R
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
R
robinriley
Guest
(Robin)
Sorry ... Prove-all ... I'd delete this testy post, if the system would allow me, but you just rubbed my fur (you apparently like cats, big cats) ... rubbed my fur the wrong way...if that was your intention, you did well, yougot the "response" you were looking for, but if you were just being "yourself," then I humbly apologise, you have every right to voice your opinion ... it just struck me as rather shallow. That is, you've every right to swim in the waters that suit you, they just dont suit me ... we're different, that's the way God makes us. Bottom line, dear "Prove it" ... I spoke out of frustration, was rude and mean spirited, and I'm sorry.
Now then, do you want to engage in a real converstation ... That is, what do ...YOU... not the peanut galllery... think abpit these specific verses?
Sorry ... Prove-all ... I'd delete this testy post, if the system would allow me, but you just rubbed my fur (you apparently like cats, big cats) ... rubbed my fur the wrong way...if that was your intention, you did well, yougot the "response" you were looking for, but if you were just being "yourself," then I humbly apologise, you have every right to voice your opinion ... it just struck me as rather shallow. That is, you've every right to swim in the waters that suit you, they just dont suit me ... we're different, that's the way God makes us. Bottom line, dear "Prove it" ... I spoke out of frustration, was rude and mean spirited, and I'm sorry.
Now then, do you want to engage in a real converstation ... That is, what do ...YOU... not the peanut galllery... think abpit these specific verses?
no that was not my intention, and sorry if it came off that way.
do not let anyone judge you about Gods Holy convocations,
but the body [is]of Christ, the Rock not peter
that is the way i read this verse, [is] was added in about the 4th centery
what did i do to offend in verse?
Prove [all] things; hold fast that which is good.
hey, i'm not saying "don't dig into the scripture" at all man.
probably i misjudged your purpose here, & i'm sorry if i did. what i meant to say ((& buried in a few paragraphs)) was don't be discouraged if breaking the text down word-by-word doesn't change some people's minds. maybe that's not your goal at all. my bad.
and you know, since i'm pointing to the verses before and after these two in particular to help us understand the intent, i'm not asking for it all to be condensed into one sentence. verse 16 starts with "therefore" so we oughtta read back a little bit to see what that's "there for" right?
i'm afraid i'm not educated in Greek. i can't comment on that part of your post with any knowledge. i am thankful for people like you posting here though, so i can start to understand some of it, and i do love it.
so, forgive me if i've gone off in some tangential direction. i've been on this forum for a little while, long enough to have seen true-to-life judaizers coming around pedaling wares. i guess i get a bit jumpy and defensive sometimes for what turns out to be no good reason.
got to say though, it's not presumption that makes people talk about "shadows" with this passage -- it's literally right there in the text. the scripture itself is what brought up that subject
Last edited:
P
psychomom
Guest
ah, after reading your responses i believe i am better able to apprehend you.
it seems i offended you and for that i apologize.
i mention systematic theology because i have found, for myself, at least, it's a bit dangerous to build a doctrine on a verse or two without taking the whole counsel of God into consideration.
i mentioned Hebrews because... well, surely a person of your intelligence and erudition already knows the answer to that.
i am not here to be your judge, as you are not my servant.
i do hope you can say the same.
as i hope your time here will be fruitful.
P
phil112
Guest
Wow!
So, you see this different than what the wording actually is. Which means, for 2 thousand years God has allowed people to not understand the word correctly. Wow!
Here are the scriptures as the KJV says them: "Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days: Which are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ."
What casts a shadow? A body. Christ's body is what the shadow was coming before. Christ came and the shadow is gone. The old testament was a shadow of the new.
Those things that we are not to permit people to judge us on became passe with Christ's murder.
Altho the law/sabbath keepers on this forum still attempt to judge us on it, the bible says to ignore them.
Christ told Paul what to say and you think he talks funny? Another "wow!"
R
robinriley
Guest
(Phil112)
Wow!
So, you see this different than what the wording actually is.
(Robin)
From the Scottish dialect; a verb without object, means to howl, bar, whine, or mew ...
And just where, Phil, in particular did you "see" me saying any such thing?
That is, Phil, I hear you howling, but you've yet to point out the exact reason for this?
(Phil112)
Which means, for 2 thousand years
God has allowed people to not understand the word correctly.
Wow!
(Robin)
Not that it matters, your objection doesn't address anything, in particular, that I talked about, but I do like to be factual; that is, where did you come up with "2000 years" ...or were you just rounding things off, by a generation or two?
And honestly, Phil, you really dont think that God hasn't allowed any number of people to be unknowing or ignorant ... Really!?
(Phil112)
Here are the scriptures as the KJV says ...
(Robin)
Bravo! Bravo! ... You be the very first one return posting, Phil, that actually wants to engage in a discussion of the verses. Bravo!
(Phil112)
Here are the scriptures as the KJV says them:
"Let no man therefore judge you
in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days:
Which are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ."
(Robin)
I too often consult the KJV ... it has its problem, but then what translation doesn't ... but if I had to go with just one version or the other, I think it would be Youngs, Rotherham's, or the Dabbar (also, called The Writ). But I dont limit myself to just one or two readings, actually I've compiled my own, from the Greek, for at least the epistles of Paul ... however with that said, I always take the time and effort to consult a number of other readings, because there's always wisdom in a multitude of counselors, even from those dynamic translations.
(Phil112)
What casts a shadow?
(Robin)
Now then, Phil, would you really like to engage in meaningful conversation ... I mean, you did actually quote the verses, introduce specific things that we could talk about together, so I'm assuming that this might be the case?
(Phil112)
What casts a shadow?
(Robin)
It's a good question ... I suggest we allow Paul to answer that; and I'll even use the KJV quote that you provided ...do you have any objection to this; do you see any flaw in this, my logic?
(Phil 112)
...in meat, or
in drink, or
in respect of an holyday, or
of the new moon, or
of the sabbath days: .... Which are a shadow of things to come ...
(Robin)
Exactly!
(Phil112)
...Which are a shadow of things to come ...
(Robin)
The wording could be more accurate, but the thought is clearly conveyed.
That is the aforementioned "things" sigularly shadow things to come. I agree!
So then, are we, at least, in agreement up to this point?
(Phil112)
...Which are a shadow of things to come ...
(Robin)
Just to clarify, it appears that we are both in agreement, Paul is, indeed, telling us that the following items are this shadow:
...in a consuming, or in a drinking, or in a part of festival or of new-moon, or of sabbaths...
Now then, Phil ... take your time, ponder on it ... these are "things" right? A plurality of things.(Phil112)
...Which are a shadow of things to come ...
(Robin)
OK! We're makng progress together ... and Paul then goes on to say that these things are a shadow ... right?
(Phil112)
...Which are a shadow of things to come ...
(Robin)
Best conversation yet, on this forum ... well done Phil.
That is, these things, a plurality of things (said things being the aformentioned holy rituals) are a singular shadow ...
(Phil112)
...Which are a shadow of things to come ...come ...
(Robin)
Couldn't have said it better, myself, Phil ... thankyou.
That is, the singualar shadow is ("is" not "are") representative of the plurality of "things" to come.
Have to pause, here, Phil ... because I'm just a bit surprised that we are still in agreement about what the words actually say!!
That is, I'm going to await your further posting, just to confirm that I've not made any flawed assumptions about our agreement so far ... please be kind, and get back with me, so that I can either revisit where I've misunderstood you, or that we can confidently progress in this, our discussion of the actual words found in this verse.
(Phil112)
Christ told Paul what to say and you think he talks funny? Another "wow!"
(Robin)
Ya .. aint it a *****, would that he only could have talked to us in urbanized English!
Wow!
So, you see this different than what the wording actually is.
(Robin)
From the Scottish dialect; a verb without object, means to howl, bar, whine, or mew ...
And just where, Phil, in particular did you "see" me saying any such thing?
That is, Phil, I hear you howling, but you've yet to point out the exact reason for this?
(Phil112)
Which means, for 2 thousand years
God has allowed people to not understand the word correctly.
Wow!
(Robin)
Not that it matters, your objection doesn't address anything, in particular, that I talked about, but I do like to be factual; that is, where did you come up with "2000 years" ...or were you just rounding things off, by a generation or two?
And honestly, Phil, you really dont think that God hasn't allowed any number of people to be unknowing or ignorant ... Really!?
(Phil112)
Here are the scriptures as the KJV says ...
(Robin)
Bravo! Bravo! ... You be the very first one return posting, Phil, that actually wants to engage in a discussion of the verses. Bravo!
(Phil112)
Here are the scriptures as the KJV says them:
"Let no man therefore judge you
in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days:
Which are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ."
(Robin)
I too often consult the KJV ... it has its problem, but then what translation doesn't ... but if I had to go with just one version or the other, I think it would be Youngs, Rotherham's, or the Dabbar (also, called The Writ). But I dont limit myself to just one or two readings, actually I've compiled my own, from the Greek, for at least the epistles of Paul ... however with that said, I always take the time and effort to consult a number of other readings, because there's always wisdom in a multitude of counselors, even from those dynamic translations.
(Phil112)
What casts a shadow?
(Robin)
Now then, Phil, would you really like to engage in meaningful conversation ... I mean, you did actually quote the verses, introduce specific things that we could talk about together, so I'm assuming that this might be the case?
(Phil112)
What casts a shadow?
(Robin)
It's a good question ... I suggest we allow Paul to answer that; and I'll even use the KJV quote that you provided ...do you have any objection to this; do you see any flaw in this, my logic?
(Phil 112)
...in meat, or
in drink, or
in respect of an holyday, or
of the new moon, or
of the sabbath days: .... Which are a shadow of things to come ...
(Robin)
Exactly!
(Phil112)
...Which are a shadow of things to come ...
(Robin)
The wording could be more accurate, but the thought is clearly conveyed.
That is the aforementioned "things" sigularly shadow things to come. I agree!
So then, are we, at least, in agreement up to this point?
(Phil112)
...Which are a shadow of things to come ...
(Robin)
Just to clarify, it appears that we are both in agreement, Paul is, indeed, telling us that the following items are this shadow:
...in a consuming, or in a drinking, or in a part of festival or of new-moon, or of sabbaths...
Now then, Phil ... take your time, ponder on it ... these are "things" right? A plurality of things.(Phil112)
...Which are a shadow of things to come ...
(Robin)
OK! We're makng progress together ... and Paul then goes on to say that these things are a shadow ... right?
(Phil112)
...Which are a shadow of things to come ...
(Robin)
Best conversation yet, on this forum ... well done Phil.
That is, these things, a plurality of things (said things being the aformentioned holy rituals) are a singular shadow ...
(Phil112)
...Which are a shadow of things to come ...come ...
(Robin)
Couldn't have said it better, myself, Phil ... thankyou.
That is, the singualar shadow is ("is" not "are") representative of the plurality of "things" to come.
Have to pause, here, Phil ... because I'm just a bit surprised that we are still in agreement about what the words actually say!!
That is, I'm going to await your further posting, just to confirm that I've not made any flawed assumptions about our agreement so far ... please be kind, and get back with me, so that I can either revisit where I've misunderstood you, or that we can confidently progress in this, our discussion of the actual words found in this verse.
(Phil112)
Christ told Paul what to say and you think he talks funny? Another "wow!"
(Robin)
Ya .. aint it a *****, would that he only could have talked to us in urbanized English!
Last edited by a moderator:
P
phil112
Guest
You'd like to parse simple scripture to death.
This passage is self explanatory. Let's look at it again, shall we?
"Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days: Which are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ."
In that one sentence he mentions shadow and body. Clearly that body is the one that cast the shadow he speaks of. There can be no other meaning.
With Christ's ministry (His life, death, and passing on the fianl chapter to Paul) the body arrived and we no longer had to depend on a shadow for our guidance.
The real deal is here. No more shadow.
C
CRC
Guest
Jesus made that truth become reality by fulfilling it. Accordingly, the apostle Paul wrote: “Let no man judge you in eating and drinking or in respect of a festival or of an observance of the new moon or of a sabbath; for those things are a shadow of the things to come, but the reality belongs to the Christ.”—Colossians 2:16, 17.
11 One way in which the truth became reality was by Jesus’ foretold birth in Bethlehem. (Micah 5:2; Luke 2:4-11) The truth also became reality at the fulfillment of Daniel’s prophetic words about the Messiah’s appearance at the end of 69 ‘weeks of years.’ That took place when Jesus presented himself to God at baptism and was anointed with holy spirit, right on schedule, in 29 C.E. (Daniel 9:25; Luke 3:1, 21, 22) The truth further became reality by Jesus’ enlightening ministry as a Kingdom proclaimer. (Isaiah 9:1, 2, 6, 7; 61:1, 2; Matthew 4:13-17; Luke 4:18-21) It also became reality by his death and resurrection.—Psalm 16:8-11; Isaiah 53:5, 8, 11, 12; Matthew 20:28; John 1:29; Acts 2:25-31.
11 One way in which the truth became reality was by Jesus’ foretold birth in Bethlehem. (Micah 5:2; Luke 2:4-11) The truth also became reality at the fulfillment of Daniel’s prophetic words about the Messiah’s appearance at the end of 69 ‘weeks of years.’ That took place when Jesus presented himself to God at baptism and was anointed with holy spirit, right on schedule, in 29 C.E. (Daniel 9:25; Luke 3:1, 21, 22) The truth further became reality by Jesus’ enlightening ministry as a Kingdom proclaimer. (Isaiah 9:1, 2, 6, 7; 61:1, 2; Matthew 4:13-17; Luke 4:18-21) It also became reality by his death and resurrection.—Psalm 16:8-11; Isaiah 53:5, 8, 11, 12; Matthew 20:28; John 1:29; Acts 2:25-31.
R
robinriley
Guest
(Phil112)
You'd like to parse simple scripture to death.
(Robin)
Parsing relates to verbs, such things as tense, voice, and mood ...
Of late, we're talking more to declensions, like person, number,gender and case ...
But be that as it may, Phil, it's not that I'm actively doing something, here, with these scriptures,
I'm only just pointing out, or acknowledging something (declensions / parsing) that is already factual about the words.
(Phil112)
This passage is self explanatory. Let's look at it again, shall we?
"Let no man therefore judge you
in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days:
Which are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ."
(Robin)
Speaking of parsing the verb, here (present active imperative third person) is better read as ..."be him judging" ...
And there's no word, in this verse for "man," so the better reading would actually be ..."not any one" ...
There's no "meat" in this verse, either, that would be from the word family "area" (Strong's#2907) ...
Also, there's no word in this verse to account for the the addition of ..."respect of" ...
Nor is there a definite article ("the") before new moon ...
As for "holyday, nothing here from either the word family for "holy," nor from the "day" word family ... "festival" is better.
And, there's no "day" behind "sabbaths" ...
But then, I'm sure none of this really matters, since you're going to tell us, exactly what's being said ... right?
(Phil112)
"Let no man therefore judge you
in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days:
Which are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ."
(Robin)
The actual conjunction, here, is "de" or the English "yet" ... not "alla" or the English "but" ... not that accuracy matters.
However, it is just a little deceiving that you dont show the added verb ..."is" ... in italics or brackets, since this your whole argument rest upon what the final line of your verse (above) actually says. Or perhaps you didn't know this, realize that this
was editorially added ... or perhaps you dont care, already knowing what you already know you know, why bother, right?
(Phil112)
In that one sentence he mentions shadow and body.
Clearly that body is the one that cast the shadow he speaks of. There can be no other meaning.
(Robin)
If the added verb "[is]" were really there, I'd have no problem agreeing with you ... but since it isn't there,
there can, indeed, be other meanings ...
Now then, since you are equating "shadow" with "body" ... here's a pesky little fact:
The Greek word for "shadow" is feminine (word gender), but the word for "body" is neuter, so it wouldn't be correct to
equate the one word with the other ...
(Phil112)
You'd like to parse simple scripture to death.
(Robin)
Ya Phil, tis true, accuracy will be the death of scriptural understanding ... what we all need, all we really need is bluster.
(Phil112)
With Christ's ministry (His life, death, and passing on the fianl chapter to Paul) ...
(Robin)
Again, Phil, the object of this topic thread is just to read these two verses for what Paul actually say, here ...
That is, before you move on to bigger and better conclusions, just try getting these two verses correct.
(Phil112)
the body arrived and we no longer had to depend on a shadow for our guidance.
The real deal is here. No more shadow.
(Robin)
I'm Irish, not Jewish, so I never did, nor ever will depend upon Jewish rituals for guidance ...
(Phil112)
the body arrived and we no longer had to depend on a shadow ...
The real deal is here. No more shadow.
"Let no man therefore judge you
in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days:
Which are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ."
(Robin)
I hate to harp on such things, Phil, but read you own quoted scripture again ... carefully this time ...
Does it not say ..."things to come" ...
