Bernard Muller

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
But saying that, and considering 1Cor3:1 and Gal6:1, let's say Paul was thinking about "spiritual man" in 1Cor2:15 (even if he obviously did not stress it).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What else would he be saying? Don't dodge the issue. Face it. Admit it. On three separate occasions Paul uses the term "spiritual" to describe a physical person without converting them into phantoms. In other words, every time Paul uses the term to refer to a person he means a physical person. The adjective does not "prevail" on the noun.

Actually, in these three cases, I agree with you, except that the Greek never has "spiritual man" in any one of those. But you forgot to mention that "spiritual", attributed to "man", normally has the meaning of "in the Spirit".
Other things can be "spiritual", such a person, a song, a sermon. And I never claimed "spiritual man" means some kind of phantom. I also notice that "spiritual" for a song or sermon does not mean the sermon or song is coming from heaven. They are man-made.

Layman wrote: In any event, you are wrong. All of these things are described as spiritual because of their ultimate source of being--they are from heaven.

So Layman, you are saying that the spiritual rock and the spiritual water mentioned in 1Cor10:4 came from heaven as a real rock and real water, as the Christ of the same verse. And the "spiritual man" in 1Cor2:15 and 1Cor14:37 (according to your preferred translation) came from heaven also, even if those were normal earthly mortals.

You are playing a lot on your so-called definition of "spiritual", that is the attribute of anything coming from heaven to earth, ethereal or physical. And that includes food, drink and human body!
"The ultimate source of being". Since according to the bible, everything in the universe comes from God in the heaven, then everything "natural" (not man-made) would be "spiritual"!!! That would dilute your definition towards total meaninglessness.

Actually your definition is not existing in any dictionnary, at least for anything physical.

Here is the (Christian & religious) definition of "spiritual" from STRONG:

1) relating to the human spirit, or rational soul, as part of the man which is akin to God and serves as his instrument or organ

a) that which possesses the nature of the rational soul

2) belonging to a spirit, or a being higher than man but inferior to God

3) belonging to the Divine Spirit

a) of God the Holy Spirit

b) one who is filled with and governed by the Spirit of God

4) pertaining to the wind or breath; windy, exposed to the wind, blowing

I do not see anything like your definition of "spiritual", that is "coming from heaven", as for a physical rock or real water. But I notice my two definitions for "spiritual" are included, that is "in the Spirit" (3b) and "spirit-like" or ethereal (2). Where is yours?

Since there is no reason to think that Paul would have ignored Jewish traditions, Midrash, and teachings about the Old Testament, there is no reason to limit ourselves to it.

I can see some very good reasons. Those pseudepigraphal traditions were not existing in the times of Paul, or were not well known, or were disputed.

The evidence for that is in Josephus' Antiquities, which relative to the drinking water of the Exodus, stay very close to the OT, and never mentioned a rolling well-stone dispensing on demand real water from heaven. And 'Antiquities' was written 30-40 years after Paul's times.

I am quoting now from Ant. Book III, Ch. I:

2 ... He therefore betook himself to prayer to God, that he would change the water from its present badness, and make it fit for drinking. And when God had granted him that favor, he took the top of a stick that lay down at his feet, and divided it in the middle, and made the section lengthways. He then let it down into the well, and persuaded the Hebrews that God had hearkened to his prayers, and had promised to render the water such as they desired it to be, in case they would be subservient to him in what he should enjoin them to do, and this not after a remiss or negligent manner. And when they asked what they were to do in order to have the water changed for the better, he bid the strongest men among them that stood there, to draw up water (2) and told them, that when the greatest part was drawn up, the remainder would be fit to drink. So they labored at it till the water was so agitated and purged as to be fit to drink.

3. And now removing from thence they came to Elim; which place looked well at a distance, for there was a grove of palm-trees; but when they came near to it, it appeared to be a bad place, for the palm-trees were no more than seventy; and they were ill-grown and creeping trees, by the want of water, for the country about was all parched, and no moisture sufficient to water them, and make them hopeful and useful, was derived to them from the fountains, which were in number twelve: they were rather a few moist places than springs, which not breaking out of the ground, nor running over, could not sufficiently water the trees. And when they dug into the sand, they met with no water; and if they took a few drops of it into their hands, they found it to be useless, on account of its mud. ...

