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.

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

Postby Chapabel » Wed Feb 18, 2015 5:37 pm

Simplyme wrote:
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.

Coming from a nonbeliever, I take this as a compliment. Birds of a feather and that sort of thing...
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: 1575
Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2015 7:11 am
Location: Tennessee
Affiliation: Baptist

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

Postby CL Moderator » Wed Feb 18, 2015 9:42 pm

*** Moderator General Warning ***

No matter what you believe outside of the CL and how strongly you believe it, when you are choosing to post in the CL, please be humble when making pronouncements, especially in regard to hot-button topics.

Example 1 - Please change pronouncements like this: "There is no god! Religion is a myth!" to something like this: "I don't believe that gods exist. IMO, religions are merely myths."

Example 2 - Please change pronouncements like this: "People that believe in evolution are not Christians!" or "People that are conservative Christians are deluded, legalistic monsters!" to something like this: "I believe that a Christian should believe in a literal 6-day creation" and "I think that conservative Christians are interpreting the Bible in a way that it was never meant to be read."

Remember we're here to talk to others, not to whack them over the head with our own certainty.
User avatar
CL Moderator
recruit
recruit
 
Posts: 37
Joined: Sat Jan 31, 2015 4:55 pm

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

Postby Kub » Wed Feb 18, 2015 10:46 pm

I like the way it is explained here in Romans.

Romans 8:22-25. 22 We know that the whole creation has been groaning as in the pains of childbirth right up to the present time 23 Not only so, but we ourselves, who have the firstfruits of the Spirit, groan inwardly as we wait eagerly for our adoption to sonship, the redemption our bodies. 24 For in this hope we were saved. But hope that is seen is no hope at all. Who hopes for what they already have? 25 But if we hope for what we not yet have, we wait for it patiently.


So, I believe that it is a spiritual resurrection, but one that is so amazing that we can't wrap our heads around it. All we can do is wait patiently for our big surprise. :D
Exodus 14:14
" The Lord will fight for you; you need only to be still.”
User avatar
Kub
resident
resident
 
Posts: 264
Joined: Tue Mar 18, 2014 12:35 am
Location: Kansas City , Kansas
Affiliation: a sinner who loves Jesus :)

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

Postby mitchellmckain » Wed Feb 18, 2015 11:02 pm

I frankly don't get the objection to Paul in 1 Cor 15.

God is spirit and yet these fundies are reacting like spirit is "mystical" and deficient. I have to wonder if they believe in God at all when they say that. They seem to believe more in their church and what their church teaches than in God whom scripture says is spirit. Now if they were Mormons, I could understand better since the Mormons think God has a body like theirs.

Paul absolutely affirms a bodily resurrection and considers this to be a fundamental of Christianity. But then he directly addresses the question of what kind of body are we resurrected to. Is it a body like those which worms and monkeys have, made of flesh and blood? He says no, because such things are perishable and thus cannot inherit the kingdom of God. Instead Paul says it is body more like God -- spirit, just as God is spirit. Why in the world would anyone who believes highly of God think LESS of being a spirit? It makes no sense to me at all!

Rian wrote: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

I would never say that there is anything which God cannot do. Would you say God cannot eat? I would say God absolutely can eat. He can do anything that we can do and a lot more! => Spirit can do anything we can do and a lot more.

Yeah in John 20, Jesus seems to be saying something different. But there, Jesus is NOT addressing the question of what kind of body we have in the resurrection like Paul was. What Jesus is addressing after appearing in the midst of them when the doors were all shut, was their fear that he was some kind of ghost - a remnant of the spiritual dead. So Jesus showed them what a living spirit, like God, can do -- everything we can do and more, because he was not a creature of matter subject to the laws of nature. And why did he have holes into which Thomas could stick his fingers? No it is not because He is a reanimated corpse and no his physical body was not returned to its previous living condition either. Jesus was just appearing to them as they needed to see him in order to believe, for Thomas already said he would not believe unless he could see the wounds.
Last edited by mitchellmckain on Sun Feb 22, 2015 10:17 am, edited 4 times in total.
Out of Skull for the Stars My first book is now available on Amazon.com
User avatar
mitchellmckain
Senior member
Senior member
 
Posts: 10316
Joined: Sat Jul 18, 2009 1:32 am
Location: Salt Lake City
Affiliation: Christian

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

Postby Chapabel » Thu Feb 19, 2015 4:09 am

Everyone seems to be ignoring what Jesus, Himself, said about His resurrected body...it was flesh and bone. I don't believe you can get more physical than that.
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: 1575
Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2015 7:11 am
Location: Tennessee
Affiliation: Baptist

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

Postby Moonwood the Hare » Thu Feb 19, 2015 12:58 pm

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

Yes I'daccept that definition but I think you and I have a very different understanding of what is meant by logical. Tome tobe logical means to reason in conformity with logical rukes or principles, both the general rules like non-contradiction and the rules concerning the nature of valid inference. I think you meansometing like established by precident. So to you a belief in the resurrection is illogical because we observe on all other occasions that the dead stay dead.
If it is, can you give me an example of a coherent account of a Christian doctrine? No details needed.

