Christian Theological/Philosophical Book Club discussion
This topic is about
The Problem With Christ
The Table - Group Book Reads
>
The Problem With Christ
Peter, yes I am familiar with this and many similar statements and I address them in the book, but it seems that no one else seems to notice the verbal slight of hand that is going on here. As shown in chapter two, NO ONE in the first century thought Christos meant anointed! That meaning went away hundreds of years earlier. No one anointed Cyrus, but he was called the christos. It meant king--not smeared with oil! I am not insulting you when I say you are nice--even though the dictionary will tell you it used to mean fool.
Secondly they conflate the English Messiah meaning promised one with the Aramaic/Hebrew original which meant KING.
Thirdly there is NO evidence that I have been able to find that provides ANY substantiation for the title to name hypothesis! I have asked many, and received exactly zero replies in my quest for evidence on this point. It did eventually happen, but not until well after the N.T.
Yet these three things are precisely what are being taught in N.T. Greek classes, and it numbs the students to the possibility that there is more to be found here. Please notice the complete lack of evidence to substantiate the claims. It is the same kind of thing I heard while working on my Masters in Evolution. (The birth of my seventh child cut my program short.)
We must convince high school students of the truth of evolution before they take molecular biology, or they are lost to the evolutionists for ever.
No "expert" I have contacted and no book or paper I have read provides any examples or research to substantiate the title to name claim within the N.T. context. It is as if saying it enough times makes it true. The only attempt at citing such a change that I have been able to find, is dealt with in the appendix of the book.
The word Gentiles itself is part of the problem and is dealt with to a limited extent in this blog post: http://radicalfish.net/are-you-a-paga... and the following one. Almost as shocking as the problem with Christ is the fact that according to the N.T. there is no such construction as "Gentile Church." Is is always in the Greek Genitive case and should be rendered "church out of the nations." This sadly is another can of worms that will not be settled here. but is part of a web of errors that violate SIMPLE first year Greek rules.
I know I sound like a raving lunatic when I say these things, but all I ask is EVIDENCE that what I am saying is in error. Your quote makes an least three statements that I maintain are categorically false. It should not be that difficult to find examples that prove me wrong.
I trust my frustration did not come out too strongly in this reply. And that I was at least coherent in my explanation of my frustrations. You and your comments are appreciated so please keep them coming. :-)
Isn't this great - I haven't the vaguest notion of what David is trying to communicate, and Christopher can't seem to fathom my yammerings. Maybe we all ought to try Greek instead of English, we'd probably have better success.
Christopher - it's been awhile since I encountered a Greek snob, I guess I thought they were a fad like shark movies. Anyway, they held that the Greek playwrights, military historians, and, of course Plato and Aristotle could only be understood properly in their original translation. Any translation to English or even latin was hopelessly flawed and rendered the content undecipherable. It seems you are holding the Bible to this same standard. I wasn't a KJV snob, now please tell me you're not a Greek Bible snob.
Thank you Robert--no I am far from a Greek snob as you define it. It is because I am not a Greek snob that I believe christos should be translated. Why do you insist on holding to a Greek transliteration that no one seems to understand--at least in the way the N.T. authors use the term?The use of the meaningless term "christ" allows us to descend to this usage on a local unity site:
"JESUS - We believe that Jesus expressed his divine potential and sought to show humankind how to express ours as well. We see Jesus as a master teacher of universal truths and as our Way Shower. In Unity, we use the term Christ to mean the divinity in humankind. Jesus is the great example of the Christ in expression."
This is just the ultimate evolution of the idea that David traced back to the 4th-century. Bottom line--I repeat--christos is not a name. Can somebody please show me an example in the 1st century where christos cannot be used as a title? What is so hard about this? If what the texts and translation intros claim is true this should be an easy request.
Well, I am a Hebrew snob. When a New Testament Greek author starts quoting scripture, I wanna know right away whether they're quoting the Septuagint or retranslating the real Bible. :)Anyway, a comparison: I'm fascinated by the "Gehenna" figure of speech; we know that Jesus and others meant more than a garbage dump when they used the word. Likewise, "King Jesus" is fine as long as everybody knows we mean more than just a king ... we're talking about the Messiah (eg: the Christ, lol).
I'd much rather the Bible used the word Gehenna instead of Hell. I'd rather the Bible used the word Anointed instead of Christ or King. Then we can argue about what the authors really meant instead of pretending we know the meaning behind the meaning.
