“I also believe I proved IBV to be a presuppositionally imposed understanding, rather than what the text reveals. – Pray tell, where am I not seeing the validity of the IBV?” – 1Cor. 15:50-57
“So…how did the living get there “individual bodily hope” at the coming of the Lord?”
50I tell you this, brothers: flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God, nor does the perishable inherit the imperishable. 51Behold! I tell you a mystery. We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed,52in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, and the dead will be raised imperishable, and we shall be changed. 53For this perishable body must put on the imperishable, and this mortal body must put on immortality. 54When the perishable puts on the imperishable, and the mortal puts on immortality, then shall come to pass the saying that is written:
“Death is swallowed up in victory.”
55“O death, where is your victory?
O death, where is your sting?”
The very first mistake Michael makes is to assert that Paul’s context was discussing the “Resurrection of the Dead” to the audience of Corinth church from a Jewish perspective and not from a Greek one. Why are they discussing this topic? In the Corinthian church Paul was confronted with the idea that there were people who claimed there was no resurrection of the dead.
Now if Christ is proclaimed as raised from the dead, how can some of you say that there is no resurrection of the dead? (I Corinthians 15:12)
In retrospect, the question arises from non-Jewish believers as it is a well-established teaching of Judaism to understand there will be a Resurrection, not a Greek one. Paul’s audience was primarily a Greek audience, and Paul employs Platonic forms of argumentation in discussing his case. In verses 12 – 20 is classic Platonic debate structure using logical associations, “If, Then” are classic Greek debate formats while using Jewish sources as his proof texts.
In a third-century B.C.E. epigram, a man asks of his departed friend, ““What’s it like down there?” The answer, “Very dark,” comes the reply. “Any way back up?” “It’s a lie!”. All were agreed: There was no resurrection. Death could not be reversed. Homer said it; Aeschylus and Sophocles seconded it. So the question posed by the Corinthians is not a surprise.
The Greeks believed in a place where disembodied souls dwelt after death. The underworld itself—sometimes known as Hades, after its patron god—is described as being either at the outer bounds of the ocean or beneath the depths or ends of the earth. It is considered the dark counterpart to the brightness of Mount Olympus with the kingdom of the dead corresponding to the kingdom of the gods. Hades is a realm invisible to the living, made solely for the dead, from which the Greek believed, there was no possibility of escape.
The idea of a resurrection of the dead was a very Jewish one and taught form scriptures, hence Paul’s us of Old Testament scripture to help prove his case.
Now Paul goes on to expound on the basis that the hope of the gospel is Christ resurrected. It is the evidence that Christ is who he says he is and the evidence of his power and the truth of the message. In the beginning of chapter 15 Paul notes that Jesus appeared to over five hundred people at one time as the evidence of his resurrection. Paul then argues if Christ himself was not raised then there is no resurrection, in this statement he makes the one to one correlation that the believer will experience the same type of Resurrection.
Miano incorrectly states at the 16 minutes mark. “These people believed Jesus was raised from the dead … they had seen him”… Clearly this is dead wrong, these Christians were asking, not people who were standing in opposition to the gospel as Michael said, how are the dead raised, those in the Corinthians church never saw or were part of the five hundred who were witnesses to the resurrection of Christ, the five hundred were not the same audience as he was writing to, yet Michael conflates the two.
In the next few minutes he claims that they saw Jesus Body rise from the dead, and yet the people were denying that souls came out of Hades as his definition of the “resurrection of the dead”, He claim they were denying the souls were resurrected from the hadean realm YET Paul states very clearly, Christ resurrection was not out of the Hadean realm but it was his body that was raised from the dead. So, if Christ body was not raised from out of the grave then then there is no exact same type of Resurrection for you. The Resurrection that Christ experienced and what they were to experience was the exact same thing. You can not say that Christ experienced Resurrection in which his body came out of the grave as they believed yet were going to deny that the souls were not being raised out of hades, no it was they could not believe these dead in Christ would also be raised bodily. As Paul goes on to argue, “with what kind of body do they come”, which is not a concern if these souls were coming out of Hades because they had no body going into hades. It was the body in the grave that was to come out just like Christ and so the question Paul is answering, what kind of Body then is raised out of the grave, just like Christ body was raised. Again, there is nothing about Jesus soul being raised out of hades as what is being understood as “what is resurrection”.
At the 19.40 minute mark Michael argues that, “who is that is dying in Adam, its Israel, its their story.” This is where he is blatantly exposing his lack of theological understanding. When Paul refers to “those in Adam”, he is not referring to just Israel, he is referring to all men period, all men came from Adam and so death passed on to all men, not to just “Israel Only”.
Remember that Paul’s audience is not Israel Only but to the Greek Christians who were doubting the idea of dead people coming back to life in the same way Christ came back to life. Michael just continues to dig a deeper hole for himself.
What death is being talked about from the law and Prophets, from what is their understanding of resurrection?
Isa 26:19, “19Your dead shall live; their bodies shall rise.
You who dwell in the dust, awake and sing for joy!
For your dew is a dew of light,
and the earth will give birth to the dead.
The death of Adam was physical death, not spiritual death. This is detailed in another blog.
Michael stated, “Flesh and blood is not about a flesh and blood body but the genealogy, not biology but genealogy of the Old Covenant people.”.
