Layman

Yes he does. The rock that gushed forth water is aptly described as a well.

Because you yourself coined the term "rock-well" to describe the rock that provided water, I can only conclude that this argument is disineguous. All of these sources are discussing the miraculous provision of water to the Israelites in the wilderness. That this was done by God turning a rock into a well is the source of all the of these sources.

I never said Josephus was a "dumhead." Your resort to such childish labels is more revealing about your bias than any on my part. What I see is clear. There is overwhelming attestation that the Second Temple Jews believed that the rock-well moved with the Israelites through the wilderness.

And because you continually ignore this point, the Talmud is a collection of oral traditions, many of which reach back to before Paul's time. The only reason you would conclude that none of its traditions reach back to Paul's time is for the convenience of the argument here.

As I have explained to you, it is irrelevant how you read the OT. That has no bearing on how Jews such as Paul understood the story. Midrash in many cases is all about "filling in the gaps" of the OT. Here, Pharisees and Rabbis attempted to answer the question of how the Israelites obtained water.

We do not always know why authors wrote what they wrote. And whether or not such a tradition was "widely accepted" by Jews is a different question than whether it was widely known by Josephus' audience, which was mostly nonJews.

A rock that gushes forth water is a well. And, in this case, a miracle. And since there was a rock mentioned at the beginning of their journeys and at the end of it, a Jew writing Midrash about Exodus who refers to a moving well is obviously referring to the rock-well.

And I never said that Paul relied on the Psuedo-Philo. Rather, the Psuedo-Philo is evidence that the tradition was established during the first century. There is absolutely no reason to believe that it's author was the first Jew to hear of it. Far from it in fact. As your own source states, "the traditions recorded therein are ancient."

As for dating, the fact that it refers to the sacrifices in the Second Temple without showing any awareness of its destruction demands a date before 70 CE. This is the same rationale you give for dating Hebrews prior to 70 CE:

http://www.concentric.net/~Mullerb/hjes3x.shtml


Oh please BM, a rock that gushes out water most certainly is a well.

Sigh.

Again, BM, this is not about what you believe. If you want to argue that Paul, the author of Psuedo-Philo, the author of Pirke de Rabbi Eliezer, the authors of the Talmud, and up to and including modern Jews, misread their own tests, then go ahead. But to do so you have to concede that they read the texts that way in the first place. And that is all that matters--Jews from at least the first century on understood the rock-well in Exodus to be one that followed them through the desert. Your disagreement with their exegis is quite beside the point.

I'm not bound to your arguments. That you "hotly contest" these examples is quite beside the point since you have completely failed to offer a reasonable argument. But you are misrepresenting the course of the argument. I have also offered several other examples were Paul referred to men and people with the term "spiritual" without converting them into ethereal objects (or metaphors). You initially argued that these verses were not referring to people at all, but to God. You finally relented on that one. So, you've already admitted that Paul can refer to material objects as "spiritual" without rendering them immaterial.

This is quite disenguous of you BM. You have not addressed a single argument in my original post or my article posted at Jesusexists.com. This whole thread has been about one of your supposed counter-arguments. It is you who have rested your entire argument on the already refuted notion that when Paul refers to something as "spiritual" he is referring to something ethereal (or, as you have lately argued, a metaphor).

But I have, from another Christian authors. (oh, I know, he is not Paul!)

Not only are these written a couple hundred years later, but they are metaphors. Martyr does not render the "disease" one only angels and demons can catch. He's speaking metaphorically. Nor does he mean that the circumcision is one that is for spiritual beings such as angels or demons. He means it metaphorically. Which is irrelevant to Paul's reference to "spiritual body." That is not a metaphor. Paul is answering a quite specific question about the form of the resurrected body. He is speaking quite literally, even if he does mean an entirely spiritual (nonmaterial) entity.

Layman

You forgot to explain why.

Then you do not know much.

And how does this preclude Paul from seeing the Spirit active with the Exodus?

This is all semantics of course. The Spirit is God. You have failed to prove your contention that Paul could not have seen the miraculous provision of food and drink as being provided by the Holy Spirit.

Time to retreat on another one.

Not at all. The Spirit can be described as God's active agent on earth. As such, describing a rock miraculously transformed into a well would naturally be described as "provided by the Spirit."

As such, the definitions fit perfectly. You have failed again.

