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.

[nobdysfool]

Regardless of what you think of my beliefs do any of you believe that there's any justification for treating another human being this way?

To sum up Doug's argument: Ethan can't be right because he's not being nice. Ethan is calling me names; Ethan is saying bad things about me, ergo, he must be wrong.

Does anyone think Ethans characterization of me is accurate?

Actually, I think Ethan is right on the money. He's pinned you down scripturally so now you try to switch tactics and complain that Ethan isn't being a nice Christian.

Doug, the Truth isn't always soft-spoken words, sometimes it's a right cross to the jaw. That's pretty much what's happened here. The truth is a brick wall, and you just ran headlong into it at high speed. Now you're complaining because it hurt. Too bad.

[DouglasKC]

Characterize me as you like. Enjoy your evening.

[nobdysfool]

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

Douglas, Ethan did not say you had made any threats against him or his family. You have made this a red herring, to derail the conversation, because it's getting too hot for you in here.

This is the exact quote from Ethan: 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.

He has dealt with Armstrongites before. Some of them apparently threatened him and his family. That being so, he has cause to be cautious. He made no direct accusation against you in that regard. So STOP LYING about it.

[the_doc]

He's pinned you down scripturally so now you try to switch tactics and complain that Ethan isn't being a nice Christian.

This is one of Satan's favorite devices. (It's actually the Judas Iscariot phenomenon.) The Arminians and dispensationalists try to use it against me all the time.

(As a matter of fact, sometimes I'm not even as "nice" as Ethan has been [LOL].)

[the_doc]

A follow-up point: I think the Pharisees probably looked at Stephen and said, "You know, he's not being nice."

My point is that we must BEWARE of using this potentially phony argument against those who present God's Word.

[PayNoAttentionManBehindCurtain]

Hello moron

BigMack

[DouglasKC]

Well doc, with Stephen it was him against the established religion of the day and the words of the Pharisees sound strikingly familiar...:-).

But ya know what...I'm done with this thread. Christ is too important to me to come on here day after day and allow Satan to stir me to wrath. Posts 148, 155 and 156 sum up what scripture says about the topic at hand, receive it or reject it as you wish.

Ethan, I thank you for the exchanges even though I regret they became as heated as they did. It may not have been the result you were looking for, but you have helped to strengthen my faith in God and for that I'm grateful.

The same goes for everyone else. I'm sure you were doing your best to share the faith you received.

So get the last word in if you like. Or claim victory if you feel it's edifying.

Be well and God bless.

[OrthodoxPresbyterian]

So get the last word in if you like. Or claim victory if you feel it's edifying. Be well and God bless. 167 posted on 01/10/2003 11:26 PM PST by DouglasKC

Hmmm...

Between the Flu and entertaining Clients, I didn't participate in this Thread much. So, in the absence of a "Last Word", I guess I'll just hafta offer my "first word":

---

The Deity of the Holy Spirit

Christianity has traditionally taught that the Holy Spirit is the third Person or Hypostasis of the Godhead. Some, however, have taught that the Holy Spirit is an impersonal force used by God. Is the Holy Spirit God, or simply a power of God? Let's examine the biblical teachings.

I. The Deity of the Holy Spirit

Scripture speaks repeatedly of the Holy Spirit, known also as the Spirit of God and the Spirit of Jesus Christ. Scripture indicates that the Holy Spirit is of the same essence as the Father and the Son. The Holy Spirit is ascribed with the attributes of God, is equated with God and does work that only God does.

A. Attributes of God

1. Holiness: In more than 90 places, the Bible calls the Spirit of God "the Holy Spirit." Holiness is a basic characteristic of the Spirit. The Spirit is so holy that blasphemy against the Spirit cannot be forgiven, although blasphemy against Jesus could be (Matt. 12:32). Insulting the Spirit is just as sinful as trampling the Son of God under foot (Heb. 10:29). This indicates that the Spirit is inherently holy, holy in essence, rather than having an assigned or secondary holiness such as the temple had.

The Spirit also has the infinite attributes of God: unlimited in time, space, power and knowledge.

2. Eternality: The Holy Spirit, the Counselor, will be with us "forever" (John 14:16). The Spirit is "eternal" (Heb. 9:14).

3. Omnipresence: David, praising God's greatness, asked, "Where can I go from your Spirit? Where can I flee from your presence? If I go up to the heavens, you are there; if I make my bed in the depths, you are there" (Ps. 139:7-8). God's Spirit, which David uses as a synonym for the presence of God himself, is in heaven and in sheol (v. 8), in the east and in the west (v. 9).

