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

John 1, and Philippians 2:5-7.

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

  • #31
    Originally posted by Geert van den Bos View Post
    It was about γίνομαι, not γίγνομαι

    But I found:

    http://www.textkit.com/greek-latin-f...pic.php?t=1404
    Yep, γίνομαι is the later vernacular, but it's the same word as γίγνομαι. The point is that it is completely appropriate to translate γίνομαι as "to be born" when it references a human person, as in Philippians 2.
    "[Mathematics] is the revealer of every genuine truth, for it knows every hidden secret, and bears the key to every subtlety of letters; whoever, then, has the effrontery to pursue physics while neglecting mathematics should know from the start he will never make his entry through the portals of wisdom."
    --Thomas Bradwardine, De Continuo (c. 1325)

    Comment


    • #32
      Originally posted by Boxing Pythagoras View Post
      Yep, γίνομαι is the later vernacular, but it's the same word as γίγνομαι. The point is that it is completely appropriate to translate γίνομαι as "to be born" when it references a human person, as in Philippians 2.
      Yet it is not the right translation. Behind your translation lies the misconception of Jesus being God, or even God-Creator.

      You might say the verse is rather hard to translate, like shown by the many different ways in which it was translated:

      http://biblehub.com/philippians/2-7.htm

      This might be due to the fact that the idea behind it is rather hard to express, since it is "mystery" and not "history".


      Same γίνομαι is found in John 1:14, and also in John 8:58.

      In both cases it is used in combination with "einai" = to be.

      John 1:1 , "In the beginning was the word; John 1:14 "And the word became flesh"

      John 8:58, "Before Abraham became I am"

      Abraham first was called Abram. Only after he got an extra letter ( the letter "hey" with value 5) added to his name he became Abraham, "father of a multitude of nations", or "father of all who do believe".

      Strange thing about "lech l'cha" (= " go for yourself", Genesis 12:1) is it's outer value being 100 (50 + 50) and it's full value 348, the inner value being 248, which is the outer value of Abraham.

      Which you might explain as: before he got the extra letter added to his name he was already Abraham in his inner being.

      Psalms 110 being about Abraham: "Saying of the Lord ("hashem") to my master (= Abraham)".

      The place of the Lord being in the initial letters of "yom hashishi vay'chulu hashamayim" (Genesis 1:31 -2:1),where to "shishi" the same letter "hey" was added, as the one that was added to Abram.

      Rashi:
      the sixth day: Scripture added a “hey” on the sixth [day], at the completion of the Creation, etc.
      "To be" and "to become":

      "To be" = eternal
      "to become" = timely process.

      The resurrected one lives eternal. He being the same Adam as the Adam who did not sin.

      So in my opinion Phillippians 2:5-7 tries to say that Adam sinned deliberately.

      Like also John's "prologue" tries to say the same.

      In the word that became flesh was the life that was the light of men.

      Which is about the light of the first day, the light that God saw to be good.

      Good = Hebrew "tov", of which gematria is 17.

      153 being triangular 17.

      153 the number of large fish that Peter drew ashore after having thrown the net to the right side of the ship.

      The third "tov" in Genesis, Genesis 1:12, being the 153rd word from the beginning.

      Which would not have been the case when the earth had brought forth "ets pri oseh pri" (fruit tree making fruit), like God had asked (v.11), instead of "ets oseh pri" (tree making fruit).

      "ets pri oseh pri" being already a fruit; while "ets oseh pri" is not yet a fruit.

      Rashi:
      fruit trees: That the taste of the tree should be like the taste of the fruit. It [the earth] did not do so, however, but“the earth gave forth, etc., trees producing fruit,” but the trees themselves were not fruit. Therefore, when man was cursed because of his iniquity, it [the earth] too was punished for its iniquity (and was cursed-not in all editions). - [from Gen. Rabbah 5:9]
      IOW it is about "being" versus "becoming", about "einai" versus "ginomai".
      Last edited by Geert van den Bos; 11-12-2014, 02:06 AM.

      Comment


      • #33
        Originally posted by Geert van den Bos View Post
        Yet it is not the right translation. Behind your translation lies the misconception of Jesus being God, or even God-Creator.
        Actually, it's not. I'm not sure if you knew, but I'm not a Christian. I'm not even a theist. I'm looking at this translation from a completely secular point of view. I am not starting with some theological preconception, and translating to fit that notion. I'm starting with my translation in order to figure out what the author intended by his words. Incidentally, I actually agree that the Philippians 2 hymn is not saying that Jesus is God (in fact, I would argue that it pretty explicitly states the opposite). Translating γίνομαι as "to be born" doesn't imply that the one being born is God.

        Same γίνομαι is found in John 1:14, and also in John 8:58.

        In both cases it is used in combination with "einai" = to be.

        John 1:1 , "In the beginning was the word; John 1:14 "And the word became flesh"

        John 8:58, "Before Abraham became I am"
        I would argue that "born" is certainly an appropriate translation, in both of these cases. In the Hellenistic view, flesh "became" by being born.

        Strange thing about "lech l'cha" (= " go for yourself", Genesis 12:1) is it's outer value being 100 (50 + 50) and it's full value 348, the inner value being 248, which is the outer value of Abraham.

        Which you might explain as: before he got the extra letter added to his name he was already Abraham in his inner being.

        Psalms 110 being about Abraham: "Saying of the Lord ("hashem") to my master (= Abraham)".

        The place of the Lord being in the initial letters of "yom hashishi vay'chulu hashamayim" (Genesis 1:31 -2:1),where to "shishi" the same letter "hey" was added, as the one that was added to Abram.
        I honestly think that Hebrew gematria and exegesis is fairly irrelevant to Pauline hermeneutics.

        So in my opinion Phillippians 2:5-7 tries to say that Adam sinned deliberately.
        That seems to be clearly eisegetical and quite untenable. There is no indication in the passage, at all, that Paul is discussing Adam or sin. The Philippians 2 hymn is quite explicitly talking about Jesus' pre-existence, incarnation, and exaltation.
        "[Mathematics] is the revealer of every genuine truth, for it knows every hidden secret, and bears the key to every subtlety of letters; whoever, then, has the effrontery to pursue physics while neglecting mathematics should know from the start he will never make his entry through the portals of wisdom."
        --Thomas Bradwardine, De Continuo (c. 1325)

        Comment


        • #34
          Originally posted by Boxing Pythagoras View Post
          Incidentally, I actually agree that the Philippians 2 hymn is not saying that Jesus is God (in fact, I would argue that it pretty explicitly states the opposite).
          καὶ πᾶσα γλῶσσα ἐξομολογήσηται ὅτι κύριος Ἰησοῦς Χριστὸς

          Comment


          • #35
            Originally posted by Paprika View Post
            καὶ πᾶσα γλῶσσα ἐξομολογήσηται ὅτι κύριος Ἰησοῦς Χριστὸς
            Yes. And Paul quite clearly lays out the reason for this, in verse 9:

            διὸ καὶ ὁ θεὸς αὐτὸν ὑπερύψωσεν
            καὶ ἐχαρίσατο αὐτῷ τὸ ὄνομα
            τὸ ὑπὲρ πᾶν ὄνομα

            And therefore God exalted him [to the highest]
            and gave to him the authority
            [which is] above all authority

            If Paul was saying that Jesus is God, it wouldn't make very much sense for God to exalt Jesus and to give him authority. You can't exalt that which is already exalted to the highest, and you can't give the highest authority to that which already has the highest authority.
            "[Mathematics] is the revealer of every genuine truth, for it knows every hidden secret, and bears the key to every subtlety of letters; whoever, then, has the effrontery to pursue physics while neglecting mathematics should know from the start he will never make his entry through the portals of wisdom."
            --Thomas Bradwardine, De Continuo (c. 1325)

            Comment


            • #36
              Originally posted by Boxing Pythagoras View Post

              If Paul was saying that Jesus is God, it wouldn't make very much sense for God to exalt Jesus and to give him authority. You can't exalt that which is already exalted to the highest, and you can't give the highest authority to that which already has the highest authority.
              Yes you can, to someone who has humbled and emptied himself.

