In his original statement, Olson sets up a double contrast: (i) he contrasts bodily with physical, (ii) then contrasts physical with spiritual–so that the bodily resurrection of Christ is a nonphysical resurrection.
Olson has now added a further definition.
rogereolson says:To me “physical” implies “material,” so I prefer to speak of his resurrected body as a “spiritual body” (with Paul in 1 Cor. 15), but a body nonetheless.
So the risen Christ had an immaterial body.
Okay, so after my comment on the other post a few minutes ago, and given this, I'm thinking he's some sort of neo-gnostic. Enough gnostic open theism and eventually we may discover that Olson thinks he knows more than God.
ReplyDelete