Did the NT writers have it all wrong?

[DanQ]

Well said GW in regards to Jeff. I would just add a fairly obvious fact that the rate of population growth far exceeds the rate of conversions. Most of this population growth is occuring in places that have never heard of the Gospel. If every tribe must hear, then we're going in the wrong direction. And if God is waiting on and being patient with people to come to Him before He returns, He's actually doing more damage by doing this seeing that with the exponential population growth, he is allowing more people to be born who will never hear of Jesus than those who are accepting him every second.

I think you see many of the inconsistancies with holding the common futurist position where everything is still yet to be fulfilled. And I commend you for providing another option as opposed to the apostles erred. However, I think you can see that you are making the same case as you would make for the many other verses, especially by Jesus, that describe the events of AD 70. My point here is that this particular passage in 1 Thess. does not fit this idea. You're trying to make a sqaure fit in a round hole. The context of the chapter does not lend itself to interpreting this passage as OT apocolyptical and judgemental language. This points you bring up about the dead could be valid dispite this however. But you still fail to address how he can say that "we will not all die". You also fail to address how that after the dead (that you discuss are OT believers) are raised from the dead to go to heaven, "we who are alive shall join them". I'm certain that the early Christians did not go to Heaven at the destruction of the temple. So your failure to address these points (because I don't think you have a good answer) indicates the shortcomings of your noble attempt to harmonize these issues. Perhaps the answer for me is still out there, but as you can see from how I am processing this issue...after much study, I can't get away from that first conclusion that is feared, but seems to make the most sense...that I can't see how they did not err.

 

[AngelusSax]

A quick note:

In the context of eternity, "soon" is still "soon" even if it happens 500 millenia from now.

The early apostles did believe Jesus was coming back in their lifetime, and that it would be the Last Day. But perhaps they merely misunderstood what "soon" meant. And much of it had to do with the destruction of the temple in 70 AD and whatnot as well (though not all of it, which is where the rub comes in, I admit)

 

[DanQ]

A quick note:

In the context of eternity, "soon" is still "soon" even if it happens 500 millenia from now.

The early apostles did believe Jesus was coming back in their lifetime, and that it would be the Last Day. But perhaps they merely misunderstood what "soon" meant. And much of it had to do with the destruction of the temple in 70 AD and whatnot as well (though not all of it, which is where the rub comes in, I admit)

Even just a "misunderstanding" leads me back to my original question of how can we trust anything they say if this is true? If they misunderstood this point, what other ideas did the misunderstand that we don't know about. It throws into question everything that they said.

 

[jeffweeder]

I dont think Jesus alluded to himself as coming in AD70.
He went on to say that when the nation is disperesed around the world, and Jerusalem is desolated (events of AD70)-that these were the days of vengeance-till all things written are fulfilled--and then the time for Jerusalem --to be not trampled by gentiles would come...then the lord said he would come after the tribulation of those days...through the shaking of the heavens and the falling stars...here;

"But when you see Jerusalem surrounded by armies, then recognize that her desolation is near.
21 "Then those who are in Judea must flee to the mountains, and those who are in the midst of the city must leave, and those who are in the country must not enter the city;
22 because these are days of vengeance, so that all things which are written will be fulfilled.
23 "Woe to those who are pregnant and to those who are nursing babies in those days; for there will be great distress upon the land and wrath to this people;
24 and they will fall by the edge of the sword, and will be led captive into all the nations; and Jerusalem will be trampled under foot by the Gentiles until the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled.
25 "There will be signs in sun and moon and stars, and on the earth dismay among nations, in perplexity at the roaring of the sea and the waves,
26 men fainting from fear and the expectation of the things which are coming upon the world; for the powers of the heavens will be shaken.
27 "Then they will see THE SON OF MAN COMING IN A CLOUD with power and great glory.
28 "But when these things begin to take place, straighten up and lift up your heads, because your redemption is drawing near."

The disiples now know that Jesus wont come back until they are exiled...and the time would come when gentiles would no longer trample their city.

1967 is the only time when the jews thought they got back the city.

