Resurrection - physical, spiritual, both or neither?

Tired of wandering the lawless wilds of the AC&A forum? Have a friendly chat in our cozy, velvet-covered civility lounge. Alcohol not permitted, only the Kenny G button works on the jukebox. All undesirable types will be quietly escorted out the back door.

Resurrection - physical, spiritual, both or neither?

Postby Rian » Tue Feb 17, 2015 8:08 pm

I know that there are several opinions out there among Christians about the resurrection. Maybe this should be in the Christians forum, but I thought I'd start it here and get everyone's ideas (yes, I know atheists don't believe in the resurrection, but I'd like to see their ideas about it if they have any beyond that).

So for the purposes of this discussion, we are assuming the Bible to be true.

Personally, I've always assumed it would be some kind of physical resurrection, because of how Jesus appeared after his death. And him eating fish is one of my favorite verses, because it means that we can eat FOOD after death!!! :D

But frankly, I'm fine if it's not some kind of physical resurrection, and I certainly don't think our salvation hinges on whether it's physical or not, as long as there is some kind of resurrection. And our understanding of physical may only be in part, so it may be "physical" in one sense, but not what we would recognize as physical.

Thoughts?
"Aurë entuluva! Auta i lómë!" ("Day shall come again! The night is passing!") -- from JRR Tolkien's The Silmarillion

Christianity is the red pill - go for it! Seek the truth, wherever it leads you.
User avatar
Rian
Senior member
Senior member
 
Posts: 6210
Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2007 12:36 pm
Location: Arizona, USA ... for now ...
Affiliation: Christian/truth-seeker

Re: Resurrection - physical, spiritual, both or neither?

Postby sayak » Wed Feb 18, 2015 4:30 am

Well this is interesting as much have been made of Paul's understanding of resurrection where he believes that a spiritual body is created in resurrection. I quoted the Corinthians, and I will quote them again to start the discussion
35 But someone will ask, “How are the dead raised? With what kind of body do they come?” 36 Fool! What you sow does not come to life unless it dies. 37 And as for what you sow, you do not sow the body that is to be, but a bare seed, perhaps of wheat or of some other grain. 38 But God gives it a body as he has chosen, and to each kind of seed its own body. 39 Not all flesh is alike, but there is one flesh for human beings, another for animals, another for birds, and another for fish. 40 There are both heavenly bodies and earthly bodies, but the glory of the heavenly is one thing, and that of the earthly is another. 41 There is one glory of the sun, and another glory of the moon, and another glory of the stars; indeed, star differs from star in glory.

42 So it is with the resurrection of the dead. What is sown is perishable, what is raised is 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 physical body, it is raised a spiritual body. If there is a physical body, there is also a spiritual body. 45 Thus it is written, “The first man, Adam, became a living being”; the last Adam became a life-giving spirit. 46 But it is not the spiritual that is first, but the physical, and then the spiritual. 47 The first man was from the earth, a man of dust; the second man is[j] from heaven. 48 As was the man of dust, so are those who are of the dust; and as is the man of heaven, so are those who are of heaven. 49 Just as we have borne the image of the man of dust, we will[k] also bear the image of the man of heaven.

50 What I am saying, brothers and sisters,[l] is this: flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God, nor does the perishable inherit the imperishable. 51 Listen, I will tell you a mystery! We will not all die,[m] but we will all be changed, 52 in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, and the dead will be raised imperishable, and we will be changed. 53 For this perishable body must put on imperishability, and this mortal body must put on immortality. 54 When this perishable body puts on imperishability, and this mortal body puts on immortality, then the saying that is written will be fulfilled:

“Death has been swallowed up in victory.”
55 “Where, O death, is your victory?
Where, O death, is your sting?”
56 The sting of death is sin, and the power of sin is the law. 57 But thanks be to God, who gives us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ.


I would note that Paul still thinks it is a body,but a non-material kind of a body (probably like those he believed that the angels have).
sayak
Senior member
Senior member
 
Posts: 1519
Joined: Fri Jan 06, 2012 7:09 pm
Affiliation: Humanist

Re: Resurrection - physical, spiritual, both or neither?