Yes we are. Do you agree or disagree? The issue here is whether, as you have argued, when Paul uses the term "spiritual" to describe something physical, he meant to render the physical object immaterial. That is obviously not the case. In 1 Peter, the term "spiritual" is irrelevant to the fact that the use of "house" is metaphorical.

The terms house and building are metaphors. "House" is a metaphor for our normal human bodies. The term "building" is a metaphor for our spiritual body.

This reinforced my point. Paul is quite capable of talking about many different things metaphorically. Things on earth. Things from heaven. Ideas and abstract concepts. The term "spiritual" is not required to convert these things into metaphors. Indeed, you have no example of such a usage. The term "spiritual" is actually quite incidental to whether or not something is a metaphor.

No, you do not BM. This entire thread has shown as much. Paul again and again and again and again describes earthly human beings as spiritual without being concerned about creating any such false impression.

Your argument has no merit.

Your opinion is irrelevant. The Jews believed, and still believe, they were one and the same.

Here is a well-put discussion by a Jewish scholar of the text and the traditions that grew up around it:

http://www.jhom.com/topics/stones/traveling.html

What does any of this have to do with the topic at hand? Christians saw Jesus working throughout the Old Testament in a variety of ways. Nothing strange about it to them, however odd a skeptologist finds it.

In other words, you have no idea.

The link is not working for me.

In any event, the definition is clear:

That the definition is speaking of being produced directly by God "without natural instrumentality," it cannot be referring simply to teaching.

But if I remember you correctly, you said no dictionaries agreed with me. In addition to Strong's and Thayer's, there is Vine's Dictionary. Regarding the term at issue here:

Vine's takes my definition as explicitly as it gets. The use of "spiritual" to describe a "material type" does not render the type itself nonmaterial.

And moving beyond Strong's, Thayer's and Vine's agreement with me, commentaries on 1 Corinthians overwhelmingly adopt a materialistic, though spiritual, perspective of the rock, drink, and rock:

David Wenham, Paul, Follower of Jesus or Founder of Christianity, at 186 n.58; Ben Witherington, Conflict & Community in Corinth, at 219; James D.G. Dunn, The Theology of Paul the Apostle, at 619-20, 622 n. 106; William E. Orr and James Arthur Walther, 1 Corinthians, at 245; C.K. Barrett, The First Epistle to the Corinthians, at 222; Craig Blomberg, 1 Corinthians, at 191; Harper's Bible Commentary, at 1181. There were about three or four others that I went through at the library that agreed with my position but I did not record the information. And, since you like the Blue Letter Bible: David Guzik (http://blueletterbible.org/Comm/davi...sg/1Cr_10.html), Matthew Henry (http://blueletterbible.org/Comm/mhc/1Cr/1Cr010.html).

First, tell me whether you agree that the use in the Didache is metaphorical?

Second, you are missing the point again. If you are arguing that the usage of spiritual in 1 Cor. 10:3-4 is metaphorical you have defeated your own argument. The only reason you have offered for arguing that "spiritual" prevails on "body" is that you claimed Paul did the same thing here. But I have shown that Paul did nothing of the sort.

Third, there are multiple reasons to read this passage as nonmetaphorical. First, the absence of reasons for reading it as metaphorical. Paul is not Revelations. Second, Paul is referring to specific historical actions here. Third, the context of Paul's entire discussion would make no sense unless he was talking about real food and drink.

Yes, if you assume you are correct, then I'm sure you could find more similarities. But they are not in the text.

You are ignoring the text we are discussing. Paul is quite clear that many of those with whom God was displeased "ate" the "spiritual food" and "drank" the "spiritual drink" from the "spiritual rock". No one refused to eat it. Those with whom God was displeased had consumed the spiritual food and drink. Obviously, this is not a metaphor for God being unhappy with those who accepted and followed (ate) his word.

Not even close. Verse 6-7 is not a reference to the spiritual food and drink and rock in the wilderness. It is not discussing those who ate of God's teachings. Just the opposite in fact. Paul is referring to Ex. 32:6, when Moses went up to the mountain and the Israelites worshiped the Golden Calf.

Exo 32:1-7.

In other words, Paul is referring to the exact opposite situation as you imagine. "Idolators", "golden calf." See the connection? These are not people who were "eating" of God's teachings, they were literally "eating" of the opposite. In any event, all of this happened before the wilderness wanderings.

As I have already explained, Thayer's lends you no support. It is quite clear that it is food and drink supernaturally provided by God. It's definition quite clearly excludes any notion that the food and drink were teaching:

As for the "NIV," which NIV? There are sorts of commentaries based on the NIV. Just as there are all sorts of commentaries based on the NKJV. Mine happens to note that "[Christ]was behind the mraculous source of manna and water in the wilderness."

