Conference yukon::christian_v7

Don't know for sure between 1 and 2 but I reject 3.  Being nice.  :-)

> Don't know for sure between 1 and 2 but I reject 3.  Being nice.  :-)

You're always nice, Mark, I don't worry about you! :-)

I might actually rephrase my exhortation, stand up for the truth without
compromise, but do it with charity (love) and dispassion.

Eric

    .0
    
    Actually I believe it was 1.  Christ's transformation didn't occur
    until his ascension, if you check out Revelations 1, you will get a
    description of the transformed body of Christ.
    
    Nancy

The logic of 3 doesn't hold up with Thomas being encouraged to touch.
Therefore, *EVEN* **IF** the body was somehow transported through walls
and doors, it was solid enough for Thomas and solid enough to eat fish.

So, while I don't know if Jesus' body was somehow "glorified" (which he
told Mary not to touch him because  "I am not yet ascended to
my Father: but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father,
and your Father; and to my God, and your God."  John 20:17),  --- or if he 
bodily rose (a la Lazarus) and then appeared (in glorified body) after going 
to the Father first --- it seems clear that he weren't no ghost.

Mark

>The logic of 3 doesn't hold up with Thomas being encouraged to touch.
>Therefore, *EVEN* **IF** the body was somehow transported through walls
>and doors, it was solid enough for Thomas and solid enough to eat fish.

Maybe it was the walls and doors which passed through his body, not
the other way around?

Maybe the spiritual reality of his body is more real than the shadows
of this earthly existence.

Thus Thomas could touch him, because he, too, is both a material and a
spiritual being, but walls passed right through, being purely appearance.

/john

Nice thought John (and Nancy, BTW), but can you eat shadows?  Jesus
ate fish after his resurrection.  The difference betwen fish and doors
when we are talking about material objects, and human bodies for that
matter is, ah, immaterial.  ;-)

MM

Incidentally, I only thought of #3 at the last minute, and I threw it in mostly
just to make things interesting, although I do understand that there are some
folks who still believe it today (I think the Witnesses do, Mark S.?).

My main focus of interest is between one and two: was Jesus Resurrected in a
glorified body, or in a corruptible body like ours.

Eric

    .6
    
    Interesting... could you point me to the scripture that supports this?
    Forgive me for not recalling it.

From John 21

  4  But when the morning was now come, Jesus stood on the shore: but the
disciples knew not that it was Jesus.
  5  Then Jesus saith unto them, Children, have ye any meat? They answered
him, No.
  6  And he said unto them, Cast the net on the right side of the ship, and
ye shall find. They cast therefore, and now they were not able to draw it for
the multitude of fishes.
  7  Therefore that disciple whom Jesus loved saith unto Peter, It is the
Lord. Now when Simon Peter heard that it was the Lord, he girt his fisher's
coat unto him, (for he was naked,) and did cast himself into the sea.
  8  And the other disciples came in a little ship; (for they were not far
from land, but as it were two hundred cubits,) dragging the net with fishes.
  9  As soon then as they were come to land, they saw a fire of coals there,
and fish laid thereon, and bread.
 10  Jesus saith unto them, Bring of the fish which ye have now caught.
 11  Simon Peter went up, and drew the net to land full of great fishes, an
hundred and fifty and three: and for all there were so many, yet was not the
net broken.
 12  Jesus saith unto them, Come and dine. And none of the disciples durst
ask him, Who art thou? knowing that it was the Lord.
 13  Jesus then cometh, and taketh bread, and giveth them, and fish likewise.
 14  This is now the third time that Jesus shewed himself to his disciples,
after that he was risen from the dead.

My guess, without digging like I ought, is that Jesus' body after 
the resurrection (at least up to the Thomas event) is for #1.
Rationale: I don't think Jesus' incorruptible body would have
the nail prints left in them.  (Were these healing over?  Speculation
that would not be supportable in any exegesis.)  Jesus showed his
hands to Thomas.  

The resurrection itself is a mystery; but also that a body with holes
in it could speak gently and calm others when he appeared to them shows
that in any event, they were dealing with the super-natural.

MM

    Mark,  I don't see where Jesus ate any of the food offered to the
    disciples... ??????

The orthodox point of view according to Catholic, Orthodox, and Anglican
tradition is #2 -- that Jesus rose in a glorified body.  This was settled
I think by the time the issue of the Trinity, Christ's divinity, his dual will,
his dual nature, and other issues were settled.

A few Scriptural facts support this view:

1) Jesus was able to pass through walls and doors, and in general appear and
disappear at will.  He did none of these things before his death.

2) Jesus was not immediately recognized by his disciples when they saw him -- 
John 20:14, 21:4, Luke 24:16. Hence it is likely that his appearance was to some
degree different afterwards.

3) Jesus, as Mark pointed out, ate food, proving that he was not merely a
ghost.

In addition, Jesus's resurrection constitutes the firstfruits of our own
Resurrection, in the glorified body spoken of elsewhere in Scripture. His
Resurrection is a type of our own Resurrection to come, where we will be 
clothed in incorruptibility and immortality.

I was rather surprised to learn the preponderance of what I guess I'd call the
"resuscitation" theory (#1) among evangelicals.  I haven't quite figured out
yet why it's so common.

I'm not sure I ever heard the theory before that Jesus received His glorified
body at his Ascension.  I can't agree with it, but at least it emphasizes that
Christ eventually received a glorified body.

You know it's pretty remarkable to me to think that the Christ we pray to who
is now in heaven at the right hand of the Father is in the same glorified body
which has the same proportions as our body.  This man who receives our worship
and hears our prayers is _still_ in that body!  Jesus didn't become discarnate
when he ascended -- he is still incarnate, still man, still God, just as he
was when he made his Resurrection appearances. Kind of makes you anxious to get 
your own glorified body, doesn't it???

Eric

>    Mark,  I don't see where Jesus ate any of the food offered to the
>    disciples... ??????

Mark was right about Jesus eating, but he remembered a similar but incorrect 
verse.  The correct one is Luke 24:41-43: "And while they still did not believe 
it because of joy and amazement he asked him, 'Do you have anything here to 
eat?' They gave him a piece of broiled fish, and he took it and ate it in their 
presence."

Eric

    I think I Corinthians 15 presents a picture of the resurrected body.

    re .7 (KALI::EWANCO)/Eric.
    
>Incidentally, I only thought of #3 at the last minute, and I threw it in mostly
>just to make things interesting, although I do understand that there are some
>folks who still believe it today (I think the Witnesses do, Mark S.?).
    
    Yes, this is true.  (I just didn't see any point in saying anything,
    since it's not the prevailing opinion around here.)
    
>My main focus of interest is between one and two: was Jesus Resurrected in a
>glorified body, or in a corruptible body like ours.
    
    I figured as much.
    
    
    								-mark.

    Jesus specifically said he would raise his body (John 2:18-22).

    I hold to the glorified body position, material in nature and yet
    transformed.  We do have different accounts of Jesus' post-ascension
    form.  Most notably from Stephen and John.  Stephen had no difficulty
    recognizing the Son of Man standing at the right had of the Father. 
    John paints more than one physical picture of Jesus, Revelation 1:12-16 
    and 19:11-16, excepting the obvious metaphoric description.  Now I may be 
    wrong, but if this was how Jesus appeared to the more than 500 witnesses 
    who saw him between the resurrection and ascension I think someone would 
    have noted it.  There is also the reference to Jesus' resurrected body
    as being flesh and bone where the more common reference to a mortal
    body is flesh and blood, implying that his blood was what had changed
    or perhaps the need for blood.
    
    Was the transformation/glorification complete while Jesus was on the
    earth?  John, who sat at Jesus breast, said in 1 John 3:2, that it does
    not yet appear what we shall be (become): but we know that when he
    appears we shall be like him for we shall see him as he is.
    
    Kent
    

Thanks, Eric, for the correction on my Scripture reference.
My haste made waste.  :-)

MM

    re .16 (FRETZ::HEISER)
    
>             -< Witnesses forgot to edit this out of their bible >-
>
>    Jesus specifically said he would raise his body (John 2:18-22).
    
    This is another reason why I wasn't planning on joining in the topic. 
    There's too much attitude around here.

>    This is another reason why I wasn't planning on joining in the topic. 
>    There's too much attitude around here.

Too true, like I said, be nice everyone! :-) But for those who regard their own 
church as the one true Church of Christ that possesses the fullness of the 
truth, the abuse sorta comes with the territory, and, indeed, can be counted as
abuse for the sake of the Gospel.

That being said, I will try to disagree in a "nice" way ...

If I recall from the days when I was influenced by the Witnesses, the argument
concerning Christ's eating food -- which I would propose as proof of his
corporeal nature -- was that I think Jesus only appeared to eat to convince
them he was real, but he didn't actually eat the food???  I remember not being
convinced by this because it made Christ into a kind of deceiver in my logic.
Is there a JW response to this objection?

Eric

    re .20 (KALI::EWANCO)/Eric
    
>That being said, I will try to disagree in a "nice" way ...
    
    Fair enough ... but keep in mind that I'm not going 'on the offensive'
    here.  You've asked ... so you shall receive.

>If I recall from the days when I was influenced by the Witnesses, the argument
>concerning Christ's eating food -- which I would propose as proof of his
>corporeal nature -- was that I think Jesus only appeared to eat to convince
>them he was real, but he didn't actually eat the food???  I remember not being
>convinced by this because it made Christ into a kind of deceiver in my logic.
>Is there a JW response to this objection?
    
    	Actually, I've never heard it put quite this way ... so if your
    memory of the argument is correct, it sounds like some individual's
    particular opinion, and not necessary the 'official view.'
    
    	As far as I know, if the Bible says Jesus ate the food, then for
    all intent and purposes, he ate the food.  Materialized angels in OT
    times had the ability to eat -- and since we're not told what went on
    'behind the scenes' inside their materialized bodies, presumably it's
    sufficient for us to accept the fact that the food went into them.  Why
    they even did that is another matter, but regardless, they were
    recognized as God's representatives.  There was no question that they
    were real, and that they were representing Jehovah.  
    
    	Similarly, I see no reason to quibble over the mechanics of
    ingestion concerning Jesus' eating during his post-resurrection
    appearances.  Whatever was seen was done -- the major point being that
    Jesus' appearance was meant to convince them that he had been
    resurrected.  *I* wouldn't say, "he never really ate the food"; since
    Jesus could supernaturally pass through solid walls/locked doors, it's
    a given that he could realistically deal with a bite of food.
    
    	As Mark Metcalfe said, and as a few translations put it (the
    Catholic NAB being one, if I recall correctly), Jesus appeared in
    'solid form' to convince his apostles that he wasn't "a ghost" [i.e.,
    an etheral phantom that you could only see but not touch -- which is
    presumably the way some demons manifest their presence].
    
    	Does this sound more reasonable to you?
    
    
    								-mark.

Mark S.
.21>    As Mark Metcalfe said, and as a few translations put it (the

There was a Protestant, a Catholic, and a Jehovah's Witness discussing
the resurrection nature of Christ's body...

Sounds too humorous to me.  ;-)

MM

>    	As Mark Metcalfe said, and as a few translations put it (the
>    Catholic NAB being one, if I recall correctly), Jesus appeared in
>    'solid form' to convince his apostles that he wasn't "a ghost" [i.e.,
>    an etheral phantom that you could only see but not touch -- which is
>    presumably the way some demons manifest their presence].
    
>    	Does this sound more reasonable to you?
    
How does the JW position differ from this?  This is how I imagined the JW
position.

>so if your memory of the argument is correct, it sounds like some individual's
> particular opinion, and not necessary the 'official view.'

I never really talked to JWs, just read the material, so my memory must not be
correct.

Eric

    re .23 (KALI::EWANCO)
    
>                               -< JW position? >-
>
>>    	As Mark Metcalfe said, and as a few translations put it (the
>>    Catholic NAB being one, if I recall correctly), Jesus appeared in
>>    'solid form' to convince his apostles that he wasn't "a ghost" [i.e.,
>>    an etheral phantom that you could only see but not touch -- which is
>>    presumably the way some demons manifest their presence].
>    
>>    	Does this sound more reasonable to you?
>    
>How does the JW position differ from this?  This is how I imagined the JW
>position.
    
    	Have we come full circle, here, or what?  Are you saying that I
    cleared it up for you, or that it really doesn't sound any different
    that what you already heard [meaning that I didn't clear up anything
    with my answer]?
    
    	What I said doesn't differ from the JW position -- it IS the JW
    position.  It's just that the fact that Jesus ate something isn't of
    all that much consequence to us.
    
    	Now that question is, what's the difference between your
    recollection of the JW position and your imagination of it (and how
    that's different still from my answer)?
    
    	
>>so if your memory of the argument is correct, it sounds like some individual's
>> particular opinion, and not necessary the 'official view.'
>
>I never really talked to JWs, just read the material, so my memory must not be
>correct.
    
    	That's funny ... if you never really talked to JWs, then how was it
    true that in the past you were at one time "influenced by them" (which
    you said in .20)?  Even we don't recommend that people just read our
    material; talking to us is virtually a must, since if people don't, a
    misunderstanding or two is almost sure to follow.
    
    	But nevermind ... it doesn't really matter.  If you care, what
    matters is that you understand our real positions.  However, to keep
    Witness-oriented discussions to a minimum here, you're welcome to send
    me e-mail.
    
    
    								-mark.

Re: .24 Mark S. (this is me, just on a 'Christian' node)

>    re .23 (KALI::EWANCO)
    
>>>    	As Mark Metcalfe said, and as a few translations put it (the
>>>    Catholic NAB being one, if I recall correctly), Jesus appeared in
>>>    'solid form' to convince his apostles that he wasn't "a ghost" [i.e.,
>>>    an etheral phantom that you could only see but not touch -- which is
>>>    presumably the way some demons manifest their presence].

>>How does the JW position differ from this?  This is how I imagined the JW
>>position.
    
>    	What I said doesn't differ from the JW position -- it IS the JW
>    position.  It's just that the fact that Jesus ate something isn't of
>    all that much consequence to us.

Looking back at what I wrote, I guess I was ambiguous.  I understood the JW
position to be that Jesus after His Resurrection was _not_ in solid form,
but was non-corporeal -- you might call this a ghost, I suppose.  I believe the
words used are "divine spirit being" or "invisible spirit creature." To hear
you say that Jesus's post-Resurrection body was of a "solid", tangible form
just surprised me.

You do have a good point about the angels in the Old Testament making them-
selves temporarily present in a form that could eat and appear to be solid,
even though fundamentally they weren't.

Eric

re:  .25  Eric

>You do have a good point about the angels in the Old Testament making them-
>selves temporarily present in a form that could eat and appear to be solid,
>even though fundamentally they weren't.

Think about the account in Genesis where angels "forsook their own proper 
dwelling place" and took human females as wives for themselves and produced
fleshly offspring.  Don't you think they had to be solid to take wives, have
relations with them, and produce children?  Or do you think that they had the
same power to impregnate women as did holy spirit in Mary's case?  (Jude 6;
Ge. 6:2, 4; Matt. 1:18)  I think it's logical to view them as materialized
in solid fleshly form to accomplish what they did.
    

Steve

  Hi Steve,

  I agree with your view of Gen 6 Re the "Nephilim-the Fallen ones"" and the 
  daughters of "Adam" (lit) who gave birth to their children "Giants-Gibborim". 
 
  However not everyone holds to this position and it might even be a minority
  view.

  The view that appears to be predominant (imo) amongst conservative
  christianity is that "the sons of God" in Gen 6 are the biological
  descendants of Seth who intermarried with the female decendants of Cain
  "the daughters of the earth" and although this is the least convincing
  position it seems to be the majority view.

  I dont know the official Catholic view of Genesis 6 ...Eric?
  I dont know the official JW view of Genesis 6 ...Mark?


  Peter quoting David...

  For you will not leave my soul in Hades nor will you allow your Holy One 
  to see corruption... 

  therefore being a prophet and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to
  Him that of the fruit of his body according to the flesh he would raise up 
  Christ to sit on His throne , he foreseeing this spoke concerning the 
  ressuection of the christ that his soul was not left in hades nor did
  * his flesh * see corruption.      Acts 2:27-31

  This passage seems to indicate that Jesus kept His molecular body and
  that without being susceptible to the deterioration of time. Obviously
  enhanced (passing through doors, etc).

  I respect the JW point of view and I have a question.  Mark S (or whoever)
  What did happen to the flesh body of Jesus when He was ressurected
  in His Spirit Body?

                             Hank
  

  

    r .27 (DNEAST::DALELIO_HENR)
    
    I don't mind talking about this subject ... but I wonder if others
    don't object to so much infusion of pro-Witness views here.  I'd hate
    to see the sort of panic attacks arise again ("Oh no ... JWs and their
    heretical beliefs are here again ... getcher cult-buster books out)
    that have happened in past versions of CHRISTIAN.  On the other hand,
    if no one minds, a new reader might get the idea that this was
    CHRISTIAN-PERSPECTIVE or something.  :-)
    
>  therefore being a prophet and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to
>  Him that of the fruit of his body according to the flesh he would raise up 
>  Christ to sit on His throne , he foreseeing this spoke concerning the 
>  ressuection of the christ that his soul was not left in hades nor did
>  * his flesh * see corruption.      Acts 2:27-31
>
>  This passage seems to indicate that Jesus kept His molecular body and
>  that without being susceptible to the deterioration of time. Obviously
>  enhanced (passing through doors, etc).
>
>  I respect the JW point of view and I have a question.  Mark S (or whoever)
>  What did happen to the flesh body of Jesus when He was ressurected
>  in His Spirit Body?
    
    	You raise an astute point with Acts 2:27-31.  If I might reword it,
    we might ask, doesn't this mean that Jesus' flesh was 'saved' so as not
    to be corrupted by the decay of death?
    
    	Personally, I think the counter-point to this idea that Jesus is
    alive in the flesh is that "flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom
    of God, nor does the perishable inherit the imperishable" (1Cor 15:50
    RSV) -- where, presumably, Paul is referring to the royal inheritance
    of those who "share in a heavenly call" (Heb 3:1 RSV), in heaven.  To
    me, this, among other verses, means that fleshly life isn't suitable
    for heavenly life, and that it's also not God's purpose for beings with
    fleshly bodies to exist in the heavenly (spirit) realm.
    
    	What did happen to Jesus' body?  Witnesses believe that it was
    simply disposed of in secret, perhaps simply 'dematerialized' in an
    instant -- and thus didn't undergo the decay of bodies that normally
    lie where laid (whether in the ground or in a tomb).  Therefore, in
    this sense, Jesus' body "was not left in hades" (the grave), nor did
    his dead flesh continue to exist to the point of full, natural,
    "corruption" that is part of the decaying process.  
    
    	No one could go back to the tomb and say, "See, Jesus' body/bones
    are still rotting where they were laid.  Jesus' obviously isn't alive,"
    the way Peter was able to point to David's tomb (Acts 2:29) as evidence
    that David was still dead.  Since Peter used David's tomb (presumably
    with the bones still in it) as an illustration to indicate the fact of
    Jesus's resurrection by the obvious absence of the body, I think his
    point was a simple one.  Jesus' body was gone in fulfillment of a Bible
    prophecy that it wouldn't remain around to "see corruption".  Since no
    Bible writer (that I know of) goes on to make any (theological) remarks
    about Jesus' continued existence 'in the flesh,' it seems to me that
    they didn't read more into it than the mere fact that a) Jesus' body
    was gone and b) Jesus was now alive and at God's "right hand" (Act
    2:33,34 RSV) in heaven.
    
    	Witnesses also consider Peter's own, later, words to be significant
    on the matter of the form of life Jesus was resurrected to:
    
    		"[he was] put to death in the flesh but made
    		alive in the spirit" (1Pet 3:18 RSV)
    
    To us, there's a simple point of contrast between existing "in the
    flesh" and existing "in the spirit"; the one means being human, the
    other means being "spirit" -- which is how Jesus existed before coming
    to earth.  Again, to us, the meaning of this scripture is so basic --
    that Jesus was "made alive in the spirit", or 'as a spirit' -- that
    Jesus' resurrection appearances must obviously be similar to the
    appearances of angels, who are also spirits (cf Heb 1:7 -- some
    translations say God "makes his angels spirits").
    
    	There's also a more subtle, 'theological point' that I believe is
    relavant, namely that Jesus' body was meant to be given up permanantly
    in sacrifice, and not taken back afterwards.  Hebrews says:
    
    		"Sacrifices and offerings thou hast not desired,
    		by a body hast thou prepared for me" (10:5a RSV),
    
    which is a quote from Ps 40:6-8 in the Septuagint, which is attributed
    to "Christ" (v.5).  As a consquence of Jesus' sacrifice, it could then
    be said:
    
    		"we have been sanctified through the offering
    		of the body of Jesus Christ once for all."
    		(Heb 10:10 RSV)
    
    As Witnesses see it, this means what it says in plain language, that
    the offering of Jesus' body (along with his lifeblood) was the act
    of sacrifice that established the basis for sanctifying Christians that
    followed.  
    
    	Another subtle, though related point, also from Hebrews, has to do
    with the correspondance between the Mosaic rites of temple sacrifice
    and Jesus' own sacrifice.  Hebrews says that the pattern of the
    priestly sacrifices, and the temple arrangement:
    
    		"serve as a copy and shadow of the heavenly
    		sanctuary."  (Heb 8:5 RSV)
    
    Later, near the close of the book, Hebrews says:
    
    		"For the bodies of those animals whose blood
    		is brought into the sanctuary by the high
    		priest as a sacrifice for sin are burned 
    		outside the camp.  So Jesus also suffered
    		outside the gate in order to sanctify the
    		people through his own blood."  (Heb 13:11,12 RSV)
    
    Although I can't say I've read this exact statement in a Witness
    publication, there seems to be an obvious parallel here between the
    disposal of the animal bodies (given up in sacrifice) and the disposal
    of Jesus' human body.  Elsewhere, Hebrews says that Jesus:
    
    		"entered once for all into the [heavenly]
    		Holy Place, taking ... his own blood, thus
    		securing an eternal redemption."  (Heb 9:12 RSV)
    
    which is also an obvious parallel between the ancient animal sacrifices
    -- where the blood taken into the Holy Place represented the life of
    the offering -- and Jesus' own sacrifice.  Since it's an ancient axiom
    of the Law that "the life of the flesh is in the blood" (Lev 17:11
    RSV), and Jesus is said to have taken his [human] life's blood into the
    "Holy Place" as the completion of his sacrificial offering, it only
    stands to reason that the life of his human body was ended, for if his
    blood itself was given up in sacrifice, and the "life of the flesh is
    in the blood" -- a body with no blood is obviously forever lifeless.
    
    	Of course, I've heard people say that Jesus' resurrection body had
    no blood in it -- but to me, that seems to defy the scripture truths
    that human bodies function with blood in them.  If a body operates
    without blood, while it may be a body, it isn't a human body, and thus
    Jesus could not have received back the body that died, which lived
    because blood flowed through its veins.  (Not to be disrespectful to
    anyone, but the bloodless, resurrected body theory strikes me as being
    akin to zombiism, where a zombie was supernaturally animated dead
    [bloodless] flesh.)
    
    	Getting back to a point related to sacrifice; for Jesus to have
    taken (or to have been given) his body back would have made the act of
    sacrifice invalid, for a sacrifice is something you give up
    permanantly.  That Jesus' human life was the "ransom" price paid to buy
    Man back from Adam's sin makes it all the more definite that Jesus gave
    up his human body.  If he could take back his body, wouldn't that also
    mean he could take back the ransom price which bought Man out of sin? 
    If so, then what basis is there for sanctifying (believing) Man?
    
    	Now, there may, of course, be answers to these questions from the
    orthdox perspective -- but these are factors that contribute to the
    over-all Witness view.
    
    	More than you wanted to know?  :-)
    								mark.

    .28
    
    No Mark, this is CHRISTIAN, where the regular participants believe in
    the Deity of Jesus and Him as sole hope for an eternal resurrection. 
    But discussion of other beliefs, is welcomed as long as the intontation
    of said discussion remains palatable.
    
    May God Bless this discussion and others.
    
    Nancy
    

      Hi,
    
        I think Jesus was resurrected with a glorified body; that
        is...in the incarnation He took sinful flesh (corruptible
        flesh) and He was resurrected in sinless (incorruptible)
        flesh.
    
        The main reason I believe this is that His resurrection is
        a real type of ours.  It is when we are risen that corruption
        puts on incorruption.
    
        ...unless of course we're translated!  ;-)
    
                                                   Tony

  Re .28

  Thanks Mark, 

  I understand why you are reluctant, having been scorched in times past.
   :-)   :-)  .

  And this was not more than i wanted to know.
  your response is well thought out and compelling.

  But that dosnt necessarily mean its the truth or that i accept it as such.

  In any case however, I do accept and respect your answer as what you 
  hold dear about Jesus your King.

  my personal view from the scripture is that Jesus body is of the same 
  molecular structure as His flesh body prior to His death. His flesh is 
  however  now "made alive by the Spirit" rather than by the oxidation of 
  molecular blood and every natural element of decay is no longer present, 
  thereby negating the statement  "nor does the perishable inherit the 
  imperishable".  Also Jesus  "knew no sin" making His Body untainted by
  spiritual corruption.

  This view does cause some questions as to our own bodies, is Jesus unique in
  His ressurected body or will our bodies be the same as His. The same as
  His I assume. What of those who have corrupted in the grave? Will Our
  Father in Heaven reeassmble the molecules of those who have turned to
  dust at the ressurection? Well, is anything to hard for God? I suppose
  anyone of us could ask that question when we are "challenged".

  The important thing I guess is that Our Father will provide whatever 
  is necessary for us to enjoy Eternal Life with Him.

                       Hank

"we shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed."

Further, when you call someone up on the phone, how do you know it is
the person you know it to be?  There are other recognition besides
physical makeup.  So, whatever it means for all of us to be "changed"
we will still be able to recognize those we know.

MM

annet .32

Consider also that God reformed the dry bones in the desert into a great army.
So putting meat on the bones, putting things back together as it were, is
not without its precedent, even for cremated, dismembered, or completely
disintegrated persons.

MM

    re. 29 (JULIET::MORALES_NA)/Nancy
    
>    No Mark, this is CHRISTIAN, where the regular participants believe in
>    the Deity of Jesus and Him as sole hope for an eternal resurrection. 
    
    	... hey ... that was just a joke ... humor, that is ...  Believe
    me, I know where I'm at (when I'm in here).
    
>    But discussion of other beliefs, is welcomed as long as the intontation
>    of said discussion remains palatable.
    
    	Thanks.  That's good to hear.
    
    
    								-mark.

Mark S.

It was a joke using language that has been used by people who are not
so endeared by this conference and its participants to castigate same; 
that is probably why the defense.

Mark M.

    re .31 (DNEAST::DALELIO_HENR)/Hank
    
>  And this was not more than i wanted to know.
>  your response is well thought out and compelling.
>
>  But that dosnt necessarily mean its the truth or that i accept it as such.
    
    	Well, I naturally didn't expect my mere use of Scripture to
    convince you that what I'm saying is true ... (insert ;-) if necessary)
    -- but if you find it compelling, then I urge you to pursue the
    compulsion.
    
    	Trust me, I won't start throwing things if you don't accept my
    explanation as the truth, but I *would* really be interested in hearing
    your counter point to my reasons.  If I'm wrong and you're right, then
    obviously each of the scriptures I provided explanations for must have
    [more] truthful counter-explanations.  You're welcome to send me e-mail
    instead of post.
    
>  In any case however, I do accept and respect your answer as what you 
>  hold dear about Jesus your King.
    
    	OK.
    
>  my personal view from the scripture is that Jesus body is of the same 
>  molecular structure as His flesh body prior to His death. His flesh is 
>  however  now "made alive by the Spirit" rather than by the oxidation of 
>  molecular blood and every natural element of decay is no longer present, 
>  thereby negating the statement  "nor does the perishable inherit the 
>  imperishable".  Also Jesus  "knew no sin" making His Body untainted by
>  spiritual corruption.
    
    	Interesting ... but what's the point of Jesus' receiving his human
    body back?  Doesn't that mean that he received back what he gave in
    sacrifice?
    
    	Also, does the Bible really say he was "made alive BY the Spirit"? 
    The RSV (and NWT) say he was "made alive IN the spirit", which is
    different [as it's in contrast with his having been alive "in the
    flesh"].
    
    	I agree that since Jesus "knew no sin", he was untainted by
    spiritual corruption -- and had he not been put to death (had God's
    will been otherwise for him as a human), he would have remained both
    spiritually and physically incorrupt for as long as he remained in
    harmony with God's will.  But sinlessness isn't the same thing as
    incorruptibility.  Adam and Eve were initially sinless, but they
    deviated and became corrupt; thus proving that human life, though
    perfect, CAN be corrupted (by an act of will).  The angels who became
    demons were evidently also sinless at one point; but by their actions,
    they too became corrupt; thus again, sinlessness, even in spirit form,
    isn't identical to incorruptibility.
    
