Quote:
Originally Posted by mfblume
I am just going by what the Greek scholars said on the issue. And anyone can also see that the same terms used in 1 Cor 2 and 1 Cor 10 do not mean the term PNEUMATIKOS cannot refer to something physical. |
I'm not sure what you mean here and why you are referring to Chap. 10.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mfblume
I already noted that Albert Barnes related this information concerning 1 Cor 2:14: |
I would just say that Albert Barnes is by no means a recent scholar. Our knowledge of Greek grammar has really advanced quite a bit since his time. I’m not sure you can refer to “Greek scholars” and quote men who died in 1870 and 1934 respectively. Also he is talking about
1 Cor 2 here, not
1 Cor 15. They are different. You still haven’t told me where to find this information about
1 Cor 15 backed up by ikos and inos suffixes. You haven’t even given me a reference for ikos and inos at all.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mfblume
The noun is BODY..
|
Not in verse 44 which is what I am refering to. The subject is an adjective. The spiritual vs the natural.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mfblume
Not when he uses the term spiritual. the thing is present, though, but it is the body. So the adjective pneumatikos is used in relation to the noun BODY.
|
But you still have an adjective describing the noun body. In other words a spiritual body. I'm not convinced you can say this means a spiritually empowered flesh body rather than a description of the body itself.