Paul trashes Christian belief in the resurrection of the flesh
Paul's belief was that it was in the very nature of flesh to be destroyed.
A man reaps what he sows. 8The one who sows to please his flesh, from that nature will reap destruction; the one who sows to please the Spirit, from the Spirit will reap eternal life. Galatians 6:7-8
Once more, Paul scoffs at the idea that flesh will be resurrected and have eternal life. The nature of flesh is that it will be destroyed and brings destruction with it.
Paul regarded it as foolish to wonder how corpses will be restored, and he would have scoffed at the stories in the Gospels of a resurrected Jesus made of flesh and eating.
A man reaps what he sows. 8The one who sows to please his flesh, from that nature will reap destruction; the one who sows to please the Spirit, from the Spirit will reap eternal life. Galatians 6:7-8
Once more, Paul scoffs at the idea that flesh will be resurrected and have eternal life. The nature of flesh is that it will be destroyed and brings destruction with it.
Paul regarded it as foolish to wonder how corpses will be restored, and he would have scoffed at the stories in the Gospels of a resurrected Jesus made of flesh and eating.
posted by Steven Carr at 10:27 PM
5 Comments:
Paul, I skim read the arguments. What I do not understand is how right from the beginning an attempt to debate the historical accuracy of the resurrection story begins with an analysis of biblical texts.
Wouldnt it be more obvious to start from the fact that no ressurections have been observed under any reliable conditions. I'm somewhat troubled that we feel we even have to debate what a bronze-age former tax-collector thought in order to evaluate this proposition.
Of course , Christians have never produced one shred of evidence of a resurrection, even though they claim that Moses himself returned from the dead.
Paul's writing the way he did confirms this. He has no conception of a bodily resurrection. How could he? No such things ever happen.
Later the author of Mark suggested there had been an empty tomb, but still did not have Jesus appearing in a bodily form.
Then the author of Luke has a flesh and blood Jesus.
Then , even later, the author of John adds to the story, having a Jesus who eats fish and has wounds which can be touched.
The people closest to the events have no notion of a resurrection, and the stories gradually build over the decades.
Right, I do not dispute your biblical interpretation. But let us suppose it was the other way. You gave a great example of texts purportedly describing the miracles performed by the Rev Moon. Assuming that the document was internally consistent (which they arent), would we still consider this a relevant text to help us answer the question? I think not.
To me, the first question we must ask is that are miricales such as a the resurrection of a long-dead corpse material phenomena or imaginary phenomena.
When deciding the historical accuracy of the ressurection story, we are also implicitly saying something fundamental about the world we live in - is it the kind of world where these sorts of things happen or not? If you argue this primarily on the basis of a bronze-age mystical text, surely that begs a question which should have been asked up front.
I think from a debating point of view, it's kind of like saying "I'll fight you one-handed". You are trying to disprove the resurrection story without resorting to the obvious point that there is no evidence at all that stuff like that can or has ever happened.
There are many religions that have texts which describe miracles, cheating death, gravity and a host of physical laws. We need a really good reason to believe these fantasy stories any more than we believe Peter Pan. I do not think we have such a reason.
You write: "Paul regarded it as foolish to wonder how corpses will be restored."
But where? That the resurrection of Jesus is the "firstfruits" of what will eventually happen to all believers is exactly Paul's point in 1 Corinthians 15.
If you're referring to the Galatians 6 passage, I think it's important to take a look at how Paul uses the word "flesh." He frequently doesn't mean "the stuff beneath your skin."
In 1 Corinthians 15, Paul preempts all discussion of how dead bodies return with the comment 'You fools.'
Paul regarded flesh as synonymous with sin, in much the same way as we often speak of oxygen as standing for something which gives life (Giving terrorists the oxygen of publicity, etc)
Paul spoke of 'the body of sin' being done away with.
He never speaks of the body of sin being saved.
Post a Comment
<< Home