In any event, your NIV does not really support your point. Let's look at it:

The NIV quite clearly thinks Paul is referring to "manna and the water from the rock." It is not substituting "teaching" back into the Exodus story, but rather using actual events to extrapolate lessons from. That rock was the Christ confirms this. The practice is known as typology. Typology is what can be called "historical symbolism." Jean Danielou, "The New Testament and the Theology of History," Studia Evangelica, I ed. K. Aland, at 30. Paul even tells us this is exactly what he means. He notes that these are 'examples,' or, more technically correct, "types" for Christians to follow.

L.L. Bellevile, "Moses," in The Dictionary of Paul and His Letters, at 621.

Besides, I make it a point not to base my theology or my history on NIV footnotes.

Actually, Paul used "spiritual" for food here to highlight the distinction between the pagan food offered to idols. He probably also had in mine the "spiritual" food of the Lord' Supper (perhaps explaining why he refers to drink instead of the more specific water). Remember the context. Paul's overall argument is that it is not what goes into a man that pollutes him.

In 1 Corinthians 8, Paul is telling the Corinthians food sacrificed to idols is not immoral. There is no dispute that Paul is discussing real food. Christians are at "liberty" to eat such food, so long as they do not cause others to stumble. The food, though sacrificed to idols, does not pollute the Christian.

1 Cor. 8:4-5, 8: "Therefore concerning the eating of things sacrificed to idols, we know that there is no such thing as an idol in the world, and that there is no God but one. For even if there are so-called gods whether in heaven or on earth, as indeed there are many gods and many lords,... 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."

In 1 Corinthians 10, Paul is telling the Corinthians that, just as food sacrificed to idols do not hurt the Christians, even food sent directly from God does not profit the Christian.

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."

Clearly, therefore, Paul is making a point--it is not the literal eating of food that makes a Christian acceptable or unacceptable in the sight of God. "Idol" food does not make you bad. "Spiritual" food does not make you good. There is more going on, of course, but that's certainly one of his points.

Finally, you seem to have abandoned your argument that Paul would not rely on this "fuzzy," "dubious," "unbiblical" material. Wise choice given that Paul himself let's us know that, at the very least, he was very familiar with his "ancestor's traditions." If you were just avoiding the argument because you had no response, I wanted to add this:

L.L. Belleville, at 621.

This cite also brought to my attention another reason your insistent that it would be impossible for Paul to have been aware of a tradition preserved in the Biblical Antiquities is so weak. Paul shows familiarity with another Haggadashic tradition preserved in Biblical Antiquities:

2Co 3:12-13: "Therefore having such a hope, we use great boldness in our speech, and are not like Moses, who used to put a veil over his face so that the sons of Israel would not look intently at the end of what was fading away."

Although Ex. 34:33 mentions the veil, it does not refer to "the sons of Israel" looking intently at what "was fading away." Biblical Antiquities, however, does refer to the fading character of Moses' facial splendor. Bib. Ant. 12:1-3.

So it appears it would not be unusual at all for Paul to have been familiar with traditions that were written down in the Psuedo-Philo. This should not surprise anyone, given Paul's zealousness for his ancestor's traditions and the proximity in time of the two writers.

rainbow walking

rw: Ah...then it's not directly linked to doctrinal issues. Would I be errant in assuming, then, that you're trying to distinguish between rabbinical influences and Hellenistic ones on Paul's theology?

Layman

I don't see why it cannot be both. In fact, I believe that it is.

I've spent a fair amount of time in other contexts trying to clarify to Christians what Paul mean by resurrection.

Obviously on this forum in this context, the issues of the development of early Christianity, the relationship between Pauline Christianity and that of the gospel authors, and yes, the relationship of Paul to Judaism and to Paganism, tend to predominate the discussion. I doubt many skeptics would be more open to the notion of resurrection whether it is described as bodily or as an immortal soul.

Bernard Muller

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
First Paul did not mention a well.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Layman wrote:
Yes he does. The rock that gushed forth water is aptly described as a well.

How many wells you know do that?
In ancient days, you had to let go a pail/bucket attached to a rope into a well at its bottom, so you can get the water by lifting the same pail. No, wells are not gushing water, but springs are, including the ones coming from a rock.
Check your dictionary. You are "interpreting" big time here, Layman!
You are making a lot about a well being a rock, which is not the case in the Pseudo-philo or the Talmud. Here we are dealing about a moving well, not a rock.