              Comment


              • #37
                Originally posted by Paprika View Post
                Yes you can, to someone who has humbled and emptied himself.
                Still doesn't make sense. If God emptied and humbled himself, he would no longer have the power to exalt himself nor to give himself authority. It's fairly clear that Paul is saying that God and Jesus are two different persons (and I use that word intentionally) in this passage.
                "[Mathematics] is the revealer of every genuine truth, for it knows every hidden secret, and bears the key to every subtlety of letters; whoever, then, has the effrontery to pursue physics while neglecting mathematics should know from the start he will never make his entry through the portals of wisdom."
                --Thomas Bradwardine, De Continuo (c. 1325)

                Comment


                • #38
                  Originally posted by Boxing Pythagoras View Post
                  Actually, it's not. I'm not sure if you knew, but I'm not a Christian. I'm not even a theist. I'm looking at this translation from a completely secular point of view. I am not starting with some theological preconception, and translating to fit that notion. I'm starting with my translation in order to figure out what the author intended by his words. Incidentally, I actually agree that the Philippians 2 hymn is not saying that Jesus is God (in fact, I would argue that it pretty explicitly states the opposite). Translating γίνομαι as "to be born" doesn't imply that the one being born is God.
                  I thought it usually is interpreted that way ( by John Reece f.e.)

                  Originally posted by Boxing Pythagoras View Post
                  I would argue that "born" is certainly an appropriate translation, in both of these cases. In the Hellenistic view, flesh "became" by being born.
                  Ain't an unborn child already "flesh" then?

                  Which makes think of the Jewish Golem, man of clay; "golem" means embryo.

                  cf Rashi on Genesis 2:24,
                  one flesh: The fetus is formed by them both, and there [in the child] their flesh becomes one. — [from Sanh. 58a]


                  Originally posted by Boxing Pythagoras View Post
                  I honestly think that Hebrew gematria and exegesis is fairly irrelevant to Pauline hermeneutics.
                  Paul knows about "the indivisible moment" (1 Corinthians 15:51-52) even as "mystery" - which can be seen as a hint to the "mystical knowledge" he speaks from. Indivisivble moment = Hebrew "rega" with gematria 273, a number that occurs in Numbers 3:46.

                  Originally posted by Boxing Pythagoras View Post
                  That seems to be clearly eisegetical and quite untenable. There is no indication in the passage, at all, that Paul is discussing Adam or sin. The Philippians 2 hymn is quite explicitly talking about Jesus' pre-existence, incarnation, and exaltation.
                  Paul knows about "the first Adam" and "the second Adam" (1 Corinthians 15).

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Originally posted by Boxing Pythagoras View Post
                    Still doesn't make sense. If God emptied and humbled himself, he would no longer have the power to exalt himself nor to give himself authority. It's fairly clear that Paul is saying that God and Jesus are two different persons (and I use that word intentionally) in this passage.
                    The Father and Jesus are two, yes, but both κύριος.

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Originally posted by Geert van den Bos View Post
                      I thought it usually is interpreted that way ( by John Reece f.e.)
                      Perhaps by Evangelicals or conservative Christian readers, but I'm not sure the same could be said of scholarship, in general. As I said, I'm tackling the text from a completely secular point of view, and I do not see γίνομαι as having any implication that Jesus is God.

                      Ain't an unborn child already "flesh" then?

                      Which makes think of the Jewish Golem, man of clay; "golem" means embryo.
                      This would seem a fairly anachronistic view to apply to Paul.

                      Paul knows about "the indivisible moment" (1 Corinthians 15:51-52) even as "mystery" - which can be seen as a hint to the "mystical knowledge" he speaks from.
                      Paul knows about "the first Adam" and "the second Adam" (1 Corinthians 15).
                      I'm not sure what you think that this implies. The fact that Paul talks of such things in 1 Cor 15 does not mean he's talking about them in Philippians 2. Nothing in Philippians 2 discusses Adam or the fall or the original sin.

                      Indivisivble moment = Hebrew "rega" with gematria 273, a number that occurs in Numbers 3:46.
                      Once again, Hebrew gematria is fairly irrelevant to Pauline exegesis.

                      Originally posted by Paprika View Post
                      The Father and Jesus are two, yes, but both κύριος.
                      I agree that this is what Paul is saying. In fact, it seems to be the whole point of the Philippians 2 hymn: God raised up Jesus to be κύριος, imparting to Jesus the highest possible authority.
                      "[Mathematics] is the revealer of every genuine truth, for it knows every hidden secret, and bears the key to every subtlety of letters; whoever, then, has the effrontery to pursue physics while neglecting mathematics should know from the start he will never make his entry through the portals of wisdom."
                      --Thomas Bradwardine, De Continuo (c. 1325)

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Originally posted by Boxing Pythagoras View Post
                        Perhaps by Evangelicals or conservative Christian readers, but I'm not sure the same could be said of scholarship, in general. As I said, I'm tackling the text from a completely secular point of view, and I do not see γίνομαι as having any implication that Jesus is God.
                        but your translation does.

