The Spiritual Body -- Physical or Non-Physical?

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by mfblume

Mental,

Now that I have posted the information you requested, I recalled that the link I gave to the website with Harris' and Wright's thoughts was the original website from which I gained those thoughts of IKOS and INOS in the original post I submitted about the issue.

Any comments on Wright and Harris?

Mental wrote:

Interesting. How's that?

I saw your post but I haven't had a chance to look at it seriously. I will try to take a look later tonight. This is actually something I have been wanting to get a handle on. I don't have any "position" to defend so I'm open to learning. Thanks for the sources.

[mfblume]

Mental,

I made my original notes about the issue quite some time ago and have them posted on my website after having researched the net and found the article I quoted from to you today. They contain the notes by Wright and Harris that I quoted in 2009.

Check it out:

http://apostolicfriendsforum.com/sho...14&postcount=5

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

Brother Blume, you are trying to make your own definition through the filter of your theology.

Actually I am going by what Greek scholars, Harris and Wright, said.

Brother Blume just as a glass container is made of glass, and a metal container is made of metal, so is a spirit body made of spirit.

It's not a "spirit body" but a "spiritual body". You are confusing two different terms. Pneuma (spirit) and pneumatikos (spiritual).

And that is not what the scholars said. How can a spirit contain a spirit and soul? The body is a container. And if the container is made of spirit, how can it contain spirit and soul? Do I ignore what Harris and Wright said because they disagree with your assessment?

The body without the spirit is dead. The body contains the spirit. It is a house.

Meaning that it is pneuma, a breath, spirit, wind, not driven by the breath spirit and wind, but complied by those elements. You being a spiritual man yet being driven by a spiritual invisible force.

A man is body, soul and spirit. And a spiritual man who has a physical body can be driven by an invisible spirit as motivation.

Yet, you want the Greek to mean that the spiritual body is something physical that one can see plainly with the human eye.

I do not want anything except what the bible tells me to believe. I do not know Greek any more than you do. All we can do is go by what the Greek scholars noted. mental commented that he respected Wright and Harris, and I had not even realized then that my initial references and resources were thoughts by those very two men.

This is the opposite of what you have posted to me. If you being a spiritual man driven by the invisible, how can a spiritual body now be physical.

If a spiritual man, who is quite visible, can be driven and led by an invisible Spirit, then a body that is quite visible can be empowered by an invisible spirit.

That is the reason a wind-powered machine was called a pneumatikos in ancient writings, the same word "spiritual" in Greek. Wind that drives that machine is invisible and spirit is another definition of the same greek word for wind, pneuma.

Please take Harris and NT Wright's writings and show us where these men fail in their Greek scholarship in these particular cases. I am just repeating what they said.

Shopping for answers in Lexicons, and dictionaries cannot replace the obvious, pneuma means the invisible and unseen. Building your case of the word "body" cannot escape just what kind of body it is, and that is invisible, and unseen.

In Jesus name

Brother Benincasa

www.OnTimeJournal.com

All any of us can do is take what the Greek scholars have said, who are legitimate as Mental affirmed Wright and Harris are.

You know that the spiritual meat and spiritual drink was not meat and drink that was comprised of spirit. They were quite physical, but were spiritual, using that term as an adjective, because something about them was based upon the unseen. And that something was their typology. So spiritual things can be quite physical, since the spirituality of it is not speaking of its composition. Same with the body. A spiritual body is not speaking of the composition of the body but something describing what motivates and enlivens that body. Something about the body is unseen, but not its composition. Its motivating force is unseen.

It's an issue of nature versus spirit empowering and enlivening something. A natural body is one that is given life by nature. A spiritual body lives by supernatural life. It's like saying a truck is either a diesel truck or a gasoline truck, although we would have to use terms like Diesel-ish or gasonline-ish, since it would have to be an adjective to match the way spiritual is contrasted from spirit. That does not mean the vehicle is made out of diesel or gasoline.

So can you shop around and show me some other explanations that refute Wright and Harris? Neither of us know Greek, so what else can we do other than take the same term as seen in the same book in the tenth and second chapters, and realize neither of those instances demand something to be invisible before it can be spiritual. If you are spiritual now, how come I can see you?

