1 Peter 3:18

[fullywired]

I read a passage from Peter 3:18 were it said "

Christ suffered for our sins once for all time. He never sinned, but he died for sinners to bring you safely home to God. He suffered physical death, but he was raised to life in the Spirit. " which seemed to me to suggest that he didn't believe in the bodily resurrection .I checked other versions of the passage and they all said the same thing,which again suggests that some early Christians had a problem with the resurrection story

fullywired

[+Paranoid Android]

What translation are you using that uses such specific language here? Or are you paraphrasing? 1 Peter (in future it would help if you could specific whether you were referring to 1 Peter or 2 Peter, though I guess it wasn't exactly hard to work out which - but considering your quote was not actually a perfect representation of the passage, I had to check both to make sure which one you were talking about). What the text says is that he was "put to death in the flesh, but made alive in the spirit".

In other words, Jesus was destined to die once, then face judgement (much what the author of Hebrews agrees upon). He died a death (just as all of us do), then he resurrected and because of the spirit he was again made alive.

I don't see how this favours any suggestion that the authors had a problem with the resurrection story!!!!

[fullywired]

1 Peter 3:18New International Version (NIV)

¹⁸ For Christ also suffered once for sins, the righteous for the unrighteous, to bring you to God. He was put to death in the body but made alive in the Spirit. and as I said earlier other versions used the same vocabulary

it doesn't say "

He died a death (just as all of us do), then he resurrected and because of the spirit he was again made alive. " those are your words not the bible's

fullywired

[+Hammerclaw]

Just another verse taken out of context and worried to death. It's really not that difficult at all, in context.

¹³ Who is going to harm you if you are eager to do good? ¹⁴ But even if you should suffer for what is right, you are blessed. “Do not fear their threats; do not be frightened. ¹⁵ But in your hearts revere Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect, ¹⁶ keeping a clear conscience, so that those who speak maliciously against your good behavior in Christ may be ashamed of their slander. ¹⁷ For it is better, if it is God’s will, to suffer for doing good than for doing evil. ¹⁸ For Christ also suffered once for sins, the righteous for the unrighteous, to bring you to God. He was put to death in the body but made alive in the Spirit. ¹⁹ After being made alive, he went and made proclamation to the imprisoned spirits— ²⁰ to those who were disobedient long ago when God waited patiently in the days of Noah while the ark was being built. In it only a few people, eight in all, were saved through water, ²¹ and this water symbolizes baptism that now saves you also—not the removal of dirt from the body but the pledge of a clear conscience toward God. It saves you by the resurrection of Jesus Christ, ²² who has gone into heaven and is at God’s right hand—with angels, authorities and powers in submission to him.

[fullywired]

Just another verse taken out of context and worried to death. It's really not that difficult at all, in context.

¹³ Who is going to harm you if you are eager to do good? ¹⁴ But even if you should suffer for what is right, you are blessed. “Do not fear their threats; do not be frightened. ¹⁵ But in your hearts revere Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect, ¹⁶ keeping a clear conscience, so that those who speak maliciously against your good behavior in Christ may be ashamed of their slander. ¹⁷ For it is better, if it is God’s will, to suffer for doing good than for doing evil. ¹⁸ For Christ also suffered once for sins, the righteous for the unrighteous, to bring you to God. He was put to death in the body but made alive in the Spirit. ¹⁹ After being made alive, he went and made proclamation to the imprisoned spirits— ²⁰ to those who were disobedient long ago when God waited patiently in the days of Noah while the ark was being built. In it only a few people, eight in all, were saved through water, ²¹ and this water symbolizes baptism that now saves you also—not the removal of dirt from the body but the pledge of a clear conscience toward God. It saves you by the resurrection of Jesus Christ, ²² who has gone into heaven and is at God’s right hand—with angels, authorities and powers in submission to him.

This doesn't doesn't say he was bodily resurrected but made alive in the spirit

fullywired

Edited February 22, 2015 by fullywired

[+Hammerclaw]

This doesn't doesn't say he was bodily resurrected but made alive in the spirit

fullywired

Not specifically. Various and conflicting interpretations for those verses. Since Peter witnessed and preach the resurrection, it's curious. For three days Christ was in the spirit, his flesh awaiting resurrection in the tomb. One interpretation has Christ ministering in that time in spirit, to those who had died and never heard his message of salvation and/or to the fallen angels imprisoned with Satan. Of course, to unbelievers it doesn't really matter. With believers, it's "in for a penny, in for a pound" as far Christian theology goes. You just pick an interptretation and run with it.

