On Resurrection Bodies

Rob, you wrote:

>I had written (in message #10 under 1 Cor. 15:1-11):
>
>“As I have explained, ‘resurrection’ in Paul's
>religious-linguistic context meant the bringing back to
>life of a human being as a human being. The notion
>of a human being coming to life as a nonhuman spirit would
>not be considered ‘resurrection’ in Paul's context, and
>would not have offended the intellectual sensibilities of
>the Corinthians (see my initial thread on this point).”

It was nonsensical from the Platonist perspective to speak of a human being coming back to life as a nonhuman spirit. They contemned the flesh, and death gave the soul its release from the flesh; therefore, that spiritual essence (the soul) could not come to life as it was immortal, a spark of the divine, and only needed liberation from the body in order to assume its potential for the life for which it was inherently suited, namely, for life in a place away from the material realm, the earth. Philo was embarrassed by resurrection events in the Scriptures, for he wanted to appear ever the philosopher who contemned the flesh for its imprisonment of the soul. But at death of the body, the good man's soul is more or less immediately able to experience beatification. Rob, you don't understand Philo's problem with physical resurrection from the dead? His problem is no mystery to those who know the mindset he had. I quoted Hill for that. You are not to the point when you say you don't see that I have made my case for why the Platonists would object to resurrection. But I will try one more time -- and I do mean one more time, because I won't play your games --, as you may see below.

Strictly speaking, the soul itself, per Platonist thought, was immortal, and would not put on immortality. If a Platonist had somehow mistakenly got the thought that the Christian position was that a nonhuman spirit comes back to life after death of the body, then that certainly would have been nonsensical to him, for he would think to himself 'How does a nonhuman spirit die and need to come back to life?' That would appear absurd to their position that the spiritual essence is exactly the thing that survives death of the body and does not need to come back to life.

Philo, while not a Greek, believed like the Platonists, so that he accepted immortality of the soul, and that was enough for him to have to go shopping for some explanation of resurrection events given in the Scriptures, some explanation that would be commensurate with his belief in immortality of the soul. Belief in immortality of the soul was sufficient motivation for Philo to reject the idea of resurrection to life in an Age to come. True, Platonists generally did not worry that the body irreversibly decomposes, and that such irreversibility did in fact render talk of physical resurrection foolish to them. But equally foolish to the Platonists was the thought that some individuals would get immortality only if they were restored to a kind of life having the quality of immortality given to them at some time after death of the body, and given to them in an Age to come, as, per Platonistic thought, that was the condition already intrinsically inherent to that part of a man that really counted with Platonists, namely, the soul.

Your words "The notion of a human being coming to life as a nonhuman spirit would . . . not have offended the intellectual sensibilities of the Corinthians" are, on their face, a statement of error. No matter if the philosophy bothering some Corinthian Christians was Platonist or Epicurean, they would not have agreed with your assessment of their position. The Epicurean would be the first to speak of the irreversibility of death, thus negating, according to their understanding, the thought that resurrection is possible.

If, however, Paul's opponents were Christians who had gone over to Platonism, and had somehow misread Paul to the effect that Paul had in mind resurrection of the flesh, then Yes! they, too, would have likely argued the same as the Epicurean, saying, 'Yes, we too, see no sense in such a resurrection doctrine.' If, however, they had gone over to Platonism but still knew what they had been taught from the start of their discipleship concerning resurrection of the dead as it relates to Christ's spirit-anointed brothers, then it is not likely they would have misread Paul's argument as somehow devolving to a position that required resurrection of the flesh. They would know that Paul's belief was that anointed Christians in a future Age get life in spiritual organisms given them by God for the occasion of their resurrection. Then their objection to such a doctrine would not have been on the grounds that irreversibility of decomposition of the body means irreversibility of death. No, they would have seen that such an argument would be non-sequitur to the Christian position, and they could only object to the Christian doctrine of resurrection -- as it relates to Christ's spirit-anointed brothers who had died but who would come back to life in spiritual organisms given them, in some future day and Age, for heavenly life -- on the grounds that the mind-soul doesn't need to come back to life in some future Age after death of the body, and doesn't need to receive an organism inasmuch as the soul ever retains whatever organism the mind-soul had already possessed prior to its enfleshment, but which soul will receive more or less immediate beatification after death of the fleshly body.

Ah, but since the objection that Paul actually got was from apostatizing Christians who were pointing to the irreversibility of death on the grounds that there is no longer a body in existence, then that is enough for us to make the reasonable conclusion that we are reading the arguments of materialistically minded men, particularly the Epicureans. Your defense of your position reminds me of a dervish's dance; it is so twisted and absurd because you make it skirt all around the historical position in the Corinthian congregation.

Rob, you have thrown up a smoke screen that is easily dissipated by the light of the truth, the light of the actual situation in the Corinthian congregation, which situation provoked Paul's argument.