Announcement

Collapse

Biblical Languages 301 Guidelines

This is where we come to delve into the biblical text. Theology is not our foremost thought, but we realize it is something that will be dealt with in nearly every conversation. Feel free to use the original languages to make your point (meaning Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic). This is an exegetical discussion area, so please limit topics to purely biblical ones.

This is not the section for debates between theists and atheists. While a theistic viewpoint is not required for discussion in this area, discussion does presuppose a respect for the integrity of the Biblical text (or the willingness to accept such a presupposition for discussion purposes) and a respect for the integrity of the faith of others and a lack of an agenda to undermine the faith of others.

Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

Who is Jesus? (not a theological question)

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    The write-up here is reasonably comprehensive: though all the "as ifs" are an annoyance, the Biblical assessment itself is good.
    sigpic1 Cor 15:34 εκνηψατε δικαιως και μη αμαρτανετε αγνωσιαν γαρ θεου τινες εχουσιν προς εντροπην υμιν λεγω

    Comment


    • #17
      Relative to the first of the two passages [hinted at in my opening], we're considering in this thread -- here's a fraction of D.A. Carson's commentary, for the gospel according to John (The Pillar New Testament Commentary) :

      '...., although the interpretation of v. 28 advanced here turns on the distinction between the Father in his glory and the Son in his incarnation, nevertheless the verse also attests to the pattern of functional subordination of the Son to the Father, already alluded to, that extends backward into eternity past (cf. Barrett, Essays, pp. 19-36; Carson, pp. 146-160). 'The Father is fons divinitatis ["divine fountainhead"] in which the being of the Son has its source; the Father is God sending and commanding, the Son is God sent and obedient. John's thought here is focused on the humiliation of the Son in his early life, a humiliation which now, in his death, reached both its climax and its end' (Barrett, p. 468).
      Last edited by Catman; 08-08-2014, 06:42 AM.

      Comment


      • #18
        You're saying that the Father and the Son are not co-equal?
        sigpic1 Cor 15:34 εκνηψατε δικαιως και μη αμαρτανετε αγνωσιαν γαρ θεου τινες εχουσιν προς εντροπην υμιν λεγω

        Comment


        • #19
          Is there really a question about biblical languages here? If not I will leave you all in peace.
          βλέπομεν γὰρ ἄρτι δι᾿ ἐσόπτρου ἐν αἰνίγματι, τότε δὲ πρόσωπον πρὸς πρόσωπον·
          ἄρτι γινώσκω ἐκ μέρους, τότε δὲ ἐπιγνώσομαι καθὼς καὶ ἐπεγνώσθην.

          אָכֵ֕ן אַתָּ֖ה אֵ֣ל מִסְתַּתֵּ֑ר אֱלֹהֵ֥י יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל מוֹשִֽׁיעַ׃

          Comment


          • #20
            While I've got time, here's a look at Bruce Winter's commentary for the 2nd and final passage ( 1 Corinthians 15:24 ) ref. New Bible Commentary. He's short 'n sweet 'n to the point, but one needs to read right up to v. 28.

            Here's the English Standard Version, for it:

            24 Then comes the end, when he delivers the kingdom to God the Father after destroying every rule and every authority and power.25 For he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet. 26 The last enemy to be destroyed is death. 27 For “God[c] has put all things in subjection under his feet.” But when it says, “all things are put in subjection,” it is plain that he is excepted who put all things in subjection under him. 28 When all things are subjected to him, then the Son himself will also be subjected to him who put all things in subjection under him, that God may be all in all.
            Here's a sample of what Bruce Winter wrote:

            24. Then comes the end, the last event in this cosmic history, when Christ delivers into the hands of the Father the kingdom, having subdued all.

            25. He will reign as sovereign Lord of heaven and earth until all is subject to him.

            27. Paul explains by citing the messianic Ps. 8:6 ['....You have given him dominion over the works of your hands;
            you have put all things under his feet,....'] which points to the sub-judication* of all. He expounds the passage by dwelling on the significance of everything. That naturally does not include God himself who puts everything under Christ's feet.

            28. When this is finally accomplished, Christ will bow the knee to God the Father so that God will be all in all. In so short a passage Paul has traced paradise lost and regained, and the recovery of the submission of all things to God as in the beginning of creation. And it is Christ's resurrection which that guarantees this.'
            ( *I'm not exactly sure here, if this is a typo -- and should instead be subjugation, or perhaps another word )

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by robrecht View Post
              Is there really a question about biblical languages here? If not I will leave you all in peace.
              I think it is. Why do you think otherwise?

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by Catman View Post
                I think it is. Why do you think otherwise?
                What is the question? None of the translations I've seen here so far seem problematic, but maybe I haven't been paying attention.
                βλέπομεν γὰρ ἄρτι δι᾿ ἐσόπτρου ἐν αἰνίγματι, τότε δὲ πρόσωπον πρὸς πρόσωπον·
                ἄρτι γινώσκω ἐκ μέρους, τότε δὲ ἐπιγνώσομαι καθὼς καὶ ἐπεγνώσθην.

                אָכֵ֕ן אַתָּ֖ה אֵ֣ל מִסְתַּתֵּ֑ר אֱלֹהֵ֥י יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל מוֹשִֽׁיעַ׃

                Comment


                • #23
                  One last little toot for the road, by my favorite writer:

                  Passage 1: John 14:28 (I'm quoting 22-31)


                  22 Judas (not Iscariot) said, “Master, why is it that you are about to make yourself plain to us but not to the world?”



                  23-24 “Because a loveless world,” said Jesus, “is a sightless world. If anyone loves me, he will carefully keep my word and my Father will love him—we’ll move right into the neighborhood! Not loving me means not keeping my words. The message you are hearing isn’t mine. It’s the message of the Father who sent me.



                  25-27 “I’m telling you these things while I’m still living with you. The Friend, the Holy Spirit whom the Father will send at my request, will make everything plain to you. He will remind you of all the things I have told you. I’m leaving you well and whole. That’s my parting gift to you. Peace. I don’t leave you the way you’re used to being left—feeling abandoned, bereft. So don’t be upset. Don’t be distraught.



                  28 “You’ve heard me tell you, ‘I’m going away, and I’m coming back.’ If you loved me, you would be glad that I’m on my way to the Father because the Father is the goal and purpose of my life.



                  29-31 “I’ve told you this ahead of time, before it happens, so that when it does happen, the confirmation will deepen your belief in me. I’ll not be talking with you much more like this because the chief of this godless world is about to attack. But don’t worry—he has nothing on me, no claim on me. But so the world might know how thoroughly I love the Father, I am carrying out my Father’s instructions right down to the last detail.
                  “Get up. Let’s go. It’s time to leave here.”



                  Passage 2: 1 Corinthians 15:24 (I'm quoting 21-28)

                  There is a nice symmetry in this: Death initially came by a man, and resurrection from death came by a man. Everybody dies in Adam; everybody comes alive in Christ. But we have to wait our turn: Christ is first, then those with him at his Coming, the grand consummation when, after crushing the opposition, he hands over his kingdom to God the Father. He won’t let up until the last enemy is down—and the very last enemy is death! As the psalmist said, “He laid them low, one and all; he walked all over them.” When Scripture says that “he walked all over them,” it’s obvious that he couldn’t at the same time be walked on. When everything and everyone is finally under God’s rule, the Son will step down, taking his place with everyone else, showing that God’s rule is absolutely comprehensive—a perfect ending!


                  These quotes are from The Message by Prof. Peterson.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by tabibito View Post
                    You're saying that the Father and the Son are not co-equal?
                    What exactly is if from my posts in #17 and #20, that gives you such an idea?
                    Please be specific, and quote [from] the sections of commentary I've provided -- by Carson, and now by Winter?
                    Last edited by Catman; 08-08-2014, 07:45 AM. Reason: missing word

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by robrecht View Post
                      What is the question? None of the translations I've seen here so far seem problematic, but maybe I haven't been paying attention.
                      You're not new to this, so I'm not going to school you. If you'd read the title & opening post (which I think is an important part of how things work here - or now days, do we just intuit stuff?), you'd notice I've asked quite a few.

