Layman

Actually, I asked you to read my opening post of this thread. The did jesusexist.com article is almost identical to my opening post and was only referenced for convenience. I think it's format is better.

Bernard Muller

Layman wrote:
Baptized somehow huh? Perhaps by crossing the Red Sea? Now. Do you think Paul really believed that they had crossed the Red Sea or do you think he merely meant that Moses baptized his followers? The answer is obviously the former.

I gave the reference of 1Co10:1-2:
1... our forefathers were all under the cloud and that they all passed through the sea.
2 They were all baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea.

Layman wrote:
No. By saying they "ate" and "drank" the spiritual food Paul would be implying that they accepted his teaching.

But they did! But, years later, what Paul worried was for how long? 1Corinthians is full of signs that some in the Christian community were reverting to their old pagan ways. Paul was trying to dissuade them.

But since you are looking for exact parallels, please who me where in Chapter 10 Paul refers to preaching the gospel to the Corinthians?

The Christians of Corinth were fully aware Paul preached to them for one year & a half, and that was 3-4 years only before the epistle was written. That was something they experienced personally, not some events in the past related by old writings.
Why chapter 10? This is very arbitrary more so the epistle was not originally sectioned in chapters.

And then the parallels are numerous between 1Co10:4 and Paul's preaching his message:

A) "spiritual":
Paul claimed his teaching were inspired by the Spirit. He used the word "spiritual" in expressions about his teachings:

1Co2:13 Darby "we speak, not in words taught by human wisdom, but in those taught by the Spirit, communicating spiritual [things] by spiritual [means]."

1Co9:11 Darby "If we have sown to you spiritual things, [is it a] great [thing] if *we* shall reap your carnal things?"

B) "drink":
Paul used drink as metaphor for teachings by the Spirit and himself:

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

Here the drinking is about "spiritual" teaching. As the milk and food expressed in:

2Co3:2 "I fed you with milk and not with solid food; for until now you were not able to receive it, and even now you are still not able;"

C) "Christ":
Paul claimed his gospel was from heavenly Christ, of whom he knew by revelations.

That's a lot of parallels for only one verse:
"drank the same spiritual drink; for they drank from the spiritual rock that accompanied them, and that rock was Christ."

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Heb3:16-4:11 "Who were they who heard and rebelled? Were they not all those Moses led out of Egypt? And with whom was he angry for forty years? Was it not with those who sinned, whose bodies fell in the desert? ...
For we also have had the gospel preached to us, just as they [the Israelites of Moses] did; but the message they heard was of no value to them, because those who heard did not combine it with faith. ...
It still remains that some will enter that rest, and those who formerly had the gospel preached to them [the same Israelites] did not go in, because of their disobedience. ...
Let us, therefore, make every effort to enter that rest, so that no one will fall by following their example of disobedience."

Layman wrote:
Sigh. Paul did not write Hebrews. Nor was Hebrews written to the Corinthians. Nor does Paul mention any preaching to the Israelites of Exodus anywhere in his writings. Nor does he refer to the Corinthians departing from the teachings of God.

Isn't it strange that again we have references to similar teachings through "the gospel", and to both the Israelites and the (Christian) recipients of the letter?
Many scholars and myself think that 'Hebrews' was written by Apollos, a close associate of (and sometimes competition for) Paul.
Actually I gathered up a lot of evidence to show that 'Hebrews' was addressed to the Corinthians.
I explained all of that on this page (I know, another copout!):
http://www.concentric.net/~Mullerb/hjes3x.shtml
then search on >> 28.1 <<

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Let's bold some key words:
"spiritual food ... spiritual drink. The manna and the water from the rock are used as figures representing the spiritual sustenance of God continually providing for his people[That would include today's Christians](Ex16:2-36; 17:1-7; Nu20:2-11; 21:16)."
On another note, dedicated for 1Co10:4
"that rock was Christ. The rock, from which the water came, and the manna were symbolic of supernatural sustenance through Christ, the bread of life and water of life (Jn4:14; 6:30-35)[I think the bread and water here are not real bread and water]."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Layman wrote:
As I said, this is typology, assuming the historical events as true and drawing lessons from them. It is the real "manna and water" that is used as an example for the Israelites.

I read: The manna and the water from the rock are used as figures representing the spiritual sustenance of God
Does "spiritual sustenance" refer to real food for you?

Best regards, Bernard

Layman

Honestly, BM, what are you talking about? It does not matter whether the story is true, we are just talking about whether it was known. Obviously it was. Paul is saying the same thing that the Talmud did. (Of course, it's obvious he was also talking about the same thing that the Psuedo-Philo, Pirke, and the others are to).

I thought I was clear. Source A = the Talmud. Even though written later, it contains earlier traditions.

Layman

You are just repeating yourself BM.

Because the Pseudo-Philo is doing Midrash on the rock in Exodus that miraculously produced water, the most reasonable conclusion is that the well he is referring to is a rock. And when did you determine that the Pseudo-Philo was written around 100 CE? Sounds like a position of convenience to me.

Of what significance is the "following" vs. "in front of them" variance? As far as I can tell, it merely indicates a fluid tradition about the same phenomenon. Some would have sais it followed while others clarified that it was in front of them. The difference is certainly insufficient to conclude that these two stories are unrelated to each other. Must as the nondifference between a rock that produces water and a well that produces water.

Nah, it is more reasonable to recognize that Paul had already attested to this kind of description.
I suggest that it is much more wishful thinking to assume that Paul's statement has no connection to very similar statements and the same statements made in Source A.

Layman

You did not answer the question. Do you think that Paul really believed that, despite the fact that you believe he is using this as an example, he did not believe that the Israelites really crossed the Red Sea? Of course not. Paul is using an OT example to instruct the Corinthians. Just as he does with the spiritual food and drink.

Where is this in the text BM? You are reading into Paul parallels he does not himself make.

In any event, you are wrong. Paul was quite clear that the Corinthians had not "eaten" of teaching that could be referred to as food. In fact, he explicitly says so in the same letter. 1 Cor. 3:2: "I gave you milk to drink, not solid food; for you were not yet able to receive it." So your purported parallel fails.

But there is a more important event here. Paul shows that he is quite capable of using the term food as a metaphor for teaching. Yet he does so without modifying it with the term "spiritual." So your theory that "spiritual" here is meant to signal a metaphor is unfounded.

[quote]But since you are looking for exact parallels, please who me where in Chapter 10 Paul refers to preaching the gospel to the Corinthians?

The Christians of Corinth were fully aware Paul preached to them for one year & a half, and that was 3-4 years only before the epistle was written. That was something they experienced personally, not some events in the past related by old writings.
Why chapter 10? This is very arbitrary more so the epistle was not originally sectioned in chapters.[/qoute]I think you are being somewhat inconsistent here. You arbitrarily ruled out everything beyond 6 verses and now complain that I ask for some hint in the entire chapter where Paul says he is referring to teaching?

I see. You limit me to six verses but you get to range through the entire letter? But so what?

This verse is nowhere connected to the spiritual food and spiritual drink in 10:2-3.

Paul is arguing that he is entitled to be expensed for his work as an apostle to the Corinthians. He is not relating this to the spiritual food and spiritual drink of 10:2-3.

Actually, I do not think that Paul is speaking about teaching here. Rather, he is stressing the unity of the church and focusing on the infusion of the spirit into the believer upon conversion. No reference is made to any teaching. This is about the gifts of the spirit and the baptism of the spirit. It's not talking about spiritually prompted teaching.

Obviously, Paul is not referring to teaching when he mentions drinking of the Spirit.

I believe you are referring to 1 Cor. 3:2. In any event, 1 Cor. 12:13 is not referring to 1 Cor. 3:2. As I already demonstrated, 12:13 was not referring to teaching at all.

Furthermore, as previously discussed, this verse is very damaging to your theory. First, this would destroy your parallel. Paul is explicit that he has not provided them with "food" to eat. The Israelites, however, had eaten of their spiritual food. The parallel fails. But perhaps even more important, Paul is quite capable of using food as a metaphor with modifying it with the term "spiritual." If he did not have to use spiritual to indicate food was a metaphor here, why did he have to do so a few chapters later? Obviously, the answer is that the term "spiritual" is not meant to be a metaphor. Instead, it means that it was food miraculously provided by God to the Israelites.

What is the point here?

Unfortunately, your examples either are irrelevant or tend to disprove your point.

You have ranged throughout this letter and tried to cobble together "parallels" with no regard for context or how Paul actually uses the terms at issue. The fact is that when Paul is talking about the Exodus story he is not talking about spiritual teaching, he is talking about historical events and using them as an example for the Corinthians. Remember that Paul's point is that t "food will not commend us to God; we are neither the worse if we do not eat, nor the better if we do eat." 1 Cor. 8:8. Neither food that is sacrificed to idols, for the worse, or food provided miraculously provided by God, for the better. One moral of the story is that the sacraments should not just be taken, but should be taken with good behavior.

There is no "again" here BM. Corinthians nowhere mentions the gospel being preached to the Israelites in the wilderness.

