"Son of man" meaning as used by Jesus

[Robert F. Smith]

4 hours ago, rongo said:

Clinical, objective, "scientific" higher criticism is a myth. You are correct that conservative, traditional scholars are also biased (a bias that I share), but you are incorrect that higher critics are disinterested and objective where conservative scholars are not. They are every bit as agenda-driven. In this example, while you are correct that Dr. Torrey was "concerned for the status of Isaiah first and foremost," the higher critics are concerned first and foremost that miracles and the supernatural (especially the possibility of genuine predictive prophecy) be dismissed as impossible, because --- such a thing is impossible. Pin them down, and this is inevitably what emerges. Higher criticism is also inevitably increasingly exclusionary ---- it seeks to exclude more and more of a text as "late" until there is, as he picture-esquely described, no kind of usable Urtext left --- just hopeless chunks and fragments. 

We see this in spades with scholarship that seeks to limit what Jesus did or did not say. Can you name any higher critics who believe that Jesus was resurrected, or that he fed the 5,000 or raised the dead? And that's what lies at the heart of their scholarship. Because their assumption is that these things are clearly not possible and never happened, they are late interpolations. Then they chop away at Jesus' sayings until the list of what they allow him to actually have said is laughable. Their reasons for excluding are clearly agenda-driven, not "scientific," and they aren't self-evident. That is, no one would take their evidence on its own and reach their conclusions without the underlying assumptions (yes, the same is also true of conservative scholarship). 

You make it sound here (and above) as though all scholars are agenda-driven to the same extent, regardless of their initial or basic religious belief (or unbelief), and that is simply not true.  Many scholars try very hard to be fair and impartial, and to allow the text to speak for itself.  In addition. the scholarly community is very self-critical.  The question of whether Jesus was resurrected or fed the 5000 is not necessarily at the heart of scholarly judgments, since those are matters which cannot even be addressed by scholarship.  The supernatural is beyond their capacity to accept or reject.  What  is truly sad is that you do to the scholars exactly what you accuse them of doing to Jesus and the NT.  Each should be judged on the quality of his actual scholarship, not on rumors and misunderstandings.

[maklelan]

15 hours ago, rongo said:

Clinical, objective, "scientific" higher criticism is a myth. You are correct that conservative, traditional scholars are also biased (a bias that I share), but you are incorrect that higher critics are disinterested and objective where conservative scholars are not. They are every bit as agenda-driven. In this example, while you are correct that Dr. Torrey was "concerned for the status of Isaiah first and foremost," the higher critics are concerned first and foremost that miracles and the supernatural (especially the possibility of genuine predictive prophecy) be dismissed as impossible, because --- such a thing is impossible. Pin them down, and this is inevitably what emerges. Higher criticism is also inevitably increasingly exclusionary ---- it seeks to exclude more and more of a text as "late" until there is, as he picture-esquely described, no kind of usable Urtext left --- just hopeless chunks and fragments. 

We see this in spades with scholarship that seeks to limit what Jesus did or did not say. Can you name any higher critics who believe that Jesus was resurrected, or that he fed the 5,000 or raised the dead? And that's what lies at the heart of their scholarship. Because their assumption is that these things are clearly not possible and never happened, they are late interpolations. Then they chop away at Jesus' sayings until the list of what they allow him to actually have said is laughable. Their reasons for excluding are clearly agenda-driven, not "scientific," and they aren't self-evident. That is, no one would take their evidence on its own and reach their conclusions without the underlying assumptions (yes, the same is also true of conservative scholarship). 

You don't really know what lies at the heart of the motivations of anyone but (maybe) yourself, so please don't presume to speak on behalf of the desires of others. There's a reason scholars have skepticism, and it's the same reason you are skeptical of the claims promoted by traditions separate from your own. The presumption isn't that they "not possible and never happened," but that they have no evidence to support them. This is the same reason you don't accept Gabriel's visit to Muhammad, or Krishna's discussion with Arjuna. You apply skepticism to those traditions, but you criticize those who apply it to your tradition and refuse to apply it yourself. That's phenomenally biased. Everyone has biases, but most scholars do their best to acknowledge and mitigate their own, and what they produce is generally far more objective than what you might produce. What you are asserting you are asserting based entirely and exclusively on the decision you made to believe it, not on the application of any principles of skepticism or objectivity. Don't get on the case of others who try to be consistent and critical in their examination of evidence.

