I’m
pulling this out of the combox to illustrate an unintentional reductio ad
absurdum:
You are operating from an unproven assumption that Jesus' resurrected body could not do things that His physical body could not do without it compromising the fact of the resurrection. I would argue that is sheer nonsense.
No, I’m
objecting specifically to an ethereal body. A docetic or Gnostic resurrection.
I’m also objecting to the glib
assumption that we must ascribe certain dominical miracles to properties of
Christ’s body, rather than Christ’s omnipotence.
Christ’s resurrected body could not perish, it could not decay…
That
wouldn’t be a case of what his body can or can’t do, but what can’t be done to his body. Different principle.
...it did not require food.
Why
assume a glorified body doesn’t require food? Does the Bible say that? No.
I
suppose he doesn’t think a glorified body needs oxygen.
This is
how a physical resurrection dies the death of a thousand negations. Is his
body still a biological organism? If so, why assume it doesn’t need food?
In fact, there are a number of radical differences between Christ’s physical body and His resurrected body.
There
are certainly important differences.
Christ’s physical body walked on water. That defies the laws of gravity.
But is
that a property of his body? Could he walk on water because his body was
naturally buoyant? Was his body made of cork or Styrofoam?
This
confuses what a body can do with what can be done with a body. Jesus could do
things with his body that we can’t, not because he had a custom-made Superhero
body, but because he was (and is) omnipotent.
Keep in
mind, too, that he could walk on water before the Resurrection. So did he have
one kind of custom-made, Superhero body before the Resurrection, and a
different custom-made Superhero body after the Resurrection? Or is it a mistake
to attribute these abilities to his body?
His resurrected body ascended up into the sky.
Is that
because his body is lighter than air? Was his body a helium balloon, covered by
skin?
For that
matter, was Jesus unable to levitate before the Resurrection? If he wanted to
levitate before the Resurrection, would he be unable to do so?
What about
Jesus glowing in the dark at the Transfiguration? Is this because his body was
made of zinc sulfide or strontium aluminate?
This
whole approach fails to distinguish what his body could do with what he could
do with his body. As God Incarnate, Jesus didn’t need a special kind of body to
do special things with his body. What that requires is not a special kind of
body, but a special kind of power.
How did Phillip find himself in the desert?...Was not Phillip's experience just as mysterious? I would be willing to say that Phillip could equally be said to have vanished.
And is
that a special property of Phillip’s body? If you did a body scan, would you
discover something about the composition of his body, or a special internal organ,
which enabled him to do that? Or is this something God did to Phillip?
This is
an example of how some Christians unwittingly sabotage the integrity of the
Resurrection. They end up giving us a “body” that’s indistinguishable from a
nonbody.
Here
I’ll add something I said to another commenter:
Let’s
approach it in reverse. What makes a body vulnerable to harm? What makes a body
destructible? The fact that a body can be affected by external agents.
Conversely, if a body is invulnerable or indestructible, that means it can’t be
affected by external agents.
But that
comes at a cost. An invulnerable body is an insensate body. The senses must be
sensitive to function. The senses can’t sense unless they can be affected by
outside factors. Unless they can register or absorb stimuli.
Light
that’s too bright hurts our eyes. Noise that’s too loud hurts our ears. Food
can be too hot or spicy.
A quick
way to temporarily disable a man is to kick him in the groin. In theory, that
part of the male anatomy could be made impervious to pain or harm. However,
that would totally desensitize the area in question, and most men would rather
remain vulnerable–for having a sensitive anatomy in that department has widely
reported fringe benefits.
An
embodied soul, a soul united to an invulnerable body, would be a mind
imprisoned in a block of steel-reinforced concrete. A mind sealed away from
sensory perception. By making it impregnable to harm, one makes it impregnable
to being on the receiving end of the physical world.
I think what makes a body destructible is its propensity to lose its form. Being invulnerable only requires that a body not be susceptible to harm. If a body can be harmed, it then follows that it can be affected. But I dont think the reverse is valid. If a body can be affected, it doesnt necessarily follow that it can be harmed.
ReplyDeleteTo take one counterexample, if ears are sensitive to sound, one can become hard of hearing by listening to loud music or loud noise.
DeleteWhich stems from its vulnerability. Loud noise damages the form of the inner ear. The ear drum I suppose. I dont see how being receptive to sound inherently means being vulnerable to sound. If its the form of the ear which allows it to be sensitive to sound, I dont see how it being unable to lose that form would make it insensible.
DeleteAnd it's vulnerability stems from the fact that it can be affected by sound. It is sensitive to sound waves, for better or worse.
DeleteAffected=/=Damaged
DeleteThe terms are not congruent. Why cant God make an ear that can be affected by sound, but not damaged by it? Can you show how capable of being affected entails capable of being harmed?
You're changing the nature of an ear into something that's not sensitive to sound.
DeleteAnyway, why do you even think that's necessary? What's the motive for excluding God's protective providence?
How does sensitive to sound entail vulnerable to sound? You seem to be creating a logically necessary connection between the two where you cant have one without the other. It seems there is no incoherence to the idea of a hearing ear that cant be damaged. There is no contradiction.
DeleteI dont think its necessary per se, but having God protect us all the time in the glorified state seems superfluous. What for?
Why would it have to be a special property of Christ's resurrected body for Him to disappear and reappear, suddenly. Could not God perform this miracle without compromising the integrity of the resurrected body of Christ? You poision the well Mr. Hays when you accuse your detractors of gnostic views and you know it. I would expect better from you.
DeleteIf Phillips physical body can "vanish" from one spot to another, why not the resurrected body of Christ? No one is saying that Christ did not physically raise from the dead in the very same body, albeit glorified. The same Jesus that died, is the same Jesus that rose. But just like we don't quite understand the phenomenon of resurrection nor the properties of a resurrected body, we also do not understand precisely how God pulled this off. We know divine agency was the cause. We know it was beyond human ability. We know a lot about it actually. But we do not know everything about it. There are things about these events that we do not know. We do not know the properties of resurrected bodies. We some things about them, but not a lot. I can very well defend the faith against the skeptic with my view just the same as you can.
Are you concerned that your apologetic criteria won't meet the required demands of the unbelieving skeptic and that he might accuse you of being naieve simply because you want to accept at face value the testimony of Scripture as sufficient evidence to defend the resurrection? Is that what bothers about Jesus potentially dematerializing? If psychological impediment could work to blind these men, could it not also work to delude them into thinking they saw something they did not? Isn't it possible to actually help the skeptic with this hypothesis of yours? If all twelve discples were made NOT to see something and that can be attributed to psycholocial impediment, it seems plausible that it might work in the converse just as well.
We are talking about a God who can make the earth stand still, axe heads float, feed thousands with the lunch of a young boy. He stopped storms in their tracks. God works everything according to His will.
I think this subject has run its course. What I want to do, after I have had time to read your lenghty comments about Tipton and Poythress, is see how well your method stands up under presuppositional scrutiny.
Dr. Liberal said:
Delete'"I think this subject has run its course. What I want to do, after I have had time to read your lenghty comments about Tipton and Poythress, is see how well your method stands up under presuppositional scrutiny."
I'd much rather see someone honestly striving to defend the faith using a non-presuppositional apologetical methodology than having a constant fault-finder (like Dr. Liberal and Ed Dingess) chastizing fellow Christians for not using the "correct" apologetical methodology.
Alex said:
Delete"How does sensitive to sound entail vulnerable to sound? You seem to be creating a logically necessary connection between the two where you cant have one without the other. It seems there is no incoherence to the idea of a hearing ear that cant be damaged. There is no contradiction."
But Steve Hays mentioned "listening to loud music or loud noise." So the ears (I can get into the details if necessary) could be perfectly normal in form and function, so to speak, but be damaged when external stimuli like loud music or noise affect it. Or to look at it another way, this same noise might leave another creature's ears perfectly intact even while it adversely affects our ears.
Let's look at another example:
DeleteThe human body could be physiologically fine on earth. But off-earth say in space, or at least in a micro-g environment, and over a prolonged period, the human body could develop several physiological problems. Such as a considerable rate of bone demineralization (up to 1-2% of bone mass per month) resulting in hypercalcemia among other issues in the musculoskeletal system. Difficulty forming red blood cells and orthostatic intolerance in the cardiovascular system. Also possible problems with white blood cells and the immune system. Several problems in the neurovestibular system like disorientation and an impaired ability to acquire and track visual objects or targets. There are many other significant and widespread problems.
Of course, one could attempt to generate artificial gravity. This could be done by inertial mass like we experience on earth but unless we happen to have a planet or moon-sized object around with us that might be pretty hard. Or rotationally like in 2001: A Space Odyssey. Or via linear acceleration like if we were able to accelerate to a speed approaching the speed of light. But each could pose other dilemmas for the human body.
Dr. Liberal
Delete“Why would it have to be a special property of Christ's resurrected body for Him to disappear and reappear, suddenly.”
It wouldn’t. That’s my point. I’m responding to you on your own terms. You’re the one who insists on indexing these abilities to the nature of his glorified body, not me.
“Could not God perform this miracle without compromising the integrity of the resurrected body of Christ?”
A body can’t do whatever God can do. A body isn’t God. A body is a creature. A body has built-in limitations.
You fail to distinguish what a body can do from what God can do to a body. Pay attention. To say God can perform this miracle is quite different from saying a body can perform this miracle.
“If Phillips physical body can ‘vanish’ from one spot to another, why not the resurrected body of Christ?”
Once again, you fail to distinguish between a miracle and a property of a body. What’s your problem?
“Are you concerned that your apologetic criteria won't meet the required demands of the unbelieving skeptic and that he might accuse you of being naieve simply because you want to accept at face value the testimony of Scripture as sufficient evidence to defend the resurrection? Is that what bothers about Jesus potentially dematerializing?”
i) An immaterial body is not a physical body. You’re reducing the risen Christ to a ghost who occasionally materializes to become visible to observers. Yes, that’s Gnostic or Docetic.
ii) Moreover, some atheists are caricaturing the Resurrection to give themselves an easy target.
“We are talking about a God who can make the earth stand still, axe heads float, feed thousands with the lunch of a young boy. He stopped storms in their tracks.”
Are you trying not to understand, or are you really that uncomprehending? How many times does a rudimentary distinction have to be made before you register the point?
There’s a difference between claiming that a glorified body can do things due to inherent properties of the body, and saying God can do things with a body. Cultivate the mental discipline to follow a simple argument. It shouldn’t be that hard.
Alex2
Delete“I dont think its necessary per se, but having God protect us all the time in the glorified state seems superfluous. What for?”
i) God wouldn’t need to protect us “all the time.” It’s not as if we’d be in danger all the time.
ii) But what think the world to come will operate deistically? Why think God will give us autonomous bodies, so that we never need divine protection? That’s a very mechanistic view of divine providence. Put another way, it mirrors the Spinozistic objection to miracles, according to which miracles are inherently ad hoc. God should just make a clockwork universe, wind it up, and let it run on its own.
iii) Apropos (ii), the world is not simply a machine, but an arena in which God and man commune. Indeed, according to eschatology, God will dwell with man in the final state. So why would we expect God to remain at arm’s length?
At the end of the day here it is:
ReplyDeleteMr. Hays does not know enough about the properties of resurrected bodies to contradict those who argue for something "like" dematerialization (for lack of a better word). Scripture does not tell us enough about them. Therefore, we cannot determine the precise capabilities of such a body. Second, God do whatever He pleases with physical bodies, including dematerializing them and materializing them if He chooses to do so. Just ask Phillip. It does NOT sabotage (nothing like a little poison when you arguing)the resurrection. Unbelievers reject miracles either way. These are unsurmountable problems for Mr. Hays. He can continue to force the issue and lose certain credibility or he can reflect on this position and perhaps ease up on the rhetoric.
Concerning the attacks against a more cautious approach, which is always proper, always fitting when we are handling the Sacred, Mr. Hays knows he cannot tell us how God killed Sapphira and Ananias. He knows he cannot explain the details of Phillip's supernatural transportation. He knows that he cannot explain how God made the earth stand still. Mr. Hays knows there are a lot of things that he does not know and in fact, cannot know. It does not follow that just because I argue that we cannot know exactly how God accomplished these phenomena of resurrection appearances or Paul's conversion, that I am engaging in cowardice hermeneutics. His argument is clearly fallacious.
We simply do not know anough about the class of resurrected bodies on the one hand, and on the other, God's activity of ordering the universe is not after some "law of nature" which seems to be the unspoken inference in all this. He holds everything together, not by some impersonal law of physics, but by His personal and almighty right hand.
At the end of the day here it is:
DeleteDr. Liberal has been attempting to turn the debate over the glorified body of Christ into a personal grudge match with Steve Hays. Just check out the comments in this post.
Also, notice how two-faced Dr. Liberal has been behaving. On the one hand, he takes people to task over perceived immoralities like a moralizing school marm or somesuch. But on the other hand, he himself is hardly innocent despite the lip service he pays to his sinfulness, humility, etc. Humility doesn't advertise. But Dr. Liberal strikes me as the sort who likes to tell others how often he traverses and how acquainted he is with the valley of humility.
As far as the glorified body is concerned, that's fine for Christians to debate it. Indeed, Steve Hays has provided exegetical and other arguments for his view (whereas I think Dr. Liberal's "exegesis" is sorely lacking to put it mildly).
At the same time, let's not fool ourselves by thinking others aren't listening in. For instance, atheist Jeff Lowder recently took the glorified body to task. But (at best) Dr. Liberal is blind to the fact that his poor arguments and manner of attack lend support to others who would like to see Christianity undermined including secularists. He doesn't see the bigger picture and context in which all this is happening. Like a brother attacking his brother on the front yard lawn in full view of the neighborhood bully. Dr. Liberal is so consumed by his grudge against Steve Hays that he's willing to see the ship riddled with holes so long as Steve Hays is battered and bruised a bit as well.
By the way, Dr. Liberal bears an uncanny resemblance to Ed Dingess. I mention this not because I care to out pseudonyms (after all I'm using a moniker) but because Dingess was banned and if Dr. Liberal is Dingess then he's breaking the ban.
Dr. Liberal
Delete“Mr. Hays does not know enough about the properties of resurrected bodies to contradict those who argue for something ‘like’ dematerialization (for lack of a better word). Scripture does not tell us enough about them. Therefore, we cannot determine the precise capabilities of such a body. Second, God do whatever He pleases with physical bodies, including dematerializing them and materializing them if He chooses to do so. Just ask Phillip.”
i) You persistently blur the distinction between what God can do with a body and inherent properties of a body. Why are you so obtuse?
ii) Why assume Phillip could do that because his body had a special property? Why index that ability to the nature of his body? Did Phillip have a different kind of body than ordinary humans? Was he a mutant Superhero?
iii) Yes, God can dematerialize a body. Of course, a dematerialized body is not a body. You’ve dematerialized the Resurrection.
Many things are possible with God. For instance, it’s possible that God didn’t raise Jesus. It’s possible that God turned Jesus into a butterfly, who flew out of the tomb when the angel rolled the stone away. If you’re just appealing to divine omnipotence, that doesn’t distinguish a resurrection from a non-resurrection.
“We simply do not know anough about the class of resurrected bodies on the one hand, and on the other, God's activity of ordering the universe is not after some ‘law of nature’ which seems to be the unspoken inference in all this.”
To the contrary, if you attribute these properties to the glorified body, then that’s a law of nature. You’ve made that a natural property of a glorified body. God isn’t making it happen. Rather, the laws of nature make it happen.
Dr. Liberal
Delete"Concerning the attacks against a more cautious approach, which is always proper, always fitting when we are handling the Sacred..."
Alex is a reasonable commenter. It's possible to have an intelligent conversation with Alex. You, on the other hand, rage and rant.
I never argued for anything other than divine agency. I argued against firming opinions. I pointed out inconsistencies in your own reasoning Mr. Hays. You continue to beg the question of the properties of resurrected bodies. It is impossible to take your comments on Phillip seriously.
DeleteI think I have proven my point to anyone who isn't a Triablogue minion. I shall return in time to discuss apologetics if you are so inclined to endulge me in a gentlemen's discussion on the subject.
"I argued against firming opinions."
ReplyDeleteSteve, Dr. Liberal has a firm opinion against firm opinions.