Ingledsva
HEATHEN ALASKAN
Ingledsva said:
I didn't say he WAS the Messiah.
I said according to the NT texts he is CLAIMING to be the Messiah.
And definitely NOT claiming to be God, - as he was a Jew.
*
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
'Man was created in the image of G-d'
- Thread starter Desert Snake
- Start date
I didn't say he WAS the Messiah.
I said according to the NT texts he is CLAIMING to be the Messiah.
And definitely NOT claiming to be God, - as he was a Jew.
*
Desert Snake
Veteran Member
We can't theologically 'refute' the idea of Christianity once we accept that God can manifest Himself in different modes. We already know He can, as the Creator God.
The only way we can 'refute' Christianity is in the context of Jesus being only a 'man'. With belief such as I have presented, that idea is not being presented.
We can choose to 'not believe' in Christianity, but the possibility is there, as ultimately, God is one Being regardless of manifestation.
Desert Snake
Veteran Member
The 'man' aspect of Jesus is not a manifestation.
Secondly, provide the verse.
Thirdly, we are dealing with a simple concept here, ultimately.
If you say that Christianity=/=Judaism, Christianity is mutually exclusive from Judaism, then you cannot use Judaism to 'condemn' Christianity, otherwise you are saying every other religion aside from Judaism is worthy of condemnation. Afaik, this isn't taught.
The only way you can condemn Christianity using Judaism as a basis for argument is to say that Christianity is not mutually exclusive from Judaism, but rather a false teaching within Judaism.
Desert Snake
Veteran Member
You won't understand Christianity until you understand what Christians believe. You are trying to separate the two, but you don't realize that Christianity IS the religion, not your personal interpretation.
Ingledsva
HEATHEN ALASKAN
I was raised Christian, and took Comparative Religions, and a course on Catholic Church history.
I assure you I understand what "most" Christians today believe.
However, their beliefs are not necessarily what the Bible actually says.
A lot of their modern "beliefs" are just that, with no Bible backing.
*
CMike
Well-Known Member
I don't condemn christianity.
I don't like the perverting of jewish scripture to falsely make it support their beliefs.
You will not be able to see My face, for no human can see my face and live" (Exodus 33:18-20)
"You did not see any form on the day G-d spoke to you at Horeb from the midst of fire" (Deuteronomy 4:15)
As far as what religion is condemning...
ANTI-SEMITISM IN THE NEW TESTAMENT
Origen: Their rejection of Jesus has resulted in their present calamity and exile. We say with confidence that they will never be restored to their former condition. For they have committed a crime of the most unhallowed kind, in conspiring against the saviour.
St. Gregory: Jews are slayers of the Lord, murderers of the prophets, enemies of God, haters of God, adversaries of grace, enemies of their fathers faith, advocates of the devil, brood of vipers, slanderers, scoffers, men of darkened minds, leaven of the Pharisees, congregation of demons, sinners, wicked men, stoners and haters of goodness.
St. Jerome: ....serpents, haters of all men, their image is Judas ... their psalms and prayers are the braying of donkeys..
St. John Chrysostom: I know that many people hold a high regard for the Jews and consider their way of life worthy of respect at the present time... This is why I am hurrying to pull up this fatal notion by the roots ... A place where a whore stands on display is a whorehouse.
What is more, the synagogue is not only a whorehouse and a theater; it is also a den of thieves and a haunt of wild animals ... not the cave of a wild animal merely, but of an unclean wild animal ... When animals are unfit for work, they are marked for slaughter, and this is the very thing which the Jews have experienced. By making themselves unfit for work, they have become ready for slaughter. This is why Christ said: ask for my enemies, who did not want me to reign over them, bring them and slay them before me (Luke 19.27).
St. Augustine: Judaism is a corruption. Indeed Judas is the image of the Jewish people. Their understanding of the Scriptures is carnal. They bear the guilt for the death of the saviour, for through their fathers they have killed the Christ.
St. Thomas Aquinas: It would be licit to hold Jews, because of the crimes, in perpetual servitude, and therefore the princes may regard the possessions of Jews as belonging to the State.
Last edited:
Ingledsva
HEATHEN ALASKAN
Terrible wasn't it!
And people like Hitler were able to use such Christian hate to raise his Christian nation to the atrocities they committed against Jews.
