Is Jesus Deity?
Comments
-
@Mitchell said:
@Dave_L said:
Being good with tools does not make you a dentist any more than speaking a language makes you a professional linguist.Therefore, an expat shouldn't learn the language of the country they have chosen to live in? And, they should instead hire a full-time interpreter/translator or just remain monolingual and live in a bubble? Actually, for whatever reason, a lot of expats here (usually from English speaking countries) that live in the bigger cities tend to remain monolingual and often need to ask for help to do basic things.
It is good that men like Robert Young (as well as a number of other Bible translators who do not have degrees in Biblical languages) did not take your advice otherwise they would not have accomplished anything.
But, no the point was never about becoming a professional(paid) linguist. Anyone who is diligence and puts the effort in can gain fluency in another language and even those that can't still benefit and learn from better tools.
Why hire a lawyer if you are already qualified having a street level knowledge of the language?
-
@Dave_L said:
Why hire a lawyer if you are already qualified having a street level knowledge of the language?What, does the hiring of a lawyer have to do with a so-called street-level language knowledge(whatever that means)? I do not know and am not sure how the hiring of a lawyer have anything to do with language learning?
And, so what if one has only a street-level knowledge at the moment? In a few months, they might gain an intermediate level and in a few more years they might gain a near-native fluency.
When looking for advice about language acquisition I believe one should listen to those who have achieved fluency (or whatever other goals one might be interested in) rather than naysayers who either have not tried or who gave up years ago.That's what I am doing and why I have a hard time understanding your negativity in regards language acquisition.
When I finished elementary Greek I did not stop taking classes because I only knew a little. Did I stop because there were (and still are) more knowledgeable Greek scholars/students? No, I knew that there was more to learn so I continued to take classes, study and acquired a minor in Koine Greek, but I did not stop there. I even left my country to study more which is what I am still doing now. I have reached a lot the goals that I set myself like passing the Japanese Language Proficiency Test and consolidating my fluency in Hebrew. Have I finished learning? No! Have I reached all my goals? No, not yet! So does that mean I should stop, cry, and give up because I have not reached all my goals? No, way!
-
I'm only pointing out that you are possibly missing your calling trifling over words while expecting others to do likewise.
-
How is language acquisition trifling (whatever that means) over words?
-
A little trifling over words prevents a lot of misunderstanding.
-
I don't know how we got here in languages. However, a working knowledge of Biblical Hebrew and Greek are tools in the hands of the believer on a mission for Christ. As His followers, we should want to take advantage of every opportunity to improve gifts (innate or acquired) for the Lord. This may be for some, using the language help in Logos until we get along without them. It just like training wheels on a tricycle; use them until you can ride without them.
There is hope for those who may be slow in getting the hang of things. Remember, you don't have to bake every piece of bread you eat. Oh, what independence and freedom you have when you learn to do for yourself! Until you master the languages, use the available tools and seek help. Happy learning! CM
-
@C_M_ said:
I don't know how we got here in languages.We got here after my mention that English translations in Joh 1 translate the pronoun related to the noun "word" not with "it" as the regular translation principles would require, but rather with "he", thereby interpreting rather than translating and making "Word" to be a name/title of a somehow pre-existing living person Jesus rather than being what it regularly means -- "word".
I would consider the mention of "word" and "in the beginning" in Joh 1:1ff in light of 1Pe 1:20 where we read that Christ from even before the foundation of the world existed in God's foreknowledge (lit. "was foreknown"), but he was only manifested (what had been "word in God's foreknowledge" then "became flesh" / became the person Jesus) when he was conceived and born of Mary.
Simple illustration: Prior to getting married, my future wife and I talked about various things, among them the prospect of definitely wanting to have 2 children. This conversation was actually "the beginning" of our children in the sense that they from then on existed as "word" in our "knowledge/concept/plan". Approx 2 years later, what had been our "word" then "became flesh" for the first time when our son was born, and in the course of 5 years, our "word" then "became flesh" a second time when our daughter was born. Did our children already exist as living beings of some sort (spirits, or something else) prior to their conception and birth? No! Did they exist as "word" prior to their conception and birth? Yes! And that from the beginning when my wife and I first talked about wanting to have children. Were they already a "he" and a "she" prior to the start of their human life? No. They were "word", and "it" (that word, idea, plan) then "became flesh" and influenced various other matters (among them the decision to get married) during the time prior to their conception and birth.
There is no complicate "Christology theology" needed in Joh 1, rather a true simple understanding of the passage in light of other passages, such as 1Pe 1:20 and all other passages which speak about God's PLAN of a coming Messiah in order to gain a true understanding.
Unfortunately, complicate theology solely based on assumptions and guesswork (or has anyone of those theologians been there at the beginning and before the foundation of the world to actually know for fact what they claim? ) which then is presented as if it were fact, has clouded and shrouded simple truth into mystery religion.
-
@Mitchell said:
How is language acquisition trifling (whatever that means) over words?“Remind people of these things and solemnly charge them before the Lord not to wrangle over words. This is of no benefit; it just brings ruin on those who listen.” (2 Timothy 2:14)
-
@Wolfgang said:
Simple illustration: Prior to getting married, my future wife and I talked about various things, among them the prospect of definitely wanting to have 2 children. This conversation was actually "the beginning" of our children in the sense that they from then on existed as "word" in our "knowledge/concept/plan". Approx 2 years later, what had been our "word" then "became flesh" for the first time when our son was born, and in the course of 5 years, our "word" then "became flesh" a second time when our daughter was born. Did our children already exist as living beings of some sort (spirits, or something else) prior to their conception and birth? No! Did they exist as "word" prior to their conception and birth? Yes! And that from the beginning when my wife and I first talked about wanting to have children. Were they already a "he" and a "she" prior to the start of their human life? No. They were "word", and "it" (that word, idea, plan) then "became flesh" and influenced various other matters (among them the decision to get married) during the time prior to their conception and birth.There is no complicate "Christology theology" needed in Joh 1, rather a true simple understanding of the passage in light of other passages, such as 1Pe 1:20 and all other passages which speak about God's PLAN of a coming Messiah in order to gain a true understanding.
Unfortunately, complicate theology solely based on assumptions and guesswork (or has anyone of those theologians been there at the beginning and before the foundation of the world to actually know for fact what they claim? ) which then is presented as if it were fact, has clouded and shrouded simple truth into mystery religion.
I remember that in the previous CD forums you posted the example of your and your wife's plans for children as an illustration of a "word" that took on flesh. I believed your example was on-point and powerful then, and still believe it's powerful now. Thanks for sharing, Wolfgang.
-
@Bill_Coley said:
@Wolfgang said:
Simple illustration: Prior to getting married, my future wife and I talked about various things, among them the prospect of definitely wanting to have 2 children. This conversation was actually "the beginning" of our children in the sense that they from then on existed as "word" in our "knowledge/concept/plan". Approx 2 years later, what had been our "word" then "became flesh" for the first time when our son was born, and in the course of 5 years, our "word" then "became flesh" a second time when our daughter was born. Did our children already exist as living beings of some sort (spirits, or something else) prior to their conception and birth? No! Did they exist as "word" prior to their conception and birth? Yes! And that from the beginning when my wife and I first talked about wanting to have children. Were they already a "he" and a "she" prior to the start of their human life? No. They were "word", and "it" (that word, idea, plan) then "became flesh" and influenced various other matters (among them the decision to get married) during the time prior to their conception and birth.There is no complicate "Christology theology" needed in Joh 1, rather a true simple understanding of the passage in light of other passages, such as 1Pe 1:20 and all other passages which speak about God's PLAN of a coming Messiah in order to gain a true understanding.
Unfortunately, complicate theology solely based on assumptions and guesswork (or has anyone of those theologians been there at the beginning and before the foundation of the world to actually know for fact what they claim? ) which then is presented as if it were fact, has clouded and shrouded simple truth into mystery religion.
I remember that in the previous CD forums you posted the example of your and your wife's plans for children as an illustration of a "word" that took on flesh. I believed your example was on-point and powerful then, and still believe it's powerful now. Thanks for sharing, Wolfgang.
Except that is not even close to the same thing.
-
@davidtaylorjr said:
I remember that in the previous CD forums you posted the example of your and your wife's plans for children as an illustration of a "word" that took on flesh. I believed your example was on-point and powerful then, and still believe it's powerful now. Thanks for sharing, Wolfgang.
Except that is not even close to the same thing.
Both are about "word" as part of a plan to have a child and then in due time, what was "word" then "becoming flesh" when the child is conceived and born ... thus, the points of comparison are exactly the same thing.
Or are you saying that in the case of Jesus, God did not have a plan from the beginning and God did not have that human coming Messiah in the form of "word" in His foreknowledge? Does Scripture not from the very start in Gen 3 speak about God's plan of a coming Messiah who would be brought forth from a woman??
-
@Dave_L said:
“Remind people of these things and solemnly charge them before the Lord not to wrangle over words. This is of no benefit; it just brings ruin on those who listen.” (2 Timothy 2:14)How is language acquisition trifling or wrangle (whatever that means) over words?
Dave, the act of communicating in modern English on these forums with you is not trifling over words any more than speaking my family's language or the language of the country I currently live in is. If you came to my country attempting to communicate the gospel in English it would at best be meaningless, but it might also push people away who aren't interested in English. One, of the reasons I use Hebrew, is because people I know speak Hebrew and to force them to use an English translation or a Japanese translation would ludicrous. Other, people I meet speak only Japanese and usually if they know English only know the very basics. So, I believe that God has probably called me to use other languages, but even if He didn't it would still be common sense for me to use other languages.
-
You have a good point. But it is not the point I'm making. I believe we can trust too much in our language skills in the scriptures, and miss the point the scriptures make to the average Christian reader. And in the case of the illiterate Christian, the average Christian hearer.
-
@Dave_L said:
You have a good point. But it is not the point I'm making. I believe we can trust too much in our language skills in the scriptures, and miss the point the scriptures make to the average Christian reader. And in the case of the illiterate Christian, the average Christian hearer.One: I agree and I would say that yes from the beginning we have been making very different points. And been speaking past each other.
Two: I am not sure what, "trust too much in language skills" means? Would that mean that those who use English on these forums are trusting too much in their language skills or in the ability of English to express their thoughts?
Three: Not sure what you mean about illiterate Christian and Christian hearer?
Do you mean to speak of Christian individuals who can not read?
Do you mean to speak of Christian individuals who can read, but have not read or studied the Bible?And, if either of the above is answered in the affirmative does that mean that you believe the 'average Christian' to be illiterate of the Scriptures and/or undable to read?
-
Simply stated, we can strain out gnats while swallowing camels when we put emphasis on the wrong things. We can focus on the words and miss how they were used, missing the meaning and spirit of the text all together.
-
@Dave_L said:
Simply stated, we can strain out gnats while swallowing camelsWhat?
@Dave_L said:
We can focus on the words and miss how they were used, missing the meaning and spirit of the text all together.What, does that have to do with language acquisition? For example, Japanese is not my first language, but without I would not be able to communicate the simplicity of the Gospel where I currently live.
-
We are not talking about missionaries learning a foreign language so they can preach the gospel. We are talking about making non-essential language skills essential, thinking people cannot read their bibles apart from reading them in the original tongue. Even Jesus and the Apostles did not do this when reading from the Septuagint.
-
I actually agree with you that we can wrangle too much about words as Paul told Tim in 2 Tim 2:14. I think we can even do that with the Bible, which is why we sometimes share ideas back and forth a couple times and then let a thing rest.
As I look back on my posts, I wonder how many Paul would consider "wrangling."
On the other hand, learning together, ferreting out the beauty of linguistic nuance is a joy both as worship and as discovering the depth of the riches of the heart of God revealed through His very being--He is the Word!
-
I actually agree with you that we can wrangle too much about words as Paul told Tim in 2 Tim 2:14. I think we can even do that with the Bible, which is why we sometimes share ideas back and forth a couple times and then let a thing rest.
As I look back on my posts, I wonder how many Paul would consider "wrangling."
On the other hand, learning together, ferreting out the beauty of linguistic nuance is a joy both as worship and as discovering the depth of the riches of the heart of God revealed through His very being--He is the Word!
I agree. But it is great hearing from you and others even if we do not agree on everything.
-
@Dave_L said:
We are not talking about missionaries learning a foreign language so they can preach the gospel.No one said anything about missionaries. I for one am not a missionary but am simply an average/normal Christian (perhaps there are some aspects about that might be construed as unusual?).
@Dave_L said:
We are talking about making non-essential language skills essential...No, we aren't, you might be speaking about that though.
And, if so this means that we are still speaking past each other about different topics@Dave_L said:
Even Jesus and the Apostles did not do this when reading from the Septuagint.Luke 4:17-21 is the only place in the NT where we find Jesus reading the Bible and from that text, it appears that he is either reading for the Hebrew Bible and/or using a Targum(the targums at this time were not written down but would be produced on spot). I see, no evidence to suggest he read the LXX, although he may have quoted it.
-
@Wolfgang said:
We got here after my mention that English translations in Joh 1 translate...Yes, and one particular individual wasn't able to deal exegetically with the issues you presented and sadly that individual attempted to question your credentials as a pro (professional) translator rather than deal with the issues you presented or seek out help from others who could address those issues.
I also think that individual was upset that you stated the fact that you are a Pro translator. I am not sure why? As I personally do not find anything wrong with being a translator.
A pro (professional) translator is simply someone whose occupation is translating. Pro (professional) has also taken on the additional meaning of being an expert, and it is very easy to imagine that people who work a particular field over time tend to become experts or at least much more knowledgeable and skillful about their field than others not involved in it.
The fact you Wolfgang have been able to communicate at a highly educated native-like level in your 2nd language and have not been confused by some of the (in my opinion) rhetorical devices(games) one particular individual likes to use but have instead reasoned calmly and clearly proves to me that you are a professional and a gentleman in every sense of the word!
-
@Mitchell said:
@Dave_L said:
We are not talking about missionaries learning a foreign language so they can preach the gospel.No one said anything about missionaries. I for one am not a missionary but am simply an average/normal Christian (perhaps there are some aspects about that might be construed as unusual?).
@Dave_L said:
We are talking about making non-essential language skills essential...No, we aren't, you might be speaking about that though.
And, if so this means that we are still speaking past each other about different topics@Dave_L said:
Even Jesus and the Apostles did not do this when reading from the Septuagint.Luke 4:17-21 is the only place in the NT where we find Jesus reading the Bible and from that text, it appears that he is either reading for the Hebrew Bible and/or using a Targum(the targums at this time were not written down but would be produced on spot). I see, no evidence to suggest he read the LXX, although he may have quoted it.
How can jesus quote the LXX without placing his seal of approval on it? It tells me that translations of the original languages are OK. And it is the big picture received through hearing the word that matters. Sometimes the Devil literally is in the details.
-
@Dave_L said:
How can jesus quote the LXX without placing his seal of approval on it?The thing is we aren't sure if he did or didn't quote the LXX . This why I stated that he "may have" not that he did quote the LXX. It seems highly unlike to me that he would have used the Greek LXX when speaking with his students and the uneducated people of the land who probably only knew spoken Aramaic and liturgical Hebrew.
-
We are not sure = we are not sure he did not. But many trusted scholars believe he did.
-
@Dave_L said:
We are not sure = we are not sure he did not. But many trusted scholars believe he did.Well, I'll put in my 2cents .... I am not impressed by "big names" or "trusted scholars" but rather by what makes sense, is reasonable and logical => thus I count Mitchell's statement "It seems highly unlike to me that he would have used the Greek LXX when speaking with his students and the uneducated people of the land who probably only knew spoken Aramaic and liturgical Hebrew" to be very much convincing, while the idea of Jesus using the Greek LXX makes no real sense (and those "trusted scholars" claiming differently have just lost my trust in this case)
-
But we still do not know which scriptures Jesus used or preferred. He does however lend credibility to the LXX by quoting it. As do the NT writers.
-
If Jesus as Dave suggest put his approval on the LXX then wouldn't also mean that the deuterocanonicals are also approved since they are part of the LXX?
I anticipate one might say Jesus did not quote from the deuterocanonicals, and to that, I would say that Jesus did not quote from all the books found in the OT/Hebrew Bible either. The NT never quotes from: Judges, Ruth, Ezra, Esther, Ecclesiastes, Song of Solomon, Lamentations, Obadiah, and Zephaniah. Nor, for that matter from the book of Jonah although Jonah is mentioned in the NT.
-
@Wolfgang said:
Well, I'll put in my 2cents .... I am not impressed by "big names" or "trusted scholars.."One: Thank you for your 2 Cents
Two: I agree and am also not impressed either I think the "trusted scholars" argument is an example of the Logical fallacy known as the argument from authority@Dave_L said:
But we still do not know which scriptures Jesus used or preferred. He does however >lend credibility to the LXX by quoting it.I haven't seen any direct evidence that proved he quoted the LXX. Some of his quotations some say match the Targums, or even a version of the Hebrew Bible older than the Masoretic text like that found amongst the dead sea scrolls.
-
@Mitchell said:
If Jesus as Dave suggest put his approval on the LXX then wouldn't also mean that the deuterocanonicals are also approved since they are part of the LXX?I anticipate one might say Jesus did not quote from the deuterocanonicals, and to that, I would say that Jesus did not quote from all the books found in the OT/Hebrew Bible either. The NT never quotes from: Judges, Ruth, Ezra, Esther, Ecclesiastes, Song of Solomon, Lamentations, Obadiah, and Zephaniah. Nor, for that matter from the book of Jonah although Jonah is mentioned in the NT.
I would say Jesus' approval of the the LXX by including portions of it into the inspired NT text speaks volumes about the legitimacy of other translations.
-
@Mitchell said:
@Wolfgang said:
Well, I'll put in my 2cents .... I am not impressed by "big names" or "trusted scholars.."One: Thank you for your 2 Cents
Two: I agree and am also not impressed either I think the "trusted scholars" argument is an example of the Logical fallacy known as the argument from authority@Dave_L said:
But we still do not know which scriptures Jesus used or preferred. He does however >lend credibility to the LXX by quoting it.I haven't seen any direct evidence that proved he quoted the LXX. Some of his quotations some say match the Targums, or even a version of the Hebrew Bible older than the Masoretic text like that found amongst the dead sea scrolls.
Even if Jesus did not quote from the LXX, he still included it in his inspired NT Canon.
![[Deleted User]](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/fcddec765be35f238a0844bd23f54b59/?default=https%3A%2F%2Fvanillicon.com%2F8ce8323767a20f0f45db140c4cd2cea1_200.png&rating=g&size=200)
