19 Dec 09
1 edit
Originally posted by galveston75The website said:
http://watchtower.org/e/bh/appendix_04.htm
My finale say on this....
"GET MORE FACTS
Most people do not know Biblical Greek. So how can you know what the apostle John really meant? "
Interesting that I have yet to see a New World Translation that plainly listed the credentials of the "translators" as to their training in Greek and Hebrew.
The answer I have been given is essentially that they were too humble .
Right!
19 Dec 09
2 edits
Originally posted by Rajk999Do you have a specfic passage which you claim I do not believe because it contradicts my belief?
Go back and read where you wrote :
Human language is indeed a problem.
What is it?
Maybe this?
"And this is eternal life, that they may know You the only true God, and Him whom You have sent, Jesus Christ" (John 17:3)
Is that an example of a passage which contradicts my belief that the Word was God and the Word became flesh ??
Sorry to disappoing you but I believe that that passage should be believed.
And this is what it means - "And this is eternal life, that they may know You the only true God, and Him who You have sent, Jesus Christ."
Now why would you suppose that the apostle John would write BOTH passages ?
Because BOTH are to be believed. I choose to believe both John 1:1,2, 14 and John 17:3.
I have found that the GREATEST blessing is in simply embracing all that the Word of God says.
19 Dec 09
Originally posted by jaywillForget it.
Do you have a specfic passage which you claim I do not believe because it contradicts my belief?
What is it?
Maybe this?
[b]"And this is eternal life, that they may know You the only true God, and Him whom You have sent, Jesus Christ" (John 17:3)
Is that an example of a passage which contradicts my belief that the Word was God and the ...[text shortened]... have found that the GREATEST blessing is in simply embracing all that the Word of God says.[/b]
20 Dec 09
2 edits
Originally posted by jaywillI was not clear: there are, from a Jewish reading of the Hebrew Scriptures, no distinct hypostases (distinct “personae” ) in the Godhead. There are not distinct hypostases (“persons” ) of a single ousia (being/essence/substance). God is both one ousia and one hypostasis. This is the case from both a monotheistic Judaism and a nondualistic Judaism (and I am a nondualist).
[b]================================
Umm… It would from a Jewish point of view. Well, divinity, maybe—but distinguishable hypostasis (“personhood” ): not.
===================================
What do you mean "Jewish point of view"? Do you mean the Old Testament Jewish prophets did not speak of a personhood of the Spirit of God ?
Some of e Old Testament not only as possession but as apposition - ie. the Spirit is God.[/b]
I was not arguing the “personhood” of God (that would be a much more complex argument, one that separates monotheistic dualists from nondualists); I was just saying that there are no distinct persons in the godhead. And that is just what Trinitarianism has always asserted: that the ousia of the godhead is composed of three distinct hypostases/persons, however the nature of that composition is otherwise described. The Torah/Tanach clearly uses personalistic language as applied to God; how could I deny that?!
But there is no multiplicity of hypostases/persons in the godhead. If it were otherwise, Jews would be avowed Trinitarians.
20 Dec 09
Originally posted by black beetleYou folks DO know Origin's teachings were deemed heretical. And the man cut his own balls off. Not exactly someone to emulate...
Origen’s broken down Platonism -mixed with a bit of Stoicism- is a strange theology that cannot stand criticism, and at the same time does intend to avoid criticism claiming that anyway the true nature of God will remain for ever and ever incomprehensible to us. What a surprise, mambo-jumbo once more.
Origen, unable even to bring up a description of th ...[text shortened]... eal Soul based on the concept of Trikaya, and the concept of Trikaya is not a mystery at all
😵
- Joined
- 15 Sep 04
- Moves
- 7051
20 Dec 09
1 edit
Originally posted by vistesdAlso, Conrau, Greek Orthodox Christian writers tend to be pretty open about the historical development of a Trinitarian understanding, up thorough Nicea and Chalcedon—and I would think that Roman Catholics would be as well. I am always struck by a certain (generally unconscious) Christian hubris when it comes to assuming that the Hebrew Scriptures somehow point clearly toward a triune God—the unspoken assumption often seems to be that Jews are simply ignorant, stupid or perverse when it comes to their own Torah/Tanach.* Not only unspoken, but unexamined (and in that sense perhaps innocent). [I don’t accuse you of that—or anyone else here; I take your comments as being contextual with the Chrsitian scriptures.]
[b]I think that has absolutely no scriptural basis.
Umm… It would from a Jewish point of view. Well, divinity, maybe—but distinguishable hypostasis (“personhood” ): not.
Also, Conrau, Greek Orthodox Christian writers tend to be pretty open about the historical development of a Trinitarian understanding, up thorough Nicea and Chalcedon ...[text shortened]... ly (and have been since sometime before the time of Christ), that they are difficult to compare.[/b]
Yes. Catholics have tended to very cautious about discussing the historicity of doctrine, fearing a concession to Modernism. However, after the likes of Cardinal Henry Newman and to a great extent Pope Benedict XVI, Catholics do acknowledge that doctrine emerges through history; it was never explicitly pronounced at the beginning of church, but develops in history by the Holy Spirit -- history is pneumatological. I am not saying that the Trinity can be proved irrefutably in Scripture. The realisation that God is one substance of three persons only emerged as a result of dialogue between Scripture, Greek philosophy and, as Catholics and Orthodox Christians would emphasise, the work of the Holy Spirit. What I am saying is that the personhood of the Holy Spirit is clear. Whether he is divine is another matter.
With that said, I understand both the midrashic efforts of early Christians to search out (d’rash) the Hebrew Scriptures in support of their messianic beliefs (Matthew is a good example), and reading the HS through the lens of the NT. I cannot criticize that.
I was only quoting the NT. As it seems to me, the Holy Spirit being discussed here is something different to the spirit of the OT. Jesus clearly speaks of it as something that can only come once he has departed.
Actually, the JWs rely on a Coptic translation from the Greek (which seems to be at least as valid as the standard rendering) in which the grammatical construction of the Greek implies an indefinite article attached to theos. I wonder if that translation also reflects the Coptic monophysite understanding?
Yes, I have discussed this with RC in the past. I think that it is the result of their own faulty linguistic generalisations -- that just because something lacks the definite article, it must indefinite. In fact, Greek, especially Attic and Koine, tend to drop the definite article when the noun phrase is the predicate complement (so you would never say something like 'ho theos esti' but 'theos esti' for 'he is god.) I am not familiar with Coptic -- however, I think JWs would do well to avoid linguistic generalisations. Articles can serve a number of functions, depending on whether the information is new or old (as in English) or what the grammatical function of the word is (as in Greek).
- Joined
- 15 Sep 04
- Moves
- 7051
20 Dec 09
Originally posted by galveston75I have quoted the Scriptures, as you demanded. The NT clearly speaks of the Holy Spirit, talking, counseling, teaching and making covenants. It suggests that the Holy Spirit really is a person and capable of his own action. He is not just the power or emanation of God but a real person.
You really, really have no idea what the holy spirit is do you?
20 Dec 09
1 edit
yes we have been through this Conrau, and i concluded in my own mind, that regardless of any linguistics, exegesis or other grammatical interpretations, the fact of the matter was, the ancient Christians in rendering their translation, consciously and deliberately made a distinction, in their rendering of John 1:1, between God and the Word. This fact cannot be avoided.
20 Dec 09
Originally posted by vistesdVery interesting vistesd. No, really!
I was not clear: there are, from a Jewish reading of the Hebrew Scriptures, no distinct hypostases (distinct “personae” ) in the Godhead. There are not distinct hypostases (“persons” ) of a single ousia (being/essence/substance). God is both one ousia and one hypostasis. This is the case from both a monotheistic ...[text shortened]... of hypostases/persons in the godhead. If it were otherwise, Jews would be avowed Trinitarians.
I hope you're not still mad at me.
Anyway. This thing about the Godhead. I don't think we can comprehend God. I think we would have to be God to understand God. I mean, common'. Infinite, eternal, OOO.
But this is where I get hung up. After reading and learning and listening all these years to just about every accredited expert preacher on the planet say that God is three persons in one, I find it difficult to toss it away just because of a few dissected words.
It is universally agreed among all evangelical Bible scholars that God is revealed in scripture as triune.
And besides that, it sure looks that way to me too.
What say you?
20 Dec 09
1 edit
Originally posted by josephwIt is universally agreed among all evangelical Bible scholars that God is revealed in scripture as triune
Very interesting vistesd. No, really!
I hope you're not still mad at me.
Anyway. This thing about the Godhead. I don't think we can comprehend God. I think we would have to be God to understand God. I mean, common'. Infinite, eternal, OOO.
But this is where I get hung up. After reading and learning and listening all these years to just about every a ...[text shortened]... scripture as triune.
And besides that, it sure looks that way to me too.
What say you?
that is just pure pants!
now i am beginning to give credence to a thousand youngs thought terminating cliches
20 Dec 09
Originally posted by robbie carrobieThe ancient Christians? Who are you referring to?
yes we have been through this Conrau, and i concluded in my own mind, that regardless of any linguistics, exegesis or other grammatical interpretations, the fact of the matter was, the ancient Christians in rendering their translation, consciously and deliberately made a distinction, in their rendering of John 1:1, between God and the Word. This fact cannot be avoided.
What are you saying here robbie? What fact is it that cannot be avoided?
That there is a distinction between God and the Word? How so?