The Specific Subject in 1 Corinthians 15

[The Biblicist]

I wanted to draw attention to the context that these verses need to be seen in. It is noteworthy that these last few verses are all so often called upon and carefully lifted out and exposited - to the exclusion of that necessary background. When you study the whole - Don't take my word for it. Do it yourself - you notice that Paul is really stressing the unity of the body, and that it is - that we are - one in Christ. But we are of such an individualistic bent - and we have inherited such an individualistic framework of Christianity - that we have a hard time seeing this.........my point in the OP was that physical bodies in the resurrection is not what Paul was writing of in these chapters. His main thrust was on the body of Christ, and that we are members of that one body.- Tom Riggle

Tom is clearly arguing that 1 Corinthians 15 and the words "the body" do not refer to the individual physical body of the believer, but refers to the spiritual body of Christ the Church.

However, this conclusion is due to pure eisgesis not exegesis for the following contextul reasons.

1. The STATED subject is the gospel of Jesus Christ and how the resurrection of the physical body of Christ is inseparable from the truth of the gospel - vv. 1-5. A glance at the previous chapters will show Paul jumps from one subject to another (1 Cor. 1-4; 5; 6; 7; 8-10; 11; 12-14; 15).

2. This physical resurrection of Christ has been verified by witnesses - vv. 6-11 for the purpose to substantiate its vital relationship to the hope of physical resurrection of the saints in the future - vv. 12-20.

3. That the physical resurrection of Christ's physical body is interrelated and inseparable from the very hope expressed in the gospel for all believers including those who already "sleep in Jesus." - vv. 12-19.

There is not one iota of a word in the entire context concerning the "church" or the "body of Christ" or the spiritual unity of the body of Christ. That is pure imagination fueled by a false doctrine that Tom is attempting to palm off on the readers of this forum.

4. In addition, the phrase "resurrrection FROM THE DEAD" is first used to describe the PHYSICAL resurrection of the PHYSICAL body of Jesus Christ and then applied to the resurrection of the body that follows.

5. The contrast is between the kind of body that has its source from Adam, which can only be the PHYSICAL INDIVIDUAL BODY with that of the Second Adam illustrated in the resurrection of the Second Adam which is a PHYSICAL INDIVIDUAL BODY - 1 Cor. 15:22 with verse 45.

6. The illustrations use plural "bodies" described by generic nouns (1 Cor.15:35-42)

7. Christ promised that "hades" has no power over the church (Mt. 16:18) but the context here demands hades does have power over "the body" in question and continues to have power until the resurrection (1 Cor. 15:55-56).

 

[beameup]

There are two "bodies" in Pauline Epistles (Apostle to the Gentiles).
One "body" is the local assembly of believers where believers are to minister to each other
as they walk in the Spirit and exercise their Gifts (seldom seen nowadays).
The other "body" is the Body of Christ, to be "assembled" at the Rapture.

 

[The Biblicist]

There are two "bodies" in Pauline Epistles (Apostle to the Gentiles).
One "body" is the local assembly of believers where believers are to minister to each other
as they walk in the Spirit and exercise their Gifts (seldom seen nowadays).
The other "body" is the Body of Christ, to be "assembled" at the Rapture.

No, there are TWO bodies in Pauline Epistles:

1. The physical human body - Rom. 8:10; 1 Cor.12:12; Rom. 12:4; 1 Cor. 6:13,18; 1 Cor. 15; 2 Cor. 5:6,8; 12:2,3

2. The Metaphorical body of Christ - the local congregation - 1 Cor. 12:27

However, I am not going to allow you to change the subject of this thread. The "physical body" and the passages I provided clearly prove your limitations to merely the "church" in whatever form you want to acknowledge is NOT the only body in Pauline epistles.

 

[beameup]

There are two "bodies" in Pauline Epistles

I left out the word "metaphorically". If you count the literal-physical body, then there are three.
Each human being (ie: "body"), that ever existed on earth, will be resurrected at some point.
1. The human body
2. The local assembly - "body" of believers
3. The Body of Christ (assembled at the rapture).

 

[The Biblicist]

I wanted to draw attention to the context that these verses need to be seen in. It is noteworthy that these last few verses are all so often called upon and carefully lifted out and exposited - to the exclusion of that necessary background. When you study the whole - Don't take my word for it. Do it yourself - you notice that Paul is really stressing the unity of the body, and that it is - that we are - one in Christ. But we are of such an individualistic bent - and we have inherited such an individualistic framework of Christianity - that we have a hard time seeing this.........my point in the OP was that physical bodies in the resurrection is not what Paul was writing of in these chapters. His main thrust was on the body of Christ, and that we are members of that one body.- Tom Riggle

Tom is clearly arguing that 1 Corinthians 15 and the words "the body" do not refer to the individual physical body of the believer, but refers to the spiritual body of Christ the Church.

However, this conclusion is due to pure eisgesis not exegesis for the following contextul reasons.

1. The STATED subject is the gospel of Jesus Christ and how the resurrection of the physical body of Christ is inseparable from the truth of the gospel - vv. 1-5. A glance at the previous chapters will show Paul jumps from one subject to another (1 Cor. 1-4; 5; 6; 7; 8-10; 11; 12-14; 15).

2. This physical resurrection of Christ has been verified by witnesses - vv. 6-11 for the purpose to substantiate its vital relationship to the hope of physical resurrection of the saints in the future - vv. 12-20.

3. That the physical resurrection of Christ's physical body is interrelated and inseparable from the very hope expressed in the gospel for all believers including those who already "sleep in Jesus." - vv. 12-19.

There is not one iota of a word in the entire context concerning the "church" or the "body of Christ" or the spiritual unity of the body of Christ. That is pure imagination fueled by a false doctrine that Tom is attempting to palm off on the readers of this forum.

4. In addition, the phrase "resurrrection FROM THE DEAD" is first used to describe the PHYSICAL resurrection of the PHYSICAL body of Jesus Christ and then applied to the resurrection of the body that follows.

5. The contrast is between the kind of body that has its source from Adam, which can only be the PHYSICAL INDIVIDUAL BODY with that of the Second Adam illustrated in the resurrection of the Second Adam which is a PHYSICAL INDIVIDUAL BODY - 1 Cor. 15:22 with verse 45.

6. The illustrations use plural "bodies" described by generic nouns (1 Cor.15:35-42)

7. Christ promised that "hades" has no power over the church (Mt. 16:18) but the context here demands hades does have power over "the body" in question and continues to have power until the resurrection (1 Cor. 15:55-56).

back on track. The subject of 1 Corinthians 15 is the PHYSICAL HUMAN BODY and its resurrection out of the grave.

 

[percho]

First off the word body is not even used until verse 35.

Resurrection in some form through verse 35 is alluded to 14 times.

In all 14 times it is speaking of people who have died being resurrected. People who had names, the Christ, Jesus of Nazareth. People die, people are raised. Again the word body is not used until verse 35 and there it is speaking of what kind of body will the dead people who are raised will have.

Psalms 16:10 For thou wilt not leave my soul in hell (Sheol, Hades); neither wilt thou suffer thine Holy One to see corruption. written by the prophet David.

Acts 2:30,31 Therefore being a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him, that of the fruit of his loins, according to the flesh, he would raise up Christ to sit on his throne; He seeing this before spake of the resurrection of (the) Christ (Jesus of Nazareth), that his soul (the person) was not left in hell (Hades, Sheol), neither his flesh did see corruption.

The resurrection is of the person with a body. And that is the way Paul writes of the resurrection in 1 Cor. 15.

The Christ, Jesus of Nazareth was raised from the dead (Hades) is an incorruptible body, his body which did not even begin to see corruption. No more to die again, Rom 6:9 and no more to return to corruption, Acts 13:34

 

[asterisktom]

The resurrection is of the person with a body. And that is the way Paul writes of the resurrection in 1 Cor. 15.

The resurrection that Paul speaks of in Corinthians is corporate. He never uses the word "resurrections", though he often uses plural pronouns to refer to those who attain this resurrection.

A lot of time we see the word body and we think in the usual way. But very often in Scripture means the body of believers. In Paul's writing several times he contrasts the old body (Judaism of the Old Covenant) with Spirit-born believers (the body of Christ).

There is no explicit mention of our getting physical bodies in I Cor. 15. In the entire section (chapters 12-15, roughly) the emphasis is on the one Body of Christ, of which we are members.

I had written a long post on this very subject:
The Resurrection Body and 1st Cor. 15 (But don't forget 12, 13, and 14)

But I was at that time in the process of leaving for China (for the first time). So there were some loose ends and posts that I wasn't able to tend to in that thread, or even see.

 

[The Biblicist]

back on track. The subject of 1 Corinthians 15 is the PHYSICAL HUMAN BODY and its resurrection out of the grave.

Gentleman,

Lets be reasonable. Both of you have intentionally avoided the contextual evidences I have listed in numerical order. Why have you avoided directly dealing with the contextual based evidences I have placed squarely in front of your faces? Do you think that mere assertion of your position is sufficient to prove your assertions and that mere ignoring of the evidences placed before you proves my evidences are wrong? Surely, you cannot be that naive? So let me again just deal with verses 1-11 and place the clear contextual reasons why your assertions and conclusions are delusional in regard to these verses. Later I will do the same with the following verses.

1. The subject is the gospel of Jesus Christ which is introduced in 1 Cor 15;1-5 and that its substance is inseparable from the literal and actual death, burial and resurrection of the physical body of Jesus Christ out of a physical and actual grave. No church body, no spiritual body, no corporate resurrection body can be found or substantiated in verses 1-5!

2. 1 Corinthians 15:7-11 is devoted to witnesses to prove that the literal physical body of Jesus Christ rose literally and physically from the grave. No church body, no spiritual body, no corporate resurrection body can be found or substantiated in verses 6-11!

Hence, from 1 Corinthians 15:1-11 you have no basis whatsoever to even imagine the possibility that any other resurrection or any other body is in view except the literal physical body of Jesus Christ resurrected out of a literal physical grave from among the literal physical dead bodies in a literal physical grave yard. No church body is mentioned or can be a possible interpretation of these verses. No spiritual body is mentioned or can be a possible interpretation of these verses.


Will you admit to this? I will take up each section of verses after verse 11, but will you admit that your interpretation has absolutely no contextual basis in verses 1-11. If you will not admit to this then please do us the favor and point out the CONTEXTUAL BASIS for your theory in these verses?

 

[asterisktom]

Gentleman,

Lets be reasonable. Both of you have intentionally avoided the contextual evidences I have listed in numerical order. Why have you avoided directly dealing with the contextual based evidences I have placed squarely in front of your faces? Do you think that mere assertion of your position is sufficient to prove your assertions and that mere ignoring of the evidences placed before you proves my evidences are wrong? Surely, you cannot be that naive? So let me again just deal with verses 1-11 and place the clear contextual reasons why your assertions and conclusions are delusional in regard to these verses. Later I will do the same with the following verses.

I have not avoided. I just zeroed in on what to me was more important, and had more bearing on the context of the thread.

As far as "ignoring of evidence" is concerned, well, you did that on my thread. But that happens here a lot. I come to expect it. You should too.

1. The subject is the gospel of Jesus Christ which is introduced in 1 Cor 15;1-5 and that its substance is inseparable from the literal and actual death, burial and resurrection of the physical body of Jesus Christ out of a physical and actual grave. No church body, no spiritual body, no corporate resurrection body can be found or substantiated in verses 1-5!

2. 1 Corinthians 15:7-11 is devoted to witnesses to prove that the literal physical body of Jesus Christ rose literally and physically from the grave. No church body, no spiritual body, no corporate resurrection body can be found or substantiated in verses 6-11!

Hence, from 1 Corinthians 15:1-11 you have no basis whatsoever to even imagine the possibility that any other resurrection or any other body is in view except the literal physical body of Jesus Christ resurrected out of a literal physical grave from among the literal physical dead bodies in a literal physical grave yard. No church body is mentioned or can be a possible interpretation of these verses. No spiritual body is mentioned or can be a possible interpretation of these verses.

Will you admit to this? I will take up each section of verses after verse 11, but will you admit that your interpretation has absolutely no contextual basis in verses 1-11. If you will not admit to this then please do us the favor and point out the CONTEXTUAL BASIS for your theory in these verses?

Granted. There is no explicit mention here of a corporate body of Christ in these first 11 verses. But I never said there was. This was not the foundation for my argument.

But your problem, as far as I can see, is that you are drawing a strict, this-equals-that correlation between Christ's resurrection and ours.

But that is not the case. His resurrection was different than ours - on several counts. So it is not logical to assume that, just because this chapter begins with physical resurrection (in the first section), that it neccessarily ends with physical resurrection. It does not. In fact, that is part of Paul's point in the middle section of this chapter.

 

[The Biblicist]

Granted. There is no explicit mention here of a corporate body of Christ in these first 11 verses. But I never said there was. This was not the foundation for my argument.

Alright we have some common ground, good. Now, lets proceed to the next verses and note the development of Paul's thought:

1. Verses 9-11 simply elaborates on verse 8 and Paul being the last of the apostles to bear witness to the physical resurrected body of Christ and the grace of God bestowed upon him to preach what he was a witness of.

2. Verses 12-20 turn to deal with the significance of the physical bodily resurrection of Christ and what impact denying it has upon our own hope hope of physical resurrection:

12 ¶ Now if Christ be preached that he rose from the dead, how say some among you that there is no resurrection of the dead? 13 But if there be no resurrection of the dead, then is Christ not risen:

These two verses are crucial in determining whether your position or mine is correct. These two verses make the transition from what you and I have both agreed is a literal bodily resurrection of the person of Jesus Christ out of a physical grave unto the subject that Paul takes up in the rest of this chapter - the resurrection of the dead.

You have agreed with me that there is not even a hint of any church body, or corporate body or spiritual body in verses 1-11. However, in these two transition verses is where Paul moves from the literal physical bodily resurrection of Jesus Christ to the phrase "the resurrection of the dead." More significantly, he uses the phrase "the resurrection from the dead" to be the descriptive of Christ's own resurrection just asserted by the gospel and witnessed by others and himself in verses 1-11. Thus making Christ's resurrection the definitive PROOF and EXAMPLE for the reality and hope of "the resurrection from the dead" which he goes on to show is inseperable from the hope of the gospel which asserts it as our own hope and his continuing subject throughout the remainder of this chapter.

For example, he argues in verse 12:

1. The essence of his rebuke in verse 12 is that Christ's resurrection as previously defined is sufficient evidence to rebuke anyone who denies there is no "resurrection from the dead." However, that kind of argument or rationale is invalid and vain if the previous asserted and testified resurrection of Christ IS DIFFERENT IN KIND AND CHARACTER than what is conveyed by the words "the resurrection from the dead" (and that is precisely what you are forced to argue). Paul's whole rebuke here rests totally on the fact that the resurrection of Christ as previously asserted in the gospel and witnessed by others is proof and is definitive of the words "resurrection from the dead.

2. This is a resurrection "from the dead" and if Christ's own resurrection is an example of such, thus proof of such, then the phrase "resurrection from the dead" must necessarily refer to a physical bodily resurrection out from among other dead bodies lying in graves, as that is precisely the kind of resurrection previously asserted in the gospel and verified by witnesses in verses 1-11. If this is not an equivilency, then the whole basis of his argument is meaningless as a basis to prove or vindicate "the resurrection from the dead" and that is precisely Paul's argument here.

3. "from the dead" kind of resurrection cannot possibly refer to the church, the body of Christ or to any "spiritual" corporate body as Christ denies the gates of hades can prevail against the church, the body of Christ, but yet in this context it is hades that already has prevailed against the kind of body being discussed and hades continues to prevail until this resurrection actually occurs:

54 So when this corruptible shall have put on incorruption, and this mortal shall have put on immortality, then shall be brought to pass the saying that is written, Death is swallowed up in victory.
55 O death, where is thy sting? O grave,[Gr. Hades] where is thy victory?


QUESTIONS:

Will you agree that Paul's argument in verses 12-13 rests wholly upon the resurrection of Jesus Christ as asserted by the gospel and confirmed by witnesses is evidence for "the resurrection of the dead"? If not, then tell me what kind of logic would use a physical bodily resurrection as evidence to prove some other kind of resurrection as that would be mixing apples with oranges would it not? Why would any rationale person use apples to prove the existence of oranges??

 

[PreachTony]

There is no explicit mention of our getting physical bodies in I Cor. 15. In the entire section (chapters 12-15, roughly) the emphasis is on the one Body of Christ, of which we are members.

Tom - How much emphasis should be placed on explicit versus implied? You may say that Paul does not explicitly mention us getting physical bodies, and in terms of Paul writing "We will be raised in physical bodies similar to what we have now," you are correct. However, in my study, I would say Paul greatly implies that we will.

Later in 1 Cor. 15, Paul writes:

Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; neither doth corruption inherit incorruption.
Behold, I shew you a mystery; We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed,
In a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump: for the trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed.
For this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality.
So when this corruptible shall have put on incorruption, and this mortal shall have put on immortality, then shall be brought to pass the saying that is written, Death is swallowed up in victory.
O death, where is thy sting? O grave, where is thy victory?
The sting of death is sin; and the strength of sin is the law.
But thanks be to God, which giveth us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ.

We know that this physical body is corruptible, both in the sense of
a) corrupted by sin (greed, lust, avarice, etc.)
and
b) corrupted by decay (see Psalm 16:10, Acts2:27, Acts 13:35)

Assuming the first point, then we will shed our corruptible sin nature at the resurrection and finally put on a nature of incorruption, wherein we no longer sin or disobey God.

Assuming the second point, we will shed the body that can decay and put on a body that will not decay, as we pass from corruption to incorruption, from mortality to immortality. Paul actually writes that we will "put on" immortality. If we are not in a physical body after our resurrection, then what exactly will we have "put on?" Why would John so vividly describe the new Heaven and new Earth in such physical detail if we're not to have any way of physically interacting with it? When Paul spoke of knowing a man who was called up to the third Heaven, why would he write "whether in the body, I cannot tell; or whether out of the body, I cannot tell" if there was no option other than "out of the body?"

 

[percho]

Gentleman,

Lets be reasonable. Both of you have intentionally avoided the contextual evidences I have listed in numerical order. Why have you avoided directly dealing with the contextual based evidences I have placed squarely in front of your faces? Do you think that mere assertion of your position is sufficient to prove your assertions and that mere ignoring of the evidences placed before you proves my evidences are wrong? Surely, you cannot be that naive? So let me again just deal with verses 1-11 and place the clear contextual reasons why your assertions and conclusions are delusional in regard to these verses. Later I will do the same with the following verses.

1. The subject is the gospel of Jesus Christ which is introduced in 1 Cor 15;1-5 and that its substance is inseparable from the literal and actual death, burial and resurrection of the physical body of Jesus Christ out of a physical and actual grave. No church body, no spiritual body, no corporate resurrection body can be found or substantiated in verses 1-5!

2. 1 Corinthians 15:7-11 is devoted to witnesses to prove that the literal physical body of Jesus Christ rose literally and physically from the grave. No church body, no spiritual body, no corporate resurrection body can be found or substantiated in verses 6-11!



Hence, from 1 Corinthians 15:1-11 you have no basis whatsoever to even imagine the possibility that any other resurrection or any other body is in view except the literal physical body of Jesus Christ resurrected out of a literal physical grave from among the literal physical dead bodies in a literal physical grave yard. No church body is mentioned or can be a possible interpretation of these verses. No spiritual body is mentioned or can be a possible interpretation of these verses.


Will you admit to this? I will take up each section of verses after verse 11, but will you admit that your interpretation has absolutely no contextual basis in verses 1-11. If you will not admit to this then please do us the favor and point out the CONTEXTUAL BASIS for your theory in these verses?

I actually agree with you, yet you ignore that David being a prophet spoke of the resurrection of, the living soul person who had died, Jesus the son of Mary, the Son of the living God; And speaking of the resurrection he spoke of the soul from Hades in an incorruptible body, which before that had been subject to corruption had not God, his Father, given him the sure mercies of David, his father according to the flesh.

Of the fruit of his loins he would raise up. Acts 2:30

With what body was the person who had died, Jesus, raised with?


Answer V46 Howbeit that was not first which is spiritual, but that which is natural; and afterward that which is spiritual.


To date has anyone else except Jesus been raised from the dead in this manner? Is Jesus currently not only the firstborn from the dead but the only one born from the dead? Per Romans 8:29 will there be a time when Jesus will be the firstborn among many brethren?

Will they then be as the one of V46 1 Cor 15?

 

[The Biblicist]

I actually agree with you, yet you ignore that David being a prophet spoke of the resurrection of, the living soul person who had died, Jesus the son of Mary, the Son of the living God; And speaking of the resurrection he spoke of the soul from Hades in an incorruptible body, which before that had been subject to corruption had not God, his Father, given him the sure mercies of David, his father according to the flesh.

Of the fruit of his loins he would raise up. Acts 2:30

With what body was the person who had died, Jesus, raised with?


Answer V46 Howbeit that was not first which is spiritual, but that which is natural; and afterward that which is spiritual.

If you want to discuss Psalm 16 and Acts 2 then open a thread to do that. Your off topic here as we are discussing the contextual development of Paul's argument in 1 Corinthians 15:1-20. I am not going to chase you down rabbit trails - stick with the subject here.

 

[The Biblicist]

Alright we have some common ground, good. Now, lets proceed to the next verses and note the development of Paul's thought:

1. Verses 9-11 simply elaborates on verse 8 and Paul being the last of the apostles to bear witness to the physical resurrected body of Christ and the grace of God bestowed upon him to preach what he was a witness of.

2. Verses 12-20 turn to deal with the significance of the physical bodily resurrection of Christ and what impact denying it has upon our own hope hope of physical resurrection:

12 ¶ Now if Christ be preached that he rose from the dead, how say some among you that there is no resurrection of the dead? 13 But if there be no resurrection of the dead, then is Christ not risen:

These two verses are crucial in determining whether your position or mine is correct. These two verses make the transition from what you and I have both agreed is a literal bodily resurrection of the person of Jesus Christ out of a physical grave unto the subject that Paul takes up in the rest of this chapter - the resurrection of the dead.

You have agreed with me that there is not even a hint of any church body, or corporate body or spiritual body in verses 1-11. However, in these two transition verses is where Paul moves from the literal physical bodily resurrection of Jesus Christ to the phrase "the resurrection of the dead." More significantly, he uses the phrase "the resurrection from the dead" to be the descriptive of Christ's own resurrection just asserted by the gospel and witnessed by others and himself in verses 1-11. Thus making Christ's resurrection the definitive PROOF and EXAMPLE for the reality and hope of "the resurrection from the dead" which he goes on to show is inseperable from the hope of the gospel which asserts it as our own hope and his continuing subject throughout the remainder of this chapter.

For example, he argues in verse 12:

1. The essence of his rebuke in verse 12 is that Christ's resurrection as previously defined is sufficient evidence to rebuke anyone who denies there is no "resurrection from the dead." However, that kind of argument or rationale is invalid and vain if the previous asserted and testified resurrection of Christ IS DIFFERENT IN KIND AND CHARACTER than what is conveyed by the words "the resurrection from the dead" (and that is precisely what you are forced to argue). Paul's whole rebuke here rests totally on the fact that the resurrection of Christ as previously asserted in the gospel and witnessed by others is proof and is definitive of the words "resurrection from the dead.

2. This is a resurrection "from the dead" and if Christ's own resurrection is an example of such, thus proof of such, then the phrase "resurrection from the dead" must necessarily refer to a physical bodily resurrection out from among other dead bodies lying in graves, as that is precisely the kind of resurrection previously asserted in the gospel and verified by witnesses in verses 1-11. If this is not an equivilency, then the whole basis of his argument is meaningless as a basis to prove or vindicate "the resurrection from the dead" and that is precisely Paul's argument here.

3. "from the dead" kind of resurrection cannot possibly refer to the church, the body of Christ or to any "spiritual" corporate body as Christ denies the gates of hades can prevail against the church, the body of Christ, but yet in this context it is hades that already has prevailed against the kind of body being discussed and hades continues to prevail until this resurrection actually occurs:

54 So when this corruptible shall have put on incorruption, and this mortal shall have put on immortality, then shall be brought to pass the saying that is written, Death is swallowed up in victory.
55 O death, where is thy sting? O grave,[Gr. Hades] where is thy victory?


QUESTIONS:

Will you agree that Paul's argument in verses 12-13 rests wholly upon the resurrection of Jesus Christ as asserted by the gospel and confirmed by witnesses is evidence for "the resurrection of the dead"? If not, then tell me what kind of logic would use a physical bodily resurrection as evidence to prove some other kind of resurrection as that would be mixing apples with oranges would it not? Why would any rationale person use apples to prove the existence of oranges??

back on track please!

 

[Yeshua1]

If you want to discuss Psalm 16 and Acts 2 then open a thread to do that. Your off topic here as we are discussing the contextual development of Paul's argument in 1 Corinthians 15:1-20. I am not going to chase you down rabbit trails - stick with the subject here.

Confusion is with term spiritual body, as paul did not mean that we will be raised up spiritually, by that the physical body itself is transformed by God into a new state able to go to heaven and live forever now...

One cannot use paul to kustify either that we are spiritual raised up at rebirth now, or else that the physical body will not be raised up...

 

[percho]

back on track. The subject of 1 Corinthians 15 is the PHYSICAL HUMAN BODY and its resurrection out of the grave.

This would have been no different than the resurrection of Lazarus or Tibitha.

Why didn't Paul just write about them?

It is about a physical human that cannot die again nor is subject to corruption whether you stare in verse 1 or verse 36.

Knowing that Christ being raised from the dead dieth no more; death hath no more dominion over him.
And as concerning that he raised him up from the dead, now no more to return to corruption,

The most important verse of the whole chapter is verse 46 for it speaks of the only one who has been raised as in verse 4.

 

[The Biblicist]

Alright we have some common ground, good. Now, lets proceed to the next verses and note the development of Paul's thought:

1. Verses 9-11 simply elaborates on verse 8 and Paul being the last of the apostles to bear witness to the physical resurrected body of Christ and the grace of God bestowed upon him to preach what he was a witness of.

2. Verses 12-20 turn to deal with the significance of the physical bodily resurrection of Christ and what impact denying it has upon our own hope hope of physical resurrection:

12 ¶ Now if Christ be preached that he rose from the dead, how say some among you that there is no resurrection of the dead? 13 But if there be no resurrection of the dead, then is Christ not risen:

These two verses are crucial in determining whether your position or mine is correct. These two verses make the transition from what you and I have both agreed is a literal bodily resurrection of the person of Jesus Christ out of a physical grave unto the subject that Paul takes up in the rest of this chapter - the resurrection of the dead.

You have agreed with me that there is not even a hint of any church body, or corporate body or spiritual body in verses 1-11. However, in these two transition verses is where Paul moves from the literal physical bodily resurrection of Jesus Christ to the phrase "the resurrection of the dead." More significantly, he uses the phrase "the resurrection from the dead" to be the descriptive of Christ's own resurrection just asserted by the gospel and witnessed by others and himself in verses 1-11. Thus making Christ's resurrection the definitive PROOF and EXAMPLE for the reality and hope of "the resurrection from the dead" which he goes on to show is inseperable from the hope of the gospel which asserts it as our own hope and his continuing subject throughout the remainder of this chapter.

For example, he argues in verse 12:

1. The essence of his rebuke in verse 12 is that Christ's resurrection as previously defined is sufficient evidence to rebuke anyone who denies there is no "resurrection from the dead." However, that kind of argument or rationale is invalid and vain if the previous asserted and testified resurrection of Christ IS DIFFERENT IN KIND AND CHARACTER than what is conveyed by the words "the resurrection from the dead" (and that is precisely what you are forced to argue). Paul's whole rebuke here rests totally on the fact that the resurrection of Christ as previously asserted in the gospel and witnessed by others is proof and is definitive of the words "resurrection from the dead.

2. This is a resurrection "from the dead" and if Christ's own resurrection is an example of such, thus proof of such, then the phrase "resurrection from the dead" must necessarily refer to a physical bodily resurrection out from among other dead bodies lying in graves, as that is precisely the kind of resurrection previously asserted in the gospel and verified by witnesses in verses 1-11. If this is not an equivilency, then the whole basis of his argument is meaningless as a basis to prove or vindicate "the resurrection from the dead" and that is precisely Paul's argument here.

3. "from the dead" kind of resurrection cannot possibly refer to the church, the body of Christ or to any "spiritual" corporate body as Christ denies the gates of hades can prevail against the church, the body of Christ, but yet in this context it is hades that already has prevailed against the kind of body being discussed and hades continues to prevail until this resurrection actually occurs:

54 So when this corruptible shall have put on incorruption, and this mortal shall have put on immortality, then shall be brought to pass the saying that is written, Death is swallowed up in victory.
55 O death, where is thy sting? O grave,[Gr. Hades] where is thy victory?


QUESTIONS:

Will you agree that Paul's argument in verses 12-13 rests wholly upon the resurrection of Jesus Christ as asserted by the gospel and confirmed by witnesses is evidence for "the resurrection of the dead"? If not, then tell me what kind of logic would use a physical bodily resurrection as evidence to prove some other kind of resurrection as that would be mixing apples with oranges would it not? Why would any rationale person use apples to prove the existence of oranges??

Again, I have set forth the developmental argument and nobody yet has engaged the above. Instead, we have posters trying to change the subject. Let's get back on track.

 

[asterisktom]

Alright we have some common ground, good. Now, lets proceed to the next verses and note the development of Paul's thought:

1. Verses 9-11 simply elaborates on verse 8 and Paul being the last of the apostles to bear witness to the physical resurrected body of Christ and the grace of God bestowed upon him to preach what he was a witness of.

OK.

2. Verses 12-20 turn to deal with the significance of the physical bodily resurrection of Christ and what impact denying it has upon our own hope hope of physical resurrection:

Not OK. Specifically those last two words. This is your unwarranted assumption. More on this later.

12 ¶ Now if Christ be preached that he rose from the dead, how say some among you that there is no resurrection of the dead? 13 But if there be no resurrection of the dead, then is Christ not risen:

These two verses are crucial in determining whether your position or mine is correct. These two verses make the transition from what you and I have both agreed is a literal bodily resurrection of the person of Jesus Christ out of a physical grave unto the subject that Paul takes up in the rest of this chapter - the resurrection of the dead.

But you are inferring doctrine from this passage that is not being taught. By the "resurrection of the dead" you obviously believe in a physical resurrection from actual death. But Paul does not really mean this. However to prove this point I would need to go beyond the passage here - something contrary to the ground rules you have artificially set up here.

You have agreed with me that there is not even a hint of any church body, or corporate body or spiritual body in verses 1-11. However, in these two transition verses is where Paul moves from the literal physical bodily resurrection of Jesus Christ to the phrase "the resurrection of the dead." More significantly, he uses the phrase "the resurrection from the dead" to be the descriptive of Christ's own resurrection just asserted by the gospel and witnessed by others and himself in verses 1-11. Thus making Christ's resurrection the definitive PROOF and EXAMPLE for the reality and hope of "the resurrection from the dead" which he goes on to show is inseperable from the hope of the gospel which asserts it as our own hope and his continuing subject throughout the remainder of this chapter.

For example, he argues in verse 12:

1. The essence of his rebuke in verse 12 is that Christ's resurrection as previously defined is sufficient evidence to rebuke anyone who denies there is no "resurrection from the dead." However, that kind of argument or rationale is invalid and vain if the previous asserted and testified resurrection of Christ IS DIFFERENT IN KIND AND CHARACTER than what is conveyed by the words "the resurrection from the dead" (and that is precisely what you are forced to argue). Paul's whole rebuke here rests totally on the fact that the resurrection of Christ as previously asserted in the gospel and witnessed by others is proof and is definitive of the words "resurrection from the dead.

Crucified with Him, Resurrected with Him
By your logic we should also believe in a crucifixion that is not "different in kind and character" between Christ's crucifixion and ours. God's Word says that we have been crucified with Him, yet it would be silly to say that we were physically crucified. But your logic would demand it.

Consider Romans 6:4 - 5:
"We were buried therefore with him by baptism into death, in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, we too might walk in newness of life.

"For if we have been united with him in a death like his, we shall certainly be united with him in a resurrection like his."

Notice the two phrases: "death like His", "resurrection like His". The structure of the verse requires us to understand the same degree of "likeness" from each of those two momentous events:

Is our resurrection to be totally like Christ's, physical? Then our crucifixion should have been - by the logic of this verse - physical as well. But this is obviously not true.

So it stands to reason, and is attested elsewhere in Scripture, that we have a different criterion of likeness - both for the crucixion and for the resurrection.

2. This is a resurrection "from the dead" and if Christ's own resurrection is an example of such, thus proof of such, then the phrase "resurrection from the dead" must necessarily refer to a physical bodily resurrection out from among other dead bodies lying in graves, as that is precisely the kind of resurrection previously asserted in the gospel and verified by witnesses in verses 1-11. If this is not an equivilency, then the whole basis of his argument is meaningless as a basis to prove or vindicate "the resurrection from the dead" and that is precisely Paul's argument here.

The importance of Christ's resurrection was not a strict one-for-one examplar of our resurrection. Scripture gives other reasons on how it is important for us (more on this later).

BTW, I should also add that it is wrong, however well-intentioned, to curtail any biblical study to just one chapter or one book even. I know it has a certain appeal, seeming to be very analytical. But Scripture itself argues against this approach. We are to compare Scripture with Scripture. Certainly the more immediate Scripture (same chapter, same book, same author, etc. in ever widening scope) should have greater weight, but we should be lke the Bereans who, when hearing Paul and Silas, searched the Scriptures - the Old Testament.


This is all I have time for now.

 

[The Biblicist]

But you are inferring doctrine from this passage that is not being taught.

That is not true. It is you that is really inferring doctrine from this passage that is not taught, as you have agreed that nothing but a physical bodily resurrection from the dead is the ONLY THING that what has been taught in verses 1-11. Nothing but a physical bodily resurrection has been taught in this passage up to this point. You are the one that must infer something different and it is you that is forced from this context to defend your position. In direct contrast, I am not inferring anything but continuing in what has already been established.

