The Apostle Paul denies Jesus rose as a man
Christians are forced to depend on the gospels to get support for their view that Jesus is the example of what God will do for us when he raises us from death to eternal life and give us perfected magical bodies. It has been well established that the only writer in the New Testament who claimed to know what he was writing about regarding this subject, Paul, did not affirm that the mortal body is needed to bring you to life again.
The New Testament likes to say that Jesus came back from the dead and his tomb was empty because his return was predicted by God in the Old Testament. Yet there is no such text. Daniel mentions resurrection but a mention does not tell us much. Ezekiel 37 is the only thing in the Bible that describes a resurrection. It speaks of flesh growing back on dead bones which are living again. Why was this not used to speak of the resurrection of Jesus? It was not about real resurrection but was a parable. But as the New Testament distorted many Old Testament texts in the hunt for prophecies about Jesus so that would not have stopped it anyway. Is the answer to this mystery that the original narrative was some kind of glorified ghost story?
The apostle Paul, 1 Corinthians 15:50, "Food is for the stomach, and the stomach is for food; but God will do away with both of them." He is not referring to death for if we die food will still be around. He is referring to what happens in the resurrection. He writes about resurrection in that chapter. If there will be no food in Heaven and when we are resurrected and we don't even have a stomach then clearly the earliest Church did not believe that the resurrection of Jesus was the resuscitation of a dead man's body but the person of Jesus returning in a magical new body. Ghost was the best way to describe the risen Jesus.
Paul denies that the historical Jesus promised to drink wine with his disciples in his kingdom, shortly before he died and rose. The gospels of course choose to differ. They contradict Paul.
The Church argues that the risen body will have the stomach done away with as necessary but it can have a stomach and food if it wants. This is just trying to get around what Paul wrote. It contradicts the plain sense of his words. If there will be no stomachs or food in Heaven then there would hardly be any sex either. If there is sex and we recall that Jesus said there is no marrying in Heaven is Heaven really a big orgy where anything goes? Who in their right mind would want this sterile Heaven? Christianity urges people to suffer on earth for the sake of gaining a Heaven that is simply an improvement over Hell but not much of a reward.
N.T. Wright wrote: "There is that about the body which will be destroyed; in the non-corruptible future world, food and the stomach are presumably irrelevant. So, for that matter (since food and stomach point metaphorically here to sexual behaviour and sexual organs) will human reproduction be irrelevant. Paul is again treading a fine line here, since he wants to say simultaneously both that the creator will destroy the bits of the body which are being touted by some in Corinth as those to do what they like with and that there is bodily continuity between the present person, behaving this way and that, and the person who will be raised to new bodily life."
I would say that a body that is not about sex and eating is not a body at all
- at best it is a shadow.
Paul says in 1 Corinthians 6 that the body is not meant for fornication but the
Lord and the Lord is for the body. He adds as if to prove this that God will
raise us up as he did Jesus. This does say the body is to be used for God and it
says we need a body. But even if you suppose your body dies and rots and God
raises you up by making a magical body for you you could still talk the way Paul
does. What he says has nothing to do with the idea that the body dies and is
revived. The Lord is for the body. That is what he says. What an odd thing to
say! The Lord he means is Jesus. He can't mean that God is for the body for God
is for himself and there was a time he was making no bodies. He indicates that
Jesus is Lord but is not God. Jesus was given to us for the body by God. Paul
says the Church has the spirit of Jesus therefore it is his body. The Lord is
for the body means that the Lord Jesus turns the Church into himself -
literally. If Jesus can achieve something so absurd then Paul would agree that
the resurrection of Jesus could be mystical and beyond understanding too and can
only be known of in mystical experience.
Read 1 Corinthians 15. The idea that the resurrection of Jesus implies that the
body was not stolen when the tomb was found empty but totally restored to life
is wrong. The Bible does not state that the body of Jesus was never stolen. And
if Jesus had been stolen that wouldn’t stop him rising again from the dead in
his human body. The Bible says that that the old body was used to provide the
SEED for the resurrection body.
That the resurrection of Christ was not physical was made plain in the First
Letter of Paul to the Corinthians 15, a part of the Christian scripture. Paul
was writing to those Christians in Corinth who had stopped believing that a
person could come back from the dead including Jesus. He said that they were
wrong because if Jesus hasn’t come back from the dead and been raised then the
dead are lost.
Paul thought that Jesus needed to rise from the dead to save everybody else
from being lost and non-existent after death. When the resurrection was equated
to survival in Paul’s thinking then for them to do this would appear to mean
that they didn’t believe in a life after death at all. Both they and Paul
thought that if survival happened it was necessary for there to be a
resurrection.
So Paul thinks that the resurrection is essential for survival. Now a physical
resurrection is not essential for survival after death for you could come back
as a bodiless spirit or something. If Paul says it is he seems to think that
there is no spirit that lives on after death and you need a resurrection of some
sort. This is proven by verse 32 where he says that if there is no resurrection
you may eat and drink and be merry for tomorrow you die. So the resurrection is
the only hope for life after death. He must be thinking of spiritual
resurrection for physical isn’t necessary and has nothing to do with his
argument. Incidentally, he would reject Catholic devotion to the saints as
heresy for the saints are not raised yet.
