PDA

View Full Version : Jesus says we're Gods



GJT
Oct 29th 2007, 07:34 AM
Jesus answered them, Many good works have I shewed you from my Father; for which of those works do ye stone me? The Jews answered him, saying, For a good work we stone thee not; but for blasphemy; and because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God. Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods? If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken;


John 10:32-35

Cyberseeker
Oct 29th 2007, 08:19 AM
I wouldn't get too excited about it. The Bible also says you were made out of dirt. ;)

SemperReformanda
Oct 29th 2007, 08:30 AM
If you read on, you understand the point Jesus is making. He is not saying (as many people misinterpret this passage to mean) that all people are in effect gods, but rather he is making a point about the hypocrisy of the Jews towards God and the Scriptures.

They wanted to stone Jesus for saying that He was God.

Jesus said that the Jews didn't try to stone Asaph for saying the mighty men in Psalm 82 were gods, so why were they trying to stone Him, who the Father had sanctified and made known through His mighty works?

Steven3
Oct 29th 2007, 08:37 AM
Hi GJT :)
Jesus answered them, Many good works have I shewed you from my Father; for which of those works do ye stone me? The Jews answered him, saying, For a good work we stone thee not; but for blasphemy; and because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God. Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods? If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken;


John 10:32-35

I was always taught that the reference was to judges as "elohim" in Exodus 21:6, 22:8-9 in KJV. And I believed that unquestioningly for years. Even when I started studying (only intermediate, not going to claim any expertise) Hebrew, I still believed it because Brown Driver Briggs, which is still the "big" lexicon, confirms it. And also because this Psalm 82 seems to confirm it:

Psalm 82:1 God has taken his place in the divine council;
in the midst of the gods he holds judgment:
2 “How long will you judge unjustly
and show partiality to the wicked? Selah
3 Give justice to the weak and the fatherless;
maintain the right of the afflicted and the destitute.
4 Rescue the weak and the needy;
deliver them from the hand of the wicked.”
5 They have neither knowledge nor understanding,
they walk about in darkness;
all the foundations of the earth are shaken.
6 I said, “You are gods,
sons of the Most High, all of you;
7 nevertheless, like men you shall die,
and fall like any prince.”
8 Arise, O God, judge the earth;
for you shall inherit all the nations!


In vs1 that reads like gods, but in 2-7 it all reads like mortals with delusions of grandeur.

Then I was introduced to the complicated argument about whether "condemn" in Ex22:9 is plural or singular - because it is only possible to tell whether Elohim is plural or singular when a verb adjective or pronoun is present:

Ex22:9 For every breach of trust, whether it is for an ox, for a donkey, for a sheep, for a cloak, or for any kind of lost thing, of which one says, ‘This is it,’ the case of both parties shall come before God (or before the gods, "judges" KJV). The one whom God condemns (JPS and ESV read as singular verb) shall pay double to his neighbor.

22:8 in Hebrew numbering
עַֽל־כָּל־דְּבַר־פֶּשַׁע עַל־שֹׁור עַל־חֲמֹור עַל־שֶׂה עַל־שַׂלְמָה עַל־כָּל־אֲבֵדָה אֲשֶׁר יֹאמַר כִּי־הוּא זֶה עַד הָֽאֱלֹהִים יָבֹא דְּבַר־שְׁנֵיהֶם אֲשֶׁר יַרְשִׁיעֻן אֱלֹהִים יְשַׁלֵּם שְׁנַיִם לְרֵעֵֽהוּ׃ ס

This is still making my head ache. ירשיען appears to be Hiphil masculine plural "they declare guilty" - but is that correct, and is it the judges themselves or the Urim and Thummim?

Is it possible that Jesus with "your law" was only saying "you Pharisees read the Law as saying this", or was he referring to the Septuagint? Or was he classing them with unjust judges of Ps82???

Anyone have any solid data on this problem?
God bless
Steven

Phil Fourie
Oct 29th 2007, 10:42 AM
The Greek word used there is theos

theos [G2316]

of uncertain affinity; a deity, especially (with 3588) the supreme Divinity; figuratively, a magistrate; by Hebraism, very: -- X exceeding, God, god(-ly, -ward).

I think we are looking at the figurative here, thus --> a magistrate or something in that line.

God bless
Phil

ikester7579
Oct 29th 2007, 11:04 AM
32 Jesus answered them, Many good works have I shewed you from my Father; for which of those works do ye stone me?

33 The Jews answered him, saying, For a good work we stone thee not; but for blasphemy; and because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God.

34 Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods?

What Jesus was pointing out by what he said, was that they made themselves god over the people when they were not. They were priests over the people, but ruled as gods. And because some even looked upon them as god, they were exalted and did not give that glory to God instead.

In other words they did not deny the position in which some of the people raised them to. This also works very much like how some have raised Mary to be the Queen of Heaven. The word never states that Mary was to hold such a position. So man did this. Just as they did with the priests.

So upon allowing this they were breaking the first commandment openly. Even the kings og that time feared the priest because they feared the priest could call upon God, or provoke the people to war.

Duane Morse
Oct 29th 2007, 11:14 AM
'gods' - vs. God.


Notice the small case vs. the large.



We may be 'gods' - but we will NEVER be God!!!!

Friend of I AM
Oct 29th 2007, 11:43 AM
Jesus answered them, Many good works have I shewed you from my Father; for which of those works do ye stone me? The Jews answered him, saying, For a good work we stone thee not; but for blasphemy; and because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God. Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods? If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken;


John 10:32-35

If you think about - what Jesus said regarding the Israelites being "gods" is very logical and in accordance with scripture. Think about it. Through Christ we are set free from the bondage of sin, and as his disciples he shares everything with us that has been given to him by the Father, so long as we ask for it in his name. (John 14:14)

If you want to go back even further than this though - the Word also references man as being like God all the way back in Genesis 3:22 which states -

Man has now become like one of us in knowing good and evil

So this is the age that we live under. An age where all of God's creations are given the choice/opportunity to follow and be submissive to His will, or to follow their own will. We all have become "gods" in a sense with this gift called free will given to us by him. It should be noted that upon the return of Christ - God's will is going to be the only thing that is exalted on that day and the days that follow, seeing as how He has already given us ample time to follow our own desires within this lifetime.

Sold Out
Oct 29th 2007, 01:13 PM
In reference to Psalm 82:6:

The Hebrew word for “gods”in Psalm 82:6 is the word for God Himself (ELOHIM). The point our LORD was making here is that if these Jews could use the term ELOHIM to describe mere men who happen to “represent” God, then why should they oppose HIM for claiming to be the very SON OF GOD? Although no man can become a god, God did become a man

GJT
Oct 29th 2007, 04:50 PM
Hi GJT :)

I was always taught that the reference was to judges as "elohim" in Exodus 21:6, 22:8-9 in KJV. And I believed that unquestioningly for years. Even when I started studying (only intermediate, not going to claim any expertise) Hebrew, I still believed it because Brown Driver Briggs, which is still the "big" lexicon, confirms it. And also because this Psalm 82 seems to confirm it:

Psalm 82:1 God has taken his place in the divine council;
in the midst of the gods he holds judgment:
2 “How long will you judge unjustly
and show partiality to the wicked? Selah
3 Give justice to the weak and the fatherless;
maintain the right of the afflicted and the destitute.
4 Rescue the weak and the needy;
deliver them from the hand of the wicked.”
5 They have neither knowledge nor understanding,
they walk about in darkness;
all the foundations of the earth are shaken.
6 I said, “You are gods,
sons of the Most High, all of you;
7 nevertheless, like men you shall die,
and fall like any prince.”
8 Arise, O God, judge the earth;
for you shall inherit all the nations!


In vs1 that reads like gods, but in 2-7 it all reads like mortals with delusions of grandeur.

Then I was introduced to the complicated argument about whether "condemn" in Ex22:9 is plural or singular - because it is only possible to tell whether Elohim is plural or singular when a verb adjective or pronoun is present:

Ex22:9 For every breach of trust, whether it is for an ox, for a donkey, for a sheep, for a cloak, or for any kind of lost thing, of which one says, ‘This is it,’ the case of both parties shall come before God (or before the gods, "judges" KJV). The one whom God condemns (JPS and ESV read as singular verb) shall pay double to his neighbor.

22:8 in Hebrew numbering
עַֽל־כָּל־דְּבַר־פֶּשַׁע עַל־שֹׁור עַל־חֲמֹור עַל־שֶׂה עַל־שַׂלְמָה עַל־כָּל־אֲבֵדָה אֲשֶׁר יֹאמַר כִּי־הוּא זֶה עַד הָֽאֱלֹהִים יָבֹא דְּבַר־שְׁנֵיהֶם אֲשֶׁר יַרְשִׁיעֻן אֱלֹהִים יְשַׁלֵּם שְׁנַיִם לְרֵעֵֽהוּ׃ ס

This is still making my head ache. ירשיען appears to be Hiphil masculine plural "they declare guilty" - but is that correct, and is it the judges themselves or the Urim and Thummim?

Is it possible that Jesus with "your law" was only saying "you Pharisees read the Law as saying this", or was he referring to the Septuagint? Or was he classing them with unjust judges of Ps82???

Anyone have any solid data on this problem?
God bless
Steven


Thanks for showing me this psalm. This confirms what I've learned Jesus has been saying over the past few weeks. The Catholic bible says "It is written in your own Law that God said you are Gods We know that what the scripture says is forever; and God called those people Gods, the people whom his message was given". Jesus was proving to them that he wasn't lying when he said that he was God, because even in the scripture it says that they are Gods so if he is one of them how is he not God. This is why Jesus always called himself the son of man because God called all humanity man, by saying that he was saying all humanity are Gods not just Jews thats why he wanted everyone, not just the Jews to here his message.

Saved7
Oct 29th 2007, 08:44 PM
Jesus answered them, Many good works have I shewed you from my Father; for which of those works do ye stone me? The Jews answered him, saying, For a good work we stone thee not; but for blasphemy; and because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God. Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods? If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken;


John 10:32-35


gods 2316 (http://cf.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?strongs=2316)?

theos

1) a god or goddess, a general name of deities or divinities
2) the Godhead, trinity
a) God the Father, the first person in the trinity
b) Christ, the second person of the trinity
c) Holy Spirit, the third person in the trinity
3) spoken of the only and true God
a) refers to the things of God
b) his counsels, interests, things due to him
4) whatever can in any respect be likened unto God, or resemble him in any way
a) God's representative or viceregent
1) of magistrates and judges

The ones I've highlighted in red would be what He was referring to.
WE were made in God's image....that covers number 4.
We are God's representatives on earth, but we are not God Himself... Like the president sends representatives in his place. That covers 4a.
We are to judge between good and evil in righteousness and love. Well that covers the last one.

If you are suggesting the others refer to us, then you have made yourself equal to God and have blasphemed.

Teke
Oct 29th 2007, 08:45 PM
The Greek word used there is theos

theos [G2316]

of uncertain affinity; a deity, especially (with 3588) the supreme Divinity; figuratively, a magistrate; by Hebraism, very: -- X exceeding, God, god(-ly, -ward).

I think we are looking at the figurative here, thus --> a magistrate or something in that line.

God bless
Phil

In eastern Christianity this is known as "theosis".

Externally, man seems to be just a biological being, like other living beings, the animals. Of course, he is an animal, but ‘an animal ... which can be deified through its inclination towards God’, as St. Gregory the Theologian characteristically says (Homily on the Epiphany). He is the only being that stands apart from all creation; the only one which can become a god.

GJT
Oct 29th 2007, 09:01 PM
gods 2316 (http://cf.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?strongs=2316)?

theos

1) a god or goddess, a general name of deities or divinities
2) the Godhead, trinity
a) God the Father, the first person in the trinity
b) Christ, the second person of the trinity
c) Holy Spirit, the third person in the trinity
3) spoken of the only and true God
a) refers to the things of God
b) his counsels, interests, things due to him
4) whatever can in any respect be likened unto God, or resemble him in any way
a) God's representative or viceregent
1) of magistrates and judges

The ones I've highlighted in red would be what He was referring to.
WE were made in God's image....that covers number 4.
We are God's representatives on earth, but we are not God Himself... Like the president sends representatives in his place. That covers 4a.
We are to judge between good and evil in righteousness and love. Well that covers the last one.

If you are suggesting the others refer to us, then you have made yourself equal to God and have blasphemed.


By your logic you just blasphemed by saying we are to judge between good and evil. Following Jesus and Gods teachings is likening yourself, therefor you are saying all Christians commit blasphemy. Liking yourself is making yourself equal.:rolleyes:


Main Entry: liken Part of Speech: verb Definition: compare Synonyms: allegorize (http://thesaurus.reference.com/browse/allegorize), approach (http://thesaurus.reference.com/browse/approach), approximate to (http://thesaurus.reference.com/browse/approximate%20to), assimilate (http://thesaurus.reference.com/browse/assimilate), balance (http://thesaurus.reference.com/browse/balance), bear comparison (http://thesaurus.reference.com/browse/bear%20comparison), be in the same class as (http://thesaurus.reference.com/browse/be%20in%20the%20same%20class%20as)*, be on a par with (http://thesaurus.reference.com/browse/be%20on%20a%20par%20with)*, come up to (http://thesaurus.reference.com/browse/come%20up%20to), correlate (http://thesaurus.reference.com/browse/correlate), distinguish between (http://thesaurus.reference.com/browse/distinguish%20between), draw parallel (http://thesaurus.reference.com/browse/draw%20parallel), equal (http://thesaurus.reference.com/browse/equal), equate (http://thesaurus.reference.com/browse/equate), identify with (http://thesaurus.reference.com/browse/identify%20with), link (http://thesaurus.reference.com/browse/link), make like (http://thesaurus.reference.com/browse/make%20like), match (http://thesaurus.reference.com/browse/match), notice similarities (http://thesaurus.reference.com/browse/notice%20similarities), parallel (http://thesaurus.reference.com/browse/parallel), put alongside (http://thesaurus.reference.com/browse/put%20alongside), relate (http://thesaurus.reference.com/browse/relate), resemble (http://thesaurus.reference.com/browse/resemble), show correspondence (http://thesaurus.reference.com/browse/show%20correspondence)

Teke
Oct 29th 2007, 10:07 PM
By your logic you just blasphemed by saying we are to judge between good and evil. Following Jesus and Gods teachings is likening yourself, therefor you are saying all Christians commit blasphemy. Liking yourself is making yourself equal.:rolleyes:


Main Entry: liken Part of Speech: verb Definition: compare Synonyms: allegorize (http://thesaurus.reference.com/browse/allegorize), approach (http://thesaurus.reference.com/browse/approach), approximate to (http://thesaurus.reference.com/browse/approximate%20to), assimilate (http://thesaurus.reference.com/browse/assimilate), balance (http://thesaurus.reference.com/browse/balance), bear comparison (http://thesaurus.reference.com/browse/bear%20comparison), be in the same class as (http://thesaurus.reference.com/browse/be%20in%20the%20same%20class%20as)*, be on a par with (http://thesaurus.reference.com/browse/be%20on%20a%20par%20with)*, come up to (http://thesaurus.reference.com/browse/come%20up%20to), correlate (http://thesaurus.reference.com/browse/correlate), distinguish between (http://thesaurus.reference.com/browse/distinguish%20between), draw parallel (http://thesaurus.reference.com/browse/draw%20parallel), equal (http://thesaurus.reference.com/browse/equal), equate (http://thesaurus.reference.com/browse/equate), identify with (http://thesaurus.reference.com/browse/identify%20with), link (http://thesaurus.reference.com/browse/link), make like (http://thesaurus.reference.com/browse/make%20like), match (http://thesaurus.reference.com/browse/match), notice similarities (http://thesaurus.reference.com/browse/notice%20similarities), parallel (http://thesaurus.reference.com/browse/parallel), put alongside (http://thesaurus.reference.com/browse/put%20alongside), relate (http://thesaurus.reference.com/browse/relate), resemble (http://thesaurus.reference.com/browse/resemble), show correspondence (http://thesaurus.reference.com/browse/show%20correspondence)


Gen 1:26 ¶ And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness:

‘In His image’ refers to the gifts which God gave only to man, alone among all His creatures, so that he constitutes an image of God. These gifts are: a rational mind (gr. nous), conscience, and self-authority, in other words freedom, creativity, eros, and the yearning for the absolute and for God, personal self-awareness, and anything else which puts man above all other living beings in creation, and makes him a man and a personality. In other words, everything that makes man a person. These are the gifts of the ‘in His image’.

Having been formed ‘in His image’, man is called upon to be acquire the ‘in His likeness’, in other words, deification (gr. theosis). The Creator, God by nature, calls man to become a god by Grace.