Christopher - I've already AGREED your scholarship is first rate and your conclusions probably sound. Why are we debating that still? It's the call to action I take issue with and it's not personal with you. As a Christian who believes KJV or any respectable English translation is the inerrant Word of God, then NOBODY ought to deign to change it or they'll get an earfull. Look at it this way - I can bring 2000 professors in, covering 15 different disciplines who will contend the universe is about 14.5 billion years old. Rod just smiles at me, tells me to stuff my professors, and has a jolly old time in his faith that says the earth is only 6000 years old and the universe was created a day or two before. Strong faith is funny that way.
Bingo Robert! I think you stated the issue quite succinctly. I am still at least two books away from my call to action. What is interesting to me is the way that the ground work for rejecting my call to action is currently being laid. I note that you appreciate my scholarship and think my conclusions "probably sound." (Thank you, by the way.)What does that mean? I presume it to mean that you recognize that when the N.T. authors wrote or said christos, their minds were thinking something very close to what we think when we say or write king. I have seen no evidence from any corner demonstrating this was not the case.
I think I understand your example of Rod, and wish he were participating in the discussion. However there seems to be a clear difference in Rod's faith concerning creation, and your faith concerning "Christ." (Not Jesus.)
Rod refuses to change his thinking because he is not convinced by the authorities you cite. His faith is a bastion against your reason. Well and good.
You on the other hand seem (to me) to be different. You admit the validity of the research and its conclusion, but deny that your speech or thinking should change to match the truth you admit. I think we can all find manifold examples of where this type of behavior eviscerates the good news of king Jesus (the gospel of Jesus Christ in modern Christianeese).
I do not want to put words in you mouth so I ask the question. Am I correct in thinking that you accept that the N.T. authors thought something very close to "king" when they wrote "christos;" yet you will continue using the made-up English word "Christ" as a name in its place?
Lee, you make a good point. It IS legitimate to transliterate a word when there is no equivalent in the target language, or its meaning is unclear. Neither of these is the case with christos, but both may apply to Gehenna. I would opt for transliterating it--especially given that it is a known place name that seems to have taken on proverbial significance.
#107. Lee, I am curious, and am not being facetious. Despite your cantankerous (and occasionally endearing) air, I recognize you as a thoughtful man. Your statement about the KJV and other "respectable translations" being inerrant, leaves me confused. Given they each make different and contradictory textual choices, how do you reconcile that? You have probably done this elsewhere in the group, but could you give me a synopsis of your position? You can PM me if you wish.
Christopher wrote: "Peter, yes I am familiar with this and many similar statements and I address them in the book, but it seems that no one else seems to notice the verbal slight of hand that is going on here. As sh..."
Christopher, thank you for the excellent rebuttal. Your frustration arises, partly, because, having read only part of the book, I'm asking questions that are answered later in the main text, or in the appendices.
I appreciate your patient reiteration of your position.
No problem Peter. :-) I know you are playing catch up and I have no problem re-sharing. My main concern is that I not get sloppy in my haste to restate things, and more importantly that I not allow my legitimate frustration turn into illegitimate anger or mean-spiritedness. None of the members of this group would deserve that. While I hope I did not express it, towards the end of my response I felt the telltale signs of rising flesh. Whether I am right or wrong this is not my battle. If I am wrong, I deserve to be jeered and/or ignored, If I am right, it is for Him to defend His honor--I simply need to be faithful.
Thank you for the sense of serenity you bring to the group.
Christopher wrote: "Thank you Robert--no I am far from a Greek snob as you define it. It is because I am not a Greek snob that I believe christos should be translated. Why do you insist on holding to a Greek translit..."Christopher, you gave an excellent response to the claim in the ESV notes that "Christ" was becoming a name rather than a title. Essentially you were arguing that there is no evidence for its use as a name, and so we should wait until we have that evidence before we act on it in translation. You also said:
Can somebody please show me an example in the 1st century where christos cannot be used as a title? What is so hard about this? If what the texts and translation intros claim is true this should be an easy request.
I'll address your request in a separate response, but let me point to a competing confusion about the title. Robert E. Van Voort, in his book JESUS OUTSIDE THE NEW TESTAMENT, spends 10 pages (page 29-39) discussing the confusion between christos (Greek iota), and chrestos (Greek eta).
On page 34, Van Voort i talking about the natural confusion in the Greek between christos and chrestos. He says:
This confsuion arose from two sources, of meaning and sound. The Greek "Christos" and its Latin equivalent "Christus" would have suggested a strange meaning to most ancients, especially those unfamiliar with its Jewish background. It's primary Greek meaning in everyday life suggests the medical term "anointer" or the construction term "plasterer."
