Board index ‹ Resurrection of Christ

[Newbie]

1 Corinthians 15 is the earliest account of the resurrection. As such we can assume it is the most accurate, embellishment-free account of the resurrection.

In 1 Cor 15:5-8 Paul makes no differentiation between the nature of the risen Christ appearance he experienced and the nature of the risen Christ appearances experienced by the disciples.

We know from Galatians 1 that the risen Christ "appeared" to Paul in a spiritual vision ("God was pleased to reveal his Son in me"). And we know that Paul, in his own writings, never talks about a flesh and blood risen Christ. So we can deduce from this that whenever Paul uses the word "appeared" in 1 Cor 15, he is referring to the same sort of inner experience he "witnessed".

In other words, Paul, in 1 Cor 15, is saying that the disciples did not see a flesh and blood risen Jesus. Paul is saying that the disciples experienced no more than spiritual inner visions just as Paul experienced no more than spiritual inner visions.

An inner vision of Christ is not a literal flesh and blood man walking the earth.

Later on in 1 Corinthians 15 we read:

I declare to you, brothers and sisters, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God, nor does the perishable inherit the imperishable. (1 Cor 15:50)

What's the point of being resurrected in a flesh and blood body if you cannot inherit the kingdom of God?

And, yes, I know that Paul talks about a "spiritual body". But since the spiritual body cannot be composed of flesh and blood, what is the spiritual body composed of? Silicone and mortal oil?

I submit that the spiritual body is a body composed of spirit.

In Paul’s universe:
1) Jesus’ resurrection body was composed of nothing but spirit.
2) The resurrection never happened as advertised in the gospels.
3) Jesus did not resume biological life after his biological death.

And, finally, to keep your god from being a liar in Genesis 2:7 - (“but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat from it you will certainly die”) - Christians maintain that Jesus died to save us from the spiritual death experienced by Adam and Eve.

So why would Jesus be resurrected to biological life to save us from spiritual death?

[jimwalton]

Well, first of all, your whole premise is built on an inaccuracy, so it negates all of what you're saying. The Greek language has at least 4 verbs for "seeing": (I'll transliterate) blepo, theoreo, eido, and orao. The one used in 1 Cor. 15.5-8 is orao. It has a wide range of meanings. It can be translated "Notice; see" (sense perception). With the accusative of person, it means a literal seeing, and with the accusative of a thing, it means to see a vision. In the passive it means "Appear," whether of persons appearing in a natural way or of a vision. (all of this comes from the Bauer, Arndt, & Gingrich Greek-English lexicon of the New Testament.)

So your point falls apart from the start. Paul could use the same word to speak of Jesus appearing to Peter in the flesh and of Jesus appearing to him (Paul) in a vision. And therefore, we cannot "deduce from this that whenever Paul uses the word 'appeared' in 1 Cor 15, he is referring to the same sort of inner experience he 'witnessed'."

With regard to the second part of your question, you are right that a flesh and blood body can't inherit the kingdom of God. Flesh and blood are the matter of mortality. Therefore there must be a change from the natural to the spiritual body. What is it composed of? That we're not told, but Jesus had one after his resurrection. It was solid enough that he could be touched. He walked around. He cooked. He ate real food. And yet he passed through closed doors, as if this world was a shadow compared to the reality of what he was in his spiritual body.

> So why would Jesus be resurrected to biological life to save us from spiritual death?

It is the teaching of the Bible that both our bodies and our souls matter. Christianity is neither Gnostic nor hedonistic, but holistic. Our bodies and souls are inextricably tied together. Everything counts: our minds, emotions, attitudes, actions, intentions, bodies, souls, thoughts, and motives.

[The King]

I never disputed that my point didn't fall apart from the start. The problem is that Paul never talks about a flesh and blood risen Christ. He only talks about is totally spiritual experience of the risen Christ. Why do I have to explain this again? Paul said in 1 Cor. 15 it's a spiritual body— a body composed of spirit.

You say Jesus had a spiritual body after his resurrection, but you are making the mistake of importing the later gospel accounts into the Pauline epistles.

You said, "So why would Jesus be resurrected to biological life to save us from spiritual death?
It is the teaching of the Bible that both our bodies and our souls matter. Christianity is neither Gnostic nor hedonistic, but holistic. Our bodies and souls are inextricably tied together."

Except in the Genesis account wherein you claim that only the spirit died and the body remained alive. You said, "Everything counts." Except in Genesis.

[jimwalton]

> The problem is that Paul never talks about a flesh and blood risen Christ.

