temporal1 wrote: ↑Sun Jul 25, 2021 10:08 pm
Life on earth did not begin with Jesus Christ.
1) Yes it did!
For in him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things have been created through him and for him. 2 Cor. 2:16
2) However, I think I know what you meant. He came into a fallen world and would affect people of different cultures, right?
Jesus came to offer salvation to the fallen world.
He did not come to “nothingness” on earth. The world He met, full of human reasoning and human law, was too much like today’s world. Shouldn’t we be doing better with what He gave us?
3) Yes, but are you trying to make a point about "aletheia" here?
3) Thanks, I'll try to take a look at them later. Harvard and Yale, wow! Must be heady stuff! (and my brain is already tired tonight.)
1) Yes.
2) A very fallen world.
3) Not about alethia, i’m just reading+learning from you+Franklin. i enjoy Franklin’s pov, it’s different for me.
4) i mostly added these just to further think about part of the general world history Jesus met.
i’m thinking of beginning the Yale lectures again, i might be able to figure out where i left off. i was going through them slowly, as i tend to, kind of savoring as i went. i have not begun the Harvard series. i think i found the Yale series more approachable, less formal, than Harvard’s, for a layperson like me. my memory is not what it used to be. (that’s not all bad, some things are better forgotten.)
mostly, i didn’t want to disturb your thread. believe it or not.
Neto wrote: ↑Sun Jul 25, 2021 6:28 pm
The other question or disagreement deals with the Why question - Why did they stop using God's Name, when He clearly says repeatedly that "This is my name, and by this name the ethnic peoples of the earth will know me." I personally suspect that their reason was not so holy as that "The Name is so holy, that we dare not speak it". I think that it is more likely that just as they would swear by the temple, but forbid to swear by the gold of the temple, it was a way to (in their minds) avoid using the Name in vain, while still doing the same swearing.
Sorry I haven't been able to add anything to this. You might just be right here regarding the why question.
As for the name, I think it was directly addressed to the Israelites (Exodus 3:15) not necessarily to the "ethnic peoples," or am I wrong about that?
Neto wrote: ↑Sun Jul 25, 2021 6:28 pm
The other question or disagreement deals with the Why question - Why did they stop using God's Name, when He clearly says repeatedly that "This is my name, and by this name the ethnic peoples of the earth will know me." I personally suspect that their reason was not so holy as that "The Name is so holy, that we dare not speak it". I think that it is more likely that just as they would swear by the temple, but forbid to swear by the gold of the temple, it was a way to (in their minds) avoid using the Name in vain, while still doing the same swearing.
Sorry I haven't been able to add anything to this. You might just be right here regarding the why question.
As for the name, I think it was directly addressed to the Israelites (Exodus 3:15) not necessarily to the "ethnic peoples," or am I wrong about that?
My understanding is that God first revealed his name to Moses, at the "burning bush" event. (Moses then used it freely in earlier historical accounts, which gives the impression that it was already known to, say Abraham, etc.) But that is (as far as I can recall w/o going back & re-reading it all) not in conversations, such as we have in Moses' confrontations with the Pharaoh of Egypt. That's one thing that really sounds weird, the way Pharaoh asks "Why should I fear the LORD?" I remember being really confused about that (having read it often in the KJV). It makes a lot more sense when one realizes that Moses told him that Yahweh said so-and-so, and so he comes back with this sarcastic rhetorical question, meaning "I have no reason to fear your god, this one you call 'Yahweh'. He is nothing to me." But He DOES say later that this is the Name by which He will be known to the peoples. (I can't pull up a reference - I'm bad with remembering the 'addresses'.)
Today's scientistic skeptics insist that knowledge can only be gained by experimental methods. If an experiment is testable and repeatable, and the results are always similar, we can say we have gained some knowledge.