The gifts of ‘in His image’ were given to man by God so that that he may ascend very high; so that through them he may attain a likeness to his God and Creator; so that he may have not an external, moral relationship, but a personal union with his Creator.

Perhaps it is very daring for us even to say or think that our purpose in life is to become gods by Grace. However, neither the Holy Bible nor the Church Fathers have hidden this from us.

Steven3
Oct 30th 2007, 03:39 AM
Hi GJT
Thanks for showing me this psalm. This confirms what I've learned Jesus has been saying over the past few weeks. The Catholic bible says "It is written in your own Law that God said you are Gods We know that what the scripture says is forever; and God called those people Gods, the people whom his message was given". Out of interest which Catholic version, JB? NJB?

Jesus was proving to them that he wasn't lying when he said that he was God, because even in the scripture it says that they are Gods so if he is one of them how is he not God. Perhaps note the different verbs in the accusation and the reply:

Pharisees' accusation : make yourself God
Jesus defence : in Ps82 men called gods

But in any case it's only one verse remember, and it relates to the Pharisee's interpretation of the Law "your law", not necessarily Jesus' interpretation.

Firstly Jesus isn't necessarily approving the concept that men can be called "gods" any more than the Psalm he's quoting is approving the unjust judges of the psalmist's day thinking that they were "gods". It's probably more like a reference to Capernaum thinking it was lifted up to heaven, or the kings of Babylon and Tyre with their similar ambitions.

Secondly we don't know that Ps82 approves confirms that (late?) Jewish interpretation that "before God" in Exodus actually meant men being called Gods. Exodus 22 (leaving aside whether that verb is singular or plural) is not dealing with a normal human judgment situation, the judges didn't judge, the Urim and Thummim did. Ps82 may actually be sarcastic, comparing non Urim and Thummim magistrates who didn't meet Exodus22 criteria. Hence Jesus using Ps82 would also be ironic.

With those two problems we can't say "all humanity are Gods" based on just this one verse.


This is why Jesus always called himself the son of man because God called all humanity man, by saying that he was saying all humanity are Gods not just Jews thats why he wanted everyone, not just the Jews to here his message.But here in John 10 Jesus says that the Jews said he was blaspheming because of calling himself "the Son of God", not "the Son of Man" (although they probably considered that blasphemous too...)

John 10:36 do you say of him whom the Father consecrated and sent into the world, ‘You are blaspheming,’ because I said, ‘I am the Son of God’?

Also, while yes "a son of man" is used generically of humans in the OT (first use is Num 23:19 'God is not man, that he should lie, or a son of man, that he should change his mind.) Jesus describes himself as the Son of Man, a unique title, which in the NT is likely a reference to the virgin birth and the Logos being made flesh.

Sorry I just don't think this verse is sufficient proof for men being called "gods". The Ex22 reference is shaky, Ps82 is sarcastic, and Jesus quotes Ps82 as "your law" implying he doesn't necessarily share the Pharisee's reading.
God bless
Steven

Steven3
Oct 30th 2007, 03:48 AM
gods 2316 (http://cf.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?strongs=2316)?

Hi everybody :)
Good as blueletterbible.org is for seeing how words are used, take care with the lexical definitions.
(a) good lexicons always give outlier and marginal readings, but not all readings are equal or even proven,
(b) out-of-copyright lexicons, particularly with Hebrew, to a lesser extent with Greek, are not as accurate as the in-copyright ones that aren't on the web.
(c) any language, even dead ones, is like a car, it requires a driving license.

Otherwise theos and elohim (+singular verb) mean "God", and theoi and elohim (+plural verb) means "gods".
God bless :)
Steven

sulfurdolphin
Oct 30th 2007, 04:25 AM
Jesus answered them, Many good works have I shewed you from my Father; for which of those works do ye stone me? The Jews answered him, saying, For a good work we stone thee not; but for blasphemy; and because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God. Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods? If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken;


John 10:32-35

Alot of new agers like to use this particular scripture to say humans are gods, but when you look at it closely, Jesus is bascially saying (Ye are Judges)! is the correct translation for this context.

In Depth to carry the letter of the Law, every locality has 120 men as heads of families called the Sanhedrin consisting 23 elders that would govern all matters. If the town was smaller it would be governed by three or seven members or elders.

Basically what im saying is this, that Jesus was not saying that they were literal gods, but since the Sanhedrin acted as "judges" they were not acting accordingly to there laws in the Tanakh. They were abusing there powers. When Jesus said in John (YE ARE GODS) Jesus went to Psalms 82:6 then quoted to the Pharisees "I SAID "You Are gods." so Jesus was saying YE are Judges. and I said You are Judges.

Michael

Teke
Oct 30th 2007, 01:40 PM
Hi GJTOut of interest which Catholic version, JB? NJB?
Perhaps note the different verbs in the accusation and the reply:

Pharisees' accusation : make yourself God
Jesus defence : in Ps82 men called gods

But in any case it's only one verse remember, and it relates to the Pharisee's interpretation of the Law "your law", not necessarily Jesus' interpretation.

Firstly Jesus isn't necessarily approving the concept that men can be called "gods" any more than the Psalm he's quoting is approving the unjust judges of the psalmist's day thinking that they were "gods". It's probably more like a reference to Capernaum thinking it was lifted up to heaven, or the kings of Babylon and Tyre with their similar ambitions.

Secondly we don't know that Ps82 approves confirms that (late?) Jewish interpretation that "before God" in Exodus actually meant men being called Gods. Exodus 22 (leaving aside whether that verb is singular or plural) is not dealing with a normal human judgment situation, the judges didn't judge, the Urim and Thummim did. Ps82 may actually be sarcastic, comparing non Urim and Thummim magistrates who didn't meet Exodus22 criteria. Hence Jesus using Ps82 would also be ironic.

With those two problems we can't say "all humanity are Gods" based on just this one verse.

But here in John 10 Jesus says that the Jews said he was blaspheming because of calling himself "the Son of God", not "the Son of Man" (although they probably considered that blasphemous too...)

John 10:36 do you say of him whom the Father consecrated and sent into the world, ‘You are blaspheming,’ because I said, ‘I am the Son of God’?

Also, while yes "a son of man" is used generically of humans in the OT (first use is Num 23:19 'God is not man, that he should lie, or a son of man, that he should change his mind.) Jesus describes himself as the Son of Man, a unique title, which in the NT is likely a reference to the virgin birth and the Logos being made flesh.

Sorry I just don't think this verse is sufficient proof for men being called "gods". The Ex22 reference is shaky, Ps82 is sarcastic, and Jesus quotes Ps82 as "your law" implying he doesn't necessarily share the Pharisee's reading.
God bless
Steven

I disagree Ps 82 is sarcastic. Historically the Church has used this Psalm in worship in the context of the Resurrection coming. This Psalm is the Church's confident invitation to God to judge her.

2 Peter 1:3,4 , "As His diviine power has given to us all things that pertain to life and godliness....you may be partakers of the divine nature".

The fathers call this "deification" (the result of 'theosis'). This does not mean human beings become divine like God is in His nature.
St John of Damascus makes the observation of the word "God" in the scriptures, it refers not to the divine nature or essence, for that is unknowable. "God" refers to the divine energies-the power and grace of God which we can perceive in this world. The Greek word for God, theos, comes from a verb meaning 'run', 'see', or 'burn'. These are energy words, so to speak, not essence words.

Jesus makes the meaning clear to the Pharisees who are hypocrites in accusing Him of blasphemy. (the "law" is in Psalms, as is most all of scripture, Jesus understands the Pharisees and their oral tradition, He clarifies the meaning for their understanding as He agrees with their approach (oral and written tradition), they just lack in understanding)

Because of the Incarnation of the Son of God, because the fullness of God has inhabited human flesh, being joined to Christ means that it is again possible to experience deification, the fulfillment of our human destiny. That is, through union with Christ, we become by grace what God is by nature- we "become children of God" (John 1:12). His deity interpenetrates our humanity.

Acts 17 speaks similarly, see verse 29.
ie. offspring, for as much as we are = being

Steven3
Oct 31st 2007, 07:13 AM
Hi Teke
Then I regret I'd say that St. John of Damascus didn't read the whole of Psalm 82 if he thinks that those corrupt men were like Peter's "partakers in the divine nature".