[mfblume]

Br. Benincasa,

Is it a "spirit man" in 1 Cor 2 and "spirit meat" and "spirit drink" in 1 Cor 10, or "spiritual man", "spiritual meat" and "spiritual drink"? Why did you change the term from "spiritual" to "spirit"? They are not synonymous.

The bottom line is, I do not care what God wants to do with the body of a believer. But if the bible tells us what He will do, then to say anything different would be to err. So it is not a matter of me wanting anything about the issue. I will be saved with or without a physical body. But since Paul spent an entire chapter on the issue, and since I cannot honestly see anything other than an explanation in that chapter that says we will physically resurrect, corroborated by the scholars, then I maintain that is the truth. Why does this become something that folks "want" or "do not want"? It is not that at all.

[mental]

Originally Posted by mfblume

Actually I am going by what Greek scholars, Harris and Wright, said.

All any of us can do is take what the Greek scholars have said, who are legitimate as Mental affirmed Wright and Harris are.

Yikes! Too much information! My head hurts.

I read through your posts, and what can I say. You’ve definitely taken the time to understand this and you have heavy weights behind your position (Wright, Harris, Fee, Thiselton, etc). I see the arguement better now I think. I’m going to take the time to read through both resurrection books from Wright and Harris. I want to see their whole position on this topic. Thanks.

By the way, “mental” refers to my unstable psychological nature and not my intellectual prowess.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by mfblume

Actually I am going by what Greek scholars, Harris and Wright, said.

That is all you can do. Yet, would you agree with them on every thought they have concerning other doctrines? Hardly, because what you believe is unorthodox concerning what they have learned from their professors. So, what do you do when you study out all these scholars? People tend to only accept information when it agrees with their direction. Now, where these scholars would disagree with you, that is where you would disregard their findings, ignore the information.

Isn't that inconsistent? Since your expertise in the Greek language is limited, you can only hope that these writers are correct. Are we to believe the notion that since these men are scholars in the Classical Greek, then they should be able to find all the facts within the scriptures? Yet, since they disagree with you in other areas, that couldn't possibly be the case. Do we study to find the truth? Or do we study to protect our own doctrine?

Originally Posted by mfblume

It's not a "spirit body" but a "spiritual body". You are confusing two different terms. Pneuma (spirit) and pneumatikos (spiritual).

No, if you were to check the etymology of the first word pneuma you would understand that both words mean the same thing. Yet, one is a thing, and the other modifies a thing.

Originally Posted by mfblume

And that is not what the scholars said. How can a spirit contain a spirit and soul? The body is a container. And if the container is made of spirit, how can it contain spirit and soul? Do I ignore what Harris and Wright said because they disagree with your assessment?

You just can't see it. Here you are asking the question, why should you ignore these men because they disagree with another man? Yet, you agree with these men because they agree with YOU. Can you say that these scholars agree with everything you believe in? If they don't, then what do you do? What acrobatics of back peddling does one have to go through when one has to line up with that rule of consistency? If we have trouble with a certain word or phrase in the scripture we always should go back and look at the context in which the word or phrase is found. So, if one has a limited knowledge of the original language he can check and see how the word fits into the context of what the Bible writer is trying to say. Some "scholars" believe that "hear o Israel the Lord our God is One," means a plural one because the use of the words "eloheem" with the word "echad". Yet, when we take a look throughout the text concerning God and His person, we can clearly see that in context of the scripture the writer isn't trying to convey a message of a plural god. Therefore we cannot accept all of what some scholars present as truth.

Brother Blume, nothing is wrong with dictionaries, or lexicons, but one must understand the direction of the teacher. Jesus said if the blind follow the blind they both fall into a ditch. If you aren't proficient in the understanding of Greek, Hebrew, or Latin, how do you know where and when your teacher will lead you into a ditch? I'm not trying to discount any scholar, but just trying to point out to you that you and they may not even be on the same page as you would like to think.

Originally Posted by mfblume

The body without the spirit is dead. The body contains the spirit. It is a house.

In 1st Corinthians 15 Paul is explaining the resurrection and the nature of the body that will be raised. It is a body that has qualities that are unseen. It is the opposite of the natural body that can be seen and decay. Not what powers or motivates those bodies.

