Layman

Spiritual means what I said it means here. It's source is God. Directly. It certainly does not mean "made out of " pneuma.

Again, these gifts are spiritual because they are from God. Not became they are made out of spirit substance.

And I never claimed that "spiritual" only refers to material objects. I never claimed that "spiritual" converts things into material objects. All I have claimed is that your argument that "spiritual" does convert material objects into incorporeal objects has no basis in Paul's usage.

You have given me no reason to doubt that.

Right. More examples of how spiritual does not mean made of out pneuma.

Obviously not you mean. What "spiritual things" do you think were sowed? Magic heavan beans? These "spiritual things" are not fleshly or pneuma, they are principles or actions. They are not corporeal or incorporeal. They are abstract.

Not obsessed at all. I'm getting to the heart of the matter. You are the one arguing that "spiritual" means "made out of pneuma" by saying that "spiritual" prevails on the noun "soma." But you have not one single example of that from the nondisputed Paulines, do you?

So the answer is "no," none of these are examples of Paul referring to something made out of pneuma. None of these are examples of spiritual entities or objects. They are either material objects (men, people, rocks, food), or abstracts (teachings, gifts, things).

And you ignored my big question. If there are no examples of Paul using "spiritual" to mean something made of out spiritual stuff, then why do you insist on reading "spiritual body" to mean something made out of spiritual stuff (pnuema)?

Why ignore this question?

You need exegis lessons. The reason Paul uses the term "same"" is because he is stressing that "all" of the Israelites ate the "same" stuff. There is no reasonable interpretation that has this referring to Christians. Again, Paul's point is that even though "all" of them ate the food provided miraculously from God, "some" (vs. 8 and 9) of them turned to idolotry and immorality. He is reinforcing his point made in chapter 8 that "food will not commend us to God; we are neither the worse if we do not eat, nor the better if we do eat."

Layman

I have not exactly gone out of my way to study geography in my days, but I have run across some wells that flowed forth from rock. The most impressive one I remember was "Montezuma's Well." More than a million gallons of water flows forth from the limestone every day. An entire Native American civilization rose up around the well and used its water to support a large population.

Here's a picture: http://members.aol.com/joncjec/castle.html

There is also Robin Hood's Well in Great Britain. It flows from a few stones, grows, and then makes it's way under a large slab of rock before pouring out over a slope. Here it is described as issuing "out from beneath a large, worn stone capping: shaped rather like a flattened pyramid with a blunt apex. This is set against a dry-stone wall by the side of Stake Lane. The water falls from the well-head into a small pool and the whole arrangement of stones has the appearance of great age." http://www.bath.ac.uk/lispring/sourc...ns6/ns6jc1.htm

Here are a couple of pictures: http://www.alkelda.f9.co.uk/holywells/rhood1.htm

Instead of jumping to some unnamed dictionary, let's notice that these terms can be used interchangeably in the Old Testament.

Gen 16:7-14: "Now the angel of the LORD found her by a spring of water in the wilderness, by the spring on the way to Shur. He said, "Hagar, Sarai's maid, where have you come from and where are you going?" And she said, "I am fleeing from the presence of my mistress Sarai." Then the angel of the LORD said to her, "Return to your mistress, and submit yourself to her authority." Moreover, the angel of the LORD said to her, "I will greatly multiply your descendants so that they will be too many to count." The angel of the LORD said to her further, "Behold, you are with child, And you will bear a son; And you shall call his name Ishmael, Because the LORD has given heed to your affliction. "He will be a wild donkey of a man, His hand will be against everyone, And everyone's hand will be against him; And he will live to the east of all his brothers." Then she called the name of the LORD who spoke to her, "You are a God who sees"; for she said, "Have I even remained alive here after seeing Him?" Therefore the well was called Beer-lahai-roi; behold, it is between Kadesh and Bered."

In any event, if you are correct springs always refer to natural occurrences, this was no natural occurrence. If it is true that Wells are created, then God created the flowing water from the rock. That's why Paul refers to it as "supernatural." It actually would make more sense to call it a well than a spring.

The references to a well are Midrash. The are expanding on and interpreting the Exodus material. The only possible reference source for the moving well is the rock mentioned at the beginning and the end of the wilderness journey.