*
Hi Ingledsva :
Ingledsva claimed " I'm not arguing from "outside" the religion. I am arguing from what the actual Hebrew and Greek texts of the Bible say." #139
I think a large portion of us on the forums tell ourselves this same thing; and congratulate ourselves on our complete objectivity, yet all the while we OFTEN misinterpreting what historical texts actually say.
For example, to support your own theory, a you incorrectly quote John 1:30 as
“He that cometh after me is ordained before me: for he was before me.”# 117
The ironic problem is that None of the greek New Testaments or Greek variants support your interpretation nor do theirs text say this.
Then, in a sceond misinterpretation (two in the space of two sentences ) meant to support the first misinterpretation, you mistakenly indicate that “ginomai” means “ordained”.
Ingledsva wrote : "‘"ginomai" - ordained.’ # 117
Γινομαι does not mean ordained in Greek, but instead authentic greek translators would translate γινομαι as a type of "becoming" or "change of condition", "change of state", "change of place", etc. It is NOT ordination.
Check out the link:
Strong's Greek: 1096. ??????? (ginomai) -- to come into being, to happen, to become
For example, when John 1:6 says : “εγενετο ανθρωπος απεσταλμενος παρα θεοθ...”, εγενετο (a form of ginomai), has nothing to do with ordination, but simply means John comes on the scene (rendered “There was a man sent from God…”
.
Neither form of change of state is used in any Greek testament specifically for “ordination” that I am aware of. If you can find an exception to this, please let us know. Even the word "sent" is "αποσταλμενοσ" and is has no connection to εγενετο in this sentence structure and is also unrelated to the word for "ordination".
Having proven this point, I think that disciple is correct in his specific point that such verses refer to the concept of rank (but not ordination per se)
It indicates Jesus is higher on the hierarchy. Disciple #124
“Scripture indicates the highest spiritual position belonging to Jesus, not John the Baptist.” Disciple #124
Because it states that Jesus was 'before' John the Baptist. disciple #124
Though disciple has never claimed to be able to read Greek, he is actually quite correct on this specific point.
The problem with mistranslations such as yours, is that individuals then create or support incorrect personal theories based on such mistranslations. We all tend to do this.
I am not trying to single you out, it's just your attempts to translate greek leads you into more mistakes than I see others make when trying to make sense of historical Greek. You are not arguing from "what the actual greek says" as you seem to imagine, but instead, you are arguing, mainly from your own personal viewpoints and misinterpretations of what you think the greek says. Again, we all tend to view religious principles from our own bias and make significant mistakes because of this tendency.
Clear
ειφιακδρω
Ingledsva claimed " I'm not arguing from "outside" the religion. I am arguing from what the actual Hebrew and Greek texts of the Bible say." #139
I think a large portion of us on the forums tell ourselves this same thing; and congratulate ourselves on our complete objectivity, yet all the while we OFTEN misinterpreting what historical texts actually say.
For example, to support your own theory, a you incorrectly quote John 1:30 as
“He that cometh after me is ordained before me: for he was before me.”# 117
The ironic problem is that None of the greek New Testaments or Greek variants support your interpretation nor do theirs text say this.
Then, in a sceond misinterpretation (two in the space of two sentences ) meant to support the first misinterpretation, you mistakenly indicate that “ginomai” means “ordained”.
Ingledsva wrote : "‘"ginomai" - ordained.’ # 117
Γινομαι does not mean ordained in Greek, but instead authentic greek translators would translate γινομαι as a type of "becoming" or "change of condition", "change of state", "change of place", etc. It is NOT ordination.
Check out the link:
Strong's Greek: 1096. ??????? (ginomai) -- to come into being, to happen, to become
For example, when John 1:6 says : “εγενετο ανθρωπος απεσταλμενος παρα θεοθ...”, εγενετο (a form of ginomai), has nothing to do with ordination, but simply means John comes on the scene (rendered “There was a man sent from God…”
. Neither form of change of state is used in any Greek testament specifically for “ordination” that I am aware of. If you can find an exception to this, please let us know. Even the word "sent" is "αποσταλμενοσ" and is has no connection to εγενετο in this sentence structure and is also unrelated to the word for "ordination".
Having proven this point, I think that disciple is correct in his specific point that such verses refer to the concept of rank (but not ordination per se)
It indicates Jesus is higher on the hierarchy. Disciple #124
“Scripture indicates the highest spiritual position belonging to Jesus, not John the Baptist.” Disciple #124
Because it states that Jesus was 'before' John the Baptist. disciple #124
Though disciple has never claimed to be able to read Greek, he is actually quite correct on this specific point.
