Let's Get Physical--Foundational Essay on the Resurrection Body

Tekton Apologetic Ministries ^ | n.d. | J.P. Holding

[EthanNorth]

Let's Get Physical

---

Foundational Essay on the Resurrection Body James Patrick Holding

---

I have noted that at the core of many skeptical or other arguments on the resurrection of Jesus Christ lies a base assumption that the epistalory NT records could (or must) be interpreted as saying that the resurrected Jesus was not a being with a physical body (as the Gospels make clear), but rather was some sort of ghostly or spiritual being that was not tangible. From this skeptics may run with another ball -- the visions of Jesus were mass hallucinations, or some such like that. The Secular Web's Mr. Friendly Ice-Cream Man, Robert Price, puts it this way in a response to William Lane Craig:

Many New Testament scholars have observed that the conception of the resurrection body implied in 1 Corinthians 15 clashes so violently with that presupposed in the gospels that the latter must be dismissed as secondary embellishments, especially as 1 Corinthians predates the gospels. Craig takes exception. The whole trend of his argument seems to me to belie the point he is ostensibly trying to make, namely that any differences between the two traditions do not imply that 1 Corinthians allows only sightings, subjective visions, while the gospels depict more fulsome encounters replete with dialogue, gestures, touching, and eating. Nothing in 1 Corinthians 15 rules out such scenes, he says. But surely the very urgency of the matter shows that Craig would feel himself at a great loss if he had to cut loose all those juicy gospel resurrection stories to be left with the skimpy list of terse notes in 1 Corinthians 15. By itself, 1 Corinthians 15 just wouldn't mean much. He wants the appearances of 1 Corinthians 15:3-11 to be read as if they had in parentheses after them "See Luke 24; Matthew 28; John 21."

Now even if indeed the rez body (as we shall say) was not physical, this does not automatically disqualify the authenticity and revelatory authority of the appearances; it merely gives some critics another level of excuses to appeal to. But we need not make that point. The purpose of this essay is to demonstrate that the rez body of Jesus clearly was physical, and that this is shown in two ways:

1. The Jewish contextual literature of the period that describes the nature of resurrection.
2. The NT epistles themselves, which many skeptical and other critics fail to understand properly.

---

Our survey of background Jewish literature is taken from Pheme Perkins' work Resurrection. Although not all Jews held uniform ideas about resurrection, it will become clear from this survey that the concept always involved a physical reconstitution of the deceased body. There is no room or place for the idea of a "spiritual resurrection", which is an unknown concept in this context, an oxymoron like "square circle" or "concrete rubber".

We may begin our survey with relevant material from the OT:

Daniel 12:2-3 And many of them that sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt. And they that be wise shall shine as the brightness of the firmament; and they that turn many to righteousness as the stars for ever and ever.

Ezekiel 37:1-12 The hand of the LORD was upon me, and carried me out in the spirit of the LORD, and set me down in the midst of the valley which was full of bones, And caused me to pass by them round about: and, behold, there were very many in the open valley; and, lo, they were very dry. And he said unto me, Son of man, can these bones live? And I answered, O Lord GOD, thou knowest. Again he said unto me, Prophesy upon these bones, and say unto them, O ye dry bones, hear the word of the LORD. Thus saith the Lord GOD unto these bones; Behold, I will cause breath to enter into you, and ye shall live: And I will lay sinews upon you, and will bring up flesh upon you, and cover you with skin, and put breath in you, and ye shall live; and ye shall know that I am the LORD. So I prophesied as I was commanded: and as I prophesied, there was a noise, and behold a shaking, and the bones came together, bone to his bone. And when I beheld, lo, the sinews and the flesh came up upon them, and the skin covered them above: but there was no breath in them. Then said he unto me, Prophesy unto the wind, prophesy, son of man, and say to the wind, Thus saith the Lord GOD; Come from the four winds, O breath, and breathe upon these slain, that they may live. So I prophesied as he commanded me, and the breath came into them, and they lived, and stood up upon their feet, an exceeding great army. Then he said unto me, Son of man, these bones are the whole house of Israel: behold, they say, Our bones are dried, and our hope is lost: we are cut off for our parts. Therefore prophesy and say unto them, Thus saith the Lord GOD; Behold, O my people, I will open your graves, and cause you to come up out of your graves, and bring you into the land of Israel.

Is. 26:19 Thy dead men shall live, together with my dead body shall they arise.

These three passages, especially Ezekiel, are programmatic for the concept of resurrection. Now here are cites from Judaism at the time of Jesus:

4 Ezra 7:32 The earth shall restore those who sleep in her, and the dust those who rest in it, and the chambers those entrusted to them.

1 Enoch 51:1 In those days, the earth will also give back what has been entrusted to it, and Sheol will give back what it has received, and hell will give back what it owes.

Sib. Or. IV ...God Himself will refashion the bones and ashes of humans and raise up mortals as they were before.

2 Baruch 50:2ff For certainly the earth will then restore the dead. It will not change their form, but just as it received them, so it will restore them.

Pseudo-Phocylides 103-4 ...we hope that the remains of the departed will soon come to light again out of the earth. And afterward, they will become gods.

