The Jewish Dilemma

[John Goddard]

I'm not sure I'm following you. It could be your sentence structure, or it could be that I agree with you in part, but not in whole. Are you saying that it is up to the individual to redeem themselves from sin? That Jesus' crucifixion served as nothing more but to put God's judgment on hold while we redeem ourselves?

No. To break it down, salvation for humanity comes in two phases, as Jeremiah says:

Jesus remained obedient to God through suffering, and was deemed worthy of Judging man because of his own obedience, Hebrews 5:8-9.

1. Jesus showing that man might be worth saving.
a. Removes original sin of Adam.

NOW WE DON'T HAVE TO DEAL WITH ADAM'S SIN, BUT JUST OUR OWN

2. Jesus being Judge who can give you mercy if you repent.
b. Removes our own sins.

So without Jesus the man showing that all men have a chance to be good, like a one good man of Sodom that Abraham wagered about (Sodom spiritually being Jerusalem and by extension the world, Revelation), he prevented all humanity from being destroyed outright. That is the removal of original sin from Adam.

However, now we can still die for our own sins unless we repent and get mercy. So you need to ask the right man for mercy, in this case Jesus. That's where faith comes in, since your works to repent and do better do no good if you are asking the wrong guy for mercy.

Why would he have to go to Hell eternally? Isn't it enough that he was perfectly innocent and experienced death and hell for us anyways? Even if it was for only a time?

It's still eye for an eye mentality, when it is that mercy is totally undeserved no matter how many lickings a person takes for us. The focus should be on his obedience to God in the face of suffering, so he THEN can be worthy of being made Judge who can show you mercy.

This whipping boy thing is a garbled understanding of what actually happened, and why a lot of people reject Jesus.

A martyr is someone who dies for a cause or a belief. Jesus didn't die for a cause, Jesus is the cause. He died for the remission of our sins. He died for us so that we could live in Him.

Jesus the man was definitely a martyr in the cause of obedience to God and following His will to preach about the Kingdom of Heaven in the face of persecution.

Matthew 26:39 And he went a little farther, and fell on his face, and prayed, saying, O my Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me: nevertheless not as I will, but as thou wilt.

Like all other men, Jesus was tempted to avoid martyrdom or persecution, as Jonah was, but unlike Jonah, Jesus conquered the temptation.

[Adrift]

No. To break it down, salvation for humanity comes in two phases, as Jeremiah says:

Jesus remained obedient to God through suffering, and was deemed worthy of Judging man because of his own obedience, Hebrews 5:8-9.

1. Jesus showing that man might be worth saving.
a. Removes original sin of Adam.

NOW WE DON'T HAVE TO DEAL WITH ADAM'S SIN, BUT JUST OUR OWN

2. Jesus being Judge who can give you mercy if you repent.
b. Removes our own sins.

So without Jesus the man showing that all men have a chance to be good, like a one good man of Sodom that Abraham wagered about (Sodom spiritually being Jerusalem and by extension the world, Revelation), he prevented all humanity from being destroyed outright. That is the removal of original sin from Adam.

However, now we can still die for our own sins unless we repent and get mercy. So you need to ask the right man for mercy, in this case Jesus. That's where faith comes in, since your works to repent and do better do no good if you are asking the wrong guy for mercy.



It's still eye for an eye mentality, when it is that mercy is totally undeserved no matter how many lickings a person takes for us. The focus should be on his obedience to God in the face of suffering, so he THEN can be worthy of being made Judge who can show you mercy.

This whipping boy thing is a garbled understanding of what actually happened, and why a lot of people reject Jesus.



Jesus the man was definitely a martyr in the cause of obedience to God and following His will to preach about the Kingdom of Heaven in the face of persecution.

Matthew 26:39 And he went a little farther, and fell on his face, and prayed, saying, O my Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me: nevertheless not as I will, but as thou wilt.

Like all other men, Jesus was tempted to avoid martyrdom or persecution, as Jonah was, but unlike Jonah, Jesus conquered the temptation.