[hope_for_things]

15 hours ago, notHagoth7 said:

 

Almost every promoted view, pro or con any issue, contains some element of bias. Our posts are not exempt from such.

As Covey said, "We see the world, not as it is, but as we are - or, as we are conditioned to see it."

It is interesting that the latter Isaiah chapters which certain academics claim were *not* written by Isaiah (but supposedly instead by some later impostor) are among the most prophetic chapters ever written. With such assumed-to-be-modern interpretations, the prophetic mention of Cyrus by name, and such things as Isaiah 53, are thereby swept into the garbage bin. Same with Daniel's promises. The basic premise appears to be that no mortal could foretell the future with God's help, because such assertions aren't reasonable, therefore such chapters must have been written *after* their fulfillment, rather than before. It was an argument initiated about 17 centuries ago by an anti-Christian writer in the Roman empire, who attempted to push back the advances of Christianity - but it is unfortunately also a theory that tens of thousands of Christian leaders (and many in their congregations) have accepted today.

So it is quite interesting, from my perspective, that two of the books most highly recommended by Jesus Christ (and which foretold his ministry with pinpoint accuracy) are high on the hit list of such academics.

Everyone has a bias, yes, of course.  Yet that doesn't mean that the peer reviewed scholarly community of higher biblical criticism has formed a conspiracy to undermine the theological implications of the books of Isaiah or Daniel.  

I can understand your concern if some rouge academic promulgates a theory because of personal bias against the church and has success doing so.  But do you understand what you are saying?  You are implying that all of the scholarship since this individual is also falling pray to erroneous logic.  That this anti-Christian writer's false narrative has been so air tight that its been able to withstand the scrutiny of all the modern scholarship and the new evidence that has been discovered over the past 17 centuries?  

I think you need to open your eyes to the scholarship, and not push against it because it may go against the grain of your personal faith preferences with wanting to have Isaiah be a book written by one author, or the implications of whether Daniel's prophecies were written after the events or before.  You seem to have carved out a position that is unwilling to consider the actual evidence.  I'm no scholar, but if you haven't read this post by David Bokovoy on the Isaiah subject, take a look, its an interesting one.  

http://rationalfaiths.com/truthfulness-deutero-isaiah-response-kent-jackson/

http://rationalfaiths.com/truthfulness-deutero-isaiah-response-kent-jackson-part-2/

 

[notHagoth7]

8 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

Everyone has a bias, yes, of course.  Yet that doesn't mean that the peer reviewed scholarly community of higher biblical criticism has formed a conspiracy to undermine the theological implications of the books of Isaiah or Daniel.  

I wouldn't go so far as to call such a thing a conspiracy, but rather arguing form a predetermined conclusion. Which is part of human nature, as mentioned earlier.

8 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

I can understand your concern if some rogue academic promulgates a theory because of personal bias against the church and has success doing so.  But do you understand what you are saying?  You are implying that all of the scholarship since this individual is also falling pray to erroneous logic.  That this anti-Christian writer's false narrative has been so air tight that its been able to withstand the scrutiny of all the modern scholarship and the new evidence that has been discovered over the past 17 centuries?  

1. You admit, as do I, that everyone has a bias.

2. Yet in this second paragraph, you seem to be asserting that such bias is somehow overcome because the assertions have been peer reviewed *by like-minded people*. Is that a reasonably accurate representation of what you're saying?