By the "resurrection of the dead" you obviously believe in a physical resurrection from actual death. But Paul does not really mean this. However to prove this point I would need to go beyond the passage here - something contrary to the ground rules you have artificially set up here

Again, you are stating exactly what you are guilty of, not me. "A physical resurrection from actual death" IS THE ONLY THING that has been taught up to this point, and it is YOU that must "need to go beyond the passage here" to infer anything different and that is precisely what you do in the very next paragraph.

Furthermore, the phrase "resurrection from the dead" is used by Paul to describe BOTH what he has just defended about Christ and what he is about to defend about others.

Moreover, the only thing "dead" that was resurrected up to this point is a PHYSICAL BODY. Your position has NOTHING in this context to even infer it is in view, but what has been contextually established up to this point offers NOTHING for your view but totally denies your position. Paul's argument in verses 12-13 is meaningless if your view is forced upon it, but it is a clear and undeniable argument based upon every verse previously stated in regard to the only resurrection described thus far.

Again, 1. The essence of his rebuke in verse 12 is that Christ's resurrection as previously defined is sufficient evidence to rebuke anyone who denies there is no "resurrection from the dead." However, that kind of argument or rationale is invalid and vain if the previous asserted and testified resurrection of Christ IS DIFFERENT IN KIND AND CHARACTER than what is conveyed by the words "the resurrection from the dead" (and that is precisely what you are forced to argue). Paul's whole rebuke here rests totally on the fact that the resurrection of Christ as previously asserted in the gospel and witnessed by others is proof and is definitive of the words "resurrection from the dead.

My argument is so strong, and so clearly contextually based it forces you to leave this context in order to defend your theory, whereas, my interpretation fits perfectly with the contextual flow up to verse 13, and indeed is the only interpretation that can fit the preceding contextual subject in view.

Crucified with Him, Resurrected with Him
By your logic we should also believe in a crucifixion that is not "different in kind and character" between Christ's crucifixion and ours. God's Word says that we have been crucified with Him, yet it would be silly to say that we were physically crucified. But your logic would demand it.

Consider Romans 6:4 - 5:
"We were buried therefore with him by baptism into death, in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, we too might walk in newness of life.

"For if we have been united with him in a death like his, we shall certainly be united with him in a resurrection like his."

Notice the two phrases: "death like His", "resurrection like His". The structure of the verse requires us to understand the same degree of "likeness" from each of those two momentous events:

Is our resurrection to be totally like Christ's, physical? Then our crucifixion should have been - by the logic of this verse - physical as well. But this is obviously not true.

So it stands to reason, and is attested elsewhere in Scripture, that we have a different criterion of likeness - both for the crucixion and for the resurrection.

You have done exactly what you falsely charged me, leaving the context in order to defend your position, as this context does not provide anything to infer your position.

Your whole argument is worthless as no such language is found in the context we are discussing. Indeed, you had to go to an entirely different book and an entirely different subject and then READ IT INTO the passage we are discussing. That sir, is called eisgesis, not exegesis.

The importance of Christ's resurrection was not a strict one-for-one examplar of our resurrection. Scripture gives other reasons on how it is important for us (more on this later).

Again, you are forced to leave this context to defend your idea, as there has been nothing said by Paul up to this point to even infer your position. You are READING your position INTO this context and that is eisegesis not exegesis.

BTW, I should also add that it is wrong, however well-int]entioned, to curtail any biblical study to just one chapter or one book even.

You go outside of a passage only when there is insufficient information to understand the contextual development. However, the cultic ESCAPIST method of interpretation is to flee to another context in order to avoid the clear contextual development and READ INTO that text what the text itself neither suggests or means. And if you following this JUMP and PIT method to their outside context, they simply repeat their JUMP and PIT method when you demonstrate the context they have fled to does not support their use of it either and then the cycle repeats itself.

The point is that NOTHING in the contextual development of 1 Corinthians 15:1-13 even suggests or infers the theory you want to READ INTO it, but EVERYTHING stated thus far not merely infers but demands the very same resurrection from death that has been clearly established in the context.

 

[asterisktom]

My argument is so strong, and so clearly contextually based it forces you to leave this context in order to defend your theory, whereas, my interpretation fits perfectly with the contextual flow up to verse 13, and indeed is the only interpretation that can fit the preceding contextual subject in view.

Yes, yes. Your argument would be very strong - if our Bible consisted only of this one chapter in Corinthians.

You have not responded to my main point:

This idea of only looking at a certain section to understand it is not good. To go elsewhere - especially to the same author, as I did - is good and necessary. It is Berean.

If someone sent you a difficult 16 page letter and you wanted especially to understand the 15th page - would you through the other pages away? That is what you are doing in this discussion. You are exasperated with others on this thread, myself included, because we have not limited ourselves in the same artificial way you have.

On second reading of this post of yours I noticed the "cultic" reference. If that is the way you fell then there is no point in continuing. Added to that is the fact that you didn't even respond to my comments concerning the crucifixion.

You don't really want a discussion, sad to say. Too bad, because I thought the topic had promise.