I have a question for christians regarding the quote in the title of this thread: Is it saying that we did not exist before God created a body for us?

(June 16, 2012 at 5:37 pm)gringoperry Wrote: I have a question for christians regarding the quote in the title of this thread: Is it saying that we did not exist before God created a body for us?

What is being talked about here (Starting at verse 20 through 49) is the order in which the resurection takes place. what is being referenced in 46 and 47 are the references to the order of the spirit in verse 44 and the first and last Adam in 45.

42 So also is the resurrection of the dead. It is sown [l] a perishable body, it is raised [m] an imperishable body; 43 it is sown in dishonor, it is raised in glory; it is sown in weakness, it is raised in power; 44 it is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body. If there is a natural body, there is also a spiritual body. 45 So also it is written, “The first man, Adam, became a living soul.” The last Adam became a life-giving spirit. 46 However, the spiritual is not first, but the natural; then the spiritual.(referenceing back to verse 44) 47 The first man is from the earth,(Verse 45 and the first Adam) [n] earthy; the second man is from heaven. 48 As is the earthy, so also are those who are earthy; and as is the heavenly, so also are those who are heavenly. 49 Just as we have borne the image of the earthy, [o]we will also bear the image of the heavenly.

Any evidence for this drivel or are we supposed to take your word for it?

(June 17, 2012 at 1:24 am)Minimalist Wrote: Any evidence for this drivel or are we supposed to take your word for it?

Yeah lots. just read the freaking passage. Greek or english it says the same thing.

Thanks for your response, Drich. I understand that the line specifically refers to the resurrection, however, does the same apply in general? To elaborate, do we exist before God creates our body; and if so, in what state?

(June 17, 2012 at 2:17 am)Drich Wrote:

(June 17, 2012 at 1:24 am)Minimalist Wrote: Any evidence for this drivel or are we supposed to take your word for it?

Yeah lots. just read the freaking passage. Greek or english it says the same thing.

Ah, I see that you misunderstood Minimalist. What he actually asked for was evidence!

Glad to be of service

(June 17, 2012 at 8:18 am)Darwinian Wrote:

(June 17, 2012 at 2:17 am)Drich Wrote: Yeah lots. just read the freaking passage. Greek or english it says the same thing.

Ah, I see that you misunderstood Minimalist. What he actually asked for was evidence!

Glad to be of service

As 'he' did not specify to what evidence he was looking for, and as 'we' are speaking to the understanding or specific exegesis of a particular passage, then the request for said evidence would default to support the translation. Hence my comment to read the passage, for the evidence of the interpertation of the two verses in question were contained in the greater context of Paul's message.

Now to directly answer your query; Paul used the physical resurrection of Christ, and His promise to resurect the dead upon his second comming as proof.

---

(June 17, 2012 at 8:13 am)gringoperry Wrote: Thanks for your response, Drich. I understand that the line specifically refers to the resurrection, however, does the same apply in general? To elaborate, do we exist before God creates our body; and if so, in what state?

There is nothing in the bible that says we exist before this life. However their are some church traditions that say there is a well of souls in heaven, and when the well runs dry this will usher in the final days as per Revelation.

Ah, I see. So this is the same usage of the word evidence that one might also use to 'prove' that Sherlock Holmes was an opium addict by referencing certain passages of the works of Sir Arthur Conan Doyle.

That makes much more sense. Thanks

(June 17, 2012 at 10:30 am)Drich Wrote:

(June 17, 2012 at 8:18 am)Darwinian Wrote: Ah, I see that you misunderstood Minimalist. What he actually asked for was evidence!

Glad to be of service

As 'he' did not specify to what evidence he was looking for, and as 'we' are speaking to the understanding or specific exegesis of a particular passage, then the request for said evidence would default to support the translation. Hence my comment to read the passage, for the evidence of the interpertation of the two verses in question were contained in the greater context of Paul's message.

Now to directly answer your query; Paul used the physical resurrection of Christ, and His promise to resurect the dead upon his second comming as proof.

What you posted was the claim. You have not supplied any evidence that this happens, much less proved it.

This "evidence" you say paul used is extremely dubious - for it to be admissible as evidence, it first has to be proved jesus existed, than that he resurrected and promised to resurrect the dead. Then, you'd have to show why these things mean that 1 Corinthians 15:42-49 is true. I doubt you'll get past the first of these premises.

(June 17, 2012 at 10:42 am)Tobie Wrote:

(June 17, 2012 at 10:30 am)Drich Wrote: As 'he' did not specify to what evidence he was looking for, and as 'we' are speaking to the understanding or specific exegesis of a particular passage, then the request for said evidence would default to support the translation. Hence my comment to read the passage, for the evidence of the interpertation of the two verses in question were contained in the greater context of Paul's message.

Now to directly answer your query; Paul used the physical resurrection of Christ, and His promise to resurect the dead upon his second comming as proof.

What you posted was the claim. You have not supplied any evidence that this happens, much less proved it.

This "evidence" you say paul used is extremely dubious - for it to be admissible as evidence, it first has to be proved jesus existed, than that he resurrected and promised to resurrect the dead. Then, you'd have to show why these things mean that 1 Corinthians 15:42-49 is true. I doubt you'll get past the first of these premises.

How many times do we personally need to have this discussion?
Read the post by darwinian.