To Die...Or Not to Die? That is the question.

[Guest]

I just wanted to add this:

Paul says in Romans 5 that death came to all men because all sinned.

Hebrews says: (Heb 9:27) And just as it is appointed for man to die once, and after that comes judgment.

But then Hebrews also says: (Heb 11:5) By faith Enoch was taken up (translated) so that he should not see death, and he was not found, because God had taken him.

It would seen that TK's analogy is correct.

[Guest]

I just wanted to add this:

Paul says in Romans 5 that death came to all men because all sinned.

Hebrews says: (Heb 9:27) And just as it is appointed for man to die once, and after that comes judgment.

But then Hebrews also says: (Heb 11:5) By faith Enoch was taken up (translated) so that he should not see death, and he was not found, because God had taken him.

It would seen that TK's analogy is correct.

But what everyone seems to be missing in my posts is that I am suggesting is that Paul is not talking about overcoming physical/literal death, but the death that was a result of the sin which was a result of the law. Not physical death but separation from God. Spiritual death. If Jesus brought spiritual life then the antecedent would be spiritual death.

Pmike

[Guest]

1 Corinthians 15. A significant passage regarding the resurrection. I personally because of a study of the greek in this passage see that Paul was speaking about a resurrection that was happening in there day. Because of Pauls use of present active language. Basically restoration/regeneration of Israel in Christ like in Ephesians 2. "The dead are being raised."

The present tense in Greek, both in the active and passive voices, may be either continuous or punctilear in aspect. So one cannot build a theology around the assumption that the present tense is always continuous. It isn't. It's often punctilear. I'm convinced that this is the case in I Corinthians 15, since that chapter obviously speaks of the bodily resurrection of the dead, placing the resurrection of Christ in parallel construction.

[Guest]

1 Corinthians 15. A significant passage regarding the resurrection. I personally because of a study of the greek in this passage see that Paul was speaking about a resurrection that was happening in there day. Because of Pauls use of present active language. Basically restoration/regeneration of Israel in Christ like in Ephesians 2. "The dead are being raised."

The present tense in Greek, both in the active and passive voices, may be either continuous or punctilear in aspect. So one cannot build a theology around the assumption that the present tense is always continuous. It isn't. It's often punctilear. I'm convinced that this is the case in I Corinthians 15, since that chapter obviously speaks of the bodily resurrection of the dead, placing the resurrection of Christ in parallel construction.

Is this a rule that apply's to all present tense verbs...or only ones that don't fit presuppositions?

As well...who made this rule and based on what justification? And How is it determined when to apply this rule?

And just because it could be punctiliar doesn't mean that it is. Which makes me ask the question...Can you justify a punctiliar meaning without appealing to a futurist presupposition?


Thanks...Pmike

[Guest]

Let me try this from a different angle. Paul raps of his discourse here in 1 Corinthians 15 quoting two Old Testament prophetic passages.

Isaiah 25:8 & Hosea 13:14

Both passages that cannot be taken out of their context.

Isaiah 24-27 & Hosea 5-14

Both prophetic passages in their context are dealing with impending judgement on Israel because of their continual wickedness and a final restoration of Israel from their grave/captivity.

These passages are not dealing with physical resurrection from the literal grave but restoration and regeneration of the natural(sensual) man into a spiritual(supernatural/regenerate) man. The same thing that Paul spoke of in Ephesians 2 "even when we were dead in trespasses, made us alive together with Christ...and raised us up together, and made us sit together in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus"

So here's what I am getting at. If Paul...using the only Bible they had at the time appeals to two passages from their scriptures and says.

"So when this corruptible has put on incorruption, and this mortal has put on immortality, then shall be brought to pass the saying that is written:" and he is quoting two passages that are not speaking of a body coming out of the ground resurrection.

Then how can we say that he is?

[Guest]

I am suggesting is that Paul is not talking about overcoming physical/literal death, but the death that was a result of the sin which was a result of the law. Not physical death but separation from God. Spiritual death. If Jesus brought spiritual life then the antecedent would be spiritual death.

So, was Paul saying some saints would suffer spritual death/seperation from God but that they would be born again - again?

[Guest]

I am suggesting is that Paul is not talking about overcoming physical/literal death, but the death that was a result of the sin which was a result of the law. Not physical death but separation from God. Spiritual death. If Jesus brought spiritual life then the antecedent would be spiritual death.

So, was Paul saying some saints would suffer spritual death/seperation from God but that they would be born again - again?

All were dead who were under the old covenant. Those outside of Israel were a law unto themselves...nonetheless it was still a law. As long as you stayed in or turned back to that old covenant system you would not experience the resurrection.

John 11:25-26 Jesus said to her, “Iam the resurrection and the life. He who believes in Me, though he may die, he shall live. 26 And whoever lives and believes in Me shall never die.

1 Cor 15:52-3 We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be change...and the dead will be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed.

Paul is saying exactly what Jesus said.

[Guest]

But what everyone seems to be missing in my posts is that I am suggesting is that Paul is not talking about overcoming physical/literal death, but the death that was a result of the sin which was a result of the law. Not physical death but separation from God. Spiritual death. If Jesus brought spiritual life then the antecedent would be spiritual death.

The thought of the resurrection being "spiritual" reminds me of the saying of the early "Christian" gnostics. I am quoting from memory, and may not have it quite right.

Essentially, they said, "The animal people (those of the universal church) say, 'First comes death, and the resurrection comes later.' But the gnostics know better. We say, 'First comes the resurrection, and death comes later."

[Guest]

And in what way does what you just said invalidate or prove my point wrong. If you think I am wrong, please explain why. Red Herrings do nothing but waste time.

Mike

But what everyone seems to be missing in my posts is that I am suggesting is that Paul is not talking about overcoming physical/literal death, but the death that was a result of the sin which was a result of the law. Not physical death but separation from God. Spiritual death. If Jesus brought spiritual life then the antecedent would be spiritual death.

The thought of the resurrection being "spiritual" reminds me of the saying of the early "Christian" gnostics. I am quoting from memory, and may not have it quite right.

Essentially, they said, "The animal people (those of the universal church) say, 'First comes death, and the resurrection comes later.' But the gnostics know better. We say, 'First comes the resurrection, and death comes later."

[Guest]

And in what way does what you just said invalidate or prove my point wrong.

And in what way does what I just said, cause you to presume that I am trying to invalidate your point or prove you wrong?

And in what way does a mere remark indicate that I am trying to draw attention away from the main issue?

Discuss it all you want! If I had intended to discredit your position, I would have done so.