|
|
Post by MoGrace2U on Jan 30, 2010 22:27:52 GMT -5
Ted, Sure some texts are covenantal but others are not, so making all Paul's arguments covenantal does not seem wise either. At some point the dead must literally rise! We certainly don't want to spiritualize death away as if no one 'really' must face it at all either. Or, that all text are covenantal, and none are literal! The Sower~ Nah that can't be it! |
|
|
|
Post by Theophilus on Jan 31, 2010 1:40:39 GMT -5
I only want to know the answer to the question..."HOW are the dead raised? and with WHAT "kind" of body do they come? (1 Corinthians 15:35), and Paul's answer (1 Corinthians 15:37-50). I'm happy to answer that... in context.  The Gospel in Greece Greece posed a special problem for the Gospel. Greek philosophy taught something very similar to what the people here on this forum believe. According to the Greeks, upon death, a person's spirit would be freed from the physical body that had trapped it during life. This spirit would live forever, never to return to the body. The very idea of having to return to one's body, after having been set freed from it, was considered repulsive. This would prove to be a major obstacle for the Gospel, which not only proclaims the bodily resurrection of Jesus, but that all people will be bodily resurrected on the final day of judgment. While the bodily resurrection of the dead was a point of agreement with most Jewish people (Acts 23:6-9, Acts 24:14-15, Acts 26:6-8), it was a point of visceral disagreement among the Greeks (Acts 17:32, 1 Cor.15:12). If the resurrection taught by Paul was merely a nonphysical, "spirit" resurrection, this would not have been a problem, because the Greeks already believed in an everlasting spirit-life after death. The only reason why they would object to the resurrection was if it was a physical, bodily resurrection. The City of Corinth The city of Corinth was infamous for its gross immorality, especially in regards to the sins of the body (1 Cor.6:9-20) - sexual immorality. They were of the idea that, since the body was going to perish, and only the spirit mattered, it didn't matter what you did in the body. So, since you were stuck in the body, you might as well make the best of it and live it up. This was how they rationalized the various sins "of the body." The Problem Addressed in 1 Cor.15 The main issue in 1 Cor.15 is revealed in 1 Cor.15:12. There were some within the church ("some among you" in 1 Cor.15:12) that denied the resurrection of the dead. Again, they would have no reason to deny a "spirit" resurrection, which closely mirrored the popular beliefs of that culture. They denied a bodily resurrection. Consequently, they denied the resurrection of the dead, including the resurrection of Jesus! But before Paul brings up the problem at hand, he first refutes the position of these scoffers in 1 Cor.15:1-11. This way, by the time he brings up the opposition in 1 Cor.15:12, it shows up DOA (dead on arrival). 1 Cor.15:1-12 Paul reestablishes the resurrection of Jesus here. He reminds them that the resurrection of Jesus is a matter of salvation (1 Cor.15:2), it is the foundation of the Christian religion (1 Cor.15:3a), and that Jesus' resurrection is a fact. Paul reminds them of the evidence for Jesus' resurrection - it was predicted ahead of time (1 Cor.15:3-4), and there is a large number of eyewitnesses to confirm that the resurrection happened (1 Cor.15:5-9). The force of Paul's reasoning is this: how can you say there is no such thing as the resurrection when we have proven that one such resurrection has already occurred? And how can you claim to be a Christian if you deny the resurrection, since the resurrection of Jesus is the core teaching of the church? By the time Paul mentions the opposition in 1 Cor.15:12, their position of the resurrection has already been demolished. 1 Cor.15:13-28 Having already firmly established the fact of Jesus' resurrection, Paul now turns to the resurrection of the dead for everyone else. Those opposed to the doctrine of resurrection might point to the fact that the dead all around them have not been raised, therefore casting doubt on this teaching. But Paul points out that, just because the resurrection of everyone else hasn't happened yet, that doesn't count as evidence against Christianity's teaching on resurrection. For Christianity doesn't teach that the resurrection of all the dead has already happened, but that the resurrection will happen on the final day of judgment (1 Cor.15:20-28). The fact of Jesus' resurrection provides support for believing in the resurrection to come. 1 Cor.15:29-34 If our dead bodies are not raised, why were we baptized for the reason of receiving a resurrection like Jesus' resurrection (see Rom. 6:3-9)? Having thoroughly refuted their position that there is no resurrection, Paul then exposes their real motivation they have for opposing the resurrection: the resurrection destroys their rationalization for their immoral behavior in the body. If you return to the body, to live forever, then what you do in the body really does matter. Paul points out that these people are ignorant and shameful (1 Cor.15:34). 1 Cor. 15:35-50 Compare 1 Cor.15:35 with 1 Cor.15:12. In v.12, Paul says "some among you say...", but in v.35, Paul says "But someone will say..." Consider what Paul has done so far in this chapter. He declares there is a coming day of resurrection and judgment, the proof for which is the resurrection of Jesus, which is an established fact, and therefore these people need to repent. Now let's flip back to Paul in Acts 17:30-32. In Paul's sermon in Athens (like Corinth, is a city of Greece, steeped in Greek philosophy). Paul concludes his sermon by declaring that people should repent because there is a coming day of judgment, evidenced by the resurrection of Jesus (presumably, Paul included the evidence for the fact of Jesus' resurrection). What was the response to this? Some began to sneer at the mention of the resurrection of the dead. They mocked the very idea of resurrection. Now let's flip back to 1 Cor.15:35. Paul has already decimated by virtue of facts, evidence, and logic the position that there is no resurrection. Not only this, but he has exposed their immorality. So now Paul anticipates a response: "But someone will say..." What does Paul expect them to say? Does he expect them to now say "OK, you've proven your point. I now believe in the resurrection. One thing I am curious about. I don't understand how the dead are raised, and with what kind of body they come." No. Paul has been here before. Paul knows they are going to sneer at him. They can't refute the resurrection on the evidence, so all they can do is mock the resurrection. Sneer. "How are the dead raised? And with what kind of body do they come?" Implied is this: OK, Mr.-Smartypants-Apostle-Paul, what kind of body are the dead raised with? Do you expect us to believe in the resurrection of the dead? Really? Since some have been decapitated, there will be people walking around without heads! Those that were burned to death, they'll be walking around in their disfigured, flame-scarred bodies! Those that have been dead a long time, they will be a walking pile of dust and bones! If the resurrection of the dead is true, then think how macabre that would be! Resurrection is patently absurd! It is precisly because Paul understood the questions in 1 Cor.15:35 as a sneer against the doctrine of the resurrection, that he answers this question with "You fool!" "You idiot!" "You, sir, are a moron!" (1 Cor.15:36a). That the questions in 1 Cor.15:35 are meant to mock the resurrection are clear, because why else would Paul respond with an insult, with such contempt? Surely the Apostle Paul, the great evangelist, the greatest missionary in the history of Christianity, isn't prone to insulting people for asking simple, innocuous questions, right? One more point about the questions in 1 Cor.15:35 - these questions would not have been asked if Paul taught a "spirit" resurrection. If Paul taught that you lived on as a spirit forever after death, this question wouldn't even make sense. The Greek word for "spirit" is pneuma, which literally means "breath." Like one's breath, a spirit has no image, it cannot be seen, it has no shape, it has no form, it cannot be touched, it cannot be grasped. A spirit is not a body, by definition. So these questions (much like the opposition in 1 Cor.15:12) presupposes a physical, bodily resurrection. Paul's Answer (After He Calls Them Fools) 1 Cor.15:36 - notice that what dies is the same thing that will come to life. 1 Cor.15:37-38 - the condition in which the dead body is "sown" is not the same condition it will be resurrected in. To put it another way, a body that goes into the grave decapitated, when it is resurrected, will not come out still missing its head. God has the power to fix the body and remake it as He wishes (see how God undid the decomposition of Lazarus' body in John 11). This is a direct refutation of the mockery implicit in the questions of 1 Cor.15:35. 1 Cor.15:39-43 - The body dies as an earthly body, but is transformed and raised as a heavenly body. The body starts out as mortal, destined to die and rot, but that same body is resurrected immortal (see Rom. 6:9). 1 Cor.15:44 - the body that dies is a "natural body," but it is raised a "spiritual body." Now what does that mean? The word translated as "natural" is psuchikon, which literally means "soul-ish." Paul isn't saying the body is made out of soul, but that it is governed by the natural appetites. The word translated as "spiritual" is pneumatikon, which literally means "of the spirit." This doesn't mean a body made of spirit (which doesn't even make sense, since a body is not a spirit is not a body), but fitting the contrast, it is a body that is oriented to the Spirit. Paul uses the exact same contrast of words in 1 Cor.2:14-15: "But a natural man does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually appraised. But he who is spiritual appraises all things, yet he himself is appraised by no one." 1 Cor.15:44 says that the earthly body will be freed from its sin-prone human nature, and be transformed into a body that is"prone" to the will of the Spirit. This is made clear by the following verses: 1 Cor.15:45-49 The first Adam was sinful, the last Adam was not. The first Adam is prone to the appetites of the flesh, the last Adam was not. Just as we have borne the nature of the first Adam in our bodies, so we will bear the nature of the last Adam when our earthy bodies are transformed and raised up as heavenly bodies. 1 Cor. 15:50 What does Paul mean by "flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God"? He can't literally mean that people with physical bodies cannot inherit the kingdom. After all, the King of this kingdom Himself was raised flesh and blood (Luke 24:39), "never to die again" (Rom. 6:9). That would indicate His resurrected body, made of flesh, is here to stay. Paul says that there are some people of flesh and blood who are already in the kingdom (Col. 1:13)! Also consider that every other instance where the NT talks about "inheriting" the kingdom, or eternal life, or the equivalent, it has to do with one's character and behavior, not in regard to being in a physical body. Matt. 5:5, Matt. 19:29, Matt. 25:34-40, Mark 10:17-19, Luke 10:25-28, Luke 18:18-20, 1 Cor. 6:9-10, Gal. 5:19-21, Heb. 6:12, 1 Pet. 3:9, Rev. 21:7-8. So given the context of the other passages that talk about who does/doesn't inherit the kingdom, and the immediate context of immorality, it is clear that 1 Cor. 15:50 says that those who live according to the flesh will not inherit the kingdom. In 1 Cor. 15:50b, Paul writes "nor does the perishable inherit the imperishable." As Paul declares in Rom. 8:13 (which is also in the conext of discussing the resurrection, see Rom. 8:9-11), "if you are living according to the flesh, you must die." But those who live and walk by the Spirit "will live." Thus, those who are immoral walk the way of death and will not inherit eternal life. |
|
|
|
Post by MoGrace2U on Jan 31, 2010 11:35:07 GMT -5
Theo,
If as you say the Greeks believed that the spirit never died, then a resurrection of the dead would have made no sense - since by very definition that means the soul does NOT survive the death of the body at all! Therefore they would not merely pass from one realm to another at death - and that because of their sins and idolatry. The qualifying factor for this life beyond death was dependent upon faith in the true God - and the judgment of the Son whom God had raised which Paul was telling them they would have to face. No surprise to me that they were incredulous to hear that the dead had to be raised by God if they were to live beyond death - since it destroys their vain imaginations about such things - which their idols had no power to do.