Fx., Peer: " one that is of equal standing with another :  equal; especially :  one belonging to the same societal group especially based on age, grade, or status" (Merriam-Webster)

8 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

I think you need to open your eyes to the scholarship, and not push against it because it may go against the grain of your personal faith preferences with wanting to have Isaiah be a book written by one author, or the implications of whether Daniel's prophecies were written after the events or before.  You seem to have carved out a position that is unwilling to consider the actual evidence.  I'm no scholar, but if you haven't read this post by David Bokovoy on the Isaiah subject, take a look, its an interesting one.  

http://rationalfaiths.com/truthfulness-deutero-isaiah-response-kent-jackson/

http://rationalfaiths.com/truthfulness-deutero-isaiah-response-kent-jackson-part-2/

Well, as a Christian, by definition, I take Christ's word for it that (i) Daniel was a prophet, and (ii) his writings should be understood. Likewise with Isaiah. And that stance already *opens* my eyes to a number of things that others might overlook.

Meanwhile, thank you for the links. Later today, I intend to take a closer look at what they contain. Please have an awesome afternoon. :0)

Edited September 15, 2016 by notHagoth7

[hope_for_things]

53 minutes ago, notHagoth7 said:

2. Yet in this second paragraph, you seem to be asserting that such such bias is somehow overcome because the assertions have been peer reviewed *by like-minded people*. Is that a reasonably accurate representation of what you're saying?

The risk of any one person's bias unduly influencing the direction of scholarship is reduced by two factors.  One is peer review which isn't saying that peers are all like minded, quite the contrary, there is a natural incentive to come up with new hypothesis that can withstand the scrutiny of the scholarly community through peer review.  The second factor is time.  Over time these methods have been tried and retried over and over again by scholars all around the world.  This process of peer review and testing over many years allows us to have some confidence in their findings. 

You sound like a naturally skeptical person, and that is a good quality to have.  I'm naturally skeptical as well and it has served me well in many areas of my career and life.  I suggest you continue to dive deeply into the writings of biblical scholars.  Challenge your preconceived assumptions.  Seek to understand the methods they use, and then try to disprove them.  As you do this, I think you'll see the strengths of the methodologies and arguments.  You won't necessarily agree with everything, but you if you aren't willing to dig deep and really do the work, then you won't learn anything new.  

53 minutes ago, notHagoth7 said:

Well, as a Christian, by definition, I take Christ's word for it that (i) Daniel was a prophet, and (ii) his writings should be understood. Likewise with Isaiah. And that stance already *opens* my eyes to a number of things that others might overlook.

You take "Christ's word for it".  What is Christ's word?  Did Christ ever write anything down during his lifetime?  Was Christ even literate (no offense, but a very small % of the population was, and he likely was not literate based on his background).  What about the writers of the gospels, were these people eye witnesses to Jesus?  What did Jesus actually say about Daniel?  

What about the assumptions that Jesus may have made about the man Daniel?  How did Jesus read the Hebrew Bible accounts of Daniel, and what assumptions did he bring to the table as a first century Jew?  Interesting Maxwell Institute podcast I just listened to where they interviewed a biblical scholar named James L. Kugel about this very subject of how people read the bible, and the paradigms and assumptions made when reading it.  I recommend checking this out. 

http://mi.byu.edu/mip-53-kugel/

 

Edited September 15, 2016 by hope_for_things

[Atheist Mormon]

On 9/13/2016 at 3:33 PM, drums12 said:

 

"Son of man" meaning as used by Jesus

 

Did anyone here investigated the origination of "Son of Man" at all before Jesus or New Testament appeared?

Jewish scholars definitely do not agree any of Christian interpretations about it.

[notHagoth7]

44 minutes ago, Atheist Mormon said:

Did anyone here investigated the origination of "Son of Man" at all before Jesus or New Testament appeared?

Jewish scholars definitely do not agree any of Christian interpretations about it.

There has been a comment or two in this thread about Ezekiel's use of the phrase, as well as that of his contemporary Daniel. Book of Enoch  / Dead Sea Scrolls have also been mentioned, IIRC.

For further thoughts on the topic:

https://www.blueletterbible.org/comm/eastman_mark/messiah/sfm_05.cfm

 

 

[waveslider]

2 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

 Was Christ even literate

Yes. It appears that Christ was literate:

"This they said, tempting him, that they might have to accuse him. But Jesus stooped down, and with his finger wrote on the ground, as though he heard them not."
John 8:6

Besides the fact that he knew the scriptures so well as evidenced in passages like this:
 

"Jesus said unto him, It is written again, Thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God."
Matthew 4:7

"The Son of man goeth as it is written of him: but woe unto that man by whom the Son of man is betrayed! it had been good for that man if he had not been born."
Matthew 26:24

"And he taught, saying unto them, Is it not written, My house shall be called of all nations the house of prayer? but ye have made it a den of thieves."
Mark 11:17

"And Jesus answered him, saying, It is written, That man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word of God."
Luke 4:4

"Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods?"

John 10:34

It sure would be hard to know all the things that are written in the scriptures if you can't first read them.

Edited September 16, 2016 by waveslider
I had to change the scripture citation's placement

[notHagoth7]

47 minutes ago, waveslider said:

Yes. It appears that Christ was literate:

Also, in Luke 4, at the beginning of Jesus Christ's ministry:

 

And he came to Nazareth, where he had been brought up: and, as his custom was, he went into the synagogue on the sabbath day, and stood up for to read.

And there was delivered unto him the book of the prophet Esaias. And when he had opened the book, he found the place where it was written,

 The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he hath anointed me to preach the gospel to the poor; he hath sent me to heal the brokenhearted, to preach deliverance to the captives, and recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty them that are bruised,

To preach the acceptable year of the Lord.

And he closed the book, and he gave it again to the minister, and sat down. And the eyes of all them that were in the synagogue were fastened on him.

And he began to say unto them, This day is this scripture fulfilled in your ears.

Edited September 16, 2016 by notHagoth7

[Robert F. Smith]

8 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

................................

.......... Did Christ ever write anything down during his lifetime?  Was Christ even literate (no offense, but a very small % of the population was, and he likely was not literate based on his background).

...................................

Jesus need never have written anything, and even descriptions of him may be completely fictional:  When the adulterous woman was brought to him, was he actually writing anything coherent in the dirt?  Did the event even occur?  Same for the description of him reading a Torah scroll in the Nazareth Synagogue and then commenting on it.  So also for his status as a rabbi, and for his ethical and moral teachings -- all of which can be found in the Talmud.  His profound teachings, which brought such fear and loathing to the religious establishment can be consigned to the ramblings of an illiterate and obnoxious guy of no account from a Galilean backwater (can any good thing come out of Nazareth?).  Or can they?  Does that even make any sense?

[hope_for_things]

13 hours ago, waveslider said:

Yes. It appears that Christ was literate:

"This they said, tempting him, that they might have to accuse him. But Jesus stooped down, and with his finger wrote on the ground, as though he heard them not."
John 8:6

Besides the fact that he knew the scriptures so well as evidenced in passages like this:
 

"Jesus said unto him, It is written again, Thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God."
Matthew 4:7

"The Son of man goeth as it is written of him: but woe unto that man by whom the Son of man is betrayed! it had been good for that man if he had not been born."
Matthew 26:24

"And he taught, saying unto them, Is it not written, My house shall be called of all nations the house of prayer? but ye have made it a den of thieves."
Mark 11:17

"And Jesus answered him, saying, It is written, That man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word of God."
Luke 4:4

"Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods?"

John 10:34

It sure would be hard to know all the things that are written in the scriptures if you can't first read them.

I tend to think based on readings of different scholars that Jesus was illiterate based on his family and upbringing, but this is a somewhat controversial issue.  Chris Keith has an interesting book that I haven't read yet titled "Jesus' Literacy: Scribal Culture and the Teacher from Galilee", you can read an interview with him here.  

http://newtestamentperspectives.blogspot.com/2012/05/was-jesus-literate-interview-with-chris.html

He shares examples from the gospels where the authors had different perspectives on the literacy of Jesus.  Sounds like the author is saying that this issue is more complicated than earlier thought.  I always appreciate hearing new perspectives.  