Originally Posted by mfblume

A man is body, soul and spirit. And a spiritual man who has a physical body can be driven by an invisible spirit as motivation.

If you go back and read over your scholars, you and they sound, like your all teaching a doctrine of the natural body of 1st Cor 15 is un-regenerated sinful man, and the spiritual body of 1st Cor 15 is the natural man reborn? I know of some Preterits who teach that. Is that where you are now?

Originally Posted by mfblume

I do not want anything except what the bible tells me to believe. I do not know Greek any more than you do.

Brother Blume I have some advantage being that my family not only knows modern Greek well, but also has studied Byzantium, and Koine. They are all Greek speakers. Also, I have Brothers who are Apostolics who believe in Fulfilled Eschatology, and who are Greek, who have studied the Classical Greek language. Now, before we go for 50 pages in this thread with you contesting that just because they are Greeks does not necessarily mean they understand the classical Greek, wait.

These Greeks, studied the classical Greek, under Greek teachers. I cannot say that I'm a Greek scholar, but I study and if I have questions, I don't rely only on just what we have available to us from individuals who tend to be looking through their own theological filters. Please keep in mind that the scholars are not the end all on the Hebrew or the Greek. I contest that you Brother Blume, only accept what you already believe, and if the scholar doesn't agree with your theology (or eschatology) you ignore and move on. That doesn't make you a bad person, that is what usually happens when people shop for answers in different scholarly opinions.

Originally Posted by mfblume

All we can do is go by what the Greek scholars noted. mental commented that he respected Wright and Harris, and I had not even realized then that my initial references and resources were thoughts by those very two men.

Still if they didn't agree with your thoughts on the resurrection they would never have been offered by you in this thread. Correct?

Originally Posted by mfblume

If a spiritual man, who is quite visible, can be driven and led by an invisible Spirit, then a body that is quite visible can be empowered by an invisible spirit.

Yet, it doesn't make sense when we are talking about 1st Corinthians 15.
Unless, you are talking about the natural body in 1st Cor 15 being un-regenerated man, and the spiritual body, being regenerated man? But that couldn't be it, could it?

Didn't the church have that capability prior to what is being explained in 1st Corinthians 15? I mean being spiritually powered by an unseen force? Being converted from that which is natural to that which is spiritual?

Originally Posted by mfblume

That is the reason a wind-powered machine was called a pneumatikos in ancient writings, the same word "spiritual" in Greek. Wind that drives that machine is invisible and spirit is another definition of the same greek word for wind, pneuma.

Brother Blume, yet your not taking into consideration where pneumatikos is being used to describe items that are also invisible themselves.
Romans 1:11, Romans 7:14, Romans 15:27, Eph 1:3, Col 1:9, 1st Peter 2:5, 1st Corinthians 2:13, 1Cor 9:11. In the context of the chapter of 1st Corinthians 15, the apostle is discussing the resurrection of the dead. One thing that is interesting is that you acknowledge that pneumatikos is an adjective which modifies a noun. Now, lets apply that to Paul's writings. He is describing the materials of different types of flesh. Then he comes down to the natural body, and the spiritual body, and what they are made from. What I think you are saying is, that all of a sudden he leaves the idea of what the body is made up of, and turns around and starts explaining what they are powered by? Brother Blume, is that what you are seeing?


In Jesus name

Brother Benincasa

www.OnTimeJournal.com

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by mfblume

You know that the spiritual meat and spiritual drink was not meat and drink that was comprised of spirit. They were quite physical, but were spiritual, using that term as an adjective, because something about them was based upon the unseen. And that something was their typology. So spiritual things can be quite physical, since the spirituality of it is not speaking of its composition. Same with the body. A spiritual body is not speaking of the composition of the body but something describing what motivates and enlivens that body. Something about the body is unseen, but not its composition. Its motivating force is unseen.