Postby Chapabel » Wed Feb 18, 2015 4:33 am

It was a physical resurrection. As you mentioned, Jesus ate with His disciples after the resurrection. Also, He plainly said it was physical: Luke 24:36-39 And as they thus spake, Jesus himself stood in the midst of them, and saith unto them, Peace be unto you. But they were terrified and affrighted, and supposed that they had seen a spirit. And he said unto them, Why are ye troubled? and why do thoughts arise in your hearts? 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.

In light of these verses, I do not see any other possibility.
To be right with God has often meant to be in trouble with men. -- A.W. Tozer
User avatar
Chapabel
Senior member
Senior member
 
Posts: 1585
Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2015 7:11 am
Location: Tennessee
Affiliation: Baptist

Re: Resurrection - physical, spiritual, both or neither?

Postby tirtlegrrl » Wed Feb 18, 2015 4:47 am

I have problems with the idea of a physical resurrection because of the weird way he appeared and disappeared without warning, how his disciples met him on the road to Emmaus without recognizing him, and the absurdity of the Ascension (his physical body went up into the clouds? Is he out orbiting Mars now?).
"I think it was, 'Blessed are the cheesemakers.'" -Monty Python's Life of Brian
User avatar
tirtlegrrl
Senior member
Senior member
 
Posts: 1816
Joined: Tue Oct 16, 2007 10:23 am
Location: Oxford, UK (US citizen)
Affiliation: Whatever is both true AND good

Re: Resurrection - physical, spiritual, both or neither?

Postby sayak » Wed Feb 18, 2015 5:10 am

Jesus was clarifying that he was not a ghost
28 As they came near the village to which they were going, he walked ahead as if he were going on. 29 But they urged him strongly, saying, “Stay with us, because it is almost evening and the day is now nearly over.” So he went in to stay with them. 30 When he was at the table with them, he took bread, blessed and broke it, and gave it to them. 31 Then their eyes were opened, and they recognized him; and he vanished from their sight.

36 While they were talking about this, Jesus himself stood among them and said to them, “Peace be with you.”[l] 37 They were startled and terrified, and thought that they were seeing a ghost. 38 He said to them, “Why are you frightened, and why do doubts arise in your hearts? 39 Look at my hands and my feet; see that it is I myself. Touch me and see; for a ghost does not have flesh and bones as you see that I have.” 40 And when he had said this, he showed them his hands and his feet.[m] 41 While in their joy they were disbelieving and still wondering, he said to them, “Have you anything here to eat?” 42 They gave him a piece of broiled fish, 43 and he took it and ate in their presence.


But there is a divergence between Pauline narrative and Lukan narrative about the status of the resurrected body and reflects the divergence the early christians themselves had on this matter. Still Luke's narrative contain the hints that the appearances were remembered to have a different quality to them than just seeing the old physical jesus. Lack of recognition and vanishings are examples. However, as Paul was speaking directly about the nature of the resurrection based on the reports he had heard and stands closer to the experiences themselves, I would consider his version to be the one that was believed by the apostles as that time.
sayak
Senior member
Senior member
 
Posts: 1519
Joined: Fri Jan 06, 2012 7:09 pm
Affiliation: Humanist

Re: Resurrection - physical, spiritual, both or neither?

Postby Chapabel » Wed Feb 18, 2015 7:35 am

Jesus arose in His glorified body. It was real, it was physical, yet different than our present bodies. Jesus ate food, He invited the disciples to handle Him. His was a real, physical body. In His body He could pass through walls and locked doors. It is a body we cannot comprehend.

Believers will one day obtain a real physical, glorified body like Jesus (I John 3:2). It will be a body that does not experience sickness, pain nor death. But it will be a real physical body like Christ.
To be right with God has often meant to be in trouble with men. -- A.W. Tozer
User avatar
Chapabel
Senior member
Senior member
 
Posts: 1585
Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2015 7:11 am
Location: Tennessee
Affiliation: Baptist

Re: Resurrection - physical, spiritual, both or neither?

