Metacrock

Meta: I don't think so. It looks to me like a litterary device, a metaphor. He's comparing physical food and drink to the Bible and prayer and spirutal techniques which he is calling "food and drink" probably because they are essential to the spirit as "real" food is to the body.

I see in the next quote you seem to imply that you are aware of this. So I don't really know what you are saying. I'm sorry to be so dense but I can't quite dig your point here.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Meta: Having a hard time following your reasoning here, my friend. I can't understand exactly what you are aruguing. I don't see the connection to Dideche. I don't see why you think it would be insturctive for understanding Paul. It was probably wirtten in Syriach, at least the preamble is from Syria and the whole things dates to at least second decade of second century. So it's pretty removed from Paul or form Paul's Greek.








Meta: Wait a minute now. You seem to be drawning an analogy and turning it into an argument. You seem to be saying that these other guys use the term "spirit" as a metaphor or litterary device, therefore, Paul must have been doing that too. But the problem is you are associating a litterary use with real theology. Just because they use a metaphor and call teaching or something "spiritual food" or call people "spiritual stones" doesn't mean that their actual theological position would have been that Christ's spiritual body wasn't a real body. they are just making a metaphor that has more to do wtih the way they write than with what they actually believed

Paul wasn't making a metaphor in speaking of Christ's risen body. He doesn't seem to have been. so? he just didn't happen to use the metaphor










Meta:No offense Bernard but I don't think you are being ciritical enough of the kind of passages that you are using for support there.




Meta: But that's still just arguing by analogy. They used the term "spiritual gift" to refur to some acitivity that makes use of the spirit, the gift of tounges or example, or an insight or teaching. That doenst' mean that his references to Jesus' risen body are also metaphorical.






Meta: but he says Jesus rose a Life giving spirit. He didn't just he rose in just a spiritual sense. He was a life giving spirit.


besides I've already proven that the Jewish view was for a glorified phsyical body on earth and have no reason to see Paul as departing form that.

Layman

You "agree with me" only now. Earlier you fought it tooth and nail, claiming that such verse actually referred to God himself!

Your latest 'admission' just your latest line of defense along another retreat. In any event, it is now agreed that the term spiritual in these four verses applies to a human being. You admit that thus described the term "spiritual" does not render the physical nonphysical. That "spiritual" is not right next to "man" is irrelevant. (why are you still bringing this up in light of your "admission"?) Basic grammar. An adjective can modify a word in a sentence that is not "right next" its noun. Just let this one die BM, you lost it.

And saying that "spiritual" means "in the Spirit" is not bringing any clarity to the issue. Nor does it seem particularly apt. In what way is a "spiritual man" "in the Spirit"? They are right here on earth. What it means is that they are infused or affected by the Spirit.

All irrelevant. I never claimed that "spiritual" had only one meaning. I have rebutted your claim that "spiritual" alway "prevails" on the noun. In any event, I do think that a "spiritual song" is a song inspired by the Spirit and that many sermons are inspired by the Spirit. So does Thayer's Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament. It notes that the "spiritual songs" in Col. 3:16 is a classic example of this definition of the term "spirit": "emanating from the Divine Spirit." Thayer's, at 523.

My definition is supported by Paul's usage, Strong's, and Thayer's.

Please BM. The definition is not so broad as the strawman you are erecting. Paul himself draws these lines by clearly distinguishing between the natural man and the spiritual man. The material body animated by the soul and the material body animated by the spirit. No one is suggesting it stretches as far as you take it.

I'm impressed. You've checked all the dictionaries?

Oh wait, you didn't.

You are not trying very hard.

But if you are binding yourself by Strong's, my definition fits very well with No. 3(a), "of God the Holy Spirit." Thayer's Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament offers greater insight by clarifying that "spiritual" refers to things "emanating from the Divine Spirit, or exhibiting its effects." Id. at 523. It also can mean simply "supernatural" as in "produced by the sole power of God himself." Indeed, Thayer's actually uses 1 Corinthians 10:3-4 as examples of this usage. Id. Since I do not have access to Strong's could you tell me if it provides any examples of such usage for 1 Cor. 10:3-4?

Time to backtrack again BM. Your own dictionary uses my definition. Thayer's uses my definition and actually uses 1 Cor. 10:3-4 as examples of such usage!

You are being ridiculous BM. Paul mentions a rock-well that follows the Israelites through the wilderness. Several Jewish traditions, including one written in the first century, also mention a rock-well that follows the Israelites through the wilderness. And you pretend it is impossible that Paul knows of this tradition?

Your bias shines so brightly here I'm surprised it hasn't melted your keyboard. I take this apart more fully below.

