Thomas Nelson
Publishers: Nelson's Quick Reference
Topical Bible Index. Nashville, Tenn. :
Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1995 (Nelson's
Quick Reference), S. 597
Response to comment [from an atheist]:
[Heresies, Ethiopian Jews]
The apostle Paul
confronted false teaching (2 Tim. 1:14, 15).
This is no surprise (1
Tim. 1:6, 7; Eph. 4:14). There will
likely be a new heretical teaching (usually
an old one revisited) next week. Was
the word made flesh? Did Jesus come in
the flesh? Yes (Jn 1:14). The
Bible teaches that if anyone says
differently (1 Jn 4:3) --reject them (e.g.
Creed of Ignatius).
"[Those who] denied Jesus had existed at
all."
We have several
outside texts of antiquity that state Jesus
did exist. There is no credibility to
claim that he did not.
"By that time any 1st century witnesses
were long dead and the oral tradition was
not much better than purple monkey
dishwasher."
Matthew, Mark,
Luke, John, Paul, James, Peter, and Jude
wrote the gospel, history, letters to other
Christians and the Revelation between AD 45
and 100. The writers quote from all
but eight of the Old Testament books.
These writings in Greek were copied and
circulated so that by about AD 150 there is
wide enough use of them to speak of the "New
Testament". Evidence derived from
first century AD writers Philo and Josephs
indicates that the Hebrew canon did not
include the Apocrypha (How We Got the Bible,
Rose Publishing, 1998).
"[T]en tribes of Israel have been gone for
quite some time...Jews of the Bible are
Ethiopian. Not only are you an
intellectual coward and a bad Christian but
you're quite ignorant of history."
There are twelve
tribes (Lk 22:30). No one is lost.
God knows where they are. "They may be
descendants of Jews who fled Israel for
Egypt after the destruction of the First
Temple in 586 BCE and eventually settled in
Ethiopia [Excerpted from “Reunify Ethiopian
Jewry,” World Union of Jewish Students].
See:
Jewish
History
Israel's Genealogy
Response to comment [from an agnostic]:
"You suggested that antiquity and popularity
of a belief would have bearing on its truth.
I showed you it would not. ...Can you
actually respond to the argument, and stop
squirming like a snake?"
"The discovery of
the Dead Sea Scrolls prove that scripture
was translated accurately. In one cave
along a terrace at Qumran ("Cave 4") 15,000
fragments representing some 600 manuscripts
were found. The Scrolls shed light on
the culture in which Jesus lied, and provide
fresh and new insight into the context of
early Christianity (The Dead Sea Scrolls,
Rose Publishing, 2005)." Although the
Bible has minor typos and some poor
translations, the 66 books of the Bible have
stood the test of time. The Bible is
reliable.
The first century
Jews were not popular for their new
found belief in the risen Lord. Some
were courageous and made their beliefs known
(like Joseph of Arimathea [Mt 27:57-58]).
Most died for professing belief in Jesus.
This only proves that the men who died for
Jesus believed what they testified to.
Martyrdom only caused Christianity to
spread.
Response to comment [from an atheist]:
"It's like talking to a child"
God does use the
foolish things of the world (1 Cor 1:27).
"That Paul wrote any of the pastoral
epistles is highly debatable."
