The Heart of the Gospel- The Resurrection
- Thread starter civic
- Start date
I will avoid 'flesh' since we're still deliberating on that
But I would agree that Christ's resurrection body is a real, physical corporeal body but an immortal, glorified one as you say (hey, we agreed!
)He sure did
Let me hit pause on the "flesh" debate just to note what an amazing, glorious, theologically rich and powerful teaching we have from Paul here in 1 Cor 15.
Second Temple Judaism (Pharisees) believed the resurrection would be an eschatological end-time, end-of-the-world event on Judgment Day, and would be a national event involving the resurrection of all true righteous Israelites of "remnant" Israel.
Resurrection of a single individual was nonsensical and unexpected. Resurrection doesn't happen in history. It only happens at the end of history, and for the whole of righteous Israel, not a single individual. And certainly not the Messiah. (Why would the Messiah need to be resurrected? The Messiah would have to die to be resurrected, but the Messiah's not supposed to die but instead usher in the eternal rule of God's Kingdom).
Jesus up ends it all and stands it on its head, starting with a weak, inglorious, dishonorable, scandalous, and seemingly powerless, suffering, crucified Messiah; followed by the resurrection.
But resurrection still only happens at the end of history. Thus, the tension we see in the New Testament's "now-but-not-yet" inaugurated eschatology. And we see the same in 1 Corinthians 15.
Christ's resurrection signals the 'beginning-of-the-end.' The end-time resurrection at the end of the world has *already* begun. It began with Christ's resurrection. Christ is "the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep... then at his coming those who belong to Christ" will be resurrected next at the 'end-of-the-end.' (1 Cor 15.20, 23).
Just as the Word became flesh and dwelt among us in physical bodily form and experienced all the same frailties of that mortal, human form, but then was bodily raised in an immortal, glorious form; so, also, our weak, mortal, perishable bodies will be transformed into glorious, immortal resurrection bodies that will never see decay. What began with Christ will be completed when we follow what he started.
And to think how many Christians (and non-Christians) think that Jesus's resurrection was simply about him coming back to life. Just a resuscitation or reanimation like Lazarus who was raised mortal, and still later died. I wonder how many understand that Christ's resurrection was more than just coming back to life, but a supernatural transformation of the mortal body into an immortal one that will never see decay, and this signaled the start of the end-of-the-world.
Second Temple Judaism (Pharisees) believed the resurrection would be an eschatological end-time, end-of-the-world event on Judgment Day, and would be a national event involving the resurrection of all true righteous Israelites of "remnant" Israel.
Resurrection of a single individual was nonsensical and unexpected. Resurrection doesn't happen in history. It only happens at the end of history, and for the whole of righteous Israel, not a single individual. And certainly not the Messiah. (Why would the Messiah need to be resurrected? The Messiah would have to die to be resurrected, but the Messiah's not supposed to die but instead usher in the eternal rule of God's Kingdom).
Jesus up ends it all and stands it on its head, starting with a weak, inglorious, dishonorable, scandalous, and seemingly powerless, suffering, crucified Messiah; followed by the resurrection.
But resurrection still only happens at the end of history. Thus, the tension we see in the New Testament's "now-but-not-yet" inaugurated eschatology. And we see the same in 1 Corinthians 15.
Christ's resurrection signals the 'beginning-of-the-end.' The end-time resurrection at the end of the world has *already* begun. It began with Christ's resurrection. Christ is "the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep... then at his coming those who belong to Christ" will be resurrected next at the 'end-of-the-end.' (1 Cor 15.20, 23).
Just as the Word became flesh and dwelt among us in physical bodily form and experienced all the same frailties of that mortal, human form, but then was bodily raised in an immortal, glorious form; so, also, our weak, mortal, perishable bodies will be transformed into glorious, immortal resurrection bodies that will never see decay. What began with Christ will be completed when we follow what he started.
And to think how many Christians (and non-Christians) think that Jesus's resurrection was simply about him coming back to life. Just a resuscitation or reanimation like Lazarus who was raised mortal, and still later died. I wonder how many understand that Christ's resurrection was more than just coming back to life, but a supernatural transformation of the mortal body into an immortal one that will never see decay, and this signaled the start of the end-of-the-world.
The 'future' eschatological end has already begun with Christ's resurrection as "the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep... [and] then at his coming those who belong in Christ" will be resurrected next at the 'end-of-the-end.' (1 Cor 15.20, 23). So, while those two verses don't specifically refer to Jesus they are predicated and dependent on what comes before at the start of 1 Cor 15: that is, on Christ's own resurrection as the first to be raised and first to conquer death. So, it's not so much that it doesn't apply to Jesus. It's more how what happened to Christ applies to us: just as Christ's mortal, perishable body was put to death but raised imperishable, immortal; so, also the same will happen with us.
To clarify, are you advocating an Augustinian original sin type view that we have a "sinful body" intrinsically by it's very nature? That we inherit it? That the physical body itself is sinful? That we are born with a "sinful body" before having sinned? Or, are you saying that the physical human body isn’t intrinsically sinful? That there's nothing inherently 'bad' or sinful about the human body? That it’s what we do with the body or how we defile it that makes it a "sinful body" (i.e., because we have sinned)? Or are you saying something else entirely?
I am referring to the sinful nature which we inherit, which Paul refers to as "the flesh" as opposed to the resurrection "spiritual" sinless body.
Why the resistance to the apostolic teaching of the natural body before death being sinful (in nature desire, action), corruptible and weak (1 Co 15:42-49)?
Josheb
Well Known Member
- Joined
- May 19, 2023
- Messages
- 4,869
- Reaction score
- 2,127
- Points
- 113
- Location
- VA, south of DC
- Faith
- Yes
- Marital status
- Married with adult children
- Politics
- Conservative
It's not interesting; it is necessary.
I have already answered and explained the relevance and importance.
One verse does not define all of scripture. Neither does one paragraph, one passage, or one chapter. The practice of using one verse or singular portion to define all of scripture is called proof-texting and proof-texting always and everywhere bad practice. Simply put, Chapter 15 of 1 Corinthians does not define all that scripture says on the matter of sinful flesh. Chapter does not even define itself! It does not define itself because the whole of scripture speaks to that subject, almost from its beginning to its end. Logically, the notion that one text can say something all on its own independent of all else the scriptures say is irrational. Exegetically it denies the "exegetical spiral" in which the sentence, then the immediately surrounding text, the larger narrative, the book in which the text is found, related passages in other books, and the Bible as a whole are considered. There is also the potential problem of asserting something based on one portion of one text that is nowhere else found in scripture.
I shouldn't have had to ask the question!
So..... would you please answer the question asked? You don't have to quote every verse answering that question if there is more than one. If there's more than one, then quote the text you think is the most veracious and then just list the addresses of the other texts. If the answer to that question is, "I do not know of any such scripture," or "I cannot find any such scripture," then post that.
Outside of 1 Corinthians 15 and apart from the pre-disobedient Adam and the incarnate Christ, where does scripture make a report of sinless human flesh?
.
I did answer your question (!). I also told you I object to the way the question is phrased, because the way it is phrased already presupposes the truth of a given theological view (as I already explained in detail).
Of course it doesn't. No one said it does. But 1 Cor 15.39, which you already acknowledged is a list of types of flesh that God created, including animals, birds, and fish---that list of created flesh also includes humans when you said it didn't! Are you just going to keep ignoring the fact that your statement was in error? Are you just going to keep ignoring the fact that the list of flesh types that you said God created also includes humans in that list?
Because I disagree with you that that is the apostolic teaching. I believe you are reading it wrong. We can agree to disagree. It's not a salvation issue.
And yet 1 Corinthians was written as an independent letter centuries before we had the completed, assembled Bible. Are you telling me it meant nothing on its own for centuries until we had the completed Bible? How then did the church at Corinth manage?
Obviously not. It's clear that we disagree on interpretation. And we're hardly the first believers to disagree on whether the sin nature is inherited.
You'll have to peddle that old saw of discrediting Scripture due to "interpretation" to someone who is uninformed enough to believe it.
It is nothing more than a fig leaf for unbelief.
We are by nature objects of wrath (Eph 2:3) is pretty plain.
We are born with our sinful nature because of Adam (Ro 5:12).
We don't "acquire" our nature. We are born with a fallen human nature, just as puppies are born with a dog nature.
Yours is not orthodox Christianity.
Now, now. Why must believers always resort to the strong arm tactic of 'your view is heresy' instead of just talking and recognizing that there are legitimate differences of opinion among believers. If I recall there's a relatively recent book that provides five different views on this topic by top Christian NT scholars.
Augustine's Romans 5.12 main basis for original sin doctrine was relying on a mistranslation. This has been corrected in most modern Bibles:
12 Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all people, because all sinned
To me (and you may disagree, that's fine), I find the arguments convincing by those evangelical OT scholars who argue Adam & Eve were created mortal prior to the Fall ("out of dust"; which is why "to dust you will return"). They were created mortal and had to remain in God's presence in the garden of Eden where the Tree of Life was to remain living. Their disobedience and wanting to depend on themselves instead of on God resulted in expulsion from God's life sustaining presence and cherubim so they could not return to the Tree of Life. Thus, they were left to their own mortality (they were created with) without God's life sustaining presence.
By this view there's nothing intrinsically sinful about the mortal, physical body (which flirts with docetism and Gnostic dualism heresy anyway).
My understanding is that Christ's atonement is what takes away our sin (sin can't be in God's presence, so when someone dies how could they be in God's presence if they had to wait for a resurrection body to eliminate sin? Plus, there is still sin of the mind, sinful thoughts and such apart from the body).
My understanding is that sin is taken care of by the cross, but the "last enemy" as Paul tells us in 1 Cor 15 is "death"; mortality, which is then defeated by an immortal resurrection body.
Those who rise from the dead on the last judgment have their sins not already been atoned for? Were they atoned for so their spirit goes to heaven but then on resurrection day God puts them back into a "sinful body"?
Thats why (one of many reasons) why I see 1 Cor 15 as talking about the mortal physical body vs the immortal with no harmatology sin overtones, which according to 1 Cor 15.3-5 Christ already died for ("Christ died for our sins...").
I know you will disagree, and that's okay. There are top notch scholars on both sides of this who also disagree.