This is based on several levels of speculation that defeat any argument that Josephus knew all of the Jewish traditions and used all Jewish traditions known to him. You have no evidence that the tradition was dubious or not widely accepted. Indeed, it's strong attestation in the Talmud and other Jewish sources shows just how widely accepted it was. What is undisputed and established by the evidence is that the tradition existed prior to Josephus writing Antiquities. Indeed, it's undisputed that it existed in written form during that time.

Furthermore, you are ignoring that these are Rabbinic writings. In other words, they are Pharisaic traditions--exactly the kind of stuff Paul would have learned as he "was advancing in Judaism beyond many of my contemporaries among my countrymen, being more extremely zealous for my ancestral traditions." Gal. 1:14. Paul himself did not limit himself to the Old Testament.

This cannot defeat Paul's established usage. Or the definition in Strong's and Thayer's. It just shows that someone else writing 50 to 100 years later, possibly in another language, used the a similar word differently. And this is the first time you've claimed that the "rock" was teaching. There is no basis for that conclusion. Paul is referring to what he believed was a historical reference. Where on earth do you get the idea that the Jews wandered for 40 years so Christ could teach them? They were there as a punishment for refusing to listen to God. There doesn't appear to be any "teaching" going on.

I have not denied that such was a possible usage. I denied that this was Paul's usage.

I never claimed the word could only be used one way. I rebutted your argument that, for Paul, the term "spiritual" always prevails on the noun. Even you have abandoned that one.

The term "spiritual body" is obviously a reference to a material entity. When speaking of the resurrection of Jesus or believers, Paul refers to the resurrection of the "soma." Soma is Greek for "body" and it carries the same emphasis on physicality as does its English equivalent. "The soma denotes the physical body, roughly synonymous with flesh in the neutral sense. It forms that part of man in and through which he lives acts in the world. It becomes the base of operations for sin in the unbeliever, for the Holy Spirit in the believer. Barring prior occurrence in the Parousia, the soma will die. That is the lingering effect of sin even in the believer. But it will also be resurrected. That is its ultimate end, a major proof of its worthy and necessity to the wholeness of human being, and the reason for its sanctification now." Robert H. Gundry, Soma in Biblical Theology, at 50.

It is also clear that the reference in 1 Cor. 10:1-4 are to physical objects.

So I have examples. You do not. Indeed, every time that Paul uses spirit to refer to a physical object he does not render the physical object non corporeal.

Sure, if it is a physical object to begin with, such as a man, a person, or a body.

But BM, Paul does not say "like money", he simply says gifts. Gifts are not by definition material objects. A gift can just as easily be an intangible. This example fails to support your argument. It does not convert a material object into an ethereal object.

But BM, the law is not a material object. I never claimed that using the term "spiritual" converts every noun it modifies into something physical. How silly.

But BM, there is no separate Greek term here for "things." The Greek term here is by definition referring to something spiritual. It certainly is not an example of Paul converting something material into something ethereal by modifying it with the term "spiritual."

The OT is clear that the well was the rock. So a Jew doing midrash on that text referring to a moving well is obviously referring to the rock-well.

Then you are hearing things. All Josephus' writings can tell you is that he did not write down such a tradition. They cannot tell you whether he had heard of them. What credibility he gave them. Whether he would add them to his text. Whether he would think that his largely Greek audience would understand or appreciate the story. Even if Josephus did not know of the story or thought little of it, this tells us nothing about how what other Jews would know or how they would value the story.

Since you admit that the tradition goes back to the first century in written form below, I'll assume you will retract this argument.

Both deal with the Exodus story about God's provision of water to the Israelites. We know that the well came from the rock that Moses struck. You have yourself referred to it as the "rock-well." That you now pretend there is no basis for calling the rock a well shows just how disingenuous you are willing to be. Take a step back and look at the absurd positions you are having to take to justify your predispositions. It'd be easier, and more in accord with the evidence, to simply modify your position.

Like I said, the Talmud contains much earlier stuff. Much earlier Pharisaic stuff.

Actually, I don't think you are interested in the truth at all here. The comparison is so obvious only someone devoted to their predisposition could ignore it an insist on a nonsensical metaphorical rendering of these verses.

I cited another first century source. And we know from the OT that the well was from a rock. As you yourself has described it, it was a "rock-well."

Again, all you can say is Josephus did not write about them, which is a very different thing. That these oral traditions date back much earlier is obvious from the Biblical Antiquities, as well as Paul himself.

I've given you four specific citations. There is nothing fuzzy about them.

Paul is not referring to anything "spiritual" in the Greek. He's referring to the Spirit. He's referring to a Noun.

And it's revealing that you completely ignore another complete defeat of one of your arguments. You claimed that Exodus and Numbers were referring to the "same story" in the "same place." I showed beyond dispute that one refers to a rock-well at the beginning of the journey and one refers to a rock-well at the end of the journey. This obviously gave quite sufficient impetus for later Jewish thinkers to develop a tradition about the rock-well following the Israelites through the wilderness.