This brings me back to the point that someone made previously(I think it was David). Given this obvious confusion, if the concept of "King" is of prime importance in the translation, should not they have used "basileus?"
From Christopher:Can somebody please show me an example in the 1st century where christos cannot be used as a title? What is so hard about this? If what the texts and translation intros claim is true this should be an easy request.
I must admit, in writing this post, I feel like the diminutive referee, who couldn't box his way out of a wet paper bag, mediating a fight between two heavyweights.
W. E. Vine in AN EXPOSITORY DICTIONARY OF NEW TESTAMENT WORDS, in the article on Christ says in discussing "Christos":
It[Christos] is distinctly a proper name in many passages whether with the article e.g. Matt. 1:17; 11:2; Rom. 9:5, 15:19; 1 Cor. 1:6, or without the article, Mark 9:41; Rom. 6:4, 8:9,17; 1 Cor. 1:12, Gal. 2:16.
I am left in the unenviable position of having two scholars, whom I respect very much, disagree about a rendering. I don't know enough Greek to decide who might be right.
Dilettantes, all. Well, I'll add one more to this mix. Hello, fellow non-professionals.Christopher invited me from another forum, and I haven't read the book yet. But I want to add a caveat that's only barely mentioned so far in this discussion: we moderns can't even begin to understand "king" as the authors of the texts would have meant it, because we live in a world filled with democratic sensibilities. We have no concept of the level of very real dependence and very real fear that subjects felt for their kings, nor do we have anything but contempt for the notion of divine entitlement kings claimed for their power and wealth.
I will not say that the mistranslation, or transliteration, of "christos" is of no consequence; but I think the issue is not so much how we translate as it is how well we understand what was meant by the authors. And by "understand," I don't just mean "produce a sound explanation;" I mean that we should feel it in our guts as they did. It's not just our heads that need this education, it's our guts. I think everybody here is already on this page; only, we need to include in our nomenclature the fact that this is a gut education enterprise, not just a translation issue.
I addressed this very topic just yesterday, preaching the Sunday sermon at my home church (no, I'm not the pastor. Lay preacher.) In that talk, I spent a good 10-15 minutes talking about Abraham tithing to Malchi-tzedek, refusing to accept goods from the King of Sodom, and then God declaring Himself to be Abram's shield (Gen 14-15). Those are all connected, and they're all about what Bronze Age men of substance were doing when they declared fealty to a more powerful king. God's words to Abram were the words a superior king would say to an inferior who's just pledged himself: "I will be your shield." What follows is His explanation of how good a decision Abram had just made -- because this King could provide things that no other King possibly could. And the inferences Jesus draws from this very lesson, which show up in Matthew 6 and Luke 6, are instructive as well, since He recommends that we become, not subjects, but sons, and adopt the very character of the King.
The irony of our condition is that the kingless, democratic style is God's idea, and was modeled after ancient Israel. Only, God's idea was that we retain HIM as king, while not recognizing any human king. In typical, human fashion, we've swung too far, and recognize no king at all, not even the one in heaven.
Christopher - your objections to my personal connection with the word Christ seem to be rather like the outsider who, upon seeing a family bereaved, holding a prayer ceremeony, and burying a little casket underneath a tree mutters "Jesus, it's just a dog!"Christ isn't dismissed with a scholar's sneer and a call to translational accuracy easily replacing devotional, intrinsic connections.
I can't, and feel no real need to, explain the joys and sorrows, apogees and nadirs, and just the various slings and arrows of basic life that Jesus the Christ and I have walked through together. The word Christ is a PART of me, Christopher, and WILL not be replaced by king or any other word that some well-meaning, but arrogant "Bible Correctness" (BC?) advocate tries to thrust upon me.
Christopher - I can't imagine why you'd be interested in my overall religious perspective, but, because it's real simple I'll provide.I question everything and everybody IN the world. All man-made contrivances and utterances are subject to critical scrutiny and my chief arbiter when disputes or contradictions arise is the Holy Bible. As such that must remain the inviolate Truth. So when I read my NKJV Bible, that's fact; when I read your book or any other it's merely commentary, which may be useful or, in most cases, discardable garbage.
Robert, I like that you used the words apogees and nadirs. I admit it, I had to look them up!Some things Robert has said have made me think of an important point, though not sure it is too related to this book (maybe to the application part). Many have noted how Christianity is a missionary religion that has always translated the message (look up Lamin Sanneh, Andrew Walls and Philip Jenkins for three). The translation began with God becoming human; continued with Jesus' words (not spoken in Greek) being recorded in Greek and moved on to translations into Latin and the vernacular. Today we continue to translate. So when we preach that God comes to you in grace, we demonstrate this by not demanding the convert learn a holy language (similar to how Islam holds Arabic) but by bringing the word into their language.