God's Spirit can be said to be poured out on someone, to fill a person, or to descend -- yet without implying that the Spirit has moved away from or vacated some other place. Thomas Oden observes that "such statements are grounded in the premises of omnipresence and eternality -- attributes ascribed properly only to God" (Life in the Spirit, p. 18).

4. Omnipotence: The works that God does, such as creation, are also ascribed to the Holy Spirit (Job 33:4; Ps. 104:30). Miracles of Jesus Christ were done "by the Spirit" (Matt. 12:28). In Paul's ministry, the work that "Christ has accomplished" was done "through the power of the Spirit" (Rom. 15:18-19).

5. Omniscience: "The Spirit searches all things, even the deep things of God," Paul said (1 Cor. 2:10). The Spirit of God "knows the thoughts of God" (v. 11). The Spirit therefore knows all things, and is able to teach all things (John 14:26).

Holiness, eternality, omnipresence, omnipotence and omniscience are attributes of God's essence, that is, characteristic of the nature of divine existence. The Holy Spirit has the basic attributes of God.

B. Equated with God

1. Triadic formulas: Several passages discuss the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit as equals. In a discussion of spiritual gifts, Paul puts the Spirit, the Lord, and God in grammatically parallel constructions (1 Cor. 12:4-6). Paul closes a letter with a three-part prayer: "May the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit be with you all" (2 Cor. 13:14). Peter begins a letter with this three-part formula: "who have been chosen according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through the sanctifying work of the Spirit, for obedience to Jesus Christ and sprinkling by his blood" (1 Peter 1:2).

Of course, the triadic formulas used in these and other scriptures do not prove equality (for example, Eph. 4:5 puts unequal elements in parallel construction), but they do suggest it. The baptismal formula has an even stronger implication of unity -- "in the name [singular] of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit" (Matt. 28:19). The Father, Son, and Spirit share a common name, indicating common essence and equality. This verse indicates both plurality and unity. Three names are given, but all three share one name.

2. Word interchanges. Acts 5:3 says that Ananias lied to the Holy Spirit; verse 4 says that Ananias lied to God. This indicates that "the Holy Spirit" and "God" are interchangeable and thus that the Holy Spirit is God. Some people try to explain this by saying that Ananias lied to God only indirectly, simply because the Holy Spirit represented God. This interpretation might be grammatically possible, but it would imply the personality of the Holy Spirit as a divine representative, for one does not lie to an impersonal power. Moreover, Peter told Ananias that he lied not to humans, but to God. The force of the passage is that Ananias has lied not merely to God's representatives, but to God himself, and the Holy Spirit is God to whom Ananias lied.

Another word interchange can be seen in 1 Cor. 3:16 and 6:19. Christians are not only temples of God, they are also temples of the Holy Spirit; the two expressions mean the same thing. A temple, of course, is a habitation for a deity, not a habitation for an impersonal power. When Paul writes "temple of the Holy Spirit," he implies that the Holy Spirit is God.

Another type of verbal equation between God and the Holy Spirit is seen in Acts 13:2: "The Holy Spirit said, `Set apart for me Barnabas and Saul for the work to which I have called them." Here, the Holy Spirit speaks on behalf of God, as God. In the same way, Heb. 3:7-11 tells us that the Holy Spirit says the Israelites "tested and tried me"; the Holy Spirit says that "I was angry.... They shall never enter my rest." The Holy Spirit is equated with the God of the Israelites. Heb. 10:15-17 also equates the Spirit and the Lord who makes the new covenant. The Spirit who inspired the prophets is God. This is the work of God the Holy Spirit, which leads us to our next section.

C. Divine work

1. Creating: The Holy Spirit does work that only God can do, such as creating (Gen. 1:2; Job 33:4; Ps. 104:30) and expelling demons (Matt. 12:28).

2. Begetting: The Spirit begot the Son of God (Matt. 1:20; Luke 1:35), and the full divinity of the Son (Col. 1:19) implies the full divinity of the Begetter.

The Spirit begets believers, too -- they are born of God (John 1:12) and equally born of the Spirit (John 3:5). "The Spirit gives [eternal] life" (John 6:63). The Spirit is the power by which we will be resurrected (Rom. 8:11).

3. Indwelling: The Holy Spirit is the way in which God lives in his children (Eph. 2:22; 1 John 3:24; 4:13). The Holy Spirit "lives" in us (Rom. 8:11; 1 Cor. 3:16) -- and because the Spirit lives in us, we are able to say that God lives in us. We can say that God lives in us only because the Holy Spirit is in some way God. The Spirit is not a representative or a power that lives in us -- God himself lives in us. Geoffrey Bromiley gives a concise conclusion: "to have dealings with the Spirit, no less than with the Father and the Son, is to have dealings with God" ("The New Holy Spirit," in The New Life, edited by Millard Erickson, p. 23).

