80 replies to this topic

[pete]

• First fruits
  Rod of Aaron
  ...?

[IDF]

http://books.google....20Moses&f=false

[Fortigurn]

I think the answer Jesus gave to the Sadducees as recorded in Mark's gospel is excellent. I would start right there because I think Jesus knew what he was talking about.

Here are some Biblical commentaries on the words of Jesus to the Sadducees in Mark 12:24-27. Among other things, they demonstrate that the argument given had strong similarities to earlier and contemporary Jewish exposition, would have been highly accessible to the hearers, and was more sophisticated than similar Jewish arguments. They also demonstrate that several rabbinical commentaries on resurrection in the Old Testament (and especially in the Pentateuch), were made along similar or even the same lines as Jesus' own argument.

Quote

It is common to refer to TB Sanhedrin 90b, where Rabbi Gamaliel II deduces the resurrection from Num. 11:9 (“in order that you may prolong your days on the land which God has promised to your fathers to give to them”) on the ground that they must themselves be the beneficiaries of the promise. In a similar manner Rabbi Johanan deduces from Num. 18:28 that Aaron must be alive all the time the law is in effect. Jesus’ argument is far more profound than this.

Lane, W. L. (1974). The Gospel of Mark. The New International Commentary on the New Testament. Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co.

Quote

In any case, the argumentation of Jesus has some similarity to certain rabbinic arguments concerning the resurrection.141 In the Mishnah, it is stated that all Israelites have a share in the world to come. But the unrighteous will not have a share, for example, “he that says that there is no resurrection of the dead prescribed in the Law” (m. Sanh. 10.1).142 In the Babylonian Talmud, in relation to this mishnah, the question is raised, “How is resurrection derived from the Torah?” and answered, “As it is written, And ye shall give thereof the Lord’s heave offering to Aaron the priest [Num 18:28*]. But would Aaron live for ever; he did not even enter Palestine, that terumah [the heave offering] should be given him [the priestly dues were rendered only in Palestine]? But it teaches that he would be resurrected, and Israel give him terumah. Thus resurrection is derived from the Torah” (b. Sanh. 99b).143

Another rabbinic argument is even more similar to that of the Markan Jesus: “R. Simai said: Whence do we learn resurrection from the Torah?—From the verse, and I also have established my covenant with them, [sc. the patriarchs] to give them the land of Canaan [Exod 6:4*]: ‘[to give] you’ is not said, but ‘to give them’ [personally]; thus resurrection is proved from the Torah” (b. Sanh. 99b).144 Both of these texts, however, unlike the Markan anecdote, seem to presuppose an earthly existence after the resurrection.

Collins, A. Y., & Attridge, H. W. (2007). Mark : A Commentary on the Gospel of Mark. Hermeneia--a critical and historical commentary on the Bible (563). Minneapolis: Fortress Press.

Quote

Rabbinic literature tells of a similar defense offered by Gamaliel: “Sectarians [or heretics] asked Rabban Gamaliel: ‘When do we know that the Holy One, blessed be He, will resurrect the dead?’ He answered them from the Torah, the Prophets, and the Writings” (b. Sanh. 90b). Outside of the Torah, appeals were made to Isa 26:19; Ps 16:9–11; Job 19:26; Dan 12:1–2. The eschatological hope expressed in 4Q521 (= 4QMessianic Apocalypse) 2 ii 12 that at the time of the coming of the Messiah, whom “heaven and earth will obey,” God “will make alive the dead [ מתים יחיהmētɩ̂m yiḥyeh]” probably draws on Isa 26:19: “Your dead shall live, their bodies shall rise [ יִחְיוּ מֵתֶיךָ נְבֵלָתִי יְקוּמוּןyiḥyǔ mēteykā nĕbēlātɩ̂ yĕqǔmǔn].” Appeals to the Prophets (such as Isa 26:19) or the Writings (such as Dan 12:2 and Job 19:26) would be insufficient to the Sadducees.