All that to say two things:
On one hand, we must be careful of implying that you can't understand the message of Jesus unless you know Greek. I don't think Chris has done this, though I know a lot of first year seminary students (myself about 10 years ago) who did. The Spirit can overcome bad translations and uses good ones.
On the other hand, we can translate the message by the hard work of people who study language and do the translating. Just as a person bringing the Bible to a language that has never had it has to figure out how best to translate words (how do we translate sheep for people who have never seen a sheep? I heard one translation uses "pig of god" because pig is their most sacred animal, as sheep was in the OT). In the same way, translation into English needs continual sharpening as language changes.
Hope that isn't just rambling.
Well said, David. I still uphold critical scrutiny as a must, overwise one can fall for such wonderful contrivances as German Democratic Republic (GDR) for the old East German police state (admitted exteme example).
David wrote:"...we must be careful of implying that you can't understand the message of Jesus unless you know Greek... The Spirit can overcome bad translations and uses good ones.
Not rambling at all, David, but some good thinking.
The Word became flesh, and lived among us. And in each of us, the Word is still becoming flesh; that is, we are being transformed into the image of the Lord through the Spirit that lives in us.
Since that's really the point of Christianity, it's possible to live comfortably as a Christian with a perfect Holy Spirit and a somewhat-less-than-perfect Holy Scripture.
And because that's true, I have a hard time grasping why it is that Evangelicals in particular, and Protestants in general, are so eager to deify the scriptures, and so easily dismiss the role of the Holy Spirit in anything other than interpreting the scriptures. That seems backwards to me.
Just sayin'.
Well, Phil, it doesn't seem backward to me. Perhaps you actually have a conversation with your Holy Spirit, but mine is notable for his silence. Even when I pray, the answer is often cryptic. On the other hand, the Word of God is right there in black and white and all I have to do is read it and guidance becomes crystal clear.
This discussion is actually chapters 5-7 in my book; the specific point you made gets addressed in chapter 7. But that's a rabbit trail here, and off topic, so we should probably let it lie.
Wow, I leave for a few hours and return to find I almost need to write another book! ;-)Peter I will address #113,114 first since they seem the most clearly focused and directly answered. I have not read Van Voort, but will now look him up. I do deal with the issue of chrestos however on pages 46 and 47. Quite frankly it strikes me as a specious argument designed to support a position that everyone knows is true, but no one knows why. It would not surprise me if casual pagan listeners would have made that connection to Jesus, but I have been able to find NO 1st-3rd century indications that it actually happened with followers of the christos, in this same time frame. It seems a retrospective argument designed to explain an unwarranted hypothesis. Even BDAG, the acknowledged "authority" on Koine Greek offers it only as an unsubstantiated assertion without a single reference.
You also say: "Given this obvious confusion, if the concept of "King" is of prime importance in the translation, should not they have used "basileus?""
Two points need to be made here. First there is no evidence of confusion, either in the N.T. or in the next few centuries. The first translation of scripture that we have any record of, translated every occurrence of christos in the Greek text. (Syriac Pishita ca 300AD) The equally Semitic Coptic translation 100 years later transliterates christos. Prior to 300 there is no evidence of confusion of title and name. Consider the quote at the head of chapter 3 on page 45. Where is the confusion? Christos means king.
The confusion only arises when someone asks how did the title christos become the name Christ. If we admit this transition has no 1st-century justification, those who base their Christianity on the N.T. have to either justify or change their behavior. I choose to change. You must each make your own decision.
Concerning christos vs basilieus, it is dealt with on pages 60-64 sufficiently that unless someone cares to rebut my argument there, I will not repeat it.
As far as the Reference from Vines, I almost included it in an appendix, but opted for the more scholarly and lengthy BDAG instead. The result is the same. In each of the citations, the title king makes as much, and often more sense than a name does. I suspect you may have misread my request. I did not ask for examples of where christos could be a name (see page 65). English Bibles demonstrate that in most cases it could be. The only cases it cannot is where the translaters were compeled by context to include the article (1 John 5:1), or where the context makes no sense otherwise (Rev.11:15). The evidence I seek is an example where christos CANNOT be used as a title. There are about 520 uses of christos in the N.T. it is not an overwhelming data set. In every case it makes perfect sense to translate it in accordance with the explicit Greek rules for the use and non-use of the article. Were I not an unknown Greek neophyte, is there any doubt that the burden of proof would be on the translators to explain why they do not do this?
