago, Gray said: This is in the same chapter: When the resurrected Christ appeared to his disciples he said to them (for they had supposed they were seeing a vision of an disembodied spirit) that "a spirit hath not flesh and bone as ye see me have." So what, then, does Paul mean when he says in the resurrection Christ (the last Adam) became a "quickening spirit?" A quickening spirit is a God whose tangible body of flesh and bone has taken on a wholly spiritual nature (I.e. Immortal, incorruptible, able to transcend time and space, unbounded by the normal constrictions of gross matter). This is what Amulek taught when he testified that although our resurrected bodies will still be composed of what we now think of as gross matter, that matter will be so transformed in nature and characteristics that the body will take on a wholly spiritual nature -- or as Amulek put it ,"the whole (human body) becoming spiritual and immortal." It's because of the fact that a resurrected God's body becomes wholly spiritual in nature that Christ said his father was a Spirit -- much like Paul description of the resurrected Christ being a life-giving (quickening spirit), even though the Bible makes it clear tha Savior's resurrected body was composed of tangible flesh and bone. The Bible's many testimonies of the reality of Christ's corporeal nature make it difficult to assert that Christ's resurrected spiritual body is not tangible based on one verse in 1 Cornthians, because the Lord's resurrected body could be touched and felt and was able to consume earthly food. Edited September 13, 2016 by Bobbieaware 1 Link to comment
Gray Posted September 13, 2016 Share Posted September 13, 2016 8 minutes ago, Bobbieaware said: When the resurrected Christ appeared to his disciples he said to them (for they had supposed they were seeing a vision of an disembodied spirit) that "a spirit hath not flesh and bone as ye see me have." So what, then, does Paul mean when he says in the resurrection Christ (the last Adam) became a "quickening spirit?" A quickening spirit is a God whose tangible body of flesh and bone has taken on a wholly spiritual nature (I.e. Immortal, incorruptible, able to transcend time and space, unbounded by the normal constrictions of gross matter). This is what Amulek taught when he testified that although our resurrected bodies will still be composed of what we now think of as gross matter, that matter will be so transformed in nature and characteristics that the body will take on a wholly spiritual nature -- or as Amulek put it ,"the whole (human body) becoming spiritual and immortal." It's because of the fact that a resurrected God's body becomes wholly spiritual in nature that Christ said his father was a Spirit -- much like Paul description of the resurrected Christ being a life-giving (quickening spirit), even though the Bible makes it clear tha Savior's resurrected body was composed of tangible flesh and bone. The Bible's many testimonies of the reality of Christ's corporeal nature make it difficult to assert that Christ's resurrected spiritual body is not tangible based on one verse in 1 Cornthians because the Lord's resurrected body could be touched and felt and was able to consume earthly food. Again, Luke was written long after 1 Corinthians. It may be that one of the objectives of the author of Luke was to respond to and refute Paul's doctrines. Paul repeatedly refers to the resurrected body as spiritual rather than natural. Obviously not everyone in the Christian community agreed. And of course Paul was not a witness to the resurrection itself, and never knew Jesus in his mortal life. His ideas were based on his own personal revelations. Link to comment
The Nehor Posted September 13, 2016 Share Posted September 13, 2016 1 hour ago, Gray said: Where do you believe that Paul discusses physical resurrection? Remember, the gospels were composed after Paul. 1 Corinthians 15 is my favorite. Some wrest with the spiritual aspects but exegesis suggests it is Paul trying to convey the concept of a better physical form and not that of a spiritual resurrection. He also references Christ rising and, despite the gospels coming later, it being a bodily and tangible resurrection was the common conception. One of the early problems Christians faced was how crass their resurrection was amidst pagans and Jews who despised matter as inherently corrupt and spirit as pure. Link to comment
Gray Posted September 13, 2016 Share Posted September 13, 2016 (edited) 6 minutes ago, The Nehor said: 1 Corinthians 15 is my favorite. Some wrest with the spiritual aspects but exegesis suggests it is Paul trying to convey the concept of a better physical form and not that of a spiritual resurrection. He also references Christ rising and, despite the gospels coming later, it being a bodily and tangible resurrection was the common conception. One of the early problems Christians faced was how crass their resurrection was amidst pagans and Jews who despised matter as inherently corrupt and spirit as pure. He explicitly says it's a spiritual body, not a natural body. Do you know of anywhere where Paul says the resurrected body is physical? It sounds like you're reading your own beliefs back onto Paul, rather than trying to understand what Paul was trying to communicate. Which is fine for religious purposes, but not helpful if you're trying to understand what early Christians taught and believed. Edited September 13, 2016 by Gray 1 Link to comment
Bobbieaware Posted September 13, 2016 Share Posted September 13, 2016 10 minutes ago, Gray said: Again, Luke was written long after 1 Corinthians. It may be that one of the objectives of the author of Luke was to respond to and refute Paul's doctrines. Paul repeatedly refers to the resurrected body as spiritual rather than natural. Obviously not everyone in the Christian community agreed. And of course Paul was not a witness to the resurrection itself, and never knew Jesus in his mortal life. His ideas were based on his own personal revelations. Paul would never have been given the right had of fellowship by the disciples in Jerusalem (he was fully debriefed by them) if he embraced such an egregious anti-Christ heresy as there being no bodily resurrection.. The Book of Mormon's account of Christ's obvious corporeal/tangible nature during his visitation to the Nephites (which account Mormon later abridged) was written contemporaneous to the Lord's visit (I.e. before Paul's earliest epistles). For those who know the Book of Mormon's account in 3 Nephi is true -- it clears up any confusion as to the reality of the corporeal nature of Christ's resurrected body. 1 Link to comment
Recommended Posts