---

Let's now work with the NT evidence, starting with the positive arguments for a physical rez body:

1. Paul's word for "body" can have no other meaning than a physical body. In this regard, Gundry's landmark study of the word used for "body" (soma) makes it quite clear that something physical in intended. In Soma in Biblical Theology, Gundry examines the use of soma in other literature of the period and shows that it refers to the physical "thingness" of a body. It is often used in a sense that we would say, "We need a body over here" with reference to slaves who are used as tools; to soldiers who are on the verge of death, to passengers on a boat, and to people in a census. In other places it is used to refer to a corpse (and so cannot refer by itself to the "whole person" as some influenced by Bultmann have suggested). Xenophon (Anabasis 1.9.12) refers to the people entrusting Cyrus with their possessions, their cites, and their "bodies" (somata). Plato refers to the act of habeus corpus in terms of producing a soma. Aristophanes refers to the throwing of a soma to dogs. It is used by Euripides and Demosthenes to refer to corpses.

• Paul's 1 Cor. 15 examples are analogous to a physical body.

Paul is answering the question posed by the Corinthians, "How are the dead raised up? and with what body do they come?" His answers refer to appropriate physical bodies, suitable for various types of existence -- "somatic variety with the universe" [Harr.RI, 119]. This is not appropriate if Paul has in mind a spiritual, disembodied "resurrection". And of course, he refers back to Christ's own body (1 Cor. 15:3ff) as an example of this principle in action, a "positive and emphatic correlation" between the resurrection of Christ and that of the believer. [Gundry, 172]

• The word anastasis can only mean bodily resurrection.

This word is used 44 times in the NT. In the Synptics we have this episode: "The same day came to him the Sadducees, which say that there is no resurrection..." In John we have: "And shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation," a clear allusion to Daniel 12; also "Martha saith unto him, I know that he shall rise again in the resurrection at the last day." Acts uses this word to explain what happened to Jesus. "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."; "And have hope toward God, which they themselves also allow, that there shall be a resurrection of the dead, both of the just and unjust." Paul uses anastasis as well to refer to what happened to Jesus (Rom. 1:4, 6:5; 1 Cor. 15; Phil. 3:10). It is used to describe a physical, bodly resurrection in Heb. 11:35, and is found as well in 1 Peter.

Skeptics may wish to argue, "Well, the Gospels and Hebrews meant one thing, and Paul meant another." But anastasis is not so easily disposed of. It is clearly a technical term for bodily resurrection, and it is the burden of critics to prove otherwise.

• 2 Cor. 5 shows that a physical body is in view.

"Now we know that if the earthly tent we live in is destroyed, we have a building from God, an eternal house in heaven, not built by human hands. Meanwhile we groan, longing to be clothed with our heavenly dwelling, because when we are clothed, we will not be found naked. For while we are in this tent, we groan and are burdened, because we do not wish to be unclothed but to be clothed with our heavenly dwelling, so that what is mortal may be swallowed up by life. Now it is God who has made us for this very purpose and has given us the Spirit as a deposit, guaranteeing what is to come." Here, Paul describes the earthly body as a "tent" (i.e., temporary living structure) and the new body as something that is a "building" built by God, something that one is "clothed" with (the verb in question has the connotation of "pulling one garment on over another one" - Craig.ANTE, 151), something that the Spirit is a "deposit" for! How much more of a suggestion of being tangible and material do we need?

• Phil. 3:21

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. It is clear from this little verse that Paul regards Christ as now having a "glorious" body (soma). This is clear testimony to a physical resurrection.

• A transfer to an idea of a physical rez from a spiritual one makes no sense in the social context.

In view of the expanding Gentile mission, it is hard to see how an embellishment from "disembodied" to "embodied" could take place. The Greeks perceived such events as a resurrection, initially, as a "resuscitated corpse" - rather like our Creature Feature zombies! Paul would have had no problem preaching a disembodied spirit to the Gentiles; but doing that, then switching it to "physical" as in the Gospels, would have been highly counterproductive to missions. As Perkins [Perk.Rz, 61] observes:

Christianity's pagan critics generally viewed resurrection as misunderstood metempsychosis at best. At worst, it seemed ridiculous.

This view is reflected for example by Celsus, who responded thusly to the idea of resurrection: "The soul may have everlasting life, but corpses, as Heraclitus said, 'ought to be thrown away as worse than dung'". Plutarch similarly said it was "against nature" to "send bodies to heaven" and that only pure souls "cast no shadows" (i.e., had no bodies) and he even rejected accounts of bodily translations on this basis. "The funeral pyre was said to burn away the body so that the immortal part could ascend to the gods." [73] There were cases of temporary resuscitation, but these occurred before the person was buried and in almost all cases before they entered the realm of the dead. In such cases the person died again eventually -- which does not conflict with hostility to, or rejection of, resurrection. (See Peter Bolt, "Life, Death and the Afterlife in the Greco-Roman World", in Life in the Face of Death, Eerdmans, 1998.)

Note as well that in 1 Cor., Paul is addressing advocates of asceticism and libertinism -- points of view associated with those who thought matter was evil and at the root of all of man's problems. Platonic thought supposed that "man's highest good consisted of emancipation from corporeal defilement. The nakedness of disembodiment was the ideal state." [Harr.RI, 116] If the critics are right, Christianity took a big and significant step backwards that should have killed it in the cradle, or at least caused historical reprecussions and divisions that would still be in evidence.