I just realized that one of the conditions of knowledge is that it be "verifiable" too. Spiritual truth is considered nothing more than "opinions" by modern scientistic ideologues because they say it is not "verifiable." This is not entirely true. God's truth can be "tested" and verified by experience to those willing to put their faith in God's promises. Those who do and have discovered the truth can speak to one another confidently about those truths in peaceful dialogue. Of course, to a person who is unable, or pretends to be unable, to have faith, or to be open to the experience, what can science say? This science (in the classical Christian tradition) can only speak to those who do have faith, or who are at least willing to try.
Addendum II
Just to confuse matters even more I looked up the etymology of "truth." Guess what it means?
"faith, faithfulness, fidelity, loyalty; veracity, quality of being true; pledge, covenant"
Falco Underhill wrote: ↑Sun Jul 25, 2021 6:01 pm
Franklin, thanks for the comments. Very interesting observations. However, I'm not expert enough to know whether or to what extent Jesus agreed or whether and to what extent Paul misunderstood it, but it's interesting to me that the parent verb means to direct or teach.
Thanks for your comments. Of course I am not Christian so please keep that in mind. I am giving my understanding of the Old Testament.
However, I will say that praying (especially the Psalms) is often portrayed as going to court before a Judge, even by Jesus, in parables. I do believe we can pray for justice, in accordance with God's Law. However, the New Testament shows us we are sinners, too, and so have to keep in mind the good of the person sinning against us, which God desires, too. We have to pray for justice, while praying for the trespasser, leaving it in God's hands, knowing that His justice is always tempered with perfect love. (And keeping in mind our opponent may have a good point, too!)
I mostly agree. Of course if the trespasser harms other, for example by stealing, then we need laws and punishments to deal with this.
No matter how tempting, we cannot lash out in anger because "the wrath of man worketh not the righteousness of God."
I am not sure. I know that this is the Christian position but the Old Testament seems ambiguous here. For example in Numbers 25:7 Phinehas seems to lash out in anger and God approves.
We have to follow the rules.
I eat shellfish in spite of a rule against this. I follow the principle behind the rule rather than the rule itself. I think the principle is avoid foods that are likely to become rotten.
Nonetheless all this is often portrayed as going to court in the Bible, with God being the only lawgiver and judge, especially in the New Testament.
God is the only judge that counts in the end. As for laws, the Torah provides an example of laws that worked for that time and place, but we must apply the same principles to our circumstances and make our own laws. Mennonites effectively do this by making rules for their churches.
Truth (emet): The Western concept of truth comes from Plato. There is no such concept in the Old Testament, no concept of absolute truth. This word would be better translated as "trustworthiness". Philosophically this is related to "dabar" and is a total rejection of western philosophy.
This is something I've never looked at closely. The word truth used by Jesus in the New Testament was "aletheia" which etymologically means "not concealing" and therefore "disclosure."
Now I've got to do some looking up on this word to see how it developed philosophically. It would also be interesting to see how it was understood by middle age philosophers like Augustine, Aquinas, etc.
Whether or not the idea of "absolute truth" can be traced to Plato is doubtful to me. He used the word truth (aletheia) in its meaning as "disclosure" but to the best of my knowledge, "absolute truth" meaning something like an "undeniable fact" is something attributed to Plato by interpreters. That interpretation became widespread and accepted but it's an erroneous interpretation, imo. The phrase "absolute truth" never occurs anywhere in Plato's works, AFAIK. Now I'm wondering where it first occurred. I never looked it up.
I don't know anything about Greek. I have read Plato and his concept of ideal forms seems to constitute an absolute truth. I interpret the gospel of John as integrating the Hebrew and Greek perspectives. So I think Christians should accept the idea of truth even if it isn't in the Old Testament. If you want to understand all this you can read The Philosophy of Hebrew Scripture.
There was a reason Biblical interpreters used the word "Lord" instead of the name YHWH though I can't recall it at the moment. Maybe I can find this later and get back on it.
The real reason is come [some?] complicated Jewish history. And in fact this directly violates Exodus 3:15.
0 x
i’m perfectly comfortable with an older, wiser, more docile Trump.
”Try hard not to offend. Try harder not to be offended.” Robert Martz
