Do you believe in the resurrection of the dead?

[Alcon]

Your argument is based on the supposition that a Christian is definitionally required to take the indicated passages literally...which you support with the passages themselves.  If your definition of Christian is "one who believes in the divinity of Christ," this makes no sense.  If it is anything more specific, that's fine, but obviously not the definition used by others.  What you're doing is thus tantamount to BRTD arguing about what "emo" really means.

I gave you 1Cor ch15 to read in order to prove that the entire chapter makes absolutely no sense if the resurrection of the dead is not taken literally. 

Example: "3 For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, 4that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, 5and that he appeared to Peter, and then to the Twelve. 6After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep. 7Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles, 8and last of all he appeared to me also, as to one abnormally born... 12 But if it is preached that Christ has been raised from the dead, how can some of you say that there is no resurrection of the dead?"

Notice verse 12: "But if it is preached that Christ has been raised from the dead, how can some of you say that there is no resurrection of the dead?"

Does the New Testament preach that Jesus Christ was literally resurrected?  Absolutely.  Then, how can some Christians logically say that there is no resurrection of the dead?  They can't.

Paul's question is NOT a question put up for debate, rather it's a RHETORICAL question, whose obvious answer is: "Since the apostle's preached Jesus Christ literally resurrected from the dead, it is foolish for a Christian to deny the literal resurrection of the dead!"

---

When there are multi-defintional words, arguing that your opponent's logical foundation is weak using your definition and not theirs is nonsensical, useless and boring.

Read 1Cor 15:12 again:  "But if it is preached that Christ has been raised from the dead, how can some of you say that there is no resurrection of the dead?"

If you think that I am being "nonsensical, useless and boring", then YOU need to take verse 12 and have it make sense based on the non-literal point of view.

Dude, sometimes, scary as it may seem, the other side has no argument or justification; therefore, I simply use the logical structure of the text itself.

Do you understand what begging the question is, and how are you not doing it?

[k-onmmunist]

Well?  Do you believe in the resurrection of the dead?

No.

[DownWithTheLeft]

Of course

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Do you understand what begging the question is, and how are you not doing it?

BINGO!  Thank you for boiling this down.

Please give me one last chance to explain…

Your point is: Christians who do NOT believe in the literal resurrection are operating under a different premise than Christians who DO believe in the literal resurrection of the dead.  Those that do NOT believe do NOT take it literally.  Those that DO believe DO take it literally.

Assuming I have the premise part correct…

Read 1Cor ch 15.  For it is clearly AN ATTACK on those who do not take the resurrection account literally.

I repeat:

Read 1Cor ch 15.  For it is clearly AN ATTACK on those who do not take the resurrection account literally.

Now, here’s my LOGICAL conclusion:  Only a absolute FOOL of a Christian would attempt to reapply a premise of interpretation that the scripture itself just spent a whole entire chapter refuting that very premise.

I say again:  the whole intent and purpose of 1Cor ch15 is to REFUTE THOSE WHO DO NOT TAKE THE RESURRECTION LITERALLY.  A fact you do not even attempt to dispute.  And it is wise NOT to dispute those facts for it would be FOOLISH to claim that Paul spent all the time disputing their premise if he didn’t disagree with the premise.

So, since it is CRYSTAL CLEAR that the New Testament preached a literal resurrection of Jesus Christ, Paul asks the following RHETORICAL question:

1Cor 15:12  “Now if Christ be preached that he rose from the dead, how say some among you that there is no resurrection of the dead?”

Paul’s NOT looking to debate it – he’s NOT looking to consider their premise.  Rather, he asks a RHETORICAL question so that they will realize the error of their premise.

---

Now, Alcon, I have a question for you, hopefully you’ll be able to comprehend that my question is RHETORICAL:

How can you blame me for NOT entertaining the premise of these “Christians” when the scripture spends a whole entire chapter assaulting the very premise they espouse? 

Again, this is a RHETORICAL question, and the premise of my rhetorical question is that only a fool would ask me, a Christian, to consider a premise of interpretation that the scripture takes pain going into detail to totally reject.  So, since scripture itself rejects this train of thought, you'd be better off beating your head against a wall than to attempt to convince me, a Christian, to consider a train of thought rejected by the bible.  And I would find it quite arrogant of you to think that I would be stupid enough to take the bait.  The bait is rotten and has already been rejected.  I'm not interested in something the bible calls trash.