7. As soon as they were removed thence, they came to Rephidim, being distressed to the last degree by thirst; and while in the foregoing days they had lit on a few small fountains, but now found the earth entirely destitute of water, they were in an evil case. They again turned their anger against Moses; but he at first avoided the fury of the multitude, and then betook himself to prayer to God, beseeching him, that as he had given them food when they were in the greatest want of it, so he would give them drink, since the favor of giving them food was of no value to them while they had nothing to drink. And God did not long delay to give it them, but promised Moses that he would procure them a fountain, and plenty of water, from a place they did not expect any. So he commanded him to smite the rock which they saw lying there, (5) with his rod, and out of it to receive plenty of what they wanted; for he had taken care that drink should come to them without any labor or pains-taking. When Moses had received this command from God, he came to the people, who waited for him, and looked upon him, for they saw already that he was coming apace from his eminence. As soon as he was come, he told them that God would deliver them from their present distress, and had granted them an unexpected favor; and informed them, that a river should run for their sakes out of the rock. But they were amazed at that hearing, supposing they were of necessity to cut the rock in pieces, now they were distressed by their thirst and by their journey; while Moses only smiting the rock with his rod, opened a passage, and out of it burst water, and that in great abundance, and very clear. But they were astonished at this wonderful effect; and, as it were, quenched their thirst by the very sight of it. So they drank this pleasant, this sweet water; and such it seemed to be, as might well be expected where God was the donor.

Josephus was not aware of any moving well/rock. But Paul was, from pseudepigraphal material, probably still not existing then, according to you !!! And why would Paul use dubious, not widely accepted, unbiblical legends, just to make a minor point?

To be continued ...

Best regards, Bernard

Metacrock

Meta: It also doesnt' give you the basis for saying that Paul's concept was that of a spirit-being for the risen Christ. That is just being read into the text with no real justification other than argument form silence

Layman wrote: In any event, you are wrong. All of these things are described as spiritual because of their ultimate source of being--they are from heaven.



Meta: Sorry but that is a totally inadqueate response. In fact it sux! Here's why:

(1) Layman's defition is being charactured rather than represented fairly. He didn't say "spirit means coming from heaven" he said that the context of the passages in question implies that Paul is linking the concept of spirit to our relation in being and that to our higher relation to Being itself. It's not a matter of just saying "coming form heaven."

(2) It's not adquate to give some little boiled down list of Strong's defitions. In fact Strong's is so bad it probably shoulnd't be used.

(3) Pnouma means litterly "breath" or "wind." Anything beyond tht is as a good a guess as any. But the German tradition always linked to mind, which fits your defintion no 1 (rational).

But then the link to our overall position in being also does that as well, which means what Layman said would also fit with 1

(4) Layman's answer fits with no3 live a hand in golve


Since there is no reason to think that Paul would have ignored Jewish traditions, Midrash, and teachings about the Old Testament, there is no reason to limit ourselves to it.



Meta: Bull-ony! The whole Milue of the pesudepigraphal writtings is present strongly at Qumran and thoughtout the DDS, going back at least 50 years before Paul. That even includes Messianic redeemer figure suffering for sin.


I am quoting now from Ant. Book III, Ch. I:

2 ... He therefore betook himself to prayer to God, that he would change the water from its present badness, and make it fit for drinking. And when God had granted him that favor, he took the top of a stick that lay down at his feet, and divided it in the middle, and made the section lengthways. He then let it down into the well, and persuaded the Hebrews that God had hearkened to his prayers, and had promised to render the water such as they desired it to be, in case they would be subservient to him in what he should enjoin them to do, and this not after a remiss or negligent manner. And when they asked what they were to do in order to have the water changed for the better, he bid the strongest men among them that stood there, to draw up water (2) and told them, that when the greatest part was drawn up, the remainder would be fit to drink. So they labored at it till the water was so agitated and purged as to be fit to drink.

