see

** you do not have permission to see this link **

according to this blog post Paul believed 

the physical body is “material” (obviously), the spiritual body is “material” and the soul is “material”

So is that just saying 

There is NO component of the human being that is immaterial

actually he doesn’t say that but you would wonder if that is a reasonable conclusion

sounds very communistic but i suppose there is nothing exactly illogical about it

although I would wonder how a completely “material” being like a human beings could relate to God unless we also posit God as a material being.  

also state is the 

“Spiritual bodies *were* physical.  “

isn’t that just redefining normal meanings of words used by us living in the 21st century western  world? 

If obvious meanings of words are redefined shouldn’t their new meanings at least be made explicit?

Then we may consider the word “flesh”

Is “flesh”, “material” or “immaterial”? (however you may define “material” and “immaterial”)

Is “flesh”, a “physical” component of a human being?

what does a (sinless?) human being look like who has no “flesh”