---

Now, though this conversation has been about as profitable as talking to a pile of rocks, I did glean something useful:

1Cor 15:12  “Now if Christ be preached that he rose from the dead, how say some among you that there is no resurrection of the dead?”

I’m going to run WILD with this verse in relation to the historical record of the bible…

“Now, if it is preached that we are all descended from Adam, how say some among you that we are not?”
 
“If it is preached that God destroyed the world by flood but saved Noah’s family, how say some among you that God did not?”

“If xyz is preached, how can some of you reject xyz?”

I like it….I like it a lot!

 

[Alcon]

You keep arguing against scriptural non-literalists with scriptural literalism, as if there is no internally consistent way (reasonability is a side-point) that anyone could not take that portion as literal.  That assumption defeats the purpose of any subsequent argument.  It's a convenient position to take, but assuming we define Christian as "a believer in the divinity and -- in some respect -- the teachings of Jesus Christ" -- it doesn't directly follow.  And, like I said, any argumentation ignoring the different premise there is akin to BRTD's "BUT THAT'S NOT WHAT EMO MEANS."

You must be logged in to read this quote.

BTQ

You must be logged in to read this quote.

BTQ

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Do you normally glean from external sources, other than in giving stimulus to your own internal genius?

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Do you understand what begging the question is, and how are you not doing it?

BINGO!  Thank you for boiling this down.

Please give me one last chance to explain…

Your point is: Christians who do NOT believe in the literal resurrection are operating under a different premise than Christians who DO believe in the literal resurrection of the dead.  Those that do NOT believe do NOT take it literally.  Those that DO believe DO take it literally.

Assuming I have the premise part correct…

Read 1Cor ch 15.  For it is clearly AN ATTACK on those who do not take the resurrection account literally.

I repeat:

Read 1Cor ch 15.  For it is clearly AN ATTACK on those who do not take the resurrection account literally.

Now, here’s my LOGICAL conclusion:  Only a absolute FOOL of a Christian would attempt to reapply a premise of interpretation that the scripture itself just spent a whole entire chapter refuting that very premise.

I say again:  the whole intent and purpose of 1Cor ch15 is to REFUTE THOSE WHO DO NOT TAKE THE RESURRECTION LITERALLY.  A fact you do not even attempt to dispute.  And it is wise NOT to dispute those facts for it would be FOOLISH to claim that Paul spent all the time disputing their premise if he didn’t disagree with the premise.

So, since it is CRYSTAL CLEAR that the New Testament preached a literal resurrection of Jesus Christ, Paul asks the following RHETORICAL question:

1Cor 15:12  “Now if Christ be preached that he rose from the dead, how say some among you that there is no resurrection of the dead?”

Paul’s NOT looking to debate it – he’s NOT looking to consider their premise.  Rather, he asks a RHETORICAL question so that they will realize the error of their premise.

---

Now, Alcon, I have a question for you, hopefully you’ll be able to comprehend that my question is RHETORICAL:

How can you blame me for NOT entertaining the premise of these “Christians” when the scripture spends a whole entire chapter assaulting the very premise they espouse? 

Again, this is a RHETORICAL question, and the premise of my rhetorical question is that only a fool would ask me, a Christian, to consider a premise of interpretation that the scripture takes pain going into detail to totally reject.  So, since scripture itself rejects this train of thought, you'd be better off beating your head against a wall than to attempt to convince me, a Christian, to consider a train of thought rejected by the bible.  And I would find it quite arrogant of you to think that I would be stupid enough to take the bait.  The bait is rotten and has already been rejected.  I'm not interested in something the bible calls trash.

---

Now, though this conversation has been about as profitable as talking to a pile of rocks, I did glean something useful:

1Cor 15:12  “Now if Christ be preached that he rose from the dead, how say some among you that there is no resurrection of the dead?”

I’m going to run WILD with this verse in relation to the historical record of the bible…

“Now, if it is preached that we are all descended from Adam, how say some among you that we are not?”
 
“If it is preached that God destroyed the world by flood but saved Noah’s family, how say some among you that God did not?”