Evans, C. A. (2002). Vol. 34B: Word Biblical Commentary : Mark 8:27-16:20. Word Biblical Commentary (255–256). Dallas: Word, Incorporated.

Quote

Downing notes too that Jesus’ argument parallels very closely an argument Philo makes, whereby the three great patriarchs are spoken of as eternal (cf. Philo, Abraham 50–55). Downing also cites 4 Macc 7:18–19: “But as men with their whole heart make righteousness their first thought, these alone are able to master the weakness of the flesh, believing that unto God they die not, as our patriarchs, Abraham and Isaac and Jacob die not, but they live unto God” (on the last phrase, see Luke 20:38). To this we might add 4 Macc 16:25: “those who die for the sake of God live unto God, as do Abraham and Isaac and Jacob and all the patriarchs.” The tradition here in 4 Maccabees complements Jesus’ inference from Exod 3:6 and the truism that God is a God of the living.

Especially interesting is Rabbi Hiyya’s interpretation in y. Ber. 2.3: “You know how to recite [Scripture] but you do not know how to interpret [the verse]: ‘For the living know that they will die’ [Qoh 9:5] refers to the righteous who are called ‘the living’ even when they are dead. . . . And whence do we know that the righteous are called ‘the living’ even when dead? For it is written, ‘This is the land which I swore to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob saying’ [Deut 34:4]” (cf. b. Ber. 18a).

πολὺ πλανᾶσθε, “You are greatly mistaken.” That is, the Sadducees have wandered (the literal meaning of πλανᾶν) far from the truth. They are greatly mistaken because they know “neither the Scriptures nor the power of God” (v 24). See Mark 13:5–6, where Jesus warns his disciples against false prophets who will try to lead them astray (πλανᾶν).


Evans, C. A. (2002). Vol. 34B: Word Biblical Commentary : Mark 8:27-16:20. Word Biblical Commentary (257). Dallas: Word, Incorporated.

Edited by Fortigurn, 19 November 2010 - 03:16 AM.

[Mark Taunton]

pete, on 17 November 2010 - 10:57 PM, said:

• First fruits
  Rod of Aaron
  ...?

Consider Exodus 16's account of the manna in the wilderness. Anything unused of the manna gathered on the first 5 days became corrupted overnight - it got worms in it, and stank (v20). Both worms and stinking are consequences of death; they are what happens in a carcase (Exo 7:21,8:14; Job 21:26,24:20; Isa 66:24; John 11:39). The container that held the manna for the night was like the grave, in which corruption of the body occurs. The manna of those five days "lived" (was edible) just for that day, and "died" (became corrupted) overnight.

But on the 6th day of the week a double quantity of manna was collected (v21), because there was no manna provided on the seventh day (v26-27). Although some was eaten on the 6th day (just as on the first 5), the remainder was to be kept overnight. On the seventh day, there were found to be no worms in it and it did not stink (v24), so it could be eaten on the sabbath day, and no further labour was required to obtain it. In that sense it represents resurrection, when what was mortal comes out from the container of death and corruption, but is found to be alive, and not corrupted.

The manna was food for the people of Israel: it was what they lived by, through God's provision. But like the manna itself, and like us, they were mortal - they died; the carcases of those who had sinned fell in the wilderness and did not enter into God's rest in the promised land (Num 14:29-33; Psa 95:7-11; Heb 3:17). For the manna of the 6 days, the day it was produced and gathered was the only day it could be eaten. The manna was transient, mortal. But the extra portion provided by God on the 6th day came out of the vessel on the seventh day without worms and not stinking. It was in that way a figure of Jesus when he was raised to life again, having tasted of death but not seeing corruption. He is the living bread that came down from heaven, which God has provided, bread that a man can eat of and live for ever. The eternal life which is manifested in him is what we desire to enter into. And by God's grace, if we labour in the work of God now in our own day - that is, if believe in the one God has sent (John 6:28) - we shall like Jesus be raised to share in that immortal life, on the seventh day, the sabbath of rest which is provided for the people of God (Heb 4:1-11).

