Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : Ask God -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Greg or e who wrote (35342)	5/31/2003 1:34:18 AM
From: Berry Picker	Respond to of 39621

Greg - I also do not currently own a copy of the " Expositor's Greek Testament" but I wanted to quote from it concerning Col 2:9. I actually tried the public library and a local 'Christian' bookstore but they could not even find the books listed never mind have a copy :-) I then tried EBAY but they are asking a fortune for them. I then ordered a set from CDB - it will take 2 - 4 weeks to arrive :-( You do have Vine's so that is good. If you look up body and bodily you can see that - as MARS so kindly pointed out that often body can be used metaphorically of the 'body' of believers. I used to smoke very heavily even long after I came to profess Christ. A lot of people used to tell me I would go to hell for smoking. They would quote this verse: 1 Corinthians 3:17 If any man defile the temple of God, him shall God destroy; for the temple of God is holy, which temple ye are. They were right that it is a sin to smoke and likely should have simply quoted the 6th commandment because it is also a sin to kill your self through any immoderate use of anything - including too much food - but - the verse above is not speaking of a single individuals physical body at all. This established by referring back to the Greek and seeing that "YE" is in the plural form meaning the 'church' or the 'group of believers' Christ's body if you will in the metaphorical sense. In Col 2:9 however we are looking at the word bodily or as your NIV version had stated bodily form First - I would say that the NIV is a paraphrase rather than a translation. Here are a couple of paraphrases even worse: The Living Bible: Col 2:9 For in Christ there is all of God in a human body Now if you want the verse to support your argument that is an excellent 'version' of it :-) However it is an interpretation rather than a translation. Good News for Modern Man: (some say 'bad news') Col 2:9&10 For the full content of divine nature lives in Christ, in his humanity, and you have been given full life in union with him. Certainly there is nothing in the verse about Christ's humanity :-) The verse is talking about Christ's divinity. Since you do own Vines however (You may also have Strong's Concordance) I will point out that the word used in Col 2:9 appears there and only there. The word "Soma" is the root word translated "body" 144 times. In this verse there is no doubt as to what it means: Colossians 1:22 In the body of his flesh through death, to present you holy and unblameable and unreproveable in his sight: Would you not agree that it is Christ's own physical body being referred to in that verse especially because it says "body" and adds "of His flesh"? Well Vine's say NO that it is referring to the church and speaking only of Christ's "mystical body" Vines says the same thing of verses 1:18 and 1:24 Now who in reading any English version or even worse these paraphrases would ever come to a conclusion that it is metaphoric rather than literal reference to the physical body of Christ? Here are all the uses of the word Soma (4983) in Colossians Vines says Mystical of this verse Colossians 1:18 And he is the head of the body <4983>, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all things he might have the preeminence. Vines says Mystical of this verse Colossians 1:22 In the body <4983> of his flesh through death, to present you holy and unblameable and unreproveable in his sight: Vines says Mystical of this verse Colossians 1:24 Who now rejoice in my sufferings for you, and fill up that which is behind of the afflictions of Christ in my flesh for his body’s <4983> sake, which is the church: Here it is Metaphoric because it represents sin not human flesh Colossians 2:11 In whom also ye are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, in putting off the body <4983> of the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ: This was said in reference to religious elements (practices) so it is also not a reference to Christ’s flesh and blood body but rather the body of true worship Colossians 2:17 Which are a shadow of things to come; but the body <4983> is of Christ. Same topic 2 verses later body is speaking about the church being nourished not from ordinances of men etc. Colossians 2:19 And not holding the Head, from which all the body <4983> by joints and bands having nourishment ministered, and knit together, increaseth with the increase of God. First reference to actual physical body but that of believers in this life Colossians 2:23 Which things have indeed a shew of wisdom in will worship, and humility, and neglecting of the body <4983>; not in any honour to the satisfying of the flesh. One Body referring to the body of believers Colossians 3:15 And let the peace of God rule in your hearts, to the which also ye are called in one body <4983>; and be ye thankful. So out of 8 uses of the word only one refers to a physical body and that of individual believers and fasting from elements such as marriage or food or what have you. Now the other use of "soma" is found twice in the adjective form and once only in the adverb form. Here is the adjective form from Strongs: 4984 swmatikov somatikos so-mat-ee-kos’ from 4983; TDNT-7:1024,1140; adj AV-bodily 2; 2 1) corporeal, bodily 1a) having a bodily form or nature 1b) pertaining to the body Here is the adverb form - it only appeared once in the bible: 4985 swmatikwv somatikos so-mat-ee-koce’ from 4984; ; adv AV-bodily 1; 1 1) bodily, corporally 1a) of the exalted spiritual body, visible only to the inhabitants of heaven Colossians 2:9 For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily (4985). The difference between the adverb and adjective is one letter - the second to last is either Omega or Omicron. You can see the Greek letters at this link if you like: execulink.com Now - You may say that you disagree with Vines comments stating that Col 1:18,22,and 24 as being mystical references to the body of believers rather than the actual body of Christ. It should also be said that even if the word 'body' appeared a million times in a metaphoric sense that does not mean anything concerning Col 2:9 and you are right. I just wanted to point out that this verse: Colossians 1:22 In the body of his flesh through death, to present you holy and unblameable and unreproveable in his sight: a verse that 99% of people would insist you need be a heretic to not see that it refers to Christ's flesh and blood is not seen by a very widely accepted Greek Scholar, namely Strongs However, he could be wrong, I will give you that. The verse in question is Col 2:9 The adjective form is only found in these 2 verses: Luke 3:22 And the Holy Ghost descended in a bodily shape like a dove upon him,.... 1 Timothy 4:8 For bodily exercise profiteth little: but godliness is profitable unto all things,... I know you know this but an adjective describes nouns. In the first verse the noun is "shape" in the second verse the structure is like this For (preposition) bodily (adjective describing the word exercise) exercise (a noun in this sentence) profiteth (verb) little (adverb describing the verb profiteth) We both agree I presume that "bodily" in 1Tim 4:8 is speaking about our human bodies but concerning the use of this adjective in Luke 3:22 it is a descriptive element having nothing to do with humans at all but rather giving added description to the word "shape" I would say that the "shape" was something visible that looked like the "body" of a bird like a dove. I think however that we can agree that nothing is added to our understanding of Col 2:9 by looking at the adjective use of a very similar form of the word used in Col 2:9 What have I said? 1.Concerning Col 2:9 - that the word translated bodily is an adverb and no other verse can help us understand it because it is a stand alone word in scripture. 2. That the word closest to it in the adjective form is of no use in understanding Col 2:9 3. That some uses of the word body - although they seem to be quite simple are yet debated by men like Vines and Strongs etc. 4. Also the same thing MARS said - that the word body is more often used metaphorically - but that means nothing concerning the exegesis of Col 2:9 Now, if anyone were trying to prove that Christ did not keep the body with which He was raised after the ascension then the following comments of Strong would seem a welcome proof (personally I know of no one attempting to prove such by the way) This is what Strongs says: 1) bodily, corporally 1a) of the exalted spiritual body, visible only to the inhabitants of heaven Now where Strongs gets this comment or understanding I know not but would you not say that such comments certainly lend themselves to conclude that the "body" referred to in Col 2:9 was and can only be the "body" of Christ but that the body He now has is "spiritual" and to top it off can only be seen by those who are already in heaven? I am tempted to quote him just to throw a monkey wrench your way but I cannot say that what is said there by Him is anything more than his own human assertion. I do not rest upon "human authority" no matter how well accepted or how much more studied they are than I. All men can err in many ways. I can not think of any group who are attempting to prove that Christ does not have a body even now - and you know I believe the second coming to be past. My question is - is it provable? Why do people believe that Christ gave up the bodiless condition that He had in all eternity past only to inhabit the confines of a body throughout eternity to come? My wife is telling me it's movie time so I will finish this note tomorrow if you don't mind. I want to actually talk about the verse you have brought up. I am sorry if I have beaten about the bush a bit with this post and I likely only said much of what MARS already said but I think it is important to keep in mind that what Col 2:9 is actually teaching is not what we are deriving from the verse. Neither does the epistle say - OK now I am going to talk about Gnosticism either. That is something men deduct from the conversation. What you are saying and it is accepted by 99% is that the verse incidentally also teaches that Christ inhabits an eternal albeit glorified body of flesh. What I would propose is that it has not been universally accepted as doing so. Also, if you have any information as to why Strong said the following: "of the exalted spiritual body, visible only to the inhabitants of heaven" concerning this adverb - and he knew it was an adverb - I would like to know because I do not get it. In any case, I am hoping to get that other quote for you but I will have to wait until they ship the set, as I cannot find anyone here that owns a set. Brian

To: Greg or e who wrote (35342)	5/31/2003 4:47:44 PM
From: Berry Picker	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 39621

Greg - after my last case of 'verbal diarrhea’ I thought I would share some correspondence that I am having with a fellow that has studied the ancient Greek language and has a Doctorate in Theology or Divinity or whatever it is. He is a Preterist but maintains a physical resurrection of "a body" but agrees it will not consist of that which has returned to the dust – not that what he believes really matters if his answers are honest then one should not ‘suspect’ an agenda – however we are all human and a man’s presupposed systems will lean him in certain directions. ----------------------------------- I sent some e-mails to some of my “greek” friends – not to be confused with “geek” friends. First I sent this: ---------------------------- I tried to call but not sure now how much time change you have between here and there.. I have been discussing the concept of the "physical" second coming of Christ as opposed to a "spiritual" or a "presence" mentality. Now most people insist that the question is too easily answered and only those with an agenda could possibly miss it. I, however, have no agenda that I am aware of and yet I am brought to sincerely question the widely accepted notion that Acts 1 boldly proclaims such: Acts 1:11 Which also said, Ye men of Galilee, why stand ye gazing up into heaven? this same Jesus, which is taken up from you into heaven, shall so come in like manner as ye have seen him go into heaven. However, I have been taught that the statement "in like manner" may not have referred to His Physical body leaving the earth up to the cloud - but - rather referred to His leaving in a cloud. Apparently there is not question in the original text. They were looking for a reappearance of his visible body from the cloud when the Angel spoke to them. 9 And when he had spoken these things, while they beheld, he was taken up; and a cloud received him out of their sight. It appears that His physical body became "not visible" but they could only perceive the "cloud" and that it was in this "cloud" form that he would return. Perhaps you can tell if in fact the Greek makes it plain as to which is being referred to. We know that many scriptures speak of Him returning on or as a cloud: Revelation 1:7 Behold, he cometh with clouds; and every eye shall see him, and they also which pierced him: and all kindreds of the earth shall wail because of him. Even so, Amen. We have long been taught and presume that when the scriptures say "every eye shall see" that it refers to His physical body. However the text says not that He returns with a visible body but "with clouds". My understanding of coming "with clouds" in the Old Testament predictions was that of a coming in Judgment and has nothing to do with a physical appearance of God at all other than every eye witnessing the results of that Judgment which can plainly be seen in the historically recorded judgment of Israel within a generation of being foretold by the Lord. The next verse offered to 'prove' that Christ intends to keep the physical body that was given Him to "become flesh and dwell among us" is this: Colossians 2:9 For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily. This is said after the ascension and is used to 'prove' that since Christ had not shed His physical body at that point 62 AD or so that it is plain that Christ intended to return with it and to keep it throughout all eternity. It is a very good and logical argument. One that would seem reasonable and irrefutable. I have a small problem however believing it to be irrefutable proof. The word translated "bodily" is from the root word "soma" but is in a form that appears only in this verse and none other. Strongs said this of that form: "of the exalted spiritual body, visible only to the inhabitants of heaven " It is at this point that I must defer to someone who has studied the languages and can lend to me their knowledge to discern just how 'irrefutably' this verse proves that Christ yet inhabited a physical form even after having been seated at the right hand of the Father. Comments or any light you can shed are deeply appreciated. Brian -------------------- At this point I received a phone call and we discussed the fact that it was an adverb. This fellow accepted the idea that it was an adverb but them later wrote the following: --------------------- Say, i did a little more hard looking at this "somatikos" word in Col. 2:9. It is in fact an adverbial adjective. Thing is, it must modify the last verb used in the passage, which is katoikei (dwells-lives). So according to the morphology of "katoikei" (present, active, indoicative) the text would translate as..."For in him, continuously dwells all the fullness of the Godhead bodily (in bodily form)." --------- Now I have no idea what an “adverbial adjective” is other than a contradiction of termsJ I have never heard the expression before but I sent this: _____ You rephrased the verse as "continuously dwells" where do we get the "continuously" in the verse? How do we know that Paul is not referring to the body prior to the resurrection (if in fact he is fighting Gnostics) rather than the "body" Christ then had in heaven when this was written? Two verses later we have the analogy of Christ being "cut off" as in the "circumcision" - that to me is a past tense statement. Can you offer any more insight - greatly appreciate the time you have spent already. ----------------------- He then sent this in response: Howdy, The "continuously" part of "dwells" in Col. 2:9, reflects the "present tense" of the greek word there for "dwell" (katoikia). The present tense gives the verb a continuous action. (See ay greek grammar). The reason we know that this is tralking about the person of Christ is the very context. In V. 6...The Colossians had received the historical Christ as Lord and Savior. They were then encouraged to live in him. In V. 8 they were encouraged to follow after the personal teaching of the personal historical Christ. In V.9 he asserts that all the fulness of the Godheafd live's continuously in the personal- historical Christ in his bodily form. V. 10, the personal historial Christ is the head over all earthly and spiritual authorities... There is nothing that i can see in this context that would indicate that he was talking about the ekklesia or Church (Body) of Christ in that sense. It's a very straight- forward and plain read. I really do think that to take this any other way is to force a pre-conceived notion into the text. This is what we call "eisegesis" : Reading something into the text that is really not there. It's manipulation of the facts of the text as it is presented. --------------------- I then sent this: I was not trying to see the verse in the "mystic" sense of the body of believers - but the essence of my inquiry is this. If this verse prove incidentally or directly the concept that Christ still had a body between the ascension and the second coming then... When John states in this verse: 1 John 3:2 Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that, when he shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is. It could then be asked - is John then telling us that we will in fact have 'physical' albeit 'glorified' bodies - making a certainty of the 'physical nature' of the resurrection of the believes when he came again and thence forth? It then follows that one must ask why John states that it "doth yet appear"? Why is it not manifest what we shall be like if in fact the 'body' of Christ remains even as John himself had witnessed? In short - what is it that is "not manifest" in this verse: 1 John 3:2 Beloved! now, are we, children of God; and, not yet, hath it been made manifest, what we shall be,—We know that, if it should be made manifest, like unto him, shall we be, because we shall see him, just as he is. Again - thanks for your time and help. ------------------------ I am now awaiting a response to that last e-mail but it may be a while as he likely has a sermon to prepare for tomorrow etc. I thought you might find this correspondence interesting if nothing else. So I am letting you and others here in on it. Maybe no one cares which would be pretty normal but I am enjoying myself at least :-) I boldly professed on this thread that I believe a man can know the meaning of any verse with certainty. I stand by that statement. God is a “rewarder of those who diligently seek” Most do not extend themselves beyond buying into whatever ‘party line’ their church is pushing. I want to thank you for bringing forth this particular verse however as I have never spent any meaningful (full of meaning) time on it and it appears it may be a relevant verse concerning the nature of the resurrection. Still looking into it, however. Brian