Did early church fathers deny the physical resurrection?

[Gray]

11 minutes ago, Bobbieaware said:

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..

Reportedly Paul was frequently at odds with the disciples on some key issues. Apparently they tolerated him. The character of Simon Magus in Acts may have been a veiled dig at Paul.

11 minutes ago, Bobbieaware said:

 

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.

 

That certainly clarifies the doctrine, but of course it has no bearing on what Paul might have believed. 

[Bobbieaware]

45 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. 

 

The following verse, found in 2 Corinthians 5, makes it clear Paul was not anticipating a loss of the physical body in the resurrection but a transformation of the physical body into a body like unto Christ's glorious tangible body:

4 For we that are in this tabernacle do groan, being burdened: not for that we would be unclothed,  (meaning to put aside the body) but clothed upon, that mortality might be swallowed up of life.

 

Edited September 13, 2016 by Bobbieaware

[Gray]

7 minutes ago, Bobbieaware said:

The following verse, found in 2 Corinthians 5, makes it clear Paul was not anticipating a loss of the physical body in the resurrection but a transformation of the physical body into a body like unto Christ's glorious tangible body:

4 For we that are in this tabernacle do groan, being burdened: not for that we would be unclothed,  (meaning to put aside the body) but clothed upon, that mortality might be swallowed up of life.

 

I think you're reading physicality into it. I'm not seeing it:

 

Quote

5 For we know that if the earthly tent we live in is destroyed, we have a building from God, a house not made with hands, eternal in the heavens. ² For in this tent we groan, longing to be clothed with our heavenly dwelling— ³ if indeed, when we have taken it off^[a] we will not be found naked. ⁴ For while we are still in this tent, we groan under our burden, because we wish not to be unclothed but to be further clothed, so that what is mortal may be swallowed up by life. ⁵ He who has prepared us for this very thing is God, who has given us the Spirit as a guarantee.

So we are always confident; even though we know that while we are at home in the body we are away from the Lord— ⁷ for we walk by faith, not by sight. ⁸ Yes, we do have confidence, and we would rather be away from the body and at home with the Lord. ⁹ So whether we are at home or away, we make it our aim to please him. ¹⁰ For all of us must appear before the judgment seat of Christ, so that each may receive recompense for what has been done in the body, whether good or evil.

 

[Analytics]

56 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

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.

I would rephrase this as saying:

One of the early problems some Christians faced was how crass their resurrection was amidst pagans, Jews, and other Christians who despised matter as inherently corrupt and spirit as pure.

To me, it seems likely that Christianity began as simply another mystery religion, where Christ was another riff of the theme of God being resurrected in the spiritual realm and is fundamentally in the same category as Isis, Osiris, Dionysus, and Orpheus.  If you read the epistles of Paul from this perspective, they make total sense and it becomes disturbing how little evidence there is that associates his views of Christ with the story of Jesus of Nazareth as portrayed in the gospels.

Even if Christianity began with a man Jesus of Nazareth with apostles who believed he was physically, literally resurrected, many converts who came from the mystery religions must have assumed the story was an allegory about a Jesus that was resurrected in a spirit realm.  Converts with that perspective may have included Paul himself.

For your consideration:

http://www.jesuspuzzle.humanists.net/jesuspuzzle.html

[Guest]

3 hours ago, Gray said:

Can you quote which passage you're referring to?

Actually Paul was speaking of another man...

2 Corinthians 12: 1-5...the entire chapter speaks of this event and other great teachings of Paul. Good read...

 

[Bobbieaware]

3 hours ago, Gray said:

I think you're reading physicality into it. I'm not seeing it:

 

 

At the time Paul said what he said in  2 Corinthians 5, he and the members of the Church he was speaking to had mortal bodies of flesh, bone and blood. The groaning and burdened tabernacles he is speaking of in verse 4 are obviously his and his hearers mortal human bodies. The next phrase then says, "not that we would be unclothed." The we he is here speaking of is himself and his and fellow members who are at that precise moment are spirits clothed in fallen mortal bodies. He then says in spite of the fact that they are at that time clothed in fallen mortal bodies -- bodies that are burdensome and make them groan -- nevertheless the desire is not to be unclothed (or to put aside) the bodies they then possessed but, rather, to have their mortal bodies transformed into improved and glorious resurrected bodies bodies that will no longer make them groan under the burden of mortality.