Now we can apply Jesus last words on the matter;

29 Then He told them a parable: "Behold the fig tree and all the trees;
30 as soon as they put forth leaves, you see it and know for yourselves that summer is now near.
31 "So you also, when you see these things happening, recognize that the kingdom of God is near.
32 "Truly I say to you, this generation[20][Or race ] will not pass away until all things take place.
33 "Heaven and earth will pass away, but My words will not pass away.

Notice Jesus last sentence, and notice the coming where we lift our heads, for redemption is drawing near.
This redemption is the ressurection of the body and connects to the heavens being nomore;

JOB 14
"But man dies and lies prostrate.
Man expires, and where is he?
11 "As water evaporates from the sea,
And a river becomes parched and dried up,
12 So man lies down and does not rise.
Until the heavens are no longer,
He will not awake nor be aroused out of his sleep.

But the day of the Lord will come like a thief, in which the heavens will pass away with a roar and the elements will be destroyed with intense heat, and the earth and its works will be burned up.
11 Since all these things are to be destroyed in this way, what sort of people ought you to be in holy conduct and godliness,
12 looking for and hastening the coming of the day of God, because of which the heavens will be destroyed by burning, and the elements will melt with intense heat!
13 But according to His promise we are looking for new heavens and a new earth, in which righteousness dwells.

 

[Brain Damage]

In light of how a number of New Testament writers believed beyond a shadow of a doubt that Jesus was coming EXTREMELY soon (at least within the lifetime of an existing generation), How can a writer so filled by the Holy Spirit, who was used to write God's Word to mankind for generations and generations have this one fact so completely wrong? How can I read what they wrote as God's Word to me if they were wrong on such a huge point? How can I know they did not misunderstand some other aspect of our faith or Jesus' Teachings? What ideas and theology are we trying to follow that were developed as a result of this thinking?

Yeah that's the point isn't it , what else might they be wrong about if they got the timing wrong?
It's a very good question and one which I think is gonna be hard for anyone to answer , unless we pick and choose what we want to believe and what we don't , which is what we do anyway....lol

I don't know but there is something in the bible that says , God sits in the heavens and laughs , for he has them all in derision. And I believe the "all" includes christians.

 

[AngelusSax]

Even just a "misunderstanding" leads me back to my original question of how can we trust anything they say if this is true? If they misunderstood this point, what other ideas did the misunderstand that we don't know about. It throws into question everything that they said.

I don't doubt that there are questions raised. I guess the only answer I have, personally, is that when I read, I must trust that God will guide me as to what He wants me to be guided to on any given point.

As for "we will not all die", death has multiple meanings within Scripture. One who is a Christian is a participant in eternal life already. The body dies, but we do not, for we merely transition from one side of eternal life to the other side of it (earth to heaven, in essence).

Perhaps it isn't the apostles who erred in saying we will not all die. Perhaps it is only the people who read those words and interpret them that make interpretational errors. I don't know, I can only speculate in all honesty. But that's my take on it as of now, at any rate.

 

[DanQ]

Jeff: "I dont think Jesus alluded to himself as coming in AD70."

I truly think you have legitimate points to your view. But my question does not pertain to whether or not Jesus alluded to the fact that he was coming in AD70 (or therabouts) or not. My question pertains to the fact that the apostles THOUGHT that he was coming within the lifetime of their listeners. For the sake of the question, it is absolutely fine to assume that Jesus never indicated that he would return soon (or around 70AD), but even with that conclusion, it still leaves us with the original question about the apostles. Did they then misunderstand Jesus since they believed he was coming very quickly (earthly standards)? Were they wrong when he didn't? I think futurists have the most difficult task of addressing this issue, but as I've indicated early, I think preterists have a difficult time as well harmonizing their ideas with every single reference to the Parousia and judgement of God.

As Brain Damage mentioned, I think we do pick and choose in this regard. I am a Christian, but it very difficult for me to get away from the fact that so far as I can tell at this time, the best way to harmonize all of the issues is to say that someone was just wrong (either Jesus or the apostles) in their beliefs on general timing (not specific, for no one knows the day or hour). This as everyone would probably agree is not an attractive conclusion and has far-reaching consequences, but the alternatives just seem too convoluted and like blaring attempts to clean up an embarrasing issue.