>  This view does cause some questions as to our own bodies, is Jesus unique in
>  His ressurected body or will our bodies be the same as His. The same as
>  His I assume. What of those who have corrupted in the grave? Will Our
>  Father in Heaven reeassmble the molecules of those who have turned to
>  dust at the ressurection? Well, is anything to hard for God? I suppose
>  anyone of us could ask that question when we are "challenged".
    
    	The Witness view is that those who receive a resurrection to
    heavenly life (the "first resurrection" of Revelation), receive a new
    form of body suitable to life in the spirit realm (which was much of
    Paul's point in 1Cor 15).  Those who receive an earthly resurrection in
    the more general resurrection that follows the first one receive a
    suitable human body that will be sufficient to make the person
    recognizable for who he is.  If we reason that people with deformities
    will be resurrected whole -- as an extention of Jesus' healing miracles
    -- then the point is obvious that there is no need to reclaim 'original
    molecules' -- for that would mean restoring deformities as well.
    
    	Since living people 'change molecules' all the time, it's obvious
    that the particular molecules themselves don't alone make the person.
    
    	It's been nice chatting with you.
    
    								-mark.

    re .35 (TOKNOW::METCALFE)
    
Mark M.

>It was a joke using language that has been used by people who are not
>so endeared by this conference and its participants to castigate same; 
>that is probably why the defense.
    
    OK ... you win.  I surrender my sense of humor.
    
    
    								-mark s.

>    OK ... you win.  I surrender my sense of humor.

Join the club.

Mark M.

    re .25 (KOLBE::eje)/Eric
    
>Looking back at what I wrote, I guess I was ambiguous.  I understood the JW
>position to be that Jesus after His Resurrection was _not_ in solid form,
>but was non-corporeal -- you might call this a ghost, I suppose.  I believe the
>words used are "divine spirit being" or "invisible spirit creature." To hear
>you say that Jesus's post-Resurrection body was of a "solid", tangible form
>just surprised me.
    
    	I think I pounded this point into the ground in a reply to Hank,
    but to reiterate (perhaps more simply), we believe Jesus was
    resurrected as a spirit -- so, yes, we would say he was "non-corporeal"
    -- but this doesn't preclude him having had the ability to materialize
    a solid body as the angels of old did.  He wasn't "a ghost", however --
    either in the way we understand the word today (the 'disembodied soul'
    of a dead person) or in the way that some demons now manifest their
    presence (in a visible, but apparantly unsolid, or untouchable form).
    
    	There's another Greek word that was used to describe what the
    disciples thought Jesus was when he walked across the water (Matt
    14:26; Mark 6:49) -- off-hand I don't remember it exactly, but it
    translates as "ghost" (RSV) or "apparition" (NWT) [or "phantom" --
    Knox, I think].  Although this word isn't used in concert with Jesus'
    post-resurrection appearances, perhaps the notion Jesus was hoping to
    allay by his solid appearances was the same.
    
>You do have a good point about the angels in the Old Testament making them-
>selves temporarily present in a form that could eat and appear to be solid,
>even though fundamentally they weren't.
    
    	Thanks.
    
    	Also, thanks again for the private e-mail on a part of this thread.
    
    								-mark.

   Re .36  Mark S

   OK ok , Ill give a response to your *mere* use of Scripture  :-) .

   You'll have to give me a little time to compile my answers into
   a more formal response.   

   By the way Mark (speaking about the use of the Scriptures)  I'm having a 
   little problem finding the location in the Scripture where, as you say,
   Re Jesus' Body "it was simply disposed of in secret".     :-)   :-) .    
   (every one has extra-biblical opinions-no?)

   Mark, I wouldn't dream of sending my response by e-mail...

   "Can we all get along..." I hope we can all remain as calm as we 
    have so far.
                               Hank/Henr
   

    re .40 (DNEAST::DALELIO_HENR)/Hank
    
>                               -< I'll be back >-
    
    Good.  I'd hate to see this thread terminated prematurely.
    
>   OK ok , Ill give a response to your *mere* use of Scripture  :-) .
    
    I knew that course in goading would pay off. :-)

>   You'll have to give me a little time to compile my answers into
>   a more formal response.   
    
    Not a problem.

>   By the way Mark (speaking about the use of the Scriptures)  I'm having a 
>   little problem finding the location in the Scripture where, as you say,
>   Re Jesus' Body "it was simply disposed of in secret".     :-)   :-) .    
>   (every one has extra-biblical opinions-no?)
    
    Just look in the book of Mark.
    
    
    								-mark.

  Re .41 Mark S.

  > look in the book of Mark

  Ok I give up, unless you mean Mark 16:12

  "And *after* that He appeared in another form to two of them..."

  If so, thats a real s-t-r-e-t-c-h Mark. The question is : after what ?

  After a previous appearance...

  1) Mark 16:9 "now when He rose early on the first day of the week
                *He appeared* to mary magdalene...

     In other words in His first appearance to Mary Magdalene He was very
     much alive in the flesh (if you are going to say "another form" means
                              His dead flesh body was "simply disposed of")
     proving MY point, that He was/is alive in His original (but transformed)
     flesh (flesh now not energized by blood but Spirit).

     Mark 16:9  *He appeared* to mary magdalene...
     Mark 16:11 And when they heard that He was *alive* and had been seen..."
     Mark 16:12 And *after* that He appeared in another form to two of them..."

  In addition..

  2) In Koine Greek one can say "another" in two ways a) another of the 
     same kind or b) another of a different kind. I dont know which this is
     and Im not sure of the bearing it has on this discussion, but it must
     have some weight. Ill check into this tonite at home. 

  I'll accept Mark 16:12 as a remote possibility as to a "disintegration" of 
  His "first form" after he rose early on the first day of the week, but 
  with no further proof texts, its very weak, especially since Mary saw him
  *alive* in His first form.

                                         Hank

    re .42 (DNEAST::DALELIO_HENR)/Hank
    
>  > look in the book of Mark
>
>  Ok I give up, unless you mean Mark 16:12
    
    ... ahem ... "look in the book of Mark" ... my name is Mark ... another
    joke ... see? ... (hoo boy ... I guess I really should surrender my
    sense of humor ... it obviously doesn't work anymore)
    
    	I give you an A+ for effort, however.
    
    								-mark.

>>   By the way Mark (speaking about the use of the Scriptures)  I'm having a 
>>   little problem finding the location in the Scripture where, as you say,
>>   Re Jesus' Body "it was simply disposed of in secret".     :-)   :-) .    
>>   (every one has extra-biblical opinions-no?)
>    
>    Just look in the book of Mark.
 
I don't know if this is a continuation of humor, or not, Mark S.  Perhaps
you mean the book of Mark Sornson.

The idea of Jesus'body being secreted away by the disciples is a very
old argument:

Matthew 27:
 62  Now the next day, that followed the day of the preparation, the chief
priests and Pharisees came together unto Pilate,
 63  Saying, Sir, we remember that that deceiver said, while he was yet
alive, After three days I will rise again.
 64  Command therefore that the sepulchre be made sure until the third day,
lest his disciples come by night, and steal him away, and say unto the people,
He is risen from the dead: so the last error shall be worse than the first.
 65  Pilate said unto them, Ye have a watch: go your way, make it as sure as
ye can.
 66  So they went, and made the sepulchre sure, sealing the stone, and
setting a watch.

Matthew 28:
 11  Now when they were going, behold, some of the watch came into the city,
and shewed unto the chief priests all the things that were done.
 12  And when they were assembled with the elders, and had taken counsel,
they gave large money unto the soldiers,
 13  Saying, Say ye, His disciples came by night, and stole him away while we
slept.
 14  And if this come to the governor's ears, we will persuade him, and
secure you.
 15  So they took the money, and did as they were taught: and this saying is
commonly reported among the Jews until this day.

Do the witnesses count themselves among those who, by the Scriptures, are
branded as schemers, bribers, and liars?  Volatile language, I'll warrant,
but I apply it to those who spread the word that Jesus' body was stolen away.
Clearly there are two versions of the story: the disciples' story and
the witnesses to Jesus resurrected body, and the chief priests who reportedly
paid to have a story circulated.

As you must know, there is a lot of commentary around this particular
issue.

Mark M.

   Ohhh  Nooo.....

   You got me Mark...

   Keep up the good work

                    Hank

For those who are interested, I want to reference Christian_V6, note 23.

In that note I vehemently maintained that the Jehovah's Witnesses don't believe
that Jesus rose up from the dead, (even though they say they do,) based on the
issue of trying to pinpoint just what it was which was resurrected.  I stated
my main points in reply 23.3 of that topic. 

I don't desire to get into a discussion on that thread again, but only
to reference that discussion, since it is relevant to this note.

    re .44 (TOKNOW::METCALFE)/Mark
    
>>    Just look in the book of Mark.
> 
>I don't know if this is a continuation of humor, or not, Mark S.  Perhaps
>you mean the book of Mark Sornson.
    
    See .43.
    
    I think I can imagine why the Bible doesn't record Jesus as having ever
    cracked a joke.
    
>The idea of Jesus'body being secreted away by the disciples is a very
>old argument:
    
    Right .. but that was a false accusation.
    
>Do the witnesses count themselves among those who, by the Scriptures, are
>branded as schemers, bribers, and liars?  Volatile language, I'll warrant,
>but I apply it to those who spread the word that Jesus' body was stolen away.
    
    I sometimes wonder if after enough badgering, some don't hope that
    we'll just break down and admit to being charter subscribers to the
    "Heresy of the Month Club".
    
    No ... we don't believe Jesus' body was stolen away.  
    
>Clearly there are two versions of the story: the disciples' story and
>the witnesses to Jesus resurrected body, and the chief priests who reportedly
>paid to have a story circulated.
    
    The point of claiming the disciples stole the body was to deny that
    Jesus' had been resurrected.
    
    Witnesses believe that Jesus was resurrected.
    
    
    
    								-mark.

    re .46 (KALI::WIEBE)/Garth
    
>For those who are interested, I want to reference Christian_V6, note 23.
>
>In that note I vehemently maintained that the Jehovah's Witnesses don't believe
>that Jesus rose up from the dead, (even though they say they do,) based on the
>issue of trying to pinpoint just what it was which was resurrected.  I stated
>my main points in reply 23.3 of that topic. 
    
    And you are welcome to your opinion.  Your vehement denials don't
    change my faith or the reasons for it.
    
    Jehovah's Witnesses believe the scriptures that say that God
    resurrected Jesus from the dead, and made him "alive in the spirit" --
    and we believe the Scriptures which say he is in heaven, at God's
    "right hand".
    
>I don't desire to get into a discussion on that thread again, but only
>to reference that discussion, since it is relevant to this note.
    
    And I don't have any intention of going out of my way to answer that
    posting.
    
    If anyone wants to talk about something specific on this topic, they
    can either post it [as an original note of their own] or send me
    private e-mail.
    
    
    								-mark.

Mark S.

>    I think I can imagine why the Bible doesn't record Jesus as having ever
>    cracked a joke.

Sure he did.  The very idea of a beam in one's eye is humorous.
And there are others, but the ones recorded seemed to always have 
a point, don't you know.

>    No ... we don't believe Jesus' body was stolen away.  

I am glad to at least see this verified (sincerely).


MM

      re: .46
      
        Hi Garth,
    
          To be fair, just what entails resurrection may be something
          understood differently by different people.
    
          For example, I believe that death includes complete lack of
          any life whatsoever and resurrection is a bringing of death
          to life (including conscioussness).
    
          So from my understanding of what resurrection is, any person
          who does not believe that Jesus completely lacked conscioussness
          after He died, also denies the truth of the resurrection.
    
          The main reason I say this is to not jump all over Mark S.
          He might understand resurrection differently and with that 
          different understanding, He might believe in resurrection as
          he understands it (though it may be false).
    
          In addition, I did a topical study where I wrote every scripture
          in the NT out that spoke of resurrection I got as far as Romans 
          through Rev and half of Matthew).  In almost every case,
          resurrection was spoken of within the context of spiritual 
          renovation.
    
          Thus I have come to the personal belief that to the extent that
          one does not believe that Christ can perfect His character in
          His people here on earth though laden with sinful flesh, to 
          _that same extent_ resurrection is denied.   Besides the numerous 
          NT texts, I'd also include the dry bones of Ezekiel.
    
                                                       Tony

Premise:      For example, I believe that death includes complete lack of
          any life whatsoever and resurrection is a bringing of death
          to life (including conscioussness).
    
Conclusion:   So from my understanding of what resurrection is, any person
          who does not believe that Jesus completely lacked conscioussness
          after He died, also denies the truth of the resurrection.

A prime example of how the premise influences the conclusion.  Thanks, Tony.

MM

    re .51 (TOKNOW::METCALFE)
    
>A prime example of how the premise influences the conclusion.  Thanks, Tony.
    
    But ... there's nothing wrong with a premise influencing a conclusion.  
    Conclusions naturally follow from premises [which is the basic form of
    any argument].
    
    Problems arise when one's premises are invalid (and thus they influence
    one to reach a wrong conclusion), or when one's conclusion doesn't
    really follow from the premises (perhaps because the premises aren't
    sufficient, or they are not sufficiently related to the conclusion).
    
    
    
    -mark.

Mark S.

>>A prime example of how the premise influences the conclusion.  Thanks, Tony.
>    
>    But ... there's nothing wrong with a premise influencing a conclusion.  
>    Conclusions naturally follow from premises [which is the basic form of
>    any argument].
>    
>    Problems arise when one's premises are invalid (and thus they influence
>    one to reach a wrong conclusion), or when one's conclusion doesn't
>    really follow from the premises (perhaps because the premises aren't
>    sufficient, or they are not sufficiently related to the conclusion).

Correct!  On the money.

    re .53 (TOKNOW::METCALFE)/Mark
    
>Correct!  On the money.
    
    So ... what's your point?
    
    
    								-mark.

You have made my point for me.  A premise leads to a conclusion.
If the premise is faulty, then the conclusion is also flawed.
Without determining whether Tony's specific premise regarding 
his opinion of of what "death includes," I merely showed that
Tony's conclusion was supported by his opinion.  Whether his 
premise is valid is subject to closer scrutiny.

Mark M

    re .55 (TOKNOW::METCALFE)/Mark
    
>You have made my point for me.  A premise leads to a conclusion.
    
    OK ... 
    
>If the premise is faulty, then the conclusion is also flawed.
    
    True ...
    
>Without determining whether Tony's specific premise regarding 
>his opinion of of what "death includes," I merely showed that
>Tony's conclusion was supported by his opinion.  Whether his 
>premise is valid is subject to closer scrutiny.
    
    I'd say that Tony's opinions ARE his conclusions -- though one could
    probably say that they build on one another.  This is true of my own
    opinions, and you could probably say the same of your own.  [It's also
    true of Garth's opinions.]  What we each probably also believe is that
    that underlying certain fundamental conclusions that we hold dear are
    axiomatic scriptural principals.  We've taken these principals and
    built our conclusions upon them.
    
    I happen to agree with one of Tony's basic points, that how one
    understands resurrection is related to how one understands death [and
    life itself, for that matter].  I think that's all Tony was trying to
    show [since Garth's posting in CHRISTIAN_V6 brought up the supporting
    issues of whether man's soul is immortal].
    
    
    								-mark.

>    What we each probably also believe is that
>    that underlying certain fundamental conclusions that we hold dear are
>    axiomatic scriptural principals. 

Hence the schism.

    re .57 (TOKNOW::METCALFE)
    
>                            -< Jesus is fully God. >-
    
    You know ... I'm actually convinced that this -- the matter of Jesus'
    nature -- is part of just about every doctrinal question on the books;
    but sometimes how it fits in is somewhat subtle.  After all, almost all
    discussions eventually end up considering this matter somehow.
    
    However, I don't have the time to get into this topic at the moment.
    
    
    								-mark.

 Re 394.28 
 Ok Mark S here it is... (well, one passage anyway)

 After a re-examination of your note 394.28 and other notes by JWs in
 other earlier Christian conferences, it would appear that the real
 difference  worthy of pursuit is concerning the nature of the resurrected 
 Body of Jesus Christ and of those who will follow Him in The Resurrection.

 To be honest, I cant determine from the JW doctrine and Conf responses
 the what or who of the JW view of the resurrected Christ. What kind of body 
 (if any) does he have and who (Jesus or Michael the Archangel) he is or
 has become.

 To overcome this confusion on my part, I will answer to the major passages 
 from which you personally appear to have drawn your conclusions Re this matter
 of resurrected bodies.

 I) Flesh and blood cannot inherit the Kingdom of God.   I Cor 15:50

 If one reads this passage in its own context (from vs 35) you should see
 that Paul is saying that 1) those who go to heaven will not go there in 
 these flesh and blood bodies that are *still* subject to death, 2) thereby
 necessitating a transformation. He does not say that they will be *replaced*
 by new ones, but in fact draws an analogy from nature. The sowing of grain.
 The new "body" of grain does not *replace* the grain but grows out of and
 receives (in part) its nature from the old dead "body" of grain.

 There are two ways in which this happens to human beings :

 1) It (the body) is raised (egeiro-raised as in the process of growth)
    from the dead.
 2) It (the body) is change *not replaced* (allasso-changed-not replaced).

 Change or substantive transformation is also supported in I Cor 15:53 :

 for this corruptible must put on (enduo-put on as a garment) incorruption
 and this mortal must put on (same as above) immortality.

 Incorruption and immortality *put on*, they dont *replace* corruption
 and mortality. They are however *overcome* by the "putting on" and we
 can ask "death where is thy victory?"

 Change or substantive transformation is also supported in II Cor 5:1-6.
 (dissolved is apolouo=destroyed, made lifeless but *not* disintegrated)

 Read this passage and you should note that Paul says that he wants his
 earthly house to be "further clothed" not "replaced" by the heavenly.

 I dont claim to know the exact nature of the transformed flesh matter, 
 but if these metaphors mean anything then they teach that the nature of the 
 resurrected body of both Our Lord and ourselves has its essential nature 
 rooted in these flesh bodies we now live in, awaiting the change which will 
 overcome its inherent corruption and mortality (Jesus always having been 
 without sin). preparing us for our eternal place of dwelling with Our Father.  

 This is my view, granted not every i is dotted, not every t is crossed.

 Our Father will do the best by us and we who are born of The Spirit love 
 and trust Him.



                           Hank

 Next note : I Peter 3:18. A conflict between RSV and KJV. (lunchtime-maybe).

      re: .51
    
        Hi Mark,
    
          Sure Mark, I understand what you said.  And as I can tell
          from your discussions with Mark S., we agree that it is
          silly to conclude anything without premises.
    
          I am actually more interested in my latter statements.  The
          fact that scripture alludes to resurrection almost unanimously
          from the spiritual perspective of moral renovation (sanctifica- 
          tion).
    
          I made the premise that there are spiritual things that Christ
          is trying to show us.  Christ's physical death and physical
          resurrection are 'merely' symbolic of a prior 'death' and
          'resurrection'.  The death I refer to resides completely in 
          the spiritual realm and equates wholly to that death referred
          to by Paul in Romans 7:9 (in which Paul was still physically
          alive).  I refer to the death which describes the dynamics
          of what happens when one laden with sinful flesh sees God's
          love in deeper light.  He sees in correspondingly deeper light
          the sinfulness of sin and (via sinful flesh) FEELS he is that
          sinner (whether or not he is).  This process culminates in
          seeing God's law so fully that the sinfulness of sin is brought
          to view to its fullest and (again because of sinful flesh) the
          person feels he is that sinner.  (Job 9:21 "though I were perfect
          I would not know my soul I would despise my life")
    
          This would be like what Isaiah experienced in Isaiah 6 (as an
          example of a person with faith) and Judas who hung himself (as
          an example of one lacking faith).  This shows the unarbitrariness
          of spiritual reality by the way.  Righteoussness is life and sin
          is death (though it needs to be activated by 'the law').
    
          Anyway, the psychological pain that results from seeing the totality
          of evil and feeling you are that rascal is what I believe is
          death.  The only way out of this experience is a faith made 
          perfect (which believes God doesn't forsake you).
    
          I believe that before physcial death, Christ experienced this
          process all the way and in the spiritual sense of death as
          given in Romans 7, He DIED.  And Christ overcame this awful
          alienation (caused by the sinful flesh He took and by seeing
          His Father's love so fully) by faith and thus WAS RESURRECTED.
    
          Anyway, it follows for me that to deny that we can do the
          same (since resurrection is linked to _our_ moral renovation)
          
    
          is to deny the resurrection.
    
          At least when we are living in the time of the fulfillment of
          the covenant in Hebrews (the law written in the heart - when a
          people reach behind the veil as did Christ).
    
                                                  Tony
                                                      

    re .59 (DNEAST::DALELIO_HENR)/Hank
    
> After a re-examination of your note 394.28 and other notes by JWs in
> other earlier Christian conferences, it would appear that the real
> difference  worthy of pursuit is concerning the nature of the resurrected 
> Body of Jesus Christ and of those who will follow Him in The Resurrection.
    
    	Agreed.  I think this was the original point of the basenote. 
    (Hard to believe, eh?)
    
> To be honest, I cant determine from the JW doctrine and Conf responses
> the what or who of the JW view of the resurrected Christ. What kind of body 
> (if any) does he have and who (Jesus or Michael the Archangel) he is or
> has become.
    
    	Not that it isn't an important topic -- but I think the Witness
    view that Jesus' pre-human heavenly name and rank was that of Michael
    the archangel (chief messenger) is off the point so far as this topic
    is concerned.  The basic notions of whether the resurrected Jesus is a
    spirit (as he was before he came to earth) or a glorified human are
    unaffected by the veracity of this other point on Michael.
    
> I) Flesh and blood cannot inherit the Kingdom of God.   I Cor 15:50
>
> If one reads this passage in its own context (from vs 35) you should see
> that Paul is saying that 1) those who go to heaven will not go there in 
> these flesh and blood bodies that are *still* subject to death, 
    
    	I'd like to see a specific reference on this, because I don't read
    the passage this way at all.
    
    	Introducing the whole topic, Paul pointed out:
    
    		"But some one will ask, "How are the dead raised?
    		With what kind of body do they come?"" (1Cor 15:35 RSV)
    
    This is basically the question we're asking.
    
    	Paul then used the illustration of a seed and the kind of plant it
    becomes:
    
    		"What you sow does not come to life until it
    		[the seed sown] dies.  And what you sow is NOT
    		the body which is to be, but a bare kernel,
    		perhaps of wheat or of some other grain.  But
    		God gives it [the plant to come] a body as he
    		has chosen, and to each kind of seed its own
    		body."
    
    Paul's basic point is that since a plant to come is really not just a
    larger seed, but something altogether different in form and function,
    it's wrong to think of the 'resurrection body' in terms of the human
    body.
    
    	Paul then went on to point out the obvious differences between the
    bodies of men, and those of animals, birds, and fish; and took note of
    the existence of "celestial bodies" of the sun, moon, and stars -- the
    point being that the "body" is given by God according to its place and
    purpose.  Although we might argue that they have in common the fact
    that they're all 'material', Paul is really making a point about their
    distinctness in form and function.  And thus, in connection with the
    resurrection [to heaven], people should realize that the body given by
    God to those resurrected to heaven will be what's suitable for heaven;
    and thus one shouldn't think about it in human terms.
    
    	Then, very specifically, he said:
    
    		"It [the body to come] is sown a physical body
    		[when the person, while human, receives the
    		heavenly calling], it is raised a spiritual
    		body."  (v.43 RSV)
    
    What he meant by this is then explained directly, using both Adam and
    the risen Christ as examples in contrast:
    
    		"If there is a physical body, there is also a
    		spiritual body.  Thus it is written, "The first
    		man Adam became a living being [of flesh -- literally
    		"a living soul" NWT; Gk. _psyche -- meaning a 
    		breathing creature]; the last Adam [Christ] became
    		a life-giving spirit." (vs.44,45 RSV)
    
    Adam was a "living being" or "living soul" as a breathing creature,
    whereas the risen Christ, as the "last Adam", is now a "life-giving
    spirit".  Thus, the "spiritual body" they receive when resurrected to
    heaven is, simply, a spirit body.
    
    	The contrast is made all the more plain as Paul points out the
    distinct nature of Adam's origin and Jesus' origin:
    
    		"The first man was from the earth, a man of dust;
    		the second man is from heaven.  As was the man of
    		so are those who are of the dust; and is the 
    		man of heaven, so are those who are of heaven."
    		(vs 47,48 RSV)
    
    Human bodies are material, having literally been taken "from the dust".
    [The name Adam, in Hebrew, is actually a word-play on this fact.] 
    Jesus' form of life before he came to earth was NOT human; it was
    heavenly [remember:  before coming to earth, he was "in the form of
    God" (Phil 2:6 RSV) -- and "God is spirit" (RSV) or "a spirit" (KJV;
    John 4:24)], as a spirit.
    
    	I don't believe any orthodox Christian argues against the notion
    that Jesus existed in spirit form BEFORE coming to earth [for he only
    "became flesh" (John 1:14) when he came to earth].  And thus, since
    Paul clearly is framing his explanation in terms of the kind of life
    that Jesus possessed in heaven before coming to earth, to say that he
    "became a life-giving SPIRIT" means what it says, namely, that Jesus
    now exists as a spirit, like he did before coming to earth. 
    Consequently, Christians who are resurrected to heaven will likewise
    receive life in spirit form, it being "imperishable" and "immortal"
    (15:54 RSV).
    
> Incorruption and immortality *put on*, they dont *replace* corruption
> and mortality. They are however *overcome* by the "putting on" and we
> can ask "death where is thy victory?"
    
    	I disagree, for once the human body is dead, there's nothing to put
    anything on to.  Dead human bodies distintegrate into their constituent
    elements, and "return to the ground" (Gen 3:19 RSV).  "Put on" is
    really just a figure of speech, since the individual doesn't reach out
    and take immortality, like one might take and put on a garment; God is
    the one who so clothes the person  [which goes back to 15:38 -- God
    gives his creatures an appropriate body for their circumstance and his
    purpose].
    
    ==*==
    
    	This is actually more than I have time for ... so bye for the
    moment.  I look forward to your next reply.
    
    								-mark.

  Mark Ive read you response to "flesh and blood...etc"
  I guess it will have to stand where it is, we both are convinced in our 
  beliefs... 

  I Peter 3:18  (here we go again)

  ...being put to death in the  flesh, but quickened by The Spirit.      KJV.
  ...being put to death in [the] flesh, but made alive in spirit.        RSV.

  There is quite a difference (although not readily apparent) between these two
  renderings.

  The RSV is the child of the Wescott and Hort collation of the NT, which is
  based upon the Alexandrian Text family. For those who dont know, Alexandria
  was the father land of every heresy and error (according to our view)
  and particularly was always and in every way anti-Trinititarian,
  mutilating and changing the Scriptures at will in thousands of provable
  places.  I Peter 3:18 is one of them.

  First line   : The Wescott and Hort Alexandrian mutillation-collation.
  Second line  : The Word of God.

  1) thanatotheis   men     sarki    (zoopoiatheis   de)        pnuemati
     put to death   indeed  in flesh  but made alive            in spirit  

  2) thanatotheis   men     sarki          (zoopoiatheis   de)  *TO*  pnuemati
     put to death   indeed  in (the) flesh  but made alive      IN THE Spirit  

  What has been removed in the WH Text is the definite article TO (Tau Omega)
  before pnuemati (Spirit).

  What difference does it make you might ask. A LOT. The definite article in
  koine shows case, number and gender (unlike english). Without it (as in the
  first line), Our Lord has been made alive (possibly disembodied) in the
  realm of non-deity spirit substance.

  In the second line (The Word of God) :

  The case of the definite article is dative-instrumental showing that Jesus 
  was made alive by the AGENCY of (not the location of) the Spirit.

  The gender is masculine showing the  masculinity of the neutral gender 
  "pnuemati" proving that the Person of the Holy Spirit is being spoken of.

  The number is singular showing the "one in essence" identity of the Spirit 
  and God the Father "theos"  (earlier in the passage).

  The declension of "sarki" (flesh) is the same as "pneumati" (Spirit) showing
  that they are paired in contrast, causing "sarki" to receive the definite
  article properties of "pneumati". (causing a focusing on His Body rather 
  than the metaphysical  "concept" of sinful flesh "sarx")
  
  The second line (The Word of God) has Our Lord made alive by the Person of 
  The Holy Spirit, in His now Glorified Body that He was put to death in.
  Yes, the definite article makes that much difference. Check it out.  