4. Sanctifying: The Holy Spirit makes people holy (Rom. 15:16; 1 Pet. 1:2). The Spirit enables people to enter the kingdom of God (John 3:5). We are saved "through the sanctifying work of the Spirit" (2 Thess. 2:13).

In all these things, the works of the Spirit are the works of God. Whatever the Spirit says or does, God is saying or doing; the Spirit is fully representative of God.

II. Personality of the Holy Spirit

Scripture describes the Holy Spirit as having personal characteristics: The Spirit has mind and will, speaks and can be spoken to, and acts and intercedes for us. All these indicate personality in the theological sense: The Holy Spirit is a Person or Hypostasis in the same sense that the Father and Son are. Our relationship with God, which is accomplished by the Holy Spirit, is a personal relationship.

A. Life and intelligence

1. Life: The Holy Spirit "lives" (Rom. 8:11; 1 Cor. 3:16).

2. Intelligence: The Spirit "knows" (1 Cor. 2:11). Rom. 8:27 refers to "the mind of the Spirit." This mind is able to make judgments -- a decision "seemed good" to the Holy Spirit (Acts 15:28). These verses imply a distinct intelligence.

3. Will: 1 Cor. 12:11 says that the Spirit "determines" decisions, showing that the Spirit has a will. The Greek word means "he or it determines." Although the Greek word does not specify the subject of the verb, the most likely subject in the context is the Spirit. To find a different subject, one would have to backtrack through five verses and six mentions of the Spirit. But this grammatical leapfrogging is not necessary. Since we know from other verses that the Spirit has mind and knowledge and judgment, there is no reason to reject the conclusion in 1 Cor. 12:11 that the Spirit also has will.

B. Communication

1. Speaking: Numerous verses say that the Holy Spirit spoke (Acts 8:29; 10:19; 11:12; 21:11; 1 Tim. 4:1; Heb. 3:7; etc.). Oden observes that "the Spirit speaks in the first person as `I'; `It was I who sent them' (Acts 10:20).... `I have called them' (Acts 13:2). None but a person can say `I' " (The Living God, p. 200).

2. Interaction: The Spirit may be lied to (Acts 5:3), which indicates that the Spirit may be spoken to. The Spirit may be tested (Acts 5:9), insulted (Heb. 10:29) or blasphemed (Matt. 12:31), which implies personal status. Oden gathers additional evidence: "The apostolic testimony applied intensely personal analogies: guiding (Rom. 8:14), convicting (John 16:8), interceding (Rom. 8:26), calling (Acts 13:2), commissioning (Acts 20:28).... Only a person can be vexed (Isa. 63:10) or grieved (Eph. 4:30)" (Life in the Spirit, p. 19).

3. Paraclete: Jesus called the Holy Spirit the parakletos -- the Comforter, Advocate or Counselor. The Paraclete is active, teaching (John 14:26), testifying (15:26), convicting (16:8), guiding (16:13) and making truth known (16:14).

Jesus used the masculine form of parakletos; he did not consider it necessary to make the word neuter or to use neuter pronouns. In John 16:14, masculine pronouns are used even after the neuter pneuma is mentioned. It would have been easy to switch to neuter pronouns, but John did not. In other places, neuter pronouns are used for the Spirit, in accordance with grammatical convention. Scripture is not finicky about the grammatical gender of the Spirit, and we need not be either.

C. Action

1. New life: The Holy Spirit regenerates us, giving us new life (John 3:5). The Spirit sanctifies us (1 Pet. 1:2) and leads us in that new life (Rom. 8:14). The Spirit gives various gifts to build the Church up (1 Cor. 12:7-11), and throughout the book of Acts, we see that the Spirit guides the Church.

2. Intercession: The most "personal" activity of the Holy Spirit is intercession: "We do not know what we ought to pray for, but the Spirit himself intercedes for us.... The Spirit intercedes for the saints in accordance with God's will" (Rom. 8:26-27). Intercession implies not only receiving communication, but also communicating further on. It implies an intelligence, a concern, and a formal role. The Holy Spirit is not an impersonal power, but an intelligent and divine Helper who lives within us. God lives within us, and the Holy Spirit is God.

III. Worship

There are no scriptural examples of worshipping the Holy Spirit. Scripture talks about praying in the Spirit (Eph. 6:18), the fellowship of the Spirit (2 Cor. 13:14), and baptism in the name of the Spirit (Matt. 28:19). Although baptism, prayer and fellowship are involved in worship, none of these verses is a valid proof-text for worship of the Spirit.

