Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

Re: [John_Lit] A Grammatico-theological Question

Expand Messages
  • Frank Glenn
    ... Boy, do I agree with this. ... Boy, do I _dis_agree with this. I would like to believe it with all my heart, but, unless we hire little green folks from
    Message 1 of 76 , Sep 11, 2000
      At 11:16 PM 9/10/00 -0500, Paul wrote:
      >----- Original Message -----
      >From: <Maluflen@...>
      >[snip]
      >>
      >> I think the principal reason for the first translation, as opposed
      >to the
      >> second translation is not a grammatical one, but a (legitimate)
      >theological
      >> one.
      >
      >Frankly, I don't think there can ever be a "legitimate" theological
      >reason for translating, although I commend you for being willing to
      >admit this in an open forum.

      Boy, do I agree with this.

      >Translations should stand on their own, without the need to be propped
      >up by a theological line of reasoning. Otherwise, we are telling the
      >text what it ought to say, rather than allowing it to speak for
      >itself.

      Boy, do I _dis_agree with this. I would like to believe it with all my
      heart, but, unless we hire "little green folks from Mars", either
      consciously or unconsciously, we always "tell the text what it ought to say"
      (and even these "little green folks" may have an unconscious theological
      skew in there translation.)


      (snip)

      >I would argue (and the historical record supports the view) that the
      >Nicean doctrine was the compromise result of a rancorous and bitter
      >debate among theologians who held Platonic views of Jesus' nature and
      >those who believed he was what he said he was, the *son* of God, and
      >the Platonists won because they had the support of Constantine.

      I am back to humble and total agreement.

      Frank
    • Maluflen@aol.com
      In a message dated 9/18/2000 5:39:26 PM Eastern Daylight Time, antonio.jerez@privat.utfors.se writes: [Responding to Leonard, who wrote:] Antonio, no
      Message 76 of 76 , Sep 18, 2000
        In a message dated 9/18/2000 5:39:26 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
        antonio.jerez@... writes:

        [Responding to Leonard, who wrote:]
        << > Antonio, no matter how highly elevated a creature is, no matter how
        "close"
        > to God a creature comes, he is still infinitely -- yes, infinitely
        inferior
        > to God. If this were the case for Jesus it would have been incumbent on
        the
        > NT authors to make this point perfectly clear. Now there are texts in
        which
        > they do not do so, and in fact many of them confound Jesus quite
        deliberately
        > and quite thoroughly with God. If it is true that Jesus is not God, either
        > these writers were terribly misled, or they are terribly misleading.

        The only problem is that Luke and the other synoptic writers did not
        have to contend with a 20th century highly orthodox chap from America
        who is so infatuated with trinitarianism that he has to force it on the texts
        at all price. Leonard, why don't you take a close look at Peter's speech
        in Acts 2:22-36 again and see if you find any support at all for your
        position.
        This is as close to Luke's and the early Jerusalem church's Christology as
        we will ever get, and Jesus is never called or likened to God. He is a MAN
        (v.22) SENT by God (v.22) to fullfill God's plan for humanity (v.23). God
        resurrected him (v24) and MADE him into LORD and MESSIAH (v. 36).

        How do you explain that somebody who is God (as you claim Jesus is) has
        to be made Lord and Messiah by God? >>

        Antonio, it seems you didn't read my post carefully enough (which makes me
        wonder how carefully you read the biblical texts that challenge your
        understanding). What I said was that "there are texts" in the NT in which
        Jesus is thoroughly confounded with God. This is quite compatible, logically,
        with the existence of other texts in which he is not (and was carefully
        formulated precisely so as to accommodate these). The Acts text you cite is
        clearly one such, and, in Chalcedonian terms, it could be said that it is
        simply talking about Jesus as man, under which formality he is of course
        thoroughly subordinated to, distinct from and inferior to God. My only point
        is that there are other texts in which the NT authors, or most of them,
        express a kind of fuzzy identity between Jesus and God. So the God-Man
        construct of the later patristic writers and church councils seems to me to
        do justice the whole of the biblical evidence about Jesus while you seem able
        to handle only one side of the paradox. Keep trying though! It is wonderful
        that you invest so much mental effort in the search.

        Leonard Maluf
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.