---

Thus is our "pro" case for a physical rez body; what about the counter-arguments? Robert Price claims above that the Gospel pictures of the rez Jesus clash "violently" with those in the epistles -- mainly, Paul's material in 1 Cor. 15. Is this truly the case? Let's start with the biggest "con job" in the whole lot:

1. "Paul can't possibly be referring to a physically resurrected body, because he clearly says that 'flesh and blood' cannot inherit the Kingdom of God. (1 Cor. 15:50)

   This cite is usually contrasted with Luke 24:39: 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. It's clear enough that the phrases compared are different in a key way: "flesh and blood" versus "flesh and bones." A difference that is no difference, the skeptic may say. Really? Not at all. The phrase "flesh and blood" is "a typical Semitic expression denoting the frail human nature." It is a phrase that reflects a conceptual unity, rather than a physical aspect of the body; and this is supported by the use of the singular "is" rather than the plural "are." [Craig.ANTE, 141] Thus, as Craig also points out, the second half of the parallel in 1 Cor. 15:50 (corruptible/incorruptible) is "Paul's elaboration in other words of exactly the same thought" [Craig.BR, 60] - perhaps making it more clear to the Greeks in his audience who would not "get" the Semitic turn of speech. (This relates to the Semitic Totality concept, which we explore here.)

   Similar use of the phrase "flesh and blood" is found in Sir. 14:18 and 17:31, Wisdom 12:5, and in the works of Philo, as well as elsewhere in the NT, and in rabbinical literature. Craig also points out that Paul uses the phrase "flesh and blood" in the sense of "people" or "mortal creatures" elsewhere: Eph. 6:12 "For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of this dark world and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms." - It is also used this way in Gal. 1:16. Dahl [Dahl.RoB, 121], reflecting both on this phrase and the word "flesh" as used in v. 39, comments:

   The connotation of the word is not merely, if primarily, physical, but describes the whole totality and would therefore comprehend the mental or psychological as well. It is used in biblical literature to emphasize frailty, creatureliness, weakness, etc., and is, for that reason, the opposite of 'spirit,' which is always connected with the idea of strength.

   This fits in with what Craig is saying: "flesh" = weakness; spiritual body = strength. And Orr and Walther [Orr.1COR, 349-50] state:

   Paul may mean the material substance of bodies, composed of flesh and blood; or the phrase may have a quasi-technical significance, referring to humanity. If he means the former, then certainly God's kingdom is in the future. If he means the latter, then he seems to be referring to the natural human being in other terms. The other two uses of this phrase in the Pauline literature, Gal. 1:16 and Eph. 6:12, suggest the second option (cf. also Matt. 16:17 and Heb. 2:14). (emphasis added)

   Let us also add the opinion of Perkins [Perk.Rz, 306]. For her, "flesh and blood" is:

   ...a Semitic expression for human being (as in Gal. 1:16). It often appears in contexts that stress creatureliness and mortality. (emphasis added)

   We have thus seen what "flesh and blood" means; what about "flesh and bones"? This is not an anatomical description, but a reflection of the Jewish concept of resurrection, an emphasis on physicality. In the OT, it is the bones that are raised and preserved for the resurrection; hence, the phrase "connotes the physical reality of Jesus' resurrection." [ibid., 69] This was why Jewish belief held great concern for the preservation of the bones - hence, the use of ossuaries to keep them in one handy container. [Craig.ANTE, 144] Jesus is thus assuring the disciples that they are not merely seeing a ghost, but a resurrected body - the stress is on corporeality, not constituency. As Harris notes, "flesh and blood" would not be used for this sort of emphasis, not only because of the connotation of that phrase in association with weakness and corruptible life, but also because blood wasn't something that could be touched [Harr.RI, 54].

2. "Paul can't be referring to a physical body, because in 1 Cor. 15:45 he says that Jesus became 'a life-giving spirit.'"

   This does not follow from the text at all in terms of disproving a physical rez body. Paul says that Adam became a "living soul" -- he is not saying that Adam became a disembodied soul; nor is he, then, saying that Christ became a disembodied spirit. [Craig.ANTE, 137] In light of the explanation by Paul previous to this verse, it correllates to the natural body made at Adam's creation versus the "spiritual body" created at the Resurrection, or what Craig believes is better referred to as the "supernatural body." As Dahl [Dahl.RoB, 81-2] puts it:

   God's eschatological plan demands that if a man is a body-animate, he can and will be a body-spiritual...That is to say, his ultimate destiny is to be a totality not simply animated by the spirit (which might be said of other kinds of 'flesh'), but a totality taken up into the life of the Spirit himself, so that the whole totality is so controlled and possessed by the Spirit that it shares his life-giving powers....the second man derives his glory and power direct from heaven.

   And Jansen [Jans.RJC, 106-7] adds:

   The stress is not on the relationship of Lord and Spirit but on the contrast between the physical body and the spiritual body. The exalted Christ not only has a spiritual body but is himself the life-giver, in contrast to the first man who became a living being...Paul views the first and the last Adam as inclusive figures (as in Romans 5) in whom we see the whole of human history.

   Thus, this verse "contrasts the two heads of two different families" [Ladd.IBRz, 117]by way of their orientation. More practically, the parallelism Paul is attempting to Genesis 2:7 would have been lost had he referred to Jesus' body. [Craig.ANTE, 138]

3. "Paul could not mean a physical body -- he refers to a 'spiritual body'." Price suggests that this refers to a body that is immaterial, or some sort of angelic substance, spiritual in nature. Mormons may find this useful for their own doctrine of spirit as a sort of substance. The phrase actually means not a disembodied spirit, but a tangible body dominated and directed by the Holy Spirit - thus Craig prefers the term, "supernatural" body, in accordance with the Greek terminology:

152. pneumatikos, pnyoo-mat-ik-os'; from G4151; non-carnal, i.e. (humanly) ethereal (as opposed to gross), or (daemoniacally) a spirit (concr.), or (divinely) supernatural, regenerate, religious:--spiritual.