[hope_for_things]

8 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Jesus need never have written anything, and even descriptions of him may be completely fictional:  When the adulterous woman was brought to him, was he actually writing anything coherent in the dirt?  Did the event even occur?  Same for the description of him reading a Torah scroll in the Nazareth Synagogue and then commenting on it.  So also for his status as a rabbi, and for his ethical and moral teachings -- all of which can be found in the Talmud.  His profound teachings, which brought such fear and loathing to the religious establishment can be consigned to the ramblings of an illiterate and obnoxious guy of no account from a Galilean backwater (can any good thing come out of Nazareth?).  Or can they?  Does that even make any sense?

I've read that the account of the adulterous woman is likely a later addition.  I agree with you that its hard to know exactly what of the sayings of Jesus in the gospels can be attributed to Jesus, much of the content is likely influenced by the writers and communities who came after Jesus.  

I tend to believe that his apocalyptic pronouncements at the temple during his last week in Jerusalem were the catalyst that led to his Crucifixion.  

I can't tell if you're being sarcastic with your comment about ramblings of an illiterate?  I wasn't using the term illiterate in a pejorative sense.  In society at the time of Jesus, the vast majority of people were illiterate by modern standards.  

[Robert F. Smith]

28 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

I've read that the account of the adulterous woman is likely a later addition.  I agree with you that its hard to know exactly what of the sayings of Jesus in the gospels can be attributed to Jesus, much of the content is likely influenced by the writers and communities who came after Jesus.  

I tend to believe that his apocalyptic pronouncements at the temple during his last week in Jerusalem were the catalyst that led to his Crucifixion.  

I can't tell if you're being sarcastic with your comment about ramblings of an illiterate?  I wasn't using the term illiterate in a pejorative sense.  In society at the time of Jesus, the vast majority of people were illiterate by modern standards.  

You might want to study the NT with a view to understanding what the scholars say, rather than the fictional nonsense you currently accept.  What you say of Jesus makes no sense at all:  You are concluding that if a majority of Jews in Jesus day were illiterate, then Jesus must have been illiterate too.  Any claim that he read Tora is automatically false, as is any claim that he was a rabbi.  These must all be later accretions from a Gentile Christian community.  The sole reason for his execution was his crazy apocalyptic ramblings in Jerusalem during Passion Week.  The Sanhedrin or Pilate (or both) always crucified crazy people just for sport, just as they did James the Just (Jesus' brother) about 35 years later.  Just a bunch of illiterates deserving of death.  This whole Jesus movement is obviously just an accidental thing.  I wonder why scholars don't accept this sort or rambling and silly explanation for Jesus.

[hope_for_things]

1 hour ago, Robert F. Smith said:

You might want to study the NT with a view to understanding what the scholars say, rather than the fictional nonsense you currently accept.  What you say of Jesus makes no sense at all:  You are concluding that if a majority of Jews in Jesus day were illiterate, then Jesus must have been illiterate too.  Any claim that he read Tora is automatically false, as is any claim that he was a rabbi.  These must all be later accretions from a Gentile Christian community.  The sole reason for his execution was his crazy apocalyptic ramblings in Jerusalem during Passion Week.  The Sanhedrin or Pilate (or both) always crucified crazy people just for sport, just as they did James the Just (Jesus' brother) about 35 years later.  Just a bunch of illiterates deserving of death.  This whole Jesus movement is obviously just an accidental thing.  I wonder why scholars don't accept this sort or rambling and silly explanation for Jesus.

Speaking of ramblings.....

I'm not sure what you're saying, whether you agree with some of the mainstream positions of biblical scholars or whether you are calling these positions fictional nonsense.  Sounds like you don't understand what I was saying either, just look at your straw-man argument about crucifying crazy people for sport.  

If you want to have an intelligent conversation, I'm happy to oblige.  

[waveslider]

3 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

I tend to think based on readings of different scholars that Jesus was illiterate based on his family and upbringing, but this is a somewhat controversial issue.  Chris Keith has an interesting book that I haven't read yet titled "Jesus' Literacy: Scribal Culture and the Teacher from Galilee", you can read an interview with him here.  

http://newtestamentperspectives.blogspot.com/2012/05/was-jesus-literate-interview-with-chris.html

He shares examples from the gospels where the authors had different perspectives on the literacy of Jesus.  Sounds like the author is saying that this issue is more complicated than earlier thought.  I always appreciate hearing new perspectives.  