The Greek word for God, theos, comes from a verb meaning 'run', 'see', or 'burn'. etymology is the 1st deadly sin in linguistics ;).
God bless
Steevn

Serve-N-Protect
Oct 31st 2007, 09:12 AM
When I read these verses... Sorry to some... But I picture this Monty Python sort of scenario at stoning. These Blood thirsty judges, who under their phylacteries, even as laypeople, always are lurking in the corner with a pocket full of Rocks just waiting. Believe me that isn't far from the truth even today. Just go down to Fishmans Kosher Market on a Friday afternoon around noon, and you'll know exactly what I mean. They crack me up!

:rofl:

Rabbis and laypeople alike, literally and unwittingly acting out the bible characters right before your eyes.


32 Jesus answered them, Many good works have I shewed you from my Father; for which of those works do ye stone me?

But for one time in the bible when the deed was actually done... Whenever Christ is talking to these people who are about to kill him, I always picture this smiley, cool as a cucumber guy, whose confidence is so overwhelming, he could be reciting a grocery list and they would just stand there like fools scratching their heads.


33 The Jews answered him, saying, For a good work we stone thee not;

:rofl:

The subtext here is hilarious. The pressure these people were putting everybody under. Imagine living in a society where there was always a pack of these folks lurking around just waiting for you to mess up. Judging your every thought, deed, and even opinion.


but for blasphemy; and because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God.

Notice they are calling him God and not denying it. After all, by this time, his miracles were no secret.


34 Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods?

Some really important points here. First he says "Your law" (speaking to their misunderstandings and twisting of his law) then he says "I said".

The Triple whammy. He not only gets to claim he is the same God who spoke to them years before in their law, he also gets to imply that they misunderstood him, then the knock out, is that misunderstanding makes them guilty of blasphemy.

Three blows with one simple statement! You gotta love it!


What Jesus was pointing out by what he said, was that they made themselves god over the people when they were not.

Pretty much, but they also made themselves God everywhere, because they are his chosen people.

:hmm:

Oh the wars that will rage over who really is Gods Chosen.


They were priests over the people, but ruled as gods. And because some even looked upon them as god, they were exalted and did not give that glory to God instead.

Here is a nondenominational truth spanning just about every religious organization even yet today.


In other words they did not deny the position in which some of the people raised them to.

Preach it! :lol:


So upon allowing this they were breaking the first commandment openly. Even the kings og that time feared the priest because they feared the priest could call upon God, or provoke the people to war.

Oh the list of commandments they were breaking. Exception after amendment, after rewrite, after individualized doctrine, after... All to fit their sinful desire to live as an exception to the rule, or forcing the law to justify their sin by purposefully misinterpreting it through a wicked heart. One of the natural side benefits of that, is the ability to yolk people with a law that doesn't even really exist.

Anybody care to hear some modern day examples of this?

Teke
Oct 31st 2007, 02:15 PM
Hi Teke
Then I regret I'd say that St. John of Damascus didn't read the whole of Psalm 82 if he thinks that those corrupt men were like Peter's "partakers in the divine nature".

Those men were priests, and they very well could have been partakers in the divine nature. A perfection of flesh is not a requirement. Jesus obviously thought to correct them. They may have been deceived (by unorthodox teaching), but that doesn't make them corrupt.


etymology is the 1st deadly sin in linguistics ;).
God bless
Steevn

Maybe for English.
I'm guessing you've never read the Greek fathers or spoke to a Greek Christian. :lol:

Steven3
Nov 1st 2007, 04:54 AM
Hi Teke :)
Those men were priests, and they very well could have been partakers in the divine nature. A perfection of flesh is not a requirement. Jesus obviously thought to correct them. They may have been deceived (by unorthodox teaching), but that doesn't make them corrupt. The Psalm says they were corrupt.


Maybe for English.
I'm guessing you've never read the Greek fathers or spoke to a Greek Christian. :lol:Joking aside, you're telling me that etymology based arguments are common in later Patristic literature and Greek Orthodox? I admit I wouldn't know, the only Greek Christians I know are Protestants, and my library of Patristics is one text:

http://graphics.christianbook.com/g/display/9/99607x.gif

The descent into etymology must have begun after AD150 ;)
Cheers!
Steven

Teke
Nov 1st 2007, 02:25 PM
Hi Teke :)The Psalm says they were corrupt.

The Psalm points out that God's judgement is more righteous than theirs. It is a call for them to "get right" as judges, since they are representatives of God here on earth. ie. gods

Paul in Acts reminds them the same as Jesus does. Paul quotes Exodus 22:28 (another example of the word "gods" used) in Acts 23:5.

So while there may very well be corruption in a priesthood, that does not condemn the priesthood, as in all being corrupt. To think such is to condemn the church itself since it is also part of that priesthood. And we shouldn't think such, but that God has power over His "assembly" or "council" here. Even if they need correction here and there. He perfects them, they do not perfect themselves.

Pro 3:11 My son, despise not the chastening of the LORD; neither be weary of his correction:
Pro 3:12 For whom the LORD loveth he correcteth; even as a father the son [in whom] he delighteth.

Even Moses who is called a "god" in scripture, was corrected (for striking the rock)by God. That doesn't make Moses corrupt either, just human and not God Himself.

Exd 7:1 ¶ And the LORD said unto Moses, See, I have made thee a god to Pharaoh: and Aaron thy brother shall be thy prophet.


Joking aside, you're telling me that etymology based arguments are common in later Patristic literature and Greek Orthodox? I admit I wouldn't know, the only Greek Christians I know are Protestants, and my library of Patristics is one text:


The descent into etymology must have begun after AD150 ;)
Cheers!
Steven

I may not be seeing what you are relating about problems of etymology.
But never were verbs (aka words descriptive of energies) later seen as nouns or vice versa.

Patristics clearly make distinctions between nature, essence and energies as they relate to Christology and Paterology, as well as Soteriology. Scripture is a witness to mankinds ability to participate in the energies of God. ie. mercy, love, judging, worship etc. Gods' essence is unknowable to us, only the Son and Holy Spirit share His essence.

Steven3
Nov 1st 2007, 02:58 PM
Hi Teke :)

The Psalm says they were corruptThe Psalm points out that God's judgement is more righteous than theirs. It is a call for them to "get right" as judges, since they are representatives of God here on earth. ie. gods As I said, the Psalm says they were corrupt ;)


I may not be seeing what you are relating about problems of etymology.Try taking a line of your own writing, look up the word-roots from Anglo-Saxon and Latin, then give them the list of word roots to someone and ask them what it means ;)
God bless
Steven

Saved7
Nov 1st 2007, 03:27 PM
By your logic you just blasphemed by saying we are to judge between good and evil. Following Jesus and Gods teachings is likening yourself, therefor you are saying all Christians commit blasphemy. Liking yourself is making yourself equal.:rolleyes:


Main Entry: liken Part of Speech: verb Definition: compare Synonyms: allegorize (http://thesaurus.reference.com/browse/allegorize), approach (http://thesaurus.reference.com/browse/approach), approximate to (http://thesaurus.reference.com/browse/approximate%20to), assimilate (http://thesaurus.reference.com/browse/assimilate), balance (http://thesaurus.reference.com/browse/balance), bear comparison (http://thesaurus.reference.com/browse/bear%20comparison), be in the same class as (http://thesaurus.reference.com/browse/be%20in%20the%20same%20class%20as)*, be on a par with (http://thesaurus.reference.com/browse/be%20on%20a%20par%20with)*, come up to (http://thesaurus.reference.com/browse/come%20up%20to), correlate (http://thesaurus.reference.com/browse/correlate), distinguish between (http://thesaurus.reference.com/browse/distinguish%20between), draw parallel (http://thesaurus.reference.com/browse/draw%20parallel), equal (http://thesaurus.reference.com/browse/equal), equate (http://thesaurus.reference.com/browse/equate), identify with (http://thesaurus.reference.com/browse/identify%20with), link (http://thesaurus.reference.com/browse/link), make like (http://thesaurus.reference.com/browse/make%20like), match (http://thesaurus.reference.com/browse/match), notice similarities (http://thesaurus.reference.com/browse/notice%20similarities), parallel (http://thesaurus.reference.com/browse/parallel), put alongside (http://thesaurus.reference.com/browse/put%20alongside), relate (http://thesaurus.reference.com/browse/relate), resemble (http://thesaurus.reference.com/browse/resemble), show correspondence (http://thesaurus.reference.com/browse/show%20correspondence)


give me a break, you know full well what was meant by my post, don't go twisting what I said.:rolleyes:

Teke
Nov 1st 2007, 07:13 PM
Try taking a line of your own writing, look up the word-roots from Anglo-Saxon and Latin, then give them the list of word roots to someone and ask them what it means ;)
God bless
Steven

Some folks may actually learn better English this way. But I was speaking of Greek and what the Greek means. Greek is not Anglo-Saxon or Latin. Latin translations of Greek are not very good, and English didn't improve them.
And the Greeks are still pointing this out to us to this day!