The apostle Paul
wrote: the books of Romans;
Corinthians; Galatians; Ephesians;
Philippians; Colossians; Thessalonians;
Timothy; and Titus. He most
certainly spoke about church government and
pastoral duties in his :
1. To administer
the ordinances
Matt. 28:19–20
2. To be a man of prayer
1 Tim. 2:1
3. To warn his flock
1 Tim. 4:1, 6
4. To study the Word
2 Tim. 2:15
5. To preach the Word
2 Tim. 4:2; Acts 6:2–4
6. To exhort and rebuke
1 Thess. 5:12; Titus 2:15
7. To watch over souls, his own and those of
others
Acts 20:28–31; Col. 4:17; 1 Tim. 4:6; 6:11;
Heb. 13:17
8. To feed and lead his flock
Acts 20:28; 1 Pet. 5:2
9. To be an example to all
1 Cor. 11:1; 4:16; Phil. 3:17; 2 Thess. 3:9;
1 Tim. 4:12; Heb. 13:7; 1 Pet. 5:3
Willmington, H. L.: Willmington's Book of
Bible Lists. Wheaton, Ill. : Tyndale House,
1987
Government of, Mosaic and
Christian:
Deut. 17:8–13; Matt. 16:19; Luke
9:46–48; Luke 22:24–30; John 20:23;
Acts 1:15, 23–26; Acts 6:2–6; Acts
11:22, 29, 30; Acts 13:1, 3, 5;
Acts 14:23; Acts 5:1–31; Acts 16:4,
5; Acts 20:17; 1 Cor. 7:17; 1 Cor.
11:2, 33, 34; 1 Cor. 12:5, 28; 1
Cor. 14:26, 33, 40; 1 Cor. 16:3,
16; 2 Cor. 2:6, 7
vs.
2–11.; Gal. 2:9, 10; Eph. 4:11,
12; Phil. 1:1; 1 Tim. 3:1, 2, 5,
8–13 vs.
1–13.; 1 Tim. 4:14; 1 Tim. 5:1, 17,
22; 2 Tim. 1:6; Tit. 1:5; Heb.
13:17, 24; Jas. 5:14, 15; 1 Pet.
5:1–3; 3 John 9, 10; Jude 22, 23
Swanson, James ; Nave, Orville:
New Nave's. Oak Harbor :
Logos Research Systems, 1994
"The false teaching they present reflects
a later time, a more developed orthodox
theology and a more developed heresy that
didn't exist during Paul's time."
Why wait for a
later date? Satan was in the upper
room threatening Judas and Peter. The
heretical teachings you present have no
credibility.
"The gospels are theological narratives
and it's hardly possible to use the Bible to
prove the Bible's own claims. Quite circular
and fallacious."
There are plenty of
reasons to believe the Bible (e.g.
predictive prophecy, historical accuracy,
personal testimony, the fact that Israel
still exists, etc.)
"Swing and a miss...And the whole denial of
Jesus' coming in the flesh kind of helps to
bolster my argument."
The witnesses were
the most credible men of their time.
Why wouldn't you trust their testimony?
Can't they claim something you
cannot?--being there.
"There exists no extra-biblical historical
record that attests to [Jesus] existence."
The existence of
Jesus Christ as recorded by Josephus,
Suetonius, Thallus, Pliny the Younger, the
Talmud, and Lucian.
See:
Extra-Biblical Confirmation of Biblical
Events
"There are few people who disagree with the
findings of Markan Priority..."
I am one of them.
"[Twelve tribes] You're going to have to do
a heck of a lot better than this effluent
tripe."
Is it a coincidence
that the genealogies became less important
after the death, burial and resurrection of
Jesus?
Response to comment [from an atheist]:
[The 66 books of the Bible have stood the
test of time] "Not when compared to
actual historical texts it isn't."
How do you choose
which historical texts to believe? Do
you apply the same standards to the Bible?
What standards have you applied to the other
ancient texts?
"Correction: the 1st. century Jews you
make reference to were the Helenized
Jews..."
The Jews who saw
the risen Lord were mocked (Ac
17:32) and persecuted (Ac 23:6; 24:11-15).
I am speaking of them. Luke discussed
early prejudice in the church (Ac 6:1).
[Persecutions of Christians]
Stephen was
preaching the gospel in Jerusalem on the
Passover after Christ’s crucifixion. He was
cast out of the city and stoned to death.
About 2,000 Christians suffered martyrdom
during this time (about 34 A.D.).
James, the son of Zebedee and the elder
brother of John, was killed when Herod
Agrippa arrived as governor of Judea. Many
early disciples were martyred under
Agrippa’s rule, including Timon and Parmenas
(about 44 A.D.).