[fullywired]

Not specifically. Various and conflicting interpretations for those verses. Since Peter witnessed and preach the resurrection, it's curious. For three days Christ was in the spirit, his flesh awaiting resurrection in the tomb. One interpretation has Christ ministering in that time in spirit, to those who had died and never heard his message of salvation and/or to the fallen angels imprisoned with Satan. Of course, to unbelievers it doesn't really matter. With believers, it's "in for a penny, in for a pound" as far Christian theology goes. You just pick an interptretation and run with it.

Exactly my point ,even Christians can't agree on the correct interpretation,to me it suggests that some did not believe the bodily resurrection

Fullywired

[+Paranoid Android]

1 Peter 3:18New International Version (NIV)

¹⁸ For Christ also suffered once for sins, the righteous for the unrighteous, to bring you to God. He was put to death in the body but made alive in the Spirit. and as I said earlier other versions used the same vocabulary

it doesn't say "

He died a death (just as all of us do), then he resurrected and because of the spirit he was again made alive. " those are your words not the bible's

fullywired

That's why the Bible is an anthology of texts, not a single book.... take it all and 1 Peter in no way suggests a spirit resurrection over a bodily resurrection.

[+Hammerclaw]

Exactly my point ,even Christians can't agree on the correct interpretation,to me it suggests that some did not believe the bodily resurrection

Fullywired

Yeah we are quite an eclectic lot, but we all believe in the same essential religious tenets. In Protestantism we aren't hand fed what we are suppose to believe by a monolithic central authority. Also,you can find cults, loosely based on the Bible, that pretty much believe anything. Snake handling comes to mind. Edited February 23, 2015 by Hammerclaw

[+joc]

Why get hung up on what Peter said and mamby pamby around with words...if you don't study

Greek or Hebrew then you really don't know what the hell the Bible is saying from verse to verse anyway...

...besides all that...it is quite obviousthat a lot of people did not buy into the resurrection...that is why Jesus asked Thomas if he wanted to put his finger in the wounds of Jesus to see if they were real.

and besides all that...who considers letters that someone wrote to be the Absolute Word of an Infinite God? The Church and the Faithful for sure...but in reality...inspired by God is not the same thing as the Word of God...

...getting off track...

[+Sherapy]

This doesn't doesn't say he was bodily resurrected but made alive in the spirit

fullywired

I agree with you, it seems to say he died yet he lives on in spirit.

Edited February 23, 2015 by Sherapy

[ellapenella]

I read a passage from Peter 3:18 were it said "

Christ suffered for our sins once for all time. He never sinned, but he died for sinners to bring you safely home to God. He suffered physical death, but he was raised to life in the Spirit. " which seemed to me to suggest that he didn't believe in the bodily resurrection .I checked other versions of the passage and they all said the same thing,which again suggests that some early Christians had a problem with the resurrection story

fullywired

I don't know if I believe the story of the resurrection as it's told . Have you heard of when Jesus appeared to Thomas after the crucifixtion and resurection storyI think the story was that Thomas doubted in the resurrection , he didn't believe I think. Jesus is said to have entered the house where Thomas and some thers were at on night , he entered by walking through the wall. I thik when he showed Thomas his wounds after he walked through the wall he was in solid form , not sure but I think so I haven't read the story in a while i haven't even heard it told in a whaile either. But I liked it , it' one of my favorite stories from the bible.

Edited February 23, 2015 by Ellapennella

[eight bits]

1 Peter wasn't written by Peter. Early Christian Wiritngs, a non-ideological source, reports soberly estimated dates from 80-110.

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/

So, it comes late enough that the church is Gentile rather than Jewish, and has some considerable proportion of "cradle Christians," people who have grown up in the faith, and not just adult converts as in the very earliest days.

As one of the leading Chistian apologists here at UM recently explained, just because you have a bodily resurrection doesn't mean that you keep the body indefinitely. As far as I can see, the OP passage presents no difficulty for that view at all.

If we then trace body-ideas back, we can see a strong Christian streak of anti-body sentiment for centuries. Many people don't want a body, they want an unconstrained "spirit" vehicle. Maybe Jesus needed a body for a while to inspire his friends, and maybe we all get raised in the flesh so that we can be tortured effectively if the judgment doesn't go well for us, but the body isn't "who we really are," and so maybe only the personality of the righteous persists. Or so the body-hostile would wish it.

