04 Apr 12
Originally posted by JS357
I usually go to it by google on a particular Bible verse and it is in the first few hits as "http://bible.cc/1_corinthians/2-14.htm" and at the top of the screen it has pull down menus for any verse you want, so if you bookmark the above link it will give you full access. Decent commentary too. But had to go to the watchtower site for the JW version on this on ...[text shortened]... ce of carnal wisdom. The word occurs but six times in the New Testament...
unquote
The word "natural" here stands opposed evidently to "spiritual." It denotes those who are governed and influenced by the natural instincts; the animal passions and desires, in opposition to those who are influenced by the Spirit of God. It refers to unregenerate people;
Thanks for the website info.
Now I will say to you what I said to black beetle, but with far fewer words.
It is quite evident that "soulish man" or "natural man" if you like is not RESTRICTED to unregenerated people.
It is quite obvious that the AUDIENCE of Paul's First Corinthian letter was partially composed of "soulish men" .
Now today, Christians may be rather sloppy to include unbelievers in thier "Church". Ie. unbeliever's on the phone list and members of a certain "church".
The Apostle Paul was not so sloppy. He is writing to Christian brothers and sisters who alone compose the church in Corinth. He is not addressing his letter to unbelievers in need of being born again.
Among these Christians were "infants in Christ" and "soulish" men. They were redeemed and born again. They were immature spiritually.
04 Apr 12
Originally posted by jaywillGood post!Apostle Paul talks in several occasions about the “man of the Spirit”, the “man of the Soul” and the “man of the flesh”. According to the Orthodox Christians, the “man of the spirit” is in touch with the Triune G-d through Jesus by means of the Holy Spirit.
Unfortunately, even a man who is born again can be a soulish man. Yes, he has be ...[text shortened]... ROWTH for the building up of the church.
You know I 'm not a Christian; I just offered my opinion as regards the accurate translation of the passage. Your marks are very interesting, and at a specific point I agree with you.
Methinks the fact that even a man who is born again can be still psychikos anthropos, is irrelevant to the accurate translation of the verse. Leaving the hermeneutics aside, Paul over here speaks to infants in Christ (pneumatika nipia) about three main types of anthropos as he perceives them. I understand that if a born again Christian is not really a “man of the spirit”, he is either psychikos or sarkikos (of the flesh), and thus not really in touch with the Triune G-d through Jesus by means of the Holy Spirit.
Edit: “No. I would say that EITHER WAY a soulish man as well as a spiritual man evaluates things according to his mind. That is not the difference. The mind is the evaluating tool in both cases. It is that the soulish man does not set his mind on the spriit where the Spirit of Christ is. And the spiritual man is in the habit of setting his mind on the spirit where the Spirit of Christ is.”
My thesis too is that either you believe to the Christian God or not; Paul appears to believe that pneumatikos anthropos conducts evaluation of the mind through the Holy Spirit, whilst the two other types conduct evaluations according solely to their mind, so according to 1 Cor. 2:14 their evaluations are defective. Hence, the evaluation of the mind that is accurate and non-false, is always the one that is conducted through the Holy Spirit. Over here we agree (as regards the point of the passage, not as regards that the evaluation of the mind of an unbeleiver is always false).
Edit: “It would be nice if this were true. Then we could assume ALL Christians are never driven by lesser life of the instincts of passions.”
Why should we assume such a thing? It seems to me we can well assume just what we read at 1 Cor. 2:14:
The unbeliever does not accept these that are revealed from the Spirit of G-d because he evaluates them as foolish, and he has not the ability to get to know that these revelations are understood by means of the enlightenment (that comes from the Holy Spirit).
In my opinion, the fact that many Christians are pneumatika nipia means simply that there are many levels of cultivation (of the Christian faith, of the Christian way of living etc etc), so the ones who are pneumatika nipia should try harder if they really want to become pneumatikoi anthropoi.
Namaste
😵
04 Apr 12
2 edits
Originally posted by jaywillWhatever, tomorrow is the very day that the Christ died, the very day that he instituted
Is that the site where people pretending to want to learn something BOOHOO because it takes SO LONG to read ?
"Boo Hoo, it is SO MUCH READING. BOO HOO I want something quick and easy becasue my mind is already made up you see."
It all depends on your appetite to really learn. Obviously, you don't want to learn. I usually went through your posts ...[text shortened]... to accurately grasp your thought, what part was true and what part was in error.
No more.
with the disciples a covenant for a Kingdom, in breaking bread and wine as a symbol
of his sacrificial death, the only Christian event that he commanded us to remember
him by, i certainly have better things to reflect upon than remonstrating with you.
04 Apr 12
2 edits
Originally posted by black beetle
Good post!
You know I 'm not a Christian; I just offered my opinion as regards the accurate translation of the passage. Your marks are very interesting, and at a specific point I agree with you.
Methinks the fact that even a man who is born again can be still psychikos anthropos, is irrelevant to the accurate translation of the verse. Leaving the he ...[text shortened]... ika nipia should try harder if they really want to become pneumatikoi anthropoi.
Namaste
😵
Good post!
You know I 'm not a Christian; I just offered my opinion as regards the accurate translation of the passage. Your marks are very interesting, and at a specific point I agree with you.
Thanks. I have to come back and read the rest of your post latter.
But I did want to say that I have high regard for Greek Orthodoxy
related to their teaching of theosis. Greek Orthodoxy is atypical of Christian denominations in an appreciation for the biblical truth, which I believe they refer to as theosis.
I know it more as "deification" of the believers as the cumlination of God's salvation.
04 Apr 12
2 edits
Originally posted by black beetle
Good post!
You know I 'm not a Christian; I just offered my opinion as regards the accurate translation of the passage. Your marks are very interesting, and at a specific point I agree with you.
Methinks the fact that even a man who is born again can be still psychikos anthropos, is irrelevant to the accurate translation of the verse. Leaving the he ...[text shortened]... ika nipia should try harder if they really want to become pneumatikoi anthropoi.
Namaste
😵
Methinks the fact that even a man who is born again can be still psychikos anthropos, is irrelevant to the accurate translation of the verse.
It seems that I labored much on what you considered for the most part irrelvant to the accurate translation of the verse.
So now I feel to defend the translation of the verse. Out of hand, I do not quickly accept this criticism of the Recovery Version's translation of 1 Cor. 2:14 as "But a soulish man does not receive ..."
So as you say "hermenuetics aside". I will take some time as I am not a NT Greek writer.
You are being checked on this point. And I will return with a comment as to the accuracy or not of the RcV's translation.
Thanks for the opportunity to be a Berean - to see if these things are so. You can expect my honesty in this without bias. We'll see if we have in " ... a soulish man ..." as just possibly an inferior translation or a wrong one, or a correct one.
Be back latter on this.
04 Apr 12
1 edit
For starters, this comment from A.S.K.
http://askelm.com/news/n050427.htm
The word “soulish” best translates the Greek word psuchikos. It is the adjective of the noun “soul” which should always be translated from psuche.
How else would anyone translate the adjective psuchikos except “soulish”? However, the word is translated with all-too-common KJV confusion as ”natural” 4x and “sensual” 2x.
Describing our nature as a “soulish nature” is very accurate. The following verse translations use the adjective “natural” or “sensual” but the Greek word is psuchikos, meaning “soulish,” derived directly from the root noun psuche or soul.
“But the natural [psuchikos, soulish] man receives not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.”
• 1 Corinthians 2:14
“It [the body] is sown a natural [psuchikos, soulish] body; it is raised a spiritual body. There is a natural [psuchikos, soulish] body, and there is a spiritual body. And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul [psuche, soul]; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit [pneuma, spirit]. Howbeit that was not first which is spiritual, but that which is natural [psuchikos, soulish]; and afterward that which is spiritual.”
• 1 Corinthians 15:44–46
“Who is a wise man and endued with knowledge among you? let him show out of a good conversation his works with meekness of wisdom. But if you have bitter envying and strife in your hearts, glory not, and lie not against the truth. This wisdom descends not from above, but is earthly, sensual [psuchikos, soulish], devilish.”
• James 3:13–15
“These be they [mockers] who separate themselves, sensual [psuchikos, soulish], having not the Spirit.”
• Jude 1:19
You will note that in these verses the adjective “soulish” qualifies and describes the nouns “man,” “body,” “wisdom,” and “mockers” (in Jude 1:18). There is a precise distinction between the soul and the spirit which is made more explicit by the proper understanding of “soulish.” The Greek adjective “soulish” (psuchikos) is different from the usual King James rendering of “nature” which is derived from the Greek phusis. Most often phusis is associated with the flesh or fleshly nature.
04 Apr 12
Originally posted by tomtom232Good question. There are better ones. But for the calibre of christian on this site this is a good one for them.
Where did Christ go for the three days before he was ressurected? Oblivion? Sheol? Did he just sit in the tomb or maybe go back to heaven?
1. Oblivion? (Clarify please-what do you mean by oblivion?)
2. Sheol? Where's that ? Are you saying he teleported somewhere? (after all his dad could prolly do that for him no probs)
3. Did he sit in the tomb ? (twiddling his thumbs. No doubt he knew 3 days in here was nothing compared to the crap he had to go through to get there. He was prolly quite relived to have the attention of him for awhile.
4 Or maybe goto heaven?
Heaven? Any idea of where that is or do you not really care
04 Apr 12
Originally posted by jaywillWe will come closer I reckon. Lets check your scripture as regards what exactly is understood as being pneumatikos and psychicos anthropos, for example:
For starters, this comment from A.S.K.
http://askelm.com/news/n050427.htm
The word “soulish” best translates the Greek word psuchikos. It is the adjective of the noun “soul” which should always be translated from psuche.
How else would anyone translate the adjective psuchikos except “soulish”? However, the word is translated with all-too ...[text shortened]... he Greek phusis. Most often phusis is associated with the flesh or fleshly nature.
Judas 19 (psychikoi, they lack of Spirit). The same at Jacob 3:15. The same at 1 Cor. 14.14:37. The same at 2 Cor. 1a:12. As regards “pneumatikon anthropon”, 1 Cor. 14:14:37. Finally, Rom. 8.5-9 shows clearly the distinction between the man of the flesh (psychikos, of flesh, the slave of the biological needs of his body, hence the man who perceives not through the Spirit) and the man of the Spirit (pneumatikos). So I conclude that the word “soulish” is a product of a false translation.
As regards 1 Cor. 15:44–46, the Orthodox read that " ... [the body] is sown psychikon, it is raised a spiritual body. There is a natural [psuchikos, soulish] body, etc”. Their thesis is that over here Paul talks about the bodies of the resurrection and he says that the body the man has during this ephemeral period, it lives and operates according with the biologic forces of the soul. However, the body of the resurrection will operate according to the laws and the force of the Holy Spirit. This is the reason why the latter body is named pneumatikon, in opposition to the psychikon body. The Orthodox thesis is definitely that Sarkikos (of flesh) and Psychikos are in this context identical; the Orthodox never use the word “soulish”, for they perceive as “psychikon anthropon” the “man who is slave of the biological needs of his body”, thus the man who is sarkikos.
😵
04 Apr 12
Originally posted by robbie carrobienone of them are contemporaries, all of them (if they're talking about jesus at all) are reporting on the christian cult.
Soo lets get this, please tell the forum why you have any reason to dispute , Pliny,
Josephus, Suetonius, Tacitus, Lucian or any other historian for that matter.
that's just evidence that there were christians around. it's not evidence that jesus existed.
04 Apr 12
2 edits
Originally posted by VoidSpirita simple, no i have no legitimate reason to doubt their integrity would suffice, or no i
none of them are contemporaries, all of them (if they're talking about jesus at all) are reporting on the christian cult.
that's just evidence that there were christians around. it's not evidence that jesus existed.
have no legitimate reason to doubt why they have mentioned a fictional character
and no, they do not all focus on christians or their practices,
1.Josephus states of James, the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, in
antiquities,
2. Suetonius mentions a man named Chrestus (or Christ) who lived during the first
century.
3. The Babylonian Talmud (Sanhedrin 43a) confirms Jesus crucifixion on the eve of
Passover and the accusations against Christ of practicing sorcery and encouraging
Jewish apostasy.
the Bible is full of eye witness testimony also, to the very time, have you any
legitimate reason, note the emphasis on legitimate, for doubting this eye witness
testimony other than, because i say so, well produce it or admit that your assertion
is unsubstantiated and a mere opinion.
the mythology of Jesus is one of the most stupidest and ill conceived arguments
evah, propagated by dullards who have no basis for their assertions.