Here is 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 [Ex14:14; this is now interpreted as a (rockless) well!] 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 here & in the whole passage (20:1-13)!]: "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; no well mentioned here! (Nu20:11)] 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!"

By the way, looking at your quote way back:

>> C.K. Barrett, The First Epistle to the Corinthians, at 222.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Paul draws on a series of OT texts and Jewish tradition about them. He first alludes to Exod. 14:19-22. He then moves on to Exod. 16:4-30 and Exod. 17:1-7/Num. 20:2-13, the latter being the story about water from the rock.... There was also a rabbinc 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." <<

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:

"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"
(Sukkah 3. 11 ff., cited in Strack and Billerbeck, Kommentar zum Neuen Testament, vol. 3, p. 406)

Humm, that does not look like gushing here, because I read about "trickled"!!! So the rock-well would not be able to supply water for many Israelites & livestock, just a very few!!!
I do not think that's what Paul had in mind if the rock/Christ was physical, and providing enough water for those:
"... about six hundred thousand men on foot, besides women and children. Many other people went up with them, as well as large droves of livestock, both flocks and herds." (Ex 12:37-38)

The Tosefta was edited by Rabbis Hiyya and Oshaiah (3rd cent.), on their own. This Tosefta is considered by Jews as being less reliable than the Mishnah/Talmud.

We can see the development of a tradition here!. More centuries will be required for a rock really gushing a lot of water.

Layman wrote:
Because you yourself coined the term "rock-well" to describe the rock that provided water, I can only conclude that this argument is disineguous.

I did that responding to your insistance about the well being a rock. You are implying now this is primary evidence because I used the term. And even if you succeeded into brainwashing me into coining 'rock-well', would that constitute evidence? Of course not.
But if it is your main evidence as the well being a rock, then you got a serious problem.
And what does 'disineguous' mean? My encyclopedia does not carry that word, neither 'ineguous'.

Layman wrote:
There is overwhelming attestation that the Second Temple Jews believed that the rock-well moved with the Israelites through the wilderness.

Actually this is propaganda. There is no evidence such as this tradition existed for sure before 70, only a small possibility. And if it was, that's about a moving well, not a moving rock.

Layman wrote:
A rock that gushes forth water is a well.

Brainwashing! So black is white, white is black !!! Welcome to Christian apologism.

Layman wrote:
As your own source states, "the traditions recorded therein are ancient."

I never said I endorsed this part of the quote. This looks very much like an opinion motivated by wishful thinking.

Layman wrote:
As for dating, the fact that it refers to the sacrifices in the Second Temple without showing any awareness of its destruction demands a date before 70 CE.

If the Pseudo-Philo pretended to have been written by Philo (died around 50AD), you certainly would not expect then to relate to the Temple destruction in 70AD. Make sense !!!

Layman wrote:
Oh please BM, a rock that gushes out water most certainly is a well.

Here we are again. More brainwashing !!! Why don't you repeat that one hundred times, it may work !!!
I saw many rocks gushing water, and there were not wells, more like karstic springs or resurgences: the Loue in France, the headwater of the Sava in Slovenia, etc.

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:
Sigh.
Again, BM, this is not about what you believe.

This is not about me, but about the author of 'Numbers', who certainly did not believe about the continuous supply of water from God.

Layman wrote:
the author of Pirke de Rabbi Eliezer

This rabbi is thought to have written in the 2nd century, possibly as early as 90AD.
I searched the web about anything on the Pirke with water/well of the Exodus, and found nothing. Why don't you supply the quote, so we can look at it?

A lot of your posts is just forceful propaganda with polemical overtone and bombastic rhetoric and attempt at intimidation & brainwashing.
I wish a moderator would intervene in order to cut down all that noise.
Are you sure your motivation is only as what you stated in another post:
First and foremost it's a historical question. Curiousity.
Sure . It has to be a lot more to that.

To be continued ...

Best regards, Bernard

Bernard Muller

Layman wrote:
I'm not bound to your arguments. That you "hotly contest" these examples is quite beside the point since you have completely failed to offer a reasonable argument.

You take a very bully attitude here. You behave as a dictator. Is it the best you can do?

Layman wrote:
But you are misrepresenting the course of the argument. I have also offered several other examples were Paul referred to men and people with the term "spiritual" without converting them into ethereal objects (or metaphors).