Paul wrote this after Christ's death and resurrection, and yet he's still saying ..."a shadow of things to come" ... Ummm?
(Phil112)
Clearly that body is the one that cast the shadow he speaks of. There can be no other meaning.
(Robin)
And yet, Paul himself, here in this verse, clearly states that it's ..
a consuming,
a drinking,
a part of festival or of new-moon,
sabbaths
... which are the things that cast this shadow. This shadow of things to further come about.
Tell you what, Phil, just explain the logic behind your reasoning here ... addressing specifically what these 27 words say,
and I'll have to agree with you ....that's all I'm asking of you, keep to just these two verses, and address all the existing
words, and then lay out your logic, your reasoned understanding ... but you have to really read the words, here, that's the
tricky part ... tricky, as in accurate, tricky as in a clear explanation of each word, and how they fit together as a whole.
You'd like to parse simple scripture to death.
(Robin)
Parsing relates to verbs, such things as tense, voice, and mood ...
Of late, we're talking more to declensions, like person, number,gender and case ...
But be that as it may, Phil, it's not that I'm actively doing something, here, with these scriptures,
I'm only just pointing out, or acknowledging something (declensions / parsing) that is already factual about the words.
(Phil112)
This passage is self explanatory. Let's look at it again, shall we?
"Let no man therefore judge you
in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days:
Which are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ."
(Robin)
Speaking of parsing the verb, here (present active imperative third person) is better read as ..."be him judging" ...
And there's no word, in this verse for "man," so the better reading would actually be ..."not any one" ...
There's no "meat" in this verse, either, that would be from the word family "area" (Strong's#2907) ...
Also, there's no word in this verse to account for the the addition of ..."respect of" ...
Nor is there a definite article ("the") before new moon ...
As for "holyday, nothing here from either the word family for "holy," nor from the "day" word family ... "festival" is better.
And, there's no "day" behind "sabbaths" ...
But then, I'm sure none of this really matters, since you're going to tell us, exactly what's being said ... right?
(Phil112)
"Let no man therefore judge you
in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days:
Which are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ."
(Robin)
The actual conjunction, here, is "de" or the English "yet" ... not "alla" or the English "but" ... not that accuracy matters.
However, it is just a little deceiving that you dont show the added verb ..."is" ... in italics or brackets, since this your whole argument rest upon what the final line of your verse (above) actually says. Or perhaps you didn't know this, realize that this
was editorially added ... or perhaps you dont care, already knowing what you already know you know, why bother, right?
(Phil112)
In that one sentence he mentions shadow and body.
Clearly that body is the one that cast the shadow he speaks of. There can be no other meaning.
(Robin)
If the added verb "[is]" were really there, I'd have no problem agreeing with you ... but since it isn't there,
there can, indeed, be other meanings ...
Now then, since you are equating "shadow" with "body" ... here's a pesky little fact:
The Greek word for "shadow" is feminine (word gender), but the word for "body" is neuter, so it wouldn't be correct to
equate the one word with the other ...
(Phil112)
You'd like to parse simple scripture to death.
(Robin)
Ya Phil, tis true, accuracy will be the death of scriptural understanding ... what we all need, all we really need is bluster.
(Phil112)
With Christ's ministry (His life, death, and passing on the fianl chapter to Paul) ...
(Robin)
Again, Phil, the object of this topic thread is just to read these two verses for what Paul actually say, here ...
That is, before you move on to bigger and better conclusions, just try getting these two verses correct.
(Phil112)
the body arrived and we no longer had to depend on a shadow for our guidance.
The real deal is here. No more shadow.
(Robin)
I'm Irish, not Jewish, so I never did, nor ever will depend upon Jewish rituals for guidance ...
(Phil112)
the body arrived and we no longer had to depend on a shadow ...
The real deal is here. No more shadow.
"Let no man therefore judge you
in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days:
Which are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ."
(Robin)
I hate to harp on such things, Phil, but read you own quoted scripture again ... carefully this time ...
Does it not say ..."things to come" ...
Paul wrote this after Christ's death and resurrection, and yet he's still saying ..."a shadow of things to come" ... Ummm?
(Phil112)
Clearly that body is the one that cast the shadow he speaks of. There can be no other meaning.
(Robin)
And yet, Paul himself, here in this verse, clearly states that it's ..
a consuming,
a drinking,
a part of festival or of new-moon,
sabbaths
... which are the things that cast this shadow. This shadow of things to further come about.
Tell you what, Phil, just explain the logic behind your reasoning here ... addressing specifically what these 27 words say,
and I'll have to agree with you ....that's all I'm asking of you, keep to just these two verses, and address all the existing
words, and then lay out your logic, your reasoned understanding ... but you have to really read the words, here, that's the
tricky part ... tricky, as in accurate, tricky as in a clear explanation of each word, and how they fit together as a whole.
R
robinriley
Guest
(Robin)
I'm familiar with your "New World translation" ... it really a rather sad little rag; fact of the matter, I can quickly see half a dozen or ore mistakes in just these two verses, but the real criminal thing about the particular reading, here, is that they blatently have mistranslated (on purpose, in other words) the Greek word "sOma ..."a body {4983 N-NSN} ... saying instead ... "the reality"
And yes, I understand how a particular religious culture can captivate the mind, so that it's not allowed to think for yourself, but do give it a try someday ...
R
robinriley
Guest
>(Pdychomom)
...systematic theology.
>(Robin)
...where one rationally formulates their beliefs via a systematic method; very logical, especially the process of comparing all related scriptures in order to come to well thought out religious conclusions concerning particular issues.
***
(Robin)
Pondered on your post about this, for awhile ... and just wondered if you're willing to a little systematic theology to practice?
Here's the challenge:
Sort out all those verses of Pauls where he talk to and about ..."the body of Christ" ...
Comparing all related scriptures, in order to come to a well thought-out religious conclusion concerning this particular issue.
You might even go so far as to include those verses, where ..."the body of Christ" ... is not specifially stated, but that this is what's clearly intended, such as the verse Colossians 2:19, where Paul talks to "the body" of believers, and Christ "the Head"
Then, tell me wheather or not Paul doesn't use and define this term ..."the body of Christ" ... within all it contexts,
to mean something very specific. That is, when Paul uses this term, wouldn't it be logical of us to think,
that all those hearing him speak, way backl then, knew exactly what he was referring to ... a codified phrase, in other words.
If you do take me up on this ... then PLEASE do get back with me, and tell me what your systematic theology has determined
what Paul means by this, his very unique phrase ..."the body of Christ" ...
When and if you do get back with me, I'll have just one other question to ask ... nothing tricky, just want to see how your systematic theology works.
...systematic theology.
>(Robin)
...where one rationally formulates their beliefs via a systematic method; very logical, especially the process of comparing all related scriptures in order to come to well thought out religious conclusions concerning particular issues.
***
(Robin)
Pondered on your post about this, for awhile ... and just wondered if you're willing to a little systematic theology to practice?
Here's the challenge:
Sort out all those verses of Pauls where he talk to and about ..."the body of Christ" ...
Comparing all related scriptures, in order to come to a well thought-out religious conclusion concerning this particular issue.
You might even go so far as to include those verses, where ..."the body of Christ" ... is not specifially stated, but that this is what's clearly intended, such as the verse Colossians 2:19, where Paul talks to "the body" of believers, and Christ "the Head"
Then, tell me wheather or not Paul doesn't use and define this term ..."the body of Christ" ... within all it contexts,
to mean something very specific. That is, when Paul uses this term, wouldn't it be logical of us to think,
that all those hearing him speak, way backl then, knew exactly what he was referring to ... a codified phrase, in other words.
If you do take me up on this ... then PLEASE do get back with me, and tell me what your systematic theology has determined
what Paul means by this, his very unique phrase ..."the body of Christ" ...
When and if you do get back with me, I'll have just one other question to ask ... nothing tricky, just want to see how your systematic theology works.
but your translation is not a translation at all it is a manipulation. to de soma means 'but the body'. It is a recognised Greek construction showing a new clause. you really can't move de backwards when it is clearly implanted between the definite article and the noun the definite article is in conjunction with. you are using incorrect amateur 'greek'.
incidentally the verb to be is regularly omitted and assumes in such constructions. it is common in koine Greek
Last edited:
R
robinriley
Guest
τὸ δὲ σῶμα χριστοῦ.
to de sOma tou christou
yet {1161 CONJ} a body {4983 N-NSN} of Anointed/ of Christ {5547 N-GSM}
(Robin)
I'm unaware of such a rule ... got a source reference that I check up on this with?
I'll adjust my reading ...concerning the placement of the conjunction ... when I confirm your point.
It's an ever learning process, and very amateur indeed, all self taught over the last twelve years.
However, the conjunction, here, is "de" not "alla," so I'm fairly confident that it should be read as "yet" not "but" ...
As long as you're instructing, perhaps you could give me some feedback on a related point concerntint the conjuncton "alla" ...
That is, here's something I put together, mainly just to get the question about it straight in my head:
***
0235[SUP] GK0247[/SUP] all / alla but CONJ
Using Paul’s 13 epistles, as our sample universe, there are over 300 instances of the conjunction …ἀλλὰ … which is supposed to be shortened to …ἀλλʼ… when the following word begins with a vowel; the phonology of how the final letters of one word interact with the initial letters of the next word, does not affect the meaning. Also, for purposes of euphony (especially where the purpose is to avoid the glottal stop, or rough breathing) the consonant "h" is added before certain words beginning with vowels, which means that the proceeding conjunction … ἀλλὰ … is used instead of the shortened ...ἀλλʼ… There are well over 200 instances where this linguistic “rule” is followed; but 68 instances where this isn’t so; and many of these account for some of differences between the Alexandrian and Byzantine source texts. For purposes of noting the particulars of these variations, I’ve used Robinson and Pierpont’s “Byzantine Textform 2005,” and compared it against Michael Holmes’ “The Greek New Testament SBL Edition.” Groups A and B below are lists of those instances where this rule is not complied with;
Group A Where ἀλλὰ should have been shortened to ἀλλʼ before words beginning with a vowel:
Rom 5:14 alla ebasileusen … ἀλλὰ] WH … ἀλλ'] Byz ς
Rom 8:9 alla en … ἀλλὰ] א B D* WH … ἀλλ'] 0311 Byz ς
Rom 8:15 alla elabete … ἀλλὰ] WH … ἀλλ'] Byz ς
Rom 8:26 alla auto … ἀλλὰ] WH … ἀλλ'] Byz ς
Rom 13:14 alla endusasthe … ἀλλὰ] WH … ἀλλ'] Byz ς
1Cor 1:17 alla euaggelizesthai … ἀλλὰ] WH … ἀλλ'] Byz ς
1Cor 6:6 alla adelphos … Both?
1Cor 6:11 alla edikaiOthEte … ἀλλὰ] WH … ἀλλ'] Byz ς
1Cor 11:17 alla eis … ἀλλὰ] WH … ἀλλ'] Byz ς
1Cor 14:19 alla en … ἀλλὰ] WH … ἀλλ'] Byz ς
1Cor 14:33 alla eirEnEs … Both? [ἀλλ'] ς
1Cor 15:35 alla erei … ἀλλὰ] WH … ἀλλ'] Byz ς
1Cor 15:39 alla allE … Both?
2Cor 1:9 alla autoi … Both?
2Cor 2:5 alla apo … Both?