Philip, a disciple from Bethsaida, in
Galilee, suffered martyrdom at Heliopolis,
in Phrygia. He was scourged, thrown into
prison, and afterwards crucified (about 54
A.D.).
Matthew, the tax-collector from Nazareth who
wrote a gospel in Hebrew, was preaching in
Ethiopia when he suffered martyrdom by the
sword (about 60 A.D.).
James, the Brother of Jesus, administered
the early church in Jerusalem and was the
author of a book in the Bible. At the age of
94 he was beat and stoned, and finally had
his brains bashed out with a fuller's club.
Matthias was the apostle who filled the
vacant place of Judas. He was stoned at
Jerusalem and then beheaded.
Andrew, the brother of Peter, preached the
gospel throughout Asia. On his arrival at
Edessa, he was arrested and crucified on a
cross, two ends of which were fixed
transversely in the ground (thus the term,
St. Andrew's Cross).
Mark was converted to Christianity by Peter,
and then transcribed Peter’s account of
Jesus in his Gospel. Mark was dragged to
pieces by the people of Alexandria in front
of Serapis, their pagan idol.
Peter was condemned to death and crucified
at Rome. Jerome holds that Peter was
crucified upside down, at his own request,
because he said he was unworthy to be
crucified in the same manner as his Lord.
Paul suffered in the first persecution under
Nero. Because of the converting impact he
was having on people in the face of
martyrdom, he was led to a private place
outside the city where he gave his neck to
the sword.
Jude, the brother of James, was commonly
called Thaddeus. He was crucified at Edessa
in about 72 A.D.
Bartholomew translated the Gospel of Matthew
in India. He was cruelly beaten and
crucified by idolaters there.
Thomas, called Didymus, preached in Parthia
and India. He was thrust through with a
spear by pagan priests.
Luke was the author of the Gospel under his
name. He traveled with Paul through various
countries and was supposedly hanged on an
olive tree by idolatrous priests in Greece.
Barnabas, of Cyprus, was killed without many
known facts about 73 A.D. Simon, surnamed
Zelotes, preached in Africa and Britain,
where he was crucified in about 74 A.D.
John, the "beloved disciple," was the
brother of James. Although he suffered great
persecution, including imprisonment where he
wrote the book of Revelation, he was the
only apostle who escaped a violent death.
See:
Voice of the Martyrs
"Were it not for Constantine,
Christianity would have died as an obscure
mystery cult..."
You are
still speaking about Jesus.
Response to comment: "So Paul wrote
Matthew too?"
I listed books and
epistles that the apostle Paul wrote, as
well as additional references of church
government and pastoral duties (which begin
in the OT and continue in the NT).
Your ideas about false authorship, doctrinal
inconsistencies, etc. are without merit.
[Luke Ch. 2 historically inaccurate]
If your works of
antiquity have more credibility than the
Bible, please cite them. I'm going
with Luke's account of history. He was
a historian's historian.
"It's not unreasonable to assert that in
seeking to construct a biography of Jesus
Christ, the authors of the gospels looked to
the Old Testament."
Have you considered
motive? They could have lied, but
their reward was persecution and death.
"Israel has only existed for 60 years.
Prior to that it had been wiped off the map
for thousands of years."
There has always
been a remnant. The enemies of Israel
even make maps without them. Nice try,
but God loves Israel. She will never
be destroyed altogether. Time has
proven that. You would think men would
learn to get on the right side of history
future. Israel is not going away.
God is not finished with his plans for
Israel.
"Civilizations,
nations and empires that have tried to
destroy the Jewish People: Ancient Egypt,
Philistines, Assyrian Empire, Babylonian
Empire, Persian Empire, Greek Empire, Roman
Empire, Byzantine Empire, Crusaders, Spanish
Empire, Nazi Germany, Soviet Union, Hamas
(In-Process).
The Jewish
People--the smallest of nations but with a
Friend in the highest of places!"