  There is one point of grammar I'm not 100% sure about that im looking into.
  Check out the passage (those of you who know koine) and perhaps prove me 
  wrong - on that point - im not sayin what it is.

  I prefer the KJV rendering. I guess the question is which is the Word of God?
  
                             Hank

  more to come (unless im thrown out of the conference)   :-)
  Mark S, I hope we're still friends.

    re .62 (DNEAST::DALELIO_HENR)/Hank
    
>  I Peter 3:18  (here we go again)
>
>  ...being put to death in the  flesh, but quickened by The Spirit.      KJV.
>  ...being put to death in [the] flesh, but made alive in spirit.        RSV.
>
>  There is quite a difference (although not readily apparent) between these two
>  renderings.
    
    	Yes, there is ... but the copy of the RSV I have in front of me
    reads:
    
    		"put to death in the flesh, but made alive
    		in the spirit."
    
    Your rendition takes the "the" out of both places.  Are you REALLY
    using the RSV?  or does your copy REALLY read that way?
    
    	I didn't know the KJV says "BY the spirit"; that's an interesting
    difference, and I can see why you stick by it.  I'll have to look into
    it further.
    
>  The RSV is the child of the Wescott and Hort collation of the NT, which is
>  based upon the Alexandrian Text family. For those who dont know, Alexandria
>  was the father land of every heresy and error (according to our view)
>  and particularly was always and in every way anti-Trinititarian,
>  mutilating and changing the Scriptures at will in thousands of provable
>  places.  I Peter 3:18 is one of them.
    
    	Until I sort this out by dragging my translations and other
    reference works off the shelf at home, I'm going to completely ignore
    this line of attack, especially since I don't think it's particular
    valid.  Whatever it's perceived flaws are, I'd *hardly* call the
    producers of the RSV "anti-Trinitarian".  From my perspective, its
    translators simply *reek* of orthodoxy (i.e., Christendom's mainstream
    viewpoints).
    
>  I prefer the KJV rendering. I guess the question is which is the Word of God?
    
    	Aha ... so you admit choosing your translation to fit your
    doctrinal point of view!  (Where have I heard that before?  ;-)
    
>  Mark S, I hope we're still friends.
    
    	I'm delighted to see you're around.  I'm enjoying this exchange as
    much as I I enjoyed our exchanges from a few years ago.
    
    
    							-mark.

>>  I prefer the KJV rendering. I guess the question is which is the Word of God?
>    
>    	Aha ... so you admit choosing your translation to fit your
>    doctrinal point of view!  (Where have I heard that before?  ;-)

One might also choose one's doctrine based on the translation they
read.  Could make a significant difference, I'd warrant.

MM

    re .64 (TOKNOW::METCALFE)
    
>One might also choose one's doctrine based on the translation they
>read.  Could make a significant difference, I'd warrant.
    
    	And of course, if one studies MORE than one translation -- maybe
    quite a few, from various viewpoints -- and THEN chooses one's doctrine
    after having weighed all the evidence, that could make a significant
    difference, too.
    
    								-mark

    re .62 (DNEAST::DALELIO_HENR)/Hank 
    
    ... one more thing ...
    
    
>  I Peter 3:18  (here we go again)
>
>  ...being put to death in the  flesh, but quickened by The Spirit.      KJV.
>  ...being put to death in [the] flesh, but made alive in spirit.        RSV.
    
    ...
    
>  First line   : The Wescott and Hort Alexandrian mutillation-collation.
>  Second line  : The Word of God.
>
>  1) thanatotheis   men     sarki    (zoopoiatheis   de)        pnuemati
>     put to death   indeed  in flesh  but made alive            in spirit  
>
>  2) thanatotheis   men     sarki          (zoopoiatheis   de)  *TO*  pnuemati
>     put to death   indeed  in (the) flesh  but made alive      IN THE Spirit  
    
    Ignoring the H&W text issue for a moment, I have a question just about
    the translation of 1Pet 3:18 in the KJV.
    
    Given that you supply the literal translation from the text you
    consider to be "the Word of God", how does the KJV justify the reading
    "BY the spirit" when the actual Greek text says "IN the spirit"?
    
    As I see it, the interlinear reading that you have supplied is exactly
    what the RSV that I have says.
    
    								-mark.

>    	And of course, if one studies MORE than one translation -- maybe
>    quite a few, from various viewpoints -- and THEN chooses one's doctrine
>    after having weighed all the evidence, that could make a significant
>    difference, too.

Indeed it can; interesting how different contrasting conclusion are drawn/

      re: last few
    
      I like the NKJV and KJV myself, but it never hurts to go to
      the original Greek and Hebrew.
    
                                                 Tony

   Mark S, I havnt "attacked" anyone (except the *works* of Wescott and Hort
   and mutilators of the Bible) Do you include yourself in that class?

  back to I Pet 3:18...

  ...being put to death indeed in [the] flesh , but made alive in spirit

  >your rendition takes "the" out of both places

  oops, I took the WH text and translated it the way it should be
  without the definite articles, although sometimes they must be supplied.
  In other words they mistranslated their own collated text.
  the nouns are neutral, with no article this indicates a metaphysical
  entity for these nouns ... such as 

  being put to death indeed in sinful-flesh but made alive spritually...
 
  I assume that they were trying to please everyone.

  The grammatical rule that I cant fully recall has to do with the 
  pairing of nouns with the same case and declension with only one
  definite article (which W & H removed). It has a name, I cant even 
  remember that, its rare,  it happens in the Gospel of John more than 
  elsewhere, such as logos and theos in John 1, being born of water-wind 
  (hudor kai pnuema) in John 3, etc. It says that the nouns share identity 
  and locality with each other. John 3 would then be rendered "unless a man 
  be born in and by the water-wind he cannot enter the kingdom of God" 
  water and wind both being metaphors for The Holy Spirit.

  The result being the one born of the Spirit shares both the identity 
  and locality of God :

  "that which is born of the Spirit is spirit" 
  "that they may be one just as we are one"
  "I in them and You in Me"
  "that they may be with Me where I am"

  If thats the case (not a pun) here in I Peter 3:18 then either IN or BY
  or both are correct, what it means functionally is that Jesus Christ
  himself brought his flesh-body back to life IN and BY the Holy Ghost.
  Granted thats an alien concept to a non-Trinitarian, however...

 And I will pray the Father and He will give you another Comforter that
 He may abide with you forever, The Spirit of Truth whom the world cannot
 receive because it neither sees Him nor knows Him, but you know Him, for 
 He dwells with you and will be in you.
 *I* will not leave you comfortless, *I* will come to you.  John 14:16-18
  
 Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit ane one in essence. That means they share
 each others identity and locality from eternity (unlike us who are born of
 the Spirit in time, neither do we share the power or authority of God).
 
 Jesus Christ was transfromed and made alive His own flesh Body IN and By
 the Person of the Spirit of God.

 The Wescott and Hort text could NEVER be construed to say this with
 no definite article(s) in this mutilated construction they manufactured.

 
 Back later...  
                             
                       Hank

    re .69 (DNEAST::DALELIO_HENR)/Hank
    
>   Mark S, I havnt "attacked" anyone (except the *works* of Wescott and Hort
>   and mutilators of the Bible) Do you include yourself in that class?
    
    Sorry for sounding more forceful than I meant ... I only meant "line of
    attack" to mean "line of reasoning" or "particular argument" -- I
    didn't take what you said to be a personal attack.
    
    As far as counting myself among "Bible mutilators" goes ... although I
    once used to leave my translations within reach of my (at that time)
    toddler sons, so that they mauled a few of them (much to my chagrin),
    I don't count myself as a "pro-Bible mutilator".  
    
    However ... my opinion is that your particular view of the WH text is
    merely -- should you forgive the expression -- a 'religious argument'
    that isn't convincing to me.
    
    I only briefly glanced at my translations and interlinears last night,
    and didn't have time to do any serious study, but I'm not convinced
    that manuscript family arguments have anything to do with whether 1Pet
    3:18 tells us Jesus is alive "in the spirit" AS a spirit, or was made
    alive 'in the [resurrected] flesh' BY the spirit.  (This is your view,
    right?)
    
    The Received Text may well have the definite article before the word
    for spirit, but since just about all other translations translate the
    text as though it's there (even if it's not), I don't see that the
    presence of the article in the text makes any difference, since the
    understood meaning of the texts that lack it is the same.
    
>  oops, I took the WH text and translated it the way it should be
>  without the definite articles, although sometimes they must be supplied.
>  In other words they mistranslated their own collated text.
>  the nouns are neutral, with no article this indicates a metaphysical
>  entity for these nouns ... such as 
    
    Without interlinear in hand, I can't say anything definitive; but when
    I read Marshall's NASB interlinear last night [as well as the NWT
    interlinear], the interlinear text didn't indicate definite articles
    before the nouns -- the "the's" were supplied as implicit translations
    of the nouns, not as explicit translations of any preceding articles.  
    Not being a Greek scholar, however, I confess to not being able to
    recognize but a few forms of the Greek definite article by sight, so
    I'll have to go and look up the meaning of what I saw.
    
>  oops, I took the WH text and translated it the way it should be
>  without the definite articles, although sometimes they must be supplied.
>  In other words they mistranslated their own collated text.
>  the nouns are neutral, with no article this indicates a metaphysical
>  entity for these nouns ... such as 
    
    I don't know who the "they" are that you say "mistranslated their own
    collated text" -- but I doubt that Wescott and Hort are directly
    responsible for the way all other translators choose to translate their
    text.
    
    I glanced through several translations I have at home (including a few
    Catholic ones), and found that they all say "in the spirit", too. I ran
    across a few interesting variations in overall meaning of the verse;
    but the fundamental point that Jesus was made alive in spirit form [in
    contrast to having died as a fleshly human] seems to stand out,
    regardless.  They all put the "the" in their translations -- so the
    fact that it might be missing from the underlying Greek text doesn't
    seem particulary relevant (to me).
    
>  The result being the one born of the Spirit shares both the identity 
>  and locality of God :
>
>  "that which is born of the Spirit is spirit" 
>  "that they may be one just as we are one"
>  "I in them and You in Me"
>  "that they may be with Me where I am"
>
>  If thats the case (not a pun) here in I Peter 3:18 then either IN or BY
>  or both are correct, what it means functionally is that Jesus Christ
>  himself brought his flesh-body back to life IN and BY the Holy Ghost.
>  Granted thats an alien concept to a non-Trinitarian, however...
    
    	I see what you're saying, but I don't think the points from these
    other verses are relevant.
    
    	1Pet 3:18 establishes a very straightforward contrast between the
    form of life Jesus had when he died, and the form of life he was given
    when resurrected.  The Greek for "in the flesh" and "in the spirit" are
    parellel forms, if I'm not mistaken.  Since we don't say Jesus was put
    to death "BY the flesh", what Peter meant is obvious; Jesus died as a
    being of flesh.
    
    	We now have the point of contrast, that Jesus was "made alive in
    the spirit".  You are arguing that Jesus was actually 'made alive in
    the flesh' AGAIN -- but that's NOT what Peter said.  Additionally, as I
    mentioned before, other Bible writers point out that Jesus' body was
    given up in sacrifice.  You are really saying that his body was NOT 
    sacrificed at all; it was just set aside temporarily, and taken back
    again after his resurrection.  If that's the case, then what sort of
    sacrifice is that?
    
> And I will pray the Father and He will give you another Comforter that
> He may abide with you forever, The Spirit of Truth whom the world cannot
> receive because it neither sees Him nor knows Him, but you know Him, for 
> He dwells with you and will be in you.
> *I* will not leave you comfortless, *I* will come to you.  John 14:16-18
>  
> Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit ane one in essence. That means they share
> each others identity and locality from eternity (unlike us who are born of
> the Spirit in time, neither do we share the power or authority of God).
    
    	This is irrelevant to the issue at hand.  It doesn't matter that
    you choose to use man-made theological terms that happen to be
    conveniently defined to assert as truths these man-made opinions.  The
    Bible says that Jesus "became a life-giving spirit" (1Cor 15) in
    contrast to Adam being a "living [human] soul".  Additionally, the
    "Comforter" -- in trinitarian terms of personality -- is itself of
    spirit, and NOT of flesh; so what you say here does nothing to advance
    your argument that Jesus nows lives as a being of glorified flesh.
    
> Jesus Christ was transfromed and made alive His own flesh Body IN and By
> the Person of the Spirit of God.
    
    	You are just reasserting what you already believe; but this doesn't
    counter the scripture that says "flesh and blood cannot inherit the
    kingdom of God," and neither does it counter (let alone explain) the
    scripture that says he "became a life-giving spirit".
    
> The Wescott and Hort text could NEVER be construed to say this with
> no definite article(s) in this mutilated construction they manufactured.
    
    	I think you're going to have to explain this again, since I just
    don't see how the absence of the article in the WH text makes much
    difference, since translators that use this text seem to put it back in
    to their translations, anyway (as though it's understood to be there).
    
    	I have a reference work that discusses manuscript variations, and
    I didn't see any mention made of variations concerning the article, but
    I'll double check.  Maybe I can get a Received Text interlinear, too
    [hmmm ... actually I may have one; I have Green's interlinear; I'll
    check that at home].
    
    
    								-mark.

 re .70 Mark S,

  Yes Mark check the Green's I belive you'll see it in there.

  right now im under the gun for some software and even my own time I'm giving
  to DEC to get it out.

  Mark the text behind the KJV IS NOT the Textus Receptus (although it is often
  called that) as many people think, nor are the Majority or Byzantine 
  texts the text behind the the KJV. The closest to it is the Stephanus Textus
  Receptus of 1589 (there are three texti recepti). 

  The KJV text is a collation of Waldensian texts procured by Beza when
  he was challenged to find any ancient Greek mms with I John 5:7.
  "there are three that bear witness in heaven The Father, The Word and
   the Holy Ghost and these three are one"
  The Waldensians supplied these mms and "astounded the world with their
  antiquity" and so it (J comma) was included. These texts were housed in 
  the Oxford library in England which mysteriously burned down along with 
  the mss in the winter of 1617,  But too late the collation had already 
  been completed.

  Most bibles deceive when the say this vs "cannot be found in extant mss"
  well they dont exist now but they did in 1611. Witnessed and verified
  even by the objectors.

 Mark it DOES matter if the definite article is there or not. It changes 
 the whole nuance of the verse!
 
 I've spent years studying koine both formally and otherwise, IT DOES make
 a difference about the definite article. It really does. One cant be 100%
 sure of the gender, number and case if this little word is missing.

 Look into this yourself, Please!  I believe the Green's is the KJV collation
 TR and its there.

  More later
                             Hank

    re .71 (DNEAST::DALELIO_HENR)/Hank
    
>  Mark the text behind the KJV IS NOT the Textus Receptus (although it is often
>  called that) as many people think, nor are the Majority or Byzantine 
>  texts the text behind the the KJV. The closest to it is the Stephanus Textus
>  Receptus of 1589 (there are three texti recepti). 
    
    	Oh yeah ... (I used to know this) ... thanks for the correction.
    
>  The KJV text is a collation of Waldensian texts procured by Beza when
>  he was challenged to find any ancient Greek mms with I John 5:7.
>  "there are three that bear witness in heaven The Father, The Word and
>   the Holy Ghost and these three are one"
>  The Waldensians supplied these mms and "astounded the world with their
>  antiquity" and so it (J comma) was included. These texts were housed in 
>  the Oxford library in England which mysteriously burned down along with 
>  the mss in the winter of 1617,  But too late the collation had already 
>  been completed.
>
>  Most bibles deceive when the say this vs "cannot be found in extant mss"
>  well they dont exist now but they did in 1611. Witnessed and verified
>  even by the objectors.
    
    	I've heard this story before ... but the version I remember reading
    didn't make it sound as though the mss was particularly antique -- it
    just appeared as athentic as the other mss of its class.  The sources I
    have handy say the known mss with the Johannine Comma are 14th to 15th
    century; and that the insert has been traced to a Spanish scholar from
    sometime before that (8th century sticks in my mind, but it could be
    later than that).
    
    	Of course, the story I read was recounted by Metzger, who is a
    modern (pro-majority text) scholar; so he probably wouldn't have been
    so inclined to make the KJV text sound so perfect.
    
    	As an aside (a friendly dig really) .... you say "Witnessed and
    verified even by the objectors."  That's what the Mormons say about the
    gold plates uncovered by Joseph Smith (which are now lost).
    
    	Again, I believe there are a few known mss with the Johannine Comma
    in them; it's just that they aren't really ancient texts (as old as the
    texts use to collate the WH and more modern texts).
    
> Mark it DOES matter if the definite article is there or not. It changes 
> the whole nuance of the verse!
> 
> I've spent years studying koine both formally and otherwise, IT DOES make
> a difference about the definite article. It really does. One cant be 100%
> sure of the gender, number and case if this little word is missing.
    
    	Do me a favor, Hank; using the English translation of your choice,
    isolate the point [again] from 1Pet 3:18 that the article in Greek
    depends on.  I'm still unclear on how it affects the point we're
    talking about.  I think I'm not clear on what part of 1Pet 3:18 your
    resting your case on [even though it should be simple, since there's
    not all that much to this verse].
    
    	Thanks in advance.
    
    								-mark.

      re .71
    
        I'll bet those Waldensian's had a pretty good text!  Those
        were some good stalwarts of the Christian faith during a 
        time of incredible spiritual darkness.
    
                                                Tony

    Whatsa Waldensian?

 Re Mark S (ongoing)

 >Gold plates...(which are now lost)
  Yes I know and I think of that also whenever i recount this episode ...:-(

 >What is a Waldensian?  ... the first protestants, they separated from the
  church in Rome beginning in the 2nd century because of doctrinal issues,
  later as the church organised, they were persecuted and fled into the 
  Alpine mountains and valleys of Italy, Switzerland and France (mostly).
  They take their name from Peter Waldo 1175 AD, he organized them to 
  resist the persecution. ,They were also known as the Vaudois. They exist
  to this day, but have lost their intrepid spirit (so it would seem).

 The Waldensians suffered three major destructions of their mss :

 600  AD  : The Palatine libraries, burned by Gregory I (allegedly)
 1617 AD  : The Univ of Oxford library, burned by ????
 1658 AD  : The Univ of Cambridge library, packets alpha-gamma stolen by ???

 The oldest Waldensian mss is the Italic Bible (157 AD) and it contains 
  I John 5:7. (yes, its Old Italian-latin and not greek).

 Books about the Waldensians and their mss :

 Allix, Churches of the Piedmont
 Gomba, The Waldesians of Italy
 Gilly, Waldensian Researches
 Leger, History of the Vaudois

 These are rare books, some not in English, however, i have heard that
 The SDA Church has translated and/or reprinted a number of Waldensian books.
 Well worth the investment. Not for the squeemish or tender-hearted though, 
 the persecution was brutal. And oh btw, just about every element of
 christianity has brutalized their fellow man, not just Rome.

 >ok do me a favor...using the english translation of you choice...

 How about a comparison of english translations of my choice :

 1) The Kingdom Interlinear Translation of the Greek Scriptures 
    (uses the 1881 Wescott and Hort text)
    with * * * THREE BIBLE TEXTS * * * 1985 edition.
    I'll use texts 2 and 3.
    #2 English text underneath. "An interlinear word-for-word
                                 translated into english - 1969"
    #3 The New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures.
 2) The King James Authorized Version.

 1-2 [he] having been put to death indeed to flesh having been made alive 
      but to the spirit   (NW interlinear)

 1-3 he being put to death in the flesh, but being made alive in the spirit. NWT

 2    being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit. KJV

 Do you see the capital "S" in the word Spirit (KJV) ? that was the way the
 translators signified the person of the Holy Spirit, they did this because
 of the masculine definite article modifying the neuter "Pneumati"

 The KJV-WH difference is made by the presence of the definite article in
 the KJV greek text and the translated absence of the personal pronoun "he".

 The NWT-WH translation has *Jesus the total person* put to death (obliterated)
 and then brought back to life as a spirit (small "s") being. (and translated 
 rightly when one uses the WH mutilation text).

 The KJV has *Jesus flesh Body * put to death but then made alive again
 by the Person and power of the Holy Spirit.

 Does anyone believe that the Logos (His God persona) died when Jesus died?
  
 Similarly, when those born of the Spirit die, their bodies die, but their
 spirit (seat of intellect) returns to the Father who gave it. At the last 
 trump their flesh body (as Jesus' was) will be glorified (renovated and 
 transformed) and made  alive by the Spirit of Christ.
 
  is ok?? well, i mean the explanation

                       Henr (more later)

    re .75 (DNEAST::DALELIO_HENR)/Hank
    
> The oldest Waldensian mss is the Italic Bible (157 AD) and it contains 
>  I John 5:7. (yes, its Old Italian-latin and not greek).
    
    	I forgot to bring Metzger's book on NT mss history with me, but he
    also pointed out that the oldest mss which contain it are old Latin;
    the earliest Greek mss are not all that ancient.  I think he said it
    was a marginal, exegetical remark that eventually made it into the main
    text.
    
    	This isn't directly related to 1Pet 3:18, though.
    
 >ok do me a favor...using the english translation of you choice...

> How about a comparison of english translations of my choice :
>
> 1) The Kingdom Interlinear Translation of the Greek Scriptures 
>    (uses the 1881 Wescott and Hort text)
>    with * * * THREE BIBLE TEXTS * * * 1985 edition.
>    I'll use texts 2 and 3.
>    #2 English text underneath. "An interlinear word-for-word
>                                 translated into english - 1969"
>    #3 The New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures.
    
    	Suit yourself -- but you don't go out of your way to use the NWT
    for my benefit.  I usually don't use it in this conference because
    people take pot-shots at it; and besides, I can usually find an
    identical, or similar reading in another translation.
    
> 2) The King James Authorized Version.
    
> 1-2 [he] having been put to death indeed to flesh having been made alive 
>      but to the spirit   (NW interlinear)
>
> 1-3 he being put to death in the flesh, but being made alive in the spirit.NWT
>
> 2    being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit. KJV

> Do you see the capital "S" in the word Spirit (KJV) ? that was the way the
> translators signified the person of the Holy Spirit, they did this because
> of the masculine definite article modifying the neuter "Pneumati"
    
    	Well, yes ... I had figured this out -- too bad it wasn't
    capitalized in the original Greek, eh? :-)
    
    	What I was trying to do was figure out why "spirit" was considered
    a person when "flesh" is obviously not (but, rather, is what Jesus was
    at the time).  Since both NWT and KJV translate their respective
    underlying texts as "the spirit" -- as though it's definite -- I was
    hoping you'd explain the impact that the article had on the word for
    "spirit".

> The KJV-WH difference is made by the presence of the definite article in
> the KJV greek text and the translated absence of the personal pronoun "he".
    
    	I'm not convinced you've explained it, since we're talking about
    the difference in the prepositional phrases "IN the spirit" and "BY the
    spirit," and what justifies the difference, since the 
    
    	However, I'll grant you this; I do know that personal identity is
    signified by the use of the article (which even precedes ordinary
    people's proper names; in Greek, you'd be 'the Hank' and I'd be "the
    Mark") -- so if this is your point, that the force of the article is
    meant to signify the 'person of the Spirit', so that we're to
    understand that "spirit" is meant as the agent of resurrection, and NOT
    the form of Jesus' "resurrection body" -- then I think I now
    understand your point.

> The NWT-WH translation has *Jesus the total person* put to death (obliterated)
> and then brought back to life as a spirit (small "s") being. (and translated 
> rightly when one uses the WH mutilation text).

> The KJV has *Jesus flesh Body * put to death but then made alive again
> by the Person and power of the Holy Spirit.
    
    	OK ... after pondering this last night, I think I came to
    understand what you've now said in your explanation.
    
    	However, I ought to point out that the few (non-Witnesses) sources
    I looked at last night said that 1Pet 3:18 is talking about Jesus'
    being alive as "spirit".
    
    	Bullinger's _Companion Bible_ made a comment about the Greek
    article not being supported in the texts; and the analytical works I
    have (from the UBS) don't make mention of this difference, so I'm not
    sure what to make of it, yet -- especially since Green's interlinear
    DOES contain it.
    
    	Excluding the KJV, all the major translations I looked at translate
    the passage as "made alive in the spirit" -- and thus DON'T side with
    the KJV.  I don't consider this anti-trinitarianism, since these
    translations are clearly trinitarian.  (Ironically, the one other
    source that I have which DOES say *by the Spirit* happens to be a
    19th century UNITARIAN commentary -- but I think it was just using the
    KJV as the base text for its commentary.)
    
    	Actually, I think at best, this passage read your way only proves
    that 1) Jesus was a being of flesh who died "in the flesh", and 2) was
    resurrected "by the Spirit" (or as other passages equivalently say, "by
    God").  It DOESN'T say that Jesus' flesh was resurrected; just that
    Jesus the person was.  The context of the verses that follow (about
    Jesus witnessing to the "spirits in prison" indicates that Jesus' too,
    was in "spirit form" when he did this.  Christian 'legend' says Jesus
    did this between his death and resurrection, but the Bible itself
    doesn't actually say this.

> Does anyone believe that the Logos (His God persona) died when Jesus died?
    
    	That depends on who you ask.  If you ask someone who believes that
    humans possess immortal souls that live on when the body dies, then
    those people would probably say that they DON'T believe that the
    Logos's "God persona" died when Jesus died -- but then, the Bible
    itself doesn't talk about Jesus like this.  It says he died, and was
    resurrected.  It doesn't say in-between his death and resurrection, he
    remained alive in his "God persona".
    
    	Just what do you think resurrection means, anyway?
  
> Similarly, when those born of the Spirit die, their bodies die, but their
> spirit (seat of intellect) returns to the Father who gave it. At the last 
> trump their flesh body (as Jesus' was) will be glorified (renovated and 
> transformed) and made  alive by the Spirit of Christ.
    
    	Interesting point here.  Are you saying that the "spirit" is NOT
    actually something alive (although it returns to the Father who gave
    it) -- but that the life of the person is resumed when spirit and body
    are reunited?
    
    	If so, then I take it that you don't believe that people live on
    after death as conscious, immortal souls.
    
    	If not, then you seem to be saying that people who die CAN and DO,
    in fact, live on (for a time) WITHOUT a body of flesh -- but in some
    'spirit form' until that spirit is united again with flesh.  If this is
    the case, what's the point of being resurrected, since the person's
    conscious life has really continued anyway, in immortal, spirit form?
    This really proves that human life [i.e., the personality] can exist
    WITHOUT a body of flesh.
    
>  is ok?? well, i mean the explanation
    
    	Bottom line: I think I understand your point.  [I did learn
    something about yet another mss issue.]
    
    	Thanks.
    
    								-mark.

    (re my own last reply)
    
    one more side point ...
    
Hank>> How about a comparison of english translations of my choice :
>>
>> 1) The Kingdom Interlinear Translation of the Greek Scriptures 
>>    (uses the 1881 Wescott and Hort text)
>>    with * * * THREE BIBLE TEXTS * * * 1985 edition.
>>    I'll use texts 2 and 3.
>>    #2 English text underneath. "An interlinear word-for-word
>>                                 translated into english - 1969"
>>    #3 The New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures.
>    
me>    	Suit yourself -- but you don't go out of your way to use the NWT
>    for my benefit.  I usually don't use it in this conference because
>    people take pot-shots at it; and besides, I can usually find an
>    identical, or similar reading in another translation.
    
    	Actually, for this verse, other interlinears (like Marshall's NASB)
    and other translations (like the NASB, or NAB) would do just fine,
    especially since it would establish the more general truth that this
    ISN'T just an anti-trinitarian, JW-only 'specialization' of the NWT.
    
    
    								-mark.

   RE .76, .77 Mark S

   Thanks Mark,

   Re Waldensian mss and I John 5:7  > ...isnt directly related to 1 Pet 3:18

   well, maybe, its all part of the trinitarian dispute these last
   19 or so centuries. Ill try to show that the Wescott and Hort text
   was at least a big step in the anti-trinitarian direction.

   I'll get back to you on these notes and other sub-topics (meaning of
   sacrifice, resurrection, etc) next week (deo volantus).

                   Hank             

    re .78 (DNEAST::DALELIO_HENR)/Hank
    
>   Re Waldensian mss and I John 5:7  > ...isnt directly related to 1 Pet 3:18
>
>   well, maybe, its all part of the trinitarian dispute these last
>   19 or so centuries. 
    
    	I did a little reading on the Waldensians last night (actually,
    there was a fairly positive Watchtower article on them a few years ago
    -- this despite their being trinitarians); they were an interesting
    people.  Aside from being in agreement with but a few major 'orthodox'
    doctrinal tenets (like the trinity), they were QUITE opposed to many of
    the major orthodox (Catholic) traditions of the time.   They were
    actually considered heretics by the mainstream.
    
>                       Ill try to show that the Wescott and Hort text
>   was at least a big step in the anti-trinitarian direction.
    
    	I still think it odd that you should say this, because Wescott and
    Hort were both orthodox clergymen.  I doubt very much that THEY felt
    they were purposely advancing anti-trinitarianism.  [However, I DO find
    it interesting to note how much ground trinitarianism lost when they
    came out with their 'latest and greatest'.]

>   I'll get back to you on these notes and other sub-topics (meaning of
>   sacrifice, resurrection, etc) next week (deo volantus).
    
    	I'll look forward to your replies.  [Don't feel obligated that you
    have to address everything at once, though.]
    
    
    								-mark.

 
 Mark S, 

 I'll try to reduce responses to the essentials :

 Re the capital "S" in the KJV I Pet 3:18 passage.

 >too bad it wasnt capitalized in the original greek eh? :-).

 Functionally it was by the use of the definite article :-) :-).

 Bullinger, Green's etc... only those authors which are aware of the fact that
 their are variants between the AV and the other "Received Text(s)" would
 include verbage concerning the "Spirit" and the presence of the definite
 article in I pet 3:18.in their commentaries. The variations among the 
 "Received" texts impact about 1% of the thousands of mss under this umbrella
 and I Pet 3:18 is one of these involved texts.

 > Unitarian "by the Spirit", though not trinitarian they do believe in the
   "personality" of the Spirit. Thus "by the Spirit".

 Re: the alleged trinitarian text of Wescott and Hort :

 These men were originally commissioned to revise the english text of the KJV.
 but in the passage of time they got bogged down and ran amuck creating a "NEW" 
 greek text. The result of a "new and scientific approach" to textual criticism.
 So claimed W&H. "The older the mss the more reliable" was the platform of their
 theory and they chose the following mss as their Lithmus test of manuscript
 comparative antiquity and reliability :

 ALEPH (Hebrew Letter), A, B, C, D (3rd to 6TH century).

 According to John Burgon, Dean of Chichester (A high church Anglican of
 trinitarian persuasion, a contemporary of W&H)) concerning their theory 
 and work.

 "It matters not that all four (ALEPH, B,C,D) are discovered on careful 
  scrutiny to differ essentially , not only from 99 out of a hundred of the
  whole body of extant mms, but even from *one another* [burgons emphasis]...
  in different degrees they all five (includes A here) exhibit a fabricated
  text... it is easier to find two consecutive verses in which these two
  (ALEPH and B) that differ the one from the other than in which they entirely
  agree"

  In his introdution to The Revision Revised (1883); 
  concerning the text of W&H :

  "The English as well as the Greek of the newly 'Revised Version' is
  hopelessly at fault"
 
  "It is however the sytematic depravation of the underlying greek which does
  so grievously offend me: for this is nothing else but a poisoning of the
  River of Life at its sacred source. Our Revisers (with the best and purest 
  of intentions, no doubt) [Burgon's comment] stand convicted of having 
  delberately rejected the Words of Inspiration in every page".
 
  A great many of these mutilations are of the nature of I per 3:18 in that
  they diminish the Humanity and/or the Deity of Jesus Christ or the
  Personality of the Spirit of God (Being fathered from the Alexandrian 
  mss which cant even agree with each other).

  Wescott and Hort supplied logical apologetics for their "better text" choice 
  of  mutilated replacements to the AV. In Burgons book the Revision Revised
  (a collection of lectures and letters) he deals with a great bulk of these
  "prefered readings" historically and logically refuting them.
 
  more later...
                      Hank

    re .80 (DNEAST::DALELIO_HENR)/Hank
    
> Bullinger, Green's etc... only those authors which are aware of the fact that
> their are variants between the AV and the other "Received Text(s)" would
> include verbage concerning the "Spirit" and the presence of the definite
> article in I pet 3:18.in their commentaries. The variations among the 
> "Received" texts impact about 1% of the thousands of mss under this umbrella
> and I Pet 3:18 is one of these involved texts.
    
    	I took a closer look at Green's critical apparatus; here's what he
    says.
    
    	His appendix, entitled:
    
    		THE MAJORITY TEXT NOTES AND HOW TO USE THEM
    
    says at the outset:
    
    		"If the foregoing Received Text [the one he has
    		published] is modified by the following notes,
    		it will then be in the closest possible agreement
    		with the vast majority of all manuscripts."
    
    In his preface, he states:
    
    		"This Greek text differs slightly from other
    		printed editions of the Received Text."
    
    As I understand it, the "Received Test" is what is also called the
    "Byzantine Text" or Majority Text (among other names); and although
    there are some variations, the Received/Byzantine/Major text is what is
    considered to be the one that God had preserved by Divine Providence. 
    This text is the one that WH unceremoniously dumped on the floor with
    the advent of their own critical text.
    
    	Now -- assuming that I understand the 'text wars' correctly -- at
    least at a very high, though perhaps oversimplified level -- here's
    what Green now says about 1Pet 3:18.
    
    	Green establishes 3 grades of classification for variations between
    his base text and the Majority text:
    
    		Level 3:  95%-100% of all manuscripts support the change
    			he identifies that would make his readings 
    			correspond to the Majority text.
    
    		Level 2:  80%-94% of all mss support the change ...
    
    		Level 1:  61%-79% of all mss support the change ...
    
    Looking at it the other way round, a level 3 variant would only be
    supported by 0%-5% of the all the RT manuscripts.
    
    	Now what about the article before "spirit" in 1Pet 3:18?  Green
    grades it as Level 3; that is, most of the majority mss [I presume in
    the Received Text family] do NOT contain it.
    
    	The bottom line?  Unless I've misread Green entirely, he apparantly
    says that this particular variant of 1Pet 3:18 is NOT supported by the
    majority of texts in the Byzantine/Received Text family.   Thus, to
    insist that it belongs in the text is, at best, an assertion of faith,
    since the mss evidence itself in the mss of this family of texts don't
    support it as original.
    
>These men were originally commissioned to revise the english text of the KJV.
>but in the passage of time they got bogged down and ran amuck creating a "NEW" 
>greek text. The result of a "new and scientific approach" to textual criticism.
>So claimed W&H. "The older the mss the more reliable" was the platform of their
>theory and they chose the following mss as their Lithmus test of manuscript
>comparative antiquity and reliability :
    
    	I've just been doing a little reading on this whole WH/RT
    controversy, so I'm now a little more familiar with the basic issues
    and who the 'players' are.  John Burgon was one of the first defenders
    of the RT after WH published their text.  [He's the 'right wing' to
    W&H's 'left wing'.]
    
>  In his introdution to The Revision Revised (1883); 
>  concerning the text of W&H :
>
>  "The English as well as the Greek of the newly 'Revised Version' is
>  hopelessly at fault"
    
    	I suspect that this topic is about to take a turn into the argument
    that the KJV-English is the ONLY English that truly represents what the
    Greek text really says.  If this suspicion is true, then I think it's
    time to quit this topic, since this is about to turn into a 'religious
    debate' based on faith -- and based on a faith that is NOT even held
    by the orthodox majority (which is to say that this ISN'T just an
    argument of the form "JWs verses everyone else").
    
>  "It is however the sytematic depravation of the underlying greek which does
>  so grievously offend me: for this is nothing else but a poisoning of the
>  River of Life at its sacred source. Our Revisers (with the best and purest 
>  of intentions, no doubt) [Burgon's comment] stand convicted of having 
>  delberately rejected the Words of Inspiration in every page".
    
    	Lots of rhetoric here.  I don't think that turning up the gain on
    the rhetoric is going to do this discussion any favorable service.
    
>  A great many of these mutilations are of the nature of I per 3:18 in that
>  they diminish the Humanity and/or the Deity of Jesus Christ or the
>  Personality of the Spirit of God (Being fathered from the Alexandrian 
>  mss which cant even agree with each other).
    
    	Again, unless I've entirely misread Green, even HIS work -- which
    is PRO Received Text, PRO Byzantine text -- proves that the variation
    we're talking about in 1Pet 3:18 is NOT a "mutilation" which can be
    proved as such by looking at the Majority/Received Text.  This
    variation is actually in the MINORITY in this text family.  So ...
    you'll have to save the "mutilation" argument for another verse,
    another day.

>  Wescott and Hort supplied logical apologetics for their "better text" choice 
>  of  mutilated replacements to the AV. In Burgons book the Revision Revised
>  (a collection of lectures and letters) he deals with a great bulk of these
>  "prefered readings" historically and logically refuting them.
    
    	And again, even this variation of 1Pet 3:18 is not a "preferred"
    reading in the Received Text.  So I think we can factor WH out of this
    discussion.
    
    
    								-mark.

 > The Bottom line?... 1Pet 3:18 is NOT supported by the majority of texts in
   the Byzatine/Received Text family.  Correct!

   thus to insist that it belongs in the text is, at best an assertion of
   faith...  this one is not necessarily correct!
 
   It existed in the Stephanus 3rd edition (1589 I believe) Hort himself
   stated that the late Stephanus Edition (collated with Beza Waldensian mss)
   was authoritative in age (at the very worst) at 1530 years, subtracted from
   1881, Hort dates Stephanus collation at 351 AD, that means Hort dated the 
   I peter and the I John mss at no later that 351 AD. You see Hort was one of 
   those who verified in his own mind that the greek mss burned in the 1617 
   fire were genuinely *dated* at the 3rd and 4th centuries. His sole criteria 
   for expunging I pet 3:18 was that the earlier Alexandrian Mss didnt have it.
   His criteria was *age* not *reliability* (subjective to be sure).

   > I suspect that this topic is about to take a turn into the argument that
   the KJV-ENGLISH is the only English... everyone vs JWs (come on Mark, talk
   about rhetoric)

  Look at the statement again which caused this (ahem!) emotional response
  do you see the quote marks, these are Burgons words :
     "English as *well as the greek*"  btw were JWs around for Burgon to pick
  on in 1881 :-). and again Mark - you are not alone , I get lots of "incoming"
  concerning my views.

  >lots of rhetoric here... not so, again these are Burgons words, based upon a
   life time of study, his books (along with others) make a case that the 
   descendancy of the AV with the collation of other families of text, have
   provided us with The Word of God, the greek AV which was published in 1611
   I dont believe that the english is inspired and in fact have pointed out
   some KJV problems to Marshall in the last conference.

   If you really want, Ill take one of the passages that Burgon deals with and
   show you the scholarly manner in which he proves that the W&H is a corrupted
   collation.
  
   Let me repeat, my decision is for the 1611 AV in *every case* this is my 
   decision (call it faith if you will), I Pet 3:18 is there in the AV and not
   there in the W&H, so i personally *cant* factor WH out of this discussion.

               Gotta run...
                               hank

>   Let me repeat, my decision is for the 1611 AV in *every case* this is my 
>   decision (call it faith if you will), I Pet 3:18 is there in the AV and not
>   there in the W&H, so i personally *cant* factor WH out of this discussion.


  oops, obviously I meant the definite article in I Pet 3:18.

             Hank

    re .82 (DNEAST::DALELIO_HENR)/Hank
    
> > The Bottom line?... 1Pet 3:18 is NOT supported by the majority of texts in
>   the Byzatine/Received Text family.  Correct!
    
    	Well ... this is *some* progress.  At least we've agreed that we
    can talk about the Byzantine family and it's variations.  I still think
    we can factor WH out.

>   thus to insist that it belongs in the text is, at best an assertion of
>   faith...  this one is not necessarily correct!
    
>   It existed in the Stephanus 3rd edition (1589 I believe) Hort himself
>   stated that the late Stephanus Edition (collated with Beza Waldensian mss)
>   was authoritative in age (at the very worst) at 1530 years, subtracted from
>   1881, Hort dates Stephanus collation at 351 AD, that means Hort dated the 
>   I peter and the I John mss at no later that 351 AD. You see Hort was one of 
>   those who verified in his own mind that the greek mss burned in the 1617 
>   fire were genuinely *dated* at the 3rd and 4th centuries. His sole criteria 
>   for expunging I pet 3:18 was that the earlier Alexandrian Mss didnt have it.
>   His criteria was *age* not *reliability* (subjective to be sure).
    
    	But Hank, I never said that it wasn't in ANY mss -- just that it
    isn't in the MAJORITY of Byzantine mss [... and it goes without saying
    that it isn't in the WH mss].   So, all I meant was that it's an
    assertion of faith that it's *genuine*, given that it isn't even in the
    majority of RT mss.
    
    	In my reading, I just had my memory refreshed about the WH criteria
    for making judgments on mss variations; but since your own criteria is
    reliability [and not just age; for I agree that the two are not equal],
    doesn't the fact that even the majority of Byzantine texts don't have
    it indicate that it's NOT all that reliable a variant?   After all, the
    basic argument of the PRO-Byzantine camp is that 'the geographical
    purity' of the Byzantine text family [being closer to the seat of 'real
    Christianity'] is what makes it more reliable -- this in addition to
    the fact that Byzantine mss seem to be in the numerical majority,
    anyway.  Since the majority of these "more reliable" Byzantine texts
    don't have this variant, that speaks AGAINST it, regardless of whatever
    WH says.
    
    	To argue that the 'minority rules' in this case *IS* an act of
    faith -- faith that the subjective judgment of it's supporters is
    correct, despite the number of 'mss votes' -- and Byzantine votes at
    that -- against it.
    
>   > I suspect that this topic is about to take a turn into the argument that
>   the KJV-ENGLISH is the only English... everyone vs JWs (come on Mark, talk
>   about rhetoric)
    
    	No no no ... you missed my point, Hank.  I *don't mind* defending
    the JW viewpoint when it's "everyone vs. JWs" [for certain lines of
    discussion that is ... I'm not a *total* glutton for punishment :-)] --
    all I'm saying here is that your argument (on this mss variant) ISN'T
    WITH JWS only -- it's with quite a large camp of modern, orthodox
    believers and scholars.  I just meant that there's no special reason
    for me as a JW to take up the charge on this issue when any orthodox
    believer with a leaning toward textual moderism could do so (if they
    were so inclined).
    
>
>  Look at the statement again which caused this (ahem!) emotional response
>  do you see the quote marks, these are Burgons words :
>     "English as *well as the greek*"  btw were JWs around for Burgon to pick
>  on in 1881 :-). and again Mark - you are not alone , I get lots of "incoming"
>  concerning my views.
    
    	Ah, but at that time, the NWT didn't exist as a target of anti-WH
    invective.  JWs weren't even known as JWs at that time.  In fact, from
    the orthodox perspective, they were nobodies (that is, not as big a
    threat to orthodoxy as we're viewed as, today).
    
    	Regardless ... that you get lots of incoming about your views on
    the text/translation issue really makes my point for me; this isn't
    just 'another crackpot heresy' of JWs.  It's actually a major source of
    controversy within the entire orthodox realm.
    
>  >lots of rhetoric here... not so, again these are Burgons words, based upon a
>   life time of study, his books (along with others) make a case that the 
>   descendancy of the AV with the collation of other families of text, have
>   provided us with The Word of God, the greek AV which was published in 1611
>   I dont believe that the english is inspired and in fact have pointed out
>   some KJV problems to Marshall in the last conference.
    
    	I knew you were quoting Burgon ... so it's HIS rhetoric, not yours.
    As for his words being the product of a "life time of study" -- we both
    know that that's not an unassailable basis for a position (cf. John
    5:39 for the fallibility of diligent study).
    
    	I'm glad to hear that we're not going to argue about 'inspired
    English translations' ... my apologies for my suspicions ...
    
>   If you really want, Ill take one of the passages that Burgon deals with and
>   show you the scholarly manner in which he proves that the W&H is a corrupted
>   collation.
    
    	No no ... that's OK ... today's not my day for being-hit-on-the-
    head-lessons ... I'd prefer to stick to just the point of this topic
    about Jesus' resurrection body, and how 1Pet 3:18 (and etc.)
    contributes to our understanding of the truth on this matter.
    
>   Let me repeat, my decision is for the 1611 AV in *every case* this is my 
>   decision (call it faith if you will), I Pet 3:18 is there in the AV and not
>   there in the W&H, so i personally *cant* factor WH out of this discussion.
    
    	Fine ... all I'm pointing out is that the evidence for the AV
    reading in *this particular case* seems rather suspect to me --
    especially since [according to my source, Mr. Greeen] the majority of
    the texts in the AV Greek-text family also bear witness against it.  
    Since we can have this particular discussion about 1Pet 3:18 on the
    basis of the Byzantine majority texts alone, the WH texts CAN be
    factored out of it.  [In other words, there's no point in clubbing down
    the WH text until you've first clubbed down all the Byzantine majority
    texts that weigh against it, as well.]
    
    
    						until next round ... :-)
    						-mark.

 Yes your right we've spent a lot of time on this manuscript issue.

 Also yes, the *weight by number* of mss evidence is against the definite 
 article in the I pet 3:18 passage.

 There is a credibility gap between 350 AD and the writings of the original
 mss of the NT, and you are also correct that i've bridged that gap by the
 element of faith, however I include purity in Transmission of the text as
 a necessary clause in the doctrine of the Inspiration of the Scriptures and 
 believe that the 1611 AV *greek and hebrew (Massora)* is the completely 
 restored text of the originals, I know Christians say "the differences 
 dont effect any major  doctrine", but they do and christians should be 
 allowed (because they are taught otherwise) to know that it makes a big 
 difference. I pet 3:18 and I John 5:7, being two cases in point.

 I'll try to diminish negative terms such as "mutilated, corrupt, etc"
 when speaking of other than the AV text and respect the rights of others
 to make mistakes in judgement :-)  :-)  :-).

 So, where were we? Your belief is that Jesus Christ was raised a "spiritual
 [small "s"] body"  not flesh or any other part or parts of His Flesh Body 
 from before His  death. 'he being put to death in the flesh but made alive 
 in the spirit [small "s"]"

 My view is that He was resurrected in the same flesh Body that He died with;
 His Body being made alive by the Spirit [capital "S"] and in the power of the 
 Spirit [capital "S"] (not in the power of blood - though His Blood saves us
 from eternal death).
 
 These views cannot be reconciled, so there they stand. I'll review your 
 responses and questions from way back when, and go one to another point
 today at lunch or tomorrow.

    Bye for now Mark...
                           Hank
 

 Re Mark S

 Again I'll try to boil this down to the essentials.

 sacrifice, given and not to be taken back...

 Citing the Law in Leviticus and comments by the writer of Hebrews :

 ...are burned outside the camp... "there seems to be a parallel between the 
    disposal of the animal bodies given up in sacrifice and the disposal of 
    Jesus body" 

 well, not quite, this is speaking of the "sin" offering (the "Red Heifer" and
 the "bullocks") Lev 29 and other places...they were considered unclean and
 to be totally consumed in the fire "outside the camp".

 This is only one aspect of the Atonement.

 This is an allegory of the Blood Atonement and the flesh and blood
  sacrifice of Jesus Christ for sin.

 and the Word was made flesh...
 He was made sin who knew no sin
 God sent His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh,...
 He condemned sin in the flesh

 Sinful flesh (sarx) has been destroyed (conceptually, and will be put away
 actually and totally at the renovation of the universe) by Jesus Christ, 
 when He offered up His flesh and its life force (His Blood).

 On the other hand there is the Peace offering which is sacrificed *and 
 returned* to the people (specifically Aaron and his sons - the nation of 
 priests) to be eaten.

 This is an allegory of the Resurrection and glorification of the flesh Body
 of our Lord, this offering is a Peace offering from Our Heavenly Father
 signifying that Jesus has made peace between ourselves and God.
 From (not to) Our Father because Jesus came back from the grave in a 
 glorified flesh Body. 

 we are what we eat... If we believe on Him we will share in His Resurrection
 whosoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood shall live forever...
 This is the Supper of the Lamb, His wedding feast...

 and the Spirit and the Bride say  Come!
 and let him who hears say  Come!
  
 ...and whosoever cometh unto me I will in no wise cast out...

    re .86 (DNEAST::DALELIO_HENR)/Hank
    
> sacrifice, given and not to be taken back...
>
> Citing the Law in Leviticus and comments by the writer of Hebrews :
>
> ...are burned outside the camp... "there seems to be a parallel between the 
>    disposal of the animal bodies given up in sacrifice and the disposal of 
>    Jesus body" 
>
> well, not quite, this is speaking of the "sin" offering (the "Red Heifer" and
> the "bullocks") Lev 29 and other places...they were considered unclean and
> to be totally consumed in the fire "outside the camp".
    
    	I'm not sure what your objection is here (why you say "not quite"). 
    The atonement sacrifice (Lev 16) was given due to the uncleanness of
    the people (i.e, their sinfulness); thus Jesus' own sacrifice atoned
    for the "uncleanness" or sinfulness of all of mankind (and not just
    fleshly Israel).   [I'm not sure if you're saying that it was the
    animal bodies which were unclean (because they were now dead), and thus
    burned outside the camp; but if so, that still doesn't change the fact
    that those sacrificial bodies were given up for good.]
    
> On the other hand there is the Peace offering which is sacrificed *and 
> returned* to the people (specifically Aaron and his sons - the nation of 
> priests) to be eaten.
    
    	True as this may be, Jesus' human death was still primariliy one of
    atonement (for the complete atonement of mankind's sinfulness, rather
    than mere partial atonement which was all the Mosaic sacrifices could
    accomplish).  At the risk of being in bad taste, to borrow a phrase,
    you can't have your cake and eat it too in this case.
    
> This is an allegory of the Resurrection and glorification of the flesh Body
> of our Lord, this offering is a Peace offering from Our Heavenly Father
> signifying that Jesus has made peace between ourselves and God.
> From (not to) Our Father because Jesus came back from the grave in a 
> glorified flesh Body. 
    
    	Sorry, Hank, but I don't buy this.  A sacrifice means you give
    something up.  Even the returned flesh of the peace sacrifices (which
    served a communion function) was NOT a restoration of the thing
    sacrificed (i.e., the live animal).
    
    	You repeat your view that "Jesus came back from the grave in a
    glorified flesh body" -- but I don't see this as a Scriptural counter
    to the Scripture that says that "flesh and blood cannot inherit the
    kingdom of God".   If Jesus received his heavenly inheritance as the
    King of God's Kingdom as a being of flesh (albeit glorified), then this
    contradicts the scripture [which happens to have been stated in the
    context of the heavenly resurrection] that "flesh ... cannot inherit
    the kingdom of God".
    
>
> we are what we eat... If we believe on Him we will share in His Resurrection
> whosoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood shall live forever...
> This is the Supper of the Lamb, His wedding feast...
    
    	Even though we're now in the realm of allegory (unless you're Roman
    Catholic), this doesn't prove that Jesus is a being of glorified flesh;
    for if the allegory refers to the sacrifice of Jesus' flesh and blood,
    what's the point if Jesus actually still possesses his fleshly body
    [and is living in it]?   Under the Law, no one partook of living flesh;
    only dead flesh.
    
    ==*==
    
    	I do think we understand each other's position; so unless you have
    in mind explaining additional scriptures (to show me why I shouldn't
    understand 1Cor 15:45 to be literally true, that Jesus is now "a
    life-giving spirit", but rather 'a being of glorified flesh'), I think
    we're done.
    
    
    								-mark.

 Re .87 Mark S  Nice try

 >  I do think we understand each other's position; so unless you have
 > in mind explaining additional scriptures (to show me why I shouldn't
 > understand 1Cor 15:45 to be literally true, that Jesus is now "a
 > life-giving spirit", but rather 'a being of glorified flesh'), I think
 > we're done.

 You do know which of my buttons to push dont you Mark.
 Did you really think I'de wimp out after this kind of "incoming!"  :-).

 OK, how about Romans 8:9 :

 "but you are (present tense) not in the flesh, but in the Spirit"

 according to your theory the Roman christians did not have flesh bodies
 when Paul wrote to them but had already been raised as spiritual beings.

 Actually what Paul was saying he explains in vs 5

 "For those who live *according* to the flesh set their minds on the things 
  of the flesh, but those who live *according* to the spirit, the things of 
  the Spirit"

 likewise in I Cor 15 Adam became a living being "a nephesh-psuche" and passed
 that (flesh-blood) life on to his descendants 

 the last Adam gives life *(according)* to spirit.

 Let me *Repeat* the use of the definite article in koine is almost completely
 disimilar to the english definite article usage. one of the rules is, in the 
 absence of the DA (abbrev) noun entities (such as sarx and pnuema) are 
 usually collective and/or metaphysical, *conceptual* rather than
 material and  substantive. Anartharous SARX means in the realm of the flesh, 
 and depending on other elements of koine grammar it might mean the principle 
 of life (energized by blood) OR the principle of sin which is native to us by 
 birth.  PNEUMA, in the realm of the Spirit (or small "s" if you prefer) in 
 the realm of the spirit-life or spiritual principles as a guide of life.

 The presence of the article indicates (but not always) identity and/or material
 susbstance. TAS SARX could mean the flesh (stuff wrapped around our bones),
 or the body or even sinful-flesh as a non-metaphysical entity. O PNEUMA 
 almost always the Spirit as a person (or, in your view,) spirit as a 
 life-energy (rather that blood).

 In closing I agree, Flesh and blood cannot enter the kingdom of God.
 That is those who are alive by the life-force of blood only. Those who are
 born of the Spirit are in fact the antithesis of  "flesh and blood". 

 you wanna go on?, I have more

                        Hank

    re .88 (DNEAST::DALELIO_HENR)/Hank
    
> OK, how about Romans 8:9 :
>
> "but you are (present tense) not in the flesh, but in the Spirit"
>
> according to your theory the Roman christians did not have flesh bodies
> when Paul wrote to them but had already been raised as spiritual beings.
    
    	Clever find, that verse ... but even you realize that the context
    of this verse is different.
    
    	In 1Pet 3:18, Peter is talking about Jesus' literal death and
    resurrection [as well as what he did afterwards ... having "preached to
    the SPIRITS in prison"].
    
    	Here in Romans, Paul is talking about their overall change of
    destiny, as well as their now living for spiritual, and not just
    fleshly goals [which included living for their promised heavenly
    inheritance as sons of God].  The context of the discussion explains
    the meaning of what the literal phrases "in the flesh" and "in the
    spirit" mean in this case.
    
> likewise in I Cor 15 Adam became a living being "a nephesh-psuche" and passed
> that (flesh-blood) life on to his descendants 
>
> the last Adam gives life *(according)* to spirit.
    
    	I realize that I have connected 1Pet 3:18 and 1Cor 15 because the
    point of both involve Jesus' death and resurrection; but I disagree
    that there is as direct a connection between 1Cor 15 and Romans 8.
    
    	1Cor 15 contrasts Adam as "a man of dust" with Christ as "a man
    from heaven".  Paul's point is that Jesus returned to heaven, not as "a
    man of dust" (which he was while on earth), but in heavenly form -- NOT
    of "flesh and blood".
    
    	Really, the whole point of 1Cor 15 has to do with the fact that the
    very human Christians back then just couldn't imagine what life would
    be like for them once they were raised to heaven.  Since their
    resurrection is obviously likened to Jesus' own resurrection, if Jesus
    was raised in the flesh, it would have been easy to describe, since
    they were already flesh themselves.  Instead, Paul was telling them
    that they'd just have to accept the limits of their human abilities and
    experience, and wait until they were resurrected to know what form of
    "body" they'd have.  Paul alluded to all the other types of "bodies"
    that we know of to help them appreciate vast differences in forms of
    existence -- so that they wouldn't be thinking of similarities (like
    what their resurrected flesh would be like), but rather, would grasp
    that something very different (beyond their experience) was in store
    for them.
    
    	Don't forget that even before he died, Jesus answered a trick
    question about the resurrection, saying that those raised would be
    
    			"like angels in heaven" (Mark 12:25 RSV)
    or
    			"equal to angels and are
    			 sons of God" (Luke 20:36 RSV)
    
    If Jesus was alluding to the heavenly resurrection (which at that time,
    the Jews really had no concept of), and if life after the heavenly
    resurrection is akin to angelic life (which is entirely spirit), then
    even concepts associated with fleshly life would become irrelevant
    (like marriage -- for angels don't marry, not having even been made as
    male and female).
    
    ==*==
    
    	I also note that "glorified flesh" is NOT a Biblical expression.
    On the matter of Jesus' glorification, he prayed:
    
    			"... now Father, glorify thou me
    			in thy own presence with the glory
    			I had with thee before the world was
    			made."  (John 17:5 RSV)
    
    Before the world was made, Jesus was alongside his Father as a spirit
    being [right -- for it wasn't until he came to earth that he "became
    flesh"].  Surely for Jesus' pre-earthly glory to be restored (actually
    increased), he'd obviously return to life again as a spirit.
    
    ==*==
    
> In closing I agree, Flesh and blood cannot enter the kingdom of God.
> That is those who are alive by the life-force of blood only. Those who are
> born of the Spirit are in fact the antithesis of  "flesh and blood". 
    
