Corpus-Paul

[Loren Rosson <rossoiii AT yahoo.com>]

Mark asked:

> Would you mind relating briefly what Akenson argued 
> about the resurrection?

Hi Mark,

For the following,

"It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual
body. There is a natural body, and there is a
spiritual body." (I Cor. 15:44)

and

"Flesh and blood cannot inherit the Kingdom of God..."
(I Cor. 15:50)

Akenson is certain that these texts indicate that
"flesh and blood" -- as in a physical resurrection --
cannot be part of the Almighty's Kingdom, and for this
reason Paul believed the resurrection was a "cosmic"
rather than a "corporeal" event. (See p. 178)

It is reasonable to assume that there were those in
the Corinthian church who denied the resurrection
altogether, just as there were those who took it "too
literally". Paul saw the former as just flat out
wrong, while he saw the latter as a "vulgarization"
(or "corruption"), to use Akenson's terms. "His
unspoken words are: don't sully the resurrection with
tales of shrouds and revivified corpses." But here I
believe Akenson relies on caricature. And it's
puzzling -- but perhaps significant -- that he does
not engage Tom Wright on this point. Wright has been a
long-standing advocate of the position that the
literal, physical resurrection does not, in any way,
depend on "resucitated" or "revivified" corpses.
There's a nuance here that Akenson is either oblivious
to, or just ignores.

Hope this helps, Mark.

Loren Rosson III,
Nashua NH
rossoiii AT yahoo.com

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Shopping - Thousands of Stores. Millions of Products.
http://shopping.yahoo.com/