Peter Kirby

davidH: "the words I say to you are not JUST my own" ???

You act as though the NIV English translation of John 14:10 represents the ipsissima verba of Jesus.

Even if you don't know a word of Greek, you can compare multiple versions so as to minimize the chance that you are being misled by the particular wording of a particular translation.


<a href="http://greeknewtestament.com/B43C014.htm" target="_blank">http://greeknewtestament.com/B43C014.htm</a>


Stephens 1550 Textus Receptus
ou pisteueiV oti egw en tw patri kai o pathr en emoi estin ta rhmata a egw lalw umin ap emautou ou lalw o de pathr o en emoi menwn autos poiei ta erga

Scrivener 1894 Textus Receptus
ou pisteueiV oti egw en tw patri kai o pathr en emoi estin ta rhmata a egw lalw umin ap emautou ou lalw o de pathr o en emoi menwn autos poiei ta erga


Byzantine Majority
ou pisteueiV oti egw en tw patri kai o pathr en emoi estin ta rhmata a egw lalw umin ap emautou ou lalw o de pathr o en emoi menwn autos poiei ta erga


Alexandrian
ou pisteueiV oti egw en tw patri kai o pathr en emoi estin ta rhmata a egw legw umin ap emautou ou lalw o de pathr en emoi menwn poiei ta erga autou


Latin Vulgate
14:10 non credis quia ego in Patre et Pater in me est verba quae ego loquor vobis a me ipso non loquor Pater autem in me manens ipse facit opera


King James Version
14:10 Believest thou not that I am in the Father, and the Father in me? the words that I speak unto you I speak not of myself: but the Father that dwelleth in me, he doeth the works.


American Standard Version
14:10 Believest thou not that I am in the Father, and the Father in me? the words that I say unto you I speak not from myself: but the Father abiding in me doeth his works.


Bible in Basic English
14:10 Have you not faith that I am in the Father and the Father is in me? The words which I say to you, I say not from myself: but the Father who is in me all the time does his works.


Darby's English Translation
14:10 Believest thou not that I am in the Father, and that the Father is in me? The words which I speak to you I do not speak from myself; but the Father who abides in me, he does the works.


Douay Rheims
14:10 Do you not believe, that I am in the Father, and the Father in me? The words that I speak to you, I speak not of myself. But the Father who abideth in me, he doth the works.


Noah Webster Bible
14:10 Believest thou not that I am in the Father, and the Father in me? the words that I speak to you, I speak not from myself: but the Father that dwelleth in me, he doeth the works.


Weymouth New Testament
14:10 Do you not believe that I am in the Father and that the Father is in me? The things that I tell you all I do not speak on my own authority: but the Father dwelling within me carries on His own work.


World English Bible
14:10 Don`t you believe that I am in the Father, and the Father in me? The words that I tell you, I speak not from myself; but the Father living in me does his works.


Young's Literal Translation
14:10 Believest thou not that I am in the Father, and the Father is in me? the sayings that I speak to you, from myself I speak not, and the Father who is abiding in me, Himself doth the works;


New American Bible
14:10 Do you not believe that I am in the Father and the Father is in me? The words that I speak to you I do not speak on my own. The Father who dwells in me is doing his works.


best,
Peter Kirby

Sojourner553

I recently went through a round of posts where a number of theists argued their MORALITY was superior to everyone else. After being presented with concrete examples to the contrary, there is now silence from them on this subject. Still, it is true one gets in a DEFENSIVE position to this after awhile. You’d probably have to experience people saying you are “evil” for your beliefs a lot to understand what I am saying.

Um. You need to help me out. Does “righteousness where there was none” mean being "forgiven from one’s sin", thus transforming one from a state of “sin” to “righteousness”?

I'm guessing at your meaning. But if I am on the right track by my definition above, I would argue that this applies to Judaism, the Greek and Egyptian mystery religions, Zoastrianism, Islam, and probably many of the Buddhist sects. I don't know enough about Hinduism to answer -- maybe Hindu Woman is out there to help out.

It is true that many of these religions believe that good people from other religions can make it to heaven {ie the good works vs. good faith choice) . Only Christians (as far as I know) have a requirement in belief over good works to go to heaven. As one example: if Hitler professed faith before he died, he would go to heaven, but Gandhi, Socrates, Plato and other known good non-Christians would (according to Christian doctrine) go to hell.

Of course atheists don’t ascribe to “righteousness where there was none”. Some atheists think all things are righteous, no things are righteous; most would probably see the world in shades of gray.

Again please correct me where I am off track on my “guess” at your definition.

There are fundamentalist atheists on this board – who treat every disagreement with them as INTENSELY as if this were committing a crime (against them). I must say I respect humanist theists (Christians, Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, etc) better than I like fundamentalist atheists.
My definition of fundamentalist is a person who believes their “creed” is more important than the value of other people’s lives (ie humanism). [Famous examples of fundamentalist atheists were Ayn Rand and Madalyn O’Hare.]
Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell are examples of fundamentalist Christians. Here is Gandhi referring to obviously fundamentalist Christians:
"I like Christ, but I dislike Christians because they are so very unlike Christ." -- Gandhi

My post to DavidH was to demonstrate there are OTHER rational interpretations of his verses – ie his is not the ONLY interpretation!! And whether or not he agrees with the skeptics – at least he can better understand their position – that it is not based on evil, or pride. In fact it is often based (at least for me) on just the opposite -- “desire” for truth/goodness and a humble acceptance of our human limitations – both physical AND spiritual.

P.S. Please tell us more about the "efficacious philosophy" in Christianity. Just make sure you include in it an assessment whether you think ALL (or even most) Christians hold these same philosophies within their doctrine(s).


Sojourner

[ September 22, 2002: Message edited by: Sojourner553 ]</p>

Radorth

Heh. Sojourner, I've been called things L.A. middle school students would be expelled for. True, it was by atheists slightly less mature.

It is not possible to reach a state of sinlessness in the flesh (or in this world) unless God imputes it to you. Forgiveness is not sanctification (for lack of a better understood word). Anyway we can settle the whole issue by comparing Paul's assertions in Rom 5 to whatever you want to show me from another religion. All religions except Christianity require some kind of "works" (be it only training and meditation) in order to reach the desired spiritual state.

On the meaning of Romans 5, Catholics and I heartily disagree of course, but then they tend to be religious, a condition which has never attracted me in the slightest. But in it (and Jesus' misunderstood teachings) are the keys to the least exclusive spiritual kingdom of all, much of which can be enjoyed here. I do not see it in my study of other religions, but I suppose it could be there.

BTW, which pagan myth does Romans 5 come from?

"Christianity" is not really a philosophy or religion, (though we've tried like hell to make one out of it) but is more a means to complete freedom of choice. We talk about "the right to choose" abortion. Atheists may laugh, but that is one of the two bad choices left when one has already been bound to make a previous bad choice. You are not spiritual until you can make any choice at all at any time, but you always discern and freely choose that which is most efficacious to yourself and your fellow humans.

Christians generally do not measure up, it is true, but then being a spiritual person is a far riskier business than we control loving humans can stomach. I trust letting go altogether will be easier in the next world.

Radorth

[ September 22, 2002: Message edited by: Radorth ]</p>

Vorkosigan

BTW, which pagan myth does Romans 5 come from?

There might be many that might correspond, but that does not necessarily mean that Paul drew on them. Demonstrating dependence or independence is always difficult, especially when so much has been lost. Which passage do you believe is unique? I hope you also realize that uniqueness means nothing; as far as I know, all religions have unique elements, but none is thereby proven to be true.

Vorkosigan

[ September 22, 2002: Message edited by: Vorkosigan ]</p>

Answerer

The above comment shows and explains why some atheists just love to assume christians to have "intellectual inferiority". So, in the other words, those comments by certain atheists are not totally biased, rather its based on the observations of how christians comment.

Vorkosigan

Actually Christianity is totally unique- the only religion ever which imputes righteousness where there was none.

So was Mohism, the only religion to advocate both universal brotherhood and expertise in defensive weaponry. The Mohist Tien is a god of universal love. Remind you of anyone you know?

So was Heaven's Gate, the only religion that said that if you committed suicide, you could get a ride on a UFO.

So was Scientology, the only religion that said psychology problems were caused by alien possession....

I could go on. Uniqueness is a sign of...uniqueness.

Vorkosigan

[ September 23, 2002: Message edited by: Vorkosigan ]</p>

Radorth

Those are really BAD analogies, presented to avoid the question about imputed righteousness, and the fallout from admitting it is there, loud and clear, and is untraceable to any pagan myth.

"Christianity is not unique."

Yes it is. Here's why.

"Uniqueness means nothing anyway."

Interesting "methodology" you folks have here. Maybe "esoteric logic" would be a better term.

Radorth

[ September 23, 2002: Message edited by: Radorth ]</p>

NOGO

DavidH,


Verse 2
"in these last days" ie the end of the world which did not come.
"through whom also He made the world." ie the Word according to John 1:1

Verse 4
The word became much better then the angels which means that he wasn't before.
Conclusion: it can't be a member of the trinity.

Verse 5
The reason the word become much better than the angels is that he inherited a more excellent name then they.
Verse 5 tells us which name that is "Son of God".

Verse 9
Again "your God" is a term which would not befit a member of the trinity.
Verse 9 explains why the word was anointed (ie selected) ABOVE "your companions" which are the angels.
Why? because "he loved righteousness and hated lawlessness". Therefore the word existed before he was made Son of God.

DavidH, whether your believe that the word is Jesus or not (I don't) these verses clearly show that there is no such thing as the trinity.

[ September 23, 2002: Message edited by: NOGO ]</p>

Vorkosigan

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Radorth:
[QB]Those are really BAD analogies, presented to avoid the question about imputed righteousness, and the fallout from admitting it is there, loud and clear, and is untraceable to any pagan myth.

"Christianity is not unique."

Yes it is. Here's why.

"Uniqueness means nothing anyway."

Interesting "methodology" you folks have here. Maybe "esoteric logic" would be a better term.

Radorth[/b]

No Rad, its you who doesn't know anything about logic. Not everything in current American baseball is traceable to rounders, its ancestor (as I recall). However, rounders is very definitely the anscestor of baseball. Baseball is unique, as is Christianity, but the idea of uniqueness does not preclude the idea that Christianity draws on other religious thinking or that baseball is based on earlier games. The two are not related.

Vorkosigan

Radorth

No problem. Give me three accounts, supposedly written by three different contemporaries or disciples, each containing a description of at least 5 miracles.

Good luck.

Nah Jesus' disciples were the greatest conspirators of all time. (Or simply who they said they were).

Also someone please list all those pagan luminaries who claimed (or whose disciples claimed) he was the Son of God, said "I and the Father are one," was the "Christ come in the flesh," and "Savior of all men."

Radorth