Do you believe the Bible is infallible? If so, why?

[davo]

But like Paidion, I find rejecting Wright’s convincing reading a tall order.

Well, that’s ok… Wright also rejects your universalism

You appear to simply assert that Greek’s present tense operates nothing like ours (and can’t simply mean that God raises the dead–without specifying when or who), even though Paidion offers an example (Mt 8:31) where it applies to a future event.

Apart from not being germane to the resurrection under discussion, Paidion’s example doesn’t negate the point I’ve made, as you and he so think — trying to grasp the Greek grammar according to English grammar just doesn’t magically work like that. His example is as valid as me trying to claim… so you’ll continue to laugh me to scorn (present tense) IF I don’t eventually come around to your way of thinking (future tense)… as though that somehow negates what is obviously a present tense scenario.

And as for Paidion’s example from Mt 8:31… well, it’s a poor one anyway as such expulsion was ACTUALLY on their IMMEDIATE horizon AND the sending ALL occurred right there and then, as per verse 32 (cf. Rev 2:10). IOW… you are certainly free to agree with Paidion’s example, as you do, no problem… BUT, the Greek doesn’t run as his argument claims BECAUSE any futurity actually runs in the ever present context and thereby, text.

I’ll give you another example as to what I meant by veiled or unintended translational bias, i.e., such translations assume a certain prior position that may not necessarily be so accurate but the conclusions of which are summarily read right back into the text; as again illustrated by the likes of Schweitzer’s conclusions on Jesus etc.

Take for example the Greek word μέλλω mellō, meaning… “about to” and generally carries the force of something or someone being on the verge of…, i.e., something is imminent and NOT far off removed but impending. Consider these NT examples…

Mt 17:12, 22 But I say to you that Elijah has come already, and they did not know him but did to him whatever they wished. Likewise the Son of Man is also about to suffer at their hands.” … Now while they were staying in Galilee, Jesus said to them, “The Son of Man is about to be betrayed into the hands of men,…

Lk 9:44 “Let these words sink down into your ears, for the Son of Man is about to be betrayed into the hands of men.”

Lk 19:11 Now as they heard these things, He spoke another parable, because He was near Jerusalem and because they thought the kingdom of God would appear immediately.

Acts 11:28 Then one of them, named Agabus, stood up and showed by the Spirit that there was going to be a great famine throughout all the world, which also happened in the days of Claudius Caesar.

Acts 25:4 But Festus answered that Paul should be kept at Caesarea, and that he himself was going there shortly.

Acts 27:10 saying, “Men, I perceive that this voyage will end with disaster and much loss, not only of the cargo and ship, but also our lives.

Rev 2:10 Do not fear any of those things which you are about to suffer. Indeed, the devil is about to throw some of you into prison, that you may be tested, and you will have tribulation ten days. Be faithful until death, and I will give you the crown of life.

The particular parsing in all these verses above is μέλλει mellei = 3rd person / present / active / indicative / singular — and rightly rendered “about to” or such equivalents… “would” “intend to” “going to be” etc.

Now let’s look at these verses below regarding more specifically resurrection matters and note the SAME identical Greek word AND same identical parsing and yet notice the subtle differences (inconsistencies) with the English renderings…

Acts 17:31 because He has appointed a day on which He will judge the world in righteousness by the Man whom He has ordained. He has given assurance of this to all by raising Him from the dead.”

Acts 24:15 I have hope in God, which they themselves also accept, that there will be a resurrection of the dead, both of the just and the unjust.

Rev 1:19 Write the things which you have seen, and the things which are, and the things which will take place after this.

The exact same Greek word μέλλει mellei is here translated with the English… “will” and simply reflects the assumed translational bias with regards to… a day / a resurrection, etc out into some nebulous never-never; WHEREAS the original word and its correct parsing identifies quite specifically that ALL such matters were actually about to be, i.e., looming right on THEIR near and more immediate horizon.

[Bob_Wilson]

You appear to assert that Greek’s present tense can’t simply mean that God raises the dead–without specifying when or who, even though Paidion offers an example (Mt 8:31) where the present tense applies to a future event.

Paidion’s example is a poor one as such expulsion was on the immediate horizon… you are free to agree with Paidion’s example… but… any futurity actually runs in the present context.

I found your clauses confusing and admittedly simplified what I’m reading as the essence of your answer to our arguments.

I had taken you to argue that because 1 Corinthians states divine ability to raise the dead in the Greek’s present tense, this can’t refer to future resurrections (necessitating a future tense, but must refer metaphorically to Jews who were presently raised out of the old covenant).