|
|
|
|
Post by Sower on Jan 31, 2010 13:36:46 GMT -5
I only want to know the answer to the question..."HOW are the dead raised? and with WHAT "kind" of body do they come? (1 Corinthians 15:35), and Paul's answer (1 Corinthians 15:37-50). I'm happy to answer that... in context. Theo, No offense intended, but the commentary you provided is not in the text, so it cannot be... in context. That said, I choose to rely upon the Apostle Paul's answer given to the question "How are the dead raised? and with WHAT body do they come"? (1 Corinthians 15:35-50), 2000+ years ago. Thanks, The Sower~ |
|
|
|
Post by mellontes on Jan 31, 2010 16:45:07 GMT -5
The Present Passive Tense Correctly Translated:
1 Corinthians 15...
2 - “also ye are being saved” (YLT).
12 - “Now if Christ is being preached”
15 - “we are being found...are not being raised”
16 - “are not being raised”
26 - “the last enemy being destroyed”*** (profound implications)
32 - “If the dead ones are not being raised”
35 - “how are the dead being raised, with what body are they coming?”
42-44 - “The body is being sown...it is being raised...it is being sown...it is being raised...it is being sown...it is being raised...it is being sown...it is being raised”
Clearly, this changes everything about the text!
(Note the implications of 1 Cor. 12:12f;c.f. Rom.7:24 > 8:23 > 9:4)
Thoughts as to the present passive tense in these verses???
|
|
|
|
Post by Theophilus on Jan 31, 2010 20:37:49 GMT -5
Theo, If as you say the Greeks believed that the spirit never died, then a resurrection of the dead would have made no sense - since by very definition that means the soul does NOT survive the death of the body at all! Therefore they would not merely pass from one realm to another at death - and that because of their sins and idolatry. The qualifying factor for this life beyond death was dependent upon faith in the true God - and the judgment of the Son whom God had raised which Paul was telling them they would have to face. No surprise to me that they were incredulous to hear that the dead had to be raised by God if they were to live beyond death - since it destroys their vain imaginations about such things - which their idols had no power to do. mograce2u (cool username btw), I'm not sure I understand your post, but let me take a stab at it.When I say the Greeks believed their spirit "lived forever" after physical death, I don't mean that they are spiritually alive to God. To be more specific, the Greeks believed their spirit "continued to exist" forever (they didn't have the distinction between spiritually alive vs. dead towards God that the Bible teaches). The Bible also teaches that all of our spirits will "live forever." That is, our spirits will continue to exist. But obviously, only some will continue to exist in spiritual life vs. spiritual death (the state of being in/out of fellowship with God). A "spirit resurrection" makes no sense in Christianity, since the Christian is made spiritually alive upon becoming a Christian. What is left to restore to life? You only resurrect what is dead. So why do Christians have to wait until physical death to have their spirits resurrected to life? |
|
|
|
Post by Theophilus on Jan 31, 2010 20:51:12 GMT -5
Theo, No offense intended, but the commentary you provided is not in the text, so it cannot be... in context. That said, I choose to rely upon the Apostle Paul's answer given to the question "How are the dead raised? and with WHAT body do they come"? (1 Corinthians 15:35-50), 2000+ years ago. So one must not consider the cultural, historical, linguistic context in order to help understand the Bible? That one must use only the Biblical text itself as written by the original inspired authors? You don't do that; you use context without even realizing it. Unless you read the original Greek, you are depending upon a translation of Paul's writing that Paul did not write himself. There are no standard ways of translating, so every translation must necessarily do some amount of interpretation. They do this on the basis of years of study of the times, the cultures, and the languages in question. Languages change over time. If you don't believe me, read the KJV, and you'll see how much English has changed in a few centuries. So in order to master NT Greek, scholars have to study and read other Greek texts outside of the Bible, that belong to the times and places where the NT books were written. But even if you were a NT Greek scholar, it wouldn't change the fact that you rely on context apart from the Biblical text, for, those who would have taught you Greek would have themselves learned from texts outside of the Bible. The only difference is, one of us wants to limit the amount of context considered, the other does not. My warning to all readers here - beware when someone doesn't want the context brought into the discussion. Truth stands clear from error, and the truth has nothing to fear from context. |
|
|
|
Post by Sower on Feb 1, 2010 19:00:19 GMT -5
Theo, No offense intended, but the commentary you provided is not in the text, so it cannot be... in context. How can your commentary be...in context, when it's not in the scripture? So one must not consider the cultural, historical, linguistic context in order to help understand the Bible? That one must use only the Biblical text itself as written by the original inspired authors? You can consider what you like, I meant you can't act as though it's necessary to understand the the scripture. That's not true. Personal comments are not scriptural context. My warning to all readers here---beware when someone tell you it's necessary to have their commentary and/or the opinions of others to explain the context of scripture. Except the commentary of men with a personal view to maintain. The Sower~ |
|
|
|
Post by Theophilus on Feb 1, 2010 23:12:15 GMT -5
My warning to all readers here---beware when someone tell you it's necessary to have their commentary and/or the opinions of others to explain the context of scripture. Surely you are not trying to imply that I have said my commentary is somehow required. If you are, that is false and I defy you to quote where I said any such thing. Rather, this sounds like a case of projection on your part. Did you not, on the thread concerning 2 Cor. 5, equate disagreeing with your understanding of that passage = disagreeing with Paul & the Holy Spirit? From the way you framed the discussion, you didn't even leave the possibility that you could be wrong. Except the commentary of men with a personal view to maintain. The Sower~ That sounds like projection once again. The reason why I took great pain to explain my understanding of the context, is to lay out my reasoning for everyone to see. People can examine my thought process and reasoning that led to my conclusion. What this does is it exposes my reasoning to critique. If I made an error somewhere along the way, it is an easy thing to then point out where exactly I went wrong, and how I went wrong. On the other hand, you refuse to lay out the context of the passage, and the reasoning that led to your conclusion. That doesn't open one's interpretation up to critique, it shields one's interpretation from the close inspection of others. When someone refuses to be open on a given subject, it leaves you wondering why. |
|
|
|
Post by Theophilus on Feb 2, 2010 9:39:48 GMT -5
Josephus' writings are invaluable to Christian studies, especially to preterism since his writings are the primary source of information concerning 70AD.