I take it that those brackets are your own insertions and have nothing to do with the text itself?

Exodus 14:14? ""The LORD will fight for you while you keep silent." ???

I agree that there is no rock or well here, but what's your point?

In your quote, there are "three good gifts" given. Water, food, and the cloud. These correspond to three Jewish leaders. This is obviously Midrash on the Exodus story--specifically, the three gifts correspond with the water from the rock (Exod. 17:1-7), the food (Exod. 16:3) and the cloud (Exod. 15:2). So the "well of water" that went along with them is obviously Midrash on Exod. 17:1-7 and Numbs. 21:17.

Did you read what you wrote here? The rock that Moses struck was "the well was again given to the children of Israel." This text is obviously equating the rock with a well, something you said was not possible. Obviously it was quite natural for the early Jews to equate the rock gushing water with a well.

What is the point here? The well dried up and Moses jump started it again by striking it's source, the rock. The early Jews noted that this complaint about a lack of water coincided with Miriam's death. They took this to mean that the rock-well following them dried up upon her death. Thus, they Midrashed a connection between the rock-well and Miriam and saw her death as the cause of the cesation of well water. Because the well stopped, the people ran short of water and complained. Moses jump started the rock again by striking it.

No, the first mention of a rock producing water connected to the exodus story is in Exo 17:6 ("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.") and Num 20:11 ("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.").

Remember how you insisted that the rock stories were the "same rock, same place"? You have yet to admit you were completely wrong about that. There is a rock producing water at the beginning and end of the wilderness journey. Quite a coincidence, isn't it? Add to this the fact that in Numb. 20:13, though takes place in Zin, calls these things "Those were the waters of Meribah." The "waters of Meribah" were the waters from the first location of the rock mentioned in Exod. 17 ("He named the place Massah and Meribah because of the quarrel of the sons of Israel, and because they tested the LORD, saying, "Is the LORD among us, or not?"). To the Jews, that these were the same waters as from Meribah meant from the same rock. Whether you agree with them or not, the early Jews took this to mean that the rock and the well were the same.

This was what the Jewish scholar I cited was talking about:

http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.p...41#post1256841

Again you do not seem to be reading your own words. The Sukkah does not say that water trickled from rock, but from the holes. Of which the rock was "full of." Result? Lot's of water capable of supporting the nation of Israel in the wilderness.

You are wasting my time again.

Already dealt with. Your understanding of your own citation is absurd. Do you really think the Jews would brag about God making them a well that only gave them a trickle?

Actually, the rock gushing water already exists in Exodus and Numbers. The innovation, or interpretation, the early Jews such as Paul and the Psudeo-Philo recognized was that the rock traveled with the Jews.

Why do you doubt it? Why would the author be so obsessed with making sure he did not rely on any existing traditions? It seems silly to conclude that no Jew recorded an oral tradition in writing. Instead you assume that all these Jewish writings were brand new.

Let's look at our chronology.

OT: Rock producing water at the beginning of the wilderness journey and at the end of it. The rock producing water is identified by the same name. (BC)

Psudeo-Philo: A well producing water for the Israelites and following them through the wilderness journey. (first century)

Paul: A rock producing water for the Israelites and following them through the wilderness journey. (first century)

Pirke De Rabbi Eliezer: The well producing water went before the Israelites in the wilderness. (90-200 CE, according to you).

Tosefta Sukkah 3:11: The well like a rock gushed water out for the Israelites and "going up with them" through the mountains and the valleys (200-300 CE)

Balyonian Talmud: The well provided them with water through the wilderness until the death of Miriam. (600 CE).

Let's look at what we know of the text of each one.