Brother Blume, you are getting yourself lost not only trying to prove that the resurrected body is physical, but getting tangled up in the Greek word in the chapter? What of the context of the chapter? Paul isn't talking about what is moving, motivating, driving, compelling, enliven, or animating the natural body that would be buried, but with what body do they come? That is the question Paul is trying to answer. That is the reason Paul is describing different kinds of body types. He also explains how when a seed is planted it is not what will come up. He then goes further to explain that there are all different types of flesh, human, animal, bird, fish, and of creeping things, he explains the celestial and terrestrial, hence natural and supernatural. He is speaking of the composition when he is explaining the two bodies. One physical and the other spiritual, invisible, and unseen. When we look through the scripture to all the usages of pneumatikos, it isn't always used to explain the attributes of a physical item, like a spiritual man, or manna being spiritual meat, and the water from the rock being spiritual drink. We also see it to explain the spiritual unseen. You then automatically claim that since pneumatikos explains some items that are physical to be powered spirtually, then the body in 1st Cor 15 must also be explained that way. Why? Only because that is how your doctrine is played out. A physical body raised glorified to live eternal on a physical planet with a physical kingdom and a physical Jesus wearing a physical crown.

Originally Posted by mfblume

It's an issue of nature versus spirit empowering and enlivening something. A natural body is one that is given life by nature. A spiritual body lives by supernatural life.

Then why is Paul going through the great pains to describe the differences in the types of flesh and the difference in the celestial and the terrestrial? Again Paul is not only dealing how they are raised, but what body it will be.
One physical and decaying, and one spiritual and incorruptible.

Originally Posted by mfblume

It's like saying a truck is either a diesel truck or a gasoline truck, although we would have to use terms like Diesel-ish or gasonline-ish, since it would have to be an adjective to match the way spiritual is contrasted from spirit. That does not mean the vehicle is made out of diesel or gasoline.

Your example makes no sense. Brother Blume, Paul isn't talking about what is powering the two different bodies. It is speaking of their differences from the natural physical and corruptible, and the spiritual ethereal, and incorruptible unseen.

Originally Posted by mfblume

So can you shop around and show me some other explanations that refute Wright and Harris? Neither of us know Greek, so what else can we do other than take the same term as seen in the same book in the tenth and second chapters, and realize neither of those instances demand something to be invisible before it can be spiritual. If you are spiritual now, how come I can see you?

Do you know how insane that sounds? You haven't the foggiest idea what Wright and Harris are saying is correct? Brother Blume, we are a priesthood offering up pneumatikos sacrifices, can you see them? What about pneumatikos understanding? Can you see it? Brother Blume, try taking the word and using it in the context of what the chapter is trying to say.


In Jesus name

Brother Benincasa

www.OnTimeJournal.com

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

That is all you can do. Yet, would you agree with them on every thought they have concerning other doctrines? Hardly, because what you believe is unorthodox concerning what they have learned from their professors. So, what do you do when you study out all these scholars? People tend to only accept information when it agrees with their direction. Now, where these scholars would disagree with you, that is where you would disregard their findings, ignore the information.

Here is precisely what happened: (If I am wrong it is not because of the reason you propose.) I researched the net and found what the scholars said about the term SPIRITUAL. Maybe I came across the wrong scholars. How would we know? But what I personally studied without Greek knowledge was reaffirmed by what these scholars said.

I found NO OTHER SOURCES THAT SAID DIFFERENTLY. That is why I said I may have stumbled across the WRONG ones.

At any rate, all I can go by is my sincere attempt to study the chapter and context, and then see what scholars had to say, and I did that.

I did not read several different versions of Greek scholarship, that include any conclusions you propose, and then choose to stick with the ones that favoured my position. All I found were scholars who validated what I already saw.

If I should have continued to look, then I should have continued to look. You believe I stopped since I haphazardly found what I looked for. I claim I honestly looked for scholarly opinions and felt what I found was that.

Isn't that inconsistent? Since your expertise in the Greek language is limited, you can only hope that these writers are correct.

Right. Not only that, though. I prayed about my research and asked the Lord to lead me. I always pray like that. Lead us not into temptation and deliver us from evil. Do not allow me to go into error, and help me be open for correction if I am not presently open enough. I believe God answers those prayers. I believe it so much that if I am STILL not open enough for correction, God will eventually work me to be that way.