I responded that “the dead are raised” can refer to God’s ability to raise the dead (without specifying any timeframe, and thus also applicable to the future) as well as to Jesus being raised bodily in their day. And Paidion added a supportive example of where the present tense is used of an event still future.

Your dismissal of this appears to simply be that Mt 8’s future event happens quite soon. But why does that change the pivotal reality that present tenses can refer to yet future events? (For that matter if you allow the present tense is applicable to near future events, many scholars think Paul perceived Israel’s hope of a universal bodily resurrection as on his ‘immediate horizon’ anyway).

Are there recognized NT scholars who know Greek tenses well who thus understand as you do that 1 Cor 15’s resurrection of the body is a metaphorical reference to what’s already happened with Israel’s old covenant? My suspicion is that it’s not only N.T. Wright’s ability to recognize the Greek that your unique reading dismisses here.

[davo]

I had taken you to argue that because 1 Corinthians states divine ability to raise the dead in the Greek’s present tense, this can’t refer to future resurrections (necessitating a future tense, but must refer metaphorically to Jews who were presently raised out of the old covenant).

In part you have that somewhat correct BUT I don’t deny the futurity of NT resurrection (as variously presented)… I’m simply pointing out the Greek grammar of “the body” in 1Cor 15 is in the present tense — FACT — indicating as I have previously noted.

I responded that “the dead are raised” can refer to God’s ability to raise the dead (without specifying any timeframe, and thus also applicable to the future) as well as to Jesus being raised bodily in their day.

Yeah and I can agree… but that doesn’t challenge my position on what I’ve stated with regards to 1Cor 15 and “the body”… again I’m simply pointing out there are other ways to view this AND the Greek tense favours the point I’ve made.

And Paidion added a supportive example of where the present tense is used of an event still future.

Yeah… and unconvincing IMO for the reasons already given.

Are there recognized NT scholars who know Greek tenses well who thus understand as you do that 1 Cor 15’s resurrection of the body is a metaphorical reference to what’s already happened with Israel’s old covenant?

Well “recognized”?… none that I’m aware of; or that you might recognise.

My suspicion is that it’s not only N.T. Wright’s ability to recognize the Greek that your unique reading dismisses here.

My suspicion is you’re running your own agenda on this Bob… my initial reference to Wright had in mind, not his Greek grammar ability, but how he has expressed issues of resurrection and what goes with that as being something other than the simplistic… “getting to heaven when you die” motif of American evangelicalism — which I’m pretty sure you not only know this BUT also that that was what I was talking about in the first place when I mentioned him.

The thrust of the Greek, as I understand it, with regards to ‘the body’, i.e., the context IS present tense in 1Cor 15, and yes metaphor in those texts previously demonstrated — like I’m sure Paul’s… “the body of Christ” doesn’t likewise leave you befuddled and confused does it?

[Bob_Wilson]

I don’t deny the futurity of NT resurrection… I’m simply pointing out the Greek grammar of “the body” in 1Cor 15 is in the present tense… with regards to ‘ the body ’, the context IS present tense in 1Cor 15, and yes metaphor in those texts.

Are there recognized NT scholars who know Greek tenses well who thus understand as you do that 1 Cor 15’s resurrection of the body is simply a metaphorical reference to what’s already happened with changing Israel’s old covenant?

None that I’m aware of.

Davo, I appreciate your spirit and detailed response. But in 1 Cor 15, we need to believe “the dead are raised” because some have “fallen asleep” (bodily died?), and if we only hope “for this life,” we are to be pitied (18,19). Does this argument also sound like it simply refers to metaphorically being presently raised out of the old covenant, rather than a future hope of being personally raised up after death?

Paul presents Easter’s eye witnessed resurrection as the example of “the dead are raised.” Is this model also understood as a metaphorical spiritual resurrection, or as so bodily that Jesus’ literal corpse is no more?

Isn’t Wright then correct that Paul’s hope is not going to some spiritual heaven, but that Jesus’ bodily resurrection evidences a stunning first-fruit that bolsters Israel’s 1st century expectation that all the saints (those Paul calls “already asleep” and those still alive will both not miss out on the promised kingdom, but) will one day also be raised in a new body to an actual new earth, since present “flesh & blood” is not suitable for that future promised kingdom?

Since you see “the futurity of NT resurrection,” but don’t think 1 Cor 15 indicates a future or personal resurrection hope, what NT texts do you find do teach such a resurrection?