As an opposite of worship, however, we note that the Spirit can be blasphemed (Matt. 12:31).

There are no scriptural examples of praying to the Holy Spirit. However, Scripture indicates that a human can talk to the Spirit (Acts 5:3). If this is done in reverence or request, it is, in effect, praying to the Spirit. If Christians are unable to articulate their desires and they want the Spirit to intercede for them (Rom. 8:26-27), they are praying, directly or indirectly, to the Holy Spirit. When we understand that the Holy Spirit has intelligence and fully represents God, we may ask the Spirit for help -- never thinking that the Spirit is a separate being from God, but recognizing that the Spirit is the Hypostasis of God interceding for us.

Why then does Scripture say nothing about praying to the Spirit? Michael Green explains: "The Holy Spirit does not draw attention to himself. He is sent by the Father to glorify Jesus, to show Jesus' attractiveness, and not to take the centre of the stage" (I Believe in the Holy Spirit, p. 60). Or, as Geoffrey Bromiley puts it, "The Spirit is self-effacing" (p. 21).

Prayer or worship directed specifically to the Holy Spirit is not the scriptural norm, but we nonetheless worship the Spirit. When we worship God, we worship all aspects of God, including the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. A fourth-century theologian explained it this way: "The Spirit is jointly worshipped in God, when God is worshipped in the Spirit" (Ambrose, Of the Holy Spirit III.X.82, quoted in Oden, Life in the Spirit, p. 16). Whatever we say to the Spirit we are saying to God, and whatever we say to God we are saying to the Spirit.

IV. Summary

Scripture indicates that the Holy Spirit has divine attributes and works, and is spoken of in the same way that the Father and Son are. The Holy Spirit is intelligent, and speaks and acts like a Person. This is part of the scriptural evidence that led early Christians to formulate the doctrine of the Trinity. Bromiley gives a summary:

Three points that emerge from this survey of the New Testament data are: (1) The Holy Spirit is everywhere regarded as God; (2) He is God in distinction from the Father and the Son; (3) His deity does not infringe upon the divine unity. In other words, the Holy Spirit is the third person of the triune Godhead.... 

The divine unity cannot be subjected to mathematical ideas of unity. The fourth century learned to speak of three hypostases or persons within the deity, not in the tritheistic sense of three centers of consciousness, but also not in the weaker sense of three economic manifestations. From Nicaea and Constantinople on, the creeds sought to do justice to the essential biblical data along these lines. (pp. 24-25)

Although Scripture does not directly say that "the Holy Spirit is God," or that God is triune, these conclusions are based on scriptural evidence. Based on biblical evidence, the Worldwide Church of God teaches that the Holy Spirit is God in the same way that the Father is God and the Son is God.

---

SOURCE: The WorldWide Church of God. (http://www.wcg.org/lit/God/deityHS.htm)

"Gee, Douglas.... Maybe it's a BAD SPIRITUAL IDEA to be the last swabbie onboard, re-arranging the deck chairs on the Titanic of Heresy, while the rest of God's Survivors are swimming for the shore.

Ever consider that, DouglasKC??

Armstrong's "worldwide church of god" are abandoning his heresy and swimming for their very Souls to reach the Rock of Christ and His Church... and meanwhile, you are STILL swabbing the INCESTUOUS "prophet"s HOLY-SPIRIT-BLASPHEMING deck chairs.

If that's REALLY WHERE YOU WANT TO BE... then when Christ comes in Judgment, know this -- you will have chosen it."

Wherefore I say unto you, All manner of sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven unto men: but the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost shall not be forgiven unto men.

That's my first word, and that's my last.

[xzins]

The Father, Son, and Spirit share a common name, indicating common essence and equality. This verse indicates both plurality and unity. Three names are given, but all three share one name.

Of course, I agree with your entire post.

My concern is that the way this is written makes it an easy target for the "Jesus Only" crowd.....whether in their denial of the Trinity (they say Jesus is the Father and the HS)...or in other groups insistence that "Jesus" is the only proper "magic word" to be spoken at a baptismal service.

Jesus said, "All authority is given....therefore go into all the world...baptizing in the name of the F, S, and HS...."

"In the name of" does not equal "verbalizing the name of."

John's Baptism did not mean that his followers had to say the magic words "In the name of John." Nor does "If you ask anything in my name" mean if I use the magic forumula "Give me a new Jaguar in the name of Jesus" that I will get a Jaguar.

