Where did Christ go?

Originally posted by jaywill
There is nothing ambiguous about it. Speak for yourself.

sorry you are quite wrong, soulish is ambiguous in itself, clearly it does not make any
reference to an independent entity which transcends death, but refers to the physical
person. The New world translation of the Holy scriptures, reflects this meaning when it
states the physical man, taking into account the context of the verse, contrasting a
spiritual man with a non spiritual man, or a soulish man, for its clearly stated, spiritual in
contrast to non spiritual. If anything the term soulish as applied in this context soundly
refutes any assertion of an entity which transcends death, for clearly it is a reference to
the physical person, a pity that for you and your pagan doctrine really.

Originally posted by JS357
The recovery Version and possibly others has "soulish" but of course that word has to be looked up, by people new to it.

Just for discussion: Proposed: the verse is a variation on the No True Scotsman argument. Some here may get that point.

http://www.watchtower.org/e/bible/1co/chapter_002.htm

14 But a physical man does not receive the things of the s ...[text shortened]... s, and he is not able to know them, because spiritually they are discerned;

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. The man of the soul evaluates everything according to his mind. And the man of the flesh lacks of the Holy Spirit. Often enough, the man of the soul is identical to the man of the flesh.

Therefore, to the Orthodox 1 Cor. 2.14 goes as the following:
“The man of the soul (the one who is not born again but lives the lesser life of the instincts and passions) 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).
😵😵

Originally posted by black beetle
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. The man of the soul evaluates everything according to his mind. And the man of the flesh lacks of ...[text shortened]... velations) are understood by means of the enlightenment (that comes from the Holy Spirit).
😵😵

what say you dear beetle to the validity of our translation, which Jaywill terms a
bastardization, 'the physical man', in contrast to 'the spiritual man', from the Greek,
'psykhikos', literally 'soulical' and from the Latin 'animalis'.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
sorry you are quite wrong, soulish is ambiguous in itself, clearly it does not make any
reference to an independent entity which transcends death, but refers to the physical
person. The New world translation of the Holy scriptures, reflects this meaning when it
states the physical man, taking into account the context of the verse, contrasting ...[text shortened]... it is a reference to
the physical person, a pity that for you and your pagan doctrine really.

Do you even acknowledge that the Holy Bible indicates a distinction between
body and soul and spirit. If yes, how do you understand this distinction?

Originally posted by RJHinds
Do you even acknowledge that the Holy Bible indicates a distinction between
body and soul and spirit. If yes, how do you understand this distinction?

it depends upon the immediate context, the context as a whole, the individual phrase or
word and its intended meaning, one cannot approach scripture with prejudicial views,
seeking some justification for a dogma inherited from the ancient Greeks.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
it depends upon the immediate context, the context as a whole, the individual phrase or
word and its intended meaning, one cannot approach scripture with prejudicial views,
seeking some justification for a dogma inherited from the ancient Greeks.

What kind of answer is that? Are you a politician?

Originally posted by RJHinds
What kind of answer is that? Are you a politician?

One must be diplomatic.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
what say you dear beetle to the validity of our translation, which Jaywill terms a
bastardization, 'the physical man', in contrast to 'the spiritual man', from the Greek,
'psykhikos', literally 'soulical' and from the Latin 'animalis'.

1. Spiritual (pneumatikos anthropos: the man of the spirit) is the man who has the Spirit (pneuma) of G-d and "accepts and understands these that are revealed from the Spirit of G-d".

2. Psychikos -literary “the man of soul”. However, the translations “soulish” and "soulical" fail. The adjective “psychikos” points to the noun “antrhropos”, meaning altogether “the one who rejects these that are revealed from the Spirit of G-d because etc etc", as it goes at 1 Cor.2:14. Clearly, “psychicos anthropos” is the opposite of “pneumatikos anthropos” (also, we Greeks still use the adj. psychikos in order to indicate psychical abnormalities amongst else). Of course, according to your scripture, "psychikos anthropos" is defective due to his inability to conceive these that are revealed from the Spirit of G-d.

3. Sarkikos (man of the flesh) is the “pneumatikon nipion” that is mentioned, for example at Eph. 4/d. 13, 14. Sarkikos anthropos is identical to psychikos anthropos.

😵

Originally posted by black beetle
1. Spiritual (pneumatikos anthropos: the man of the spirit) is the man who has the Spirit (pneuma) of G-d and "accepts and understands these that are revealed from the Spirit of G-d".

2. Psychikos -literary “the man of soul”. However, the translations “soulish” and "soulical" fail. The adjective “psychikos” points to the noun “antrhropos”, meaning al xample at Eph. 4/d. 13, 14. Sarkikos anthropos is identical to psychikos anthropos.

😵

Would you take a look at the following verse referenced in the link below and
give your opinion on the translation for there are two different translations
given in Enlish for the Greek text?

http://interlinearbible.org/luke/2-42.htm

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
sorry you are quite wrong, soulish is ambiguous in itself, clearly it does not make any
reference to an independent entity which transcends death, but refers to the physical
person. The New world translation of the Holy scriptures, reflects this meaning when it
states the physical man, taking into account the context of the verse, contrasting ...[text shortened]... it is a reference to
the physical person, a pity that for you and your pagan doctrine really.

Since my posts are too laborious for you I will not write for your benefit any longer. And neither will I read anything you write, as I have not read this post of yours above.

Originally posted by jaywill
Since my posts are too laborious for you I will not write for your benefit any longer. And neither will I read anything you write, as I have not read this post of yours above.

please visit boohoo.com, your obviously having a bad hair day.

Originally posted by black beetle
1. Spiritual (pneumatikos anthropos: the man of the spirit) is the man who has the Spirit (pneuma) of G-d and "accepts and understands these that are revealed from the Spirit of G-d".

2. Psychikos -literary “the man of soul”. However, the translations “soulish” and "soulical" fail. The adjective “psychikos” points to the noun “antrhropos”, meaning al ...[text shortened]... xample at Eph. 4/d. 13, 14. Sarkikos anthropos is identical to psychikos anthropos.

😵

thankyou dear beetle.

Originally posted by RJHinds
Would you take a look at the following verse referenced in the link below and
give your opinion on the translation for there are two different translations
given in Enlish for the Greek text?

http://interlinearbible.org/luke/2-42.htm

And when the child became 12 years old, they went up with it to Jerusalem according to the custom of the feast.

😵

Originally posted by black beetle
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. The man of the soul evaluates everything according to his mind. And the man of the flesh lacks of ...[text shortened]... velations) are understood by means of the enlightenment (that comes from the Holy Spirit).
😵😵

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 become born of the Spirit. Does he live the new life in the Spirit ? This is the problem.

In the church in Corinth there were Christians, who WERE born again, yet were immature. It is to CHRISTIANS Paul is teaching about the spiritual man and the soulish man.

At least one cannot EXCLUDE the babyish believers in the church in Corinth from being among the "soulish" men. He is exorting such believers to become "spiritual" men. The exortation is not to be born again. It is similar to the prayer in Ephesians that we Christians would be "strengthened with power through His Spirit into the inner man".

The divisions in Corinth, which church problem Paul deals with FIRST, is due to some "soulish" Christians. They have been born again or they would not be members of "the church in Corinth."

The spiritual man and the soulish man has to do with the way one lives. We cannot say soulish man is only those unbelievers. The divisive brothers and sister Christians in the church in Corinth, Paul admonished as soulish or immature or in need to grow.

Now please look carefully at this passage. Here Paul is speaking to CHRISTIANS as members of the church there in Corinth -

"And I, brothers, was not able to speak to you as spiritual men, but as to fleshy, as to infants in Christ." ( 1 Cor. 3:1)

Paraphrased - "You dear brothers and sisters in the Lord may have been born again. But I was not able to talk to you as spiritual people. I had to talk to you as immature Christians still living in the fallen flesh - babes in Christ "

Imagine the cartoon character Baby Huey, a big huge baby duck of the comical Warner Brother's cartoon. For his SIZE you would think he is more mature. But this is the comedy of it.

In the church life it is not a comedy. Once again, the fleshy believers HAVE become believers. But what about their daily practical living ? Paul cannot converse yet with them as "spiritual men"

Am I correct ?

"And I ... BROTHERS ..., was not able to speak to you as to SPIRITUAL MEN, ... but as to FLESHY, as INFANTS in Christ."

By this time they should have no longer been "INFANTS in Christ."

Now, my point in this long post is not so much to draw a distinction between the "fleshy [men]" of 3:1 and the "soulish man" of 2:14. But it is evident in either case that some cannot receive true spiritual teaching because of the way they live:

Compare:

" ... I, brothers, was not able to speak to you as to spiritual men, but as to fleshy, as to infants in Christ"

"But a soulish man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are FOOLISHNESS to him and he is not able to know them because they are discerened spiritually."

Paul is speaking to Christians. Paul is speaking to Christians some of which are do not have yet the capacity to comphrehend spiritual teaching.

Though Paul says of ALL Christians "But we have the mind of Christ " ( 2:16) SOME in the Corinthian church are natural, fleshy, or soulish, immature, and are not exercising to set their mind on that "mind of Christ".

"For the mind [of the Christian] set on the flesh is death, but the mind set on the spirit is life and peace." (Rom. 8:6)

You have been born again brothers in Rome ?
You have been born again brothers in Corinth ?
Wonderful.
But where are you setting your mind ?
Where are you habitually living in a practical way ?

The mind set on the flesh, your old fallen Adamic nature, is death. The mind set on the spirit where the Spirit of Christ is, is divine life and divine peace.

We're moving ON now. This is not elementary gospel truth. This is advancing now you saints in Rome and in Corinth.

Are you soulish men? Or are you spiritual men setting the mind on the spirit where we can enjoy having the mind of Christ.

Are you FLESHY men, even worst ? Are you GROWING normally or are you stinted in growth ? Do you have arrested development and are big BABY HUEY like "infants in Christ" .

This is not "infants" OUTSIDE of Christ. This is "INFANTS IN ... Christ".

The man of the soul evaluates everything according to his mind. And the man of the flesh lacks of the Holy Spirit. Often enough, the man of the soul is identical to the man of the flesh.

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.

I see what you are trying to convey. And I appreciate it. But I must correct something. Paul's audience are born again Christians. And his exhortation is not about the BASICS of the new birth. His exhortation is about GROWTH in terms of their daily living.

Some of the dear divisive brothers were soulish men. Some of the dear saints were "infants" but immature "IN CHRIST" .

Listen to him. "And I, brothers, was not able to speak to you as to spiritual men, but as to fleshy, as to infants in Christ. I gave you milk to drink, not solid food, for you were not yet able to receive it..

But neither now are you able, For you are STILL fleshy. For if there is jealousy and strife among you, are you not fleshy and do you not walk according to the manner of men ?

The Christians, born again, in the church in Corinth, are fleshy, soulish, infants that by now should have matured spiritually. Some of them are divisive not realizing that Christ is not divided. Some of them are not able to receive deeper teaching "solid food". To them this kind of talk from Paul is "foolishness" .

Though they, like Paul and his companion apostles, have the mind of Christ, they are not practicing to set their minds on the spirit and enjoy that mind of Christ in a daily and practical way.

Therefore, to the Orthodox 1 Cor. 2.14 goes as the following:
“The man of the soul (the one who is not born again but lives the lesser life of the instincts and passions) 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).

It would be nice if this were true. Then we could assume ALL Christians are never driven by lesser life ofthe instincts of passions. However, look around you. Look even more at the epistle of the New Testament, including the Corinthian letter. Obviously, some born again were "infants in Christ" and needed to GROW to live by the Spirit of God by which they were born anew.

"I planted, Apollos watered, but God caused the growth" (3:6) .

The problem in Corinth is not that some were not born again. The problem was that some, after being born, were arrested in their growth. Paul could only plant. Apollos could only water. GOD had to cause the GROWTH for the building up of the church.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
please visit boohoo.com, your obviously having a bad hair day.

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 very carefully to accurately grasp your thought, what part was true and what part was in error.

No more.