The Trinity

Page 13 of 87 • Prev 1 ... 11 12 13 14 15 ... 87 Next

1 year ago :: Apr 15, 2012 - 1:58AM #121
Adelphe Posts: 28,535	Apr 14, 2012 -- 5:51AM, Miguel_de_servet wrote: I am glad that, occasionally, you can see the funny side of it ... Huh? And "occasionally"? Huh? Oh no, the lady will not get away with it as easily as that. Was Jesus, with his "good rabbinical maieutics" trying to lead the Rich Young Ruler to recognizing that [#] .... piece of ... *baloney? YES OR NO?Careful ... Again, it was a rabbinic haggadah question*, defined (for your benefit) by J. Jeremias as "one which indicates a contradiction in the scriptures, to which the answer is regularly given: both passages of Scripture are right, but they refer to different points." iow, Jesus' presupposition within the question is that He is good and, therefore, God (and God and, therefore, good) which He demonstrates with an intellectual challenge to the RYR to reject Him as good--something the RYR can't do. Apr 14, 2012 -- 12:54AM, MMarcoe wrote: Hear hear ... MdS If you think MMarcoe's vision of God is "orthodox Christianity", then you're in worse shape than even I know you to be. Unless I am convinced by Scripture and plain reason, my conscience is captive to the Word of God. I cannot and I will not retract anything, for to go against conscience would be neither right nor safe. Here I stand. I can do no other. God help me. Amen.
Quick Reply Cancel Quote message in reply?
1 year ago :: Apr 15, 2012 - 3:52AM #122
Miguel_de_servet Posts: 16,876	sdp Apr 14, 2012 -- 9:06PM, stardustpilgrim wrote: Apr 14, 2012 -- 10:36AM, Miguel_de_servet wrote: Why have you emphasized and magnified "some things"? Is that your (tacit) way of admitting that an "understanding" of the Resurrection of Jesus merely "from the inside", ignoring the witness of the Apostles, would be Gnostic through and through? If not, what are you trying to say hint at? You're the one who brought up the resurrection. Some things means *not* the resurrection. That wasn't obvious, was it? I am glad that I've asked the question, and that you have confirmed that you agree with my point about the Resurrection, without ambiguity. Apr 14, 2012 -- 9:37PM, stardustpilgrim wrote: Apr 14, 2012 -- 10:36AM, Miguel_de_servet wrote: Apr 14, 2012 -- 9:58AM, stardustpilgrim wrote: I'll have to study up on Jerome. Maybe he came to understand it from the inside. Um ... very "funny", you're really playing fast and loose with your Gnostic variety of "christianity", you know? Why is that funny? I didn't know much about Jerome, just read the Wikipedia article. From it, he had enough ascetical and mystical inclinations, to justify my supposition ...(...................). You have missed (or are not sufficiently informed on) the main points: • Jerome of Stridon was a Latin theologian, and, like his near contemporary Augustine of Hippo, was poorly familiar with the Greek Language. • When confronted, in Matt 6:11, with the Greek word epiousios, a word that has no literary references in Greek literature (outside the New Testament —and the Didache— see ἐπιούσιος at LSJ, A Greek-English Lexicon), he thought that he would "improve" on the traditional Latin translation (cotidianum, "daily", that of the existing Vetus Latina) by attempting some sort of "epistemological insight" of the Greek word: so, as the word is formed by epi, wich, among its meanings, has the main meaning "above" (in Latin super) and ousios, and ousios resends to the Greek feminine noun ousia, by then translated in Latin as substantia, smart ass Jerome thought that he would translate epi-ousios as super-substantialem, a translation that doesn't mean anything, but suited perfectly the *mystical-metaphysical spin* in progress at the time on the the Eucharist. MdS Revelation is above, not against Reason “The everlasting God is a refuge, and underneath you are his eternal arms ...” (Deut 33:27) “Do you have an arm like God, and can you thunder with a voice like his?” (Job 40:9) “By the Lord’s word [dabar] the heavens were made; and by the breath [ruwach] of his mouth all their host.” (Psalm 33:6) “Who would have believed what we just heard? When was the arm of the Lord revealed through him?” (Isaiah 53:1) “Lord, who has believed our message, and to whom has the arm of the Lord been revealed?” (John 12:38) “For not the hearers of the law are righteous before God, but the doers of the law will be declared righteous.” (Romans 2:13) “Owe no one anything, except to love one another, for the one who loves his neighbor has fulfilled the law.”(Romans 13:8)
Quick Reply Cancel Quote message in reply?
1 year ago :: Apr 15, 2012 - 7:03AM #123
Miguel_de_servet Posts: 16,876	Apr 15, 2012 -- 1:58AM, Adelphe wrote: Apr 14, 2012 -- 5:51AM, Miguel_de_servet wrote: Oh no, the lady will not get away with it as easily as that. Was Jesus, with his "good rabbinical maieutics" trying to lead the Rich Young Ruler to recognizing that ... “... therefore only if you recognize that I am God, you have the right to call me "good" ...” [#] ... piece of ... *baloney? YES OR NO?Careful ... Again, it was a rabbinic haggadah question, defined (for your benefit) by J. Jeremias as "one which indicates a contradiction in the scriptures, to which the answer is regularly given: both passages of Scripture are right, but they refer to different points." And how, pray tell, do Jesus' words ... And Jesus said to him, “Why do you call me good? No one is good except God alone.” (Mark 10:18; Luke 18:19) ... solve the (apparent) "contradiction"? Why —leaving aside Jeremias' authority— don't you (try and) explain it in your own words ...? iow, Jesus' presupposition within the question is that He is good and, therefore, God (and God and, therefore, good) which He demonstrates with an intellectual challenge to the RYR to reject Him as good--something the RYR can't do. First, the RYR had, in all evidence, asked an honest* question, respectfully addressing Jesus as "Good Teacher", so for Jesus to put to the RYR any "challenge", any doubt that the RYR had been sincere in his addressing Jesus as "Good Teacher", far from evidence of divinity would have been, on the part of Jesus, evidence of *sheer paranoia. Second, how does the elaborate "presupposition" that you attribute to Jesus differ substantially from [#], which you have rejected with these very words of yours ... “Disavow that* piece of baloney entirely.” [post #108] ... hey, poor lady? If you think MMarcoe's vision of God is "orthodox Christianity", then you're in worse shape than even I know you to be. Nope, as usual the poor lady missed the point: what I fully approved with my “Hear hear ...” was MMarcoe's comment on the lady's unbelieveble arrogance ... MdS Revelation is above, not against Reason “The everlasting God is a refuge, and underneath you are his eternal arms ...” (Deut 33:27) “Do you have an arm like God, and can you thunder with a voice like his?” (Job 40:9) “By the Lord’s word [dabar] the heavens were made; and by the breath [ruwach] of his mouth all their host.” (Psalm 33:6) “Who would have believed what we just heard? When was the arm of the Lord revealed through him?” (Isaiah 53:1) “Lord, who has believed our message, and to whom has the arm of the Lord been revealed?” (John 12:38) “For not the hearers of the law are righteous before God, but the doers of the law will be declared righteous.” (Romans 2:13) “Owe no one anything, except to love one another, for the one who loves his neighbor has fulfilled the law.”(Romans 13:8)
Quick Reply Cancel Quote message in reply?
1 year ago :: Apr 15, 2012 - 7:18AM #124
Ed.W Posts: 9,067	There is only one person that the rich young ruler viewed as better than Jesus. Discretion is the better part of valor.
Quick Reply Cancel Quote message in reply?
1 year ago :: Apr 15, 2012 - 9:19AM #125
stardustpilgrim Posts: 5,135	Apr 15, 2012 -- 3:52AM, Miguel_de_servet wrote: • Jerome of Stridon was a Latin theologian, and, like his near contemporary Augustine of Hippo, was poorly familiar with the Greek Language. • When confronted, in Matt 6:11, with the Greek word epiousios, a word that has no literary references in Greek literature (outside the New Testament —and the Didache— see ἐπιούσιος at LSJ, A Greek-English Lexicon), he thought that he would "improve" on the traditional Latin translation (cotidianum, "daily", that of the existing Vetus Latina) by attempting some sort of "epistemological insight" of the Greek word: so, as the word is formed by epi, wich, among its meanings, has the main meaning "above" (in Latin super) and ousios, and ousios resends to the Greek feminine noun ousia, by then translated in Latin as substantia, smart ass Jerome thought that he would translate epi-ousios as super-substantialem, a translation that doesn't mean anything, but suited perfectly the *mystical-metaphysical spin* in progress at the time on the the Eucharist. MdS I'm saying that you are predisposed to believe that Jerome pulled super-substantialem out of thin air. I am predisposed to believe that he had a reason to do so. sdp The purpose of words is to convey ideas. When the ideas are grasped, the words are forgotten. Where can I find a man who has forgotten words? He is the one I would like to talk to. The Way of Chuang Tzu by Thomas Merton A map is not the territory. Alfred Korzybski When supposedly skeptical atheists and scientists pick on monotheistic religion in books, speeches and debates, they are simply beating up a court jester in a clown crown. They think that by clobbering the clown of religion, they have overthrown the kingdom of transphysical reality, but such arguments cannot sway anyone established in the integrated, co-creative state, which is the serious reality underlying the circus of religion. Jed McKenna's Theory of Everything: The Enlightened Perspective, 57%
Quick Reply Cancel Quote message in reply?
1 year ago :: Apr 15, 2012 - 9:34AM #126
Miguel_de_servet Posts: 16,876	Apr 15, 2012 -- 7:18AM, Ed.W wrote: There is only one person that the rich young ruler viewed as better than Jesus. This, unless I'm missing something between the lines (but that is rather improbable, as your comment is ... just one line ... ) is a remarkably more favorable account of the rich young ruler's intention and integrity than that provided by the poor lady ... MdS Revelation is above, not against Reason “The everlasting God is a refuge, and underneath you are his eternal arms ...” (Deut 33:27) “Do you have an arm like God, and can you thunder with a voice like his?” (Job 40:9) “By the Lord’s word [dabar] the heavens were made; and by the breath [ruwach] of his mouth all their host.” (Psalm 33:6) “Who would have believed what we just heard? When was the arm of the Lord revealed through him?” (Isaiah 53:1) “Lord, who has believed our message, and to whom has the arm of the Lord been revealed?” (John 12:38) “For not the hearers of the law are righteous before God, but the doers of the law will be declared righteous.” (Romans 2:13) “Owe no one anything, except to love one another, for the one who loves his neighbor has fulfilled the law.”(Romans 13:8)
Quick Reply Cancel Quote message in reply?
1 year ago :: Apr 15, 2012 - 9:45AM #127
Miguel_de_servet Posts: 16,876	sdp Apr 15, 2012 -- 9:19AM, stardustpilgrim wrote: Apr 15, 2012 -- 3:52AM, Miguel_de_servet wrote: • Jerome of Stridon was a Latin theologian, and, like his near contemporary Augustine of Hippo, was poorly familiar with the Greek Language. • When confronted, in Matt 6:11, with the Greek word epiousios, a word that has no literary references in Greek literature (outside the New Testament —and the Didache— see ἐπιούσιος at LSJ, A Greek-English Lexicon), he thought that he would "improve" on the traditional Latin translation (cotidianum, "daily", that of the existing Vetus Latina) by attempting some sort of "epistemological insight" of the Greek word: so, as the word is formed by epi, which, among its meanings, has the main meaning "above" (in Latin super) and ousios, and ousios resends to the Greek feminine noun ousia, by then translated in Latin as substantia, smart ass Jerome thought that he would translate epi-ousios as super-substantialem, a translation that doesn't mean anything, but suited perfectly the *mystical-metaphysical spin* in progress at the time on the Eucharist. [a] I'm saying that you are predisposed to believe that Jerome pulled super-substantialem out of thin air. [b] I am predisposed to believe that he had a reason to do so. [a] If by "out of thin air", you mean out of a clumsy, unheard, *pseudo-etymological "interpretation" of the Greek word epiousios, then, definitely yes. [b] That "reason" being, pray tell? Other than what I have already amply accounted for? MdS Revelation is above, not against Reason* “The everlasting God is a refuge, and underneath you are his eternal arms ...” (Deut 33:27) “Do you have an arm like God, and can you thunder with a voice like his?” (Job 40:9) “By the Lord’s word [dabar] the heavens were made; and by the breath [ruwach] of his mouth all their host.” (Psalm 33:6) “Who would have believed what we just heard? When was the arm of the Lord revealed through him?” (Isaiah 53:1) “Lord, who has believed our message, and to whom has the arm of the Lord been revealed?” (John 12:38) “For not the hearers of the law are righteous before God, but the doers of the law will be declared righteous.” (Romans 2:13) “Owe no one anything, except to love one another, for the one who loves his neighbor has fulfilled the law.”(Romans 13:8)
Quick Reply Cancel Quote message in reply?
1 year ago :: Apr 15, 2012 - 10:16AM #128
Ed.W Posts: 9,067	Apr 15, 2012 -- 9:34AM, Miguel_de_servet wrote: Apr 15, 2012 -- 7:18AM, Ed.W wrote: There is only one person that the rich young ruler viewed as better than Jesus. This, unless I'm missing something between the lines (but that is rather improbable, as your comment is ... just one line ... ) is a remarkably more favorable account of the rich young ruler's intention and integrity than that provided by the poor lady ... MdS Unfortuntely, the rich young ruler viewed himself as good--"all these I have kept from my youth". You were thinking Big Daddy weren't you? He was acting as his own judge Jesus destroys his myth. Discretion is the better part of valor.
Quick Reply Cancel Quote message in reply?
1 year ago :: Apr 15, 2012 - 12:52PM #129
Adelphe Posts: 28,535	Apr 15, 2012 -- 9:34AM, Miguel_de_servet wrote: This, unless I'm missing something between the lines (but that is rather improbable, as your comment is ... just one line ... ) is a remarkably more favorable account of the rich young ruler's intention and integrity than that provided by the poor lady ... MdS Duhhhhhhhhhhh... Apr 15, 2012 -- 10:16AM, Ed.W wrote: Unfortuntely, the rich young ruler viewed himself as good--"all these I have kept from my youth". You were thinking Big Daddy weren't you? He was acting as his own judge Jesus destroys his myth. (betcha he drools, too.) Unless I am convinced by Scripture and plain reason, my conscience is captive to the Word of God. I cannot and I will not retract anything, for to go against conscience would be neither right nor safe. Here I stand. I can do no other. God help me. Amen.
Quick Reply Cancel Quote message in reply?
1 year ago :: Apr 15, 2012 - 4:19PM #130
Iwantamotto Posts: 6,131	You know, maybe I'm bitter about watching a stupid movie with a kick-ass fiery logo, or maybe the cosmopolitain or however you spell it is starting to kick in, but I just had a thought: What if (this going with my theme of trying to see the good in people, especially biblical bad guys) the rich person left, not because he didn't want to share his wealth, but because he smelled a con? He asked for eternal life and was told to give this random preacher all of his money. That wouldn't sound suspicious to YOU? Knock and the door shall open. It's not my fault if you don't like the decor.
Quick Reply Cancel Quote message in reply?