"Now He led His people out into the wilderness; for forty years He rained down for them bread from Heaven, and brought quail to them from the sea and brought a well of water to follow them. And it [the water] followed them in the wilderness forty years and went up to the mountains with them, and went down into the plains." [Pseudo-Philo, Book of Biblical Antiquities 10:7, 11:15]

"I want you to know, brethren, that our fathers were all under the cloud, and all passed through the sea, and . . . all drank the same spiritual drink. For they drank from the supernatural Rock which followed them." [1 Corinthians 10:1-4]

"Every place our forefathers went, the well went in front of them." [Pirke De Rabbi Eliezer 45B.i]

"It was likewise with the well that was with the children of Israel in the wilderness, it was like a rock that was full of holes like a sieve from which water trickled and arose as from the opening of a flask. It ascended with them to the top of the hills and descended with them into the valleys; wherever Israel tarried there it tarried over against the entrance to the tabernacle." [Tosefta Sukkah 3:11]

"An objection was raised: R. Jose the son of R. Jehudah said: Three good leaders were given to Israel, and they are: Moses, Aaron, and Miriam; and three good gifts were given through them, namely: the well of water which the Israelites had along with them in the desert was given them for the sake of Miriam; the 'pillar of cloud which led them by day was given them on account of Aaron, and the Manna was given them for Moses' sake. When Miriam died, the well vanished, as it is written: "Miriam died there, and was buried there"; and immediately afterwards it says: "And there was no water for the congregation." Still, the well was again given to the children of Israel through the prayers of Moses and Aaron." [Babylonian Talmud, Tract Taanith, Book 4, Ch. 1]

If you cannot see that these traditions are all based on, or grew out of, the texts of Exodus and Numbers then you do not want to see it.

Well, you also think that the author of Luke/Acts wanted to be understood as having been written prior to 70 CE, yet he too refers to the destruction of the Temple.

Ah, more anachronisms.

Do you think that the "well" that followed the Israelites was man made with a pail? Of course not. It was a miraculous well. It was not a natural occurrence.

Besides, as I showed above, rocks through which water naturally flows are often referred to as "wells." The OT uses the term interchangeably on occasion.

Yet more anachronisms.

Again, BM, as much stock as you put in your own opinion, it's irrelevant. You are simply too ignorant about Jewish tradition. The Jews did see this is a conundrum, which is why they explained the cesation of the will as being tied to Miriam's death.

No BM, it's about what later Jews thought the author of Numbers believed. You seem to have no concept of what Midrash or legendary development is.

All I found was what I already posted.

"Every place our forefathers went, the well went in front of them."

I found it here:

http://www.donmeh-west.com/melchi.shtml

Whining? It just makes you look like a sore loser.

Yeah, it'd be a bummer for you to have to change so much of your website if you had to admit you were wrong about Paul.

What I have done has been more than sufficient to shut your argument down.

And jeepers you are sensitive. I shudder to think how you would respond if I accused you of something as harsh as brainwashing and propaganda. Now that would be out of bounds. Don't you think?

I know exactly what you did. You claimed that "spiritual body" had to be a spirit because the term "spiritual" must "prevail" on the noun. I have shown that such reasoning has no basis in Paul's usage of those terms.

BM:I gather, the last part would mean the spiritual (or Spirit) is beyond human criticism, which fits Paul's thoughts perfectly.

If I misunderstood what you meant here, and you did not mean to imply by capitalizing the "S" in Spirit that you were referring to the Holy Spirit, then we had an honest misunderstanding based on your failure to be more clear.

Creating an incomplete and inaccurate caricature of the original post is hardly responding to it, BM. But I do find it amusing that you insist on interpreting Paul in the opposite way that his overwhelming usage of the same terms suggest. Though Paul uses "soma" to emphasis the material body and never uses "spiritual" to convert a material body into a spiritual one, you think that is the only reasonable interpretation of "spiritual soma" is the opposite of how he uses the terms.

Ya know what? I am impressed with your ability to take that position.

Bernard Muller

Layman, the truth is the legend of the moving water supply for the Israelites of the Exodus developed through a midrashic process (which you explained so well! It's great to see "history" in the making!!!) but the important fact is it first came out as a well (which can be a spring), as witnessed by Pseudo-Philo, the Pirke and the Talmud.
Then, in the third century, the rock started to appear in the Tosefta, written by only two rabbis. The rock was added on to reflect Moses was striking rocks, not ground, in the OT. Some harmonization. So my conclusion, the moving rock did not exist in the times of Paul, possibly the moving well, but even that we are not sure, because we do not have any evidence. After all, those rabbis came very active only after 70, when they became preminent over the teachers of the law & Sadducees.
I also noted, in the Talmud, the well consists of 'pillar of clouds', nothing like rock or even spring here.

