Bodily Resurrection

[Epistemes]

I read each of these and I cannot see how you link Paul’s teaching on “flesh” to what happens to our body in the Resurrection. What do think Paul means by “flesh” in these passages?

St. Paul made a distinction between **soma **(body, which he desginates as morally neutral) and sarx (flesh, which he designates as morally negative). According to St. Paul, sarx (flesh) is a force which is most hostile to God because sarx is cosmically hostile to pneuma (Spirit). In 1 Corinthians 15:50 St. Paul says that “flesh (sarx) and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God,” but he proclaims that a body (soma) will. “Body,” the more neutral term, can be transformed and raised again. “Flesh” cannot. Romans 8:23 states that there is redemption for the body, but 1 Corinthians states that the flesh must be dissolved and destroyed. The body is raised as a spiritual body.

 

[davidv]

St. Paul made a distinction between **soma **(body, which he desginates as morally neutral) and sarx (flesh, which he designates as morally negative). According to St. Paul, sarx (flesh) is a force which is most hostile to God because sarx is cosmically hostile to pneuma (Spirit). In 1 Corinthians 15:50 St. Paul says that “flesh (sarx) and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God,” but he proclaims that a body (soma) will. “Body,” the more neutral term, can be transformed and raised again. “Flesh” cannot. Romans 8:23 states that there is redemption for the body, but 1 Corinthians states that the flesh must be dissolved and destroyed. The body is raised as a spiritual body.

It appears in this response that you equate flesh and body. This is inconsistent with the totality of Catholic teaching. I believe “flesh” in this context is not our physical body but is our “worldly”, sinful, desires.

 

[Epistemes]

It appears in this response that you equate flesh and body. This is inconsistent with the totality of Catholic teaching. I believe “flesh” in this context is not our physical body but is our “worldly”, sinful, desires.

No, there is no equation between flesh and body. There is a distinction, but they are inextricably linked. 1 Corinthians 15:51-54 says that we will transform into a different kind of bodily existence. “Body” is the common term. But not fleshly body, or body made of dust, or corruptible body, or mortal body. That is only the present embodiment, the embodiment appropriate to a physical world subject to decay and death. The embodiment of the resurrection body will be different, an embodiment appropriate to the world of Spirit, beyond death.

 

[FCEGM]

Your original question regarded the official teaching of the Catholic Church on the subject. You have your answer now and if you are a Catholic the Church’s teaching must be assented to. This article further addresses the subject:

catholic.com/thisrock/2002/0211clas.asp

 

[tm30]

Why must it be a physiological resurrection?

Because God created Man in His image with a body intended for immortality. If the curse of Adam (death of the body) is not satisfied and revoked, then the sacrifice on the Cross was pointless.

Thus, if you deny the bodily Resurrection, you deny salvation and you essentially charge God with creating something superficial to His plan.

At the Resurrection, our bodies will be re-constituted without the effects of Original Sin, since all venial sin is destroyed in Purgatory. Those with mortal sins, cannot satisfy the eternal price, and thus will not receive a glorified body in Resurrection, but remain in eternal punishment at the hands of Death.

 

[FCEGM]

A few other articles that might be helpful to you, including a commentary by Fr. William Most on 1 Corinthians:

catholic.com/thisrock/1990/9003fea1.asp

catholic.com/library/resurrection_of_the_body.asp

catholicculture.org/library/most/getchap.cfm?WorkNum=243&ChapNum=6

Paul is having trouble with some philosophical opponents at Corinth. Most likely it is Platonists. They believed in reincarnation. Our bodies are really not part of us, they thought, for we came from a world of spirits, and had to take on a body as a penalty. If we can get through several reincarnations, each time as a wise philosopher, we can get permission to skip reincarnation, and our soul will get wings, fly away, and never have a body again. Clearly, such people would not welcome Paul’s preaching of a general resurrection at all. (Let us remember that they would hardly object to a merely spiritual body – we must recall this at 15:44, where Paul speaks of the risen body as spiritual: he means it is completely under control of our spirit).

It is possible that the opponents are Pythagoreans, who also held reincarnation, or Orphics or Gnostics. There also was another error running which said the resurrection had already taken place.43

But it is more likely that he is dealing with the Platonists. Against them, Paul insists that if Christ is not risen, neither will we rise. For He is the first fruits, and those who belong to Him will be of the same sort at the resurrection. And of course, though Paul does not say it explicitly here, he must have in his mind his Mystical Body doctrine, of which he is fond. If the Head rises, the members must rise too. So if we deny the resurrection of the members of Christ, that implies a denial of Christ’s resurrection.

