Featured 1 Cor. 15: Foundational Passage for Resurrection

Are you saying the Resurrection has occurred?

 

Was the first man Adam created before the, "fall," soulish or spirit?

Jesus Christ born of the virgin Mary, the one who came in flesh, the one who came in the water and in the blood, says that his Father, whatever that means, is the one who the Jews said was their God. Jesus also says his Father, whatever that means, is Spirit the God, and is to be worshiped in Spirit and Truth.

Being Jesus to date is the only man born of woman to have experienced the resurrection to die no more Rom 6:9 no more to return to corruption Acts 13:34 is this verse; Howbeit that was not first which is spiritual, but that which is natural; and afterward that which is spiritual. 1 Cor 15:46, speaking of Jesus?

 

Tom will not be persuaded, so this is to the rest, and it will fit on a 3x5 index card. What is quoted above is arbitrary and a non sequitur. There are many such logical fallacies in his verbosity, and he relies heavily upon them in his hermeneutics. The physical body, dead or alive, is weak, and corruptible and natural. It's planted in that state. But when IT is raised, it is strong, incorruptible and spiritual. So when someone plants a kernel of corn, something comes up other than that kernel, but what rose came from that kernel. The stalk didn't simply appear out of thin air. So it is with the Resurrection. What comes up is different and glorified, yes, but it was made from what was planted.

As far as the mind one should have toward Tom, and Preterism if the foolishness he is spewing is a central plank of the theology, I'll simply refer you to 2 Thess. 2 and a good commentary, e.g. Matthew Henry, John Gill, John Calvin, etc.

 

The verse to be dealt with.

But some man will say, How are the dead raised up? and with what body do they come?

How are being raised the dead ones. Once living souls, Larry, Curly and Mo.
To what yet body they (the once living souls, the dead ones) are coming.

 

double post sorry

 

I am partial preterist and like to know what you are going to do with these scriptures regarding a bodily physical resurrection. As far as I know these scriptures have not been addressed.

Matthew 27:50 Jesus, when he cried again with a loud voice, yielded up the ghost.
51: And, behold, the veil of the temple was rent in twain from the top to the bottom; and the earth did quake, and the rocks rent;
This is why I am historical partial and not a full preterist
52: And the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints that slept arose,
53: And came out of the graves after his resurrection, and went into the holy city, and appeared unto many.

Did these resurrected saints have the same resurrected body that Jesus Christ has? Did they ascend with Christ? According to scripture they couldn't die twice. Did Lazarus?
Hebrews 9:27 And it is appointed to men once to die, but after this the judgement:

Seems to me there is a conflict between Matthew 27:50-53 & I Cor 15:35-58.

Not trying to start an argument, looking only for clarification and the truth as you and other see it.

 

Paul said that's a foolish question, and points us to nature for instruction. A farmer or a gardener plants a seed in the hope that something will come from that seed. If I plant a bean, that which springs up is nothing at all like that which I buried. I buried a smal, dry, hardened kidney-shaped "pebble," but what springs up is a succulent, lively, climbing stalk or vine in nature nothing like what was buried, but yet it came from that which I buried, and is yet a bean.

 

Did the boy Elisha raised from the dead die again? Jairus's daughter, did she die again? What about Tabitah who Peter raised, did she die again?
\
There is a reason Jesus is said to be first born from the dead. It is different from resurrection.

 

I agree.


And the same is said of Jesus of Nazareth, the Son of the Living God.

For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures:

Jesus gave his sinless life, and Jesus received life again from his Father by being born from the dead spiritual.
For as the Father hath life in himself; so hath he given to the Son to have life in himself; John 5:29 The prophet like unto Moses spoke this.

Jesus who knew no sin, and came into the world in a corruptible body, died the death assigned to the first man Adam.

By grace are ye saved through the faith.

God, the Father of Jesus, raised Jesus from the death, assigned to Adam, raised him to die no more, death has no more dominion over him, raised him no more to return to corruption.

This was done at the resurrection of Jesus when he became the firstborn from the dead. "Thou art my Son this day have I begotten thee".

Jesus the once living soul, in the figure of Adam, is the new creation of man.

Jesus became the faith of God the Father when raised from the dead after learning and becoming obedient unto death, even the death of the cross.

Jesus, is the substance of things hoped for the evidence of things not seen.

He wasn't born of Mary that way, he was born under the law and he learned and became.

Before the faith came, man was kept under the law, the law being his schoolmaster. After the coming of the faith, man is no longer under the schoolmaster, he is under grace through the faith that came. Gal 3:23-25 Rom 6:14

The what is man verse from Psalms and Hebrews is about the firstborn man from the dead and those born like him as being the inheritors of all things, not the first man Adam.

 

You are not looking at the afresh. You are so influenced by neo-platonic dualism of material and spiritual that you think what is so obvious to you is in reality foreign to the Ancient Near Easterners who wrote Scripture.

 

What the...??? What does your worldview have to do w/ my view of Scripture???

That is the most asinine thing you've ever said.

Clearly you don't know much about the difference of ancient near eastern worldviews and the western neo-platonic world views you bring into Scripture. Study it.

And perhaps the "tradition" you rail against is right b/c it is following the worldview of its predecessors: the apostles!

Every criticism you throw against us can be touted against you. Except your tradition is an unknown philosophical worldview that borders on gnosticism. And if what you are saying is true, then the gnostic gospel accounts would fit into the NT canon quite well. You should read them. They fit your theological schemata quite well.

 

After further consideration and study I also came to that conclusion of those that Jesus raised from the dead who he said were asleep. They didn't return in resurrected bodies as stated by Paul. Those the disciples raised from the dead didn't either. Then there are in the OT Elijah and Elisha when Elisha asked for a double portion of the spirit from his father.
2 Kings 2:10 And he said, Thou hast asked a hard thing: nevertheless, if thou see me when I am taken from thee, it shall be so unto thee; but if not it shall not be so.
11: And it came to pass as they still went on, and talked, that, behold, there appeared a chariot of fire, and horses of fire, and parted them both asunder; and Elijah went up by a whirlwind unto heaven.
12: And Elisha saw it, and he cried, My father, my father, the chariot of Israel, and the horsemen thereof. And he saw him no more: and he took hold of his own clothes, and rent them in to pieces.
Then there was Enos, who was not because God took him.

I want to leave you with this and I'm sure full preterist like yourself have heard this one.

II Timothy 2:16 But shun profane and vain babblings: for they will increase into more ungodliness.
17: And there word will eat as doth a canker: of whom is Hymenaeus and
Philetus;
18: Who concerning the truth have erred, saying the resurrection is passed already; and have overthrown the faith of some.

Okay Brother convince this Historical Partial Preterist and add a little history of where and when did this belief start of a bodily resurrection of dead that the biggest percentage of Christian denomination believe.

 

Really... you are going to call me asinine? I just said that your comment was asinine. You leap to attacking me the person. I guess I win since you went form attacking the concepts to the person.

And this discussion has nothing to do w/ one's view of Scripture.

What you fail to grasp is that it was written in a context where the worldview of the people were far different from yours. That does not diminish inspiration. It just means that you seek to read it in that context. You, however, seem to want to ignore that b/c you want to appear pious? "My view of Scripture is higher than yours," said the Pharisee.

If you don't want to talk to me anymore, that's fine. But don't stroll on your white horse that you are high and mighty when you attack me personally. That's hypocrisy.