[Invernessian]

Paul was no false witness and neither was Jesus… BOTH proclaimed God “ raises the dead ” ( present tense ) — there is no hint of anything that smacks of soul sleep or any such variant of yours. Preferably however… always trust Paul AND a correct reading of the Greek: “ If the dead are not being raised… ” — the word ‘raised’ <ἐγείρονται> egeirontai is again in the present tense, an action as occurring at THAT TIME with no hint of one waiting eons in death. Further consider…

Mk 12:26-27 But concerning the dead, that they rise, have you not read in the book of Moses, in the burning bush passage, how God spoke to him, saying, ‘I am the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob’? He is not the God of the dead, but the God of the living. You are therefore greatly mistaken.”

And in case you misread Jesus, his “ He is not the God of the dead ” is no contradiction but a clarification that the dead do indeed exist, thus are not non-existent. Plus Jesus’ “ that they rise ” is actually again in the present tense, i.e., an action in progress… thus suggesting their presence before Him upon death. This would also align with a standard reading of… “ it is appointed for men to die once, and after this judgment ” — NOT eons after this!

I have been fascinated by this discussion. I wish I knew NT Greek, but I don’t. I had an amazing experience a week ago. Davo, I’d appreciate your comment.

April 13 would have been my late wife Alida’s 74th birthday. I visited her grave along with some of our children and grandchildren. I returned home tired and fell asleep in my recliner. I woke up about 40 minutes later and opened my eyes. Alida was standing in the room, a few feet from my chair. She did not say anything, just stood there. I saw her for maybe 6 or 7 seconds, then she was gone.

No, I wasn’t dreaming. I have dreamed about her in the past (see the poem “dreaming of Future Glory” which I posted over a year ago, in the Poetry category). I was wide awake when I saw her. I sat back in my chair and wondered what her appearance meant. I have no doubt she was communicating something to me. Oh, that she could have spoken!

[Paidion]

The exact same Greek word μέλλει mellei is here translated with the English… “ will ” and simply reflects the assumed translational bias with regards to… a day / a resurrection, etc out into some nebulous never-never; WHEREAS the original word and its correct parsing identifies quite specifically that ALL such matters were actually about to be , i.e., looming right on THEIR near and more immediate horizon.

So you claim is that "μελλω always means “about to.”

Not according to the lexicons. The Greek lexicon of the Online Bible Program gives the following meaning as well: to intend, have in mind, think to

Consider the words of Jesus as recorded in Matthew 16:27
For the Son of Man will come in the glory of His Father with His angels, and then He will reward each according to his works. (Matt 16:27 ESV)

That is, “The Son of Man intends to come, etc.”

Did Jesus in His day come in the glory of His Father with His angels and reward everyone according to his works?

[Holy-Fool-P-Zombie]

This is a very excellent article, from today’s Patheos’ Catholic newsletter:

Triduum and the Mystery of the Atonement

Let me quote from it in depth. Perhaps this take is what is “infallible”:

As far as I’ve been given to understand, some of my Protestant brothers and sisters– not all, not even most, but a certain school– have a notion of the Fall and the Atonement that goes something like this:

‘In the beginning was God the Father, and God the Father was a terrible abusive grouch. We’re not really allowed to call Him a terrible abusive grouch, of course, because He will be angry with us. But we’re allowed to talk about the things He did. God the Father created the earth in seven literal days, and then He created two naked people and placed them in a paradise in which there was a literal tree with poisoned fruit. He told them not to eat the fruit, but the naked people were so stupid they ate it anyway just because a snake told them it would make them wise. And God the Father was so angry with them that He cursed His whole entire world to death and entropy. He also condemned the naked people and all their descendants to a lifetime of shame and hard work ending in the pit of hell. Jesus Christ, our codependent older Brother, jumped in front of His angry Father and accepted as much of this wrathful punishment as He could take upon Himself instead of letting it fall on us, and so everyone who does exactly what this same Christ says will be spared the Father’s wrath. Instead of Hell, we will have the privilege of living with our abusive Father in Heaven for all eternity. Why we would want to, is another story.”

This is not what I believe.

I believe that In the Beginning was God the Father who is eternal– that is, outside time– and with Him always was His only begotten Son, Whom the Father loved with everything that the Father was, and the Son loved back with everything that He was, and the love between the two was the Holy Ghost, and that is the Holy Trinity. I’m speaking in terms of metaphor and poetry about the Holy Trinity– because the Holy Trinity, being much more enormous than the Heavens, the Earth and the Fall of Man, is even more hopeless to speak of with mortal tongue. But the Holy Trinity is something like an eternal Waterfall of perfect Love from the Father to the Son and back again, One God forever and ever, unto the ages of ages, Amen.