I have asked a handful of Greek professors, and the only response I get is akin to "Gee I never thought of that, but its what I was taught. If it was important somebody would have brought it up before you."
I do not want to bore you, so I will only deal with the first example from Vines: Matt.1:17. The passage opens in verse one with Matthew giving the record ("book")of the ancestry of Jesus the christos, son of David, son of Abraham. Here again we see the repeated union of christos and son of David--Gee, I wonder why that is? At the conclusion of his "record," Matthew says "...and from the time of the deportation to Babylon to the (article included) christos, fourteen generations."
Given what occurs in the rest of chapter one, two, and the rest of the book does it make any sense to read this as a name? Personally, after having studied all the occurrences of christos, I think I could come up with much better examples of "could be name" usage. I honestly get the impression that the examples here and in BDAG where picked at random. At the very least I see no indication of why these verses were picked over others.
In closing I will only point out that in Matt. 2, when the Maggi come looking for the basilieus, Herod asks the scribes where the christos was to be born. He certainly wasn't using it as a name! His subsequent behavior demonstrates that whatever he thought christos meant, he certainly considered it a challenge to his own position as basilieus!
#115. Phil, welcome and thank you for an excellent post. I particularly like your last paragraph and agree with it wholeheartedly! I Sam. 8 is a key turning-point in the life of Israel, one which I see the church being far to rapid to emulate. I suspect many are already experiencing verse 18, and many more are soon to.
#120,121. Phil, I agree absolutely with your quote of David: "...we must be careful of implying that you can't understand the message of Jesus unless you know Greek... The Spirit can overcome bad translations and uses good ones."Interestingly I also agree completely with your response Robert.
For what it is worth I see the debate over Spirit vs Word authority to be exactly analogous to the brain mind debate going on in other circles. Mind is more than just an epiphenomenon but only evidences itself with a functioning brain as substrate.
Please excuse the interruption... we now return you to your regularly scheduled argument.
David, I just saw your review of the book--Thank you, it was wonderful. Would you consider posting it to Amazon as well? Pretty please? ;-)That said, still do not understand you objection to the synonomous nature of christos and basilieu. I offer four lines of argument that I have not heard you address.
1. As noted above in Matt.2 the magi come seeking a basilieu and Herod asks his council where the christos is to be born. In addition, he is called basilieu but his actions demonstrate that a christos threatens his position.
2. In Acts 17:1-7 Paul preaches that Jesus is the christos, he is accused of declaring a new king.
3. Most definitively: In Mark 15:-31,32, christos and basilieu are placed in a Greek gramatical construction called the "genitive of apposition." This ALWAYS indicates equivalence, and 2nd year Greek students are taught to render this as "which is to say" or "that is." I deal with this on pages 56-60.
4. Finally there is the quote from around 225 AD at the head of chapter three, p.45. "... so among the Jews a "basieu" is called christos."
On what grounds do you reject this evidence?
I can appreciate Robert's holding on to "Christ" because of the warm fuzzies he gets doing so. He is right; I can't argue against that. I suspect there is more to your objection. Can you put it into words?
You're damn right you can't argue with closely held faith, Christopher, and the sooner you get that through your airhead the better off you'll be.
For one who won't change his mind, 100 may. I was very enlightened by the discussion going here. It's as tough I have read the book myself; probably would have taken the same time as reading all these posts. :)I had been wondering a long time ago about where Jesus (almost slipped a "Christ" in there; the quotes included to make Chris glee) is in my life - and many times I've found Him under lots of junk. I thought, why is it? Because Lord itself is only a societal position - some gentleman who made it in front of all. That was helped by the British title of lord, and the way the equivalent "Domn" in Romanian (closer to sir than to lord, really) have sounded every day I used them in Christian speech. Then I mentally began attributing the meaning Master to Lord and things improved. Jesus was more authoritative. Now King is accomplishing a similar work.
Just an anecdote. I have no Greek punches to blow.
Chris - I will post to Amazon eventually.Let me try to be clear - I am not rejecting that they are synonyms. But a synonym does not just mean the two words have the same meaning, it can also mean they have a similar meaning. Beautiful and pretty are synonyms, so are intelligent and bright. They mean the same, but if we look closely I think such words carry different emphases.
So I don't "reject" the evidence that both words mean king. I just don't take that evidence to mean the words are exactly the same; and in something as fishy as translation I am not sold that two different words in one language ought to be rendered one word in another, end of story.
Let me try to explain further:
*I took Greek in seminary over a decade ago and have forgotten most of it. I remember enough to use a few Greek tools in sermon prep.
*I am a bit skeptical of everything I read. I try not to read one book or article and assume the person is 100% accurate and I ought to believe everything, no questions ask (I see enough articles like this on Facebook in regards to parenting...I don't claim to know more then my doctor because I read an article on the evils of vaccines).
*For everything I read, I assume there are good arguments for the other side. Some things I have read enough to have an informed opinion; but if I have only read a little I tend to stay humble.
*So if I saw two words in any language and was told they mean the exact same in English, I'd be skeptical.
*All that to say, there is really nothing you can say to convince me two Greek words mean the exact same. If I wanted to, I would do my own study and consult my friends who know more Greek then I. In this I would make my own opinion. Honestly, I probably won't do that for this - I am content agreeing that Christ means king and ought to be translated king; I just am not convinced two Greek words mean the exact same with no difference.
So really, my objection is simply a reluctance to believe the word of one person on an issue I know little about combined with the little I do know (two words tend to be similar but not exactly the same) says there are probably slight nuances.
Pavlo, Your comment means much to me, thank you. If you do not have a copy of the book I can send you the PDF if you email me.Am I correct in thinking your native tongue is Romanian? If so, would you feel competent to translate TPWC into that language, or know someone who might? You will note I have released it under a Creative Commons 3.0 license. That means you would be free to translate and distribute the book so long as you cite me as the source. Contrary to what some have implied, my object is not money, but to spread this message as far as possible.
I am blessed knowing it blessed you.
I didn't request a PDF just yet. I am finding it hard to finish the 7 or so books I have been trying to finish for the past six months. I find I don't have much time. I would translate the book, at least in a rough draft, but I can't publish and distribute it because I live in America. The distance makes it tough if not impossible.
I am going to email you for a PDF of the book, but I won't commit to reading it just yet. I am excited to read now, even if not the excitement is too realizable.
As a general comment that applies as much to me as the next guy, it is exceedingly admirable to work on the breadth of our theology, but we shouldn't forget about the depth of our faith, either. God won't vouchsafe much to the individual who's 8 miles wide but a half inch deep.
#129 David, I agree completely and see your point thank you for taking the time to help me understand. I certainly agree and think you should be skeptical. I realize that I am making a somewhat grandiose claim.No; christos and basilieu are not identical words and I will be so bold as to suggest the primary if not complete distinction. Christos carries distinct overtones of legitimacy and divinity in the "divine right of kings" sense, and seems tied to a sense of justice and moral authority. Basilieu centers on absolute authority and power of the position without regard to how it was obtained or executed. Think Arthur vs Napoleon.
To my knowledge English has no appropriate word for these two alternatives and king must be broadened with biblical teaching concerning the nature of ours. I still contend that a Venn diagram of the logical domains would have well over a 90% overlap. The name Christ would have 0%.
I need to take back some of what I just said as I remember some of the O.T christoi (plural of christos) were quite immoral and unjust scoundrels. Their legitimacy however was unquestioned.
#132 Robert I hope you will agree that it is not the breadth of our theology nor the depth of our faith that earns God's respect. We are at His mercy. Without faith it is impossible to please Him, and His people perish for lack of knowledge. These are twin dooms that await us all without His grace. Both true faith and true knowledge are gifts that are His alone to give.
Christopher - couldn't disagree much more. His Grace is actually very easy to attain. Once attained, He provides an awareness of spiritual gifts that can be used to glorify the Kingdom. By the judicious use of those spiritual gifts the ensuing acts provide signposts for the seeker of God's truth to follow. You act as if you have no individual responsibility - just show up, read the right books and say the right things and presto, true knowledge and true faith are yours. God's truths are VERY difficult to unearth and surely won't be by desecrating His Bible.
Robert, sigh... again... I never said his grace was not easy to obtain (attain implies achieve, so I assume you meant obtain or receive). Favor that is earned is not favor. (If you disagree let it go, please forgive my seemingly perpetual inability to find common ground with you whom I deem my brother.) Our responsibility (IMHO) begins once He bestows His grace/favor on us. But now we are treading perilously close to Calvin and Arminius, and that is a different thread.
OK, Christopher, I'll offer up an olive branch. To me, your intention to replace Christ with king in my Bible is a nonstarter. You contend your research indicates the meaning king is definitive and Christ is an undefined term. Fine, I won't even dispute your findings, but surely you must realize Christ has gained ethereal meaning for countless Christians. You, in your mind, have ample ammunition for causus belli, but sometimes, my dear friend, it is best not to pursue war. All I am asking at this juncture is that you will indicate a willingness to reconsider the wisdom of an assault on the Bible. That will suffice to quiet this critic, but if you continue to ramp up for battle, believe me, you'll find at least one able participant.
