death:an ending?

[WhiteWings]

http://www.tentmaker.org/forum/word_studies/the_christian_bible_1991_7876.msg113546.html#msg113546

Real sneaky quote James  :JCThink:
I'm still waiting for a counter argument. If something doesn't fit a doctrinal bias just pretent the messenger said things he never claimed and hope nobody notices.

How does one passage

Another assumption.

changed from 'save the world' to 'save my people' make the Bible anti-Jewish?

I hope that wasn't meant in a serious way??? :mshock:

It's fine to disagree. But a bonfire of strawmen is not.

[Molly]

http://www.tentmaker.org/forum/word_studies/the_christian_bible_1991_7876.msg113546.html#msg113546

Real sneaky quote James  :JCThink:
I'm still waiting for a counter argument. If something doesn't fit a doctrinal bias just pretent the messenger said things he never claimed and hope nobody notices.

How does one passage

Another assumption.

changed from 'save the world' to 'save my people' make the Bible anti-Jewish?

I hope that wasn't meant in a serious way??? :mshock:

It's fine to disagree. But a bonfire of strawmen is not.

I thought that was what you were saying--that people were changing the scripture on purpose with an agenda--in this case, an anti-Jewish agenda.  Isn't that what you said?  If not, please clarify.

But one has to look deeper. Why was the UR verse changed? The answers according to scholars is that in the 2nd century the Christians hated the Jews for killing Jesus. So it was impossible in their mind Jews would ever get saved. So they changed "saviour of the world" into "saviour of My people".
Then for me the obvious question is on how many other places that anti-Jews sentiment crept in? Without those sentiments the Bible suddenly could become (even) more pro UR.

First of all, the first Christians were Jews.  Second of all, who taught Christians to hate anyone?  Didn't Jesus teach the opposite?

Third of all, I have yet to see anything from Erhman that changes any doctrinal bias.

[jabcat]

http://www.tentmaker.org/forum/word_studies/the_christian_bible_1991_7876.msg113546.html#msg113546

Real sneaky quote James  :JCThink:
I'm still waiting for a counter argument. If something doesn't fit a doctrinal bias just pretent the messenger said things he never claimed and hope nobody notices.

I read that this morning when I got up, and it seems to fit what Molly was saying, so I linked to it.  IMO, it's very appropriate to any discussion involving Jewish teachings.  They have had a veil placed over their eyes.  Some things they're right about - some things they're spiritually blind on.  Bias on all sides, agendas to be aware of.  Know who's saying what.  Approach with care.  I tend to be very cautious of someone's opinion who admits they've turned their back on God, or if the scriptures say they've been blinded.

I personally don't feel led to argue, but I do feel led to inform/exhort/encourage. The scriptures, with Holy Spirit revealing to us, say what they say.  Hopefully I have ears to hear - a little at a time.

[WhiteWings]

IMO, it's very appropriate to any discussion involving Jewish teachings.

Since when do Jews use the NT for teachings? He only briefly mentioned the Jews. Half of them converted Christianity. But they waited for the 70th week of Daniel to happen. When it didn't they deconverted. The remaining gentile Christians were not very happy with that. Note that there were also Romans amog the Christians. Romans never liked the Jews very much.

Bias on all sides, agendas to be aware of.

Well put. All sides. Everyone is on a side. For me that means everyone needs to check if they have become biased. And for that checking new information won't do any harm. Even Origen complained about the many variations in the NT copies. Origen even quoted verses we no longer have in that exact wording.
Unless 'you' belong to the group of people that think every letter in the KJV is without any flaw that book does nothing (or tries) to debunk your believes.
It possibly (depends on what you already know) widens your horizon. A solid foundation is never based on tunnel vision.
If someone claims that s/he wants to bases his/her religion on the word of God then for me that means a search for the best possible translation.
A perfect copy will never be found. Or, extremely unlikely, we have that perfect copy but we just don't know.
Neither do those scholars. But they have a whole bag of tricks (age, region, numbers found, margin notes, flow of the passage, etc) to find the verses with the highest probability.
Unless I overlooked something Bart nowhere in his book claims 100% certainty