John, your whole theology works against huge portions of Pauline doctrine and even what Jesus claimed about himself. I'm not really interested in taking the time to get into it with you because I know you're pretty well dedicated to it and its going to be hugely off topic.

[John Goddard]

John, your whole theology works against huge portions of Pauline doctrine and even what Jesus claimed about himself. I'm not really interested in taking the time to get into it with you because I know you're pretty well dedicated to it and its going to be hugely off topic.

Ok.

[NormATive]

what part of "it's used in the bible" don't you understand? of course it was a greek word in the greek language before being used in a religious manner. but that manner was first used in hebrews 1:3 to describe how Jesus is God.


As Geek explained it has been used in that manner ever since, even by the early church fathers in the 2nd and 3rd centuries. You can go google it if you wish.

from your own quote
latin word derived from the Greek word hupostasis,

as I have shown it was used in Hebrews 1:3 in the manner we are talking about. that dates over 1000 years before any medical use of the word.


sheesh, Norm.

Sheesh Sparko!

- hupostasis DOES NOTE EQUAL hypostasis. Hypostasis is DERIVED from it. Do you know what the word DERIVED means? It means that the ENGLISH word hypostasis CAME LATER. In this case, MUCH later.

The GREEK word HUPOSTASIS does NOT MEAN the same thing. Just because a word is derived from a previous root does not mean it means exactly the same thing.

The English word acedia, meaning; apathy, boredom, is DERIVED from the Greek root word kedos, meaning; care, concern or grief. While they kind of sound the same, and have related meanings, you can quite plainly see that they do not mean the same thing. In fact, in this case, they have almost opposite meaning.

Sheesh!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Sometimes I think you just jump in on threads I am posting in to disagree with me.

You do not understand etymology at all. The ENGLISH word hypostasis has ONLY BEEN AROUND since the 16th century. You don't have to take my word for it. It's in every bloomin' dictionary, thesaurus or encyclopedia known to man. Whaddya want me to do, mail you a dictionary?

NORM

[Sparko]

Sheesh Sparko!

- hupostasis DOES NOTE EQUAL hypostasis. Hypostasis is DERIVED from it. Do you know what the word DERIVED means? It means that the ENGLISH word hypostasis CAME LATER. In this case, MUCH later.

LOL. Hypostasis is not an english word. It is LATIN. and it is the same word in a different language. the early church fathers who wrote in latin used it in the same manner as the greek word. It is even used in tha Latin Vulgate version of the bible.

The GREEK word HUPOSTASIS does NOT MEAN the same thing. Just because a word is derived from a previous root does not mean it means exactly the same thing.

in this case it does. do some research instead of googling definitions. You made a mistake. own up to it. The word hypostasis was used in the bible and by the early church fathers 1000 years before the medical use of the word.

Words can have more than one meaning you know. Just because the term is used in medicine does not preclude it from being used in a religious sense. and it was used in that sense BEFORE the medical use.

Sometimes I think you just jump in on threads I am posting in to disagree with me.

right. its all about you.

You do not understand etymology at all. The ENGLISH word hypostasis has ONLY BEEN AROUND since the 16th century. You don't have to take my word for it. It's in every bloomin' dictionary, thesaurus or encyclopedia known to man. Whaddya want me to do, mail you a dictionary?

that you keep calling it an "english" word shows you are talking out of your rear end.

Your credibility is shot Norm. give it up.

[NormATive]

[quote=Sparko;2612761

that you keep calling it an "english" word shows you are talking out of your rear end.
.[/quote]

Au contraire, sir. Many words are mot juste even when purloined from other languages. In fact, ad hoc words from other languages can be quite bona fide in the mother tongue when used in situ. Inter alia, Latin words, such as the ones I am using here, come from a dead language. Yet, they add a certain panache, nes pas? In fact, words taken from other languages are a sine qua non to the English language. Sometimes, of course, people can use these words ad nauseam!

Hopefully, my little demonstration illustrated how idiotic your rant is. Hypostasis, while of Latin origin, is in your ENGLISH dictionary, quod erat demonstrandum (QED).

What language is a doctor in a U.S, British or Canadian hospital speaking when they use the term hypostasis to explain to the interns why patient X is experiencing blood clots?

Admit it, you do enjoy trying to poke holes in my posts.

Key word: trying.

Have a nice day.

NORM

[Sparko]

Au contraire, sir. Many words are mot juste even when purloined from other languages. In fact, ad hoc words from other languages can be quite bona fide in the mother tongue when used in situ. Inter alia, Latin words, such as the ones I am using here, come from a dead language. Yet, they add a certain panache, nes pas? In fact, words taken from other languages are a sine qua non to the English language. Sometimes, of course, people can use these words ad nauseam!

Hopefully, my little demonstration illustrated how idiotic your rant is. Hypostasis, while of Latin origin, is in your ENGLISH dictionary, quod erat demonstrandum (QED).

What language is a doctor in a U.S, British or Canadian hospital speaking when they use the term hypostasis to explain to the interns why patient X is experiencing blood clots?

Admit it, you do enjoy trying to poke holes in my posts.

Key word: trying.

Have a nice day.

NORM

Just because we use foreign words in English does not make them ENGLISH, dimwit.

medicine is ripe with latin words, as is most science.

that still doesn't change the fact that the word Hypostasis was used in the bible and by the early Church fathers 1000 years before its use in medicine or before ENGLISH was even a language.

I can't believe you are still dragging on with this. You have been proven wrong multiple times and still you insist you are correct.

You must be suffering from the dunning-kruger effect. Look that up in your dictionary.


---
Here is a letter from AD 375 discussing the term Hypostasis and the greek term ousia.

4. The non-identity of hypostasis and ousia is, I take it, suggested even by our western brethren, where, from a suspicion of the inadequacy of their own language, they have given the word ousia in the Greek, to the end that any possible difference of meaning might be preserved in the clear and unconfounded distinction of terms. If you ask me to state shortly my own view, I shall state that ousia has the same relation to hypostasis as the common has to the particular. Every one of us both shares in existence by the common term of essence (ousia) and by his own properties is such an one and such an one. n the same manner, in the matter in question, the term ousia is common, like goodness, or Godhead, or any similar attribute; while hypostasis is contemplated in the special property of Fatherhood, Sonship, or the power to sanctify. If then they describe the Persons as being without hypostasis, 2819 the statement is per se absurd; but if they concede that the Persons exist in real hypostasis, as they acknowledge, let them so reckon them that the principle of the homoousion may be preserved in the unity of the Godhead, and that the doctrine preached may be the recognition of true religion, of Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, in the perfect and complete hypostasis of each of the Persons named.

http://www.sacred-texts.com/chr/ecf/...87.htm#fn_2808

[EphremHagos]

The sacrifice was the experience of physical harm and physical death -- the breaking of His flesh and the shedding of His blood. That He resurrected doesn't take away the fact that He experienced it. And nothing about Christian theology makes His body illusory. I don't know where you even get that. The Son took on a real flesh-and-blood body, which He maintains to this day.

I cut my hand when I was 12. The wound has long since healed over. Does this mean that the cut and the pain it caused me wasn't real? Does it make that experience meaningless? That doesn't make any sense.

Except that nothing was fake. The crucifixion really happened, and Jesus really felt the incredible pain of being whipped, flogged, beaten, nailed down, and hanged. That He resurrected does not erase the experience. You might as well say "I drove to the mall. I then drove home. Therefore, I did not really go to the mall." It makes about as much sense.

It's supposed to seem human. That's part of the mystery of Jesus -- that He embodies both human and divine nature, and exhibits both natures without contradiction.

How post-resurrection appearances (distinctly different from the great resurrection appearances strictly defined) to a back-to-square-one, unbelieving group of disciples lead Christian theology and GC to conclude that the "Son maintains the real flesh and blood body to this day" is absolutely out of all contexts.

As far as Jesus is concerned, the Son of Man has gone back to the place where he was before (John 6: 62-64) at his death on the cross, i.e., revealing his glory to posterity in his de-incarnation!

Therefore, believing that the Son maintains his real flesh and blood body to this day is "judging Christ according to human standards" and completely contrary to Apostolic witness. (2 Cor. 5: 16-17)

[Adrift]

How post-resurrection appearances (distinctly different from the great resurrection appearances strictly defined) to a back-to-square-one, unbelieving group of disciples lead Christian theology and GC to conclude that the "Son maintains the real flesh and blood body to this day" is absolutely out of all contexts.

As far as Jesus is concerned, the Son of Man has gone back to the place where he was before (John 6: 62-64) at his death on the cross, i.e., revealing his glory to posterity in his de-incarnation!

Therefore, believing that the Son maintains his real flesh and blood body to this day is "judging Christ according to human standards" and completely contrary to Apostolic witness. (2 Cor. 5: 16-17)

I think you may be taking Paul out of context:

2 Cor 5:16 From now on, therefore, we regard no one according to the flesh. Even though we once regarded Christ according to the flesh, we regard him thus no longer. 17Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation. The old has passed away; behold, the new has come.

Paul doesn't mean to say that Jesus is no longer "flesh", rather that we no longer regard him (or anyone for that matter) by the flesh. 2 Cor connects the Greek word kata sarka with the verb, not the noun. Paul is saying we, Paul and his readers, knew Christ by the flesh, but no longer (this was the reason for Paul's persecution of the church), not that Christ was after the flesh, but no longer.

After his resurrection Jesus himself says in Luke 24:39 See my hands and my feet, that it is I myself. Touch me, and see. For a spirit does not have flesh and bones as you see that I have.

1 Cor 15:20 says "Christ has been raised from the dead, the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep."

Revelation 1:5 tells us that Jesus is the faithful witness, and the first begotten of the dead.

Job tells us that "I know that my Redeemer lives, and at the last he will stand upon the earth. And after my skin has been thus destroyed, yet in my flesh I shall see God." -Job 19:25

1 Cor 15 explains all of this quite well: What is sown is perishable; what is raised is imperishable. It is sown in dishonor; it is raised in glory. It is sown in weakness; it is raised in power. It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body.

As William Lane Craig elaborates, the natural body here isn't referring to physical flesh, but to "man oriented toward human nature". And spiritual body isn't referring to an immaterial state, but to "the man oriented toward the Spirit". See here for more on Criag's take on this.

[NormATive]

dimwit

People losing arguments always result to insults.

NORM

[Sparko]

People losing arguments always result to insults.

NORM

Then I eagerly await yours.

[mitzi]

Au contraire, sir. Many words are mot juste even when purloined from other languages. In fact, ad hoc words from other languages can be quite bona fide in the mother tongue when used in situ. Inter alia, Latin words, such as the ones I am using here, come from a dead language. Yet, they add a certain panache, nes pas? In fact, words taken from other languages are a sine qua non to the English language. Sometimes, of course, people can use these words ad nauseam!

Hopefully, my little demonstration illustrated how idiotic your rant is. Hypostasis, while of Latin origin, is in your ENGLISH dictionary, quod erat demonstrandum (QED).

What language is a doctor in a U.S, British or Canadian hospital speaking when they use the term hypostasis to explain to the interns why patient X is experiencing blood clots?

Admit it, you do enjoy trying to poke holes in my posts.

Key word: trying.

Have a nice day.

NORM

Admit it, you do enjoy trying to poke holes in my posts.

This is priceless! absolutely! and what was the title to the thread? a _____ dilemma?

[NormATive]

BTW, Re:

Here is a letter from AD 375 discussing the term Hypostasis and the greek term ousia.

4. The non-identity of hypostasis and ousia is, I take it, suggested even by our western brethren, where, from a suspicion of the inadequacy of their own language, they have given the word ousia in the Greek, to the end that any possible difference of meaning might be preserved in the clear and unconfounded distinction of terms. If you ask me to state shortly my own view, I shall state that ousia has the same relation to hypostasis as the common has to the particular. Every one of us both shares in existence by the common term of essence (ousia) and by his own properties is such an one and such an one. n the same manner, in the matter in question, the term ousia is common, like goodness, or Godhead, or any similar attribute; while hypostasis is contemplated in the special property of Fatherhood, Sonship, or the power to sanctify. If then they describe the Persons as being without hypostasis, 2819 the statement is per se absurd; but if they concede that the Persons exist in real hypostasis, as they acknowledge, let them so reckon them that the principle of the homoousion may be preserved in the unity of the Godhead, and that the doctrine preached may be the recognition of true religion, of Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, in the perfect and complete hypostasis of each of the Persons named.

http://www.sacred-texts.com/chr/ecf/...87.htm#fn_2808

Year of publication: Between 1923 and 1963, inclusive.

You really need to carefully examine your resources.

Do you suppose theologians borrowed the term hypostasis as the agreed upon translation of the original Greek word that previously had been translated as basis, foundation; single substance by then?

Again, when your doctor tells you that your great aunt is suffering from hypostasis, what language is he or she using?

But, I guess you are smarter than the Encyclopedia Britannica who wrote the following:

Etymology of the English word hypostasis

The English word hypostasisderived from the Late Latin word hypostasis (basis, foundation; single substance)derived from the Greek word upostasis, ὑπόστασις derived from the Greek word hupo, ὑπό (under, beneath, underneath)
derived from the Greek word stasis, στάσις (a standing (properly, the act); (by analogy) position (existence); by implication, a popular uprising; figuratively, controversy)derived from the Greek word histanaiderived from the Proto-Indo-European root *stā-

derived from the Proto-Indo-European root *stā-


derived from the Greek word hupostasis, ὑπόστασις (a setting under (support); concretely, essence, or abstractly, assurance (objectively or subjectively))derived from the Greek word huphistasthaiderived from the Greek word hupo, ὑπό (under, beneath, underneath)
derived from the Greek word histasthai

derived from the Greek word huphisthanai



Date

The earliest known usage of hypostasis in English dates from the 16th century

So, it is not ME who is saying the ENGLISH word hypostasis' first known usage is in the 16th Century. Take it up with Encyclopedia Brittanica.

Notice the first sentence of the etymological reference. It says "The English word hypostasis..."

Merriam Webster says:

hypostasis

One entry found.



Main Entry:hy·pos·ta·sis Pronunciation: \hī-ˈpäs-tə-səs\ Function:noun Inflected Form(s):plural hy·pos·ta·ses \-ˌsēz\ Etymology:Late Latin, substance, sediment, from Greek, support, foundation, substance, sediment, from hyphistasthai to stand under, support, from hypo- + histasthai to be standing — more at standDate:1590 1 a: something that settles at the bottom of a fluid b: the settling of blood in the dependent parts of an organ or body2: person 33 a: the substance or essential nature of an individual b: something that is hypostatized4 [New Latin, from Late Latin] : failure of a gene to produce its usual effect when coupled with another gene that is epistatic toward it
— hy·po·stat·ic \ˌhī-pə-ˈsta-tik\ adjective
— hy·po·stat·i·cal·ly \-ti-k(ə-)lē\ adverb


http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/hypostasis

that it's origin is 1590.

So, I guess that BOTH Encyclopedia Brittanica AND Websters are wrong?

We'll let readers decide who is correct:. Merriam Webster and Encyclopedia Brittanica or your on-line Wikipedia-type "references."

BTW, I just have to emphasize that I am finding these legitimate references in ENGLISH dictionaries.

Are you still sticking to your contention that hypostasis is NOT an English word?


NORM

[NormATive]

Then I eagerly await yours.

I refuse to debase myself as so many on T-Web have. I try to maintain a Christian attitude, which I believe instructs us to refrain from abusive language toward others.

I have always admitted when I am wrong. I'm just not wrong in this matter. So, I don't see the need for insult as you do.

NORM

[NormATive]

This is priceless! absolutely! and what was the title to the thread? a _____ dilemma?

Yes, the thread subject matter is the trinity (the Jewish dilemma). Care to join in the fun? Do you believe in "hypostasis?"

NORM