I recently read Josephus' account of the siege of Jerusalem (he was an eyewitness), and it does confirm that Revelation talks about the fall of Jerusalem in 70AD.
Josephus talks about the famine in Jerusalem during the siege. The zealots would scour the city, murdering anyone they thought was hiding food from them. But some people were in such agony from starvation, they begged the zealots to kill them and put them out of their misery. The zealots, normally quick to shed blood, made sure not to kill those who sought death, to satisfy their own cruelty. That matches up with what we read in Rev. 9:1-5-6, especially the last two verses that read:
"And they [the "locusts"] were not permitted to kill anyone, but to torment for five months; and their torment was like the torment of a scorpion when it stings a man. And in those days men will seek death and will not find it; they will long to die, and death flees from them." (Rev. 9:5-6)
The "locusts" weren't literal locusts, since they didn't eat plants. Their "sting" was the sting of hunger and starvation, as the plague was one of famine and not locusts. Many people sought death by begging the zealots to put them out of their misery, but the zealots would not kill them.
Josephus also records that the city of Jerusalem had 3 walls, & was divided into 3 sections. He says that the siege of Jerusalem came in 3 stages, as the Romans broke through each wall. Compare this to Rev. 16:19 which says that "Babylon" was split into three parts during its fall.
In Rev. 16:21, John the Revelator says hailstones weighing a talent each fell upon them. Josephus records that the Romans used catapults to hurl white stones against Jerusalem, weighing a talent each!
|
|
|
|
Post by Theophilus on Feb 2, 2010 10:05:34 GMT -5
My last post was to pave the way for what I am going to say in this post. Until last night, I had not read the passage in Josephus that I am about to quote here.
The following quote is found in "An Extract Out of Josephus' Discourse to the Greeks Concerning Hades." I want you to notice 2 things:
#1. It confirms what I have been saying about what the Greeks believed concerning the afterlife.
#2. It confirms what I have been saying about the teaching of Paul. In the book of Acts, Paul repeatedly affirms that Christianity, the Pharisees, and the Jewish people are in agreement about the resurrection (Acts 23:6-9, Acts 24:14-15, Acts 26:4-8).
When you read this, you will notice the striking similarity of how Josephus explains the resurrection, and how Paul explains the resurrection in 1 Cor. 15. Why do they teach the same thing in almost exactly the same way?
Josephus was a contemporary of Paul. Like Paul, Josephus was trained as a Pharisee. Unlike Paul, Josephus was never a Christian. Thus the strong similarities would indicate that this method of explaining the resurrection came from the Pharisees. The obvious explanation why Paul retains the Pharisee's presentation of the resurrection is because it was correct and in perfect agreement with Christ. Which also explains why we have no record of Jesus arguing with the Pharisees over the resurrection, although we have a record of Him arguing with them on a great many things!
Josephus:
|
|
|
|
Post by Sower on Feb 2, 2010 10:40:57 GMT -5
My warning to all readers here---beware when someone tell you it's necessary to have their commentary and/or the opinions of others to explain the context of scripture. Surely you are not trying to imply that I have said my commentary is somehow required. No! No! This sound like a case of projection on your part. That was in response to your warning to all readers here..."Beware when someone doesn't want context brought into the discussion." I encourage scripture context, but your personal commentary is not "the context." I know that, we all do it. I said I disagreed with with it, and you implied I disagreed with the scripture context. The context is self explantory: The question..."How are the dead raised? and with what body do they come? (1 Corinthians 15:35). Apostle Paul's answer (1 Corinthians 15:36-50). I agree with Apostle Paul's explantion. I had already told you, that I read it, and I disagreed with it. I'll tell you why, I have a library filled with reputable commentaries (Matthew Henry, Jamieson, Fausset, Brown, J.Vernon McGhee, Gray & Adams, Barnes Notes, Wesley notes, etc.), that I resort to from time to time. I don't agree with them all the time, because they don't even agree sometime. The Sower~ |
|
|
|
Post by mellontes on Feb 2, 2010 11:15:10 GMT -5
#2. It confirms what I have been saying about the teaching of Paul. In the book of Acts, Paul repeatedly affirms that Christianity, the Pharisees, and the Jewish people are in agreement about the resurrection (Acts 23:6-9, Acts 24:14-15, Acts 26:4-8). When you read this, you will notice the striking similarity of how Josephus explains the resurrection, and how Paul explains the resurrection in 1 Cor. 15. Why do they teach the same thing in almost exactly the same way? Josephus was a contemporary of Paul. Like Paul, Josephus was trained as a Pharisee. Unlike Paul, Josephus was never a Christian. Thus the strong similarities would indicate that this method of explaining the resurrection came from the Pharisees. The obvious explanation why Paul retains the Pharisee's presentation of the resurrection is because it was correct and in perfect agreement with Christ. Which also explains why we have no record of Jesus arguing with the Pharisees over the resurrection, although we have a record of Him arguing with them on a great many things! You've gotta be kidding, right? You offer support from Acts 23:6-9 to think that Paul's view of the resurrection matched that of the Pharisees??? You obviously don't understand the situation. Paul knew full well the Pharisaical position of the resurrection because he once was a Pharisee himself (Phil 3:5) Paul created a diversion by causing dissension between the Pharisees and the Sadducees, nothing more nothing less. For you to use this as SUPPORT is indicative of not looking at the big picture of what Paul had said. You say that Paul's view of the resurrection was no different than the Pharisees view??? What then do you do with this: Acts 24:21 - Except it be for this one voice, that I cried standing among them, Touching the resurrection of the dead I am called in question by you this day. The issue that SEPARATED Paul from the Pharisees was the resurrection of the dead!!! And as for Acts 24:14-15 providing SUPPORT for your logic, what then do you do with this: Acts 24:14 - But this I confess unto thee, that after the way which they call heresy, so worship I the God of my fathers, believing all things which are written in the law and in the prophets: It would seem that they considered Paul's beliefs as HERESY, not agreement. And as for Acts 26:4-8 providing SUPPORT for your logic, what then do you do with this: Acts 26:6 - And now I stand and am judged for the hope of the promise made of God unto our fathers: You do realize what the "hope of the promise" was, right? So, all of your support verses are totally useless in helping your position. |
|
|
|
Post by Once4all on Feb 2, 2010 18:03:56 GMT -5
Well, I, for one, do see the similarities between Paul's description of resurrection and that of Josephus, specifically the seed metaphor. The similarity cannot be denied. Whether they both understood it in the same way is another question.
Bev
|
|
|
|
Post by mellontes on Feb 2, 2010 20:29:17 GMT -5
Well, I, for one, do see the similarities between Paul's description of resurrection and that of Josephus, specifically the seed metaphor. The similarity cannot be denied. Whether they both understood it in the same way is another question. Bev Yes, " Whether they both understood it in the same way is another question." I can guarantee that they didn't... |
|
|
|
Post by Theophilus on Feb 2, 2010 22:24:15 GMT -5
Putting aside all the personal matters, as it isn't worth the time... I encourage scripture context, but your personal commentary is not "the context." Obviously my personal commentary is not the context. My posts explain the context. Your posts steer clear of the context. The context is self explantory: The question..."How are the dead raised? and with what body do they come? (1 Corinthians 15:35). Apostle Paul's answer (1 Corinthians 15:36-50). I agree with Apostle Paul's explantion. So which verse of 1 Cor. 15:35-50 "self explains" why Paul insults someone who asks, if you just read 1 Cor. 15:35, 2 straightforward, simple questions? |
|
|
|
Post by Theophilus on Feb 2, 2010 23:00:25 GMT -5
You offer support from Acts 23:6-9 to think that Paul's view of the resurrection matched that of the Pharisees??? You obviously don't understand the situation. Paul knew full well the Pharisaical position of the resurrection because he once was a Pharisee himself (Phil 3:5) Paul created a diversion by causing dissension between the Pharisees and the Sadducees, nothing more nothing less. First, I noticed you didn't respond to the excerpt from Josephus. The silence is deafening. Second, Paul said that to create a diversion, yes. But his shout certainly implies that he agreed with the Pharisees about the resurrection. If not, it would mean Paul lied about his religious beliefs in order to save his skin. Which doesn't fit. You say that Paul's view of the resurrection was no different than the Pharisees view??? What then do you do with this: Acts 24:21 - Except it be for this one voice, that I cried standing among them, Touching the resurrection of the dead I am called in question by you this day. The issue that SEPARATED Paul from the Pharisees was the resurrection of the dead!!! First, I'll put Acts 24:21 in context. What was Paul charged