Announcement

Collapse

Christianity 201 Guidelines

orthodox Christians only.

Discussion on matters of general mainstream evangelical Christian theology that do not fit within Theology 201. Have some spiritual gifts ceased today? Is the KJV the only viable translation for the church today? In what sense are the books of the bible inspired and what are those books? Church government? Modern day prophets and apostles?

This forum is primarily for Christians to discuss matters of Christian doctrine, and is not the area for debate between atheists (or those opposing orthodox Christianity) and Christians. Inquiring atheists (or sincere seekers/doubters/unorthodox) seeking only Christian participation and having demonstrated a manner that does not seek to undermine the orthodox Christian faith of others are also welcome, but must seek Moderator permission first. When defining “Christian” or "orthodox" for purposes of this section, we mean persons holding to the core essentials of the historic Christian faith such as the Trinity, the Creatorship of God, the virgin birth, the bodily resurrection of Christ, the atonement, the future bodily return of Christ, the future bodily resurrection of the just and the unjust, and the final judgment. Persons not holding to these core doctrines are welcome to participate in the Comparative Religions section without restriction, in Theology 201 as regards to the nature of God and salvation with limited restrictions, and in Christology for issues surrounding the person of Christ and the Trinity. Atheists are welcome to discuss and debate these issues in the Apologetics 301 forum without such restrictions.

Additionally and rarely, there may be some topics or lines of discussion that within the Moderator's discretion fall so outside the bounds of mainstream orthodox doctrine (in general Christian circles or in the TheologyWeb community) or that deny certain core values that are the Christian convictions of forum leadership that may be more appropriately placed within Unorthodox Theology 201. NO personal offense should be taken by such discretionary decision for none is intended. While inerrancy is NOT considered a requirement for posting in this section, a general respect for the Bible text and a respect for the inerrantist position of others is requested.

The Tweb rules apply here like they do everywhere at Tweb, if you haven't read them, now would be a good time.

Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

The Baldie Vs Mariology

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

  • Originally posted by foudroyant View Post
    If you don't want to believe how kardiognwsta is properly defined that is your choice. Other dictionaries and lexicons express the same thing.
    I'm not arguing about its dictionary definition, I'm suggesting that it has a particular use in this context that you have catastrophically failed to understand. Knowing the heart is used as metonymy for omniscience; it is not perfectly synonymous with it.
    Last edited by Spartacus; 02-28-2014, 10:42 PM.
    Don't call it a comeback. It's a riposte.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by foudroyant View Post
      Men that have not departed. The context (which you continually ignore) teaches this.
      Something tells me we're not going to come to agreement on this.
      The sainst can not fully understand the prayers of the Spirit because they do nto fully know the Spirit ...like God does.
      Let me spell it out in larger letters; maybe that'll get through.

      They don't have to!
      Think!
      1 billion people asking a person on this earth to pray for them would never work. You know it and i kjnow it but you just can't shake free of the heresy you so pathetically cling to.
      I have thought about it, which is why I came to the position I now hold. I, too, once believed prayer to the saints was wrong. I'm not "clinging" to anything I haven't carefully thought through.

      You too have fun with your fairy tale land of definitions.
      Yes, how DARE I consult a dictionary to determine what a word means!?
      goodbye
      Are you leaving, or is this your subtle way of encouraging me to leave?
      Enter the Church and wash away your sins. For here there is a hospital and not a court of law. Do not be ashamed to enter the Church; be ashamed when you sin, but not when you repent. – St. John Chrysostom

      Veritas vos Liberabit<>< Learn Greek <>< Look here for an Orthodox Church in America<><Ancient Faith Radio
      sigpic
      I recommend you do not try too hard and ...research as little as possible. Such weighty things give me a headache. - Shunyadragon, Baha'i apologist

      Comment


      • Originally posted by robrecht View Post
        You are partially making my point. There is absolutely nothing in the text of Luke to indicate that he is speaking of anything other than a normal father-son relationship. There's nothing in the text about Levirite marriage or Eli adopting Joseph or Eli being Joseph's father-in-law, no foreign parentheses, etc. Nothing. These ideas are all inserted into the text by those who want to claim there are no contradictions between Luke and Matthew or between Luke and the Jewish scriptures. Absent any of these ideas being inserted into the text, the basic simplest meaning of the text is that Eli was Joseph's father and there is no reason to understand it any differently based on the text of Luke.

        You are also trying to force a meaning upon the text of Mk 2,26 that is just not there. The reason for the genitive in Mark is not because of sonship but because it is part of a prepositional phrase with the preposition 'epi' which takes the genitive case and commonly indicates 'the time of' or somtimes even 'in the presence of'. Mark would not use a prepositional phrase to indicate that Abiathar is the son of the high priest at that time: during the time of Abiathar, who was the son of the high priest. If he wanted to indicate the time when Abiathar's father was high priest, he would simply have used Abiathar's father's name. If someone wanted to refer to the political leadership in the US during the years of 1992-2000, would anyone ever say 'during the time when Chelsea Clinton, who was the daughter of President Bill Clinton'? No, we'd just say 'when Bill Clinton was president'. Your twisting the normal meaning of a text out of fear that there might be a minor inaccuracy. Did Mark make a small mistake, perhaps. Matthew and/or Luke probably thought so since they both deleted the whole phrase. If they understood the prepositional phrase to mean 'during the time of Abiathar the son of the high priest' they would have kept it or worded it much less awkwardly, eg, putting in the name of the actual high priest at the time. But rather than correct Jesus (or Mark), implying that one of them made a mistake, perhaps it seemed safer to delete the phrase entirely. Personally, I don't think it is a big deal. Abiathar soon became high priest so there's no real issue. Jesus did do this in the presence of Abiathar, who did soon become high priest. Or even if Jesus or more likely Mark had a lapse of memory and thought Abiathar was high priest at that time, why is that such a big deal?
        The only point I'm making is we are arguing differences in interpretation and as such, deffernces in understanding.
        A literal translation of Luke 3:23, , 38,
        "And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed ) the son of Joseph, which was of Heli, Which was of Matthat, which was of Levi, which was of Melchi, which was the Janna, . . . _ . . . which was of Nathan, which was of David, . . . _ . . . which was of Seth, which was of Adam, which was of God."

        In like manner, Mark 2:26, "How he went into the house of God in the days of Abiathar of the high priest, and did eat the shewbread, which is not lawful to eat but for the priests, and gave also to them which were with him?" [When this event happened Abithar's father was then the high priest. Abiathar is not cited to be high priest at that time in the OT.]

        As unto the subject of this thread, my understanding is we can not pray to Jesus through Jesus' mother. My question then for you, why is it important that we can or must? Or am I not understanding your view?
        Last edited by 37818; 03-01-2014, 10:50 AM.
        . . . the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; . . . -- Romans 1:16 KJV

        . . . that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures: . . . -- 1 Corinthians 15:3-4 KJV

        Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: . . . -- 1 John 5:1 KJV

        Comment


        • Originally posted by 37818 View Post
          The only point I'm making is we are arguing differences in interpretation and as such, deffernces in understanding.
          A literal translation of Luke 3:23, , 38,
          "And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed ) the son of Joseph, which was of Heli, Which was of Matthat, which was of Levi, which was of Melchi, which was the Janna, . . . _ . . . which was of Nathan, which was of David, . . . _ . . . which was of Seth, which was of Adam, which was of God."

          In like manner, Mark 2:26, "How he went into the house of God in the days of Abiathar of the high priest, and did eat the shewbread, which is not lawful to eat but for the priests, and gave also to them which were with him?" [When this event happened Abithar's father was then the high priest. Abiathar is not cited to be high priest at that time in the OT.]

          As unto the subject of this thread, my understanding is we can not pray to Jesus through Jesus' mother. My question then for you, why is it important that we can or must? Or am I not understanding your view?
          Would you not agree that some interpretations are better than others, eg, those being based on an understanding and familiarity with the language of the text? Those that are actually based on the text itself and not introducing external ideas into the text? I tried to explain to you above why I think my interpretation is better. Other than saying we just have different interpretations, as if all interpretations are equally likely to be true, do you have any argument(s) for saying that your interpretation of the text of Luke is better and I am wrong?

          Be wary of anyone who claims that they are giving you a literal translation of a foreign language. A literal interpretation, when derived from a foreign language, is always and unavoidably just that, an interpretation. Translations can be more literal, less literal, even overly literal (which can be a very good way of learning syntax and idioms). Elements of what you present as a literal translation are in fact imprecise, overly literal, and interpretive.

          1. Imprecise, in that you (or your source) interprets the genitive definite article as an impersonal relative pronomial clause, when it is in fact masculine and therefore personal.

          2. Overly literal in that it does not account for the Greek idiom. The idiom is explained by one of the names (and primary functions) that the ancient Greek grammarians used for the genitive case--they called it πατρική, ie, patrial, which indicated paternity, the father. That is the most ordinary, most frequent, most plain sense of the idiom. It could also have an extended usage, perhaps, but that is a farther fetched interpretation and begs the question as to why Luke would not have used a more precise word. For example, Luke’s Jewish contemporary, Josephus, uses πενθερός and κηδεστής for father-in-law and γαμβρός for son-in-law. The LXX, Philo, and John the evangelist use πενθερός for father-in-law, and the LXX and Philo also use γαμβρός for father-in-law or, occasionally, son-in-law, as these terms were sometimes interchangeable.