That was never an issue of mine because I never said that "spiritual [man]" was a spirit. You are accusing me of things I never defended.

You initially argued that these verses were not referring to people at all, but to God.

Where? I just noted that "man" was not following "spiritual" and consequently might not be "spiritual man". And that still can be true (in Paul's mind). The Greek does not show 'man', after all.
And even if I modified my mind, which is what can happen in a debate, what does that have to be taken against me?
Is defamation part of your argumentation? Do you need that to make your points? I wonder.

So, you've already admitted that Paul can refer to material objects as "spiritual" without rendering them immaterial.

I never considered "man" as a material object.

This is quite disenguous of you BM. You have not addressed a single argument in my original post or my article posted at Jesusexists.com. This whole thread has been about one of your supposed counter-arguments. It is you who have rested your entire argument on the already refuted notion that when Paul refers to something as "spiritual" he is referring to something ethereal (or, as you have lately argued, a metaphor).

Oh, I should have known, because you use the word "disenguous" also in this essay. I am far from impressed. Most of you argumentation is about "soma" (body) in "spiritual body". Then you go on in showing all other occurrences of "soma" in the Pauline Corpus refer to physical things. That's very shallow and simplistic.

Best regards, Bernard

Spirit Branded

In Anglo Celtic Christian tradition (which as we know goes back earlier than the Augustinian tradition in Britain) there are many instances of rocks issuing forth with water.

They were known as wells, and to this day these spring water outlets are the subject of an annual Well Dressing with elaborate floral decorations.

So if 2000 years ago spring water issued forth from rocks in Judea I would not want to quibble with the concept of a rock-well.

With Best Wishes

SB

Layman

Since you have argued that Paul uses "spiritual" to convert a material object ("soma") into something incorporeal, I thought we should look at all of Paul's references to "spiritual" in the undisputed Paulines. In none of them, does Paul use "spiritual" to refer to something actually made out of pneuma.

Rom 7:14: "For we know that the Law is spiritual, but I am of flesh, sold into bondage to sin."

Is the spiritual law of Rom 7:14 made out of pneuma?

1 Cor. 12:1: "Now concerning spiritual gifts, brethren, I do not want you to be unaware."

1 Cor. 14:1: "Pursue love, yet desire earnestly spiritual gifts, but especially that you may prophesy."

Rom 1:11-12: "For I long to see you so that I may impart some spiritual gift to you, that you may be established; that is, that I may be encouraged together with you while among you, each of us by the other's faith, both yours and mine."

Are the spiritual gifts of 1 Cor. 12:1, 14:1, and Rom 1:11 made out of pneuma?

1 Cor. 14:37: "If anyone thinks he is a prophet or spiritual, let him recognize that the things which I write to you are the Lord's commandment."

1 Cor. 2:15: "But he who is spiritual appraises all things, yet he himself is appraised by no one."

1 Cor. 3:1: "And I, brethren, could not speak to you as to spiritual men, but as to men of flesh, as to infants in Christ."

Gal 6:1: "Brethren, even if anyone is caught in any trespass, you who are spiritual, restore such a one in a spirit of gentleness; each one looking to yourself, so that you too will not be tempted. "

Are the spiritual men of 1 Cor. 3:1; 2:15; 14:37, and, Gal 6:1 made out of pneuma?

Rom 15:27: "Yes, they were pleased to do so, and they are indebted to them. For if the Gentiles have shared in their spiritual things, they are indebted to minister to them also in material things."

1 Cor. 9:11: "If we sowed spiritual things in you, is it too much if we reap material things from you?"

Are the spiritual things in Rom. 15:27 and 1 Cor. 9:11 made out of pneuma?

1 Cor. 2:13: "which things we also speak, not in words taught by human wisdom, but in those taught by the Spirit, combining spiritual thoughts with spiritual words."

Are the spiritual thoughts and spiritual words made of 1 Cor. 2:13 made out of pneuma?

1 Cor. 10:3-4: "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."

Are the spiritual food, drink, and rock of 1 Cor. 10:3-4 made out of pneuma?

Then on what basis do you claim that the spiritual soma of 1 Cor. 15:43-44 must be made of pneuma?

Bernard Muller

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Layman wrote:
Then you do not know much.

What's that. Why did you expect? An enhanced STRONG? Does that exist?

Layman wrote:
Not at all. The Spirit can be described as God's active agent on earth. As such, describing a rock miraculously transformed into a well would naturally be described as "provided by the Spirit."