3. And now removing from thence they came to Elim; which place looked well at a distance, for there was a grove of palm-trees; but when they came near to it, it appeared to be a bad place, for the palm-trees were no more than seventy; and they were ill-grown and creeping trees, by the want of water, for the country about was all parched, and no moisture sufficient to water them, and make them hopeful and useful, was derived to them from the fountains, which were in number twelve: they were rather a few moist places than springs, which not breaking out of the ground, nor running over, could not sufficiently water the trees. And when they dug into the sand, they met with no water; and if they took a few drops of it into their hands, they found it to be useless, on account of its mud. ...

7. As soon as they were removed thence, they came to Rephidim, being distressed to the last degree by thirst; and while in the foregoing days they had lit on a few small fountains, but now found the earth entirely destitute of water, they were in an evil case. They again turned their anger against Moses; but he at first avoided the fury of the multitude, and then betook himself to prayer to God, beseeching him, that as he had given them food when they were in the greatest want of it, so he would give them drink, since the favor of giving them food was of no value to them while they had nothing to drink. And God did not long delay to give it them, but promised Moses that he would procure them a fountain, and plenty of water, from a place they did not expect any. So he commanded him to smite the rock which they saw lying there, (5) with his rod, and out of it to receive plenty of what they wanted; for he had taken care that drink should come to them without any labor or pains-taking. When Moses had received this command from God, he came to the people, who waited for him, and looked upon him, for they saw already that he was coming apace from his eminence. As soon as he was come, he told them that God would deliver them from their present distress, and had granted them an unexpected favor; and informed them, that a river should run for their sakes out of the rock. But they were amazed at that hearing, supposing they were of necessity to cut the rock in pieces, now they were distressed by their thirst and by their journey; while Moses only smiting the rock with his rod, opened a passage, and out of it burst water, and that in great abundance, and very clear. But they were astonished at this wonderful effect; and, as it were, quenched their thirst by the very sight of it. So they drank this pleasant, this sweet water; and such it seemed to be, as might well be expected where God was the donor.



Meta: Paul clearly has some overlapps with that milue, such as the seven heavens. There were probably a lot more interconnections between those groups than you know.

Steven Carr

Ah yes. The opening post. The one that says that if Paul wanted to refer to Jesus as a spirit, he would have used the word 'pneuma', which is exactly what he did in 1 Cor 15:45.

Metacrock

Meta: (1) Paul was a Jew. He believed as the Jews did, that the Messiah would return and would raise Israel, that is all the Israelites who had died to that point, and then begin the Kingdom.

(2)The problem is, people will die and have died before that happens and they have to go someplaced. Those are saved in the Lord do not go to judgement, because they will not be judged. Paul says they will be present with the Lord.


(3) So the Christian goes to be with the Lord, and when the Messiah returns they will be raised with Israel. Even though he doesnt' say it explicitly his talk about bodily resurrection clearly implies this.



Meta:What?? That's arguing form analogy! The passage clearly does not imply that the glorified spiritual body is not flesh. that' why he says there are different types of flesh. (1 cor)




Meta: Well so what if he had a new body? It was a body! he wasn't a ghost-like wreth wtih no substance. bedies how do you know it wasn't the same body gloriefied? It never says it wasn't and that was the Jewish bleief. You give us no reason to buy your assumptions but just assert their veracity just because they are yours!

Metacrock

Meta: why does he have to? I find that to be nothing sheer sophestry. Come on now, pure argument from silence. Why would he feel it was necessary to say so, without knowning about modern day Jesus-myther arguments? It's not as though you have any evidence of a grand movment to change the Jewish view of resurrection before 3d century gnsoticism!

there is no reason to assume that the body would be of an etherial nature! Why should we buy that? It's your argument, why don't you trying proving assertions for a change?



Meta: I am sorry Bernard, I find that to be the grossest sort of obfuscation. You are just blantaqntly ignoring what it says. Drawning a meaningless and arbitrary disticntion between saying "we" will be transformed and saying our bodies will be transformed. I find that distinction quite usless.




Here's a link to my page on the "no body theory." It documents the Jewish view of Res and how Paul fit it, and it draws upon the work of Dr. James Tabor.



http://www.geocities.com/meta_crock/other/ResIII.htm






Meta: That is aruging from analogy. argument form analogy is an informal fallacy! Analogies dont prove anything. We understand your concept, but there is no reason to assume it.

