Religion Biblical Texts: Explication and Discussion

Thessalonians 1

3:1~18--The opening 'we' subject form identifies Paul, but gives group adherence. It is later reduced to 'I' in verse 5, but the tone is clear; Paul is the mover and the troupe his 'body', so to speak. Verse 6 allows us to see that some rather large period of time has elapsed. In verse 11 there is an expression of hope to be able to travel to Thessalonica again.

Emphasis is put on 'our god' in several instances and can be said to have double usage--the implication being an insinuation of higher office by Paul and the 'Jewish' tradition, as well as the desire to include the audience.

4:1,2,9,10,17,18--These verses all deal directly with the comtemporary audience. It is important to note that in verses 16~18 the pronoun 'we' would have most reasonably included both Paul's troupe and those of the direct and immediate audience. The context and situation of the surrounding communication do not allow much room at all for this being a universal & timeless consideration. Most obviously, Paul had been teaching them about what he thought would happen in their time.

5:1~11, 14, 25~28--These are all communicated to the direct and immediate audience, thus are locked in history. It is important to take note of the usage, in verse 3, of the third person plural. This would have to have been non-Christian, and could likely have been pointing towards the Jewish temple system in Paul's mind--who knows.

Although there are a number of commands, they are actually all as historically fixed as that of verse 25--just harder to grasp today if one doesn't keep the 'letter from a first century human to another first century human' in mind.

In summery, it can be said that this letter reflects the least degree of universal & timeless principle from among the epistles--regardless of degree of authenticity. This instrument was 'alive' at the time of being written. It does not offer a view of nor the understanding of a human society's reading it some 1,949 years down the road.

We can pull parts of it from the historical setting in which the reason for its having been written, and for what it did include, and apply them for general settings in our lives' circumstances, yet that does not make the original intention for what had been written, any less fixed by historical constrants than does the fact that the letter was caused by historical facts that are no longer in existence.

There is no reason, therefore, to conclude that the instrument is of anything more than human origin, regardless of whatever esthetic value it may be said to have.
 
Ephesians

I have found this document to be the opposite of that of Thessalonians, and thus would like to look at it next, for contrast and comparison. This document is generally understood to have been written perhaps in 60 or 61--at any rate, very conceivably before the any narrative tradition had been compiled in writing.

The document is clearly a letter, from one Paul to a group of Christians in Ephesus, in Greece.
1:12,13,15
3:1,4,13,16
4:1,17,20,25,
6:18~23

In this letter there are some points which one should take careful note of. One is the evidence that the letter may well have been written while Paul had been imprisoned. (6:20) The occurance of the first person plural pronoun instead of first person singular, is less than in Thessalonians and the Corinthian letters.

The opening run from verse three of chapter one, is an introduction of Paul and his troupe's activity and office, as well as to that of the elders in Judea and the Jewish base. (1:3~12) It is important to bear in mind that the first person plural used here is done so in contrast to the audience. (vss 3~12 opp. verse 13,15~18, etc.) While it could be seen as having double intention, the primary force is writer against recipient.

Verse 1:10 should be carefully considered. It is locked in the historical setting that the context demands, and again agrees with Pauline theology's idea of the eminent parousia--presence or second coming. (the Greek word bears out a being at the door, or being before one of high office--at anyrate, being present.)

Verse 1:15 implies that Paul had not yet met these people. 2:11,12 show that this letter was to a non-Jewish group. The term 'prophets' in verse 2:20 is clearly referring to first century Christian prophets (see 4:11) Verse 2:17 is very interesting, and one that is lost to understanding; that is we cannot know the intent in the writer's mind, other than to say 'the church'. (which in this case would again be Paul's troupe, formost.)

Up to this point, in this letter, it is seen that the directive had been to those living in Ephesus at that time, and to that extent, all intention is locked in time. One can take some universal and timeless principle from a number of spots, but the original intention in having written them cannot be shown to have been so. The latter portion of the letter is different though. . .
to be continued. . .
 
Last edited:
Ephesians

4:1~3 records how Paul desires those of the Ephesian congregation to act, in accordance with his teaching. Verse 6 could be said to have a ring of Gnosticism in that "God. . .is in all." although this term could be seen as being like saying, 'in relationship with'. The running argument from 4:7~16 would most likely be using first person plural in the sense of 'all Christians called' except at verses 8~12--notice how verse twelve demands positions over other Christians. Verse 8 is an interpolation of Psalm 67:19 (LXX) [68:19 MS] evidencing a possible urge to bend texts for application.