 

[Uranage]

Christian Gary Habermas and skeptic Tim Callahan debate the bodily resurrection on “Faith Under Fire”.

leestrobel.com/videoserver/video.php?clip=strobelT1116

 

[Epistemes]

Why must it be a Christian pitted against a skeptic? Why not a bodily resurrectionist pitted against a spiritual resurrectionist – both Christians? Only then would you be able to see where your allegiances lie.

William Lane Craig defended the bodily resurrection against textual critic and Christian historian Bart Ehrman (a self-proclaimed agnostic), and if you didn’t already have allegiances prior to hearing that debate then it became clear really quick how weak and desperate Craig’s thesis became. Ehrman was the true victor not due to his own arguments, but due to Craig shooting his own self in the foot.

 

[patg]

…The Catholic Church teaches as it always has that Christ is the first to rise from the dead …

That’s not true - Lazarus is an obvious example, followed by the hundreds who came out of their graves and wandered around during the crucifixion.

 

[FCEGM]

Why must it be a Christian pitted against a skeptic? Why not a bodily resurrectionist pitted against a spiritual resurrectionist – both Christians? Only then would you be able to see where your allegiances lie.

William Lane Craig defended the bodily resurrection against textual critic and Christian historian Bart Ehrman (a self-proclaimed agnostic), and if you didn’t already have allegiances prior to hearing that debate then it became clear really quick how weak and desperate Craig’s thesis became. Ehrman was the true victor not due to his own arguments, but due to Craig shooting his own self in the foot.

This isn’t a game being played, or an intellectual discussion between scholars where the one having the stronger presentation wins. The Church teaches the truth of what happened, other Christians may disagree, but they are in error (part of the mission of the Church is both to proclaim the truth and to defend it against error, you know.) One is in allegiance to that Truth or not. Simple.

 

[Uranage]

Why must it be a Christian pitted against a skeptic? Why not a bodily resurrectionist pitted against a spiritual resurrectionist – both Christians? Only then would you be able to see where your allegiances lie.

The reason is that a denial of the physical resurrection is a denial of the gospel. You cannot be a Christian and knowlingly deny the physical resurrection of Christ. A spiritual resurrection is no resurrection at all.

William Lane Craig defended the bodily resurrection against textual critic and Christian historian Bart Ehrman (a self-proclaimed agnostic), and if you didn’t already have allegiances prior to hearing that debate then it became clear really quick how weak and desperate Craig’s thesis became. Ehrman was the true victor not due to his own arguments, but due to Craig shooting his own self in the foot.

I encourage any interested person to read or listen to this debate and decide for themselves. Here is the transcript: www.holycross.edu/departments/crec/website/resurrection-debate-transcript.pdf

Ehrman seemed to be in over his head and never seemed to adequately answer Craig’s arguement that the physical resurrection is the best explanation of the evidence.

Here is the audio of the debate:
blip.tv/file/637213

 

[Epistemes]

The reason is that a denial of the physical resurrection is a denial of the gospel. You cannot be a Christian and knowlingly deny the physical resurrection of Christ. A spiritual resurrection is no resurrection at all.

If living by the example of Christ while choosing to believe in his life, death, and *spiritual *resurrection and exaltation to God makes me not a Christian, then you have an unfortunately skewed perspective of what makes a person “Christian.” If I were to deny the resurrection at all, then you might have a case, but am I? No - instead, I am merely advocating the opinion that the resurrection takes place outside of visible, historical time and space.

And you say, “This is no resurrection at all.” Why? Because it fails to live up to your preconceived dogmas of what constitutes a “resurrection”?

As I already stated in posts above, the Gospels clearly give more examples which give credence to the notion of a spiritual resurrection than a bodily resurrection. Even if you choose to believe in a bodily resurrection, the data offered by the Gospels is completely inconsistent, not only between themselves but also with the 1st century Hellenistic Jewish concept of the resurrected body.

If God chose to raise Jesus from the dead in his new spiritual body and he was subsequently exalted, then that clearly constitutes a resurrection for the basic reason that Jesus did not remain dead.

 

[JimG]

Philosophically speaking, the term “spiritual body” is a contradiction in terms. Spirit has no extension in space or time, bodies do. Often the term “glorified body” is used to describe Christ’s body after the resurrection, as well as ours after our resurrection. The body is still material—it occupies space and time, but is restored the preternatural gifts originally given to our first parents, and then some.

