Bernard Muller

Hi Layman, I am misssing your rebuke
Did you notice I posted on this thread (5 posts before this one) something about Paul getting his inspiration about the manna, drink & rock from Philo's writings?

Best regards, Bernard

Layman

BM,

Try not to be so so crude. You posted this, what, yesterday?

The only time I was able to respond more quickly earlier was because my wife and kid were out of town. Now that they are back, I have a life again. I'll get to it when I get to it. It's not going anywhere.

And given that you completely ignored the opening post until.... oh wait, you are still ignoring it, as well as several of my points along the way, I find your goading even more distasteful.

rainbow walking

rw: Exactly...only you don't have to take the first person approach...I'm not fishing for your personal perspective on this,(of course, you're welcome to supply one if you prefer)...more of a general theological undertaking. I see no reason to question Paul's meaning in reference to physical as opposed to spiritual, but I can't recall a single passage in either testament that would provide a clue as to why a physical resurrection would be preferred or assumed or taught as opposed to a spiritual one...are you aware of any? Just curious because if there is an after-life I can't see that it would make any big difference to me personally if I was a spiritual being or a modified physical being. Maybe you're aware of some scripture that explains this, that I've missed, or some theological doctrinal or exegetic that explains why a physical resurrection would be the necessary?

Bernard Muller

Flesh and blood future resurrection on earth from the OT:

Isa26:19 "But your dead will live; their bodies will rise. You who dwell in the dust, wake up and shout for joy. Your dew is like the dew of the morning; the earth will give birth to her dead."

Eze37:1-10 "... I [God] will attach tendons to you ["dry bones"] and make flesh come upon you and cover you with skin; I will put breath into you, and you will come to life ..."

Job19:25-27 "... in the end, he [God] will stand upon the earth. And after my skin has been destroyed, yet in my flesh I will see God ..."

Da12:2a "Multitudes who sleep in the dust of the earth will awake: some to everlasting life ..."

Da12:13 "As for you [Daniel], go your way till the end [of your life]. You will rest, and then at the end of the days you will rise to receive your allotted inheritance."

Note: but from the same O.T., a few verses take away the possibility of future resurrection:

Ecclesiastes9:5-6 "For the living know that they will die; but the dead know nothing, and they have no more reward ... nevermore will they have a share in anything done under the sun."

Job7:9 "As the cloud disappears and vanishes away, so he who goes down to the grave does not come up"

From 1st century AD well known two Jewish writers, immortal souls:

a) Philo of Alexandria, in 'The sacrifices of Abel and Cain':
II "... Abraham also, leaving mortal things, "is added to the people of God," having received immortality, and having become equal to the angels; for the angels are the host of God, being incorporeal and happy souls."
III "There is another proof that the mind is immortal ... the migration of a perfect soul to the living God"

"And God formed the man by taking clay from the earth, and breathed into his face a breath of life, and the man became a living soul" [Ge2:7]. There are two types of men; the one a heavenly man, the other an earthly. The heavenly man, being made after the image of God, is altogether without part or lot in corruptible and terrestrial substance; but the earthly one was compacted out of the matter scattered here and there, which Moses calls "clay." For this reason he says that the heavenly man was not molded, but was stamped with the image of [incorporeal] God;" (Allegorical interpretation I, ch. XII, 31)

More from Philo on the heavenlies:

'On dreams', I, (238) "God at times assumes the likeness of the angels, as he sometimes assumes even that of men"

'Questions and answers on Genesis', I, (92) "for the substance of angels is spiritual"
Humm, my Collins dictionary has "substance" as one of the definitions for "body".
And from my Webster dictionary, I have:
"something that embodies or gives concrete reality to a thing"

'On dreams", XXII. "This air is the abode of incorporeal souls, since it seemed good to the Creator of the universe to fill all the parts of the world with living creatures. ... For the soul is also invisible."

