Gnostic Traditions

I was accused on a board I frequent of being a Gnostic because of my Consistent Preterism. Here is my response.

First...the Corinthians weren't being taught by the Gnostics. What scripture did you get that from? They were taught by Paul. That's in the first verse of the 15th Chapter.

And I make known to you, brethren, the good news that I proclaimed to you, which also ye did receive, in which also ye have stood,

Unless you're calling Paul a Gnostic...geez...you've accused him of being a Gnostic and a Pelagian.

Second...not all the Corinthians believed this. Some of them did. Who were the some? It appears that there was division. We already know that from the 3rd chapter. Some were claiming to follow Paul, some Apollos, and some Cephas (Peter). Weren't they all being taught by Paul and Peter the same Resurrection? So...some believed...while others didn't. Who were the some that believed? Who were the some that didn't? Could it be found in their division. Who was Peter sent to? Who was Paul sent to? Their was a division amongst the Jews and the Gentiles. Perhaps this plays out in who was denying the "resurrection from the dead".

Third...you're right that Paul is using Logic to prove his point, and he used it correctly. It's an argument known as "modus tollens". To deny the resurrection from the dead would be to deny Christ is risen, to affirm that their faith is futile, and they are still in their sins. The Corinthians didn't believe that. They affirmed that Christ had risen, they did not believe in vain, and they believed that Christ had atoned for their sins. So your Gnostic claim is nowhere valid. Especially considering Paul is not even discussing a bodily resurrection as you see it.

Fourth...the Corinthians believed in a continued existence after death. Note that there's a difference between what the Sadducees believed and what some in Corinth believed. If they were the same, Paul could have just used the same line of argumentation that Yeshua used. Why? Because those in Corinth believed in continued existence after death.

Fifth...all one need do is compare Romans depiction of death with Corinthians. Paul throughout all his letters has to deal with the feud between the Jews and the Gentiles. It's evident in Romans 9-11 especially. Paul said in Acts 24 "However, I admit that I worship the God of our fathers as a follower of the Way, which they call a sect. I believe everything that agrees with the Law and that is written in the Prophets, and I have the same hope in God as these men, that there will be a resurrection of both the righteous and the wicked. So I strive always to keep my conscience clear before God and man."

He had been accused by the Jews about his teaching on the resurrection. He constantly said that that was why he was on trial...concerning the resurrection of the dead. He calls his teaching on the resurrection of the dead, "the hope of Israel" (Acts. 28:20). He says that he got his teaching from the Law and the Prophets. Now Polemicist...tell me where you find your view of the resurrection in the OT. So...whatever was the teaching of Paul was concerning the resurrection of the dead...aka "the hope of Israel"...is found in the OT. Ezekiel 37 makes it plain that the resurrection was a Restoration for Israel, they would be brought back in to the land. That YHWH would take them and clean them and put His spirit in them and He would be there God...and it would include who? The Gentiles. Refer back to Romans and Pauls dealing with this. So...what do we have. We have Paul connecting the Resurrection of the dead with the Hope of Israel. The Hope of Israel was Restoration from Exile. Exile meant death. Where do we find this death. Adam. He was exiled and separated from YHWH...just like Israel...they were dead...living under the ministration of death...the Law. Christ came to bring life. Therefore...resurrection from the dead to eternal life in Yeshua.

The denial from "some Corinthians" was "the hope of Israel". Christ's resurrection was so intrinsically tied to that hope, that to deny "the hope of Israel" (which was YHWH's promise) was to deny Christ's resurrection. And since their (Gentiles) adoption into YHWH's household was connected to the Restoration of Israel, it effected their covenant status as well...leaving them in their sin.

Now...what was this Restoration. Was it a physical one...as the Jews were looking for...or was it Spiritual...which even as a Amillennial cat you should agree with?

Paul's argument is a logical one. If he were using your view...it's not that logical. Denying a biological resurrection for all people does not necessarily mean that Christ won't be resurrected. That would be induction.

It's your view that's the Gnostic one. You're the one saying that this body (physical) is so evil that we must be delivered from it.