We do have reason to assume that Paul believed the Jewish view, he was a Jewish Rabbi. Give us a reason to believe he did not believe it.


this is from the link above:

it also sites Tabor's site.




The Jewish Roman World of Jesus (website)
Archaeology and The Dead Sea Scrolls
"The Signs of the Messiah: 4Q521
by James D. Tabor
(visited 6/15/01)


http://www.uncc.edu/jdtabor/4q521.html


One of the more intriguing of the newly released Dead Sea Scrolls is a fragment now titled "Messianic Apocalypse" (4Q521). This text contains three rather striking features that are of particular significance for comparing the apocalyptic beliefs and expectations of the Qumran community with the emerging early Christian movement. First, the text speaks of a single Messiah figure who will rule heaven and earth. Second, it mentions in the clearest language the expectation of the resurrection of the dead during the time of this Messiah. And third, and perhaps most important for students of the New Testament, it contains an exact verbal parallel with the Gospels of Matthew and Luke for identifying of the times of the Messiah.


Tabor quotes Michael Wise's translation of the fragment:


[the hea]vens and the earth will listen to His Messiah, and none therein will stray from the commandments of the holy ones. Seekers of the Lord, strengthen yourselves in His service! All you hopeful in (your) heart, will you not find the Lord in this? For the Lord will consider the pious (hasidim) and call the righteous by name. Over the poor His spirit will hover and will renew the faithful with His power. And He will glorify the pious on the throne of the eternal Kingdom. He who liberates the captives, restores sight to the blind, straightens the b[ent] And f[or] ever I will cleav[ve to the h]opeful and in His mercy . . .
And the fr[uit . . .] will not be delayed for anyone.
And the Lord will accomplish glorious things which have never been as [He . . .] For He will heal the wounded, and revive the dead and bring good news
to the poor
. . .He will lead the uprooted and knowledge . . . and smoke (?)
(Michael O. Wise, translation)



Thus, Tabor states:


"We now have an unambiguous statement that "raising the dead" was one of the key expectations of the Messianic age in this community[Qumran[. Line 11 of this text also contains another highly striking feature. Indeed, it appears to be the closest and most direct linguistic parallel to a New Testament text that we have yet discovered. The line reads: "For he will heal the wounded, resurrect the dead, and proclaim glad tiding to the poor."



after drawing a solid link between early chruch and Qumran (and also Qumran-like Jewish heterodoxy) he then shows that they share the idea of the transformed body in resurrection.

first I say:


Meta (on Doxa):Paul believed in a complete transformation of all creation at the return of Christ. He saw the Christian's lot as shared with that of Christ. "If we share in his death we shall also share in his resurrection." (Romans 6). The resurrection of the dead, for Paul, was a culmination of a process through which "all of nature groans for liberation." The transforming power of God would change all those in Christ, "we shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed, in the twinkling of eye, at the last trump..." The fleshly body would be transformed into a "resurrection body," spirit, "glorified," but a body and tangible and made of a subsubstance none the less. Tabor argues that for Paul the atonement was participatory, we share in Christ's death through baptism (Rom 6) and thus, we also share in his resurrection, new life, and future, through baptism and through the regenerative act that comes from it. Merely sharing is not the link to glorification, since we also share in his death, but it leads to the shared glorified nature of the resurrection body, which all shall obtain at Christ's return. Rom. 8:29 we share in his image,(eikon, form in 2 cor 3:18, and sharing the image in Rom 8:29)"But we all, with unveiled face, beholding the glory of the Lord, are being transformed (metamorphoumetha) into his image (eikona) from one degree of glory to another; for this comes from the Lord who is the Spirit.."


then I quote Taber again:

Taber (Ibid) http://www.uncc.edu/jdtabor/paul.html




this gives us a pretty good reason to believe in transformation. but you give us no reason to make your assumptions.




Muller:This is backed up by what Paul said earlier.



Meta: The Jews didnt have this sharp division between body and soul, they didn't have this notion of the Carstesian passenger in a ship. So why wouldnt' the previous body be the seed? you want to speak as though the soul is the seed, bu they didn't cling to the tripartate view of man that became popular latter (for Docs see D.E.H. Whiteley Theology of St. Paul 1964.