I also believe the Lord guides us in our personal study without the Greek scholars. I have no personal preference on the issue. So that is not a factor. The issue is what does the bible say in my honest assessment?

Are we to believe the notion that since these men are scholars in the Classical Greek, then they should be able to find all the facts within the scriptures? Yet, since they disagree with you in other areas, that couldn't possibly be the case. Do we study to find the truth? Or do we study to protect our own doctrine?

Okay. But consider this. Are you rejecting what they have to say simply because they disagree with your conclusions? What about you? Could it be you do not want to believe we shall have a physical resurrection? You may respond and say you only want what God wants you to want. Well, I feel the same way.

But in an issue where a single Greek word determines one way or another, that is beyond doctrine. Doctrine is something like whether or not Acts 2:38 was for Jews alone in the first century or for everyone. That is not based upon one Greek word. In other cases it is argued upon one greek word KAI.

But either way, I can ask the exact same things to you that you ask of me.

No, if you were to check the etymology of the first word pneuma you would understand that both words mean the same thing. Yet, one is a thing, and the other modifies a thing.

You just can't see it.

I see exactly what you are saying. I just do not agree that is the case. And I am sure you think the same with my assessment of why you believe what you believe.

Here you are asking the question, why should you ignore these men because they disagree with another man? Yet, you agree with these men because they agree with YOU.

No. I told you in this post that these are THE ONLY findings I came across. And THEY HAPPENED to agree with me. While it may be a case of more than one person, me, being wrong, what about the other conclusion? Maybe I am right and so are they? All we can do is be as honest as we can despite our humanity, in prayer and faith, and go after the truth. I did not WANT to believe anything one way or the other.

Can you say that these scholars agree with everything you believe in? If they don't, then what do you do?

Can we say that what they disagree with me about is all based upon one single greek definition as in the case of 1 Cor 15 and resurrection. Brother, there are many reasons why people form doctrines that stray from truth beyond the definition of a single Greek word as is in this case in 1 Cor 15. You make it sound like every difference of doctrine is based upon difference of opinion of one Greek word, when you paint the whole spectrum of why various doctrines exist with the one Greek word definition issue that we find in this issue.

I may disagree with their doctrines that are not founded upon one definition of a single greek word, but founded upon other bases altogether aside from Greek.

What acrobatics of back peddling does one have to go through when one has to line up with that rule of consistency?

And I ask you of the same thing.

If we have trouble with a certain word or phrase in the scripture we always should go back and look at the context in which the word or phrase is found.

That is precisely what I said I did with 1 Cor 2 and 1 Cor 10.

So, if one has a limited knowledge of the original language he can check and see how the word fits into the context of what the Bible writer is trying to say. Some "scholars" believe that "hear o Israel the Lord our God is One," means a plural one because the use of the words "eloheem" with the word "echad".

It IS a plural one. But where they go astray is in what they think the plurality is comprised of -- persons or attributes. So it IS plural. It's just that the plurality is not of persons like they think.

Yet, when we take a look throughout the text concerning God and His person, we can clearly see that in context of the scripture the writer isn't trying to convey a message of a plural god. Therefore we cannot accept all of what some scholars present as truth.

Brother Blume, nothing is wrong with dictionaries, or lexicons, but one must understand the direction of the teacher. Jesus said if the blind follow the blind they both fall into a ditch. If you aren't proficient in the understanding of Greek, Hebrew, or Latin, how do you know where and when your teacher will lead you into a ditch? I'm not trying to discount any scholar, but just trying to point out to you that you and they may not even be on the same page as you would like to think.

I am certainly aware of all of that. But more than scholars and lexicons and languages, I believe strongly in leading of the Spirit, too. I have faith that God either led me in study to see what I see, or that at least God can correct me in time.

In 1st Corinthians 15 Paul is explaining the resurrection and the nature of the body that will be raised. It is a body that has qualities that are unseen. It is the opposite of the natural body that can be seen and decay. Not what powers or motivates those bodies.

Right. What are the qualities? Compositional qualities? This is the crux.

If you go back and read over your scholars, you and they sound, like your all teaching a doctrine of the natural body of 1st Cor 15 is un-regenerated sinful man, and the spiritual body of 1st Cor 15 is the natural man reborn? I know of some Preterits who teach that. Is that where you are now?

