04 Apr 12
4 edits
Originally posted by black beetle
We will come closer I reckon. Lets check your scripture as regards what exactly is understood as being pneumatikos and psychicos anthropos, for example:
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 ” the “man who is slave of the biological needs of his body”, thus the man who is sarkikos.
😵
We will come closer I reckon. Lets check your scripture as regards what exactly is understood as being pneumatikos and psychicos anthropos, for example:
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.
I only have time to comment on this much.
I am not sure what was meant by Jacob 3:15. I assume I should understand John 3:15.
First the Recovery Version's translation of Jude 19 with related footnote:
"These are those who make divisions, soulish, having no spirit." (Jude 19)
Your version was - "Judas 19 (psychikoi, they lack of Spirit). "
The capitlazation of S so as to read Spirit is an interpretation. This interpretation would lead the reader to assume that the division makers there lack the Holy Spirit.
One may not be able to say he knows that capital S Spirit is wrong. But I agree that that is probably not as good as small s spirit.
The human spirit, not the Holy Spirit of God. The apostates are devoid of spirit. They "have not indeed ceased to have a spirit, as part of their own tripartite nature [1 Thess. 5:23]; but they have ceased to possess it in any worthy sense: it is degraded beneath and under the power of the psyche [soul], the personal life, so as to have no real vitality of its own" [Dean] Alford. They do not care for their spirit or use it. They do not contact God by their spirit in communion with the Spirit of God; neither do they live and walk in their spirit. They have been drawn downward by their flesh and have become fleshy, so that they have lost the consciousness of their conscience ( ... in 2 Pet. 2) and have become like animals without reason.
Dean Alford, an authoritative Greek translators regards the accuracy of the small s being imployed in Jude 19.
Because the human spirit becomes mingled and united with the Holy Spirit in the Christian, it is not easy for the translators to always decide WHICH spirit is being meant.
"He who is joined to the Lord is one spirit" (1 Cor. 6:17)
The human spirit is joined to the Holy Spirit to become "one spirit". This is the reality of the Christian new birth. Therefore, Greek not having a capital to always distinguish human "spirit" from "Holy Spirit" is not always clear whether the translation is best with capital S or small letter s in instances of pneuma.
Here are verses which bring out the best meaning of human spirit and Holy Spirit together:
"The Spirit Himself bears witness with our spirit that we are children of God." (Rom. 8:16)
"That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit" (John 6)
Ie. The HUMAN spirit is born again by means of the Holy Spirit. The capital S Spirit brings forth into a new birth the human small s spirit.
"The Lord be with YOUR spirit" (2 Tim. 4:22) . Since it is "your spirit" the human small s spirit must be meant.
"For God is my witness, whom I serve in my spirit ..." (Rom. 1:9) Since it is "my spirit" the small s is best rather than the captial S Spirit.
"The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ be with your spirit, brothers ..." (Galatians 6:18) . The phrase "your spirit" should indicate the small s human spirit rather than captial S Holy Spirit.
"I had no rest in my spirit, for I did not find Titus my brother ..." (2 Cor. 2:13) . Paul speaks of his own spirit - "no rest in MY spirit" . So small s is most appropriate there.
It should be clear from these verses and many more that small s spirit of man is the best rendering. But there are verses in which it is questionable which should be used - small s or capital S. And presently we have one passage before us:
Your quotation - "Judas 19 (psychikoi, they lack of Spirit). " This communicates that they lacked the Holy Spirit. Possibly that was Jude's meaning.
My quotation of the RcV was- "These are those who make divisions, soulish, having no spirit." I agree with Dean Alford here and the RcV that small s human spirit is best understood. Perhaps it is not easy to prove it right now.
I think that the phrase "having no spirit" could conceivably refer to believers or non-believers. Of course the unbeliever is expected to be soulish. But the believer ALSO may be backslidden into a soulish condition as we have seen in First Corinthians.
Now a note on soulish in Jude 19 from the RcV.
The adjective form of soul . "The psyche [soul] is the center of the personal being, the 'I' of each individual. It is in each man bound to the spirit, man's higher part, and to the body, man's lower part; drawn upwards by the one, downwards by the other. He who gives himself up to the lower appetites, is fleshly: he who by communion of his spirit with God's Spirit is employed in the higher aims of his being, is spiritual. He who rests midway, thinking only of self and self's interest, whether animal or intellectual, is psychikos, the selfish man, the man in whom the spirit is sunk and degraded into subordination to the subordinate psyche [soul]" (Alford)
In Jude 19 soulish, having no spirit could conceivably refer to believers who are severely backslidden or to unbeleivers. It is not that they have no human spirit. It is that practically speaking they do not contact or live by their human spirit.
04 Apr 12
2 edits
Originally posted by robbie carrobiePut your bifocals on for there must be fine print in that New World Translation of
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.
the Holy Scriptures you are reading if you can't see that Paul refers to the soul
as the real person and the physical body as just his home while on this earth.
05 Apr 12
Originally posted by robbie carrobieyou're not getting it. none of them were contemporaries. do you know the meaning of that word?
a simple, no i have no legitimate reason to doubt their integrity would suffice, or no i
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 me ...[text shortened]... d ill conceived arguments
evah, propagated by dullards who have no basis for their assertions.
and i already mentioned you can't use the bible as evidence for itself, yet you continue to fall back to that fallacious defense.
there are no eyewitness testimonies. everything written about jesus have come from people who never saw him. it's all hearsay.
05 Apr 12
Originally posted by jaywillIt is not John but James 3:15 (Iakovos in Greek; I posted that post from the office under time pressure and I made a mistake: I wrote down Jacob instead of James, I am sorry for the inconvenience). Accurate translations of the verse (http://scripturetext.com/james/3-15.htm) are the following -I excluded the Greek verses because they are not supported by the RHP format:We will come closer I reckon. Lets check your scripture as regards what exactly is understood as being pneumatikos and psychicos anthropos, for example:
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.
I only have time to comment on this much.
I am not sure wh ...[text shortened]... do not contact or live by their human spirit.
New American Standard Bible (©1995)
This wisdom is not that which comes down from above, but is earthly, natural, demonic.
King James Bible
This wisdom descendeth not from above, but is earthly, sensual, devilish.
American King James Version
This wisdom descends not from above, but is earthly, sensual, devilish.
American Standard Version
This wisdom is not a wisdom that cometh down from above, but is earthly, sensual, devilish.
Douay-Rheims Bible
For this is not wisdom, descending from above: but earthly, sensual, devilish.
Darby Bible Translation
This is not the wisdom which comes down from above, but earthly, natural, devilish.
English Revised Version
This wisdom is not a wisdom that cometh down from above, but is earthly, sensual, devilish.
Webster's Bible Translation
This wisdom descendeth not from above, but is earthly, sensual, demoniacal.
World English Bible
This wisdom is not that which comes down from above, but is earthly, sensual, and demonic.
Young's Literal Translation
this wisdom is not descending from above, but earthly, physical, demon-like,
As regards Jude 1:19, you can see http://bible.cc/jude/1-19.htm. Of course, a Greek has not the slightest difficulty to use a capital S at a glance. Orthodox Greeks believe that the passage refers to the ones who lack of the Holy Spirit, and this is what I understand too. However, do not feel uneasy, search on your own and find out for yourself the spirit of the passage. Methinks all the relevant passages will ease you to find the most accurate letter of your scripture, and this way you will get its spirit too.
Finally, Alford understands the meaning of the verse but he translates wrongly the word psychicos as “soulish”. The selfish man, the man in whom the spirit is sunk and degraded into subordination to the subordinate psyche [soul], the Psychicos man, is not the Soulish man but the Physical/ Sarkikos/ Sensual man, the man of Flesh. The Orthodox Greeks explain on the spot during their ceremonies that “psychikos anthropos” is the man of flesh, and then they are talking about the Physical/ Sarkikos/ Sensual man, the man of flesh. They do not use the word “soulish”, but the words Physical/ Sarkikos/ Sensual and the expression “man of flesh” in order to avoid confusion.
Anyway, I am sure you understand what "psychicos anthropos" is. Also, since you do not speak Greek, I see clearly why you honestly think that the translation “soulish” is valid and, hence, why you follow Alford’s interpretation. However, although Alford’s etymology is accurate, his translation does not hold because the Greek language is “polytipi” (it has many different types of a word, and many different types of etymology). This is our case: although psychicos is the adj. form of soul, the correct translation in this context is Physical/ Sarkikos/ Sensual and the expression “man of flesh”.
Namaste
😵
05 Apr 12
Originally posted by VoidSpiritIt is eyewitness testimony, dummy. Luke says so. Do You even know who
you're not getting it. none of them were contemporaries. do you know the meaning of that word?
and i already mentioned you can't use the bible as evidence for itself, yet you continue to fall back to that fallacious defense.
there are no eyewitness testimonies. everything written about jesus have come from people who never saw him. it's all hearsay.
Matthew, Mark, John, Peter, and James are in relation to Christ? Obviously,
the answer is "No".
05 Apr 12
Originally posted by RJHindsWiki provides some pretty good summaries on the complicated authorship debates surrounding the gospels.
It is eyewitness testimony, dummy. Luke says so. Do You even know who
Matthew, Mark, John, Peter, and James are in relation to Christ? Obviously,
the answer is "No".
Most modern scholars believe that the Gospel of Mark was written in Syria by an unknown Christian around AD 70.
As for the Gospel of Matthew, most scholars today think it is unlikely that its author was an eyewitness of Jesus's ministry and believe instead that it was written between about 80–90 AD by a highly educated "Israelite".
As for the Gospel of John, the majority of scholars do not believe that John or any other eyewitness wrote it and trace it instead to a "Johannine community" which traced its traditions to John; the gospel itself shows signs of having been composed in three "layers", reaching its final form about 90-100 AD.
As for the author of the Gospel of Luke, who was also thought to have written the Acts of the Apostles, he remains anonymous and scholars do not agree on his identity; it may well have been written two genrations after Jesus' death.
05 Apr 12
Originally posted by VoidSpiritWho was claiming they were contemporaries? the fact of the matter is, people like you
you're not getting it. none of them were contemporaries. do you know the meaning of that word?
and i already mentioned you can't use the bible as evidence for itself, yet you continue to fall back to that fallacious defense.
there are no eyewitness testimonies. everything written about jesus have come from people who never saw him. it's all hearsay.
are perfectly willing to accept that Alexander lived even though the accounts about him
are scant and were compiled 500 years after his death and yet the Bible, which has
literally thousands of extant manuscripts and papyri and is much better attested to than
any ancient piece of literature is somehow deficient and inadmissible as evidence. I
am glad you brought this up, for it highlights the utter unreasonableness of your
position and exposes your prejudice. We knew that it existed, this little incidence
merely demonstrates the extent.
05 Apr 12
Originally posted by FMFand the letters of Paul, what do they say about the letters of Paul, who authored them?
Wiki provides some pretty good summaries on the complicated authorship debates surrounding the gospels.
Most modern scholars believe that the Gospel of Mark was written in Syria by an unknown Christian around AD 70.
As for the Gospel of Matthew, most scholars today think it is unlikely that its author was an eyewitness of Jesus's ministry and believe ins ...[text shortened]... agree on his identity; it may well have been written two genrations after Jesus' death.
for Paul was certainly a contemporary.
05 Apr 12
Originally posted by robbie carrobieThe info I provided was in response to RJHinds' assertion about "eyewitness testimony" that's all. I myself have no doubt that Jesus lived and preached etc. etc. Don't let my little intervention disrupt your discussion with VoidSpirit.
and the letters of Paul, what do they say about the letters of Paul, who authored them?
for Paul was certainly a contemporary.
05 Apr 12
Originally posted by robbie carrobieWhat's the earliest surviving piece of the New Testament?
Who was claiming they were contemporaries? the fact of the matter is, people like you
are perfectly willing to accept that Alexander lived even though the accounts about him
are scant and were compiled 500 years after his death and yet the Bible, which has
literally thousands of extant manuscripts and papyri and is much better attested to than ...[text shortened]... our prejudice. We knew that it existed, this little incidence
merely demonstrates the extent.
05 Apr 12
2 edits
Originally posted by Proper KnobPick up any Bible and you will find the earliest surviving piece of the New testament,
What's the earliest surviving piece of the New Testament?
although i think you mean in manuscript or papyri form. Probably the most extensive
is the Sahidic Coptic texts, copies of earlier Greek manuscripts dated to the second
century, the oldest, I dont know. Try here, a fragment of John dated to 125 CE, a mere
thirty years after its authorship.
http://www.usefulcharts.com/religion/oldest-new-testament-manuscripts.html
05 Apr 12
Originally posted by FMFok, sure thing.
The info I provided was in response to RJHinds' assertion about "eyewitness testimony" that's all. I myself have no doubt that Jesus lived and preached etc. etc. Don't let my little intervention disrupt your discussion with VoidSpirit.