 

[GW]

DanQ:
My point here is that this particular passage in 1 Thess. does not fit this idea. You're trying to make a sqaure fit in a round hole.

GW:
It is not enough to merely assert this--you must prove it. The "parousia" (lit. "presence" - compare to Ps 68:2,7-8; Ps 97:5) being discussed in the 1 Thess 4:13-17 passage is the same one of 2 Thess 2:2-7, which St. Paul has clearly tied to the profanation/desecration of the Temple, as well as to the apostasy, which the bible itself records as taking place at the time Jude is written (see Book of Jude, all). And the teaching about the desecration of the Temple was Christ's own teaching found at Mt. 23:33-24:2, Luke 19:40-44, and Matt 24:15. So I see St. Paul being consistent here.


DanQ:
The context of the chapter does not lend itself to interpreting this passage as OT apocolyptical and judgemental language.

GW:
But it does. The very language about God descending from heaven with clouds and even with trumpet blast (1 Thess 4:16-17) is standard O.T. usage for God's past O.T. judgments (See: Zech 9:13-15; 2 Sam 22:10-16; Hab 3:3-15; Isa 19:1-2; Micah 1:1-6; Nahum 1:1-5; Ps. 97:2; Ps 104:2-3; Jer 4:13). And pay extra special attention to the "cloud coming" of God as described at Rev 14:14-20 (Hint: the action takes place in the heavenly realm). Even the "destruction by brightness" language of 2 Thess 2:8 is has reference to past judgments at Hab 3:4, Ps 44:2-3, and Ps. 18:12.


DanQ:
This points you bring up about the dead could be valid dispite this however.

GW:
Indeed. What was to happen to the O.T-era dead was a central issue in the switch from the Old Covenant age to the New Covenant age. And in fact, nearly all christian groups admit that a major change took place for the dead during that time. Yet there is no agreement about what event marked their release from Hades. I believe the scripture is clear that the destruction of the Temple marked their release from Hades, as St. Paul teaches.


DanQ:
But you still fail to address how he can say that "we will not all die". You also fail to address how that after the dead (that you discuss are OT believers) are raised from the dead to go to heaven, "we who are alive shall join them".

GW:
I think Paul addresses it by saying the dead ones go first and living ones later. For sure, we can all agree that faithful Christians do now go to heaven at death, and that this phenomenon began no later than AD 70. I believe St. Paul marks the change as having taken place with the destruction of the Old Covenant constitution and commonwealth.


.

 

[DanQ]

GW:
I think Paul addresses it by saying the dead ones go first and living ones later. For sure, we can all agree that faithful Christians do now go to heaven at death, and that this phenomenon began no later than AD 70. I believe St. Paul marks the change as having taken place with the destruction of the Old Covenant constitution and commonwealth.

DQ: If what you are saying is true, then modern day Christians do not have this hope. Read carefully what Paul says, "we that are still alive and left will be caught up with them". We were not alive during that time, so Paul seems to have excluded us. He gives context to his opinion of timing by making a point of saying "we that are still alive" being caught up together with them. To add a few thousands years between these two statements by Paul is using the same tactics used by Futurists to make their claims (which you would say are foolish). It seems clear to me that Paul assumed or believed that the end of the age was equal to the end of history as we know it. It is the same as saying "when Jesus returns, the OT believers will leave their graves to go to heaven and we who are alive will be caught up together with them to meet the Lord" And when those who were left didn't join the OT believers in going to heaven, then later generations continue to extend that sentence out to make up for the fact that it didn't happen. The sentence when read properly clearly indicates a singular event, not one event and then multiple events for the remainder of history (every time a believer dies). So I'm not just making an assertion without proof, I'm just using reason and clear reading to point out the logical problems with your statements concerning this particular passage.

Have you ever heard of or researched the Didache? It is the oldest known extra-biblical document that most scholars believe was written at the end of the first century around AD 80. This document shows that early Christians mention things like the antichrist, the tribulation, and the second coming as things that would happen in the future. I find it interesting that this all happend in AD 70 and no one knew it including the earliest church fathers. Why are we just figuring these things out? Again, is the answer that we're trying to make sense of the inconsistencies within the study of the end times?