Marvin Meyer writes: "Elsewhere, in his tractate On the Creation of the World 134, Philo describes the heavenly human, created in God's image, as 'an idea or kind or seal, an object of thought, incorporeal, neither male nor female, incorruptible by nature.'"
More from 134 "the first [heavenly] man who was made according to the image of God"

So much the same as:
"The last Adam [Christ] became a life-giving spirit. ... the second Man is the Lord from heaven [Christ] ... we shall also bear the image of the heavenly Man" (1Co15:44-49)
"... Christ, who is the image of God" (2Co4:4)

b) Josephus in Ant., XVIII, I, 3:
"They [the Pharisees] also believe that souls have an immortal vigor in them, and that under the earth there will be rewards and punishments, according as they have lived virtuously or viciously in this life; and the latter are to be detained in an everlasting prison, but that the former shall have power to revive and live again; on account of which doctrines, they are greatly able to persuade the body of the people;"

Back to Paul: having "spiritual bodies" was very original. Having "bodies" going to heaven was even more original. Except, of course, those "spiritual bodies" were more "spiritual" than "bodies".

Best regards, Bernard

Layman

Back on 1 Co10:3-5:

This is yet another red herring BM.

Because the connotation is to "join" as a disciple, it would make no sense to interpret it thus here. "2. to join one as a disciple, become or be his disciple" Thayer's Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, at 22.

For example, "And He said to them, 'Follow Me, and I will make you fishers of men.' Immediately they left their nets and followed Him." Matth. 4:19-20.

Similarly, "Then Jesus again spoke to them, saying, 'I am the Light of the world; he who follows Me will not walk in the darkness, but will have the Light of life.'" John 8:12.

Obviously, Jesus was the one to be followed. He was not a disciple of the Israelites in the wilderness.

Bernard Muller

Layman wrote:
Because the connotation is to "join" as a disciple, it would make no sense to interpret it thus here. "2. to join one as a disciple, become or be his disciple" Thayer's Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, at 22.

Not really, Layman. You conveniently forgot about Definition 1. for 'akoloutheo':
According to Strong and the Thayer's Lexicon:
1. to follow one who precedes, join him as his attendant, accompany him.
Because Thayer has this definition (#1) applying also to 1Co10:4 (where Christ is doing the 'akoloutheo' relative to the Israelites), "they" or "them" or 'their" can be substituted for "one" or "him" or "his".

Layman wrote:
For example, "And He said to them, 'Follow Me, and I will make you fishers of men.' Immediately they left their nets and followed Him." Matth. 4:19-20.

Similarly, "Then Jesus again spoke to them, saying, 'I am the Light of the world; he who follows Me will not walk in the darkness, but will have the Light of life.'" John 8:12

Obviously, Jesus was the one to be followed. He was not a disciple of the Israelites in the wilderness.

What are you trying to establish here?
The gospels were not written by Paul. Furthermore, these gospels here do not refer to the Israelites in the wilderness. Your remark is therefore irrelevant on two counts (with another one coming up)!
But if you are trying to make a point that Christ is the one to be followed, then Paul had it wrong:
'akoloutheo' means to follow, to accompany, to join as attendant but never to precede.
And since it is Christ who does the 'akoloutheo' in 1Co10:4, that Christ is never followed by those Israelites. And that goes against your point.

I guess your strategy now will be to step up the rhetoric and debate me to death on this "join", and not answer the rest of the post and my other one. Am I right?

Best regards, Bernard

Layman

You still have Jesus "joining" the Israelites in a subordinate position. It's silly argument BM. All you are showing is your own desparation.

In any event, definition no. 1 is still talking about maintaining a physical presence. I'm not sure why you think this is would be an important distinction in our discussion.

Paul did not write Thayer's Lexicon either BM, but you purport to rely on it. And since Thayer's is based, in large part, on the usage of the same terms elsewhere in the New Testament, you are only attacking your own use of the term here.