Paul's imagination was very fertile. But then there is no well in 1Co10-3-4, and then that rock is moving & providing water every day for more than one million of people.

As such, the definitions fit perfectly. You have failed again.

How can I win? you are my adversary, but also the judge of that debate

Layman wrote:
The terms house and building are metaphors. "House" is a metaphor for our normal human bodies. The term "building" is a metaphor for our spiritual body.

This reinforced my point. Paul is quite capable of talking about many different things metaphorically. Things on earth. Things from heaven. Ideas and abstract concepts. The term "spiritual" is not required to convert these things into metaphors.

So now Paul can use abstract concepts. The problem is to know when, but 1Co10:3-4 cannot be the case. Why?

Please note that things like dwellings, abode, habitations in heaven are also used to shelter soul and spirit in Platonic/Philoic writings:

Plato (4th cent. B.C.E.) in 'Phaedo'
"And the same may be said of the immortal: if the immortal is also imperishable, then the soul will be imperishable as well as immortal; but if not, some other proof of her imperishableness will have to be given. No other proof is needed, he said; for if the immortal, being eternal, is liable to perish, then nothing is imperishable. Yes, replied Socrates, all men will agree that God, and the essential form of life, and the immortal in general, will never perish." (check the similarities with 1Co15:42-44,50b-54a)
and
"And purification, but the separation of the soul from the body, as I was saying before; the habit of the soul gathering and collecting itself into itself, out of all the courses of the body; the DWELLING in its own place alone, as in another life, so also in this, as far as it can; the release of the soul from the chains of the body? Very true, he said." (check the similarities with 2Co5:1-4)

In Philo's "On reward and Punishment" (152), any average proselyte (as a soul) is promised "a firm and sure habitation in heaven".

In Philo's 'the sacrifices of Abel and Cain', III, quoted from Dt34:6,
"the migration of the perfect soul [Moses'] to the living God" and "raised the perfect man [Moses. Still considered a man even as only a soul after death!] from the things of the earth up to himself [God] ...", "to another abode".
Furthermore Philo declared in another book, 'on the life of Moses II', LI (291),
"[Moses, right before his death] was standing at the very starting-place [Mount Nebo], as it were, that he might fly away and complete his journey to heaven ..."

Layman wrote:
No, you do not BM. This entire thread has shown as much. Paul again and again and again and again describes earthly human beings as spiritual without being concerned about creating any such false impression.

Because for Paul, relative to "man", "spiritual" means "in the Spirit", either 'inspired by the Spirit' or 'receptive to the Spirit'. I already said that. Why are you hammering again & again things I answered already, just like I did not. However for 'rock' or drink' you cause the impression this is metaphorical, or figurative, when you put "spiritual" in front. Because the aforementioned meaning ("in the Spirit") cannot apply to these objects.

Layman wrote:
Your opinion is irrelevant. The Jews believed, and still believe, they were one and the same.
Here is a well-put discussion by a Jewish scholar of the text and the traditions that grew up around it:

My opinion is irrelevant. That is one of your main theme for your argumentation. And now we move to the opinion of a modern Jewish scholar, which I do not care about, because I am looking at Paul in 55AD. This scholar is also forgetting the legend started with a moving well, not a moving rock.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. belonging to the Divine Spirit; ... a. in reference to things emanating from the Divine Spirit ...; i.q. produced by the sole power of God himself without natural instrumentality, supernatural
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Layman wrote:
That the definition is speaking of being produced directly by God "without natural instrumentality," it cannot be referring simply to teaching.

You are mixing purposely Strong's definitions and the NIV comments on 1Co10:4.
That remind me of early Christian writers, mixing tidbits from the OT or gospels, to deceive people in having those texts saying what they don't.
That's very deceptive. The NIV says about the spiritual rock: "Symbolic of supernatural sustenance through Christ". That certainly can refer to teachings and take the physical rock away.

As far as the link for Thayer's lexicon, get on the Blue Letter Bible, then ask for 1Corinthians10:3, then click on "c", then on "spiritual". Then ask for the full Thayer's Lexicon.
The link worked when I first put it down, but not anymore.