You claim that no such tradition existed until the Sixth Century. You claim that when a Jew, in the first century, writes of the Exodus story that 'A well of water following them brought he forth for them', he did not have in mind the OT passages regarding the rock-well mentioned so prominently in Exodus, Numbers, and even in Psalms. Even though the OT has the rock at the beginning and end of their travels. This despite the fact that he was writing a Midrash of Exodus! Midrash, as I'm sure you know, often calls for "filling in the blanks" of the Old Testament. To Jews, that the rock is at the beginning and the end of a journey through a wilderness with little water--taken with God's miraculous provision of food--would indicate that the rock-well followed the Israelites through the wilderness. To argue instead that Paul just happened to write about the same thing but meant something completely different is ridiculous. Obvious skeptigetics.

And why so begrudging about the Pseudo-Philo's Biblical Antiquities being from the first century? From what I have read, this is not in dispute.

Martin McNamara, Intertestamental Literature, at 280-81.

Daniel J. Harrington, Outside the Old Testament, at 8.

Furthermore, you are missing another obvious point here. The reason Paul is referring to spiritual drink and spiritual food is because while he's talking about real food and real drink. He's leaving a conversation about eating food sacrificed to idols. His point is that food sacrificed to idols will not pollute those who eat it. Just as the food and drink consumed by the Israelites, though spiritual, did not do make them be good, moral people.

1Co 10:1-5: "For I do not want you to be unaware, brethren, that our fathers were all under the cloud and all passed through the sea; and all were baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea; and all ate the same spiritual food; and all drank the same spiritual drink, for they were drinking from a spiritual rock which followed them; and the rock was Christ. Nevertheless, with most of them God was not well-pleased; for they were laid low in the wilderness."

The point here is obvious. Eating food sacrificed to idols (about as nonspiritual as it could) does not make you bad just as eating food sent by god (spiritual food) does not make you good. But the comparison only makes sense if Paul is mentioning real food in both instances, which of course he is.

Now, according to you, Paul is saying that the Israelites abided by the teachings of God for 40 years in the wilderness but were wicked anyway. This makes no sense. Anyone who spent 40 years consuming God's teachings would be better for it. They would not be those with whom "God was not well-pleased."

There is no room for a metaphorical understanding of these terms. The context, as the terms and their usage, clearly demand a material understanding of the food, drink, and rock.

Bernard Muller

Layman wrote:
You "agree with me" only now. Earlier you fought it tooth and nail, claiming that such verse actually referred to God himself!
Your latest 'admission' just your latest line of defense along another retreat.

You can check my last posts and you will see I never said "spiritual man" meant a phantom like creature. I started to say that the Greek did not have "man" following "spiritual" (which is true), and then I allowed the option that Paul was thinking about "man" after "spiritual".

Layman wrote:
And saying that "spiritual" means "in the Spirit" is not bringing any clarity to the issue. Nor does it seem particularly apt. In what way is a "spiritual man" "in the Spirit"? They are right here on earth. What it means is that they are infused or affected by the Spirit.

I meant "in the Spirit" as 'being inspired by the Spirit' or 'receptive of the Spirit'. I already defined what I meant in an earlier post. Don't you read my posts?

I have rebutted your claim that "spiritual" always "prevails" on the noun.

I never said "always" in that context. You are making it up.

Layman wrote:
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

So here is your definition for "spiritual" in "spiritual rock" & "spiritual drink". The problem is, in the OT, the Talmud, the Pseudo-Philo, the rock is never connected to the Divne Spirit, or God the Holy Spirit, or a spirit. Maybe God, but not his Spirit or a spirit.
Why would Paul say the (physical) rock (& drink) is spiritual, when there is no other writings about it (or the well) being in any way connected with the Spirit or spirit.
More so when Paul considered the Spirit as an (ethereal) entity quasi-independant from God.
And why would something truly physical & "unthinking" belong to (or provided by) the Spirit or spirit?
Yes, I know of "spiritual house" from '1Peter', but it is clear the house here is not a real house. Actually, "spiritual" makes the "house" immaterial.
Paul had less ambiguous way to declare that rock was physical, like saying "true".
As a matter of fact, by using "spiritual", he gave the totally opposite impression. Actually, there is no better word in Paul's vocabulary to indicate that rock is not physical.

Thayer's Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament offers greater insight by clarifying that "spiritual" refers to things "emanating from the Divine Spirit, or exhibiting its effects." Id. at 523. It also can mean simply "supernatural" as in "produced by the sole power of God himself." Indeed, Thayer's actually uses 1 Corinthians 10:3-4 as examples of this usage.

