Curious & Difficult Bible Sayings

This is the place to discuss anything to do with scriptural doctrine. It is the primary purpose of this site, and most discussions will be here.
Forum rules
Matt 18:6; Eccl 7:9; 1 Pet 4:8 (If you're not sure what they say then please hover over them with your mouse or look them up in your own Bible before posting)
Message
Author
Bobcat
Posts: 3809
Joined: 7 years ago

Re: Curious & Difficult Bible Sayings

#11 Post by Bobcat » 1 year ago

CI, why don't you post your thoughts in the thread where the discussion on that subject resides.
What do you mean when you say
"originally written to and from an ANE audience"
This article will help explain what I meant.

What [Jesus] said [in] Lu 17:37 was addressed to Pharisees Lu 17:20
See a little further down in Lu 17:22. [Also compare Lu 17:37a NET. The NET footnote after "the disciples" says, "Grk “they”; the referent (the disciples, v. 22) has been specified in the translation for clarity."]

Unlike in English the Greek words for body and corpse/carcass are not interchangeable
Soma (body) is to ptoma (corpse), as "automobile" is to "chevy." Soma is the broader term (referring to bodies both live and dead). Ptoma is the more specific (referring only to dead bodies). (BDAG notes that ptoma especially refers to dead bodies that have perished violently.)

Soma (body) occurs in these verses of the NT referring to a dead body: Mt 14:12; 27:52, 58, 59; Lu 23:52, 55; 24:3, 23; Jn 19:31; Ac 9:40; Jude 9. Where Matthew refers to the dead body (soma) of Jesus being given to Joseph (Mt 27:58, 59), Mark uses ptoma to describe the same event (Mk 15:45). In fact, Mark uses soma and ptoma interchangeably in that same passage. (Compare Greek of Mk 15:43 with Mk 15:45.) (Ptoma occurs in the NT at: Mt 14:12; 24:28; Mk 6:29; 15:45; Rev 11:8, 9 - note the association of a violent death in each case.)

So yes, the two terms are interchangeable when soma is referring to a dead body. As BDAG (Bauer's 3rd Edition Greek-English Lexicon) points out, soma is a little more "elegant" of a term than ptoma in the same way that "dead body" in English is a bit more elegant than "carcass." When it comes to Luke 17:37 and Mt 24:28, one possible reason that Luke used soma may be that soma in Lu 17:37 just reflects Dr Luke's 'bed-side manner' in comparison with the tax collector Matthew. (Also compare the last paragraph in this post which might also be suggestive of why Luke uses a more refined term in place of Matthew's ptoma at Mt 24:28.)


Bobcat

Return to Index

Notes:

1. Discussion refuting the idea that Joseph of Arimathea thought Jesus was still alive when he requested Jesus' "body" (soma) in Mk 15:43: Here.

2. On the difference between a dead "body" (soma) and a "corpse" (ptoma) and the more common (i.e. comparatively crude) nature of ptoma, see the full paragraph in the reference here.

3. Brief discussion in a reference work regarding the NT words nekros ("the dead"; # 3498), soma ("body", live or dead or metaphorical; # 4983), ptoma ("corpse"; # 4430), and kolon ("carcass"; used only at Heb 3:17; Strong's # 2966): Here.

The references in notes 2 and 3 help illustrate why BDAG speaks of soma as being more "elegant" than ptoma when referring to a dead body. The nuance between the two words can be seen in Mk 15:43 where Joseph (a disciple of Jesus) asks for the soma ("body") of Jesus. But in Mk 15:45 Pilate (who has no relationship with Jesus) hands the ptoma ("corpse") of Jesus over after checking to make sure he is dead. When soma and ptoma are understood this way, Mark's account in Mk 15:43-45 can be seen as being written in a very finessed or refined style. (Ps 12:6) (Not necessarily related to this discussion, but here is another thread on Joseph of Arimathea.)

On kolon, used only at Heb 3:17, the Louw & Nida Lexicon points out that, "in earlier Greek κῶλον designated a 'limb,' but in the NT it occurs only in the plural and means corpses." L&N goes on to define κῶλον as, "the dead body of a person, especially one which is still unburied."

4. Commentary on Luke 17:37 from another reference: Here.

Bobcat
Posts: 3809
Joined: 7 years ago

Re: Curious & Difficult Bible Sayings

#12 Post by Bobcat » 1 year ago

CI, why don't you post your thoughts in the thread where the discussion on that subject resides. (quoting myself)

Nevermind, I put a link there referring back to here. (Referring to this post.)


Bobcat

User avatar
coccus ilicis
Posts: 767
Joined: 4 years ago

Re: Curious & Difficult Bible Sayings

#13 Post by coccus ilicis » 1 year ago

Bobcat wrote:
1 year ago
CI, why don't you post your thoughts in the thread where the discussion on that subject resides.
What do you mean when you say
"originally written to and from an ANE audience"
This article will help explain what I meant.

What [Jesus] said [in] Lu 17:37 was addressed to Pharisees Lu 17:20
See a little further down in Lu 17:22.

Unlike in English the Greek words for body and corpse/carcass are not interchangeable
Soma (body) is to ptoma (corpse), as "automobile" is to "chevy."

Soma (body) occurs in these verses of the NT referring to a dead body: Mt 14:12; 27:52, 58, 59; Lu 23:52, 55; 24:3, 23; Jn 19:31; Ac 9:40; Jude 9. Where Matthew refers to the dead body (soma) of Jesus being given to Joseph (Mt 27:58, 59), Mark uses ptoma to describe the same account (Mk 15:45). In fact, Mark uses soma and ptoma interchangeably in that same passage. (Compare Greek of Mk 15:43 with Mk 15:45.)

So yes, they are interchangeable when soma is referring to a dead body. As BDAG points out, soma is just a little more "elegant" than ptoma. So when it comes to Luke 17:37 and Mt 24:28, maybe it just reflects Dr Luke's 'bed-side manner' in comparison with the tax collector Matthew.


Bobcat
Hello Bobcat,

Thank you for answering my question. I am not sure what you mean when you say
why don't you post your thoughts in the thread where the discussion on that subject resides
I thought that that was what I was doing. Most of us on this forum are former JWs and as such, like it or not, are tainted with their mindset, which tends to make us hyper-critical of anything said that does not agree in every detail of our belief. The same was true of the early church and all its offspring. But it does not mean that every detail of what we believe is correct, we are even now probably still way off the mark.

Jesus had said concerning the spirit of truth which the father would send in his name … that one will teach you all things... and bring back to you mind all the things I told you... Jhn14:26. This learning what the spirit teaches is a process it is not something transferred into to the mind in an instant.

Today one can see the end result of the direction in which the 1st-century church was heading. True we, like them do not know where the direction we take today will lead but we are learning. Bauer, Danker, Arndt, and Gingrich (Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament is the BGAD which you cite. In the 1960s Bauer used what tools and information he had to hand at that time to prepare his lexicon within the framework of what was then believed. More, much more, information has come to light since then. This increase in knowledge has not been accidental but is the result of the spirit of truth that would be sent prior to Jesus's return ...and during that time Michael... will stand up... and there will be many of those asleep in the ground/soil/adamah who will wake up, these to indefinitely lasting life and those to reproaches... The book of Daniel would be sealed until that time ...many will rove about and the knowledge will become abundant...Dan 12:1,2, 4

If we are not in that period then what I am doing here on this forum will simply be a further corruption. But if the awakening, with more information becoming available by the day is what is presently occurring, then it is the time when the spirit of truth is doing its work. I appreciate Bauer’s work but do not agree with his opinion that (soma) body is simply a more polite word for (ptoma), corpse carcass. Jesus always chose his words with care, he either said corpse or he said body.

You are right about Luke’s account at Lu 17:20,21 speaking of the manner of Jesus’s return as recorded, starting at Mt 24:23; Mk 13:21 (compare Lu 17:21) that when he addressed the Pharisees Jesus disciples were also present. Now either what Luke says in his account refers to a completely different occasion where Jesus repeated what he had told Peter, James, John and Andrew in private (Mk 13:3) or the witnesses that provided this information for Luke were not reliable.