I think the Book of Revelation reveals serious gaps in your theories. Here is a list of things described in Revelation that there is no record of actually ever happening. And while some could be argued to be symbolic, it just makes no sense to assume most of the specific descriptions of things to happen would not even come close to resembling reality.

A. The turning of a 1/3 of the sea into blood (Rev. 8:8)
B. The death of a third of all sea life dying (Rev. 8:9)
C. A third of the world’s ships being destroyed. (Rev. 8:9)
D. The most devastating earthquake that has ever taken place. (Revelation 16:18-19)
E. An event that will wipe out 25 percent of the earth’s population. (Revelation 6:8)
F. Three plagues that will wipe out one third of the remaining population. (Revelation 9:18)
G. Two witnesses (Revelation 11:5-6)

The specific numbers used to describe these events do not indicate that these items can be taken allegorically.

I think it's also fair to say that both sides of this issue allegorize things that don't fit their particular view point. And they use literal interpretation where it suits their viewpoint as well. That's why I say I have yet to form an opinion, because each side's methods just don't make reasonable sense. I get a mental picture of someone trying to hold on to a big gob of goo in their hands without spilling it...problems are spewing out from all different directions and its all a person can do to keep everything together.

 

[GW]

DanQ:
If what you are saying is true, then modern day Christians do not have this hope. Read carefully what Paul says, "we that are still alive and left will be caught up with them". We were not alive during that time, so Paul seems to have excluded us.

GW:
If I am right that St. Paul was speaking of the first time in human history that the dead would exit hades, and that the living from that time on would be able to go where they were, then it means that Heaven is now open for business to receive God's people and has been since AD 70.

And in fact, that is what most christian groups believe to be the case. The only new thing I am doing is identifying the precise moment in history when that "change" took place. Christian theology has always been unsure on WHEN in the first century that transition occurred--I'm saying that Paul identified it as occurring when the Temple was destroyed.



DanQ:
It seems clear to me that Paul assumed or believed that the end of the age was equal to the end of history as we know it.

GW:
I disagree. Read 2 Cor 3:6-12, for example, where Paul is reflecting on the impending end of the Old Testament era and the impending glory of the New Testament era. Paul knows that he and the apostles are the ones making it happen during that generation of history. He sees that the covenant transition is coming to fruition, except that the continued existence of the Old System still needed to vanish for them (Heb 8:13).


DanQ:
And when those who were left didn't join the OT believers in going to heaven, then later generations continue to extend that sentence out to make up for the fact that it didn't happen.

GW:
I don't follow your logic. Paul knows that a change was about to occur for them concerning where the dead reside. The change occurred, and now we get to go be with them instead of going to Hades/Sheol. You don't believe that you are going to Hades when you die, do you? If you do not, then a major change has taken place at a fixed point in history. I'm identifying *when* that change took place.


DanQ:
I find it interesting that this all happend in AD 70 and no one knew it including the earliest church fathers.

GW:
A discussion on church history's various endtimes views is for another thread. Doctrines have always had to be clarified, usually in response to disputes. The church never had any councils about eschatology, and so there has been wide liberty in how to understand eschatology.

DanQ:
Why are we just figuring these things out?

GW:
Because doctrine isn't a precise science written down in some manual somewhere. It is a set of truths and propositions that have been delivered over time through key historic events, then preserved and clarified for posterity.


DanQ:
I think the Book of Revelation reveals serious gaps in your theories. Here is a list of things described in Revelation that there is no record of actually ever happening.

GW:
A verse-by-verse interpretation of Revelation is for another thread. I've taken time to address one major objection you have listed. I believe I have done a very solid job at laying out a case for why Paul did not err in talking to the Thessalonians.

I hope you will re-read all those O.T. passages I have cited. Why? Because understanding how the prophets spoke of Yahweh's OT-era judgments and comings (parousias) is *the key to understanding* what the apostles taught about the apocalyptic end of the Old Testamental age, as brought about by Jesus, the Messiah in real history.

 

[Biblewriter]

The Op here and most of the responses miss the whole point of scripture.