The problem with mistranslations such as yours, is that individuals then create or support incorrect personal theories based on such mistranslations. We all tend to do this.
I am not trying to single you out, it's just your attempts to translate greek leads you into more mistakes than I see others make when trying to make sense of historical Greek. You are not arguing from "what the actual greek says" as you seem to imagine, but instead, you are arguing, mainly from your own personal viewpoints and misinterpretations of what you think the greek says. Again, we all tend to view religious principles from our own bias and make significant mistakes because of this tendency.
Clear
ειφιακδρω
Last edited:
Ingledsva
HEATHEN ALASKAN
AND ON-AND-ON -ON-ON-ON-ON-ON-ON-AND ON YOUR CRAP GOES.
And by the way - that was not John 1:30 - it was John 1:15 - which you might have noticed - if you weren't so hell bent on saying crap about me!
*
Desert Snake
Veteran Member
Clear actually presents great information. He certainly knows how to present an argument better than I do. You seem to get upset when he presents evidence contrary to your opinion, and your response does not seem fitting to an argument where we should be expected to maintain intellectual honesty. It has gotten to the point in which I can't tell if you're trying to refute my arguments, or 'arguing' with me for some other purpose.
Ingledsva
HEATHEN ALASKAN
Ingledsva said:
And how exactly has he presented contradictory evidence?
He as usual spouted off crap about me, and said my translation was off - WHILE USING THE WRONG TRANSLATION!!!!!!!!
One would think the word I quoted would give a clue that he had the wrong one - or he could have asked where I got it.
Have you not noticed that you and I can disagree, yet still have a respectful debate?
That is not the case with him.
*
Last edited:
Desert Snake
Veteran Member
If the information he posted matches my interpretation there is a statistical probability that it is a correct argument. We didn't get together and decide on what meaning we are to get from those verses, it is two different manners even, mine in tradition(in English), and his in Greek(translation). I don't even know if he had a prior interpretation to that. If you really think there is nothing to that argument I really don't know what would convince you. Present evidence that he is wrong, if you think so, otherwise it does seem like you are 'interpreting' outside of intended meaning.
Ingledsva responded : "AND ON-AND-ON -ON-ON-ON-ON-ON-ON-AND ON YOUR CRAP GOES. And by the way - that was not John 1:30 - it was John 1:15 - which you might have noticed - if you weren't so hell bent on saying crap about me!"Hi Ingledsva :
Ingledsva claimed " I'm not arguing from "outside" the religion. I am arguing from what the actual Hebrew and Greek texts of the Bible say." #139
I think a large portion of us on the forums tell ourselves this same thing; and congratulate ourselves on our complete objectivity, yet all the while we OFTEN misinterpreting what historical texts actually say.
For example, to support your own theory, a you incorrectly quote John 1:30 as
“He that cometh after me is ordained before me: for he was before me.”# 117
The ironic problem is that None of the greek New Testaments or Greek variants support your interpretation nor do theirs text say this.
Then, in a sceond misinterpretation (two in the space of two sentences ) meant to support the first misinterpretation, you mistakenly indicate that “ginomai” means “ordained”.
Ingledsva wrote : "‘"ginomai" - ordained.’ # 117
Γινομαι does not mean ordained in Greek, but instead authentic greek translators would translate γινομαι as a type of "becoming" or "change of condition", "change of state", "change of place", etc. It is NOT ordination.
Check out the link:
Strong's Greek: 1096. ??????? (ginomai) -- to come into being, to happen, to become
For example, when John 1:6 says : “εγενετο ανθρωπος απεσταλμενος παρα θεοθ...”, εγενετο (a form of ginomai), has nothing to do with ordination, but simply means John comes on the scene (rendered “There was a man sent from God…”
Neither form of change of state is used in any Greek testament specifically for “ordination” that I am aware of. If you can find an exception to this, please let us know. Even the word "sent" is "αποσταλμενοσ" and is has no connection to εγενετο in this sentence structure and is also unrelated to the word for "ordination".
Having proven this point, I think that disciple is correct in his specific point that such verses refer to the concept of rank (but not ordination per se)
It indicates Jesus is higher on the hierarchy. Disciple #124
“Scripture indicates the highest spiritual position belonging to Jesus, not John the Baptist.” Disciple #124
Because it states that Jesus was 'before' John the Baptist. disciple #124
Though disciple has never claimed to be able to read Greek, he is actually quite correct on this specific point.