    	Really, Hank ... the Bible doesn't say "not flesh and blood alone,
    but flesh and blood AND born-again-Spirit".  Paul's point stops at
    "flesh and blood".

> Let me *Repeat* the use of the definite article in koine is almost completely
> disimilar to the english definite article usage. one of the rules is, in the 
> absence of the DA (abbrev) noun entities (such as sarx and pnuema) are 
> usually collective and/or metaphysical, *conceptual* rather than
> material and  substantive. Anartharous SARX means in the realm of the flesh, 
> and depending on other elements of koine grammar it might mean the principle 
> of life (energized by blood) OR the principle of sin which is native to us by 
> birth.  PNEUMA, in the realm of the Spirit (or small "s" if you prefer) in 
> the realm of the spirit-life or spiritual principles as a guide of life.
    
    	Yes ... 

> The presence of the article indicates (but not always) identity and/or material
> susbstance. TAS SARX could mean the flesh (stuff wrapped around our bones),
> or the body or even sinful-flesh as a non-metaphysical entity. O PNEUMA 
> almost always the Spirit as a person (or, in your view,) spirit as a 
> life-energy (rather that blood).
    
    	So ... what?  No matter how you slice it, there's no evidence that
    fleshly life can INHABIT the spirit realm, though there's an inequality
    that spirit life can exist in our material realm (hence materialized
    angels), and God's Spirit can affect and act upon fleshly life [hence
    we can be spiritual people, we can receive holy spirit, and if God so
    deems, humans can even wield miraculous powers of the spirit].
    
    
    								-mark.

 Re 394.89 mark S.

 You know Mark , I think (concerning the resurrection form of existance)
 that we differ almost exclusively in the nature of the "substance" of that 
 "body".

 I've tried to think of some kind of analogy in nature of substantive
 transformation, and i've got a couple...

 Metamorphosis : Butterflies take their substantive form from a caterpillar
 of their former existance. The nature of these two creatures are totally
 different, yet they are the same being.

 Diamonds  :  a lump of coal put under the proper conditions of heat and 
 pressure is transformed into a diamond the constituent element of both is 
 Carbon yet the nature and property of a diamond is totally different than
 its fomer existance as coal.

 So I guess that I'm saying that figuratively we are transformed from these 
 lumps of coal into diamonds. The substance of our mortal flesh being 
 transformed into a glorified spiritual body (technically ceases to be 
 "flesh").  "Lack of scripture" you say,  well remember the "disposal" of 
 Jesus body in the book of Mark?. 

 Now I realize that these are earthly analogies, but so (including the
 scriptures) we must by necessity (remember Paul's difficulty, he had to
 resort to "grain") since we have no "heavenly" entities here on earth,
 to examine, Jesus having returned to the Father.

 Another point we disussed was "molecules" and their reassembling, that they
 are constantly changing etc, (I keep adding fat molecules). Remember the
 feeding of the 5000? Jesus had no problem recreating/reproducing/reassembling
 the molecules of the original bread and fish. Why so when we are "raised" or
 "changed" ? (rhetorical question, you dont need to answer).

 We will be perfectly suited for either "the new heavens" or "the new earth" 

 Well, we know where we differ, and thats alright. If you want to be "fini"
 I'm game. Is this called "whos-gonna-have-the-last-wordsmanship" ?

                      Hank

    re .90 (DNEAST::DALELIO_HENR)/Hank
    
> You know Mark , I think (concerning the resurrection form of existance)
> that we differ almost exclusively in the nature of the "substance" of that 
> "body".
> 
> I've tried to think of some kind of analogy in nature of substantive
> transformation, and i've got a couple...
    ...
> So I guess that I'm saying that figuratively we are transformed from these 
> lumps of coal into diamonds. 
    
    	It just occurred to me, as I read your reply, that I didn't 
    explain one aspect of my view in the process of defending another. 
    Believe it or not, I DO believe that the use of the word "body," in
    connection with resurrected heavenly life, is appropriate in some
    respects -- it's just not synonymous with "human/fleshly body".
    
    	As you know, the Bible says of Jesus that before he came to earth,
    he existed "in the form of God" (Phil 2:6 RSV), which was obviously
    spirit form, as a spirit being.  Although the Bible doesn't explain
    anything about the specific nature of spirit life, presumably it is
    'contained' in some way, just as fleshly life is 'contained' in a body.
    That Jesus was able to come to earth "in the flesh" and still be the
    same person (though he began his human life as a baby, and didn't just
    appear as an adult) indicates that the type of 'container' that God
    puts the life into is NOT the essential factor in making a being the
    person he/she is.
    
    	Paul spoke about the kind of "body" they would receive in the
    resurrection because "body" was as good a (human) word as any to
    indicate the fact that their lives in heaven after the resurrection
    would be 'contained' is whatever sort of 'container' is suitable for
    spirit life.
    
>                              The substance of our mortal flesh being 
> transformed into a glorified spiritual body (technically ceases to be 
> "flesh").  "Lack of scripture" you say,  well remember the "disposal" of 
> Jesus body in the book of Mark?. 
    
    	A side note first, my "book of Mark" comment was a joke, remember?
    
    	Now ... I find what you say/admit here VERY interesting.  If "our
    mortal flesh being transformed into a glorified spiritual body" means
    that that body "technically ceases to be flesh", then aren't you
    admitting the truth of MY view that heavenly life is NOT "in the
    flesh"?  If it's transformed into something that "technically ceases to
    be flesh", then it's NOT the same as the original, right?  It's not a
    HUMAN body any longer.  Human bodies are flesh; bodies that AREN'T
    flesh aren't human.  They may be the same person; but they aren't the
    same 'container'.
    
    	What it IS may now be up for debate (whether it's a 'spirit body'
    of the sort that the Father, the Son, and the angels possess) -- though
    I think we really can't know apart from direct revelation, since life
    in that form is out of our realm of experience, and really, our ability
    to fully comprehend [and thus the limits of Paul's own explanation in
    1Cor 15].
    
> Now I realize that these are earthly analogies, but so (including the
> scriptures) we must by necessity (remember Paul's difficulty, he had to
> resort to "grain") since we have no "heavenly" entities here on earth,
> to examine, Jesus having returned to the Father.
    
    	Yes ... exactly ... Paul's language was entirely in earthly
    analogies because that's our realm of experience.
    
> Another point we disussed was "molecules" and their reassembling, that they
> are constantly changing etc, (I keep adding fat molecules). Remember the
> feeding of the 5000? Jesus had no problem recreating/reproducing/reassembling
> the molecules of the original bread and fish. Why so when we are "raised" or
> "changed" ? (rhetorical question, you dont need to answer).
    
    	The Bible doesn't explain the mechanics of the miracle, but I
    suspect that Jesus basically copied the bread/fish matter over and over
    again until there was enough [more than enough, really].

> We will be perfectly suited for either "the new heavens" or "the new earth" 
    
    	I agree.

> Well, we know where we differ, and thats alright. If you want to be "fini"
> I'm game. Is this called "whos-gonna-have-the-last-wordsmanship" ?
    
    	It looks like you and I may agree more than you realized [if I've
    understood your latest reply correctly].
    
    	I suspect that you will need the "next word", if not the last.  :-)
    
    
    
    								-mark.

 Yes, you're right, we do agree more than I had originally thought.

 One difference remains, where the resurrected Jesus comes to the disciples 
 and says 

 "A spirit hath not flesh and bones as ye see I have " ... Luke 24:39

 My view (and this is probably the essential difference) is that Jesus
 present body is in some way substantively different than His pre-existant 
 form of being, or else He couldn't have said this to them, I think the
 JW explanation of this is very weak, that He kind of put on a show
 for them to quell their fears (but I accept it as what you honestly
 believe).

 Many "orthodox" christians hold your view (as you have explained it).

 Very interesting string... 
                                    Hank
 

    re .92 (DNEAST::DALELIO_HENR)/Hank
    
> One difference remains, where the resurrected Jesus comes to the disciples 
> and says 
>
> "A spirit hath not flesh and bones as ye see I have " ... Luke 24:39
>
> My view (and this is probably the essential difference) is that Jesus
> present body is in some way substantively different than His pre-existant 
> form of being, or else He couldn't have said this to them, I think the
> JW explanation of this is very weak, that He kind of put on a show
> for them to quell their fears (but I accept it as what you honestly
> believe).
    
    	I've heard this from others ... in fact, it seems to be one of the
    principle verses, if not THE principle verse, at the root of the view
    that Jesus now lives in a body of glorified flesh (because he said "a
    spirit hath not flesh and bones ...").
    
    	Regardless of whether you think the Witness explanation is weak, I
    think the over all context explains it pretty well.
    
    			"As they were saying this, Jesus
    			himself stood among them.  But
    			they were frightened, and supposed
    			that they saw a spirit." (v.36,37 RSV)
    
    Some translations render the word for spirit as "ghost"; but
    irregardless, it seems obvious to me that Luke used the word "spirit"
    in the sense of "ghost" or apparition -- particularly in the demonic
    sense (and hence their fright).  Given the circumstance and the overall
    frame of mind of the disciples, I doubt Jesus meant to give them a
    lesson in 'resurrection ontology'.  Instead, his response simply helped
    allay their fear, and convince them that it was really him.
    
    	Real angelic spirits are, by their nature, invisible to human eyes;
    but again, it's a fact that angelic spirits CAN appear in solid human
    form and eat (just as Jesus did).  No one questions that the angels are
    really spirits, but in these instances, in materialized form.
    
    	==*==
    
    	One other point (that I don't think I covered before)...  As we
    discussed before, Hebrews explains many of the ways in which the
    Mosaic Law foreshadowed Christ and the meaning of his death and his
    post-resurrection High Priesthood.
    
    	Alluding to the curtain that divided the Most Holy from the Holy
    compartment of the temple, as well as alluding to the tearing of this
    curtain at Jesus' death (Matt 27:51), it says:
    
    			"Therefore, brethren, ... we have
    			confidence to enter the [heavenly]
    			sanctuary by the blood of Jesus, by
    			the new and living way which he 
    			opened up for us through the curtain,
    			that is, through his flesh, ..." 
    			(Heb 10:19,20 RSV)
    
    The literal "sanctuary"/Most Holy represented heaven itself (cf. Heb
    9:24), and was screened off to represent the fact that, ordinarily, man
    could not simply pass right into it.  [That the high priest could
    actually enter it once a year was a practical exception; the fact that
    it WAS only once a year made it clear that it was the exception, rather
    than the rule.]  That the curtain was miraculously torn at Jesus death
    signified that a more literal entrance of men to heaven was now
    possible [through the "heavenly calling" and "first resurrection", made
    possible by Jesus' death and the New Covenant that it made legal].
    
    	Fittingly, Jesus' "flesh" was likened to the curtain.  The literal
    curtain that was destroyed miraculously was forever destroyed in God's
    eyes (even though the Jews probably repaired it).  If we're to say that
    Jesus literal flesh was restored (though glorified), what does that say
    for the symbolism between the curtain and Jesus' flesh?  Has the
    literal curtain ALSO been restored (even figuratively, and, perhaps,
    glorified)?
    
    
    								-mark.

Hank and Mark,

Thanks for the carefully thought out discussion.  I grew up with a "spiritual" view of heaven and
resurrection bodies where spiritual meant "non-physical".  Thus I never thought much about the 
nature of our incorruptible, glorified bodies.  In fact  a glorified "body" did not make much 
sense to me;  spirits don't need bodies (I thought).  However in the last 5 years, I've begun to 
lean more toward an "expectation" of a physical body in the resurrection, powered by the Spirit 
of God rather than by chemical reactions that we experience today.  Why?

1)   Paul's discussion in I Cor 15 consistantly contrasts spiritual with "fleshly" not 
      spiritual with physical.

2)  The resurrected body of Jesus ("that which we have seen and touched") is held up as an
     example of our resurrection.

3)  What God orginally created in Adam and Eve was sufficent to live forever as long as God
     was willing to extend, power, support  that created life.  Furthermore God declares that it
     (man and all the rest of creation) was good.  Might the resurrection be the restoration 
     to our original state?

I think we should be cautious not to equate "fleshly" with "material".   I believe that the
weakness of "flesh" is that the spirit of man attempts to drive it without God.   The flesh is a 
marvelous machine - God be praised!   But it was never meant to run without God's life-giving 
Spirit.    Physical is not bad, but living in the physical while ignoring God is death because the
physical needs God's constant "re-juvenation"

However, in spite of these indications, or assumptions, I must remain tentative because:

1)  We do not know (exactly) what Jesus is like, but we know that we will be made like him
     when he comes again.

2)  This present heavens and earth will melt away and there will be a new heavens and a new
     earth wherein dwells righteousness.   God may choose to implement the same or similar
      "laws of physics" in the new heavens and new earth..... or something entirely different.



But thanks again for the discussion

regards,

David

    re 394.94 (CLOHUB::SYLVAN::Reeves)/David
    
>Thanks for the carefully thought out discussion.  
    
    
    	Glad to see we've given you some food for thought.
    
>1)   Paul's discussion in I Cor 15 consistantly contrasts spiritual with
>	"fleshly" not  spiritual with physical.
    
    	It's true that translations say "fleshly" rather than "physical",
    but "fleshly" DOES have a basic meaning of 'in the flesh', to which we
    add the more abstract concept of the non-spiritual leadings of the
    flesh [especially sinful leadings].
    
    	Paul's contrast of Adam as a "man of the dust" with Jesus as "the
    man from/of heaven" refers to Adam in a very physical way, wouldn't you
    say?

>2)  The resurrected body of Jesus ("that which we have seen and touched")
>	is held up as an example of our resurrection.
    
    	True ... but would you believe there are TWO kinds of resurrection?
    1) The "first resurrection" of those who been chosen by God to receive
    the "heavenly calling", and 2) the more general resurrection (logically
    after the "first resurrection") of those who are not of this
    singled-out "first fruits" class of Christians.   [This, of course,
    gets into the Witness view of why only 144,000 go to heaven to rule
    "incorruptibly" from heaven with Christ, whereas everyone else lives on
    earth as humans.]

>3)  What God orginally created in Adam and Eve was sufficent to live	
>    forever as long as God was willing to extend, power, support  that created	
>    life.  Furthermore God declares that it (man and all the rest of creation)	
>    was good.  Might the resurrection be the restoration  to our original	
>    state?
    
    	My beliefs are very similar to what you say here:  God created man
    to live forever in human form, and that it's still his purpose for
    humanity to exist as humans here on earth (and wherever else in the
    universe we are ever privileged to go, if that's God's will).  Man's
    fall into sin has been a slight disruption of this overall purpose, and
    thus part of the fix involves taking a relatively small number of
    faithful humans to heaven to rule with Christ as "kings and priests"
    during the millenium.  During their rule, the rest of mankind will be
    restored to God's original standard of human perfection (under the
    rulership of those in heaven, who will have the power and vantage point
    to truly guide humanity back to perfection).
    
>I think we should be cautious not to equate "fleshly" with "material".   I
>believe that the weakness of "flesh" is that the spirit of man attempts to
>drive it without God.   The flesh is a  marvelous machine - God be praised!  
>But it was never meant to run without God's life-giving  Spirit.   
>Physical is not bad, but living in the physical while ignoring God is death
>because the physical needs God's constant "re-juvenation"
    
    	To some extent, I agree; in fact, mankind in general needs some
    serious "rejuvination" -- the complete irradication of "sin" from
    mankind.  Taking your previously stated premise to be true (that Adam
    and Eve could have lived forever), it's evident that there is a state
    of human life that does not need "constant rejuvination," since Adam
    and Eve were initially perfect (though they still dependend on God).
    At the outset, they had what Spirit God had given them.  It was only
    after they disobeyed that they lost it (and hence died, for having
    pulled away from God).
    
    
>However, in spite of these indications, or assumptions, I must remain
>tentative because:
>
>1)  We do not know (exactly) what Jesus is like, but we know that we will
>	be made like him when he comes again.
    
    	I think the scripture actually says that Christians become like
    Jesus when they're resurrected to their heavenly inheritance.
    
>2)  This present heavens and earth will melt away and there will be a new
>    heavens and a new earth wherein dwells righteousness.   God may choose to
>    implement the same or similar "laws of physics" in the new heavens and new
>    earth..... or something entirely different.
    
    	On a smaller scale, God made a "new heavens and new earth" when he
    restored Israel from the Babylonian captivity (for this phrase was
    first given by Isaiah as part of a restoration prophecy, if I recall
    correctly).   The small-scale restoration of Israel foreshadowed the
    large-scale restoration of the entire earth.
    
    	The point:  Israel didn't receive a literal new heaven and literal
    new earth; but they received a restored spiritual arrangement.  Today,
    it's not the literal heaven and earth that are the problem, it's the
    wicked people on earth (and the demons in the "heavenly places," who
    influence human governments today).
    
    	Since Jesus promised that "the meek shall inherit the earth", it
    makes sense that the earth, and humanity, will have a grand future (and
    that most of the dead will come back to life on earth, as humans --
    including unrighteous people).  That a relative few are taken to heaven
    doesn't contradict this, since their role is to work with Jesus in
    seeing that the restoration of the earth and humanity comes about.
    
>But thanks again for the discussion
    
    	You're welcome.  It's nice to see yet another thoughtful view added
    to the discussion.
    
    
    								-mark.

  Ok Mark, siince you've responded with inquiries, here goes...

  ... a spirit hath not flesh and bones as ye see me have...

  Your response being that the disciples thought that they had seen an
  apparition, ok, but that dosnt negate his words "a spirit hath not flesh 
  and bones" (noteworthy that He said flesh and bones, not flesh and blood)
  I dont know what else to say since you have a problem here (which we all 
  do in one place or another in the Scripture). Perhaps another place in the
  Bible to support the fact that the ressurected body of Jesus had an essential
  identity with His pre-death body would be helpful...

  "Destroy *this* temple and in three days I will raise *it* (not "another")
   up.  John 2:19.

  "But He spoke of the temple of His body" John 2:21.

  The pronouns are there in the greek (touton, auton), materially equating
  His Body before and after his resurrection, the essential difference being 
  that His corporeal "spak of life" is the Spirit rather than oxygenated
  blood. Also noteworthy (imo) is that Jesus says "*I* will raise it up".

  Matthew 27:51... the veil of the temple was rent in twain from the top to the
  bottom.

  Hebrews 10:19,20 ... new and living way... His flesh...
  Look again at this passage Mark, dosn't it say that Jesus flesh is "the new
  and *living* way" into the Holy Place?  This passage is almost a proof text
  of my point of view.

  No matter though, the text says that the veil was "split in two from top to
  bottom" (not from "side to side") thereby allowing passage  into the Holy of
  Holies, I really dont see anything about the veil being "destroyed" (your 
  word). Also I cannot find anywhere in the book  of Hebrews figuratively or 
  otherwise where is suggests that the veil or that Jesus flesh was destroyed. 
  It does however suggest that the veil (howbeit figuratively) was replaced by 
  a "new and living" veil (His flesh).
 

                            Hank

    re .96 (DNEAST::DALELIO_HENR)Hank
    
>  Ok Mark, since you've responded with inquiries, here goes...
>
>  ... a spirit hath not flesh and bones as ye see me have...
>
>  Your response being that the disciples thought that they had seen an
>  apparition, ok, but that dosnt negate his words "a spirit hath not flesh 
>  and bones" (noteworthy that He said flesh and bones, not flesh and blood)
    
    	Yes ... that's what Jesus materialized ... flesh and bones.  That's
    what the spirits who became 'fallen angels' were able to materialize
    before the flood in order to father children (the Nephelim -- assuming
    you believe this explanation; some say the "sons of God" were merely
    human sons of Seth).  Jesus was telling them that he wasn't a phantom
    with only a visual appearance (like a hologram -- the sort of ethereal
    image that demons can produce that can be seen, but not touched).
    
    	Re Jesus saying "flesh and bones" and not "flesh and blood" --
    although some feel this is a tip-off that Jesus didn't have blood in
    his body, but that he was admitting to be "flesh and bone", it strikes
    me that all he was saying was,  "hey, what you see is really solid --
    you'll feel the bones if you touch me.  You're not seeing a non-solid
    image."
    
    	If we're being VERY literal, here, real human bones don't have the
    ability to pass through solid walls (unless they're hurled through with
    great force :-) -- and that's what Jesus did in order to appear.
    
>  I dont know what else to say since you have a problem here (which we all 
>  do in one place or another in the Scripture). Perhaps another place in the
>  Bible to support the fact that the ressurected body of Jesus had an essential
>  identity with His pre-death body would be helpful...
    
    	I'm not really sure why this is an issue;  was not Jesus the same
    person before he came to earth, while he was on earth, and after his
    resurrection?  Was not his identity at all three periods of time the
    same?  I've never heard that the 'orthodox religions' taught otherwise.
    
>  "Destroy *this* temple and in three days I will raise *it* (not "another")
>   up.  John 2:19.
>
>  "But He spoke of the temple of His body" John 2:21.
    
    	True, John said this, but also note that his basic point was:
    
    		"When therefore he was raised from the dead,
    		his disciples remembered that he had said this;
    		and they believed the scripture and the word
    		which Jesus had spoken."  (v.22 RSV)
    
    John wasn't making a major 'ontological point' about Jesus' resurrected
    nature.  Simply, this is an affirmation that Jesus predicted his own
    death and resurrection, and that he was raised from the dead, as the
    Hebrew scriptures themselves predicted.
    
    >	Also noteworthy (imo) is that Jesus says "*I* will raise it up".
    
    	Again, true, that's what John said; but it's also true that no
    Bible writer has said (after the fact) that Jesus raised himself up. 
    They all attribute Jesus' resurrection to God, the Father (just as they
    attributed their own future resurrection to God).  I don't have quotes
    handy, but even 'orthodox commentators' point this out, that Jesus
    didn't raise himself, but was raised by the Father.  Even the trinity
    doctrine makes a clear distinction between the Father and Son as
    separate "persons," with distinct identities and distinct (though
    harmonious) wills.
    
>  Matthew 27:51... the veil of the temple was rent in twain from the top to the
>  bottom.
>
>  Hebrews 10:19,20 ... new and living way... His flesh...
>  Look again at this passage Mark, dosn't it say that Jesus flesh is "the new
>  and *living* way" into the Holy Place?  This passage is almost a proof text
>  of my point of view.
    
    	OK ... I *did* look again.  It's not that "his flesh" is the "new
    and living way into the Holy Place"; his flesh was "the curtain".  The
    sacrifice of his flesh opened up the new way and living way.
    
    	Since the literal curtain blocked entrance into the "Holy place",
    that it was torn at the time of Jesus' death symbolized that the
    passage was now opened wide for more free entrance into the real "Holy
    place", heaven itself.  It's not that a NEW curtain now exists [i.e.
    one that blocks the way to heaven], for the old one symbolized the
    truth just fine that man could not enter heaven.  That the old one was
    torn in two means that no barrier now exists.

>  No matter though, the text says that the veil was "split in two from top to
>  bottom" (not from "side to side") thereby allowing passage  into the Holy of
>  Holies, I really dont see anything about the veil being "destroyed" (your 
>  word). 
    
    	OK ok, I swear a new allegience to literalness --- the Bible
    doesn't say the curtain was "destroyed", it only says "torn from top to
    bottom".  
    
    	But my point hasn't changed; the curtain represented a barrier
    between heaven and earth that man ordinarily couldn't pass through, to
    symbolize the separation between the two places.  The fact that once a
    year the high priest was legally allowed to enter by slipping around
    the edge of the curtain (or by crawling under ... I'm not sure if the
    Bible says how he got around it) doesn't change it's overall
    significance of being a barrier.  That it was torn from top to bottom
    (presumably down the middle) indicated that its literal and symbolic
    functions as a barrier were terminated by God himself.  God neither
    repaired it, nor directed it to be repaired.
    
>         Also I cannot find anywhere in the book  of Hebrews figuratively or 
>  otherwise where is suggests that the veil or that Jesus flesh was destroyed. 
>  It does however suggest that the veil (howbeit figuratively) was replaced by 
>  a "new and living" veil (His flesh).
    
    	Just to be sure, I'll have to do a little research/word study when
    I get home, since I think you're misapplying the wording of the clause. 
    The "way" into the ancient inner compartment of the temple wasn't the
    curtain itself, but the passage that was blocked by the curtain.  The
    curtain was *in the way*, to signify that ordinary man didn't have the
    right to enter.  Similarly, it isn't Jesus flesh that is "the way", but
    rather, the sacrifice of his flesh is what *opened* the "new and living
    way".
    
>  The pronouns are there in the greek (touton, auton), materially equating
>  His Body before and after his resurrection, the essential difference being 
>  that His corporeal "spak of life" is the Spirit rather than oxygenated
>  blood. 
    
    	The Bible says the "life of the flesh is in the blood".  No blood,
    no living flesh.  "Spirit", or "the breath of life" could be said to
    'engergize' the whole flesh/blood system, but God's spirit never
    REPLACED the blood in the flesh.
    
    	The Bible says Jesus sacrificed both his blood and his flesh.  If
    he was given either one or both of them back, then he took back
    something of what he sacrificed.  I don't believe there's any scripture
    that indicates that Jesus took either one of these sacrificial elements
    back.  [And again, isn't this what a "sacrifice" is all about?]
    
    
    								-mark.

Mark,

What Christ sacrificed was his life not just his bodily form.  He laided down his life.  Your 
objection that he can't take his body back or else it is no longer a sacrifice is your own 
objection not a biblical objection.

In light of the fact that the scriptures repeatedly  refer to the sacrifice of Christ being his death, 
the giving up of his life, and your acceptance that he received his life back again,  I take your 
concern about him not getting his body back as a very artificial concern.  

If his sacrifice was his life does that imply that he cannot receive his life back for fear of
nullifying his sacrifice?  


regards,

David

Mark,

What Christ sacrificed was his life not just his bodily form.  He laided down 
    his life.  Your  objection that he can't take his body back or else it is 
    no longer a sacrifice is your own objection not a biblical objection.

In light of the fact that the scriptures repeatedly  refer to the sacrifice 
    of Christ being his death,  the giving up of his life, and your acceptance
    that he received his life back again,  I take your concern about him not 
    getting his body back as a very artificial concern.  

If his sacrifice was his life does that imply that he cannot receive his 
    life back for fear of nullifying his sacrifice?  


regards,

David



    

  Hmmm, Im not sure what we are mulling over, let me re-read these last 
  couple of notes and get back with everyone.

  Somewhere along the way i wanted to get to the "New" heavens and "New" 
  earth and try to show that all of creation will be "transformed" or
  "resurrected" (transformed without the element of decay [entropy]).

  Mark S, there is more than 1 passage (I believe) in which Jesus states 
  or infers that he raised himself from the dead... Ill need to research
  Again, my view is that Jesus flesh body died not "He" Himself (the Logos).
  If it can be shown from scripture that He raised Himself (along with the
  the Father (theos) and the Spirit (pneuma)) then that would be a proof
  text(s) of this  point of view. 
  Remember Eric's request, to remain cool (me too). Its good to know where and 
  why we differ in our beliefs. Also remember that I (for one) dont believe
  you are willingly or purposely rejecting "the Truth" but what I understand
  as "the Truth" (which it might be).

                       Your friend
                          Hank

    re .98 (CLOHUB::SYLVAN::Reeves)/David
    
>                      -< Can't have his life back?????? >-

>What Christ sacrificed was his life not just his bodily form.  He laided
>down his life.  Your  objection that he can't take his body back or else it
>is no longer a sacrifice is your own  objection not a biblical objection.

>In light of the fact that the scriptures repeatedly  refer to the sacrifice
>of Christ being his death,  the giving up of his life, and your acceptance
>that he received his life back again,  I take your  concern about him not
>getting his body back as a very artificial concern.  

    	I think you raise some astute points (which I happened to have
    pondered before).  However, they're as much a problem for you as for
    me, since if it's true that we're talking about the sacrifice of Jesus'
    life, AND it's true that we shouldn't limit our discussion to JUST the
    sacrifice of his human life, but rather his life in any form, then
    either your way or mine, being resurrected means he was given his life
    back.  If we take your perspective as absolute, then we have to deal
    with the fact that Jesus took his sacrifice back because he was raised,
    regardless of by whom, and regardless of in what form.  Your questions
    to me don't provide any answers.  They just raise more questions.
    
    	Now, I've heard some say that only Jesus' body died, but that his
    immortal soul continued alive for the 'three days and three nights',
    and that in the end, Jesus himself, as an immortal soul, raised himself
    by raising his body and (I suppose) jumping back in with his soul --
    but if this is the case, then Jesus really didn't give up his life.  If
    Jesus had an unkillable immortal soul, then his life couldn't really be
    sacrificed.  All he gave up was a fleshly shell, and at that, only for
    a short while, as he took it back.
    