I just looked at Thayer's Lexicon and this is what I see, relative to 1Cor10:3-4:
"produced by the whole power of God himself without natural instrumentality, supernatural, [3 Greek words here], 1Co.x.3,4, [cf. "Teaching" etc. 10, 3)]"

Well, it looks that Thayer is thinking of "teaching" for "spiritual food" and "spiritual drink", as, I may add, the author of the Didache. And by me that makes a lot of sense, more so that gospel-like teaching is also mentioned in the Exodus story of 'to the Hebrews':

3:16 Who were they who heard and rebelled? Were they not all those Moses led out of Egypt?
3: 17 And with whom was he angry for forty years? Was it not with those who sinned, whose bodies fell in the desert?
...
4:2 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.
...
4:6 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.
...
4:11 Let us, therefore, make every effort to enter that rest, so that no one will fall by following their example of disobedience.

The resemblance with 1 Cor 10:3-6 is very telling (Paul had to know about the author of 'Hebrews or vice-versa):

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.
Now these things occurred as examples to keep us from setting our hearts on evil things as they did.

Now I go back to:
"for they drank from the spiritual rock"
A physical drink, you say? But Paul used drink, or drinking (or food) as teaching from the Spirit or himself:
1 Cor 12:13 "For also in [the power of] one Spirit *we* have all been baptised into one body, whether Jews or Greeks, whether bondmen or free, and have all been given to drink of one Spirit."
And also:
1 Cor 3:2 "I gave you milk, not solid food, for you were not yet ready for it. Indeed, you are still not ready."

Do you think the drinking, milk and food were real. No, of course, it means spiritual teachings, as alluded to in 1 Corinthians 2:
13 which also we speak, not in words taught by human wisdom, but in those taught by the Spirit, communicating spiritual [things] by spiritual [means].
14 But [the] natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him; and he cannot know [them] because they are spiritually discerned;
15 but the spiritual discerns all things, and *he* is discerned of no one.

And what do you have to make your case? You are clinging desperately to the idea of Paul knowing & using some unbiblical legendary rabinnic tales about a moving rock (or interpret the OT big time in order to get to that conclusion), even if we do not have any evidence they existed during Paul's times.
I say "desperate", because you have no other choice than to open the issue that Paul was readily inspired by junky material, coming from the most dubious sources, which is against your beliefs about Paul and your faith.
And then, even if Paul was inspired by the Talmud moving rock, that does not prevent "spiritual" NOT to entail 'physical' by Paul.

To be continued ...

Best regards, Bernard

Layman

What you said was that "spiritual body" could not mean a physical body because "spiritual" prevailed on "body," thus rendering it immaterial. I have demonstrated that this argument is baseless. Paul refers to men, people, food, drink, and a rock as being "spiritual" without rendering them immaterial.

Much more than you do mine.

Apparently it never does in Paul's writings. You have failed to give me a single example. On what basis then, do you claim that the term "spiritual" prevails on the "soma"?

The Old Testament is notoriously unclear about the Trinity. To claim that the Spirit had nothing to do with providing the food, drink, and rock-well to the Israelites in the wilderness is very naive. And completely unsupported by you. It's obviously wishful thinking.

The food and drink and rock were all directly caused by God as miracles. Of course the definition fits.

But you did not answer my question. What else does Strong's say? Does it give examples? Does it refer to 1 Cor. 10:1-5? Does it give more elaborate definitions?

Because they are provided by God. Paul is emphasizing that, just as food sacrificed to idols cannot pollute the person eating it, so too food provided supernaturally by God does not edify the person eating it.

And claiming that no writing connects the "Spirit" of God with the miracles in Exodus is ridiculous. The Old Testament is quite clear that these were provided by divine intervention. That the OT is cryptic about the Trinity provides you with no help at all. Furthermore, this argument is highly disingenuous on your part. You are the one claiming a much more radical departure from the Exodus story than I by claiming that the food, drink, and rock were nothing but metaphors for teaching.

You are going to have to prove this. Right now it's sheer assertion.

Because the Spirit provided it. How does this concept escape you?

No, it does not. The house is not immaterial or ethereal, it's a metaphor. The author is not describing what dwellings look like for spiritual beings in heaven, he is using the term to describe the church. 1 Peter 2:5: "you also, as living stones, are being built up as a spiritual house for a holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ."

The "stones" are also metaphors (for Christians), but they are not modified by "spiritual" but modified by "living." Of course "living" does not convert the stones into a metaphor. Paul could just as easily have said "stones" or "house" without modifying them with "spiritual" or "living."