What the writers believed or understood is irrelevant. The scriptures themselves plainly state that its writers sometimes did not understand what they were writing. We see this in 1 Peter 1:

10Of which salvation the prophets have inquired and searched diligently, who prophesied of the grace that should come unto you: 11Searching what, or what manner of time the Spirit of Christ which was in them did signify, when it testified beforehand the sufferings of Christ, and the glory that should follow. 12Unto whom it was revealed, that not unto themselves, but unto us they did minister the things, which are now reported unto you by them that have preached the gospel unto you with the Holy Ghost sent down from heaven; which things the angels desire to look into.

The proper perspective in reading scripture is not what the writer thought or understood, but what the Holy Spirit intended when He inspired them to write what they wrote, as we read in 2 Peter 1:

19We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts: 20Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. 21For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.​

But the central error in all this lies in an assumption made in several of the posts. This assumption was that the wording of various New Testament passages indicated that these things would be fulfilled within the lifetimes of the writers. This has not been demonstrated, and cannot be demonstrated. It is an unproven and unprovable assumption.

Scripture itself plainly tells us that this assumption is incorrect. We Find this is a passage already quoted in this thread, but which needs more comment, so I will include it again here. Like my first two, this one also comes from from the Holy Spirit through the pen of Peter.

2 peter 3:8, which says 8But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day. was an answer to the scoffers mentioned in verses two and three, 3Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts, 4And saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation.

So we see that the words "a day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day" is God's specific and express answer to the scoffers. This has been noted in a general way, but we need to notice that the very form of this answer included in its wording a possible delay of "a thousand years," pointing out that such a delay would be meaningless in interpreting scripture.

This statement, in and by itself, is final proof that all arguments based on the proper interpretation of words such as "soon" and "shortly" are meaningless. When we remember that these are the words of God, and not of men. A delay of a thousand years is meaningless. This is not my opinion, it is scripture.

But the truth is that the apostles did understand this, as we read further down in this same chapter.

14Wherefore, beloved, seeing that ye look for such things, be diligent that ye may be found of him in peace, without spot, and blameless. 15And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you; 16As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.

We see this again in Luke 19:

11And as they heard these things, he added and spake a parable, because he was nigh to Jerusalem, and because they thought that the kingdom of God should immediately appear.

This scripture plainly shows that the point of parable it introduced was to let them know that the kingdom of God would not appear immediately, and thus plainly shows that neither Jesus nor Luke thought that it would immediately appear.

We see this again in Acts 1, where we read:

6When they therefore were come together, they asked of him, saying, Lord, wilt thou at this time restore again the kingdom to Israel? 7And he said unto them, It is not for you to know the times or the seasons, which the Father hath put in his own power.

Here out Lord himself distinctly told them that He would not reveal the timing of this event.

Some here have brought up the old and tired argument about apocalyptical writings in the Old Testament. There can be no question that the correct interpretation of any apocalyptical writing is open to debate. But the Old testament includes many non-apocalyptical prophecies that have unquestionably not been fulfilled.

When a prophet wrote "I saw...." he was giving an apocalyptical vision. But when he wrote that the vision meant so-and so, he was not being apocalyptical.

Reverence for the word of God, and thus to the God that gave it, requires us to believe that when the Bible said that something was going to happen, it meant exactly what it said. The event prophesied was future at the time it was written. If that event has not yet happened, it is still future. And there are many explicitly stated prophecies in the Old Testament that speak in great detail about things that have never happened. If we believe these prophecies, and have even a smattering of knowledge about history, we know that the prophesied events will be fulfilled at some time which is still future.

 

[DanQ]

And you have done a solid job GW. You still seem to assume that since I am questioning your premise with this particular passage that I don't understand your OT reference points. I DO! And I now see through some of your explanation that it could be possible to view this particular passage in the same light as other NT verses on the Parousia. But this idea breeds many other disturbing offshoots.

