Steven Carr

Another pile of speculation , based on no evidence.

Some steps needed before the idea of an historical Jesus preaching a general resurrection of believers are

1) Show that Matthew 22 teaches a general resurrection of believers

2) Give the name of one Christian who has 'misunderstood' it to mean otherwise.

3) Explain how crowds of people could hear this teaching of Jesus yet whole churches in Thessalonica and Corinth did not believe in a general resurrection of believers. (Your answer to 1 of exactly why Matthew 22 teaches a general resurrection of believers is relevant here)


4) Explain why Paul would not correct any (alleged) misunderstanding of Matthew 22.

5) Explain how the author of Matthew got his information from that an historical Jesus taught such a thing.

You have never attempted even one of these steps.

So the idea that an historical Jesus preached a general resurrection of believers is something that people cannot begin to support.

Ben C Smith

Steven, I am not, I repeat, not on this thread trying to either affirm or deny that Jesus taught about the resurrection.

Your OP had this:

I referred to Garrow and Carlson to the effect that your premise (that the Thessalonians doubted the resurrection) may be incorrect. Garrow and Carlson hypothesize (based on Didache 16 and 1 Thessalonians 4-5, not on any theory about the historical Jesus) that the Thessalonians acknowledged a resurrection of saints, but thought that it applied generally to OT saints, not to saints after Jesus (who, if Jesus returned as quickly as the Thessalonians thought he would, would not need resurrected).

You keep asking me to defend the notion that Jesus taught that there would be a future resurrection, and I keep telling you: That becomes supremely irrelevant to the Thessalonian problem if, as Garrow and Carlson argue, the Thessalonians acknowledged the future resurrection, but thought they themselves were excluded.

Again, I am not trying to show that Matthew 22 teaches a general resurrection at all. Whether it does or does not has nothing to do with the Thessalonian problem if Garrow and Carlson are correct.

If the it is Matthew 22, then I have no such name; I need no such name. My argument has nothing, but nothing, to do with whether or not anybody misunderstood Matthew 22.

I do not think that Jesus taught about a general resurrection of believers. There were no believers (if I understand your term here) in his day.

I am not arguing that anybody ever misunderstood Matthew 22. I am telling you that Garrow and Carlson think the Thessalonians misunderstood Didache 16.

I am not arguing that Matthew did or did not receive good information about the dominical resurrection teachings.

Bingo. You are correct. Those steps have nothing to do with the problem at hand if Garrow and Carlson are correct.

Maybe, maybe not. But if Garrow and Carlson are correct, you will have to look elsewhere for evidence of that proposition.

One other thing.... You asked why Paul, if he knew of a dominical resurrection teaching, did not apply it to the Thessalonian problem. I responded by noting that he does attribute his solution to a word of the Lord. But that, on your terms, raises the specter of 1 Corinthians 15. Paul does not refer to any dominical word there. Why not? We know in this case that he has a dominical resurrection teaching in 1 Thessalonians 4; why does he not pull it out in 1 Corinthians 15? Why does he not tell them that the Lord himself said there would be a resurrection of the dead in Christ, end of story?

Ben.

Steven Carr

They can think what they want.

But they have to produce evidence before anybody would listen to them. Mounds of speculation are just useless.

And it still remains the fact that , if Jesus taught a general resurrection, Paul would have explained what Jesus meant to people who denied it.

Ben C Smith

That is what the article is for. Sorry it no longer seems to be online.

He did.

Ben.