Postby Moonwood the Hare » Wed Feb 18, 2015 10:50 am

sayak wrote:Well this is interesting as much have been made of Paul's understanding of resurrection where he believes that a spiritual body is created in resurrection. I quoted the Corinthians, and I will quote them again to start the discussion
35 But someone will ask, “How are the dead raised? With what kind of body do they come?” 36 Fool! What you sow does not come to life unless it dies. 37 And as for what you sow, you do not sow the body that is to be, but a bare seed, perhaps of wheat or of some other grain. 38 But God gives it a body as he has chosen, and to each kind of seed its own body. 39 Not all flesh is alike, but there is one flesh for human beings, another for animals, another for birds, and another for fish. 40 There are both heavenly bodies and earthly bodies, but the glory of the heavenly is one thing, and that of the earthly is another. 41 There is one glory of the sun, and another glory of the moon, and another glory of the stars; indeed, star differs from star in glory.

42 So it is with the resurrection of the dead. What is sown is perishable, what is raised is 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 physical body, it is raised a spiritual body. If there is a physical body, there is also a spiritual body. 45 Thus it is written, “The first man, Adam, became a living being”; the last Adam became a life-giving spirit. 46 But it is not the spiritual that is first, but the physical, and then the spiritual. 47 The first man was from the earth, a man of dust; the second man is[j] from heaven. 48 As was the man of dust, so are those who are of the dust; and as is the man of heaven, so are those who are of heaven. 49 Just as we have borne the image of the man of dust, we will[k] also bear the image of the man of heaven.

50 What I am saying, brothers and sisters,[l] is this: flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God, nor does the perishable inherit the imperishable. 51 Listen, I will tell you a mystery! We will not all die,[m] but we will all be changed, 52 in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, and the dead will be raised imperishable, and we will be changed. 53 For this perishable body must put on imperishability, and this mortal body must put on immortality. 54 When this perishable body puts on imperishability, and this mortal body puts on immortality, then the saying that is written will be fulfilled:

“Death has been swallowed up in victory.”
55 “Where, O death, is your victory?
Where, O death, is your sting?”
56 The sting of death is sin, and the power of sin is the law. 57 But thanks be to God, who gives us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ.


I would note that Paul still thinks it is a body,but a non-material kind of a body (probably like those he believed that the angels have).

The translation physical at verse 44 is misleading. The word Paul contrasts with pneumatikon - spiritual is not physika or any of its analogues but psychikon which literally means soulish. Whereas Peter in language familiar to evangelicals talks of sould being saved Paulmore subtly talks of soul becoming spirit, hence the meaning of spiritual here is not non-physical but non-soulish that is suited to the expression of a soul which has become spirit.
All shall be well, and all shall be well, and all manner of thing shall be well.
User avatar
Moonwood the Hare
Senior member
Senior member
 
Posts: 5194
Joined: Wed Aug 19, 2009 10:24 am
Affiliation: Christian - pretty traditional

Re: Resurrection - physical, spiritual, both or neither?

Postby Simplyme » Wed Feb 18, 2015 10:56 am

This should be in the Christian Only Section. Why is it in the Civility Lounge?
I find it rather amusing, when thought of as ignorant or stupid(though I can be on many subjects). Especially by those who believe in a deity up in heaven watching our every move, and rewarding or punishing us after we have expired.
Simplyme
Senior member
Senior member
 
Posts: 5966
Joined: Tue Feb 15, 2011 7:11 am

Re: Resurrection - physical, spiritual, both or neither?

Postby sayak » Wed Feb 18, 2015 11:24 am

One of the many reasons,

Richard Carrier has interpreted Paul to buttress his claim that early Christians did not believe Jesus was a historically existing person, and was rather an angelic being who gave visions to Paul etc. Does the claim have merit? One has to go to Paul to figure out.
sayak
Senior member
Senior member
 
Posts: 1519
Joined: Fri Jan 06, 2012 7:09 pm
Affiliation: Humanist

Re: Resurrection - physical, spiritual, both or neither?

Postby Moonwood the Hare » Wed Feb 18, 2015 1:30 pm

Simplyme wrote:This should be in the Christian Only Section. Why is it in the Civility Lounge?