(http://www.shimshon9.com/civilizations-nations-empires-destroy-jewish-people/18/01/2009).
"[T]he gospels? It's a widely
accepted notion that the gospels were named
pseudonymously and were therefore written by
non-eyewitnesses long after the events they
allege."
What is widely
accepted by the critic, is not accepted by
believers in the Bible (Mt 7:14). God
had a purpose in each gospel:
The Gospel of Matthew
was written to the nation Israel. It was
first written in Hebrew, and it was
directed primarily to the religious man
of that time.
The Gospel of Mark
was directed to the Roman. The Roman was
a man of action who believed that
government, law, and order could control
the world. A great many people feel that
is the way it should be done today. It
is true that there must be law and
order, but the Romans soon learned that
they couldn’t rule the world with that
alone. The world needed to hear about
One who believed in law and order but
who also offered the forgiveness of sins
and the grace and the mercy of God. This
is the Lord whom the Gospel of Mark
presents to the Romans.
The Gospel of Luke
was written to the Greek, to the
thinking man.
The Gospel of John
was written directly for believers but
indirectly for the Orient where there
were the mysterious millions, all crying
out in that day for a deliverance.
McGee, J. Vernon: Thru the
Bible Commentary. electronic
ed. Nashville : Thomas Nelson,
1997, c1981, S. 4:3
Each of the gospels
get its name from
the names of the
human authors who
wrote them, of
course, God being
the One who enable
them to write their
message under His
inspiration (2 Pet.
1:21). All of these
men were either an
apostle who knew the
Lord Jesus, or who
were a close friend
or associate of an
apostle.
Matthew:
Matthew is a
contraction of
Mattathias,
“gift of Jehovah
or Yahweh”). He
was a Jew, the
son of a certain
man named
Alphaeus. His
original name
was Levi (Mark
2:14; Luke
5:27). It is not
known whether
his father was
the same as the
Alphaeus named
as the father of
James the Less;
he was probably
another. This
gospel was
incontestably
written by the
apostle Matthew.
As a tax
collector under
the Romans at
Capernaum who
was a hated
publican, it is
unthinkable that
his name would
have been
attached to the
first gospel had
he not been the
actual writer.
Mark:
Mark is the
evangelist who
was probably the
same as “John
who was also
called Mark”
(Acts 12:12,
25). He was the
son of a certain
Mary in
Jerusalem (Acts
12:12) and was,
therefore,
presumably a
native of that
city. He was of
Jewish
parentage, his
mother being a
relative of
Barnabas
(Colossians
4:10). It was to
her house that
Peter went when
released from
prison by the
angel (Acts
12:12). That
Peter calls him
his son (1 Peter
5:13) is
probably because
Mark was
converted under
his ministry. He
accompanied Paul
and Barnabas on
their first
journey (Acts
12:25; 13:5) but
left them at
Perga and
returned to
Jerusalem (Acts
13:13). Whatever
the reason for
this act, it
seems to have
been sufficient
in Paul’s
estimation to
justify his
refusing to
allow Mark to
accompany him on
his second
journey.
Barnabas was
determined to
take him, and
thus Mark was
the cause of a
“sharp
disagreement”
between them and
a separation
(Acts 15:36-39).
This did not
completely
estrange him
from Paul, for
we find Mark
with the apostle
in his first
imprisonment at
Rome (Colossians
4:10; Philemon
24). Later he
was at Babylon
and united with
Peter in sending
salutations (1
Peter 5:13). He
seems to have
been with
Timothy at
Ephesus when
Paul wrote to
him during his
second
imprisonment and
urged him to
bring Mark to
Rome (2 Timothy
4:11), A.D. 66.
Tradition states
that Mark was
sent on a
mission to Egypt
by Peter, that
he founded the
church of
Alexandria, of
which he became
bishop, and
suffered as a
martyr in the
eighth year of
Nero. In the
gospel of Mark
his record is
emphatically
“the gospel of
Jesus Christ,
the Son of God”
(Mark 1:1),
living and
working among
men and
developing the
mission more in
acts than by
words.