The problem with mistranslations such as yours, is that individuals then create or support incorrect personal theories based on such mistranslations. We all tend to do this.
I am not trying to single you out, it's just your attempts to translate greek leads you into more mistakes than I see others make when trying to make sense of historical Greek. You are not arguing from "what the actual greek says" as you seem to imagine, but instead, you are arguing, mainly from your own personal viewpoints and misinterpretations of what you think the greek says. Again, we all tend to view religious principles from our own bias and make significant mistakes because of this tendency.
Very well, you are using John 1:15. Thank you for the correction. NOW, So what? Instead of the original statement, I used an exact quote of the original statement. Both connecting phrases using a form of "ginomai" are exactly the same. Both use a form of ερχομενος, one uses the article and the other uses ανηρ, otherwise they are completely identical, letter for letter in the phrase you refer to.
Ask someone who reads greek to help you with this. The Phrase in both verses where γεγονεν (the ONLY form of ginomai in the sentence) occurs is underlined below. They are identical. L e t t e r for l e t t e r. Look below:
Ο οπισω μου ερχομενος ........εμπροσθεν μου γεγονεν οτι πρωτος μου ην (uses the article "he")
...Οπισω μου ερχεται ανηρ ος εμπροσθεν μου γεγονεν οτι πρωτος μου ην (uses "a man" instead of "he") both use a form of ερχομενοσ....
So, how does a change from one mistranslated greek phrase to another identical, mistranslated greek phrase correct your claim that Ginomai means “ordain” (other than to misdirect or change the subject)?
Your statement and your misinterpretation of greek remains as incorrect as before.
“He that cometh after me is ordained before me: for he was before me.”# 117
Ginomai does not mean “ordain” Ingledsva. Not on this planet.
By the way, you might notice that "ginomai" does not even occur in either of Johns' quote you referred to....
You do NOT need to become angy when you are corrected in a public forum. You could simply say, “oops”, I made a mistake and learn something you didn’t know. We will all be in this same position from time to time. It is much worse trying to cover it up or argue our way out of it.
Disciple, It’s 1 am and, having proved the incorrectness of the prior misinterpretation of greek, I will get back to your tomorrow on the reason why you are historically correct. I’m going to sleep now.
Clear'
Last edited:
ZooGirl02
Well-Known Member
I can't explain exactly how man is created in the image of God very easily with my own words so here is a good link which explains it:
THE CATECHISM
THE CATECHISM
Hi Disciple :
While I will necessarily disagree with some of your Christian theory, I believe you are, historically, correct on a couple of specific points you have made. By this, I do not mean that what you (or I) believe is necessarily correct, but merely that the early Christians believed, described and taught similar traditions. It is an early and authentic Christian belief.
For me personally, the historical difficulty in certain interpretations often lies in context and language, all of which is different for each of us. Since my interest lies mainly in peri-c.e. era christian tradition and their early texts, I will, necessarily view things differently. I think that we as Christians inherit some traditions that, though authentic historically, we may have no idea where such traditions originate. (On the other hand we are often quite incorrect as well….)
You indicated that the statement that Jesus was “before” /"προτως" John (though he was actually “born AFTER John) referred to the fact that Jesus held a “higher position” than John, rather than referring to birth order... I think this is correct.
It indicates Jesus is higher on the hierarchy. Disciple #124
“Scripture indicates the highest spiritual position belonging to Jesus, not John the Baptist.” Disciple #124
Because it states that Jesus was 'before' John the Baptist. disciple #124
THE USE OF πρωτος/”first” as an indication of QUALITY or RANK
Language context :
Often, the greek root words english speakers read are translated quite correctly yet still had different meanings to the ancient who used these words. In this case, the greek words often translated for “first” or “before” (e.g. πρωτοσ and πρωτωσ and πριν, “προ...” etc.) have strict temporal and numeric meanings in our time and in english yet have different meanings anciently and in greek.. “First resurrection” is a good example.
For example, Revelations 20:5 “This is the first resurrection and blessed are the saints that have part in the first resurrection.” (Gk Αυτη η αναστασισ η πρωτη. 6 Μακαροισ και αγιοσ ο εχων μεροσ εν τη αναστασει τη πρωτη.”
While πρωτη in both sentences can be rendered “first” and readers often assume it has a “temporal” or “numeric” meaning whereas, in greek context is it often has a “qualitative” meaning (i.e. “best”, “highest”, etc). In this case, the resurrection of Jesus by God the Father was actually (and temporally), the FIRST physical resurrection of anyone. THE "first" resurrection mentioned in revelations must necessarily mean something else other than a temporal "first". And, it does.
For examples :
In Acts 16:12 And from thence to Philippi, which is the chief city (πρωτησ μεριδοσ of the district..., some versions render this as “leading city”. Since the word πρωτησ means “first” (as a form of protos) and is the same word used in Revelations 20:5 to describe the “first” [resurrection], the sentence is just as correctly rendered : Philippi, which is the first city of the district...” (and is rendered “first city” in some versions) . FIRST, in this instance, has to do with Rank or quality.
The best and most honorable and most desirable things were often described by using combining them with this word, “first” (πρωτοσ
“…they love the place of honor at banquets and the most important seats in the synagogues…” (matt 23:6, NIV)
The “place of honor” at the feasts in Matt 23:6 is the word PROTOklisian (ΠΡΩΤΟκλισιαν or “first” seats), the “most important” seats in the same verse are the PROTOkathedrias (ΠΡΩΤΟκαθεδριασ or “first” chairs). This usage of such words and meaning are quite consistent and thus when Luke speaks of the “places of honor” in 14:7-8, he uses the word PROTOklesias (FIRST seats) in both cases. The scribes loved the “best seats in the synagogues and the places of honor”. These seats and places were described as PROTOkathedras (ΠΡΩΤΟκαθεδρασ - “FIRST chairs) and PROTOklisias (ΠΡΩΤΟκλισιασ FIRST seats) respectively.
Just as we call the best violinist in an orchestra, the “first chair”, and the next best as “second chair”, the greeks used such terms as well. “Prime meat” is not necessarily the “first” meat off the cow, but instead it means the “best” meat. “First fruits” of offerings were not necessarily theactual first fruit from a tree or of animals, but the “best” fruit from a tree or a herd. “Number one” is the captain, and “Number two” is the next in rank..
John, says: “This was he of whom I said, ‘He who comes after me ranks before me, for he was “before me” (ΠΡΟΤΟΣ μου ην. (Jn 1:15) Though Jesus may have existed before John, the translator above, sees the context and places the word into a context of value and rank, rather than in a temporal context.
Such contexts and nuances of meaning are not as apparent in english translations.
In John 8:58 when Jesus says “…before Abraham was, I am.” (…Πριν Αβρααμ γενεσθαι εγω ειμι.”
When Jesus claims to be “before abraham” in John 8:58, is he talking simply about simply existing before abraham or is he claiming to be abrahams “chief” or “superior”? (independent of the meaning of “I Am” as a God)
Which claim would have most likely enraged these jews to “[pick] up stones to throw at him” (vs59)?
If Jesus’ resurrection and any who might have resurrected just after him as in early christian traditions were the FIRST (numerically) resurrection, then does the “first” resurrection (αναστασει τη ΠΡΩΤΗ mentioned in Revelations 20 refer to FIRST in a temporal context, or in the context of TYPE, RANK or QUALITY? When Revelations mentions that those in this “first” resurrection are “blessed”, are they blessed because their resurrection is “sooner” than others, or of a different “type” than others?
The concept of quality and rank is apparent in many of these verses that are illogical when “first” is used in a “temporal” or a “numeric” metaphor or meaning.
My point is that the word “first”, in the context in which is it often used, applies to rank or quality and, that you are correct in this case to assume it means Jesus' "rank" or "position" or "honor" or "power" or his position and role in the Father's plan (etc) is greater than that of John (or abraham).
Good luck in coming to your own conclusions and convictions on these issues disciple and others.
[FONT="]clear
ειφυσιτοω
[/FONT]
P.S.
I am at work and am interrupted by appointments but the thought occurred to me that I had forgotten to add that Koine Greek itself and the use of terms such as Protos (πρωτοσ whether IN OR outside the bible also used πωτοσ/“first” to indicate rank, type, quality, etc.
For example, it was Abbot who rendered the phrase in john 1:15 as “my chief” (i.e. (...He who comes after me is my chief" Jn 1:15) specifically due to this common contextual usage of Protos (πρωτοσ and Ramsay had long ago shown that the πρωτη (“first”, or “leading” or “chief” district) in Acts 16:12 was not a reference to being geographically “first”, but as a political reference. Ramsay demonstrated clearly that the “chief” city was in reference to the rivalries of Greek cities as to which would be designated “first” or “chief” in their districts.