You can discuss the meaning of a text without believing it to be true; I know for some reason you find this concept more difficult to grasp than most people. Anyway surely the civility lounge can be for any controversial topic.
All shall be well, and all shall be well, and all manner of thing shall be well.
User avatar
Moonwood the Hare
Senior member
Senior member
 
Posts: 5194
Joined: Wed Aug 19, 2009 10:24 am
Affiliation: Christian - pretty traditional

Re: Resurrection - physical, spiritual, both or neither?

Postby Simplyme » Wed Feb 18, 2015 2:01 pm

Moonwood the Hare wrote:
Simplyme wrote:This should be in the Christian Only Section. Why is it in the Civility Lounge?

You can discuss the meaning of a text without believing it to be true; I know for some reason you find this concept more difficult to grasp than most people. Anyway surely the civility lounge can be for any controversial topic.


You could but why would you(topic wise)? Isn't that what the christian section is for? I'm sure that you chritsians can discuss it there without having to be moderated. Why would you think I do not grasp the concept? I could argue over whether Superman is Stronger then Spiderman all day.
I find it rather amusing, when thought of as ignorant or stupid(though I can be on many subjects). Especially by those who believe in a deity up in heaven watching our every move, and rewarding or punishing us after we have expired.
Simplyme
Senior member
Senior member
 
Posts: 5966
Joined: Tue Feb 15, 2011 7:11 am

Re: Resurrection - physical, spiritual, both or neither?

Postby Moonwood the Hare » Wed Feb 18, 2015 3:07 pm

Simplyme wrote:
Moonwood the Hare wrote:You can discuss the meaning of a text without believing it to be true; I know for some reason you find this concept more difficult to grasp than most people. Anyway surely the civility lounge can be for any controversial topic.


You could but why would you(topic wise)? Isn't that what the christian section is for? I'm sure that you chritsians can discuss it there without having to be moderated. Why would you think I do not grasp the concept? I could argue over whether Superman is Stronger then Spiderman all day.

The reason I think you don't is because of something which happens fairly regularly. Some atheist will argue that a particular piece of Christian doctine is incoherent. A Christian will then present a coherent account of the he doctrine and you will repond,as if it were relevent, 'but that does not prove it is true.' And yes the debates on this one have been getting a bit unruly. Mitch and Chap who are both Christians clearly have no respect for each other.
All shall be well, and all shall be well, and all manner of thing shall be well.
User avatar
Moonwood the Hare
Senior member
Senior member
 
Posts: 5194
Joined: Wed Aug 19, 2009 10:24 am
Affiliation: Christian - pretty traditional

Re: Resurrection - physical, spiritual, both or neither?

Postby Simplyme » Wed Feb 18, 2015 3:21 pm

Moonwood the Hare wrote:
Simplyme wrote:
Moonwood the Hare wrote:You can discuss the meaning of a text without believing it to be true; I know for some reason you find this concept more difficult to grasp than most people. Anyway surely the civility lounge can be for any controversial topic.


You could but why would you(topic wise)? Isn't that what the christian section is for? I'm sure that you chritsians can discuss it there without having to be moderated. Why would you think I do not grasp the concept? I could argue over whether Superman is Stronger then Spiderman all day.

The reason I think you don't is because of something which happens fairly regularly. Some atheist will argue that a particular piece of Christian doctine is incoherent. A Christian will then present a coherent account of the he doctrine and you will repond,as if it were relevent, 'but that does not prove it is true.' And yes the debates on this one have been getting a bit unruly. Mitch and Chap who are both Christians clearly have no respect for each other.


I'm curious if your definition of "coherent" is the same as mines? Logical and consistent.

If it is, can you give me an example of a coherent account of a Christian doctrine? No details needed.

Yes Mitch and Chap are hilarious. There arguments does no service to Christianity(IMO). I would admit though(never thought I say this), I take Mitch side on many there points.



EDIT: Did not mean to change subject.
Last edited by Simplyme on Wed Feb 18, 2015 3:23 pm, edited 1 time in total.
I find it rather amusing, when thought of as ignorant or stupid(though I can be on many subjects). Especially by those who believe in a deity up in heaven watching our every move, and rewarding or punishing us after we have expired.
Simplyme
Senior member
Senior member
 
Posts: 5966
Joined: Tue Feb 15, 2011 7:11 am

Re: Resurrection - physical, spiritual, both or neither?