I suppose it all balances upon whether or not you believe Jesus was actually who He said He is. If you think He was just another man then I can see your point, but if you actually believe in His divinity I would argue that He was more literate than any other person on the entire planet. Why wouldn't Jesus have all the gifts of the Spirit? including the gift of tongues, and translation, etc.. After all one of His names is, "The Word.":

"1  In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
2  The same was in the beginning with God.
3  All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.
4  In him was life; and the life was the light of men.
5  And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not."
John 1:1-5

"And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth."
John 1:14

Just my two cents worth anyway.

[hope_for_things]

40 minutes ago, waveslider said:

I suppose it all balances upon whether or not you believe Jesus was actually who He said He is.

It can't balance on "who He said He is" because we don't have any audio recordings of what Jesus actually said from his mouth.  That's what I was saying earlier.  You have the four gospels written by non-eye witnesses that lived two to three generations later in different cultures and using different language, after the person Jesus lived.  The question of divinity had no consensus opinion among the first century Christians.  There were multiple different beliefs about divinity or literal resurrection going on for hundreds of years.  Read some more history.  

You can't just read the bible with your 21st century lens and hope to understand documents written almost two thousand years ago.  These documents also disagree about who Jesus is on the question of divinity.  John's perspective is vastly different from the other three gospels.  Which is right?  Which later follower of Jesus is closer to the historical Jesus?  These are things that biblical scholars have been studying for many decades with a lot of good scholarship.

Mainstream Mormonism has unfortunately ignored most of the significant strides in biblical scholarship over the past century.  Its sad, because there is much to learn from it.  I think we're stuck in a bubble of 19th century views on the bible.  There is much to learn if you're willing.  

Edited September 16, 2016 by hope_for_things

[waveslider]

21 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

It can't balance on "who He said He is" because we don't have any audio recordings of what Jesus actually said from his mouth.  That's what I was saying earlier.  You have the four gospels written by non-eye witnesses that lived two to three generations later in different cultures and using different language, after the person Jesus lived.  The question of divinity had no consensus opinion among the first century Christians.  There were multiple different beliefs about divinity or literal resurrection going on for hundreds of years.  Read some more history.  

You can't just read the bible with your 21st century lens and hope to understand documents written almost two thousand years ago.  These documents also disagree about who Jesus is on the question of divinity.  John's perspective is vastly different from the other three gospels.  Which is right?  Which later follower of Jesus is closer to the historical Jesus?  These are things that biblical scholars have been studying for many decades with a lot of good scholarship.

Mainstream Mormonism has unfortunately ignored most of the significant strides in biblical scholarship over the past century.  Its sad, because there is much to learn from it.  I think we're stuck in a bubble of 19th century views on the bible.  There is much to learn if you're willing.  

You seem to not realize that there are other writings besides the Bible that also testify of Jesus and His divinity, not to mention first hand accounts from people who claim to have seen Him. I personally have my own experiences that let me know on a personal level, but that isn't something I expect anyone else to believe. I wonder who is actually viewing things from inside of a bubble?

[hope_for_things]

1 minute ago, waveslider said:

You seem to not realize that there are other writings besides the Bible that also testify of Jesus and His divinity, not to mention first hand accounts from people who claim to have seen Him. I personally have my own experiences that let me know on a personal level, but that isn't something I expect anyone else to believe. I wonder who is actually viewing things from inside of a bubble?

I can't think of any first hand written accounts of people who knew Jesus during his lifetime off the top of my head. Please enlighten me.  

Of course I'm aware of individuals beliefs about Jesus, many people who've had visions, and other spiritual experiences.  I'm not saying those experiences aren't authentic or true for those individuals.  That's a matter of faith, not a matter of scholarship.  Can you imagine a scholar researching and comparing all the various spiritual claims of individuals to try and approximate a picture of what Jesus did during his life?  How would this even be possible?  

And yes, the Mormon church has largely ignored contemporary biblical scholarship over the past two centuries.  There are some pockets of engagement though.  Listen to that Maxwell Institute podcast I linked to earlier.  Some BYU professors and other intellectuals engage with the scholarship, but the culture of mainstream Mormonism often operates in a much different world.  