with? Desecrating the Temple by sneaking a Gentile in past the court of the Gentiles (Acts 24:6, Acts 21:27-29). In order to convict Paul of these charges, by law (Deut. 19:15) they are required to have 2-3 eyewitnesses present that saw Paul bring a Gentile into the Jewish-only section of the Temple courts. But there were no eyewitnesses to condemn him. The only people charging Paul were some of the people who were at the Council, but who were not at the Temple when Paul supposedly did this thing. So the whole trial was a sham that violated the Law of Moses. In Acts 24:18b-21, this is exactly what Paul points out. To paraphrase what Paul said: "If you want to charge me, then the 'witnesses' who accused me should be here. But they aren't. The only thing these people here have witnessed me do is shout 'For the resurrection of the dead I am on trial before you today.' (Referring back to Acts 23:6b) Which is not a crime, so sue me." And as for Acts 24:14-15 providing SUPPORT for your logic, what then do you do with this: Acts 24:14 - But this I confess unto thee, that after the way which they call heresy, so worship I the God of my fathers, believing all things which are written in the law and in the prophets: It would seem that they considered Paul's beliefs as HERESY, not agreement. They did believe some of Paul's beliefs to be heretical, but not his belief about the resurrection. Let us suppose, for the sake of argument, that Paul taught a spirit resurrection and denied a physical resurrection. If the Sadducees didn't believe in any resurrection and were not considered heretics, do you think they would label someone who believed in a spirit resurrection a heretic, on those grounds alone? Hardly. What they found so objectionable about Paul's beliefs can be found in Acts 21:28 & Acts 22:21-22. Paul taught that, in regards to the Messianic Kingdom and salvation, it didn't matter if you were born a Jew or a Gentile, nor does it matter if you keep the Law of Moses. The only thing that mattered was faith in Christ. And as for Acts 26:4-8 providing SUPPORT for your logic, what then do you do with this: Acts 26:6 - And now I stand and am judged for the hope of the promise made of God unto our fathers: You do realize what the "hope of the promise" was, right? So, all of your support verses are totally useless in helping your position. The "hope of the promise" was the physical resurrection - Acts 26:8. It is for this reason Paul asks a rhetorical question to point out the irony of the situation, that he is being tried for believing what they do - "Why is it considered incredible among you people if God does raise the dead?" Yes, "Whether they both understood it in the same way is another question."I can guarantee that they didn't... This I want to hear! |
|
|
|
Post by Once4all on Feb 3, 2010 0:15:49 GMT -5
I like this thread because it keeps making me read and re-read 1 Cor 15 over and over. Each time I do, some little thing jumps out.
(1 Corinthians 15:50 NASB) Now I say this, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; nor does the perishable inherit the imperishable.
(1 Corinthians 15:53 NASB) For this perishable must put on the imperishable, and this mortal must put on immortality.
So... the perishable cannot inherit the imperishable
But... the perishable can ("must") put on the imperishable
(Romans 13:14 NASB) But put on the Lord Jesus Christ, and make no provision for the flesh in regard to its lusts.
(Galatians 3:27 NASB) For all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves (clothed/put on - same Gk word) with Christ.
(Galatians 3:29 NASB) And if you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham's descendants, heirs according to promise.
So in order to attain to the resurrection of the dead and inherit eternal life, you must succeed at putting on Christ.
Paul wrote that to attain to the resurrection of the dead, he must conform to the death of Christ (Philippians 3:10-11).
See also Romans 6:1-7 for more about what it means to be clothed with Christ, to be conformed to his death:
Romans 6:1-7 NASB
(1) What shall we say then? Are we to continue in sin so that grace may increase?
(2) May it never be! How shall we who died to sin still live in it?
(3) Or do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus have been baptized into His death?
(4) Therefore we have been buried with Him through baptism into death, so that as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, so we too might walk in newness of life.
(5) For if we have become united with Him in the likeness of His death, certainly we shall also be in the likeness of His resurrection,
(6) knowing this, that our old self was crucified with Him, in order that our body of sin might be done away with, so that we would no longer be slaves to sin;
(7) for he who has died is freed from sin.
Bev
|
|
|
|
Post by Allyn on Feb 3, 2010 8:29:47 GMT -5
I am appreciating bothe sides of this thread. Study, study, study
|
|
|
|
Post by Sower on Feb 3, 2010 12:45:01 GMT -5
Putting aside all the personal matters, as it isn't worth the time... I encourage scripture context, but your personal commentary is not "the context." Obviously my personal commentary is not the context. My posts explain the context. Your posts steer clear of the context. The context is self explantory: The question..."How are the dead raised? and with what body do they come? (1 Corinthians 15:35). Apostle Paul's answer (1 Corinthians 15:36-50). I agree with Apostle Paul's explantion. So which verse of 1 Cor. 15:35-50 "self explains" why Paul insults someone who asks, if you just read 1 Cor. 15:35, 2 straightforward, simple questions? My concern is not with Paul's insults, but with the subject topic which is the resurrection. Thus, the question"HOW are the dead raised up? and with what BODY do they come"? (1 Corinthians 15:35), and Paul's answer (1 Corinthians 15:36-50). The Sower~ |
|
|
|
Post by Theophilus on Feb 3, 2010 14:31:05 GMT -5