                      (a) Who is Jesus?
                      (b) What did Jesus mean when he said, '....the Father is greater than I' ? ( the passage I had in mind, I've already shown in both English and Greek ) - I hope that is good enough? ( the comments which followed in my opening post, where I mention '...various folks, from various religious backgrounds....') - I can be more specific, in pointing to the a group called the 'Bible Students' (which were a branch off, or a development from the 'Jehovah's Witnesses') -- they too, like the Bible Students, hold very different views with regard to this passage. I've also engaged in discussions (unfortunately, all washed away now -- since t-web crashed) with those who never declared their particular religious position, but have some very strong arguments with regard to this particular passage.

                      My attempt here, is to explore the passage as fairly and accurately as possible, so that in case any of our readers have struggles with this sort of thing - they'd ultimately be encouraged in their faith.

                      I hope that helps to clarify my position, and provides some sort of background as to why I'm in earnest about a good translation and commentary for both the passages. (also this will help readers to understand why I asked the following related questions - in my opening post)

                      (c) So, what exactly did Jesus mean when he said this about his/our heavenly Father?
                      (d) Is there a pecking order in the heavenly realm?

                      Finally, this last question: (which I've also present in both English, Greek and provided my best shot at a commentary)

                      (e) What exactly does this mean: '....Then comes the end, when he delivers the kingdom to God the Father after destroying every rule and every authority and power. ....' (ESV) ?

                      I hope that I've done enough, motivated strongly enough and if you do have anything to add -- go for it!

                      In earnest,
                      Eric.

                      [edit: add: I think I've got a Word document of the final part to a post, where said party presented a very strong argument in favor of the pecking order idea. -- I'll see if I can find it, and bring it to the thread tomorrow sometime. ]
                      Last edited by Catman; 08-08-2014, 08:10 AM.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        I think these are all theological questions, which is fine, I am not opposed to theological questions, or objecting to their being discussed here; I just don't see a specific question pertaining to biblical languages, grammar, syntax, etc. I suppose we could look at the semantic range of 'greater' in Greek and look at the Johannine or Pauline contexts, which should be done separately.

                        μέγα^ς , μεγάλη [α^], μέγα^, gen. μεγάλου, ης, ου, dat. μεγάλῳ, ῃ, ῳ, acc. μέγα^ν, μεγάλην, μέγα^; dual μεγάλω, α, ω; pl. μεγάλοι, μεγάλαι, μεγάλα, etc.: the stem μεγάλο- is never used in sg. nom. and acc. masc. and neut., and only once in voc. masc., A.“ὦ μεγάλε Ζεῦ” A.Th. 822 (anap.).

                        A. I. 1. a. big, of bodily size: freq. of stature, “εἶδος. . μ. ἦν ὁράασθαι” Od.18.4; “κεῖτο μ. μεγαλωστί”
                        Il.16.776; “ἠΰς τε μ. τε” Od.9. 508; φῶτα μέγαν καὶ καλόν ib.513; “καλή τε μεγάλη τε” 15.418; “κάρτα μεγάλη καὶ εὐειδής” Hdt.3.1; φύσιν τίν᾽ εἶχε φράζε; Answ. “μέγας” S.OT742.

                        b. full-grown, of age as shown by stature, “νῦν δ᾽ ὅτε δὴ μ. εἰμί” Od.2.314; “μήτε μέγαν μήτ᾽ οὖν νεαρῶν τινα” A.Ag.358 (anap.); later, elder of two persons of the same name, Wilcken Chr.305 (iii B. C.); “Σκιπίων ὁ μ.” Plb.18.35.9.

                        c. of animals, μ. ἵπποι, βοῦς, σῦς, Il.2.839, 18.559, Od.19.439; “αἰετός” Pi.I.6(5).50.

                        2. generally, vast, high, οὐρανός, ὄρος, πύργος, Il.1.497, 16.297, 6.386; wide, πέλαγος, λαῖτμα θαλάσσης, Od.3.179, 5.174; long, ἠϊών, αἰγιαλός, Il.12.31,2.210: sts. opp. “ὀλίγος, κῦμα οὔτε μέγ᾽ οὔτ᾽ ὀ.” Od.10.94; but usu. opp. μικρός or “σμικρός, πρὸς ἑαυτὸ ἕκαστον καὶ μ. καὶ σμικρόν” Anaxag. 3; “τὸ ἄπειρον ἐκ μεγάλου καὶ μικροῦ” Arist.Metaph.987b26, etc.

                        II. 1. of quality or degree, great, mighty, freq. epith. of gods, “ὁ μ. Ζεύς” A. Supp.1052 (lyr.), etc.; μεγάλα θεά, of Demeter and Persephone, S. OC683 (lyr.); θεοὶ μεγάλοι, of the Cabiri, IG12(8).71 (Imbros), etc.; Μήτηρ μ., of Cybele, SIG1014.83 (Erythrae, iii B. C.), 1138.3 (Delos, ii B. C.); “Μήτηρ θεῶν μ.” OGI540.6 (Pessinus), etc.; “Ἴσιδος μ. μητρὸς θεῶν” PStrassb.81.14 (ii B.C.); “μ. ἡ Ἄρτεμις Ἐφεσίων” Act.Ap.19.28; τίς θεὸς μ. ὡς ὁ θεὸς ἡμῶν; LXX Ps.76(77).13; “ὁ μ. θεός” Ep.Tit.2.13; of men, “μ. ἠδὲ κραταιός” Od.18.382; “ὀλίγος καὶ μ.” Callin.1.17, etc.; μέγας ηὐξήθη rose to greatness, D.2.5; ἤρθη μ. ib.8; βασιλεὺς ὁ μ., i. e. the King of Persia, Hdt.1.188, etc. (θεῶν β. ὁ μ., of Zeus, Pi.O. 7.34); “βασιλεὺς μ.” A.Pers.24 (anap.); as a title of special monarchs, “Ἀρδιαῖος ὁ μ.” Pl.R.615c; “ὁ μ. Ἀλέξανδρος” Ath.1.3d; “ὁ μ. ἐπικληθεὶς Ἀντίοχος” Plb.4.2.7, etc.; “μ. φίλος” E.Med.549; “πλούτῳ τε κἀνδρείᾳ μ.” Id.Tr.674; “ἐπὶ μέγα ἦλθεν ἰσχύος” Th.2.97.

                        2. strong, of the elements, etc., ἄνεμος, λαῖλαψ, Ζέφυρος, Od.19.200, 12.408, 14.458; of properties, passions, qualities, feelings, etc., of men, θάρσος, πένθος, ποθή, etc., 9.381, Il.1.254, 11.471, etc.; “ἀρετή” Od.24.193, Pi. O.8.5; “θυμός” Il.9.496, E.Or.702; “κλέος” Il.6.446; “ἄχος” 9.9; “πυρετός” Ev.Luc.4.38 (incorrect acc. to Gal.7.275); ἡ μ. νοῦσος epilepsy, Hp. Epid.6.6.5, cf. Gal.17(2).341.

                        3. of sounds, great, loud, ἀλαλητός, ἰαχή, πάταγος, ὀρυμαγδός, Il.12.138, 15.384, 21.9, 256; θόρυβοι, κωκυτός, S.Aj.142 (anap.), E.Med.1176; “οὐκ ἔστι ὅκως τι νεῖκος ἔσται ἢ μέγα ἢ σμικρόν” Hdt.3.62; “μὴ φώνει μέγα” S.Ph.574.

                        4. generally, great, mighty, “ὅρκος” Il.19.113; ὄλβος, τιμά, Pi.O.1.56, P.4.148; μ. λόγος, μῦθος, a great story, rumour, A.Pr.732, S.Aj.226 (lyr.); ἐρώτημα a big, i. e. difficult, question, Pl.Euthd.275d, Hp.Ma. 287b; weighty, important, “τόδε μεῖζον” Od.16.291; μέγα ποιέεσθαί τι to esteem of great importance, Hdt.3.42, cf. 9.111; “μέγα γενέσθαι εἴς τι” X.HG7.5.6; “μ. ὑπάρχειν πρός τι” Id.Mem.2.3.4; “μέγα διαφέρειν εἴς τι” Pl.Lg.78oc; οὐκ ἂν εἴη παρὰ μέγα τὸ δικολογεῖν not of great importance, Phld.Rh.2.85 S.; τὸ δὲ μέγιστον and what is most important, Th.4.70, cf. 1.142; οἱ μέγιστοι καιροί the most pressing emergencies, D.20.44; μ. ὠνησάμενοι χρημάτων for large sums, Plb. 4.50.3, etc.

