Well ultimately, what begins with the firstfruits has the beneficial outcome for the entire harvest, i.e., Israel was the firstfruits of and on behalf of all creation (Jer 2:3). Through their failure however that calling was “given to another” (Mt 21:43; 1Pet 2:8-9), they being… Jesus and his firstfruit saints; of which the process in ministration then became… to the Jew (Israel) first, and then the Greek (gentiles).
None of the above is a problem… AND none of the above requires a biological resurrection beyond Jesus to be true, AND given the present tense of the the body language of Paul in 1Cor 15 (and I refer you to Frost’s treatment as above) requires a biological resurrection either for such to be true… AS THE present tense thereby demonstrates — your biological resurrection IS your sacred cow!
The assurance YOU yourself mooted in your last post to me.
Ok… so I found where you said this…
So eternal life by this reckoning can NEVER really be true UNTIL you have a biological resurrection? Well Jesus says that, where? In fact you have to employ your same tactic for ignoring the present tense in 1Cor 15 to the likes of Jesus’ statement in Jn 17:3 regarding ‘eternal life’ which are in the present tense — very much a THIS life reality speaking to the fullness of LIFE, i.e., Jn 10:10. IF you are to be consistent how do you get around this?
As to being “unique”… bodily how? Jesus had the self-same body post-resurrection as he had prior AND performed the same kind of unique natural realm defying kind of stuff pre-resurrection that he did post-resurrection, e.g., Mt 14:25; Jn 16:19.
I suspect inevitably no doubt, however… and not saying you should agree, but did you understand Frost’s far more scholarly treatment of the body as per Paul use of it in 1Cor 15?
Chad to DaveB2.0
Well, I’m the first one to admit…I hang with some bad dudes…but I guess it depends, on one’s perspective! Zombies aren’t all that bad - at times - mind you!
MM, I agree. I may be in the minority, but I’ll stick with my view that the Bible isn’t talking about life after physical death. As they say, "If it doesn’t make sense literally then don’t take it so. However, at some point in time, people claimed the Bible to be the infallible word of God and suddenly we seem to have lost all sense and believe that animals are literally talking, dead bodies are literally coming out of the ground etc.etc. We seem to have no problems figuring out what people are saying when we read any other piece of literature, when we listen to music, or when we talk like this on a daily basis. We know what Billy Joel’s talking about in “We Didn’t Start the Fire”.(Take it from here HF:smiley:) But, in reading the Bible, somehow there’s a literal burning hell awaiting us after physical death. We’ve all heard the phrase, “We will rise from the ashes.”, we use it all the time, and know what it means. But again, somehow in the Bible it means something else?? I don’t get it.
They key is when something in the bible… is figurative language and when it is literal language. Which could be the difference, between how Davo (non-traditional) and Bob (traditional) - sees things. And Davo sees something as figurative, that Bob sees as literal - and vice versa.
And just because someone hasn’t seen, heard, witnessed or experienced something - doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist.
There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio,
Than are dreamt of in your philosophy.
- Hamlet (1.5.167-8), Hamlet to Horatio
Take zombies, for example. Most folks haven’t see one yet. But folks in Haiti - where Voodoo is the norm - see them as common place.
“If the doors of perception were cleansed every thing would appear to man as it is, Infinite. For man has closed himself up, till he sees all things thro’ narrow chinks of his cavern.”
― William Blake
It’s like that old song:
HF, This is why Paul advises us to be of sound mind, so that we are not drawn away from our purpose in THIS life by every whim and imagination. We are here to create a better place for ourselves, others and the children of the future.
Somewhere on the forum, I shared a true story - from Haiti. It was about a couple, of western trained clergy…who graduated from Western Protestant seminaries…and were assigned to Haiti…but after spending some time there…they starting talking about zombies, as if they were real and commonplace there. I would assume these 2 theologians and church clergy, were of “sound mind” - as Paul would put it.
When a massive earthquake devastated Haiti some years ago, I was on the ground shortly thereafter as chaos reigned and decomposing bodies filled the streets.
Driving around with two seminary professors with doctorates from very conservative American schools that don’t even much believe in supernatural miracles continuing today, I was shocked when they casually began speaking about the zombie problem in Haiti. Apparently, it was a reality they had dealt with on multiple occasions in their pastoral ministry.
I’m sorry, your clarification has me lost. Your assertion that what I’m fearful of losing is “biological resurrection” is a term unfamiliar to me. Where did I propose that resurrection life is that? I assume instead that “flesh and blood can not inherit the kingdom of God.”
While you assert that Jesus had his same biological body after death, I don’t think Paul’s words argue that! Also, many scholars pick up on Jesus ability to appear and disappear, to not be recognized by the Emmaus road disciples, go through walls, etc. It’s unclear to me that he manifests in the same physical body, but appears more in sync with Paul’s conception of an analogy of seed and plant in 1 Cor. 15.
My argument was not that Jesus’ defeat of death such that we will be able to have endless life
was based on him being raised with his old biological body. I actually think the apostles just see
his accomplishment of defeating death as lying in his identity as the Son who pleased the Father
who chose to graciously make him both victorious Lord and Christ.
3 Likes
Bob to Davo
It’s also the “same fruits”, one can experience…by taking a contemplative path - to its ultimate conclusion. Whether that path is Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Tibetan Buddhist, Islamic Sufi, Native American spirituality, etc.
Let me share a segment or two, from the newsletter today - of RC priest Richard Rohr:
At the resurrection, Jesus was revealed as the eternal and deathless Christ in embodied form. Basically , one circumscribed body of Jesus morphed into ubiquitous Light. Light is perhaps the best metaphor for Christ or God.
Back in 1967, my systematic theology professor, Fr. Cyrin Maus, OFM, told us that if a video camera had been placed in front of Jesus’ tomb, it wouldn’t have filmed a lone man emerging from a grave (which would be resuscitation more than resurrection). More likely, he felt, it would’ve captured something like beams of light extending in all directions.
In the resurrection, the single physical body of Jesus moved beyond all limits of space and time into a new notion of physicality and light—which includes all of us in its embodiment. Christians called this the “glorified body,” and it is similar to what Hindus and Buddhists sometimes call the “subtle body.” This is pictured by a halo or aura, which Catholics placed around “saints” to show that they already participated in the one shared Light.
People who are properly aligned with Love and Light—“enlightened”—will always see in holistic ways, regardless of their denomination or religion.
I just “extend” that one sacred light, to ALL who follow a contemplative path - to its ultimate conclusion - regardless of tradition.
1 Like
Given your assumed acumen, but that I manage to continually leave to lost and confused and in unfamiliar territory, go figure… what at least is your feedback on Frost’s scholarly treatment of 1Cor 15 — regardless of agreement did you understand what he was saying?
I think the writer to the Hebrews makes it clear that those who will be with the Lord constitute a limited company:
Strive for… the holiness without which no one will see the Lord. (Hebrews 12:14)
But the understanding of the coming Apocalypse… in other words the Roman destruction of Jerusalem would well fall within those parameters…
The phrase “no one” means “no one”—not “no one who happened to live during the days when Jerusalem was being destroyed around A.D. 70.”
Taken as a generalised carte blanch statement (which it wasn’t) such becomes good ole’ ‘them / us’ Calvinism. Writer’s intent, however, was to encourage believers in their own witness and walk as they made straight paths in their progress in grace in ministering healing strength and peace… don’t read in isolation, read the context.
"Biological resurrection” is a term unfamiliar to me.
“Given that I manage to continually leave you confused… what at least is your feedback on Frost’s scholarly treatment of 1Cor 15 — did you understand what he was saying?”
Davo, Thanks, yes, I never studied under or engaged anyone who advocated “biological” resurrection, at least in terms of what that sounds like to me. Do you truly think the Gospels assert that?
Yes, I understood Frost to be echoing your arguments that we engaged (and seeking to overturn the consensus reading here), which appear subject to the same critiques I offered. I don’t see his reading as fitting 1 Corinthian’s concerns on what will yet happen with brothers who’ve already fallen asleep.
I frankly find in most dialogues that critiquing the language of third party’s longer videos or essays usually complicates the confusion (esp.,that we then end up debating how yet another person’s words should be interpreted), and so I tried to focus on engaging your own expression of your understanding.
But if you want to outline a point from Frost for my reaction that you perceive as new or salient, I’ll try to offer my take. Until then, I affirm our hope of a future tense resurrection.
It’s not “them versus us.” What in the world leads you to relate the writer’s words to Calvinism?
It’s very simple. The writer states that without holiness no one will see the Lord. Holiness is a necessity in order to be acceptable by God.
Let’s say a person is required to deposit a token at an automatic car wash in order to get his car washed.
It’s a simple requirement, but “Without a token, no one will get his car washed” at this particular establishment. It doesn’t imply discrimination against those who have no token.
1 Like
Sorry Paidion I could have written that better (I’ve seen the error of Calvinism relative to that) as I can see how you’ve read that. I was actually clarifying further the point that such was said of those with the token, i.e., believers… which is what your last sentence in-kind seems to indicate. Similar to Jesus’ statement that… “he who has already bathed need only wash his hands, as he is already clean.” IOW… to whom much is given (the call of service) much is required (purity of service) etc.
Not so much “overturn the consensus” BUT challenge and so offer an alternative… a perspective which is scripturally credible.
I can appreciate you not seeing it but that is a reflection of differing assumptions… Frost makes the point that their concern was for past deceased brethren, i.e., Israel, those having perished pre-gospel; you simply don’t see it as that.
I actually agree Bob… I thought long and hard about posting it BUT given my ability to leave you constantly confused, befuddled and scratching your head… which to be honest I initially thought that was a lame excuse for not dealing with a matter further because I know you’re not dumb; though I figured I might be being a little uncharitable thinking that. So I reasoned maybe a more scholarly approach might make sense. The specific matter may need its own thread?
I appreciate and heartily agree with that. Indeed, it seems most of our interpretations about anything are deeply shaped by numerous assumptions that we bring to the table. I can see how you and Frost make quite a case that it is possible to read chapter 15 differently, as you bring uses of terms like “dead” and “raised” from other letters and apply them in 1 Corinthians, etc. I value that both of you offer an actual setting forth of textual evidence for your case. And there are so many pieces in the argument that it is hard to do most of them justice.
My own impression (assumption?) is that the context and language of 1 Cor. 15 itself makes seeing your interpretation as convincing a tall order. Particularly clarity that the concern you mention about “past deceased brethren” (“the dead”) in a Gentile city like Corinth is actually about ancient Israelites, or about how “Moses can be raised,” or curing any metaphorical sort of death. It seems to me more likely in a chapter where “Jesus died” refers to a literal death, that their burden is the logical classic angst for their own loved ones who have literally died without the hoped for reappearing of Jesus coming first. And of course, I also don’t see clear signs that Paul’s words of looking to be raised (future tense) were understood as looking forward to AD70 as that great deliverance.
Of course, you base recognizing that here on seeing many other texts and arguments that confirm to you that this is a central motif that makes sense of the NT. And thus embracing that as a working assumption makes seeing it here not difficult for you.
And the importance of these varying assumptions that we each bring often makes it quite challenging (even frustrating) to get to the bottom of why we are perceiving different meanings in a given text. Thank you for your patience in my inability to clearly enunciate my view, much less to accurately grasp and reflect your own. I appreciate your presence here in offering more than our traditional assumptions.