At Matthew and Mark, this monologue is given right after Jesus had condemned the Pharisees and Sadducees and told them Jerusalem was abandoned to them - not long before his arrest. Whereas in Luke’s account this condemnation is much earlier in Jesus's ministry (Lu 11:37 – 51) at the time when he had been invited to dine with a Pharisee. If it was at that time that Jesus condemned them, we see a Jesus that didn’t pull any punches, he didn't temper his language with polite terms but was blunt to what today would be considered rudeness to one's host. With that in mind, my guess is that Luke’s ...where the body is, there also the eagles/vultures will be gathered together... are the ‘words of a later witness who had been influenced by the teaching of the early church,
Soma (body) occurs in these verses of the NT referring to a dead body: Mt 14:12; 27:52, 58, 59; Lu 23:52, 55; 24:3, 23; Jn 19:31; Ac 9:40; Jude 9.
All these verses refer to bodies of persons including Jesus’s body, who have just died before the body is corrupted as I pointed out in my earlier reply. Paul paraphrasing Psalm says... you will not allow your loyal one to see corruption... Acts 13:35,37 also Acts 2:27,31 This was important as far as Jesus's body was concerned. Corpse/carcass refers to bodies that have started to decay, quite different from soma.

That leaves us with the account at Mark which was most likely written by the young man ...wearing a fine linen garment over his naked body who had followed Jesus after he had been arrested. And when the soldiers who had arrested Jesus spotted him and tried to seize him, … he left his garment behind and got away naked... Mk14:51 This is the most likely author of this account as he would have been the only one who had any knowledge of this incident. But what we do know for certain is that this author or the 'Mark' later mentioned as a companion of Paul was not a close associate of Jesus at that time, and would not have been amongst those whose minds Jesus opened fully to grasp the meaning of the scriptures Lu 24:45 and therefore would not have been aware of the importance of Jesus’s body not seeing corruption. And therefore used the term interchangeably - thinking 'what's the difference?' which even today typifies how young people process information (Mk 15:43 body Mk 15:45 corpse). Or yet another explanation is that Pilate had referred Jesus's body as a corpse when he aked the Roman soldier in Latin whether Jesus was dead, which Mark being by-lingual if not tri-lingual understood and duly translated into the Greek for his account. I favour this last option as Mark appears to have had an eye for detail Mk 13:3.

If one wanted to make certain one could check verses in the Greek (LXX) OT where (soma) body is used and compare them with verses where (ptoma) carcass is used. The Apostolic interlinear lexical concordance has a long list for soma/body #4983 starting with Gen 15:11 A shorter list for #4430 ptoma/carcass starts with Jdg 14:8.

For any who want to get to the bottom of these so-called curious sayings, which may end up not being curious at all but quite to the point and straight forward, the Apostolic Lexical Concordance (OT in Greek) can be found here https://www.apostolicbible.com/concordances.htm and the Apostolic interlinear Bible can also be downloaded free, here: https://www.apostolicbible.com/

Both are handy tools for research - tools that were not available until the 21st century.

Love
LRW~

Bobcat
Posts: 3809
Joined: 7 years ago

Re: Curious & Difficult Bible Sayings

#14 Post by Bobcat » 1 year ago

why don't you post your thoughts in the thread where the discussion on that subject resides
I thought that that was what I was doing. . .
See post # 12 above.

Bauer, Danker, Arndt, and Gingrich (Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament is the BGAD which you cite.
No, it's "BDAG" that I cited. There was no "BGAD." The 1979 edition was known as BAGD.

In the 1960s Bauer used what tools and information he had to hand at that time to prepare his lexicon within the framework of what was then believed. More, much more, information has come to light since then. . . I appreciate Bauer’s work but do not agree with his opinion that (soma) body is simply a more polite word for (ptoma), corpse carcass.
This is BDAG: Here. It is the 2001 edition. It is the current gold-standard in Greek-English Lexicons. An introductory essay on how to use this 2001 edition of Bauer's lexicon, "the standard in New Testament lexicography": Here.

Corpse/carcass refers to bodies that have started to decay, quite different from soma.
That definition of ptoma (that it necessarily includes the idea of "decay") is only your idea, CI. No lexicon that I have seen describes 'decay' as a necessary part of the meaning of ptoma. The root meaning of the word is 'to fall.' This is why BDAG points out that ptoma is often related to a violent death. The word kolon, used only at Heb 3:17 (see note # 3 in post # 11 above), would possibly be more fitting in describing the idea of decay since it has the idea of 'body part,' as in a body falling apart from decay. (See under note # 3 in post 11 above for more detail on κῶλον.)