                        5. with a bad sense, over-great, μέγα εἰπεῖν to speak big, and so provoke divine wrath, Od.22.288; “λίην μέγα εἶπες” 3.227, 16.243; “μέγα ἔργον” 3.261, Pi.N.10.64; “ἔργων μ.” A.Ag.1546 (anap.); “ὠμὸν τὸ βούλευμα καὶ μ.” Th.3.36; ἔπος μ., μ. λόγοι, S.Aj. 423 (lyr.), Ant.1350 (anap.); μ. γλῶσσα ib.127 (anap.); “μηδὲν μέγ᾽ εἴπῃς” Id.Aj.386; “μὴ μέγα λέγε” Pl.Phd.95b; “μὴ μεγάλα λίαν λέγε” Ar.Ra.835; “μέγα φρονεῖν” S.OT1078, E.Hipp.6; “μεγάλα φρονεῖν” Ar.Ach.988; μεγάλα, μεῖζον ἢ δικαίως πνεῖν, E.Andr.189, A.Ag.376 (lyr.); “μέγα τι παθεῖν” X.An.5.8.17; “μὴ μέγα λέγων μεῖζον πάθῃς” E. HF1244.

                        6. of style. impressive, Demetr.Eloc.278; μεῖζον more striking, ib.103.

                        7. of days, long, Gal.12.714.

                        B. I. Adv. μεγάλως [α^] greatly, mightily, Od.16.432, Hes.Th. 429, Hdt.1.16,30, al., X.Cyr.8.2.10, Parth.28.1, etc.; strengthd., “μάλα μ.” Il.17.723; “δμαθέντες μ.” A.Pers.907 (lyr.); with Adjs., Hdt. 1.4, 7.190.

                        II. 1. more freq. neut. sg. μέγα as Adv., very much, exceedingly, μ. χαῖρε all hail!, v. l. for μάλα in Od.24.402; esp. with Verbs expressing strong feeling, “μ. κεν κεχαροίατο” Il.1.256; “μ. κήδεται” 2.27, etc.: with Verbs expressing power, might, “μ. πάντων . . κρατέει” 1.78; “ὃς μ. πάντων. . ἤνασσε” 10.32; “πατρὸς μ. δυναμένοιο” Od.1.276, cf. Hom.Epigr.15.1, A.Eu.950 (anap.), E.Hel.1358 (lyr.), Ar.Ra.141, Pl.R.366a; “μ. δύνασθαι παρά τινι” Th.2.29; “πλουτέειν μ.” Hdt.1.32; or those expressing sound, loudly, μ. ἰάχειν, ἀῧσαι, βοῆσαι, εὔξασθαι, ἀμβῶσαι, Il.2.333, 14.147, 17.334, Od.17.239, Hdt.1.8 (also pl., “μεγάλ᾽ εὔχετο” Il.1.450; μ. αὐδήσαντος, μ. ἤπυεν, Od.4.505, 9.399): strengthd., “μάλα μ.” Il.15.321; “μ. δ᾽ ἔβραχε φήγινος ἄξων” 5.838, etc.: so in Trag. with all kinds of Verbs, μ. στένειν, σθένειν, χλίειν,
                        A.Ag.711 (lyr.), 938, Ch.137: also in pl., “μεγάλα. . δυστυχεῖς” Id.Eu.791 (lyr.).

                        2. of Space, far, “μέγα προθορών” Il.14.363; ἄνευθε μέγα far away, 22.88; “οὐκ ἂν μέγα τι τῆς ἀληθείας παρεξέλθοις” Pl.Phlb.66b.

                        3. with Adjs., as μέγ᾽ ἔξοχος, μέγα νήπιος, Il.2.480, 16.46; μ. νήπιε Orac. ap. Hdt.1.85; “μ. πλούσιος” Id.1.32, 7.190; “ὦ μέγ᾽ εὔδαιμον κόρη” A.Pr.647: with Comp. and Sup., by far, μέγ᾽ ἀμείνονες, ἄριστος, φέρτατος, Il.4.405, 2.82, 16.21.

