Re: Jesus was a spirit

From: <>
Date: Thu Oct 20 2005 - 13:31:56 EDT wrote:
> Ted replies:
> Perhaps that's b/c the book is massive, covers so much ground (essentially
> all biblical and non-biblical texts about life after death) in great detail,
> and extraordinarily nuanced that it needs to be quoted--and at very great
> length. The single paragraph I quoted earlier is an example of this. One
> needs to read pretty much a full chapter at a time to see the argument(s);
> the chapter from which I took that quotation itself has "one long argument"
> to borrow Darwin's words. Indeed the comparison with Darwin is appropriate;
> one rarely sees *the whole argument* explained in as few words as one can
> type onto a screen in even a whole hour.

So there is no quick way of quoting what Paul regarded as idiocy among the Corinthians, or what Paul meant by saying that the second Adam was a life-giving spirit.

Or even what Paul meant when he heard stories of an incorruptible Jesus eating food, and went on to declare that come the resurrection and the new creation, both stomach and food will be destroyed.

What extraordinary nuances could ex-Gentile Corinthians have got from 'Flesh and blood cannot inherit the Kingdom of God'. For Paul it was metaphorically true that flesh was corruptible because it was literally true that all flesh would corrupt.

'All flesh is grass' were the inspired words of Isaiah, unaware that resurrected bodies would have flesh that is not grass.
Received on Thu Oct 20 13:32:18 2005

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Thu Oct 20 2005 - 13:32:18 EDT