Paul then says that there will be those who ask what kind of body the
resurrected dead would have and he calls them fools (v 36). In answer, Paul said
that the seed has to die – bad science – meaning cease to exist and having
rotted away for the plant to come. Christians say Paul meant that it only looks
as if the seed dies. Then why did he not say so? We should take him literally
for he could have meant it literally.
You don’t know a seed is dead until it rots. He says that the seed is not the
body that will come after it but only a kernel of it (15:37). It is possible
that Paul is thinking that the plant only seems to come from the seed. What
happens is the seed dies and by some miracle a plant grows in its place so the
only connection between the seed and the plant is that the plant just grows
where the seed was but was not caused by the seed. This view would imply that
Paul believed in the resurrection of persons and not of bodies. It would imply
that the new body of Jesus had nothing at all to do with the body that died on
the cross. The new body is only a body in the sense that Jesus can materialise
it into a temporary body. Strictly speaking it is a spirit. It is only called a
body because it houses the person.
It is possible as well that the seed for Jesus’ resurrection body if a seed was
used could have come not from his corpse but from the dead cells and body matter
that Jesus lost when he was alive. There is nothing in the New Testament to
indicate that it mattered about his corpse that was put in the tomb.
The seed is totally different from what grows out of it.
He was making it clear to those who found it impossible to believe that corpses
can come back to life that they were right about that. His answer was that the
new body is totally different from the corpse which provides its seed. Thus he
eliminated the later gospel lies about Jesus raising Lazarus and the widow’s son
and Jesus’ empty tomb and the story of the apostles raising the dead as
fairytales - but added that the resurrection is the creation of a complete new
and different thing. Why else would he say that the body we have cannot rise
again as it is but needs to rot and become the material for a new body which may
mean fully or partly rot or both? (Still Standing on Sinking Sand, Farrell
Till). It is possible that Paul believed that the body of Jesus decayed a bit
before he rose again and the more he rotted the more substantial his new
resurrection body became as matter was transformed and spiritualised. Paul says
that Jesus rose three days after his burial.
Some could say that Jesus was incinerated after the crucifixion. This would refute the gospels.
Others would say he miraculously rotted to nothing in three days. This would
refute the authenticity of the Turin Shroud.
Paul also said that you have the glory of the sun and the stars and the glory of
the earth which are totally different and the same difference exists between the
nailed corpse of Jesus and his new risen self. If Paul was not saying that the
difference between the human body and the risen body is radical his contrasting
the seed and the plant and the things of earth and the sky for the purpose of
showing the analogy that the corpse was wholly unlike the risen body would
collapse and be unintelligible. God could raise you by using one cell from your
corpse while it remains intact in the tomb.
In 1 Corinthians 15, it is remarkable how Paul hints that he sees Jesus'
resurrection body as a star. Remember in those times that if a Roman Emperor
died he was thought to rise again and become a star in Heaven. The Old Testament
book of Daniel states that the wise who rise from the dead at the end of time
will be like stars forever and ever. Was Jesus just a light?
Paul says that if people are baptised for the dead then the dead must rise.
People being baptised for the dead does not imply that they expect a bodily
resurrection but it does imply they expect survival. So Paul is saying they
should believe in the implications of what they practice. Had Paul meant a
physical bodily resurrection he would have said so. And especially when he used
the concept of life after death and the concept of resurrection interchangeably.
He would have used the word resurrection for bodily resurrection had he believed
in it. It is a mistake to say that Paul is on about pagan baptisms for the dead
here for he would not be silly enough to argue that the resurrection must be
true when pagans believe in it though he is saying that it is true because
Christians believe in it. The baptisers were Christians, heretics maybe, but
Christians. So the original sense in which Paul and the apostles used the word
resurrection did not necessarily imply coming back from the dead in your
physical body. So Jesus could have been a vision. Paul’s Jesus must have been an
intangible vision because he meant survival by resurrection whereas if he had
meant bodily resurrection he would have used the word resurrection for that
alone.
Paul also uses the word ophthe which is a passive form of the verb for “to see”
in relation to the appearances of Jesus being seen. It does not necessarily mean
that Jesus was being physically seen for the word was used to refer to imagined
visions and visions of immaterial beings such as angels etc (page 90, The
Virginal Conception and the Bodily Resurrection of Jesus). So if you get a very
strong mystical impression that makes you think you almost see something that
would be covered by ophthe. The dative construction used with ophthe indicates
that rather than translating anywhere that Jesus was seen we should translate
Jesus appeared.
When a man from Macedonia who was just a vision appeared to Paul (Acts 16:9) and
when the three apostles saw the non-resurrected Moses and Elijah appear at the
transfiguration of Jesus the word ophthe, appeared, was used which was the same
word used to describe the appearances of Jesus following the resurrection. The
use of ophte indicates that Jesus may not have appeared physically but may have
appeared just as a vision.
There is nothing to indicate that the body of Jesus seen after the resurrection
was seen physically or that it was a physical body.
Paul stated in Romans 8:3 that God sent his Son Jesus in the likeness of sinful
flesh. This verse has been used by many theologians and heretics such as Marcion
to argue that Jesus Christ was a phantom and not a real man for flesh was bad.
The Christians say he only means that Jesus was like us sinners in all things
but not sin. That is a strained interpretation. Paul clearly meant that Jesus
did not have a body like ours for the body as we have it is bad.
1 Corinthians 15 says that the resurrection body is a spiritual body for which
the physical body is only the seed. To be called that it is mainly like spirit
so there is little matter in it or it might be something that the body or part
of it is transmuted into. It says that Jesus has a body like this and even says
he is spirit now. It might be possible to make this body seem more natural by
materialising which Jesus may have done in Luke 24:49. There Jesus goes out of
his way to encourage all there to handle him to make sure he is physical. It is
not said who said he said this or how many. It is not said if they did it. The
silence implies they did not. There is too much information lacking.
He said that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of Heaven (15:50) any
more than the perishable can inherit the imperishable. The perishable body
cannot fit in, in Heaven for in Heaven nothing perishes. But the Old Testament
speaks of men being thrown into a fire and not being burnt. Surely the
perishable can inherit the imperishable if it is insulated against suffering and
is preserved from death and if the mind is filled with God. This shows that God
does not want flesh and blood in Heaven. He does not like it. The Christians
saying that Paul means sinful flesh and blood is ridiculous for blood doesn’t
sin and it is persons not bodies that sin. The idea that it is flesh and blood
under their current perishable condition doesn’t hold water either. Flesh and
blood are barred from Heaven. Jesus’ resurrection was spiritual.
Paul said in Romans 8 that if the spirit of God who raised Jesus is in us he who
raised Jesus will also raise our mortal bodies. Paul said just before that that
we are dead when we are baptised so he means that God will raise our mortal
bodies from spiritual death to spiritual life. He is not on about a real
resurrection here.
Paul dealt with what happens to the bodies of the living when instead of dying they just convert into the same kind of being as a resurrected one. "Listen, I will tell you a mystery! We will not all die, but we will all be changed in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, and the dead will be raised imperishable, and we will be changed." Why is it a mystery how a body changes when it is not dead compared to it changing when it is rotting? You would be forgiven to think that the mystery is how instant this is - it seems that being dead and rising is not instant but a process!
It is said that a spiritual body does not mean a non-physical body. It means a spirit-saturated or spirit-driven body. That is nonsense for Paul does not even mention how the resurrection body is glorious because virtue shines through it. And a body can look ordinary and be ordinary and still spirit-saturated. Spiritual body means a ghost-like body.
The fundamentalist tome, When Critics Ask, deals with the problem of how Paul can say Jesus had a spiritual body after the resurrection if other Bible texts say his body was spiritual (page 466).
The solution it gives is that the spiritual body means a body that is ruled by the spirit inhabiting the body and so which has spiritual powers. It says it does not mean an immaterial body. Like spirit, this body is immortal and imperishable. But despite this, spiritual body could mean an immaterial body or one that was nearly immaterial. If the spirit has all that power over the body then it could make it immaterial.
Christians who believe that Jesus could pass through walls and vanish in one place and appear in another are saying the spirit can diminish the materiality so that this can happen. If the spirit of Jesus can make the body immaterial and then material again then it follows that it is annihilating and creating matter to do this. So if Jesus created a body when he appeared to Thomas and asked him to put his hand in his side, it follows that Thomas had very right to disbelieve. It was not Jesus' body he was touching but a replacement one. If a body turns into spirit and into a body again then the result is a new body. So Jesus lied to Thomas when he asked Thomas to put his hand in the side of the body that died on the cross.
Also the body is not immortal at all and is not imperishable. The body dies and perishes when it is annihilated. It is not supernatural or powerful for it is the spirit that is powerful and supernatural for it can manipulate it as it pleases. People think of souls and spirits as ghosts or kinds of bodies. Paul was using that imagery when he said Jesus had a spiritual body. In reality, Jesus was a spirit not a combination of spirit and body.
The thinking in When Critics Ask is just Christian gobbledegook based on
making the New Testament contradictions fit together. The apostles didn't need
to do that for they were not on the payroll of a Christian College Apologetics
department. So Paul would have believed that Jesus couldn't be physical
after his resurrection. In fact, his stating that the spiritual body was
imperishable would indicate that his own visions of Jesus and those of others
did not involve Jesus walking through walls and floating up above the clouds if
he also believed that body was material. This would refute the resurrection
accounts as we have them in the gospels. Paul wrote before them and is the only
eyewitness whose writings we are sure we have.
The evidence is that the first writer about Jesus' resurrection and who must have known a thing or two did not need an empty tomb or missing body to assert that Jesus was alive. Jesus rose spiritually according to this theology.