That's why Paul refers to it as "supernatural."

Actually Paul used "spiritual", same word as for the food and drink.

Mister C.K. Barrett is wrong: 'Babylonian Talmud' should read 'Tosefta'.
The Tosefta was written in the third century, and this is the first time 'rock' appears:

Of course, I meant moving rock. If I had written that, I would not have got another lecture on the rocks in the OT !!!

Again you do not seem to be reading your own words. The Sukkah does not say that water trickled from rock, but from the holes. Of which the rock was "full of." Result? Lot's of water capable of supporting the nation of Israel in the wilderness.

Somehow, that gushing water does not come to mind when I read that:
"It was likewise with the well that was with the children of Israel in the wilderness, it was like a rock that was full of holes like a sieve from which water trickled and arose as from the opening of a flask. It ascended with them to the top of the hills and descended with them into the valleys; wherever Israel tarried there it tarried over against the entrance to the tabernacle"

Tosefta Sukkah 3:11: The well like a rock gushed water out for the Israelites and "going up with them" through the mountains and the valleys (200-300 CE)

Balyonian Talmud: The well provided them with water through the wilderness until the death of Miriam. (600 CE).

How did you manage to read "gushed water" in the Tosefta? Are you imagining things or doing midrash?
Actually the Tosefta was written after the material appearing in the Talmud, as generally agreed. And the first appearance of the Tosefta is in the 12th century in France, after the Talmud (600):

"The Mishna is basic compilation of the Oral Law, and was written down around 200 CE. However there is another compilation of Oral Law from that time period--the Tosefta. Rashi (in his commentary on BT Sanhedrin 33a) writes that the Mishna was redacted by Rabbi Judah Ha-Nasi in consultation with members of the Academy, while the Tosefta was edited by Rabbis Hiyya and Oshaiah on their own. This gave the Tosefta less authority than the Mishna; today, the Tosefta is treated a supplement to the Mishna. The word 'tosefta' means 'supplement'. The Tosefta is a Halakhic work which corresponds in structure almost exactly to the Mishna, with the same divisions for sedarim (orders) and masekhot (tractates). It is mainly written is Mishnaic Hebrew, with a few Aramaic sentences. The actual writing is called the Tosefot or Tosefos, depending on your Hebrew dialect.

Tosefot was produced by a school of French Rabbis of the 12th century. Their thoughts were combined into a commentary on the Babylonian Talmud.

Tosefot is found on the outside of each page (on the left of the left page, or the right part of the right one) wrapped around the text. Rashi, who was father and grandfather of a number of the Tosafists appears on the inside, nearer the binding."

http://www.faqs.org/faqs/judaism/FAQ...ection-13.html

Well, you also think that the author of Luke/Acts wanted to be understood as having been written prior to 70 CE, yet he too refers to the destruction of the Temple.

"Luke" was following GMark, which had the destruction of the Jerusalem predicted by Jesus. But Philo never prophesied the events of 70.

the term "spiritual" must "prevail" on the noun

I never wrote "must".

Best regards, Bernard

Layman

This is just crazy. You admit this is Midrash on the rock that provided water to the Israelites, but then claim that they forgot it was a rock and only a well?

It is much more reasonable to see that Paul fits into a tradition that saw the rock for what it was, a well. Thus the moving well is a moving rock. Do you really think that the Jews doing Midrash on the rock providing water forgot it was a rock?

Besides, you've ignored my new points. You are just repeating yourself.

What is your basis for this one? Sounds like another honker. Paul was a Pharisee who already spoke of exiting traditions. Obviously you are making this up.

Cite please.

Spare me BM, he uses a greek term. We are trying to come up with a definition. Thayer's uses "supernatural."

Actually, what we should be looking for is a rock producing water. And that obviously started in the OT.

You have insisted that there is no way that early Jews would have equated the moving rock with a moving well, because according to you, they would have used the term "spring." Now that I've blown that one out of the water, you have no reason to conclude that the Psuedo-Philo and Pirke would not have mean the rock-well that they are Midrashing from the OT.

