Paul..fake liar or apostle?

[imaginaryme]

So what do you mean by "His Theology evolves"? Are you saying it changes as he goes on? Just like his story about the voice?

Acceptance of the Holy Spirit happens just like so: god is.

But to assess the theology granted by that acceptance is the work of a lifetime. That is what can be seen in Paul. Not the light, but the description of coming to the light.

 

[Shermana]

Acceptance of the Holy Spirit happens just like so: god is.

But to assess the theology granted by that acceptance is the work of a lifetime. That is what can be seen in Paul. Not the light, but the description of coming to the light.

And how do we know Paul had the Spirit exactly?

 

[earlwooters]

"Men and brethren, I am a Pharisee, the son of a Pharisee!"
Supposedly a statement by Paul.

"Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye devour widows' houses, and for a pretence make long prayer: therefore ye shall receive the greater damnation.
Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye compass sea and land to make one proselyte, and when he is made, ye make him twofold more the child of hell than yourselves.
Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye pay tithe of mint and anise and cummin, and have omitted the weightier matters of the law, judgment, mercy, and faith: these ought ye to have done, and not to leave the other undone.
Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye are like unto whited sepulchres, which indeed appear beautiful outward, but are within full of dead men's bones, and of all uncleanness.
Even so ye also outwardly appear righteous unto men, but within ye are full of hypocrisy and iniquity."
Supposedly a statement by Jesus.

It can't get any simpler.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

As those who have raised children can attest.

The point is this. If there is a contradiction, it is a blatant one, and it is extremely difficult to explain why it was not subsequently redacted. This is a particularly difficult question for those who presume that Paul and those who immediately followed him had few if any scrupples when it came to such things.

Yeah, I've thought about it and I don't think that the ESV translation is a cover-up or attempt to reconcile "Version 1" and "Version 2." The second version may read "understand" rather than "hear," but the second version makes no attempt to "cover-up" the seeing // not seeing of the light.

It's a curiosity. I wish I had the time to look at it in more detail - but there's got to be some reason that Christians have preserved it intact.

 

[idav]

"Men and brethren, I am a Pharisee, the son of a Pharisee!"
Supposedly a statement by Paul.

"Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye devour widows' houses, and for a pretence make long prayer: therefore ye shall receive the greater damnation.
Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye compass sea and land to make one proselyte, and when he is made, ye make him twofold more the child of hell than yourselves.
Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye pay tithe of mint and anise and cummin, and have omitted the weightier matters of the law, judgment, mercy, and faith: these ought ye to have done, and not to leave the other undone.
Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye are like unto whited sepulchres, which indeed appear beautiful outward, but are within full of dead men's bones, and of all uncleanness.
Even so ye also outwardly appear righteous unto men, but within ye are full of hypocrisy and iniquity."
Supposedly a statement by Jesus.

It can't get any simpler.

Paul was trying too hard to be a "better" Jew than Jesus.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Yeah, I've thought about it and I don't think that the ESV translation is a cover-up or attempt to reconcile "Version 1" and "Version 2." The second version may read "understand" rather than "hear," but the second version makes no attempt to "cover-up" the seeing // not seeing of the light.

It's a curiosity. I wish I had the time to look at it in more detail - but there's got to be some reason that Christians have preserved it intact.

We presume too much when we read ancient text and even more in the case of ancient translation of ancient text. So, for example, the Hebrew word 'hesed' is typically translated as mercy (or kindness) and yet there are two wonderful little books dedicated to an explication of the term (by Nelson Glueck and Katherine Doob Sakenfeld).

Our translations are infused with interpretation laced with speculation and compromise. Too often we don't know what we don't know.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Our translations are infused with interpretation laced with speculation and compromise. Too often we don't know what we don't know.

Exactly. Anyone who knows a second language should realize that translation is interpretation. It's obviously even more troublesome when the text is thousands of years old ------ and produced by and for a people whose multiple contexts are utterly foreign to us.

 

[imaginaryme]

And how do we know Paul had the Spirit exactly?

'Cause I sed.

I'd say Romans. The sheer audacity of the theology tells me he had a little extra.

 

[Shermana]

Exactly. Anyone who knows a second language should realize that translation is interpretation. It's obviously even more troublesome when the text is thousands of years old ------ and produced by and for a people whose multiple contexts are utterly foreign to us.

Perhaps you can find a single use in the entire Corpus of Koine where "acoute" is used for understanding as opposed to hearing. Until then, it is ONLY ever used for "hearing" in the sense of "acoustic". Can you find the single exception to disprove the rule or will you accept that Paul made a little contradiction?

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Perhaps you can find a single use in the entire Corpus of Koine where "acoute" is used for understanding as opposed to hearing. Until then, it is ONLY ever used for "hearing" in the sense of "acoustic". Can you find the single exception to disprove the rule or will you accept that Paul made a little contradiction?

angellous, I wonder if our Neo Nazarene ( :biglaugh: ) would ask the same childish question about the Shema?​

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Perhaps you can find a single use in the entire Corpus of Koine where "acoute" is used for understanding as opposed to hearing. Until then, it is ONLY ever used for "hearing" in the sense of "acoustic". Can you find the single exception to disprove the rule or will you accept that Paul made a little contradiction?

Dude, its plainly in the lexicon.

From LSJ:

II. listen to, give ear to, c. gen., Il.1.381, etc.: metaph., “Φωκυλίδου οὐκ ἀκούεις” ; Pl.R. 407a: rarely c. dat., “ἀ. ἀνέρι κηδομένῳ” Il.16.515 (in S.El.227 τίνι is Eth. dat.): with gen. of part. after dat., ὅττι οἱ ὦκ᾽ ἤκουσε . . θεὸς εὐξαμένοιο ib.531.
2. obey, βασιλῆος, θεοῦ, Il.19.256, Od.7.11:—Med., Λεωφίλου δ᾽ ἀκούεται [πάντα] Archil.64.
3. hear and understand, “κλύοντες οὐκ ἤκουον” A.Pr.448, cf. Ch.5, Ar.Ra.1173; “τὸ μὴ πάντας πάντων ἀκούειν” S.E.M.1.37.

BGAD gives many more examples:

Galen CMG Suppl 1 p 12, 29
Aelian VH 13, 46
Appollon. Dysc. Syntax p. 295, 25
Sext. Emp. Math 1.37
Julian, Orat 4 p 147a
Philo, Leg All 2, 35

**** akouw's meaning is not a matter of debate

 

[angellous_evangellous]

angellous, I wonder if our Neo Nazarene ( :biglaugh: ) would ask the same childish question about the Shema?​

I dunno, man. I can't anticipate what he'll do next.

 

[Shermana]

Dude, its plainly in the lexicon.

It's plainly in the lexicon showing only one time usage in certain translations of that select passage, that's why there's a (1) in the usage. What is the basis of the definition, if there is no other usage in the entire Corpus of Greek? Show the specifics. There are times that Strong's takes certain liberties, such as with theri definition of "Theotes", this may be one of them. Also, was this definition in the original or an updated version?

Is it found in other Lexicons?

Either way, the word for "understand" would be different. It appears that if this version of Strong's is correct, it is the ONLY time in the history of Koine.

come to...ears (1), every (1), give heed (2), grant (1), hear (115), heard (216), hearers (1), hearing (24), hears (21), heed (2), listen (24), listened (1), listeners (1), listening (14), listens (5), reached (1), reported (1), understand (1), understands (1).

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Perhaps you can find a single use in the entire Corpus of Koine where "acoute" is used for understanding as opposed to hearing. Until then, it is ONLY ever used for "hearing" in the sense of "acoustic". Can you find the single exception to disprove the rule or will you accept that Paul made a little contradiction?

This kind of crap really is pathetic. The least you can do before you come up with something this brainless is looking up the meaning of the word.

That's impressive laziness. Sheesh. Seriously?

 

[angellous_evangellous]

It's plainly in the lexicon showing only one time usage in certain translations of that select passage, that's why there's a (1) in the usage. What is the basis of the definition, if there is no other usage in the entire Corpus of Greek? Show the specifics. There are times that Strong's takes certain liberties, such as with theri definition of "Theotes", this may be one of them. Also, was this definition in the original or an updated version?

Is it found in other Lexicons?

Either way, the word for "understand" would be different. It appears that if this version of Strong's is correct, it is the ONLY time in the history of Koine.

come to...ears (1), every (1), give heed (2), grant (1), hear (115), heard (216), hearers (1), hearing (24), hears (21), heed (2), listen (24), listened (1), listeners (1), listening (14), listens (5), reached (1), reported (1), understand (1), understands (1).

Lazy.

Lazy.

Lazy.

 

[Shermana]

Lazy.

Lazy.

Lazy.

That's right, the definition of the current version of Strong's (ONE particular Lexicon out of many) is meant to match what the other versions used for the one time definition of "Acoute" to get around this fact.

Thank you.

I challenge anyone reading to find an example of Acoute being used for "understand" in the corpus of Koine other than this. It simply doesn't get used in such a way. Ever.

For JS, As for the word Shema, find a single Rabbinical source that says it is used for "understand" instead of simply "hear" as well.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

That's right, the definition of the current version of Strong's (ONE particular Lexicon out of many) is meant to match what the other versions used for the one time definition of "Acoute" to get around this fact.

Thank you.

I challenge anyone reading to find an example of Acoute being used for "understand" in the corpus of Koine other than this. It simply doesn't get used in such a way. Ever.

For JS, As for the word Shema, find a single Rabbinical source that says it is used for "understand" instead of simply "hear" as well.

Strongs is not a lexicon, nor does it pretend to be. Laziness kills.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

You didn't even take the time to figure out what the LSJ or BDAG are, did you?

It doesn't have to be this painful.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

It's not acoute, by the way. It's akouo.

 

[Shermana]

What is this source your link is referring to for an example of "understand"? How do they derive "understand?" What is the context of the original sentence they are using as an example for this definition?

κλύοντες οὐκ ἤκουον” A.Pr.448, cf. Ch.5, Ar.Ra.1173; “τὸ μὴ πάντας πάντων ἀκούειν” S.E.M.1.37