'spiritual' is prefixed to the material type in order to indicate that what the type sets forth, not the type itself, is intended, 1Cr 10:3,4;

As clear as mud. What the type sets forth is spiritual, I gather. That would take away the physical water.
Then I checked your two sites, but Henry does not seem to be for a physical water & rock, as the other:

"They did all eat of the same spiritual meat, and drink of the same spiritual drink, that we do[that could not be the same physical sustenance. Christians now do not get the manna! So it is spiritual sustenance]. The manna on which they fed was a type of Christ crucified, the bread which came down from heaven, which whoso eateth shall live forever. Their drink was a stream fetched from a rock which followed them in all their journeyings in the wilderness; and this rock was Christ, that is, in type and figure. He is the rock on which the Christian church is built; and of the streams that issue from him do all believers drink[not a physical drink from Christ here!], and are refreshed.

Layman wrote:
Third, the context of Paul's entire discussion would make no sense unless he was talking about real food and drink.

Actually the opposite is true:

Paul used some imagery in 1Co10:1-12 to set the Israelites then as example:
Moses' followers were somehow baptized (1-2), then offered spiritual sustenance some of it by a "spiritual" Christ/rock (3-4,7c) (as for Paul's Christians who "have the mind of Christ" (1Co2:16b)!), but nevertheless, because they relapsed into pagan practice (7b,8a), idolatry (7a), testing the Lord (9a) and grumbled (10a), that caused their end (5b,8b,9b,10b). Paul's message to his Christians: do not "parallel" them (7a,8a,9a,10a) or you'll be damned!

"1 For I do not want you to be ignorant of the fact, brothers, that 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.
3 They all ate the same spiritual food
4 and drank the same spiritual drink; for they drank from the spiritual rock that accompanied them, and that rock was Christ.
5 Nevertheless, their bodies were scattered over the desert.
6 Now these things occurred as examples to keep us from setting our hearts on evil things as they did.
7 Do not be idolaters, as some of them were; as it is written: "The people sat down to eat and drink and got up to indulge in pagan revelry."
8 We should not commit sexual immorality, as some of them did--and in one day twenty-three thousand of them died.
9 We should not test the Lord, as some of them did--and were killed by snakes.
10 And do not grumble, as some of them did--and were killed by the destroying angel.
11 These things happened to them as examples and were written down as warnings for us, on whom the fulfillment of the ages has come.
12 So, if you think you are standing firm, be careful that you don't fall!"

Of course, no parallel would occur if this "spiritual" food & drink meant real food & water: certainly the Christians of Corinth in Paul's times were not getting true (material) sustenance from Paul or God!

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Layman wrote:
There is no "resemblance" with 1 Cor. 10:3-6.
I wrote:
There are plenty, more so with "spiritual drink & food" standing for "preached gospel". Then we would have a very close parallel.
Layman wrote:
Yes, if you assume you are correct, then I'm sure you could find more similarities. But they are not in the text.

Everything is in the text, as long as spiritual food and drink are just that, spiritual sustenance.

Layman wrote:
You are ignoring the text we are discussing. Paul is quite clear that many of those with whom God was displeased "ate" the "spiritual food" and "drank" the "spiritual drink" from the "spiritual rock". No one refused to eat it.

Same for the Christians of Corinth. By the time Paul wrote the epistle, Paul had already stayed one year and a half with them. Those believers had plenty of opportunity to listen to Paul's spiritual message. But even so, after all of that was done, Paul was afraid those Christians would fall back into paganism and idolatry.

Layman wrote:
Those with whom God was displeased had consumed the spiritual food and drink

Exactly, just like the Corinthian believers who absorbed already Paul's gospel, but were giving signs to discard it.

Layman wrote:
Not even close. Verse 6-7 is not a reference to the spiritual food and drink and rock in the wilderness. It is not discussing those who ate of God's teachings.

Do you expect everything word by word? The 'spiritual food & drink' is replaced by a preached "gospel".

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:
As for the "NIV," which NIV? There are sorts of commentaries based on the NIV. Just as there are all sorts of commentaries based on the NKJV. Mine happens to note that "[Christ]was behind the miraculous source of manna and water in the wilderness."

The NIV Study Bible 1985. I did not say all commentaries support my position, far from that. However some do.

Layman wrote:
The NIV quite clearly thinks Paul is referring to "manna and the water from the rock."

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:
Actually, Paul used "spiritual" for food here to highlight the distinction between the pagan food offered to idols.

In 1Co10:1-13, Paul was after Christians tempted to go into idolatry generally, grumbling, sexual immorality, testing the Lord, general temptation but never said anything about eating idol meat. That will come six verses later. So your argument about spiritual food/drink being divinely given true/material sustenance have no specific counterpart as you said, that is idol food, in the whole section where Paul is bringing his Exodus story as a parallel (or examples) for his Christians.