The “Flesh and Blood” Paul is talking about IS the carnal nature of man that strives within the body, the carnal nature which he talks about in Romans 4-6. Michael does the song and dance of association with John the Baptist, and then to the Old Testament idea of flesh and blood instead of sticking with what Paul refers to flesh and blood, “the carnal nature of man. This evidenced by the idea that Paul says in the next breath, “
What is being described as perishable, what turns to dust? The body. Paul geos onto talk about the “body” of the Christian who has died, it is his body that is raised changed. Its buried as a perishable body, and then is raised an “imperishable” body. A mortal body is changed to become an immortal body.
Michael reads the passage, “we will all not sleep,” which he identified as “biological death”, but “we will be changed” he argues that alysso, means “to go from one mind to another” at. 23.53 which is an absolute lie. to change: to cause one thing to cease and another to take its place, Thayer’s Lexicon states, to transform: 1 Corinthians 15:51; Hebrews 1:12 – like a garment they will be changed. Now remember he said, they biological are dead, how do the biological dead in Christ, people who have died and their bodies in the grave and they are in heaven , change their minds?
We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed,,, we shall not biological die (mortality) but we shall be changed, 53For this perishable (body) must put on the imperishable, and this mortal (body) must put on immortality. – like a garment it will changed. The body will be changed. – the body is perishable and mortal as Paul tells us himself. – Phil 3:21 will transform our lowly bodies so that they will be like his glorious body. Literal Greek, “will transform (change) the body of humiliation” Romans 8:11 he who raised Christ Jesus from the dead (bodily) will also give life to your mortal bodies ….. the body that is subject to death.. it is changed to become no longer subject to death, it becomes Immortal. Any person who has read one Greek myth understands the god’s were immortal, they could not die, which has nothing to do with a “spiritual death”, as if they ever though a God, like Zeus, could die Spiritually.
It would seem Michael’s idea of Exegesis is not based in Paul’s teaching but trying again to make Old Testament in what he thinks are equivalents. It should be a standard practice to understand Paul is to be understand how and what he was talking about in all his epistles to draw out the context.
Is it the body?
If Paul said, “we will not “biologically die / sleep” but we must change then the change must happen to the body so that the body will not die, it will be changed from mortal to immortal. Michaels rips the words of Paul out of the context of the discussion in which the change that is coming is not upon the human body of flesh that before could die, but now being changed is no longer going to die into a “change of mind”.
It was the law that declared that if you violated it, You were to be put to death. Christ was put to death for us. Yet we still biologically die. Since we do not biologically die at his coming, and we who are alive are changed so that we do not biologically die, but we are changed, biologically we become immortal.
Michael whole argument was destroyed the minute he admitted that “sleep” refers to Biological death. We who are alive will not “sleep”.. there are some standing here who will not (Mathew 16:28) biologically die… Again, he sticks his preverbal foot in his mouth by establishing it is talking about biological death and not “spiritual death” that they are being transformed from.
And this is why logically Michael fails big time…
What death needs to be overcome? IF we are in Christ as these people are who died biologically were, and we who are alive are alive in Christ and are made a new Creation in Christ as Paul has taught, THEN spiritual death was defeated and we were transformed from death to life as he stated previously, in order for us to be in Christ, then the death he can only be talking about is physical death, the “last” enemy cannot be spiritual death as the first enemy that was defeated on the cross was spiritual death, “He himself bore our sins in his body on the tree, that we might die to sin and live to righteousness. By his wounds you have been healed.” I Peter 2:24
What death needs to be overcome? Michael asks, “Biological” because spiritual death was overcome at the cross, if it was not, then those who died previously, died in their sins and were lost. If they were supposed to wait or ad 70 for their “spiritual death” to be overcome, then those who died before died in their sins.
Michael just does not understand this theology of what he is advocating for. In his closing statement he stated, “the gospel was that there was Resurrection in Christ, you can come into the truth of Jesus Christ, the dead ones of Old Covenant Israel, would take part in this resurrection, at the coming of the Lord. They would be received into this body of Christ, the promise,”
Michael stated, “The change the saints experienced at his coming, was they changed their mind, the change they endured was that they were empowered, they were vindicated, that this is true, Jesus is the Messiah” – as if they did not believe and know that prior to A.D. 70?
So, Michael argued they changed their minds, the living, they went from not believing Jesus as the messiah to now believing he was the messiah?
Folks Michael idea of what was changed just does not add up, they changed their minds, is the resurrection they experienced. How sad of a claim. How sad indeed.
As Michael stated in his confusion, they would not physically die, they would be changed so that what? They would not biological die.
He contradict himself on every level. How sad indeed.
If Old Covenant Israel was biologically dead, and they experienced a resurrection where their minds were changed, or as he also said, were resurrected out of Hades and went to heaven, Michael essential agrees with Ed Stevens concerning the biological dead. What he disagrees with is that those alive never experienced any type of resurrection other than, they changed their mind.
What a great promise, the whole hope of the saints was that they would “change their minds” again after being changed spiritually through regeneration and the deposit of that hope, the Holy Spirit was placed with in them, and they were to have the Holy Spirit teach them all things but somehow then Holy Spirit forgot to change their minds.
As if Barnabus or anyone else alive needed a change of mind. And then after A.D. 70 never admitted to any one that they had a “change of mind”.
See Michael admitted the saints lived after A.D. 70 when they fled to Pella and survived, and then he will tell us they are not to be trusted as they were fallible and missed the second coming happened. Since not one ever stated he came, and instead stated they looked forward to the second coming.
Therefore, I claim Preterist are inconsistent and incoherent. They are unable coherently weave together a consistent story of what actually happened.
 Jewish believers had no problem believing in a resurrection it was gentiles who were not acquainted with this doctrine.