This usage is irrelevant to your point because when Paul refers to a "spiritual body" he is not using a metaphor. He is describing an actual thing, though you claim it's immaterial. Paul is describing the form which believers take before death and after the resurrection. Neither is a metaphor--both are describing real objects.

Moreover, this explanation shows just how irrelevant your argument about the "spiritual" food, drink, and rock being metaphors for teaching really are. Even if you had a point--which you do not--it would be irrelevant to 1 Cor. 15 because no one thinks that "spiritual body" is a metaphor.
Since you have no experience in Greek this statement is made in complete ignorance.

You are begging the question here. It does not matter what connotation the term carries in English, all that matters is how Paul uses the term. And since Paul never uses the term "spiritual" to render something ethereal, he obviously never meant to have that implication here. Nor would he have expected anyone else to assume such a rendering. In other words, Paul was not worried about anyone thinking the rocks were not physical. He knew that everyone was aware of the Exodus story. He was not writing for skeptologists of the 21st century.

Please clarify these brackets. Does Thayer's Lexicon actually state "Teaching etc. 10,3"? Why is this in brackets? I don't keep Thayer's with me at work, so a more detailed response will have to wait until tommorrow. Just write out what is there (use alliterations for the Greek or just leave it out, but include all the English you are covering by the brackets). Or are the brackets original to the text?

Irrelevant. The Didache is not referring to the Exodus story. I do not dispute that such terms can be metaphors. I disagree that Paul is using them so here. And I also see no relevance in this argument for you anyway since Paul is not speaking metaphorically of spiritual bodies in 1 Cor. 15.

There is no "resemblance" with 1 Cor. 10:3-6. Paul never mentions any preaching or teaching to the Israelites in the wilderness. And Hebrews never mentions "food" and "drink" much less "spiritual" food and drink. If Paul meant "teaching" why not say so? Why refer explicitly to what he believed were actual historical events? Furthermore, why would Paul use a metaphor that actually emphasizes the obedience and acceptance of the Israelites of the teaching (they ate that food and drank that water) if he meant the same thing that the author of Hebrews did (that the Israelites failed to follow the teachings)?

There simply is no basis for rendering food and drink as a metaphor for teaching.

In none of these cases is Paul speaking of what he believed were actual historical events. Nor in 1 Cor. 12:13 is he rendering the material immaterial. And 1 Cor. 3:2 actually hurts your argument. Paul is quite capable of referring to "milk" and "solid food" as metaphors for teaching without modifying them with "spiritual." This shows that the use of the term "spiritual" is irrelevant to whether something is a metaphor for Paul.

What part of "first century written tradition" do you not understand? And do you deny that the Talmud contains oral traditions that stretch back before the time of Paul?

That the story was not in the Old Testament is immaterial. These are traditions were accepted and transmitted in the Rabbinic (i.e., Pharisaic) tradition. Paul, who bragged about accepting the "traditions" of his fathers, would not find the fact that they are also not in the Old Testament to be determinative of their worth. He may not have considered them scripture, but he likely would have considered them historical.

What is your evidence that Paul would have considered this "junky" material? What is your evidence he would have considered this a "dubious" source? You have none.

Paul is "extremely zealous" for his "ancestral traditions." This term (paradosis) is not a reference to the Old Testament (which Paul time and again refers to as "graphe"). It refers to oral tradition handed down by earlier Jews. Clearly, therefore, according to Paul himself he was very aware of nonOld Testament traditions. Indeed, he had spent much time and effort studying them.

You missed the point. The only reason you have given for reading these verses as metaphorical is that Paul talks about the rock-well "following" the Israelites in the wilderness. I have shown that Paul is relying on what he believed was another historical tradition here. I have shown that Paul actually spent much time and effort studying such traditions. And this particular tradition we know was in written form in the first century. Very likely before the fall of Jerusalem. We also know that it found acceptance among the Pharisees because it was preserved and passed along by the Rabbis into the Talmud.

Bernard Muller

Layman wrote:
You are being ridiculous BM. Paul mentions a rock-well that follows the Israelites through the wilderness. Several Jewish traditions, including one written in the first century, also mention a rock-well that follows the Israelites through the wilderness. And you pretend it is impossible that Paul knows of this tradition?

First Paul did not mention a well.
Pseudo-Pauline (possibly 1st century, but when exactly is another story) is only about a moving well.
"Biblical Antiquities x.7: 'A well of water following them brought he forth for them.'"
Your other early tradition is:
"There was also a rabbinic tradition, probably from as early as Paul's day, about Miriam's well, shaped like a rock, which followed the Israelites in the desert and provided water whenever they needed it (cf. Num. 21:16-18). FN-"The clearest but latest form of this tradition is in the Babylonian Talmud, Sukka 3a-b, cf. 11d-b."

I noticed the "probably". It is far from certain. And the first time we know about it is some 550 years after Paul's times.