I understand you do no want to chase many rabbits in this thread, but to believe as you do requires a whole shift in modern theology and how to interpret major portions of Scripture. A few points I have made that I think relate directly to this coversation that have not yet been addressed:

1. I find it interesting that Paul is here and in 1 Corinthians 15 defending the resurrection of the dead by comparing it to the resurrection of Jesus. If the resurrection of the dead is purely spiritual, then it would follow by using Paul's own logic that the resurrection of Jesus would be Spiritual as well. I think it is reasonable to assume that since Jesus physically resurrected, or at least that's what we now believe as a universal church, that the dead would also phsyically resurrect based upon Paul's own comparison. Your conclusion would only be true, if you believe the gospels, if Paul believed the resurrection of the dead was spiritual and Jesus' was physical. This topic brings up the whole issue of whether Paul actually believed in a physical resurreciton of Jesus. Based upon your conclusion, it would then follow that you believe that Paul only believed in a spiritual resurrection of Jesus and that he didn't physically come out of the grave, but that he resurrected beyond the realm of the physical. This opposes what is portrayed in the gospels. Many ex-Christian theologians use this premise to argue against the resurrection (physical) of Jesus...saying, "well, even Paul didn't believe in a physical resurrection". What say you?
2. Although a bit of a rabbit trail, I think it still is related. Please help me understand based upon your view of these issues what is in store for us humans in the future. Will there be an end to it all (history itself) and "final judgement"? And if so, where is this found in the Bible that is outside of a particular passage that you deem as fulfilled in AD 70? And if not, what then?

Thanks.

 

[GW]

DanQ:
I DO [understand your O.T. reference points]. And I now see through some of your explanation that it could be possible to view this particular passage in the same light as other NT verses on the Parousia.

GW:
Very good. I believe that's a mighty fine place for me to stop, as I don't have time to keep posting at present. Also, I have learned that it's good to go one step at a time, especially in eschatology.

But for the record, St. Paul believes in the physical resurrection of Jesus and so do I. Moreover, I believe in multiple apocalyptic judgments of God all throughout history (e.g. Noah, Egypt, Assyria, Babylon, AD 70, etc.) and in a final judgment of history at a time known only to God (perhaps hundreds of thousands or even millions of years from now?). Christ is the eternal judge and ruler of human history and there is no other.

 

[DanQ]

BW: What the writers believed or understood is irrelevant. The scriptures themselves plainly state that its writers sometimes did not understand what they were writing.

DQ: This logic makes no sense whatsoever. When a person makes a specific reference to a time period, this is extremely relevant. One can believe that a writers words are inspired by the Holy Spirit and still believe that the writers believed that which they were writing. One could also say that they did not understand certain spiritual matters that they proclaimed as when Paul says "I tell you a mystery". I don't think he would claim to understand the mystery completely, hence why it's a mystery. But simple logic would say that if I made a statement of belief, I believe what I say. Your logic indicates that the belief system of the writers is irrelevenat. No, this is completely wrong. A writer cannot believe something different than what he receives from the Holy Spirit. Did Paul believe in a physical resurrection of Jesus? In your viewpoint, it wouldn't matter. And if it doesn't matter, than it's up to us to determine what the Holy Spirit is claiming. And how can we understand what the Holy Spirit is claiming it isn't what the writers believe?

Every other point you made in your post is irrelevant if you believe that what the writers believed is irrelevant. For everything that you said in your post could be true of what the Holy Spirit may have been somehow communicating over and above what the writers knew if what the believed does not matter. Without the objectivity of targeting what the communicators of the Holy Spirit's words believed, all interpretation of Scripture gets lost in the subjectivity of each individual's belief of what the Holy Spirit is trying to communicate over and above what the writer is actually saying.

 

[DanQ]

DanQ:
I DO [understand your O.T. reference points]. And I now see through some of your explanation that it could be possible to view this particular passage in the same light as other NT verses on the Parousia.

GW:
Very good. I believe that's a mighty fine place for me to stop, as I don't have time to keep posting at present. Also, I have learned that it's good to go one step at a time, especially in eschatology.

But for the record, St. Paul believes in the physical resurrection of Jesus and so do I. Moreover, I believe in multiple apocalyptic judgments of God all throughout history (e.g. Noah, Egypt, Assyria, Babylon, AD 70, etc.) and in a final judgment of history at a time known only to God (perhaps hundreds of thousands or even millions of years from now?). Christ is the eternal judge and ruler of human history and there is no other.