    	As far as my concerns being 'artificial' goes; well, you have your
    opinions about what is important, and I have mine.
    
    	As Witnesses see it, Adam lost the right to everlasting, perfect
    human life, and thus could not pass that right on to his children. 
    Since Jehovah's word and law to Adam stipulated the conditions of his
    life (and that of his family), Jehovah simply couldn't forgive Adam
    (and his offspring) and give him life again, as though his word had no
    meaning.  (Could God really say, "Awww ... you committed a capital
    crime?   You and your family are all going to die because of your
    actions?  Too bad, I forgive you ... no harm done, I'll just
    miraculously make it better ... do anything you want ... I'll keep
    forgiving you ..."?)
    
    	By sacrificing his perfect human life, Jesus gave up his own right
    to perfect, everlasting human life, and thus 'bought back' the right
    for humans to live forever with the price of his own right to perfect
    human life.  Jesus thus becomes the "last Adam" to the human family by
    trading his right to life for the rights that we were not able to
    inherit from the first Adam.
    
    	It was within Jehovah's perview as Creator and Almighty God to
    raise Jesus back to life; and it was within his perview to raise him to
    spirit life, since (as having originated in heaven) Jesus still was
    entitled to spirit life.  [This is a right that Satan and the demons
    have essentially lost.  We have the Bible's assurance that one day in
    the future, they will be destroyed.]
    
    	As Witnesses see it, the 'passion play' involving Jesus was
    purposed by God to correct human affairs while maintaining Jehovah's
    unchangeable standards of justice, which are embodied in the
    unchangeableness of his Word.  What Adam lost for mankind (threw away,
    really), his right to human life, Jesus restored by giving up his own
    in sacrifice.  Jesus being raised to spirit life doesn't invalidate his
    sacrifice, because his right to spirit life was not in question.
    
    	In light of the fundamental issues, personally, I don't consider my
    concerns to be "artificial".  If you want to know my opinion of your
    view, just ask. :-)
    
>If his sacrifice was his life does that imply that he cannot receive his
>life back for fear of nullifying his sacrifice?  
    
    	If it does imply that, then, as I said before, you have a greater
    problem than I, since even in your view, Jesus took back what he gave
    up.
    
    	According to your way of thinking, what did Jesus sacrifice, since
    he has his life, and even his sacrificed body?
    
    
    								-mark.

  Ok, I see the point in question now...

  Jesus gave up the life of the flesh, his blood, He has forever sacrificed
  His "flesh and blood" (life energy, spark of life, elan vital, call it 
  what you will) life that He received at His Incarnation, but not the
  Divine Life force, since He raised Himself (Pater-Logos-Pneuma) bear
  with me.

  This is flesh life both a material (His Flesh, with definite article) and a 
  metaphysical entity (Flesh no definite article-Adams "kind of life"). 
  He could not give up His Spiritual life as the LOGOS (being God) "and the 
  word was God", actually it says  "and God was the Word". (I know this is 
  *not your view*, but I'm conveying it to reconcile the "orthodox" view of 
  Christs' dual nature human-divine and how He could suffer human death but 
  not divine). Then after Jesus died according to the flesh life-principle His 
  glorified Body was raised according to the Spirit (which is eternal-so 
  [thinking ahead] that He could share it (Spirit life-principle) with us).

  Our Father kept His Word - we all die according to the flesh-life principle
  "Ye shall surely die" in Adam, but we will be raised according to the 
  Spirit-life principle in Christ. The focal point is the life-principle, 
  the type of body which is raised is secondary (though important).

  We are both saying close to the same thing in regards to the life-principle
  aspect. The difference is in the nature of the Christ and the resurrected 
  body, we will never agree in toto (until He straightens it out) but its 
  important that we understand all the particulars, given that we all have 
  "problems" in understanding and sorting it out and thats mostly because we 
  are still "earthy".

  Jesus is the resurrection prototype (the only one right now) of the sons
  of God, and right now He's not here (physically) but in "the heavens". 

  
                  Hank

 

    re .100 (DNEAST::DALELIO_HENR)/Hank
    
>  Somewhere along the way i wanted to get to the "New" heavens and "New" 
>  earth and try to show that all of creation will be "transformed" or
>  "resurrected" (transformed without the element of decay [entropy]).
    
    	There will always be decay.  Organic material from plants and
    animals will decay once they die.  Even matter like dead human skin and
    hair will decay ...
    
    	On the brighter side, I agree that under the "new heavens and new
    earth", human life will be free from moral and spiritual decay, and
    free from "sin" which causes us to die.  Do you believe that one day
    perfect humans will inhabit the earth?  Do you believe they'd be
    essentially the same kind of beings that Adam and Eve were when they
    were first created?
    
>  Mark S, there is more than 1 passage (I believe) in which Jesus states 
>  or infers that he raised himself from the dead... Ill need to research
>  Again, my view is that Jesus flesh body died not "He" Himself (the Logos).
    
    	I suspected that this was your view (that Jesus the person didn't
    die, but only his body did).
    
    	If the person doesn't die when the body dies, then why does death
    have a "sting"?  What's the point of resurrection if the person never
    really dies?
    
    	Since the Bible says that "the dead know nothing" (Eccl 9:5 RSV --
    a favorite scripture of Witnesses :-), how could Jesus have been aware
    of himself in order to resurrect himself?
    
>  If it can be shown from scripture that He raised Himself (along with the
>  the Father (theos) and the Spirit (pneuma)) then that would be a proof
>  text(s) of this  point of view. 
    
    	If Jesus was raised "along with the Father and the Spirit", then he
    didn't raise *himself*, at least not *by himself* -- he clearly needed
    (or had) help.  If you admit that Jesus had help, then you deny the
    absolute literalness of the expressions in John 2:19, and concede that
    there was a figurative aspect to what Jesus said.
    
>  Remember Eric's request, to remain cool (me too). Its good to know where and 
>  why we differ in our beliefs. 
    
    	Hey ... I'm cool, I'm cool.  ;-)
    
    	Except for exceding the line-count limits once in a while, I think
    this has been a model discussion.  Does anyone disagree?
    
>                                Also remember that I (for one) dont believe
>  you are willingly or purposely rejecting "the Truth" but what I understand
>  as "the Truth" (which it might be).
    
    	... which I truly appreciate.  Conversations always go much better
    when neither party is automatically assumed to be willfully in league
    with Satan.  
    
    
    							-mark.

    One more thing ... from the research dept:
    
    	I did a little more reading on Heb 10:20.  _The Cambridge Bible
    Commentary on the New English Bible_ (1967) says the following on this
    verse [asterisks represent italics]:
    
    		  *the new and living way*: living because he is
    		alive in heaven, and we enter by our union with the
    		one who represents us.
    		  *through the curtain*: 'through the veil' (6:20)
    		  *the way of his flesh*, or (N.E.B. footnote) *through
    		the curtain of his flesh*.  In the Greek it is not
    		clear whether *of his flesh* applies to *way* or 
    		*curtain*.  The first version means that we enter
    		by means *of his flesh*, i.e., his human self offered
    		in death.  The second means this, but adds a further
    		metaphor -- his *flesh* was the very curtain that he
    		opened.  This means that the destruction of his body
    		in death was the way or means by which he entered.  Cf.
    		the dramatic incident of Mark 15:38, when at Jesus'
    		death 'the curtain of the temple was torn in two',
    		which in some form must be known to our writer.  (p.99)
    
    In a previous reply I asserted that you misapplied the clause in the
    verse to say Jesus' flesh was the "way", when it was the "curtain".
    Evidently, the grammar really does allow the clause to be taken either
    way.
    
    	However, I think it interesting to note the above explanation,
    because it still basically supports my view, either way, that it
    doesn't have reference to Jesus now being alive again in the flesh.
    Both readings have to do with "the destruction of Jesus' body" (and not
    its subsequent resurrection).  It's just that the latter reading (that
    his flesh was the "curtain") has the additional significance that I
    already asserted as my view.
    
    								-mark.

Mark,

I did not choose my words well when I said your concern regarding "taking back his body" was 
artifical.  I did not mean to imply that your concern was trivial or insincere.   I meant that it is
artifical in the sense that it comes from your own reasoning or your own rules of what is fair.  In 
general our (man's) sense of judgement when it comes to God's actions is often wrong.

The scriptures say that Christ's sacrifice was his death, his laying down of his life.  "I lay it 
down, I take it back."  Now the scriptures do not claim that if he gets something back, it is no 
longer a sacrifice (that is our rational way of seeing it but not God's).  

I might argue that the death of one man is sufficent to replace the death of one other man but 
not for many men.  I might be very sincere, I might feel very just in insisting on this.  I could 
infer many things from the priciple of "one life, one substitution".   But in the end my concern 
would be artificial not Biblical from God's perspective.  

The conclusions that we draw from types and analogies (they burnt up the bodies of the 
scrifices) are on shakey grounds.  Types are just that "types" and are only similar in those 
areas that they are chosen to be similar by the one who uses them.  The revealed word of God 
determines which elements of the type are fulfilled in the anti-type.  The other elements are 
incidential.

So the reason I don't have a problem with Jesus recieving back the resurrected, and eventually 
glorified (I'm not sure when that happened) body that he lived in or his life or his previous 
glory, or any other thing that he had before, is that I try not to argue with God's manner of 
working.

Perhaps God judges that the suffering of Christ during his slow death, and a period of isolation 
from his Father ("My God! My God! Why have you forsaken me?) to be sufficent for our 
redemption. I may reason that it is not enough for all the sin in the world; but God says it is.

regards,

David

Dear Readers,

I've just installed the MS Windows version of Notes Client and I think that
when depending on editor defaults,  my lines are too long for the standard
80 column display.  My thanks to Nancy for fixing a prevous note,  

I'll try to figure out why and learn how to avoid lines that are too long.

Any ideas?

David

    Hi David,
    
    I tried to send you vaxmail on clohub and got nowhere... how can we
    vaxmail you information?

    re .105 (CLOHUB::SYLVAN::Reeves)/David
    
>I did not choose my words well when I said your concern regarding "taking
>back his body" was  artifical.  I did not mean to imply that your concern
>was trivial or insincere.   I meant that it is artifical in the sense that
>it comes from your own reasoning or your own rules of what is fair.  In 
>general our (man's) sense of judgement when it comes to God's actions is
>often wrong.
    
    	I agree that I'm reasoning on these matters, but I disagree that my
    reasoning is based on my own standards of what is fair.  I do my best
    to see things from Jehovah's standpoint of what is fair and just (which
    is why I believe in the Bible teachings about Christ's ransom ... the
    ransom is God's provision, not man's; and it's a provision that I do
    believe man can understand, especially since we must put faith in it).

    
>The scriptures say that Christ's sacrifice was his death, his laying down
>of his life.  "I lay it  down, I take it back."  Now the scriptures do not
>claim that if he gets something back, it is no  longer a sacrifice (that is
>our rational way of seeing it but not God's).  
    
    	No one verse pops to mind that directly addresses what you say (as
    a counter example), to prove that one can take back what one sacrifices
    and still say one sacrificed it.  But, I am reminded of the Jewish
    traditional practice of making valuable things "corben" -- which was a
    practice with results that Jesus condemned [Mark 7:11-13].  (A person
    could declare a valuable item "corben" to say that it was "given to
    God", but still retain possession of it.)
    
    	Jesus said this tradition was being used to violate the commandment
    for grown children to materially support their aging parents; the
    children could say, "We can't give you any financial support because
    all our valuables are corben."  The only thing that was really
    sacrificed was the obligation to actually give up their goods -- which
    was no sacrifice at all (though we could say their obligation to show
    love was sacrificed for the sake of material greed).
    
>The conclusions that we draw from types and analogies (they burnt up the
>bodies of the  scrifices) are on shakey grounds.  Types are just that
>"types" and are only similar in those  areas that they are chosen to be
>similar by the one who uses them.  The revealed word of God  determines
>which elements of the type are fulfilled in the anti-type.  The other
elements are  incidential.
    
    	I don't disagree that one shouldn't stretch a "type" too far; but
    the very purpose of a "type" is to teach something about the
    "anti-type", with the aid of the chosen parallel(s).  I could easily
    argue the reverse that you run the risk of arbitrarily limitting the
    meaning of the divine type/anti-type comparision when it conflicts with
    some form of human reasoning that you hold to be true.
    
>Perhaps God judges that the suffering of Christ during his slow death, and
>a period of isolation  from his Father ("My God! My God! Why have you
>forsaken me?) to be sufficent for our  redemption. I may reason that it is
>not enough for all the sin in the world; but God says it is.
    
    	The Bible itself tells us in pretty basic language that "life for
    life" is the redemption price, not "life for suffering".  Now you are
    using human reasoning.  (See how easy it is?)  Jesus himself plainly
    said:
    
    		"the Son of man came ... to give his life
    		as a ransom for many" (Matt 20:28 RSV; cf Mark
    		10:45)
    
    Jesus' suffering *did* prove a point or two [proving to us the depth of
    his own love for mankind, given his willingness to suffer for our
    sakes, setting a pattern or model for us to follow on behalf of each
    other], but it was his "life" that paid the "ransom" price, not his
    suffering.
    
    
    								-mark.

  We seem to be getting off base again.

  The essential difference (how soon we forget? ey?) is the Nature of
  Jesus resurrected Body.

  Obviously Mark S believes Jesus had his life (returned,restored,whatever)
  to Him. Call whatever Jehovah did to get it back to Him whatever you want.
  The fact remains we all believe He (Jesus) is alive now. no? 

  Let me repeat for the nth (fill it in Ive forgotten) time.

  orthodox :  He lives in a Transformed or Glorified Body which is 
              substantively the same as the one in which He walked the earth, 
              the life force of this Body is The Spirit not oxygenated blood.
              
  JW (and others) : He lives in a spiritual body which has no substantive
                    identity with the one in which He walked the earth,
                    in fact, that body was dissolved (or disposed of in
                    some other manner). The life force of this body is
                    a non-deity spirit force.

  the difference has to do with with the nature of the Persona of Christ,

  Is He God in the flesh or no? however you answer this question, will
  directly affect and perhaps even cause you to decide one way or another
  concerning His resurrected Body.

  We all have scripture      :-(

  But,that dosnt mean im not going to respond to some outstanding (quantitative)
  Mark S response/inquiries. :-)  


                 Hank

  

    re .109 (DNEAST::DALELIO_HENR)/Hank
    
>                           -< are wheels spinning? >-
    
    ... well ... there's an awful lot of sand out in the parking lot ...
    
>  We seem to be getting off base again.
>
>  The essential difference (how soon we forget? ey?) is the Nature of
>  Jesus resurrected Body.
>
>  Obviously Mark S believes Jesus had his life (returned,restored,whatever)
>  to Him. Call whatever Jehovah did to get it back to Him whatever you want.
>  The fact remains we all believe He (Jesus) is alive now. no? 
    
    	Yes.
    
>  Let me repeat for the nth (fill it in Ive forgotten) time.
>
>  orthodox :  He lives in a Transformed or Glorified Body which is 
>              substantively the same as the one in which He walked the earth, 
>              the life force of this Body is The Spirit not oxygenated blood.
    
    A good orthodox statement of belief.
              
>  JW (and others) : He lives in a spiritual body which has no substantive
>                    identity with the one in which He walked the earth,
>                    in fact, that body was dissolved (or disposed of in
>                    some other manner). The life force of this body is
>                    a non-deity spirit force.
    
    Not a very good summary of the Witness belief; it's not so much a
    statement of belief as a statement of what (from an othodox
    perspective) we DON'T believe.  It's also too full of vague terms, and
    non-Biblical terms at that (e.g. what does "substantive identity"
    mean, and why is this required?).
    
    	We believe Jesus is alive "in the spirit" as a spirit being in
    heaven.  He's been "glorified" by his Father.  Jesus has no "identity
    crisis".  He is, and always was, God's Son, whether in heaven before
    coming to earth, while on earth, and after his resurrection.
    
    	As much as I hate to get into trinity debates these days, I have to
    say you're wrong when you say we believe "the life force of this body
    is a non-deity spirit force".  Trinitarian after-the-fact definitions
    aside, Jesus, as a heavenly being, fits the first-century, Greek notion 
    of what a "god" or "deity" is/was.  Excluding the specialized sense
    that the trinity doctrine has superimposed on the term, Jesus, as a
    spirit who resides in the spirit realm with God the Father, is "a god",
    in contrast to our being human.  (Jesus is literally the "only-begotten
    god", John 1:18.)  In a manner of speaking, angels were "gods" too,
    since there were basically two catagories, gods and humans.  (Faithful
    angels, of course, made no claim to be "G"ods, and neither did Jesus.)
    
    	1st century Christians had the hope of being "partakers of the
    divine nature" (2Pet 1:4), which was something promised, which they
    were still awaiting (cf 1Pet 1:4 -- their "inheritance" was "kept in
    heaven" for them [RSV]).  Jesus, already being in heaven, was already a
    "partaker of divine nature" himself.  Having a divine nature himself,
    the life-force in Jesus' heavenly body is very much a "deity spirit
    force," though that's not really a Biblical expression.  What the Bible
    says is that Jesus, as heavenly high priest, now possesses "an
    indestructible life" (Heb 7:16 RSV).

>  the difference has to do with with the nature of the Persona of Christ,
    
    	But now you're bringing in terms and concepts of human invention --
    trinitarian terminology.
    
>  Is He God in the flesh or no? however you answer this question, will
>  directly affect and perhaps even cause you to decide one way or another
>  concerning His resurrected Body.
    
    	The Bible says "God is a spirit" (John 4:24 KJV).  It does NOT say
    "Jesus is God in the flesh."
    
    	You're right, however, that various trinity-related notions surely
    underly much of basis for the orthodox belief.
    
    
    								-mark.

Nancy,

I'm on a PC  running Decnet from a hidden area node which is why I have to "route 
through"  CLOHUB::  when attaching to various conferences.

The easyest way to send VAXMAIL is to CSOA1::Reeves as my ELF entry indicates.

regards,

David

Henry,

Sorry for taking the discussion to far afield.  Mark was not having any problem
with Jesus getting his life back, but objected to Jesus being raised in a physical body 
'cause in Mark's view, this (existance in a physical state) is what he sacrificed and
therefor mustn't take it back.    In several of his reply's he raised the question of "taking 
back his body" as a significant reason for rejecting the physical resurrection of Christ.  I 
was trying to remove one of his concerns on that issue, but did not accomplish that.  

I'll bow out at this point and allow you both to continue as you feel best.

regards,

David

  Re .112 David  No problem David , you made an excellent point, besides this
  is a public notes conference.

  Now back to Mark S, well you've put me on the defensive now...so!
 
  First thanks for taking note of the difference between my perception of the
  JW position and what it really is. Re the resurrected body of Jesus.

  I never said Jesus had an identity crisis (I'll assume this is humor) :-).

  >Its full of vague terms...non-biblical terms what does substantive identity
  >mean and why is this required?

  It *is* a biblical term, if you turn in your interlinear to Hebrews 1:3
  you'll see it... speaking of Jesus' "charaktair tais hupostaseoos"
                                       identical  in   substance

  hos   hon   *charaktair   tais       hupostaseoos*      auto
  who   being  identical    in  (the)  substance          with His (God's)

  The NWT does a much better job than the "english under" NWT interlinear.

  NWT "He is... the exact representation of his very being"
  KJV "who being the express image of his person"
  HWD "who being identical in substance with Him"

 One of the very same passages that trinitarian and non-trinitarians debated
 for 2-300 years (eventually ending with bloodshed perpetrated by both sides
 [brilliant strategy, ey?]). Uh, your not a violent guy are you Mark?

 They argued back and forth as to whether the phrase meant identical in
 "form" (non-trinitarian) or "essence" (trinitarian). And its still going on.

  why is it required? Because its helps to show an essential difference between
  the spriritual body and the Glorified body beliefs. That is; using the term
  in the context of the identity of the post-birth body and resurrected body 
  of Jesus. Is *it* the same in essense or are *they* the same in form?
  Substantive identity (a biblical term) says *it* is the same in essence.

 >The bible says "God is a spirit" (John 4:24 KJV) It does not say 
 >"Jesus is God in the flesh"

 I *have* to respond...

 Ok , since we're using the KJV...

      And the Word was with God       John 1:1b
      and the Word was God            John 1:1c
      and the Word was made flesh     John 1:14a
      and dwelt among us              John 1:14b

 Yes, I know the JW interpretive response "The Word was "a" god"
 Thats an impossibility Mark. But again, I believe you sincerely believe it.

 1 Timothy 3:16

     great is the mystery of godliness
     *God was manifest in the flesh*
     justified in the Spirit
     seen of angels
     preached unto the gentiles
     believed on in the world
     received up into glory

 The Wescott and Hort text substitutes "who" for "God" , let the readers choose.
 BTW, here is another proof as to the anti-trinitarian nature of the W&H
 Revision . And I dont have an explanation as to the their motivation Mark.

           Hank

    re .113 (DNEAST::DALELIO_HENR)/Hank
    
    I must say, participating in this topic string is a lot like being in
    school.  I get homework every day.  ;-)
    
>  Now back to Mark S, well you've put me on the defensive now...so!
    
    Well, it's better to defend than offend, I always say ...
    
>  >Its full of vague terms...non-biblical terms what does substantive identity
>  >mean and why is this required?
>
>  It *is* a biblical term, if you turn in your interlinear to Hebrews 1:3
>  you'll see it... speaking of Jesus' "charaktair tais hupostaseoos"
>                                       identical  in   substance
>
>  hos   hon   *charaktair   tais       hupostaseoos*      auto
>  who   being  identical    in  (the)  substance          with His (God's)
>
>  The NWT does a much better job than the "english under" NWT interlinear.
>
>  NWT "He is... the exact representation of his very being"
>  KJV "who being the express image of his person"
>  HWD "who being identical in substance with Him"
    
    	Good answer, Hank ... but ... I think you're proving the wrong
    point here.  Basically I was challenging the meaning of the phrase in
    your explanation of the JW view that we believe:
    
    		He lives in a spiritual body which has no substantive
                identity with the one in which He walked the earth,
    
    trying to get you to prove that the scriptures state that there is a
    "substantive identity" link between Jesus' human body and his
    resurrection body.  This verse in Hebrews -- though interesting --
    talks about the 'substantive similarity' between God and Jesus, not
    Jesus the man born of woman and Jesus the resurrected and glorified
    heavenly Son.
    
    	It strikes me that this verse, as a proof text, actually works
    against you, because God, whom Jesus is being compared to in this
    verse, is identified distinctly from Jesus (for Jesus is said to be at
    God's right hand, v.4) -- suggesting this is a comparision between the
    Father and the Son.  The Father has NEVER been a being of flesh; so if
    we argue that there is an equality of 'substantive identity' between
    these two, guess what?  we're basically admiting that Jesus is NOT
    flesh, since the "Majesty on High" (NEB) whom Jesus is seated next to,
    is not.
    
    	According to the NEB, this says "the Son ... is the stamp of God's
    very being"; and again, is the God of heaven a being of flesh?  No
    (though, if I'm not mistaken, this is a Mormon belief).
    
> >The bible says "God is a spirit" (John 4:24 KJV) It does not say 
> >"Jesus is God in the flesh"
>
> I *have* to respond...
>
> Ok , since we're using the KJV...
>
>      And the Word was with God       John 1:1b
>      and the Word was God            John 1:1c
>      and the Word was made flesh     John 1:14a
>      and dwelt among us              John 1:14b
>
> Yes, I know the JW interpretive response "The Word was "a" god"
> Thats an impossibility Mark. But again, I believe you sincerely believe it.
    
    	No, it's not an impossibility, as long as you understand how the
    word "god" was being used by John in this case.
    
    	Without digging out all my research articles, the truth is that
    John was making a point about Jesus' heavenly nature (what he was), not
    his identity (who he was).  In the Greek language, it was perfectly
    acceptable (and understandable) to say that beings who lived in heaven
    were "gods", in contrast to people, who were humans.  
    
    	The trouble is that there's no perfect way to (simply) translate
    this verse into English and convey the exact sense [especially since
    modern English speakers don't believe in the existence of many gods the
    way the Greeks did].  Candid trinitarian scholars admit that it's only
    after some qualification that one can admit the reading "the Word was
    God."  
    
    	To illustrate, since John later says, "the Word was made flesh," we
    might say John meant that while on earth, "the Word was Human".  He was
    "a human", but we can say that the phrase "the Word was Human" (or "the
    Word was Man") conveys a sense of a broad classification of his nature.
    Since there is no person we call "Man" or "Human" in the same way we
    call Jehovah "God", there's no ambiguity of meaning.  On the other
    hand, when we say "the Word was God," people read it as equal to "the
    Word was Jehovah" or "the Word was THE God".  As Bible scholar Philip
    Harner wrote in the Journal of Biblical Literature, this is the wrong
    way to interpret the sense of the passage.  Instead, John meant that
    the Word had the nature of a god (Harner says, had the nature of God --
    but John wasn't comparing Jesus with THE God, any more than saying "the
    Word was Human" means we're comparing him with some particular human).
    
    	With a careful, rigorous (eye-glazing) advance definition of terms,
    even a Witness could agree with the meaning of the phrase, "the Word
    was God" -- but for practical purposes, since this meaning would
    immediately be lost once we return to 'ordinary speech', this rendering
    just does more harm (to the meaning of the text) than good [though
    naturally, trinitarians feel that it asserts a truth -- but that would
    be 'right answer, wrong method']. 
    
    	The translation "the Word was a god" isn't *exactly* what John
    meant, either -- but (in my opinion, as well as the NWT translators'),
    it's about as close as you can get without having to add a lot of extra
    words to interpret the text.  (Again, for example, William Barclay says
    it means "the Word had the same nature as God" -- but to admit this
    reading, we obviously depart far from the interlinear.  One Catholic
    Bible dictionary I have says it should "rigorously be translated as 'the
    Word was a divine being.'")
    
    	When you say "Jesus is God in the flesh," you mean something on the
    order of "Jesus is Jehovah in the flesh" -- and that's NOT was John was
    saying.  Instead, he was saying Jesus was "god" [i.e., what the beings
    in heaven are], and then was "made flesh".  Philipians 1:7 (one of
    those other [in]famous trinity verses) says that he "emptied himself"
    (RSV) when he came to earth; thus Jesus did not have a "dual nature" --
    he has one nature at a time (a nature of "god", a nature of "man", and
    then back to a nature of "god").
    
> 1 Timothy 3:16
>
>     great is the mystery of godliness
>     *God was manifest in the flesh*
>     justified in the Spirit
>     seen of angels
>     preached unto the gentiles
>     believed on in the world
>     received up into glory
>
>The Wescott and Hort text substitutes "who" for "God" , let the readers choose.
>BTW, here is another proof as to the anti-trinitarian nature of the W&H
>Revision . And I dont have an explanation as to the their motivation Mark.
    
    	The explanation is that this ISN'T just a "substitution", it's the
    correction of the scribal equivalent of a typo.  In Greek, the word for
    "who" (OS) is two letters, which just happen to look a lot like a
    common two-letter abbreviation for the _theos_ ([TH]S -- where a theta
    is an omicron with a horizontal line through the middle).  At some
    point in time, the word for "who" was taken by a scribe to be the
    abbreviation for "God".
    
    	At home, I'll look this up again, since the above explanation is
    from memory.  If I've made any mistakes in my explanation, I'll correct
    them in a future posting.
    
    
    								-mark.
    

 Re .114 Mark S

 > I think you're proving the wrong point here...

   Mark, you misunderstood, I was rebutting your statement that 
   "substantive identity" is not a biblical term. The Hebrews 3:1
   came along in the effort.

 > It strikes me that this verse, as a proof text, actually works against
   you...

   Of course you would, because of the interpretations you have choosen to
   hold to. Just as mine flavor my choice. Well, neither of us can *really*
   say for sure which is cause and which is effect in our choice. Does it
   really matter, being set in our belief systems?

   To further clear it up, you are following the exact line you should
   (considering) when you say "This verse in Hebrews ... talks about the 
   substantive  *similarity* (you didnt use "identity" as I would have) 
   between God and Jesus the resurrected and glorified heavenly Son"


   Do you see what you are doing (what you must because of your choice)
   you have defined hupostasis as "similar" rather than "identical".
   you are saying they are the same in FORM, what trinitarians say is 
   that they are the same in ESSENCE. This has gone on lo, these 18-19
   centuries.

   Essence means essential nature, when Jesus said "God is a spirit"
   He was saying that God is a spirit in His essential nature, God and
   angels manifested themselves in "bodies" before Jesus was born, but
   these bodies were not essential to their being. No matter what we 
   (trinitarians) believe about the resurrected Body of Christ it is
   not essential to His being. We believe that Jesus Christ is God
   (a Spirit) but His Body is not part of His essential nature. He
   *is* the LOGOS. 