Postby Rian » Wed Feb 18, 2015 3:23 pm

Thank you, Sayak, for moving those verses over here! :gim:

Simplyme wrote:This should be in the Christian Only Section. Why is it in the Civility Lounge?


Explained in my OP.
"Aurë entuluva! Auta i lómë!" ("Day shall come again! The night is passing!") -- from JRR Tolkien's The Silmarillion

Christianity is the red pill - go for it! Seek the truth, wherever it leads you.
User avatar
Rian
Senior member
Senior member
 
Posts: 6210
Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2007 12:36 pm
Location: Arizona, USA ... for now ...
Affiliation: Christian/truth-seeker

Re: Resurrection - physical, spiritual, both or neither?

Postby sayak » Wed Feb 18, 2015 5:07 pm

Moonwood the Hare wrote:
sayak wrote:Well this is interesting as much have been made of Paul's understanding of resurrection where he believes that a spiritual body is created in resurrection. I quoted the Corinthians, and I will quote them again to start the discussion
35 But someone will ask, “How are the dead raised? With what kind of body do they come?” 36 Fool! What you sow does not come to life unless it dies. 37 And as for what you sow, you do not sow the body that is to be, but a bare seed, perhaps of wheat or of some other grain. 38 But God gives it a body as he has chosen, and to each kind of seed its own body. 39 Not all flesh is alike, but there is one flesh for human beings, another for animals, another for birds, and another for fish. 40 There are both heavenly bodies and earthly bodies, but the glory of the heavenly is one thing, and that of the earthly is another. 41 There is one glory of the sun, and another glory of the moon, and another glory of the stars; indeed, star differs from star in glory.

42 So it is with the resurrection of the dead. What is sown is perishable, what is raised is 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 physical body, it is raised a spiritual body. If there is a physical body, there is also a spiritual body. 45 Thus it is written, “The first man, Adam, became a living being”; the last Adam became a life-giving spirit. 46 But it is not the spiritual that is first, but the physical, and then the spiritual. 47 The first man was from the earth, a man of dust; the second man is[j] from heaven. 48 As was the man of dust, so are those who are of the dust; and as is the man of heaven, so are those who are of heaven. 49 Just as we have borne the image of the man of dust, we will[k] also bear the image of the man of heaven.

50 What I am saying, brothers and sisters,[l] is this: flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God, nor does the perishable inherit the imperishable. 51 Listen, I will tell you a mystery! We will not all die,[m] but we will all be changed, 52 in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, and the dead will be raised imperishable, and we will be changed. 53 For this perishable body must put on imperishability, and this mortal body must put on immortality. 54 When this perishable body puts on imperishability, and this mortal body puts on immortality, then the saying that is written will be fulfilled:

“Death has been swallowed up in victory.”
55 “Where, O death, is your victory?
Where, O death, is your sting?”
56 The sting of death is sin, and the power of sin is the law. 57 But thanks be to God, who gives us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ.


I would note that Paul still thinks it is a body,but a non-material kind of a body (probably like those he believed that the angels have).

The translation physical at verse 44 is misleading. The word Paul contrasts with pneumatikon - spiritual is not physika or any of its analogues but psychikon which literally means soulish. Whereas Peter in language familiar to evangelicals talks of sould being saved Paulmore subtly talks of soul becoming spirit, hence the meaning of spiritual here is not non-physical but non-soulish that is suited to the expression of a soul which has become spirit.


Are you sure about that Moonwood? At least one detailed study bible I have access to online defines psuchikon as,
Morphology: A--NN-S Strong's: 5591 Transliterated: psuchikon Root: ψυχικός
1) of or belonging to breath 1a) having the nature and characteristics of the breath 1a1) the principal of animal life, which men have in common with the brutes 1b) governed by breath 1b1) the sensuous nature with its subjection to appetite and passion


This does not correspond to any idea of soul that is common today and physical/sensual/mortal seems to be a better match. Can you check this?
sayak
Senior member
Senior member
 
Posts: 1519
Joined: Fri Jan 06, 2012 7:09 pm
Affiliation: Humanist

Next

Return to The Civility Lounge

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 1 guest