Even in it’s connotations for evil such as Acts 24:5, Protos as used in “ring leader” (“πρωτοστατην τε τησ των Ναζωραιων αιρεσεωσ...) remains in the context of rank, honor, and quality (rather than having a numerical or temporal meaning.)
Dittenberger, in the Sylloge Inscriptionum Graecarum, offers several examples of the early usage of this specific word root in the sense of the “highest class” (syll 523/578 are approx ii b.c. era usages).
My point is that this common usage of protos as “first” as a reference to rank is not merely “bible-speak”, but it was part of the koine greek itself, whether in religious OR secular usage.
Clear
While I will necessarily disagree with some of your Christian theory, I believe you are, historically, correct on a couple of specific points you have made. By this, I do not mean that what you (or I) believe is necessarily correct, but merely that the early Christians believed, described and taught similar traditions. It is an early and authentic Christian belief.
For me personally, the historical difficulty in certain interpretations often lies in context and language, all of which is different for each of us. Since my interest lies mainly in peri-c.e. era christian tradition and their early texts, I will, necessarily view things differently. I think that we as Christians inherit some traditions that, though authentic historically, we may have no idea where such traditions originate. (On the other hand we are often quite incorrect as well….)
You indicated that the statement that Jesus was “before” /"προτως" John (though he was actually “born AFTER John) referred to the fact that Jesus held a “higher position” than John, rather than referring to birth order... I think this is correct.
It indicates Jesus is higher on the hierarchy. Disciple #124
“Scripture indicates the highest spiritual position belonging to Jesus, not John the Baptist.” Disciple #124
Because it states that Jesus was 'before' John the Baptist. disciple #124
THE USE OF πρωτος/”first” as an indication of QUALITY or RANK
Language context :
Often, the greek root words english speakers read are translated quite correctly yet still had different meanings to the ancient who used these words. In this case, the greek words often translated for “first” or “before” (e.g. πρωτοσ and πρωτωσ and πριν, “προ...” etc.) have strict temporal and numeric meanings in our time and in english yet have different meanings anciently and in greek.. “First resurrection” is a good example.
For example, Revelations 20:5 “This is the first resurrection and blessed are the saints that have part in the first resurrection.” (Gk Αυτη η αναστασισ η πρωτη. 6 Μακαροισ και αγιοσ ο εχων μεροσ εν τη αναστασει τη πρωτη.”
While πρωτη in both sentences can be rendered “first” and readers often assume it has a “temporal” or “numeric” meaning whereas, in greek context is it often has a “qualitative” meaning (i.e. “best”, “highest”, etc). In this case, the resurrection of Jesus by God the Father was actually (and temporally), the FIRST physical resurrection of anyone. THE "first" resurrection mentioned in revelations must necessarily mean something else other than a temporal "first". And, it does.
For examples :
In Acts 16:12 And from thence to Philippi, which is the chief city (πρωτησ μεριδοσ
of the district..., some versions render this as “leading city”. Since the word πρωτησ means “first” (as a form of protos) and is the same word used in Revelations 20:5 to describe the “first” [resurrection], the sentence is just as correctly rendered : Philippi, which is the first city of the district...” (and is rendered “first city” in some versions) . FIRST, in this instance, has to do with Rank or quality.The best and most honorable and most desirable things were often described by using combining them with this word, “first” (πρωτοσ
“…they love the place of honor at banquets and the most important seats in the synagogues…” (matt 23:6, NIV)
The “place of honor” at the feasts in Matt 23:6 is the word PROTOklisian (ΠΡΩΤΟκλισιαν or “first” seats), the “most important” seats in the same verse are the PROTOkathedrias (ΠΡΩΤΟκαθεδριασ or “first” chairs). This usage of such words and meaning are quite consistent and thus when Luke speaks of the “places of honor” in 14:7-8, he uses the word PROTOklesias (FIRST seats) in both cases. The scribes loved the “best seats in the synagogues and the places of honor”. These seats and places were described as PROTOkathedras (ΠΡΩΤΟκαθεδρασ - “FIRST chairs) and PROTOklisias (ΠΡΩΤΟκλισιασ FIRST seats) respectively.