Layman wrote:
and the rock that followed Israel through forty years of wilderness wandering (1 Cor. 10:4l cf. Bib. Ant. 11.15).

A rock? That started in the 3rd century. Before it was a well.

Best regards, Bernard

Bernard Muller

Layman wrote:
Rom 7:14: "For we know that the Law is spiritual, but I am of flesh, sold into bondage to sin."

Is the spiritual law of Rom 7:14 made out of pneuma?

No, but "spiritual" is contrasted with something material, that is Paul's body.

Layman wrote:
1 Cor. 12:1: "Now concerning spiritual gifts, brethren, I do not want you to be unaware."

1 Cor. 14:1: "Pursue love, yet desire earnestly spiritual gifts, but especially that you may prophesy."

Rom 1:11-12: "For I long to see you so that I may impart some spiritual gift to you, that you may be established; that is, that I may be encouraged together with you while among you, each of us by the other's faith, both yours and mine."

Are the spiritual gifts of 1 Cor. 12:1, 14:1, and Rom 1:11 made out of pneuma?

Here it is an adjective, which specifies "of the spirit", or "from the Spirit". Once again, there is nothing to suggest these gifts are material. Actually, in 1Co12:1-11, a list of gifts from the Spirit (spiritual gifts) is given, and none of them is about material things.
By the way, we are not looking at 'pneuma' (spirit), but at pneumatikos' (spiritual). I do not know from where you get "spiritual" can only mean 'out of spirit'.

Layman wrote:
1 Cor. 14:37: "If anyone thinks he is a prophet or spiritual, let him recognize that the things which I write to you are the Lord's commandment."

1 Cor. 2:15: "But he who is spiritual appraises all things, yet he himself is appraised by no one."

1 Cor. 3:1: "And I, brethren, could not speak to you as to spiritual men, but as to men of flesh, as to infants in Christ."

Gal 6:1: "Brethren, even if anyone is caught in any trespass, you who are spiritual, restore such a one in a spirit of gentleness; each one looking to yourself, so that you too will not be tempted. "

Are the spiritual men of 1 Cor. 3:1; 2:15; 14:37, and, Gal 6:1 made out of pneuma?

Here "spiritual", the adjective, means "in the Spirit", that is 'inspired by the Spirit' or 'receptive to the Spirit'. I already said that two or three times.

Layman wrote:
Rom 15:27: "Yes, they were pleased to do so, and they are indebted to them. For if the Gentiles have shared in their spiritual things, they are indebted to minister to them also in material things."

1 Cor. 9:11: "If we sowed spiritual things in you, is it too much if we reap material things from you?"

Are the spiritual things in Rom. 15:27 and 1 Cor. 9:11 made out of pneuma?

Obviously, because "spiritual things" are contrasted with "material things", the former are non-material things, such as Divine enlightment (former) or Christian teachings (later).

Layman wrote:
1 Cor. 2:13: "which things we also speak, not in words taught by human wisdom, but in those taught by the Spirit, combining spiritual thoughts with spiritual words."

Are the spiritual thoughts and spiritual words made of 1 Cor. 2:13 made out of pneuma?

"made out of pneuma" again. Are you obsessed?
Well, 'spiritual' here means "by the Spirit" and/or not involving material things, but rather intellectual notions, all combined to mean Christian teachings (by Paul).

Layman wrote:
1 Cor. 10:3-4: "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."

Are the spiritual food, drink, and rock of 1 Cor. 10:3-4 made out of pneuma?

Since "spiritual" (things) is used before for Christian teachings or Divine enlightment, (more so because Christ himself is dispensing the "spiritual drink") and Paul is known to use food or drink for 'Christian teachings':
1Co12:13 Darby "For also in [the power of] one Spirit *we* ... have all been given to drink of one Spirit."
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;"
the logical choice is obviously 'teachings by Christ'.
The rock is a figure, inspired by the few rocks providing water in the OT during the Exodus. You would not expect to have Christ in a first coming as a rock (and for forty years)!

PS: I just noticed "same". Why would Paul stress the Israelites ate the same food and drank the same drink? I see no reason for that, except is "same" means the *same* spiritual sustenance as for Paul's Christians. More so because Paul established a very close parallel between the Israelites and his Christians all over 1Co10:1-12.

Best regards, Bernard