                        Originally posted by Boxing Pythagoras View Post
                        This would seem a fairly anachronistic view to apply to Paul.
                        I didn't apply it to Paul, but to your " In the Hellenistic view, flesh "became" by being born.
                        "


                        .
                        Originally posted by Boxing Pythagoras View Post
                        The fact that Paul talks of such things in 1 Cor 15 does not mean he's talking about them in Philippians 2. Nothing in Philippians 2 discusses Adam or the fall or the original sin.
                        The first Adam (existing in the form of God) emptied himself taking the form of a servant (= the second Adam), etc.


                        Originally posted by Boxing Pythagoras View Post
                        Once again, Hebrew gematria is fairly irrelevant to Pauline exegesis.
                        you say so.


                        Originally posted by Boxing Pythagoras View Post
                        I agree that this is what Paul is saying. In fact, it seems to be the whole point of the Philippians 2 hymn: God raised up Jesus to be κύριος, imparting to Jesus the highest possible authority.
                        The use of κύριος, for God is to avoid mentioning his name. It is after Hebrew "adonai".

                        The use of κύριος for Jesus is not to avoid mentioning the Tetragrammaton.

                        κύριος meaning lord or master.

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Originally posted by Geert van den Bos View Post
                          but your translation does.
                          No, it doesn't. My translation indicates that Christ Jesus was born. It does not indicate that Christ Jesus was God.

                          I didn't apply it to Paul, but to your " In the Hellenistic view, flesh "became" by being born."
                          Please allow me to clarify and expand, then: viewing the unborn as having already been made in flesh is anachronistic when applied to the Hellenistic view.

                          The first Adam (existing in the form of God) emptied himself taking the form of a servant (= the second Adam), etc.
                          Except that the Philippians 2 passage says nothing of the sort. It very clearly and explicitly states that it was Christ Jesus who emptied himself and took the form of a slave. Paul's discussion of the "first Adam" in 1 Cor 15 is explicitly in contrast to Jesus. There is absolutely no way to justify a claim that Paul thought the first Adam was the one who emptied himself, nor that Adam was in the form of God.

                          you say so.
                          I do. There doesn't seem to be any indication that Paul considered any gematria, whether it be Greek or Hebrew, in his theology.

                          The use of κύριος, for God is to avoid mentioning his name. It is after Hebrew "adonai".

                          The use of κύριος for Jesus is not to avoid mentioning the Tetragrammaton.

                          κύριος meaning lord or master.
                          Here, you and I are actually in agreement.
                          "[Mathematics] is the revealer of every genuine truth, for it knows every hidden secret, and bears the key to every subtlety of letters; whoever, then, has the effrontery to pursue physics while neglecting mathematics should know from the start he will never make his entry through the portals of wisdom."
                          --Thomas Bradwardine, De Continuo (c. 1325)

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Originally posted by Boxing Pythagoras View Post
                            No, it doesn't. My translation indicates that Christ Jesus was born. It does not indicate that Christ Jesus was God.
                            It is about a certain state of mind all Christians should have:

                            1 If there is therefore any exhortation in Christ, if any consolation of love, if any fellowship of the Spirit, if any tender mercies and compassions,

                            2 make full my joy, that ye be of the same mind, having the same love, being of one accord, of one mind;

                            3 doing nothing through faction or through vainglory, but in lowliness of mind each counting other better than himself;

                            4 not looking each of you to his own things, but each of you also to the things of others.

                            5 Have this mind in you, which was also in Christ Jesus:


                            Verb used φρονέω = think, have in mind

                            lowliness of mind = ταπεινοφροσύνη

                            cf Matthew 11:

                            28Δεῦτε πρός με πάντες οἱ κοπιῶντες καὶ πεφορτισμένοι, κἀγὼ ἀναπαύσω ὑμᾶς. 29ἄρατε τὸν ζυγόν μου ἐφ' ὑμᾶς καὶ μάθετε ἀπ' ἐμοῦ, ὅτι πραΰς εἰμι καὶ ταπεινὸς τῇ καρδίᾳ, καὶ εὑρήσετε ἀνάπαυσιν ταῖς ψυχαῖς ὑμῶν: 30ὁ γὰρ ζυγός μου χρηστὸς καὶ τὸ φορτίον μου ἐλαφρόν ἐστιν.
                            28 Come unto me, all ye that labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest.29 Take my yoke upon you, and learn of me; for I am meek and lowly in heart: and ye shall find rest unto your souls.30 For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light.