          3. Interpretive in the choice of word in the target language and the addition of foreign English punctuation. Your 'literal' translation of ἐνομίζετο is: , 'being (as was supposed)

          a) to 'suppose' is a rather loose English translation, implying for some an erroneous supposition or mistaken assumption, but the Greek is more positive, more stable, not necessarily implying error. More literally, one might translate it ‘to deem’, ‘to consider’, ‘to (customarily) consider’, or ‘to consider as a matter of custom or long-standing view’, ‘to legislate’, ‘to believe in’. Note that νομίζετο, contains the root νόμος, ie, custom, law.

          b) Modern punctuation did not exist in Greek, eg, the imposition of commas and graphic parentheses, which may unnecessarily divide these two words off from the rest of the sentence and subvert its meaning. It is indeed necessary sometimes in Greek to consider a longer phrase as a parenthesis (note the singular spelling) but this should only be done when the meaning of the whole and its parts do not fit naturally together, typically in a very long sentence.

          What I propose as a more literal translation (not yet good English) would be something like this:

          Καὶ αὐτὸς ἦν Ἰησοῦς ἀρχόμενος ὡσεὶ ἐτῶν τριάκοντα ὢν υἱός ὡς ἐνομίζετο Ἰωσὴφ τοῦ Ἠλὶ … τοῦ Σὴθ τοῦ Ἀδὰμ τοῦ θεοῦ.
          And Jesus himself was beginning being about thirty years a son as he was (customarily?) considered of Joseph of Eli of … of Seth of Adam of God.

          One would ordinarily expect that the basic meaning of sonship continues through the string of patrial genitives, because Jesus is to be thought of as descended from Adam and therefore both a son of God, like Adam, in the human sense and (as is known by Jesus and the reader) he has just been proclaimed Son of God by a voice from heaven in the immediately preceding verse at his baptism (3,22).

          I mentioned above that ‘suppose’ is taken by some to mean an erroneous supposition; one member here actually thinks that “Luke made it a point to denounce that Jesus had any connections to Joseph.” But the people were not wrong to consider Jesus to be a son of Joseph for Joseph had indeed accepted and raised Jesus as his son. According to Luke, Joseph was of the house of David (1,27), God would give Jesus the throne of David of his father (1,32). Joseph goes to his city, the city of David, because he was of the house and lineage of David (2,4). Joseph accepted Mary as his betrothed and therefore the child in her womb as his son and Luke explicitly says that Joseph took his betrothed to Bethlehem (2,5) and was present at Jesus' birth (2,16) and was presumably present at his circumcision and brought him to Jerusalem according to the custom of the law (2,22.27.39). Mary and Joseph both marveled at the words of Simeon and Simeon blessed them both (2,33-34). Joseph continued to act as Jesus' father at least until he was 12 years of age (2,42), when Mary herself explicitly refers to Joseph as Jesus' father (2,48) and neither Mary nor Joseph even understood Jesus’ saying about his being about the business of his father in the Temple (2,49).

          From your post, it seems like you did not read anything I said about Mk 2,26, or perhaps you did not understand (maybe I can be clearer), or, if you disagree, you give no reasons for why you think I am wrong. Maybe you could read it again and tell me why you think your interpretation is better than mine. More importantly, how do you account for the other liberties that Jesus, Mark, or someone in the tradition before Mark take with the text of 1 Samuel?

          I very much doubt that I've ever expressed a view in this thread or elsewhere about why we can or must pray to Jesus through Mary, so it seems strange that you ask me this. Is anyone here saying that we must pray to Jesus through Mary? That strikes me as rather strange and I would be surprised if someone here is saying that. I'm not even sure if people here are saying that we can pray to Jesus through Mary. Why not just pray to Jesus? I was under the impression that most people are speaking about asking Mary to pray for and with us, just as I might ask you to pray for or with my son who's sick that he get better. I think it is just a way to experience and promote the Body of Christ, both here on earth and together with the crowd of witnesses that has gone before us.
          Last edited by robrecht; 03-02-2014, 09:02 AM.
          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

          Related Threads

          Collapse

          Topics Statistics Last Post
          Started by Thoughtful Monk, 03-15-2024, 06:19 PM
          35 responses
          166 views
          0 likes
          Last Post Cow Poke  
          Started by KingsGambit, 03-15-2024, 02:12 PM
          4 responses
          49 views
          0 likes
          Last Post Thoughtful Monk  
          Started by Chaotic Void, 03-08-2024, 07:36 AM
          10 responses
          119 views
          1 like
          Last Post mikewhitney  
          Started by Cow Poke, 02-29-2024, 07:55 AM
          14 responses
          71 views
          3 likes
          Last Post Cow Poke  
          Started by Cow Poke, 02-28-2024, 11:56 AM
          13 responses
          59 views
          0 likes
          Last Post Cow Poke  
          Working...
          X