If we go back far enough, though, we encounter the Jewish and specifically Pharisaic view of a real bodily resurrection at the end of days. This what Paul, Jew and Pharisee, taught. With some improvements, Paul wants a body. He is a little shaky on the practical details (1 Corinthians 15: 35-49), but insistent that there is a body in play. Unlike the Christian apologist I mentioned earlier, Paul has at most two bodies: the one that dies, and the "spirit body" that rises. (Some won't die at all, but their existing body will be transformed directly into the spirit body, 15: 51).

Even so, I don't see a direct contradiction between this and the topic 1 Peter passage. "Spirit body" is an oxymoron, it means nothing at all except if it is defined to mean something, and Paul's explanation is a sumptuous word salad, not a definition at all. So,

- Jesus lives forever in a spirit body

- Jesus lives forever in spirit

may simply be two ways of saying the same thing unclearly.

Finally, though, there is no suspense about

... which seemed to me to suggest that he didn't believe in the bodily resurrection .I checked other versions of the passage and they all said the same thing,which again suggests that some early Christians had a problem with the resurrection story

Paul says it plainly, at 15: 12-13

But if Christ is preached as raised from the dead, how can some among you say there is no resurrection of the dead? If there is no resurrection of the dead, then neither has Christ been raised.

At the very least, we have primary source evidence that the relevance of the resurrection to other people is being questionned at least a generation before 1 Peter, and as Paul points out, logically, it is difficult to question that relevance without also questionning the bodily character of the underlying event.

[fullywired]

That's why the Bible is an anthology of texts, not a single book.... take it all and 1 Peter in no way suggests a spirit resurrection over a bodily resurrection.

I said it seems as if Peter doesn't believe in a bodily resurrection and reading the passage many would take that as what it meant .

How many interpretations of that passage are there, is it a question of the mind set of the reader to which he chooses

If this is God's word surely he would have made it simple so all could understand ,

the standard of education of the masses at that time didn't lend itself to study of .the bible . Even today there are differences

in interpretations

Quote

... which seemed to me to suggest that he didn't believe in the bodily resurrection .I checked other versions of the passage and they all said the same thing,which again suggests that some early Christians had a problem with the resurrection story

Paul says it plainly, at 15: 12-13

Yes but we are debating Peter not Paul and according to general consensus Paul never met Jesus in the flesh only in visions,i wouldn't have thought he was a reliable witness

fullywired

[eight bits]

fullywired

Yes but we are debating Peter not Paul and according to general consensus Paul never met Jesus in the flesh only in visions, wouldn't have thought he was a reliable witness.

Evidently, you missed the part of the post where 1 Peter wasn't written by Peter. So, "we" are not debating Peter, and we never were. You are debating an unknown author who wrote at least a generation, possibly two generations, after Paul died.

Nevertheless, you raised the issue of what early Christians believed about the resurrection. Paul gives us the earliest Christian writing we have. Paul establishes that contemporaries of his did question whether the dead rise - the nub of the question you asked.

Apparently you missed that, too. Yes, we can confidently conclude that early Christians questionned the nature of the resurrection. We could add that some of them (docetists) questionned whether Jesus ever had a body in the first place.

We have no writing from anybody who met Jesus before he died.

[fullywired]

fullywired

Evidently, you missed the part of the post where 1 Peter wasn't written by Peter. So, "we" are not debating Peter, and we never were. You are debating an unknown author who wrote at least a generation, possibly two generations, after Paul died.

Nevertheless, you raised the issue of what early Christians believed about the resurrection. Paul gives us the earliest Christian writing we have. Paul establishes that contemporaries of his did question whether the dead rise - the nub of the question you asked.

Apparently you missed that, too. Yes, we can confidently conclude that early Christians questionned the nature of the resurrection. We could add that some of them (docetists) questionned whether Jesus ever had a body in the first place.

We have no writing from anybody who met Jesus before he died.

From what I read we do not know who wrote the gospels

"All four Gospels were written anonymously and, based on the writings of the early church fathers, for close to two centuries after they were written, Christians had no idea who wrote them. Only in this later period did Christian scholars start guessing as to who the authors might have been. As the guesses were repeated and adopted by other Christian writers and thinkers, the guesses became traditions, and traditions became dogma."

http://ggreenberg.tripod.com

Perhaps the interpretations were guesses and became tradition then dogma and maybe that is why there are so many .

fullywired

[Bluefinger]

I read a passage from Peter 3:18 were it said "

Christ suffered for our sins once for all time. He never sinned, but he died for sinners to bring you safely home to God. He suffered physical death, but he was raised to life in the Spirit. " which seemed to me to suggest that he didn't believe in the bodily resurrection .I checked other versions of the passage and they all said the same thing,which again suggests that some early Christians had a problem with the resurrection story

fullywired

I think that Paul explained in another epistle that the mortal body has a different, less glorious nature than the Spiritual body. People born of blood are prone to sin and death. People born of the Spirit are not. They inherit their nature from Christ, not Adam. The nature of Christ comes from the Creator of the universe Himself.

Edit: The nature of the Spirit does not nullify the resurrection because resurrection implies the raising up of a soul into a body. If we are to be resurrected, it would do no good to be resurrected into such perishable bodies.

Edited February 24, 2015 by Bluefinger

[Bluefinger]

From what I read we do not know who wrote the gospels

"All four Gospels were written anonymously and, based on the writings of the early church fathers, for close to two centuries after they were written, Christians had no idea who wrote them. Only in this later period did Christian scholars start guessing as to who the authors might have been. As the guesses were repeated and adopted by other Christian writers and thinkers, the guesses became traditions, and traditions became dogma."

http://ggreenberg.tripod.com

Perhaps the interpretations were guesses and became tradition then dogma and maybe that is why there are so many .

fullywired

I think there is sufficient reason to believe that Mark and Luke were written by the Mark and Luke. The nature of Mark's brevity agrees with Paul's epistle that mentioned that Mark was with him in Rome. Given from what we know about the Great Fire in Rome during the reign of Nero, it supports the interpretation that the gospel of Mark ends so abruptly because Mark was in the process of writing the gospel when the persecution began.

Luke has two accounts written using his name. Given that he was a physician, and healing was such a major theme in his works, there is little reason to believe that it was written by anybody other than Luke. In addition, the book of Acts ends with Paul in Rome preaching the gospel. It says nothing of the persecution in Rome, which insists that the works of Luke were shipped out before the Great Fire of Rome.

[fullywired]

I think there is sufficient reason to believe that Mark and Luke were written by the Mark and Luke. The nature of Mark's brevity agrees with Paul's epistle that mentioned that Mark was with him in Rome. Given from what we know about the Great Fire in Rome during the reign of Nero, it supports the interpretation that the gospel of Mark ends so abruptly because Mark was in the process of writing the gospel when the persecution began.

Luke has two accounts written using his name. Given that he was a physician, and healing was such a major theme in his works, there is little reason to believe that it was written by anybody other than Luke. In addition, the book of Acts ends with Paul in Rome preaching the gospel. It says nothing of the persecution in Rome, which insists that the works of Luke were shipped out before the Great Fire of Rome.

But they are still guesses not definite knowledge

fullywired

[fullywired]

.

Edit: The nature of the Spirit does not nullify the resurrection because resurrection implies the raising up of a soul into a body. If we are to be resurrected, it would do no good to be resurrected into such perishable bodies.

It may imply that to you but not to me,I stick to my earlier post, that I thought some of the earlier Christians did not believe in bodily resurrection

fullywired

Edited February 24, 2015 by fullywired

[Bluefinger]

But they are still guesses not definite knowledge

fullywired

Then why even discuss these things? None of us were there, and even eye witness accounts could be scrutinized and doubted.

All any of us can do is forumulate the best interpretation of events based on the information we have, not on the information we do not have. That would be pointless and futile.

[Bluefinger]

It may imply that to you but not to me,I stick to my earlier post, that I thought some of the earlier Christians did not believe in bodily resurrection

fullywired

That's not my interpretation FW. That is Paul's interpretation.

Whereas it is good to raise the question, I do not think that there is enough to argue against the prevailing teaching. The New Testament is packed with resurrection references, even to the point that Paul argued, "If Christ did not resurrect, then we are most to be pitied."

It could be argued that people at that time challenged the resurrection claim, even to the point of gnosticism. This could possibly be derived from unorthodox, extrabiblical writings. But it cannot be argued that such a point of view would have ever made it into the canonized Bible.