Why do you keep repeating yourself instead of responding to my points? You are just wasting bandwidth.

As I explained--and am forced to do so again--your reading of this is lame. The rock was full of holes. Each of those many holes trickled water. The end result was enough to provide for Israel.

Should I stop and whine a bit about you being snide and insulting?

I guess I should have known better to rely on you when you said: Then, in the third century, the rock started to appear in the Tosefta, written by only two rabbis.

But you think Jesus did? Interesting.

Then clear up your position BM. If there is no reason to believe that "spiritual" prevails on "soma" then why do you claim that the spiritual soma must be incorporeal?

Celsus

Bernard and Layman,

Please maintain a tone worthy of a genuine discussion. If you feel that you cannot do so, I urge you to bow out of this discussion.

Joel

Layman

Probably so. My electronic version of Thayer's is much more limited than the book volume. The electronic version provides an outline of the answers, while the book provides many clarifications and provides scriptural citations and other notes.

My point was not that you are stupid, but that if you are relying on a very limited amount of information. Your source was very limited.

You have wandered far beyond your original point. In fact, you have abandoned it.

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


You then argued that this was inaccurate because the Spirit did not provide the water, God did. Obviously, you've abandoned your initial argument

Your abandonment of this point and attempt to simply repeat the same old "well" can't mean "rock" argument (even if the rock is providing water) is an expression of your concurrence in my opinion.

No need to be snide here. No one has disputed this. But the "spiritual body" Paul refers to in 1 Cor. 15 is not an abstract concept. It provides no support for your argument that the "spiritual" must prevail on the "soma."

I already considered and refuted the notion that Paul is referring to a literal, spiritual abode. Remember? Your example was 1 Peter 2:5: "you also, like living stones, are being built into a spiritual house to be a holy priesthood, offering spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God ...."

The house is a metaphor for the church. It is not a reference to a dwelling place in heaven. If Paul had something like Jesus' "many mansions" I would agree with you. But he did not. So Paul is not using the term "spiritual" here to convert a material house into a heavenly house. He's using it as a metaphor for the body of believers.

You still have no examples of Paul using "spiritual" to render a material object incorporeal.

You are just repeating yourself again.

In any event, even if you are right that the rock and drink are metaphors, this does not help you. The "spiritual body" in 1 Cor. 15 is not a metaphor. It is either a corporeal body or a noncorporeal being.

The reason I have to keep repeating myself on this issue is because you somehow think that because your reading of the exodus story in the OT does not suggest a moving rock-well that no one else believed in a moving rock-well. It does not matter how reasonable you think an interpretation of a moving rock-well is, all that matters is the fact that the Jews did interpret the scripture in that manner. And yes, I do think that the fact that we can show a continuous stream of Jewish thought, from ancient times to the present, that equates the water-producing-well in Exod. and Numbs. with a rock-well that followed the Israelites through the wilderness, is more relevant than your agendized exegis of the OT.

BM, I mixed nothing. I wanted to provide the full text of Thayer's to show how it fits my definition so well. That's all I did, gave the full quotation of Thayer's.

Please do not cast about such unfounded aspersions.

BM, to say that something is symbolic is not to say it's a metaphor. Paul believed that God really did provide food and drink from a rock to the Israelites. To say that he also saw this as a symbol of how God can provide for our needs supernaturally is not the same thing as saying he meant that he literally means that the Jews received teaching rather than food and drink.

Vine's is clear that the "material type" is not converted into a "spiritual type." Remember your argument that "spiritual" prevails on "soma"? No support for that here. Moreover, according to Vine's, the drink and food referred to by Paul is still real food and drink.

But Paul does not talk about "imagery" here. He talks about "examples." Things that really happened. ("1 Cor. 10:11: Now these things happened to them as an example, and they were written for our instruction, upon whom the ends of the ages have come. "). Elsewhere when Paul uses this term--"tupos"--he is referring to actual events.. (1 Thess. 1:7: "so that you became an example to all the believers in Macedonia and in Achaia";Phi 3:17: "Brethren, join in following my example, and observe those who walk according to the pattern you have in us."; 2Th 3:9: "not because we do not have the right to this, but in order to offer ourselves as a model for you, so that you would follow our example"). And since you like 1 Peter, it's used the same there. (1 Peter 5:3: "nor yet as lording it over those allotted to your charge, but proving to be examples to the flock").

