JonA

That's just the point I was making; as far as I can interpret, there are no two answers: removing the bold sections leaves an empty argument.

In the parts that remain, I do not see an argument that resurrection is God's way of delivering on his 'promise of a blessed future age in the promise land'. Maybe Paul and other Christians believed that it was, but there is no hint of such an argument in chapter 15. To conclude that there is, in my opinion, requires an excessive amount of interpretation.

Because this thing you call 'the former argument' (that resurrection represents a fulfilled promise by God) doesn't exist in chapter 15 of 1 Corinthians. As best as can be discerned, Paul's converts had either started to die or his current converts were wondering what would happen to all their dead loved ones. Some folk in Corinth were vehement that they would not be resurrected because that's just not the way things work. Paul made it clear that if resurrection wasn't the way things work, then Jesus wasn't resurrected, and the whole of their Christian faith was a sham. So obviously, as Paul would put it, the dead do get resurrected.

I cannot see a coherent argument absent the mentions of Jesus' resurrection. The whole rhetoric of the first part of the chapter depends on it, and it feeds into the 'timeline' of sorts that Paul gives in the second part of the chapter. It's just too central to the chapter to assume that it was never meant to be there.

Jon

dog-on

I am not sure how to better explain it, perhaps Hebrew 11.1, though not specifically Pauline, I think the idea is about the same.

However, I thought that the verse I posted would kill a couple birds, but maybe it was unclear. If you notice verses 22 and 23:

Pay close attention to what Paul is saying here, versus what Paul states in 15:3-11.

Wouldn't those listed appearances of a resurrected Christ be a sign for the Jews? Wouldn't the words of Jesus have been wisdom for the Greeks? (Both of which, of course, are addressed by the later gospel writers supplying many signs and tons of wisdom, funny that...).

archibald

But you still seem to be assuming that one (type of faith) is at odds with the other, instead of being connected. And they are connected, in verses 1-2.

In fact, does he not say in verse 1 that he is about to remind his audience of something? His 'gospel' in fact. And he says that if they don't hold fast to this, the thing is he about to remind them of, this is why their faith will be in vain. :huh:

In that sense, verses 1-2 seem to set up verse 3 very well.

And indeed verse 12 is arguably a natural follow on, because he returns to the faith thing after having reminded them of the gospel thing. Both of which things are set up, and connected to each other, in 1-2.

Edit: I'm sorry. Did you mean to refer to verses 22-23 of a different context, written by someone else?

dog-on

They are connected, anachronistically, which is why I doubt the originality of 3-11. It is my opinion that Paul is always speaking in terms of internal revelation (God revealed Christ in him, through the ancient writings, etc...)and that it is only later, by subsequent generations reading/writing the gospels back into Paul, that the revelation becomes externalized.

archibald

Possibly (still not seeing it). On the face of it, verses 1-2 seem to suggest he is about to remind them of his gospel. Then 3 does this. No?

dog-on

No, Verse 22-23 from 1 Cor 2, actually the entire chapter is relevant.

archibald

But surely Paul is arguing that Jesus rose from the dead?

If this is not a bodily to spiritual thing (or alternately an actual bodily resurrection), how are the Corinthians supposed to do it also? Jesus did it. And so it can be done. Etc.

As JonA says, is this not a strong theme in 1 Corinthians? The actual resurrection of the faithful, as in 1 Thessalonians 4; v13.

dog-on

I don't read it that way.

Though I actually think that he refers specifically to his good news right here however unpalatable this might have been at a later time, I think a descent job was done to minimize the impact. Don't you?

dog-on

Yes, Paul is saying that Christ rose from the dead. That really is besides the point I was making which was how Paul came to that understanding in the first place.

archibald

Ok. Where's the disjoin:

1. Moreover, brethren, I declare unto you the gospel which I preached unto you, which also ye have received, and wherein ye stand;

2. By which also ye are saved, if ye keep in memory what I preached unto you, unless ye have believed in vain.

3. For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures;

Not following you, sorry.

Gotta go here. Catch you later maybe. Work work work. :]