"All authority is given me" is what Mt 28 says, and then it says "go baptize in the name of..." It is obvious from scripture that "in the name of" equates with "under the authority of/with the approval of."

Seeing that the true God; Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, has vested me with authority through the establishment of this Church and this practice of baptism, I baptize. As a representative of Jesus himself, and under his authority, I baptize.

[the808bass]

What makes the whole thing even sillier is that, if he had just quoted the two sentences separately, he could have made the same point.

What's amazing is that they're willing to fritter away the important part of the argument on this silly little issue. If he'd just cited it right and gone on, no issue.

[the808bass]

Doug,

You and I disagree on a number of doctrinal issues, serious doctrinal issues. So serious that I fear for your salvation.

Having said that, I don't think you are a liar nor are you a spinner. When someone posts to you in the manner which some on this thread have posted to you, the best response, in my estimation, is none. It is hard sometimes to appear to let someone else have "the last word." But often, in those "last words" they reveal far more of their character than they ever will understand.

In Christ (who, by the way, is God) :-)

bass

[the808bass]

You have tried to defend DouglasKC, who is not a Christian, precisely because he is is no more a Christian than you are.

I have seen angelo defend all manner of people on all manner of topics. His chief aim seems to be honest debate. Not a bad goal.

[the808bass]

He has dealt with Armstrongites before. Some of them apparently threatened him and his family. That being so, he has cause to be cautious. He made no direct accusation against you in that regard. So STOP LYING about it.

You conveniently left out the sentence immediately preceding in Ethan's quote. That sentence was "He can't deal with the scholarly and Biblical facts so he does the next best thing — go after me personally."

So, in context, it is not at all a leap that a person would think Ethan is talking about Doug. Yes, Ethan gave himself some wiggle room. For that he can pat himself on the back. But he's doing quite a bit of that already. Are you auditioning for something, Ethan?

[nobdysfool]

You conveniently left out the sentence immediately preceding in Ethan's quote. That sentence was "He can't deal with the scholarly and Biblical facts so he does the next best thing — go after me personally."

Actually, Douglas was the one who twisted it into Ethan saying that Douglas was threatening his family. Ethan never said that. As for the sentence preceding what I quoted, was it not true? Douglas did indeed go after Ethan on a personal level, accusing him of hating scripture, of hating the truth, of lying and trying to cover it up. There is no question that is precisely what Douglas did. After Douglas had twisted that into an accusation of personal danger by Douglas against Ethan, I went back and found the actual statement. I quoted exactly what Ethan said. Ethan did not accuse Douglas, but pointed out that some whom Douglas identifies with are not above doing so. It was a warning to Douglas about what kind of people he's associating with.

After I left the cult I was involved with back in the 70's, I went public with information about their inner workings and beliefs, speaking to the media. I watched over my shoulder for a good 5 years afterward, because I knew the mindset of some who were part of the cult. I didn't put anything past them. By God's Grace, nothing happened.

[nobdysfool]

So get the last word in if you like. Or claim victory if you feel it's edifying.

Bye Doug, don't let the door hit you in the butt on the way out.....

[nobdysfool]

I have seen angelo defend all manner of people on all manner of topics. His chief aim seems to be honest debate. Not a bad goal.

I have had many good exchanges with angelo, and consider him a friend. He is not a Christian, but he doesn't try to pass himself off as one, either. Honest debate is better than dishonest debate, no doubt. With angelo, he is at least consistent, and doesn't try to represent himself as something he's not. I can respect that. I don't always agree with him, nor he with me, but that has not been an impediment to being able to talk about things, or to have friendly exchanges about non-religious topics. And, if I want to get a Jewish perspective on things, he's one of the first I would ask.

[RnMomof7]

71 posted on 01/11/2003 10:42 AM EST by the808bass (come back, Doug)


Yea come back to the NET where we will love you right into hell..being nice is the only REAL truth

[the808bass]

Actually, Douglas was the one who twisted it into Ethan saying that Douglas was threatening his family. Ethan never said that.

If you cannot see the clear implication that is made by putting those two sentences directly next to each other then I cannot make you see it.

[the808bass]

It was a warning to Douglas about what kind of people he's associating with.

You are twisting his original statement into something it never was. Doug's reading of it is much clearer than yours is. You seem to be saying that Ethan said "Doug is attacking me personally. And, by the way, Doug, watch out because the people you hang out with have threatened my family." Hardly. Just admit that Ethan's implication was wrong and move on. Just because his theology was right doesn't mean that his rhetoric is too.

[CubicleGuy]

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.

Uh-oh: LDS alert. Man the battlestations...