Luke:
Luke is the
evangelist and
author of the
gospel bearing
his name and the
Acts of the
Apostles.
The materials
found in
Scripture
referring to the
life of Luke are
scanty and seem
to yield the
following
results: (1)
Luke was of
Gentile origin.
This is inferred
from the fact
that he is not
reckoned among
those “who are
from the
circumcision”
(Colossians
4:11; cf. v.
14). When and
how he became a
physician is not
known. (2) He
was not one of
the
“eyewitnesses
and servants of
the word” (Luke
1:2). (3) On the
supposition of
Luke’s being the
author of the
Acts we gather
from those
passages in
which the first
person we
is employed that
he joined Paul’s
company at Troas
and sailed with
them to
Macedonia (Acts
16:10-11). He
accompanied Paul
as far as
Philippi (Acts
16:25-17:1) but
did not share
his persecution
or leave the
city, for here
the third person
they is
used. The first
person we
does not
reappear until
Paul comes to
Philippi at the
end of his third
journey (Acts
20:6), from
which it is
inferred that
Luke spent the
intervening
time—a period of
seven or eight
years—in the
city or
neighborhood;
and as the we
continues to the
end of the book,
that Luke
remained with
Paul during his
journey to
Jerusalem (Acts
20:6-21:18), was
that apostle’s
companion to
Rome (Acts
27:1), sharing
his shipwreck
(Acts 28:2), and
reaching the
imperial city by
way of Syracuse
and Puteoli
(Acts 28:12-16).
According to the
epistles he
continued to be
one of Paul’s
“fellow workers”
till the end of
his first
imprisonment
(Philemon 24;
Colossians
4:14). The last
glimpse of the
“beloved
physician”
discovers him to
be faithful amid
general
defection (2
Timothy 4:11).
Tradition since
the time of
Gregory of
Nazianzus makes
Luke a martyr,
yet not
unanimously,
since accounts
of a natural
death slip in.
Where he
died remains a
question;
certainly not in
Rome with Paul,
for his writings
are far later
(Meyer, Com.,
on Luke, in
introduction).
John: (
“Jehovah is
gracious”). The
son of Zebedee,
a fisherman on
the Sea of
Galilee, (Mark
1:19-20; Luke
5:10), and
Salome (Matthew
27:56; cf. Mark
15:40). We have
no information
respecting the
religious
character or
personal
participation of
Zebedee in the
events of the
gospel history,
but John’s
mother was one
of the women who
followed Jesus
even to His
crucifixion.
Internal
evidence that
the author is
“the disciple
whom Jesus
loved,” who also
leaned on His
breast at supper
(John 21:20, cf.
21:7), and that
this is the
apostle John, is
supported by
numerous lines
of evidence. (1)
He was a
contemporary of
the events
described.
The writer was
known to the
high priest and
entered the high
priest’s
residence in
company with
Jesus (John
18:15). He alone
narrates the
fact that it was
the high
priest’s servant
whose ear Peter
cut off (John
18:10). He deals
with questions
about the period
before the
destruction of
Jerusalem and
not with
controversies of
the second
century when
Gnostic and
Ebionite
defections were
active (cf. John
6:15; 11:47-50).
Numerous other
details point to
the contemporary
scene. (2) He
was a Jew of
Palestine.
He shows
acquaintance
with Heb., as is
shown by the
book’s opening
words (cf.
Genesis 1:1).
