Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave
You should read those verses again. That is exactly my point. The Corinthian's passage is saying we have "not" spiritually been raised with Christ yet (Paul was trying to address the gnostic point which indicated that we have been raised spiritually with Christ and therefore our bodies are not important). Ephesians is saying we have been raised with Christ, spiritually, as you say. There is a clear contradiction. The only thing you can say is that he is addressing two issues from different perspectives but I believe my original point was that Ephesians was written by a different person which maybe in the scheme of things doesn't mean anything if it is scripture.
|
The Corinthians passage is talking about the resurrection of the body. It is essentially the topic of the entire chapter. Paul begins by talking about the fact of the resurrection of Christ. Then he turns to the error that some had taken on that there would be no resurrection of the dead for man. And coupled with that, a discussion of the nature of the body in resurrection. It all ends with a declaration that at the time of the resurrection, the age is changing and the old, corrupted body of flesh that we had does not qualify for entry. Therefore the need for a resurrection with a different kind of body.
But Ephesians 2 is simply not talking about the same thing. You are equating "made alive together with Christ" with something about resurrection. That is not the common understanding of salvation/regeneration. It is not a matter of resurrection. Where is there anything about being raised (as if in resurrection)? Are you relying on one of many definitions of a word? A definition that is not the one accepted by most translators? And if so, why are we to reject the majority opinion and take yours? In the past I did that for Lee and I just don't go there anymore — at least not without good cause.
And it would appear that you are busy responding to bear-bear about this. And it seems that bear-bear is also treating Ephesians as if talking about some kind of resurrection.
But I see no basis for treating Ephesians 2 as talking about the resurrection of the body of any man, but instead about the salvation of man.
Not the same thing.
And therefore nothing that would lead anyone to conclude that two entirely different people with different views on resurrection wrote these two books.
Am I missing something here?