Why I am a Universalist Now (Part II)

Answering Questions About Universalism

B.B. Cohen said
Most fundamentalist use these verses to base all of their doctrines on belief and salvation (The Gospel). In verses 3 and 4 Paul refers to his statements as according to the scriptures. Where is this found and what scriptures would he be referring to? Just curious...
  

Welcome BB!

I think this is still somewhat of a scholarly mystery as to exactly what reference Paul is making here.  The exegesis of the time allowed them to "quote mine" and reinterpret with abandon.    Some of the references David listed were later used by Christians but what Paul himself had in mind, it would be nice to know. 

** you do not have permission to see this link **
grok.com/share/bGVnYWN5_c8ee8d62-a563-4935-a400-ad807fb88f52
**The "Scriptures" in 1 Corinthians 15:3–4 refer to the Old Testament (Hebrew Bible/Tanakh), not the New Testament.**
Paul is citing an early Christian creed (which he received and passed on) that presents the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ as the fulfillment of OT prophecies, types, and patterns.
The letter dates to around AD 55, before the Gospels were widely circulated, so the reference is to the existing Jewish Scriptures.

The phrase “according to the Scriptures” (Greek *kata tas graphas*) appears twice—once with the death for sins and once with the resurrection on the third day—emphasizing that these events were not unexpected but anticipated in the OT.
Paul does not quote specific verses here;
the plural “Scriptures” points to a broader pattern of messianic expectation rather than a single isolated proof-text.
Jesus himself taught the same idea (Luke 24:25–27, 44–46), showing that the Law, Prophets, and Writings speak of the Messiah’s suffering and rising.

### “Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures”
The primary and clearest reference is **Isaiah 52:13–53:12** (the Suffering Servant song).
Key elements include:
- The Servant is pierced/crushed for the people’s transgressions and iniquities (Isaiah 53:5).
- The Lord lays the iniquity of all on him (53:6).
- He is cut off from the land of the living for the transgression of the people (53:8).
- His life is made an offering for sin; he bears the sin of many (53:10–12).

Isaiah 53 also notes burial “with the wicked… and with the rich in his death” (53:9), which aligns with the historical details of Jesus’ burial.
Other supporting texts and themes include:
- Psalm 22 (detailed suffering and death of the righteous one, with many New Testament allusions to the crucifixion).
- Daniel 9:26 (“the Anointed One will be cut off”).
- Zechariah 12:10 and 13:7 (the pierced one; the struck shepherd).
- Broader sacrificial patterns: the Passover lamb (Exodus 12; cf. 1 Corinthians 5:7), sin offerings, and the Day of Atonement (Leviticus), which portray substitutionary death for sin.

These establish that the Messiah’s death was purposeful and atoning, not merely tragic.

### “That he was buried”
The burial confirms the reality of the death.
Isaiah 53:9 explicitly anticipates it.
Types such as Jonah’s “burial” in the fish and other OT patterns of descent and emergence also contribute to the overall scriptural testimony.

### “That he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures”
There is no single explicit OT verse that states “the Messiah will rise on the third day” in the same direct way Isaiah 53 describes the death.
Instead, Paul (and the early creed) draws on a combination of prophetic texts, typology, and a recurring “third-day” pattern of deliverance in Scripture:
- **Hosea 6:1–2**: “After two days he will revive us; on the third day he will raise us up, that we may live before him.”
This uses resurrection language and was understood in later Jewish interpretation (including Targums) as related to the raising of the dead.
It is frequently cited as a key background text.
- **Jonah 1:17** (and the larger narrative): Jonah was in the belly of the fish “three days and three nights.”
Jesus explicitly identifies this as a sign of his own death and resurrection (Matthew 12:40; cf. 16:4).
- **Psalm 16:10**: “You will not abandon my soul to Sheol, or let your holy one see corruption.”
Peter and Paul apply this directly to Jesus’ resurrection (Acts 2:25–32; 13:34–37).
- Isaiah 53:10–11 itself implies the Servant’s continued life and success after the offering for sin (“he will see his offspring and prolong his days… he will see and be satisfied”).
- Broader third-day patterns of divine deliverance or new life:
Genesis 22:4 (Abraham and Isaac),
Exodus 19 (Sinai theophany),
and other instances where decisive acts of salvation or revelation occur on the third day.
Some interpreters also note typological links to the Feast of Firstfruits (Leviticus 23), which Paul later connects to Christ’s resurrection as “firstfruits” (1 Corinthians 15:20–23).

The New Testament consistently presents the resurrection (including its timing) as scriptural fulfillment, even if the connection is often typological or pattern-based rather than a single predictive sentence.

In short, “the Scriptures” are the Old Testament as a whole, with Isaiah 53 standing out for the atoning death, and Hosea 6:2, Jonah, Psalm 16, and the wider third-day motif providing the scriptural basis for the resurrection on the third day.
This early creed underscores that the gospel events were the climax of God’s long-announced plan.

"I’m not that special"
Are you unique?

"Future bliss does not undo present suffering"
Makes sense.
What happens tomorrow can't change what happened yesterday.

"It sure as hell doesn’t compensate for it"
If something is "sure as hell," how sure is it?
In your view, is there an afterlife, and if so, do some people experience a hellish environment in their afterlife?

"Unless of course like Job you’re satisfied with new children, new wealth, new lands to replace the old"
Reference that he was "satisfied with new children, new wealth, new lands to replace the old"?

Crucially, establishing this standpoint is not an attempt to relativize human suffering or historical pain. On the contrary, compassion itself is a matter of perspective. Compassion requires a stable, unwavering vantage point from which to perceive, honor, and respond to trauma. When systems distort our shared frameworks to enforce violence, they do not just alter concepts—they alter our capacity for empathy by breaking our perspective. To fight for a true, uncompromised baseline of understanding is to restore the precise perspective from which genuine compassion becomes possible.

My point is pretty straightforward.  Future bliss does not undo present suffering.   It sure as hell doesn't compensate for it. Unless of course like Job you're satisfied with new children, new wealth, new lands to replace the old.

Daniel Hallock, _Six Months to Live: Learning from a Young Man with Cancer_ (2015)

“I wouldn’t trade my life for anyone else’s.
If I could choose not to have cancer, and continue my life as it was, I wouldn’t do it.”
– Matt Gauger.

The cults of Isis and Serapis are more literary.

We have:

• hymns,
• aretalogies (accounts of the goddess's powers),
• temple inscriptions,
• dedications,
• and later philosophical interpretations.

= = = =

Steefen:

Resolved: The authentic Pauline letters and the final version of the authentic Pauline letters were NOT completed before the Gospel of Mark or Marcion's proto-Luke.

So I think you've identified a legitimate historical issue. The question is not whether Roman religious elites were capable of discussing religious literature—they certainly were. The question is whether there is positive evidence that they engaged with the Pauline letters in the first century.

At present, there is no direct external evidence demonstrating that they did. Historians who defend a first-century Pauline corpus generally argue from the cumulative internal, textual, and manuscript evidence rather than from documented first-century readers outside the Christian movement. Those who advocate later dates regard the lack of early external attestation as more significant.

If educated religious and civic elites paid attention to new religious movements, why is there so little external evidence for Paul's letters before the mid-second century?

For example:

• Seneca the Younger explicitly discusses earlier Stoics such as Zeno of Citium, Chrysippus, and Posidonius.
• Plutarch wrote entire treatises attacking Stoicism, including On Stoic Self-Contradictions and On Common Conceptions Against the Stoics.
• Galen criticized Stoics and discussed Platonists and Aristotelians extensively.
• Alcinous and other Middle Platonists wrote textbooks summarizing Platonic philosophy.
• Epictetus constantly refers to earlier Stoics as authorities.

That tells us there was a vibrant intellectual conversation.

= = = 

Steefen

Well WHAT ABOUT RELIGION?

Serapis in Alexandria, Jupiter Optimus, Mars, the Deified Emperors, Romulus and Remus, Osiris and Isis, Mithra?

The Quindecimviri Sacris Faciundis and the Commune Asiae were up on their reading of religious works, not just Stoicism and Platonism. In FACT, Paul had friends who were Asiarchs, members of the Commune Asiae.

How do we know that the works of Gaius Petronius Arbiter and Lucian of Samosata were read within 10 years of them being written? Was there a literary class that reviewed literary works in the Roman Empire during the first century and the early second century?

Steefen:

If Petronius was associated with imperial courts, there you have it.

Lucian WAS a professional lecturer and sophist. He had rivals. There were literary festivals.

Other writers knew him as a writer.

= = =

Only 2nd century Acts of the Apostles writer Luke knew Paul.

So, Paul had no rivals to his letters? Who criticized his Romans and Galatians DURING the mid 1st century?

= = =

In the first century, Roman Empire, there were professional rhetoricians, teachers and students constantly evaluating and discussing literature. Wealthy patrons commented on works. There were well documented literary circles of informal salons (Martial, Pliny the Younger, Quintilian).

Steefen:
So, you're saying Pauline "thesis' Romans Epistle didn't get on their reading list ? ? ? Paul writing for Gentiles, not just his churches?

4. Public recitations

This may be the closest thing to book reviews.

An author would rent a hall.

Invite educated listeners.

Read the work aloud.

Listeners applauded—or didn't.

Some audiences became notorious for exaggerated praise.

Others heckled.

Several Roman authors complain about boring recitations.

Evidence from Pliny the Younger

Pliny's letters (early second century) are one of our best windows into literary culture.

He describes

• sending works to friends,
• asking for criticism,
• attending readings,
• discussing revisions,
• judging speeches,
• hearing poetry.

This demonstrates a vibrant literary community.

Were there "reviewers"?

Not professionally.

There was nothing like

• The New York Review of Books
• Times Literary Supplement

Instead there were

• rhetoricians,
• philosophers,
• grammarians,
• patrons,
• educated senators,
• fellow authors.

Their opinions spread through correspondence and reputation.

Second, Josephus gives us a Pauline character in the second passage after the Testimonium Flavianum.

That does not mean this character wrote "thesis" letters.

Steefen:
But modern scholars are dating the Pauline letters to the second century, so neither Paul nor any of the readers and listeners mentioned can be listed with certainty. What external evidence is there that anyone read these letters BEFORE Acts of the Apostles were written. Futhermore, Acts of the Apostles is dated to the Second Century.

Steefen 2:
You're raising an important methodological point. The answer depends almost entirely on which scholarly model one adopts. My previous answer reflected the majority view, which assumes that at least the seven undisputed Pauline letters are authentic first-century documents and that Acts preserves some historical information about Paul's associates. If, instead, one adopts a late-dating hypothesis (with Pauline letters and Acts composed in the second century), then the evidentiary landscape changes substantially.

Steefen:
What external evidence demonstrates that anyone read the Pauline letters before Acts was written?

Steefen 2:

There are no surviving Roman, Jewish, or Greek writers of the first century who mention:

• the Letter to the Romans,
• 1 or 2 Corinthians,
• Galatians,
• Philippians,
• 1 Thessalonians,
• or any collection of Pauline letters.

Neither Josephus nor Philo of Alexandria mentions them.

Nor do surviving works of:

• Seneca the Younger,
• Pliny the Elder,
• Quintilian,
• or Tacitus.