Bobcat

Return to Index

Bobcat
Posts: 3809
Joined: 7 years ago

Re: Curious & Difficult Bible Sayings

#15 Post by Bobcat » 1 year ago

For any interested I added some research notes to the end of post # 11 above.


Bobcat

Return to Index

Bobcat
Posts: 3809
Joined: 7 years ago

Re: Curious & Difficult Bible Sayings - John 18:31-32

#16 Post by Bobcat » 1 year ago

In John 18:31-32 the Jews tell Pilate that, "We cannot legally put anyone to death." Why did the Jews say this when the Mosaic Law had stipulations within it for capital punishment?

The NET Bible has a footnote (# 90) about this (here):
tn Grk “It is not permitted to us to kill anyone.”

sn The historical background behind the statement, We cannot legally put anyone to death, is difficult to reconstruct. Scholars are divided over whether this statement in the Fourth Gospel accurately reflects the judicial situation between the Jewish authorities and the Romans in 1st century Palestine. It appears that the Roman governor may have given the Jews the power of capital punishment for specific offenses, some of them religious (the death penalty for Gentiles caught trespassing in the inner courts of the temple, for example). It is also pointed out that the Jewish authorities did carry out a number of executions, some of them specifically pertaining to Christians (Stephen, according to Acts 7:58-60; and James the Just, who was stoned in the 60s according to Josephus, Ant. 20.9.1 [20.200]). But Stephen’s death may be explained as a result of “mob violence” rather than a formal execution, and as Josephus in the above account goes on to point out, James was executed in the period between two Roman governors, and the high priest at the time was subsequently punished for the action. Two studies by A. N. Sherwin-White (Roman Society and Roman Law in the New Testament, 1-47; and “The Trial of Christ,” Historicity and Chronology in the New Testament [SPCKTC], 97-116) have tended to support the accuracy of John’s account. He concluded that the Romans kept very close control of the death penalty for fear that in the hands of rebellious locals such power could be used to eliminate factions favorable or useful to Rome. A province as troublesome as Judea would not have been likely to be made an exception to this.

Constable's Notes, commenting on Jn 18:31-32, says:
Jn 18:31 Since the Jews did not charge Jesus formally there was nothing that Pilate could do except hand Him back to them for discipline in their courts. The Jews’ response explained why that was an unacceptable alternative. They wanted Jesus executed, but they did not have the authority to execute Him themselves.
“The Pilate disclosed in the [ancient] historical documents almost certainly acted like this not so much out of any passion for justice as out of the ego-building satisfaction he gained from making the Jewish authorities jump through legal hoops and recognize his authority."
Jn 18:32 John noted that the Jews’ admission that they could not put anyone to death was in harmony with the sovereign plan of God. Jesus had predicted that He would die by crucifixion, not by stoning (cf. Jn 12:32-33). The Romans were the only ones who could condemn a person to death by crucifixion. The Jews did stone people to death for blasphemy (e.g., Acts 6:11; 7:58), but these seem to have been instances of mob violence rather than independent legal action. They probably wanted Jesus crucified too because the Mosaic Law regarded such a death as proof of God’s curse (Deut. 21:22-23).
“Ironically, the death that the Jewish hierarchy regarded as a final negation of Jesus’ claims became the means of justification apart from the law (Gal 3:13).”
“It was necessary for three reasons for Jesus to be crucified by the Romans at the instigation of the Jews: (a) to fulfill prophecies (e.g., that none of His bones be broken; cf. Jn 19:36-37); (b) to include both Jews and Gentiles in the collective guilt for the deed (cf. Acts 2:23; 4:27); (c) by crucifixion, Jesus was ‘lifted up’ like ‘the snake in the desert’ [Jn 3:14] . . .”

Bobcat

Return to Index

Stranger
Posts: 2233
Joined: 3 years ago

Re: Curious & Difficult Bible Sayings

#17 Post by Stranger » 1 year ago

Bobcat wrote:
1 year ago
In John 18:31-32 the Jews tell Pilate that, "We cannot legally put anyone to death." Why did the Jews say this when the Mosaic Law had stipulations within it for capital punishment?


A couple of scriptures I came across that may be related to the legality of putting people to death by the Jews. (2Sam 23:3) & (2Chr 19:6)



Stranger, (Ec 5:8)

Bobcat
Posts: 3809
Joined: 7 years ago

Re: Curious & Difficult Bible Sayings - John 18:31-32

#18 Post by Bobcat » 1 year ago

Hi Stranger,

I put in a link to the Josephus reference in my post just above. There were also some interesting thoughts in the Constable reference. Things one might not pick up just from reading the passage in Jn 18:31-32.


Bobcat

Return to Index

User avatar
coccus ilicis
Posts: 767
Joined: 4 years ago

Re: Curious & Difficult Bible Sayings

#19 Post by coccus ilicis » 1 year ago

Bobcat wrote:
1 year ago
In John 18:31-32 the Jews tell Pilate that, "We cannot legally put anyone to death." Why did the Jews say this when the Mosaic Law had stipulations within it for capital punishment?

The NET Bible has a footnote (# 90) about this (here):
tn Grk “It is not permitted to us to kill anyone.”

sn The historical background behind the statement We cannot legally put anyone to death is difficult to reconstruct. Scholars are divided over whether this statement in the Fourth Gospel accurately reflects the judicial situation between the Jewish authorities and the Romans in 1st century Palestine. It appears that the Roman governor may have given the Jews the power of capital punishment for specific offenses, some of them religious (the death penalty for Gentiles caught trespassing in the inner courts of the temple, for example). It is also pointed out that the Jewish authorities did carry out a number of executions, some of them specifically pertaining to Christians (Stephen, according to Acts 7:58-60; and James the Just, who was stoned in the 60s according to Josephus, Ant. 20.9.1 [20.200]). But Stephen’s death may be explained as a result of “mob violence” rather than a formal execution, and as Josephus in the above account goes on to point out, James was executed in the period between two Roman governors, and the high priest at the time was subsequently punished for the action. Two studies by A. N. Sherwin-White (Roman Society and Roman Law in the New Testament, 1-47; and “The Trial of Christ,” Historicity and Chronology in the New Testament [SPCKTC], 97-116) have tended to support the accuracy of John’s account. He concluded that the Romans kept very close control of the death penalty for fear that in the hands of rebellious locals such power could be used to eliminate factions favorable or useful to Rome. A province as troublesome as Judea would not have been likely to be made an exception to this.

Constable's Notes, commenting on Jn 18:31-32, says:
Jn 18:31 Since the Jews did not charge Jesus formally there was nothing that Pilate could do except hand Him back to them for discipline in their courts. The Jews’ response explained why that was an unacceptable alternative. They wanted Jesus executed, but they did not have the authority to execute Him themselves.
“The Pilate disclosed in the [ancient] historical documents almost certainly acted like this not so much out of any passion for justice as out of the ego-building satisfaction he gained from making the Jewish authorities jump through legal hoops and recognize his authority."
Jn 18:32 John noted that the Jews’ admission that they could not put anyone to death was in harmony with the sovereign plan of God. Jesus had predicted that He would die by crucifixion, not by stoning (cf. Jn 12:32-33). The Romans were the only ones who could condemn a person to death by crucifixion. The Jews did stone people to death for blasphemy (e.g., Acts 6:11; 7:58), but these seem to have been instances of mob violence rather than independent legal action. They probably wanted Jesus crucified too because the Mosaic Law regarded such a death as proof of God’s curse (Deut. 21:22-23).
“Ironically, the death that the Jewish hierarchy regarded as a final negation of Jesus’ claims became the means of justification apart from the law (Gal 3:13).”
“It was necessary for three reasons for Jesus to be crucified by the Romans at the instigation of the Jews: (a) to fulfill prophecies (e.g., that none of His bones be broken; cf. Jn 19:36-37); (b) to include both Jews and Gentiles in the collective guilt for the deed (cf. Acts 2:23; 4:27); (c) by crucifixion, Jesus was ‘lifted up’ like ‘the snake in the desert’ [Jn 3:14] . . .”

Bobcat

Return to Index
Hello Bobcat,

The word kola as used by the writer of Heb 3:17 #2966 occurs in the LXX at Lev 26:30; Nm 14:29,32,33; 1Sam 17:46; Is 66:24; Heb 3:17. You can download the LXX Apostolic lexical concordance as a pdf file for a few dollars here: https://apostolicbible.com/text.htm and you can access the Apostolic Bible Polyglot free at biblehub. When you click on the language header, in the drop-down list you will see Greek Apostolic Bible you can then click the drop-down list for books and chapters https://biblehub.com/interlinear/aposto ... iah/66.htm Once you have found the word in the lexical concordance, you can then check the listed verses in the LXX, it is also advisable to check them in the Hebrew interlinear, as the LXX is not always consistent in its rendering of Hebrew words. Then you will start to get close to what was said and meant by the original terms.

I am not disputing that the early church believed Jesus was the Christ, NT writers confirmed it by their teaching even as Luke's ... where the body is there the eagles will be gathered together. Lu 17:37 But I also believe that they had no idea what Jesus was talking about when he said ...For false christs and false prophets will arise ...Look I have forewarned you...Therefore when people say to you, 'Look he is in the wilderness, do not go out ... wherever the carcass it there the vultures will be gathered togetherMt 24:25-28

Your find of Deut. 21:22-23 is a good find. It describes the penalty for incorrigible delinquency and goes on to say that he must be pelted with stones ...And in case there comes to be in a man a sin deserving the sentence of death, and he has been put to death, and you have hung him on a tree his body should not remain all night on a stake... What I understand from this is that he is killed by stoning, hung on a tree but should be taken down and be buried before nightfall. I see no conflict here.

What is written at Jhn 3:14,15 appear to be the narrator's words. Jesus had finished his conversation with Nicodemus which took place shortly after his baptism. The narrative then changes from first to third-person ... Just as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness so the son of man is lifted up, that everyone believing in him may have everlasting life... At that point in time, Jesus had not revealed that he would die nor had his future death been linked to scripture (Lu 24:45). He first spoke of it much later after he had charged his disciples not to call him Christ Mt 16:20,21 ...From that time forward Jesus commenced showing his disciples he must go to Jerusalem and suffer many things from the older men and priest and scribes and be killed...

If they had fully understood his words at Mt 24:28 they would not have applied to the term Christian to themselves nor would they have referred to him as Christ. But they hadn't understood, if they had they would have celebrated his resurrection rather than commemorated his shameful death with a cadaver hung on a stake.

I repeat, Jesus either said ...where the carcass is there the vultures will be gathered together... Mt24:28 or he said where the body is there the eagles will be gathered together...Lu 17:37. Mark omits the comment entirely.

Which was it? Interestingly God says concerning the eagle/vulture ...and its young ones themselves keep sipping up blood; And where the slain are, there it is...Job 39:30 slain/ones = dying in the LXX

As you can see I am trying to encourage you to do your own research and to think for yourself rather than repeating what the teachers say. One ought to remember that these teachers were also at one time students swallowing every word their teacher uttered. Individuals from among them came to be the dux of the class - the valedictorians, who in their turn were then put on pedestals by men. This is the Egyptian/Greek method (Rev 11:8) which is not from God (see, post#123 viewtopic.php?f=2&t=5354&start=120 )

Love
LRW~

Bobcat
Posts: 3809
Joined: 7 years ago

Re: Curious & Difficult Bible Sayings

#20 Post by Bobcat » 1 year ago

Hi CI

On the Use of Soma and Ptoma in Lu 17:37 & Mt 24:28:
I repeat, Jesus either said ...where the carcass is there the vultures will be gathered together... Mt24:28 or he said where the body is there the eagles will be gathered together...Lu 17:37. Mark omits the comment entirely.
[Bolding and underlining are Bobcat's.]

I'm afraid I have to disagree with you on this. The account in Luke 17 happened a few weeks to a few months prior to the Olivet Discourse. (Compare Luke 17:11; 18:31 with Mt 24:1; Mk 13:3) That is to say, the discussion in Lu 17 took place after the festival of dedication in December of 32 CE, but before Nisan 11 (March/April), 33 CE when the Olivet Discourse was given.

Thus, that time difference allows for the possibility that Jesus could have said both sayings (i.e. Lu 17:37 & Mt 24:28), using both soma and ptoma. That is one possibility. The time difference between both accounts (Lu 17 & Mt 24) allows for this possibility. And since, timewise, ptoma comes after soma in the two verses, ptoma (the more specific term in Mt 24:28) would be explanatory of soma (the broader term in Lu 17:37).

