hutch (02/28/83)
I would like to clarify my criticisms of Lew Mammel's discussions on I Cor. 15:39-41 "...For not all flesh is alike" Lew quotes the Interpreter's Bible for support to his point about the spirit taking on many forms. I would like to point out as an aside that the Interpreter's Bible contains commentaries on the scriptures which reflect the opinions and views of the persons who wrote them and that are not necessarily universally accepted. I did indeed take Lew to task about that assertion, but because I think that the point of this scripture (in its context, he railed) is one of reprimanding the partisans in Corinth who were making a strong Gnostic statement about the resurrection bodies. The most obvious sense of the passages is that he wanted them to stop speculating about that topic because it was not knowable before the event actually occurs. It is a process similar to that of the partisans Paul was rebuking, that causes one to concentrate on the peripheral issue (forms and spirits) as opposed to the primary assertion (the resurrection at the apocalypse). The thing that disturbs me about taking the point too far, is that it leads one to thinking that transmigration and reincarnation might be a part of the Christian doctrines. There is only one case where anything like reincarnation is indicated: The return of Elijah as John the Baptist. This is a special case, and I am informed (in classes on history of the Christian faith at good old mossbound U of Orygun) that it was also a part of Jewish belief that reincarnation was only done in special cases. In response to Lew's statement: I can only repeat my contention that our knowledge that the expression of this power is confined by physical law (in all the examples) removes the cogency of the analogies. I must again reply that it is not inconsistent that a God who creates and maintains physical law, should be attributed with the results of that law. It is not inconsistent to assume that He might choose to suspend or change such laws. If Lew remains convinced that a Christian must question her or his beliefs due to increasing knowledge of the workings of the physical world, when such workings have already been ascribed to the hand of God, then he is arguing a point of faith, not of science, and cannot be swayed by my simple efforts. Another clarification, since some of you may not have run into the more convoluted points of Christian or Jewish faith: I would comment that in the text, Paul gives no name to the sine qua non of human personal existence, but only implicitly refers to it when he says, "As we have worn the likeness of the man made of dust, so we shall wear the likeness of the heavenly man." ... Whatever this invariant "we" is that can be common to such different bodies, is what I and the commentator I quoted were referring to as "spirit". The "man of dust" was Adam. Adam before the fall is held in some Jewish belief to be the archetypic Man, to be so beautiful and full of power and grace as to rival the angels. This Man was the full, unflawed Image of God. The "heavenly man" was Jesus, and since the reference is to the Resurrection it most likely refers to Jesus after He rose from the dead. This is the restored Image of God that is also called the "new Adam" and describes the complete restoration that we will only get in part before the Return. As a side note, when Jesus was resurrected, He was recognizable as being Himself. At the same time, He was sufficiently different that at least Mary had some trouble telling who He was, and I suspect that some of the reason for this was that she was certain that He had been killed. This might have been the point which brought about the confusion in Corinth. A final parting shot: Lew, why do you believe that the human spirit is supposed to be "invariant"? Steve Hutchison ... decvax!tektronix!tekmdp!dadla!hutch
mat (03/03/83)
Regarding Steve Hutchison's article in reply to Lew Mammel: Steve speaks of the re-incarnation of Elijah the Prophet as John the Baptist as being part of Christian tradition. This is news to me. I know that one of Jesus' apostles, in reponse to the question ``Who do they say I am?'' said ``Some say Elijah, others John the Baptist'' (Source of quote -- the standard Roman C. Church's Sunday mass scriptures) but nowhere do I recall either hearing or reading ANYTHING that suggested that JtB was a Elijah re-incarnated. Elijah and Moses appear in the Gospel (don't ask me for chapter and verse or I might start reading scripture as a hobby and then this group would REALYY be in trouble) in the Transfiguration of Jesus; JtB is, as far as I know, completely a different person/spirit/soul/whatever. Steve, can you point me to your references? -hou5e!mat Mark Terribile (Duke of DeNet)