The natural body is what we have now. The Spiritual body is the natural one changed and transformed, just like Jesus' was. It has nothing to do with the natural man being reborn.

Brother Blume I have some advantage being that my family not only knows modern Greek well, but also has studied Byzantium, and Koine. They are all Greek speakers.

I recall asking you quite some time ago to have them give their opinions on the terms, and you never responded with their words. Can you provide their words and thoughts on the term SPIRITUAL in Greek and contrast that with what Wright and Harris said?

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by Bro Benincasa

Also, I have Brothers who are Apostolics who believe in Fulfilled Eschatology, and who are Greek, who have studied the Classical Greek language. Now, before we go for 50 pages in this thread with you contesting that just because they are Greeks does not necessarily mean they understand the classical Greek, wait.

These Greeks, studied the classical Greek, under Greek teachers. I cannot say that I'm a Greek scholar, but I study and if I have questions, I don't rely only on just what we have available to us from individuals who tend to be looking through their own theological filters. Please keep in mind that the scholars are not the end all on the Hebrew or the Greek. I contest that you Brother Blume, only accept what you already believe,

I can say the same for you. I changed on many areas of prophecy before you did. That does not make me better, but it does show I have proved, as have you, that I am open for change.

and if the scholar doesn't agree with your theology (or eschatology) you ignore and move on.

Sorry. It's just that I found no other scholars who said otherwise.

That doesn't make you a bad person, that is what usually happens when people shop for answers in different scholarly opinions.

Still if they didn't agree with your thoughts on the resurrection they would never have been offered by you in this thread. Correct?

They are the ONLY conclusions I found. Google the term PNEUMATIKOS and SPIRITUAL and see what pops up.

Yet, it doesn't make sense when we are talking about 1st Corinthians 15.
Unless, you are talking about the natural body in 1st Cor 15 being un-regenerated man, and the spiritual body, being regenerated man? But that couldn't be it, could it?

It does make sense to see how both men (1 Cor 2) and bodies (1 Cor 15) are either driven and motivated by the natural or the Spirit of God. And yet what about 1 Cor 10? MEAT AND DRINK. Are they not physical? Or are they composed of spirit?

Didn't the church have that capability prior to what is being explained in 1st Corinthians 15? I mean being spiritually powered by an unseen force? Being converted from that which is natural to that which is spiritual?

Yes! The spirit was able to HEAL our bodies and affect them supernaturally, for example. Or make us spiritually inclined in our focus. But the context in ch. 15 is about mortality putting on immortality in 1 Cor 15. That was not the case in healings we may have experienced. And being led by the Spirit as 1 Cor 2 says certainly occurs before we experience any deaths when you believe we shall have a spirit body. But the same argument can be turned against yourself? If Paul was a spiritual man before his yet-future resurrection, being spiritually empowered by an unseen force already occurred in Paul's life, so why need it again in Paul's future?

Brother Blume, yet your not taking into consideration where pneumatikos is being used to describe items that are also invisible themselves.

Romans 1:11,

A spiritual gift. Is that a gift wrapped up in spirit material with spirit material presents inside? It is anything God provided the Romans.

Romans 7:14,

Law is spiritual and Paul is carnal.

We know Paul was spiritual. So why does he say he is carnal? He obviously referred to another aspect of his being that was not spiritual. And that would be his thinking in his rhetoric as a person who served in oldness of the letter.

Anyway...

In the context of the chapter of 1st Corinthians 15, the apostle is discussing the resurrection of the dead. One thing that is interesting is that you acknowledge that pneumatikos is an adjective which modifies a noun.

Right.

HOW does it modify the noun, though?

Now, lets apply that to Paul's writings. He is describing the materials of different types of flesh. Then he comes down to the natural body, and the spiritual body, and what they are made from. What I think you are saying is, that all of a sudden he leaves the idea of what the body is made up of, and turns around and starts explaining what they are powered by? Brother Blume, is that what you are seeing?