Robert, I have no intrinsic problem with waging battle with you on this front. My chagrin is at your seeming to take even complements as personal attacks. Based on other things I have seen on this site, I think my view of scripture may be more aligned with yours than with David or Lee's (sorry guys;-) but your attitude makes me ashamed to admit it. Jesus said "By this all men will know that you are My disciples, if you have love for one another." He did not say "if you agree on all your theology."Yes, there are certain minimum requirements to be considered a disciple/student of Jesus, and no, using king or Christ are not among them. I do think that total submission is required. I do not think the words or language that it is expressed in is relevant.
I do not want to pursue war with you, but I do want to pursue truth with you. If you perceive it as war, know that the wounds of a friend are better than deceitful kisses. As iron sharpens iron, so one man sharpens another. Upward and inward my friend, let the sparks fly as we each seek to be conformed to His express image.
Thank you Robert and Peter. Good stuff!~Big difference between being a Messiah/savior - and just a King. The Bible lets us know Jesus is everything he was promised to be.
Robert, I thought we had similar views on inerrancy but maybe I was mistaken; in the interest of still trying to understand your view of inerrancy, here is a link to 20 parallel English translations of Colossians 2:18.http://biblehub.com/colossians/2-18.htm
Which are inerrant and how do you decide?
The reason I ask is that it was reading this verse in a parallel English/Spanish Bible that prompted me to start studying Greek. To my chagrin, learning Greek could not solve the problem I saw.
Thanks for poping in Rod! Amen--Jesus is more than just a king, and He is everything He was promised to be in the Bible... Now unto the King eternal, immortal, invisible, the only wise God, be honor and glory forever and ever. Amen. I Tim. 1:17 NKJV
Christopher - I'm not really familiar with some of the Bibles on the list. Of the ones I know, all are inerrant. I can read the verse tonight and get one meaning, tomorrow another, next week a third, etc., but that's actually beside the point. I read quite a chunk at a time and have Faith that God will allow me to ascertain precisely what His will for me is from the OVERALL impression of the many verses read. If you want to cherry pick be my guest.
Christopher quote:"Robert, I thought we had similar views on inerrancy but maybe I was mistaken..."
Does the translation really create perfect doctrine and theology? I doubt it - what counts is reading the Word with the help of the Holy Spirit. That should occasionally cause us to doubt the translations of men and keep digging and comparing.
God likes to allow some people to flounder. :D
Christopher wrote: "Robert, I thought we had similar views on inerrancy but maybe I was mistaken; in the interest of still trying to understand your view of inerrancy, here is a link to 20 parallel English translation..."The New American Standard is inerrant. That's why Apollos and Paul both used it.
The rest mean well and come close.
Aren't these flowers lovely? and the lollypop trees...
OK, thanks. Actually this is probably going to open a can of worms that should merit its own thread. Hey David, can I do that, or do you need to?
I should probably say straight up that my favorite English translation is the NASB. (I should add that my primary problem with it and most modern translations are the (IMHO) onerous copyright restrictions. I am a strong advocate of the CC.) The Lockman foundation also has a Spanish translation called Biblia de las Americas, that they bill as holding to the same principles.
While reading in My dual translation Bible, I was shocked to find that the two columns said opposite things in Col. 2:18! This prompted the question--Gee I wonder what Paul really said. That began a quest to learn Greek, so I could think in it.
I had already learned from my experience with Spanish, that it did no good to understand the vocabulary and grammar of a language if you could not think in it. The process of decoding rules and vocabulary was simply too slow to allow thought--though it did allow for retrospective analysis.
There was a magical point in learning Spanish when the speech centers in the brain turned on, and the analytical centers were left in the dust. The entire thinking process is transformed in ways that can only be described by analogies comparing looking at sheet music and listening to symphonies.
I decided to learn Greek from a Spanish textbook without passing through English. I think that experience is part of what allowed me to see what I do now. It also revealed something that I have seen repeatedly since--Biblical Greek scholars are taught to decode the N.T. with no attempt being made to git it into the speech centers of the brain.
To show the impact of this consider that several years ago there was a major confrence of international Greek Bible scholars held in Crete. Most of the lectures were given in German, and all the attendees were required to provide their own translators for each of the sessions. None of the world greatest Koine experts were able to communicate in Koine!
Back to Col. 2:18. After a number of years of developing my own methodology (not at all complicated) I am starting to see the tell-tale signs of the speech centers flickering to life. But it will not help me understand what Paul REALLY said.