To stick to the topic at hand someone may say the biblical accounts of the resurrection are incoherent. Someone then offers an account of what happened which squares them and you say, but that does not mean it really happened.
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.

No they don't help.
EDIT: Did not mean to change subject.

Actually it was me.
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: 5192
Joined: Wed Aug 19, 2009 10:24 am
Affiliation: Christian - pretty traditional

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

Postby Moonwood the Hare » Thu Feb 19, 2015 1:46 pm

sayak wrote:
Moonwood the Hare wrote: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?

Pneuma is most often translated soul but the NT idea of soul isn't like what is common today where it tend so mean a distinct thing somehow inside the body, an idea that comes down to us from Plato. In the NT the word psyche and its derivates are sometimes used in contrast with spirit as in this case but at other times the words are used in contrast with body(Matthew 10:28). What is behind all this though is that Paul is not saying that the physical body is replaced by a spiritual body but that it is transformed into a spiritual body, that is the significance of the analogy with a seed which is transformed into a plant. Just as the natural body was suited to the expression of the soul, the new body is suited to the expression of the spirit into which the soul has been transformed.
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: 5192
Joined: Wed Aug 19, 2009 10:24 am
Affiliation: Christian - pretty traditional

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

Postby Simplyme » Thu Feb 19, 2015 3:23 pm

Yes I'daccept that definition but I think you and I have a very different understanding of what is meant by logical. Tome tobe logical means to reason in conformity with logical rukes or principles, both the general rules like non-contradiction and the rules concerning the nature of valid inference. I think you meansometing like established by precident. So to you a belief in the resurrection is illogical because we observe on all other occasions that the dead stay dead.


I agree that we have a different understanding of what is meant by logical. Not sure what you mean by "established by precedent". But without agreeing on what is meant by logical, it is hard to converse. Would have to look up your meaning a little more. Lots of big words when I did a quick google scan.

To stick to the topic at hand someone may say the biblical accounts of the resurrection are incoherent. Someone then offers an account of what happened which squares them and you say, but that does not mean it really happened.


I will quote Tomoji Shogenji, when asked, Is coherence truth conducive? "Coherence per se is truth conducive on the level
of sets; but it is not truth conducive on the level of individual beliefs". Whole new subject for me to dive in to.
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: 5958
Joined: Tue Feb 15, 2011 7:11 am

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

Postby Moonwood the Hare » Thu Feb 19, 2015 4:24 pm

Simplyme wrote:
I agree that we have a different understanding of what is meant by logical. Not sure what you mean by "established by precedent". But without agreeing on what is meant by logical, it is hard to converse. Would have to look up your meaning a little more. Lots of big words when I did a quick google scan.

I thought it might not be clear just using the phrase so I gave the example: to you a belief in the resurrection is illogical because we observe on all other occasions that the dead stay dead. There's the precedent: the dead stay dead from which you infer the resurrection did not happen.
To stick to the topic at hand someone may say the biblical accounts of the resurrection are incoherent. Someone then offers an account of what happened which squares them and you say, but that does not mean it really happened.


I will quote Tomoji Shogenji, when asked, Is coherence truth conducive? "Coherence per se is truth conducive on the level
of sets; but it is not truth conducive on the level of individual beliefs". Whole new subject for me to dive in to.

Lets make it simpler. You have all these accounts of the resurrection. Someone says, 'look they don't square about who was there and what order things happened in.' So someone says well you can arrange an account like this and then they do square. You jump in and say, 'but that does not mean they are true.' It doesn't but if they don't square they cannot all be true in every detail so an explanation of how they might square removes that objection.
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: 5192
Joined: Wed Aug 19, 2009 10:24 am
Affiliation: Christian - pretty traditional

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

Postby mitchellmckain » Thu Feb 19, 2015 4:43 pm

Moonwood the Hare wrote:Mitch and Chap who are both Christians clearly have no respect for each other.

Why should the fact that we are both Christians make any difference in that regard? Being Christian is simply a matter of a few beliefs on a few issues that we happen to have in common. Within that there is room for a great deal of diversity of thought. Christianity is over 33,000 denominations. Therefore, two Christians can be world apart. The fact that I accept this, and don't pretend that I speak for all of Christianity, is one of the more significant differences between us.
Out of Skull for the Stars My first book is now available on Amazon.com
User avatar
mitchellmckain
Senior member
Senior member
 
Posts: 10316
Joined: Sat Jul 18, 2009 1:32 am
Location: Salt Lake City
Affiliation: Christian

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

Postby mitchellmckain » Thu Feb 19, 2015 5:04 pm

Moonwood the Hare wrote:Pneuma is most often translated soul but the NT idea of soul isn't like what is common today where it tend so mean a distinct thing somehow inside the body, an idea that comes down to us from Plato. In the NT the word psyche and its derivates are sometimes used in contrast with spirit as in this case but at other times the words are used in contrast with body(Matthew 10:28). What is behind all this though is that Paul is not saying that the physical body is replaced by a spiritual body but that it is transformed into a spiritual body, that is the significance of the analogy with a seed which is transformed into a plant. Just as the natural body was suited to the expression of the soul, the new body is suited to the expression of the spirit into which the soul has been transformed.


That is cherry picking Paul's words. He makes it quite clear that they are completely different. He says if there is a physical body then there is a spiritual body, and the physical body must die. He says what you sow is NOT the body which is to come. When he says it is but bare kernel, that means the contribution from the physical body is not a big part of the spiritual body.

Paul didn't know anything about modern chemistry. To say that Paul would claim that the resurrection drags all the elements of the dead body out of the ground and reassemble themselves is absurd. I think is obvious that Paul would say that such chemistry has nothing to do with the spiritual body because it is quite clear all that chemistry is tied with how the physical body is PERISHABLE.

I have never claimed that the spiritual body has nothing from the physical body -- quite the contrary. Transformed indeed! But WHAT is transformed exactly and WHAT is it that you imagine the spiritual body takes from the physical body? Matter? Carbon, oxygen, hydrogen, etc. atoms? Really? Such a medieval magical notion is insane, completely rejecting all of the facts of modern science. But if it doesn't take these things then why the hell call it physical when nobody in science would call that physical and nobody in the Bible called it physical. It only serves a willfully anti-science agenda.

What actually makes sense, is to say INFORMATION is what the spiritual body has from the physical - form and appearance. That is believable. That is sensible. What it is NOT, is a reason to call it a physical body!


Now, to be sure, our interest is somewhat different. You may only care what Paul originally meant. But I fail to see the relevance. The context of the world and our understanding of reality has changed. And to cling absolutely to what Paul meant and only what Paul meant does not make any sense unless this is just a literary scholarly exercise having nothing to do with our own existence in this century.
Last edited by mitchellmckain on Fri Feb 20, 2015 3:17 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Out of Skull for the Stars My first book is now available on Amazon.com
User avatar
mitchellmckain
Senior member
Senior member
 
Posts: 10316
Joined: Sat Jul 18, 2009 1:32 am
Location: Salt Lake City
Affiliation: Christian

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

Postby Simplyme » Thu Feb 19, 2015 5:32 pm

I thought it might not be clear just using the phrase so I gave the example: to you a belief in the resurrection is illogical because we observe on all other occasions that the dead stay dead. There's the precedent: the dead stay dead from which you infer the resurrection did not happen.


You are correct then in how I view illogical. You do not follow that same precedent? If the dead have always stayed dead, what else am I to get out of someone stating that a human being was resurrected?

Lets make it simpler. You have all these accounts of the resurrection. Someone says, 'look they don't square about who was there and what order things happened in.' So someone says well you can arrange an account like this and then they do square. You jump in and say, 'but that does not mean they are true.' It doesn't but if they don't square they cannot all be true in every detail so an explanation of how they might square removes that objection.


Still lost me with the bold underline.
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: 5958
Joined: Tue Feb 15, 2011 7:11 am

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

Postby spongebob » Fri Feb 20, 2015 8:06 am

From a purely non-religious perspective, I find the idea of a physical resurrection of all past Christians extremely problematic. If you include all non-Christians who weren't just monsters, the problem gets even worse. Where would all of these people go? Wouldn't the earth be over run with people? Are there other worlds where some of them might be deposited? And would they be able to communicate with one another? Would all the language and cultural obstacles just magically be removed? None of this seems even remotely realistic. And I've come to think in terms that would make such an existence meaningless anyway.