Meta: Even if you are right about that, it still doesnt' prove that the new body wasn't solid and tangible and "flesh and blood."

Spirit Branded

It is indeed a brave man who expects an Infidel to concede a discussion has been lost

Aren't Infidels psychologically programmed never to concede an argument?

Seems like brain washing is not unknown in Infidel land

Spirit Branded

Bernard Muller

Meta: It also doesnt' give you the basis for saying that Paul's concept was that of a spirit-being for the risen Christ. That is just being read into the text with no real justification other than argument form silence

It was not my intention here to make a point in that direction. You are kind of jumpy.

(1) Layman's defition is being charactured rather than represented fairly. He didn't say "spirit means coming from heaven" he said that the context of the passages in question implies that Paul is linking the concept of spirit to our relation in being and that to our higher relation to Being itself. It's not a matter of just saying "coming form heaven."

That's a very long, vague and fuzzy definition for only one word "spiritual". What does have to do with rock and drink?

(2) It's not adequate to give some little boiled down list of Strong's defitions. In fact Strong's is so bad it probably shoulnd't be used.

So issue a more modern ("official") definition of "spiritual" and I will look at it.

(3) Pnouma means litterly "breath" or "wind." Anything beyond tht is as a good a guess as any. But the German tradition always linked to mind, which fits your defintion no 1 (rational).

So now we have windy food, windy drink and windy rock. Or should "windy" be replaced by "breathing"?

But then the link to our overall position in being also does that as well, which means what Layman said would also fit with 1

So "spiritual" in spiritual drink and rock would have the meaning of:
1) relating to the human spirit, or rational soul, as part of the man which is akin to God and serves as his instrument or organ.
a) that which possesses the nature of the rational soul.

Does that make sense?

Layman's answer fits with no3 like a hand in glove

Now we are switching from 1 to 3! So now we have: rock belonging to the Divine Spirit

Does that make sense?

Meta: Bull-ony! The whole Milue of the pesudepigraphal writtings is present strongly at Qumran and thoughtout the DDS, going back at least 50 years before Paul. That even includes Messianic redeemer figure suffering for sin.

Provide the quote about an Exodus moving well/rock from the DSS. If you cannot, I say Bull-ony to you.

Meta: Paul clearly has some overlapps with that milue, such as the seven heavens. There were probably a lot more interconnections between those groups than you know.

Wishful thinking! Seven heavens could have come from somewhere else.

Best regards, Bernard

Orpheus42

Yes, but he does so in parallel with psuche. Pneuma and psuche can in fact have similar meaning depending on context. One cannot assume that simply because Paul uses pneuma he is referring to the resurrected Jesus as a spirit.

In a different setting, the same grouping of letters can mean different things. We have the same thing in English- for example, "purse" can mean a bag in which one carries personal belongings, or it can mean to tightly hold one's lips together. That's a very poor example, but I have rehearsal in 25 minutes and I need to go warm up. I'm sure you get my point.

With Greek it's simpler: words tend to have basic overarching meanings (Grundbedeutung) to which all its particular meanings can be traced. Of these particular meanings (langue), however, one must determine the intended particular meaning in context(parole). The basic meaning of pneuma is wind or breath. Any particular meaning traces back to that overarching meaning. Pneuma can be used for spirit in the non-corporeal sense; it can also be used to mean soul much like the usual meaning of psuche, which Paul applies to Adam who he very much thought was a real, physical, living person in body as alive as any human has ever been. I have not yet done so, but I would bet that if one examines cases in the LXX and other literature where psuche and pneuma are used in parallel then their meanings are intended to be similar.

This is not intended to definitively answer the question as to whether or not Paul's use of pneuma in this case is to refer to Jesus as a spirit in the sense Carr means. It is only intended to show that it is not as cut-and-dried as Carr would have it, and to show that Layman could be right despite Paul's application of the word pneuma to Jesus.

Jason

Metacrock

Meta: Say, I've been told that before.;-)

(1) Layman's defition is being charactured rather than represented fairly. He didn't say "spirit means coming from heaven" he said that the context of the passages in question implies that Paul is linking the concept of spirit to our relation in being and that to our higher relation to Being itself. It's not a matter of just saying "coming form heaven."

