Quote:
Originally Posted by OBW
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?
|
A lot of this was lost in translation. In other words, I would have to go back and retrace our posts to figure out how we arrived at this point. On the other hand, I believe
bearbear used the first 12 verses of Ephesians 2 to make his point. My perspective is that Ephesians was not written by Paul which is commonly understood by many scholars. While other deuteron-pauline epistles may be in question there is virtually no doubt about Ephesians for many reasons and there is a question as to whether it was written to the Ephesians as I have previously noted. In Ephesians this author says he had previously lived an immoral life as a pagan, "in the passions of the flesh, following its desires and senses" Eph. 2:3 whereas in Philippians he writes, "According to the righteousness found in the law, I was blameless" (Phil. 3:6) I noted that Ephesians may well have not been written to the Ephesians. Other than the Codex which I noted previously I would add that if you look at the footnote "a" in the NSRV regarding Ephesians 1:1 it states "Other ancient authorities lack
in Ephesus, reading
saints who are also faithful" This is not "Dave's" theory but Christian scholars around the globe support this view. They also do not agree that the verses quoted in Ephesians 2 are consistent with Paul's 1 Corinthians 15. I am sure there are scholars who would agree with your view, however, In any case, let's just agree to disagree and move on.