
By: Marilyn Burge
Re: Resurrection as a spirit

From: errancy@freethought.tamu.edu on behalf of Jftill@aol.com
Sent: Thursday, April 18, 1996 11:07 PM
To: Multiple recipients of list
Subject: Reposting: Natural & Spiritual Bodies

This is a message that I sent to Dan Barker after the Horner-Barker Debate.
 I also sent it to errancy, but I think it was also lost.
*************************************

There is a verse in 1 Corinthians 15 that I think effectively
proves that Paul was arguing only that Jesus had been spiritually
resurrected.  If I ever debate this issue again, I'm going to begin
analysis of Paul's argument by noting first his background.  He was from
Tarsus, so he had had ample opportunity to be exposed to the mystery religions.
 First Corinthians 2:6-8 betrays his exposure to the mystery religions: "We
speak wisdom, however, among them that are fullgrown, yet a wisdom not of this
world, nor of the rulers of this world, who are coming to naught, but we speak
God's wisdom in a mystery, even the wisdom that has been hidden, which God
foreordained before the worlds unto our glory, which none of the rulers of this
world has known, for had they known it, they would not have crucified the Lord
of glory."  It isn't just that Paul used the word "mystery" in the text that
gives reason to believe that he had had exposure to the mystery religions, but
as you probably know, the etymology of the word "rulers" in this passage
indicates that he was not talking about rulers like Pontius Pilate or Herod but
of the rulers of darkness that he alluded to in other places (Rom. 8:38; Eph.
1:21; 3:10; 6:12; Col. 1:13-16; 2:15).   Paul probably didn't write some of
these statements, but guys like Horner are inerrantists, and so they are stuck
with the tradition that Paul was the person who wrote them.  Like adherents of
the mystery religions, Paul believed that the world was actually ruled by
astral "powers of darkness," so it is consistent to think that someone with
such a background would have been big on the notion of spirits and demons, and
there are ample texts in Paul's epistles to show that this is the case.

With Paul's background established, the points that you made would
seem to be strengthened, but a claim that Paul had in mind only a spiritual
resurrection could then be nailed down by analyzing verses 35-42 (in 1
Corinthians 15), where he  did his analogy of the seed.  The seed is planted
(according to his argument), but what is sown "is not quickened except it die"
(v:36).  [And here it could be noted that Paul wasn't much of a botonist, for
if he had been, he would have known that nothing could grow from a dead seed.]
His
whole point seemed to be that "what you sow, you do not sow the
body that is to be" (v:37).  Would it be proper here to argue that Paul was
contending that what is planted is substantially different from what comes up?
(What do you think?) If so, then how could Jesus have even been recognized
after his resurrection?  Could anyone who has seen cotton seeds but never seen
a cotton plant see a cotton plant for the first time and recognize that it is
what comes from planting a cotton seed?  I don't think so.

After the seed analogy, Paul proceeded by discussing "terrestrial
and celestial bodies" [another indication of the influence of the mystery
religions].  Then he reached his conclusion from his line of argumentation
that, I think, nails down the interpretation that you presented in the debate:
"So also is the resurrection of the dead.  It is sown in corruption; it is
raised in incorruption; it is sown in dishonor; it is raised in glory; it is
sown in weakness; it is raised in power.  IT IS SOWN A NATURAL BODY; IT IS
RAISED A SPIRITUAL BODY.  IF THERE IS A NATURAL BODY, THERE IS A SPIRITUAL
BODY" (VS. 42-44).  Unless he meant exactly what you argued in the
debate this passage makes no sense, and the statements I have
emphasized in uppercase letters clearly show that this was what he meant.  Guys
like Horner and Geisler argue that a *bodily* resurrection took place.  If so,
then exactly what was sown was what was raised.  A natural body was put into
the tomb, and a natural body came forth (according to the current inerrantist
view), but Paul said, "It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual
body."  Then he tried to prove his case by saying, "If there is
a natural body, there is a spiritual body."  Why was he saying all of this if
he did not believe that the body that was resurrected after Jesus was buried
was a different kind of body than the one that was "planted"?

Farrell Till

... Christianity:  A house of cards lacking a first floor.

--- PPoint 2.00
 * Origin: So What's Yer Point? (1:105/40.666)