Perhaps I am misunderstanding you. Or you me. My point is that interpreting "follow" as "join" here would not be consistent with Paul's point since his point would then be that Jesus took a subordinate position to the Israelites.

Of course I could also point out that no translation I've been able to find suggests that the rock was not following the Israelites.

1Co 10:4

(ASV) and did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of a spiritual rock that followed them: and the rock was Christ.

(CEV) and drank the same spiritual drink, which flowed from the spiritual rock that followed them. That rock was Christ.

(Darby) and all drank the same spiritual drink, for they drank of a spiritual rock which followed them (now the rock was the Christ)

(DRB) And all drank the same spiritual drink: (And they drank of the spiritual rock that followed them: and the rock was Christ.)

(GNB) and drank the same spiritual drink. They drank from the spiritual rock that went with them; and that rock was Christ himself.

(GW) and all of them drank the same spiritual drink. They drank from the spiritual rock that went with them, and that rock was Christ.

(ISV) and they all drank the same spiritual drink, for they continually drank from the spiritual Rock that went with them, and that Rock was Christ.

(KJV) And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ.

(LITV) And all drank the same spiritual drink; for they drank of the spiritual rock following, and that Rock was Christ.

(MKJV) and all drank the same spiritual drink; for they drank of the spiritual Rock that followed them, and that Rock was Christ.

(NASB) and all drank the same spiritual drink, for they were drinking from a spiritual rock which followed them; and the rock was Christ.

(NRSV) and all drank the same spiritual drink. For they drank from the spiritual rock that followed them, and the rock was Christ.

And from my hyper-literal Greek-English interlinear:

and all the same spiritual drank drink; for they were drinking from a spiritual rock-following.

No. You are wrong. And an egoist apparently. And a hypocrite. You've simply chosen to ignore the entire open post and several additional points along the way. If there is an intellectual coward here it isn't me.

I will get to your "argument" when I get to it.

Layman

Paul did not rely on Philo. It is likely, though, that Paul and Philo were both dependent on already existing Wisdom Traditions in Jewish thought.

I note you cite from Colossians. Do you accept that letter as Pauline?

Besides, Philo is known for his radically allegorical renderings of the OT. Paul time and again uses the OT as history. See Romans Chapter 4; Romans 9:7; Romans 11:1; 2 Corinthians 11:22; Galatians Chapter 3. Even where Paul does speak "allegorically" from the OT, he is obviously taking the underlying history as true and extrapolating lessons from it for his time, such as in Galatians 4:22-25.

I'll give a few more comments on each of these and then more discussion at the end.

If you are not going to let me say that a rock producing water is a well then I'm going to protest you equating a moving rock with a stream. You are applying a much lower standard to yourself than to me. Understandable perhaps, but not particularly persuasive.

As for 1 Cor. 8:6, I can understand why you gave a reference but not the scripture. 1 Cor. 8:6: "yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom are all things and we exist for Him; and one Lord, Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we exist through Him." I do not see any compelling similarities in these two scriptures.

Paul does not equate the manna with Christ. Only the rock. Nor does he ever refer to the manna as "the divine Word" or the food as "incorruptible." Again, no compelling similarities.

In none of these words to Philo find it necessary to use the term "spiritual" to discuss the manna or the drink or the rock. Nor does he write in anything even remotely close to Paul's situation. Remember, I've already admitted that Paul could use the terms food and drink as metaphors. That's not at issue. Nor is the fact that another author known for his uniquely allegorical spin on the OT does so relevant to our inquiry.

As I showed in the line of argument above--which you have ignored--is that the context demands an interpretation that Paul was discussing real food. His point throughout that part of Corinthians was that food itself, whether demon food or God food, did not affect the inner man. What was important was actions, not sacraments. Thus, eating food sacrificed to idols did not corrupt. Eating food miraculously provided by God did not make holy. Remember Paul's point here: "But food will not commend us to God; we are neither the worse if we do not eat, nor the better if we do eat."

