The Specific Subject in 1 Corinthians 15

[The Biblicist]

Yes, yes. Your argument would be very strong - if our Bible conssted 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.

I did respond to your main point but you either did not read it or chose to ignore it. However, I will reprint it for you again:

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.

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?

It is your presumption that it is difficult when NOTHING in the contextual flow has proven to be difficult whatsoever! You just simply don't like the clear unambiguous natural developmental teaching. You are attempting to go outside the text in order to contradict what it clearly states.

It is wrong to depart from a context in doing proper exegesis simply because you don't like the results and depart simply to overthrow what it clearly and explicitly teaches and THAT IS WHAT YOU ARE TRYING TO DO under the guise of "scholarship."

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.

Oh come on and be real! Have you not seen your method is the common method of every cult??? You point to a clear text and context and BECAUSE the cult cannot deal with the CLARITY of the text they JUMP to another text in order to PIT their text against your text in order to DENY the plain contextual meaning. THAT IS PRECISELY what you did with your Romans 6 JUMP and PIT reflex action to the clear argument set forth by Paul in 1 Corinthians 15:12-13 WHICH YOU HAD NO RESPONSE but to jump and pit.

WHEN YOU HAVE NO RESPONSE TO A CONTEXTUAL BASED ARGUMENT BUT TO JUMP AND PIT that is not scholarship but the very reverse of true scholarly based exegesis.

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

Again, you are guilty of the very thing you are falsely charging me here. It is you that had no response to my exposition of 1 Corinthians 15:12-13 and it was you that fled the context. You are describing yourself. It is quite evident you are looking for any escape you can find from this discussion simply because you cannot maintain your theory by simple exegesis and expositon of the context - so run!

 

[The Biblicist]

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.

Certainly, I admit it is wrong to "curtail any Biblical study to just one chapter or one book even" BUT it is equally wrong to use non-related texts as you did with Romans 6 and the two phrases IN ORDER TO AVOID the clear contextual based argument set forth by Paul in 1 Cor. 15:12-13. You did AVOID the argument I set forth, and you did avoid the text by simply JUMPING to a NON-RELATED text and non-related terms that had no contextual basis whatsoever.

If you have a valid RELATED text to the text being examined then present it, but don't use the cultic method to AVOID the clear argument I set forth based upon the clear words of Paul in 1 Cor. 15:12-13.

 

[asterisktom]

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.

Well if you think this is a response I will go with it.

Your first sentence is from your own rule book. It is not taught in Scripture to approach the Bible that way. Your second sentence is laughable. To compare Scripture with Scripture is "cultic escapist"?

This is such a basic error on your part - not willing to call upon other relevant passages - that I see no need to go further. Find someone else to play your peculiar hermeneutics game.

Additionally, calling me "cultic" just because you disagree with me wears thin. You did it once too many times. What did you think that would accomplish? Also the comment that I am "avoiding" your interpretation - which used to also be my interpretation for 30-40 years - is as ironic as it is grating.

Do you know what I really avoided? I avoided (at first) the conclusions that led to my becoming a Preterist. Once I saw the responses of friends in real life, endured having to leave a ministry and a church, lost several friends I tried to find some way to go back to some sort of compromise belief, one that would be less marginal. But I could not go back on what I saw in Scripture. I will not.'

One reasons why I post here at BB is that there are several who, though they certainly disagree with me, they have mastered the grace of Christian courtesy. They have also provided needed peer-review for things I write. On more than one occasion I have had to revise my thinking because of what I have read here. I also that those whose rebuttals are the weakest resort the soonest to mere insult. That is my cue to move on to other discussions.

I am pretty much done with this.

 

[The Biblicist]

Crucified with Him, Resurrected with Him

1. These terms cannot be found in the context we are discussing or the verses (1 Cor. 15:12-13) in which you insert them to avoid the plain and clear use of "resurrection from the dead" in this contextual setting.

2. The prepositional phrase "with him" is consistent with identification in baptism and with the gospel truth of justification JUST AS the words "resurrection from the dead" is consistent with both Christ's bodily resurrection and our bodily resurrection and that is precisely what the argument in 1 Cor. 15:12-13 demands - an argument you dare not directly address and have not addressed.

So your example is worthless as it has no bearing on the context we are discussing or the argument Paul is clearly setting forth in verses 12-13. Deal with the nature of his argument rather than running from it.

 

[The Biblicist]

Well if you think this is a response I will go with it.

Your first sentence is from your own rule book. It is not taught in Scripture to approach the Bible that way. Your second sentence is laughable. To compare Scripture with Scripture is "cultic escapist"?

This is such a basic error on your part - not willing to call upon other relevant passages - that I see no need to go further. Find someone else to play your peculiar hermeneutics game.

Additionally, calling me "cultic" just because you disagree with me wears thin. You did it once too many times. What did you think that would accomplish?

You appear to have some intelligence, but it seems you are not capable to grasp that the common mode of operation by cults is to do exactly what you are suggesting, as that is exactly how they deal with clear contextual based evidence contrary to their theories.

Like you, they can't deal with the contextual based argument and so like you they RUN FROM IT by jumping to texts outside of that context to do exactly what they did with that text - distort it.

Your example from Romans 6 is a distortion as I have shown in another post AND DOES NOT ADDRESS THE ARGUMENT SET FORTH BY PAUL IN 1 COR. 15:12-13. You simply run from it and that is the CULTIC hermeneutic.

 

[The Biblicist]

Here again is the clear contextual based argument by Paul you have not addressed, except to run from it:


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:

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?

 

[The Biblicist]

Additionally, calling me "cultic" just because you disagree with me wears thin. You did it once too many times. What did you think that would accomplish?

I am pretty much done with this.

You really have a problem with reading correctly or understanding what is said! Where did I call YOU "cultic"????? Nowhere! I said the hermenutic method you are using to RUN from a contextual argument is "cultic." You are really hard pressed to find some way to get out of this discussion!

 

[The Biblicist]

Here again is the clear contextual based argument by Paul you have not addressed, except to run from it:


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:

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?

Let me further elaborate on this transition passage (1 Cor. 15:12-13) between the personal physical bodily resurrection of Jesus Christ which is the essence of the gospel message (1 Cor. 15:1-5) and which is the subject of every apostolic witness (1 Cor. 15:6-8) and which is the emphasis of the Pauline calling and ministry (1 Cor. 15:9-11). It is this one and only subject of resurrection that has been treated from verse 1 to verse 11 that Paul is addressing in verses 12-13 by way of transitioning between Christ's personal bodily resurrection and "the resurrection of the dead" which takes up the remainder of the chapter. No one can dispute this honestly or contextually.

Now, what is His argument in verses 12-13? He is using the unquestionable verified bodily resurrection of Jesus Christ to prove the Biblical doctrine of "the resurrection of the dead" - that is his design!

However, if "the resurrection of the dead" had no bearing on the nature and character as presented in the gospel (1 Cor. 15:1-5) or witnessed by men (1 Cor. 15:6-8) or is the primary emphasis of his gospel calling (1 Cor. 15:9-11) then it is pure stupidity on Paul's part to argue that Christ's resurrection is absolute proof of "the resurrection of the dead" if in fact they are not related or same in kind.

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?

Now, note his argument. He first states what is preached in the gospel (1 Cor. 15:1-5) and what has been witnessed (I Cor. 15:6-8) and what His own ministry declares (1 Cor. 15:9-11) and it is "IF CHRIST BE PREACHED THAT HE ROSE FROM THE DEAD." That truth is the basis, premise and proof upon which CONDEMNS those that "say some among you that there is no resurrection from the dead." The whole validity of his argument is that the very proof he uses refutes their denial of the "resurrection of the dead." If that proof is not evidence for such a "resurrection from the dead" then his argument is silly and absurd.

Paul then addresses their denial of "the resurrection from the dead" as hypothetically true and by deductive reasoning concludes if that is true then it is also true "then is Christ not risen"

The whole premise of both arguments rests entirely on the fact that the physical bodily resurrection of Christ IS exactly what "the resurrection of the dead" consists of - a resurrection of a physically "dead" body as in the case of Christ that is the subject of the gospel (1 Cor. 15:1-5) and has been substantiated by eye witnesses (1 Cor. 15:6-8) and is the crux of his whole preaching ministry (1 Cor. 15:9-11).

In Paul's mind the resurrection of Christ is absolute proof for "the resurrection of the dead" and that cannot be, if the resurrection from the dead is something other than illustrated by Christ's bodily resurrection from the dead. Hence, in Paul's mind they are EQUIVILENT and stand and fall together. if there is no resurrection from the dead then Christ did not rise. If Christ did not rise there is no resurrection from the dead.