That's a very long, vague and fuzzy definition for only one word "spiritual". What does have to do with rock and drink?




Meta: well I would think it has to do with the overall context of having a spiritual body.



(2) It's not adequate to give some little boiled down list of Strong's defitions. In fact Strong's is so bad it probably shoulnd't be used.

So issue a more modern ("official") definition of "spiritual" and I will look at it.




Meta: ah! good point. I think the problem there is that this topic, in the context of the Jesus-myther vs. Christian sort of discussion (not that I'm calling you Jesus-myther, I dont' know really if are or not) tends to put the focuss on the material substance of "spirit" rather than upon the overall concept a "spiritual something--body or whatever." "Spiritual" is that which pertains to the spirit. Does that mean it is made out of spirit and nothing more? Or does it mean that it has a more vital connection with the spirutal realm, even though it might be material substance? I think that's what Layman's view was getting at.



(3) Pnouma means litterly "breath" or "wind." Anything beyond tht is as a good a guess as any. But the German tradition always linked to mind, which fits your defintion no 1 (rational).

So now we have windy food, windy drink and windy rock. Or should "windy" be replaced by "breathing"?


Meta: Or things pertaining to a spiritual life or spiritual connection.





But then the link to our overall position in being also does that as well, which means what Layman said would also fit with 1

So "spiritual" in spiritual drink and rock would have the meaning of:
1) relating to the human spirit, or rational soul, as part of the man which is akin to God and serves as his instrument or organ.
a) that which possesses the nature of the rational soul.

Does that make sense?




Meta: sure, but it could also include someone with flesh and blood. If you weren't arguing the Doherty thing, then I guess I jumped the gun. I'd better read more in the original theard.

Layman's answer fits with no3 like a hand in glove

Now we are switching from 1 to 3! So now we have: rock belonging to the Divine Spirit



Meta: so what do you want in words? You think words are just little forzen items you look up in a manuel and they have nothing to do with the context in which they appear?




Does that make sense?

Meta: Bull-ony! The whole Milue of the pesudepigraphal writtings is present strongly at Qumran and thoughtout the DDS, going back at least 50 years before Paul. That even includes Messianic redeemer figure suffering for sin.

Provide the quote about an Exodus moving well/rock from the DSS. If you cannot, I say Bull-ony to you.




Meta: The water thing is just a minute part of the overall argument. I am saying that the Jews did not have a concept of a floating wrath as the resurrected being. The resurrection of the dead was the idea of people returning to their earthly lives as substantial living beings. That was Paul's concept too.



Meta: Paul clearly has some overlapps with that milue, such as the seven heavens. There were probably a lot more interconnections between those groups than you know.

Wishful thinking! Seven heavens could have come from somewhere else.

Best regards, Bernard



Meta: Sure they could have why should we think so?

The Taber stuff i quoted proved the link between early Chruch notions of res and Qumran/heterodox notions of res. It's there. I documented it extensively (read the link)

Bernard Muller

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Look at these quotes:

Didache Ch.10 "You gave food and drink to men for enjoyment ...; but to us You [God] did freely give spiritual food and drink ..."

According to you, "the spiritual food and drink" would be real material food and drink provided by God. Am I correct here?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You do realize that Paul did not write the Didache do you not? Nor does this have anything to do with the Exodus story.

I never claimed it was Pauline. But that proves that another author, at about the same time, did not have the same definition for "spiritual" as you alleged Paul had. Here "spiritual food and drink" means teachings, as I contend it means in Paul's Exodus story.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1Peter2:5 "you [Christians] also, like living stones, are being built into a spiritual house to be a holy priesthood, offering spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God ..."

Is this house made of real stones and the sacrifices made by killing real animals?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[SNIPPED] No one has ever claimed that Paul wrote 1 Peter.

But again, that proves other authors, at about the same time, used "spiritual" to "spiritualize" something normally physical.

Now, we have to wonder why Paul had a totally different definition for "spiritual" for similar cases than the other ones.

