Iskander

Who is to say what an erroneous interpretation is? [As distinct from an obvious mistranslation]

Was Christ a spirit only? Was he a man only?
Was he a lesser god second to the father?
Was he fully man and fully god? ...

Christians have killed each other in an effort to eliminate erroneous interpretations. I therefore declare your interpretation to be not erroneous, and the contrary interpretation to be not erroneous also.


Galatians 1: says that his authority comes from Christ who was raised by god the father from the dead. This attitude has caused much suffering to mankind because it means [as in Galatians] that divine laws are the ones to be obeyed in preference to human made laws. Every religion makes this claim, even the godless ones, and they enforce their claim by pointing out the futility of resisting the inevitable and the everlasting benefits of submission.

avi

Thank you Iskander.
Can you point to a source of information that would help explain when "kata tas graphas" changed from "writings" to "scripture"?

As a corollary, to this question, how would the Greeks, a couple thousand years ago, have expressed the notion of "scripture", rather than "writings"? Does "kata tas graphas" to you, signify both "writings" and "scripture"? Did the Greeks have no method available to differentiate written text of a secular nature, from written text, ostensibly divinely inspired, hence, "sacred"?

avi

aa5874

Galatians 1 says NO SUCH thing.

What UNKNOWN version of Galatians are you using?

This is why we have so much problems here because people BLATANTLY make erroneous claims and do not care.

KJV Ga 1:1 - "Codex Sinaiticus Ga. 1.1 A character that is FULLY GOD and FULLY MAN is FULLY MYTH.

Iskander

I have interpreted Galatians as stated in your post.

He says he is the apostle, [bishop, pope, imam, temple priest, preacher...] of god [ Allah, Brahman, hashem, Christ, Zeus, karma-god...] and that mankind[ parliaments, monarchs, courts of law..] are excluded from this arrangement.


There are many possible interpretations, but mine is that he is responsible only and directly to his commanding officer who is described as immensely powerful [he raises the dead]

His introduction is saying to the listeners: I have come to tell you what you must do and believe.

Iskander

Your question is: why graphas has been translated as ‘scriptures’ when the obvious translation is ‘writings’. Is that what you are asking?

aa5874

Galatians 1.1 contains NO such things.

Please state the UNKNOWN source of the version of Galatians 1.1 that you EMPLOY.

I have SHOWN you the KJV and Codex Sinaiticus version of Galatians 1.1 and they STATE quite CLEARLY that PAUL was NOT the Apostle of man, NEITHER by Man but by Jesus Christ who God RAISED from the dead.

Why are you TRYING so hard to BLATANTLY MIS-INTERPRET Galatians 1.1?

There is NOTHING about ZEUS, HASHEM, ALLAH, BRAHMAN, parliaments, monarchs and courts of law in Galatians 1.1


But, you have UTTERLY FAILED to show that your so-call interpretation is actually valid.

Iskander

Ok

mountainman

Hi avi,

The only problem with using Eusebius as a source for this kind of information is that he has a very poor reputation as a chronologer, in the opinion of certain prominent ancient historians of the 20th century.

Best wishes,


Pete



Eusebius; "The Church Story", Book 5

Chapter VIII. The Statements of Irenaeus in Regard to the Divine Scriptures.

1 Since, in the beginning of this work,122 we promised to give, when needful,
the words of the ancient presbyters and writers of the Church,
in which they have declared those traditions which came down to them
concerning the canonical books, and since Irenaeus was one of them,
we will now give his words and, first, what he says of the sacred Gospels:

2 "Matthew published his Gospel among the Hebrews in their own language,
while Peter and Paul were preaching and founding the churchin Rome.

3 After their departure Mark, the disciple and interpreter of Peter,
also transmitted to us in writing those things which Peter had preached;
and Luke, the attendant of Paul, recorded in a book the Gospel which Paul had declared.

4 Afterwards John, the disciple of the Lord, who also reclined on his bosom,
published his Gospel, while staying at Ephesus in Asia."

5 He states these things in the third book of his above-mentioned work.

avi

1. YES, correct.

2. Is there another word, in Greek, that represents "sacred texts", as opposed to graphas, which simply means "writings", as far as I can determine.

3. How do the Gospel writers refer to the "old testament" texts? Do they write "graphas", or use some other word?

4. How did the neoplatonists, e.g. the Alexandrian school--> Clement, Origen, refer to the "old testament"?

Holy Cow!!

I just found esword. Looks like a terrific resource.

Here's Louis Seconde French version:

"selon les Ecritures"
with a capital E, instead of the normal, lower case e.

French English dictionary reveals what I had recalled from ancient hippocampal connections:

sacred writings = ecritures sacrees, of course, with the appropriate accents.

Here's Luther's German bible:

"nach der Schrift"

which, I suppose, is the singular form of "Schriften"--> "writings". It is not written: heiligen schriften, as I would have imagined would have been the case, were they (or he, alone, i.e. Luther himself) intending to translate the Greek as referring exclusively to the "old testament". The alternative is to imagine that the "old testament" was not regarded by him, as "sacred writings", which seems most improbable.

avi

avi

Thanks, Pete, I guess I will have to follow David Hindley's advice, and actually try to read the relevant passages of the Latin version of Irenaeus, and look up the Greek version of Eusebius. I dread both chores....

avi