31 But concerning the resurrection of the DEAD, have you not read what was spoken to you by God, saying, 32 ‘I am the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob’? God is not the God of the DEAD, but of the living.” 33 And when the multitudes heard this, they were astonished at His teaching.
I was having a 1+1=2 discussion with you. Not sure why you think this to be so challenging.
1. Christ said "regarding the RESURRECTION of the DEAD" have you not read..." just when you 'needed' to imagine that he said "regarding the immortal soul have you not read..." (Obviously).
2. Christ said "God is not the God of the Dead" and then points to a specific scenario concerning the DEAD - to which the Sadducees agree because they accept all the scriptures about what does not happen for "the DEAD" -- those that are deceased.
3. Christ points to a time when Abraham, Isaac and Jacob "ARE DEAD" - and yet God said "I AM the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob" when in fact he should have said "I AM NO LONGER the God of Abraham Isaac and Jacob" since they were DEAD (as all agree in that case) AND God is "not the God of the DEAD" and IF there is NO future "resurrection of the DEAD"
Conclusion? There MUST be a future resurrection "of the DEAD" because that is the only way that God who is "NOT the God of the dead" can STILL claim to be the God of Abraham when he is among the DEAD.
That is the obvious scenario in Matt 22 - it is the ONLY way that Christ's debate point "requires" a future resurrection to hold true.
Obviously.
Christ does not say "but regarding the resurrection needed by IMMORTAL souls - God said I AM the God of Abraham proving that there must be a future resurrection because as an immortal soul Abraham needed resurrection".
1Cor 15 says you do NOT raise the Body that died.
2Cor 5:1-5 says that there is ONE body that is of the earth - and another - immortal body given to us at the resurrection.
The dead body merely returns to dust.
=================================================
The self-conflicted solution you offer is
1. Christ says "God is not the God of the dead" and then proceeds with an argument where one must "imagine" that Abraham "is not dead" in any sort of "God is NOT the God of the DEAD" fashion.
2. Christ proves immortal soul - instead of resurrection
3. Without ever mentioning immortal soul - the Sadducees merely "assume it is truth" and then "go on from there" to "self-imagine" that a future resurrection would "be nice" even though not at all needed to solve the issue mentioned by Christ???!!!
I believe the 1+1 = 2 scenario I have explained twice so far - is much easier to follow for the objective unbiased reader than you may have at first imagined.
So far all you have done is confess that your own creative solution to the problem Christ presented - is all solved by "Immortal soul" ALONE - no need at all for resurrection to make the statement "I AM the God of Abraham" true in your scenario.
Were we simply "not supposed to notice" that flaw in your alternative???
in Christ,
Bob
1. Obviously the Sadducees were not simply going to "dream up" an "immortal soul doctrine" that Christ never argued for.
I think almost everyone agrees to a that obvious detail.
2. Christ stated explicitly that He is proving the "resurrection of the DEAD" - this is IN the text!!
3.What is not in the text is 'well we must all INFER immortal soul and then imagine maybe immortal souls need resurrection even though they have no need of it"
Again -an incredibly obvious point not to be dismissed lightly.
What planet do you live on? Your argument is completely baseless. There is no use of the future tense!
Sadly once again you express your defense in the form of a "Direct contradiction of the text".
How do you expect to get by with that?
In BOTH John 11 AND IN Matt 22 the resurrection is future. Christ is being challenged to PROVE that FUTURE resurrection.
23 The same day the Sadducees, who say there is no resurrection, came to Him and asked Him, 24 saying: “Teacher, Moses said that if a man dies, having no children, his brother shall marry his wife and raise up offspring for his brother. 25 Now there were with us seven brothers. The first died after he had married, and having no offspring, left his wife to his brother. 26 Likewise the second also, and the third, even to the seventh. 27 Last of all the woman died also. 28
Therefore, in the resurrection, whose wife of the seven will she be? For they all had her.”
30 For in the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels of God in heaven. 31
But concerning the resurrection of the dead, have you not read what was spoken to you by God,
You can't show it because it is not there!
He did not say God "shall be" the God of the living! But that is your argument!
"God IS not the God of the DEAD" is the affirmation Christ makes - and BOTH the Sadducees and Christ fully agree that YES - God IS NOT the God of the dead.
And BOTH agree that Abraham is dead and buried.
This is how they BOTH viewed dead patriarchs.
Acts 2
29 “Men
and brethren, let
me speak freely to you of
the patriarch David, that he is both dead and buried, and his tomb is with us to this day.
Christ is proving the FUTURE resurrection of the DEAD and BOTH sides consider that Abraham "
is both dead and buried to this day"
And since "God IS NOT the God of the DEAD" -- and Abraham IS DEAD - how can the statement spoken to Moses even be true at all??
This is the "puzzle" Christ offers them where HE CLAIMS the only way out - is to accept the doctrine of the RESURRECTION.
you have conjured up an imaginary doctrine as your way of escaping Christ's PROOF of the future resurrection. However the Sadducees were not at all inclined to invent your own rather made up slip-sideways solution to get around the PROOF of the resurrection.
Your problem is that Christ's PROOF only works in the context of MORTAL man. Only then His is puzzle challenge to the Sadducees irrefutable PROOF of the resurrection.
All you have done here is to show how the made-up alternative you eisegete into the text - FAILS to be "irrefutable PROOF of the resurrection" since in your world the saint are MORE alive as the DEAD than they are as the living - and thus need no resurrection to "satisfy the conditions" of God being the God of Abraham.
You are pretending that this point is not glaringly obvious by trying to ignore it. But I assure you Christ's "proof" has your argument exposed for all to see.
He did not say God "SHALL BE" the God of Abraham but he says "I AM" and He is not the God "of the dead" which has reference to their BODY in the grave as that is the "DEAD" aspect that needs resurrection in the future.
He did not say they "SHALL LIVE" but used the present tense "LIVING" as their present reality and he is not speaking about their bodies which are dead and need to be made alive and will be made alive in the future resurrection, but is speaking about the PRESENT STATE of their souls
Again you shoot your own argument in the foot - because
if God is only speaking of immortal souls that NEED NOTHING - no resurrection for him to be the "God of Abraham" then there is NOTHING NEEDED.
You are using circular reasoning when you imagine that "God is not the God of the dead bodies" -- when in fact "God is NOT the God of the DEAD" - which is a direct reference to patriarchs "DEAD and buried to this day" - and just as God said to Abraham "
a father of many nations HAVE I MADE you" --- past tense - while as yet he had no children -- (Romans 4) so also God says to Moses "I AM the God of Abraham" because of that future resurrection.
How many times shall this same point be proven in your own confessions and in my pointing it out to you?
Your argument kills Christ's proof of the resurrection - because the Sadducees do not say at the start "We would believe in the resurrection if only there is such a thing as an immortal soul" - you simply "make it up". What is worse you invent an immortal-soul idea not in the text, and one that negates all need of a future resurrection to satisfy the condition "God is NOT the God of the DEAD but of the living".
in Christ,
Bob