                        C. degrees of Comparison (regul. μεγαλώτερος, -ώτατος late, EM780.1,2):

                        1. Comp. μείζων, ον, gen. ονος, Ep., Att. (also Delph., SIG246 H260 (iv B. C.)); Ion., Arc., Dor., Aeol. μέζων, ον, Heraclit. 25, Hp.Acut.44, Hdt.1.26, IG7.235.16 (Oropus), 5(2).3.18 (Tegea), Epich.62 (also early Att., IG12.22.65, but [με] ίζων ib.6.93, by analogy of ὀλείζων ib.76,95); dat. pl. “μεζόνεσσι” Diotog. ap. Stob.4.7.62: written μέσδων in Sapph.Supp.7.6, Plu.Lyc.19: cf. μέττον: μεῖζον, Hsch. (dub.); later “μειζότερος” 3 Ep.Jo.4 (used as title, elder, POxy. 943.3 (vi A. D.), etc.); “μειζονώτερος” A.Fr.434:—greater, longer, taller, Il.3.168, 9.202, etc.; freq. also, too great, “γέρας” Pl.Sph.231a; Μηνόφιλος μείζων M. the elder, Ostr.Bodl.vC 2 (ii A. D.); as title, μειζων κώμης headman of a village, POxy.1626.5 (iv A. D.), etc.: generally, the higher authority, PLond.2.214.22 (iii A. D.), POxy.1204.17 (pl., iii A. D.); οὔτε μεῖζον οὔτε ἔλαττον, a strong form of denial, nothing whatever, D.H.Comp.4; “οὐδαμὰ προὔφηνεν οὔτε μείζον᾽ οὔτ᾽ ἐλάττονα” S.Tr.324. Adv. “μειζόνως” E.Hec.1121, Th.1.130, X.Cyn.13.3, Isoc.9.21, etc.; Ion. “μεζόνως” Hdt.3.128, Herod.4.80, etc.: neut. as Adv., “μεῖζον σθένειν” S.Ph.456, E.Supp.216; “μ. ἰσχύειν” D.Ep.3.28; “ἐπὶ μ. ἔρχεται” S.Ph.259.

                        2. Sup. μέγιστος, η, ον, Il.2.412, etc.: neut. as Adv., “μέγιστον ἴσχυσε” S.Aj.502; δυνάμενος μ., c. gen., Hdt.7.5, 9.9: with another Sup., “μέγιστον ἐχθίστη” E.Med.1323: in pl., “χαῖρ᾽ ὡς μέγιστα” S.Ph.462; “θάλλει μ.” Id.OC700 (lyr.); “τὰ μέγιστ᾽ ἐτιμάθης” Id.OT1203 (lyr.); ἐς μέγιστον ib.521; “ἐς τὰ μ.” Hdt.8.111:—late Sup. “μεγιστότατος” PLond.1.130.49 (i/ii A. D.). (Cf. Skt. majmán- 'greatness', Lat. magnus, Goth. mikils 'great'.)

                        Henry George Liddell. Robert Scott. A Greek-English Lexicon. revised and augmented throughout by. Sir Henry Stuart Jones. with the assistance of. Roderick McKenzie. Oxford. Clarendon Press. 1940.
                        Last edited by robrecht; 08-09-2014, 01:13 PM. Reason: Creating paragraph divisions
                        βλέπομεν γὰρ ἄρτι δι᾿ ἐσόπτρου ἐν αἰνίγματι, τότε δὲ πρόσωπον πρὸς πρόσωπον·
                        ἄρτι γινώσκω ἐκ μέρους, τότε δὲ ἐπιγνώσομαι καθὼς καὶ ἐπεγνώσθην.

                        אָכֵ֕ן אַתָּ֖ה אֵ֣ל מִסְתַּתֵּ֑ר אֱלֹהֵ֥י יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל מוֹשִֽׁיעַ׃

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by robrecht View Post
                          I think these are all theological questions, which is fine, I am not opposed to theological questions; I just don't see a specific question pertaining to biblical languages, grammar, syntax, etc.
                          Oops, you seem to have brought a thesis to a book club. No harm, if you read my edit:add in my previous post: '....a very strong argument in favor of the pecking order idea. I'll see if I can find it, and bring it to the thread tomorrow sometime.' -- you might have waited until tomorrow, and properly presented yourself then. It's very hard to read, with such a dense quote. Anyhow, seeing as you're well prepared to respond to the five questions -- in my previous post, here's one that might provide a little more excitement:

                          '....I am not a trinitarian in the orthodox (Catholic) sense.