Chapter five, without doubt had been directed to that direct and immediate audience, but can be seen as having universal principle, along with general Pauline theology. Chapter six has much of the same.

The degree of universality and timelessness is far greater in this letter than that of Thessalonians, yet the intent to covey that information to a contemporary audience is clear enough. It is obvious enough that there had been direct and historical cause and reason behind the writing.
 
Ruach, Nephesh, Pnenuma, and Psykhe

I will put the running explication and observation on the letters contained in the NT canon on the side for just a while to expound on the above terms, as discussion of them have come up in another thread.

The very first appearance of the word nephesh (as the better recension goes) is at Gen. 1:20, where it defines the living entities in the waters. The more famous usage is at Gen. 2:7, where we find: wa`ikhay ha`adam li`nephesh khaiyah--and became, the man (of dust) into (a) nephesh living. As can be seen at Lev. 21:11, nephesh meth is the opposite of nephesh khaiyah.

nephesh applied to animals and mankind

descriptive: Gen 1:20,21, 24, 30; 2:7, 19; 9:10~16; Lev 11:10, 46; 42:18; Eze 47:9; Prov 12:10 (plural for 'life' as a nephesh), etc.

descriptive of non-living state: Lev 19:28; 21:1; 22:4; Num 5:2; 6:6; 19:11, 13; Hag 2:13

death of: Gen 19:19, 20; Num 23:10; Josh 2:13,14; 11:11; Judg 5:18; 16:16, 30; 1 Kings 20:31, 32; Pslm 22:29; Eze 18:4, 20; being 'cut off from the people' and 'destroyed' Gen 17:14; Ex 12:15; Lev 7:20; 23:29; Josh 10:28~39; Job 7:15; Pslm 78:50; Eze 13:19; 22:27; 33:6.

The properties of the nephesh had been construed as follows:

It eats (Lev 7:18, 20, 25 etc.; Deut 12:15; 23:24; Pslm 19:15; 27:7; etc.) and it is made fat (Pr 11:25) and it fasts (Pslm 35:13). It can touch 'unclean' things (Lev 5:2; 7:21; 17:15; Num 19:13; etc.) and works (Lev 23:30) and can be refreshed (Prov 25:25) among some other things, that which should be more carefully paid attention to being that it can be subjected to death and destruction. (see above)

This nephesh, then, had most evidently been understood as a term for the very being--human and animal--inclusive of physical activeness, desires, abilities and personality. The term, by extension, is applied to the 'life that such enjoy'--animate life as a creature, not as an abstract, universal principle. A living human or animal--even in the womb (Ex 21:22, 23)--is a living nephesh and a dead human or animal is a dead or deceased nephesh which turns to dust--so to speak.

The question then arises: 'What is it that makes the difference, or causes us to be able to distinguish a difference in essence between a living nephesh and a dead nephesh? That will come next.
 
Ruach, Nephesh, Pnuma (this may be the better transliteration) and Psykhe

Now, the question that would come up next, would be one regarding what the older Jewish writings portray--what most likely had been in their minds--and, by extension that of the first century Christian writers too.

Going back to Gen 2:7, we can get a hint: mah'we-yipakh be'apayoo nishemath khaym--blow(blew) into nostrils breath (of) life/living.

This is saying that nishemath khaym was blown into the nephesh after which the latter became alive. Gen 6:17 gives us: kal basar eisher-bo ruach khaym--all flesh which in ruach of life/living (is). Then Gen 7:22 puts it all in one together in: kal eisher nishemath-rauch khaym be'apayoo--all which breath (of) ruach (of) life/living in nostrils (is).

It can be determined that the Hebrew word for 'breath' (nishemath) and ruach go hand in hand while perhaps being of a slightly different essence. the two, as a group, are contrasted in Job 27:3 as being active in the living as opposed to those not living in verse 5, of that chapter. (also see Job 34:14,15; Pslms 104:29; Isa 42:5)

To make it a little concise, it can all be summed up as saying that the difference between a living and non-living nephesh is ruach--the nishemath ~ khaym being observable attachments due to ruach. Also, this applies to all animals including humans. The term is also used for wind, a person's spirit (as in personality drive or seat of emotion), symbol of life, energy of life, and for YHWH and messengers from heaven (fallen or not)

I will do a little more on this next--basically to make an analogy and sum up how the Christian Greek writings basically uphold the very same understanding.
 
Noticing this morning that these threads may be locked for a while during this week, I thought I'd go ahead and finish up this line of thought--although I had planned to post it more slowly.

