Amaleq13

"Everyone who sins breaks the law; in fact, sin is lawlessness." (NIV)

"Every one that doeth sin doeth also lawlessness; and sin is lawlessness." (ASV)

"Every one who is doing the sin, the lawlessness also he doth do, and the sin is the lawlessness," (YLT)

"Every one that practises sin practises also lawlessness; and sin is lawlessness." (Darby)

"Everyone who practices sin also practices lawlessness; and (A)sin is lawlessness." (NASB)

From Biblegateway.com

mountainman

There are clear non Jewish elements and themes
which yourself and Jeffrey and Amaleq refuse to
countenance, the greatest one being of course,
that the gospel authors, whom we dont know,
and who wrote in an unknown century CE,
did not write the gosples in Hebrew.

That the authors wrote in Greek indicates in the
first place, that if the authors were in any way
Jewish, then they were Hellenised.

The ascetic practices at the time of these authors
in the background of the writings that these authors
used to tell the story of the gospels were Hellenic,
and arguably more Pythagorean than anything Jewish.

Hence the relevance of the Hellenic ascetic practices
by which the temples and gymnasia of the healing cult
of Asclepius were propagated from generation to the
next generation for 500 years as at 000 CE, 600 years
by 100 CE and 700 years by the end of the 2nd century.

The authors of the gospel "stories" about your man JC
wrote in Greek, not Hebrew. His ascetic practices, if
any (and irrespective of the authors making your man
JC deny being as severe an ascetic as the Locust Man)
are described in the Greek language.


Best wishes,


Pete Brown








This sounds profoundly confused and confusing.

I have come across this:

Ascetic Behavior in Greco-Roman Antiquity: A Sourcebook (Studies in Antiquity and Christianity) , which can be previewed on Google books.[/QUOTE]

Jeffrey Gibson

Note, too, Wycliffe:

Each man that doeth sin, doeth also wickedness, and sin is wickedness.

NET:

3:4 Everyone who practices sin18 also practices lawlessness; indeed, sin is lawlessness.

and especially the NKJV:

Whoever commits sin also commits lawlessness, and sin is lawlessness.

You know, of course, that the translators behind all of these translations are not Christian scholars. They are Catholics and Jehovah's Witnesses.

Jeffrey

mountainman

We have statements to this effect from the fourth century
inventor of a new form of historiographical exposition, now
known as "Ecclesiastical History". Nothing more.

You can treat this as "having been written earlier".
My advice? Buyer beware of bullshit.




Well, firstly, thanks for the response here.
Secondly, you are exploring the second issue
here which has not yet been discussed, and
that is vegetarianism.

The gospel authors paint JC as a meat eater.
Why would they do something like that?



Best wishes,


Pete Brown

Amaleq13

I was specifically referring to the clear Jewish context of the passages about fasting. You know, the ones specifically relevant to and in direct contraction of your assumption/conclusion.

And that is relevant to the clearly Jewish context of the references to fasting in what way?

And, despite that (assuming it to be true), the story fails to provide anything that suggests they considered those ascetic practices to be in any way relevant to their story.

Yes but with no indication that the fasting should be understood in any other context but Jewish tradition. Your entire argument continues to have no apparent connection to the text it purports to explain. :banghead:

mountainman

It does, does it? Why? What is the logic?
Are you about to argue any of these things ...

1) John the Locust Man was not a sever ascetic.

2) Your man JC did not compare his asceticism to John's asceticism

3) Your man JC's asceticism was found superior to John's asceticism.


Best wishes,


Pete Brown

mountainman

All share one illustrious ancestral scholar in Eusebius.
God bless his 4th century peer review panel of experts.

Best wishes,


Pete Brown

mountainman

Surely the context of the language (Greek)
is not a Jewish tradition? The authors of the
gospels were Hellenised. Hello?

Are you about to argue that the gospel authors
were not in any way Hellenised? And if they used
the greek writing (and its background) what makes
you think that they might not have had other
non Jewish traditions in the backs of their mind,
when they were writing (in Greek) about fasting,
for example, of which Pythagoras had opinons.



Your entire argument assumes "some form of inner integrity"
was represented by the stories tendered by the gospel authors
in some unknown century back in antiquity - in Greek.

Outside the field of "Biblical History" is the field
of ancient history. You draw your assumptions
from the first, and I draw mine from the second.

Do you understand the valid principles of
historical revisionism?


Best wishes,


Pete Brown

Jeffrey Gibson

Horse hockey. If they were, you would have been able to show us where in "ancient history -- i.e., in the primary sources upon which our knowledge of ancient history is built -- your "assumptions" about Aclepius being an ascestic -- especially of the world renouncing kind -- are to be found.

Jeffrey

Sheshbazzar

No idea huh? pityful.
Didn't need take a poll, as I have had to listen to this Christian crap all my life.
It was the Christians, more particularly it was the Christian "scholars" who decided upon that particular English wording.
Present as many Christian "scholars" opinions as you wish, the fact remains that most English Bibles (KJV) present the verse as I quoted it.
Certainly, and again, if some think that the well known KJV English text fails to correctly convey the meanings of the Greek, that is nothing less than admitting that the most well known and respected English translation is faulty.
Man, you sure like to play at being both ignorant and dense, looking at hundreds of "sponsored English translations" and commentaries, will not suffice to change the actual reading that has been around for generations, and printed in countless millions of KJV (and other) English language Bibles.

Quote:
(2) No doubt that a few will be found willing to support just about any variation or innovation upon the text that would tend to support their own particular bent.....perhaps you might even "find" some thousands that are willing to go along with your "translation", so what? like that is some big deal?
The Catholic Church, or The Jehovah's Wittnesses, et al, also produce their "translations" and "commentaries", is everything they write also to be accepted as being the correct translation and commentary?

Clever, yet wholly lacking in content. The evidence supporting the statementis readily available to anyone not trying to play semantic games.
The only evidence that is supported by the text is that which is offered by the text. The term "The Law" is used throughout the Bible, in enough contexts and instances to establish the general meaning of the term.

"For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one [point], he is guilty of all." James 2:10
What is this "whole Law"? Do you really want to pretend here that it does not include the so -called Mosaic Law?

It is a "Christian" principal to deny that their "Christ" committed any sin. Yet the NT (no matter what "version" you swallow), is rife with examples of that man disobeying and withstanding The Law, in resisting those judgements and "decisions" that were "decided" by the Priesthood as they were commanded to so do, and decide. see Deut. 17:8-12

Good grief! Where did I say, or even imply that the popular KJV rendering of 1 John 3:4 is correct?
The entire point being made is that the KJV text is faulty and contradictory to other NT texts.
Perhaps your "interpretation" is superiour to what that KJV text offers, or perhaps not, not for me to say one way or another.
The criticism is not of your "interpretation" of Greek, but of the deficiency of The KJV in not adequately or correctly conveying the "right" sense of the original Greek mss. (If your allegations about the "right" interpretation of 1 Jn 3:4 are correct.)


True, there are "some hundred or more English "VERSIONS" of "The Bible" (and more are being cooked-up every day, and there are certainly much more than "some 100 or more English Bibles", being as there have been countless millions printed.)
And of these "100 or more English Bibles" how many of these "VERSIONS" will you claim as totaling even 1/1000 of all the KJV English Bibles that have been printed and distributed through the generations?
I adduce that The KJV translation far outnumbers all other English "versions", and it is therefore the KJV translation of 1 John 3:4 (or any other verse) that does indeed appear in most English Bibles.
Answered above, but feel free to produce your own new and improved "version", seems everyone else is.