ahanu

Just check out post 83.

ahanu

Okay. The verb phrase here ("has been raised") is present perfect progressive, meaning the action progressed for a while before it ended or before it will end. Present perfect progressive could mean that the action has just been completed, because there is no implicated meaning of completion. So what is your point? Does this prove Paul was referring to a one-body resurrection? No.

Did you mean to write one time event? Okay. It is an ongoing event

Okay. Kool. How does this disprove the two-body hypothesis for Paul?

Okay.

Uh, okay.

ahanu

Oh, you meant verse 53! Still, my point is relevant, because in order for your reading to work, you would have to read "the body" in verses 42-44. Leading up to verse 53, Paul talks about two bodies.

Carrier also responds to verse 53:

Q: Doesn't the repeated use of the word "this" (touto) in 1 Corinthians 15:53-54 mean "this body" and therefore the same body?

A: Only if you assume a priori that this is what Paul is saying. But the context suggests otherwise, as does the ease with which Paul could have actually said "this body" (touto sôma) or even "the same body" (auto sôma) and yet strangely chose not to. In fact, the word "body" is nowhere to be found here, nor anywhere in the previous nine verses. I already discussed this point in the original chapter (cf. pp. 138-39, with p. 212 n. 175). Of course touto does not mean "same" (that would be auto, and only in the attributive position) but it is a pointer ("this"). The question is what it points to.

In the previous debate I pointed out earlier, Carrier explains:

"The word "body" is not even in the text of 1 Corinthians 15:53-54 (or 1 Corinthians 15:50), where O'Connell needs it to be. Hence he must conjecture it there, but his only basis for this is 1 Corinthians 15:42, which is a whole ten verses away from 1 Corinthians 15:53-54 and thus hardly the most likely source of Paul's intended subject. So which is the more likely interpretation of what Paul is saying on the total evidence? I argue it is exchange, not layering. Accordingly, I conclude (with Jean Héring) that the grammatical subject in 1 Corinthians 15:53-54 is more likely our present condition in the abstract, not our bodies.[6] Hence he means we take off our old bodies (or allow them to be consumed in the eschaton) and "put on" our new ones (much like in 1 Corinthians 15:42-44).

But I agree with how O'Connell describes my position when he says "what is corruptible (the preresurrection body) just disintegrates while our soul" (or the equivalent[8]) "puts on incorruption." O'Connell is describing a two-body resurrection: the old body "just disintegrates" while we jump into a new "incorruptible" body—at the eschaton. But since Jesus wasn't raised at the eschaton, there is no reason to expect his body to have disintegrated. Paul would not have to believe it did, and he never says it did."

ahanu

If the Baha'i is right, death is not final, for other spheres of reality exist outside what our brains are able to perceive.

Death is a disease. There just isn't a cure yet. Futurists predict that, by 2100, we will defeat aging. As for dying by other natural means, well, that is another matter, but if we become master of our fate, defeating all forms of death are possible.

Death entered the world by a woman? So how about all of the death that existed before that woman? Do you accept evolution? This is the thing: I think a physical resurrection doesn't fit in an evolutionary universe; for the tranformation of a corpse to work, it seems you would have to reject evolution.

The body does have meaning and merit--just not in the next life. The soul collects data from the body while we are here. Otherwise, why would Abdu'l-Baha talk about progress and decline in the next life?

ahanu

And Paul became a follower of Christ, so his beliefs changed . . .