My concern is not with Paul's insults, but with the subject topic which is the resurrection. Thus, the question"HOW are the dead raised up? and with what BODY do they come"? (1 Corinthians 15:35), and Paul's answer (1 Corinthians 15:36-50). But Paul's insult is part of his answer. If there is nothing in that passage to explain his insult, then the passage is not self-explanatory. Thus the need to consider a broader context in order to properly understand this passage. The questions in 1 Cor. 15:35, taken by themselves, are perfectly legitimate questions. And yet Paul calls them fools! This is the same guy who also taught that we shouldn't return insult for insult, so how can Paul be insulting someone just for asking a question? Paul was not in the habit of insulting those who sought more knowledge about the Gospel. But Paul was absolutely vicious towards those who would maliciously distort the Gospel message. In Galatians 5:12, to those who are purposefully distorting the Gospel, Paul wishes that they would just go ahead and cut their wee-wees off! Thus, for Paul to be insulting, there had to be more to these questions than the questions themselves. He had to understand that these questions were designed to maliciously distort the Gospel. If you don't understand the questions to be malicious and threatening to the Gospel, then you do not understand them the way Paul did. And if you do not understand the question, how are you so sure of the answer? |
|
|
|
Post by Sower on Feb 3, 2010 15:34:47 GMT -5
I like this thread because it keeps making me read and re-read 1 Cor 15 over and over. Each time I do, some little thing jumps out. Hi Bev, I wholeheartedly agree! Many of those verses refer to the resurrection (i.e. regeneration of the spirit), while alive in our perishable/earthly/ mortal bodies. Whereas, 1 Corinthians 15:42-53, is contrasting the difference between the natural (earthly, perishable) body we bare in the image of the first Adam, and the spiritual (heavenly, imperishable) body that we'll bare in the image of the last Adam/Jesus. See, 1 Corinthians 15:49 And as we have "borne" the image of the earthy, WE SHALL also bear he image of the heavenly. What's the image of the heavenly?... And so "it is written," the first man Adam was made a living SOUL; the last Adam was made a quickening SPIRIT. 1 Corinthians 15:45 John 6:63 It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing. The Sower~ |
|
|
|
Post by Sower on Feb 3, 2010 16:21:53 GMT -5
My concern is not with Paul's insults, but with the subject topic which is the resurrection. Thus, the question"HOW are the dead raised up? and with what BODY do they come"? (1 Corinthians 15:35), and Paul's answer (1 Corinthians 15:36-50). But Paul's insult is part of his answer. If there is nothing in that passage to explain his insult, then the passage is not self-explanatory. Thus the need to consider a broader context in order to properly understand this passage. The questions in 1 Cor. 15:35, taken by themselves, are perfectly legitimate questions. And yet Paul calls them fools! This is the same guy who also taught that we shouldn't return insult for insult, so how can Paul be insulting someone just for asking a question? Paul was not in the habit of insulting those who sought more knowledge about the Gospel. But Paul was absolutely vicious towards those who would maliciously distort the Gospel message. In Galatians 5:12, to those who are purposefully distorting the Gospel, Paul wishes that they would just go ahead and cut their wee-wees off! Thus, for Paul to be insulting, there had to be more to these questions than the questions themselves. He had to understand that these questions were designed to maliciously distort the Gospel. If you don't understand the questions to be malicious and threatening to the Gospel, then you do not understand them the way Paul did. And if you do not understand the question, Oh, I understand the question, just not what prompted it. I'm sure of apostle Paul that answered the question.  The Sower~ |
|
|
|
Post by Theophilus on Feb 3, 2010 21:21:11 GMT -5
So let me get this straight, the verses are self-explanatory, even though you can't explain them. Well, you can explain the parts of his answer that really matter, but the parts you can't explain, they aren't really important to understanding his answer, anyway. Oh, I understand the question, just not what prompted it. So you can explain Paul's reaction, then? If not, then you don't understand what is really being asked. Paul was doing what we call "reading between the lines." There was obviously more to the questions than the questions themselves. Which you cannot explain. Which demonstrates that you do not understand what Paul is responding to. Which lends credence to my point that you do not understand his answer, either. You can't even explain the first part of his answer! One particular answer can have multiple meanings, depending on the question that was asked. Once you understand what is really being asked, it becomes clear that Paul is teaching a bodily resurrection. |
|
|
|
Post by mellontes on Feb 3, 2010 21:48:10 GMT -5
PLEASE, may I ask all those who have offered their comments upon the nature of the resurrection to listen to this video on the resurrection of the dead. It is crucial to realize that if Israel has not yet received their promise then neither can we. All of the resurrection hopes were contained in the OT Scriptures. Paul's eschatological hopes are ALL based upon Israel's eschatological hopes. There are not TWO different systems of eschatology! Here is the link: planetpreterist.com/content/jack-scott-resurrection-israel The video may take a short while to load up. Once it does it will begin to play. The pause and play functions are available by hovering over the video itself. Many, many points mentioned in this thread are brought up and answered in this video. Have your Bible ready... Blessings... |
|
|
|
Post by Allyn on Feb 4, 2010 8:03:05 GMT -5
PLEASE, may I ask all those who have offered their comments upon the nature of the resurrection to listen to this video on the resurrection of the dead. It is crucial to realize that if Israel has not yet received their promise then neither can we. All of the resurrection hopes were contained in the OT Scriptures. Paul's eschatological hopes are ALL based upon Israel's eschatological hopes. There are not TWO different systems of eschatology! Here is the link: planetpreterist.com/content/jack-scott-resurrection-israel I need more help, Ted. I went to the link but it was just a page with a title. The video may take a short while to load up. Once it does it will begin to play. The pause and play functions are available by hovering over the video itself. Many, many points mentioned in this thread are brought up and answered in this video. Have your Bible ready... Blessings... That was an absolutely amazing lecture, Ted - Thanks so much. Next Tuesday night I meet again with a couple of men and our purpose for meeting is about the resurrection. Coincidence? |
|
|
|
Post by MoGrace2U on Feb 4, 2010 12:18:39 GMT -5
Is there a paper from Jack Scott on this? I retain better by reading...