This is apparent in disputes among the EO (having a Greek foundation) and RC (having a Latin foundation). The Syrians do better with the Greek than the Latins, as the Greeks do better with Aramaic and/or Syrian.
Least that is the way I see it from my observations of them.:)

Steven3
Nov 3rd 2007, 02:49 AM
Hi Teke
Some folks may actually learn better English this way. But I was speaking of Greek and what the Greek means. Greek is not Anglo-Saxon or Latin. In terms of the dangers of etymology Greek might as well be Anglo-Saxon or Latin, since etymology carries no automatic semantic significance in any language - period. Not even in pictographic writing systems like Chinese and Japanese.


Latin translations of Greek are not very good, and English didn't improve them.Says who? Can you read Latin? I beg to disagree. I have a Vulgate by my bedside and Jerome made an excellent translation both in terms of literalism and dynamic equivalence, one that preserved the word of God in the west for a millenia. Several of the modern English translations (which yes do have some element of Vulgate influence, inevitably) are also excellent.

Compare that with a modern Greek struggling in the Greek Orthodox service with the language of Plutarch, Herodotus, Josephus, Philo and Paul. Or even with a Greek Protestant occasionally being thrown by the Bambas (Vamvas) version of 1850 having to stick closely to the original Greek text even when word meanings have changed.

For example a Greek Orthodox reading the original, or a Greek Protestant reading Bambas would get thrown by words such as
Acts 2 - Peter says "servant" but the word means "son" in modern Greek
Eph5:9 - Paul says "make melody" but the word means "chant" in modern Greek.

They'll also get thrown by grammar issues, such as the famous positioning of the adverb "today" in Christ's response to the thief. That word order in Septuagint Greek would mean "I say to you today", but in modern Greek it could be taking as meaning "in paradise today". (I'm told, my modern Greek is fairly basic so this is second hand).


And the Greeks are still pointing this out to us to this day!Come on. As we both know modern Greeks, neither Orthodox, Catholic or Protestant have much greater insight into the word of God .

I'm as philo-Hellenic as they come, but to have a theological fetish about Greek is a silly as those who fetishize Hebrew or Syriac. Or indeed Shakespearean English ;).


This is apparent in disputes among the EO (having a Greek foundation) and RC (having a Latin foundation). The Syrians do better with the Greek than the Latins, as the Greeks do better with Aramaic and/or Syrian. Least that is the way I see it from my observations of them.:)The main problem with all human beings is not on the printed page, the hard work of the translator, but what happens between the retina and the brain. Or rather between the retina and the heart. It is there that the word of God is corrupted. Translators on the whole do a better job than readers, and that applies to all languages.

Anyway, back to the point - etymology of "gods" is irrelevant, because wherever word-routes may have snaked from in the mists of time, what it means in AD28 Palestine is defined by the ear of the hearers then and there. And they would have no idea what a word might have meant in Mycenaean 15 centuries earlier, if it even did (I don't have a Mycenaen dictionary, does anyone? ;)).
God bless
Steven

Teke
Nov 3rd 2007, 05:28 PM
Irregardless of etymology, to say that a born Greek doesn't understand their own language and semantics of that language is incorrect. Greeks not in their own country, send their children from the time they are in grade school, to Greek school at their church. They write and read in original Greek, as well as study the history of the language (semantics).

I am not stating this to say they have a better understanding of the word of God, but because it is a fact that they understand their own language better than any foreign language does.

So it doesn't matter what a word means in another language, in Greek it has already been identified with its semantic origin.

And it is not only the Greeks who hold this view of "god" being a verb (descriptive of energy). The Hebrew does as well.

The reason this is so, is because God is unknowable to us except through the energies which we participate with Him in.
This should be apparent to you in scripture as scripture uses such descriptive words when relating God. ie. God is merciful, God is love, God is judge etc. All energy words, because God is always in action.

Eastern Christianity doesn't believe there are any new revelations of scripture other than Christ. And they do not use systematic theology in their approach to scripture.

My OPINION of Latin versus the Greek is from studying the historic schism of the eastern and western churches. The Latin understanding of grace differs from that of Greek. Hence you have two different views which effect theology.

Pleroo
Nov 3rd 2007, 05:50 PM
Eastern Christianity doesn't believe there are any new revelations of scripture other than Christ. And they do not use systematic theology in their approach to scripture.

What do they use?

Teke
Nov 3rd 2007, 06:35 PM
What do they use?

Being conciliar they use patristics.

Pleroo
Nov 3rd 2007, 06:47 PM
Being conciliar they use patristics.


So, help me out here. Are you saying you don't believe in Spirit-led private interpretation of Scripture or personal revelation through Scripture for the "average" Christian? Whatever God wanted/wants the Church to know, He reveals to the Church Fathers?

[Edited out "early" Church Fathers. I realized as EO you probably include more modern day Church "Fathers"?]

Teke
Nov 3rd 2007, 07:19 PM
So, help me out here. Are you saying you don't believe in Spirit-led private interpretation of Scripture or personal revelation through Scripture for the contemporary Christian?

No I do not believe in private interpretation of scripture. St Peter makes this clear in scripture.

2Pe 1:20 Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.

2Pe 1:21 For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake [as they were] moved by the Holy Ghost.

Jesus plainly asked His disciples, "who do men say that I am"?, this was the beginning of theological study in Christology. It is the first question the first historical councils of the church addressed. Though it has been addressed (as it is the dogma of the church) the subject is still explored.

I believe people have personal revelations which are for them personally. But they do not change the character of the church, which is to stay as God is, which is unchanging.

And I realize to many this seems very boring. But what they haven't realized is that they have not really explored the subject of Christ and His Church as thoroughly as they ought. Which results in a weak statement of faith. Weak faith isn't the result of a knowledge of Christ. A stronger faith is.



Whatever God wanted the Church to know, He has already revealed to the early Church Fathers?

As a collective (conciliar) yes. They are based on the teachings of Jesus and His Apostles.
If patristics and the councils are studied, one finds that there is really no new beliefs. The same old ones are always present. It's just a matter of recognizing them.

It was an invention of the western RC that other dispensations of grace existed or exists. This is based on their view of grace and that it is created, rather than an energy of God, thus more can be created as necessary.
Easterners hold no such views of dispensations and believe "grace" is an uncreated energy of God which man participates in.

God has been revealed to us through the person of Christ. There is no other revelation. :)

Pleroo
Nov 3rd 2007, 07:42 PM
No I do not believe in private interpretation of scripture. St Peter makes this clear in scripture.

2Pe 1:20 Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.

2Pe 1:21 For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake [as they were] moved by the Holy Ghost.

Well, I believe the emphasis here may be on the Holy Ghost, and not on the "holy men".



Jesus plainly asked His disciples, "who do men say that I am"?, this was the beginning of theological study in Christology. It is the first question the first historical councils of the church addressed. Though it has been addressed (as it is the dogma of the church) the subject is still explored.

I meant to address this when you brought up that you don't believe in systematic theology? Isn't Christology just that?


I believe people have personal revelations which are for them personally. But they do not change the character of the church, which is to stay as God is, which is unchanging.

The Church is Christ in believers. I agree Christ does not change, but the level of His revelation to people does, both historically, and on a personal level. People, individually and corporately, are going to be changed based on the level of revelation of Truth they have received. The more Christ is revealed TO them, the more Christ will be revealed IN and THROUGH them. So, though Christ does not change, it's going to look like change from the outside.


And I realize to many this seems very boring. But what they haven't realized is that they have not really explored the subject of Christ and His Church as thoroughly as they ought. Which results in a weak statement of faith. Weak faith isn't the result of a knowledge of Christ. A stronger faith is.

No, not boring. There is much to learn from the crowd of witnesses who have gone before us! And I agree that I do not know all I want to of Christ and His Church, but what has been revealed to me has increased my faith exponentially!




As a collective (conciliar) yes. They are based on the teachings of Jesus and His Apostles.
If patristics and the councils are studied, one finds that there is really no new beliefs. The same old ones are always present. It's just a matter of recognizing them.

I think you are right ... the old ones are always present. But there has been much disagreement right from the start on which of these "old beliefs" is the correct one, to my understanding.