I see how it is. Get a guy to give just a little and stop the conversation short while your ahead. Nice. My point is that it's possible to believe as you do about this particular Scripture, but that the belief itself throws into question too many other details that don't make sense. Even you're claim that you believe in the physical resurrection of Jesus doesn't make sense with what you've been saying. I'm still left with my original question and a nagging problem with what I feel is contradictions and difficult and perhaps unovercomable objectives to both sides of this debate.

Thanks for your input though.

 

[GW]

DanQ:
I see how it is. Get a guy to give just a little and stop the conversation short while your ahead.

GW:
I helped you see why 1 Thess 4 / 2 Thess 2 could be assigned to the Temple's destruction and the change of death and Hades which took place between the transition from the OT era to the NT era. This was your objection in the opening post, and I answered it. Now you want to start another topic that will require another conversation. Another time.

You keep asserting that some things don't make sense, and then I help you see how they can make sense, given the proper assumptions and approach. But it takes time to help you think through the proper assumptions and approach.

Unlike you, I don't think the apostles erred. To the contrary, I believe history fully proved that Christ and the Nazarene Jews were 100% prescient in their claim that the Temple and nation would be destroyed, which they claimed decades before it took place. Moreover, they spent four decades creating a NEW covenant form of Judaism that providentially detached from tribe, temple, nation, and priestly class in anticipation of their impending extinction. Moreover, it was precisely that NEW covenant form of Judaism that saved them from the calamity of AD 70 while all the other sects were wiped out clinging to Moses' old covenant demands. Absolutely prescient.

 

[DanQ]

GW,

I find we agree on many issues. One being that the predictions made by Jesus and the NT writers were quite impressive, perhaps and probably most likely divine. However, you have presented an answer for this particular passage which cannot escape the inproper assumption that Paul is not making a direct coorelation between the resurrection of the dead and the resurrection of Jesus. This point has everything to do with this topic and should not be disregarded. You assert that your opinion of this passage is based on proper assumptions and approach, yet you will not answer a reasonable objection to your own assumptions regarding this passage. You have given a statement of belief that reveals an assumption that cannot possibly be reconciled with the blaring comparison being made between the resurrection of the dead and the resurrection of Jesus. If you are to assert that Paul did not expect a physical resurrection of the dead, and you have come to this discussion with the belief that Paul believed in a physical resurrection of Jesus, you must show how Paul used the physical resurrection of Jesus to defend and prove his premise that the dead will indeed be resurrected. Using your own assumptions, you can see that it is unreasonable to assert that Paul would try to defend an unseen spiritual resurrection of the dead with a seen physical resurrection of Jesus. His audience would see this as an unprovable argument and a false analogy. However, since you have so enlightened me with your tedious attempt to help me understand the proper assumptions and approach, and I now believe that Paul did indeed believe in the physical resurrection of Jesus, it would only follow that I should believe he intended to show and prove the physical resurrection of the dead by pointing to the physical resurrection of Jesus.

Perhaps he heard part of the message and was mistaken on the details. Unless you can show me how he could reasonably utilize a physical resurrection of Jesus (and the subsequent, but not referenced, physical resurrections of the dead following Jesus' own resurrection) to prove a spiritual resurrection of the dead, this can be my only conclusion. We cannot just assume that since the dead were not physically resurrected from the dead in AD 70 that Paul could not have believed in a physical resurrection of the dead. This is the biased motivation for harmonizing Paul's clear attempt to show that the physical resurrection of Jesus was a precursor of the many more physical resurrections to follow at the end of days. Absolutely relevant to this discussion.

 

[GW]

DanQ, what is your understanding of 1 Cor 15:54-56?

Would you mind listing it and providing what you think is being said?

Thanks.

 

[DanQ]

Please turn in your hymnals to post number 16 and let's see how you responded when you thought I was avoiding one of your questions by asking my own. I digress.

 

[DanQ]

I think it would be helpful for you to reference what you believe Hymenaus believed concerning the resurrection and why Paul was refuting these ideas in 1 Cor. 15 when you respond to my question.