                            And also Mark 10:
                            42καὶ προσκαλεσάμενος αὐτοὺς ὁ Ἰησοῦς λέγει αὐτοῖς, Οἴδατε ὅτι οἱ δοκοῦντες ἄρχειν τῶν ἐθνῶν κατακυριεύουσιν αὐτῶν καὶ οἱ μεγάλοι αὐτῶν κατεξουσιάζουσιν αὐτῶν. 43οὐχ οὕτως δέ ἐστιν ἐν ὑμῖν: ἀλλ' ὃς ἂν θέλῃ μέγας γενέσθαι ἐν ὑμῖν, ἔσται ὑμῶν διάκονος, 44καὶ ὃς ἂν θέλῃ ἐν ὑμῖν εἶναι πρῶτος, ἔσται πάντων δοῦλος: 45καὶ γὰρ ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου οὐκ ἦλθεν διακονηθῆναι ἀλλὰ διακονῆσαι καὶ δοῦναι τὴν ψυχὴν αὐτοῦ λύτρον ἀντὶ πολλῶν.
                            42And Jesus called them to him, and saith unto them, Ye know that they who are accounted to rule over the Gentiles lord it over them; and their great ones exercise authority over them.43 But it is not so among you: but whosoever would become great among you, shall be your minister; 44 and whosoever would be first among you, shall be servant of all.45 For the Son of man also came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life a ransom for many.

                            Rule over = κατακυριεύω -- in which κύριος, ruler, lord, master.

                            servant = δοῦλος

                            servant of all πάντων δοῦλος

                            Same mentioned in Phillippians 2:7, ἀλλὰ ἑαυτὸν ἐκένωσεν μορφὴν δούλου λαβών




                            Originally posted by Boxing Pythagoras View Post
                            Please allow me to clarify and expand, then: viewing the unborn as having already been made in flesh is anachronistic when applied to the Hellenistic view.
                            But it is not "Hellenistic".
                            And furthermore I don't think you are right with that in Hellenistic view "to become flesh" is equal to "to be born".

                            Originally posted by Boxing Pythagoras View Post
                            Except that the Philippians 2 passage says nothing of the sort. It very clearly and explicitly states that it was Christ Jesus who emptied himself and took the form of a slave. Paul's discussion of the "first Adam" in 1 Cor 15 is explicitly in contrast to Jesus. There is absolutely no way to justify a claim that Paul thought the first Adam was the one who emptied himself, nor that Adam was in the form of God.
                            Who else than Adam was "made in the form of God"?


                            Originally posted by Boxing Pythagoras View Post
                            I do. There doesn't seem to be any indication that Paul considered any gematria, whether it be Greek or Hebrew, in his theology.
                            The NT is based on the presence of God in the initial letters of "yom hashishi vay'chulu hashamayim" (Genesis 1:31-2:1) -- i.e. Immanuel= "God is with us" - Jesus being crucified on the sixth day and laid in the grave exactly at the beginning of the seventh, which, after the synoptici was the beginning of the counting of the omer , counting until the sixth day of Sivan = Pentecost (50th day).

                            "yom hashishi" (the sixthg day) representing the "y-h"-part of the name of God.

                            Name that is also present in the 26 generations from Adam to Moses (= revelation at mount Sinai on the sixth day of Sivan)

                            After 15 generations the "haflagah" (= Babylonian dispersion of languages) occurred,at the moment Peleg died. Peleg had a "little" brother, Joktan -- name having the same meaning as Latin Paulus = little one.

                            So I bet Paul named himself thus after Joktan .

                            Genesis 10:25,
                            And to Eber were born two sons: one was named Peleg, because in his days the earth was divided, and the name of his brother was Joktan.

                            Rashi:
                            Joktan: Because he was humble and considered himself small (קָטָן). Therefore, he merited to raise all these families. — [from Gen. Rabbah 37:7]
                            Last edited by Geert van den Bos; 11-14-2014, 03:14 AM.

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Originally posted by Geert van den Bos View Post
                              It is about a certain state of mind all Christians should have
                              What does any of that have to do with whether γίνομαι is translated as "to be born?"

                              But it is not "Hellenistic".
                              And furthermore I don't think you are right with that in Hellenistic view "to become flesh" is equal to "to be born".
                              Paul's view, here, was certainly Hellenistic. He was a Hellenized Jew; he was highly educated in Greek language and rhetoric; he was quite likely from Tarsus, which was an extremely Hellenized city; he was likely a Roman citizen; and he spent most of his life and ministry outside of Jerusalem preaching to Hellenistic gentiles.

                              As far as whether the Hellenistic view held that being "born" was equated with "becoming flesh," I'll direct you to my previous reference to the Liddell-Scott-Jones lexicon. I'll also try to scour over some of the medical work of the time for more support, and I'll post that when I find it.

                              Who else than Adam was "made in the form of God"?
                              Philippians 2 never says that anyone was "made in the form of God." It says that Christ Jesus had been in the form of God, but emptied himself in order to take the form of a slave and to be born in human likeness.

                              The NT is based on the presence of God in the initial letters of "yom hashishi vay'chulu hashamayim" (Genesis 1:31-2:1) -- i.e. Immanuel= "God is with us" - Jesus being crucified on the sixth day and laid in the grave exactly at the beginning of the seventh, which, after the synoptici was the beginning of the counting of the omer , counting until the sixth day of Sivan = Pentecost (50th day).

                              "yom hashishi" (the sixthg day) representing the "y-h"-part of the name of God.

                              Name that is also present in the 26 generations from Adam to Moses (= revelation at mount Sinai on the sixth day of Sivan)

                              After 15 generations the "haflagah" (= Babylonian dispersion of languages) occurred,at the moment Peleg died. Peleg had a "little" brother, Joktan -- name having the same meaning as Latin Paulus = little one.

                              So I bet Paul named himself thus after Joktan .

                              Genesis 10:25,
                              And to Eber were born two sons: one was named Peleg, because in his days the earth was divided, and the name of his brother was Joktan.

                              Rashi:
                              Merely spouting more gematria at me is not evidence that Paul had any understanding of or care for gematria. For example, if I wanted to show that John of Patmos had an understanding of gematria, and considered it during the writing of his apocalypse, I could point to Revelation 13:18 which provides some fairly strong evidence for such a claim.

                              I know of no such evidence for Paul, and unless you can provide some, I will continue to simply dismiss your analysis of gematria as being completely unfounded pareidolia.
                              "[Mathematics] is the revealer of every genuine truth, for it knows every hidden secret, and bears the key to every subtlety of letters; whoever, then, has the effrontery to pursue physics while neglecting mathematics should know from the start he will never make his entry through the portals of wisdom."
                              --Thomas Bradwardine, De Continuo (c. 1325)

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Originally posted by Boxing Pythagoras View Post
                                What does any of that have to do with whether γίνομαι is translated as "to be born?"
                                Your translation would imply that before he was born he was in the form of God.

                                Originally posted by Boxing Pythagoras View Post
                                Paul's view, here, was certainly Hellenistic.
                                But "And the word became flesh" was written by John.




                                Originally posted by Boxing Pythagoras View Post
                                Philippians 2 never says that anyone was "made in the form of God." It says that Christ Jesus had been in the form of God, but emptied himself in order to take the form of a slave and to be born in human likeness.
                                There you have it, you say it yourself , that "Jesus is God".


                                Originally posted by Boxing Pythagoras View Post
                                Merely spouting more gematria at me is not evidence that Paul had any understanding of or care for gematria.
                                The word has different "layers" -- an outside meaning and an inside, inner meaning, which is called "mystery", a word more often used by Paul.


                                Originally posted by Boxing Pythagoras View Post
                                For example, if I wanted to show that John of Patmos had an understanding of gematria, and considered it during the writing of his apocalypse, I could point to Revelation 13:18 which provides some fairly strong evidence for such a claim.
                                -- he might be the same one as the author of John, who has the nuber 153 (and also 38).

                                Originally posted by Boxing Pythagoras View Post
                                I know of no such evidence for Paul, and unless you can provide some, I will continue to simply dismiss your analysis of gematria as being completely unfounded pareidolia.
                                Ever do what you like.

                                Comment

                                widgetinstance 221 (Related Threads) skipped due to lack of content & hide_module_if_empty option.
                                Working...
                                X