Harris points out that Greek adjectives ending in -ikos "carry a functional or ethical meaning" [Harr.RI, 120]. Consider there sample verses where, obviously, pneumatikos could by no means be referring to something immaterial:

Rom. 1:11 I long to see you so that I may impart to you some spiritual gift to make you strong...(Does this refer to a gift that is made of some "luminous angelic substance" or is simply immaterial?)

Gal. 6:1 Brothers, if someone is caught in a sin, you who are spiritual should restore him gently. But watch yourself, or you also may be tempted. (Is Paul talking to people who are CURRENTLY made of an "angelic substance" or are immaterial?)

The point, then, being made by Craig is that Jesus' resurrection body was dominated and directed by the Holy Spirit - not "made of" spirit. "Spiritual" here is an adjective describing an orientation, not a status of existence.

Pushback: But can Paul have imagined that Jesus's body during his earthly life was not already dominated and directed by the Holy Spirit? Ours, maybe, but his? One cannot ignore the parallel being drawn between Jesus and the resurrected believer throughout the chapter. And to say that "it is raised a spiritual body" means only "it is raised" is a piece of harmonizing sleight-of-hand...

Here our critic, Robert Price, has missed the point. Of COURSE Paul "imagined" that Jesus had an earthly body that was not "dominated and directed" by the Holy Spirit, as indeed the Gospels, and even Paul, teach: It was a body that got hungry, got thirsty, wept, was born of a woman, was descended from David, and was crucified and killed. The post-resurrection body, on the other hand, was/is NOT subject to weaknesses, according to Paul. This is the whole thrust of the parallel between Jesus' RESURRECTED body - NOT His earthly one - and the believer's resurrected body! Paul said of Jesus in His earthly body: "Your attitude should be the same as that of Christ Jesus: Who, being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be grasped, but made himself nothing, taking the very nature of a servant, being made in human likeness." - Phil. 2:5-7. And: "For what the law was powerless to do in that it was weakened by the sinful nature, God did by sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful man to be a sin offering." - Rom. 8:3. The earthly body of Jesus was just as frail as ours; but it is the RESURRECTED body of Jesus that is under the domination of the Spirit - or as Craig puts it, is Spirit-oriented - not the earthly one, in either case. What Price has apparently done here is confused the idea that Jesus received COUNSEL and DIRECTION from the Holy Spirit with the idea that His bodily material was itself dominated by the Holy Spirit on the material, earthly level. The two concepts are in no way the same!

• "Peter doesn't believe in a physical resurrection. He says that Jesus was 'put to death in flesh but made alive in spirit' (1 Peter 3:18). He also doesn't mention the empty tomb where he should (5:1)." We have dealt with the first cite with reference to the Mormons: the phrase here is by the Spirit, meaning the mode whereby Jesus was raised. The verb "quickened" is used elsewhere to describe physical resurrection (John 5:21, 1 Cor. 15). As for 5:1, I challenge critics to make a case that this was a place where anything like the empty tomb should be mentioned: "The elders which are among you I exhort, who am also an elder, and a witness of the sufferings of Christ, and also a partaker of the glory that shall be revealed..."

• "Why not preach a bodily resurrection? It is a more concrete and wonderful proof of victory over death." How so? The body is not present, so "concreteness" is out the window. The empty tomb is explained no more easily. It is not "wonderful" unless you agree that the body is worth saving, which the pagans did not believe. It only makes the job harder to do.

• "There were other instances of the doctrine being messed with; what about 1 Corinthians? Maybe the switch was one of these mess-ups." Such an objection merely begs the question, and arguing for "guilt by association" because of other mess-ups is not valid. Moreover, as noted, the Corinthian controversy was one that denied a physical resurrection! The only other mess-up supposed that the resurrection of believers had already taken place -- an issue of timing, not nature. Further speculation that the "spiritual rez" idea was lost or suppressed are no more than begged questions as well.

• "Other Jewish sects did not believe in a physical resurrection. Why not Christianity also?" Be careful when this is offered; it is a trick question! Saying "physical resurrection" is like saying "round circle." Many writers (including some scholars, but mostly uninformed skeptics) speak of "spiritual" resurrection but they use the term improperly. To use a prime example, according to Josephus, the Essenes had a doctrine that "righteous souls go to a place of blessedness." It should be first noted (as by N. T. Wright, Jesus and the Victory of God, 326f) that it is possible that Josephus' description here is somewhat affected by his attempt to depict the various divisions of Judaism as Hellenistic philosophical schools. Read improperly, his description of the Pharisee belief suggests that they believed in reincarnation! The best authority for Essene belief is Essene documents, and on the matter of resurrection, they are silent, though Wright, following Vermes, believes that at least some Essenes embraced physical resurrection.