                          On the other hand, I am "sort of" trinitarian, as you will see. Don't forget that there are at least three (possibly more) trinitarian doctrines. More about that later. [she never revealed that]

                          I am very familiar with the propositions on which the orthodox doctrine is based. The problem is, the statements are not consistent; and I can only assume that the ambiguity was deliberate on the part of whoever made up this list. [* refer below]

                          Let's make ALL the statements use "God" in the substantive sense. Then-

                          1. There is only one God (True)
                          2. That one God is the Father (True)
                          3. That one God is the Son (False)
                          4. That one God is the Spirit (False)

                          Now let's make ALL the statements use "God" in a qualitative sense. Better yet, let's use the term "divine".

                          1. There is only one who is divine (False)
                          2. The Father is divine. (True. Of course)
                          3. The Son is divine. (True. As God's own Son, he has the same nature as his Father.)
                          4. God's Spirit is divine. (True. How could God's Spirit be anything else.)

                          You see the problem. There are three who are divine, but only one can be called "the only true God," and that one is clearly identified by Jesus himself as the Father. And to that testimony all the biblical writers agree. ....'


                          ----
                          * referring to: Trinity @ Bible.org : (unfortunately the site has changes and the link no longer works)

                          'Trinity is a word not found in Scripture, but used to express the doctrine of the unity of God as subsisting in three distinct Persons. This word is derived from the Gr. trias, first used by Theophilus (A.D. 168-183), or from the Lat. trinitas, first used by Tertullian (AD. 220), to express this doctrine. The propositions involved in the doctrine are these:

                          1. That God is one, and that there is but one God. (Deut. 6:4; 1 Kings 8:60; Isa. 44:6; Mark 12:29, 32; John 10:30_

                          2. That the Father is a distinct divine Person (hypostasis, subsistentia, persona, suppositum intellectuale), distinct from the Son and the Holy Spirit.

                          3. That the Holy Spirit is also a distinct divine Person.


                          This is just one of the examples, but my opening post -- is less adventurous, and hence not focused on too wide a stream of thoughts. As you can see, I only focused on two of many possible passages, which could be explored.

                          I'll leave that open then, now that I've posted up the prior details -- please feel free to explore this, anyway you deem useful.

                          Kindly,
                          Eric.

                          [edit:add: the link: http://classic.net.bible.org/diction...p?word=Trinity ]
                          Last edited by Catman; 08-08-2014, 09:42 AM.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Originally posted by Catman View Post
                            Oops, you seem to have brought a thesis to a book club. No harm, if you read my edit:add in my previous post: '....a very strong argument in favor of the pecking order idea. I'll see if I can find it, and bring it to the thread tomorrow sometime.' -- you might have waited until tomorrow, and properly presented yourself then. It's very hard to read, with such a dense quote. Anyhow, seeing as you're well prepared to respond to the five questions -- in my previous post, here's one that might provide a little more excitement:

                            '....I am not a trinitarian in the orthodox (Catholic) sense.

                            On the other hand, I am "sort of" trinitarian, as you will see. Don't forget that there are at least three (possibly more) trinitarian doctrines. More about that later. [she never revealed that]

                            I am very familiar with the propositions on which the orthodox doctrine is based. The problem is, the statements are not consistent; and I can only assume that the ambiguity was deliberate on the part of whoever made up this list. [* refer below]

                            Let's make ALL the statements use "God" in the substantive sense. Then-

                            1. There is only one God (True)
                            2. That one God is the Father (True)
                            3. That one God is the Son (False)
                            4. That one God is the Spirit (False)

                            Now let's make ALL the statements use "God" in a qualitative sense. Better yet, let's use the term "divine".

