O death, where is thy sting? O grave, where is thy victory?
Hi everybody, a new member with the same old questions here. I have been aware of preterism for a couple of years now and though I find much of it appealing I however have challenges with primarily 2 issues, one being the resurrection and the other being the end of the old covenant. These may even be the same question. Searching for discussions about these issues has led me here, Im sure it will be beneficial, so just bear with me guy.
How is 1 Cor 15:12-13 " Now if Christ is preached that he hath been raised from the dead, how say some among you that there is no resurrection of the dead? But if there is no resurrection of the dead, neither hath Christ been raised" to be understood
Jesus said "I am the Resurrection and the life." Therefore, to my understanding, all who are "in Christ" are in the Resurrection. We who are in Christ have been raised to walk in newness of life. This life is not something that we wait to live, but are given the power to live now, in our physical bodies.
"And if the Spirit of him who raised Jesus from the dead is living in you, he who raised Christ from the dead will also give life to your mortal bodies because of his Spirit who lives in you." Romans 8:11
I agree with what you affirm i.e. We who are in Christ have been raised to walk in newness of life.
But I am yet to be convinced about what you deny "This life is not something that we wait to live " as it pertains to the resurrection.
I understand it as both-and NOT either-or. The questions I raise in this thread and the others seek to find understanding as to those verses which seem to speak about physical resurrection. I would like your thoughts after you have gone through the discussions so far.
But as a precursor who do you understand "the dead" to be in 1 Cor 15:52
Thanks Dave for the answer, unfortunately you used "level 5" preterism language and Im hardly level 1, so I had a real hard time following and understanding most of it.
I will try put forth what I gleaned from you answer so that you can correct any misunderstanding and give further light.
As to my first question "What is a widget" I understood your answer as being a "cosmic" quickening and change of the OT saints and the first-century Jew-Gentile church together in Christ.
I need you though to give a bit more light and clarity as to what this quickening actually was and for you to particularly define the dead ones from which Christ rose i.e. are these physically dead people or old testament saints or what ( I couldnt really get you). At the same time, was the church part of these dead ones?
Now as to the second question, you answered "It necessarily followed that there was going to be a resurrection of the OT saints, because Christ had been raised out from among them." Again I need you here to replace "resurrection" and "raised" with what you mean by these terms so that I truly comprehend what you mean, because these words can mean differet things to different people.
Firstly I am a bit confused, but just a bit. Did you just say that the resurrection was to do with physically dead people? I always thought preterism denied that resurrection had anything to do with physical death. Please shed more light.
Does that mean then that resurrection had nothing to do with the living? Would that also not mean your definition of resurrection should thus be confined to dead OT saints and not include the first-century Jew-Gentile church?
What was the relationship between physical death and the resurrection? You also seem to equate Adamic state and world of law with Hades, may you shed more light.
Again, may you please replace resurrect and raised in this statement: "It necessarily followed that there was going to be a resurrection of the OT saints, because Christ had been raised out from among them."
The reason I had asked about what the resurrection had to do with physical death is because you had linked the resurrection particularly with physically dead OT saints. It was your addition of physically dead that caught my attention and may you please elaborate as to what makes these physically dead people a special category.
You defined a resurrection out from physically dead OT saints, which seems to imply that there is another resurrection out from some other group, maybe "living"? Or did I misunderstand your focus on from among the dead ones?
You find a difference between “the dead ones” and “those in Christ”, and if Im understanding you correctly, you find the Corinthians believing that “the dead ones” do not resurrect, while “those in Christ” would resurrect. But why would one believe that the physically dead OT saints would not rise out of the world of sin-condemnation but the physically dead Christians would? What was the motivation factor of segregating those who died before Christ and those who died after?
Further, if Christians are said to pass from death to life by believing in Christ, what did they pass out of when they believed Christ and what would they pass out of at the resurrection? I know they had already died to the law (Rom 7:4).
Finally, I understand Paul’s logic in 1 Cor 15:12-13 as being that Christ’s resurrection is a subset/example of resurrection from the dead (the universal set), hence if you have an example of resurrection from the dead, then there certainly is resurrection of the dead. By this resurrection from among the dead is an event of the doctrine of resurrection of the dead. But you seem to be saying Paul’s logic is that there would be a resurrection of the dead because Christ rose from the dead, making Christ’s resurrection the causative agent of believing in the doctrine of resurrection. From the casual way Paul puts across his argument I am inclined to doubt your explanation, for Paul was not (yet) establishing a doctrine but simply pointing out what was obvious.
Consider again my rephrasing of Paul’s argument
"Now if Christ is preached that he is a widget, how say some among you that there are no widgets? But if there are no widgets, neither is Christ a widget"
There are two types of "Resurrection" in scripture. The Bible reference you quoted refers to the resurrection of the dead who were in Hades as I described
The other resurrection is that from death (separation from God) to life (receiving God's spirit) as symbolized by water baptism.
Confusion will occur unless it's recognized that there are these two types of resurrection in scripture
You said there are two resurrections, one from Hades and the other from being separated from God.
I take it that you understand the 1 Cor 15 resurrection to be the release of souls from Hades. Did I get you correctly?
If that is the case what is the resurrection body?
DougW had suggested some spiritual body which is as much a body as the biological/physical body. Do you agree with that view?
Would that not require the physical bodies of those still alive in AD70 to have been transformed?
Do you take the denial of resurrection to be only for those who died before Christ or do you understand it as just a universal denial of resurrection?
1 Corinthians 15 is a letter written to Believers in Corinth, so it refers only to Believers. Paul is replying to their questions, whereby some are worried that those who have already died may "lose out" when the Messiah returns. So Paul is writing about Believers who have died and also about those who would remain alive at the Messiah's coming in the clouds.
At the time of Paul's letter, the Christians were only betrothed to God. When Christ returned in 70AD the wedding took place. The body which Paul is referring to is the "body of Christ" - the collective of all Christians or the Ekklesia.
Physical living bodies didn't become "transformed"
Paul was explaining that those believers who had already died and were in Hades would receive the benefits of the two types of resurrection that I have mentioned - be raised out of Hades and be in a relationship with God (no separation)
Note that it was not all of the Corinthians that where saying there was no resurrection of the dead ones.
12 But if Christ is proclaimed, that He was raised from the dead, how do some among you say that there is no resurrection of the dead?
Resurrection of all God's faithful in the past was in doubt according to some. This is the aim of the whole intervention of Paul. Not the fact of the resurrection but who would partake in the rising from a position of cut out from God's Presence to standing (rez) in His Presence.
Indeed it's not simple when you've had years of understanding resurrection as a bio rising. :-)
Keep asking questions. I have never exactly understood how covenant resurrection exhausts all of the meaning of resurrection, and I think your questions are penetrating.