1. Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Featured Why Didn't the Holy Spirit Know?

Discussion in 'Biblical Debates' started by rrobs, Feb 28, 2020.

  1. rrobs

    rrobs Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2018
    Messages:
    2,545
    Ratings:
    +429
    Religion:
    Christian
    Yes...our Father is the one true God in every sense of the word "one"...and one isn't three. Thanks.
     
  2. rrobs

    rrobs Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2018
    Messages:
    2,545
    Ratings:
    +429
    Religion:
    Christian
    It would be patently wrong for me to say that everything the early church fathers wrote was wrong. As I said, what I read from Clement seemed to agree with scripture. That is my acid test; does it align with scriptures? The scriptures are the standard by which I judge all extraneous Christian writings.

    Good discussion. Thanks!
     
  3. Clear

    Clear Well-Known Member
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2008
    Messages:
    2,548
    Ratings:
    +448
    Religion:
    Christian
    Hi rrobs;

    I asked before "Can you demonstrate where your grammatical “rule” concerning δια comes from so we can see, if it exists, what it actually applies to?

    Also, rrobs, It is a bit difficult to follow a flight of tangential thoughts from one point to another rather than remaining on a specific theme (i.e. the early Christian doctrine of Jesus pre-existing his birth and his role in creation of the world) I will try to comment on the relevant points.


    SCRIPTURES DO NOT ACTUALLY "INTERPRET THEMSELVES"
    Rrobs said : “I believe the scriptures interpret themselves much like everything else we read.”

    Actually PEOPLE interpret and find meaning in texts while inanimate objects such as books, do not “interpret themselves”.

    One problem in Christianity is that different individuals interpret texts differently and this results in the creation of multiple, conflicting belief systems, all of which claim to be “biblical”. Much of this doctrine creation is simply “reading into the text” the beliefs we have when reading the text.

    For example, your personal interpretations of text allow you to conclude that the Messiah did not pre-exist birth, and the Messiah did not create the world while early Christians DID believe the Messiah existed prior to his birth and the messiah did create the world and they tell us so in their texts. Their religion is different than yours.

    When the early Christians read Hebrews 1:2 which said “…he [God] has spoken to us by a Son, whom he appointed the heir of all things, through whom he also created the world.” They actually could take it literally as saying God created the world through the Son.

    They did not try to create a fictional grammatical rule in an attempt to nullify the meaning of the text as you did in post #183.
    They did not try to assume this was a contamination of Greek philosophy as you did in post #184.
    They did not try to assume it was something happening within the mind of God as you did in post #184.
    They did not try to assume it was a metaphor of a prophet speaking of the future as you did in post #192. etc, etc.

    The point is that the early Judeo-Christians did not have to create doctrines by trying to make the text fit their biases and their beliefs on this point. They actually COULD take this text at face value.



    APOSTASY FROM ORIGINAL CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE
    You then mentioned the apostasy in early Christianity, saying of Paul “He also said that many were preaching another Jesus whom he did not preach. (#199)

    I agree with you on this point. Even in the early stages of Christianity, individuals tended to “get things wrong”. The early Christian movements doctrine evolved and changed over time and some movements left the early doctrine where the messiah created the earth and adopted other doctrines were he did not create the earth. It created a different Jesus that was not preached in early Christianity.


    AGAIN, MIXING TIME PERIODS UP
    rrobs said : "It would be patently wrong for me to say that everything the early church fathers wrote was wrong. As I said, what I read from Clement seemed to agree with scripture."

    Again you are confused and mixing time periods. I Clement was NOT one of the "Church fathers". He was an “Apostolic Father”. "Church Fathers" are NOT the same as "Apostolic Fathers". ( I have not quoted from a single "Church Father". in any post in this thread so far)

    An “Apostolic father” is a text that was written at a time when the author either knew an apostle (e.g. Clement was a colleague of the apostle Peter) or at a time when one of the original 12 apostles could have been alive. The "Church Fathers" are a different set of texts and were written in a later age,


    "ALIGNING WITH SCRIPTURE" VERSUS "ALIGNING WITH ONES OWN INTERPRETATION OF SCRIPTURE"
    rrobs "That is my acid test; does it align with scriptures? The scriptures are the standard by which I judge all extraneous Christian writings."

    Actually, what you do is what almost all of us do. You see if it aligns with YOUR understanding of your scriptures. We all tend to do this and it is very difficult to do otherwise. As I said, the problem is that your interpretation of scriptures is different than that of the early Christians and it is different than the interpretation of other modern Christians as well.


    In any Case, we can conclude that @Good-Ole-Rebels' claim that Jesus pre-existed birth, and the claim that the Messiah created the world is consistent with Historical early Christian worldviews and their doctrines.

    I hope your spiritual journey is Good rrobs.


    Clear
    εισεσινεω
     
    #203 Clear, Mar 11, 2020
    Last edited: Mar 12, 2020
  4. PearlSeeker

    PearlSeeker Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2019
    Messages:
    1,021
    Ratings:
    +339
    Religion:
    Christian
    Who got it wrong - James, early Paul, later Paul, Cephas, Apollos, "Mark", author of Hebrews...?
     
  5. rrobs

    rrobs Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2018
    Messages:
    2,545
    Ratings:
    +429
    Religion:
    Christian
    I never actually mentioned a rule. I just said what basic Greek grammar says. I included an excerpt from Thayer's Greek Lexicon in an earlier post that says dia+gen=instrumentality. I believe it specifically said that the object of the prepositional phrase (Jesus in this case) is NOT the direct cause of the action.

    How is that any different than my assertion that the scriptures interpret themselves?

    I'll even go so far as to say how they interpret themselves.
    1. Right where it is written. For example, "Jesus wept" hardly needs comment.
    2. Context
    3. A word of words were used before. Example, Paul's thorn in the flesh. Much has been said on what that thorn was. Some say blindness, chronic pain of some sort, etc. If we look at other usages of the words "thorn in the flesh" (or close derivatives of that phrase), it becomes easy to determine that in the OT God called people who obstructed His work thorns in the flesh.
    4. Figures of Speech. Figures of speech are a legitimate tool of grammar used to grab one's intention. We use them all the time in everyday speech and we all know when something is meant to be taken literal or if it is a figure of speech.
    5. We must learn how the Jews understood words and their meanings.
    There is a few other ways the scriptures interpret themselves, but these will cover about 98%. Please don't ask me for empirical data on that 98% figure. It is just my own approximation. It can't be too far off though.

    John 1:1 says the word was with God. Instead of searching out what that word meant, Christians just seem to substitute the word "Jesus" for the word "word." That is their own interpretation. It is possible to arrive at the true meaning of the "word" but few go beyond substituting the word "Jesus" for it.

    Yes, I am confused on certain points. Who isn't? :)

    Yes. Thanks for the reminder.


    If, as you seem to suggest, we all are destined to have our own interpretation, God wasted His time in exhorting us to all think the same thing, that there would be no divisions. It must be available to all think the same thing, and I believe it is so long as we let the scriptures interpret themselves. Again I say that virtually everything we read in the secular realm does just that. Few would bother reading something that isn't straight forward in what it says.
     
  6. Clear

    Clear Well-Known Member
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2008
    Messages:
    2,548
    Ratings:
    +448
    Religion:
    Christian
    PearlSeeker asked regarding the tendency of mankind to make errors in religion : “Who got it wrong - James, early Paul, later Paul, Cephas, Apollos, "Mark", author of Hebrews...?”


    Hi @PearlSeeker


    My initial comment regarding the tendency of imperfect individuals to make mistakes was in response to rrobs point that the apostle Paul noticed even in his day, there were schisms and conflicting doctrines being taught within the early Christian movement.

    Initially, I was thinking of examples such as the Carpocratians who had a sexually immoral Christianity, or maricon who limited his text (as did many of the Christians of the early Christian movement who refused to accept the texts that became the “New Testament” library); the creators of our bibles such as the masorets and other translators who tell us of the imperfections in the bibles they create for us. Even Printers get the text wrong (e.g. the 1631 “wicked bible” which said “thou shalt commit adultery). My point is that mankind, all of us, tend to make mistakes, whether small or large, in the creation of texts and in creating meanings that underlie our beliefs and doctrines and practices.

    Inasmuch as we all make such errors , and some of those errors are errors in interpretation and belief, (whether small or large), those error will add up and result in erroneous doctrines and practices. Thus it is that, for all of us Christian doctrines and practices tend to evolve away from an original position (stasis) and result in new and different doctrines that are different than the original christianity (apo/stasy).

    Good luck in your own spiritual journey. I hope it is good.

    Clear
     
    #206 Clear, Mar 12, 2020
    Last edited: Mar 12, 2020
  7. PearlSeeker

    PearlSeeker Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2019
    Messages:
    1,021
    Ratings:
    +339
    Religion:
    Christian
    How do you know the Creator Messiah (Son of God/Word) was early doctrine? It seems rather only one of interpretations. Paul wasn't even an eyewitness.
     
  8. Clear

    Clear Well-Known Member
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2008
    Messages:
    2,548
    Ratings:
    +448
    Religion:
    Christian
    @PearlSeeker asked : "How do you know the Creator Messiah (Son of God/Word) was early doctrine? It seems rather only one of interpretations. Paul wasn't even an eyewitness." (post #207)


    Hi PearlSeeker : If the vision described by Paul in acts chap 9, actually happened to Paul, then he was an authentic witness that Jesus lived beyond his death. When Paul asked asked who was speaking to him, the voice told Paul “I am Jesus whom you are persecuting…”


    However in the context of this thread, Pauls teaching seems represent the dominant Christian doctrine, and thus IF Paul was the writer of Hebrews1:2 then this represents authentic early Christian belief. However, just as importantly, the early Judeo-Christian literature also gives us many many witnesses of early Judeo-Christian doctrine on this specific belief.

    I said that though New Testament Hebrews makes the innocuous statement that “God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets, Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds.” (kjv Heb 1:1-2) , I think the concept underlying the words the Son "made the worlds" is often overlooked. However this tradition that the Son (or the son of man, or the word, or the logos, etc) was the creator of the words (as directed by God to do so) is not common knowledge.

    This verse traditionally referred to the time before creation when he was “made so much better than the angels, as he hath by inheritance obtained a more excellent name than they.” Vs 4

    The prophet enoch spoke of this same tradition and time period, when, before creation, “ At that hour, that Son of Man was given a name, in the presence of the Lord of the Spirits, the head of days. This time period was “… even before the creation of the sun and the moon, before the creation of the stars, he was given a name in the presence of the Lord of the Spirits.” And he became the Chosen One... (c.f.1st Enoch 48:1-7)

    The tradition of the Son of Man becoming chosen by God as the savior (i.e. the lamb slain before the foundation of the world” and his special servant) is woven into early textual histories just as his role as “the Word of God” (i.e. the “Logos”). Similarly, just as the Messiah was chosen as the savior before creation (i.e. the lamb slain from the foundation of the world…),. He was also chosen as the agent of creation.

    Thus many of the early Hellenistic synagogal prayers reflect God the Father, having create the world through Jesus.

    For example, one post Eucharistic prayer reads : #1 vs 2 We give thanks to you, O God and Father of Jesus our Savior...on behalf of the knowledge and faith and love and immortality which you gave to us through Jesus your Son. 4 O Master Almighty, the God of the universe, you created the world and what is in it through him, and you planted deeply in our souls a law; and you prepared for men the things (necessary) for communion; " (aposCon 7.26. 1-3)

    Thus 1 Clement also taught the early Christian saints as he refers to God the Father as “ ... the creator of the universe...through his beloved servant Jesus Christ, “…through whom he called us from darkness to light, from ignorance to the knowledge of the glory of his name.

    Clement still realized that the Father is the “primal source” since all is done by direction of and in in accordance with the Fathers plan. The Father commands, and the Word or Logos, Jesus, obeys. 1 Clement 59:2-3;

    This is the same context of another Hellenistic Synagogal prayer which Blesses God, the “King of the ages, who through Christ made everything, and through him in the beginning ordered that which was unprepared; who separated waters from waters with a firmament, and put a lively spirit in these; 3 who settled the earth (firmly), and stretched out heaven, and ordered the exact arrangement of each one of the creatures..... Vs 18 And the goal of the creative work – the rational living creature, the world citizen – having given order by your Wisdom, you created, saying, “let us make man according to our image and likeness” (aposCon 7.34.1-8) ;

    Barnabas
    speaks of this same close relationship where the Father includes the Son in his plan from this early stage of creation.For the Scripture speaks about us when he says to the Son: “Let us make man according to our image and likeness, and let them rule over the beasts of the earth and the birds of the air and the fish of the sea.” And when he saw that our creation was good, the Lord said: “Increase and multiply and fill the earth.” These things he said to the Son" The Epistle of Barnabas 6:12;

    And, again he refers to the Lord Jesus as “Lord of the Whole world” says “And furthermore, my brothers: if the Lord submitted to suffer for our souls, even though he is Lord of the whole world, to whom God said at the foundation of the world, “Let us make man according to our image and likeness, how is it, then, that he submitted to suffer at the hands of men.?The Epistle of Barnabas 5:5

    The early tradition which has Jesus / the word/logos as the main one to whom God the Father was speaking permeates multiple synagogal prayers. When God said Let us make man according to our image and likeness

    Even at this early stage of creation, the traditions indicate that the Savior was already mediating creation. Thus yet another Hellenistic Synagogal prayer reads : #4 vs 2 “O Creator, Savior, rich One in favors, Long-sufferer, and supplier of mercy, who do not withdraw from the salvation of your creatures!” as the prayer shifts to honoring the father (vs38) the prayer reads : “ For you are the Father of wisdom, the Creator, as cause, of the creative workmanship through a Mediator...41 the God and Father of the Christ,... (aposCon 7.35.1-10);

    As yet another example, Hellenistic Synagogal prayer #5 starts out recognizing this same relationship, saying : O Lord, Almighty One, you created the cosmos through Christ, and marked out a Sabbath day for a remembrance of this; 2 because on it you rested from the works (of creation), in order to give attention to your own laws. “ (aposCon 7.36.1-7);

    Such references that were so ingrained in early Christian prayers and texts were incredibly influential and had profound popularity in early Christianity. For example, the very text that Columbus used as a guide to how long his journey across the ocean would take, also references this same relationship between the Lord God and his “word” or his “logos”. It reads : O Lord, you spoke at the beginning of creation, and said on the first day, ‘Let heaven and earth be made,’ and your word accomplished the work. ...”Again, on the second day you created the spirit of the firmament, and commanded him to divide and separate the waters,...”On the third day you commanded the waters to be gathered together in the seventh part of the earth; six parts you dried up and kept so that some of them might be planted and cultivated and be of service before you. For your word went forth, and at once the work was done.” the Fourth Book of Ezra 6:38-44; ("Your word was a euphamism for the pre-existent messiah who was in the beginning with God - John 1:1)

    POST TWO OF TWO FOLLOWS
     
    #208 Clear, Mar 12, 2020
    Last edited: Mar 13, 2020
  9. Clear

    Clear Well-Known Member
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2008
    Messages:
    2,548
    Ratings:
    +448
    Religion:
    Christian
    POST TWO OF TWO

    " The Son of man received from God the capacity to create. He also has the ability to beget.” The gospel of Phillip;

    This early and clear tradition was described in multiple early texts, thus the jewish haggadah relates Adam was created by God and “the word” created the rest : The superiority of man to the other creatures is apparent in the very manner of his creation, altogether different from theirs. He is the only one who was created by the hand of God. The rest sprang from the Word of God.” The Haggadah (Man and the world)

    Still, regardless of any involved in actual creation, the plan remained the Fathers plan. It was according to his design and his will. Thus it was said that ““Logos followed Will for through the logos, Christ created all things. The Secret Book of John (of Sophia);

    As the work of the farmer is the plow and the helmsman the guidance of the ship so my work is a song to the Lord ....He created and rested. Created things follow a pattern. They do not know rest. ....And nothing exists without the Lord. He was before anything was, and our worlds were made by his word, his thought and his heart. THE ODES OF SOLOMON ODE 16;

    In the Gospel of Bartholomew, Mary also glorified God the Father as a primal creator “… exceeding great and all wise, king of the ages, indescribable, ineffable, .who created the breadths of the heavens by your word and arranged the vault of heaven in harmony, who gave form to disorderly matter and brought together that which was separated....” Later, speaking of the logos/word of the Father, she refers to his descent through the seven heavens and explains the context of creation, saying :. The seven heavens could scarcely contain you, but you were pleased to be contained in me, without causing me pain, you who are the perfect Word of the Father, through whom everything was created. The Gospel of Bartholomew ch two

    At any rate @PearlSeeker, the early textual traditions, clearly describe the Plan for mans' salvation originated with the father and, once the Father chooses a savior and mediator, that Mediator is involved very closely with the father as his servant and as his "son", to the point of taking on the role of Creator of much of creation.

    I think that it is partly this close association of the Son and his involvement in so many aspects of the Fathers plan that also creates confusion and difficulties for later Christian movements in deciding what sort of relationship God, his Son and the Holy Spirit have with each other. I do not blame anyone for any confusion on this point.

    Good luck coming to your own conclusions and making your own models PearlSeeker

    Clear
    εισισιφυω
     
  10. Clear

    Clear Well-Known Member
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2008
    Messages:
    2,548
    Ratings:
    +448
    Religion:
    Christian
    REGARDING THE THEORY THAT "THE TEXT INTERPRETS ITSELF"

    Hi @rrobs,

    You claim that an inanimate text “interprets itself”. But you then prove this claim wrong by giving readers multiple examples of knowledge, understanding and skills the reader must have in order for the reader to interpret the text. This is NOT an example of text “interpreting itself”.

    You added a person to the equation. This is a PERSON interpreting the text, not an inanimate object (i.e. the text) "interpreting itself".



    THE LIST OF DATA, KNOWLEDGE AND SKILLS RROBS SAYS ONE MUST HAVE FOR THE TEXT TO "INTERPRET ITSELF"

    You then tell us the person must have certain skills, some of which are rare. This is NOT an example of a text “interpreting itself”.

    You tell us the person who is doing the interpreting, must know and understand the "context" (rrobs, post #205) of what is written. This is NOT text “interpreting itself”, but rather one is bringing a context to the study of the text.

    You tell us that one must know and understand “usages of the words” (rrobs, post #205). Thus one must bring a specific knowledge and understanding to the text they are attempting to interpret. This is NOT the text “interpreting itself”.

    You tell us that we must know “figures of speech” (rrobs, post #205), since, as you tell us, they are a “legitimate tool of grammar”. This is another set of facts and data and understanding which one must being to the text in order to properly interpret the text. This is NOT the text “interpreting itself”.

    You then tell us “we must learn how the Jews understood words and their meanings” (rrobs, post #205) which is simply yet another set of data and knowledge and understanding which one must bring with them in order to properly interpret the text. This is yet another example where the text is NOT “interpreting itself”.

    What you have given us is multiple examples which demonstrate that the text does not “interpret itself” and in fact, you have given us multiple examples where the person reading the text must bring TO the text, several fairly rare sets of data and knowledge and skills and understanding before the understand the full meaning underlying some of the most simple sentences.

    What you have demonstrated to readers is that the text doesn’t “interpret itself”, but that they will need to bring data and understanding and context and other skills to the text in order for THEM to properly “interpret the text”. You have proven your statement wrong and then explained why you are wrong.

    You have done an excellent job at showing why your theory of "text interpreting itself" is irrational and illogical and doesn't work. However, you forgot to add a few other skills which individuals must have in order for the person doing the interpretation to understand the text.

    For example, how would you interpret the following text from the Old Testament : "...חנשר חגדול גדול חכנפ'מ ארך..." ?

    IF, as you claim "we must learn how the Jews understood their words and their meanings" (rrobs, post #205) in order to interpret the text, then tell us :
    Why is the reference to length is important?
    What does that specific Jewish figure of speech refer to?
    What does it have to do with the concept that Christ would have gathered Israel “as a chicken gathers her chicks”?
    Tell readers what this text means if it "interprets itself".

    I might remind you that we've not even discussed languages, variants of text, versions, variants of grammar, etc.

    In any case, I hope your spiritual journey is good rrobs.

    Clear
    εισισιφυω
     
    #210 Clear, Mar 12, 2020
    Last edited: Mar 13, 2020
  11. rrobs

    rrobs Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2018
    Messages:
    2,545
    Ratings:
    +429
    Religion:
    Christian
    "By who also He made the worlds" - The word "worlds" is Greek "aeon" which is better translated as "ages." The words "by whom" is the Greek word "dia" which in this context is better translated as "on account of" (Strong's third definition). This verse is simply saying that God's dealings with mankind through the ages is centered around Jesus. Jesus is the reason for the ages. It does not address who created the universe. That answer is in Genesis 1:1 and other verses that declare Yahweh alone, by Himself, created the universe. I trust you remember the verses I quoted earlier that said just that.

    In my experience almost all Christians hold the tradition that Jesus did create the universe. That of course is dependent on the further tradition that Jesus per-existed before he actually existed. That idea comes, not from the scriptures, but from Greek philosophy which didn't depend on logic or common sense. Otherwise, how in the world could anybody think somebody existed before their birth?
     
  12. rrobs

    rrobs Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2018
    Messages:
    2,545
    Ratings:
    +429
    Religion:
    Christian
    I've never claimed to understand each and every verse. I am not afraid to say, "I don't know." I would have to do some work to understand exactly what the eagle with great wings (Ezekiel maybe?) is. I do know the answer is somewhere in the scriptures themselves. I would just need to apply the points I mentioned before. It might be a good starting point to look at every usage of the word "eagle" in the scriptures. Obviously, not a 10 minute project. It might help to learn how the ancient Jews viewed eagles. Of course context could easily lend a clue.

    I think the skills I mentioned one needs to read the scriptures are grade school level skills. It seems you would consider even knowing what a word means is some kind of special skill. Really, the points I gave are those which we all use in our every day life.

    Regarding whose interpretation is the correct one, how do you take this verse:

    τουτο πρωτον γινωσκοντες οτι πασα προφητεια γραφης ιδιας επιλυσεως ου γινεται?

     
  13. rrobs

    rrobs Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2018
    Messages:
    2,545
    Ratings:
    +429
    Religion:
    Christian
    It appears that your method of interpretation involves learning how the early Christians interpreted them. I don't see how that is superior to what I said, particularly considering the fact that Paul said, "all they which are in Asia be turned away from me." Any idea as to which of the early believers that may have or have not applied?
     
  14. Clear

    Clear Well-Known Member
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2008
    Messages:
    2,548
    Ratings:
    +448
    Religion:
    Christian
    REGARDING THE MULTIPLE ATTEMPTS TO RE-TRANSLATE AND CHANGE MEANINGS OF BIBICAL TEXT TO SUPPORT ONES OWN BIAS
    rrobs says "the Greek word "dia" which in this context is better translated as "on account of" (Strong's third definition). (#211)

    I disagree. I think the biblical translators were correct in this instance. Your “Greek” background from the more than 40 years ago in the1960s is incorrect. Instead, the words that authentic biblical translators’ chose (i.e. “by” or “through” for δια ) are more correct given the context. Your Greek has too many errors in it to be a Greek translator and certainly it is not god enough to over-rule the translation in this verse.

    Remember, you already rendered a conflicting opinion on Heb 1:3 and it 's use of δια, saying "…the Greek word "dia" which means the actual creator did so through an intermediate agent or instrument” (rrobs, post #184)

    I don’t know why it is so important to you that you are willing to offer bizarre and inaccurate reasons to try to discount early Christian religion and portray your belief as better. The Christianity ot the apostolic age seems to be more logical and more rational and more intuitive on most points than your religion.


    THE FAILED CLAIM THAT "SEVERAL VERSES" SPECIFY THAT GOD ALONE CREATED THE UNIVERSE
    Clear asked : “Since you can think of “several verses”, can you can you give us perhaps five examples of verses that specify Yahweh ALONE created the universe? Then, we discuss these "several" verses and how early Judeo-Christians interpreted them.” (Clear #190)
    Rrobs answered : “That answer is in Genesis 1:1 and other verses that declare Yahweh alone, by Himself, created the universe.”

    You do see, don't you, that your adding details to the text which are not in the original text? This is a transparent and silly attempt to change the narrative.
    Genesis 1:1 does NOT specify God created “alone” nor does it specify “by Himself”, in fact during this creation process God said “let us Create” man (ποιησωμεν). This language indicates God was not alone during the process of creation.

    You claimed that you had “several” verses which specify and demonstrate God “alone”, “by himself” created the universe. Readers are still waiting for these “several” verses you claim exist.




    HEBREWS 1:2 THROUGH WHOM HE ALSO "MADE THE WORLDS" OR THROUGH WHOM HE ALSO "MADE THE AGES"
    rrobs claimed : "The word "worlds" is Greek "aeon" which is better translated as "ages”."

    It is also means “world” and in this case, I agree with the biblical translators, rather than on your suggested translation.

    Rrobs, this series of failed arguments are unneeded and, importantly, they cost you credibility. All Greek translators know that it is the context of the writer that determines meaning. While Greek Aion and Hebrew Olam can mean a period of time, both also have this “world” as another meaning as well. Genesis 1:1 specifies BOTH in the LXX Greek and Masoretic Hebrew that God created the earth την γην (grk) and the land חארץ (Hebrew).

    Similarly, the context in other verses indicate that the “world” is meant, rather than “age”. For examples, I Cor 10:11, “upon whom the ends of the world are come”.

    Matt 12:32 “….not be forgiven him, neither in this world, neither in the world to come…”

    Matt 13:22,39,40,49 : “and the care of this world…”, “the harvest is the end of the world…”, So shall it be in the end of this world….”

    Matt 24:3 “and lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world.”

    Mark 4:19 “…and the cares of this world…”


    PLURAL ETERNITIES?
    Hebrews 1:2 Is actually a plural, That is it says : “by whom he made the worlds.” And in Heb 11:3 by faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God.” To say that the word, who was in the beginning with God (Jn 1:1-3) created “the eternities” (plural) would be nonsensical since there is only one eternity.

    The same principle applies to a plural of “ages”. It is different if it is in the singular as it is used in Romans 16:25 “Since the world began…”.

    IF you had used Matt 24:4 as an example, I could have supported your point. The error was that you were trying to re-translate in order to support your own theology, rather than to support the actual context of the text. When bible translators feels justified using “world” the meaning of the word in the context where you want to change it, I think you need to have a better reason to disagree with them than that the current translation “doesn’t agree” with your theology.

    Rrobs, We have now chewed through your multiple failure after failure to discount early Christianity and their religion with the intent of improving the credibility of your own religion. You must be aware that this decreases the credibility and rationality and logic of your own belief and increases the credibility of the more original Christian religion.

    In any case readers have seen over and over that the earliest Judeo-Christian doctrine was that the Messiah existed prior to Birth (he was in the beginning with God), and that the earliest doctrine was that God created worlds through the actions of the Messiah. rrobs If you don't actually have any data or logical discussion regarding early Judeo-Christianity, then the historical point regarding what early Judeo-christians say they believe remains.

    Clear
    ειακτωακω
     
    #214 Clear, Mar 13, 2020
    Last edited: Mar 13, 2020
  15. rrobs

    rrobs Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2018
    Messages:
    2,545
    Ratings:
    +429
    Religion:
    Christian
    Well, I thought I'd given them to you, but maybe it was someone else. But no, it was you. they were in my reply to your post #190. In any case, for your reading pleasure:

    Isa 44:24,

    Thus saith the LORD, thy redeemer, and he that formed thee from the womb, I [am] the LORD that maketh all [things]; that stretcheth forth the heavens alone; that spreadeth abroad the earth by myself;​

    Job 9:8,

    Which alone spreadeth out the heavens, and treadeth upon the waves of the sea.
    Of course it would be remiss of us not to consider that every mention of God creating the world employs the singular pronoun, I or he. That ought to shed some light on the subject. But, alas, the simplicity of the scriptures has been superseded by myths for far too many Christian. Hopefully there will soon be some kind of revival. There will be for sure when Jesus returns!

    That is absolutely my claim, and I stand by it. Here is a complete definition from Strong's Concordance:

    G165 αἰών aion (ai-ōn') n.
    1. (properly) an age (or eon). a period of existence, though not merely a period of time (there are ages after the Last Day).
    2. (by extension) ages, perpetuity (forward, also into the past).
    3. (rarely) the beginning age (see John 9:32, Acts 15:18).
    4. (rarely) the prior age (see Luke 1:70).
    5. (often) the present age, the world today (see 1 Timothy 4:8, 1 Timothy 6:17).
    6. (specially, Jewish) the coming age, the Messianic period or the New Heavens and Earth period (and beyond) by context (see Luke 18:30, Ephesians 2:7, Hebrews 13:8).​

    It's a time word, not a material word. That's just the way it is. Same with dia. I've done my homework on it and that is why I said it can be translated as "on account of" as well as "through." I didn't just demand someone show me what dia meant. I put in the work to learn what those words meant. If you are of a mind to know, I suggest you do the same.

    Anyway, I'm not the only one to see what I see. Here's Rotherham's EBR version of Heb 1:2,

    At the end of these days, He hath spoken unto us in his Son,––whom he hath appointed heir of all things, through whom also he hath made the ages;​

    Rotherham, a noted Biblical scholar and minister, had no qualms about translating Heb 1:2 true to the original Greek. The trinity was so entrenched in the church by the time most English translations were penned that they naturally, and probably unconsciously, forced their preconceived ideas upon the text. By the way, Rotherham is not the only one to have had the courage to translate it correctly. There are other versions as well.


    Again, it's not just me. Reread the Strong's translations above. Out of 6 definitions, Notice all deal with time. There is no mention of the material world. All of the above verses would be better understood had the English translator been truer to the text than his pre-conceived ideas.

    Did you just change the my word "ages" to "eternities?" I think you did. In any case, there is a differences between an age and an eternity. An eternity is certainly an age, but there are many other ages as well. Even the church talks about an OT and a NT. There you have 2 more ages to add to eternity for a total of 3. There are actually other ages spoken of in the scriptures, but that's another subject altogether.
     
  16. PearlSeeker

    PearlSeeker Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2019
    Messages:
    1,021
    Ratings:
    +339
    Religion:
    Christian
    Paul didn't see the earthly Jesus like other apostles. The voice is supposed to only intruduce himself as Jesus. There is no revelation about mediator/creator. There is also no such teaching from Jesus in synoptics. Such belief existed (as speculations) but didn't come from Jesus so I wouldn't call it authentic Christian.

    Most scholars agree the author of Hebrews is not Paul. But this doesn't matter because Paul expressed similarly in 1 Corinthians 8:6.
     
  17. Clear

    Clear Well-Known Member
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2008
    Messages:
    2,548
    Ratings:
    +448
    Religion:
    Christian
    Hi @PearlSeeker


    PearlSeeker said : “Paul didn't see the earthly Jesus like other apostles. “ (post 216)

    That is correct. Pauls’ witness therefore regards the post-resurrected Jesus. His testimony therefore is that, even after the death of Jesus, there is a Jesus that still lives.


    PearlSeeker said : “ There is no revelation about mediator/creator.”(post 216)
    That is correct. The Christian doctrine that Jesus was the mediator and creator did NOT come from the text where Paul has his revelation.


    PearlSeeker said : “Such belief existed (as speculations) but didn't come from Jesus so I wouldn't call it authentic Christian.”(post 216)
    In examining early Judeo-Christian text, we are not concerned with YOUR beliefs, but instead, when we read early Judeo-Christian texts, we are speaking of THEIR beliefs concerning Jesus. In examining THAT historical Jesus, your and my beliefs are irrelevant.


    PearlSeeker said : “Most scholars agree the author of Hebrews is not Paul. But this doesn't matter because Paul expressed similarly in 1 Corinthians 8:6. (post 216)
    I agree, no one knows, nor can we prove who wrote ANY of the Old OR New testament texts. Authorship is unknown, but merely attributed by strong tradition.

    However, having agreed to all of these points, none of them are relevant to the historical point that Early Judeo-Christian doctrine was that Jesus/the Messiah was the creator of the world in association with God the Father. That does NOT mean that they believed God the Father and Jesus were the same person, merely that Jesus was the creator in association with his Father.



    Hi @rrobs, I am traveling today and will respond to your post later. I LIKE your point regarding αιωνα a lot and think that was the first important point regarding greek that you got absolutely right. However you and I will be at odds with most Christians on the forum regarding the fact that it never means eternity in it's base use. I'll get back to you when I return.

    Clear
    ειακσιφυω
     
  18. rrobs

    rrobs Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2018
    Messages:
    2,545
    Ratings:
    +429
    Religion:
    Christian
    Vaya con Dios mi amigo!
     
  19. Clear

    Clear Well-Known Member
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2008
    Messages:
    2,548
    Ratings:
    +448
    Religion:
    Christian
    hi @rrobs; Thank you for your sentiments last post.


    1) THE EARLY MODEL WHEN THE INDIVIDUALS IN THE TRINITY WERE NOT THE SAME INDIVIDUAL

    Rrobs said : “God is the one true God who is called The Holy Spirit. His son, Jesus Christ is just that, His son. No son is ever also his own father, so Jesus and God are two different individuals. They are one only in the sense that Jesus always carried out His Father's will. They are one in purpose and desires” (Post #191)

    You and I have been speaking about the early Judeo-Christian belief that Jesus / the Messiah was, in early Judeo-Christian literature, described as the one who created the earth. While this is historically correct, your statement in post #191 had to do with their relationship and so I wondered if you misunderstood my position on the trinity. I very much agree with @Good-Ole-Rebel regarding his point that Jesus was the creator.

    However, I very much agree with YOUR point that Jesus was NOT the same individual as God the Father and as the Holy Spirit in the early Judeo-Christian literature and in their beliefs.

    It was in LATER centuries that the model of “three is really one” was developed. I wanted to make this clear in case you thought I was somehow arguing that these three were the same individuals in demonstrating Jesus as the creator, under commission of the Father. Other than to make this comment, I don’t really care to enter into that specific argument.


    Rrob said : “Well, I thought I'd given them to you, but maybe it was someone else. But no, it was you. they were in my reply to your post #190. In any case, for your reading pleasure:” (post #215)
    Oops, you are perfectly correct and I am absolutely incorrect on this point. I overlooked your reply and I apologize rrob.


    2) REGARDING THE USE OF ΑΙΩΝ IN EARLY SACRED LITERATURE

    Rrobs said :”Here is a complete definition from Strong's Concordance:

    G165 αἰών aion (ai-ōn') n.
    1. (properly) an age (or eon). a period of existence, though not merely a period of time (there are ages after the Last Day).
    2. (by extension) ages, perpetuity (forward, also into the past).
    3. (rarely) the beginning age (see John 9:32, Acts 15:18).
    4. (rarely) the prior age (see Luke 1:70).
    5. (often) the present age, the world today (see 1 Timothy 4:8, 1 Timothy 6:17).
    6. (specially, Jewish) the coming age, the Messianic period or the New Heavens and Earth period (and beyond) by context (see Luke 18:30, Ephesians 2:7, Hebrews 13:8).

    It's a time word, not a material word.” (post #215)



    rrobs : While I very much agree with you that αιων, in it’s base meaning, applied to a time period and it did not mean either everlasting nor eternal (despite the many times it’s been rendered as “eternal life”).

    αιον-αιονιος (an age of ages) was synonymous to Hebrew עולמ / olam (which comes from עלמ, a word signifying hidden or unknown). Thus its base meaning signified an indefinite duration of time past or future.

    For example, hebrew m’olam l’olam meant coming from ages prior and going into ages future. Though if one added v' od, then it could mean above and beyond the ages (and thus the meaning could approximate the meaning of "eternity")


    3) ΑΙΩΝ עולמ / olam AND THEIR MULTIPLE MEANINGS

    If you look at the first five places in which olam occurs in the Old testament, it is rendered by five different words (“forever“, “always“, “of old“, “perpetual“, “everlasting“, etc.) The word occurs 657 times in the old testament and is rendered into almost 30 different words. The different translations occur because of context (i.e. the object with which olam is associated). Thus, if the word olam (greek "αιων") is associated with “the world”, then meaning came to mean “the world”. This is why it is rendered “world” so often as your example from strongs indicates.

    For example, If you look at your note from strongs (which is NOT meant for use by translators), it gives us the word "age" as in “time” as the “proper” meaning of αιων.
    Strongs then notes that it "rarely" means “ages”.
    Strongs then notes that it "often" means "the world today".


    4) THE MEANING AND USAGE OF ΑΙΩΝ IN ITS ASSOCIATION TO “THIS WORLD”

    The linguist Lenneps point that the word comes from αο, “to breathe” and signifies the indefinite duration time associated with mortality. It’s use in such phrases as αιων δε δι οστεων is not really literally referring to “the age of bone”, but by association, it means the “time of life” (the marrow / blood was associated with life).

    While strongs tells us how translators used the word in a theoretical or translational sense, only actual usage is the true determination of actual meaning in ancient use. Thus it is important that Hesychius (4-6 c) and others anciently, USED the definition of αιων as “The life of man, the time of life.” So, despite theoretical entymological origins (who really knows what that was?), the USE of the word among the ancients was “often” (as strong confirms) used to signify the age of mortal man or duration of mortal life in this world. It is used with this meaning by Homer, Hesiod and the old poets, by Pindar and tragic writers as well as Herodotus and Xenophon, etc. It’s actual useage in ancient literature determined its meaning.

    Since the Duration of an αιων was associated with some object, its characteristic became associated with that object. For example, it’s duration of time was determined by the object, that is, the time varied according to whether one applied αιων to bone marrow, that is, to mortality, the lifetime of mankind, etc or to another object.

    Thus αιονιον was a short time when it applied to the time Jonah was in the fish (70 hours was it’s duration then). When applied to the priesthood of Aaron, αιων meant centuries. When applied to the mountains, perhaps αιων meant thousands of years.

    Similarly, it was its application to God himself which caused it to come to mean “eternal”, since God was envisioned to be eternal. Its later meaning associated with “eternity” came from the words’ application to God, and not from the word itself.

    Similarly, in the context in creation of the world, by extension, it came to mean “the world” since, it’s application to mortality applies to the conditions of mortality. (i.e. mortal life, mortal moral conditions, mortal worldly condition, the “way of life”, etc.). It is the context and not strongs that will tell us what the word means in a specific phrase.

    For the reasons I’ve explained above, I think translators were justified in translating Heb 1:2 as indicating the Son created the mortal/material worlds rather than that he simply created periods of time. For examples :

    through whom also he made the universe. (NIV)
    through the Son he created the universe. (NLT)
    through whom also he created the world. (ESV)

    through whom also He made the world. (NASB)
    through whom also He made the worlds (NKJV)
    by whom also he made the worlds (KJV)
    and made the universe through him. (CSB)
    and made the universe through Him. (HCSB)
    through whom he also made the universe.(ISV)
    through whom he created the world. (Net bible)
    through whom also He made the world. (NAS 77)
    by whom also he made the worlds; (AKJV)
    through whom also he made the worlds; (ASV)

    by whom also he made the world. (Douay-Rheims)
    by whom also he made the worlds; (Darby)
    through whom also he made the worlds (ESV)
    by whom also he made the worlds; (Websters)
    through whom also he made the worlds. (WEB)



    5) LITERAL TRANSLATIONS VERSUS CONTEXTUAL TRANSLATIONS
    As an example of the difference between a literal translation versus a contextual translation, the Berean STUDY bible renders the phrase “through whom He made the universe” while the Berean LITERAL bible renders the phrase “through whom He made the ages”. Literal translation lacks the context of normal translation and thus too much literalness causes a different kind of error in meaning.


    NON-TRANSLATION COMMENTARIES

    Some versions are NOT translations, but interpretations and commentaries that masquerade as authentic translations. For example the Contemporary English version renders the phrase “and everything will someday belong to the Son”. Obviously this is NOT an accurate translation, but reflects the unabashed theology of it’s author.


    6) REGARDING ROTHERHAM’S LITERAL TRANSLATIONS VERSUS TRANSLATIONS BY USAGE AND CONTEXT

    Rrobs said : "Here's Rotherham's EBR version of Heb 1:2, At the end of these days, He hath spoken unto us in his Son,––whom he hath appointed heir of all things, through whom also he hath made the ages;" (post #215)

    Remember Rotherham is a literalist and this tendency can cause it's own type of errors. For example, Rotherham noticed the New Testament text in one place calls the two crucified with Christ as “malefactors” and another place the text calls them “thieves”. He could not rectify this apparent inconsistency and thus, his version of the New Testament crucifixion has FIVE people crucified, Jesus and two “malefactors” AND two “thieves”.

    Rotherham was not particularly able to allow for subtle changes in the New Testament text. Having said that, I like some of Rotherhams GRAMMATICAL changes to the bible he created.


    I am typing between appointments at work and so will respond to your other points later, as I find time.

    I hope your own spiritual journey is wonderful rrobs

    Clear
    τωτζτζσιω
     
    #219 Clear, Mar 16, 2020
    Last edited: Mar 16, 2020
  20. PearlSeeker

    PearlSeeker Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2019
    Messages:
    1,021
    Ratings:
    +339
    Religion:
    Christian
    Their beliefs are also irrelevant. What Jesus said about himself is relevant.
     
Loading...