Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Location: In a little house on the prairie - literally
10,202 posts, read 7,925,051 times
Reputation: 4561
Advertisements
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vizio
Yes, I am. I'm not at all impressed with the "learned historians and theologians" that you would quote from to back up your view.
Being just a wee bit presuppositional, are we? Vizio, for some reason, you just dislike new evidence when it conflicts with your preconceived ideology.
That is not an open mind, nor is it an admirable quality. You just don't like change, do you?
Have you read 1 Corinthians 15? Paul pretty much says that if Jesus didn't actually, physically rise from the dead, then he was a fool to be pitied more than anyone. His message is vain if Jesus did not physically rise from the dead. This is no metaphor--he actually did rise.
Quote:
Originally Posted by OzzyRules
Like I said earlier, I don't care about anything else that "Paul" supposedly wrote. You don't even know if he wrote that part of that chapter or not, or if he did, if it was intended to be symbolic of the flesh and the spirit.
You know what I am saying is true.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cupper3
He didn't "pick and choose" what to read.
He was questioning the veracity that the writing was not all from Paul. Many learned historians and theologians agree. Are you that learned to question them?
Actually, there seems to be no question regarding the authenticity of any part of I Corinthians 15 by scholars. In fact, the only parts of 1 Corinthians which some, not ''many,'' but some scholars question is 1 Corinthians 1:2b and 14:33b-35. Quoting Drs. D. A. Carson and Douglas J. Moo who in turn cite Drs. H. L. Goudge and and Raymond F. Collins concerning the integrity of 1 Corinthians,
Relatively few voices question the Pauline origins of 1 Corinthians. Some have argued that 14:33b-35 is a non-Pauline interpolation (see comments below in the section "Text"). Others have suggested the same for 1:2b, on the grounds that, since the letter was specifically written for the Corinthians, the words ''together with all those everywhere who call on the name of our Lord Jesus Christ---their Lord and ours," are utterly out of place. This misreads Paul rather badly, on two grounds.
[An Introduction to the New Testment, D. A. Carson & Douglas J. Moo, pp. 442-443]
Nor have I found elsewhere that any part of 1 Corinthians 15 is thought to be anything other than authentic. If you have, then please link to it or otherwise provide source material supporting the argument.
Regarding whether Paul was referring to a literal, physical, bodily resurrection, or to a ''spiritual'' resurrection of some kind, Paul was a Pharisee and the Pharisees and other Jews who believed in a resurrection (not all Jews did; the Sadducees for example), believed in a physical, literal bodily resurrection which would occur at the end of the age. The belief was that everyone would be resurrected at the end of the age.
Some quotes from Dr. N. T. Wright regarding the belief in a bodily resurrection.
When the ancient classical world spoke of (and denied) resurrection, there should be no controversy about what the word and its cognates referred to: it was a coming back again into something like the same sort of life that humans presently experience. [p. 33]
When the ancient Greek-speaking world spoke of anastasis and its equivalents, as we saw at the start of this chapter, they did not mean that the existence into which the dead passed immediately was a continuing bodily one, but that at some point after bodily death, there would be a new embodiment, a coming back into this-worldly sort of life. [p.47]
It is commonly asserted, often indeed simply assumed, that Paul held what in the modern sense is called a 'spiritual' view of the resurrection, that is, one for which a body, and an empty tomb would be irrelevant. This whole Part of the book is designed not least to argue conclusively against this idea, and in particular against a disastrous mistranslation in 1 Corinthians 15 which has given it wide currency. [p.213]
[The Resurrection of the Son of God, N.T. Wright]
Dr. Wright has much more to say on the subject of resurrection, but I'm only allowed to quote so much. Interested readers can read the book.
Yes, Paul was referring to a literal, physical, bodily resurrection of Jesus as were the Gospel writers.
Last edited by Michael Way; 06-25-2016 at 02:24 PM..
Have you read 1 Corinthians 15? Paul pretty much says that if Jesus didn't actually, physically rise from the dead, then he was a fool to be pitied more than anyone. His message is vain if Jesus did not physically rise from the dead. This is no metaphor--he actually did rise.
He never said Jesus PHYSICALLY rose, he simply said He rose. Did you stop reading 1 Cor 15 before verse 35 and the rest??? If you read 1 Cor 35-58, you would NOT be continuing to maintain that it was a physical resurrection of our physical (natural) body. It was a Spiritual body and our ancient ancestors were terrified of Spirits. That is why there was a need to feed them only "carnal milk" and make it seem as if Jesus rose physically despite walking through walls and closed doors.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