First, Paul and Philo are not even using the same words here. Paul uses epouranios for his "heavenly man" and Philo uses ouranios for his "heavenly man." Suggesting at the very least that Paul is not quoting Philo here, but blazing his own trail.

Second, Philo and Paul are not only using different language, they are talking about different things. Their perspective could hardly be farther apart. Indeed, Paul may be explicitly rejecting ideas similar to Philo's

Philo is not discussing resurrection. He is not saying that first we are earthly man and then we are heavenly man. Indeed, whereas Paul stresses that the "first Adam" was earthly and the "last Adam" was heavenly, Philo's argument is that the heavenly Adam was primary and then the earthly. Here is what is going on in Philo. He is interpreting Gen. 1:27 ("God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them") to refer to the "heavenly man" and Gen. 2:7 ("Then the Lord God formed man of dust from the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul") to refer to the "earthly man." The heavenly man is first, then the earthly man. In other words, Philo is attempting to reconcile the two creation accounts in Genesis by a highly allegorical interpretation of it. Paul of course, is doing nothing of the sort Paul is speaking of the resurrection, and comparing Adam to Jesus. In fact, if anything, Paul is explicitly rejecting Philo's definition and order: 1Co 15:45-47: "So also it is written, 'The first man, Adam, became a living soul.' The last Adam became a life-giving spirit. However, the spiritual is not first, but the natural; then the spiritual. The first man is from the earth, earthy; the second man is from heaven."

Furthermore, to Philo, the "heavenly man" is not a man at all but an idea. Philo has taken the Platonic idea of the image and the reflection. The heavenly man is the reflection, the ideal perfect man. The earthly man is the reflection, the earthly version. For Paul, on the other hand, the "heavenly man" is a specific person--Jesus. "The heavenly man, as the perfect image of the Logos, is neither man nor woman, but an incorporeal intelligence purely an idea; while the earthly man, who was created by God later, is perceptible to the senses and partakes of earthly qualities ("De Mundi Opificio," i. 46).... With Philo the original man is an idea; with Paul he is the personality of Jesus. With Philo the first man is the original man; Paul identifies the original man with the second Adam." http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/vi...d=761&letter=A

Notably, the difference being played out here is the difference between Plato's horizontal cosmology and Jewish vertical eschatology. Philo is focusing on the above and below, the perfect and its reflection. Paul is talking about the before and after as God moves his creation towards specific eschatological events.


N.T. Wright, The Resurrection of the Son of God, at 353-53.

Wright's points are well taken. As is summation:

Wright, at 355.

That Paul envisions a redeemed creation rather than an elimination of creation in favor of a purely spiritual existence is clear.

Rom 8:19-23: "For the anxious longing of the creation waits eagerly for the revealing of the sons of God. For the creation was subjected to futility, not willingly, but because of Him who subjected it, in hope that the creation itself also will be set free from its slavery to corruption into the freedom of the glory of the children of God. For we know that the whole creation groans and suffers the pains of childbirth together until now. And not only this, but also we ourselves, having the first fruits of the Spirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves, waiting eagerly for our adoption as sons, the redemption of our body."

Paul envisions a created world, and a created body, that was corrupted by man's sin. In his thought, the creation will be set free from that corruption when humanity is. And humanity will be set free not by leaving the created order, but by being transformed out of its state of corruption. That is why Paul says "the redemption of our body." That, is, the redemption of our "soma" by its transformation.

This is very similar to Paul's statement in Philippians 3:20-21 "For our citizenship is in heaven, from which also we eagerly wait for a Savior, the Lord Jesus Christ; who will transform the body of our humble state into conformity with the body of His glory, by the exertion of the power that He has even to subject all things to Himself."