 

[waveslider]

7 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

I can't think of any first hand written accounts of people who knew Jesus during his lifetime off the top of my head. Please enlighten me.  

Of course I'm aware of individuals beliefs about Jesus, many people who've had visions, and other spiritual experiences.  I'm not saying those experiences aren't authentic or true for those individuals.  That's a matter of faith, not a matter of scholarship.  Can you imagine a scholar researching and comparing all the various spiritual claims of individuals to try and approximate a picture of what Jesus did during his life?  How would this even be possible?  

Like I said earlier:

1 hour ago, waveslider said:

I suppose it all balances upon whether or not you believe Jesus was actually who He said He is.

I can plainly see that you are not a believer and that is why you don't believe Jesus still lives, but instead look for a reference solely from an eye witness account of His actual mortal life. I won't try to convince you. You can believe whatever you want. I don't need to prove it to myself since I have a better personal proof. I don't need to study assumptions based on what so called scholars think, based off of their incomplete data. I don't need to prove it to you either because the truth always comes out in the end no matter what. You are entitled to your opinion, just as I am entitled to mine. That is why I said

1 hour ago, waveslider said:

Just my two cents worth anyway.

 

[notHagoth7]

2 hours ago, waveslider said:

...Why wouldn't Jesus have all the gifts of the Spirit? including the gift of tongues, and translation, etc.. After all one of His names is, "The Word.":..

A slight tangent to your intended point.

I am of the opinion that the phrase you've cited, "The Word", is a meaningless translation.

The word is actually Logos, the same cognate as Logic. As in: "Reason with me now herewith..."

God is logical, reasonable, rational. That, in my opinion, is the intended meaning of "Logos".

And, as stated in other passages, he is also, love....The epitomy of *both* intellect *and* love.

[waveslider]

3 minutes ago, notHagoth7 said:

A slight tangent to your intended point.

I am of the opinion that the phrase you've cited, "The Word", is a meaningless translation.

The word is actually Logos, the same cognate as Logic. As in: "Reason with me now herewith..."

God is logical, reasonable, rational. That, in my opinion, is the intended meaning of "Logos".

And, as stated in other passages, he is also, love....The epitomy of *both* intellect *and* love.

I just Googled, "Logos definition." Here is the first thing that popped up:

"Lo·gos

ˈlōˌɡōs,-ˌɡäs/

noun

Theology

noun: Logos

1. the Word of God, or principle of divine reason and creative order, identified in the Gospel of John with the second person of the Trinity incarnate in Jesus Christ.

   • (in Jungian psychology) the principle of reason and judgment, associated with the animus."

"The Word of God...." was conveniently left out of your definition of Logos. At any rate it is an interesting tangent.

 

[Calm]

Wave, You don't want current English definition for understanding old translation from Greek.  Current Greek would be better, but even that might have inconsistencies with past usage as meaning of words change over time.  NotHagoth is arguing etymology of "Logos" if I understand him correctly, but I am not sure where he is getting Greek didn't mean "word".

http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=logos

logos (n.) 

1580s, Logos, "the divine Word, second person of the Christian Trinity," from Greek logos "word, speech, statement, discourse," also "computation, account, also "reason," from PIE *log-o-, suffixed form of root *leg- (1) "to collect, gather" (with derivatives meaning "to speak," on notion of "to pick out words;" see lecture (n.)). The Greek word was used by Neo-Platonists in metaphysical and theological senses involving notions of both "reason" and "word" and subsequently picked up by New Testament writers.

Edited September 16, 2016 by Calm

[hope_for_things]

2 hours ago, waveslider said:

Like I said earlier:

I can plainly see that you are not a believer and that is why you don't believe Jesus still lives, but instead look for a reference solely from an eye witness account of His actual mortal life. I won't try to convince you. You can believe whatever you want. I don't need to prove it to myself since I have a better personal proof. I don't need to study assumptions based on what so called scholars think, based off of their incomplete data. I don't need to prove it to you either because the truth always comes out in the end no matter what. You are entitled to your opinion, just as I am entitled to mine. That is why I said

 

Huh?  I never said I wasn't a believer or that I don't believe Jesus still lives, I'm not sure where you get this from.  Those aren't questions that can be determined through scholarly inquiry.  Those are questions of faith and belief.  Your personal proof is fine, I'm not trying to change your beliefs in the divinity of Jesus or the saving power of religion.  

If you want to better understand the bible and what the authors of the bible were saying, that is in the realm of scholarly inquiry, and you can't understand that without using these tools.  You're talking about something different.  

[waveslider]

6 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Huh?  I never said I wasn't a believer or that I don't believe Jesus still lives, I'm not sure where you get this from.  Those aren't questions that can be determined through scholarly inquiry.  Those are questions of faith and belief.  Your personal proof is fine, I'm not trying to change your beliefs in the divinity of Jesus or the saving power of religion.  

If you want to better understand the bible and what the authors of the bible were saying, that is in the realm of scholarly inquiry, and you can't understand that without using these tools.  You're talking about something different.  

Sorry! I misunderstood you. When you asked this:

2 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

I can't think of any first hand written accounts of people who knew Jesus during his lifetime off the top of my head. Please enlighten me.

I assumed you didn't believe he was alive right now as well. Again I apologize for that.

[notHagoth7]

2 hours ago, waveslider said:

I just Googled, "Logos definition." Here is the first thing that popped up:

"Lo·gos

ˈlōˌɡōs,-ˌɡäs/

noun

Theology

noun: Logos

1. the Word of God, or principle of divine reason and creative order, identified in the Gospel of John with the second person of the Trinity incarnate in Jesus Christ.

   • (in Jungian psychology) the principle of reason and judgment, associated with the animus."

"The Word of God...." was conveniently left out of your definition of Logos. At any rate it is an interesting tangent.

 

After your claim that I somehow left something out ("conveniently" or otherwise), I briefly compared 25 different English Bible translations. http://biblehub.com/john/1-1.htm

Not a single one of them translates logos as "the Word of God".

So did I conveniently *leave something out*? 

Or, did the author of the article you cited instead conveniently *add* his/her extra gloss?

 

Meanwhile, from the definition you cited:

(i) "...principle of divine reason..."

(ii) "...principle of reason and judgment.."  

Which is the essence of my assertion in my previous post.

As the native Greek speaker Aristotle explained his understanding of logos long before the New Testament: the Greek term logos for him meant argument from reason...one of the three modes of persuasion.

 

As I said earlier, I have *very* good reason to believe that the phrase "the Word" is an errant/empty English translation largely because it conveys zero helpful meaning to English readers about who/what John mean. 

But if the translation instead read "Logic"? Super. "Reason"? Great. "Intellect"? Awesome.  

Because it offers clarity of who/what Logos was in the beginning.

(Last I checked, "We believe the Bible to be *the word of God* *as far as it is translated correctly*...")

So I stand by my previous post.

My reason/intent for doing so essentially mirrors this thought from Joseph:

"...I want to ask this congregation, every man, woman and child, to answer the question in their own hearts, what kind of a being God is? Ask yourselves; turn your thoughts into your hearts, and say if any of you have seen, heard, or communed with Him? This is a question that may occupy your attention for a long time. I again repeat the question—What kind of being is God? Does any man or woman know? Have any of you seen Him, heard Him, or communed with Him? Here is the question that will, peradventure, from this time henceforth occupy your attention. The scriptures inform us that “this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.” (John 17:3.)

If any man does not know God, and inquires what kind of a being He is—if he will search diligently his own heart—if the declaration of Jesus and the apostles be true, he will realize that he has not eternal life; for there can be eternal life on no other principle.

My first object is to find out the character of the only wise and true God, and what kind of a being He is; and if I am so fortunate as to be the man to comprehend God, and explain or convey the principles to your hearts..."

 

Meanwhile, if you feel "the Word of God" is somehow a more accurate/effective/meaningful translation, I wish you well.

Edited September 16, 2016 by notHagoth7