Three times he
quotes from the
Heb. (John
12:40; 13:18;
19:37). He knows
intimately the
Hebrew
festivals, that
of Passover
(John 21:13, 23;
6:4; 13:1;
18:28), the
Feast of Booths
(John 7:2;
Tabernacles, KJV),
and the Feast of
Dedication (John
10:22). Jewish
customs and
habits of
thought are
familiar to him,
such as
questions of
purification
(John 3:25;
11:55), marriage
customs,
especially the
way of arranging
waterpots (John
2:1-10); Jewish
burial customs
(John 11:38, 44;
19:31, 40). He
shows firsthand
knowledge of
Palestine, that
there is a
descent from
Cana to the Sea
of Galilee (John
2:12) and that
Jacob’s well is
deep (John
4:11). He is
familiar with
such places as
Ephraim (John
11:54), Aenon
(John 3:23), Mt.
Gerizim (John
4:20), Jerusalem
and the Kidron
(John 18:1),
Bethesda and
Siloam (John
5:2; 9:7), and
Golgotha (John
19:17; etc.).
(3) He was
John, the
beloved apostle.
This is a
general
deduction
sustained from
the above facts.
He indicates the
hours of events
recounted (John
1:39; 4:6, 52;
19:14). He
reports
quotations of
Philip (John
6:7; 14:8),
Thomas (John
11:16; 14:5),
Judas (John
14:22), and
Andrew (John
6:8-9). He
leaned on Jesus’
breast at the
Last Supper
(John 13:23-25)
and was numbered
among the three,
Peter, James,
and John.
Moreover, Peter
is distinguished
from the author
by name, as in
John 1:41-42;
13:6, 8, and
James had
suffered
martyrdom long
before the
writing of the
gospel (Acts
12:2). He
characteristically
introduces
himself (John
13:23; 19:26;
20:2; 21:7, 20).
These general
facts make it
difficult to
escape the
conclusion that
John the apostle
wrote the fourth
gospel.
http://bible.org/question/how-were-matthew-mark-luke-and-john-named-and-can-you-tell-me-something-about-authors-these
"Paul never differentiates
between the nature of his
experience with Jesus and the
nature of the experience of the
other apostles."
Paul
was taught directly by
Jesus--the message never being
tainted by men.
His vision
and conversion, Acts 9:3–22;
22:4–19; 26:9–15; 1 Cor.
9:1; 15:8; Gal. 1:13; 1
Tim. 1:12, 13. Is baptized,
Acts 9:18; 22:16. Called to
be an apostle, Acts 22:14–21;
26:16–18; Rom. 1:1; 1 Cor.
1:1; 9:1, 2; 15:9; Gal.
1:1, 15, 16; Eph. 1:1;
Col. 1:1; 1 Tim. 1:1; 2:7;
2 Tim. 1:1, 11; Tit. 1:1,
3.
Swanson, James ;
Nave, Orville:
New Nave's. Oak
Harbor : Logos
Research Systems,
1994
"[V]arious levels of
heaven"
The Physical
Heavens:
Gen. 1:1 Job
37:18; Psa. 33:6;
136:5; Jer.
10:12. Psa. 19:1;
Psa. 50:6; Psa.
68:33; Psa.
89:29; Psa. 97:6;
Psa. 103:11; Psa.
113:4; Psa.
115:16; Jer.
31:37; Ezek. 1:1;
Matt. 24:29, 30;
Acts 2:19, 20
Swanson,
James ;
Nave,
Orville:
New
Nave's.
Oak
Harbor :
Logos
Research
Systems,
1994
"[E]vil
spirits
whom
Paul
refers
to often
as
principalities,
or
authorities..."
The
apostle
Paul
understood
the
‘principalities’
and
‘powers’
to
be
evil
forces
in
this
world
(Rom.
8:38;
cf.
Col.
1:16;
2:15;
Eph.
3:10;
also
1
Cor.
10:20).
In
some
of
the
later
nt
writings,
however,
the
place
of
the
demons
began
to
give
way
to
the
centrality
of
the
leader
of
the
demonic
forces,
namely,
Satan
or
the
devil
(who
is
sometimes
referred
to
as
‘the
evil
one’).
Thus,
in
the
Fourth
Gospel,
there
are
no
references
to
demon
possession
or
exorcism.
The
devil
has
become
the
instigator
of
evil
(e.g.,
John
13:2),
though
the
charges
fly
back
and
forth
between
the
religious
authorities
and
Jesus
as
to
who
‘has
a
demon’
(John
7:20;
8:48-49;
10:20-21),
probably
meaning,
in
the
Fourth
Gospel,
who
was
thoroughly
evil
and
opposed
to
God.
The
idea
that
there
are
evil
forces
in
the
world
that
manifest
themselves
in
various
ways
is
still
valid.
How
one
articulates
this
idea
may
change
from
one
culture
to
another,
however.
Demonology
was
a
part
of
the
culture
of
the
nt
world
and
should
be
interpreted
and
understood
against
that
background.
Achtemeier, Paul J. ; Harper & Row, Publishers ; Society of Biblical Literature: Harper's Bible Dictionary. 1st ed. San Francisco : Harper & Row, 1985, S. 217[1 Cor 15:5]
And that he was seen of Cephas, then of the twelve [1 Cor. 15:5].
He mentions Cephas first. This is, of course, Simon Peter, to whom Jesus appeared privately. You may ask, “What took place?” It is none of my business, and I guess it is none of yours. It is not recorded for us. Jesus appeared to Peter. After all, he had denied Him. Peter had to get things straightened out with the Lord. You see, our Lord is still in the footwashing business.
Then He was seen “of the twelve.” Who are the Twelve? He appeared to Cephas privately, then He appeared to the ten (Judas was dead at this time). “The Twelve” was used as a collective term for the body of disciples. It does not necessarily imply that twelve disciples were present. However, when you put them all together and Paul joins them, you have twelve men.
McGee, J. Vernon: Thru the Bible Commentary. electronic ed. Nashville : Thomas Nelson, 1997, c1981, S. 5:73
εἶδον, ὁράω [horao /hor·ah·o/] v. Properly, to stare at ...translates as “see” 51 times, “take heed” five times, “behold” once, “perceive” once, and not translated once. 1 to see with the eyes. 2 to see with the mind, to perceive, know. 3 to see, i.e. become acquainted with by experience, to experience. 4 to see, to look to. 4a to take heed, beware. 4b to care for, pay heed to. 5 I was seen, showed myself, appeared.
TDNT Theological Dictionary of the New Testament
TDNTA Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, Abridged in One Volume
Strong, James: The Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible : Showing Every Word of the Text of the Common English Version of the Canonical Books, and Every Occurrence of Each Word in Regular Order. electronic ed. Ontario : Woodside Bible Fellowship., 1996, S. G3708
[1 Cor 15:45]
And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit [1 Cor. 15:45].
You see, the first man, Adam, was psychical—psuchen and zosan in the Greek. That means he was physical and psychological. The last Adam (Christ) is spiritual—pneuma or pneumatical, if you want the English equivalent.
McGee, J. Vernon: Thru the Bible Commentary. electronic ed. Nashville : Thomas Nelson, 1997, c1981, S. 5:79
15:35–49 The Nature of Bodily Resurrection
Paul continued to emphasize the believer’s certain link to a glorified body. A question reveals a problem (15:35). There was a basic problem with the concept of raising a dead body (cf. Acts 17:32) or the possibility of flesh being glorified (15:36–49). Paul’s distinctions between flesh and glory show that distinctions apply also to the next life as well as this one. The resurrection body is up to God, as are the gifts. Paul illustrated from nature that there are various kinds of bodies, each uniquely suited to the existence of the particular living thing. A body suited for life in the eternal kingdom must be different from a body of this present age. That follows the pattern of Adam and Christ (15:45). Adam, the first man, was a source of physical life for all men (Gen. 2:7). Christ, the last Adam, is a source of spiritual life for all who would believe.