Layman wrote:
This is based on several levels of speculation that defeat any argument that Josephus knew all of the Jewish traditions and used all Jewish traditions known to him. You have no evidence that the tradition was dubious or not widely accepted. Indeed, it's strong attestation in the Talmud and other Jewish sources shows just how widely accepted it was.

Easy for you to dismiss that Josephus as a dumhead in Jewish traditions. If the rock/well was as widely accepted, it would have shown in Josephus' Antiquities. And besides a few tidbits in the Talmud (600), and something about a moving well in Pseudo-Philo, we have nothing. You call that widely accepted? Aren't you biased here?

Layman wrote:
The OT is clear that the well was the rock. So a Jew doing midrash on that text referring to a moving well is obviously referring to the rock-well.

Really? Then why a Jew has to do midrash on that [OT] text referring to a moving well if it is already identified as the rock-well? And where is the moving well in the OT anyway?
Nothing I see in the OT says that. Not about a rock-well, not about a rock or well moving.

Layman wrote:
All Josephus' writings can tell you is that he did not write down such a tradition.

Why not if it is was widely accepted?

Layman wrote:
Since you admit that the tradition goes back to the first century in written form below, I'll assume you will retract this argument.

I admitted Pseudo-Philo to be 1st century, possibly. But we have a moving well in it, not a moving rock. There is a difference. But when in the 1st century is another question:

James Charlesworth writes: "It is becoming clear that Pseudo-Philo is not so late as earlier scholars concluded. The traditions recorded therein are ancient (cf. G. Vermes, Scripture and Tradition in Judaism: Haggadic Studies, 2d. ed. [SPB 4] Leiden: Brill, 1973; passim), and the work itself is rather early, dating probably from around A.D. 100 (G. Delling, nos. 1190, 1191; C. Dietzfelbinger dates Ps-Philo between A.D. 70 and 135; cf. his Pseudo-Philo, Liber Antiquitatum Biblicarum. Göttingen Ph.D., 1964; pp. 191-94 [N.V.], and his no. 1192, p. 95; also see L. H. Feldman's caveat, no. 1205, pp. xxviii-xxxi) and possibly before A.D. 70 (P.-M. Bogaert, no. 619, vol. 1, p. 246; Harrington, nos. 1198, 1202, 1203).

The chances about Paul knowing in the 50's about pseudo-Philo and its moving well (NOT rock!) are very small.

Layman wrote:
Both deal with the Exodus story about God's provision of water to the Israelites. We know that the well came from the rock that Moses struck. You have yourself referred to it as the "rock-well." That you now pretend there is no basis for calling the rock a well shows just how disingenuous you are willing to be.

OK, let's go back to the sources:

A-The drink is the water that flowed forth from a rock or various rocks at the command of Moses through the power of God. It, like the mannah and the meat, was quite material. The reason that it was spiritual is because it was from God.

Bernard: Why aren't you sure if the water came from a rock or various rocks?

Exo 17:5-6 "Then the LORD said to Moses, "Pass before the people and take with you some of the elders of Israel; and take in your hand your staff with which you struck the Nile, and go. Behold, I will stand before you there on the rock at Horeb; and you shall strike the rock, and water will come out of it, that the people may drink." And Moses did so in the sight of the elders of Israel."

Bernard: Looks to be a fixed rock to me and I see no well.

Num 20:1-13 Then the sons of Israel, the whole congregation, came to the wilderness of Zin in the first month; and the people stayed at Kadesh. Now Miriam died there and was buried there. There was no water for the congregation, and they assembled themselves against Moses and Aaron.... Then the glory of the Lord appeared to them; and the Lord spoke to Moses, saying, "Take the rod; and you and your brother Aaron assemble the congregation and speak to the rock before their eyes, that it may yield its water. You shall thus bring forth water for them out of the rock and let the congregation and their beasts drink." So Moses took the rod from before the Lord, just as He had commanded him; and Moses and Aaron gathered the assembly before the rock. And he said to them, "Listen now, you rebels; shall we bring forth water for you out of this rock?" Then Moses lifted up his hand and struck the rock twice with his rod; and water came forth abundantly, and the congregation and their beasts drank. But the Lord said to Moses and Aaron, "Because you have not believed Me, to treat Me as holy in the sight of the sons of Israel, therefore you shall not bring this assembly into the land which I have given them." Those were the waters of Meribah, because the sons of Israel contended with the Lord, and He proved Himself holy among them."

Bernard: Another rock, possibly at another place, and still no well.