  That said, what if Josephus is indeed accurate? Then we do not have, by definition, "resurrection" -- we have apotheosis. Or actually, maybe we only have pre-resurrection stirrings. There are other passages like these which some speak of as counter to resurrection, but in these cases what we likely have (as in Wisdom of Solomon 3:1, 5:16, 6:17-20, and Josephus on the Essenes) is a description of life for those between death and resurrection, with no actually negative indications against resurrection. In any event it is unwise to proceed without caution and assert that we have evidence that Christianity could have preached a "spiritual resurrection." It is especially dangerous to use cites uncritically, for as Wright also notes, in describing the intermediate state, Jewish writers sometimes borrowed Hellenistic language "which in its own context denotes a permanent disembodied state; but they still make it clear that bodily resurrection is the end they have in sight."

  Finally, it is illict to use Eccl. 12:7 as a point against phsyical resurrection in light of that book's genre (see also here).

  ---

  Conclusion -- There is no way to escape the fact that the contextual background of the NT, and the NT itself, clearly teaches a Jesus whose body was physically resurrected into tangible form. Proponents of a "spiritual" resurrection are either misinformed or else are trying to "escape from the scandal of a physical resurrection." [Gundry, 163]

  ---

  Addendum: "Firstfruits" of the Resurrection: In light of the above it has been shown tha certain skeptical contentions about Christ's order as the first resurrected are also wrong. The raising of Jairus' daughter, and of Samuel as a ghost, do not fit in this paradigm.

  THe one set of people who do fit in the paradigm are Matthew's resurrected saints. At this point some skeptics may bring in two verses:

  Acts 26:23 That Christ should suffer, and that he should be the first that should rise from the dead, and should show light unto the people, and to the Gentiles.

  Wouldn't Matt's saints be "first"? In chronology, yes, but that is not the sense here. In Acts the word used for "first" is protos, and it can mean first in order, but it also can mean first in importance. For example, Matthew 10:2 reads, "Now the names of the twelve apostles are these; The first, Simon, who is called Peter, and Andrew his brother; James the son of Zebedee, and John his brother...." This is clearly a ranking of importance recognizing Peter as the "chief" of the apostles in rank. If it were a numerical listing, we would read, "...second, Andrew..."

  1 Cor. 15:20 But now is Christ risen from the dead, and become the firstfruits of them that slept.

  This verse is not relevant to chronology, either. The word "firstfruits" is aparche, which alludes to the Jewish firstfruits sacrifice. Matthew's saints were not sacrifices at all as Jesus was.

  ---

  Sources

  • Crai.ANTE -- Craig, William Lane. Analyzing the New Testament Evidence for the Resurrection
  • Craig.BR - Craig, William Lane. "The Bodily Resurrection of Jesus, " Gospel Perspectives: Studies of History and Tradition in the Four Gospels. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1980.
  • Dahl.RoB - Dahl, M. E. The Resurrection of the Body. Napierville: Alec R. Allenson, 1962.
  • Harr.RI -- Harris, Murray. Raised Immortal. Eerdmans, 1983.
  • Jans.RJC - Jansen, John Frederick. The Resurrection of Jesus Christ in New Testament Theology. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1980.
  • Ladd.IBRz - Ladd, George Eldon. I Believe in the Resurrection of Jesus. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1975.
  • Orr.1COR - Orr, William E. and James Arthur Walther. 1 Corinthians. New York: Doubleday, 1976.
  • Perk.Rz - Perkins, Pheme. Resurrection: New Testament Witness and Contemporary Reflection. New York: Doubleday, 1984.

[the_doc]

I love you, too. Shalom.

You'd better re-think what I said in my #139. See also Jeremiah 6:14 and 8:11.

[malakhi]

I, I am ,
and besides me there is no savior. (Isaiah 43:11)

...I am your Savior,
and your Redeemer, the Mighty One of Jacob. (Isaiah 49:26)

I am your God
from the land of Egypt;
you know no God but me,
and besides me there is no savior. (Hosea 13:4)

thou, , art our Father,
our Redeemer from of old is thy name. (Isaiah 63:16)

[the_doc]

As things stand, You will die in your sins.

[malakhi]

As things stand, You will die in your sins.

Yes, I know you believe that. My trust is in .

The Sabbath approaches. Peace be with you.

[DouglasKC]

This "insult" was in response to an accusation that Ethan "studiously avoid[s] quoting Peter, Paul, Luke, Jesus, John and Matthew." You're quick to levy accusations and insults, then even quicker to cry foul when they come back to you.

Considering the constant onslaught of insults that have been flung my way any offense my response was more than justified.

From Is Satan Bound Today? "You and your experts have it dead wrong Ethan and the sooner you stop reading them and start reading the bible the sooner you'll realize this." You spent an entire lengthy post trying to show that the soma research was wrong, and ended the post with the above statement. Is this not correct?

That's correct and thanks for linking to it. I stand by that post and the comment after it.

[DouglasKC]

Do you agree with Ethan's apparent assesment that I am in all liklihood a physical threat to he and his family?
That's another example of your dishonesty. Ethan did not make this "apparent assessment."

Oh okay. Let's see, first Ethan says:

Note: I have made his true doctrines and their source made publically known. He can't deal with the scholarly and Biblical facts so he does the next best thing — go after me personally.

Then, in the next sentence in the next breath he says:

And make no mistake (and another person on this forum knows this), I have received numerous threats to the safety of my family and myself over the years of dealing with adherents of Armstrongism. These weren't isolated incidences. Don't let these people know your personal contact information.

So that the entire statement is:

Note: I have made his true doctrines and their source made publically known. He can't deal with the scholarly and Biblical facts so he does the next best thing — go after me personally.
And make no mistake (and another person on this forum knows this), I have received numerous threats to the safety of my family and myself over the years of dealing with adherents of Armstrongism. These weren't isolated incidences. Don't let these people know your personal contact information.

Don't be sanctimoniously dishonest. (It is swinish, Douglas.)

I wish I were being santimoniously dishonest. Ethans behavior, and your approval of it, is revolting and repungnent.

[the_doc]

Your post condemns you.

[DouglasKC]

1Co 15:44 It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body. There is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body."
Ethan: Paul's contextual meaning:
But what does he [Paul] mean by the words translated here as "physical/spiritual"? The word translated "physical" literally means "soul-ish." Now obviously, Paul does not mean that our present body is made out of soul.
Rather, by this word he means "dominated" by or pertaining to human nature."

Actually our present physical bodies are souls as Paul would have understood the usage of the term. Animals are also living souls as Paul would have understood the term. This is easily verified by looking in the Old Testament (the only scriptures Paul knew) and seeing what "soul" really means. It is the hebrew "nephesh" and it means that basic animal life present in humans AND animals. References are:

Gen 1:21 And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

This verse clearly refers to animals. The word "creature" is "nephesh", the same word translated as soul.

This makes you assertation that "soulish" pertains to "human nature" as mistaken since it also obviously refers to animal nature. What "soulish" means (according to the bible) is that it's the natural physical fleshly life that both humans and animals have.

Similarly, when he says the resurrection body will be "spiritual," he does not mean "made out of spirit." Rather, it means "dominated by or oriented toward the Spirit."

This might be a good explanation except for what was stated above AND except for the fact that Paul also describes fleshly as:

Co 15:47 The first man is of the earth, earthy: the second man is the Lord from heaven.

Here we see that Paul compares our natural fleshly body as being made out of the elements of the earth. The creation. He draws a contrast with what Christ's resurrection body was like, the same as he drew a contast between spirit and flesh in 1 Cor 15:44.

It is the same sense of the word "spiritual" as when we say someone is a spiritual person.

Not according to the bible it's not. As outlined above.

In fact, look at the way Paul uses exactly those same words in 1 Corinthians 2:14-15
"The natural man does not receive the gifts of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and he is not able to understand them, because they are spiritually discerned. The spiritual man judges all things but is himself to be judged by no one."

Natural man does not mean "physical man," but "man oriented toward human nature."

As I've shown you Ethan, natural, to Paul, meant fleshly, earthly, animate, a physical body, exactly like an animal has a physical body. It does not mean "orientated toward human nature" unless you believe human nature and animal nature are interchangeable.

And spiritual man does not mean "intangible, invisible man" but "man oriented toward the Spirit."

If the actual words used in the bible agree with you I would embrace your idea. But they don't. Spiritually in 1 Corinthians 2:14 is defined by Strongs Concordance as "non-physically, that is, divinely, figuratively: - spiritually".

Non-physical is the biblically accepted definition of spriritually, as is the word "spiritual" and "spirit".

The contrast is the same in 1 Corinthians 15. The present, earthly body will be freed from its slavery to sinful human nature and become instead fully empowered and directed by God's Spirit. Thus, Paul's doctrine of the resurrection body implies a physical resurrection. (William Lane Craig

Well that was a nice opinion of Mr. Craigs, but I disagree with it based on scripture.

[RnMomof7]

I've said this before but Angelo is a better "Christian" than you are and a better Christian then most Christians are. I'm honored that he would take the time to participate on this thread.

I agree that ange is very nice ..and you too..There are going to be lots of very nice people in hell....

[RnMomof7]

I know that ange..and there in always is the problem..if every man is convienced of his religion then the others must be wrong..

There is only one God..it is the same God Of Abraham that you and I worship.....The God of the OT promised salvation to those that kept his law perfectly..so in all honesty IF you are right and Jesus is not the savior we are all lost, for no man has yet done that except Jesus

[DouglasKC]

I've said this before but Angelo is a better "Christian" than you are and a better Christian then most Christians are. I'm honored that he would take the time to participate on this thread.
I agree that ange is very nice ..and you too..There are going to be lots of very nice people in hell....

Since you apparently agree with the notion that I am a sociopath intent on eventually causing harm to Ethan and his family then I can only conclude that you are being less than honest when you make statements like this. "Nice" people don't do that.

[RnMomof7]

I do not think you are a sociopath...I just think you are one deceived dude, and you are trying to keep from hearing...I am praying like crazy that it "dawn" on you that you have been had doctrinally

[DouglasKC]

I do not think you are a sociopath...I just think you are one deceived dude, and you are trying to keep from hearing...I am praying like crazy that it "dawn" on you that you have been had doctrinally

Do you agree with Ethans implication that I intend or do intend to threaten and/or physically harm him and his family?

[RnMomof7]

Alot of rhetoric going on here ...

[DouglasKC]

DouglasKC: "I believe that Jesus decribed the essence of a spiritual body when talking to Nicodemus:"
"Joh 3:6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. Joh 3:7 Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again. Joh 3:8 The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth: so is every one that is born of the Spirit."
Ethan: Douglas' belief is mistaken, and predicated upon eisegesis and an ignorance of the context of the passage.

My belief is based upon a full understanding of the passage as we will see.