   I'm not asking you to believe this, just understand and respect our point of 
   view as I do yours. Most trinitarians haven't delved into this matter
   as deeply as some of us (though many have) They implicitly love and trust 
   their teachers as JWs do.

    I'll skip a big thing on the John 1 passage "and the Word was God"
    there cant be any reconciliation between us. (thats ok).

    Re: the 1 Timothy 3:16 passage...

    Yes, I'm glad you reminded me of that explanation, that the scribe made 
    a mistake, I dont accept that (of course). You know my view, but I'll
    repeat it.

    The 1611 Greek (AV) and Hebrew (Massora) texts are the Restored Word of 
    God (verbally identical). This is not the same as the KJV only people 
    (bless their hearts) who believe that the english is inspired.

                         Hank
    

From .0 (Eric Ewanco)

>A friend of mine reminded me of an interesting issue I've encountered 
>occasionally and I thought this would make a great discussion topic. I'm curious
>to see if as many evangelicals take the surprising position I have heard a
>number of evangelists espouse.

Of course, when this started 19 days ago, I knew it was like blood-bathed
chum in shark-infested waters.  And now we have corned-beef rehash, but 
at least someone else is sharpening their iron.

Mark (M)

    re .115 (DNEAST::DALELIO_HENR)/Hank
    
> > I think you're proving the wrong point here...
>
>   Mark, you misunderstood, I was rebutting your statement that 
>   "substantive identity" is not a biblical term. The Hebrews 3:1
>   came along in the effort.
    
    	OK ... I now see what you meant.  However, before I agree, I'll
    look into it (at home, naturally :-).  But in any case, you haven't
    proved that "substantive identity" between Jesus pre-death and
    post-resurrection bodies is an assertion of scripture.  At best we
    could agree that the Bible comments on the fact that God is of
    "substance" which Christ is "the very stamp" (NEB) or "very image" (RV)
    of.
    
>   To further clear it up, you are following the exact line you should
>   (considering) when you say "This verse in Hebrews ... talks about the 
>   substantive  *similarity* (you didnt use "identity" as I would have) 
>   between God and Jesus the resurrected and glorified heavenly Son"
    
    	But Hank, this passage of Hebrews ISN'T identifying the "substance"
    of Christ as identical to the "substance" of God.  In fact, the Anchor
    Bible makes this very point.  Drawing a comparision to a rabbinical
    expression about Isaac, it says:
    
    		"Hebrews also considered Jesus a "reflection of the
    		glory" which meant the same as being "a stamp of
    		his nature."  The Greek word for "stamp" comes from
    		the verb *charassein, "to mark, engrave, or
    		stamp."  The stamp, accordingly, refers to the
    		characteristic and distinct form.  ... Isaac was 
    		claimed to have features like those of Abraham (Gen
    		R. 21:2; 53 [par] 6).  This does not mean either
    		that Isaac was actually identical to Abraham or
    		that Jesus was identical to God.  Both were
    		reflections and had characteristics of their fathers."
    		(_To The Hebrews_, Anchor Bible Vol. 36, pp. 6,7)
    		of Abraham.
    
    In other words, this passage in Hebrews IS talking about 'substantive
    similarity' between the Father and the Son.  The trinitarian assertion
    that they are also 'substantively identical' is NOT the point of
    Hebrews, here.

>   Do you see what you are doing (what you must because of your choice)
>   you have defined hupostasis as "similar" rather than "identical".
>   you are saying they are the same in FORM, what trinitarians say is 
>   that they are the same in ESSENCE. This has gone on lo, these 18-19
>   centuries.
    
    	I'll have to go to my interlinear and Greek concordance to check;
    but for now, I have to ask, where does the Bible use the word
    "hupostasis", either in this passage or elsewhere, in connection with
    the "substance" of either God or Christ?
    
    	Perhaps it's hard to tell, but I'm trying to stay away from the
    very 'artificial' terms that have been adopted by the trinity
    formulators because they are purely philosophical terms of mans
    choosing, and NOT terms given to us by God himself by divine revelation
    (i.e., Scripture).  It's no wonder people have fought about them for
    centuries since God himself has provided no standard definition or
    usage of the terms.
    
>   Essence means essential nature, when Jesus said "God is a spirit"
>   He was saying that God is a spirit in His essential nature, God and
>   angels manifested themselves in "bodies" before Jesus was born, but
>   these bodies were not essential to their being. No matter what we 
>   (trinitarians) believe about the resurrected Body of Christ it is
>   not essential to His being. 
    
    	At the risk of seeming rude or at least intellectually boorish, I
    feel obligated to confess that the more you use the language of the
    human architects of the trinity creed, the more I'm reminded of Paul's
    words of warning:
    
    			"See to it that no one makes a prey
    			of you by philosophy and empty deceit,
    			according to human tradition, according
    			to the elementary spirits of the
    			universe, and not according to Christ."
    			(Col 2:8 RSV)
    
    You aren't really quoting Scripture when you talk about "essence" and
    the like; you're quoting the language of human dogma.  I appreciate
    your helping me keep the meanings of the terminology you use straight;
    but, as if you can't already tell, you're not convincing me that your
    basic ideas are Biblical.
    
>                               We believe that Jesus Christ is God
>   (a Spirit) but His Body is not part of His essential nature. He
>   *is* the LOGOS. 
    
    	So ... if His Body isn't part of his nature (whereas, say, my human
    body certain IS part of *my* nature), what's the point of insisting
    that he's taken his body with him to heaven, when, by your own words,
    he exists without that body?
    
>  I'm not asking you to believe this, just understand and respect our point of 
>  view as I do yours. Most trinitarians haven't delved into this matter
>  as deeply as some of us (though many have) They implicitly love and trust 
>  their teachers as JWs do.
    
    	Eh ... what you say I *may* be able to repeat ... but you're NOT
    making what you say very understandable [though I suppose you could
    argue that the trinity is really a mystery, and not really
    understandable anyway].
    
>    I'll skip a big thing on the John 1 passage "and the Word was God"
>    there cant be any reconciliation between us. (thats ok).
    
    	Well ... I could more directly quote the 'orthodox' sources that I
    only summarized.  Then you could be at odds with them, too (which is to
    say that you couldn't pin the blame on the lone fact that I'm a Witness
    ;-).
    
>    Yes, I'm glad you reminded me of that explanation, that the scribe made 
>    a mistake, I dont accept that (of course). You know my view, but I'll
>    repeat it.
    
    	I'll see if I can't find more about the 'manuscript pedigree' of
    this variation.
    
    								-mark.

    re .116 (TOKNOW::METCALFE)
    
>Of course, when this started 19 days ago, I knew it was like blood-bathed
>chum in shark-infested waters.  And now we have corned-beef rehash, but 
>at least someone else is sharpening their iron.
    
    	But you have to admit that despite our differences, we're all being
    pretty chummy about this whole thing.
    
    
    								-mark.

>    	But you have to admit that despite our differences, we're all being
>    pretty chummy about this whole thing.
 
As one pot to a kettle, I don't have that many 100+ replies to my credit.

MM

  re: everything before this

  OK I'll admit to having some pretty sharp teeth.

  Anyway Mark S... I beg your pardon !!   
  Hank DAlelio following the "traditions of men"? youve got to be kidding
                 :-)  
  Well maybe the apostle Paul (or whoever was the human instrument of Hebrews), 
  since he coined the the term "substantive identity" or "the exact
  representation of His very being" NWT.

  I thought I'de do a little word research on the words of this phrase :

  Hebrews 1:3 Charaktair : in the NT only in our passage

  Originally derived from charadzo "to cut to a point" as a wooden spear point.
  Later takes on the technical sense of "to inscribe" on wood , stone or brass
  Then takes on the meaning of a "die" used in the making of coins. Later the
  image on the coin. In a parallel development the term also came to be used
  as "characterization". Not having cameras, a greek might say to you "you
  know Ive heard a lot about this Hank DAlelio, but Ive never met him, give
  me a "charaktair" (characterization) of him" This "charaktair would include
  everything (physical,emotional,spiritual) that you could possibly verbalize
  about me (oh no!). I think this one fits our passage.

  hupostasis : in the NT only in Hebrews 1:3, Hebrews 3:14, Hebrews 1:11

  Has quite a long history and development, but for our usage 300BC-600AD
  it belongs almost exclusively within the specialized vocabulary of science
  and medicine, borrowed occassionaly(with a different nuance) for meanings 
  outside the sciences (as our case).

  "That which settles, as precipitous", "the sediment of urine" (sic) in the
  analysis of disease, particularly the precipitating cellular and crystalline 
  elements of urine (this is out of a physicians textbook folks).
  Later any parts of a mixture that precipitate to the bottom; sometimes "rain"
  as the hupostasis of clouds, or sunbeams as the hupostasis of the sun.
  Later as the sediment of boiling or reducing and lastly as the thick pasty
  remains of the boiling of wine (as an oinment). the "essence" of wine, then
  the "essential substance"  of wine as a borrowed word the "reality" of the
  wine (a hellenistic thought to be sure).

  From Kittle's NT dictionary  Volumes VII; IX,; Arndt and Gingrich Lexicon.

  Then we would have in the other Hebrews passages :

  Hebrews 3:14 "For we become partakers of Christ if we hold firmly to 
  "the reality" (of our profession) which we had from the beginning to the end.

  Hebrews 11:1 "Faith is "the reality" (or realization) of things hoped for..."

  Hebrews 3:1 " who being the verbalization of His (God's) "Reality" ????
                             a synonym for Logos?

  How does that sound Mark? 

  and your right its a neutral passage RE: The Trinity, however its claimed
  by almost *all* the patristic debaters (trinitarian or otherwise).
  Only "reality" or "realization" fits considering the other passages
  (though thats not an infallible test)

    
                   Hank  

   .115  Hank

   Mark's doing such a nice job at reasoning and explaining that I really
   don't need to add anything, but I just wanted to comment on something
   you said.   

   >you are saying they are the same in FORM, what trinitarians say is 
   >that they are the same in ESSENCE.

   And what word the King James Version, American Standard, Revised Standard,
   New World Translation and many others use at Phillipians 2:6 is *form*,
   not *essence*.
  

   Steve

   I know...

  "essence" includes "form"    (trinitarian assertion).
  "form"    excludes "essence" (non-trinitarian assertion).

   Both can "prove" their assertions...

               Hank

    re .120 (DNEAST::DALELIO_HENR)/Hank
    
    In my previous reply I asked:

>I'll have to go to my interlinear and Greek concordance to check; but
>for now, I have to ask, where does the Bible use the word "hupostasis",
>either in this passage or elsewhere, in connection with the "substance"
>of either God or Christ?
    
    Once I got home and looked up a few books, I found the same answer you
    did.  If I had the means to login from home, I would have posted a
    correction right away.
    
>  hupostasis : in the NT only in Hebrews 1:3, Hebrews 3:14, Hebrews 1:11
    
    Actually, it's in two other places as well, 2Cor 9:4 and 2Cor 11:17,
    translated as "confidence" in the NASB.
    
>  Has quite a long history and development, but for our usage 300BC-600AD
>  it belongs almost exclusively within the specialized vocabulary of science
>  and medicine, borrowed occassionaly(with a different nuance) for meanings 
>  outside the sciences (as our case).
    
    	I found similar explanations.  _The New International Dictionary of
    New Testament Theology_ says [note: "..."'s are mostly references to
    ancient sources that I've omitted]:
    
    		"It has a wide range of meanings in both secular
    		Gk. and the LXX.
    		(a) It is used concretely for what stands under, the
    		basis of something ...; the bottom under water on
    		which one gets a foothold ...; the economic basis,
    		the value of property of land ...; treasure ...;
    		life's starting point, the sidereal hour of one's
    		birth, a military outpost ..., garrision ..., seat
    		..., substance ...; essense ...; stock, perhaps	
    		even source.
    		(b) As a human attitude hypostatis means putting
    		oneself between , holding one's ground, enduring ...;
    		anhypostata, what one cannot withstand ... [a bit
    		more omitted here].  It is also related to hope,
    		confidence ...;  ...
    		(c) In the physical realm hypostasis denotes what
    		sets itself below, dregs ...; residue, sediment ...;
    		the sediment in the process of smelting ...
    		[Vol. 1, pp.710-711]
    
    It also notes, "The LXX shows how in the Hel. period a complex word
    like hypostasis had become a fashionable term comparable to the word
    "existence" today."  (p.711).  There's lots more, but you probably get
    the idea by now.
    
    	Thayer's lexicon also says it conveys various meanings, including
    "thing put under, substructure, foundation, ... that which has a firm
    foundation ... that which has actual existence; a substance, real
    being" (p.645).
    
>  Hebrews 3:1 " who being the verbalization of His (God's) "Reality" ????
>                             a synonym for Logos?
>
>  How does that sound Mark? 
    
    	You mean Heb 1:3, right?  
    
    	Marshall's interlinear translation says he's the "representation of
    the reality of him" (NASB Interlinear Greek-English NT).  I think
    using the word "verbalization" is a bit of a stretch, but there's no
    question that Jesus, as "the Word", was God's foremost representative.
    
    	Continuing a thought in a previous reply (of mine) from the Anchor
    Bible, on the matter of Jesus being the foremost "apostle" (Heb 3:1) of
    God, it says [asterisks denote italics]:
    
    		"As apostle or agent he was sent with the 
    		full authority of the one who sent him.  A 
    		man's agent is like the man himself, not
    		*physically*, but *legally*.  He has the power
    		of attorny for the one who sent him.  That 
    		which the apostle/agent does is in behalf of
    		and has the approval and support of the one 
    		who sent him.  He has the authority of an
    		ambassador who speaks in behalf of a king in
    		negotiating for his country ...  Jesus said
    		that the one one who received his apostles
    		whom he had sent received Jesus himself, and
    		not only Jesus, but the one who had sent
    		him (Matt 10:40-42; John 13:20).  This is true
    		because legally a man's apostle is like the man
    		himself.  It is against this background that
    		Jesus, in the same context, could say both,
    		"He who has seen me as seen the Father" (John 14:9)
    		and "The Father is greater than I" (John 14:28).
    		*Legally* Jesus was identical with the Father, but
    		*physically* the Father was greater."  
    		(The Anchor Bible, Vol. 36, _To The Hebrews_, p.7)
    
    Jesus, as "the Word of God", wielded the "legal" authority of God,
    being God's "apostle" and foremost Spokesman.  This is naturally also
    in harmony with his being "the stamp" or "exact representation" of
    God's "very being."
    
>  and your right its a neutral passage RE: The Trinity, however its claimed
>  by almost *all* the patristic debaters (trinitarian or otherwise).
>  Only "reality" or "realization" fits considering the other passages
>  (though thats not an infallible test)
    
    	I'm not sure what you mean about the passage being neutral, since I
    think it gives weight to the NON-trinitarian side ... but if you mean
    that because PRO-trinitarians also claim it supports their view, then I
    suppose you could say that the fact that it can be used by both sides
    cancels its weight as a 'sure proof text' for one side only.
    
    
    								-mark.

    re 394.117 by myself (as a followup ...)
    
    To Hank:
    
    Regarding 1Tim 3:16 -- 
    
>    	I'll see if I can't find more about the 'manuscript pedigree' of
>    this variation.
    
    Bruce Metzger says this in his book, _A Textual Commentary on the Greek
    New Testament_ (1975, corrected edition) [NOTE: I've omitted the mss
    identifiers, many of which are Greek characters I can't reproduce
    anyway -- and I've added editorial remarks of my own in square
    brackets]:
    
    		"The reading [_`os_] ... is supported by the
    		earliest and best uncials ... [list omitted].
    		Furthermore, since the neuter relative
    		pronoun _`o_ [another variation] must have arisen 
    		as a scribal correction of _`os_ (to bring the
    		relative into concord with _mysterion_), the
    		[manuscript] witnesses whichread _`o_ [list
    		omitted] also indirectly presuppose _`os_ as
    		the earlier reading.  The Textus Receptus reads
    		_theos_, with [a list of mss, omitted].  ... Thus,
    		no uncial (in the first hand) earlier than the 
    		eighth or ninth century ... supports _theos_; all
    		ancient versions presuppose _`os_ or _`o_; and
    		no patristic writer prior to the last third of
    		the fourth century testifies to the reading
    		_theos_.  The reading _theos_ arose either (a)
    		accidentally, through the misreading of _OC_ 
    		as _[Theta]C_ [with an over-bar, for abbreviation],
    		or (b) deliberately, either to supply a 
    		substantive for the following six verbs, or, 
    		with less probability, to provide greater dogmatic
    		precision."   (p.641)
    
    ==*==
    
    	I also want to acknowledge that in your previous postings [giving
    the interlinear quote of Heb 1:3], you DID plainly include the form of
    the word _hypostasis_ that appears in the text.  So, that I asked you
    where in the Bible it was used is an indirect admission that I just
    didn't pay close enough attention to what you wrote.
    
    	I appreciate your gentlemanly response to my faux pas.
    
    
    								-mark.

  Re .124 Mark S
  
  Thanks, I've looked over your list. I also checked a couple of aparati
  that I have and found quite a few ancient (not so well known) mss and
  patristic fathers which support "theos".  There are upwards of 22,000
  mss, lectionaries, patristic documents, etc so one needs to do a *lot* of 
  wearying work to see the whole picture. I'm sure Thayer's work is complete
  as far as he took it.  I'll try to remember to bring in a few supportive 
  witnesses. I also found some (like aleph, and A) which support "theos" in 
  the margin. This usually means that the scribe knows that his marginal 
  word is correct, but the mss from which he is copying has something else.

  At any rate you know my feeling about the greek AV, it makes things a lot 
  simpler (as a side benefit).

  Its not long after you get into textual criticism that you can pretty
  much predict which mss or lectionary is going to support which variant
  and which "church father" is going to support which family of mss.
  (Alexandrian, Byzantine, Syrian, etc,etc...).
  
  About the faux pas, I didnt even notice, I thought you meant additional
  uses... 

            bye for now
              Hank

 A very general mss review of I Timothy 3:16 :

   God was manifest in the flesh  
   (majority texts, TR (2 of them) and the 1611 AV)

   Who/He was manifest in the flesh. (Most Alexandrian Uncials)

 I'm using as neutral an aparatus as I have.

 The Greek New Testament, Kurt Aland 2nd edition
 1968; Wurrtemberg Bible Society
 Stuttgart, West Germany

 First of all as Thayer has stated there is a problem here in the Uncials
 (mss written in capital letters), the difference between "theos" and "who"
 in their spelling is 2 small horizontal bars,"theos" is spelled Theta,sigma 
 with a small bar above it to further distinguish it from "who" which is spelled
 omicron, sigma, the difference between theta and omicron (in the uncials)
 is the horizontal bar of the theta, clear as mud ey?
 In addition, the Uncials are *very* old dating from 3-8th centuries and in
 many cases it is impossible to tell if the word is indeed "theos" or "who"

 Uncials are usually Alexandrian but there are a few Byzantine.

 In the Aland apparatus :

 Aleph (Siniaticus) - 4th century; "who" in the hand of the original scribe
 which he corrects to "theos" in the margin, anciently corrected four more
 times to "theos" in the margin (hey guys,paranoia?).

 A - (Alexandrinus) - 5th century "who (visually marred) in the hand of the 
 original scribe which he corrects to "theos" in the margin. Anciently 
 corrected to "theos" in the margin an additional time.  

 C - (Ephraemi Rescriptus) - 5th century "who in the hand of the original 
 scribe which he corrects to "theos" in the margin. Anciently corrected to 
 "theos" in the margin an additional time.  

 The intelligent question is : why did these *Alexandrian* scribes correct
 their own work ?

 Because they always copied what they saw from the mss in front of them, if
 they knew from their own experience that a word was probably wrong, they 
 indicated such by a "marginal addition". Sometimes a "new" mss was brought
 in to correct an existing one, thus Aleph is corrected 4 more times, from
 four different mss.

 In fact, as far as I can tell there is *no* uncial with "who" that is not
 corrected by the hand of the original *Alexandrian scribe*.


 In these later uncials the bars are quite definite
 
 K - (Moscow Uncial) 7th Century "theos" no corrections.

 Upsilon-athos Uncial 8th century "theos" no corrections.

 P - (Leningrad Uncial) 10th Century "theos" no corrections 
 (this one is a Byzantine Uncial)

 In the miniscules (mss written in small letters) which are usually byzantine 
 but there a a few Alexandrian) there is no question discerning "Theos" from
 "who")

 Alexandrian minuscules "theos" 19 mss; "who" none found (according to this
 apparatus)

 Majority Byzantine mss "theos" approx 3000; "who" 2.

 Majority Lectionaries "theos" approx 1000; "who" 1.
 (compilations of scriptures to be read in the churches).

 1611 greek AV "theos" (my choice *always*)

 What really suprised me is that the Old Itala (157AD), which almost always 
 agrees with the Byzantine Majority and contains I john 5:7 has "who".
 I dont have a clue as to why this is. ???

 The "proof" imo is for "theos" , however I always go with the 1611 AV
 and this is just an exercise for those who put their trust (as I once did)
 in textual criticism.
 
                  Hank  

    re .126 (DNEAST::DALELIO_HENR)/Hank
    
> First of all as Thayer has stated there is a problem here in the Uncials
> (mss written in capital letters), the difference between "theos" and "who"
> in their spelling is 2 small horizontal bars,"theos" is spelled Theta,sigma 
>with a small bar above it to further distinguish it from "who" which is spelled
> omicron, sigma, the difference between theta and omicron (in the uncials)
> is the horizontal bar of the theta, clear as mud ey?
> In addition, the Uncials are *very* old dating from 3-8th centuries and in
> many cases it is impossible to tell if the word is indeed "theos" or "who"
    
    	Just for the record, it was Metzger, not Thayer, who I quoted on
    1Tim 3:16.  Thayer was the lexicographer.
    
    	As for the differences between _theos_ and "who" being very hard to
    distinguish, the words, with their normal spellings, are NOT that hard
    to distinguish.  _Theos_ has 4 characters, and "who" (_os_) has two
    (not including breathing marks and accents in later mss).
    
    	The question is, why does this blatant difference exist?  The
    *theory* [according to Metzger] is that at some point, _OS_ was
    mistaken for _[TH]S_, or changed to the abbreviation, and expanded to
    _THEOS_ in later mss.
    
    	I suppose, however, that the theory could be reversed, that _THEOS_
    was the original and was abbreviated by some scribes to _[TH]S_, or
    else the abbreviation was in the original, and at some point in time,
    the abbreviation was mistaken for _OS_ (and later shortened to _O_ in
    some mss).
    
    	The impression I get is that there are no known uncials that
    actually contain the 2-letter abbrevation for _THEOS_ ... though you
    seem to be saying that old uncials exist which, if you look at, you
    will either find it hard to tell, or will actually find the abbreviated
    form (see below).
    
> In the Aland apparatus :
>
> Aleph (Siniaticus) - 4th century; "who" in the hand of the original scribe
> which he corrects to "theos" in the margin, anciently corrected four more
> times to "theos" in the margin (hey guys,paranoia?).
    
    	Since I was omitting source references when I quoted Metzger, I
    omitted his statement that ALEPH[e] reads _theos_ by a corrector of the
    twelfth century.
    
    	I don't have any sources in my home library which help me identify
    and tell the differences between all the mss according to their
    official, scholarly designators, so I have to ask, is Aland's reference
    to the marginal correction to _theos_ this same 12th century correction
    referred to by Metzger, ALEPH[e] (a Hebrew aleph with a superscripted
    "e")?
    
    	In additional ALEPH[e], Metzgers cites A[2], C[2], D[c], K, L, P,
    and PSI as reading _theos_, and then says in the next sentence
    [which I quoted]:
    
    		"Thus, no uncial (in the first hand) earlier than
    		the eigth or ninth century (PSI) supports _theos_ ..."
    
    I took this to mean that these references were to either later copies
    of ALEPH, A, C, and etc., or to corrections to them at dates *later
    than* their original writing.
    
> The intelligent question is : why did these *Alexandrian* scribes correct
> their own work ?
    
    	See above ... were the corrections made by the Alexandrian scribes,
    or by later scribes to the original Alexandrian mss?  Again, from
    Metzger, I get the impression it was by the latter.
    
> Because they always copied what they saw from the mss in front of them, if
> they knew from their own experience that a word was probably wrong, they 
> indicated such by a "marginal addition". Sometimes a "new" mss was brought
> in to correct an existing one, thus Aleph is corrected 4 more times, from
> four different mss.
>
> In fact, as far as I can tell there is *no* uncial with "who" that is not
> corrected by the hand of the original *Alexandrian scribe*.
    
    	To repeat the point once more, Metzger says that "no uncial (in the
    first hand) earlier than the eighth or ninth century supports _theos_".
    Are you reading from different sources which flatly contradict this, to
    say that the corrections ARE in the hand of the original, ancient
    scribe, or are you just interpreting your sources to mean this?
    
> In these later uncials the bars are quite definite
> 
> K - (Moscow Uncial) 7th Century "theos" no corrections.
>
> Upsilon-athos Uncial 8th century "theos" no corrections.
>
> P - (Leningrad Uncial) 10th Century "theos" no corrections 
> (this one is a Byzantine Uncial)a
    
    	Interesting.  Metzger seems to cite these two, but indicates that
    they read _THEOS_, and not the abbreviated form.  You say they DO
    contain the abbreviation?   [I'd like to visit your personal library
    some day ;-).]
    
> Majority Byzantine mss "theos" approx 3000; "who" 2.
>
> Majority Lectionaries "theos" approx 1000; "who" 1.
> (compilations of scriptures to be read in the churches).
    
    	No surprise here.
    
> What really suprised me is that the Old Itala (157AD), which almost always 
> agrees with the Byzantine Majority and contains I john 5:7 has "who".
> I dont have a clue as to why this is. ???
    
    	But Hank, isn't the answer obvious?
    
> The "proof" imo is for "theos" , however I always go with the 1611 AV
> and this is just an exercise for those who put their trust (as I once did)
> in textual criticism.
    
    	Thanks for the exercise, Hank.  Otherwise, this desk job would just
    kill me.
    
    							(huff, puff)
    							-mark.

  
 Re .127 Mark S.

 I used "theos" all the way through, my fault, I caused the confusion.

 In the Uncials the two letter abbreviation for _theos_ is always used 
 (thats my impression) I have books which record all this stuff, I'll look 
 into it. BTW, I gave up on textual crticism a long time ago, but I cant say 
 I  dont still enjoy it. Course, I always go with the AV.

 Well, there is an episode in which chemicals where applied to these ancient
 and historically precious documents, almost destroying the page, to see
 if the bars were there or no (1800's as a result of W&H work), both 
 contenders claimed victory?? really, it would be humourous if it wernt
 so (well stupid I guess).
 
 Aleph[e] means that there were 5 successive marginal notes in which [e]
 was the last [in the 12th century] the others were earlier. Mark both
 sides of this issue leaves out or diminishes or uses not so honest language
 when pertinent opposing data is present (I'm guilty), you have to study what 
 is said very closely. In fact I didnt know that the Old Itala had "who" until 
 yesterday. My conservative sources gloss over that fact. its human nature I 
 guess.

 I'll read up on what I have and give a more specific answer, I may be wrong
 but I believe the 1st marginal note in these uncials are in the hand of 
 the org. scribe.
 
 >No uncial (in the first hand) 
 "in the fist hand" means "in the original" "in the second hand" means "in
  the margin", but might or might not be the original scribe.

  I'll look into this - I do have some sources on this.

  Now you know where the saying comes from "on the one hand", but then again
  "on the other hand" blah, blah... :-)
  
  K, Upsilon, P - oops, my source said the there is no doubt Re _theos_
  I jumped to the "bar" conclusion, Ill check it. You're probably right.
  These are late dates.

  See, what did I say, you cant trust these "orthdox". I guess I'm human too.

  The Old Itala ... they really let me down...  this is the only time
  (that I know of) that they have made such a serious blunder  :-).
  I'm going to look into this.

  I shouldnt have worded that last sentence in such an accusative way
  "for those who put there trust (as I once did) in textual criticism"
  It has some value, it lead me to my decision about the AV (long story).
  And it can be an enjoyable exercise.

   Me sorry.

                          Hank 

    re .128 (DNEAST::DALELIO_HENR)/Hank
    
> In the Uncials the two letter abbreviation for _theos_ is always used 
> (thats my impression) I have books which record all this stuff, I'll look 
> into it. BTW, I gave up on textual crticism a long time ago, but I cant say 
> I  dont still enjoy it. Course, I always go with the AV.
    
    	I'll see what else I can find, too ... Metzger may just be
    generalizing _theos_ AND _[th]s_ as _theos_.
    