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.

He is using them as examples, not as exact parallels.

James D.G. Dunn, The Theology of Paul the Apostle, at 614.

No. By saying they "ate" and "drank" the spiritual food Paul would be implying that they accepted his teaching. But since you are looking for exact parallels, please who me where in Chapter 10 Paul refers to preaching the gospel to the Corinthians?

I ask again. Since you are looking for exact parallels, please who me where in Chapter 10 Paul refers to preaching the gospel to the Corinthians?

Where does this "replacement" take place? You are writing a new version of Corinthians to try and make your point. Oh, and apparently incorporating Hebrews into it as well.

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.

Actually, what you originally said was that there was no support at all for my position. In fact, there appears to be much more for mine than for yours.

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.

What is your point here? That Paul only had a certain number of verses within which to make a parallel before time ran out? This is completely arbitrary.

The entire discussion throughout chapters 8-11 focus on the eating of real food. Paul's point is that it is not the food that is important, but the actions. Chapter 8-9 discusses the freedom Christians have to eat even food sacrificed to idols. There, he makes this statement: "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. "

Chapter 10 follows this up and provides an example of the "nor the better if we do eat."

What better counterposing example to the food sacrificed to idols than the miraculous provision of food and drink to the Israelites? Which is exactly what Paul does, referring to this as "spiritual good" and "spiritual drink" provided by a "spiritual rock." Even though all of them ate this spiritual stuff, God was not pleased with them.

It also seems likely that Paul was warning the Corinthians that partaking in the sacrament of the Lord's Supper did not of itself bestow upon them any protection or inherent morality. This adds greatly to my point. Surely we can all agree that the bread and the wine consumed in the Lord' Supper were real? Moreover, Paul is reiterating again that it is not what you eat that affects you--for the better or the worse.

Paul reinforces this point again in Chapter 11 by noting that eating the Last Supper "in an unworthy manner" can be detremintal to the believer's life. Again and again and again and again Paul refers to real food and drink. Food sacrificed to idols. Food and drink provided supernaturally by God. The food of the sacrament of the Last Supper. All very real.

Yes, I agree that Paul was telling the Corinthians not to fall away into temptation. But he uses the Israelites as an example of what can happen even to those who have been given much by God.

N.T. Wright, The Resurrection of the Son of God, at 294.

Wright's point is an interesting one. Paul discusses two of the Christian sacraments: baptism and the Last Supper. He relates them to two events from the Exodus. The Baptism he ties to the crossing of the Red Sea--because they traveled through water. The Last Supper he ties to the provision of food and drink--because of the two elements of the Eucharist (bread and wine).

I think that most commentators get it right when they conclude that the Corinthians--probably because of their pagan background--viewed the sacraments of Baptism and the Last Supper--as somehow imbuing them with a superior spiritualism or protection. Paul's point is that they do not. They provide no greater safeguard from falling away from Christ as did the miracles performed by God to the Israelites protect them from falling away from God.

These are examples, not metaphors.

In any event, BM, even if you were right you would still be wrong. If the food and drink are metaphors they are not examples of the term "spiritual" prevailing on the noun. These material objects were not transformed into incorporeal objects. So you still have no rationale basis for concluding that "spiritual" transforms "soma" into something incorporeal.

Layman

Will do, Celsus. My apologies. I revisited my most recent post after reading your post and toned it down.

Bernard Muller

Layman:
This is just crazy. You admit this is Midrash on the rock that provided water to the Israelites, but then claim that they forgot it was a rock and only a well?

I say Midrashic speculations came out with a moving well first (3 testimonies: Pseudo-Philo, Pirke & Mishna/Talmud) (and no rock mentioned). Then with the Tosefta a moving rock appears in the third century.
This is following the flow of the legendary development, not assuming anything. If a tradition existed about a moving rock giving permanent water early on, at least one of the 3 first testimonies (70-200) would have mentioned 'rock'. Is that clear enough? We are talking about a 200 years gap here, that matters. You cannot assume a "tradition" of something (the moving rock) which appears in 250 was existing in 50, more so when something else (the moving well) was mentioned before that. We are talking about a leap of faith here. This is not historical research.