It was an invention of the western RC that other dispensations of grace existed or exists. This is based on their view of grace and that it is created, rather than an energy of God, thus more can be created as necessary.
Easterners hold no such views of dispensations and believe "grace" is an uncreated energy of God which man participates in.

Heh, you've been saying this as long as I've been here (longer I'm sure) and I'm still chewing on what you're getting at, Teke. :) I don't think of grace as being created, but I do see that God has revealed His grace differently, and through different means, at different times.


God has been revealed to us through the person of Christ. There is no other revelation. :)

Now in THAT we are in complete agreement!

Teke
Nov 3rd 2007, 09:27 PM
Well, I believe the emphasis here may be on the Holy Ghost, and not on the "holy men".

Oh yea, I'm in agreement with you on that. It takes God to move a man in anything. :lol:
The "holy men" where just there, God decided to move them, I feel sure, or they wouldn't have done or said a thing. Anyone reading scripture or patristics should understand this. For instance how many men have we ever read in scripture that were jumping up and down for God to call them or give them something to do as in act on.



I meant to address this when you brought up that you don't believe in systematic theology? Isn't Christology just that?

Maybe systematic if meant in the sense of being apophatic about understanding. Then the system would be in the negative, not the absolute.



The Church is Christ in believers. I agree Christ does not change, but the level of His revelation to people does, both historically, and on a personal level. People, individually and corporately, are going to be changed based on the level of revelation of Truth they have received. The more Christ is revealed TO them, the more Christ will be revealed IN and THROUGH them. So, though Christ does not change, it's going to look like change from the outside.



No, not boring. There is much to learn from the crowd of witnesses who have gone before us! And I agree that I do not know all I want to of Christ and His Church, but what has been revealed to me has increased my faith exponentially!





I think you are right ... the old ones are always present. But there has been much disagreement right from the start on which of these "old beliefs" is the correct one, to my understanding.



Heh, you've been saying this as long as I've been here (longer I'm sure) and I'm still chewing on what you're getting at, Teke. :) I don't think of grace as being created, but I do see that God has revealed His grace differently, and through different means, at different times.

Yes, but grace is grace is grace is grace. There is no change with God in His grace. We just perceive that grace changing us, not the grace itself changing, as that is to say that God changes. Grace is His attribute not ours. We share with Him in that, but that doesn't mean we change it.

See what you said, "but the level of His revelation to people does,", this is exactly what RC believes. And their list of legalities increases with it. Which is why most RC's don't understand their own religion.

As one of the fathers said, you know as much as the new born babe does about the mystery of God. This is because God is about experience and experience doesn't need words. We just try to explain the ontological experience with words. A babe may only use sounds such as crying and be able to attain to the same ascent as any saint.
This is why we are all equal in God's sight. None greater or lesser with Him. ;)

IOW it's so simple that the wise can totally miss it by intellectualizing it or trying to judge it. As none of us are wiser than God nor can we be the judge of Him and His mysterious workings.


Now in THAT we are in complete agreement!

Amen, and that is our only defense. :hug:

Teke
Nov 3rd 2007, 09:51 PM
You know many times it is missed what Jesus meant when He said to leave all for Him. This is another test of whether you really want the love of God, IOW to be like God, is about love.

There is a "catch" in God's love - it is self-denying in it's nature, that's what makes it so different from human love and so difficult to accept. In order to participate in His love (i.e. accept His Spirit of His love into ourselves in order to love Him with the same kind of love), we have to deny and stop loving ourselves. This is what makes it so difficult to participate in the love of God, and this is why not everyone may want it.

Many Christians don't understand this. You hear them speak of dying daily to sin for the sake of saving their hides, when it's really about becoming more like Him and His love.:saint:

Steven3
Nov 4th 2007, 11:38 AM
Hi Teke
Irregardless of etymology, to say that a born Greek doesn't understand their own language and semantics of that language is incorrect. Please think about what you are claiming. How many Americans and British can read Chaucer? How many of us can fully understand 1611 English (whether Shakespeare's Tempest, or KJV)? Now if British and Americans cannot fully understand English of 400 years ago, what makes you think that modern Greeks fully understand Xenophon or Herodotus? Let alone Euripides or Plato. Or why do Greek Protestants use that Bambas version of 1850?

Sorry, I encounter linguistic jingoism all the time in my line of work - every nation (except the Belgians and Swiss ;)) is proud of their language, and all kinds of people fetishize the language of their church (Lamsa with Aramaic, Ethiopians with Coptic, Muslims with classical Arabic, Messianics with broken chunks of Hebrew) ... but it's all furry nonsense from a linguistic perspective. And there's usually mixed in a bit of latent racism or nationalism (depending on if you're in or out, two names for the same thing).

Given that God has given his word to all nations - and "God is not a respecter of persons" - do we really think he'd have given any (Jews, Greeks, Romans, Anglo-Saxons) a built in language-advantage?


And it is not only the Greeks who hold this view of "god" being a verb (descriptive of energy). The Hebrew does as well. Klingon too probably :note:. What you're saying is that in most languages, "god" in earlier generations once meant something very very powerful, sort of, well divine, and powerful, and heavenly, and supernatural, sort of like a deity, or god-ish, or .... well........ like a god. So "god" in most languages is derived from something which means "god". Yes that could be possible, maybe. It'd still be totally irrelevant to any speaker or hearer.



My OPINION of Latin versus the Greek is from studying the historic schism of the eastern and western churches. The Latin understanding of grace differs from that of Greek. Hence you have two different views which effect theology.I thought your judgment was on the work of Jerome as a translator, not on the unfitness of his mother tongue. Anyway, this opinion too falls by the fact that the Greek and the Latin aren't all that different, aside from a slightly different grammatical matrix.

As to the "grace" are you sure it isn't something in the water or perhaps the different varieties of olive oil? :kiss:
God bless
Steven

Teke
Nov 4th 2007, 09:46 PM
Hi Teke Please think about what you are claiming. How many Americans and British can read Chaucer? How many of us can fully understand 1611 English (whether Shakespeare's Tempest, or KJV)? Now if British and Americans cannot fully understand English of 400 years ago,

You are assuming to much. You would be surprised at the education of Americans on their English language in the early times of the American nation. My own fathers education, which dates back from depression times, included English language in classical literature like those you mentioned as well as many others.

Because of my fathers education of language in literature (this was standard teaching from grade school on, not only college), he explained to me and my siblings all the meanings of the words. Words which are no longer used in English. He used poetry to do this with us. He would quote some of the longest poems, from his own memory, to entertain and educate us.
Or he would just come up with a word for us to find the meaning.



what makes you think that modern Greeks fully understand Xenophon or Herodotus? Let alone Euripides or Plato.

What makes you think they don't


Or why do Greek Protestants use that Bambas version of 1850?

Don't know, maybe they missed Greek class.


Sorry, I encounter linguistic jingoism all the time in my line of work - every nation (except the Belgians and Swiss ;)) is proud of their language, and all kinds of people fetishize the language of their church (Lamsa with Aramaic, Ethiopians with Coptic, Muslims with classical Arabic, Messianics with broken chunks of Hebrew) ... but it's all furry nonsense from a linguistic perspective. And there's usually mixed in a bit of latent racism or nationalism (depending on if you're in or out, two names for the same thing).

Given that God has given his word to all nations - and "God is not a respecter of persons" - do we really think he'd have given any (Jews, Greeks, Romans, Anglo-Saxons) a built in language-advantage?

You sound as though I have some preference. I have not said I prefer Greek over English or any other language. I'm not a Greek Orthodox, but I am an Eastern Orthodox, meaning I agree with the eastern view. I pointed out that there is a great contrast in eastern and western theology which came from the language used to communicate ideals.

Steven3
Nov 5th 2007, 03:35 AM
Hi Teke
Well I'm glad that you're understand every word in Shakespeare, but not all of us are as well read. I know I'm not, since I find Shakespeare trips me up, Chaucer more.
Don't know, maybe they missed Greek class.It isn't the case that in the 1850s when Bambas translated the NT into modern Greek, that Protestants were excluded from education. As far as I know, (which is according to Greek Protestants obviously ;)), 19th Century Greek Protestants were initially largely middle class and champions of literacy and education.


You sound as though I have some preference. Oddly enough if I was asked to pick a favourite language I probably would pick Greek, simply in terms of its grammatical clarity, it's a good precise language for the NT. But no, God is no respecter of persons - whatever their language. So he teaches us to not be either.


I pointed out that there is a great contrast in eastern and western theology which came from the language used to communicate ideals.Well, that belief - the mystical quality of certain languages - is, as I said, one that muslims, Messianics, Syriac-church, Latin-rite RC, etc all apply to their special language. It's one that Russian orthodox applies to Old Slavonic, and even Glagolitic script. But in linguistic terms it's largely a fetish. It's not true.

In fact it can't be true can it, or God wouldn't have used Hebrew/Aramaic and Greek - two totally different languages, extremely different, opposing language families - to reveal his word.
God bless
Steven

Teke
Nov 5th 2007, 03:44 PM
Hi Teke
Well I'm glad that you're understand every word in Shakespeare, but not all of us are as well read. I know I'm not, since I find Shakespeare trips me up, Chaucer more.

Today's English is not a whit less beautiful than the rather impoverished English of early times--a consideration that shows how much greater Shakespeare's accomplishments were than what he may seem to be in the eyes of those unaware of the state of English in his day: The syntax was meagre compared with today's. Shakespeare himself invented a lot of material to enrich the limited English of his time. That he and the slightly later writer John Donne achieved more than anyone else in English with such materials as they had makes them even more wonderful than otherwise. But we do not need to encumber ourselves in such.



It isn't the case that in the 1850s when Bambas translated the NT into modern Greek, that Protestants were excluded from education. As far as I know, (which is according to Greek Protestants obviously ;)), 19th Century Greek Protestants were initially largely middle class and champions of literacy and education.

The words "Greek Protestant" would be an oxymoron.
A Greek uses the the whole of scripture in Greek (the Sept.). I don't know of any who ever used a "modern Greek NT" with the OT Sept..
To date, as far as I know, there has never been published an accurate translation of the Sept. into English. I have the latest NT version in English which includes the Psalms, and it is not up to standard with the consensus on the matter.


Oddly enough if I was asked to pick a favourite language I probably would pick Greek, simply in terms of its grammatical clarity, it's a good precise language for the NT. But no, God is no respecter of persons - whatever their language. So he teaches us to not be either.

Well, that belief - the mystical quality of certain languages - is, as I said, one that muslims, Messianics, Syriac-church, Latin-rite RC, etc all apply to their special language. It's one that Russian orthodox applies to Old Slavonic, and even Glagolitic script. But in linguistic terms it's largely a fetish. It's not true.

In fact it can't be true can it, or God wouldn't have used Hebrew/Aramaic and Greek - two totally different languages, extremely different, opposing language families - to reveal his word.
God bless
Steven

If Jesus and the Apostles used the Greek Sept. to convey their teachings, then I don't see why we should not. They obviously thought it conveyed their meaning just fine.

I am not speaking of any mystical quality of language. Perhaps you would call it different paradigms.

But let me give an example. English is different from most languages in distinguishing the words for "holy" and "Saint". Greek has several words for "Saint," including (h)ágios and (h)ósios; the epithet "Blessed" may or may not be used for a non-glorified or a glorified Saint. An eastern Christian would say "glorification" [of a saint] whereas a westerner would say "canoniztion" (a juridical term). This is because the western understanding of the Greek word "kanón/es" doesn't mean the canons or canonics, but canon law. "Canon law" seems redundant to Greeks, since both words mean the same thing, and the singular and plural uses are also similar.

The result of such type of confusion is seen in the western church excommunicating people, which is absolutely unacceptable in the east. There is no praxis for such in eastern Christianity. Not to mention that such would be humanly impossible.

Many writers do not realize that they are saying things in THEIR thought world that mean OTHER things in other thought worlds.

If you call Dormition "Assumption," you mess up. Let's see how much theology is packed into a single, by no means recherché, term. Dormition says that the Theotokos reposed (died); Assumption conveys that she did not die. Why could the Virgin not die in some Latin theology? It is because death is a punishment in Western thinking; and it would not be appropriate to allow a sinless person to be punished. Why is she freed from sin at her (immaculate) conception? It is because in Western theology, newborns bear (by natural generation among the Latins, by divine imputation for the Reformers) Adam's guilt--a monstrous teaching. Look how much is tied up in simple terms! None of the theological reasons of the West that would prohibit the Theotokos from living the way humans live apply in Orthodoxy.

A paradigm acts like a lens or filter to impose its own sense on words used in theology, favoring some, filtering out others.

Take a basic belief--Grace, which all agree is unearned and necessary to Salvation--or Unity with God as our final destiny. Please reveal how to reconcile the following differences in an HONEST way if you think you should continue advocating what is unthinkable by those who follow the criteria of honest discussion.

Orthodox GRACE: UNCREATED ENERGY.
Latin Sanctifying GRACE: created NON-ENERGETIC (non-operativa) HABIT (an
enduring QUALITY) of a believer's soul
Reformation (Protestant) GRACE: God's BENIGNITY . . . not "something."

Orthodox UNITY with GOD: ONTOLOGICAL, through the uncreated ENERGIES
in uncreated Light.
Latin UNITY with GOD: VIRTUAL Unity with the imparticipable divine ESSENCE--an
intentional or conceptual Unity.
Protestant UNITY with GOD: VIRTUAL Unity with the imparticipable divine
ESSENCE--covenantal, will-based.

There is an energy ontology conveyed in the Greek or Eastern Orthodox thought world. Western paradigms were invented in the middle ages and have no lineal connection with the Greek language paradigm (dynamis, energy) of early (and some later eastern) Christianity.

Much of the above info is taken from the Orlapubs apologetic site. Links have not been provided because it is not a Protestant site. Points made were to differentiate use of language, which is the subject at hand.

As scripture states (and so this doesn't sound irrelevant to honest study of holy scripture),

Col 4:3 Withal praying also for us, that God would open unto us a door of utterance, to speak the mystery of Christ, for which I am also in bonds:

Col 4:4 That I may make it manifest, as I ought to speak.

Col 4:5 Walk in wisdom toward them that are without, redeeming the time.

Col 4:6 Let your speech [be] alway with grace, seasoned with salt, that ye may know how ye ought to answer every man.

Or in other words, be careful in what you say and how you say it when relating Christ. I believe that applies to any language.

Steven3
Nov 6th 2007, 06:50 AM
Hi Teke
We seem to have moved some way from the original subject that "gods" in Greek means exactly the same as it means in English, namely "gods".


The words "Greek Protestant" would be an oxymoron. I'll pass that on to my friends in Athens, thanks, I'm sure they'll be delighted ;).
A Greek uses the the whole of scripture in Greek (the Sept.).I'll pass that on as well. Or alternatively you'd like to contact the Ελληνική Bιβλική Εταιρία yourself, and tell them to recall all copies of the modern Greek Bible printed in the last 157 years. ;)
I don't know of any who ever used a "modern Greek NT" with the OT Sept.That was in the context of the parallel text Greek NT. I doubt there is a parallel text of the whole Bible (Septuagint&GNT + Vamvas OT&NT). If there is then it would be a bit odd as the Greek Bible Society OT is a translation from Hebrew, not just a tidied up revision of the Septuagint.


To date, as far as I know, there has never been published an accurate translation of the Sept. into English. Well the person who told you that about Brenton might well say the same about the accuracy of Yeat's translation of the Upanishads. But why press the point, the Septuagint isn't inspired. It'd be like translating the Latin Vulgate into English, or the KJV into Spanish... who cares.


If Jesus and the Apostles used the Greek Sept. to convey their teachings, then I don't see why we should not. They obviously thought it conveyed their meaning just fine. Well the NT includes OT quotes from both Hebrew and Greek OTs. Maybe we shouldn't because we aren't 2000 year old Hellenist Jews? :kiss:


But let me give an example. English is different from most languages in distinguishing the words for "holy" and "Saint". Greek has several words for "Saint," including (h)ágios and (h)ósios; the epithet "Blessed" may or may not be used for a non-glorified or a glorified Saint.
An eastern Christian would say "glorification" [of a saint] whereas a westerner would say "canoniztion" (a juridical term). This is because the western understanding of the Greek word "kanón/es" doesn't mean the canons or canonics, but canon law. "Canon law" seems redundant to Greeks, since both words mean the same thing, and the singular and plural uses are also similar.Seeing as the NT knows nothing of "canon" or "saints" in heaven this is an argument for reading Patristic literature in the original Greek (or Latin) not for the magic of original Greek.


The result of such type of confusion is seen in the western church excommunicating people, which is absolutely unacceptable in the east. There is no praxis for such in eastern Christianity.Er, maybe in theory, but I have to ask this - have you ever been to Russia or Romania? :)

If you call Dormition "Assumption," you mess up. :confused But these terms are Latin not Greek.