Hughes, Robert B. ; Laney, J. Carl ; Hughes, Robert B.: Tyndale Concise Bible Commentary. Wheaton, Ill. : Tyndale House Publishers, 2001 (The Tyndale Reference Library), S. 558
15:45–49 Here Paul answers the question (v. 35) more specifically by showing that the resurrection body of Jesus Christ is the prototype. He begins with a quotation from Gen. 2:7 with the addition of two words, “first” and “Adam.” Adam was created with a natural body, not perfect, but good in every way (Gen. 3:1). The “last Adam” is Jesus Christ (Rom. 5:19, 21). He is saying that through the first Adam we received our natural bodies, but through the last Adam we will receive our spiritual bodies in resurrection. Adam’s body was the prototype of the natural, Christ’s body of the resurrection. We will bear the image of His body fit for heaven (Acts 1:11; Phil. 3:20, 21; 1 John 3:1–3) as we have borne the image of Adam’s on earth.
MacArthur, John Jr: The MacArthur Study Bible. electronic ed. Nashville : Word Pub., 1997, c1997, S. 1 Co 15:45
"I feel like a cat playing with a dying mouse."
Who is dying? (1 Cor 1:18).
"[U]sing faith as a means of denying that which can be seen is about as unbiblical as it gets. Not only are you intellectually bankrupt and cowardly, but you're also a bad Christian."
The apostle Paul was an eyewitness to the risen Christ. We believe his testimony. "We do not look at the things which are seen, but at the things which are not seen. For the things which are seen are temporary, but the things which are not seen are eternal (2 Cor 4:18)."
"Blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed (Jn 20:29).”
Response to comment [from an agnostic]:
"You made an argument that implied that the
bible's popularity and antiquity...do you
concede that point...?"
My argument was that
Jesus is alive (Mt 28:6). You must
deal with him. No other work of
antiquity has the credibility that the Bible
has. No other work of antiquity can
refute what the Bible has to say.
Nothing unearthed has ever disproven the
Bible. When we dig something up, we
see that the Bible was right all along..."
Response to comment [from an atheist]:
"I trust [historical texts] that line up
with observable evidence."
Then you would
believe the gospels? If not, what
historical texts do you believe?
[Do you apply the same standards to the
Bible?] "Yes, and it fails the test."
Please name the
historical texts you believe and the tests
that you say you have applied to both.
The Bible passes each test. Let's see
if your non-historical texts can say the
same.
"[T]he persons mentioned here [Matthew,
Mark, Luke and John] have little if any
historical evidence for their existence -
and what is 'known' of their alleged
martyrdom comes from...tradition, not any
valid historical record...Voice of the
Martyrs is just a propaganda outlet..."
So you believe all
sources except for Christian sources?
"Jesus is just a symbol..."
Is George
Washington just a symbol? Does he
offend you in any way?
"...[A]s I'm concerned, he's no more a
real person than Robin Hood."
Do you believe that
the writings of Caesar, Plato or Aristotle
were accurately preserved?
Response to comment [from an agnostic]:
"[You] suggested that antiquity and
popularity are means of telling that the
bible is a trustworthy source...Do you
concede that one point?"
Is the Bible a trustworthy and reliable
document when compared to all other works of
antiquity? Does it hold its integrity
from stone to clay to leather (approx.
1500-400 BC); to papyrus (approx. 45-100);
to animal skins (approx. AD 300-1400); to
vellum in the 1300s-1400s; to the printing
press in 1455 to paper, to the computer?
Yes.
Is the Bible a
trustworthy and reliable document because of
its popularity? I wouldn't argue that
it is popular (Ex 23:2). We live in a
Christ-rejecting world. The sum and
substance of the Bible from Genesis to
Revelation is the person of Jesus Christ.
Most will not heed the warning of scripture
(Mt 7:13). Christians and the gospel
message are anything but popular (Jn 13:16,
Jn 15:18) .
Can people get
Jesus out of their minds? They can
ignore him or reject him, but that does not
make him go away. Every person must
make a decision about the man from Nazareth.
People still say that no good thing can come
from Nazareth (Jn 1:46). But he did.
I Lost My Faith