That you have to search outside the Pauline corpus to find any usage that favors your understanding
--when mine is supported by usage after usage in Paul--further undermines your "argument."
Where are your Pauline examples?[/B]

Where are your examples, besides when "spiritual" is connected to "man", which means "in the Spirit"?
Certainly in these cases, "man" is not transformed by a preceding "spiritual" as 'coming from heaven' or 'sourced from God', as you claimed for the drink & rock in 1Cor10:4.
So here are your examples, dealt with.
Here are some you did not. Now, can we think of the "spiritual" as meaning "physical"?

Romans 1:11 "For I greatly desire to see you, that I may impart to you some spiritual gift to establish you;"

Now do you think Paul was eager to give physical things, like money, as gifts to these Christians from Rome? Paul made sure, by using "spiritual", the Romans would not expect anything material from him, but only "spiritual". And we know that Paul was "in the Spirit"!

Romans 7:14 "For we know that the law is spiritual: but *I* am fleshly, sold under sin."

A contrast about something material, "fleshy Paul", and something immaterial, the law. Same thing in Ro15:27

1 Corinthians 9:11 "If we have sown to you spiritual things, [is it a] great [thing] if *we* shall reap your carnal things?"

Again, contrast between spiritual things, obviously not material, and material ("carnal") things.

And the evidence is overwhelming that they believed the rock followed the Jews around. In any event, as I discuss fully below, you are do not seem to know what the OT actually says here.

I know what the OT said here, and what Josephus said about the Exodus, and there is absolutely NO evidence about a moving rock/well providing water all along.
Your overwhelming evidence comes from Jewish texts dated after Paul's times.

Please Bernard, according to the Exodus story the rock was the well.

From where did you get that? Certainly not the OT. Where is the first occurence of Moses' rock is the same than the movable well?
The Babylonian Talmud, published around 600.

And the issue is not whether the LXX or Paul was inspired, the issue is whether there existed an understanding among Jews that talked of the rock-well following the Israelites through the wilderness. The answer is that yes there was, and that such an understanding existed in the first century in written as well as oral form.

The answer I get from Josephus is NO.

The highly influential Talmud scholar Rishi noted that the rock described by the Talmud at Taanit 9 "rolled and went along with Israel, and it was the rock Moses struck." The bShabbat 35 describes it as "a moveable well." According to Pirke de Rabbi Eliezer 45B.i, which--as I understand it is dated to the first century apart from the Talmud, earlier than the Talmud, "[e]very place our forefathers went, the well went in front of them."

An early dating of this legendary stuff is just wishful thinking. And Paul never wrote about a well. And the Pseudo-Philo deals with only the well.
Rashi lived in the 11th century. The Babylonian Talmud appeared in the 6th century.

Indeed, these traditions still play a part of Jewish thought today:

I am not interested by today's tradition. I want to know when they started.

Why? The evidence, including a first century written source and oral traditions, shows us that this is precisely how the first century Jews understood

Really. Maybe Pseudo-Philo is first century, but only a well is mentioned, not a moving rock. The Talmud is much later, and oral traditions cannot be dated. Then Josephus was not aware of them.

The spirit-carrying drink came from the rock that followed them--Paul refers to a Jewish haggadic tradition in which the rock Moses struck in the wilderness (Exod 17:1-7) detaches itself and follows them through the wilderness, as Num. 20:2-13 suggests.

Jewish haggadic tradition? Can you explain that. And when did that start?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sure. They are Jewish traditions. It's been going on a long time. Well before Paul.

Explain more about the fuzzy hagaddic tradition and prove it contained a movable rock, and that before Paul's time. If you cannot do that, then you have NO evidence on this side.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Anyway, Layman, why didn't you answer my question here?
What does "have all been given to drink of one Spirit?" refer to?
Is it a physical/material drink or not?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Because this is a different word being used as a noun and not as an adjective to modify a noun that is a material object, the answer is irrelevant. Try and fine some other straws.

I was referring to
1Co12:13 Darby "For also in [the power of] one Spirit *we* ... have all been given to drink of one Spirit."

Here Paul is referring to "spiritual" drinking and the drink is not physical. So I understand why you are trying to avoid the issue.

Best regards, Bernard