To imagine the infinite and eternal God somehow lacks the knowledge and power to perfect and immortalize human bodies, bodies he himself created and designed to live forever in his presence (if not for the fall, Adam and Eve would have remained an embodied married couple dwelling forever in the presence of God) presents to me a rather scatterbrained and inept depiction of God. Why clothe spirits with bodies in the first place if it would have been better to just remain as unembodied, immortal spirits forever?

A question: Do you think Paul's understanding is that after death we will just continue to be unembodied spirits, or to you think he believed in the resurrection the spirit would be clothed in some way with something not possessed before entering mortality?

Edited September 13, 2016 by Bobbieaware

[Gray]

32 minutes ago, Bobbieaware said:

At the time Paul said what he said in  2 Corinthians 5, he and the members of the Church he was speaking to had mortal bodies of flesh, bone and blood. The groaning and burdened tabernacles he is speaking of in verse 4 are obviously his and his hearers mortal human bodies. The next phrase then says, "not that we would be unclothed." The we he is here speaking of is himself and his and fellow members who are at that precise moment are spirits clothed in fallen mortal bodies. He then says in spite of the fact that they are at that time clothed in fallen mortal bodies -- bodies that are burdensome and make them groan -- nevertheless the desire is not to be unclothed (or to put aside) the bodies they then possessed but, rather, to have their mortal bodies transformed into improved and glorious resurrected bodies bodies that will no longer make them groan under the burden of mortality.

To imagine the infinite and eternal God somehow lacks the knowledge and power to perfect and immortalize human bodies, bodies he himself created and designed to live forever in his presence (if not for the fall, Adam and Eve would have remained an embodied married couple dwelling forever in the presence of God) presents to me a rather scatterbrained and inept depiction of God. Why clothe spirits with bodies in the first place if it would have been better to just remain as unembodied, immortal spirits forever?

A question: Do you think Paul's understanding is that after death we will just continue to be unembodied spirits, or to you think he believed in the resurrection the spirit would be clothed in some way with something not possessed before entering mortality?

I don't think that Paul thinks the resurrected person is simply a ghost. He seems to think the resurrected spiritual body is made of some glorious celestial stuff, perhaps light given his comparison of resurrected bodies to celestial bodies. What he does make clear is that the spiritual body is not the same body as the natural body (2 Cor 5, 1 Cor 15). A second, heavenly "tent" to replace the earthly version that died.

[Gray]

2 hours ago, Pa Pa said:

Actually Paul was speaking of another man...

2 Corinthians 12: 1-5...the entire chapter speaks of this event and other great teachings of Paul. Good read...

 

Hmm, I don't see it. Paul is describing a vision of paradise that someone had. 

[Glenn101]

5 hours ago, Gray said:

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.

Paul says he received his doctrine by revelation and that he was unknown to the rest of the apostles for some time. 

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. 

 

Nowhere did Paul claim that Christ did not have a material body either. I do expect that Paul would have been conversant with the views and beliefs of the apostles through his conversations with Peter and possibly James concerning the resurrection. And I also expect that had there been a controversy on the subject, Paul would have let his opinion be known. He was not exactly a shrinking violet. But that is speculation, although I do believe that it is not only plausible, but probable. Paul spent fifteen days with Peter in Jerusalem three years after his conversion, and I expect that at least some of their conversations centered on the Gospel and the miracle of the resurrection.

I think that you missed my point. Paul claims to have seen the resurrected Jesus. The same resurrected Jesus that was seen by the apostles, and had the body was physical. And Paul said (according to Luke) " But when Paul perceived that the one part were Sadducees, and the other Pharisees, he cried out in the council, Men and brethren, I am a Pharisee, the son of a Pharisee: of the hope and resurrection of the dead I am called in question." (Acts 23:6) Here Paul certainly seems to be aligning himself with the Pharisees in their belief in a resurrection. Paul also affirms that he was a Pharisee "as touching the law" in Phlllippians 3:5, so Luke was most likely quoting Paul pretty accurately.  Paul was taught by Gamaliel, a highly respected member of the Sanhedrin and a Pharisee. The Pharisees believed in the resurrection of the physical body. (CFR in advance)

Paul cites no revelations or scriptures nor anything unambiguous to indicate that he had rejected that belief by the Pharisees. As a student of Gamaliel and a student of the scriptures, he almost certainly would have been aware of the quote by Job, "And though after my skin worms destroy this body, yet in my flesh shall I see God."  After all, the Pharisees had to have some scriptural basis for their belief in a physical resurrection.