I agree that Hebrews was written by someone from the Pauline circle, but always found conclusions as to authorship to be fanciful and speculative. We simply do not know.

This is from a previous post:


And more notable scholars have gathered a lot of evidence to show that Hebrews was written to the church in Rome. Here's a part of an piece I wrote a while back:

The best book I have read on this issue is Antioch and Rome: New Testament Cradles of Catholic Christianity, by Raymond Edward Brown, John P. Meier. I highly recommend it.

And I read it as fitting into Paul's overall discussion of eating and drinking practices in the Corinthian church. The entire discussion is focused on actual eating of actual food.

Since Paul nowhere uses such a term what is your point?

In other news, do you realize that you are completely ignoring the context I provided?

Bernard Muller

Back on 1 Co10:3-5:

"They all ate the same spiritual food and drank the same spiritual drink; for they drank from the spiritual rock that *accompanied* them, and that rock was Christ. Nevertheless, God was not pleased with most of them; their bodies were scattered over the desert."
Note: the Greek for "accompanied" can as well mean: 'joined'.

Something else for Layman to refute:
Philo of Alexandria, who wrote his stuff before Paul, also took the manna, the water and the rock of the Exodus as figures for divine teachings (oozing of spiritual wisdom), and involved with it a Christ-like figure.
In view of the similarities, it is certain Paul knew about Philo's works:

"For the flinty rock [(Dt8:15), which provided water for the Israelites of the Exodus] is the wisdom of God [1Co1:24 "Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God"], which He marked off highest and chiefest from His powers, and from which He satisfies the thirsty souls that love God" (Allegorical interpretation II, ch. XXI, 86)

"the highest Word of God [Christ is Word-like in 1Co8:6], which is the fountain of wisdom, in order that by drinking of that stream he may find everlasting life instead of death." (On flight and finding, ch. XVIII, 97)

"the manna, the divine Word, the heavenly, incorruptible food of the soul ..." (Who is the heir of divine things, ch. XV, 79)

"This is the heavenly nourishment which the holy scripture indicates, saying, in the character of the cause of all things, 'Behold I rain upon you bread from heaven' [Ex16:4]; for in real truth it is God who showers down heavenly wisdom from above upon all the intellects which are properly disposed for the reception of it" (On flight and finding, ch. XXV, 137-139).

Another similarity between Philo & Paul on the subject of heavenly/spirtual body.

1Co15:44-45 "It is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body. There is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body. And so it is written, "The first man Adam became a living being [Ge2:7]." The last Adam [Christ] became a life-giving spirit."

And the resurrected Christians are to be in the image of the heavenly Christ:

1Co15:47-49 "The first man [Adam] was of the earth, made of dust; the second Man is the Lord from heaven [Christ]. As was the man of dust, so also are those who are made of dust; and as is the heavenly Man, so also are those who are heavenly. And as we have borne the image of the man of dust, we shall also bear the image of the heavenly Man."

And the heavenly man is the image of God:

2Co4:4 "... Christ, who is the image of God;"

Once again, 1Co15:44-49 appears to be inspired by Philo's writings:

"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 God;" (Allegorical interpretation I, ch. XII, 31)

Best regards, Bernard

rainbow walking

Hi Layman,
Sorry to be so long in responding. I'm more curious as to the effects each perspective would have on the doctrines surrounding heaven and hell, salvation and faith. I would think there would be some comparative relationship between these doctrines and a physical, as opposed to, a spiritual resurrection...wouldn't you? For instance, salvation in the OT seemed to revolve around physical preservation in the here and now, whereas it seemed to be a given that the spirit lived on in some manner distinct from the body. The body was considered worm food and relegated to sheol, if I understand the context of the OT passages that deal with this distinction. If this is the case then a Pauline physical resurrection would represent a departure from OT hermeneutic.

Layman

While Paul's views on this may be a departure from some OT sentiments, it was very in line with how most Jews of his day viewed those scriptures, at least insofar as he believed in a resurrection and an intermediate state. This is, in part, how Pharisees distinguished themselves from the Sadducees.

rainbow walking

rw: Well yes, some Jews believed in a resurrection and one could infer from Jesus response to the question about the woman married to six brothers and who's wife she would be in heaven sounds consistent to a bodily resurrection. Like I said, I'm not really disputing your initial claim, just curious to know if you have any idea of the significance of either view? Why does it seem important that an actual physical resurrection be the case? That sort of line of questioning is what I'm reaching for here. Interested?

Layman

Just to be clear, do you mean theologically? Do I really care if I am resurrected bodily or physically?