I am seeing Jesus described as having resurrected with a body that begins the theme in the chapter concerning the nature of our resurrections. Paul narrows the theme down to what body do those come with in the resurrection at his coming. He does not speak about what the body is composed of and then switches to something different. he never did say what they were composed of. He spoke of celestial bodies and terrestrial. He said nothing about their composition. He spoke of bodies of corruption and of incorruption. Dishonour and glory. Are they compositional materials? Weakness and power. And IN THAT CONTEXT, he adds natural and spiritual.

1 Corinthians 15:37-44 KJV (37) And that which thou sowest, thou sowest not that body that shall be, but bare grain, it may chance of wheat, or of some other grain: (38) But God giveth it a body as it hath pleased him, and to every seed his own body. (39) All flesh is not the same flesh: but there is one kind of flesh of men, another flesh of beasts, another of fishes, and another of birds. (40) There are also celestial bodies, and bodies terrestrial: but the glory of the celestial is one, and the glory of the terrestrial is another. (41) There is one glory of the sun, and another glory of the moon, and another glory of the stars: for one star differeth from another star in glory. (42) So also is the resurrection of the dead. It is sown in corruption; it is raised in incorruption: (43) It is sown in dishonour; it is raised in glory: it is sown in weakness; it is raised in power: (44) It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body. There is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body.(45) And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit.

Nothing is said about composition in any of this.

And then he makes ONE statement that you seem to claim speaks for all the chapter, after several statements that speak nothing about composition.

1 Corinthians 15:47 KJV (47) The first man is of the earth, earthy: the second man is the Lord from heaven.

Because Adam was made of the earth earthy, despite all the previous examples that say NOTHING about composition, you take the far greater minority of one reference to Adam's body and claim the entire context is about composition. The majority of the context shows it is not composition at all.

In fact, Jesus is contrasted from Adam. Adam was EARTHY and of the earth. But Jesus is the LORD FROM HEAVEN. The actual contrast here is made against Jesus being LORD. Is LORD compositional material? Nothing is said about his flesh in that contrast of LORD. We read of earth and earthy with Adam, but what is explicitly stated about Jesus as per COMPOSITION? Nothing! So is Paul saying EARTH is a material that is contrasted from other material that is not physical?

And if we really study what Paul said about Jesus, He was speaking of Jesus Christ's resurrected body. The body of Adam from the earth is not contrasted with Jesus' body from Mary, but His body from the TOMB! This is where divine flesh proponents go into error. Jesus' BODY is the resurrected body that came from the grave when he arose. That brings us back to the start of the chapter where we distinctly read the disciples saw the body from the tomb.

God bless!

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

Brother Blume, you are getting yourself lost not only trying to prove that the resurrected body is physical, but getting tangled up in the Greek word in the chapter? What of the context of the chapter? Paul isn't talking about what is moving, motivating, driving, compelling, enliven, or animating the natural body that would be buried, but with what body do they come?

All that we, who do not know Greek (while using our own efforts), can do is find the same greek words with a concordance and compare the other instances when that greek word is used with the instance in question.

Paul is indeed talking about what sort of body with which do those in the resurrection come. Amen.

And when we read of the list of examples he used to make his point, he wrote over and over of things that have nothing to do with composition. He used honour/dishonour, weakness/power, terrestrial/celestial. Terrestrial is rooted in the term terrain, anbd one might think that means made of earthly matter, but celestial is used and removes that quality from the entire picture. It simply contrasts things in earth and things not in earth. Again, no compositional material is contrasted.

That is all I can see.

And when we read of spiritual men and natural men, we are reading nothing about compositional material again! Yet you insist compositional material is what is focused upon in ch. 15. Not even spiritual drink and meat are viewed as per their compositional material. So why all of a sudden does the term SPIRITUAL refer to compositional material in ch. 15?

Is a spiritual gift "spiritual" because of the material it is made up of? Is the law spiritual because of what the law is made of materially? Is Paul carnal in using his fleshly effort because of what his body is composed of, meaning that anyone in flesh can never be spiritual in the same way law is spiritual? No, because that is not the issue like you think it is.

That is the question Paul is trying to answer. That is the reason Paul is describing different kinds of body types. He also explains how when a seed is planted it is not what will come up. He then goes further to explain that there are all different types of flesh, human, animal, bird, fish, and of creeping things, he explains the celestial and terrestrial, hence natural and supernatural. He is speaking of the composition when he is explaining the two bodies.