See how we wait for Jesus Christ to come from heaven (thus, the "heavenly man") so that he can transform our soma into a soma like the one he has. It is this redemption of our bodies and its transformation that Paul has in mind in 1 Corinthians. We are not going to abandon or Adamic form, but have it changed and added to. This is why Paul says:

1 Cor. 15:49: " Just as we have borne the image of the earthy, we will also bear the image of the heavenly." The "also" is inclusive. Just as we have appeared as the first Adam, we will also appear as the final Adam.

1 Cor. 15:51: "Behold, I tell you a mystery; we will not all sleep, but we will all be changed." We do not abandon our Adamic form completely, but have it changed.

1 Cor. 15:53: "For this perishable must put on the imperishable, and this mortal must put on immortality." By referring to the "perishable" putting on the "imperishable," Paul is referring to the present bodily forms. It cannot partake in the Kingdom as it is ("flesh and blood"), so it must be changed by putting on the heavenly, the imperishable, the likeness of the Final Adam.

And in Romans, Rom. 8:9-11: "But you are not in the flesh, you are in the Spirit, if the Spirit of God dwells in you. If the Messiah is in you, though the body is dead because of sin, the Spirit is life because of righteousness. If the Spirit of him who raised Jesus from the dead dwells in you, he who raised the Messiah from the dead will give life to your mortal bodies also, through his Spirit who dwells in you." Jesus will bring new life to our dead bodies.

In sum, Paul uses different language than Philo and has a completely different meaning.

Bernard Muller

Layman wrote:
You still have Jesus "joining" the Israelites in a subordinate position.

Paul himself described Jesus as subordinate to the Jews:
Ro15:8 Darby: "For I say that Jesus Christ became a minister of [the] circumcision for [the] truth of God, ..."
And "minister" is also translated by "servant" (as in the NIV, NASB & NKJV)
And Christ is meek:
2Cor10:1 "By the meekness and gentleness of Christ, ..."

Layman wrote:
Paul did not write Thayer's Lexicon either BM but you purport to rely on it.

You are the one you brought up Thayer's Lexicon. From a previous post of yours:
"Because the connotation is to "join" as a disciple, it would make no sense to interpret it thus here. "2. to join one as a disciple, become or be his disciple" Thayer's Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, at 22."
So you are the one who started it, but you accuse me to rely on it! You can but I cannot. Double standards again.

Layman wrote:
I note you cite from Colossians.

Of course not. I followed the NIV abbreviation and 'Co' stands for Corinthians.

Layman wrote:
Of course I could also point out that no translation I've been able to find suggests that the rock was not following the Israelites.

Well some of your translations say "went with them", not "followed them". And the translators have no way to know what Paul meant by his choice of word. "joined to attend them" is very ligit.

Layman wrote:
My point is that interpreting "follow" as "join" here would not be consistent with Paul's point since his point would then be that Jesus took a subordinate position to the Israelites.

But most translations of yours have Christ following the Israelites? So your own translations go against what you think of Paul's point.

Layman wrote:
And an egoist apparently. And a hypocrite.

Did I hit a nerve? Control yourself. Insulting will not get you anywhere. I am certainly very open on that matter, not an egoist or hypocrite. Your affront is unwarranted and a sign of desperation (where are the moderators when you need them?).

Best regards, Bernard

Jim Larmore

Its obvious from looking at the above quote that the evidence for "believing" in an immortal soul has existed from antiquity. I see no descrimenation from Bernard with regard to cannonized scripture and secular writings concerning this belief. I think it should be emphasized that the Bible says when we die we sleep.

A part of the above quote gives substance to angels being departed souls "for the angels are the host of God being incorporeal and happy souls", this is and has been a popular lie from antiquity also. I have a question though, if angels were departed souls then what about the account of cherabims being assigned to guard the gates of Eden after God drove the fallen pair out. No one had died yet , where did these angels come from? All this just doesn't make sense. The Bible is clear on what happens to us when we die and when the resurrection happens. I applaud Layman for his eloquent work on explianing this.