2Cor 2:13 alla apotaxamenos … Both?
2Cor 3:14 alla epOrOthE … ἀλλὰ] WH … ἀλλ'] Byz ς
2Cor 4:2 alla apeipametha … Both? [ἀλλ'] ς
2Cor 5:12 alla aphormEn … Both?
2Cor 7:11 alla apologian … Both?
2Cor 7:11 alla aganaktEsin … Both?
2Cor 7:11 alla epipothEsin … Both? [ἀλλ'] ς
2Cor 7:11 alla ekdikEsin … Both? [ἀλλ'] ς
2Cor 10:12 alla autoi … Both?
Gal 1:17 alla apElthon … Both? [ἀλλ'] ς
Gal 4:17 alla ekkleisai … Both?
Eph 4:29 alla ei … ἀλλὰ] WH … ἀλλ'] Byz ς
Eph 5:29 alla ektrephei … ἀλλὰ] WH … ἀλλ'] Byz ς
Eph 6:4 alla ektrephete … ἀλλὰ] WH … ἀλλ'] Byz ς
Phil 2:17 alla ei … ἀλλὰ] WH … ἀλλ'] Byz ς
Phil 4:17 alla epizEtO … ἀλλὰ] WH … ἀλλ'] Byz ς
1The 2:7 alla egenEthEmen … ἀλλὰ] WH … ἀλλ'] Byz ς
1The 5:9 alla eis … ἀλλὰ] WH … ἀλλ'] Byz ς
2The 2:12 alla eudokEsantes … ἀλλὰ] WH … ἀλλ'] Byz ς
1Tim 1:13 alla EleEthEn… Both? [ἀλλ'] ς
1Tim 5:23 alla oinO … ἀλλὰ] WH … ἀλλ'] Byz ς
2Tim 2:24 alla Epion … ἀλλὰ] WH … ἀλλ'] Byz ς
There are a total of 37 instances where ἀλλὰ should have been shortened to ἀλλʼ before words beginning with a vowel; and in 21 of these the Byzantine complies, but the Alexandrian doesn’t; however, in 16 instances both Byzantine and the Alexandrian texts don’t comply with this “rule,” and I can see nothing in common about the following word that might explain this. Note: I could identify 6 instances, out of these 16, where the Textus Receptus complies (there may be more).
*1Cor 6:6 alla adelphos … Both? {0080 N-NSM}
*1Cor 14:33 alla eirEnEs … Both? [ἀλλ'] ς {1515 N-GSF}
*1Cor 15:39 alla allE … Both? {0243 A-NSF}
*2Cor 1:9 alla autoi … Both? {0846 P-NPM}
*2Cor 2:5 alla apo … Both? {0575 PREP}
*2Cor 2:13 alla apotaxamenos … Both? {0657 V-AMP-NSM}
*2Cor 4:2 alla apeipametha … Both? [ἀλλ'] ς {0550 V-2AMI-1P}
*2Cor 5:12 alla aphormEn … Both? {0874 N-ASF}
*2Cor 7:11 alla apologian … Both? {0627 N-ASF}
*2Cor 7:11 alla aganaktEsin … Both? {0024 N-ASF}
*2Cor 7:11 alla epipothEsin … Both? [ἀλλ'] ς {1972 N-ASF}
*2Cor 7:11 alla ekdikEsin … Both? [ἀλλ'] ς {1557 N-ASF}
*2Cor 10:12 alla autoi … Both? {0846 P-NPM}
*Gal 1:17 alla apElthon … Both? [ἀλλ'] ς {0565 V-2AAI-1S}
*Gal 4:17 alla ekkleisai … Both? {1576 V-AAN}
*1Tim 1:13 alla EleEthEn… Both? [ἀλλ'] ς {1653 V-API-1S}
Group B Where ἀλλὰ should be shortened to ἀλλʼ before words where the consonant “h” has been added for purposes of euphony:
Rom 6:14 alla hupo … ἀλλὰ] WH … ἀλλ'] Byz ς
Rom 6:15 alla hupo … ἀλλὰ] WH … ἀλλ'] Byz ς
Rom 7:17 alla hE … ἀλλὰ] WH … ἀλλ'] Byz ς
Rom 7:19 alla ho … ἀλλὰ] WH … ἀλλ'] Byz ς
Rom 7:20 alla hE … ἀλλὰ] WH … ἀλλ'] Byz ς
Rom 8:32 alla huper … ἀλλὰ] WH … ἀλλ'] Byz ς
Rom 11:18 alla hE … ἀλλὰ] WH … ἀλλ'] Byz ς
1Cor 3:6 alla ho … ἀλλὰ] WH … ἀλλ'] Byz ς
1Cor 6:8 alla humeis…Both?
1Cor 6:11 alla hEgiasthEte … ἀλλὰ] WH … ἀλλ'] Byz ς
1Cor 7:4 alla ho … ἀλλὰ] WH … ἀλλ'] Byz ς
1Cor 7:4 alla hE … ἀλλὰ] WH … ἀλλ'] Byz ς
1Cor 7:7 alla hekastos … ἀλλὰ] WH … ἀλλ'] Byz ς
1Cor 9:27 alla hupOpiazO … ἀλλὰ] WH … ἀλλ'] Byz ς
1Cor 12:24 alla ho … ἀλλὰ] WH … ἀλλ'] Byz ς
1Cor 14:34 alla hupotassesthai … ἀλλὰ] WH … ἀλλ'] Byz ς
1Cor 15:10 alla hE … ἀλλὰ] WH … ἀλλ'] Byz ς
1Cor 15:40 alla hetera … ἀλλὰ] WH … ἀλλ'] Byz ς
2Cor 10:18 alla hon … ἀλλὰ] WH … ἀλλ'] Byz ς
2Cor 2:14 alla humas … Both?
2Cor 12:14 alla hoi … ἀλλὰ] WH … ἀλλ'] Byz ς
2Cor 12:16 alla huparchOn … ἀλλὰ] WH … ἀλλ'] Byz ς
2Cor 13:8 alla huper … ἀλλὰ] WH … ἀλλ'] Byz ς
Gal 4:2 alla hupo … Both?
Gal 4:7 alla huios … ἀλλὰ] WH … ἀλλ'] Byz ς
Gal 4:14 alla hOs … ἀλλὰ] WH … ἀλλ'] Byz ς
Eph 5:24 alla hOsper/ hOs … ἀλλὰ] WH … ἀλλ'] Byz ς
Phil 2:7 alla heauton … ἀλλὰ] WH … ἀλλ'] Byz ς
Phil 2:27 alla ho … Both?
Phil 3:7 alla hatina … ἀλλὰ] WH [NA]… ἀλλ'] Byz ς
2Tim 2:9 alla ho … ἀλλὰ] WH … ἀλλ'] Byz ς
There are a total of 31 out of the 68 instances, where ἀλλὰ should have been shortened to ἀλλʼ before words where the consonant “h” has been added for purposes of euphony, and in all but four of these, the Byzantine texts comply with this rule, but the Alexandrian texts do not. Also, in many instances where the Alexandrian texts don’t’ comply; there are as many or more similar instances where they do comply. Therefore, this is not a conscious matter of application or style, but is due to an amanuensis misspellings, or mistakes in the extant manuscripts having arisen in the apographs.
***
Group C Where ἀλλὰ is shortened to ἀλλʼ before words where the consonant “h” has been added for purposes of euphony, in both the Alexandrian and Byzantine source texts:
Romans 2:13 all hoi; 2:29 all ho; 7:15 all ho; 9:32 all hOs; 1Corinthians 3:1 all hOs; 3:7 all ho; 4:14 all hOs; 8:6 all hEmin; 10:20 all hoti; 14:17 all ho; 2Corinthians 2:17 all hOs; 2:17 all hOs; 3:5 all hE; 3:15 all heOs; 4:16 all ho; 7:6 all ho; 7:9 all hoti; 7:12 all heineken; 7:14 all hOs; 8:5 all heautous; 8:7 all hOsper; 11:17 all hOs; 13:7 all hina; Galatians 3:12 all ho; 3:16 all hOs; 4:23 all ho; 4:29 all hOsper; Ephesians 5:15 all hOs; 5:27 all hina; 6:6 all hOs; 2Thessalonians 3:9 all hina; 1Timothy 2:10 all ho; Philemon 1:16 all huper
Group D
Romans 1:21 all emataiOthEsan; 2:29 all ek; 4:2 all ou; 4:10 all en; 4:20 all enedunamOthE; 5:15 all ouch; 8:37 all en; 9:7 all en; 9:11 [9:12] all ek; 10:2 all ou; 10:16 all ou; 1Corinthians 2:4 all en; 2:5 all en; 2:13 all en; 3:2 all oute; 4:3 all oude; 4:4 all ouk; 4:15 all ou; 4:20 all en; 5:8 all en; 6:12 all ou; 6:12 all ouk; 7:21 all ei; 8:7 all ouk; 9:12 all ouk; 10:5 all ouk; 9:21 all ennomos; 10:23 all ou; 15:46 all ou; 2Corinthians 1:9 all epi; 1:12 all en; 1:13 all E; 3:3 all en; 4:8 all ou; 4:8 all ouk; 4:9 all ouk; 4:9 all ouk; 4:16 all ei; 5:4 all ependusasthai; 6:4 all en; 7:5 all en; 8:13 all ex; 11:6 all ou; 11:6 all en; Galatians 2:3 all oude; Philippians 1:20 all en; 4:6 all en; Colossians 3:22 all en; 1Thessalonians 4:7 all en; 2Thessalonians 3:8 all en; 1Timothy 2:12 all einai; 6:17 all en/ epi ; 2Timothy 1:12 all ouk; 3:9 all ou
Group E
Romans 1:32 alla kai; 3:27 alla dia; 3:31 alla nomon; 4:4 alla kata; 4:12 alla kai; 4:13 alla dia; 4:16 alla kai; 4:24 alla kai; 5:3 alla kai; 5:11 alla kai; 6:5 alla kai; 6:13 alla parastEsate; 7:7 alla tEn; 7:13 alla tEn; 8:1 alla kata; 8:4 alla kata; 8:20 alla dia; 8:23 alla kai; 9:8 alla ta; 9:10 alla kai; 9:16 alla tou; 9:24 alla kai; 10:8 alla ti; 10:18 alla legO; 10:19 alla legO; 11:4 alla ti; 11:11 alla tO; 11:20 alla phobou; 12:2 alla metamorphousthai; 12:16 alla tois; 12:19 alla dote; 12:21 alla nika; 13:3 alla tOn; 13:5 alla kai; 14:13 alla touto; 14:17 alla dikaiosunE; 14:20 alla kakon; 15:3 alla kathOs; 15:21 alla kathOs; 16:4 alla kai; 16:18 alla tE; 1Corinthians 1:27 alla ta; 2:7 alla laloumen; 2:9 alla kathOs; 2:12 alla to; 3:5 all E; 4:19 alla tEn; 6:13 alla tO; 7:19 alla tErEsis; 7:35 alla pros; 9:2 alla ge; 9:12 alla panta; 10:13 alla poiEsei; 10:24 alla to; 10:29 alla tEn; 10:33 alla to; 11:8 alla gunE; 11:9 alla gunE; 12:14 alla polla; 12:22 alla pollO; 12:25 alla to; 14:2 alla tO; 14:20 alla tE; 14:22 alla tois; 14:22 alla tois; 15:10 alla perissoteron; 15:37 alla gumnon; 15:45 alla to; 2Corinthians 1:19 alla nai; 1:24 alla sunergoi; 2:4 alla tEn; 3:3 alla pneumatic; 3:6 alla pneumatos; 4:2 alla tE; 4:5 alla christen; 4:18 alla ta; 5:15 alla tO; 5:16 alla nun; 7:7 alla kai; 7:11 alla phobon; 7:11 alla zElon; 8:8 alla dia; 8:10 alla kai; 8:19 alla kai; 8:21 alla kai; 9:12 alla kai; 10:4 alla dunata; 10:13 alla kata; 11:1 alla kai; 13:3 alla dunatei; 13:4 alla zE; 13:4 alla zEsometha; Galatians 1:1 alla dia; 1:8 alla kai; 1:12 alla di; 2:7 alla tounantion; 3:22 alla sunekleisen; 4:8 alla tote; 4:30 alla ti; 4:31 alla tEs; 5:6 alla pistis; 5:13 alla dia; 6:13 alla thelousin; 6:15 alla kainE; Ephesians 1:21 alla kai; 2:19 alla sumpolitai; 5:4 alla mallon; 5:17 alla sunientes; 5:18 alla plErousthe; 6:12 alla pros; Philippians 1:18 alla kai; 1:29 alla kai; 2:3 alla tE; 2:4 alla kai; 2:12 alla nun; 2:27 alla kai; 3:8 alla men; 3:9 alla tEn; Colossians 2:5 alla tO; 3:11 alla ta; 1Thessalonians 1:5 alla kai; 1:8 alla kai; 2:4 alla kathOs; 2:4 alla tO; 2:8 alla kai; 2:13 alla kathOs; 4:8 alla ton; 5:6 alla grEgorOmen; 5:15 alla pantote; 2Thessalonians 3:11 alla periergazomenous; 3:15 alla noutheteite; 1Timothy 1:16 alla dia; 4:12 alla tupos; 5:1 alla parakalei; 5:13 alla kai; 6:4 alla nosOn; Titus 1:8 alla philoxenon; 1:15 alla memiantai; 3:5 alla kata; Philemon 1:14 alla kata; 2Timothy 1:7 alla dunameOs; 1:8 alla sugkakopathEson; 1:9 alla kat; 1:17 alla genomenos; 2:20 alla kai; 4:3 alla kata; 4:8 alla kai; 4:16 alla pantes
R
robinriley
Guest
(Robin)
Just noticed this added comment ... so tell me Valiant, do you think this holds true, in all those other verses where Paul says
"the body of Christ;"
that is, are you suggesting that we should always read this as
"the body [is] of Christ" ...
Also, I'm glad that you got back with me with this added comment, because I've found I need to clarify the source text variation;
that is, I inadvertently left in place the definite article be Christ ...need to delete "tou" from my trnasliteration ...
τὸ δὲ σῶμα χριστοῦ.
to de sOma tou christou ***2:17* Addition
χριστοῦ
Byz
christou
of Anointed/ of Christ {5547 N-GSM}
*tou christou
of the [One] {3588 T-GSM} of Anointed/ of Christ {5547 N-GSM}
τοῦ χριστοῦ
WH ς
'one of the most commonly used Greek particles used to connect one clause with another when it is felt that there is some contrast between them, though the contrast is often scarcely discernible. Most common translations: BUT when a contrast is clearly implied, AND when a simple connective is required, without contrast; frequently it cannot be translated at all (Bauer Arndt and Gingrich - Greek English Lexicon)
it is almost always placed second in the clause, thus in this case coming between the definite article and its noun.
R
robinriley
Guest
(Valiant)
Most common translations: BUT when a contrast is clearly implied,
AND when a simple connective is required, without contrast [Bauer Arndt and Gingrich]
(Robin)
Think I'll stick with:
"but" for "alla / all" ...
"yet" for "de" ...
When I posted with Maurice Robinson, he didn't correct me concerning this ... perhaps he felt sorry for my ignorance, but then maybe he, too, didn't think that we have to follow everything that Bauer Arndt and Gingrich have to say?
I find that "and" "also" and "even" work well for "kai" ... dont' think I'll be using "and" for "de" either ...
As for the verb "to be" regularly omitted and assumed in such constructions ...common in koine Greek ...
I'm under the impression that we, today, dont really know everything we should about koine Greek ... that is,
there's more than one "common understanding" about what the rules were back then ... Ummmm?
Robin
...in a consuming, or in a drinking, or in a part of festival or of new-moon, or of sabbaths...
So, if we are talking about religious ceremonies here, and the eating and drinking are to be taken as the Jewish communion, how do you see that as part of something to come?
...in a consuming, or in a drinking, or in a part of festival or of new-moon, or of sabbaths...
So, if we are talking about religious ceremonies here, and the eating and drinking are to be taken as the Jewish communion, how do you see that as part of something to come?
R
robinriley
Guest
(Robin)
Alright Valiant, I'll move the conjunction back in it's normal place ...
But how are you perceiving it to be used ... that is, are you understanding this to be a clear contrast ... or perhaps we shouldn't translate it at all? This is an interesting discussion ... thank you for engaging.
BUT when a contrast is clearly implied,
AND when a simple connective is required, without contrast;
frequently it cannot be translated at all
Alright Valiant, I'll move the conjunction back in it's normal place ...
But how are you perceiving it to be used ... that is, are you understanding this to be a clear contrast ... or perhaps we shouldn't translate it at all? This is an interesting discussion ... thank you for engaging.
BUT when a contrast is clearly implied,
AND when a simple connective is required, without contrast;
frequently it cannot be translated at all