I still believe that the preponderance of scriptural evidence points to a Paul that believes in a resurrection of a physical body, but a body that will be glorified like unto that of the Savior.

I will read any response that you wish to make, but leave the debate here, as I would only be repeating myself with further comments. Thanks for your input.

Glenn

[The Nehor]

6 hours ago, Gray said:

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. 

Explicitly in the English translation but not so much in the original. That makes a belief in non-physical resurrection much less plausible.

Paul usually refers to the resurrection of the "soma" which basically means body/flesh. For example when Paul talks about giving up everything to the poor and giving his body to be burned but not having charity means that it is nothing he refers to burning the soma. That vision that the man he knew saw they were unsure if it was in the soma or out of the soma.

The spiritual bit tacked on in some instances is unlikely to be intended to mean that the body is not physical. It instead refers to the glorification or perfection of resurrection.

[Guest]

3 hours ago, Gray said:

Hmm, I don't see it. Paul is describing a vision of paradise that someone had. 

That is what I said in this reply. 

[mfbukowski]

There are no facts, only interpretations.  After this is over, that will still be true.

[Gray]

On 9/13/2016 at 5:58 PM, Glenn101 said:

Nowhere did Paul claim that Christ did not have a material body either. I do expect that Paul would have been conversant with the views and beliefs of the apostles through his conversations with Peter and possibly James concerning the resurrection. And I also expect that had there been a controversy on the subject, Paul would have let his opinion be known. He was not exactly a shrinking violet. But that is speculation, although I do believe that it is not only plausible, but probable. Paul spent fifteen days with Peter in Jerusalem three years after his conversion, and I expect that at least some of their conversations centered on the Gospel and the miracle of the resurrection.

Paul says explicitly that Christ had a spiritual body, and that Christ was raised a "lifegiving spirit". What that means is of course debatable, but that doesn't sound physical to me.

It seems that Paul DID let his opinion be known.

 

On 9/13/2016 at 5:58 PM, Glenn101 said:

I think that you missed my point. Paul claims to have seen the resurrected Jesus. The same resurrected Jesus that was seen by the apostles, and had the body was physical.

He did not claim to have seen a physical Jesus.

 

On 9/13/2016 at 5:58 PM, Glenn101 said:

And Paul said (according to Luke) " But when Paul perceived that the one part were Sadducees, and the other Pharisees, he cried out in the council, Men and brethren, I am a Pharisee, the son of a Pharisee: of the hope and resurrection of the dead I am called in question." (Acts 23:6) Here Paul certainly seems to be aligning himself with the Pharisees in their belief in a resurrection. Paul also affirms that he was a Pharisee "as touching the law" in Phlllippians 3:5, so Luke was most likely quoting Paul pretty accurately.  Paul was taught by Gamaliel, a highly respected member of the Sanhedrin and a Pharisee. The Pharisees believed in the resurrection of the physical body. (CFR in advance)

That's a good point, but it's not as if Paul is was orthodox in his views. No good Pharisee would reject the law of Moses, as Paul did.

 

On 9/13/2016 at 5:58 PM, Glenn101 said:

Paul cites no revelations or scriptures nor anything unambiguous to indicate that he had rejected that belief by the Pharisees. As a student of Gamaliel and a student of the scriptures, he almost certainly would have been aware of the quote by Job, "And though after my skin worms destroy this body, yet in my flesh shall I see God."  After all, the Pharisees had to have some scriptural basis for their belief in a physical resurrection.

I still believe that the preponderance of scriptural evidence points to a Paul that believes in a resurrection of a physical body, but a body that will be glorified like unto that of the Savior.

I will read any response that you wish to make, but leave the debate here, as I would only be repeating myself with further comments. Thanks for your input.

Glenn

Paul's own words confirm that he parts ways with the Pharisees on many points of doctrine.

Thanks for your interesting and thoughtful comments!

[Gray]

On 9/13/2016 at 6:18 PM, The Nehor said:

Explicitly in the English translation but not so much in the original. That makes a belief in non-physical resurrection much less plausible.

The original Greek does not change it. Paul calls the resurrected Jesus a pneuma zoopoiun, or life-giving spirit.

 

On 9/13/2016 at 6:18 PM, The Nehor said:

Paul usually refers to the resurrection of the "soma" which basically means body/flesh. For example when Paul talks about giving up everything to the poor and giving his body to be burned but not having charity means that it is nothing he refers to burning the soma. That vision that the man he knew saw they were unsure if it was in the soma or out of the soma.

The spiritual bit tacked on in some instances is unlikely to be intended to mean that the body is not physical. It instead refers to the glorification or perfection of resurrection.

Paul compares resurrected bodies to heavenly bodies, which I believe he would not have understood to be physical an any sense we would recognize. 

[halconero]

The problem is that you're equating natural with physical, which is not the case which Paul was trying to the Corinthians. In both the natural and the spiritual body, the body retains its physicality. Paul is speaking to the type or quality of the physical body. Resurrection wasn't just a resuscitation, but a transformation in the Greco-Pauline mindset. Latter-day Saints hold a similar view actually. There are different types of Resurrection with different qualities of body associated with them. In essence, resurrection isn't just a matter of salvation from death, but may be embued with the quality of exaltation.

This is the argument made by N.T. Wright, an academic in the field of Early Christian Writings:

What Wright calls "the common misreading", comes from 1st Corinthians 15:42-49 (ESV):

"So is it with the resurrection of the dead. What is sown is perishable; what is raised is imperishable. 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. If there is a natural body, there is also a spiritual body. Thus it is written, “The first man Adam became a living being”; the last Adam became a life-giving spirit. But it is not the spiritual that is first but the natural, and then the spiritual. The first man was from the earth, a man of dust; the second man is from heaven. As was the man of dust, so also are those who are of the dust, and as is the man of heaven, so also are those who are of heaven. Just as we have borne the image of the man of dust, we shall also bear the image of the man of heaven.
 

The word spiritual throughout the passage is pneumatikos, which can mean:

1) relating to the human spirit, or rational soul, as part of the man which is akin to God and serves as his instrument or organ
1a) that which possesses the nature of the rational soul
2) belonging to a spirit, or a being higher than man but inferior to God
3) belonging to the Divine Spirit
3a) of God the Holy Spirit
3b) one who is filled with and governed by the Spirit of God
4) pertaining to the wind or breath; windy, exposed to the wind, blowing
While the idea of "spiritual renewal" seems possible to modern readers, in the context of resurrection, which meant a bodily coming back to life, it doesn't work. Paul uses the word "spiritual" because he is struggling to describe the sort of body that will be raised. In verses 35-49, he compares the process to the process of burying a seed. What is planted in the ground does not look like what eventually grows up, but both are of the same kind. In the Resurrection, we don't get an identical copy of our bodies, but something better. "Spiritual", in this case, is of the second definition: "belonging to a spirit, or a being higher than man but inferior to God". (It also might include the third meaning: "belonging to the Divine Spirit".)"

Wright's book goes into great detail about what might and what might not be meant by resurrection in the New Testament. Here's a summary from another of his articles:

"The first point to make here is vital. I have argued that the early Christians looked forward to a resurrection which was not a mere resuscitation, nor yet the abandonment of the body and the liberation of the soul, but a transformation, a new type of body living within a new type of world. This belief is embroidered with biblical motifs, articulated in rich theology. Yet in the gospel narratives we find a story, told from different angles of course, without such embroidering and theology—told indeed in restrained, largely unadorned prose. Yet the story is precisely of a single body neither abandoned, nor merely resuscitated, but transformed; and this, though itself totally unexpected, could give rise to exactly that developed view of which I have spoken. The Easter narratives, in other words, appear to offer an answer to why the early Christian hope and life took the form and shape they did."

Paul is rather consistent with his views on Resurrection (on their nature at least, if not the timing). The body remains the constant, and its physicality is not his concern. His focus is on the substance of that material body. It can be difficult to conceive in the modern Western mind wherein things that are physical are tightly bound with things natural. Such was not the case in the Mediterranean world of Paul. Greek Gods, though of heavenly bodies, were just a physical, capable of touch, sensation, and even intercourse, as the natural body. Angels were capable of fathering children with men, and their ability to manipulate and interact with the world was never in doubt. What divided the natural from the spiritual was a matter of crudity and corruption. The body, with all its sensational, material, and perceptive properties persists except that it goes from Grade-B quality to Grade-A quality.