From my past Christian perspective, I always assumed it meant non-physical, an entirely different plane of existence, though I can't back that up with scripture and I've probably forgotten more than I ever knew. Ultimately I don't really have much else to say on this subject. I suppose non-believers who have more robust knowledge of the Bible might have something to contribute.
Man is a credulous animal, and must believe something; in the absence of good grounds for belief, he will be satisfied with bad ones.
~Bertrand Russell

:spongeb:
User avatar
spongebob
Senior member
Senior member
 
Posts: 5783
Joined: Tue Mar 14, 2006 5:59 pm
Location: Huntsville, AL
Affiliation: Humanist - Bright

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

Postby Aaron » Sun Feb 22, 2015 12:21 pm

spongebob wrote:From a purely non-religious perspective, I find the idea of a physical resurrection of all past Christians extremely problematic. If you include all non-Christians who weren't just monsters, the problem gets even worse. Where would all of these people go? Wouldn't the earth be over run with people? Are there other worlds where some of them might be deposited? And would they be able to communicate with one another? Would all the language and cultural obstacles just magically be removed? None of this seems even remotely realistic. And I've come to think in terms that would make such an existence meaningless anyway.

From my past Christian perspective, I always assumed it meant non-physical, an entirely different plane of existence, though I can't back that up with scripture and I've probably forgotten more than I ever knew. Ultimately I don't really have much else to say on this subject. I suppose non-believers who have more robust knowledge of the Bible might have something to contribute.

I don't think it is problematic for Christians who believe God is more than capable of providing for the people he already knows are his. So a worry about there being too many people is not one that I think most Christians would share. But as far as the physical problems go I think Mitch is right about information being the thing that is preserved. For I might at this very moment possess within my body elements which were at one time part of another persons body, so that at the end when there is a resurrection we might have a bunch of people with parts and pieces missing. So even if it were a physical resurrection it would still be based on information and not actually using the same exact elements and molecules as you had before you died or something. But anyway my view is that we will be given a new body that is imperishable and we will be able to eat and drink like Jesus did while he was on earth after his resurrection. But I see the resurrection as more of a new body, a transformation into something new and better, and not a reanimation of molecules like a zombie or something like that. I would make an analogy to the Jewish Temple, as we learn from the Bible the Temple of the Jews was only a copy of a thing in Heaven, so that the Heavenly thing is everything the earthly thing is except it is not the same and is much better in every way.
"I believe in Christianity as I believe that the sun has risen: not only because I see it, but because by it I see everything else" - C.S. Lewis
User avatar
Aaron
Senior member
Senior member
 
Posts: 3075
Joined: Mon Mar 23, 2009 9:29 pm
Location: Alaska
Affiliation: Christian

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

Postby spongebob » Wed Mar 04, 2015 9:17 pm

Aaron wrote:I don't think it is problematic for Christians who believe God is more than capable of providing for the people he already knows are his. So a worry about there being too many people is not one that I think most Christians would share.


That's amazing. How would you imagine god solving this problem? Suppose that 20 billion people were all resurrected (and that's just a wild guess), physically and wholly. You really don't see a space problem if they are all living here on the earth? Sure, you could always say god will just increase the size of the earth or ship some off to different planets, but that's all just wild speculation.

But as far as the physical problems go I think Mitch is right about information being the thing that is preserved. For I might at this very moment possess within my body elements which were at one time part of another persons body, so that at the end when there is a resurrection we might have a bunch of people with parts and pieces missing. So even if it were a physical resurrection it would still be based on information and not actually using the same exact elements and molecules as you had before you died or something.


I find that explanation both perplexing and somewhat horrific and I can't imagine how this fits any description of "resurrection". But I can absolutely assure you that your physical body contains atoms that once belonged to another person, and not necessarily from someone who lived long ago. We regularly ingest molecules from other people (and other creatures) whether we want to or not, unless you live in isolation that is.

But anyway my view is that we will be given a new body that is imperishable and we will be able to eat and drink like Jesus did while he was on earth after his resurrection. But I see the resurrection as more of a new body, a transformation into something new and better, and not a reanimation of molecules like a zombie or something like that. I would make an analogy to the Jewish Temple, as we learn from the Bible the Temple of the Jews was only a copy of a thing in Heaven, so that the Heavenly thing is everything the earthly thing is except it is not the same and is much better in every way.


So this description makes me wonder if this is a sterile body (meaning no reproduction) and it still doesn't answer the over population issue. This also makes me wonder how in the world you could exit indefinitely without going insane. I wonder if Christians actually think about this; I know did when I was a Christian. I couldn't imagine continued existence for thousands, maybe millions of years, whether I had a body or not.
Man is a credulous animal, and must believe something; in the absence of good grounds for belief, he will be satisfied with bad ones.
~Bertrand Russell

:spongeb:
User avatar
spongebob
Senior member
Senior member
 
Posts: 5783
Joined: Tue Mar 14, 2006 5:59 pm
Location: Huntsville, AL
Affiliation: Humanist - Bright

PreviousNext

Return to The Civility Lounge

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest