Actually, Davo, you had two initial comments. Your first comment was the technical question of why I was linking Paul’s rejection of Hymenaeus with Paul opposing whomever’s position in 1 Cor 15, which to prevent bird-dogging (even by my standards 
) I hadn’t included a rationale for in my commentary.
Your second comment was the one about the Sadduccees rejecting the resurrection and whether they and their opponents regarded the resurrection as freedom from Roman oppression which freedom was what was being rejected by that political party; plus the question of how on earth would Hym be overturning anyone’s faith if he (and Philetus) were teaching that the general resurrection had already happened but hadn’t been “a grave-popping event with literal folk flying through the air etc”. That’s the one Hermano was replying to (which then distracted me from replying to it myself for a while).
It isn’t too far a stretch to read those two comments before Hermano’s post, as not being about the soteriology of 1 Tim 1 so much as an extended complaint that I was connecting the idea of bodily resurrection to Paul and a denial of the bodily resurrection to Hymenaeus – which I was. Which would be annoying, of course, to anyone who believes today that the expectation of a general resurrection has already been fulfilled for us after Paul’s day, and it wasn’t a bodily resurrection at all either, since this opens up the question of whether Paul was handing Hym (and Alex) over to Satan to be taught not to blaspheme, due to them teaching that a similarly non-bodily resurrection had already happened in Paul’s day over-against whatever Paul was expecting, which per 1 Cor 15 looks like a bodily transformation and not, say, Christians being freed from Temple worship or something that doesn’t involve dead bodies being actually transformed and coming to life again.
At no point, however, did I argue that Paul was handing them over to Satan for believing a bodiless resurrection had already occurred. I realize it’s an important topic in its own right, since Paul hands someone over for a severe (though remedial) punishment whom Paul in a related letter says was shipwrecking the faith for teaching a general resurrection had already happened in Paul’s day; and Paul is definitely complaining in 1 Tim 1 that Hym (and Alex) have abandoned their assigned ministry to teach something else which Paul regards as false. But I stuck with analyzing what Paul says in 1 Tim 1 about what they were doing wrong and what they should have been proclaiming as ambassadors instead – mostly the latter. And Paul simply isn’t complaining in 1 Tim 1 that anyone was teaching that a general (and obviously bodiless) resurrection had already happened.
That said, I’ll acknowledge that I have only myself to blame for not emphasizing more strongly and sooner (in my reply to Donald) that if posters are going to focus on the topic of whether the resurrection had already occurred, it should be in the context of Paul’s soteriology in 1 Tim 1. I looked like I was encouraging posters to talk about anything other than the actual post topic, and specifically that side-topic by itself.