Edited by Mark Taunton, 18 November 2010 - 01:49 PM.

[Fortigurn]

Mark Taunton, on 18 November 2010 - 09:05 AM, said:

Consider Exodus 16's account of the manna in the wilderness.

I think Jesus made it to the point a little more efficiently. The problem with these kinds of typological interpretations is that they're highly subjective and not always very convincing to others.

[Mark Taunton]

Fortigurn, on 18 November 2010 - 09:13 AM, said:

Mark Taunton, on 18 November 2010 - 09:05 AM, said:

Consider Exodus 16's account of the manna in the wilderness.

I think Jesus made it to the point a little more efficiently.

Certainly he did. He was speaking directly and infallibly by the spirit of God, while I am very much fallible and imperfect in understanding, not being inspired in that way.

Quote

The problem with these kinds of typological interpretations is that they're highly subjective and not always very convincing to others.

That others find something that is said convincing has no bearing on its truth. The reaction of an audience is not the test of validity. Most of those to whom Jesus preached did not accept his teaching, despite his speaking always the truth which he heard of God, always perfectly in keeping with, and building further upon, the scriptures of the prophets. And Paul warns Timothy (and us) plainly, also by divine infallible wisdom, that men would reject sound teaching, turning away their ears from the truth, and turning instead to fables. It has always been that way.

So the test of truth for what I say is not whether others agree and accept it, but whether it is in agreement with the word of God. If you can see an error in what I said, something in which I have not accurately reflected the teaching of the scripture of truth, please do say what it is, and I will accept the correction.

Edited by Mark Taunton, 18 November 2010 - 10:10 AM.

[Fortigurn]

Mark Taunton, on 18 November 2010 - 10:07 AM, said:

That others find something that is said convincing has no bearing on its truth.

That isn't in dispute. The issue is that unless you have proof that you're right, you don't have a substantial argument. This doesn't mean that someone has to find something wrong in your argument, it means you have to prove that what you found is what God originally intended to be found. That burden of evidence is very heavy, which is why I am always extremely cautious when making statements based on my personal exposition.

[Richie]

Fortigurn, on 18 November 2010 - 09:13 AM, said:

Mark Taunton, on 18 November 2010 - 09:05 AM, said:

Consider Exodus 16's account of the manna in the wilderness.

I think Jesus made it to the point a little more efficiently. The problem with these kinds of typological interpretations is that they're highly subjective and not always very convincing to others.

Quoting commentaries is even less convincing!

[Fortigurn]

Richie, on 18 November 2010 - 02:36 PM, said:

Quoting commentaries is even less convincing!

That depends entirely on how they are quoted, what they are quoted for, and what evidence they provide to substantiate their case. All the commentaries I quoted provided clear evidence for their case. Their arguments are based on evidence, not 'These are my ideas, and I think they're right'. They provide incontrovertible evidence that controversy over whether or not resurrection was indicated in the Law was a live issue both before Christ's day and afterwards, that the prevailing view was that resurrection was indeed taught by the Law, and that the form of argument used by Christ would have been familiar to his listeners.

[Jeremy]

Fortigurn, on 18 November 2010 - 03:29 PM, said:

...Their arguments are based on evidence, not 'These are my ideas, and I think they're right'.

If Mark reads this post, might I ask for his opinion on how he thinks that differs from what he has done, please? Not jumping to any conclusions; would just be glad to know. Thanks in anticipation.

[Richie]

The arguments of the commentators are based on "this is what Rabbi such-and-such thinks" and hold no more water than anyone else doing their own Bible study. We have to get away from using commentaries and get back to studying the Bible for ourselves. It's not rocket science: mostly it involves reading.

[Fortigurn]

Richie, on 18 November 2010 - 05:03 PM, said:

The arguments of the commentators are based on "this is what Rabbi such-and-such thinks" and hold no more water than anyone else doing their own Bible study.