The passage has nothing to do with the future Resurrection, as the phrases "born again" and "born of the spirit" refer to the regeneration of the human spirit from spiritual death to spiritual life,

You are correct in that the word translated "born" in John 3:8 can refer figuratively to the process of regeneration. Again from Strongs Concordance, the word in John 3-8 is "gennao". It means "to procreate (properly of the father, but by extension of the mother); figuratively to regenerate: - bear, beget, be born, bring forth, conceive, be delivered of, gender, make, spring."

As you can see the primary meaning can be an actual birth, or an actual conception, or an actual bearing. Figuratively it *can* mean a regeneration.

is the result of having faith in the perfect vicarious work of Jesus Christ through grace. That is the context of Paul's usage (and Peter, John).

While being "born again" is the result of what you said, the context of the usage depends upon the actual scripture written by these Peter, Paul and John.

It is a present reality and accomplished fact for those that have faith in Jesus Christ (Eph. 2:8; John 5:24; 6:47; Rom. 8:1; 1 Peter 1:18; 1 John 5:1, 11-13). The Biblical, Christian view of the new birth (i.e., "being born again") is a past accomplished fact for those that have faith in Jesus Christ:

I'll accept that as far as it goes. But as we'll see from scripture what gennao means as used in John 3:8:

Jhn 3:8 The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth: so is every one that is born of the Spirit. From Blue Letter Bible

the tense of "that is born" is the the perfect tense. This is defined by the scholars at Blue Letter Bible as:

The perfect tense in Greek corresponds to the perfect tense in English, and describes an action which is viewed as having been completed in the past, once and for all, not needing to be repeated.

This is certainly true of being born of God whether or not you think of it as a figurative regeneration or an actual birth or conception. Once one is born of the spirit, one never needs be born of the spirit again. It is done ONCE and FOR ALL.

"For you have been born again not of seed which is perishable but imperishable, that is, through the living and enduring word of God" (1 Peter 1:23; cf. John 3:6-8, emphasis mine).

The scripture above, which you quoted, uses a different word than gennao. It is "anagennao", it means, according to Strongs concordance:

to beget or (by extension) bear (again): - beget, (bear) X again.

The sense of the word is a begettal. Beget is a word used to describe the sireing of a son or daughter, in this case a son or daughter of God. The sense of this word is in the present tense. From blueletterbible.org:

The present tense represents a simple statement of fact or reality viewed as occurring in actual time. In most cases this corresponds directly with the English present tense

Peter states that those he is talking to have been begotten through the "word" of God.

Notice though that in 1 Peter 23, Peter compares the begettal to a seed. Compare that with Pauls language in 1 Cor 38:

1Co 15:37 And that which thou sowest, thou sowest not that body that shall be, but bare grain, it may chance of wheat, or of some other grain:
1Co 15:38 But God giveth it a body as it hath pleased him, and to every seed his own body.

Notice how Paul also uses the seed comparasion. Peter says we have begotten with the incorruptible seed, the spiritual seed, of the word of God. Paul confirms and strenthens this:

1Co 15:44 It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body. There is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body

Are you starting to see the picture? We are begotten by the seed of the incorruptible word of God....or Word of God. Our physical bodies are planted, and what emerges is our spiritual body.

As DouglasKC was obliviously ignorant of the grammatical use of the perfect participle as used in 1 John 4:2,

As I pointed out repeatedly using various references that you would not and could not refute, I was correct about the usage of the perfect participle as it regarded to 1 John 4:2. For those interested a full explanation is available here.

he — rather, the Armstrong/UCG cult from where he derives his doctrinal food — likewise cannot accept the actual teaching of the New Testament in its normal context and grammar.

Untrue Ethan. I embrace and accept the normal context and grammar of the new testament.

The use of the perfect tense in 1 Peter 3:6-8 is likewise a conclusive statement as to the nature and timing of being "born again."
Explaining the grammatical context of the word Nagegenneimenoi used by the Apostle Peter:

I'm not sure what verse you're talking about 1 Peter 3:6-8 does not address being born again. Perhaps you meant another scripture.

Where does DouglasKC derive this belief that the "new birth" is equated with the future resurrection?

The answer is from the bible. Again, Peter says that we are begotten by the incorruptible seed of the word of God. Paul says we are sown as a natural body and resurrected a spiritual body. Chrisitians, the elect, according to the bible, have a seed of spirit planted in them by God. When we are resurrected we bloom, or are instead of being begotten, are born again and become as Jesus described in John 3.

[DouglasKC]

DouglasKC: "This is what I believe about the resurrection of Jesus and the elect."
"Rev 20:6 Blessed and holy is he that hath part in the first resurrection: on such the second death hath no power, but they shall be priests of God and of Christ, and shall reign with him a thousand years."

Ethan: Doesn't say anything about the compositional nature of the resurrection. It says "blessed and holy is he that hath part in the first resurrection."

Which indicates that it is significantly different and better than the second and any other subsequent resurrections.

DouglasKC then went on to write, "I do believe there is a bodily resurrection, but that resurrection is not for the elect."
Poor Job. He isn't one of the elect if Douglas' "I know that my Redeemer lives, and that in the end He will stand upon the earth. And after my skin has been destroyed, yet in my flesh I will see God" (Job 19:25-26, emphasis mine)

Is it you contention that Job, who was in a sinful state throughout the book of Job, became one of the elect BEFORE the sacrifice of Christ? The "elect" by definition are saved by Christ:

2Ti 2:10 Therefore I endure all things for the elect's sakes, that they may also obtain the salvation which is in Christ Jesus with eternal glory.