Know who's saying what.  Approach with care.  I tend to be very cautious of someone's opinion who admits they've turned their back on God,

Is an agnost really someone who turned his back to God? Or just a doubter?
I for example in some cases put more value in a atheist scholar in Greek than a religious one. For an ET scholar all words lead to hell and for an UR scholar all words lead to salvation.
But an atheist doesn't have a certain doctrine to defend.
So if Bart turned his back to God as you put it what bias does he have?
Let's "my people" and "the world" as an example.
A atheist will have no bias because it's nonsense anyway.
A Calvinist scholar will use "my people" as "elect". (Yes I'm aware the Bible doesn't depend on one verse)
Of course a "the world" can be explained away to just like "all", but it's harder.
Plus conclusions are drawn on basis of nothing. If you read the context (of his) in which that verse is mentioned you will see he's not defending a doctrine.
Neither does he draw a conclusion from the God=who chapther.
An in case of the baptism verse he firmly claims the verse as we know it is very likely not the original. But it's part of an explanation.
Pagan writers were exploiting such verses. Even if the chapter began with "Son of God" that verse was under attack so the scribes changed it a bit. The pagan attackers were all Roman. So the copies in written in the Roman empire were more effected by that. Scriptures (in Coptic IIRC) were less affected.

or if the scriptures say they've been blinded.

Not very helpful. It's always the other person that's blinded. So if you, I, or <put a name here> is blinded s/he will never know.

[Molly]

Is an agnost really someone who turned his back to God? Or just a doubter?

An agnostic
a. One who believes that it is impossible to know whether there is a God.
b. One who is skeptical about the existence of God but does not profess true atheism.
2. One who is doubtful or noncommittal about something.

An atheist

someone who denies the existence of God


Listen to Erhman shout his debate summary and tell me what you think he is as he yells about the ten thousands of 'errors' in the New Testament and how unreliable it is.  He is wrong about a lot of what he says here that I know about, and exaggerates any 'errors,' so my guess is he is wrong or irrelevant about just about everything he has to say.

Erhman says,

Is the Bible a trustworthy reliable guide? 
If so what if we don't know what it originally said?

His conclusion is that it is not a reliable guide.  That means he has no Biblical guide.  And, that means he's an atheist or agnostic.  I have not seen him give one good reason why anything in the New Testament is reliable--because that is not his agenda.  Why don't we just throw the book out?  That's his agenda.

Personally, I watch the guy yelling and citing Harvard, Yale, Vanderbilt, and on and on, and all I can think is he needs an exorcist.  But, no matter, God will exalt every valley and make every mountain low, and the crooked will be made straight, and the rough places plain.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1HTaVZ1pqRU

[jabcat]

or if the scriptures say they've been blinded.

Not very helpful. It's always the other person that's blinded. So if you, I, or <put a name here> is blinded s/he will never know.

I believe anyone who may be able to see, if even at least a little bit (hopefully including myself) all have limited understanding, and the scriptures tell us - "we see through a glass darkly".  The scriptures also tell us who is blinded;  in the verse I quoted it's unsaved Jews, and in the following verse it's anyone who's unsaved;
   
"What we have received is not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God, so that we may understand what God has freely given us.  But people who aren't spiritual can't receive these truths from God's Spirit. It all sounds foolish to them and they can't understand it, for only those who are spiritual can understand what the Spirit means."   I Cor. 2

[jabcat]

For the first group (glass darkly - including myself) I try to listen with a healthy dose of discernment.

For the second group (veiled and/or blinded) I tend to listen with a heavy dose of discernment, but more likely, skepticism.  As far as their agenda, they are influenced and controlled by the "prince of this world" (JOHN 4:30)    :2c:

I can learn from many, some have much (veiled) knowledge and revelation.  But IMO, we've been left with One True Teacher -  "But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, he will teach you all things and bring to your remembrance all that I have said to you."   Jn. 14:26 

There's a long way to go, but if I can be heavily influenced, have as my "agenda", and be totally consumed and transformed by the Spirit, the Word, and the blood, all the better for it.   :bigGrin:

[Cardinal]

:cloud9: He told me it had been Helenized, so FOR ME, that says it all, and to me means that the Jewishness of it was "stolen" out of the text, and/or the understanding of it was lost, both occuring because of anti-Jewish sentiment that crept in slowly after the disciples died off. He's been opening my eyes to it for several years now.

I can only wonder how things would have progressed if, for example, Christians would have realized that the so-called (and thus obscured) "last supper" was a Passover Seder, and that because of that, the cup meant something accordingly? And that's only one example. The text is riddled with such inferences, that a Christian audience glosses over unknowingly, or intentionally, because after all, "the OT/law was done away with", inferring either indirectly or outright, why bother to study it. Guess that's why Jesus and the disciples quoted from 24 books of it.  :sigh:

Yes, because the Christian world does not need that to believe.

It's Hellenized because this is a new era, the era of the Gentiles.

Only a few like you and I eat up all the deeper references to the Hebrew [not Jewish] Old Testament.  I love that stuff, but I don't need it to believe.

:cloud9: When He said it had been Helenized, it was not a compliment, nor an acknowledgement that it was because of the "Gentile era". It was grievous.

I don't need it to believe in "basic" salvation either (by the grace of God), but my point is, if something was lost from it from BEING Helenized, and He is restoring all things, then it follows that something that was lost, needs to be restored, and He is in the process of doing that.

I don't know this guy from Adam, haven't read his site, watched his videos or whatever (and don't have to if I hear something line up in content that I already know from the Lord's dealings with me), nor want to if the rest of his comments are so far off baseline. As for his spiritual "pedigree", even a blind pig stumbles across an acorn once in awhile.  :laughing7:

Guess that one aspect of what he has to say is just his "acorn". Blessings....

[jabcat]

 :grin:

I think something was just clarified a little bit for me a few minutes ago.  Something I wasn't sure about.  So it's this;  I guess I should say "blind/veiled" individuals can offer information, knowledge, etc., but are often/usually unable to discern what it means, what the spiritual revelations and applications are.  Then as well, we do have the "prince of the air's" influence in play.  At least with a spiritually renewed and intune individual, there's a likelihood they're "seeing", at least "in part" (as Paul said) - so there's more of an opportunity there to receive truth.   :2c:

[Cardinal]

 :cloud9: EXACTLY  :thumbsup: In all our getting, we are told to get understanding. "They" can amass information, even of a biblical scriptural nature,  but it takes understanding (the kind that is given only by the Spirit) to profit from it, SPIRITUALLY.

He's raising us up in understanding {in part} to be able to go to "them" and "translate" what they have "learned" back to them, but with spiritual understanding. In principle, it's the same as Jesus explaining the parables to the masses, but THEN giving understanding to the disciples, ie. those closest to walking with Him.

"They" see thru a glass darkly (darkenened soul), but "we" with understanding of the Spirit, face/nature to face/nature. Thing is, He's an "equal opportunity employer"  :laughing7:........"we" were once a "they" and "they" will be a "we", all day wages and last hour wages are the same.  :winkgrin: Blessings...

[Molly]

Ok.  I'm not really sure what this has to do with Erhman.   But I know it has been a theme recently on the board, with both you and ww stressing the importance of the Hebrew roots of the New Testament, and today somewhere I heard someone say that this will be the bridge that brings the Jews back--that is, the Christians will reflect their Old Testament back to the Jews through their Messiah, Jesus the Christ--bringing everything full circle.  And, I can see God raising up people to do that, so maybe we are nearing the fulfillment of the Gentiles.

Romans 11:31
Even so have these also now not believed, that through your mercy they also may obtain mercy.


Michael Heiser:  Jesus and the Old Testament

http://vimeo.com/8070319

[WhiteWings]

:grin:

I think something was just clarified a little bit for me a few minutes ago.  Something I wasn't sure about.  So it's this;  I guess I should say "blind/veiled" individuals can offer information, knowledge, etc., but are often/usually unable to discern what it means, what the spiritual revelations and applications are.

Yep.
Doesn't that also extent to all linguists and historians who spend half their life in old libraries? Is a discovery of a old document or coin better if it's done by a Christian. And especially by one of your own denonmination? Is decryphing an old dialect by a Mormon of less value than when a Catholic scholar did it? I think the answer to both questions is that the discovery is equally good.
Another thing is bias. I can accept the view that some scholars look at things in a biased way and that colors their work. That's not good. (but very human)
So the trick is to find a scholar without a bias (in the area of the information you are looking for)
A UR linguist somehow keeps stumbling on evidence aion means age. The ET linguist only finds documents that claim aion mean forever.
In such cases an atheist scholar is ones best choice.
So from that view an agnost is possible a better choice too. But I have to say not in the case of the few verses I presented. Simply none of them even comes close to debunking religion.
They have a different rendering. So what? Maybe it means we have to review what we thought we know.
It's forum policy to use a lot of  :2c: simply because none of us is all knowing. But in this case we know for sure?
Is it an assault on religion? No. Simply because long before Bart was born religious people had a different understanding of that verse. So the 'worst' that can happen is that people alter their views a little.
The book is mostly an explanation on how people in that line of work do their jobs. It takes only a small rewrite to release the book as "Misquoting Shakespeare".
The book isn't about debunking Christianity. Or pointing out flaws in Jesus. It's about pointing out flaws in the transmission of the NT. But we already knew that. There are so many translations that are all a little different. Bible publishers often pat themselfs on the back because their translation is based on MSS, Textus Receptus, Vulgate, etc. Are those publishers all debunking Christianity because the mention their source text is better? No. And basicly that's what the whole book is about. Explaining how it can happen that there are different "originals" while there was only one real original.

[Cardinal]

Ok.  I'm not really sure what this has to do with Erhman.   But I know it has been a theme recently on the board, with both you and ww stressing the importance of the Hebrew roots of the New Testament, and today somewhere I heard someone say that this will be the bridge that brings the Jews back--that is, the Christians will reflect their Old Testament back to the Jews through their Messiah, Jesus the Christ--bringing everything full circle.  And, I can see God raising up people to do that, so maybe we are nearing the fulfillment of the Gentiles.

Romans 11:31
Even so have these also now not believed, that through your mercy they also may obtain mercy.


Michael Heiser:  Jesus and the Old Testament

http://vimeo.com/8070319

:cloud9:  Without a doubt, that's exactly what He's doing.......and yes that era is coming to a close, rapidly.

People like this guy that apparently have found only one "acorn", doesn't bother me. God can feed me whatever He deems fit thru all the dirty birds (ravens/unclean birds) He wants to. As long as the motive of my heart is to seek after Him and His truth and I have the HS dividing assunder the flesh from the Spirit, nothing is unclean to me. My  :2c: Blessings....

[jabcat]

Original post modified.

The way I understand 1Co 15:26  the last enemy is done away--death;
Until we are drawn to the Father, yes, death is an enemy.

"Death is not the end of this journey, it's the beginning."
Now there is something that will let one sleep with good thoughts.
We need, have to, and must come to that wonderous thought that death holds no fear....... unless one holds on to deceite, trys to hold back the very thing that keeps joy from ones life.
Joh 12:24  verily, verily, I say to you, if the grain of the wheat, having fallen to the earth, may not die, itself remaineth alone; and if it may die, it doth bear much fruit;
Rev 1:8  `I am the Alpha and the Omega, beginning and end, saith the Lord, who is, and who was, and who is coming--the Almighty.'

Rom 8:11 If, moreover, the Spirit of him that raised Jesus from among the dead dwelleth in you, he that raised from among the dead Christ Jesus, shall make alive [even] your death–doomed bodies, through means of his indwelling Spirit within you.
(Rotherham)

... by all my boldness, whether by living or dying, the Anointed One will be magnified in my body.  For to me, living means the Anointed One, and death means gain.  Yet if to keep on living in flesh means fruit from my work, I can't even make known which I would prefer.  Yet I am being pressed between the two, as I have a desire to unloosen [my "tent" (body) to move on (from this world)] and to be together with the Anointed One (for this is so much better);  Phil. 1: 20-23  Christian Bible (1991)

[Molly]

Jesus, the 'Unique' Son


"Only begotten" is an unfortunately confusing translation, especially for modern readers. It does sound to us as though the "only begotten" Son had a beginning because we aren't used to the old English word. The confusion should never have happened, though, since monogenes actually doesn't mean "only begotten." The controversy extends from an old misunderstanding of the root of the Greek word. For many years monogenes was thought to have derived from two Greek terms, monos ("only") and gennao ("to beget, bear"). Scholars of Greek linguistics have discovered, though, that the second part of the word monogenes does not come from the Greek verb gennao, but rather the noun genos ("class, kind"). The term literally means "one of a kind" or "unique" with no connotation of time or origin. The validity of this understanding is borne out by the New Testament itself. In Hebrews 11:17, Isaac is called Abraham's monogenes—but it is crystal clear from the Old Testament that Isaac was not the only son Abraham had begotten, since he had also fathered Ishmael prior to Isaac. The term must mean that Isaac was Abraham's "unique" son, for he was the son of the covenant promises and the line through which Messiah would come. Many of the more recent versions of the Bible have opted to translate monogenes as "only," but this confuses readers when they come across references to other sons of God in the Old Testament.

--Michael Heiser

[Quaesitor]

Jesus, the 'Unique' Son


"Only begotten" is an unfortunately confusing translation, especially for modern readers. It does sound to us as though the "only begotten" Son had a beginning because we aren't used to the old English word. The confusion should never have happened, though, since monogenes actually doesn't mean "only begotten." The controversy extends from an old misunderstanding of the root of the Greek word. For many years monogenes was thought to have derived from two Greek terms, monos ("only") and gennao ("to beget, bear"). Scholars of Greek linguistics have discovered, though, that the second part of the word monogenes does not come from the Greek verb gennao, but rather the noun genos ("class, kind"). The term literally means "one of a kind" or "unique" with no connotation of time or origin. The validity of this understanding is borne out by the New Testament itself. In Hebrews 11:17, Isaac is called Abraham's monogenes—but it is crystal clear from the Old Testament that Isaac was not the only son Abraham had begotten, since he had also fathered Ishmael prior to Isaac. The term must mean that Isaac was Abraham's "unique" son, for he was the son of the covenant promises and the line through which Messiah would come. Many of the more recent versions of the Bible have opted to translate monogenes as "only," but this confuses readers when they come across references to other sons of God in the Old Testament.

--Michael Heiser

Well unique is confusing too, in my understanding at least.

[Molly]

"Unique"



8Among the gods there is none like unto thee, O Lord; neither are there any works like unto thy works.

9All nations whom thou hast made shall come and worship before thee, O Lord; and shall glorify thy name.

10For thou art great, and doest wondrous things: thou art God alone.

--Psa 86

[eaglesway]

Isaac was Abraham's monogenes by right of a supernatural birth, through a promise, or spoken word of God. Jesus was YHWH's mongenes by right of a supernatural birth through a promise, or spoken Word of God. SO much of this involves interpretation, and people of good conscience can come down on different sides of the various controversies surrounding it, because we see through a glass darkly, hence, great is the mystery of holiness :

God was manifest in the flesh   (He is the radiance of the Fathers glory and express image of His nature Hebrews 1:1-3),

justified in the Spirit    (who was declared the Son of God with power by the resurrection from the dead, according to the Spirit of holiness, Jesus Christ our Lord, Romans 1:4)

seen of messengers    (For we did not follow cleverly devised tales when we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of His majesty........So we have the prophetic word made more sure, to which you do well to pay attention as to a lamp shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star arises in your hearts. 2Pe 1:16-19)



proclaimed among the nations ("If I be lifted up I will draw all men unto me" John 12:32)

believed on in the world (he that believes in me, as it is written, "out of his innermost being shall gush rivers of living water John 7:38)

Received into glory  (Therefore, repent and turn to him to have your sins blotted out, so that times of refreshing may come from the presence of the Lord and so that he may send you Jesus, the Christ whom he appointed long ago. Heaven must receive him until the time of universal restoration that God announced long ago through the voice of his holy prophets. Act 3:19-21)

Jesus was born of a woman, born under law. He fulfilled the law in His life of obedience to love, then overwhelmed the law by love through His death, then transcended the law in His resurrection- wherein the Father declared His love for the Son and established Him as the fountainhead of overcoming life AND as the center of all creation(YHWH said to my Master, "Sit at My right hand, Until I make Your enemies a footstool for Your feet." Psalm 110:1). Now we are ambassadors of the reconciliation and we will be co-executors of the restoration, if we hold fast our faith till He comes upon the wings of the morning(He that overcomes I will give to sit on my throne and . GLORY!

And He who sits on the throne said, "Behold, I am making all things new." And He *said, "Write, for these words are faithful and true." Then He said to me, "It is done. I am the Alpha and the Omega, the beginning and the end. I will give to the one who thirsts from the spring of the water of life without cost. "He who overcomes will inherit these things, and I will be his God and he will be My son.
(Rev 21:5-7)

For you need endurance, so that after you have done God's will you can receive what he has promised. For "in a very little while the one who is coming will return and will not delay; but my righteous one will live by faith, and if he turns back, my soul will take no pleasure in him."
(Heb 10:36-38)

For this is the love of God: that we keep his commandments; and his commandments are not difficult, because everyone who is born from God has overcome the world. Our faith is the victory that overcomes the world. Who overcomes the world? Is it not the person who believes that Jesus is the Son of God?
(1Jn 5:3-5)

John 13:34  I am giving you a new commandment to love one another. Just as I have loved you, you also should love one another.


This magnificent good news, ain't it wonderful !?!?!

Now to Him who is able to establish you according to my gospel and the preaching of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery which has been kept secret for long ages past, but now is manifested, and by the Scriptures of the prophets, according to the commandment of the eternal God, has been made known to all the nations, leading to obedience of faith; to the only wise God, through Jesus Christ, be the glory forever. Amen.
(Rom 16:25-27)

[thinktank]

People can argue about certain translations all day long, but the truth of Jesus christ as God is revealed throughout the entire bible and not one know all scholar can take that truth away. The scholars are mostly swine, relying on their flesh/brain who trample upon the precious pearls of God, they care not for the things of the spirit.

[thinktank]

Jesus, the 'Unique' Son


"Only begotten" is an unfortunately confusing translation, especially for modern readers. It does sound to us as though the "only begotten" Son had a beginning because we aren't used to the old English word. The confusion should never have happened, though, since monogenes actually doesn't mean "only begotten." The controversy extends from an old misunderstanding of the root of the Greek word. For many years monogenes was thought to have derived from two Greek terms, monos ("only") and gennao ("to beget, bear"). Scholars of Greek linguistics have discovered, though, that the second part of the word monogenes does not come from the Greek verb gennao, but rather the noun genos ("class, kind"). The term literally means "one of a kind" or "unique" with no connotation of time or origin. The validity of this understanding is borne out by the New Testament itself. In Hebrews 11:17, Isaac is called Abraham's monogenes—but it is crystal clear from the Old Testament that Isaac was not the only son Abraham had begotten, since he had also fathered Ishmael prior to Isaac. The term must mean that Isaac was Abraham's "unique" son, for he was the son of the covenant promises and the line through which Messiah would come. Many of the more recent versions of the Bible have opted to translate monogenes as "only," but this confuses readers when they come across references to other sons of God in the Old Testament.

--Michael Heiser

If you only knew the mystery that God has revealed to me, you would jump for joy, one of the greatest mysteries of the christian faith, it is an honour to have been given this mystery. I cannot share with general population because the christian community will spit upon it like ignorant swine and I will not allow that to happen. Just realize that there is a great mystery concerning Jesus Christ as the only begotten Son of God.

[micah7:9]

Can you give a hint?