“If xyz is preached, how can some of you reject xyz?”

I like it….I like it a lot!

Only dumbs care, jmfcst.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Do you understand what begging the question is, and how are you not doing it?

BINGO!  Thank you for boiling this down.

Please give me one last chance to explain…

Your point is: Christians who do NOT believe in the literal resurrection are operating under a different premise than Christians who DO believe in the literal resurrection of the dead.  Those that do NOT believe do NOT take it literally.  Those that DO believe DO take it literally.

Assuming I have the premise part correct…

Read 1Cor ch 15.  For it is clearly AN ATTACK on those who do not take the resurrection account literally.

I repeat:

Read 1Cor ch 15.  For it is clearly AN ATTACK on those who do not take the resurrection account literally.

Now, here’s my LOGICAL conclusion:  Only a absolute FOOL of a Christian would attempt to reapply a premise of interpretation that the scripture itself just spent a whole entire chapter refuting that very premise.

I say again:  the whole intent and purpose of 1Cor ch15 is to REFUTE THOSE WHO DO NOT TAKE THE RESURRECTION LITERALLY.  A fact you do not even attempt to dispute.  And it is wise NOT to dispute those facts for it would be FOOLISH to claim that Paul spent all the time disputing their premise if he didn’t disagree with the premise.

So, since it is CRYSTAL CLEAR that the New Testament preached a literal resurrection of Jesus Christ, Paul asks the following RHETORICAL question:

1Cor 15:12  “Now if Christ be preached that he rose from the dead, how say some among you that there is no resurrection of the dead?”

Paul’s NOT looking to debate it – he’s NOT looking to consider their premise.  Rather, he asks a RHETORICAL question so that they will realize the error of their premise.

---

Now, Alcon, I have a question for you, hopefully you’ll be able to comprehend that my question is RHETORICAL:

How can you blame me for NOT entertaining the premise of these “Christians” when the scripture spends a whole entire chapter assaulting the very premise they espouse? 

Again, this is a RHETORICAL question, and the premise of my rhetorical question is that only a fool would ask me, a Christian, to consider a premise of interpretation that the scripture takes pain going into detail to totally reject.  So, since scripture itself rejects this train of thought, you'd be better off beating your head against a wall than to attempt to convince me, a Christian, to consider a train of thought rejected by the bible.  And I would find it quite arrogant of you to think that I would be stupid enough to take the bait.  The bait is rotten and has already been rejected.  I'm not interested in something the bible calls trash.

---

Now, though this conversation has been about as profitable as talking to a pile of rocks, I did glean something useful:

1Cor 15:12  “Now if Christ be preached that he rose from the dead, how say some among you that there is no resurrection of the dead?”

I’m going to run WILD with this verse in relation to the historical record of the bible…

“Now, if it is preached that we are all descended from Adam, how say some among you that we are not?”
 
“If it is preached that God destroyed the world by flood but saved Noah’s family, how say some among you that God did not?”

“If xyz is preached, how can some of you reject xyz?”

I like it….I like it a lot!

Only dumbs care, jmfcst.

Only dumbs care, jmfcst.

thanks for caring so much, it warms my heart.

[The Mikado]

jmfcst, do you believe in heaven as the place where the (righteous) dead go, or in a literal resurrection in flesh at the End of Days?  I've always been curious where so many Christians got this idea of spending the afterlife in some celestial paradise when that's not what the text implies.

[JSojourner]

jmfcst, do you believe in heaven as the place where the (righteous) dead go, or in a literal resurrection in flesh at the End of Days?  I've always been curious where so many Christians got this idea of spending the afterlife in some celestial paradise when that's not what the text implies.

I've always believed that paradise is a separate place from Heaven.  Jesus said to the thief on the cross, this day you will be with me in Paradise.  If memory serves, it's an entirely different Greek word than the one for Heaven.  What is it?  We can only extrapolate.

Since Jesus would be there, we can presume it is a place of refreshment and pleasure where the righteous await the completion of the Kingdom Jesus inaugurated on earth. 

I tend to think of Heaven as coming to us on the last day, rather than us going to Heaven. 

For anyone interested, I commend Bishop N. T. Wright's magnificent tome, Surprised by Hope.