Ah, but here you are mistaken, again. 1 Corinthians 15.3-8, the text you have cited, is the very place. When Paul speaks of Jesus' death in v. 3, he speaks of a flesh and blood physical death. When he speaks of a burial in v. 4, he is referring to a physical burial. When he speaks of a resurrection, also in v. 4, he is also speaking of a flesh and blood resurrection, for in the same sentence he mentions the physical appearances that are recorded for us in the gospels: to Peter and the the 12. Those were physical appearances, and so Paul is acknowledging a flesh-and-blood risen Christ.

[The King]

> When Paul speaks of Jesus' death in v. 3, he speaks of a flesh and blood physical death.
verse 3:

Verse 3 says, "For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance[a]: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures,..." Now where is the reference to flesh and blood again?

"When he speaks of a burial in v. 4, he is referring to a physical burial."

Ooh you're such a literalist. You must be a fundamentalist. Paul starts off his little speech with;
"3 For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance[a]: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, 4 that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures,""

What did Paul mean by, "what I received"? He meant that he received his information directly from Jesus in a spiritual revelation. Thus....

"...the elements he (Paul) states in his gospel, Jesus’ death, burial and rising, are not likely to refer to historical events. If all three were the subject of eyewitness and historical record (at least from the Christian point of view), it would be more than faintly ludicrous for Paul to refer to knowledge of these things as coming to him through personal revelation. Second, he in fact tells us where he got such information: from the scriptures. Although kata tas graphas is regularly interpreted as meaning "in fulfilment of the scriptures" (an idea Paul nowhere discusses), it can just as readily entail the meaning of "as the scriptures tell us," and this fits the entire presentation of scripture in the early Christian epistles as the source of knowledge about the Christ, and even as the repository of Christ’s own voice."
http://jesuspuzzle.humanists.net/sil12cor.htm

> "for in the same sentence he mentions the physical appearances that are recorded for us in the gospels."

...several decades later after Paul was dead. You are importing the later gospel accounts into the Pauline epistles.

[jimwalton]

> Now where is the reference to flesh and blood again?

Paul was MONUMENTAL teacher in the blood of Christ, not only as a theological concept, but as a physical reality. Rom. 3.25, 1 Cor. 1.23, and Col. 1.20 will do, among many.

> for what I received...

He meant that he received his information directly in a divine revelation, as you say. He said the same thing in 1 Cor. 11.23 and Gal. 1.12. Paul obviously had numerous visions of Christ, and direct communication from him. But he also directly asserts that his information comes from the Scriptures. In disagreement with your link and quote, Paul referred to his knowledge of these things through personal revelation because he was not at the scene of the crucifixion, he didn't witness the burial, and he never saw Jesus' resurrection body on the earth.

You also need to understand, though, that 1 Cor. 15.3-4 are widely regarded and almost universally accepted by scholars across the theological spectrum as being an amazingly early creed of Christians, probably dating to no more than 2-5 years after Jesus' crucifixion. It is obvious that Paul is aware of this creed, since he "quotes" it, but he's telling us that he didn't get his information just from the creed; he also got it from the Scriptures themselves and by direct revelation from Jesus himself.

> this fits the entire presentation of scripture in the early Christian epistles as the source of knowledge about the Christ, and even as the repository of Christ’s own voice.

Sorry, but I don't understand this. Is it saying that the gospel writers got their knowledge of Jesus from Paul? Is it saying that Paul got everything he teaches about Jesus from the OT? Both of those are quite ludicrous statements, but I'm not sure either of those is what the quote is claiming. Can you explain it to me, please?

> You are importing the later gospel accounts into the Pauline epistles.

You misunderstood me. I wasn't importing the gospels into Paul. All I was claiming is that Paul was talking about physical appearances just as the gospels talk about physical appearances. I am giving evidence that Paul believed in the physical death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus in the same way that Peter, John, and the others did.

[The King]

> Paul was MONUMENTAL teacher in the blood of Christ, not only as a theological concept, but as a physical reality. Rom. 3.25, 1 Cor. 1.23, and Col. 1.20 will do, among many.

We are talking about the blood flowing through the veins of the resurrected Christ. Where is the reference to the fleshly body and the blood flowing through the veins of the resurrected Christ?

> He meant that he received his information directly in a divine revelation, as you say.

Which means a human being did not tell him that Jesus had risen from the grave.

> But he also directly asserts that his information comes from the Scriptures.

Old Testament scriptures written hundreds of years before the alleged events of 29 AD.

> In disagreement with your link and quote, Paul referred to his knowledge of these things through personal revelation because he was not at the scene of the crucifixion, he didn't witness the burial, and he never saw Jesus' resurrection body on the earth.

If Jesus’ death, burial and rising were the subject of eyewitness and historical record, it would be more than faintly ludicrous for Paul to refer to knowledge of these things as coming to him through personal revelation.

> but he's telling us that he didn't get his information just from the creed; he also got it from the Scriptures

...written hundreds of years before the alleged events of 29 AD.

> Sorry, but I don't understand this. Is it saying that the gospel writers got their knowledge of Jesus from Paul?

A question worth considering.

> Is it saying that Paul got everything he teaches about Jesus from the OT?

..and his own mind.

> Both of those are quite ludicrous statements,

Yes. The ghost scenario makes much more sense.

>I am giving evidence that Paul believed in the physical death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus in the same way that Peter, John, and the others did.

...by referring to documents written decades after Paul died.

[jimwalton]

Not even the Gospel writers wrote about the actual flesh and blood flowing through the veins of the resurrected Christ. We can only even surmise what sort of body it was. He had material substance, since Mary could grab his feet and Thomas could touch his hand and side. He also ate food with his disciples on the beach. It was certainly a physical body. But at the same time he could walk through a door that was closed and locked. Jesus' appearance in a locked room suggests a body whose form and nature is different from our material world (John 20.26).

Paul affirms in 1 Corinthians 15 what the disciples write about in John 20: that Jesus' resurrection body was different from a normal human body. The disciples saw Jesus enter a locked room, and they saw him rise up in the sky (Acts 1.9). Paul, in 1 Cor. 15, relates it to something like a seed (a remnant of the old body) that re-sprouts, similar to what was there before, but different from it. He talks about heavenly *bodies* (not disembodied spirits) as different from earthly bodies 1 Cor. 15.40). In the following verses he speaks of power vs. weakness. It's not the same flesh and blood (1 Cor. 15.50), but it is material and not just phantasmic. Jesus had a literal, bodily resurrection according to both Paul and the Gospels. Notice in 1 Cor. 15.53-54 that the mortal is not replaced by the immortal, but clothed in it.

Paul is getting his information from three sources. He says that Jesus appeared to him and spoke to him, presumably in a vision. But then as he searches the OT, he finds the same story and corroborating information and teaching. As he converses with the disciples later, he gets the same story and corroborating information and teaching. It gives even extra credence that all sources corroborate: visionary, ancient inspired documents, and current events and eye-witness testimony. Paul specifically says in Gal. 1.11-12 that he got his teaching straight from revelation from Jesus. After that he studied the Scriptures on his own (Gal. 1.17), he spoke with the disciples. He found that all three sources validated each other (Gal. 2.6-9).

[The King]

> Not even the Gospel writers wrote about the actual flesh and blood flowing through the veins of the resurrected Christ.

No. But they did use the expression "flesh and blood" to refer to nothing but human beings composed of flesh and blood.

Matthew 16:17 Jesus replied, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by flesh and blood, but by my Father in heaven.

In fact anywhere in the Bible where the exact phrase "flesh and blood" is to be found it is always used to designate human beings composed of flesh and blood. It is never used as a spiritual metaphor as the word "flesh" (by itself) is often used by Paul.

> He had material substance, since Mary could grab his feet

You are importing the later gospels into the Pauline epistles.

>The disciples saw Jesus enter a locked room, and they saw him rise up in the sky (Acts 1.9). Paul, in 1 Cor. 15, relates it to something like a seed (a remnant of the old body) that re-sprouts, similar to what was there before, but different from it.

In other words, Paul uses a vague metaphor so it must mean exactly what the later gospel writers depict about the risen Christ. He talks about heavenly bodies (not disembodied spirits) as different from earthly bodies 1 Cor. 15.40). Bodies composed of spirit. Because bodies composed of material are not spirit.

> In the following verses he speaks of power vs. weakness. It's not the same flesh and blood (1 Cor. 15.50), but it is material and not just phantasmic.

Paul never says the spiritual body is composed of material. I don't see how speaking of "power and weakness" means he did.

> Jesus had a literal, bodily resurrection according to both Paul and the Gospels. Notice in 1 Cor. 15.53-54 that the mortal is not replaced by the immortal, but clothed in it.

"The word "body" is not even in the text of 1 Corinthians 15:53-54 (or 1 Corinthians 15:50), where O'Connell needs it to be. Hence he must conjecture it there, but his only basis for this is 1 Corinthians 15:42, which is a whole ten verses away from 1 Corinthians 15:53-54 and thus hardly the most likely source of Paul's intended subject. So which is the more likely interpretation of what Paul is saying on the total evidence? I argue it is exchange, not layering. Accordingly, I conclude (with Jean Héring) that the grammatical subject in 1 Corinthians 15:53-54 is more likely our present condition in the abstract, not our bodies.[6] Hence he means we take off our old bodies (or allow them to be consumed in the eschaton) and "put on" our new ones (much like in 1 Corinthians 15:42-44).[7]"
http://infidels.org/library/modern/rich ... rier2.html

> Paul is getting his information from three sources.

False. Paul never acknowledges receiving any information from another human being. In fact,
11 I want you to know, brothers and sisters, that the gospel I preached is not of human origin. 12 I did not receive it from any man, nor was I taught it; rather, I received it by revelation from Jesus Christ. (Galatians 1)

> It gives even extra credence that all sources corroborate: visionary, ancient inspired documents, and current events and eye-witness testimony.

I think you better re-read 1 Cor 15:3
Paul starts off his little speech with;
"3 For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance[a]: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, 4 that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures,""
What did Paul mean by, "what I received"? He meant that he received his information directly from Jesus in a spiritual revelation. Thus....
"...the elements he (Paul) states in his gospel, Jesus’ death, burial and rising, are not likely to refer to historical events. If all three were the subject of eyewitness and historical record (at least from the Christian point of view), it would be more than faintly ludicrous for Paul to refer to knowledge of these things as coming to him through personal revelation. Second, he in fact tells us where he got such information: from the scriptures. Although kata tas graphas is regularly interpreted as meaning "in fulfilment of the scriptures" (an idea Paul nowhere discusses), it can just as readily entail the meaning of "as the scriptures tell us," and this fits the entire presentation of scripture in the early Christian epistles as the source of knowledge about the Christ, and even as the repository of Christ’s own voice."
http://jesuspuzzle.humanists.net/sil12cor.htm

> Paul specifically says in Gal. 1.11-12 that he got his teaching straight from revelation from Jesus. After that he studied the Scriptures on his own (Gal. 1.17), he spoke with the disciples. He found that all three sources validated each other (Gal. 2.6-9).

Once again you are importing the later gospels into the Pauline epistles. Paul never explicates that a physical resurrection is "validated" by all of them together or by anyone at all. In fact the section you reference offers no suggestion that Jesus ever had disciples or gave them a Great Commission.
6 As for those who were held in high esteem—whatever they were makes no difference to me; (Galatians 2)
Incredible. It made no difference to Paul that his Lord had said to the disciples:
“Truly I tell you, at the renewal of all things, when the Son of Man sits on his glorious throne, you who have followed me will also sit on twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel. (Matthew 19:28)
And:
18 Then Jesus came to them and said, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. 19 Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20 and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age.” (Matthew 28)
So it made no difference to Paul that the disciples had been hand picked by his Lord to deliver the gospel to all nations. And it made no difference to Paul that his Lord was going to be with the disciples always to the very end of the age.
God does not show favoritism— (Galatians 2:6)
Really? Did God choose the entire human race to sit on twelve thrones of judgment and spread the gospel to all lands?
they added nothing to my message.
Why so dismissive of his Lord's handpicked disciples and missionaries?
7 On the contrary, they recognized that I had been entrusted with the task of preaching the gospel to the uncircumcised,[a] just as Peter had been to the circumcised.
In direct contradiction of Matthew 28:18.
18 Then Jesus came to them and said, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. 19 Therefore go and make disciples of all nations

[jimwalton]

As you might expect, I beg to differ with you. You argue that nowhere in the Bible does "flesh and blood" mean anything except human beings composed of flesh and blood, but that's not true. Jesus used both flesh and blood together in John 6.53-56 to speak metaphorically.

> You are importing the later gospels into the Pauline epistles.

You are twisting what I said. I never imported it. I said that not even the Gospel writers wrote about the blood flowing through the veins of Jesus' resurrected body, but that the Gospel writers wrote of Jesus as having material substance.

> Paul uses a vague metaphor so it must mean exactly what the later gospel writers depict about the risen Christ.

You're missing a key point of which I have already spoken and given evidence—that both Paul and the Gospel writers, regardless of the date of their writing, believed in the material and physical resurrection of Jesus. You seem to think that if you can keep distorting what I said I'll eventually change my story. Frankly, I won't change what the text asserts.

> "The word "body" is not even in the text of 1 Corinthians 15:53-54...

You're right, but to claim that it's not speaking of body is to ignore the context of the entire chapter, which is to relate the physical resurrection of Jesus to the physical resurrection of believers. In vv.1-11 he reiterates what all believers know, as he is writing a creed known from the earliest days of Christianity: that Christ is physically risen from the dead. His transition is in vv. 12-19, that Christ has indeed been physically raised from the dead, for his physical resurrection, just like his physical death, are necessary for the atonement to be efficacious. In v. 35 he sets the stage (theme sentence) for the entire last section: How are the dead raised? With what kind of BODY will they come? He speaks of different kinds of bodies (36-41), and says that's what the resurrection of the dead will be like: one body will be raised in a different form. You can't then divorce vv. 53-54 from the body. It's embodied in the whole context; it's what chapter 15 is about.

> I think you better re-read 1 Cor 15:3

We've already covered this ground and I've already explained it. Paul received his information from three sources: A vision of Jesus, study of the OT, and conversations with the Apostles.

> If all three were the subject of eyewitness and historical record (at least from the Christian point of view), it would be more than faintly ludicrous for Paul to refer to knowledge of these things as coming to him through personal revelation.

We've already covered this ground as well. Paul was not an eyewitness to the crucifixion, burial, and physical resurrection of Jesus.

> Once again you are importing the later gospels into the Pauline epistles.

Again, I am not. I quote to you from Galatians, not the Gospels.

> 6 As for those who were held in high esteem—whatever they were makes no difference to me; (Galatians 2)

You are distorting what Paul said in Galatians 2. The context of Galatians 2 is Paul validating that the gospel he is preaching to the Gentiles was not something fed to him by the Apostles. An important issue in the early church was whether or not Christianity was a trans-ethnic movement, whether or not the Jewish ethnic boundary was abolished by Christ. The debate in Gal. 2.4 is to whether or not Gentiles had to become Jews in order to follow Christ. What Paul is saying in Gal. 2.6 is that he (Paul) doesn't need to receive his endorsement as an apostle, nor does the Gospel of freedom he is preaching need the approval of the Disciples, because God gave it to him. What the "it makes no difference to me" means is that the disciples' relation to Christ and their high respect in the Christian community (of which they were worthy) has no bearing on the truth of the gospel that Paul was preaching. In contrast to what you said, it made a lot of difference to Paul that the disciples had been hand picked by the Lord to deliver the gospel. Paul discovered through his conversations that he and the disciples, whom he respected ("pillars", v. 9), were in agreement with each other (Gal. 2.8-9—the right hand of fellowship). And when he says that "God does not show favoritism," what he is talking about (you gotta pay attention to the context!) is that the Gospel preached by Peter was not superior to the gospel preached by Paul, just because Peter was one of the 12, and even one of the inner 3. What he is saying is that the truth of the gospel is consistent no matter who is delivering it. The Jewish Gospel and the Gentile gospel are identical. Truth is truth, and though the preachers of it were of different backgrounds and perspectives, the result is exactly the same.

> Why so dismissive of his Lord's handpicked disciples and missionaries?

He's not. You are misunderstanding and distorting what Paul said and disregarding the context of his statement. The truth of the gospel that was given to him by Jesus was the same as the truth of the gospel given to Peter, and affirmed for Peter in Acts 10: the Gentiles didn't have to become Jewish to follow Jesus (Gal. 2.15-16). Paul didn't have to submit the message of God to them for approval.

> In direct contradiction of Matthew 28:18.

No. Absolutely not. They all believed that the message of the Gospel should go to all nations. Here we are seeing a clear-cut agreement between leaders regarding distinctions of sphere. Peter had already preached to people from all over the Roman Empire on the Day of Pentecost. Peter had already converted the Gentile Cornelius in Acts 10. But it's certainly no abrogation of duty or contradiction of Mt. 28.18 to recognize that Peter is more effective with a Jewish audience, and Paul is far more effective with a Gentile audience than Peter would be. We each have our role to play in the kingdom of God. It's not quite the same as a calling, but it is our place in God’s economy. It's also notable that there are different nuances in the message itself. There are many different ways to express the same truth. We can use different terms and different concepts to express the same truths to different audiences. Kittel says, "Paul preached freedom in the sphere of the Gentiles, and Peter preached Messianic Judaistic Christianity to the Jews." In Acts 11.17-18 Peter acknowledges that the truth of the Gospel is meant for the whole world—even the Gentiles! There is no contradiction, only division of labor.