And one day– speaking figuratively, because there are no days outside of time– the Father determined to give the Son a beautiful present, and the present was you and me, each of us individually the very best present the Father could come up with for His Son. And at the very same not-time, the Father also thought of us, and how He would love for us to exist and be One with Him, and how much He would love to give His only-begotten Son to us for a beautiful present. His intention was both of those things together as one idea– us perfectly happy and His Son delighted. The Father can’t will things halfheartedly the way humans in our finitude have to do. The Father is a Being who pours His whole Self out; He doesn’t ever do things by halves.

The Son fell in love with us at once. He said that He Himself would become human like us and walk among us. The Father was always going to lift us up to Paradise to be one with the Holy Trinity, but this was the way that the Holy Trinity decided to work it out– by God becoming Man, so that Man could become God.

And again, that’s a mythical, poetic way of speaking as best I can about the Mind of God, which is infinitely beyond me.

So God Who never does anything by halves created a universe: impossibly vast, impossibly complex, impossibly beautiful, full of things He thought we might like to see and learn about like comets and nebulae and atoms. And in a favorable part of this universe He placed a planet that could sustain the kind of life He decided humans would have, and He watered the soil of the planet with liquid water, and through ways I can’t explain to you He made living things to rise out of that primordial mud He’d made. And the living things bred and died for millions of years and some of their bones became fossils because God thought we might like to dig up fossils and admire them. And eventually, we existed.

And then we sinned.

I can’t explain that bit. Sin doesn’t really make sense. Everything that is what it should be is good, and everything that falls short of the mark is bad insofar as it falls short, and choosing to sin means choosing to fall short of the mark on purpose. Some traditions call every falling short of the mark, even by accident, even in purely natural things like getting sick or falling asleep when you didn’t mean to, sin, but I’m talking about a choice for sin. I guess the easiest way of explaining it is to say that it’s like eating the fruit of a tree you know to be poison, even though your loving Father told you not to, because a serpent told you it would help you see the difference between good and evil.

In any case, we sinned, we fell from grace, we aren’t what we should be now– not in our bodily life and certainly not in our walk with the Father who loves us with everything the Father Is, because the Father doesn’t do things by halves.

And what about the Son? He was going to come be with us as a human, and in being with us draw us up into Paradise. But being human meant being in a fallen place full of horrors, where people behaved horribly and had horrible things happen to them. It would even involve a descent into Hell– Hell being the name of the void you turn toward, when you turn away from everything that is Good. Everyone who has turned away from Good has been to hell, a little.

He chose to come anyway.

He chose to become a Man like us in all things but sin: a Man with a Body and a Soul, a certain DNA pattern, belonging to a certain tribe of a certain race of people in a certain place at a certain time.

On the night before He was to suffer, that is, tonight, He took bread, broke it and gave it to you, saying “This is my Body.” And you received the Body of Christ and were made one with the Body of Christ. And then He sang a hymn, and went out with you to Gethsemane, and suffered agony with you. And then He went with you on your Via Dolorosa, carried you on His shoulder, and suffered all of your pain in His own flesh. He was nailed to your cross, consummated the marriage and drank the wine with you, and then He gave up the Ghost and descended into your hell.

And then He rose, drawing you with Him, and now you have hope. Even though you are not yet home with Him in Eternity, even though you may feel at this moment that you are still on the cross or in Hell, and that He has abandoned you. Because you are one with the Body of Christ, and as surely as you drank the chalice with Him, He will draw you into the eternal Life of the Holy Trinity.

Of course I don’t understand the Atonement.

But if I were to venture to speak about it, I would speak about it this way.

The author also included this YouTube video - in the article:

Perhaps this author is wrong. And they have technology, to screen applications - before they enter heaven!

[Paidion]

I believe that In the Beginning was God the Father who is eternal– that is, outside time–…

“OUTSIDE OF TIME”

What in the world does that mean? I understand “time” to refer to the temporal “distance” between events.
As long as there are events, there is time. If there were no events at all, there would be no time. But "outside time?—a meaningless concept.

[Holy-Fool-P-Zombie]

I believe that In the Beginning was God the Father who is eternal– that is, outside time–…

“OUTSIDE OF TIME”

What in the world does that mean? I understand “time” to refer to the temporal “distance” between events.
As long as there are events, there is time. If there were no events at all, there would be no time. But "outside time?—a meaningless concept.

I have no clue. Please ask the article author, in their comments section!

However, this “meaningless” concept…has provoked an active and engaging discussion - on Quora!

What does it mean when people say that God is outside of time and space? In what sense do they mean time and space? Can God not have any direct involvement in our world since he does not exist in our dimension?

And science does have a bit, to say about it!

Does light experience time?

[Paidion]

Never heard of such a thing! All the science I ever read says that light travels at about 186,000 miles per second. If the sun disappeared at this instant, you would still see its light for 8 minutes!

https://www.space.com/15830-light-speed.html

[Holy-Fool-P-Zombie]

Never heard of such a thing! All the science I ever read says that light travels at about 186,000 miles per second. If the sun disappeared at this instant, you would still see its light for 8 minutes!

https://www.space.com/15830-light-speed.html

Well, I posted some articles and videos for you. See what they have to say! Or we can take a lesson from Curly, on how to tell time! Speaking of time! It’s probably time for me…to watch non-redeeming and nonsensical TV shows.

[Paidion]

Well, I posted some articles and videos for you. See what they have to say!

Well… I looked at the first video, and thought it ludicrous. Of course photons don’t experience time. They don’t experience anything. Photons are not conscious beings. As he said, “Photons don’t think.”
For the same reason light does not experience time either. Light has no consciousness either! None of that negates the fact that light takes time to travel. 186,000 miles per second.

[davo]

I had an amazing experience a week ago. Davo, I’d appreciate your comment.

April 13 would have been my late wife Alida’s 74th birthday. I visited her grave along with some of our children and grandchildren. I returned home tired and fell asleep in my recliner. I woke up about 40 minutes later and opened my eyes. Alida was standing in the room, a few feet from my chair. She did not say anything, just stood there. I saw her for maybe 6 or 7 seconds, then she was gone.

No, I wasn’t dreaming. I have dreamed about her in the past (see the poem “dreaming of Future Glory” which I posted over a year ago, in the Poetry category). I was wide awake when I saw her. I sat back in my chair and wondered what her appearance meant. I have no doubt she was communicating something to me. Oh, that she could have spoken!

I couldn’t really give an explanation for your experience Invernessian other than to think it might be indicative of your intense and immense longing for your precious Alida who you miss beyond measure… and yet she is ever-so close just on the other side of life.

[davo]

The exact same Greek word μέλλει mellei is here translated with the English… “ will ” and simply reflects the assumed translational bias with regards to… a day / a resurrection, etc out into some nebulous never-never; WHEREAS the original word and its correct parsing identifies quite specifically that ALL such matters were actually about to be , i.e., looming right on THEIR near and more immediate horizon.

So you claim is that "μελλω always means “about to.”

Not according to the lexicons. The Greek lexicon of the Online Bible Program gives the following meaning as well: to intend, have in mind, think to

IF only you read more and reacted less… did you not see I included the following in my post above?

The particular parsing in all these verses above is μέλλει mellei = 3rd person / present / active / indicative / singular — and rightly rendered “ about to ” or such equivalents… “ would ” “ intend to ” “ going to be ” etc.

Now of course context and sentence structure helps as a guide in determining such, but let’s use your carte blanch intends and see how it reads…

Jn 4:47 When he heard that Jesus had come out of Judea into Galilee, he went to Him and implored Him to come down and heal his son, for he was at the point of death.

IOW, you would have this reading… “When he heard that Jesus had come out of Judea into Galilee, he went to Him and implored Him to come down and heal his son, for he intends to die.” — sorry but NO!

You want that sort of reading then try this…

Acts 16:27 And the keeper of the prison, awaking from sleep and seeing the prison doors open, supposing the prisoners had fled, drew his sword and was about to kill himself. — i.e., intended to, BUT still rendered “about to”

Was “about to” which IS the root meaning of μέλλω sensibly and logically fits. Just go back to my previous post which you didn’t read properly and see how much sense “intends” makes in those verses… it fits a few BUT definitely would be inappropriate with most, whereas “about to” is a natural fit… as it is also with Mt 16:27.

[davo]

In 1 Cor 15, we need to believe “the dead are raised” because some have “fallen asleep” (bodily died?), and if we only hope “for this life,” we are to be pitied (18,19).

Of course… there is more to life than meets the eye. But the question of “the dead” of which certain gentiles were denying needs considering. Did it never strike you as ODD that certain believers in Corinth were saying there is NO resurrection of the dead… like how weird, it makes no sense? Well yes, it DOES make some sense when you put yourself in their C1 mindset.

By way of background information: Paul confronted two major errors in the early church — one was ‘Jewish particularism’ via the Judaisers, and the other… ‘Gentile separatism’ among certain ones who thought more highly of themselves than they ought.

There were among some of the early Jewish congregations “zealots” who were insisting upon Gentile believers the observance of circumcision and other ‘OC law’ rites, much to the consternation of Paul who said such zealots should maybe go the whole way with themselves Gal 5:12; Acts 15:1-2 rather than impose that which God did away with in Christ.