The resurrected Christ was able to eat, walk, talk, speak, touch and be touched. Thomas was able to place his hand in his wounds. But the resurrected Christ was also able to pass through solid locked doors, and appear and disappear at will. Those extraordinary abilities don’t mean that his body wasn’t a real body; it was in fact, the very same body which had been placed in the tomb, now risen and glorified.

 

[Epistemes]

Paul doesn’t believe in the physical rising of the dead, I’ll elucidate myself, since I don’t think anyone is understanding my point.

It is the same with the dead who are raised to life. The body that is “planted” will ruin and decay, but it is raised to a life that cannot be destroyed.
When the body is “planted,” it is without honor, but it is raised in glory. When the body is “planted,” it is weak, but when it is raised, it is powerful.
The body that is “planted” is a physical body. When it is raised, it is a spiritual body. There is a physical body, and there is also a spiritual body. (1 Corinthians 15:42-44)

Here Paul is saying that the body that is ‘planted’ (i.e. our physical bodies) will ruin and decay after we die, but the body in which we are raised back to life in will be glorified and free from damage. The former is our physical body, the later is our spiritual body, it is the spiritual body which Paul says will be raised, not the physical, which will rot away.

Now why does Paul believe this, well as he continues he links this with his doctrine of Jesus dying to save us from our sin:

*It is written in the Scriptures: “The first man, Adam, became a living person.” **But the last Adam became a life-giving spirit. **
The spiritual did not come first, but the physical and then the spiritual.
The first man came from the dust of the earth. **The second man came from heaven. *People who belong to the earth are like the first man of earth. But those people who belong to heaven are like the man of heaven.
Just as we were made like the man of earth, so we will also be made like the man of heaven. (1 Corinthians 15:45-49)

And he says something related to this earlier on in the letter:

In Adam all of us die. In the same way, in Christ all of us will be made alive again.
But everyone will be raised to life in the right order. Christ was first to be raised. When Christ comes again, those who belong to him will be raised to life (1 Corinthians 15:22-23)

So, what Paul is teaching here is that Christ came to sacrifice himself in order to save us from sin, that’s standard Christianity of course. But how he says Christ did this is that he was the last Adam, here to right the wrongs of the first Adam. The first Adam came from the dust of the Earth, that is he was born into a physical body and died in a physical body, but he contrasts this with the ‘last Adam’ as being a man of Heaven, who came in a physical body, but rose again in a **spiritual **body. He says that Jesus became a 'life-giving spirit’, and the people who believe in him will be made like the man of heaven from being a man of the Earth like Jesus was, we will be risen again as spirits, free from our weak physical bodies, like Jesus was freed from his.

Now why is escaping our physical bodies so important to Paul? Well continuing on:

*I tell you this, brothers and sisters: Flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God. Something that will ruin cannot have a part in something that never ruins.
But look! I tell you this secret: We will not all sleep in death, **but we will all be changed.**It will take only a second—as quickly as an eye blinks—when the last trumpet sounds. The trumpet will sound, and those who have died will be raised to live forever, and we will all be changed.
**This body that can be destroyed must clothe itself with something that can never be destroyed. *And this body that dies must clothe itself with something that can never die.
So this body that can be destroyed will clothe itself with that which can never be destroyed, and this body that dies will clothe itself with that which can never die. When this happens, this Scripture will be made true:
“Death is destroyed forever in victory.” — Isaiah 25:8
“Death, where is your victory?
Death, where is your pain?” — Hosea 13:14
Death’s power to hurt is sin, and the power of sin is the law. But we thank God! He gives us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ. (1 Corinthians 15:50-57)

The first couple of lines really say all that’s necessary. Paul believes that people die with their physical bodies, and that flesh and blood (i.e. physical bodies) cannot inherit the Kingdom of God. So mankind is doomed, but the good news is Jesus came to save us from our physical bodies by laying down his life for us and then being the first man to rise again from the dead as a life-giving spirit, escaping death, and allowing those who believe in him to rise again in the same manner, escaping their physical bodies. We die in our physical bodies like Adam, and rise again as spirits like Jesus did. In Paul’s doctrine, flesh and blood means sin and death, and the spirit is life. Jesus rising from the dead as a spirit is him defeating sin and death, because it’s the spirit that cannot be destroyed.

For Paul, if Jesus rose from the dead in his physical body then that would mean he hadn’t defeated sin and death, as that’s what the physical body is, and that’s what Jesus was escaping in the first place. His sacrifice would have been pointless.