I honestly cannot see that at all. He is saying birds have one kind of flesh and fish have another. Both are material. Both are made of the elements. How is that contrasting material?

1 Corinthians 15:39 KJV (39) All flesh is not the same flesh: but there is one kind of flesh of men, another flesh of beasts, another of fishes, and another of birds.

In the above verse, it is not a contrast of material, but of how the limbs are adapted for the creature's purpose. Fish and birds both have physical flesh. Similarly, the spiritual body and natural body differ in what suits the purpose of the people in the environments they are meant to dwell in. It has nothing to do with matter versus non-matter.

One physical and the other spiritual, invisible, and unseen.

I see nothing in that chapter shows this. Show me one instance in this chapter of seen versus unseen in the BODIES used as examples.

When we look through the scripture to all the usages of pneumatikos, it isn't always used to explain the attributes of a physical item, like a spiritual man, or manna being spiritual meat, and the water from the rock being spiritual drink.

Before you continue, let me say IT IS USED TO DESCRIBE physical things, though. You admit this.

We also see it to explain the spiritual unseen.

Agreed. Spiritual gifts. But are they called spiritual gifts because of the material they are composed of? Or for another reason?

You then automatically claim that since pneumatikos explains some items that are physical to be powered spirtually, then the body in 1st Cor 15 must also be explained that way. Why? Only because that is how your doctrine is played out.

No, that is not what I have been saying. I already stated clearly that SPIRITUAL MEAT AND DRINK are not EMPOWERED by supernatural life. They came about supernaturally, but that is not the same as being EMPOWERED by spiritual life. They are SPIRITUAL because of the unseen aspect of being a type and foreshadow of Jesus. But what I actually said about ch 15 was that the adjectival use of "spiritual" in relation to bodies describes what empowers them.

SPIRITUAL is not always speaking of what empowers a thing any more than it always speaks of a foreshadowing aspect. But I cannot find ONE CASE where SPIRITUAL is used to describe the composition of something as contrasted from being physical.

A physical body raised glorified to live eternal on a physical planet with a physical kingdom and a physical Jesus wearing a physical crown.

I do not believe in a physical kingdom. We talked of this before. A physical kingdom is a dispensational palace with an earthly throne and moat and lettered constitution. The kingdom is spiritual NOW and will always be like it is NOW, only its effect will increase later. If I believed in a physical kingdom, what about this kingdom will change from being spiritual now to physical later in my view? Nothing! My body is not the kingdom.

Then why is Paul going through the great pains to describe the differences in the types of flesh and the difference in the celestial and the terrestrial?

He is not speaking of compositional material.

Again Paul is not only dealing how they are raised, but what body it will be.
One physical and decaying, and one spiritual and incorruptible.



Your example makes no sense. Brother Blume, Paul isn't talking about what is powering the two different bodies.

He is in ch 15. NATURAL LIFE is the issue versus SUPERNATURAL LIFE.

It is speaking of their differences from the natural physical and corruptible, and the spiritual ethereal, and incorruptible unseen.

No, it is physical and corruptible versus physical and incorruptible. Like Jesus' body from the grave was physically immortal.

Do you know how insane that sounds? You haven't the foggiest idea what Wright and Harris are saying is correct?

I never said I did not know if what they said is correct.

Brother Blume, we are a priesthood offering up pneumatikos sacrifices, can you see them?

Some spiritual things are seen and some are unseen. Spiritual thoughts are no more seen than carnal thoughts are seen. So if something has to be spiritual if it is unseen, how come carnal thoughts are not seen? You are not being consistent with the foundational thoughts you use to relate your belief.

What about pneumatikos understanding? Can you see it?

You make it sound like SPIRITUAL things cannot be physical, although you admit the meat and drink are different cases. But you snap back to the idea when you speak about bodies. Let me throw one at you now. What about PSUCHIKOS understanding? Is it unseen?

Also, can you show me one single instance where something is called spiritual for the purpose of indicating it is not physical aside from your obvious opinion of the body in ch 15?

You are not being consistent in any of this.

Thanks for the chat.