> Aleph[e] means that there were 5 successive marginal notes in which [e]
> was the last [in the 12th century] the others were earlier. Mark both
> sides of this issue leaves out or diminishes or uses not so honest language
> when pertinent opposing data is present (I'm guilty), you have to study what 
> is said very closely. In fact I didnt know that the Old Itala had "who" until 
> yesterday. My conservative sources gloss over that fact. its human nature I 
> guess.
    
    	What did notes a-d say?
    
    	The funny thing about mss evidence is that there's enough of it to
    let down just about everyone, it seems.
    
> >No uncial (in the first hand) 
> "in the fist hand" means "in the original" "in the second hand" means "in
>  the margin", but might or might not be the original scribe.
    
    	Thanks for explaining this.  Still ... how ancient are the notes? 
    Are the notes contemporary with the penning of the main text?
    
>  I shouldnt have worded that last sentence in such an accusative way
>  "for those who put there trust (as I once did) in textual criticism"
    
    	Just to be honest, I entertained less whimsical ways to respond to
    it, too.
    
>   Me sorry.
    
    	No problem.  This is still one of the best electronic discussions
    I've had in more than a year.
    
    
    								-mark.

  Re Mark S  Uncials

  >enough to let everyone down,

   thats because these two waring factions grew up together since day 1.
   as you'll see below.

  In Burgon's book The Revision Revised (1883) a section of about 75 
  pages is devoted to I Tim 3:16 "God was manifest in the flesh" AV, vs 
  "who was manifest in the flesh" WH. W&H claimed the original text 
  contains "who" while Burgon claims "theos" (shorthand form).

  The section seems to be a buttal, rebuttal, rerebuttal (or is it 
  rebuttalbuttal) form of a series of letters back and forth. The players 
  are Burgon, Tregelles, Scrivner (and others); these are the people who claim
  "theos" I'll call them the "Th" people, Wescott, Hort and others are the 
  "who" people and I'll call them the "O" people. The word in question will
   be signified by "OC" which is what it looks like in the uncials. The word
   "God" being shortened to two letters OC having the O with a horizontal
   bar through it (making it a Theta) and/or a bar just above the two letters.
   "Who" would be simply OC with no bars. Rather than go into depth Re the
   contentions, Ill give a couple of shortened samples of the round robins.

  O (people) - All the uncials have "who".

  Th   -   No they dont, the alexandrian scribes signified "theos" in shorthand
  in three different ways 1) The OC having both bars, one through the O, 
  and one over the OC. 2) One bar above the OC, 3) one bar through the O.

  O - so what, mms A plainly says "who" (no bars anywhere).

  Th - No it dosnt, its type 3. Take it out into the sunlight (they did this)
  and you will plainly see the theta bar.

  O - You are seeing the letter on the other side of the page.

  Th - wrong, it only intersects 1/3 of the theta and the theta bar is plainly
  visible.

  O - It was drawn in by a later hand.
 
  Th - no it wasnt, it has recently faded. (Burgon here names several scribes
  over the centuries who collated A and used Theos" with no notation as to
  any other variant...
  
  O - they were suspect, blah,blah blah (both sides)

  Th - (still in response to "all the uncials") names other uncials that are
  type 2) C,F,G...     

  No dates were given as to the "second hand" or if it was original scribe
  (Aleph).

  Burgon says the Old Itala says something to the effect "the mystery of
  God, he being manifest in the flesh..." claims this is the better way
  of saying in Latin "God was manifest in the flesh" A little consolation.

  Burgon then claims patristic douments from  90 AD- 380AD which use "theos" 
  for 1 Tim 3:16. [Ignatius (AD 90) , Gregory Thaumaturgas (II century)
  Barnabas (AD 190)...several others] all pre dating the uncials. But then 
  again O have theirs.

  Apparently, nothing conclusive can be proven here, and ones pre-disposition
  will be the deciding factor. I have another note to enter responding to
  some long standing inquiries. I have limited time, I'll try to get it in at
  lunch time.

          bye for now

          Hank

    re .130 (DNEAST::DALELIO_HENR)/Hank
    
    Thanks for the summary of the arguments in Burgon's book.  Given that
    it was published in 1883, do more modern, pro-Byzantine scholars do
    more than quote Burgon in their defense (i.e., is there more up-to-date
    evidence, or is all pro-Byzantine evidence no more recent that Burgon's
    day)?
    
>  Burgon says the Old Itala says something to the effect "the mystery of
>  God, he being manifest in the flesh..." claims this is the better way
>  of saying in Latin "God was manifest in the flesh" A little consolation.
    
    	I don't have my interlinear's handy, but the NWT reads this way:
    
    		"the sacred secret of this godly devotion is
    		admittedly great:  "He was manifest in flesh,
    		..."
    
    which is close to the Latin in that "god[ly]" and "he" are close
    together; however, I'll have to check the Greek text at home.
    
    	The Old Itala could easily be understood as saying that Christ
    is/was "the mystery of God" ("mystery of our religion" -- RSV), which
    is not the same as saying that he IS God.  Christ was the agent used by
    God to accomplish his will, and was "a mystery" or "sacred secret"
    until his identity and purpose were revealed, first "in flesh", and
    later "in spirit" (or "in the Spirit" RSV) after his resurrection.
    
>  Burgon then claims patristic douments from  90 AD- 380AD which use "theos" 
>  for 1 Tim 3:16. [Ignatius (AD 90) , Gregory Thaumaturgas (II century)
>  Barnabas (AD 190)...several others] all pre dating the uncials. But then 
>  again O have theirs.
    
    	So, the question is, who 'changing the text', and for what reason?
    
    	I believe, as the theory goes, it seems more likely that _OS_ was
    the original, since there would have been little reason for orthodox
    copiest to 'water down' such a useful proof-text as this one.  Why
    change _[TH]S_ to _OS_ (unless by accident) since the text gains
    nothing in 'truth value'?  On the other hand, if _OS_ was the original,
    it's understandable that changing it to _[TH]S_ would add more 'punch'
    to the theological import of the text.
    
    	The reading in the Old Italic:
    
    		"the mystery of God, he being ..."
    
    suggests to me that at some point a scribe might have concatinated the
    text because of having mentally equated "God" in the first clause with
    "he" of the following clause.  _[TH]S_ was acceptable because it
    proclaimed what was becoming an accepted 'orthodox' truth, that Jesus
    was "God" in the full trinitarian sense.
    
>  Apparently, nothing conclusive can be proven here, and ones pre-disposition
>  will be the deciding factor. I have another note to enter responding to
>  some long standing inquiries. I have limited time, I'll try to get it in at
>  lunch time.
    
    	Before leaving this text, I'd just like to interject on more
    thought on it's relevance to this topic (of whether Jesus was
    resurrected as flesh or spirit).  The RSV reads:
    
    		"He was manifested in the flesh,
    		  vindicated [ftn. justified] in the Spirit,
    		   seen by angels,
    		  preached among nations,
    		  believed on in the world,
    		   taken up in glory."
    
    If we set aside the "He/God" debate for a moment, and look at the rest
    of the verse, it appears, for the most part, to be a chronolgical
    recounting of events.  That he was "vindicated" or "justified" "in the
    Spirit" seems to be a point of contrast to the form of his death. 
    Whereas in his first "manifested" form, "in the flesh," he died as
    something accursed, he was "vindicated" "in the Spirit" upon his
    resurrection.  Some connect being "seen by angels" with 1Pet 3:19 [his
    preaching to the "spirits in prison" RSV].  His being preached among
    nations and etc. were all things that followed his resurrection.
    
    	I'm sure you can see what I'm getting at here ... he wasn't
    "vindicated in the flesh", but "in the Spirit" ... which, again, argues
    for a resurrection in spirit form.
    
    
    								-mark.

  Mark S,

  Re: Second (maybe third) Response to : A sacrifice not to be taken back :

  There are a few loose ends which I would like to address in order to 
  clarify my postion in regards to "A sacrifice not to be taken back..."

  Everyone agrees 1) That Jesus presently has a resurrected body of some 
  kind and 2) He is alive according to some basis of "life" and that 3)
  He is presently in heaven.

  The point of differing beliefs is in regards to His Resurrected Body.
  The orthodox belief being that He is in a Glorified Body (or Body of
  Glory)  which has as its substance the same matter (transformed to 
  be empowered by The Spirit, rather than blood) as the one in which 
  He walked the earth.

  Your objection to this being that this is contrary to a principle in
  the scriptures that his flesh and blood was in essence "a sacrifice 
  not to be taken back...". This was based upon the OT allegory of the
  "sin offering" in which you reminded me that the bodies of these 
  sacrifices were to be destroyed "outside the camp".  I in turn reminded
  you of the peace offering, which was to not to be destroyed but eaten
  by the "priestly nation". Your objection to this was that the bodies were
  still destroyed by the act of eating, however this is not the correct way
  to view the allegory of the Peace offering to appreciate the orthodox
  point of view.

  The correct way to view the allegorical meaning of the peace offering is 
  to understand it in this way. The priests ate the flesh of the sacrifice 
  and it *gave them life*. and was *not destroyed* but transformed into 
  their own life energy.

  obviously, any allegory can be pushed to far. However I dont see any reason 
  in the scriptures where these two offerings cant picture the dual aspect
  of the Blood Atonement or of any sacrifice for that matter. It must be 
  given, Jehovah then accepts (or rejects) it. The Resurrected Body of Christ 
  in my view being the sure token the "Peace Offering"  from our Heavenly 
  Father, that He has accepted the blood sacrifice of Jesus Christ.

  What Jesus sacrificed was His mortal humanity for the life of the world 
  His blood being the life-force or essence of that mortal humanity. 
  the Blood which He shed at Golgatha. This *mortal* humanity is gone 
  forever and He sits glorified at our Fathers right hand having been made 
  alive by The Spirit He now exists in the dual nature state of *immortal* 
  Humanity and eternal Deity (You do know that we believe in the dual nature 
  of the Person of Christ - He , to us, is the God-man).

  I know that you believe in a "corresponding ransom" well so do we in a sense,
  but again we differ :

  Life for life in our view means we die with Christ (give up our mortal life)
  We rise with Him (in Eternal Life). 
 
  Mortal life in exchange for Eternal Life.
  Adam's flesh life for Christs' Resurrection Life.
  The Just for the unjust, that He might bring us to God.

  Again, My apologies if I've inadvertantly been overly offensive.
  (just plain offensive is ok ey?   :-)    ).

  Ive read .131 I'll get back to you tomorrow (hopefully)

                   Hank

  Re Mark S .131

  Burgon and his associates (as far as I know) were the last of the 
  scholastic defenders of the 1611 Greek AV. When he died, no one stepped in 
  to fill the gap. probably because he did such a good job, the W&H Revision
  did not become very popular until much later and now primarily as a study
  bible. There are a few small 1611 AV groups, usually at the local church
  level. Then there are the "King James only" people, whose platform is
  "The King James english defines the greek". Remember Marshall? So, they 
  put their emphasis on the english rather than the greek. Not sure what to
  make of that. I don't know of anyone that holds the belief that I do :
  The 1611 collation is the restored Word of God, a copy of the heavenly
  model. Ps 119:89 Forever oh Lord (Jehovah) , thy word is settled (niztab
  established, archetyped) in heaven. And i've done a pretty poor job of
  convincing anyone.

  > who is changing the text and why...

    Everyone, Why? only the changees know for sure, and not even they do if
    its an inadvertant change.

  > Justified in [the] Spirit... as a support text for a resurrection in spirit
                                 form

  well, obviously I disagree, rather consider the following :

  Hebrews 2:3-4

  How shall we escape if we neglect so great salvation, which at the first
  began to be spoken by the Lord, and was confirmed unto us by them that heard 
  Him, God also bearing them witness, both with signs and wonders and divers
  miracles and *gifts of the Holy Ghost* according to His own will.

  The gifts of the Holy Ghost being a witness bearing sign or vindication
  (in spite of His death as a criminal) to the world that Jesus Christ is 
  the Son of God, the Messiah and the disciples were His authorized messengers.

  I also have an observation, I dont see it as a mystery if a created being
  is manifest in the flesh, it happens everyday. "God manifest in the flesh"
  better qualifies as a mystery. 

                   Hank

    re .133 (DNEAST::DALELIO_HENR)/Hank
    
    Thanks for the summary about Burgon, et al.
    
>  I also have an observation, I dont see it as a mystery if a created being
>  is manifest in the flesh, it happens everyday. "God manifest in the flesh"
>  better qualifies as a mystery. 
    
    	A correction first (as a result of double-checking) ... the Old
    Italic text (that you quoted) had "God" and "he" together, and I
    speculated that the Greek text did too, since the NWT talks about the
    "sacret secret of *godly* devotion".  A quick look in my interlinear
    showed that "godly devotion" translates a single word (which I didn't
    write down) which isn't related to _theos_.
    
    	As far as what the "mystery" is ("sacred secret"; NWT), Paul
    explained it in a little more detail in Ephesians:
    
    		"When you read this you can perceive my
    		insight into the mystery of Christ, which was
    		not made known to the sons of men in other
    		generations as it has now been revealed to
    		his holy apostles by the Spirit; that is,
    		how the Gentiles are fellow heirs, members
    		of the same body, and partakers of the
    		promise in Christ Jesus through the gospel."
    		(3:4-6 RSV)
    
    The "mystery" wasn't about the "incarnation of God in the flesh", but
    rather, how God had planned to take Gentiles into the spiritual
    relationship of the "body" of believers, as part of the overall
    outworking of God's purpose as fulfilled through Christ and "through
    the church" (Eph 3:9 RSV).
    
    	The mystery was the full meaning of the prophecies and how they
    would be fulfilled.  In his conclusion to the Romans, Paul wrote:
    
    		"Now to him who is able to strengthen you
    		according to my gospel and the preaching of
    		Jesus Christ, according to the revelation
    		of the mystery which was kept secret for
    		long ages but is NOW disclosed and THROUGH	
    		THE PROPHETIC WRITINGS IS MADE KNOWN TO ALL
    		NATIONS, ..." (16:25,26 RSV)
    
    The "mystery" was the meaning of what was written in the prophetic
    writings about Christ and the arrangements that would be put into place
    around him (as the 'foundation stone', and etc.).
    
    	You might argue that the 'dual nature of Christ' might be included
    as part of the overall mystery; but it certainly wasn't the entire
    thing.
    
    
    								-mark.

  Well we can agree that the mystery was not only about the nature of Christ.
  Also there seems to be more that one "mystery" in scripture.
  "though I know all mysteries...".

  I Tim 3:16 : Each of these passage lines (possibly a hymn sung in the 
  early church) might be a "mystery".

  And btw Mark do you really have a problem with 
  "God was manifest in the flesh"
  in light of how the NWT translates Hebrews 1:3 Re : Jesus being
  "the exact representation of His (theos') very being".

  our difference being : God was (in form) manifest in the flesh.
                         God was (in essence) manifest in the flesh.  


        Hank

    re .135 (DNEAST::DALELIO_HENR)/Hank
    
>  And btw Mark do you really have a problem with 
>  "God was manifest in the flesh"
>  in light of how the NWT translates Hebrews 1:3 Re : Jesus being
>  "the exact representation of His (theos') very being".
    
    	Believe it or not, I was thinking about this the other day (in
    light of the quote I took from the Anchor Bible on Jesus being God's
    apostle and 'legal twin'; the commentary pointed out how Jesus could
    say "he who has seen me has seen the Father" but not be claiming
    the Father's identity (or God's identity, for that matter).
    
    	I think there are ways that the expression "God was manifest in the
    flesh" could be resolved with the overall Witness view of things, but
    in light of the heavy 'trinitarian slant' that this expression already
    has, I suspect that few would have the patience and open-mindedness to
    suffer the Witness explanation.  This passage would then gain the same
    notariety of John 1:1, and the same wide range of interpretation.
    
>  our difference being : God was (in form) manifest in the flesh.
>                         God was (in essence) manifest in the flesh.  
    
    	As if you can't tell, I prefer to stay away from non-Biblical
    usages of the terms "form" and "essence", because I think that their
    definitions are too esoteric for use by the sort whom Paul said were
    not "wise according to worldly standards" (1Cor 1:26), but were
    nevertheless called by God in greater numbers to do his wilo.
    
    	I think it far more accurate to say God was manifest in Jesus
    through the qualities they shared, and via the purpose they held in
    common.  Debates about "form," "essence," "substance," and what have
    you not only distract one from the more important Bible teachings about
    what God's will and purpose are for man, but they represent levels of
    argumentation (on a philosophical level) that are alien to the overall
    simple, down-to-earth manner that the inspired Bible writers and
    characters used to teach the truth.
    
    
    								-mark.

  Mark , We've been down this path before ol' buddy...

  First, Peter talks about our beloved brother Paul and
  the "hard to understand" concepts that he's always teaching.

  These terms such as "form", "essence", etc are the english equivalents of
  these greek terms that Paul himself was always formulating so that he
  couldnt have meant the use of difficult words and concepts or he would 
  have been condeming Paul whom he just called beloved.

  The book of Hebrews is *full* to the brim with words borrowed from 
  philosophy as well as the sciences. Many of the concepts in Hebrews 
  are difficult, many of the words appear only in the book of Hebrews, 
  the greek is not koine but septuigint-classical, The language of many 
  of the hellenistic philosophers, shall we throw it out because they 
  share the language of at least one of the books of the Bible with us? 
  Look in your interlinear and you will see *many* of these difficult 
  words and concepts such as hupostasis, and quite frankly, the NWT does 
  (imo) a pretty good job at translating them (well usually). Many of these 
  terms  are *not* simple and down to earth.

  Paul was warning us of the destructive nature of argumentation - and those
  who wrest the scriptures to their own destruction. Too be sure we have
  signifigant differences, but understanding these differences is not (imo)
  wresting the scriptures. No doubt many would believe that we are both guilty
  of this (from opposing sides of course - uh well I think so anyway).
  And besides, I think we have both tried to be conciliatory rather than
  combative...

  It says "not many wise,,,"  not "not any wise..." have God's approval.
  Paul is one of the "few".

  In closing, of course its not necessary for a brother or sister to have
  a colossal IQ to study Our Fathers precepts, He loves each one as if there
  no other regardless of their ability.

  I think you can tell from my remarks that I also dont appreciate the fact
  that the debators of this world have made a mess of things.

  I like to explore the things we have in common, and not throw rocks
  concerning our differences. 

     tomorrow...
                     Hank

  

    re .137 (DNEAST::DALELIO_HENR)/Hank
    
>  First, Peter talks about our beloved brother Paul and
>  the "hard to understand" concepts that he's always teaching.
    
    	But, dare I say it, the language those concepts were expressed in
    wasn't particularly difficult to understand.  [I suspect that what made
    them hard to understand most of all were the preconceived notions that
    had to be unlearned or set aside in order to understand the new
    thoughts.  As an example, that God was now dealing with all the nations
    (Gentiles) and not just the Jews was probably hard to understand for
    many Jews [like Peter himself, even], for their entire background up
    until that point made this an alien concept.]
    
>  These terms such as "form", "essence", etc are the english equivalents of
>  these greek terms that Paul himself was always formulating so that he
>  couldnt have meant the use of difficult words and concepts or he would 
>  have been condeming Paul whom he just called beloved.
    
    	I've seen "form" appear in translation a few times, but "essence"
    almost never (I say almost because some translations use it once or
    twice, others never).
    
    	As a joint exercise, what Greek words are translated "form" and
    "essense" (we've already done "being" ... are there others worth
    considering)?  I'll bet that the context alone in which they're used
    makes their meaning pretty clear.
    
>  The book of Hebrews is *full* to the brim with words borrowed from 
>  philosophy as well as the sciences. 
    
    	As I've already mentioned, we've already considered the word for
    "being"; and it's uses aren't all that hard to understand.  In
    simplified terms, the controveries are basically around which "easy
    explanation" is the right one.
    
    	Really, how many of these terms are there that are so ambiguous as
    to defy translation and understanding?
    
>                                      Many of the concepts in Hebrews 
>  are difficult, many of the words appear only in the book of Hebrews, 
>  the greek is not koine but septuigint-classical, The language of many 
>  of the hellenistic philosophers, shall we throw it out because they 
>  share the language of at least one of the books of the Bible with us? 
    
    	Having just recently looked into some of the OT aprocryphal
    writings, it was pretty obvious to me when a Greek author was wearing
    his philosophers hat.  One book in particular [3rd or 4th Macabees or
    Esdras ... I forget which; I'll tell you tomorrow] opened up with a
    declaration along the lines of, "this is a work of philosophy ...".
    Throughout the book, it had the 'feel' of complicated 'human
    philosophy', not the feel of plain language divine revelation.
    
    		[As a side note: I don't mean to say that divine
    		revelation is always plain and simple to understand;
    		it's just that the language used is simple.  Prophecies
    		are often expressed in symbolic terms; using beasts, 
    		plants, mountains, and what-have-you to represent
    		people and things that will be involved in the
    		prophecy's fulfillment.  We understand what a beast,
    		plant, mountain, and etc. are; the deeper question
    		is, what do they represent?]
    
    I'm not suggesting that we throw out all the words in Greek that happen
    to be used by philosophers.  My point is that whereas the philosophers
    tended to make things complex (for that was their job, to explain
    the complexities of life that they didn't understand, given their
    perspective without knowledge and/or appreciation of divine revelation
    as to why life is what it is), the Bible writers, under inspiration,
    basically kept their language simple.
    
>  Look in your interlinear and you will see *many* of these difficult 
>  words and concepts such as hupostasis, and quite frankly, the NWT does 
>  (imo) a pretty good job at translating them (well usually). Many of these 
>  terms  are *not* simple and down to earth.
    
    	But as you can see, the NWT generally renders them in a way that
    makes their sense plain.  We can argue whether the sense is right, but
    it's proof that translators aren't obligated to complicate Bible
    translation with man-made issues of philosophy.
    
>  It says "not many wise,,,"  not "not any wise..." have God's approval.
>  Paul is one of the "few".
    
    	True ... but Paul himself repudiated the value of his 'worldly
    wisdom,' and evidently did his best not to let his background interfere
    with his transmission of divinely inspired information.
    
>  I like to explore the things we have in common, and not throw rocks
>  concerning our differences. 
    
    	Me too.
    
    
    								-mark.

  Well , like poor little sheep we've gone astray again,  (Baaa?)
  Far from the original note, so i'll respond to your last note and 
  then ???

  Concerning the writings of Paul : I'm still gonna stick with the
  Apostle Peter on this one :

  "In them however are some hard things to understand..." I Peter 3:16 NWT.

  Granted he didn't say "all" or even "most" this is probably a good
  ground of agreement?

  The warning is in vs 17 to be on guard lest we be led away by the unlearned
  and/or the unstable who rest the scriptures to their own destruction, and as
  I mentioned before, we are probably both considered candidates (by the
  opposing camps - hopefully) for this dubious honor, though I dont consider
  Mark S either "unlearned" or "unstable".

  ok, back to essence :

  Essence : from Latin - essentia
  (suprise Mark, essentia is the latin cross over word for hupostasis.)

  a) A substance that keeps in concentrated form, the flavor, fragrance or
     other properties of the plant, drug, food, etc from which it is extracted.

  b) In philosophy (OH NO!!  :-)   ) That which constitutes the inward nature
     of anything, underlying its manifestations; true substance.

  Frankly Mark, I don't see anything sinister in these definitions, especially
  in light of the fact that they are the same for "hupostasis" (a biblical 
  word).

  We've probably expounded the two different views of the resurrected Body
  of Christ to a painful limit. Now I'm not saying "uncle" but should we
  leave it at that?

  Perhaps (with moderator and/or general audience approval) this could be
  expanded to a sort of "word study" (under other base note(s)) of some of
  these , more or less, difficult words or phrases related to our current
  base note by anyone who has the "tools"? Given the platform of the Christian 
  Conference, I know no one wants the conf. to become a sounding board for 
  "cultic" points of view,  and Im sure Mark S dosnt want to get "incoming!" 
  as a steady diet, but  if we could do it as a limited exercise of value-ing 
  differences without stone throwing. Is ok? Obviously everyone has DEC duties 
  and I personally would have to limit my time (as Mark and anyone else) 
  which is a given. Besides "much study is a weariness to the flesh" which I
  have recently rediscovered in this note. What do we think?

  Thumbing through Hebrews (sounds like a name of a commentary) I found a 
  term of "medium" complexity in Hebrews 2:17 which is related to our current
  base note.

  "therefore in all things he had to be made like [His} brethren, that He 
   might be a merciful and faithful High Priest in things [pertaining] to 
   God to make "propitiation" for the sins of the people"   NKJV.

   propitiation - from what I can tell, we (orthodox) have a significant 
   difference with JWs (and others and even among ourselves) related to 
   the value, benefit and  "recipientship" of the sacrifice of Jesus Christ 
   and it seems to be wrapped up in this biblical term propitiation 
   (satisfaction - not exactly, but close - Grk : Hilasmos). Can we explore 
   those differences?

   Moderators ?. Mark S? anyone else ? any objection ? 
   Mark S - is this term ok?
  
                     Hank
  

    re .139 (DNEAST::DALELIO_HENR)/Hank
    
>  "In them however are some hard things to understand..." I Peter 3:16 NWT.
>
>  Granted he didn't say "all" or even "most" this is probably a good
>  ground of agreement?
    
    	Agreed (though that's 2Pet, not 1).
    
>  The warning is in vs 17 to be on guard lest we be led away by the unlearned
>  and/or the unstable who rest the scriptures to their own destruction, and as
>  I mentioned before, we are probably both considered candidates (by the
>  opposing camps - hopefully) for this dubious honor, though I dont consider
>  Mark S either "unlearned" or "unstable".
    
    	The RSV says "the ignorant and unstable twist [the hard to
    understand scriptures] to their own destruction".  Kinda makes you wish
    he'd given a few examples, don't it?
    
    	Acts 15 records the conflict over circumcision for Gentile converts
    (as well as the overall issue of whether the Law was binding on
    Gentiles, as well as still binding on Jewish Christians).  Adherence to
    the Law came up in Paul's writings as well.  A couple of times Paul
    mentions controversies over the resurrection (some said it had already
    occurred).  1Cor 15 (which we've talked about) indicates that there
    must have been a lot of interest in what the resurrection was really
    like (as well as when).  There must also have been some question about
    geneologies.
    
    	If I think hard enough, I could probably come up with a few more
    examples of real controversies that the NT gives evidence to; but none
    of them are nearly as esoteric as the issues about the nature of God or
    the nature of Christ's resurrection body.  None of the issues are
    particularly philosophical, at least not to the extent that the issues
    which led to the formulation of the trinity are.
    
>  ok, back to essence :
>
>  Essence : from Latin - essentia
>  (suprise Mark, essentia is the latin cross over word for hupostasis.)
    
    Well, isn't that interesting.  So far, we've only been talking about
    one word, hypostasis, which only occurs 5 times in the NT, only 1 or 2
    of which are 'theologically significant.'
    
    I agree that the definitions aren't particularly sinister, which tends
    to make my point, that Bible language, at least so far as the meanings
    of the words themselves goes, isn't particularly hard to understand.
    Thus, when Peter was talking about things in Paul's writings that were
    "hard to understand", he wasn't talking about about words and phrases
    which themselves were ambiguous or overly abstract in a philosophical
    way (and Paul was the one who said to Timothy to turn down fights about
    words, and it was Paul who warned about the danger of being led astray
    by philosophy).
    
    ==*==
    
    Regarding words studies of things like "propitiation" -- this might
    make for an interesting topic in a new note; and if you specifically
    ask for the Witness opinion, either myself or another Witness will
    gladly provide it; but I have mixed feelings about its relevance to
    this topic.
    
    That Jesus' death was a "propitiatory sacrifice" could be connected
    with this topic, I suppose, because we'd still be talking about what it
    meant for Jesus to sacrifice himself, and how that relates to his
    resurrected life.  But then, if discussing it opens the door to the
    exploration of less related words, then that might argue for the need
    of a new topic note.
    
>   propitiation - from what I can tell, we (orthodox) have a significant 
>   difference with JWs (and others and even among ourselves) related to 
>   the value, benefit and  "recipientship" of the sacrifice of Jesus Christ 
>   and it seems to be wrapped up in this biblical term propitiation 
>   (satisfaction - not exactly, but close - Grk : Hilasmos). Can we explore 
>   those differences?
    
    I know what it means to me; but I never talked about it at length with
    an 'orthodox believer'; so I don't know what our specific differences
    are.  If you want to state your view and want to know how mine differs,
    I'll gladly provide the comparision.
    
    
    								-mark.

  > II Peter rather than I Peter 

  oops, proved I'm human again, think anyone suspected?

  propitiation...

  OK I'll start a new note, assuming that the protocol is proper.

                 Hank