Why might Jesus do this? One possibility is that he was intentionally being vague in Luke 17, knowing that he would explain it more fully in the Olivet Discourse. As I posted here, Jesus was also vague in Luke 17 about where the destruction and fleeing would be. And as Mt 24:1-3 shows, the idea that the Temple and Jerusalem would be destroyed was a stunning revelation to the disciples. Maybe Jesus was giving them a little information in Luke 17 to let them mull over before 'dropping the hammer' so-to-speak in Mt 24. In that regard, soma in Lu 17:37 would be the milder and more ambiguous term for body (dead or alive) than the blunter and more definite term ptoma (or carcass/corpse) in Mt 24:28. All this is a possible example of "food at the proper time." The Master does as he expects his servants to do. (Mt 24:45, 46; Lu 12:42)

Another possibility is that Matthew used ptoma when translating from an original Hebrew or Aramaic, or to help make sure that his readers understood what Jesus meant, especially since his original readers are thought to have been Jewish Christians who would have to experience much of what Jesus foretold at Mt 24. If so, Matthew's use of ptoma in Mt 24:28 would have also been an example of "food at the proper time." (Mt 24:45) It would have explained more precisely what Jesus meant when he said what he did at Lu 17:37.

And yet another possibility is Luke using soma in place of ptoma for his original audience (which I mentioned in this post a paragraph or so before my user name). Lu 17:37 & Mt 24:28 don't have to be an either-or type of thing as you are suggesting. Mt 24:28 can just as well be explanatory of Lu 17:37.

But regardless of those possibilities, I hold that both Lu 17:37 and Mt 24:28 mean the same thing (as I posted in this post). And I hold that both Lu 17:37 & Mt 24:28 are inspired.


Regarding These Other Ideas:
I am not disputing that the early church believed Jesus was the Christ, NT writers confirmed it . . .
If they had fully understood his words at Mt 24:28 they would not have applied to the term Christian to themselves nor would they have referred to him as Christ. But they hadn't understood, if they had they would have celebrated his resurrection rather than commemorated his shameful death with a cadaver hung on a stake.
I don't understand where you are getting this from. How could you possibly know that they didn't understand? This is merely an assertion of yours, based on your own personal ideas and interpretation. In contrast, Jesus promised them that the Spirit he was sending would call back to their minds all that he said and lead them into all the truth. (Jn 14:26; 16:7, 13, 14) So basically, your assertion (1) denies the truthfulness of what Jesus promised, and (2) calls into question the inspiration of what NT writers wrote, and (3) arguably fits the description of the antichrists that John described in 1Jn 2:18; 4:2, 3. (Also see here.)

CI, your ideas are leading you into territory that will end up with you divinely condemned. (Jas 3:1) You should really reconsider your thinking. Perhaps it is your analysis that is mistaken, and not the understanding of the early church. And it wouldn't be the first time for any of us to have mistaken ideas.


On the Use of Commentaries:

On making use of other references, or not, you do as you see fit. IMO, your 'going it alone' (so-to-speak) shows up in many of the 'unique' conclusions that you are reaching. But like I said that is my fallible opinion.

For me, I don't necessarily agree with everything commentaries posit, but they do provide a "multitude of counselors" balancing effect when coming up against strange or unique ideas. (Pr 11:14) And I have noticed over the last few years on this forum, that the only ones who complain about my use of commentaries and such are the ones who put forth these strange and unique ideas. No doubt, this is also why the WT leads its readership away from these commentaries. They can't risk having one of "Christendom's commentaries" to logically refute WT's questionable teachings. Yes, these commentaries, although admittedly, less than perfect, they do provide a great balancing service and help prevent this forum from being overrun with questionable ideas and teachings. Or at the least, they provide an alternate way of seeing things. A sort-of form of checks and balances that the US constitution was supposed to provide for government.

I am thinking about the references you linked to, but I already have numerous lexical aids, including for the LXX. At any rate, thank you for the heads-up on that. The price is certainly right! And I may avail myself of them.

Sorry about some of the directness of the above. But I see some of your ideas as being very dangerous to the Christian faith. And I worry about others on this forum and how visitors to the forum might classify the whole forum as an apostasy from Christianity. And having said that I can appreciate a little better where John S is coming from in some of his posts where he worries about the forum.


Bobcat

Return to Index

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 13 guests