|
|
|
|
Post by mellontes on Feb 4, 2010 13:54:18 GMT -5
Is there a paper from Jack Scott on this? I retain better by reading... I have inquired lightly to find out if he has written this stuff down. So far, it has been slim pickings... Here is one: planetpreterist.com/news-5211.htmlPlease notice in his fifth to last paragraph he mentions the "being" verb (those pesky present passives) in 1 Cor 15:26...it is also a good primer to his video posted previously... Unfortunately, most of the comments after the article (page 1) were taken over by the the universalist crowd... However, an exchange in regard to the "flesh" (something I have been trying to explain without success) took place in the latter portion of page 2's comments. I will place the question and then show the answer as given by Jack Scott. Should you read all the comments (as I have done), you will benefit from the many responses and ideas concerning resurrection that presently exist within preterism... here is the "flesh" exchange: QUESTION by JohnM on Sat, 02/03/2007 - 03:50Jack, I had recently posted a response in Burk's thread addressed to Sam that I entitled "A Slightly Different View". This could easily be made applicable here as a response to your fine encouragements. I think I might be able to more adequately see what you are saying if someone can address these questions: 1) Should a covenantal Christian (while living in a body of flesh in the year 2007) be encouraged to overcome sin and temptation? 2) Is there indwelling sin in the flesh of a covenantal Christian? (If, perhaps, one says that sin still dwells in the flesh then how are we to understand the reach of Christ's fulfilled victory over sin and death? If, perhaps, one says that there is now no indwelling sin in the flesh, then are covenantal Christians supposed to view sin as a "mirage" empty of all reality?) I say that sin does, yes, dwell in the flesh. Even after the Parousia. And I conclude that this sin does not spring from the "law of Moses". And I submit that all of this is not in the least bit inconsistent with Christ's victory over Sin and Death. But may I hear how someone with your covenant-theology perspective would answer the above two questions..... JohnM ANSWER by Jack Scott:[ Hi John, Thanks for the question. My answers will be brief and hopefully they will demonstrate the direction my views take on these covenant issues. You wrote:"1) Should a covenantal Christian (while living in a body of flesh in the year 2007) be encouraged to overcome sin and temptation?" My Answer: Scripturally and covenantally speaking, I do not believe that a "covenantal Christian in the year 2007" can live in a "body of flesh." IF they can they "cannot please God" (Rom. 8:8). But if Christ is in you, covenantally, then that Body of flesh is dead (8:10). I would assume that by "body of flesh" you mean biological life in this world. While I do not deny the reality of biological life, or that scripture acknowledges such, I don't believe that is what the phrase "body of flesh" scripturally portrays. For Paul that body was the "body of death" that he wanted deliverance from (Rom. 7:24); it is the corporate body of death, i.e., the body of Moses lived by and under Law. It seems clear to me, that in the Roman context as well as in Galatians (Paul's deepest discussions of this theme), attempting to define "body of flesh" as biological life will not work. It must be seen as a covenantal mode of life lived under law, therefore death, since it is a "ministry of death written and engraved on stones" (2 Cor.3:7). As well, Paul sees freedom from the body of death not through the lens of suspension of natural law, but as life in Christ, i.e., covenant life. Second Question, you wrote: 2) Is there indwelling sin in the flesh of a covenantal Christian? My answer: "Because the law brings about wrath; for where there is no law there is no transgression...For sin shall not have dominion over you, for you are not under law but under grace" (Rom. 4:15; 6:14). "And you know that He was manifested to take away our sins, and in Him there is no sin. Whoever abides in Him does not sin....Whoever has been born of God Does not sin..." ( 1 Jn. 3:5,6,9). The essence of fulfilled redemption is bold access to the presence of God (Heb. 10:19-25) and seeing God face to face (Rev. 22:4). The Bible is clear that nothing can stand in the presence of God unless it is sinless. Covenantally, therefore, we must be viewed as sinless to be redemptively in the presence of God. I know that your question is probably being asked from the same perspective as your first. In that frame of thought, is man still weak, prone to failing and "missing the mark?" Yes! But that is far different than how God views us through the finished, covenantal work of His Son. If we are so prone to fail in biological life, then how can we view ourselves as sinless? How did you do it at conversion? The same God who enabled you to see yourself as sinless at conversion, is the same God who calls us to view ourselves as sinless in Him: "...I will be their God...all shall know me...For I will be merciful to their unrighteousness, and their sins and their lawless deeds I will remember no more" (Heb. 8:10-12). Thanks again John for the question. Hope the answer at least helps you to see where I'm coming from. Jack Scott I have a PowerPoint presentation that Jack Scott did on 1 Cor 15 if you would like that... I will add other links should I manage to find them. I would also ask if others can find his written materials that they notify me as well...thanks. |
|
|
|
Post by mellontes on Feb 4, 2010 16:51:12 GMT -5
I also have Sam Frost's "Exegetical Essays on the Resurrection" in pdf format if anyone desires those as well (648 KB)...
|
|
|
|
Post by Allyn on Feb 4, 2010 17:38:39 GMT -5
I also have Sam Frost's " Exegetical Essays on the Resurrection" in pdf format if anyone desires those as well (648 KB)... I want it |
|