Ruach, Nephesh, Pnuma, and Psykhe

In the LXX the Greek word psykhon (a form of psykhe) is assigned to nephesh and zoson is assigned to khaya at Gen 1:20. At Gen 2:7 pnoe is blown into the nostrils creating a psykhen zosan. The word pnoe equals the Hebrew nishemath at Gen 2:7 and 6:17, whereas at some other places the term pnuma zoes can be found--the Greek pnuma is otherwise assigned to the Hebrew ruach.

While being cautious not to allow the meaning the words psykhe and pnuma carried in the earlier Greek classics and mythologies to slip in, we should let the context in the Hebrew writings themselves define the referents for those words. In doing so, it is seen that as nephesh is to scriptural definition, psykhe is, and as ruach is, pnuma is.

Of the examples in the writings by the first century Christian leaders, we find the following: 1 Co 15:45, 47; Matt 6:25; 11:29; 26:38; Mk 14:34; Lk 12:19; Jn 12:27; Acts 4:32; 20:24; Phil 2:19 (eupsykho [happy soul] is often translated 'be of good courage' here; the latin is have pia anima) etc.

One which I'll point out here, to highlight it, is James 2:26--to soma khoris pnumatos nekhron estin--the body without pnuma dead is. The analogy being drawn by that writer allows us to see the concept well by suggesting that as much as it is true that activity is an involvement, component, or natural ingredient of 'faith', pnuma is an involvement, component, or natural ingredient of 'life'--in other words, without it, one does not have life. This way of seeing it matches the older Hebrew way.

Wow, I am making this concise, but still....wow...one more post to make reading easier...sorry....
 
Hopefully the last of this continuing run. . .

In summing up, and providing an analogy, the evidence authoritatively bears out that in especially pre-exilic Jewish thought, and to a near equal degree the Christian writings of the first century, the nephesh is our very being in completeness, it is us; we are nephesh, psykhe, anima, or in English, 'souls'.

We have (not nephesh --we are nephesh) ruach, pnuma, spiritus, or in English, 'spirit'. Now, they did percieve that ruach as having been from YHWH, and returning to YHWH at death, but the thought is not expounded on so much. (Ecc 12:7)

Then we can develop the following corollary:

As flesh is related to or used in reference to body, body is, to the same degree, related to or used in reference to soul. Because, as simple flesh is of narrower definition than body, simple body is of narrower definition than soul.
Flesh is the component, the part of body distinguishable from, yet inseparable from, body. Body is the component, the part of soul distinguishable from, yet inseparable from, soul. This is true in that soul is the total sum, characteristic, personality and matter of the living, breathing, animated entity.

Soul is inseparable from body in definition just as body is the sum of flesh. Soul is distinguishable in definition from body just as body is more, in definition, than simple flesh--in the sense of meat.

By illustration, if we were to term metal, plastic, glass, fiberglass, and rubber as flesh, then it would be easy to comprehend how the body (in whole thus including the mechanics) of a car is the total sum of flesh, yet the flesh in itself can be defined separately from body.

In as much as the car has definite qualities and performance characteristics in its operative systems and mechanics, it has soul--and again this term lends itself to defining the entirity of flesh and body (the whole car) and yet can be distinguished from simply the metal and other things that went into making the body (in whole) of the car.

Thus the idea of the 'complex car' is broader in definition than, yet inclusive of, the 'car body' which in turn, is broader in definition than, yet inclusive of, the 'car body's metal, glass, plastic, and so on.'

Spirit is the principle of life.

I hope this was clear enough in explaining the concept held by those through their writings' context. The common view among those of mainstream Christianity can be said to have been heavily influence by Augustine (354-430) who in his 'Confessions' related how the "Platonists" had prepared his way to Christianity. (VIII, 9, 13-14) The pool from which this thought may have come seems to be tracable to Zend-Avesta (Zoroastrianism)--of which Plato seems to have been a fan-- and has influence almost all religious thought in one way or another, sooner or later.
 
Thessalonians 2

Like the first letter that had been written to those first century Christians in Thessalonica, this one too was an early Christian document and one which reflects well Pauline theology.

Again, this writing greatly lacks in universality and timelessness, and clearly addresses an immediate and direct audience--one of that day, of course.

1:1,2; 2:1,2,13,15; 3:1~8,13~18
All the above verses clearly show that the document had been a correspondence from Paul and his troupe to those Christians in Thessalonica.
The 'addressors' of this letter are set out in verse 1:1, and are kept as 'we' throughout the letter. The addressees are set out in second person plural. This can be clearly seen at 1:3,4a,10c; 2:1,2,13~12; 3:13,14.

Causes given for writing to them can be seen in the encouragement to persevere (1:3~5; 2:13~17), in the warning not to hastily anticipate the presence (or second coming of the Christ [as had most likely been encouraged by the earlier letter--1 Thessalonians 4:13~5:6, 23] (2:1~5,7), in the admonishment to beware of oral or written statements from others than Paul and his troupe (2:2,5,14a,15b; 3:6b,14a), and in the response to information from that group in Thessalonica (3:6a,11)
From carefully looking over the letter in light of its context and the historical setting in which it had been written, it is clear enough that the reason and wishes in writing it are locked in history.

It is important to grasp how the concept of the presence had been dealt with after the other letter had been sent and time had passed. Paul still makes it an event to happen in his day, without mistake--as also does the writer of the John letters and compiler of Matthew (especially, but the other two synoptics also) but had put restraint on jumping to conclusions that it would have been that year, or decade. (this was still mid first century) Here the element of the teaching of the great apostasy's being developed or borrowed (from the Hebrew writings) can be seen.

The concept expressed in the latter portion of chapter 3 is of course a universal and timeless one, and is one that can apply to all peoples throughout the passage of time. Those things which are locked in time can at times do so too, though only through a copying method--not because the writer had foreseen the usage of them by audiences beyond that immediate and direct audience in Paul's mind, as evidence by the individual letter and by the bulk of the letters.

I have often pondered, and am sure others have too, how much clearer this historical factor would have been seen if correspondences from those congregations to Paul and his troupe had been preserved also--rather than just the one way flow we have now.
 
I have decided to use this thread for the accumulation of evidence that I am presently using for discussion on the 'Christianity joined with Astrology' thread--an effort to get two for the price of one. (and I worded it that way specifically out of consideration for SVF, rather than the usual 'two stones'.)

2 Thessalonians

In 1:7,8,10; 2:8 Jeshua had been tied to the present historical setting, at the time of writing, through the concept of the parousia.

In this letter, like the first one, most of what had been sent to them is locked in time and lacks universality. The contextual block running from chapter three, verses six through twelve can be applied in a timeless and universal manner, but it is without doubt that a development at that point in time, among those Christians who lived in Thessalonica, was the cause for that section. For that reason, the concern in the mind of the writer had most surely been with the then and there.
 
Small fragment:
" The body does not arise without soul is a receptacle of it. Soul - a feedback. Spirit - " given birth by soul in a body "... If "soul" gives birth from a body - to that it " spirit of flesh "... If "soul" gives birth from "primary" - to that it " spirit for primary "... " (further I shall not describe all, I shall stop only on the following)... Soul - only a receptacle for history life of body...
 
Romans

The document entitled 'towards the Romans' shows itself to be a letter from one Paul (and his troupe) to those in a congregation in the area of Rome--the capitol of the empire.

1:1~7--Paul introduces himself at some length in this introduction; and is already very kerygmatic. The introduction is definitely foreshadowing what is to come in the body of the letter--Paul's interpretation and viewpoint of how Jewish religious writings (LXX esp.) uphold his Christian doctrine. [notice the editorial usage of 'we' at verse 5]

At verses 11~15 of this first chapter, we can conclude that more likely the author had not personally been to visit those there in that congregation. As can be seen in other letters from Paul, he had had contact with those Christians through some in his troupe who were working as 'ambassadors' so to speak. (cf. 1 Cor 1:11; 4:17; 16:10,11; Eph 6:21,22; Phil 2:19, 25 etc.)

11:13; 12:1; 15:14,15,12~24,30,33; and 16:1~23 all support this understanding as well. Note that the letter had most likely been dictated (16:22) as compared to the few which most likely had been written by Paul himself. (Gal 6:11; Phil 19) [the second half of chapter 16 evidences a likely mix up of a leaf from a different letter by a copyist.]
​

In the following post, I will present evidences for the locked-in-time element of the letter and the universal-and-timeless-principles part of it.
 
P.S. Other fragment:
All in the universe stays in "movement" agrees to " uniform development " only... If to correlate " movement of stars " and human life according to "properties" fixed for that or other " a heavenly body " - that " this law " it will be traced...
...........................................................................................
But the God - the Master of " the latent forces " - has his the movement... And only for Him known "Future"...
... " The God has seen, that it well and has made so "...(Bible)
... Will see - that we careless and ... and the time can and to finish ...
:blush:
Other site where my page while works without problems:
www.prizmatic1.velion.org in 1-2 weeks there will appear new photos.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

This thread has been viewed 6561 times.

Back
Top