On the other side of the coin, Paul had to deal with the growing superiority complex certain gentile converts were exhibiting in their false and errant belief that God had now done with historic Israel in transferring His blessing, as they saw it, to them. Probably the first instance of what might be considered ‘replacement theology’ — BOTH groups were wrong in their conclusions as Paul vociferously argues.

These gentiles understood, correctly, that historic or OC Israel constituted “the dead” — “dead in trespasses and sins” — what they had wrong however was that God had indeed promised “resurrection” i.e., covenant restoration to Israel, of which gentiles in the gospel were coming in on Israel’s coat-tails — albeit divinely purposed. Bottom line… o resurrection = no salvation.

You can see this same gentile error in Romans where Paul chides certain believers accordingly: “remember… you don’t support the root (Abraham/Israel) BUT the root supports you!” “has God cast aside His people? Certainly not!” “do not be haughty, but fear”.

Thus “the dead” = Israel… and Jesus we know was the first to rise from the dead, i.e., out of OC Israel…

Acts 26:22-23 Therefore, having obtained help from God, to this day I stand, witnessing both to small and great, saying no other things than those which the prophets and Moses said would come— that the Christ would suffer, that He would be the first to rise from the dead, and would proclaim light to the Jewish people and to the Gentiles.”

We know well from Scripture that Jesus, in fact, WAS NOT “the first” to rise literally-biologically from the death, and yet here Paul seemingly says otherwise — is this a contradiction? The answer is no. There are numerous occurrences of “literal-biological resurrections” recorded in the Bible BEFORE Christ’s and some after — and there is NO biblical distinction between a supposed resuscitation or some supposed true death as some claim — death was death!

So what was Paul really saying? He was saying Jesus was THE FIRST to rise up out of old covenant body of Israel i.e., “the dead” as new Israel, aka new creation. Jesus was THE resurrection, THE new Israel. Resurrection for Israel was NOT about biological anastasis BUT covenant restoration; “the restoration of all things” (Acts 3:21) begun in Christ and was further outworked through his firstfruit saints of the “this generation” AD30-70 era.

Thus when in 1Cor 15 some were contending that “the dead rise not” what they were really saying was “God has forsaken Israel” — yet this couldn’t have been further from the truth. Paul rebukes this and points out the obvious… IF Israel the dead be not raised, aka covenantally restored, as per the promises, THEN surely you Gentiles are not as well… BECAUSE new covenant life that came to the world came through Israel (Jn 4:22) and in particular Jesus, as Israel personified i.e., true Israel Isa 5:1-7; Jn 15:1.

[Bob_Wilson]

[quote=“davo, post:346, topic:14070, full:true”]

In 1 Cor 15, we need to believe “the dead are raised” because some have “fallen asleep” (bodily died?), and if we only hope “for this life,” we are to be pitied (18,19).

Does this argument also sound like it simply refers to metaphorically being presently raised out of the old covenant, rather than a future hope of being personally raised up after death?

"Historic Israel constituted “the dead,” however God had indeed promised “resurrection” i.e., covenant restoration to Israel. Thus “the dead” = Israel… and Jesus we know was the first to rise from the dead, i.e., out of OC Israel…

Paul is really saying Jesus was THE FIRST to rise up out of old covenant body of Israel… Resurrection for Israel was NOT about biological anastasis BUT covenant restoration… So when in 1Cor 15 some were contending that “the dead rise not” what they were really saying was “*God has forsaken Israel"."

Davo,

O.K. I argued that concern here about those who have “fallen asleep” and those who only have hope “for this life” sounds like the context is whether there is personal resurrection life beyond our death. And I take your response to be “No,” that you hear this language as a metaphorical concern about whether Israel remains God’s covenant people. Is that right?

And when you say that Paul’s proclamation of Jesus as the first one rising from the dead meant that Jesus metaphorically came out of old covenant Israel, does that imply that 15:3-6’s setting of Christ “rising” and appearing to many witnesses was expected to be understood by Corinth as a metaphorical resurrection out of OC Israel, rather than Jesus literally overcoming physical death?

When you say that “resurrection” for 1st century Israel was not about rising from “biological” death, I find NT Wright persuasive that they DID look for a bodily resurrection, as in Dan. 12:3’s “Multitudes who sleep in the dust of the earth will awake: some to everlasting life, others to shame and everlasting contempt.” And when Corinthian Gentiles said the dead don’t rise, I take them to be embracing the Sadducees skepticism that there is NO resurrection to a life beyond physical death.

And when Paul speaks of Jesus rising first, I hear him as seeing him as the first one to rise in the new kingdom age, the first to rise to a deathless eternal life, being thus the precursor of our hope to share in Israel’s expectation of a universal eternal resurrection, and that he means that Jesus literally rose out of a physical grave (and not that he meant that Jesus “rose out of OC Israel”). And that this triumph over the grave is what gives Paul hope that deceased loved ones “already asleep” will still be able to join in the promised future kingdom.

If you think even 1 Cor 15 does not reflect Paul’s belief in a future resurrection (but really only refers to what was already going on), what texts lead you to think Paul believed in a future resurrection?

[Holy-Fool-P-Zombie]

Well… I looked at the first video, and thought it ludicrous. Of course photons don’t experience time. They don’t experience anything . Photons are not conscious beings. As he said, “Photons don’t think.”
For the same reason light does not experience time either. Light has no consciousness either! None of that negates the fact that light takes time to travel. 186,000 miles per second.

I think the original author, said something to the effect:: “that God exists outside of time.” And I believe (correct me if I’m wrong), you think something to this effect: “Time is man’s measure of the gap, between two observed events”. Which is a watering down, of philosopher Immanuel Kant’s way - of organizing perception…since we can’t see, the ‘thing in and of itself’ - as he puts it.

So let me correct the original author’s statement…along with an addendum, to the speed of light constant:

• Whether time is man’s capacity, of organizing chronological events…Or something more than that…God exists both within - and outside - of time (whatever that is).

• 186 K is the current measurement, of the speed of light…by all known scientific theories, measurements and experiments…but that could be overturned, by future scientific theories, experiments and discoveries

Although there are articles, that call into question - the speed of light:

Speed of Light May Not Be Constant, Physicists Say

Speed of Light No Longer the Limit

And I might add, for those considered Saints or Holy People (whatever the tradition)…time (or our perception of time), can act differently. And a Saint or Holy Person, is anyone who follows the Red Road (or the equivalent) - to its ultimate conclusion. Let me share a story, of a Sufi saint:

Talks with a Sufi Shaykh

Now I am not talking about just Shaykh Taner, you will find this with any real Shaykh.

For a case in point, many years ago I was asked to drive a Mevlevi Shaykh from the town where he was staying to a lecture he had to give at a university about a hundred miles away. As we hit the freeway we ran right into the mother of all traffic jams. A diesel semi had jack knifed, closing all lanes. By the time the road was open again we had an hour to travel the hundred miles rather than two and a half hours.

I told the Shaykh that we were going to be late and he said “Allah knows best. Just put your heart in the place we are going, do the speed limit (which was 55 mph at the time) and ignore the clock.”

So I did just that, and for some odd reason, even though I never went over 55 mph we arrived at our destination with ten minutes to spare.

Don’t ask me how, I don’t know. But it did happen, and it was a very nice lecture.

Anyway, since it is Easter…let me share this, from RC priest’s Richard Rohh, newsletter today:

Looking at artwork can help us understand the two different theologies. John Dominic Crossan studied images of the resurrection and found that Western art often shows Jesus walking alone out of the tomb carrying a white flag, as if to say, “Look at me! I made it!” Western theology declared “Jesus rose from the dead” as an individual. This fourteenth century painting by Italian Andrea di Bonaiuto is an example. [1]

The Eastern Church saw the resurrection in at least three ways: the trampling of hell, the corporate leading out of hell, and the corporate uplifting of humanity with Christ . [2] In Eastern icons of the resurrection, sometimes called “The Harrowing of Hell,” Jesus is surrounded by many people as he stands astride the pit of hell (as shown by this week’s banner from a medieval Byzantine church in Istanbul). [3] There are chains, bolts, and locks flying in all directions. In many interpretations, Hades—the god of death, not to be confused with Satan—is bound at the bottom of the pit, while Jesus pulls Adam and Eve, symbols of all humanity, out of hell. This is a very different message that never made it to the Western Church, either Catholic or Protestant. Eastern imagery suggests a hopeful message that is not only about Jesus but about society, humanity, and history itself.

Perhaps we need a song, to emphasize all these “time” ideas?

[Paidion]

Now of course context and sentence structure helps as a guide in determining such, but let’s use your carte blanch intends and see how it reads…

Perhaps if you read more and reacted less, you would know I wasn’t excluding the meaning “about to” (or “at the point of”). However, it seemed to me that you insisted on “about to” in all contexts. If that is not the case, "“Exusé moi!”

[davo]

Yeah qaz haven’t forgotten, it’s still on my to-do list

[davo]

O.K. I argued that concern here about those who have “fallen asleep” and those who only have hope “for this life” sounds like the context is whether there is personal resurrection life beyond our death. And I take your response to be “No,” that you hear this language as a metaphorical concern about whether Israel remains God’s covenant people. Is that right?