Num 21:16-18:
16 From there they continued on to Beer, the well where the LORD said to Moses, "Gather the people together and I will give them water."
17 Then Israel sang this song:
"Spring up, O well!
Sing about it,
18 about the well that the princes dug,
that the nobles of the people sank-
the nobles with scepters and staffs."
Then they went from the desert to Mattanah,

Bernard: Now, we have a well, already dug, and definitively not moving, at a place called Beer.

Psa 78:15-16: "He split the rocks in the wilderness and gave them abundant drink like the ocean depths. He brought forth streams also from the rock and caused waters to run down like rivers."

Bernard: Yes, two differents rocks allow for a plural. The author did not know about the single moving rock.
And rivers do not run out from wells.

So I do not see any basis for what you said:
"We know that the well came from the rock that Moses struck."
Not at all.
"You have yourself referred to it as the "rock-well.""
Do not try to trap me. I used your terminology, or your alleged concordance of well & rock.
"That you now pretend there is no basis for calling the rock a well shows just how disingenuous you are willing to be."
That shows you are very imaginative.

A rock is not a well, and Moses did not dig up a well with his rod. The only well of the Exodus (at Beer) was already there when the Israelites arrived.

I noticed that from Num 20:2-13:
" 5 Why did you bring us up out of Egypt to this terrible place? It has no grain or figs, grapevines or pomegranates. And there is no water to drink!"

Those Israelites did not know they had a moving rock (or well) accompanying them all along and providing water on demand.

Layman wrote:
It is also clear that the reference in 1 Cor. 10:1-4 are to physical objects.
So I have examples.

That's a circular argument: you claim the food, drink and rock are physical here, which I hotly contest, but regardless, that become your examples. Essentially you have nothing else to prove your point. I have, from other authors, but you reject them, because they are not Paul. It looks to me you are putting your wagons in circle around 1Cor10:3-4, because you have nothing else.
But I have, from another Christian authors. (oh, I know, he is not Paul!)

Justin Martyr in Trypho:

XXX "while they were in a sinful condition and labouring under spiritual disease;"

XLIII "And we, who have approached God through Him, have received not carnal, but spiritual circumcision, which Enoch and those like him observed."

Best regards, Bernard

Bernard Muller

Layman wrote:
What you said was that "spiritual body" could not mean a physical body because "spiritual" prevailed on "body," thus rendering it immaterial. I have demonstrated that this argument is baseless. Paul refers to men, people, food, drink, and a rock as being "spiritual" without rendering them immaterial.

Circular argument with apologetic propaganda.

Layman wrote:
But you did not answer my question. What else does Strong's say? Does it give examples? Does it refer to 1 Cor. 10:1-5? Does it give more elaborate definitions?

That's all I know from STRONG. I gave an exact copy of what I found on the Blue Letter Bible website. (I give the website URL later on this post)

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
More so when Paul considered the Spirit as an (ethereal) entity quasi-independant from God.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Layman wrote: You are going to have to prove this. Right now it's sheer assertion.

1Cor2:11 "The Spirit searches all things, even the deep things of God."

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And why would something truly physical & "unthinking" belong to (or provided by) the Spirit or spirit?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Layman wrote:
Because the Spirit provided it. How does this concept escape you?

So now we have the Spirit providing the physical rock (who was Christ). Strange role for the Spirit!

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes, I know of "spiritual house" from '1Peter', but it is clear the house here is not a real house. Actually, "spiritual" makes the "house" immaterial.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Layman wrote:
No, it does not. The house is not immaterial or ethereal, it's a metaphor. The author is not describing what dwellings look like for spiritual beings in heaven, he is using the term to describe the church. 1 Peter 2:5: "you also, as living stones, are being built up as a spiritual house for a holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ."

I did not say the spiritual house was in heaven.
So now we are dealing with a metaphor. BTW, how can you be sure that Paul is not using a metaphor in 1Cor10:3-4. After all, "spiritual" appears there also, connected to things normally physical. What is your methodogy to differenciate the two: metaphor and historical, like the moving rock of the Exodus?

And what about 2 Corinthians 5:1-3:
For we know that if our earthly house, this tent, is destroyed, we have a building from God, a house not made with hands, eternal in the heavens. For in this we groan, earnestly desiring to be clothed with our habitation which is from heaven, if indeed, having been clothed, we shall not be found naked.

Is the building, the house, the habitation real or "spiritual" or just a metaphor?

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Paul had less ambiguous way to declare that rock was physical, like saying "true".
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Layman wrote:
Since you have no experience in Greek this statement is made in complete ignorance.

I know enough to understand you give the impression something is NOT physical (or real) by putting "spiritual", English or Greek, in front of a noun, normally meaning something material, metaphor or no metaphor.

In other words, Paul was not worried about anyone thinking the rocks were not physical. He knew that everyone was aware of the Exodus story. He was not writing for skeptologists of the 21st century.

You said it. The rocks of the Exodus were physical, but what about "the spiritual moving rock (which was Christ)". Does that jump at you as being physical and real? Not for me.
And there are no fathers who were looking at the third coming, since the first one occurred during the Exodus, and for 40 years? And why would Christ transform himself as a rock giving water at will? Wouldn't that be the job of God, at least in critical times, through Moses, as described in the OT?

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[I just looked at Thayer's Lexicon and this is what I see, relative to 1Cor10:3-4:
"produced by the whole power of God himself without natural instrumentality, supernatural, [3 Greek words here], 1Co.x.3,4, [cf. "Teaching" etc. 10, 3)]"
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Layman wrote:
Please clarify these brackets. Does Thayer's Lexicon actually state "Teaching etc. 10,3"? Why is this in brackets? I don't keep Thayer's with me at work, so a more detailed response will have to wait until tommorrow. Just write out what is there (use alliterations for the Greek or just leave it out, but include all the English you are covering by the brackets). Or are the brackets original to the text?

I copied that as exactly as I could. I got that from the Blue Letter Bible website, right there:
http://www.blueletterbible.org/tmp_d...69487-247.html

Layman wrote:
Irrelevant. The Didache is not referring to the Exodus story. I do not dispute that such terms can be metaphors. I disagree that Paul is using them so here.

Of course, you disagree. But how can you say "spiritual drink" is a metaphor here but not there. Does metaphor only apply to non-Exodus stories? Is that your methodology?

Layman wrote:
There is no "resemblance" with 1 Cor. 10:3-6.

There are plenty, more so with "spiritual drink & food" standing for "preached gospel". Then we would have a very close parallel.

Layman wrote:
Furthermore, why would Paul use a metaphor that actually emphasizes the obedience and acceptance of the Israelites of the teaching (they ate that food and drank that water) if he meant the same thing that the author of Hebrews did (that the Israelites failed to follow the teachings

That would make a lot of sense if the spiritual drink & food were rejected by those people: they sat down to receive them, but when they got up, they did not follow them:
1Cor10
6 But these things happened [as] types of us, that we should not be lusters after evil things, as they also lusted.
7 Neither be ye idolaters, as some of them; as it is written, The people sat down to eat and to drink, and rose up to play.

See the parallel, as in 'Hebrews': they received the teachings (spiritual drink & food or gospel) but "rose up to play". Paul essentially was telling his Christians not to do what the others did, after receiving the spiritual sustenance.
That's why Paul starts his story by saying that, somehow, those Israelites were baptized, again as a parallel with his Christians.
Essentially the parallel is: you get baptized, receive the teachings and do not do anything bad (like reverting to Paganism & idolatry).

I got that in the note of my NIV Bible for 1Co10:3-4;
"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 (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)."

Layman wrote:
There simply is no basis for rendering food and drink as a metaphor for teaching.

Well the NIV Bible and Thayer's Lexicon do not think so.

Layman wrote:
In none of these cases is Paul speaking of what he believed were actual historical events. Nor in 1 Cor. 12:13 is he rendering the material immaterial. And 1 Cor. 3:2 actually hurts your argument. Paul is quite capable of referring to "milk" and "solid food" as metaphors for teaching without modifying them with "spiritual." This shows that the use of the term "spiritual" is irrelevant to whether something is a metaphor for Paul.

I suppose every one knew in Corinth that Paul did not supply true milk or solid food. So of course, Paul did not use "spiritual" here. But in 1Co10:3-4, those same knew about the physical food and water (through a rock) supplied by God, that's why Paul used "spiritual" for food, drink and rock, so they would not be confused with the ones referred in the OT.

Best regards, Bernard

Bernard Muller

Following my debate with Layman, I reworked my section on:
Did Paul believe in bodily resurrections?
You can have direct access by clicking:
http://www.concentric.net/~Mullerb/hjes2x.shtml#body
Of course, I am more certain than ever that Paul was Platonic/Philoic on that issue.

Best regards, Bernard

Layman

That does not surprise me. When you first appeared, I hoped you might be a Peter Kirby, in that you were skeptical, but truly interested in history. As it turns out, you are just another skeptologist.

I'll refute your latest posts this weekend.

rainbow walking

Hi Layman, without taking a position, one way or the other on this subject, I'm just curious as to the significance of the distinction between each? How would a purely spiritual ressurrection deviate from the gospel? How does a physical ressurrection enhance the message?

Thnx
rw

Layman

Hi RW,

First and foremost it's a historical question. Curiousity.

But, in the context of attempting to understand early Christianity, it could affect a number of issues. A bodily resurrection suggests stronger links with Judaism. It also suggests a stronger link between Paul's Christianity and that of the gospel authors. It renders a hellenistic or mystery-religion origin less likely.

Things like that.