                            1. There is only one who is divine (False)
                            2. The Father is divine. (True. Of course)
                            3. The Son is divine. (True. As God's own Son, he has the same nature as his Father.)
                            4. God's Spirit is divine. (True. How could God's Spirit be anything else.)

                            You see the problem. There are three who are divine, but only one can be called "the only true God," and that one is clearly identified by Jesus himself as the Father. And to that testimony all the biblical writers agree. ....'


                            ----
                            * referring to: Trinity @ Bible.org : (unfortunately the site has changes and the link no longer works)

                            'Trinity is a word not found in Scripture, but used to express the doctrine of the unity of God as subsisting in three distinct Persons. This word is derived from the Gr. trias, first used by Theophilus (A.D. 168-183), or from the Lat. trinitas, first used by Tertullian (AD. 220), to express this doctrine. The propositions involved in the doctrine are these:

                            1. That God is one, and that there is but one God. (Deut. 6:4; 1 Kings 8:60; Isa. 44:6; Mark 12:29, 32; John 10:30_

                            2. That the Father is a distinct divine Person (hypostasis, subsistentia, persona, suppositum intellectuale), distinct from the Son and the Holy Spirit.

                            3. That the Holy Spirit is also a distinct divine Person.


                            This is just one of the examples, but my opening post -- is less adventurous, and hence not focused on too wide a stream of thoughts. As you can see, I only focused on two of many possible passages, which could be explored.

                            I'll leave that open then, now that I've posted up the prior details -- please feel free to explore this, anyway you deem useful.

                            Kindly,
                            Eric.

                            [edit:add: the link: http://classic.net.bible.org/diction...p?word=Trinity ]
                            Eric,

                            How is any of this related to biblical languages?

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Originally posted by John Reece View Post
                              Eric,

                              How is any of this related to biblical languages?
                              I don't know yet, but I'm trying to figure that out. ( coughs nervously )

                              In my opening post I referred to two verses - John 14:28 & 1 Corinthians 15:28. Right?
                              They are both in the Bible, hence Biblical. They both consist of language. Biblical Language. Correct?
                              Why did I choose them?
                              I find they are very tricky passages to understand, in the light of what is taught about Jesus. i.e. Jesus is God. Fine?
                              So, I began unpacking what I could to provide a good English and Greek equivalent - hoping to invigorate some good commentary.
                              Some t-webbers have provided some valuable insights, and others such as robrecht and yourself have questions about whether this is a Biblical Languages question. I think it is. I am in BL301, and I have two passages that are very difficult for me to place, considering what I know about who Jesus is.
                              They make me feel uncomfortable, for if Jesus isn't God, then who is he?

                              I hope this will provide you with some insight into my first post, in too many years -- I'm afraid my dullness is shining too brightly.

                              Eric

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Originally posted by Catman View Post
                                I don't know yet, but I'm trying to figure that out. ( coughs nervously )

                                In my opening post I referred to two verses - John 14:28 & 1 Corinthians 15:28. Right?
                                They are both in the Bible, hence Biblical. They both consist of language. Biblical Language. Correct?
                                Why did I choose them?
                                I find they are very tricky passages to understand, in the light of what is taught about Jesus. i.e. Jesus is God. Fine?
                                So, I began unpacking what I could to provide a good English and Greek equivalent - hoping to invigorate some good commentary.
                                Some t-webbers have provided some valuable insights, and others such as robrecht and yourself have questions about whether this is a Biblical Languages question. I think it is. I am in BL301, and I have two passages that are very difficult for me to place, considering what I know about who Jesus is.
                                They make me feel uncomfortable, for if Jesus isn't God, then who is he?

                                I hope this will provide you with some insight into my first post, in too many years -- I'm afraid my dullness is shining too brightly.

                                Eric
                                Thanks. It is true that one of the two original moderators of BL301 (Jaltus) ruled (in a post in this forum) that anything related to biblical texts could be discussed here, and that seems to be confirmed in the Biblical Language 301 Guidelines.

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by Quantum Weirdness, 08-29-2021, 04:29 PM
                                6 responses
                                110 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post rogue06
                                by rogue06
                                 
                                Started by Christian3, 09-09-2017, 10:08 AM
                                369 responses
                                50,177 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post tabibito  
                                Working...
                                X