Job was around before Christ's sacrifice, so he can't be one of the elect, but he will get a bodily resurrection.

Douglas' position is clear. He does not believe in the bodily Resurrection for the elect. And keep in mind the elect are to have bodies in the Resurrection like Jesus'. Ergo, DouglasKC denies the bodily Resurrection of Jesus Christ.

Douglas affirms Peter and Paul in scripture who say the elect have a spiritual body begotten by God.

He eisegetically takes passages that speak of the church and it being the body of Christ (which it is), and then utilizes a type of transubstantiation on steroids to somehow conclude the passage cancels out the narrative teachings of the New Testament which actually do detail the literal body of Jesus Christ in the Resurrection.

No, I take the word "soma" which according to you yourself means a physical body, and compare the words in the bible which tells what Christ's physical body is today:

Eph 5:30 For we are members of his body, of his flesh, and of his bones.

Rom 12:5 So we, being many, are one body in Christ, and every one members one of another.

1Co 12:27 Now ye are the body of Christ, and members in particula

And that his spiritual body inhabits the physical body today:

Phi 1:19 For I know that this shall turn to my salvation through your prayer, and the supply of the Spirit of Jesus Christ,

Rom 8:10 And if Christ be in you, the body is dead because of sin; but the Spirit is life because of righteousness.

Rom 8:9 But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his.

Phi 4:21 Salute every saint in Christ Jesus. The brethren which are with me greet you.

Gal 2:20 I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me.

The New Testament is explicitly detailed and clear on the historical narratives of the bodily Resurrection of Jesus Christ.
"But they were startled and frightened and thought that they were seeing a spirit. And He said to them, "Why are you troubled, and why do doubts arise in your hearts? See My hands and My feet, that it is I Myself; touch Me and see, for a spirit does not have flesh and bones as you see that I have" (Luke 24:37-39, NASB).

Judging from what the rest of the bible says it is obviously not correct exegesis to conclude that because Christ appeared to his disciples as a physical creature that this means that his likeness was physical. Notice once again that Christ does NOT say he has flesh and bones, he says THEY see that he has. A profound difference. We know that he's not flesh and bones because Paul didn't see it that way. Paul saw it that the church is the flesh and bone body of Christ and that Christ is a spirit who resides in that flesh and bone body.

Christ appeared in a body so that the disciples would know and believe that he truly was resurrected. He wanted to be sure they knew that promise of eternal life was real.

John specifically used the present participle erchomenonin, literally "is come in the flesh" in 2 John 7.

You continue to use this justification when I have show you authoritorly that you are mistaken. The meaning of 2 John 7, as affirmed by the greek and by the scholars that study it, attest that means that Jesus Christ came in the flesh, an action that was done ONCE and FOR ALL and which never needs to be repeated. He did come in the flesh once and for all. His sacrifice need never be repeated. It was sufficient for all.

"For many deceivers are entered into the world, who confess not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh. This is a deceiver and an antichrist" (2 John 7).

One of my favorite verses. Thank you for posting it again.

[DouglasKC]

Alot of rhetoric going on here ...

If directly calling me a sociopath and inferring that I'm going to come after him and his family in a threatening way is "rhetoric" then heaven help the one who really offends Ethan, or by continued support of his words, yourself.

[PayNoAttentionManBehindCurtain]

the_doc says in one sentence that we are "fully helpless" and says in the next that we are "still fully responsible". This is contradictory. If you cannot see it, it is because you choose not to. IF we have no free will (as doc's first statement implies), THEN we cannot have responsibility for our actions (my logical conclusion, pointing out the contradiction).

Not bad for a Jew, your gonna make a good Christian. :)

BigMack

[nobdysfool]

I'm just curious as you are using language that I never hear Arminians use.

Where did you get the idea I was an Arminian? You caught be by surprise with that remark! I had to read it 3 times to be sure you were referring to me. I thought I had cleared that up some time ago. I basically believe the Calvinist view, although I still see evidence for an unlimited atonement (meaning that it is able to cover all) with limited application (meaning that it will only be effacious for the Elect). I have no quarrel with the rest of the Calvinist position, in fact I support it.

As for the definition of the word reprobate...I see yuour point, and it may very well be that reprobate winds up describing Douglas to a "T". As for my desire for Doug's salvation, your second description (That God will, through His mercy, open Doug's eyes to the truth and change his heart (.i.e born from above) so that Doug will then desire the Lord and be saved) is the correct one. Doug can't do it on his own, he's already demonstrated that!

[nobdysfool]

I'm surprised at you. Do you think that everyone who differs from you on the interpretation of scripture "hate(s) the Truth"?

angelo, my friend, I'm surprised that you would think that of me. This discussion has spilled over from another thread, where Douglas has (and continues) stubbornly defended several doctrinal positions that are demonstrably false, and he has accused those who do not bow to his interpretation haters of scripture, haters of the truth, and dishonest. My reply to him which you refer to was in reply to him accusing me of hating scripture. You and I don't see eye to eye on the Messiah. I know that. You know that. The difference here is that Douglas claims to be one of us, i.e. a Christian, and we have catagorically proven that he does not hold to correct Christian doctrine about the central belief of Christianity: The bodily resurrection of Jesus Christ. He insists that it is we who are wrong. You make no claim to be a Christian. That's the difference.