Col 4:6 Let your speech [be] alway with grace, seasoned with salt, that ye may know how ye ought to answer every man.

Or in other words, be careful in what you say and how you say it when relating Christ. I believe that applies to any language.Amen.
S.

Teke
Nov 6th 2007, 03:50 PM
Hi Teke
We seem to have moved some way from the original subject that "gods" in Greek means exactly the same as it means in English, namely "gods".

It doesn't mean the same to this English speaking person.


I'll pass that on to my friends in Athens, thanks, I'm sure they'll be delighted ;).I'll pass that on as well. Or alternatively you'd like to contact the Ελληνική Bιβλική Εταιρία yourself, and tell them to recall all copies of the modern Greek Bible printed in the last 157 years. ;) That was in the context of the parallel text Greek NT. I doubt there is a parallel text of the whole Bible (Septuagint&GNT + Vamvas OT&NT). If there is then it would be a bit odd as the Greek Bible Society OT is a translation from Hebrew, not just a tidied up revision of the Septuagint.

Well the person who told you that about Brenton might well say the same about the accuracy of Yeat's translation of the Upanishads. But why press the point, the Septuagint isn't inspired. It'd be like translating the Latin Vulgate into English, or the KJV into Spanish... who cares.

I really have no idea what you are talking about.
That the Sept. isn't inspired is your opinion.
I've never heard of a "Greek Bible Society OT translation from Hebrew" in the eastern church. They do not use the later Hebrew translation of the OT, just the original Sept.



Seeing as the NT knows nothing of "canon" or "saints" in heaven this is an argument for reading Patristic literature in the original Greek (or Latin) not for the magic of original Greek.

Let me iterate again, I'm not advocating "magic Greek".
I guess you don't comprehend what I'm pointing out.


Er, maybe in theory, but I have to ask this - have you ever been to Russia or Romania? :)

No, what does that have to do with anything.
I do know Russians and Romanians in my church, along with Syrians and Lebanese. They all share the same understanding of scripture.


:confused But these terms are Latin not Greek.

Paradigm not language is the subject I was speaking of on this.

weggl
Mar 19th 2008, 06:48 AM
Jesus was quoting from the followingPsalm.
He was claiming to be one of the elohim as a mater of fact He was the chief elohim.
The God who is holding the council is the pr-incarnat Jesus and he judges the other gods who he has placed in the position as principalities over the nations. they are judged because they rebeled and they judgment is they shall die like men
weggl

Psalm 82:1 God has taken his place in the divine council;
in the midst of the gods (elohim) he holds judgment:
2 “How long will you judge unjustly
and show partiality to the wicked? Selah
3 Give justice to the weak and the fatherless;
maintain the right of the afflicted and the destitute.
4 Rescue the weak and the needy;
deliver them from the hand of the wicked.”
5 They have neither knowledge nor understanding,
they walk about in darkness;
all the foundations of the earth are shaken.
6 I said, “You are gods,
sons of the Most High, all of you;
7 nevertheless, like men you shall die,
and fall like any prince.”
8 Arise, O God, judge the earth;
for you shall inherit all the nations!

Friend of I AM
Mar 19th 2008, 01:23 PM
Other places where the Word acknowledges "gods"


For though there be that are called gods, whether in heaven or in earth, (as there be gods many, and lords many,)
But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him. 1 Corinthians 8:5-6


"You shall have no other gods before Me." Exodus 20:3


"For the LORD is a great God, and a great King above all gods." Psalm 95:3


They aroused my anger by burning incense to and worshiping other gods that neither they nor you nor your ancestors ever knew. Jeremiah 44:3

"On that same night I will pass through Egypt and strike down every firstborn—both men and animals—and I will bring judgment on all the gods of Egypt. I am the LORD. Exodus 12:12

"Who among the gods is like you, O LORD ? Who is like you— majestic in holiness, awesome in glory, working wonders?" Exodus 18:11

And if the sign or wonder of which he has spoken takes place, and he says, "Let us follow other gods" (gods you have not known) "and let us worship them," Dueteronomy 13:13

God even acknowledged ol Moses as being a "god" when he used him to communicate to Aaron what to say as per the following verses:

Then the Lord became angry with Moses. “All right,” he said. “What about your brother, Aaron the Levite? I know he speaks well. And look! He is on his way to meet you now. He will be delighted to see you. Talk to him, and put the words in his mouth. I will be with both of you as you speak, and I will instruct you both in what to do. Aaron will be your spokesman to the people. He will be your mouthpiece, and you will stand in the place of God for him, telling him what to say. And take your shepherd’s staff with you, and use it to perform the miraculous signs I have shown you.” Exodus 4:14-17

If you do a search and type in the word "gods" on Bible Gateway, you'll find a multitude of verses besides Psalm 82, where the Word acknowledges many of it's servants as "gods" as well as "kings" and "lords". That's just representative of humility on God's part, as we truly aren't gods at all. We're all just potsherds among many others, created by a master potter. Each one of his creations he's filled with a little bit of himself, which at some point will be returned back to him.

Despite God's humility in acknowledging his own creations as "gods" in a sense, I think it's made pretty clear by the Word that we are to only acknowledge and follow one as God in our Christian walk as referenced throughout the scriptures, that God being the Lord - the only uncreated "god" among everyone - who judges among all the gods/lords/kings and exists in the beginning as God, and will exist at the end as God for all eternity.

In Christ,

Stephen

Servant89
Mar 31st 2008, 12:29 AM
He said Ye are Gods (to whom the word of the Lord was revealed!).

It means that those who read about prophecies in the Word of God (what the future will bring), they share one single aspect of being divine, i.e., knowing some limited part of the future. Only God knows the future (Isa 41:23). That is why Jesus said in John 13:19 and John 14:29 ...

I told you before it happens so that when it comes to pass you may believe that I am he.

But our substance does not change when we read prophecies, we are still dirt. Like God, we know the difference between good and evil (Gen 3:22), we were made in his image and as such, we share some of his attributes (like sense of humor, vengance, jealosy). But we are not omniscient, we are not omnipresent, we can not read minds, only God knows the secrets of the heart (1King 8:39).

We are still men and women, human and not divine.

Shalom.

markedward
Mar 31st 2008, 12:45 AM
'gods' - vs. God.

Notice the small case vs. the large.This point alone isn't sufficient: neither the original Hebrew nor the original Koine Greek had upper/lower case symbols for their alphabets during the time of the original writing of the OT or NT. Essentially, they only had one "case."

They didn't (for the most part) have spacing or punctuation either.

Example: http://wordofgodorwordsofmen.com/images/chester%20beatty%20revelations%20papyrus.jpg

Hebrew still doesn't have "upper" or "lower" cases, and the Greek alphabet's "lower case" didn't start showing up until circa 9th century AD (and "upper" and "lower" case mixing of Greek didn't really get popular until around the 13th century). So in the original Hebrew and Greek, the wording would simply have appeared as "JESUS ANSWERED THEM IS IT NOT WRITTEN IN YOUR LAW I SAID YOU ARE GODS."

Br. Barnabas
Mar 31st 2008, 05:39 PM
Sorry this is going back to the stuff about Greek vs. Latin. As a student of Greek and a former student of Latin, I would have to say that Greek is much more descptive and has a lot more words and ways to say things then Latin does. I also have friends who are currently taking both Latin and Greek and they all say that Greek is far more complex as a language because it is so descpitive.

I think that this difference in language is one reason why the Greek fathers are so much more active in theological study then the Western fathers early on in Christianity. The Eastern fathers were the most active and made up the greater number of fathers at the early ecumenical councils because they had concerns that the Westerns did not. Mainly because the languages did not translate the differences or concerns as much.

Teke
Mar 31st 2008, 07:01 PM
Yes indeed Uriel.:thumbsup:

St Basil the Great (one of the Cappodocian fathers) dedicated a great amount writing on that very point. Referring from scriptures point on the "jot" and "tittle", and pointing out how even the smallest matter could become a great difficulty if not articulated correctly in language. In His treatise on the Holy Spirit he addresses a great focus on prepositions alone and how they can mean different things to different groups. How technical discussion of prepositions originated in pagan philosophy and gives examples of Aristotelian philosophy in contrast to Christian theological thinking (a philosophy itself, at that time).

Ironic how western thinking went in that direction, leaving the same problems. ie. misunderstanding the Trinity.
It takes a concentrated effort to stay away from that type thinking (it does for me), as it comes naturally to us from societal influence.