Please read what they wrote, and what I wrote. You don't seem to understand what they are saying; none of them say 'this is what Rabbi such-and-such thinks'. They are using actual proof to explain why Christ's words would have been convincing in the first century environment in which he lived, and they are also proving that Christ wasn't inventing some wacky idea out of nowhere, he was articulating a Biblical truth which had been upheld throughout the apostasy of the Babylonian, Persian, and Greek era, he was articulating it in a manner familiar to his audience, he was articulating it using arguments similar to those which had already been used by previous and contemporary Jewish exegetes, only he was doing it much better.

Do you really disagree with any of that? You couldn't possibly reach these historical insights just by reading the Bible, and these studies hold water in their own right. Unlike most exegetical studies, these studies have proof.

Quote

We have to get away from using commentaries and get back to studying the Bible for ourselves. It's not rocket science: mostly it involves reading.

Judicious use of commentaries is not incompatible with studying the Bible for ourselves.

Edited by Fortigurn, 18 November 2010 - 05:20 PM.

[Richie]

Quote

You couldn't possibly reach these historical insights just by reading the Bible

I am not talking about historical insights, which is where a commentary can come in handy. I was talking about Bible study. After all the question was about whether the law teaches resurrection, not whether people in Jesus' day would have understood such-and-such.

Edited by Richie, 18 November 2010 - 07:03 PM.

[Jeremy]

Fortigurn, on 18 November 2010 - 01:55 PM, said:

...The issue is that unless you have proof that you're right, you don't have a substantial argument. This doesn't mean that someone has to find something wrong in your argument, it means you have to prove that what you found is what God originally intended to be found. That burden of evidence is very heavy, which is why I am always extremely cautious when making statements based on my personal exposition.

A question, if I may. Those quotes you've shared, Fort: certainly they prove that these rabbis (whoever they were) believed that the parts of the Law in question infer resurrection. But obviously that's a different thing from saying that they're right in their exposition, yes? So what is it about their exposition which you find persuasive, which you don't find so persuasive in (to refer to the two examples so far in this thread) Mark's contribution and your own exposition? As you'll see, what I'm getting at is not what the prevailing view in the first century was, but the validity of the exposition. That's what I need to try and put my finger on. Cheers.

P.S. I see now I've posted this that I might be asking the same question as Richie - sorry, didn't spot that.

Edited by Jeremy, 18 November 2010 - 07:27 PM.

[Richie]

Thanks for saying it more clearly than me Jeremy!

[Mark Taunton]

Jeremy, on 18 November 2010 - 03:43 PM, said:

Fortigurn, on 18 November 2010 - 03:29 PM, said:

...Their arguments are based on evidence, not 'These are my ideas, and I think they're right'.

If Mark reads this post, might I ask for his opinion on how he thinks that differs from what he has done, please? Not jumping to any conclusions; would just be glad to know. Thanks in anticipation.

I don't think it is different. I gave my view, that the 6th day's extra manna being found uncorrupted and edible on the 7th is a figure of resurrection. But I didn't just present that as a headline or conclusion and say "that's my idea, and I think it's right". Rather, I laid out my reasons for thinking it, in terms of the details from several Bible passages, both some I identifed explicitly with references, and others, also pertinent, which I alluded to. The words of those scriptures, with the issues and principles they speak of, comprise my evidence and the basis of my reasoning.

As I say, I may have got something wrong in this particular instance. As I made plain to Fort, I am entirely open to correction if I have misused, misquoted or misunderstood any of those scriptures I identified, which I have studied and which led me to my view. But I don't say what I say without evidence from the word of God. Indeed, whenever I argue a case in relation to some point of spiritual importance, I seek always to make clear my scriptural grounds for believing as I do.

Edited by Mark Taunton, 18 November 2010 - 08:10 PM.

[pete]

COmmentaries are vague especially when read from citations..

Mark Taunton, on 18 November 2010 - 09:05 AM, said:

pete, on 17 November 2010 - 10:57 PM, said:

• First fruits
  Rod of Aaron
  ...?

Consider Exodus 16's account of the manna in the wilderness. Anything unused of the manna gathered on the first 5 days became corrupted overnight - it got worms in it, and stank (v20). Both worms and stinking are consequences of death; they are what happens in a carcase (Exo 7:21,8:14; Job 21:26,24:20; Isa 66:24; John 11:39). The container that held the manna for the night was like the grave, in which corruption of the body occurs. The manna of those five days "lived" (was edible) just for that day, and "died" (became corrupted) overnight.

But on the 6th day of the week a double quantity of manna was collected (v21), because there was no manna provided on the seventh day (v26-27). Although some was eaten on the 6th day (just as on the first 5), the remainder was to be kept overnight. On the seventh day, there were found to be no worms in it and it did not stink (v24), so it could be eaten on the sabbath day, and no further labour was required to obtain it. In that sense it represents resurrection, when what was mortal comes out from the container of death and corruption, but is found to be alive, and not corrupted.

The manna was food for the people of Israel: it was what they lived by, through God's provision. But like the manna itself, and like us, they were mortal - they died; the carcases of those who had sinned fell in the wilderness and did not enter into God's rest in the promised land (Num 14:29-33; Psa 95:7-11; Heb 3:17). For the manna of the 6 days, the day it was produced and gathered was the only day it could be eaten. The manna was transient, mortal. But the extra portion provided by God on the 6th day came out of the vessel on the seventh day without worms and not stinking. It was in that way a figure of Jesus when he was raised to life again, having tasted of death but not seeing corruption. He is the living bread that came down from heaven, which God has provided, bread that a man can eat of and live for ever. The eternal life which is manifested in him is what we desire to enter into. And by God's grace, if we labour in the work of God now in our own day - that is, if believe in the one God has sent (John 6:28) - we shall like Jesus be raised to share in that immortal life, on the seventh day, the sabbath of rest which is provided for the people of God (Heb 4:1-11).

I endorse the words of Mark, at least with my mortal eyes, I will give it a very good rating. A ready mind will always appreciate such interpretation..

Can I get more of these from the Law of Moses?

[Fortigurn]

Richie, on 18 November 2010 - 06:47 PM, said:

Quote

You couldn't possibly reach these historical insights just by reading the Bible

I am not talking about historical insights, which is where a commentary can come in handy. I was talking about Bible study. After all the question was about whether the law teaches resurrection, not whether people in Jesus' day would have understood such-and-such.

I answered the question, using Christ's own words.

[Fortigurn]

Jeremy, on 18 November 2010 - 07:25 PM, said:

Fortigurn, on 18 November 2010 - 01:55 PM, said:

...The issue is that unless you have proof that you're right, you don't have a substantial argument. This doesn't mean that someone has to find something wrong in your argument, it means you have to prove that what you found is what God originally intended to be found. That burden of evidence is very heavy, which is why I am always extremely cautious when making statements based on my personal exposition.

A question, if I may. Those quotes you've shared, Fort: certainly they prove that these rabbis (whoever they were) believed that the parts of the Law in question infer resurrection. But obviously that's a different thing from saying that they're right in their exposition, yes?

Sorry, where did I say that I thought they were right in their exposition? I pointed to Christ's exposition as the one I believed. I also pointed out that commentators believed Christ did a better job than the rabbis. For this, I'm told that I'm not doing Bible study and I'm told that the commentaries just say "rabbi so and so said this or that'.

Quote

So what is it about their exposition which you find persuasive, which you don't find so persuasive in (to refer to the two examples so far in this thread) Mark's contribution and your own exposition? As you'll see, what I'm getting at is not what the prevailing view in the first century was, but the validity of the exposition. That's what I need to try and put my finger on. Cheers.

As you can see, my concern was also the validity of the exposition. That's why I went straight to Christ. Apparently that wasn't good enough. I know that I can use that passage in Exodus as evidence for resurrection and I can be sure that's what God meant by it, because Christ himself said so. There's your validity right there. On the other hand, Mark can't provide any proof that God intended us to interpret the passages he interpreted, the way he interpreted them.

So there we have it. I quote Christ and that's not good enough. Mark gives us his own ideas, and that's fine.

[Fortigurn]

pete, on 18 November 2010 - 08:32 PM, said:

COmmentaries are vague especially when read from citations..

There's nothing vague about what I quoted.

Quote

Can I get more of these from the Law of Moses?

As I pointed out, Jesus had a good one. Well I thought he did. No one else here seems to like it.

[Fortigurn]

Mark Taunton, on 18 November 2010 - 08:07 PM, said:

As I say, I may have got something wrong in this particular instance. As I made plain to Fort, I am entirely open to correction if I have misused, misquoted or misunderstood any of those scriptures I identified, which I have studied and which led me to my view. But I don't say what I say without evidence from the word of God. Indeed, whenever I argue a case in relation to some point of spiritual importance, I seek always to make clear my scriptural grounds for believing as I do.

As I said, that's not the issue I was concerned about. The issue is that unless you have proof that you're right, you don't have a substantial argument. This doesn't mean that someone has to find something wrong in your argument, it means you have to prove that what you found is what God originally intended to be found. That burden of evidence is very heavy, which is why I am always extremely cautious when making statements based on my personal exposition.

What concerns me is that I'm the only one here who went straight to the words of Christ, an inspired exposition of the point, and I'm getting stick for it.

[Richie]

Sorry, I got lost at "Rabbinic literature". If you were talking about Christ then why did you need to quote from these commentaries? Would have saved a lot of effort!

[Fortigurn]

Richie, on 18 November 2010 - 10:47 PM, said:

Sorry, I got lost at "Rabbinic literature".

Yes, you switched off without actually reading what I wrote.

Quote

If you were talking about Christ then why did you need to quote from these commentaries? Would have saved a lot of effort!

Did you read the commentaries? They are all comments on Christ's words in Mark. They even make this clear. I have explained this previously more than once:

* 'I think Jesus made it to the point a little more efficiently'

* 'They provide incontrovertible evidence that controversy over whether or not resurrection was indicated in the Law was a live issue both before Christ's day and afterwards, that the prevailing view was that resurrection was indeed taught by the Law, and that the form of argument used by Christ would have been familiar to his listeners'

* 'they are also proving that Christ wasn't inventing some wacky idea out of nowhere, he was articulating a Biblical truth which had been upheld throughout the apostasy of the Babylonian, Persian, and Greek era, he was articulating it in a manner familiar to his audience, he was articulating it using arguments similar to those which had already been used by previous and contemporary Jewish exegetes, only he was doing it much better'

You just didn't read what I quoted. What concerns me is that there's a school of thought which thinks 'Bible study' means digging at least five word meanings out of Strong's, hunting down half a dozen cross references in the KJV and synthesizing their contents regardless of context, constructing elaborate spiritualizations in which A represents B which is a symbol of C which is a figure of D, while actually using the Bible to interpret itself (as I did, using Christ's own words), is completely ignored.

Edited by Fortigurn, 18 November 2010 - 10:56 PM.

[Jeremy]

Richie, on 18 November 2010 - 07:27 PM, said:

Thanks for saying it more clearly than me Jeremy!

I don't know about that, but thanks for the confirmation that we were asking the same question.

Fortigurn, on 18 November 2010 - 10:11 PM, said:

Sorry, where did I say that I thought they were right in their exposition?

That's exactly what I took you to mean for two reasons. First, Pete started this thread asking for evidence of the resurrection in the Law of Moses, and your response (your first post in this thread) consists almost entirely of quotes from rabbis - some of your sources don't actually make it clear that a better exposition than the rabbis' (i.e., Christ's) is being advocated (which I now think is what you're saying). Secondly, you then urged caution over Mark's exposition which was a scripturally-based one. Your first post therefore read to me that you were advocating the rabbis' exposition more than a biblically-based one, and I wasn't the only one who read it that way. I see now that you're not saying that, but even reading your first post again it's not very clear.

Quote

As you can see, my concern was also the validity of the exposition. That's why I went straight to Christ. Apparently that wasn't good enough.

To be fair, we haven't seen you quote Christ in this thread, which I think is the reason for the confusion. The only reference to Christ I can see in your posts is that some of those sources quote him. I think that's probably why people have misunderstood what you wrote. Nobody has said that quoting Christ isn't good enough; we just didn't see you quoting Christ (even though I see now what you're saying). Anyway, thanks for making it clearer - hope you can how the confusion arose.

[Jeremy]

Fortigurn, on 18 November 2010 - 10:56 PM, said:

Did you read the commentaries? They are all comments on Christ's words in Mark. They even make this clear. I have explained this previously more than once:

* 'I think Jesus made it to the point a little more efficiently'

* 'They provide incontrovertible evidence that controversy over whether or not resurrection was indicated in the Law was a live issue both before Christ's day and afterwards, that the prevailing view was that resurrection was indeed taught by the Law, and that the form of argument used by Christ would have been familiar to his listeners'

* 'they are also proving that Christ wasn't inventing some wacky idea out of nowhere, he was articulating a Biblical truth which had been upheld throughout the apostasy of the Babylonian, Persian, and Greek era, he was articulating it in a manner familiar to his audience, he was articulating it using arguments similar to those which had already been used by previous and contemporary Jewish exegetes, only he was doing it much better'

You just didn't read what I quoted. What concerns me is that there's a school of thought which thinks 'Bible study' means digging at least five word meanings out of Strong's, hunting down half a dozen cross references in the KJV and synthesizing their contents regardless of context, constructing elaborate spiritualizations in which A represents B which is a symbol of C which is a figure of D, while actually using the Bible to interpret itself (as I did, using Christ's own words), is completely ignored.

As I hope you can see now, your opening post was far from clear to others, which I think is how the confusion arose. I'm off to bed now, but Richie might want to confirm whether that was his take too when he's back on line.

[Evangelion]

Richie, on 18 November 2010 - 05:03 PM, said:

We have to get away from using commentaries and get back to studying the Bible for ourselves. It's not rocket science: mostly it involves reading.

We don't need to get away from commentaries; we simply need to learn how, when, and why to use them. Bible study is not rocket science, but it does require a logical, systematic approach, which is where many people go wrong.

[Evangelion]

Mark, while I found your exposition interesting, I don't see a connection with resurrection. The manna did not corrupt and then revive; it simply did not corrupt in the first place. This does not speak to me of resurrection.

[Fortigurn]

Jeremy, on 18 November 2010 - 11:25 PM, said:

That's exactly what I took you to mean for two reasons. First, Pete started this thread asking for evidence of the resurrection in the Law of Moses, and your response (your first post in this thread) consists almost entirely of quotes from rabbis - some of your sources don't actually make it clear that a better exposition than the rabbis' (i.e., Christ's) is being advocated (which I now think is what you're saying).

With respect, what happened was that you simply did not read the quotes. Like pete and Richie, you didn't notice that all of them were from commentaries on Mark's gospel, and that they were commenting specifically on the words of Christ to the Sadducees on the very subject of pet's original post. You saw 'rabbis', and decided not to bother reading any more. You then decided to give your comments on something you hadn't read, ascribing to be a motive I had never expressed.

Quote

Secondly, you then urged caution over Mark's exposition which was a scripturally-based one.

Of course I did. Do you think my caution wasn't relevant? Christ's exposition was a Scripturally based one, and I already referred to it.

Quote

Your first post therefore read to me that you were advocating the rabbis' exposition more than a biblically-based one, and I wasn't the only one who read it that way. I see now that you're not saying that, but even reading your first post again it's not very clear.

The problem was that you didn't actually read my post. You managed to read 'rabbis', but somehow didn't even see Jesus referred to at all, despite the fact that the commentaries are clearly referring to Christ's exposition.

* 'Jesus’ argument is far more profound than this'
* 'In any case, the argumentation of Jesus has some similarity to certain rabbinic arguments concerning the resurrection'
* 'Another rabbinic argument is even more similar to that of the Markan Jesus'
* 'Both of these texts, however, unlike the Markan anecdote, seem to presuppose an earthly existence after the resurrection'
* 'Downing notes too that Jesus’ argument parallels very closely an argument Philo makes'

Count them, Jesus, Jesus, Jesus, Jesus, Jesus, Jesus; six times. Every single instance of his name was completely overlooked or disregarded. How can people manage to read 'rabbi' and not see 'Jesus'? In one quote it was the seventh word in, preceding any instance of 'rabbi'. In another quote it was the fifth word in, again preceding any instance of 'rabbi'. Furthermore, two of the commentaries were not only specifically on Mark, they actually cited the relevant pericope, Mark 8:27-16:20. This too was missed. Skim reading and leaping to conclusions is what's at fault here. I also suspect that some people saw 'Oh, quote from a commentary, do not want', and simply didn't bother reading further.

Quote

To be fair, we haven't seen you quote Christ in this thread, which I think is the reason for the confusion. The only reference to Christ I can see in your posts is that some of those sources quote him. I think that's probably why people have misunderstood what you wrote.

You didn't see me quote four commentaries which were all clearly commenting specifically on Christ's reply to the Sadducees, almost all of which refer to him specifically by name ('Jesus'), because you didn't read what I wrote. The only commentary I cited which doesn't refer to him specifically by name, contains an explicit reference to the relevant pericope (Mark 8:27-16:20), in the citation I provided. If someone didn't realize that's a commentary on Mark 8:27-16:20, that is because they didn't bother reading what I wrote.

Quote

Nobody has said that quoting Christ isn't good enough; we just didn't see you quoting Christ (even though I see now what you're saying).

You didn't see me quoting Christ directly, because I didn't quote Christ directly. You didn't see me referring explicitly to Christ's exposition, because you didn't read what I wrote. If Christ was good enough people wouldn't bother making up their own ideas. People would have gone straight to Christ's words, as I did. I could say I'm still dazed by that fact, but unfortunately it seems like this is the 'New Bible Study Method' we have to put up with.

Quote

Anyway, thanks for making it clearer - hope you can how the confusion arose.

I know how the confusion rose; people didn't read what I wrote, and one of the reasons why was unreasonable prejudice against commentaries. What if I had just skimmed through Mark's exposition without reading it properly and then made all kinds of irrelevant comments on it which questioned his motives and claimed he hadn't bothered using any Bible verses? I shall edit my original post to make it clear that 'Mark' is a book in the Bible, 'Jesus' is someone worth paying attention to, and Mark 8:27-16:20 contains Christ's words on the subject of the original post.

Edited by Fortigurn, 19 November 2010 - 03:17 AM.

[Mark Taunton]

Evangelion, on 19 November 2010 - 12:19 AM, said:

Mark, while I found your exposition interesting, I don't see a connection with resurrection. The manna did not corrupt and then revive; it simply did not corrupt in the first place. This does not speak to me of resurrection.

In what I wrote I alluded to Peter's inspired words, concerning the prophecy of David:

Ac 2:31 He seeing this before spake of the resurrection of Christ, that his soul was not left in hell, neither his flesh did see corruption.

which prove that exact point.

Edited by Mark Taunton, 19 November 2010 - 08:12 AM.

[Evangelion]

Mark Taunton, on 19 November 2010 - 08:08 AM, said:

Evangelion, on 19 November 2010 - 12:19 AM, said:

Mark, while I found your exposition interesting, I don't see a connection with resurrection. The manna did not corrupt and then revive; it simply did not corrupt in the first place. This does not speak to me of resurrection.

In what I wrote I alluded to Peter's inspired words, concerning the prophecy of David:

Ac 2:31 He seeing this before spake of the resurrection of Christ, that his soul was not left in hell, neither his flesh did see corruption.

which prove that exact point.

How does it prove that point? Where's the connection? You've simply pointed to the word "corruption" in an entirely different context. I don't see the relevance.

The Israelites' clothes and shoes did not see corruption while they were wandering in the wilderness. Is this also symbolic of resurrection?