Did the NT writers have it all wrong?

Let me help you out:

2 Timothy

17Their teaching will spread like gangrene. Among them are Hymenaeus and Philetus, 18who have wandered away from the truth. They say that the resurrection has already taken place, and they destroy the faith of some.

You can only surmise that Hymenaeus believed in a spiritual resurrection of the body, as to refute a physical claim, Paul could have just went to the graves of the believers and the discussion would be over. So if Hymenaeus believed a spiritual resurrection had already occured, and by your own statements of belief, Paul believes in a spiritual resurrection of the dead, then the dispute is simply over the timing of the resurrection.

On your assumptions, the most disagreement that Paul and Hymenaeus could have over timing is approximately forty years. Paul's view of timing would be governed by Jesus' words in the Olivet Discourse, in which Jesus said that "this generation" would not pass away until "all these things" previously referred to had taken place (Mt 24:34), one of which was Jesus' "coming" (Mt 24:27,30). Now, Jesus' "coming" is intimately associated with the resurrection. This can be seen in such verses as I Cor 15:23 "But each [are resurrected] in his own order: Christ the first fruits, after that those who are Christ's at His COMING." Also, I Thess 4:15 (cf. v.17): "...we who are alive and remain until the COMING of the Lord will not precede [in resurrection] those who have fallen asleep." Now, if Jesus' coming was within one generation of when Jesus spoke, and if the resurrection of the dead occurred at Jesus' coming, therefore the resurrection was also within one generation of when Jesus spoke (on your assumptions). If Jesus spoke around A.D. 30, and a generation is roughly forty years, then the resurrection of the dead (again, on your assumptions) would be around AD 70. This is when Paul would be expecting the coming of Jesus, and the associated resurrection of the just and the unjust (again, granting your premises).

If Paul was expecting the resurrection around AD 70, how did Hymenaeus time the resurrection? At the time Paul wrote II Timothy (mid sixties), Hymenaeus believed that the resurrection had "already" come. The earliest that the resurrection could logically be thought by Hymenaeus to have occurred would be the instant after Jesus had returned to heaven. This is so because, Jesus could not have "come" from heaven and caused the resurrection, unless he had first gone to heaven. So the earliest date that Hymenaeus could have possibly taught that the resurrection had occurred is the date that Jesus ascended, which is approximately A.D. 30, which is the date the majority of scholars assign to Jesus' crucifixion, resurrection, and ascension. And now we compare Paul's view of the timing of the resurrection, with Hymenaeus's view of the timing of the resurrection, so we can get a feel for the great, burning controversy that caused Paul to get himself all bent out of shape, and which caused him to label Hymenaeus and Philetus blasphemous, gangrenous, faith-shipwrecked, and consigned to Satan. Paul's view: A.D. 70. Hymenaeus's view (at the max): A.D. 30. The difference? A whopping forty years. FORTY YEARS!!!! And for that, Paul is going to send these guys to hell? For forty years? Give me a break. If so, you are treading on dangerous ground for making an argument that this passage explains when the OT to NT transition was made. And for that, I think I have proven that your assumptions cannot be true and that it is actually I who have done a solid job of showing you how based upon your own assumptions, your premise simply cannot be true.

On a side note...why would it matter if Hymenaeus believed that the resurrection had already occured? Why would this destroy the faith of some? He would have just been saying that the transition had occured already and that the dead were already in heaven and that we would follow when we die. He was saying exactly what you are saying now. In light of this, Paul's words about Hymenaeus should be a stern warning of following in Hymenaues' footsteps.</p></p>

I'm not sure what the purpose of getting into a discussion of 1 Cor. 15:54-56 is. If you have a point to make with that passage, please do so, but as you have said before, that is a discussion for another time and another place.

Hard to know? Did you read 2 Timothy 2:18? How would it be hard to know that Hymenaeus proposed that the resurrection had already occured since it plainly says so? Since he was obviously not talking about Jesus, because everyone agreed that He had already risen, he must have been talking about the dead. And it only matters if he was claiming a spiritual resurrection and Paul was defending a physical resurrection (which had obviously not occured at that time). The discussion would have had to have been on the nature of the resurrection, because as I've plainly explained, a dispute on timing just doesn't make any sense. If you read my post above you'll see my position on this issue, I don't want to go over it again.

If you are not going to respond to my objections, I'm going to just call this a good place to stop. Thanks for the dialogue, this has actually been very beneficial for me.

GW,

On a final note, I wasn't lying when I said earlier that I agree with you on many points regarding the destruction of the temple in AD 70 and this being prophesied by Jesus and the NT writers. I believe the futurists position is severely flawed and just does not make sense on many levels, but also in regards to my original question, which I have yet to find any Futurist with an adequate answer for. The preterist view lends a nice alternative that almost fits completely, but the reasons I have given with my interaction with you has lead me to believe that the NT writers were correct in anticipating a great and history defining moment in the eternal perspective, but that they had to be incorrect in what they anticipated this event to look like and what would actually happen in the physical realm. I think this misunderstanding affected other areas of their doctrine and belief. I don't know quite where to go from here as I still believe in the truth conveyed by Jesus and as accurately portrayed in the gospels. And I believe Jesus' prophecies were fulfilled in AD 70 and this makes him the only Messiah figure in any religion to use both prophesy and a resurrection to prove that He was the Son of God. This is a powerful and humbling realization, and one that brings peace to my troubled mind.

GW,

Feel free to give your own analysis of 1 Cor. 15:54-56 if you think it will somehow overcome the objections I have presented. I see no need to provide commentary on this particular passage (again, to use your own word "a verse by verse interpretation...is for another thread"). This is the last time I will refuse your request. Either make your point about this passage or stop asking...please.

You also keep referencing the fact that I said you made a good case for 1 Thess. Not sure why, but nonethless, this is still true, but only in the regards of developing a case that Paul was speaking of an event that would happen in the near future, and the events of AD 70 confirmed his belief was prescient. I can say you're right in that he believed these things were going to happen quickly, and also say that since Paul believed in a physical resurrection of the dead, and that fact combined with your proposal seems to indicate he was slightly mistaken as to how things would occur.

GW:
I'm asking again: In YOUR view, what precisely is the error of Hymenaeus that Paul is rebuking? Is it timing that Paul has problems with? If yes, why?

Is it the nature of the event Paul has problems with? If yes, how do you know this from the passage?

DQ: HAVE YOU NOT BEEN READING MY POSTS?!!? Why do you ask this question again? Why is it that you have stopped responding to my posts and just started asking questions? Please re-read posts #42 & #45. I have proven it CANNOT be about timing, that was the whole purpose of the #42 post. The only other answer is that Paul was angry that he was proposing that it was a spiritual resurrection and not a physical one. Please don't ask this question again as it only insults me that you haven't been "listening" (reading).

GW:
Indeed. The entire ministry of Christ and the apostles, which took place before the destruction of the Jewish nation and Temple, involved the creation of a new Jewish religion to succeed and replace the then-present one, which they all taught and believed was about to vanish. Their belief was verifiably prescient, for neither Christ nor the apostles could have known that Israel's Temple and religion and people actually were going to vanish as they did in that generation.

With that belief at the center of their mission and teaching, the apostles proceeded to rapidly launch the creation and spread of a New Judaism to the whole world in their lifetimes, and in the face of brutal Roman and Jewish opposition no less. Christ's New Covenant form of judaism was constructed in explicit anticipation of the destruction of the old covenant order, and that NEW judaism was the means by which the Nazarene Jews escaped the doom of AD 70 while their countrymen died by clinging to Moses' Old Covenant order. That's entirely amazing.

The historical origin of Christianity is thus provably Providential and defies all natural explanations. Indeed, it is beyond all reasonable doubt that Christ and the apostles were prescient, both in their prophetic teachings and in the creation of a NEW judaism detached from the Temple, tribes, priestly class, and earthly city.

DQ: Couldn't have said it better myself.

I have three posts in which you have failed to mention, quote, or respond to and I believe they are my strongest case why that Paul believed in a physical resurrection of the dead (which did not happen in AD 70, we all agree), which consequently shows a serious flaw in your preterist beliefs, or as I am considering, a serious flaw in Paul's beliefs. I will only continue this discussion if you responde to posts #37, #42, and #43. Otherwise, I am getting the feeling that you are attempting to avoid these objections and shift the focus of the discussion elsewhere. Instead of answering any of these posts, you have continued to just ask additional questions and quote non-relevant sections of my other posts to respond to and repeat things you have already said. Even your questions indicate that you have not fully understood the points that I was making. Please re-read and if you would like to respond to those posts, I will glady continue this discussion.

Thanks.

Just think through this a minute. Let me see if I can make this more clear for you...Hymenaeus believed the resurrection of the dead had already occurred spiritually. There are two aspects to this statement, both timing and nature. The timing was irrelevant to Paul as he was only concerned that Hymanaeus was making the heretical claim that it was a spiritual resurrection. SO THEREFORE THE DISPUTE WAS ON THE NATURE (Paul's view of a physical resurrection and Hymanaeus' view of a spiritual resurrection) and the fact that Hymanaeus believed it had happened already was a mute issue to Paul. I am yet again amazed that even though I point out that you have not responded to my previous posts which completely show that you can't be entirely right, you continue to blatently ignore them. It only indicates that you agree that there is no answer to my objection. I'm very willing to admit I am in error. But just as you have ignored and cannot respond to my concrete and obviously irrefutable reasons why what Paul expected to happen (whether fully or even partially) did not, so in my four years of study on this particular question has there ever been anyone else to show me that I am in error. If that ever happens, I will HAPPILY jump back on the orthodox bandwagon and begin going with the flow once more. Until then, I will follow my path as it's being laid out in front of me, and just like the rest of us, my hope and prayer is that each step I take brings me one step closer to the one true God.Seriously GW, if you do not respond to the posts I mentioned, then we're wasting time here. It's cool if you just want to take a step back and just use our discussion for your further research and study...I'm not trying to push you to respond if you don't want to or want to further develop your own ideas before doing so. Just let me know. If not, thanks for the discussion. I mean that. Your description of the New Judaism and it's ingenious formation and solidification pre-destruction AD 70 was something I'd never thought about before and makes a lot of sense. Take care.

GW, I have answered all your relevant questions.

I cannot make myself more clear on my views on Hymanaeus and Paul's dispute with his teachings. After 3 or 4 detailed post on this issue, your questions indicate your thorough lack of understanding of my points.

#37, #42, #43

#42 and #43 and #37

I think we've made our points GW. And I've given you an answer to every question you have asked, including your most recent one (in #42 and #43). Just because you don't like the answer, doesn't mean you need to ask the question again hoping that I'll give you the answer you want.

Are you egging me on GW? Life gets in the way of forums sometimes.

I appreciate you finally getting to the point...the round about tactics used while you try to figure out what you believe was getting old. That said, the argument you make IS an answer, and I appreciate you addressing posts #42 and #43 (you've still got #37 to go). Here are a few of my observances.

1. I find it amazing that just a few posts back you said that it was hard to really know what Hymanaeus was proposing and then you here make statements of fact about what he was proposing. My explanation of what he was proposing was not overreaching, but simply the best understanding we can have based on the evidence of what he was proposing. Your explanation here is very detailed and specific and reaches beyond what the Scriptures actually say and you delve into specific doctrinal beliefs of these men with only reaching references to the difficulty of most early Christians to get beyond the law. On another note...you reference Paul's letter to the Galations. These people had their own problems and own false teachings...I cannot see how reaching in to this book can explain the beliefs of Hymanaues. The plain truth is...the only thing we know about Hymanaues is that he thought that the resurrection had already occured. And as I have shown, I am still, based on the evidence I see, under the opinion that the dispute was over the nature (physical versus spiritual) and not the timing and events surrounding the resurrection (~AD30 - AD70).

2. Perhaps a significant reason I am still unconvinced is that I do not see Paul using a physical resurrection of Jesus to define and explain a spiritual resurrection of the dead (as I mention in post #37). If my assertion is true that Paul believed in a physical resurrection of Jesus, and it only follows that as he compares the resurrection of the dead to the resurrection of Jesus, he would believe in a physical resurrection of the dead...my explanation of what Hymanaues was teaching still holds. So this point is of critical importance to my belief.

1 Thess. 4

14 For if we believe that Jesus died and rose again, even so them also that are fallen asleep in Jesus will God bring with him.

Lastly, let me again quote a signficant passage from Paul in 1 Thess. 4

17 then we that are alive, that are left, shall together with them be caught up in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord.

I know you have tried valiently...I do not think it is possible for you to convince me or the vast majority of Christians in the world today that this verse is still to this day being executed. Paul defines who he is talking about "we that are alive, that are left", he defines when we will join the dead in going to heaven "shall join together with them" to "meet the Lord in the air". It seems absurd to me that just to make a viewpoint fit, you must believe that Paul had absolutely no reason to identify the group in which he was describing would immediately participate in this event...he gave us context by saying, "we that are alive, that are left". Accordingly to your belief, Paul believed that this joining together with the dead would continue indefinately after this event. I find it extremely difficult and probably impossible to believe that he would use this language to define a belief that "oh, you know, when we actually die we'll join together with him, and not only us who are alive, but those who have not yet been born into the forever future".

I'm tired GW. It's obvious that we're too proud of people to admit here if one of us has convinced the other of anything that we didn't know or believe before. I think we've made our points and I'm losing steam. Feel free to respond...I'm just letting you know not to expect on the hour responses if at all to your posts. Thanks.