Just as we call the best violinist in an orchestra, the “first chair”, and the next best as “second chair”, the greeks used such terms as well. “Prime meat” is not necessarily the “first” meat off the cow, but instead it means the “best” meat. “First fruits” of offerings were not necessarily theactual first fruit from a tree or of animals, but the “best” fruit from a tree or a herd. “Number one” is the captain, and “Number two” is the next in rank..
John, says: “This was he of whom I said, ‘He who comes after me ranks before me, for he was “before me” (ΠΡΟΤΟΣ μου ην
. (Jn 1:15) Though Jesus may have existed before John, the translator above, sees the context and places the word into a context of value and rank, rather than in a temporal context. Such contexts and nuances of meaning are not as apparent in english translations.
In John 8:58 when Jesus says “…before Abraham was, I am.” (…Πριν Αβρααμ γενεσθαι εγω ειμι.”
When Jesus claims to be “before abraham” in John 8:58, is he talking simply about simply existing before abraham or is he claiming to be abrahams “chief” or “superior”? (independent of the meaning of “I Am” as a God)
Which claim would have most likely enraged these jews to “[pick] up stones to throw at him” (vs59)?
If Jesus’ resurrection and any who might have resurrected just after him as in early christian traditions were the FIRST (numerically) resurrection, then does the “first” resurrection (αναστασει τη ΠΡΩΤΗ
mentioned in Revelations 20 refer to FIRST in a temporal context, or in the context of TYPE, RANK or QUALITY? When Revelations mentions that those in this “first” resurrection are “blessed”, are they blessed because their resurrection is “sooner” than others, or of a different “type” than others? The concept of quality and rank is apparent in many of these verses that are illogical when “first” is used in a “temporal” or a “numeric” metaphor or meaning.
My point is that the word “first”, in the context in which is it often used, applies to rank or quality and, that you are correct in this case to assume it means Jesus' "rank" or "position" or "honor" or "power" or his position and role in the Father's plan (etc) is greater than that of John (or abraham).
Good luck in coming to your own conclusions and convictions on these issues disciple and others.
[FONT="]clear
ειφυσιτοω
[/FONT]
P.S.
I am at work and am interrupted by appointments but the thought occurred to me that I had forgotten to add that Koine Greek itself and the use of terms such as Protos (πρωτοσ
whether IN OR outside the bible also used πωτοσ/“first” to indicate rank, type, quality, etc.For example, it was Abbot who rendered the phrase in john 1:15 as “my chief” (i.e. (...He who comes after me is my chief" Jn 1:15) specifically due to this common contextual usage of Protos (πρωτοσ
and Ramsay had long ago shown that the πρωτη (“first”, or “leading” or “chief” district) in Acts 16:12 was not a reference to being geographically “first”, but as a political reference. Ramsay demonstrated clearly that the “chief” city was in reference to the rivalries of Greek cities as to which would be designated “first” or “chief” in their districts. Even in it’s connotations for evil such as Acts 24:5, Protos as used in “ring leader” (“πρωτοστατην τε τησ των Ναζωραιων αιρεσεωσ...) remains in the context of rank, honor, and quality (rather than having a numerical or temporal meaning.)
Dittenberger, in the Sylloge Inscriptionum Graecarum, offers several examples of the early usage of this specific word root in the sense of the “highest class” (syll 523/578 are approx ii b.c. era usages).
My point is that this common usage of protos as “first” as a reference to rank is not merely “bible-speak”, but it was part of the koine greek itself, whether in religious OR secular usage.
Clear
Last edited:
Desert Snake
Veteran Member
Great stuff as usual Clear, thanks.
Desert Snake
Veteran Member
In John 8:58 when Jesus says “…before Abraham was, I am.” (…Πριν Αβρααμ γενεσθαι εγω ειμι.”
When Jesus claims to be “before abraham” in John 8:58, is he talking simply about simply existing before abraham or is he claiming to be abrahams “chief” or “superior”? (independent of the meaning of “I Am” as a God)
Clear
I think if we take this in context to who Jesus is claimed to be i.e. in the Spirit of God, or representing God, we can take out the 'Jesus the man' aspect here and interpret this as speaking from the viewpoint of God or the Spirit.
That is how I would interpret that.
In John 8:58 when Jesus says “…before Abraham was, I am.” (…Πριν Αβρααμ γενεσθαι εγω ειμι.”