It’s not even so much an either-or scenario given that… if some do sleep, what does it matter IF there is no resurrection (which was being assumed by some concerning some) — which whole assumption was completely wrong, i.e., the point and logic of Paul’s retort.

And when you say that Paul’s proclamation of Jesus as the first one rising from the dead meant that Jesus metaphorically came out of old covenant Israel, does that imply that 15:3-6’s setting of Christ “rising” and appearing to many witnesses was expected to be understood by Corinth as a metaphorical resurrection out of OC Israel, rather than Jesus literally overcoming physical death?

No… I argued the body was a metaphor for Israel. Jesus rose quite literally from death — AS DID numerous others BEFORE him — so HOW can Paul claim as he did in Acts 26:23 that Jesus was THE FIRST? Simple, BECAUSE Paul chooses his words… he didn’t say Jesus was the first to rise from death (as most evangelicals, yourself included read it) but that Jesus the first to rise “from the dead ones” [plural] i.e., OC Israel… the first of the firstfruits, i.e., NC Israel!

Jesus’ very literal resurrection was the evidence to Israel HE had been appointed the world’s Lord with power (Acts 2:36; Rom 1:3-4), BUT his resurrection did not necessitate the like-for-like resurrection for all and sundry following that you envision… and certainly Paul’s message to his audience did not necessitate such to where they were then questioning… will the departed dead be individually literally raised in a physical body? For more on Paul’s specific metaphor on this note his clear teaching and example right here…

Rom 6:5-6 For if we have been united together in the likeness of His death, certainly we also shall be in the likeness of His resurrection, knowing this, that our old man was crucified with Him, that the body of sin might be done away with, that we should no longer be slaves of sin.

Please tell me you DON’T believe said “likeness” means LITERAL like-for-like physical? If it doesn’t then HOW should one understand such… metaphorically by any chance? Would such a notion denude the power of the passage and confuse anyone? I’d hope not but who knows maybe it does? These believers did not experience literal crucifixion nor literal resurrection YET here Paul explicitly has them identified FULLY with Christ’s work, at that time; AND none of that denied any futurity of post-mortem ascension to God’s presence, BUT it does keep the continuity of Paul’s message that… “even so we also should walk in newness of life” i.e., resurrection life, as per vs. 4.

Now, you keep deferring to your understanding of Wright, so what in fact DOES Wright say…

The death and resurrection of Jesus are the inauguration of the promised new age; and this ‘age to come’ is the long awaited time of deliverance. The Jewish metaphorical meaning (resurrection as rescue and restoration of Israel after exile and oppression) is retained but transformed: the divine rescue operation through Jesus is for all people, and delivers Jew and Gentile alike from the present evil age.
Wright, N.T., The Resurrection of the Son of God, p. 220

…an example of Jewish metaphorical usage: ‘resurrection’ as the rescue of Israel from oppression and exile, coming true in a new way in the person of Paul himself, in a transformation which is rooted in the events of Jesus’ own death and resurrection and which results on Paul’s bearing a new identity, no longer defined by his ‘fleshly’ existence…Paul is here speaking of dying and rising in a metaphorical sense. He has not actually died physically, or been raised physically. But the referent of the metaphor remains a concrete reality, namely his identity as a renewed human being and his table-fellowship with all those who have similarly ‘died and been raised.’
Wright, N.T., The Resurrection of the Son of God, p. 220-221

You may want to read those quotes again Bob.

When you say that “resurrection” for 1st century Israel was not about rising from “biological” death, I find NT Wright persuasive that they DID look for a bodily resurrection, as in Dan. 12:3’s “Multitudes who sleep in the dust of the earth will awake: some to everlasting life, others to shame and everlasting contempt.”

Well, Wright does seem to have a bob-each-way, but it’s a little inconsistent IMO given his very strong, clear and unequivocal views just outlaid above. I understand the Daniel passage in light of Jesus’ use of it as per the John passage and in accord with what I’ve previously shared.

Just an aside… the LXX OG translation of that Daniel passage certainly favours literal deportation that occurred in times of war giving further credence of the same as occurring in the Roman-Jewish wars of AD66-70, thus placing the likes of Jesus’ words VERY MUCH in the present THIS LIFE scenario I advocate…

Dan 12:2 LXX OG And many of those who sleep in the flat of the earth will arise, some to everlasting life but others to shame and others to dispersion and contempt everlasting.

And when Corinthian Gentiles said the dead don’t rise, I take them to be embracing the Sadducees skepticism that there is NO resurrection to a life beyond physical death.

Incredulity and desperate are two words that come to mind and none too convincing IMO…