This will not bother Lee, who doesn't believe Paul wrote it anyway, and may not bother David. It may not bother your Robert, but it bothered me (past tense). You see if you look at those 20 translations in the link, nine say one thing, nine say the opposite, and two seem to hedge their bets.
I agree with you "that God will allow me to ascertain precisely what His will for me is..." I would like to think that David and Lee would concur. I think they would also both be quick to point out that ones beliefs concerning inerrancy are irrelevant to that point.
You seem to link that statement to your ability to determine what is inerrant. Am I misunderstanding? Is there a teachable methodology for determining what God really intended for us to understand in His word, or is it simply a non-cognative work of His Spirit?
Earlier you said: "God's truths are VERY difficult to unearth and surely won't be by desecrating His Bible." I agree with that, but I always thought "His Bible" referred to the Greek autographs. You SEEM (am I wrong?) to think that it is the English translations? If so, when it comes to Col.2:18 which will you accept, and which will you desecrate?
More to the point, How do you decide; what is the hard work that needs to be done to unearth God's truth here?
Thank you Phil and Rod, you both seem to see my point.And yes Rod, our Lord seems to like to see me flounder a lot!
Christopher wrote: "How do you decide; what is the hard work that needs to be done to unearth God's truth here?"Do you not value the journey more than the revelation? Thank God for "floundering;" our Bible would be dead if it left us with nothing to argue about.
Lee wrote: "Do you not value the journey more than the revelation? Thank God for "floundering..."If by "revelation" you mean the scriptures, then yes. If by "revelation" you mean the truths that God writes on our hearts, then the revelation is the point of the journey. We're here to learn to love God, and to know better who He is.
I am a writer, and I was once an IT consultant and wrote my share of proposals and technical instructions. From a professional's point of view, if the Bible is God's instruction manual for life, God needs a ghost writer to rewrite His manual. It's not written like a manual, and discerning rules from it is unnatural and inexact. Moreover, a great deal of what is written explains that the object is not a set of rules.
So anybody who uses the scripture as though it were intended to be the infallible, written guide for all matters Christian, cannot possibly be doing things the way God intended. Christianity is not 1st century Judaism.
But that is not to say that the Bible is not God's Word. The more I grasp of what Jesus, the apostles, and the prophets said, the more impressed I am at their divine brilliance. It's not a book of rules; but understood properly in the light of God's character, it's life, and astonishing wisdom. I go into it looking for answers, and I meet the Lord there.
Perhaps something I wrote several years ago says best what I'm getting at. I was reviewing my notes from when I taught about Jewish apocalyptic literature, and I read this:
Jewish readers would have no concept of God speaking merely to inform, but instead would think of God's word as formative. "He spoke, and it came to pass." Psalm 33:9 Thus, the revelation was not merely to reveal, but to call God's servants to cooperate with God's formative work.
We look at the scripture as though it were information; but in the hands of the Holy Spirit, the Word of God is sent to create in us the image of the Christ.
Lee, I both value and enjoy both the journey and the floundering as a part of it. But I am on it for the goal--"I press on toward the goal for the prize of the upward call of God in King Jesus." Phil.3:14.I also agree with Paul when he said "... if the king has not been raised, your faith is worthless;... If we have hoped in the king in this life only, we are of all men most to be pitied."
Or as our king Himself said "Do not work for the food which perishes, but for the food which endures to eternal life, which the Son of Man will give to you, for on Him the Father, God, has set His seal."
So while the journey IS important, its ultimate purpose is to get some where. :-)
Your thought-provoking posts have prompted me to look at the translation notes for the ESV and they speak specifically about their policy on Christos.
Second, in the New Testament, the Greek word Christos has been translated consistently as "Christ." Although the term originally meant "anointed" among the Jews in New Testament times the term came to designate the Messiah, the great Savior that God had promised to raise up. In other New Testament contexts, however, especially among Gentiles, Christos ("Christ") was on its way to becoming a proper name. It is important, therefore to keep the context in mind in understanding the various ways ("Christ") is used in the New Testament. At the same time, in accord with its "essentially literal" translation philosophy, the ESV has retained consistency and concordance in the translation of Christos ("Christ") throughout the New Testament.
For me the multiple uses of Christos is the key point of this explanation. The translators thought that one of those uses was a proper name and so the correct translation is the transliteration. It also came to mind that Caesar went from being a proper name to also being a title. Perhaps Christos was undergoing the same process in reverse (title to proper name).
I still think preserving "Christ," coupled with a reading of your excellent book, captures all of the nuances inherent in that word.