When Jesus claims to be “before abraham” in John 8:58, is he talking simply about simply existing before abraham or is he claiming to be abrahams “chief” or “superior”? (independent of the meaning of “I Am” as a God) - Clear in # 156
I think if we take this in context to who Jesus is claimed to be i.e. in the Spirit of God, or representing God, we can take out the 'Jesus the man' aspect here and interpret this as speaking from the viewpoint of God or the Spirit.
That is how I would interpret that. – Disciple in # 158
Hi Disciple :
I was sure that Jn 8:58 indicates jesus was Abrahams superior, but I phrased it as a question to encourage readers to think and come to their own conclusions using their own reason.
I don't really understand clearly what your comment I # 158 means, so you will have to explain this more clearly to me before I can understand or comment on it (if you want my comments on these points).
I do not think early Christians believed that Jesus was the same person[ality] as his father and so my context may be different than yours (though I don’t mind discussing the consequences of either worldview).
If you remember my point regarding the historical importance of Pre-creation history in the early Judeo-Christian texts : the relationship of the Father to the son; Jesus as the mediator of Creation (as you also suggested… the concept of Jesus being chosen and sent by the father to accomplish important aspects of the Fathers plan, etc. All of these issues occurred during and have to do with pre-creation time periods. Thus, I do not think these issues are nearly as clear nor as understandable, outside of this early Christian context. There are vast early judeo-Christian texts that describe these same issues and, I think they are crucial in understanding what the early Judeo-Christians believed concerning all these issues. As yet another example, modern christianity has very little data regarding the origin of satan, nor his motives, nor how and why he becomes an enemy to God and/or others who are engaged in God's plan.
I apologize for not understanding your point. At least I am one of those who think you are correct regarding the early belief in Jesus as a creator (but in the context of him being directed to assist in creation by the Lord God)
Clear
εισεειδρω
When Jesus claims to be “before abraham” in John 8:58, is he talking simply about simply existing before abraham or is he claiming to be abrahams “chief” or “superior”? (independent of the meaning of “I Am” as a God) - Clear in # 156
I think if we take this in context to who Jesus is claimed to be i.e. in the Spirit of God, or representing God, we can take out the 'Jesus the man' aspect here and interpret this as speaking from the viewpoint of God or the Spirit.
That is how I would interpret that. – Disciple in # 158
Hi Disciple :
I was sure that Jn 8:58 indicates jesus was Abrahams superior, but I phrased it as a question to encourage readers to think and come to their own conclusions using their own reason.
I don't really understand clearly what your comment I # 158 means, so you will have to explain this more clearly to me before I can understand or comment on it (if you want my comments on these points).
I do not think early Christians believed that Jesus was the same person[ality] as his father and so my context may be different than yours (though I don’t mind discussing the consequences of either worldview).
If you remember my point regarding the historical importance of Pre-creation history in the early Judeo-Christian texts : the relationship of the Father to the son; Jesus as the mediator of Creation (as you also suggested…
; the concept of Jesus being chosen and sent by the father to accomplish important aspects of the Fathers plan, etc. All of these issues occurred during and have to do with pre-creation time periods. Thus, I do not think these issues are nearly as clear nor as understandable, outside of this early Christian context. There are vast early judeo-Christian texts that describe these same issues and, I think they are crucial in understanding what the early Judeo-Christians believed concerning all these issues. As yet another example, modern christianity has very little data regarding the origin of satan, nor his motives, nor how and why he becomes an enemy to God and/or others who are engaged in God's plan.I apologize for not understanding your point. At least I am one of those who think you are correct regarding the early belief in Jesus as a creator (but in the context of him being directed to assist in creation by the Lord God)
Clear
εισεειδρω
Last edited:
Ingledsva
HEATHEN ALASKAN
The base word has many meaning - including - become, fulfill, ordained, require, etc.
In John 1:15 the tense is (gegonen). Second perfect active indicative of ginomai. It is already an actual fact when the Baptist is speaking.
Ordained does fit here.
To see ginomai used as "ordained" in another tense - see Acts 1:22.
(KJV) Beginning from the baptism of John, unto that same day that he was taken up from us, must one be ordained to be a witness with us of his resurrection.
It should be pretty obvious by now that just because the current "accepted" "translation" says one thing, - that does not mean it is the only translation, or even necessarily a correct translation.
All those So-called - Homosexual verses in the Bible, being a good example.
*
Last edited: