What Is The New Testament Definition Of "Christian"

[Rob Bowman]

Vance,

You wrote:

So, you are going to choose nincompoopery then.

You are projecting.

You wrote:

Your problem is that it doesn't really matter what word Jesus actually used, (not likely Greek), THE POINT, which you want to avoid is, whatever word Jesus actually used, it wasn't heaven, or ANYTHING that could be construed as heaven. The NT clearly shows, the Thief did NOT go to heaven.

I'm not avoiding that point. I'm simply making a preliminary point, at least for now, concerning what the text says. Your statement flatly contradicts Joseph Smith on that point.

Also, the issue is what word is in the Greek text of Luke 23:43. Remember, according to Joseph Smith, "There is nothing in the original word in Greek from which this was taken that signifies paradise." This is false, since the Greek word is in fact PARADEISOS. Anyone who can decipher the Greek letters can see that Joseph Smith was wrong.

Your claim that "paradise" cannot be construed as heaven is also false, and we might eventually get to that issue. But first, there is no point in discussing what Luke 23:43 means if you cannot even take a clear stand regarding whether you will side with the text of Luke 23:43, which says paradise, or Joseph Smith, who says not paradise. If you want to go with Joseph Smith, you will have to retract your earlier claim that the thief went to paradise, in which case it doesn't matter whether or not paradise is heaven. If you want to go with the text of Luke 23:43, you will have to disavow Joseph Smith's claim that there is nothing in the text that signifies "paradise." But there's no moving forward on the meaning of the text if we don't have clarity as to the wording of the text.

[CV75]

Remember, according to Joseph Smith, "There is nothing in the original word in Greek from which this was taken that signifies paradise." This is false, since the Greek word is in fact PARADEISOS.

I’m almost sorry I poked my head in!

"There is nothing in the original word in Greek from which this was taken that signifies paradise."

Any New Yorker would know this is what Joseph meant: "There is nothing in the original word [whatever that was, and subsequently rendered "paradeisos"] in Greek from which this [the word paradeisos / paradise] was taken that signifies [“paradise”]."

[Bill Hamblin]

Vance,

You wrote:

You are projecting.

You wrote:

I'm not avoiding that point. I'm simply making a preliminary point, at least for now, concerning what the text says. Your statement flatly contradicts Joseph Smith on that point.

Also, the issue is what word is in the Greek text of Luke 23:43. Remember, according to Joseph Smith, "There is nothing in the original word in Greek from which this was taken that signifies paradise." This is false, since the Greek word is in fact PARADEISOS. Anyone who can decipher the Greek letters can see that Joseph Smith was wrong.

Your claim that "paradise" cannot be construed as heaven is also false, and we might eventually get to that issue. But first, there is no point in discussing what Luke 23:43 means if you cannot even take a clear stand regarding whether you will side with the text of Luke 23:43, which says paradise, or Joseph Smith, who says not paradise. If you want to go with Joseph Smith, you will have to retract your earlier claim that the thief went to paradise, in which case it doesn't matter whether or not paradise is heaven. If you want to go with the text of Luke 23:43, you will have to disavow Joseph Smith's claim that there is nothing in the text that signifies "paradise." But there's no moving forward on the meaning of the text if we don't have clarity as to the wording of the text.

I think the point is that what most modern Christians conceive of as Paradise is not how paradise was understood by Jews of the first century. Hence, though the word is the same, the meaning has changed, and hence it is mistranslated.

[Rob Bowman]

Bill,

Hello. I'm glad to hear from you.

You wrote:

I think the point is that what most modern Christians conceive of as Paradise is not how paradise was understood by Jews of the first century. Hence, though the word is the same, the meaning has changed, and hence it is mistranslated.

Although that is a reasonably presented claim, with all due respect it doesn't work as a plausible explanation of what Joseph said. I will quote it again (emphasis mine):

"There has been much said by modern divines about the words of Jesus (when on the cross) to the thief, saying, This day shalt thou be with me in paradise. King James translators make it out to say paradise. But what is paradise? It is a modern word: it does not answer at all to the original word that Jesus made use of. Find the original of the word paradise. You may as easily find a needle in a haymow. Here is a chance for battle, ye learned men. There is nothing in the original word in Greek from which this was taken that signifies paradise; but it was This day thou shalt be with me in the world of spirits: then I will teach you all about it and answer your inquiries" (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, 310; History of the Church 5:424-25).

Here Joseph claims, not that the meaning of the word paradise has changed, but that it is a modern word. He claims not that another word should be used in place of paradise but that there is nothing in the Greek text that signifies paradise. Joseph even challenged the learned men of his day to search the Greek text to try to find the word paradise in it, claiming they would not be able to do so.

Here's a chance for Mormons who are constantly asserting that they don't claim inerrancy for their prophets to acknowledge a clear instance of errancy on the part of Joseph Smith. It really is an open and shut case. If you can't admit it here, I don't know what sort of example would suffice.

[Rob Bowman]

CV75,

Hi there. You wrote:

"There is nothing in the original word in Greek from which this was taken that signifies paradise."

Any New Yorker would know this is what Joseph meant: "There is nothing in the original word [whatever that was, and subsequently rendered "paradeisos"] in Greek from which this [the word paradeisos / paradise] was taken that signifies [“paradise”]."

Sorry, but as I just pointed out to Bill, Joseph challenged the learned men to examine the Greek text for themselves to see if they could find the word paradise in it. That challenge presupposes that the Greek text of Luke 23:43 as it has come down to us has something other than paradeisos.

Notice that you and Bill simultaneously gave different, conflicting explanations of Joseph's statement. According to Bill the original Greek text did, and does, have the word paradise, but the meaning of the word changed, necessitating a new translation. According to you the original Greek text did not have paradise but instead had something else and paradise was used later in place of whatever the original word was. As best I can see, neither of these explanations is a plausible defense of what Joseph Smith said.

[CV75]

According to you the original Greek text did not have paradise but instead had something else and paradise was used later in place of whatever the original word was. As best I can see, neither of these explanations is a plausible defense of what Joseph Smith said.

Yes—in my haste in checking in on the thread at the top of the list I misspoke. I meant to convey that the original Greek text did have a word that was translated into English as paradise, but that something else was originally spoken that was later translated into the Greek and then into English as “paradise.” The original uttered word was not "paradeisos."

"There is nothing in the original [spoken] word [whatever that was, and subsequently rendered "paradeisos"] in Greek from which this [the English word "paradise"] was taken that signifies [what we call a “paradise”]." In short, "There is nothing in the original [spoken] word ...that signifies [a heavenly or earthly park or garden]."

At any rate, I do not profess to be a scholar, but since scholars also give conflicting explantaions, "big deal."

Edited August 17, 2012 by CV75

[Bill Hamblin]

Bill,

Hello. I'm glad to hear from you.

You wrote:

Although that is a reasonably presented claim, with all due respect it doesn't work as a plausible explanation of what Joseph said. I will quote it again (emphasis mine):

"There has been much said by modern divines about the words of Jesus (when on the cross) to the thief, saying, This day shalt thou be with me in paradise. King James translators make it out to say paradise. But what is paradise? It is a modern word: it does not answer at all to the original word that Jesus made use of. Find the original of the word paradise. You may as easily find a needle in a haymow. Here is a chance for battle, ye learned men. There is nothing in the original word in Greek from which this was taken that signifies paradise; but it was This day thou shalt be with me in the world of spirits: then I will teach you all about it and answer your inquiries" (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, 310; History of the Church 5:424-25).

Here Joseph claims, not that the meaning of the word paradise has changed, but that it is a modern word. He claims not that another word should be used in place of paradise but that there is nothing in the Greek text that signifies paradise. Joseph even challenged the learned men of his day to search the Greek text to try to find the word paradise in it, claiming they would not be able to do so.

Here's a chance for Mormons who are constantly asserting that they don't claim inerrancy for their prophets to acknowledge a clear instance of errancy on the part of Joseph Smith. It really is an open and shut case. If you can't admit it here, I don't know what sort of example would suffice.

I think you know that paradiseos in biblical Greek means garden, including the Garden of Eden in the Septuagint. (From Hebrew pardeṣ, and ultimately Old Persian pairidaêza.) Although it is homophonous with the English "paradise," English paradise does not mean the same thing as biblical paradiseos. You're confusing etymology with meaning.

[Rob Bowman]

CV75,

If I understand you correctly, your point is that Jesus didn't use the word "paradise" but used a different word, presumably an Aramaic word, that was then translated in the Greek Gospel of Luke as PARADEISOS. Assuming Jesus was not speaking to the thief in Greek -- a reasonable assumption -- I would agree that Jesus is not likely to have used the Greek word PARADEISOS. By the way, notice that English versions are not "translating" the Greek word but only transliterating it, since paradise is simply an Anglicized spelling of PARADEISOS.

In any case, your redaction of Joseph's statement with all of those bracketed words is more creative than informative as to what Joseph meant. Again, Joseph challenged the learned men of his day to search the Greek text of Luke to see if they could find anything corresponding to "paradise." That challenge proves that Joseph was denying that the Greek text of Luke said "paradise."

Scholars give conflicting explanations for many things, but the facts in this particular case are about as straightforward, cut and dried, and simple to follow as one could ask. Joseph made a mistake.

[Bill Hamblin]

CV75,

If I understand you correctly, your point is that Jesus didn't use the word "paradise" but used a different word, presumably an Aramaic word, that was then translated in the Greek Gospel of Luke as PARADEISOS. Assuming Jesus was not speaking to the thief in Greek -- a reasonable assumption -- I would agree that Jesus is not likely to have used the Greek word PARADEISOS. By the way, notice that English versions are not "translating" the Greek word but only transliterating it, since paradise is simply an Anglicized spelling of PARADEISOS.

In any case, your redaction of Joseph's statement with all of those bracketed words is more creative than informative as to what Joseph meant. Again, Joseph challenged the learned men of his day to search the Greek text of Luke to see if they could find anything corresponding to "paradise." That challenge proves that Joseph was denying that the Greek text of Luke said "paradise."

Scholars give conflicting explanations for many things, but the facts in this particular case are about as straightforward, cut and dried, and simple to follow as one could ask. Joseph made a mistake.

I think Joseph was talking about meaning not etymology. But if your point is that Joseph made a mistake about a Greek word, that's fine with me. Maybe he did. But that change the fact that the essence of his argument was accurate. English "paradise" as understood by Christians of the early 19th century does not mean the same thing as the Greek paradiseos as understood by first century Jews. I think you've already agreed with this.

By the way, English paradise comes from Latin paradisus, not directly from the Greek.

[Rob Bowman]

Bill,

You wrote:

I think you know that paradiseos in biblical Greek means garden, including the Garden of Eden in the Septuagint. (From Hebrew pardeṣ, and ultimately Old Persian pairidaêza.) Although it is homophonous with the English "paradise," English paradise does not mean the same thing as biblical paradiseos. You're confusing etymology with meaning.

Bill, I'm doing no such thing. The only person who has brought up etymology here is you, just now in the above paragraph. I have also not said anything yet about the meaning of the word. I have simply pointed out that Joseph Smith was in error in claiming that paradise was not in the Greek text at all. The English word paradise and the Greek word paradeisos are not homophones (like carrot and caret, or two and to, or like ad in Hebrew and add in English). No, the English paradise is simply an Anglicized transliteration of paradeisos, just as paradisus in Latin is a Latinized transliteration of paradeisos, or like baptize is an Anglicized transliteration of the Greek baptizein.

The claim that "paradise" is a mistranslation of paradeisos because some modern Christians allegedly interpret "paradise" incorrectly is as ridiculous as claiming that "baptize" is a mistranslation of baptizein because some modern Christians think baptism can be done by sprinkling or upon infants. Paradise corresponds to paradeisos just as surely as Jesus corresponds to Iesous. The wrong ideas people may have about what the words represent theologically is a different matter. There is no mistranslation involved.

[Vance]

Also, the issue is what word is in the Greek text of Luke 23:43. Remember, according to Joseph Smith, "There is nothing in the original word in Greek from which this was taken that signifies paradise." This is false, since the Greek word is in fact PARADEISOS. Anyone who can decipher the Greek letters can see that Joseph Smith was wrong.

This has already been address. Nice attempt at deception by the way.

Your claim that "paradise" cannot be construed as heaven is also false, . . .

The word that Jesus used (what ever word it was) cannot be construed as heaven. The NT clearly shows that.

But first, there is no point in discussing what Luke 23:43 means if you cannot even take a clear stand regarding whether

you will side with the text of Luke 23:43, which says paradise, or Joseph Smith, who says not paradise.

The text in the KJV says "paradise". Where ever and what ever was meant by the original word that Jesus spoke, it OBVIOUSLY didn't mean heaven. The Thief didn't get to "heaven". That is the important point. Your nincompoopering quibbling not withstanding.

If you want to go with Joseph Smith, you will have to retract your earlier claim that the thief went to paradise, in which case it doesn't matter whether or not paradise is heaven.

Luke 23:43 is not an expose' on the after life or the conditions of those that are there. It is a simple statement that Jesus would THAT DAY be in the world of the dead with the Thief.

If you want to go with the text of Luke 23:43, you will have to disavow Joseph Smith's claim that there is nothing in the text that signifies "paradise."

More of your deceptive nincompoopery.

But there's no moving forward on the meaning of the text if we don't have clarity as to the wording of the text.

That is a stupid statement. With the rest of the NT as context, it is OBVIOUS that the actual word that Jesus used is unimportant. The facts are clear. THAT DAY the Thief would be with Jesus is a place that the KJV calls "paradise". AND that place is NOT "heaven" (the dwelling place of God).

So the false doctrine promulgated by Evangelicals is left without support.

[Rob Bowman]

Bill,

You wrote:

I think Joseph was talking about meaning not etymology. But if your point is that Joseph made a mistake about a Greek word, that's fine with me. Maybe he did. But that change the fact that the essence of his argument was accurate. English "paradise" as understood by Christians of the early 19th century does not mean the same thing as the Greek paradiseos as understood by first century Jews. I think you've already agreed with this.

No, I think that paradise in Luke 23:43 is a heavenly realm -- heaven, or part of heaven. But as I told Vance, I'm not arguing that point, at least not yet. I'm simply establishing that Joseph Smith was in error when he claimed that "paradise" was "a modern word" and a mistranslation of the Greek.

[Rob Bowman]

Vance,

I stated the facts and asked you to address the point I made. You refused and resorted to more belittling. End of discussion.

Edited August 17, 2012 by Rob Bowman

[Vance]

never mind

Edited August 17, 2012 by Vance

[Vance]

Vance,

I stated the facts and asked you to address the point I made. You refused and resorted to more belittling.

Projection.

[Vance]

No, I think that paradise in Luke 23:43 is a heavenly realm -- heaven, or part of heaven.

You can think what you want, but the NT is clear that the Thief didn't get to heaven.

[Bill Hamblin]

Bill,

You wrote:

No, I think that paradise in Luke 23:43 is a heavenly realm -- heaven, or part of heaven. But as I told Vance, I'm not arguing that point, at least not yet. I'm simply establishing that Joseph Smith was in error when he claimed that "paradise" was "a modern word" and a mistranslation of the Greek.

Paradise, in its modern (and 19th century) English sense is a mistranslation of the first century Greek paradeisos, right?

[Zakuska]

I’m almost sorry I poked my head in!

"There is nothing in the original word in Greek from which this was taken that signifies paradise."

Any New Yorker would know this is what Joseph meant: "There is nothing in the original word [whatever that was, and subsequently rendered "paradeisos"] in Greek from which this [the word paradeisos / paradise] was taken that signifies [“paradise”]."

So what we have is a Greek mistranslation in the Manuscripts we do have. Who ever said those Greek translators were Gods typewriters. Oh yes... I forgot... EV types say that. Edited August 17, 2012 by Zakuska

[Rob Bowman]

Bill,

You wrote:

Paradise, in its modern (and 19th century) English sense is a mistranslation of the first century Greek paradeisos, right?

Fallacy of the complex question. Your question assumes that "paradise" is a translation of the Greek paradeisos. It is not a translation at all, as I explained already. It's like asking if "baptize" in its Roman Catholic sense is a mistranslation of baptizein.

Edited August 17, 2012 by Rob Bowman

[Bill Hamblin]

Bill,

You wrote:

Fallacy of the complex question. Your question assumes that "paradise" is a translation of the Greek paradeisos. It is not a translation at all, as I explained already. It's like asking if "baptize" in its Roman Catholic sense is a mistranslation of baptizein.

Well, I'm done with this discussion. You don't seem to understand the difference between meaning and etymology.

And I would indeed say that "baptize" in the Roman Catholic sense of sprinkling is indeed a mistranslation of the first century AD Jewish conception of baptizein, which was always full immersion paralleling mikvah immersion.

[Vance]

Paradise, in its modern (and 19th century) English sense is a mistranslation of the first century Greek paradeisos, right?

It certainly is, AND other verses in the NT make it perfectly clear that "heaven" is definitely NOT what was meant originally. Because where ever they did go in the world of the spirits of the dead, it wasn't "heaven".

[Vance]

Well, I'm done with this discussion.

I am not sure that any interaction with Bowman could be accurately called a "discussion".

Just saying.

[Rob Bowman]

It's too bad no one here seems willing to acknowledge the obvious, which is that Joseph Smith was mistaken about Luke 23:43. It shouldn't be painful to admit, because Mormons say they don't believe their prophets are inerrant.

LDS.org states that the word "paradise" in 2 Corinthians 12:4 (KJV; 12:3 in most contemporary versions) "probably refers to the celestial kingdom." The Encyclopedia of Mormonism admits that "paradise" both in this text and in Revelation 2:7 "seem to refer to the highest degree of heaven (the celestial kingdom) rather than to the spirit world" ("Paradise," EM 3:1062). So it clearly is theology, not the language of the text, that drives the claim that Luke 23:43 cannot be referring to heaven.

[Zakuska]

Bill,

Hello. I'm glad to hear from you.

You wrote:

Although that is a reasonably presented claim, with all due respect it doesn't work as a plausible explanation of what Joseph said. I will quote it again (emphasis mine):

"There has been much said by modern divines about the words of Jesus (when on the cross) to the thief, saying, This day shalt thou be with me in paradise. King James translators make it out to say paradise. But what is paradise? It is a modern word: it does not answer at all to the original word that Jesus made use of. Find the original of the word paradise. You may as easily find a needle in a haymow. Here is a chance for battle, ye learned men. There is nothing in the original word in Greek from which this was taken that signifies paradise; but it was This day thou shalt be with me in the world of spirits: then I will teach you all about it and answer your inquiries" (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, 310; History of the Church 5:424-25).

Here Joseph claims, not that the meaning of the word paradise has changed, but that it is a modern word. He claims not that another word should be used in place of paradise but that there is nothing in the Greek text that signifies paradise. Joseph even challenged the learned men of his day to search the Greek text to try to find the word paradise in it, claiming they would not be able to do so.

Here's a chance for Mormons who are constantly asserting that they don't claim inerrancy for their prophets to acknowledge a clear instance of errancy on the part of Joseph Smith. It really is an open and shut case. If you can't admit it here, I don't know what sort of example would suffice.

The key is marked in red Rob.

The original word in Greek or the Original word in aramaic or hebrew which Jesus used which has been translated, or Mistranslated as the case may be into the greek PARADEISOS?

We do not have the "original" autograph remember?

Edited August 17, 2012 by Zakuska

[Zakuska]

It's too bad no one here seems willing to acknowledge the obvious, which is that Joseph Smith was mistaken about Luke 23:43. It shouldn't be painful to admit, because Mormons say they don't believe their prophets are inerrant.

LDS.org states that the word "paradise" in 2 Corinthians 12:4 (KJV; 12:3 in most contemporary versions) "probably refers to the celestial kingdom." The Encyclopedia of Mormonism admits that "paradise" both in this text and in Revelation 2:7 "seem to refer to the highest degree of heaven (the celestial kingdom) rather than to the spirit world" ("Paradise," EM 3:1062). So it clearly is theology, not the language of the text, that drives the claim that Luke 23:43 cannot be referring to heaven.

"Probably" and "seem" doesn't Heaven Make.

Edited August 17, 2012 by Zakuska