Chili

It is a necessary condition to be one with the father if one is born of God and so each and every Christian must be one with the father unless he is born of carnal desire and thus not of God. John 1:13 is very clear on this wherein two kinds of rebirth are identified: "who were begotten not by blood, nor by carnal desire, nor by man's willing it, but by God." Emphasis added to show that the 'but' is the only way to be one with the father (instead of having just intimations of being one).

FathomFFI

Please try to remember that my point was all about the translations we are seeing in English, as I thought my essay expressed that clearly. If it was not expressed clearly to that affect, then I apologize.


Again, speaking only of the English translations, and English translators.


Agreed, and that has been previously addressed to a post to Toto further back.

http://iidb.infidels.org/vbb/showthr...35#post5391435


I agree that Christianity isn't monolithic, but didn't want to bring that up in the essay as my argument wanted to deal specifically with what it discusses only.


I thought it might be self-evident, since the name "God" is capitalized in all English Christian bibles I could find.


Writing for both scolarly and the layman.


Agreed.


Agreed.


Suggestions?


Yes, and they didn't hold water. I have seen many different explanations, but the problem is trying to find general agreement. I opted not to include those arguments for the sake of brevity.


Explain further.


Explanation?


But it would be a lesser god; deity, which is my entire point.


I have not expressed that he was speaking of the Father from a physical sense. In fact, I have been arguing against that with my examples of the idioms.


If one word is altered to reflect that which was not intended, then that is interpolation. To even simply change the small-case "g" to an uppercase "G" in "god" changed both the text and the meaning.

Thank you for your input, much appreciated.

FathomFFI

Thank you for the vote of confidence. I will endeavor to improve the essay.

Solitary Man

OK, but translations are mere reflections of the interpretations that a particular translator/group of translators employ.

This still doesn't negate what I said. The earliest English translators had and used the Greek freely. The modern ones have used on occasion the Syriac and Coptic as well, though much, much less frequently, and usually confined only to journal articles. A pity.

But does the capitalization affect their theology?

Not at the moment. I have to take care of a sick girlfriend and myself, both with strep throat. Ack.

You should still review them.

You can adduce many other choices. The current Christian explanation, for one.

Here's what you said:

"c) Since Jesus lays claim to be of the same essence/nature/substance/purpose of the Father, yet distinguishes himself from being the Father, then it infers that Jesus regards himself to be a god, since the idiom describes the same qualities as that of the Supreme Deity, but yet is distinguished from the Supreme Deity."

Specifically, the last clause isn't dictated by the "idiom".

No, it wouldn't necessarily be a god at all. Aeneas is primarily human, being born of Venus and Anchises. He doesn't have any magical powers or anything like that. To readers of the Aeneid, he is as mortal as we.

You argued that Jesus thought himself to be a "god" because he called God Father. Am I mistaking that? If not, then you're wrong.


No, not quite. An interpolation is a letter, word, or phrase that is added into the text. Just keep in mind that capitalization hadn't been invented yet. If you take your argument, then every translation would be an "interpolation", since none of it is in the Greek.

FathomFFI

Agreed, so perhaps more history of the earliest English translations would be useful? Perhaps also showing if any Christian bias was factored in from those early translators?


I am not saying it negates what you said, but that what you said didn't address the point of my speaking only of the English translations. My understanding is the earliest English translators used the Latin texts up until Tyndale, who was the first to use the Hebrew and Greek. Before him, John Wycliffe translated the Bible into English from the Latin Vulgate. The King James version is basically a refined Tyndale, and from my comparisons of English bibles it appears that most are using each other for scholarship, and almost all can be traced back to the KJV for scholarship. The comparisons are so evident and numerous that I cannot see any other conclusion.

What I'm saying here is that most modern bible publishers are in it for the money, and modern quality scholarship is not evident. Either that, or they are using biased theologians to do the translating. After all, to change long held beliefs by utilizing such things as what is seen in my essay could prove to be suicide, since long-held Christian believers would balk as such a change. The chances of me changing the world with my essay are next to nil, if even less. Christianity is too old a dog to teach new tricks.


Good point, you are asking me to research for evidence. I will do so. Thank you.

Get well soon.


Perhaps you're right. Maybe I should just take the most popular point of view and demonstrate its weaknesses?


Good point, I'll work it in.


I understand. Then perhaps the following?

"Since Jesus lays claim to be of the same essence/nature/substance/purpose of the Father, yet distinguishes himself from being the Father, then it infers that Jesus regards himself to be a god (lesser deity) since the idiom describes some of the same qualities as that of the Supreme Deity, God the Father."


But that is a different school of thought. Aside from that, the arguments Jesus made back at the Jews clearly show him defending his position of being a god. I try to put myself into Jesus' shoes only, and think from his perspective from his school of thought.

I have been arguing that Jesus thought of himself as a god due to his comparison of the qualities he deemed common between himself and the Father. Due to these commonalities, he would regard God as a Father based upon the concept that a son is the image of the father. Since we are speaking about attributes of the Father, and Jesus expresses in John 10.30 his commonality, then that is what should should be understood.

After all, the idea that a God gave physical birth to Jesus is ... quite unacceptable. I hope you understand.

Good point. A better way to describe it then?

Kharakov

Yeah, so the ME he was talking about is the big ME that divided into M/E and reformed into mini-me(s) made of small amounts of m/e (thus the lower case m/e for our constituent components). You might say I enjoy saying the truth in a way that will really make people think about M/E.

FathomFFI

Undoubtedly.

Doug Shaver

What are your reasons and evidence for thinking that Jesus actually said anything that the author of John's gospel attributed to him?

FathomFFI

That would be a different discussion, Doug.

Loomis

I think Jesus is pure fiction. I think the dominant theme in the “Story of the Life of Jesus” is irony. The story tells about how the Jewish messiah (the son of God) finally arrived but the Jews did not recognize him. They mistook him for a common criminal and killed him according to their own laws.

The specific law is found in Deuteronomy 21:18~23:

If a man has a stubborn and rebellious son who does not obey his father and mother and will not listen to them when they discipline him, his father and mother shall take hold of him and bring him to the elders at the gate of his town. They shall say to the elders, "This son of ours is stubborn and rebellious. He will not obey us. He is a profligate and a drunkard." Then all the men of his town shall stone him to death. You must purge the evil from among you. All Israel will hear of it and be afraid.

If a man guilty of a capital offense is put to death and his body is hung on a tree, you must not leave his body on the tree overnight. Be sure to bury him that same day, because anyone who is hung on a tree is under God's curse. You must not desecrate the land the LORD your God is giving you as an inheritance.

So with that goal in mind the author of the “Feast of Dedication” episode (beginning at John 10:22) set out to get the Jesus character stoned and to get his body hung on a tree.

All of the other dialogs and sub-plots in John 10:22~39 are secondary.

The goal was to get the rebellious son of God stoned by any means necessary. :bulb: