Morally Wrong Behavior vs. What the Civil Government Should Prohibit

[seer]

I think you are confusing two completely separate things, here. The resurrected body is a σῶμα πνευματικόν, a pneumatic body. That doesn't imply that the only πνευμα is that which composes a resurrected body. That said, I do indeed think that Paul would say that the πνευμα which dwells within is a physical thing, too.

Erhman speaks to this in Tass' link:

https://ehrmanblog.org/did-paul-beli...e-resurrected/

[carpedm9587]

I never accused you of making it up. I said that you prefer it. The fact that it came from the dictionary doesn't change that.

So it is somehow odd that someone would prefer to use words the way they are commonly defined?

I actually agree, here. However, there were whole pages of our discussing precisely what Paul means by σῶμα ψυχικόν and σῶμα πνευματικόν which had already clarified that we were discussing two different types of physical bodies prior to your insistence that "spiritual" must mean "non-physical."

BP, that the discussion was had doesn't mean it made sense. That "two different kinds of physical bodies" is discussed in the NT doesn't make it make sense either.

As mentioned earlier in the discussion, πνευμα did not imply any sort of non-physicality to the Greek speakers of Paul's time and earlier. Quite the contrary, πνευμα was a physical substance, just a different sort of substance than that which composes our current bodies.

See my previous comment.

[JimL]

Erhman speaks to this in Tass' link:

When Jesus resurrected, as the story goes, he was resurrected as a material body, not, as Paul seems to contend, a spirit body. So, how do you explain the contradiction.

[carpedm9587]

I think you are confusing two completely separate things, here. The resurrected body is a σῶμα πνευματικόν, a pneumatic body. That doesn't imply that the only πνευμα is that which composes a resurrected body. That said, I do indeed think that Paul would say that the πνευμα which dwells within is a physical thing, too.

BP - I have to admit that I find all of this to be gobblygook. Can you please provide a definition, using modern terminology, for a "pneumatic body?" And are you suggesting here that you think Paul aw the "spiritual" as physical?

Again - most of this smacks of oxymoronisms... (to coin a word).

[Boxing Pythagoras]

BP - I have to admit that I find all of this to be gobblygook. Can you please provide a definition, using modern terminology, for a "pneumatic body?" And are you suggesting here that you think Paul aw the "spiritual" as physical?

As I have explicitly stated several times over the last few pages, yes, Paul believed the πνευμα to be a physical, material thing; and the modern English word "spiritual" carries connotations which are not present in the original Greek.

In Paul's view, the πνευμα was a material substance which was of a higher quality than the substance which makes up flesh and blood bodies. It was not a ghostly, immaterial, or non-physical thing. Incidentally, this was also the view of Plato, Aristotle, Plotinus, Philo of Alexandria, and the vast majority of Greek speakers from the time who speak on this subject. The fact that the modern English word "spiritual" connotes an immaterial or non-physical existence does not imply that the ancient Greek word "πνευματικόν" bore similar connotations.

Imagine, for a moment, that you were reading an account from the late 19th Century in which a businessman lauds his acquisition of a fantastic new computer. Would you recognize that the word "computer" meant something different for a 19th Century speaker and that this businessman was talking about a person who performs computations? Or would you insist that because the word "computer" now refers to a particular type of machine that this 19th Century businessman must have just purchased a PC?

Insisting that ancient Greek writings must have the same connotations as the modern English words which are sometimes used to translate them is even sillier than that.

[Tassman]

Again Tass, I'm not denying that it is a spiritual body but the spiritual includes the physical (the mortal made immortal). There are not different its here, the it that is the natural body is made the it that is the spiritual. You link Ehrman, but he agrees with me.

[seer]

Tass, Ehrman completely disagrees with you. He says the mortal body is not discarded but transformed into the spiritual. Tass, either you can't read or you are being dishonest.

Glorifying a body is different from replacing a bodynot abandoned.

In 1 Corinthians 15:3-8, it is the same person, the bodily Jesus, who dies, is buried, is raised, and who appeared to other, including Paul.

https://ehrmanblog.org/did-paul-thin...-july-14-2017/

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...l=1#post736557

[JimL]

Tass, Ehrman completely disagrees with you. He says the mortal body is not discarded but transformed into the spiritual. Tass, either you can't read or you are being dishonest.

Paul doesn't have to say that we shed our physical bodies, we can see that happen for ourselves. But I agree with you in the case of Jesus, he was portrayed as being raised in his physical body as were the Saints raised at Jesus death on the cross. Apparently god conjers up for the deceased new bodies and slips the spirit bodies, that have been in waiting somewhere, back into them.To say that the physical bodies are transformed into spiritual bodies negates the idea that the spiritual bodies already exist.

[carpedm9587]

As I have explicitly stated several times over the last few pages, yes, Paul believed the πνευμα to be a physical, material thing; and the modern English word "spiritual" carries connotations which are not present in the original Greek.

In Paul's view, the πνευμα was a material substance which was of a higher quality than the substance which makes up flesh and blood bodies. It was not a ghostly, immaterial, or non-physical thing. Incidentally, this was also the view of Plato, Aristotle, Plotinus, Philo of Alexandria, and the vast majority of Greek speakers from the time who speak on this subject. The fact that the modern English word "spiritual" connotes an immaterial or non-physical existence does not imply that the ancient Greek word "πνευματικόν" bore similar connotations.

Imagine, for a moment, that you were reading an account from the late 19th Century in which a businessman lauds his acquisition of a fantastic new computer. Would you recognize that the word "computer" meant something different for a 19th Century speaker and that this businessman was talking about a person who performs computations? Or would you insist that because the word "computer" now refers to a particular type of machine that this 19th Century businessman must have just purchased a PC?

I would use the term as it was defined in its context. But that does not make the definition of the word in that context meaningful.

By way of example, if someone said "Paul thought that black was white because back then, the word "black" actually meant "white," I would nod my head and say, "OK, but that doesn't make black actually white."

Insisting that ancient Greek writings must have the same connotations as the modern English words which are sometimes used to translate them is even sillier than that.

So your claim, I think, is that Paul was saying that the resurrected Jesus was physical in some kind of "higher quality" or with some transcendent attribute that "normal" physical bodies don't have. Fine. Now 1) define what this "higher order" is and 2) demonstrate that it actually can and/or does exist.

[JonathanL]

So your claim, I think, is that Paul was saying that the resurrected Jesus was physical in some kind of "higher quality" or with some transcendent attribute that "normal" physical bodies don't have. Fine. Now 1) define what this "higher order" is and 2) demonstrate that it actually can and/or does exist.

Given that BP has listed himself as "heathen" I would assume he actually doesn't believe Paul's claim about the resurrection body, and is simply stating what he believes is the correct interpretation of Paul's words, without necessarily assenting to anything that Paul writes.

[seer]

Given that BP has listed himself as "heathen" I would assume he actually doesn't believe Paul's claim about the resurrection body, and is simply stating what he believes is the correct interpretation of Paul's words, without necessarily assenting to anything that Paul writes.

Too bad, Carp used to be fun to talk to, but he jumped the shark a while back.

[carpedm9587]

Given that BP has listed himself as "heathen" I would assume he actually doesn't believe Paul's claim about the resurrection body, and is simply stating what he believes is the correct interpretation of Paul's words, without necessarily assenting to anything that Paul writes.

Good point.

[Tassman]

Tass, Ehrman completely disagrees with you. He says the mortal body is not discarded but transformed into the spiritual.

https://ehrmanblog.org/did-paul-beli...e-resurrected/https://www.reasonablefaith.org/medi...-craig-ehrman/

[seer]

https://ehrmanblog.org/did-paul-beli...e-resurrected/https://www.reasonablefaith.org/medi...-craig-ehrman/

Tass, I gave you direct quotes from Erhman showing that the body is not destroyed. And from your own link Ehrman shows that the FLESH is not the physical body.

This is one instance where it becomes crystal clear that we have to try to think in a way that we are decidedly not accustomed to if we want to understand Paul. For US, the body is made of flesh, so when we speak of flesh, we speak of the body. For Paul, the flesh and the body were two different thingsThat is, we think of it as the meat that is hanging on our bones; but that is not what Paul is referring to. He does, of course, know that there is meat hanging on our bones, but that is what he thinks of as our body. It is not our flesh

The flesh is a term referring to our sinful nature NOT OUR PHYSICAL BODY. Do you even read your own links?

[Boxing Pythagoras]

I would use the term as it was defined in its context. But that does not make the definition of the word in that context meaningful.

By way of example, if someone said "Paul thought that black was white because back then, the word "black" actually meant "white," I would nod my head and say, "OK, but that doesn't make black actually white."

You still seem to be misunderstanding. I'm not saying Paul thought "spiritual" meant something different. I'm saying that "spiritual" is not a very good translation for Paul's concept of πνευμα.

Using your analogy, it'd be like Paul describing a color for which we have no modern English word, and having Paul's text translated as "black." This is a case of the translation failing to properly convey Paul's meaning; it is not a case of Paul saying contradictory things.

So your claim, I think, is that Paul was saying that the resurrected Jesus was physical in some kind of "higher quality" or with some transcendent attribute that "normal" physical bodies don't have. Fine. Now 1) define what this "higher order" is

That is a more difficult question. We can speculate, based upon the positions espoused by other writers, but Paul's particular syncretism of Hellenic cosmology and Jewish beliefs was very likely unique, given his devotion to this totally new and radically different sect of Judaism which came to be Christianity. However, it is likely safe to think that Paul thought of it as "higher" both in the sense of being better in quality and in the sense of being literally, physically, from a higher physical source. To Paul, πνευμα (often translated "wind," "breath," or "spirit") physically came from οὐρανός (often translated "sky" or "heaven"). Incidentally, οὐρανός is another word which I think is poorly translated by modern English, as neither "sky" nor "heaven" quite means to us what οὐρανός meant to ancient Greek thinkers.

and 2) demonstrate that it actually can and/or does exist.

As has been mentioned by others, I am not a Christian. I'm not even a theist. I am simply attempting to understand what Paul intended by his writing in exactly the same manner as I would treat Plato or Aristotle or Philo or Iamblichus.