It is much more reasonable to see that Paul fits into a tradition that saw the rock for what it was, a well. Thus the moving well is a moving rock. Do you really think that the Jews doing Midrash on the rock providing water forgot it was a rock?

You are assuming a lot. Sheer speculation, more so we have NO evidence any tradition on moving well or rock existed then (in Paul's times), and if one existed, if was about a moving well, because that was what surfaced later, before the moving rock.
I can tell you that if Paul really wanted to have Christ supplying water permanently to these Israelites, then he would have used 'well' instead, to be in tune with the earliest tradition we know of about continuous water sustenance, that is the moving well (if that legend existed then).

Spare me BM, he uses a greek term. We are trying to come up with a definition. Thayer's uses "supernatural."

Supernatural is only one word among others conveying the meaning for "spiritual" in 1Co10:3-4. Isolating that word from the rest is misleading:
From the Thayer's Lexicon, relative to "spiritual" in 1Co10:3-4:
"produced by the whole power of God himself without natural instrumentality, supernatural, [bryma [food], psma [drink], petra [rock]], 1Co.x.3,4, [(cf. "Teaching" etc. 10, 3)]"

As I explained--and am forced to do so again--your reading of this is lame. The rock was full of holes. Each of those many holes trickled water. The end result was enough to provide for Israel.

Do a reality check, Layman. In that case, you would need many (zillions) holes trickling water. I figure that for 1.6 millions (minimum) Israelites and for their livestock, 50 to 200 liters of water per second would be required. The Tosefta concept is totally stupid.

How did you manage to read "gushed water" in the Tosefta? Are you imagining things or doing midrash?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Should I stop and whine a bit about you being snide and insulting?

Layman, stop insulting. There is no mention of **gushing** water in the passage from the Tosefta. Keep to the facts instead of forcing your speculations.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Luke" was following GMark, which had the destruction of the Jerusalem predicted by Jesus. But Philo never prophesied the events of 70.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
But you think Jesus did? Interesting.

Read that again, Layman. Keep to the facts. I did not say that. I said GMark had Jesus predicting the destruction of Jerusalem.

Then clear up your position BM. If there is no reason to believe that "spiritual" prevails on "soma" then why do you claim that the spiritual soma must be incorporeal?

It's all explained in one of my page, from A to Z, of which I already gave the URL. Here it is again:

http://www.concentric.net/~Mullerb/hjes2x.shtml#body

Best regards, Bernard

Layman

You are just repeating yourself.

BM, Midrash is on scripture. The scripture being Midrashed here is Exodus and Numbers' account of the miraculous provision of water in the wilderness. That the "well" they are referring to is a "rock" that produces water is clear because they are doing Midrash based on stories about a rock what produced water.

Even if I accepted the unfounded distinction between a rock that produces water miraculously and a miraculous well, your argument does not withstand scrutiny.

Why?

Because. If we have a written source (Source A) that we know contains many oral traditions stretching back hundreds of years to before a specific time (Time Period B) AND we have a writing from Time Period B which contains a specific statement (Statement C) that also appears in Source A, the most reasonable conclusion is that Statement C existed during Time Period B.

Source A = Babylonian Talmud.
Time Period B = 50-60 CE.
Statement C = a water producing rock following the Israelites through the wilderness.

In fact, BM, "spiritual" is only one word among others conveying the meaing of the GREEK term here.

Please be civil.

Right. And you skeptics think that the resurrection and all those other miracles are smart. Of course you think it's stupid. It's a miracle. I am forced to repeat myself here. Your opinion of the feasibility of the miracle is irrelevant.

What is your point? How on earth is this relevant?

I read it fine the first time.

Sorry, BM. I'm not debating with a website. This is a copout. If through these many posts you have not been able to state your position, then I must conclude that you have no interest in doing so.

Bernard Muller

Layman wrote:
Because. If we have a written source (Source A) that we know contains many oral traditions stretching back hundreds of years to before a specific time (Time Period B) AND we have a writing from Time Period B which contains a specific statement (Statement C) that also appears in Source A, the most reasonable conclusion is that Statement C existed during Time Period B.

Source A = Babylonian Talmud.
Time Period B = 50-60 CE.
Statement C = a water producing rock following the Israelites through the wilderness.

"reasonable" is no evidence. I can say I went to the food store yesterday. Very reasonable, more so that I need to eat, hey! But I did not, that's the truth. So making theory with some "reasonable" clause does not mean it is true. Actually, a lot of fictional stories, not involving any supernatural, can look very reasonable from start to finish. But it is fiction. "reasonable" is NOT evidence. More so when the evidence goes straight against your "reasonable conclusion", as I will show next.

A reminder: source A has no rock in it. So are the Pseudo-Philo & the Pirke (late 1st or 2nd cent.). And if Source A (200) goes back as early as you say, then Paul should have come with "well" no "rock".

Here is my analysis:

- A moving well (NOT a rock!) appears in Pseudo-Philo (around 100):
Biblical Antiquities x.7: "'A well of water following them brought he forth for them.'"

- Then in the Pirke of Rabbi Eliezer 45B.i (90-150?)
"Every place our forefathers went, the well went in front of them."

Note: Let's notice the conflicting "following" <=> "in front of them" !!!

- Then, around 200C.E., from the Babylonian Talmud, Tract Taanith, Book 4, Ch. 1:
"An objection was raised: R. Jose the son of R. Jehudah said: Three good leaders were given to Israel, and they are: Moses, Aaron, and Miriam; and three good gifts were given through them, namely: the well of water which the Israelites had along with them in the desert was given them for the sake of Miriam; the 'pillar of cloud which led them by day was given them on account of Aaron, and the Manna was given them for Moses' sake. When Miriam died, the well vanished, as it is written [(Nu20:1); but no well mentioned here & in the whole passage (Nu20:1-13)!]: "Miriam died there, and was buried there"; and immediately afterwards it says: "And there was no water for the congregation."
[the embarrassing Nu20:5 (quoted next) had to be explained: the permanent & moving well vanished because of Miriam's death!]
` Still, the well was again given to the children of Israel through the prayers of Moses [by him striking a rock (Nu20:11); but still no well mentioned here!] and Aaron."

Nu20:5 "Why did you bring us up out of Egypt [after wandering through the whole Sinai desert!] to this terrible place? It has no grain or figs, grapevines or pomegranates. And there is no water to drink!"

- Later, in the third century, the well becomes "like a rock", some 200 years after Paul's times! From the Tosefta:
"It was likewise with the well that was with the children of Israel in the wilderness, it was like a rock that was full of holes like a sieve from which water trickled and arose as from the opening of a flask.
[this is a follow-up of the earlier aforementioned "traditions": the continuous water supply of the moving well is now explained!]
` It ascended with them to the top of the hills and descended with them into the valleys; wherever Israel tarried there it tarried over against the entrance to the tabernacle"
(Sukkah 3. 11 ff., cited in Strack and Billerbeck, Kommentar zum Neuen Testament, vol. 3, p. 406)
The Tosefta was edited by Rabbis Hiyya and Oshaiah (3rd cent.), on their own. The Tosefta is considered a supplement of the Mishna material in the Talmud but is not as trusted by Jews.

It is very clear, and very consistent, that the legend of the moving supply of water started as a well. Only in the 3rd century, the well becomes "like a rock".
So the rest is just mere biased speculations and wishful thinking.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It's all explained in one of my page, from A to Z, of which I already gave the URL. Here it is again:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Layman wrote:
Sorry, BM. I'm not debating with a website. This is a copout. If through these many posts you have not been able to state your position, then I must conclude that you have no interest in doing so.

You asked me to read your essay on another website:
Did I say it was a copout? No.
I had to click 4 times in order to get to it (for mine, only once) and figure out it was from you, because you used another name.
Did I complain about that? No.
So do not apply double standards. Or find lame excuses not to read my expose on my website.
http://www.concentric.net/~Mullerb/hjes2x.shtml#body

Best regards, Bernard